The Fruit of Islam

(See also: Two Shades of Dismay: The Perverse Bondage Wrought by Liberalism and Islam)

The 9th anniversary of 9/11, continued hostilities abroad, a Ground Zero mosque, Koran burnings—tensions between Americans and Muslims have never been higher. We should not be surprised. As the renowned and pioneering historian Bernard Lewis noted 20 years ago in The Roots of Muslim Rage, “the classical Islamic view, to which many Muslims are beginning to return, [is that] the world and all mankind are divided into two: the House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief or the House of War, which it is the duty of Muslims ultimately to bring to Islam.”

After the events of 9/11, Professor Lewis, in The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, also noted that much of the animosity directed toward the West, particularly the United States, is due to old-fashioned envy—stemming from Western progress and Islamic decline. As one reviewer put it, the crux of Lewis's argument is “the sources of rage among Muslims stem from the deep frustration over the loss of a cultural primacy that was once theirs and has now been lost to the forces of modernity, especially as represented by the United States.”

It is rather telling to examine “the loss of cultural primacy” within Islam, along with the overall effect Islam is having on nations and individuals the world over. Of the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), as rated by the Economists Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy, none are full democracies, while 35 are authoritarian regimes (dictatorships). Of the Index’s 10 most authoritarian regimes, 7 of them are members of the OIC.

Muslims are 23 percent of the world population and produce barely seven percent of global GDP. The median GDP rank for the members of the OIC is 124 (out of 181 nations). The total GDP of the 57 member OIC is approximately $4.2 trillion. That is less than one-third of the GDP of the U.S. alone ($14.3 trillion).

According to the United Nations’ Arab Development Report: More than half of Arab women cannot read; One in five Arabs lives on less than $2 per day; There are less than 18 computers per 1,000 persons in the Arab world, compared to the global average of 78.3; and only 1.6 percent of Arabs use the Internet.

In the 57 nations in the OIC there are a total of about 500 universities. There are over 5,700 in the U.S. In just over 100 years, the Muslim world has produced eight Nobel Laureates while a mere 14 million Jews have produced 167. There are about 400 scientists and engineers per 1 million people in research and development in Arab countries, compared to about 4,000 per million people in North America.

Particularly disturbing, and most telling, as one examines Islam, is the role of women in Islamic society. Islamic law (Shariۥa) prohibits women from looking men in the eye, forbids them from wearing shoes that make noise, and forbids them from becoming educated. As Ergun and Emir Caner note in Unveiling Islam, “women are considered possessions in any orthodox Islamic regime…The wife is considered the husband’s sex object.” Also, one of the most alarming admonitions in the Koran allows the husband to punish his wife physically.

Of the 8 nations that the U.S. has placed on its State Sponsors of Terrorism list, 6 of them are Islamic regimes. Of the 20 nations the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has under its Country of Particular Concern designation, or on its watch list, half are Islamic regimes (all of the others are differing authoritarian regimes, along with India, Russia, and Venezuela). Nice company, huh?

Religious freedom in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia is virtually non-existent. Like many other Muslim countries, Saudi law states that Islamic apostasy—denying the faith or converting to another religion—is a crime punishable by death. In 2006, Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was arrested (after it was discovered that he possessed a Bible) and faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. Intervention by Afghan president Hamid Karzai resulted in the charges against Rahman being dismissed.

Leading Afghan clerics were highly critical of Karzai, noting that “The Qur'an is very clear and the words of our prophet are very clear. There can only be one outcome: death.” This attitude is very prevalent across the Arab world, validating Professor Lewis’s notion that “many Muslims are beginning to return” to the “classical [violent and repressive] Islamic view.”

In Turkey in 2007, two Turkish converts to Christianity were killed in the Malatya Bible Publishing Firm murders. Also in 2007, Mohammed Hegazy became the first Egyptian Muslim officially to seek to convert to Christianity. An Egyptian judge ruled that, “He can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can't convert.” Muslim clerics issued fatwas calling for his death. His wife’s family has sworn to kill her because she married a non-Muslim. They are both currently in hiding.

All of this pales to the slaughter in Sudan. The Institute on Religion and Democracy reports that “since 1983 Sudan has been devastated by a jihad or holy war led by the militant National Islamic Front, the ruling regime in Khartoum, against all in Southern Sudan and the Nuba Mountains who opposed the imposition of Shariۥa, or Islamic law. The government-sponsored terror has resulted in the deaths of at least two million moderate Muslims, animists, and Christians.”

Of course, as the Caners point out, “Any major religion must first be seen through the eyes of its founder…Muhammad commanded in the Qurۥan, ‘Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them’ (surah 9:5)…in a world searching for peace, following the life of this warrior brings about bloodshed.” Moments before Abu Mus'ad Al Zarqawi cut off the head of American Nicholas Berg, he said these words in Arabic: “The Prophet, the master of the merciful has ordered to cut off the heads of some of the prisoners of Badr in patience. He is our example and a good role model.”

Zarqawi knew that Muhammad had often used beheading as the means of executing his enemies. Thus, Zarqawi was unmistakably choosing to emulate his “good role model” and spiritual leader.

Clearly, by and large, Islam is an enforced religion with a violent founder, a violent founding, and a very violent past and present. Islam is generally repressive to women and to those of other faiths. Islam is typically financially devastating and technologically backwards. Jesus Christ said, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart (Luke 6:43-45a).” The fruit of Islam is bitter, indeed.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Barack’s Candy Mountain (sung to Big Rock Candy Mountain)

One evening as the sun went down and the American Dream was burning,

Down the track came a hobo hiking and he said boys I'm not turning.
I'm headin for a land not so far away beside the Scandal Fountains.
So come with me, we'll go and see Barack’s Candy Mountains

In Barack’s Candy Mountains there's a land that's fair and bright,
Where the handouts grow on bushes and you step out every night,
Where the TEA Parties are all empty and the sun shines every day
On the birds and the bees and the marijuana trees,
Where the lemonade springs where Common sings
In Barack’s Candy Mountains.

In Barack’s Candy Mountains the people have no guns,

But the Mexican bandits do ‘cause Holder sold them some.

The ambassador in Libya was killed because of a video.
Oh, I'm bound to go where there ain't no snow,
’Cause Al Gore says that Global Warming is so
In Barack’s Candy Mountains

In Barack’s Candy Mountains all support the liberal press,
otherwise our phones are tapped and we’re audited by the IRS.
The conservatives have to tip their hats and the talk show hosts are mute.
Where illegal immigrants play and the abortionists slay,
You can find them all at the gay wedding ball
In Barack’s Candy Mountains.

In Barack’s Candy Mountains the doctors all are free,

And you may keep your health plan—any one you please.
There ain't no nuclear power plants, no oil, gas, or coal.
I'm a goin’ to stay where you sleep all day,
Where they hung the jerk that invented work
In Barack’s Candy Mountains.

I'll see you all next election fall to bring down Barack’s Candy Mountains.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Gay Marriage: The End Game

In the last 15 years, the battle for the definition of marriage has been waged full force. It has supplanted abortion (though they are related to one another) as the principal cultural conflict in our society. The courts, where liberals have had more success, and the electorate, where conservatives have dominated, have both experienced dozens of skirmishes between the warring parties.

Tens of millions of people have voted. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent. Preachers have preached; politicians and pundits have pontificated. The weak and the dispassionate certainly have grown weary. But many have been deceived. For you see, ultimately, this battle is not, nor has it ever been, about marriage.

Dan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage hints at this when, after the Proposition 8 ruling, he declared that, “The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry.”

It’s not as if we haven’t been warned. From a column I wrote in 2006: “In December of 2005 The Becket Fund, a nonprofit institute dedicated to protecting freedom of religion, held a conference to discuss the legal ramifications of redefining marriage. Ten of the nation’s top First Amendment scholars, liberal, conservative, and moderate, were brought in to present their views of same-sex marriage and the likely outcomes if it is legalized. As a result of the conference a series of papers was published.

“The conference focused on four topics: Can the government force religious institutions to recognize same-sex unions? Can the government withhold benefits, such as tax exemption, from religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex unions? How will freedom of religion arguments fare against legal same-sex marriage? What are the effects on biblical (traditional) marriage?

“Mark Stern, general counsel for the liberal leaning American Jewish Congress and a supporter of gay marriage, wrote in his paper that, ‘Same-sex marriage would…work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable.’ According to Peter Steinfels, writing for The New York Times, what Mr. Stern has in mind are ‘schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.’

“George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley, also a supporter of gay marriage, in his Becket paper noted that, ‘As states accept same-sex marriage and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, conflicts will grow between the government and discriminatory organizations. There will be many religious-based organizations that will refuse to hire individuals who are homosexual or members of a same-sex marriage. If those individuals are holding a state license of marriage or civil union, it will result in a discriminatory act that was not only based on sexual orientation, but a lawful state status.’

“Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, and an opponent of gay marriage, participated in the Becket conference and wrote, ‘Were federal equal protection or substantive due process to be construed to require states to license same-sex marriage, those who have profound moral or religious objection to the social affirmation of homosexual conduct would be argued to be the out-liers of civil society.’ Therefore, he argues that churches could be targeted for legal penalties and disadvantages as were universities that participated in racial discrimination decades ago.

“He adds that, ‘This is hardly a far-fetched (idea), as apparently one of the main aspirations of the homosexual movement is retaliation against the defenders of traditional marriage.’”

There you have it. Marriage is just the means to a more sinister end for the homosexual movement. This is about sex and about legitimizing, through the American judicial system, a sexual lifestyle many Americans find immoral. And, as Kmiec implies, this is also about vengeance.

Additionally, as one supporter of gay marriage has put it, it’s not as if most (especially male) homosexuals are interested in (traditional) marriage anyway. “There are many gays and lesbians who strongly value the right to marry, but few (none, more or less) who think of it as a gay ideal to have relationships that are as close as possible to the traditional hetero myth/ideal. The possibilities for different types of relationships have been common currency in the gay community and gay press for as long as there has been an open gay community.”

Once the homosexual community has the law behind it, the full force of the federal government will be at their disposal. Their lust for revenge will have little to restrain it. Churches, schools, private businesses, and organizations of all types who object to homosexuality would be not only “out-liers of civil society” but also out-liers of the law. Above all, Christians who see homosexuality as a sin will be squarely in the crosshairs of the homosexual community.

Again, if you think this is far-fetched, consider the case of Dale McAlpine, a Baptist preacher in England. He was arrested in May of this year under the Public Order Act for causing “harassment, alarm or distress,” and “using abusive or insulting language” by calling homosexuality a sin.

Also, consider the case of U.S. evangelist Shawn Holes, who was arrested in Glasgow, Scotland, on March 18 of this year for remarks that were deemed “homophobic.” (See, The Dumbest Word in theEnglish Language: Homophobia.) Just as with universal health care and staggering federal debt, Europe has preceded the U.S. down the progressive path of legitimizing homosexuality, and again gives us a glance into what lies ahead for America.

Marriage, as God created it, is the foundation of every institution that the world has ever known. Thus, at the foundation of any great nation there must be a healthy view of and a great respect for marriage. Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on. Each of these institutions lies at the heart of a great nation.

Outside of an individual’s relationship with his or her Creator, the priority relationship in the universe is the husband/wife relationship. If this foundational relationship is redefined, the consequences for our nation will be staggering.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

My Guest Appearance on "What's Up" Radio with Terry Lowry

Click here to listen to my interview on Terry Lowry's "What's Up" radio show.

Whose Slave Are You?

“A person will worship something, have no doubt about that,” said Emerson. A corollary to that would be that we all serve something; for that which we worship we serve (in some manner or other). Or, to put it more dramatically, we are all slaves to one thing or another.

Of course, this runs quite contrary to the nature of most every American. We are, after all, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Time and again, whether from Hollywood, politicians, pundits, or even the pulpit, the independent, free spirit of Americans is cheered, celebrated, and encouraged. Since the late 18^th century the message has been clear: Don’t Tread on Us.

Putting Emerson’s conclusion in a spiritual light, the Apostle Paul said in the book of Romans, “…you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.”

So, we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. In other words, we are either slaves to Satan or slaves to Christ. Being a slave to Christ is a theme that runs throughout the New Testament. Time and again in his letters, Paul referred to himself as a “slave (or “servant” in some translations) to Jesus Christ,” as did Peter, James, Jude, and John.

John MacArthur writes that “Being a slave of Christ may be the best way to define a Christian.” He later adds, “When you give somebody the gospel, you are saying to them, ‘I would like to invite you to become a slave of Jesus Christ. I would like to invite you to give up your independence, give up your freedom, submit yourself to an alien will, abandon all your rights, be owned by, controlled by the Lord.’ That’s really the gospel. We’re asking people to become slaves.”

C.S. Lewis put it this way: “Christ says ‘Give me All. I don’t want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don’t want to cut off a branch here and a branch there, I want to have the whole tree down. I don’t want to drill the tooth, or crown it, or stop it, but to have it out. Hand over the natural self, all the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked – the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours.’”

However, he concludes, “The terrible thing, the almost impossible thing, is to hand over your whole self – all your wishes and precautions – to Christ. But it is far easier than what we are all trying to do instead. For what we are trying to do is to remain what we call ‘ourselves’, to keep personal happiness as our great aim in life, and yet at the same time be ‘good.’ We are all trying to let our mind and heart go their own way – centered on money or pleasure or ambition – and hoping, in spite of this to behave honestly and chastely and humbly. And that is exactly what Christ warned us you could not do. As He said, a thistle cannot produce figs. If I am a field that contains nothing but grass-seed, I cannot produce wheat. Cutting the grass may keep it short: but I shall still produce grass and no wheat. If I want to produce wheat, the change must go deeper than the surface. I must be ploughed up and re-sown.”

Of course, “trying to…remain…ourselves” sounds innocent enough, even downright American. However, this is one of the great lies of the enemy. It is great, because it is so subtle and deadly. Through what is commonly referred to as “pride,” many have been led into what Lewis refers to as the “Dictatorship of Pride.” Pride, he notes, comes straight from hell. “It was through Pride that the devil became the devil; Pride leads to every other vice; it is the complete anti-God state of mind.”

Many people have overcome poverty, physical disabilities, addictions, and so on, through their pride. “The devil laughs,” says Lewis. “He is perfectly content to see you becoming (wealthy), brave, and self-controlled provided, all the time, he is setting up in you the Dictatorship of Pride—just as he would be quite content to see your (cold) cured if he was allowed, in return, to give you cancer.”

A dictatorship: now that is about as American as a Swastika. Yet that is exactly the view of humanity that many Americans espouse today. In pop culture and politics Americans are told again and again that they need to be true to themselves and take what is theirs. Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians all often fall prey to a pride-centered view of the person.

Many of the political problems we currently face would be greatly reduced - if not eliminated - if we ceased being subjects of a "Dictatorship of Pride." Problems with health, poverty, and old age would be alleviated if we were focused on serving God and our neighbor rather than ourselves.

For each of us, this battle against our pride is our ultimate challenge. Unsurprisingly, victory lies with humility, with surrender—giving ourselves over to the One who has purchased us with His blood. The Bible tells us that we are not our own; we have been “bought at a price.” Sounds a lot like a slave, doesn’t it? Make no mistake about it; each of us is serving something. The only question is whose slave are you?

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas