davidbowerkingwood

Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1941

Today we observe the 74th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; an attack that was to catapult this nation into the Second World War. There are fewer of us now that can remember where we were and what we were doing when the announcement came over the radio to a stunned nation on that Sunday afternoon.

None of us could comprehend the impact of that attack on our nation and the lives of the citizens of this nation and the world. Two thousand four hundred and three people lost their lives from the attack that day and one thousand one hundred and seventy eight were wounded. More information can be found here:

Pearl Harbor Day, by David Bower

September 11, 2001

As an attack on the United States this record would stand until September 11, 2001 when Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center resulting in the deaths of two thousand nine hundred and seventy seven people and the wounding of close to ten thousand others.

There was a fundamental difference in the nature of this attack; this time we were being attacked by fighters for an international ideology and not a nation.

Is the United States in Danger from an Ideology?

When one considers an enemy it is probably best to know something about that enemy, wouldn’t you agree? The media is pummeling us with information about terrorism so what does that really mean? We are told of terrorists and the terrorist threat, of the war against terror and cautioned about all the dangers of terrorism; is this danger real, is terrorism a potential enemy of the United States?

What does terrorism actually mean, how does the dictionary define terrorism? WordNet defines terrorism as:

Noun

  “The calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear”

That would suggest to me that terrorism is not an enemy, it is a tactic used by an enemy to attempt to accomplish certain political, religious, or ideological goals. The logical question would then be; who is the enemy using this tactic, can the enemy be identified?

There seems to be a common denominator in all of this called Islam; if that is the case then is there a central core from which these tactics spring? I believe the answer to that question is yes, it is called the Quran.

There is one vitally important principle to keep in mind with regard to Islam; it is not a peaceful religion, it is a comprehensive worldview focused on complete domination of the world and has maintained that focus for almost 1,400 years with varying degrees of success.

The Quran

The Quran is the heart and soul of Islam and the driving force behind Islamic behavior. If the Quran is the driving force behind Islamic terrorism then how could Islam ever be called “a religion of peace”? There just happens to be a simple explanation for that seeming contradiction; the Quran has two opposing points of view.

There is an early phase called the Meccan phase and then a later phase called the Medinese phase. The early Meccan phase was inspired by the efforts of Muhammad during Islam’s infancy to provide protection from the more powerful forces of Judaism and Christianity. The later Medinese phase was inspired by Muhammad’s success in gathering an army and beginning his warfare against his neighbors.

These two opposing ideologies produced contradictory statements with the last written verses replacing contradictory verses written earlier according to the Islamic law of abrogation. In other word the warlike Medinese verses replaced the peaceful Meccan verses. The internet has many examples of the law of abrogation and the contradictory writings in the Quran.

Muslims in Name Only

Needless to say there are many Muslims that do not practice the harsher Medinese teachings of Islam just as there are many Christians in name only who are not born again. The danger that exists, however, is any who truly believe Allah is god and Muhammad is his prophet could, at some point, embrace the law of abrogation and become convinced that the warlike Medinese verses have replaced the more peaceful Meccan verses.

This could potentially result in a more aggressive posture toward those who are not Muslim and greater use of terrorism as a tactic.

Fundamental versus Radical Islam

When this most recent round of Islamic terrorism first began to gain the world’s attention there was confusion about what it should be called; some referred to it as fundamental Islam and others referred to it as radical Islam. I propose to you that fundamental Islam is a more precise name and better describes what is happening.

This is the Islam practiced by Muhammad during the later years of his life and reflects the warlike attitude he maintained during those years. The Islamic terrorists are more faithfully duplicating the attitude and behavior of Muhammad during the last years of his life.

Our failure to clearly identify the enemy and take appropriate steps to deal with the threat presented by this enemy is an invitation to disaster. At some point there will have to be a showdown; there will have to be another Charles Martel and a Battle of Tours (732) if the tide of Islamic aggression is to be turned again. I wonder if this battle will be called the Battle of Armageddon?