Do As I Say and Not As I Do: The Tragedy of the James White Interfaith Dialogue and the Pragmatic Defense Offered by Phil Johnson

The current firestorm related to James White’s decision to facilitate an interfaith dialogue with Imam Yasir Qahdi is puzzling in the least and has become a stumbling block for many who do not understand how White cannot understand that he is “dancing with the devil” as the saying goes.  Mr. White’s response to those critical of his decision has been the polar opposite of remorse and he has in fact dug his heels in and maintained that his actions were right and consistent with what Christians should be doing. Is that true? What bridges can be built to people who teach that Christians who do not submit or convert to Islam should be murdered? What madness is this that has gripped Christians today such that they believe the lie that building bridges to nowhere constitute evangelism? I won’t rehash all of Mr. White’s actions related to this in detail. You can read about that here – http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/facts-reveal-james-white-islamic-dupe-clueless-evangelicals-are-desperate-save-his

What I wish to address is the support Mr. White has received. Surprisingly a couple of people with very different perspectives, one might say two people with theological beliefs very much at odds with one another, have stepped into the fray to defend Mr. White’s error. I am speaking of Phil Johnson and Michael Brown. This has added a layer of intrigue to the entire situation but has also served to obfuscate the truth of what critics of White’s decision to promote an interfaith dialogue have been saying. By engaging in what appear to be damage control activities on behalf of Mr. White, Johnson seems to have exposed himself as a hypocrite of the highest order. You can be the judge of whether or not that is true based on the information contained in this article. His previous statements seem to be completely contradictory to his stated position concerning James White’s ecumenicalism, or to use the new and improved phrase, interfaith dialogue.

Continue reading

They Can’t All Be True

coexist_featuredimage1

A very common bumper sticker is making the rounds these days. This bumper sticker contains one word – COEXIST. Each letter of the word coexist utilizes a different religious symbol to spell out the word.  For example in some renditions the C is a crescent moon representing Islam and the T is a cross that represents Christianity. Other religions such as Hinduism, Judaism, and Taoism are also represented. The meaning is clear – all religions can and must coexist if there is to be world peace.

This idea is not new. There has been an ongoing effort for decades to find common ground among the world’s largest religious groups. What is new however is that the effort is now being publicly advocated by the United Nations as well as several so-called World Congresses that meet yearly or bi-annually to discuss strategies to unite the religions of the world into one homogeneous whole.

The first issue that I have with this thinking is that it is illogical and demonstrably false. The idea that all religious people must learn to coexist for peace to occur assumes that religious people are responsible for conditions other than peace. While it is a common refrain of the easily duped, the idea that religion has caused the most death and war is easily refuted.

Joseph Stalin of Russia and Mao Tse-tung of China are responsible for nearly 125 million deaths of their own citizens.* We don’t even need to take into consideration other despots, tyrants, and dictators throughout history that easily dwarf any deaths caused by religious fanatics.

A second issue that the COEXIST mentality overlooks is this – How do you convince people who believe in diametrically opposite religious principles to forsake those? The clear answer is by coercion. That means that if the current trend of COEXIST manipulation continues you can expect to see various attempts to pass laws that drastically curtail religious expression. We are seeing this strategy being employed today in America, aimed specifically at Christianity.

A third issue with the misguided COEXIST philosophy is that advocates believe that the creation of a religious utopia will result in a global political utopia. Again, the primary cause of wars, crime, and evil generally speaking is not religion. It is the unregenerate heart of sinful man that refuses to acknowledge the Creator.

Finally, the thinking that supports a COEXIST theology ignores the impossibility of the task.  In order for all religions to coexist peacefully, the primary points of difference will need to be removed completely. No other religious system teaches a personal God who came to earth and died for the sins of mankind. For Christians this means that the teaching that there is salvation in no other name but Jesus Christ will need to be denied. That is the definition of apostasy and will never happen for true believers.

Friends, do not buy into the dream of the religious Utopians. That path leads to death. Stand firm in the Lord Jesus Christ and continue to proclaim the good news of salvation in Him alone. That is a transforming truth.

*Mao is responsible for nearly 65 million murders of Chinese citizens click here for resource.

*Stalin is responsible for nearly 60 million murders of Russian citizens. Click here for resource.

You Can Never Awaken a Man Who Is Pretending to be Asleep by Bill Warner

September 15, 2012

The White House and media response to the events in the US embassies in Egypt and Libya can be characterized by the fact they speak like they have never seen Sharia mob justice before in their lives. Or, at least, you would think that from the knowledge and wisdom they display in their analysis.

For the last 11 years since 9/11, we have watched the same events unroll in the Islamic world and the same response come from our so-called leaders in the government, media, schools and the pulpits. The establishment view: Those Muslims are extremists, not real Muslims. We should be careful not to offend the religion of peace. When Muslims are offended by movies, Koran burnings and Mohammed cartoons, it is our fault.

The clue phone is ringing, pick it up. Here are the clues:

The murder of intellectuals and artists who criticize Mohammed is Sunna. Sunna is the perfect example of Mohammed’s life. When Mohammed captured Mecca, he first prayed, then he destroyed all religious art and then he issued death warrants for the artists and intellectuals who had opposed him. There are only two new facts in the Koran, a derivative work. The first new fact is that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and the second new truth is that if you don’t believe he is prophet of Allah, you can be killed.

Violence is what brings Islam success. In Mohammed’s life, he preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 new followers. When he went to Medina and became a politician and a warlord, when he died every Arab was a Muslim. Jihad violence was what made Islam successful. If Mohammed practice jihad, Muslims must use the technique of jihad.

Hello establishment experts, the black flag is not an Al Qaeda flag. The black flag with the Shahada, “There is no god, but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” and the swords goes back to the Golden Age of Islam in Baghdad in the 9th century. (The establishment professors never tell you about this jihad aspect of the Islamic Golden Age.) This jihad flag is ancient.

Current news is that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was killed. If so, then this is pure jihad doctrine. The rules for rape of captured Kafirs (unbelievers) are Sunna. At the conquest of the Jews in Khaybar, the Hadith are explicit that captured Kafirs can be raped.

The mob is a manifestation of the Sharia and the umma (the Islamic community). Notice that when a fatwa is issued, such as the famous fatwa by Khomeini against Salmon Rushdie for his artistic work The Satanic Verses, the fatwa is not to be fulfilled by the Islamic police. No, the murder is to be carried by any member of the umma. This is vigilante justice, Sharia justice, mob justice. Pay attention to how often Muslims riot to make political gain.

The shortest hadith is: war is deceit. So here come all of the “good” Muslims to explain how the murder and riots are not real Islam. And they are so upset about what Arabs are doing at the US embassies. But, they still can tell us that Islam is the religion of peace, without a single trace of irony.

The idea that we should not blaspheme Islam, Mohammed or Allah is pure Sharia and the position of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). It seems that none of the establishment experts have the foggiest idea of what Sharia blasphemy entails. Not believing that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, that a woman is a second class citizen, that jihad is part of Islam is all blasphemy. Critical thought is blasphemy. The Golden Rule is blasphemy. Any well-founded religion can survive blasphemy, except Islam, and that is the reason it is forbidden. But the worst part of this travesty is the refrain from Obama and Hillary that we should subvert our freedom of speech to the demands of the Sharia. The Sharia is Allah’s law and our Constitution is a document of ignorance to be removed from the world. So say the imams and Obama and Hillary.

And now for the last tired response from the apologists: those violent people are an extremist fringe. NO! The mobs are main-line Islam.

You can awaken a man who is asleep, but you will never awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep. That is the reason that we find our experts in the government, media, education and the pulpits to be such dhimmis. They have refused to learn a single thing about Islamic doctrine and history since 9/11. But, cheer up! When the dhimmis write about the beauty of Islam and how the Kafirs are wrong, read the comments. You will find that the common man knows far, far more about Islam than the experts. The higher you go, the less they know.

________________________________

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

British Muslims: Christmas is evil

A recent article by Ethel Fenig at The American Thinker (link below) once again demonstrates the absurdity of the Muslim propaganda machine.  Here is the short article:

Just in time for Christmas, as a Christmas present to the people of England, some British Muslims have plastered fliers around the country announcing Christmas is evil. Parodying the Twelve Days of Christmas, the not so merry red and black ads sing

On the first day of Christmas my true love gave to me an STD

‘On the 2nd day debt, on the 3rd rape, the 4th teenage pregnancies and then there was abortion, raves, claiming god has a son, blasphemy, exploitation, promiscuity, night clubs, crime, paedophilia, paganism, domestic violence, homelessness, violence, vandalism, alcohol, drugs…
In contrast, the fliers proclaim

In Islam we are protected from all of these evils. We have marriage, family, honour, dignity, security, rights for man, woman and child.

The Muslim organizer of this ad campaign unapologetically stated

‘Christmas is a lie and as Muslims it is our duty to attack it.

‘But our main attack is on the fruits of Christmas, things like alcohol abuse and promiscuity that increase during Christmas and all the other evils these lead to such as abortion, domestic violence and crime.

But there is a way out! Of course!

‘We hope that out campaign will make people realise that Islam is the only way to avoid this and convert.’

And if you don’t…

Like their hate filled counterparts of the Seattle anti Israel bus ads, organizers will self righteously invoke freedom of speech to justify these sentiments.

Meanwhile in Iraq, where the remaining Christians are still terrified after more than 50 were slaughtered in a church a few months ago, holiday festivities have been canceled.

Yes, canceled. There will be no church services, no holiday decorations.

Freedom of speech, of religion doesn’t exist in Muslim countries.

But we must learn to be tolerant of the intolerant.You know the drill: Diversity, pluralism and multi culturalism and all that.

Where does one start in addressing such a perspective?  The view that Islam is the answer for America’s moral woes is beyond comprehension.  I’m amazed that otherwise seemingly rational people who investigate Islam on even a cursory level do not see the blatant contradiction and double-speak inherent in it.  A conversation with an Islamist related to morality or moral issues is nonsensical from the beginning because Islam as a moral system is inherently evil.

Islam as the pinnacle of morality is a demonstrably false and outrageously disingenuous statement.  Islamic doctrine/theology is not moral by any standard of morality unless one believes that the deliberate harassment, imprisonment, and murder of innocent people for no reason or any reason is moral.

Your thoughts?

British Muslims: Christmas is evil.