Future Does Not Belong to Those Who Slander…Islam

September 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM 3 comments

Recently, Mr. Obama stood before the United Nations, giving a speech, that for all practical purposes could have been a speech that at least attempted to halt the onslaught of radical governments like Iran’s.  It could have been used to tighten the noose around (or even place the noose!) the necks of radical Islamists bent on destruction of anyone who is not fighting with them for world caliphate. Mr. Obama’s speech could have been one in which American ideals were upheld and reinforced for the entire world to note.

Instead, we heard something markedly different from any of these things.  Mr. Obama wasted no time introducing those listening to a man to named Chris Stevens, the ambassador of the U.S. who was recently murdered by radical Islamists ostensibly protesting a short, 15-minute trailer of a movie that has not been made yet.  The movie allegedly slanders Muhammad and Islam.  I haven’t seen it and have no desire to see it.  The problem of course, is that this “trailer” has actually been out for some time and there were plenty of times when radicals could have protested it.  Why wait until the anniversary of 9/11?

At any rate, when this murder of Stevens (and three others) initially occurred, the Obama administration told the world that it was due to the above-referenced movie trailer.  Eventually, it looked as though just maybe, the trailer had nothing to do with it and was simply being used as a convenient excuse.  For another week, the administration continued to insist that the uprising was due to the movie and only after being met with evidence that they could no longer refute, finally agreed that the attacks were pre-planned terrorist attacks.

Yet, in his recent speech to the UN, he again fell back into blaming the aforementioned video when he said, “And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.” [1]  Well, which is it?  Was it a preplanned terrorist attack or was it a spontaneous attack based on the video?  Can’t be both.

Mr. Obama was also intent on expressing his belief that the “Arab Spring” was and remains a good thing with potential to become true Democracy.  The problem of course, is that the type of Democracy that has been known in America is anathema to many countries within the Middle East.  They reject this type of Democracy because it gives people too much freedom, they think.

How can an Islamic regime that is based on Sharia somehow be formed into a democratic one?  The two are completely incompatible and we already know that radical Islamists have absolutely no compunction in using force even if lethal to force the world to acknowledge and acquiesce to their demands.

To this end, Mr. Obama declares, “Now let me be clear, just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad.” [2]  That is rather an absurd statement to be made by someone who had no problem supplying materials and our military to bring down a number of regimes in the northern part of Africa, including Mubarak’s and Qadhafi’s.  The vacuum that existed in their absences was quickly filled by the Muslim Brotherhood, something we were essentially told would not happen by any number of sources.

Mr. Obama stated that the “future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt.”  That of course is a knock against Muslims who have been targeting (to the death) Coptic Christians simply because they are Coptic Christians.  I applaud that remark and I’m grateful he included it in his remarks.

Yet, Mr. Obama also seemed to hold Islam in high esteem as seen in the context of this comment:  “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

These two statements are really completely different in nature.  In the former (regarding Coptic Christians), the implication is that those who actually target (for physical violence) should have no part in the future.  The latter statement essentially states that those who slander (via words or images) should have no part in the future either.  That is troubling only because of what is understood as slander by many Muslims.  The two statements by Mr. Obama are not equal.  Muslims are limited only by physical actions that do physical harm to others (Coptic Christians), while anyone who simply voices a statement or thought that is seen as negative is placed on the same level as those who bring physical harm to another.  Ultimately, Mr. Obama is equalizing physically harming someone with speech that insults.  It is a strike against freedom of speech and even though Mr. Obama spends time in his speech attempting to explain the concept of freedom of speech, his making that one statement shows his willingness to limit speech.

As a Christian, if I simply say “Muhammad was not a prophet,” that could easily be construed as slander to a devout Muslim.  If allowed, it could become “hate speech,” punishable by jail and/or a fine.

In the U.K., people have already been arrested for this offense.  In one case, the owners of a bed and breakfast were simply having a discussion with a Muslim couple.  The Muslim couple had no problem pointing out their belief that both Jesus and Muhammad were prophets.  The couple politely disagreed with their inference that lowered Jesus to simply the status of a prophet.  For that, the Muslim couple went to the police, told them they had been offended and the couple were jailed because of it.

Is this what we want in America?  Mr. Obama says “no,” he doesn’t want that.  Then why attempt to place on the same level those who commit atrocious physical acts against Coptic Christians with those who simply say what is on their minds?  Mr. Obama seems to more than suggest that the two “offenses” are virtually the same, when they are not even close.

We’ve all heard the saying, sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me, and as a teacher, I often tried to help 4th, 5th, and 6th graders understand this same principle.  Yet, as adults, we are now being told that if we present what we believe to be the truth about aspects of Islam and Muhammad, it is likely that it may offend a Muslim and if it offends a Muslim, we shouldn’t say it.

There is nothing in Mr. Obama’s speech that came to the real defense – to the same level – of Christians and Christianity.  The closest he got to it was when he said, “But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

I suppose an argument exists that state that Mr. Obama did place on the same level the “hate” that is evidenced toward Jesus.  However, a close review of Mr. Obama’s words simply says that again, he is pointing to physical acts (i.e. desecrated images of Jesus Christ; churches that are destroyed).  These are physical acts.  Those who deny the truth of the Holocaust do so because of their hatred of Jews and that hatred leads them to horrific physical acts against Jews and Israel itself.

So we see, on one hand, while Mr. Obama condemns the physical acts of hatred seen in violence against Coptic Christians, images of Jesus, and the churches they worship in, he condemns the verbal (whether spoken, written, or drawn) slander that he sees being promulgated against Islam.  The two do not equate.

How can a free world co-exist with radical Islam?  It is impossible.  Those within that system are opposed to too many things that are already in the world.  Statues of Jesus or the Virgin Mary are considered idolatrous to these Muslims.  They believe it is their right and obligation to eliminate them.  They cannot peacefully co-exist with other groups that think it is okay to have those religious statues.

I do not agree with the statues of Jesus and especially the Virgin Mary.  However, even though I believe it tends toward idolatry, I feel absolutely no compunction to desecrate or destroy them.  Radical Muslims cannot ignore them.  They believe it is their calling to eradicate them.

By the same token, radical Muslims believe that a country like Iran, that is steeped in Sharia law, cannot allow any church or synagogue.  To do so is an affront to Islam and therefore, Allah.  They must be eradicated.  This is the way a radical Muslim thinks and nothing Mr. Obama or anyone else can say will change that way of thinking.

So how does one peacefully co-exist with radical Islam?  There is only one way and it is to do things the radical Islamic way.  So, we see parades that take place here in America where Muslims come together with foot-washing basins (I’m assuming provided by the taxpayer?) allowing them to wash their feet prior to prayer and the start of the parade.  We see the Muslim hatred on display at the 27th Annual New York Muslim Parade, where an Imam from Brooklyn got up and spoke, condemning the United States and demanding that anti-blaspheme laws be written into law that would protect Muslims from having to hear things that are stated against Islam.  You can see the video here:

In this same video, you’ll see a Senator (who is a Democrat!) as Grand Marshall of the parade get up and storm off the stage because of the hatred he was hearing.  I have to commend this man for his bravery and unwillingness to continue to be politically correct in the face of the abject hatred that was on display.

So the reality is that it would appear that radical Muslims are only willing to play with others if the others do it their way, by their rules.  Now, some might say that Christians should – of all people – be willing to curtail their speech so as not to offend.  That isn’t even the problem.  Let’s say that Christians were willing to stop speaking the truth about Muhammad and Islam.  Would atheists?  Would agnostics?  Why should people be forced to stop saying things so that others are not offended, while the group that claims to be offended continues to have the right to say whatever they wish to say?  How is that fair?  How is it balanced?  How is it equal?  It’s not, but this is the way the radical Islamist thinks.

As a Christian, I hate hearing God’s Name taken in vain as often as I do (although I will admit that since having left California, the amount of swearing in general that I hear anymore has been greatly reduced!).  I don’t like what Christmas is still recognized by the world but they want Jesus removed from it.  There are many things about this world that offends my senses, yet I understand why those things exist and it has everything to do with the fact that Satan is the god of this age.  He controls the masses.  He controls the types of music that is produced, the type of television programming that is broadcast and the types of movies that play on the silver screen.  He has marshalled all of his troops to create as much hell on earth as possible and of course, the majority of what he deigns to do are things that offend God and therefore, His servants, authentic Christians.  I understand that.  I don’t need to waste my time trying to get my lawmakers to create laws that make it punishable by fines or jail time when Jesus Christ is used as an epithet.

However, radical Muslims want exactly that and they will not be happy until they get that.  Mr. Obama unfortunately shows an extended attitude of sympathy for even radical Muslims when he places physically victimizing someone and verbally insulting someone on the same level.  They are not equal and they shouldn’t be seen as if they are that.

Sadly, when I read through Mr. Obama’s speech [4], like many politicians, he tends to use effulgence in an attempt to pretend he’s actually saying something.  He offers nothing concrete and his constant use of platitudes, while applauded by those who listened live, are simply tools to misdirect.  While he actually says nothing, it seems as though he is providing solutions, which he is not.

Even when Mr. Obama notes Iran’s attempts to gain nuclear weaponry and states, “And that’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” [5] he is really saying nothing.  We know that the U.S., along with other countries have been using “diplomatic” resources (read: talking points) to persuade Iran to terminate their plans to have nuclear weaponry, beyond that, there is nothing on the table.  There is no physical threat to Iran, which is what they would understand.  Certainly talking poses no threat at all and they’ve proved that by their constant unwillingness to stop seeking to gain nuclear armaments.

In his speech, Mr. Obama makes statements that are patently untrue as well.  The statement, “America has pursued a development agenda that fuels growth and breaks dependency, and worked with African leaders to help them feed their nations,” is ultimately a bold-faced lie.  There has been no development agenda that has fueled anything positive at all!  Tell that to the jobless that there has been growth.  How has Mr. Obama’s administration broken dependency?  In point of fact, his administration has created dependency by millions of additional people throughout America; dependency on our government to provide for them because jobs are simply not there, nor are they being created.

Ultimately, Mr. Obama’s speech before the UN was more of the same though in some cases, it was specifically nuanced, almost as if using code to tell the Muslim world that he is with them and to tell those on entitlements here in the U.S. that he is with them.  There is nothing that one could possibly gain from his speech that would tell us that he is ready to play hardball with Iran.  There is nothing in his speech that would dictate that all Muslims – both moderate and radical – need to be willing to do what it takes to co-exist with people of all faiths.

Moreover, there is nothing in Mr. Obama’s speech that would prove to me that he sees himself as leader of the free world.  His innuendo and platitude-riddled speech have shown us that Mr. Obama sees himself as an effective world leader, as if words make the difference for radical Islamists, yet he is not that at all.  The only people who take him seriously are Muslims and the Left.  Not even radical Muslims agree with him, or likely care about him.  To them, he is nothing but a voice that winds up pandering to their self-interests because he is seen as absolutely no threat to radical Islam at all.

It is all too clear that leadership needs to change.  The Left continues to think that Mr. Obama is “all that.”  Even Madonna recently stated the following:  “We have a black Muslim in the White House!” she proclaimed. “Now that is some s–t. That is amazing s–h. It means there is hope in this country. And Obama is fighting for gay rights, so support the man, go–ammit.” [6]  Isn’t she classy?

Of course, those comments gave rise to questions as to whether or not Madonna was kidding (about him being a Muslim) or if she was serious.  People will decide for themselves.  I would be happy if people would just get Mr. Obama’s ethnicity correct.  He is not black.  He is half-white with the other half being mainly of Arab descent.  Because he looks black and propagates that look, then people believe he is black.  However, he is not black.  His mother was obviously white (based on Mr. Obama’s own statements, unless he was lying), yet he appears to be more black than white, so it’s easy to forget that he is part Caucasian.

The world is laughing at America.  Somehow the Left believes they are laughing with us, but in truth, they are laughing at us.  At every turn, Mr. Obama does and says things that lower the importance of the office of president.  Whether he is ignoring UN delegates, in favor of going on “The View,” or lying about what really happened just a few weeks ago to our embassies and ambassadors in the Middle East, he has consistently shown that he is simply not suited for the job he now holds.

I’m not convinced at all that Romney would do much better, but one thing is certain to me.  If Romney is elected, I doubt that we would have too many radical Muslims throughout America and the world continuing to think that their day has arrived.

I was reading through Revelation 17 this morning and again, I was amazed to read the following words:  “For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled,” (Revelation 17:17).  That is absolutely amazing.

The leaders of the world get together and discuss and impress each other with their flowery speeches and their knowledge.  But God controls all of it.  During the last half of the coming Tribulation, notice in the above text that there will be ten kings (once the earth has been divided up into ten parts, on its way to a one-world government), that pledge their loyalty to the coming Antichrist.  They will probably think that they are doing it of their own free will, but God points out that just like Gog (Ezekiel 38-39) who thinks it is his idea alone to invade and attack Israel (something that has not yet occurred), so will these ten kings believe it is their idea to dedicate themselves to Antichrist’s purposes.  They will do this in exchange for everything he will give them.

The trouble is that their loyalty to Antichrist will happen because God will put it into their hearts to become loyal to Antichrist.  Why?  The same text tells us that their “common purpose” will fulfill the words of God.  It’s plain and simple and if this is not a verse that points to God’s full and complete sovereignty, then you are blind to the truth of who God is and how He exercises control over the earth.

God’s will is going to be done and while there are leaders who think they will be doing their own thing, it is all happening because God is fully guiding the process that will get us from point A, to point Z.  He wants to return in the form of Jesus Christ.  He wants to take Antichrist and his servants out.  He will set up His righteous rule on this earth and He will rule with a rod of iron for 1,000 years.  After that?  Judgment.

I am guilty of placing too much emphasis on man’s ability and plans.  I should be focusing much more on God’s plans because those are the plans that will come to fruition.  God is sovereign.  He is in control.  He is to be praised because of it.  The words of God will be fulfilled.

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/transcript-obama-address-to-un-general-assembly/#ixzz27VYpFqff

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/transcript-obama-address-to-un-general-assembly/

[5] Ibid

[6] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/madonna-tells-fans-support-black-muslim-white-house-article-1.1167874

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: , , , .

Christian: Are You Salt AND Light? Why Does the Global Elite Allow Radical Islam?


  • 1. Sherry  |  September 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM

    Just tonight I read about the Muslims’ agenda called The Project

    FTA: One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.

    If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.

    In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l’Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists’ Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”


    I liked your last paragraph the best in your posting. I’m looking up! Come, Lord Jesus, come!

    • 2. modres  |  September 26, 2012 at 7:19 AM

      Thanks for the information, Sherry. I’ll do some research on this myself.

      It’s interesting that Ahmadinejad said in an interview yesterday that there needs to be a new world order, one that moves away from “US bullying and domination.” He’s also been quite vocal over the past few years about the coming final Mahdi.

      It has always confused me why the powers that be allow radical Islam to flourish. Here in the U.S. – as you well know – radical Islam has made some great gains and it seems that at every turn, Islam is being pandered to, whether it’s providing foot washing basins at their yearly parade, prayer rooms at universities and colleges, or other things. These – in many cases – are provided through tax dollars yet this would absolutely NOT be happening if the groups in question were Christian or Jewish, that much is plain.

      We have atheist groups suing to have the cross removed from the Ground Zero memorial. Other atheist groups are suing to have crosses removed from cemeteries, or to stop graduating seniors from referencing Jesus Christ in their speeches. Yet, Muslims can do just about whatever ties in with their religion. They can pray in the streets. They can reference Muhammad. They can stand up and condemn the United States and call for the creation of anti-blasphemy laws that would protect them from “hate” speech.

      Why is it that legislatures are so willing to cave into the demands of Islam? It can’t be solely due to the fact that they believe placating them will somehow win them over because placating them only encourages them to push for more concessions.

      Is the global elite merely USING Islam to achieve their ends and when they are done with Islam, they will throw them aside like yesterday’s garbage?

      I don’t have a real clear answer, but obviously, IF there is a global elite that controls much of what goes on in this world, they cannot be blind to the harm that radical Islam brings to the world. That being the case, they must be using them for some purpose.

      • 3. Sherry  |  September 26, 2012 at 8:30 AM

        No, Christians and Jews do not use fear causing tactics (from litigation to terrorism) to get their way so we won’t be treated special. I’ve heard many pundits refer to this phenomena of treating the “religion” of islam with special regard as The Battered Wife’s Syndrome. I’d toss in a bit of Stockholm Syndrome to it, too, since it seems we (the West) are being held hostage by these cretans ever since 9/11.

        I believe you are making a good speculation when you mention the manipulation by global elites. They are beyond reach and they love the power play. It kinda makes me laugh because there have been these elitists from the long ago past that have not lived to see their global ideology come to fruition and yet something drives them to continue. They are, and have always been, drunk on power over the masses.

        That FP article has quite the To-Do list for islamists in the Western World and it was already 20 years in the making before it was discovered shortly after 9/11. Its a 100 year plan so they have 30 years in. It will be interesting to see, if the Lord tarries, how many years the Lord will allow them. Like you said, God will use them for His purposes. The winnowing begins.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 13,179 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 986,014 hits

%d bloggers like this: