HOW DEEP THE BLOOD? Part Two: “C´est Guerre.”

In Part One I attempted to describe the inherent enmity between moslems on one side and jews (plus their Christian supporters) over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But any list of sources of “inherent” enmity between moslems and Christians has to include end times theology. Neither faith holds that things will end well between moslems and Christians.

To me there is nothing Biblical that is more confounding than John’s Book of Revelation. The symbolism in John’s vision and the chronology, for instance, withhold the reward of understanding from the casual or unschooled reader. Even for the serious students of end times theology, there are disagreements and unanswered questions, not the least of which is whether the Battle of Armageddon is symbolic or real. Thanks to John’s simple, direct, and reassuring words at John 3:16, one need not adopt any particular view of end times theology to merit a Christian salvation. But for those Christians who believe in a literal Armageddon, the expectation must be of Christians and jews standing shoulder-to-shoulder to each other and face-to-face with moslems. The moslem view includes the reanimation of Jesus (to moslems a prophet but no messiah), who will assist in the slaughter of Christians and jews while all non-Islamic nations are destroyed. Once the end times theology is laid bare, there is no long-term common ground between Christians and moslems, nor can there be.

As we await an inevitable divine resolution of this worldly experience, things may be relatively more peaceful or relatively less peaceful between the moslem world and the West. Most of the message of Islam (excluding end times theology) is not antithetical to a peaceful (albeit temporary) coexistence with Christians. Consider these four “pillars” of Islam: charity; prayer; (daytime) fasting during Ramadan; and pilgrimage (to Mecca). The problem is with the fifth pillar: Jihad, or holy war. To the moslem, Jihad is to be waged against the “infidels” (like me) or against moslem heretics (as Sunnis regard Shiites). What future is there with those who acknowledge a religious imperative to kill you for your noncompliant faith?

Jordan’s King Abdullah II visited Kosovo following the November 13, 2015 massacre in Paris and shared some rational thoughts. While describing adherents of the “Islamic State” (a/k/a ISIS and ISIL) as “savage outlaws of religion,” he warned of a “third world war against humanity.” Then he commented, “This is a war, as I’ve said repeatedly, within Islam,” and that fighting extremism is “our fight as Muslims.” At first glance it may seem inconsistent to describe the moslem extremism problem as “world war” and then a “war within Islam.” I see the conflict as one native to Islam but spilling (unnecessarily) outside the borders of the moslem world.

Within years of the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D. there was bloody conflict over succession to leadership of the faith. That conflict involved Sunnis (favoring Mohammed’s father-in-law) versus Shiites (favoring Mohammed’s son-in-law). That conflict remains unresolved today. Can moslems finally heal this denominational schism or (at least) end the bloodletting within Islam? I wish them luck, and I agree with the King of Jordan that murderous Islamic extremism is both a “war within Islam,” and a threatened “world war against humanity.” To avoid the “world war” aspect of this conflict, it should be contained within moslem nations.

When Islamic extremism is not contained, there are incidents like the massacre in Paris of November 13, 2015. After a claim of responsibility by the “Islamic State,” French President François Hollande announced “This is war” (“C´est Guerre”), and escalated French bombing raids on Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq. President Hollande was mostly right in his assessment (“war”) but less correct in his response. While one of the Paris shooters had a Syrian passport (according to published accounts), it seems that most were European moslems. President Hollande rightly recognizes the commencement of a war but fails to see the enemy in his own back yard.

Consider that most of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia, ostensibly an ally of the United States. Consider that the USA entered the First Gulf War in 1991 at the request of the Saudis to save them from Saddam Hussein’s expansionism. It seems to have mattered not to the 9/11 hijackers that the USA was a benevolent, protective friend of their home country. The observation here is that religion trumps international relations to the end that all infidels (like me) are targets. The next point involves the reason for Islam’s persistent bloody provocations against the West. In their religious zeal, moslems yearn for the end times that I described earlier. The “final battle” does not begin without opening volleys. Ask yourself how near and how deep the blood must run in the streets before you see it as a war, not just of armies but of populations.

ADDENDUM. This article was near completion when the December 2, 2015 mass shooting took place in San Bernardino, California. From the first word of the attack I waited perhaps seven hours for the release of a name. Then it was said: Syed Farook, a citizen born, raised, educated, and employed in the USA was the principal shooter. Syed Farook was also described as a “devout” moslem. While his target may have been selected by a personal grudge, it looks from here that Syed Farook was armed for Jihad. Syed Farook should have been assimilated as well as any moslem-American can be and still felt entitled (or perhaps obligated) to kill the infidels (like me).

Should the USA welcome Syrian “refugees” to our shores? Should the USA welcome any moslem immigrants? Should the USA discriminate in handing out visas, residency, and citizenship? Watch this space for Part Three of this series wherein I will address those issues and more.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*