Tag Archives: jihad

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON RECENT EVENTS

24-storey apartment building in London on fire

I stayed up late a week ago to watch the British election results, broadcast live on BBC World’s television channel.   It soon became clear that Theresa May’s ruling Conservatives were not doing well. Mrs. May had called an early election to strengthen her position prior to the start of Brexit talks with the European Union.   Her gamble failed – she now finds herself leading a party that does not control over 50% of parliament.   To stay in office, she has had to enter a coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the pro-British faction from Northern Ireland.

This is already being misinterpreted by Sinn Fein, the anti-British, pro-republican faction from Northern Ireland; it could easily lead to further violence in the province.

There’s another threat to the coalition. Mrs. May also relies on the Scottish Conservatives, who did extremely well in the election, increasing their parliamentary representation from one to thirteen seats.  Their leader, Ruth Davidson, who is married to her female partner, is a fervent supporter of same-sex marriage; while the Northern Irish conservatives are socially very traditional.

It’s going to be interesting to see how this all works out.

At the very least, it has weakened the government at a crucial time, as negotiations begin on Monday, with the most efficient and uncompromising bureaucracy on the face of the earth – the European Union.

An additional threat comes from the opposition Labour Party.   A prominent voice in the party is calling for one million people to take to the streets to bring down Mrs. May.   Sound familiar?

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  (Mark 3:25.)

——————————————————————————-

EUROPEAN LEADERS CHILDLESS

Talking of Europe, note the following, sent by a friend in New Zealand:

• Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French president, has no             children.
•  German chancellor Angela Merkel has no children.
•  British prime minister Theresa May has no children.
•  Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni has no children.
•  Holland’s Mark Rutte, has no children.
•  Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, has no children.
•  Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel, has no children.
•  Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon has no children.
•  Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, has        no children.

So a grossly disproportionate number of the people making decisions about Europe’s future have no direct personal stake in that future.

Additionally, in the last few days, the Irish Republic has a new prime minister.   He also has no children.  The press has been full of the fact that he is the youngest prime minister ever.   He is also half-Indian and gay, neither of which is an issue.   (Serbia’s new prime minister is also gay, as is Luxembourg’s PM.)

At the very least, all the above are thinking short-term, wanting to win the next election.   When Europe was dominated by kings, at the very least the leaders wanted to preserve their thrones for their descendants;  this also meant ensuring the continuation of the nation-state.   Both of these factors no longer apply.

———————————————————————–

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Talking of kings, King Henry II got a mention in the US Congress a week ago.   Henry died long before the United States ever existed as a nation – even before America was “discovered” by Christopher Columbus.   He reigned from 1154-1189.

Note the following from Vanity Fair:

“The James Comey hearing has officially gone medieval.   A little less than two hours into the former FBI director’s highly watched testimony, Comey dropped a reference to Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury who was killed at the casual request of King Henry II in the year 1170.   The reference popped up when Senator Angus King was questioning Comey, asking him about Donald Trump’s seemingly casual but firm request to have Comey drop the FBI’s Michael Flynn investigation.  Though Trump did not demand outright that Comey drop the investigation, even his slightest requests come with an air of seriousness, King suggested.

“Do you take that as a directive?” King asked Comey of Trump’s question.

“Yes, yes,” Comey replied.   “It rings in my ears as kind of ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’”

Henry II was a very significant monarch.   James Comey learned a lesson from his reign.   Today’s British people, who have experienced three terrorist attacks in less than three months, could learn something else.   Note the following:

“Henry II, who is considered the father of the common law, promulgated the Assize of Arms in 1181. This required all (male) British citizens between 15 and 40 to purchase and keep arms.   The type of arms required varied with wealth; the wealthiest had to provide themselves with full armor, sword, dagger, and war horse, while even the poorest citizens, “the whole community of freemen,” must have leather armor, helmet and a lance.   Twice a year all citizens were to be inspected by the king’s officials to insure that they possessed the necessary arms.   Conversely, the English made it quite clear that the king was to be expected to depend exclusively upon his armed freemen.   When rebellious barons forced John I to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, they inserted in its prohibitions a requirement that he “expel from the kingdom all foreign knights, crossbowmen, sergeants, and mercenaries, who have come with horses and weapons to the harm of the realm.” (Historical Basis of the Right to keep and bear arms, by David P. Hardy, 1982)

During the recent terror attacks in England, on each occasion, one armed citizen could have made a significant difference and saved lives.  Medieval monarchs were very concerned that the people should be able to defend themselves against the French; today, the threat is Islamic extremists, but the principle remains the same.

Also note, in the quote above, that Henry’s second son, John, one of the worst monarchs in English history, was required by the people to “expel from the kingdom all foreign knights, crossbowmen, sergeants and mercenaries, who have come with horses and weapons to the harm of the realm.”

No prizes for guessing who should be expelled today!

It should be noted that King Henry did not introduce the right to bear arms; he simply restored an ancient right that went back to at least the reign of Alfred the Great, in the 9th century.  The Vikings were one of the problems at that time.  The threat changes, but a threat is always there.

With this in mind, I found the following interesting while studying this morning:   “The story of David and Goliath is helpful since “five smooth stones” and a “sling” are the closest equivalent to a handgun we can find in the Bible.   David seems to have been armed with his sling at all times.   There was no way he could run home to get his sling when a lion or a bear was about to attack his flock.   (1 Sam. 17:31-37, 41-54)

It’s possible that Jesus had the Old Testament case law in mind when He offered this injunction to His disciples:   “But be sure of this, if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.”   (Matt 24:43) (“Jesus, Guns and Self-defence – what does the Bible say?”)

Christians should, of course, strive to live peaceably with all men. (Romans 12:18)   Jesus Christ said: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” (Matt 5:9)   He also told us to “turn the other cheek.”  (vs. 38-39)

With terrorism, we are dealing with a totally different mind-set from Jesus Christ, a religious belief system that encourages and celebrates killing en masse.   People have to be able to defend themselves. King Henry understood this.   Today’s leaders in countries like the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada need to address the issue, enabling people to defend themselves from acts of barbarism.   In contrast, Australia has just announced an amnesty calling on citizens to hand over illegal weapons.

—————————————————————————

THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON, 2017

The tragic apartment block fire in London dominated the news on Wednesday.   30 deaths have been confirmed, but scores of people are still missing.   There were also over sixty injured.   What started the fire is not known at this time, but a material used in construction appears to have helped the fire to quickly spread.   The Daily Express said Thursday that EU environmental directives could be the cause.

Most of the people in the apartment block seemed to have been from other countries in Africa and Asia.   Looking at the high-rise (24-storey) block of flats, as they are called in England, I wondered why people would leave their own countries to live in such an awful place.

My wife and I have spent many happy days in African villages.   I can truthfully say that I would rather live in one of those than in a high-rise apartment block in London, or any other major city.   Isaiah 5:8 warns against living too close to each other.   “Woe unto them that join house to house.”

What attracts people to move to the West varies for each individual. One of the established reasons in the UK is the generous welfare benefits.   Perhaps some of that money could be diverted to African villages to bring water and electricity to communities to improve their quality of life.   Together with the abolition of welfare for new arrivals, this would go some way to help solve the immigration crisis.

On BBC World this morning, interviews with survivors of the fire revealed a lot of understandable anger.   It’s also clear that many have an “entitlement mentality,” demanding that the government re-house them immediately, claiming that hotels are not good enough; they also dismissed Theresa May’s call for an independent inquiry – they want those responsible punished NOW.

Since writing the above, some residents and neighbors have stormed the local town hall, chanting their demands, blaming the fire on the Conservative government.   There was no logic – just a mob mentality. Scary and a sign of things to come. 


 

ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS

  • At the moment, the bar for taking extremists out of circulation is set ridiculously high.   People known for their own extremism that reaches pre-terrorist levels should not be walking the streets when they have expressed support for Islamic State (ISIS) or tried to head to Syria or called for the destruction of Britain and other democracies or allied themselves to people already in prison. Their demand for free speech or freedom of belief must never be elevated above the rights of citizens to live safely in their own towns and cities.   It is essential for parliament to lower the bar.
  • Is this to be the political landscape for the future, where groups of people demanding death and destruction are given the freedom of the streets whilst those wishing to hold a peaceful celebration are prevented from doing so?
  • To see extremist Islam as a “perversion” of Islam misses an important point.   The politically correct insistence that radical versions of Islam somehow pervert an essentially peaceful and tolerant faith forces policy-makers and legislators, church leaders, rabbis, interfaith workers and the public at large to leave to one side an important reality.   Flatly, Islam in its original and classic forms has everything to do with today’s radicals and the violence they commit.   The Qur’an is explicit in its hatred for pagans, Jews and Christians.   It calls for the fighting of holy war (jihad) to conquer the non-Muslim world, subdue it, and gradually bring it into the fold of Islam. Islam has been at war with Europe since the seventh century.

(“No tolerance for extremism, “ by Denis McMacEion, Gatestone Institute, 6/16).

 

EUROPE CHANGES WHILE US PRE-OCCUPIED

British Prime Minister Theresa May, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, U.S. President Barack Obama, French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel meet at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 18, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
British Prime Minister Theresa May,  Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, U.S. President Barack Obama, French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel meet at the German Chancellery in Berlin, Germany November 18, 2016.       REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

When newspapers around the world reported that the Archduke Franz Ferdinand had been assassinated in Sarajevo, nobody would have thought it would lead to the First World War, the worst war in history.  The subsequent war started in the Balkans, a part of Europe that frequently saw conflict; it didn’t seem anything to worry about.

25 years later, another world war followed on from the first, again started in Europe.

You would think that, consequently, the world would want to know what’s happening in Europe!   But the mention of Europe is likely to see wide-mouthed yawns in an audience – Europe is a continent of the past, not the future; a quaint place to visit but of no relevance.

However, Europe is a continent that is unraveling as old rivalries rise to the surface.   The end result could be a Europe that is very different from what we see now.

What we are witnessing is the return of nationalism, the root cause of both world wars.   Right now, we are in the dark, just as the world was the morning after the Archduke’s assassination.   Another seemingly insignificant event could lead directly to global conflict, just as the assassination did over a century ago.

After six decades of the European Union and its predecessor, Europeans are turning against the idea of “an ever closer union.” Now, they want to put their own country first.   It started in the United Kingdom with the Brexit vote.   Outside of Europe, the Americans voted earlier this month to put “America First.”   Austrians seem likely to elect their “far right” candidate to the presidency on December 4th.   If he wins, he has promised to dissolve parliament and to hold a vote on whether or not the country should stay in the EU.   A referendum in Italy on the same day could also have a profound effect on other countries in Europe.

However, the biggest two upcoming elections will be in France in May and Germany four months later.

France just had its primaries for the center-right party, resulting in the selection of Francois Fillon as their presidential candidate. He will run against the leader of the Socialist Party.   It’s not likely that their candidate will be the current socialist president, Francois Hollande, as his approval rating is down to only 4%.   A third party candidate, Marine LePen, of the National Front, could beat the two establishment figures.   Ms. LePen is against both the EU and immigration, two popular positions that could give her victory.

Elections next year in France and Germany may see a continuation of the trend toward nationalist parties.

Brexit has already led continental Europeans to move ahead with a European Army, independent of NATO.   This has been talked about for some time, amid growing concerns about Russia and Islamic terrorism.   Donald Trump’s victory in the US led, hours later, to a German call to quickly move forward – without Britain this is now possible.   It’s also the case that, until the UK actually exits the EU, it will have to help pay for the combined military force.

Europe and America differ on Russia, even more so now that Trump will be president.   Note the following from The Orange County Register, November 25th.

“Russian and American interests in Europe do not align.   Although both powers do share the general goal of preventing Islamic terror networks from spiraling out of control, Russia’s tacit support for some acts of terrorism, through its close relationship with state sponsors of militant jihad, is well known.   The truth is that Putin’s regime wants instability in Europe, by hook or by crook, so as to replace U.S. dominance on the continent.” (“High-stake Russian relations”)

The editorial continues:   “And the reality is that Putin is well on his way to getting it.   NATO allies like Turkey, Bulgaria and Hungary have joined in a clear pendulum swing away from Western liberalism.   At the same time, reactionary parties on the ascent aim to shake off the political bonds economically forged by the international institutions that give the US its influential stake in European affairs.   Few in Europe wish to become satellites of Moscow.   But few realize that, absent a robust American role in Europe, there is no European force powerful enough to keep its patchwork of small states from slipping into Russia’s shadow.

“Were the US capable of defending a persuasive liberal agenda abroad, friendlier European relations toward Russia wouldn’t necessarily be cause for such profound alarm.   But today, America’s leadership – like public opinion – is divided and unsure about just how much support free trade and international agreements deserve. Without clarity and confidence, even a little resurgence in traditionally pro-Russian sentiment in Europe could trigger a stampede away from the kind of American influence that has helped build and maintain security and order on the continent for generations.

“Is that a price America’s pro-Russian right and left are willing to bear?   Whatever Trump’s actual preference around Russian relations may be, he is well advised to take into account the answer to that question.   Nothing can ruin a presidential legacy like losing Europe.” (The last sentence was italicized by myself for emphasis.)

Five days earlier, another editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette addressed European issues:

“President Obama spent Thursday and part of Friday in Germany, underlining the importance of the relationship with Chancellor Angela Merkel and, particularly, their personal rapport.   With Obama’s imminent disappearance from the world stage, the transition to a Donald Trump administration is creating international disquiet, as world leaders prepare for the unknown.   The German chancellor is arguably the most important figure of stability in international politics . . .   They met in Berlin, increasingly the capital of Europe, although Brussels still hosts the headquarters of both the European Union and NATO, British Prime Minister Theresa May, French President Francois Hollande and Spanish Prime Minister Maariano Rajoy all traveled to Berlin for their farewell-as-president meeting with Obama.”

Continuing:   “Germany is the economic and, thus, probably, the political center of Europe, an ironic epilogue to its loss of two major wars in the last century.”  (“Obama’s last key European stop.”  Italics mine)

Put these two articles together and what you have is this:

Europe is increasingly likely to break away from America; and Germany is the leader of Europe.

But . . . not yet!

The Economist magazine’s Charlemagne column adds that Germany and its Chancellor Angela Merkel “are still too hesitant to be able to lead the free world” (“Iron Waffler,” Charlemagne, November 19th):

“Now, after an election campaign in which Mr. Trump trashed immigrants, vowed to rewrite trade deals and threatened to withdraw America’s security guarantee, the West’s indispensable nation appears to have dispensed with itself.   Desperate for a candidate to accept the mantle of leader of the free world, some alighted on Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor.”

Yet Mrs. Merkel’s options are limited.   “We are protected by our terrible history,” says Joschka Fisher, a former foreign minister.   “You cannot say, ‘Make Germany Great Again’.”

Times are changing – and further changes are likely as a result of Donald Trump’s victory in the US.   “The Westbindung (Western integration), a staple of German foreign policy since Adenauer, is fraying as extremist parties on the left and right cozy up to Russia.”

Konrad Adenauer was Germany’s first chancellor after the formation of the Federal Republic in 1949, four years after Adolf Hitler.   Germany’s foreign policy since then has been firmly rooted in both NATO and the EU.   Extremist parties in the country threaten this and could destroy this policy after next year’s election.

“Germany’s stake in the global liberal order is immense.  Its export-led economic model relies on robust international trade; its political identity is inexorably linked to a strong EU; its westward orientation assumes a friendly and engaged America.   All of these things may now be in jeopardy, and Germany would suffer more than most from their demise.   But do not look to Mrs. Merkel to save them, for she cannot do so alone.”

A different chancellor, a stronger chancellor, perhaps with more extremist views of either left or right, could make a huge difference in the 2017 general election.

It’s very difficult to predict what will happen in the next twelve months in Germany or other European nations, but the continent is going through a peaceful turmoil that could see radical changes in the months ahead.

The biblical books of Daniel and Revelation both wrote of the Roman Empire and successive attempts to revive the empire down through the ages.  In 1922 Mussolini proclaimed a revived Roman Empire; in 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed to lay the groundwork for another attempt at European Union.   A final group of European nations will soon come together, with Germany as its leader.   Bible students have expected this for years — now the world’s media sees Berlin as the new European capital and Germany as the driving force behind the world’s biggest single economic grouping.

 

Does any reader have 60,000 frequent flyer miles they are not likely to use?  I would like to go over to Europe to research and write on developments on the continent.

TERROR IN EUROPE

 

Rouen priest

We’re back from our family visit to England.   We had a great time with my brothers and their families.   It would be wonderful to do it more often.

It was an interesting time to be there.   Just over a week after we arrived, the Daily Mail newspaper carried the banner headline: “Another day, yet another terror attack.”  A number of attacks on French and German targets took place while we were on the other side of the Atlantic.

An attack on foreign tourists in London on Wednesday evening resulted in the death of a 64-year-old American lady.   As with some of the incidents in France and Germany, terrorism was not blamed. Rather, the perpetrator, a Norwegian of Somali ancestry, had some “mental issues.”   The majority of British people do not accept this, pointing out that the attacker is a Muslim.   It turns out that he has “recommended jihad terror books,” according to one source quoted on the Fox News website this afternoon.

Governments have no idea what to do.   At the same time, the media does not understand what is happening – every tragic event is either excused or seen through the prism of political correctness.  There remains no comprehension that the West is under attack from Islam, as it has been a number of times in history.

The goal is the conquest of the West – the security situation can only get worse.

Speaking on Thursday July 28th, Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, clearly does not see any connection between her open door policy toward refugees and the recent terror attacks, at least two of which were perpetrated by new arrivals into the country.   Such blindness defies all logic.   It’s the same in France. And in the United States, for that matter, where the Obama Administration has repeated its plan to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country, in spite of fears of terrorism.   Perhaps the president is trying to atone for letting Syria down in the first place!

My favorite historian, Niall Ferguson, a Scot who has lived in the US for some years, tweeted the following yesterday:  “The next POTUS needs a Council of Historical Advisers to help the United States of Amnesia learn from the past.”   He added the famous quote:  “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”   The United States of Amnesia is a good one and totally appropriate.   Mr. Ferguson is not likely to be aware that many believe America’s biblical name to be “Manasseh,” which means “causing to forget.”

ISIS has been behind 141 terror attacks in the last 30 days, yet the President and Secretary of State say we have them on the run.   In addition, there have been other non-ISIS attacks, like the young man in Munich who killed 9 people, including seven teenagers, at a MacDonald’s in a Mall in the German city.   He was German born but of Iranian descent. A shi’ite Muslim, he’s not likely to have been influenced by ISIS, but he was still a Muslim.

It has become apparent that French security services are lacking when it comes to preventing attacks.  How could a large truck enter a vacation area in Nice and mow down 84 people, including ten children?   A few well-placed concrete blocks would have prevented the attack.   Apparently, there are six security agencies operating in France and they don’t tend to co-operate.   The country urgently needs an MI6 or a Department of Homeland Security, to bring all the agencies under one security umbrella.

So now all four major western powers have been attacked – the US, UK, France and Germany.   The last two have elections next year. Fear of further attacks could bring more right-wing parties to power. In turn, this could lead to a change of policy.   Instead of allowing in unlimited numbers of migrants, some of whom are inclined toward terrorism, borders may close and countries start hitting back.

Professor Samuel Huntington predicted over twenty years ago a “coming clash of civilizations” between Islam and the post-Christian West.  This is what we see developing now.

The biblical book of Daniel prophesied the same development 2,500 years ago.   In chapter 11 we read of the King of the North and the King of the South.   These were two dynasties that succeeded Alexander the Great in the fourth century BC.   These two powers frequently warred against each other.   Each time they did so, the Jews were caught in the middle.

The prophecy is that today’s modern successors, Europe and the Islamic world, (North and South), will clash.  You can read about this beginning in verse 40:   “At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through.”

An attack on July 25th was of particular interest.   It was the first time the Church was attacked.   An elderly Catholic priest in a village near Rouen had his throat slit while officiating at mass.   His two killers got up and preached a sermon in Arabic.   They were later shot by the police.

The pope did not respond with any threats.  He did say “we are at war,” but the war he was referring to was a vague war on poverty and deprivation.   Calling on Europe to open its borders further, the pontiff seemed as clueless as many politicians in his response, referring to Islam and Christianity as “religions of peace.”

These two “religions of peace” have warred against each other on and off throughout history.   In 1095, also in northern France, Pope Urban II called on European leaders to launch “a crusade” against Islam, in defense of Christians in the Holy Land.   The Crusades lasted two centuries.   Their legacy remains with us to this day. Further conflict came in the 16th and 17th centuries.  Renewed conflict between the two religions could erupt again if Islamists keep provoking the Church.

It’s not just the “United States of Amnesia” that needs some historical advisors.   Every government in western Europe, every president and prime minister and even the pope could all do with some history lessons.  They need to see Islam in its historical setting to learn that the religion is expansionist – imperialist, in fact, and that the West is now at war with Islam, even though few seem to realize it.

THREE TERROR ATTACKS ON THREE CONTINENTS IN 90 MINUTES

3 terrorist attacks map

From BBC WORLD NEWS, Friday June 26th

“Today has seen three major terrorist attacks all by jihadists and spread across three continents.

“In Kuwait the attack was sectarian – Sunni extremists from Islamic State targeting a Shia mosque. They are hoping to turn these two sects of Islam against each other.  It follows similar mosque bombings by IS across Saudi Arabia.  In France assailants went for a double target.  The chemical factory was owned by a US company but also targeted was the French state and an individual businessman.  IS is at war with France and has often called for opportunist attacks by its followers there.  And in Tunisia western tourists have once again been hit for the second time this year.  Here, too, though, the jihadists are hoping to hurt the country itself, trying to stop Tunisia from becoming a peaceful secular democracy.  But why now?  Is there any reason why all three attacks are taking place during this month of Ramadan? “ – Frank Gardiner, Security Correspondent, BBC

There followed a brief interview with Maajid Nawaz, Chairman of the Quilliam Foundation: “For ISIS, Ramadan is a month of war.  They believe it to be the month of jihad.”

“I’m afraid we’re in for more days like this . . . Ramadan should be a time of calamity for the infidels. They include the Shia as well.”   James Woolsey, Former Director of Central Intelligence.

Ramadan continues until July 17th.

WHEN IS A TERRORIST NOT A TERRORIST?

Brendan-Tevlin

Brendan Tevlin was a 19-year-old American white male who was murdered in June by an African-American Muslim who told the police he was fighting jihad (holy war). He was shot eight times while sitting in his car at a traffic light. His killer claimed this was vengeance for America’s killing Muslims in Iraq.

Brendan’s murder received no national media attention, some say because he was a white man murdered by a black male but it’s more because the police rejected his claim to be fighting jihad – the case is being treated as a simple murder case.

The 82-year-old great grandmother decapitated in London, England, by a young black Muslim male also received little attention. The police dismissed the perpetrator’s claim to be fighting jihad and are not treating it as a terrorist act.

But what if they are wrong on both sides of the Atlantic? What if these one-man jihadis are the real thing? What if we increasingly see this happening in the months to come?

Will we even realize it’s happening?

The British Prime Minister David Cameron over the weekend condemned the beheading of British aid worker David Haines by ISIS. In his speech, he reminded us that Islam is a religion of peace. We’ve heard it from both British PM’s and American presidents.

But . . . is this true?

Somebody sent me a link to a Charlie Rose interview. Charlie Rose is arguably America’s best interviewer, certainly for those who like serious news. But, at 72, he’s a member of the liberal sixties generation that believes in multiculturalism and has no interest in religion. Because of this, they are fond of repeating the mantra that “Islam is a religion of peace,” sometimes stated as “all religions believe in peace.”

President Obama and his two predecessors along with successive British prime ministers have all said the same.

Bill Maher is an American stand-up comedian, political commentator and talk show host. He supports the legalization of marijuana and same sex marriage. He is also against all religion and made a documentary film in 2008 titled “Religulous.” He definitely fits into the liberal, anti-religious segment of American society. He is 58.

But, when interviewed by Charlie Rose, he was quite vociferous and forceful in condemning Islam as being quite different from Christianity. There is a violence and intolerance in Islam that you don’t see in Christianity, was the essence of what he was saying. When Charlie Rose awkwardly asked him if he would be willing to join him in a discussion with a “moderate Muslim,” Maher quickly quipped: “Find me one!

Perhaps Maher was thinking about Mohammed’s farewell address in 632 AD. Speaking to his followers he said: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘there is no god but Allah.” By contrast, Jesus Christ said to His disciples: “Those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) Admittedly, most Christians have not lived up to His standard.

Perhaps we are starting to see a sea-change in the attitudes of some of our liberal intellectual elite. If so, it’s about time.

It’s only natural that this elite that forced their opinions on the rest of us are taking their time to face up to changing realities. But there is hope. Winston Churchill once said that “a conservative is a liberal that got mugged.”

A few more terrorist incidents and the electorate will change their thinking.

That’s if the police will be honest and describe such incidents as the acts of “terrorism” they are.

SO WHAT’S IN A NAME?

Abu-Bakr-al-Baghdadi-Al-Qaeda-Iraq-ISIS-400x330

The leader of one of the terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan was interviewed on the BBC’s Newshour this morning. The interview was conducted by John Simpson, a veteran of the BBC and one of the most highly respected contributors to what is still the world’s biggest news organization. The BBC has more international correspondents than any other news channel.

In the interview, the terrorist leader expressed an interest in joining ISIS, the terrorist group that is operating in both Syria and Iraq. He said that his followers dream of a caliphate in the same way that members of ISIS do, that a caliphate was the only way forward for Islam.

A few days earlier, a friend in California sent me a message, explaining that the name of the leader of ISIS says a great deal about his intent. It’s not his given name but rather the name he has adopted as the self-proclaimed leader of the Caliphate that was declared in June.

His name is Abu Bakr Baghdadi.

Abu Bakr was the leader of the first caliphate after the death of the prophet Mohammed.

Baghdad was the capital of the Caliphate during one of its greatest periods. The whole Muslim world was ruled from Baghdad, currently the capital of Iraq, from 750AD. This period lasted two centuries and was the third caliphate after the prophet.

Clearly, the intent is to restore this caliphate. This would, of course, include Israel. It would also make the caliphate one of the most powerful countries in the world, if not the most powerful. The Baghdad caliphate (often referred to as the Abbasid dynasty) stretched from Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east, through Iran and the entire Arab world, which today constitutes 22 different countries. It included all of North Africa.

There were other caliphates right down until 90 years ago when the Ottoman Empire and its sultans were abolished following defeat in World War One.

The dream of a restored caliphate is not new. Nor is the barbarism of its adherents.

For over two hundred years, Islam has been subject to the West. Now, with the West in terminal decline, many Muslims see an opportunity to reorganize the world in accordance with their vision of Islam – that everybody in the world must be a Muslim.

A symbolic blow against the West was struck this weekend, but hardly noticed over the Labor Day weekend, when the abandoned US Embassy in Libya was taken over by Muslim extremists. Islamic extremists also gained ground in Nigeria where Boko Haram took control of Borno’s second largest city

“IS (Islamic State) is the most extreme manifestation of a Muslim response to the history of the past few centuries when the West has been seen to thrive as the Muslim world has declined. One line of thinking blames this on the absence of a caliphate – and of sharia rule.” (The Economist, August 30th, page 42.)

At this critical time, western leaders cannot adjust their thinking quick enough to defend the West. They still live in the past. President Obama said on Friday that the reason all the terrorists are attracted to ISIS is poverty and unemployment in their home countries. This is 1960’s liberal thinking – that every problem is a socio-economic problem that can be solved with bigger and more expensive government programs!

In 2005, when the UK suffered terrorist attacks in London, the four young men responsible all came from affluent backgrounds. The latest Economist points out that: “Poverty does not explain the lure of jihad for Western fighters. Many of them are quite middle class.” (The Economist, August 30th, page 42.) It should be remembered that the 19 men who staged 9/11 were all from wealthy families.

Another example of 60’s thinking was on a domestic British radio program in which ISIS was discussed. A naïve and, frankly, ridiculous comment was made by a woman contributor who said that “everybody knows eventually we are going to have to sit down with the leaders of ISIS and discuss our differences . . . ” (“Any Questions”, Radio 4, August 22nd, paraphrased.)   Sorry to say this, lady, but what’s building up here is very much a case of “kill or be killed,” as Bible prophecy clearly shows.

The King of Saudi Arabia moved 30,000 troops up to the border, fearful of ISIS moving south. He also warned western leaders that ISIS inspired terrorist attacks will take place on their territory.

Could Abu Bakr Baghdadi be the King of the South prophesied in Daniel 11? “At the time of the end, the King of the South shall attack him” (verse 40). The leader of a power south of Jerusalem will push against the King of the North, a power to the north of Jerusalem.

Certainly, Abu Bakr Baghdadi could be the leader of the King of the South. But we need to realize that if Baghdadi is killed, the dream of the Caliphate will not die with him. Osama bin Laden has been dead for more than three years but his dream continues.

It’s a dream that goes back to the seventh century – it’s not going away!