The muslim faith system is, by definition (and by the words of its own books), opposed to Christ as the Son of God who came in the flesh and died for our sins. It is therefore antichrist: imitative of Christ (very likely on purpose) and therefore satanically idolatrous and evil at its very root. I know of no plainer way to put it.*
(I recently learned that islam is essentially a monotheistic repackaging, by the warrior child-molesting mohammed, of a set of polytheistic moon-worshipping, pagan religions that had existed in the Middle East for millennia, in a guise that made it appear, in a number of ways, passingly similar to Christianity and Judaism while denying their core tenets.)
Many if not most of its followers are, in their heart of hearts, peaceful and well-meaning. Those who would make this personal and hate, judge or seek to oppress or lash out at the individuals caught up in this grossly perverted system outside of the avenues of justice duly set up by government to deal with law-breakers are, in my opinion, misreading the scriptures and falling into a trap. Christ died that all might have the opportunity to repent and turn to him for salvation.
To the extent that muslim adherents are at ease with a non-islamic system ruling over them however, they are not following the dictates of their faith. They have gone native.
Such an outcome is devoutly to be wished and encouraged (systematic assimilation into the melting pot of Western Culture rather than multi-cultural, Balkanized tossed salad ethic that has prevailed of late). Yet as the Ft. Hood shooting amply illustrates, such assimilation may be rarer than we imagine — a bout of wishful thinking without foundation.
Whenever islam has had the power to break out and express itself fully, the horrifying spectre of shari’ah law (e.g., sacred duty to kill your sister or daughter if she is raped) has been the result. It is the only faith system I know of where large numbers of adherents are held in systematic coercion (i.e., direct, credible threats of death for changing one’s mind, renouncing or converting away.)
BHO is at least a strong advocate, sympathizer, supporter of and apologist for this system, and in all likelihood (we can’t know for sure) a secret believer — a kind of one-man sleeper-cell in the heart of the quickly-slipping most Christian nation on earth.
That does not disqualify him from being president, though it reflects profoundly on the state of our culture and media, and the mindset of the electorate, that we should be collectively ignorant of what it implies and think it of no more consequence than a leader that prefers pistachio ice cream instead of vanilla, chocolate or strawberry.
I find it remarkable that within hours of the Fort Hood shooting, “A senior administration official told NBC News that the shootings could have been a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack and that there was no intelligence to suggest a plot…” (Never mind that there’s no precise or easy distinction to be made between terrorism and criminality. If the shootings weren’t terror-inducing and therefore terrorism, it’s hard to imagine what would qualify as such. With the word ‘terrorism’ loaded with islamic implications however, it’s not hard to see what the unnamed official may have been steering away from. One wonders further: how could he or she be so sure so quickly that that was the best ‘spin’ for the sake of the nation and not just the president?)
I also find it telling that the President (who may or may not have known about the shooter and his background at the time) appeared shockingly untroubled by the events, mustering only a veneer of sympathy once that persona became useful to him. The term schadenfreude comes to mind as potentially applicable, though it would require a deeper understanding of his state of mind than we have available to us.
The fact that the shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, is a muslim convert (and enthusiastic proselytizer) is not much of a surprise to those who have done their own independent reading and research and have refused to settle for the easy, politically correct lies being sold to us vigorously since 9-11. The sheer repetitive volume of violent acts perpetrated by muslims — on Christians, Jews, secularists, Hindus, and, quite perversely, if regularly on one another — and the resulting cumulative body count compared to that perpetrated by any other faith except for Marxism should pierce the pompous balloon of such obfuscation.
(If you don’t believe me, go look it up. If you don’t like that I’ve pointed it out, then please respond with facts, not platitudes or ad hominem. Eternal truth, we are told, is bound to be emotionally divisive — and thus diagnostic of one’s orientation — even as it is logically and factually singular.)
That the Crusades and Oklahoma City (horrible as they were) continue to be held up as herald banners for such a smokescreen should be an embarrassment. The numbers just don’t add up. Not even close. None of this — the nature of the islamic system — would have been news to our great grandparents (Winston Churchill, for example, saw it plainly), or even to the founders of this nation who were nearly done in by the Barbary pirates (jihad, 18th-century style).
The fact that the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Haan took actions consistent with pre-meditation, and that he spoke to co-workers about the duty of muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan to “rise up” and slay the oppressor (i.e., U.S., forces) should come as little surprise . That he appears to be smart, dedicated, patient, very well-educated, economically well-off and articulate should come as no surprise either.
That soldier eyewitnesses “reported that the gunman [Hasan] shouted “Allahu Akbar!” — an Arabic phrase for “God is great!” — before opening fire” is merely the icing on the cake, summarizing his motivation. That he was advising the president himself on homeland security(!!) is the maraschino cherry realization on top of that icing: a sick, sinking taste of what we may be in for. (God help us!)
This will continue to be reported, in the main, as the case of a mentally disturbed individual, upset with U.S. policy, who should never have been trusted with a firearm.
All of those things are true.
What the media will largely fail to plumb is the full scope and source of Mr. Hasan’s mental derangement (by definition: mis-perceiving the truth) and of his upset with U.S. policy (i.e., that we are at war with his fellow-believers; a gross perversion in itself, in that we have fought — in the Balkans as well as Iraq and Afghanistan to free large numbers of muslims from oppression).
Nor will they report the well-accepted theological fact that, in islam, the only act guaranteed to usher an individual into their false version of ‘paradise’ is to die while slaying non-believers. (Too bad for Mr. Hasan — the ideal of our system is to provide compassionate medical care to our enemies no differently than we do our friends.)
Where I come to in all of this is the disturbing if not original thought that we are reaping, as a nation, what we’ve sown in willful ignorance. A culture of “whatever” that sees no reason to face hard truths in any domain any more (e.g., social, economic, historical, scientific, spiritual) is finding itself beset by a culture that comes at falsehood from a different, if more violent direction.
The president may or may not turn out to be a ‘type’ writ large of Mr. Hasan — smart, smooth, muslim and determined to carry out the dictates of his faith, surprising (and killing) many. I would give more than even odds on it, but time will tell.
Am I sad? Absolutely. This is a horrible tragedy and my prayers go out to all the victims and their families. But am I mad at Mr. Hasan (or any other muslims)? No.
We are told by Christ himself that though it may be incredibly hard, we must pray for Mr. Hasan and others caught in that evil system. Why? Precisely because he and many like him have shown themselves to be our enemies. Yes, it sickens me. I look to texts such as 1st John 5:16 (the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit and thus choosing to put oneself beyond God’s redemptive power) but I can’t be certain that they apply here. They may, but it would be presumptuous of me to go that far.
I require God to get past my all-too-human feelings of disgust. Yet being eternal, hell is far far worse than death. If we truly understood that, appreciating the frequency and urgency with which Christ spoke of it, we would literally not wish it on our very worst enemy. We would pray more easily, trusting the Lord to work it all out — because at the cross, He already has.
*UPDATE: I realize my first paragraph may sound, to some, intolerant. If that is your view, it is important to ask yourself why you believe tolerance to be a higher value than truth. But more importantly it’s critical to separate two kinds of tolerance: intellectual and interpersonal.
Sadly, the two have become conflated.
Interpersonal tolerance is to be lauded. My muslim neighbors (and I mean literally the people who live next door to me) have every right to go about their lives as freely as I do, with all of the protections that the Golden Rule, our Constitution, common courtesy and our system of laws affords them.
Intellectual tolerance, on the other hand, is tantamount to saying “whatever” and failing to engage with issues or persons. It is the essence of contempt. It is surely not wise to press such distinctions in every conversation, but to fall into the habit of not making them for oneself is to fall into a swamp of half-truths and, ultimately, bald lies.
Its opposite involves distinctions and thus forms the basis for reason and truth. (I cannot tolerate you saying the light is green when it is red because that puts both of us in danger — it is untruthful, perhaps even insane. I cannot tolerate fraudulent information and expect my business to thrive or escape legal censure. I cannot tolerate the belief that the earth is flat — at least not when espoused by an airline pilot or navigator. One can think of myriad other examples that a small child could understand.)
When fears of interpersonal intolerance (e.g., we can’t say that because it might cause some people might beat up muslims!) cause us to steer clear of facts or other rational distinctions that are important to explore for other reasons, we allow fear to hold reason and open dialogue hostage. And that, I should hope, would be something we could all agree is not a good or healthy thing.
UPDATE II: It’s worth noting that the Arabic phrase the shooter used to launch his attack, “Allahu akbar” means not just “god is great”, but that his imaginary “god”, allah is greatest — a point this article makes clear. It is a superlative no less exclusive than anything found in the Christian scriptures. Since they are demonstrably not the same God, one of us is wrong. One must choose. There is no “both/and” out for this.