The Politically Correct Agenda

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter One:The Fantacizers Cont. 

The PC agenda

Mr. Wallace has reasoned for many years that 'political correctness will be the death of our nation'. (5). He opines that the PC agenda attempts to take control of the talking points in society and mould the discussion so that lies can be told with some form of believability. (5).

Mr. Wallace states that an example of this is the idea sold that terrorists are not actual Muslims, but radical Muslims. (5). The idea is portrayed that radical Muslims have hijacked the religion. (5).

The true doctrines of Islam are actually being followed by the radicals, Mr. Wallace writes. (5).

In my previous entry on this book review:

A problem of open-ended verses: October 24

I quoted

The Supreme Islamic Council of America

'The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.'

End quote

This council which claims to present Islamic theology in America admits there are 'Islamic splinter groups'.

There will be intellectual debates on whether 'Islamic splinter groups' are truly Islamic. Do they truly follow the Qur'an?

There will be intellectual debates on whether 'Christian splinter groups' are truly Christian. Do they truly follow the Bible? The New Testament?

There seems to me, in a modern liberalized Western context, is a desire by many within Islamic scholarship to interpret Jihad less violently. As the last entry I wrote opined, the Qur'an offers open-ended verses.

From Answering Islam

Scholar Noel Natan writes:

'164 Jihad Verses in the Koran Compiled by Yoel Natan

Each of the 164 Jihad verses in this list was selected based on how clearly and directly it spoke about Jihad, at least when considered in its immediate context. Most of the listed passages mention a military expedition, fighting, or distributing war spoils. Verses NOT generally listed are those that speak about aspects of Jihad other than the raiding, fighting and looting, such as:

Muhammad's poor opinion of those who did not go on Jihad, even though they were able-bodied and able financially (for instance, some verses in K 009:081-096),

The heavenly rewards for Jihadists, and

The many generic mentions of "victory" found in the Koran.'
---

I shall look at the second and third of his listings which appear relevant in regard to Jihad and cite them from the Qur'an. I will also include Quran 9: 29 cited in a previous article.

Quran 9: 29

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Quran 2: 190-193

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

2: 190

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

2: 191

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

2: 192

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

2: 193

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Quran 2: 194

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

[Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
---

The Supreme Islamic Council of America has noted

'In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.'

'Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.'
---

I can grant that The Supreme Islamic Council of America has a reasonable point that there is a defensive aspect to Jihad and Holy War.

However:

The open-ended nature of these verses means there are also interpretations possible that define  defensive Jihad and 'just war' in a much more preventive sense. This approach, with any aspect or degree of 'Holy War' to/for religious expansion is definitely and definitively not in agreement with New Testament theology, where the Kingdom of God is not of this world (John 18) and in the New Testament, it is the State, not the Church that has been given the right to hold and use the sword to maintain law and order (Romans 13).

The concept of religion-state in the Quran appears to have much more in common with the errors of church-state rule which plagued the Christian Church after the New Testament era, from Constantine (313 forward) until the era of the modern secular state.

I am in basic agreement with Mr. Wallace, in regard to political correctness.

I think political correctness in regard to Islam should be abandoned in exchange for a reasonable, scholarly evaluation of Islam, Jihad and Holy War.

Galatians & Church Fathers

Encountering page 279

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

Chronology of New Testament Books: March 19, 2013

Galatians (Estimated date 49-55 AD) is connected as a work of religious history within the Christian community from the New Testament era to the era of the early Church Fathers.

Turkey: Mediterranean

A problem of open-ended verses

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter One:The Fantacizers Cont.

Playing Make-Believe

Mr. Wallace reasons that spin doctors have sold gullible Americans a politically correct version of Islam where Islam is considered a religion of peace. (4).

Based on any research I have done on Islam (I admit I am not an Islamic scholar,  but am a Christian theologian and philosopher), which includes academic texts that are used in World Religion classes, and looking at the Qur'an; the concepts of Jihad and Holy War do belong in the context of orthodox Islam (See this website archives).

Granted, it could be argued that Jihad in an orthodox Islamic context is a modified in comparison to a radical Islam context and therefore, in general, Jihad is not administered as violently within the world of Islam. But this would be a subject of great debate.

Interestingly, I noted in an archived related article's comments section:

From

The Islamic Supreme Council of America

Cited

'The Islamic Supreme Council of America

WHAT JIHAD IS

The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving. The arabic word for war is: "al-harb".

In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), "jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.

If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.

Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.

In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.

The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.

Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.

WHAT JIHAD IS NOT

Jihad is not a violent concept.

Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.

Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.

Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications..

End citation

A counter view:

Religion of Peace

'Does the Quran really contain over a hundred verses promoting violence? The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence.

Islam apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.'

End citation

'The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.'

Therefore, this 'Jihad is not a violent concept', is not true.

Even a just war is violent.

Quote:

'Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions'

Yet: 'Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests.'

Biblical Christianity would never take up a religious war. Law and order is left to the State (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2).

Even the way 'The Islamic Supreme Council of America' described Jihad and Holy War, the open-ended nature of the Qur'an in regard to Jihad and Holy War is troublesome. It seems to me there is plenty of room for orthodox to more radical interpretations under the theology and political philosophy of Jihad and Holy War.

To quote the counter text:

'Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way).'

Yes, for example, the book of Hebrews states there is a new covenant and the old one, which would have been used within the theocracy of Israel is now obsolete. The New Testament era and forward until the restoration, is the Church age and if interpreted correctly, the Kingdom of God is not of this world system (John 18, Revelation 21-22). Therefore, there is no theology of holy war in the New Testament.

I can agree with Mr. Wallace, in the sense that Islam is generally not being accurately marketed in the Western world.

Many of us do not live in a white house

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class

Previous article of the Langer review text

Langer example:

wt= Is white

wt x=A definition of the class of things white, without relating what is white to any other term. (Based on 159). Therefore the term wt needs to be connected with other terms.

(∃! x) = wt · x (Based on 159).

There exists x equals white equals and means x. But it connects to nothing else.

However:

K=int 'houses'

(∃! wt) . (K)

There exists white and houses. There exists white houses.

October 23, 2017

Further:

The symbol wt2 can be used as the symbol for the universe where there are white houses. (161). Such as our present universe.

This means:

wt x

There are white houses. (161).
˜ (wt x)

There are not white houses. (161).

(∃a) : wt a (161).

There exists (a=houses) equals there exists white houses,

(∃!a) ⊨ wt a

There exists (a=houses) entails there exists white houses.

(∃a) : ˜ wt a (161).

There exists (a=houses) equals there is not white houses.

Relevance?

With one element to quantify, Langer provides four possible general propositions. (161).

(a) : wt a

(A) equals white houses.

(a) : ˜ wt a

(A) equals not white houses.

(∃a) : wt a

There exists (a) equals white houses exist.

(∃a) : ˜ wt a

There exists (a) equals white houses do not exist.

Langer writes that the quantifiers can be manipulated (161) so there is just one element which is white or there can be two, three, etcetera...wt2, wt3...(161)

I suppose practically, philosophically white houses can be separated from the class of non-white houses that are a sub class of houses. One could also separate houses based on actual colours as in green houses, red houses, white houses, etcetera.

Classes have sub-classes (117).

Class: Sheep
Sub-class: White sheep
Sub-class: Black sheep (117).

Class: Christians
Sub-class: Roman Catholic
Sub-class: Protestant
Sub-class: Orthodox
Sub-class: Non-denominational

Each sub-class would also not (˜ ) equal the other sub-class.

Pinterest

Pinterest