Wednesday, January 31, 2007

News Roundup 1/31/07

Today, I'd like to start publishing an almost daily "News Roundup." On the days when I have the time, I will post links to several articles and/or blogs that I have read that reveal important information, clips, stories and analysis that you may not see, hear or read about via the usual liberal left main-stream media outlets.

Little Green Footballs asks the question, "Is CBSs Logan Working with Al Qaeda?"

On second thought, make LGF a daily visit. Anything and everything you read at LGF will be very informative.

Hot Air shows videos, side by side and reveals that: "Lara Logan and her terrorist footage is too important to ignore."

Atlas Shrugs reveals, "Iran Behind Murder of U.S. Soldiers Be sure to view the video interview of Elie Lake. Many other important, newsworthy blogposts to read there, too.

MassResistance shares, "Letter from gay "adult/youth" group member in Maine reveals homosexual sex with kids as young as 14 at meetings."

Brutally Honest display an important video (long with several other blogs) and asks, "Why wouldn't you tell more people about this?

Blackfive share the sentiments of a Sergeant in Afghanistan - Stop the BS and "Let's Get It Done." Read that poignant list of things the sergeant "is tired of!"

Read Roscoe's Report because we all need a little laughter in the midst of serious news and truth! Here's a teaser:

Dear Roscoe:

What’s the difference between a Pelosi Democrat and a bucket of cold vomit?

--L. Libby

Dear L.:

That’s easy. The bucket.
It gets even better!! heh heh...

Update @ 1:00 p.m.
Jason Horowitz presents "Biden Unbound." So vicious towards their own... Wow...Speaks for itself...just go read it.
HT: Drudge

Protection From Deception

Sometimes it is quite easy to spot a false prophet; especially when they set themselves up to be the second coming of Jesus Christ.

After you read the article at the link above, can you name the obvious warning signs that would unmistakably lead you to recognize how that man has blatantly set himself up to be a false prophet?

Easy, right?

But why does this deceiver have so many followers?

We need to ask, "how is it possible that some people could be fooled so easily?"

The answer is that they are most likely not born again in Christ, and/or, they are (unfortunately) completely ignorant of what the Bible teaches.

The King James Bible has nine verses that contain the term "false prophet" in them. (They are listed below.) Each one gives another clue as to how to avoid being caught up into deception by false prophets.

There is one verse, spoken by Jesus himself, that warns us that such a phenomenon will increase as we get closer to the end times.

Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.

It helps to read the verse before and after that one:

Mar 13:21
"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, He is there!' do not believe it."

Mar 13:22
"For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."

Mar 13:23
"But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand."

(Mark 13:21-23 NKJV)

When Jesus is speaking about the "elect," he is referring to all who have confessed and repented of their sins, asked Jesus Christ into their hearts as Lord and Savior of their lives, and have received the Holy Spirit of God to sanctify and guide them into all truth.

It takes but a moment to be born again in Christ, yet a lifetime to be sanctified. When born again, our goals change. Our greatest joy is to praise and worship Jesus. We strive to obey His commandments because we love him. He is holy and we want to seek holiness.

Because we still have that free will sin nature to deal with in the flesh, we know that we aren't perfect. But Jesus challenges us all with such a goal! That's a goal that we are truly to strive for because even Jesus said, "Be perfect, just as my Father in heaven is perfect."

Mat 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (KJV)

Granted, that's certainly a heavenly goal! Perfection, in our flesh, is unachievable on this fallen earth. We can't attain God's perfection. However, we can discover what we need to know about the perfection of God, and be reconciled unto Him through the Person of Jesus Christ!

We can know what He wants us to know by reading, studying and applying His Word, the Bible to our lives daily.

We have the Holy Spirit of God guiding us in our hearts.

Do you listen to Him?

He will never guide you away from God's will for your life. Our sinful nature can do that in a heartbeat...but don't let it happen!!

Jesus' prayer to the Father, FOR US, about this daily dilemma says:

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

If we are being sanctified through God's truth, then we can escape deception!

Notice the last part of the verse in Mark 13:22, Jesus said,

" deceive, if possible, even the elect."

Knowing Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, being born again in Christ, and studying the Bible so that we can recognize false prophets protects us from being deceived!

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.

Luk 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Old Testament warnings:

Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Lam 2:14 Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee: and they have not discovered thine iniquity, to turn away thy captivity; but have seen for thee false burdens and causes of banishment.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

God Can Use Anyone...

Most likely, only a few people will hear about this new development. Why? Because it is not as "titillating" and "racy" as the original story. In fact, I predict that most of the MSM will ignore it.


Could it be because it would put Christians in a good light and we can't have that?

Could it be that the secular progressive owners of the MSM simply enjoyed imagining that most evangelical Christians were either squirming or running for the comfort of closed doors in the midst of a scandal so big that it now generates more than 1 million google sites when the man's name is typed in?

Could it be that after the dirty scandal was revealed, the MSM desired that the pain and misery inflicted upon the Christian community should remain that way?

Most people, by now will recognize that I am referring to the Ted Haggard story. The MSM (and probably the election results)had a field day with that one. Who could blame them? Perhaps many "disenfranchised Christians" stayed home because of it? Personally, I doubt it but I suppose that someone will eventually get around to doing a survey to find out.

A few posts ago, I talked about how God wants to use a "nevertheless" within our broken experiences in life. This post describes an example of that.

Recently, an AP article titled Ted Haggard's Accuser Visits New Life Church appeared in several newspapers across the country. Admittedly, I may have missed it, but I don't think that I have seen this topic discussed on any recent news broadcasts. After reading it, I think that you might see why.

Mike Jones, a gay male prostitute that had just outed their beloved pastor, Ted Haggard, was warmly welcomed and had this to say:

“I had read a lot about the church, but there’s nothing like seeing it for yourself,” Jones told the paper. “It wasn’t to rub anyone’s face in it by any means. I was wanting to get some perspective, to see where they are coming from, what the magnet is.”

He wanted to see "what the magnet is." Interesting comment, don't you think? Christians already know Who the magnet is. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Mike Jones discovered Him through all this controversy?

At my message board, a commenter asked this:

…Of the many ecclesiastic scandals in the past five years, the ‘false’ preachers, teachers, lay people, etc. had been protected by other believers, not revealed by them. That task has fallen mostly to outsiders. I’ve yet to hear a prominent Christian declare, for example, that ‘outing’ Ted Haggard was beneficial to the Body of Christ. I certainly haven’t heard it from you.

My answer?

It's a given that Haggard should have been outed! And yes, he should be removed from any leadership position at the church as well as elsewhere in the Christian community. This is biblical procedure set down in the book of Acts!

My friend Stephen Bennett, who runs a ministry to help homosexuals find Christ, was previously involved in the homosexual lifestyle over ten years ago. Upon giving his life to Christ, he left that life behind. He is now married with two children. Shortly after this scandal broke, he appeared on CNN Headline News and stated (paraphrased here) that "someone is lying and the truth needs to come out." He agreed with the gay prostitute, in that respect.

One point that I was making by drawing your attention to that article is that the congregation was more interested in the truth than in any image that their fallen pastor may have wanted to maintain. The second point is that Christians are a forgiving community. We know that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That is precisely why He sent his achieve that which we could never do on our own.

Of course, the MSM hasn't broadcasted this development over the airwaves. It's just not as sensational as when the scandal first broke.

But if more people knew about it, wouldn't they have to admit the genuineness of that Christian community?

My question is, couldn't that congregation have easily been bitter and angry at the gay prostitute for what he did? That may have been the final and permanent reaction of most people. Instead, they welcomed him warmly into their church and actually thanked him for his role in exposing Haggard. The truth wins the day for genuine matter how painful the process might be.

Plus, who knows? Perhaps a "seed" of the gospel of Christ has been planted for the future salvation of Mike Jones...

One day, I'm sure that we will read an article that Ted and his family have returned to the church to thank the congregation for their forgiveness, mercy and grace bestowed upon him and his family, despite all the hurt and harm such a public affair caused for not only that church, but Christians everywhere.

This is just another example of God turning that, which was meant to harm His Body of followers, into something good.

Genesis 50:20 - "But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive." NKJV

God can use anyone...for an ultimate good.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Shame on JIHAD Jane and Her Ilk

Couldn't have said it better than this post over at Atlas Shrugs.

It appears that Jane Hanoi (now Baghdad??) Fonda doesn't learn from her past mistakes.

At the end of its namby-pamby article
on Traitor Fonda
, the Washington Post editor asks commenters to not include any "personal attacks" in their replies.

How odd that we are told that comments should not include any personal attacks or other inappropriate comments, but Jane Hanoi (now Baghdad??) Fonda gets to have her attacking rhetoric (she was quoted as saying "mean-spirited, vengeful administration") spewed in the article.

Typical mainstream media bias...

I agree with Sean Hannity when he pegged Hanoi Jane as America's Enemy of the Week this evening on his new show, Hannity's America.
You know what they say...if the shoe fits...

Too bad Jane didn't learn from her mistake 34 years ago.

"Aid And Comfort":
Jane Fonda In North Vietnam

Once a traitor...always a traitor.

"Herlenwein" nailed the new name for Fonda:

"34 years ago they called her Hanoi Jane. So whats it gonna be now? JIHAD JANE!!!!!!"

HT: Atlas Shrugs

Trackback URL:


Little Green Footballs debuts new anti-war slogan - Just Poop.



Must see pics and comments.

HT: Free Republic

Some of the bests comments:

Mediamole: "It's going to be harder for her to reprise her role giving aid and comfort to the enemy this time. I don't think she's going to be willing to strap on the bomb belt."

Spok: "Jane is renewing her hatred for America and contempt for the military. It shows how sincere her supposed 'apology' was."
Jimmy Valentine: Previous question: "Did Hanoi Jane mention the million and a half dead bodies"

She never would; she has a limited consciousness about all of that.
Also, and not to criticize you are a little light in your numbers. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge killed in excess of 20% of their population or about 2,000,000 people. Vietnam added another 1.5 million.
Quite a harvest for Jane, Teddy Kennedy, Bobby Byrd and the rest of the commie DemocRATS that are still around from 1974.
These people are soaked with the blood if the innocents who were murdered over there. History will not be kind."

Baynative: "Jane Fonda and John Kerry effectively nullified America's laws against treason and sedition. They paved the way for Jim McDermott, Lynne Stewart and Sandy Berger."


1/29/07 Update @ 7:27 a.m. PT

And, if you think for one minute that the anti-war protesters aren't also anti-American, think again.

Go to the site link below and read the list. Just take a hard look at the groups they are represented by, and with.

Hate to say I told you so

After you visit the site and read the list, can you deny the truth of their anti-American stand?

"Wolf" of Blackfive states:

"Does anyone else see a trend here? Could they be any more ANTI-AMERICAN than this group? Ruckus Society? Communist Party? TransAfrica Forum? Socialist Party? Folks, these people had ZERO interest in the 'welfare of the troops'. NONE. NADA. It is all cover for their own interest in a SP-led society.

What is beginning to bother me most is where this may lead in 9-12 months time- spitting on troops, shouting at them in the airports, neglecting the vets. To all of you VN-era vets out there, I'm asking for your help here. Help us speak out and ensure this never happens. You've been there, you got the t-shirt- you've experienced the hatred.

I don't want to see us go that route again.

But I see it coming."

HT: Media Lies

Blackfive Trackback URL:

1/29/07 Update @ 9:14 a.m. PT

Thugs Run Amok At Capitol


Laughably, the DC police chief tries to paint this as a victory, especially the fact that he roused Capitol Hill workers to clean up the graffiti. A victory would have had the offenders cleaning it up while under arrest. Instead of issuing self-serving rationalizations, Chief Morse ought to issue an apology to Washington DC, and perhaps consider adding his resignation to it.

At the DC Indymedia site, the thugs also crowed about vandalizing a Fox News van and smashing a window at a military recruitment office.

I repeat from The Hill's weekend report:

...the sources who talked to The Hill were furious that protesters were not stopped before reaching the Capitol.

"To get that close to the Capitol building, that is ridiculous," the second source said. "[Police] were told not to arrest anyone."

The second source added that police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti.

This is an embarrassment.

HT: Michele Malkin

Trackback URL:

Update 1/29/07 @ 11:58 a.m. PT

As if all that has already been written and said were not enough, now we learn that the crazy lunatics Spray painted the Capitol steps!!

HT: Sister Toldjah

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Your Mom Gave You a Chance, Give Your Baby One

During Pro-life month, I have decided to share a link to photos of the Pro-Life parade that took place in San Francisco on January 20, 2007.

There are many great photos and signs that urge women to choose life for their unborn child. The messages are presented in a positive way, while also demonstrating the indisputable truth that abortion is murder!

One of the best, is the photo and caption where little Haley and her mother, Dori, display their powerful message for all who will see it (many of them viewing it right now). Haley, not too many years out of the womb, is another "survivor" in the era of Roe v. Wade.

Your Mother Gave You a Chance, Give Your Baby One!

Another pro-life event:

Sacramento -- Nearly 500 pro-life Californians rallied for unborn babies' rights outside the State Capitol on January 23, 2007. They stood against California's Democrat-controlled Legislature and liberal Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, together, are forcing taxpayers to fund nearly 100,000 abortions a year, for any and all reasons.

The rally was sponsored by the California ProLife Council.

At this rally, one of the best photos was the one where two teenaged girls hold signs that say:

It's a Child Not a Choice! and Would You Abort Them ?
(pic of two children)

Why Me?
(pic of a baby in utero)

The caption underneath the photo informs us of the scientific fact that life begins at conception, and is not just a "bunch of cells or protoplasm" that should be disgarded through abortion. Much of this technology was not available, and thus, not as evident back in 1973:

Modern technology's 3-D and 4-D images of babies in the womb have convinced these girls that abortion is akin to murder. They're not buying the "choice" argument!

Another poignant photo is the one of a boy and young girl holding a sign that says:

Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.

The caption below that photo:

Aren't these signs great? The Rally for Life was covered by three TV crews, as children and their parents proclaimed the sanctity of life and prayed for change in California!

HT: Campaign for Children and Families

P.S. If you go to the Campaign website, you will see the latest news. How ridiculous is it that a California Democratic Legislator named Sally Lieber wants to outlaw spanking (and punish parents with jail time!) but supports killing a baby in the womb???

Moral Relativism....anyone??


Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Whether moral or epistemological, relativism constitutes a denial of the capacity of the human mind and reason to arrive at truth.

Also see Pro-Life Blogs

Trackback URL:

Friday, January 26, 2007

A Prayer Away From A "Nevertheless"

I thought that President Bush's State of the Union address was really good. He hit upon many of the important points of our day. He showed strong, unflinching, leadership ability in regards to the war in Iraq; despite the naysayers in Congress, the press, and all the critics of the war. Webb's Democratic response lacked any new ideas and was simply a tool for him to unleash his hatred and contempt towards George Bush.

I have been reading a book called Facing Your Giants by Max Lucado. He is one of my favorite Christian writers! While reading chapter 12, which is on the subject of "strongholds," I couldn't help but see some similarities between what David faced when he looked at Jerusalem (which, at the time was occupied by the Jebusites...see 2 Samuel 5) and what our nation, troops and president face with regards to the current terrorism stronghold within Iraq today.

A "stronghold" is defined as:
1. A fortified place or a fortress.
2. a. A place of survival or refuge: one of the last strongholds of an age-old tradition.
b. An area dominated or occupied by a special group or distinguished by a special quality: a feminist stronghold; a stronghold of democracy.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

In 2 Samuel 5, we read how many times David had to defeat the Philistines, who, when they heard that David had captured the city came back again and again to take it away.

This is similar to what is happening today in Iraq. There are Jebusites (Al Qaida, Saddam loyalists etc.) and Philistines (Iran, Syria) who want to defeat the liberation efforts going on to accomplish victory for a free and democratic state of Iraq. In his speech, President Bush captured how important our efforts are, and how necessary our victory will be over there:

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq – because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country – and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united – in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq – and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field – and those on their way.

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great effort through.

In the Democrats (and some RINOS) typical style, the "Jim Webbs" of our country don't want to give additional troops the chance to take back this stronghold within Baghdad.

Sure...this is a democratic republic and people are entitled to their opinions about the war. But I haven't seen nor heard one single naysayer come up with a better alternative!

Cut and run isn't a viable alternative. It would be disasterous, for all of the reasons that our president outlined in his speech.

What is sad to me is the fact that so many on the "other side of the aisle" (you know...the ones who claimed that they want to work in a "bipartisan" way) in Congress are like "the Jebusites" towards President Bush. I will explain while utilizing some excerpts from Lucado's book.

First, I want to make it clear that I am not using these illustrations to say that there is an exact comparison between David of the Bible and President Bush.

However, I am comparing the actions needed to defeat the stronghold each one faces. Second, in the biblical account, David occupies the city, whereas, in Iraq, the point is to allow liberty to occupy the capital city of Baghdad.

Lucado mentions that strongholds are often a tool of Satan. And, we have seen such a thing occurring through the Islamo-fascist ideology that possess the terrorists in Iraq. Lucado states:

He (Satan) lives up to both sides of his compound name: strong enough to grip like a vise and stubborn enough to hold on. He clamps like a bear trap - the harder you shake, the more it hurts.

Strongholds: old, difficult, discouraging challenges.

That's what David faced when he looked at Jerusalem. When you and I think of the city we envision temples and prophets. We picture Jesus teaching, a New Testament church growing. We imagine a thriving, hub-of-history capital.

When David sees Jerusalem in 1000 BC, he sees something else. He sees a millennium-old, cheerless fortress, squatting defiantly on the spine of a ridge of hills. A rugged outcropping elevates her. Tall walls protect her. Jebusites indwell her. No one bothers them. Philistines fight the Amalekites. Amalekites fight the Hebrews. But the Jebusites? They are a coiled rattlesnake in the desert. Everyone leaves them alone.
Doesn't that sound eerily similar to the former Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq?

Didn't the United Nations let that "rattlesnake in the desert" continue on, defying 17 U.N. resolutions?

Didn't Saddam kick out the weapons inspectors?

Didn't we eventually find out the real reason WHY the U.N. didn't want to go to war in Iraq in the first place?

Once the U.S. Britain, and the rest of the coalition countries were there, we discovered indisputable evidence of the ongoing Oil for Food Scandal...starring...several of the U.N. "ambassadors" and Hussein's corrupt sons!

History tells us that the region of Iraq suffered under more than 30 years of dictatorship from a brutal thug like Hussein. He paid Palestinian "suicide-homicide bomber" families hefty sums in order to get young men to straps bombs on themselves, creep into Israel, and blow themselves up...with the goal of taking as many Jews with them, in death, as they could.

I could go on and on with a whole list of atrocities. Mass unmarked graves, torture chambers and rape rooms...

Why was the U.N. content to sit by and just let that horrendous regime cause such immense suffering and murder of its people?




A corrupt and brutal dictator in Iraq.

Corruption at the U.N.

Pretty much sums up the Oil for Food Scandal.

Back to Lucado sharing David's story:

Everyone leaves them (the Jebusites) alone. Everyone, that is, except David. The just-crowned king of Israel has his eye on Jerusalem. He's inherited a divided kingdom. The people need, not just a strong leader, but strong headquarters.

We didn't know that 9/11 was going to happen. But God knew. He chose a leader for America during the divisive 2000 election, and again in 2004 who would stick to his decisions and not waver in the midst of controversy, disagreement and mockery.

Lucado cites 2 Samuel 5:6-9 (NKJV):

2Sa 5:6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke to David, saying, "You shall not come in here; but the blind and the lame will repel you," thinking, "David cannot come in here."

2Sa 5:7 Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion (that is, the City of David).

2Sa 5:8 Now David said on that day, "Whoever climbs up by way of the water shaft and defeats the Jebusites (the lame and the blind, who are hated by David's soul), he shall be chief and captain."* Therefore they say, "The blind and the lame shall not come into the house."

2Sa 5:9 Then David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the City of David. And David built all around from the Millo* and inward.

Lucado continues:

This regrettably brief story tantalizes us with the twofold appearance of the term stronghold. In verse 7, "David took the stronghold," and in verse 9, "David dwelt in the stronghold."

Substitute David's name with the term "Liberty" and we see what our war efforts in Iraq are to accomplish.


Jerusalem meets the qualifications of one: an old, difficult, and discouraging fortress. From atop the turrets, Jebusite soldiers have ample time to direct arrows at any would-be wall climbers. And discouraging? Just listen to the way the city-dwellers taunt David. "You'll never get in here...Even the blind and lame could keep you out!" (5:6 NLT).

The Jebusites pour scorn on David like Satan dumps buckets of discouragement on you:

* "You'll never overcome your bad habits."
* "Born white trash; gonna die white trash."
* "Think you can overcome your addictions? Think again."

[Note: In Lucado's book, he discusses the individual strongholds that can ruin our lives if we let the enemy of our souls build a stronghold there. But for the sake of this essay, I will simply say that we have all heard the mocking voices of the terrorists, as well as those in our own country who hate President Bush.]


If you've heard the mocking David heard, your story need the word David's has. Did you see it? Most hurry past it. Let's not. Pull out a pen and undeline this twelve-letter masterpiece.


"Nevertheless David took the stronghold..."

Granted, the city was old. The walls were difficult. The voices were discouraging...Nevertheless David took the stronghold.

Now, apply those same words to Iraq and Baghdad.

Nevertheless LIBERTY took the stronghold...

Granted, the city (of Baghdad) was old. The walls (enemies gathered there) are difficult. The voices were discouraging (both of our enemies and our liberal left media)... Nevertheless, LIBERTY took the stronghold.

THAT is our goal in Iraq!

David turns a deaf ear to old voices. Those mockers strutting on the wall tops? David ignores them. He dismisses their words and goes about his work.

That's a true sign of a great leader...

We need to continue to pray for success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else we are needed to fight this war against Islamo-fascism! Are you fellow Christians??


Switching gears a bit, let's look at Lucado's question to us all:

Wouldn't you love God to write a nevertheless in your biography?

We all need a nevertheless. And God has plenty to go around. Strongholds mean nothing to him. Remember Paul's words? "We use God's mighty weapons, not mere worldly weapons, to knock down the Devil's strongholds" (2 Cor. 10:4 NLT)


Remember Nehemiah? Five hundred years later, he headed up a building program to restore the fortifications after Jerusalem was in ruins and many people were in captivity. Critics tell him to stop. They plan to interfere with his work. They list all the reasons the stones can't and shouldn't be restacked. But Nehemiah won't listen to them. Nehemiah knew how to press the "mute button" on his dissenters. (see Neh. 6:3)

What about the individual, personal strongholds in your own life?


Two types of thoughts continually vie for your attention. One proclaims God's strengths; the other lists your failures.

Why listen to the mockers...when you can, with the same ear, listen to the voice of God?

I know many victorious Christians who overcame some deep and difficult strongholds within their own lives! Alcohol, drugs, illicite sex, name it.

Just like David, they found fresh hope in God through His strength!

The Person of Jesus Christ indwelling within the soul of the believer has the power to overcome any stronghold in your life...if you allow Him to work within you through the power of the Holy Spirit!

What a promise we have in Jesus Christ!!

Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 1:14 who* is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Eph 1:15 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints,

Eph 1:16 do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers:

Eph 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,

Eph 1:18 the eyes of your understanding* being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,

Eph 1:19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power

Eph 1:20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,

Eph 1:21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

Eph 1:22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,

Eph 1:23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

1:10 NU-Text and M-Text omit both.
1:14 NU-Text reads which.
1:18 NU-Text and M-Text read hearts.


Who knows, you may be a prayer away from a nevertheless. God loves to give them.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

President Bush State of the Union Address

The president's address
Entire text of Bush speech to America

Posted: January 23, 2007
9:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2007

Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

This rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour – when decisions are hard and courage is tested. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies – and the wisdom to face them together.

Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate – and I congratulate the Democratic majority. Congress has changed, but our responsibilities have not. Each of us is guided by our own convictions – and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this Nation's prosperity ... to spend the people's money wisely ... to solve problems, not leave them to future generations ... to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.

We are not the first to come here with government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on – as long as we are willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity – and this is the business before us tonight.

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy – and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth – in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs ... so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move – and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government but with more enterprise.

Next week, I will deliver a full report on the state of our economy. Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.

First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 – and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and balance the federal budget.

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour – when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate – they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process ... expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress … and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

Finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience – and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet we are failing in that duty – and this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this Chamber knows this to be true – yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and good will, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid – and save Social Security.

Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act – preserving local control, raising standards in public schools, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.

Now the task is to build on this success, without watering down standards ... without taking control from local communities ... and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility to turn around failing schools ... and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose something better. We must increase funds for students who struggle – and make sure these children get the special help they need. And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future, and our country is more competitive, by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America’s children – and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law.

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available healthcare. When it comes to healthcare, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. We will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills.

At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, my proposal would mean a substantial tax savings – $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making healthcare affordable for more Americans.

My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our Nation’s governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts ... help small businesses through Association Health Plans ... reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology ... encourage price transparency ... and protect good doctors from junk lawsuits by passing medical liability reform. And in all we do, we must remember that the best healthcare decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America – with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol – and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border – and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in – and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists. We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers – so there is no excuse left for violating the law. We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. And we need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country – without animosity and without amnesty.

Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate – so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America’s environment clean. For too long our Nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists – who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments ... raise the price of oil ... and do great harm to our economy.

It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply – and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power – by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol – using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

We have made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies in Washington and the strong response of the market. Now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years – thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 – this is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks – and conserve up to eight and a half billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but will not eliminate it. So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment – and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of citizens across our Nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. And we have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty as well – to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that terrorists can cause. We have had time to take stock of our situation. We have added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us – unless we stop them.

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled – that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since Nine-Eleven has never been the same.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented – but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in Nine-Eleven is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a Nation at war.

In the minds of the terrorists, this war began well before September 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats ... instruct with bullets and bombs ... and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." And Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah – a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans ... kill democracy in the Middle East ... and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the sixth year since our Nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.

This war is more than a clash of arms – it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our Nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and come to kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom – societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies – and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security . . . we must.

In the last two years, we have seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East – and we have been sobered by the enemy’s fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution ... drove out the Syrian occupiers ... and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections – choosing a transitional government ... adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world … and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity we should never forget.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon’s legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia – and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

We are carrying out a new strategy in Iraq – a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down terrorists, insurgents, and roaming death squads. And in Anbar province – where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them – we are sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now is the time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad – and they must do so. They have pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party. They need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and Coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation – to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens ... to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq ... to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life ... to hold local elections ... and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secured. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq – because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country – and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united – in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq – and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field – and those on their way.

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. And this is why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. And we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military – so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle – because we are not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations – and we are working with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf States to increase support for Iraq's government. The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. With the other members of the Quartet – the UN, the European Union, and Russia – we are pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive – the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, we are pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. And we will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma – and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur.

American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger, poverty, and disease – and that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa – and because you funded our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in three short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over five years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries. I ask that you fund the Millennium Challenge Account, so that American aid reaches the people who need it, in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat. And let us continue to support the expanded trade and debt relief that are the best hope for lifting lives and eliminating poverty.

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self sacrifice of the American people. You see this spirit often if you know where to look – and tonight we need only look above to the gallery.

Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine – but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth – or the duty to share his blessings with others. He has built a brand new hospital in his hometown. A friend has said of this good hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo our fellow American.

After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children's videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born – and in just five years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others – producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Julie says of her new project: "I believe it's the most important thing that I've ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe." We are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur – Julie Aigner-Clark.

Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train. With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks ... pulled the man into a space between the rails ... and held him as the train passed right above their heads. He insists he’s not a hero. Wesley says: "We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We got to show each other some love." There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.

Tommy Rieman was a teenager pumping gas in Independence, Kentucky, when he enlisted in the United States Army. In December 2003, he was on a reconnaissance mission in Iraq when his team came under heavy enemy fire. From his Humvee, Sergeant Rieman returned fire – and used his body as a shield to protect his gunner. He was shot in the chest and arm, and received shrapnel wounds to his legs – yet he refused medical attention, and stayed in the fight. He helped to repel a second attack, firing grenades at the enemy's position. For his exceptional courage, Sergeant Rieman was awarded the Silver Star. And like so many other Americans who have volunteered to defend us, he has earned the respect and gratitude of our whole country.

In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America – and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country – and resilient, too. We have been through a lot together. We have met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence – because the State of our Union is strong ... our cause in the world is right ... and tonight that cause goes on.

HT: World Net Daily

Monday, January 22, 2007

Sad Day in America's History

Today marks the 34th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision that led to legalized infanticide in the wombs of would-be mothers. No matter what "side" a living person falls on in this issue, the one thing they can't deny is the reality of this phrase:

Choose life! Your mother did!

I will be back later this evening to post some interesting contrasts on this issue that I have observed over the past few days. If anyone wishes to post his/her opinion(s) on this issue, please do so. It is one of the most volatile issues of our time. Debate often get heated and nasty, but please try to keep a measure of civility. We are debating an issue, not attacking people for their beliefs and decisions. I know. It is very difficult to keep on the issue at hand without getting emotional about it. However, I truly believe that we can temper that emotion with hard facts and evidence in support of the pro-life side.

For now, here are links to my previous blogposts on the horrific holocaust... that is... abortion:

The Tragic, Inhumane, Ugliness of Abortion

Macroevolution as "Fact" Reeks of Hopelessness

A Dilemma at the Checkout Stand

Abortion Kills Babies, Hurts Women

What is a Baby Photo Worth?

The Issue That Won't Go Away

Unafraid of Condemning the Deaths of Innocents

Choose Life, Your Mother Did

Culture of Life? Or Death?

Morality is not Ideology

And, from an earlier post called, "As Sorrow Permeates Your Being":

WHERE IS THE CHURCH? A few years ago I was ministering at an atheist gathering in Washington, D.C. During this meeting, I heard a few words spoken from the platform that I cannot forget. The atheist told the hundreds gathered, "The church is a sleeping giant!" This statement is certainly true, but sad. When the church is silent, sin is celebrated openly and publically. Awake, arise, and obey the Lord!



by Judge Roy Moore

America the Beautiful, or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride; I'm glad they'll never see.
Babies piled in dumpsters, Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty, your house is on the sand.
Our children wander aimlessly poisoned by cocaine,
Choosing to indulge their lusts, When God has said abstain.
From sea to shining sea, our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love
And a need to always pray.
So many worldly preachers tell lies about our Rock,
Saying God is going broke so they can fleece the flock.
We've kept God in our temples, How callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool, And Heaven is His throne.
We've voted in a government that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges
Who throw reason out the door,
Too soft to place a killer in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
Before he leaves the womb.
You think that God's not angry, That our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait
Before His judgment comes?
How are we to face our God, From Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do, But stem this evil tide?
If we who are His children, will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face and mend our evil way;
Then God will hear from Heaven
And forgive us of our sins,
He'll heal our sickly land and those who live within.
But, America the Beautiful, If you don't then you will see,
A sad but Holy God withdraw His hand from Thee.


"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV

We need Christian Cultural Warriors like never before in the history of America...are you willing to stand up for the truth??

I pray wholeheartedly that you will!

Friday, January 19, 2007

Trading Our Thoughts & Desires For God's

Since I haven't included a devotional post in quite a while, I have decided to post one that I received via email today. It's really good and a challenging subject for all Christian believers.

I will say that I don't agree with the idea that everyone and/or anyone can receive the gift of "speaking in tongues" that Keller mentions in the devotional. There is a Bible verse that tells us that God gives spiritual gifts "severely, as He wills." (See 1 Corinthians 12:1-11)

So, just as a person may have a physical gift of singing beautifully, so it is with any spiritual gift. If anyone desires a more detailed explanation about what I have stated about "speaking in tongues," I would be happy to share my reasoning behind it, based upon what the Bible tells us.

However, rather than getting into any long, drawn-out arguments about that topic, let's just say that any who thinks differently about it will just have to "agree to disagree" with me in that area.

Keller makes some excellent points about what it means to "die to self" and how important it is to do this on a daily basis. It is my prayer that this devotional speaks to you as well as it spoke to me!



HOW to "die to self" daily. Dying to self daily is what Paul spoke of so often. It is how we walk in the "Spirit" and not in the "flesh" as we are instructed in Romans Chapter 8 and Galatians Chapter 5. The whole issue of dying to self daily is the absolute key to living a victorious life in Christ. It literally means that you have to die to self DAILY! This is why so many people who are saved, love the Lord, live beneath their blessings and in constant turmoil. This is how people who know Christ as their Savior end up committing adultery, cheat people, lie, get in bondage to drugs, alcohol, food, sex, gambling, shopping, greed, and anything else people become enslaved to. They don't die to self each day and end up walking in the "flesh" and NOT the "Spirit."

People wonder all the time how a pastor, a deacon, an elder, someone in the leadership of God's church could leave their wife and run off with another woman. People wonder all the time how a Sunday School teacher who loves the Lord could neglect her children and family because of alcohol. Maybe you are wondering how you could be raising your hands to Jesus, speaking in tongues, and being used by God to touch lives one day, and sinning against God the next. The answer is when you fail to die to self each day, you are walking in the "flesh," not the "Spirit."

The question that needs to be addressed today is HOW does a person "die to self?"

The first step is an action, something that you must do.

Dying to self is a conscious choice that you must make, one nobody can make it for you. It is the act of surrendering your life completely to Christ. The reason God's Word talks about dying to self DAILY is because it is something that we must do each and every day. Our life with Christ is not for an hour or two on Sunday, but literally 24/7. It is critical to make the choice to die to self each and every day.

Since this is something you must do each day, I do it and counsel others to do it the moment you wake up in the morning. As I first open my eyes to a new day, before I do anything I take a moment and thank God for a day that was not promised to me and make the conscious choice to completely surrender my life to Him that day. I literally tell God to take my life and use it for His glory that day, to use me as an instrument of blessing. When we get saved, we not only ask Christ into our heart and life by faith, but we give our very lives to Him. In dying to self each day, we are reaffirming that our life doesn't belong to us any longer, it is His.

At the moment we are born again, we receive the promise of the "Comforter," or the Holy Spirit. Each Believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit to empower them and guide them throughout their life. It is literally the power of Almighty God living within each person who has given their heart and life to Christ by faith. As you surrender your life afresh to Christ at the start of each day, you are allowing your life to be controlled by the Holy Spirit and not by your flesh. It is no longer you but God that is in complete control of your life. You have traded in your thoughts and desires for God's thoughts and desires. It is not YOU that is living, it is Christ living in you as Paul wrote in Galatians 2:20.

This whole process takes only a few minutes of time alone with the Lord, but it is the most important few minutes of your day. When you don't go through this process each and every morning, you wake up, start going through your day, and not only does it feel like the day is weighing you down, you don't have that confidence. The reality is, the day IS weighing you down because you are operating in your strength and not the Lord's, and the lack of confidence comes from the fact you are in control of your life and not Christ.

Sadly, some people go days, even weeks without really dying to self, and it usually takes the consequences of their poor choices during that time to bring them back to the Lord. Like I say often, your way doesn't work, God's way works! Let me give you some advice out of my love for you. You can never run your life better than God can. The sooner you realize that, the more peace, joy, and abundance you will know during this journey through life.

There is probably no more critical a message I will ever share with you in living a victorious life in Christ than the one today. All of the benefits in God's Word exist and are available to those who believe, but there is a price to pay and that price is our very life surrendered, yielded to the Lord. It is a choice, an act, that nobody can force you to commit. The important thing for you to hear today is that it is not something you do just once and forget about. It is something that you must do DAILY! EVERY DAY! WITHOUT FAIL! Each morning when you wake up, you have to make the conscious choice to die to self, to surrender your life to Christ, and walk in the "Spirit" instead of the "flesh."

I love you and care about you so much. The difference between a person who knows the Lord as their Savior living a defeated life and a victorious life, lies in what I am sharing with you today. Please, save your money. You don't need to waste it listening to Tony Robbins or the motivational speakers of the world lie to you that you can do it on your own, and you don't need to spend it on books and tapes from preachers who preach a feel good Gospel but forget to tell you about the sacrifice involved. The key to living a victorious life in Christ lies in you waking up each morning and making the conscious choice to die to self and allow Christ to control your life.

The fact is, the Bible says that if you have asked Christ into you heart and life by faith, it is no longer your life, that it belongs to Him. The Word says we have been "bought with a price." So in essence, each day you are only giving the Lord what already belongs to Him anyway. Remember my message in the past on what really happens when we get saved? We are literally giving our life to Christ. It is no longer ours, but is now His. The reality is, each morning when we wake up, we have to make the choice to die to self so that Christ can live within us during that day. If we don't do this each and every day when we wake up, we will soon find ourselves walking in the "flesh" and not the "Spirit."

I will be praying for you today. Praying that you will sit down and read this message over and over. This is the meat and potatoes of the Word. This is where the rubber meets the road in regard to our Christian walk. This is the part that nobody really wants to talk about since we love the benefits of being saved, but we really don't want to think about the price that Jesus paid or the sacrifice we have to make each day. You MUST think about it since it is the difference between you living a defeated life and living a victorious life. To live that victorious life in Christ, to walk in His victory, you have to die to self each day so that you are walking in the "Spirit" and not the "flesh" so that it is Christ, not you that lives.

In His love and service,
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller

***ARE YOU 100% CERTAIN WHERE YOU WILL SPEND ETERNITY? The fact is you will die one day. At that moment, you will either spend eternity with the Lord or be cast into everlasting darkness forever separated from God your creator. To know for certain you will be forever with Jesus, go to: Plan of Salvation

(C) Copyright 2007, Bill Keller Ministries. All rights reserved.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Child Abuse Disguised as "Art"??

Kingdom Advancer has a very detailed and informative post up on a subject that should make us all sit up and take notice.

KA stated:
It's about protecting a young girl (actress Dakota Fanning) and standing up for what's right.

I heard about this on the Sean Hannity radio show today. I think it's disgusting and awful...and I can't believe the parents would let their 12 year old daughter do such a role! It's amount of money or fame is worth putting a child through that!

There was a so-called "psychologist" on Hannity's radio show today who tried to point out that this film would "bring light to a much needed subject"...blah blah blah. Yeah right...have a young girl going through a simulating rape scene is the right way to do that???


Paul Petersen, former child star who played Jeff Stone on The Donna Reed Show, has now become an advocate for child actors through his A Minor Consideration organization. It was formed in 1990 to give aid and support to young performers---Past, Present and Future.

Paul countered everything that the promoter of this terrible film was saying on Hannity's show. He pointed out that the girl had to have endured some awful things from the director of the film in order to make the scene "realistic."

Please visit Kingdom Advancer's Wrong In So Many Ways post to see all the reasons why we should be concerned about child actress, Dakota Fanning, as well as any other child actors out there who could be subjected to "Indecent, Inappropriate, Inexcusable, Irresponsible, Unacceptable, Unwise, Unlawful child abuse" disguised as "art."

Understanding Islamic Obsession With Jihad

At first, I was tempted to cut and paste only portions of the following essay in response to Jody's comment in the Troops Ask For Time, Patience and Understanding thread. Then, I thought that if I had written an essay on the subject, I would want people to share it in it's entirety.

So, below is the entire essay. We can discuss certain parts of it, if anyone visiting and posting comments here desires to do so.

I had found several points in it that were discussed in the Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West documentary. (Although I don't have the time to do it right now, perhaps I can bold those sections later.)

Since the people who were interviewed in the documentary (Obsession) actually lived through and experienced what jihad is, as well as what the term "jihad" means to the Wahabbi sect, (and how it is promoted through propagandist methods to generations of Muslims from small children all the way up to adult); I would be more inclined to believe that what they have to say (especially via this excellent documentary) way over and above a nasty, liberal left blogger whose high opinion of himself seems to get in the way of any kind of civil dialogue.

Yes! I'd listen to them rather than the uninformed bathering of a liberal left atheist who comes over here and chooses to hurl insults (especially at Michele Malkin?? Someone I doubt he even KNOWS PERSONALLY??) instead of answering the direct questions posed to him!! It's just more proof that no matter how intellectually elite a person thinks he is...he can still lack wisdom and proper etiquette when participating in a discussion.

But hey! On the other hand, isn't that what blogging is all about? If the lefties stayed at their blogs, and the righties stayed at their blogs...we can't learn from each other...Amen?

Besides, anyone reading the essay will probably learn a lot from it...


The Quranic Concept of War 1


“The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.”2 — Majid Khadduri

Political and military leaders are notoriously averse to theory, but if there is a theorist about war who matters, it remains Carl von Clausewitz, whose Vom Kriege (On War) has shaped Western views about war since the middle of the nineteenth century.”3 Both points are likely true and problematic since we find ourselves engaged in war with people not solely imbued with western ideas and values or followers of western military theorists. The Hoover Institution’s Paul Sperry recently stated, “Four years into the war on terror, US intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.”4

Would this be surprising? When it comes to warfighting military audiences tend to focus on the military and power aspects of warfare; the tangibles of terrain, enemy, weather, leadership, and troops; quantifiables such as the number of tanks and artillery tubes—the correlation of forces. Analysts steer toward the familiar rather than the unfamiliar; people tend to think in their comfort zones. The study of ideology or philosophy is often brushed aside, it’s not the “stuff of muddy boots;” it is more cerebral than physical and not action oriented. Planners do not assess the “correlation of ideas.” The practitioners are too busy.

Dr. Antulio Echevarria recently argued the US military does not have a doctrine for war as much as it has a doctrine for operations and battles.5 The military has a deficit of strategic, and, one could add, philosophic thinking. In the war against Islamist terrorism, how many have heard of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Project”?6 Is the political philosophy of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was in fact well-grounded in western political theory and rigorously rejected it, studied in our military schools? Are there any implications to his statement in 1981 that “Iran . . . is determined to propagate Islam to the whole world”?7

To understand war, one has to study its philosophy; the grammar and logic of your opponent. Only then are you approaching strategic comprehension. To understand the war against Islamist terrorism one must begin to understand the Islamic way of war, its philosophy and doctrine, the meanings of jihad in Islam—and one needs to understand that those meanings are highly varied and utilitarian depending on the source.

With respect to the war against the global jihad and its associated terror groups, individual terrorists, and clandestine adherents, one should ask if there is a unique method or attitude to their approach to war. Is there a philosophy, or treatise such as Clausewitz’s On War that attempts to form their thinking about war? Is there a document that can be reviewed and understood in such a manner that we may begin to think strategically about our opponent. There is one work that stands out from the many.

The Quranic Concept of War

The Quranic Concept of War, by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army provides readers with unequalled insight. Originally published in Pakistan in 1979, most available copies are found in India, or in small non-descript Muslim bookstores.8 One major point to ponder, when thinking about The Quranic Concept of War, is the title itself. The Quran is presumed to be the revealed word of God as spoken through his chosen prophet, Mohammed. According to Malik, the Quran places warfighting doctrine and its theory in a much different category than western thinkers are accustomed to, because it is not a theory of war derived by man, but of God. This is God’s warfighting principles and commandments revealed. Malik’s attempts to distill God’s doctrine for war through the examples of the Prophet. By contrast, the closest that Clausewitz comes to divine presentation is in his discussion of the trinity: the people, the state, and the military. In the Islamic context, the discussion of war is at the level of revealed truth and example, well above theory—God has no need to theorize. Malik notes, “As a complete Code of Life, the Holy Quran gives us a philosophy of war as well. . . . This divine philosophy is an integral part of the total Quranic ideology.”9


In The Quranic Concept of War, Malik seeks to instruct readers in the uniquely important doctrinal aspects of Quranic warfare. The Quranic approach to war is “infinitely supreme and effective . . . [and] points towards the realization of universal peace and justice . . . and makes maximum allowance to its adversaries to co-operate [with Islam] in a combined search for a just and peaceful order.”10 For purposes of this review, the term “doctrine” refers to both religious and broad strategic approaches, not methods and procedures. Malik’s work is a treatise with historical, political, legalistic, and moralistic ramifications on Islamic warfare. It seemingly is without parallel in the western sense of warfare since the “Quran is a source of eternal guidance for mankind.”11

The approach is not new to Islamists and other jihad theorists fighting according to the “Method of Mohammed” or hadith. The lessons learned are recorded
and form an important part of Quranic surah and jihadist’s scholarship.12 Islamic scholars both Muslim and non-Muslim will find much to debate in terms of Malik’s view of jihad doctrine and Quranic warfare. Malik’s work is essentially modern scholarship; although he does acknowledge the classical views of jihad in many respects.13

Malik’s arguments are clearly parochial, often more editorial than scholarly, and his tone is decidedly confident and occasionally supremacist. The reach and influence of the author’s work is not clear although one might believe that given the idealism of his treatise, his approaches to warfare, and the role and ends of “terror” his text may resonate with extremist and radicals prone to use terroristic violence to accomplish their ends. For that reason alone, the book is worth studying.


The preface by Allah Bukhsh K. Brohi, the former Pakistani ambassador to India, offers important insights into Malik’s exposition. In fact, Brohi’s 13-page preface lays the foundation for the books ten chapters. Malik places Quranic warfare in an academic context relative to that used by western theorists. He analyzes the causes and objects of war, as well as war’s nature and dimensions. He then turns attention to the ethics and strategy of warfare. Toward the end of the book he reviews the exercise of Quranic warfare based on the examples of the Prophet Mohammed’s military campaigns and concludes with summary observations. There are important jus en bellum and jus ad bellum implications in the author’s writings, as well as in his controversial ideas related to the means and objectives of war. It is these concepts that warrant the attention of planners and strategist.

Zia-Ul-Haq (1924-88), the former President of Pakistan and Pakistani Army Chief of Staff, opens the book by focusing on the concept of jihad within Islam and explaining it is not simply the domain of the military:

Jehad fi sabilallah is not the exclusive domain of the professional soldier, nor is it restricted to the application of military force alone.

This book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the Quranic philosophy on the application of military force within the context of the totality that is JEHAD. The professional soldier in a Muslim army, pursuing the goals of a Muslim state, cannot become ‘professional’ if in all his activities he does not take the ‘colour of Allah,’ The nonmilitary citizen of a Muslin state must, likewise, be aware of the kind of soldier that his country must produce and the only pattern of war that his country’s armed forces may wage.14

General Zia states that all Muslims play a role in jihad, a mainstream concept of the Quran, that jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim ummah, and is not restricted to soldiers. General Zia emphasizes how the concept of Islamic military professionalism requires “godly character” in order to be fully achieved. Zia then endorses Malik’s thesis as the “only pattern of war,” or approach to war that an Islamic state may wage.

Battling Counter-initiatory Forces

In the preface Ambassador Brohi details what might be startling to many readers. He states that Malik has made “a valuable contribution to Islamic jurisprudence” or Islamic law, and an “analytic restatement of the Quranic wisdom on the subject of war and peace.” Brohi implies that Malik’s discussion, though a valuable new version, is an approach to a theme already well developed.15

Brohi then defines jihad, “The most glorious word in the Vocabulary of Islam is Jehad, a word which is untranslatable in English but, broadly speaking, means ‘striving’, ‘struggling’, ‘trying’ to advance the Divine causes or purposes.” He introduces a somewhat cryptic concept when he explains man’s role in a “Quranic setting” as energetically combating forces of evil or what may be called, “counter-initiatory” forces which are at war with the harmony and the purpose of life on earth.16 For the true Muslin the harmony and purpose in life are only possible through man’s ultimate submission to God’s will, that all will come to know, recognize, and profess Mohammed as the Prophet of God. Man must recognize the last days and acknowledge tawhid, the oneness of God.17

Brohi recounts the classic dualisms of Islamic theology; that the world is a place of struggle between good and evil, between right and wrong, between Haq and Na-Haq (truth and untruth), and between halal and haram (legitimate and forbidden). According to Brohi, it is the duty of man to opt for goodness and reject evil. Brohi appeals to the “greater jihad,” a post-classical jihad doctrine developed by the mystical Sufi order and other Shia scholars.18

Brohi places jihad in the context of communal if not imperial obligation; both controversial formulations:

When a believer sees that someone is trying to obstruct another believer from traveling the road that leads to God, spirit of Jehad requires that such a man who is imposing obstacles should be prevented from doing so and the obstacles placed by him should also be removed, so that mankind may be freely able to negotiate its own path that leads to Heaven.” To do otherwise, “by not striving to clear or straighten the path we [Muslims] become passive spectators of the counter-initiatory forces imposing a blockade in the way of those who mean to keep their faith with God.19
This viewpoint appears to reflect the classic, collective duty within jihad doctrine, to defend the Islamic community from threats—the concept of defensive jihad. Brohi is saying much more than that; however, he is attempting to delineate the duty—the proactive duty—to clear the path for Islam. It is necessary not only to defend the individual believer if he is being hindered in his faith, but also to remove the obstacles of those counter-initiatory forces hindering his Islamic development. This begs the question of what is actually meant by the initiatory forces. The answer is clear to Brohi; the force of initiative is Islam and its Muslim members. “It is the duty of a believer to carry forward the Message of God and to bring it to notice of his fellow-men in handsome ways. But if someone attempts to obstruct him from doing so he is entitled as a matter of defense, to retaliate.”20

This formulation would appear to turn the concept of defense on its head. To the extent that a Muslim may proclaim Islam and proselytize, or Islam, as a faith, seeks to extend its invitation and reach—initiate its advance—but is unable to do so, then that represents an overt threat justifying—a defensive jihad.
According to Brohi, this does not result in the “ordinary wars which mankind has been fighting for the sake of either revenge or for securing . . . more land or more booty . . . [this] striving must be [is] for the sake of God. Wars in the theory of Islam are . . . to advance God’s purposes on earth, and invariably they are defensive in character.” In other words, everywhere the message of God and Islam is or can be hindered from expansion, resisted or opposed by some “obstruction” (a term not clearly defined) Islam is intrinsically entitled to defend its manifest destiny.21

While his logic is controversial, Brohi is not unique in his extrapolation. His theory in fact reflects the argument of Rashid Rida, a conservative disciple of the Egyptian Muhammad Abduh. In 1913 Abduh published an article evaluating Islam’s early military campaigns and determined that Islam’s early neighbors “prevented the proclamation of truth” engendering the defense of Islam. “Our religion is not like others that defend themselves . . . but our defense of our religion is the proclamation of truth and the removal of distortion and misrepresentation of it.”22

No Nation is Sovereign

The exegesis of the term jihad is often debated. Some apologists make clear that nowhere in the Quran does the term “Holy War” exist; that is true, but it is also irrelevant. War in Islam is either just or unjust and that justness depends on the ends of war. Brohi, and later Malik, make clear that the ends of war in Islam or jihad are to fulfill God’s divine purpose. Not only should that be a holy purpose, it must be a just war in order to be “Holy War.”23

The next dualism Brohi presents is that of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the house of submission and the house of war. He describes the latter, as “perpetuating defiance of the Lord.” While explaining that conditions for war in Islam are limited (a constrained set of circumstances) he notes that “in Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His will and work against the very purpose of the creation of mankind.”24 Brohi quotes the Quranic manuscript Surah, al-Tawba:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.25

Acknowledging western critics who believe that Islam is in a state of perpetual struggle with the non-Islamic world, Brohi counters in a clearly dismissive tone by explaining that man is the slave to God, and defying God is treason under Islamic law. Those who defy God should be removed from humanity like a cancerous growth. Islam requires believers “to invite non-believers to the fold of Islam” by using “persuasion” and “beautiful methods.” He continues, “the first duty” of a Muslim

is dawa, a proclamation to conversion by “handsome ways.” It is only after refusing dawa and the invitation to Islam that “believers have no option but in self-defense to wage a war against those threatening aggression.”

Obviously, much turns on how threats and aggression are characterized. It is difficult to understand, however, based on the structure of his argument, that Brohi views non-believers and their states as requiring conversion over time by peaceful means; and when that fails, by force. He is echoing the doctrine of Abd al-Salam Faraj, author of Al-Farida al-Ghaibah, better known as The Neglected Duty, a work that is widely read throughout the Muslim world.26

Finally, Brohi examines the concept of the ummah and the international system. “The idea of Ummah of Mohammad, the Prophet of Islam, is incapable of being realized within the framework of territorial states.” This is a consistent view that underpins many works on the concept of the Islamic state.27 For Muslims, the ummah is a transcendent religious and cultural society united and reflecting the unity (tawhid) of Islam; the idea of one God, indivisible, one community, one belief, and one duty to live and become godly. According to the Prophet, “Ummah participates in this heritage by a set pattern of thought, belief and practice . . . and supplies the spiritual principle of integration of mankind—a principle which is supra-national, supra-racial, supra-linguistic and supra-territorial.”28

With respect to the “law of war and peace in Islam” Brohi writes it “is as old as the Quran itself. . . . ” In his analysis of the law of nations and their international dealings, he emphasizes that in “Islamic international law this conduct [war and peace] is, strictly speaking, regulated between Muslims and non-Muslims, there being, from Islamic perspective, no other nation. . . . ” In other words, war is between Muslims and non-Muslims and not in actuality between states. It is transnational. He adds, “In Islam, of course, no nation is sovereign since Allah alone is the only sovereign in Whom all authority vests.”29 Here Brohi is echoing what Islamic scholars such as Majid Khadduri have described as the “dualism of the universal religion and universal state that is Islam.”30

The Divine Philosophy on War

General Malik begins by categorizing human beings into three archetypes: those who fear Allah and profess the Faith; those who reject the Faith; and those who profess, but are treacherous in their hearts. Examples of the Prophet and the instructions to him by God in his early campaigns should be studied to fully understand these three examples in practice. The author highlights the fact that the “divine philosophy on war” was revealed gradually over a 12 year period, its earliest guidance dealing with the causes and objects of war, while later guidance focused on Quranic strategy, the conduct of war, and the ethical dimensions of warfare.31

In Chapter Three, Malik reviews several key thoughts espoused by western scholars related to the causes of war. He examines the ideologies of Lenin, Geoffery Blainey, Quincy Wright, and Frederick H. Hartman each of whom spoke about war in a historical or material context with respect to the nature of the state system. Malik finds these explanations wanting and turns to the Quran for explanation, “war could only be
waged for the sake of justice, truth, law, and preservation of human society. . . . The central theme behind the causes of war . . . [in] the Holy Quran, was the cause of Allah.”32

The author recounts the progression of revelations by God to the Prophet that “granted the Muslims the permission to fight . . . .” Ultimately, God would compel and command Muslims to fight: “Fight in the cause of Allah.” In his analysis of this surah Malik highlights the fact that “new elements” were added to the causes of war: that in order to fight, Muslims must be “fought first;” Muslims are not to “transgress God’s limits” in the conduct of war; and everyone should understand that God views “tumult and oppression” of Muslims as “worse than slaughter.”33
This oppression was exemplified by the denial of Muslim’s right to worship at the Sacred Mosque by the early Arab Koraish, people of Mecca. Malik describes the situation in detail, “. . . the tiny Muslim community in Mecca was the object of the Koraish tyranny and oppression since the proclamation of Islam. . . . The enemy repression reached its zenith when the Koraish denied the Muslims access to the Sacred Mosque (the Ka’aba) to fulfill their religious obligations. This sacrilegious act amounted to an open declaration of war upon Islam. These actions eventually compelling the Muslims to migrate to Medina twelve years later, in 622 AD. . . .”34

Malik argues that the pagan Koraish tribe had no reason to prohibit Muslim worship, since the Muslims did not impede their form of worship. This historical example helps to further define the concept that “tumult and oppression is worse than slaughter” and as the Quran repeats, “graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Malik also notes the Quran distinguishes those who fight “in the cause of Allah and those who reject Faith and fight in the cause of evil.”35 In terms of Quranic just war theory, war must be waged “only to fight the forces of tyranny and oppression.”36

Challenging Clausewitz’s notion that “policy” provides the context and boundary of war; Malik says it is the reverse, “‘war’ forced policy to define and determine its own parameters” and since that discussion focuses on parochial issues such as national interests, and the vagaries of state to state relations it is a lesser perspective. In the divine context of the Quran war orients on the spread of “justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.” According to the author war is to be fought aggressively, slaughter is not the worst evil. In the course of war every opportunity for peace should be pursued and reciprocated. That is every remonstrance of peace by the enemies of Islam, but only as prescribed by the Quran’s “clear-cut philosophy and methodology” for preserving peace.37

Understanding the context in which the Quran describes and defines “justice and peace” is important. Malik refers the reader to the battle of Badr to elucidate these principles. There is peace with those pagans who cease hostilities, and war continues with those who refuse. He cites the following surah, “as long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them, for Allah doth love the righteous.”38 Referring to the precedent setting Hodaibayya treaty in the ninth year of the hijra, or pilgrimages to Mecca, Malik outlines how Allah and the Prophet abrogated those treaties with the pagan Meccans.

Pagans who accepted terms voluntarily without a treaty were respected. Those who refused, the Quran directed, were to be slain wherever found. This precedent and “revelations commanded the Muslims to fulfill their treaty commitments for the contracted period but put them under no obligations to renew them.”39 It also established the precedent that Muslims may conclude treaties with non-believers, but only for a temporary period.40 Commenting on western approaches to peace, Malik views such approaches as not standing the “test of time” with no worthwhile role to play even in the future.41 The author’s point is that peace between states has only secular, not divine ends; and peace in an Islamic context is achieved only for the promotion of Islam.

As the Prophet gained control of Mecca he decreed that non-believers could assemble or watch over the Sacred Mosque. He later consolidated power over Arabia and many who had not yet accepted Islam, “including Christians and Jew, [they] were given the option to choose between war and submission.” These non-believers were required to pay a poll-tax or jizya and accept the status of dhimmitude [servitude to Islam] in order to continue practicing their faith. According to Malik the taxes were merely symbolic and insignificant. In summarizing this relationship the author states, “the object of war is to obtain conditions of peace, justice, and faith. To do so it is essential to destroy the forces of oppression and persecution.”42 This view is in keeping with that outlined by Khadduri, “The jihad, it will be recalled, regarded war as Islam’s instrument to transform the dar al-harb into dar al-Islam . . . in Islamic legal theory, the ultimate objective of Islam is not war per se, but the ultimate establishment of peace.”43

The Nature of War

Malik argues that the “nature and dimension of war” is the greatest single characteristic of Quranic warfare and distinguishes it from all other doctrines. He acknowledges Clausewitz’s contribution to the understanding of warfare in its moral and spiritual context. The moral forces of war, as Clausewitz declared, are perhaps the most important aspects in war. Reiterating that Muslims are required to wage war “with the spirit of religious duty and obligation,” the author makes it clear that in return for fighting in the way of Allah, divine, angelic assistance will be rendered to jihad warriors and armies. At this point The Quranic Concept of War moves beyond the metaphysical to the supernatural element, unlike anything found in western doctrine. Malik highlights the fact that divine assistance requires “divine standards” on the part of the warrior mujahideen for the promise of Allah’s aid to be met.44

The author then builds upon the jihad warrior’s role in the realms of divine cause, purpose, and support, to argue that in order for the Muslim warrior to be unmatched, to be the bravest and the most fearless; he can only do so through the correct spiritual preparation, beginning with total submission to God’s will. The Quran reveals that the moral forces are the “real issues involved in the planning and conduct of war.”45 Malik quotes the Quran: “Fighting is prescribed for you . . . and ye dislike a thing which is good for you and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”
The Quran instructs the jihad warrior “to fight . . . with total devotion and never contemplate a flight from the battlefield for fear of death.” The jihad warrior,
who dies in the way of Allah, does not really die but lives on in heaven. Malik emphasizes this in several Quranic verses. “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. . . . Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the Presence of the Lord.” Malik also notes that “Not equal are those Believers . . . Allah has granted a higher grade to those who strive and fight . . . .”46
The Quranic dimensions of war are “revolutionary,” conferring on the jihad warrior a “personality so strong and overbearing as to prove themselves equal to, indeed dominate, every contingency in war.”47 This theme of spiritual preparation and pure belief has appeared in the prolific jihad writings of Usaman Dan Fodio in the early 1800s and repeated by the Saudi writer Abdallah al-Qadiri in 1992, both emphasizing the role of the “greater jihad.” Becoming a purer and more disciplined Muslim serves the cause of Islam better in peace and war.48

Malik, like Brohi, acknowledges critics who say that Islam has been “spread by the sword,” but he responds that Islam is spread through restraint in war and in “the use of force [that] have no parallel.” He then argues that restraint in warfare is a “two-sided affair.” Where the enemy (not defined) fails to exercise restraints and commits “excesses” (not defined) then “the very injunction of preserving and promoting peace and justice demands the use of limited force . . . . Islam permits the use of the sword for such purpose.”49 Since Malik is speaking in the context of active war and response to the “excesses of war” it is unclear what he means by “limited force” or response.

The author expands on the earlier ideas that moral and spiritual forces are predominate in war. He contrasts Islamic strategic approaches with western theories of warfare oriented toward the application of force, primarily in the military domain, as opposed to Islam where the focus is on a broader application of power. Power in Malik’s context is the power of jihad, which is total, both in the conduct of total war and in its supporting strategy; referred to as “total or grand strategy.” Malik provides the following definition, “Jehad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral and spiritual to attain the objectives of policy.”50 The power of jihad brings with it the power of God.
The Quranic concept of strategy is therefore divine theory. The examples and lessons to be derived from it may be found in the study of the classics, inspired by such events as the battles of the Prophet, e.g., Badr, Khandaq, Tabuk, and Hudaibiyya. Malik again references the divine assistance of Allah and the aid of angelic hosts. He refers to the battles of Hunain and Ohad as instances where seeming defeat was reversed and Allah “sent down Tranquility into the hearts of believers, that they may add Faith to their Faith.” Malik argues that divine providence steels the jihadi in war, “strengthens the hearts of Believers.” Calmness of faith, “assurance, hope, and tranquility” in the face of danger is the divine standard.51

Strike Terror into their Hearts

Malik uses examples to demonstrate that Allah will strike “terror into the hearts of Unbelievers.”52 At this point he begins to develop his most controversial and conjectural Quranic theory related to warfare—the role of terror. Readers need to understand that the author is thinking and writing in strategic terms, not in the vernacular
of battles or engagements. Malik continues, “when God wishes to impose His will on his enemies, He chooses to do so by casting terror into their hearts.”53 He cites another verse, “against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts) of the enemies of Allah . . . .” Malik’s strategic synthesis is specific: “the Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, known or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy.”54 Terror is an effect; the end-state.
Malik identifies the center of gravity in war as the “human heart, [man’s] soul, spirit, and Faith.” Note that Faith is capitalized, meaning more than simple moral courage or fortitude. Faith in this sense is in the domain of religious and spiritual faith; this is the center of gravity in war. The main weapon against this Islamic concept of center of gravity is “the strength of our own souls . . . [keeping] terror away from our own hearts.” In terms of achieving decisive and direct decisions preparing for this type of battlefield first requires “creating a wholesome respect for our Cause”—the cause of Islam. This “respect” must be seeded in advance of war and conflict in the minds of the enemies. Malik then introduces the informational, psychological, or perception management concepts of warfare. Echoing Sun Tzu, he states, that if properly prepared, the “war of muscle,” the physical war, will already be won by “the war of will.”55 “Respect” therefore is achieved psychologically by, as Brohi suggested earlier, “beautiful” and “handsome ways” or by the strategic application of terror.
When examining the theme of the preparatory stage of war, Malik talks of the “war of preparation being waged . . . in peace,” meaning that peacetime preparatory activities are in fact part of any war and “vastly more important than the active war.” This statement should not be taken lightly, it essentially means that Islam is in a perpetual state of war while peace can only be defined as the absence of active war. Malik argues that peace-time training efforts should be oriented on the active war(s) to come, in order to develop the Quranic and divine “Will” in the mujahid. When armies and soldiers find limited physical resources they should continue and emphasize the development of the “spiritual resources” as these are complimentary factors and create synergy for future military action.

Malik’s most controversial dictum is summarized in the following manner: in war, “the point where the means and the end meet” is in terror. He formulates terror as an objective principal of war; once terror is achieved the enemy reaches his culminating point. “Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose . . . .” Malik’s divine principal of Islamic warfare may be restated as “strike terror; never feel terror.” The ultimate objective of this form of warfare “revolves around the human heart, [the enemies] soul, spirit, and Faith.”56 Terror “can be instilled only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed . . . . It is essential in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate [the enemies] Faith.” Those who are firm in their religious conviction are immune to terror, “a weak Faith offers inroads to terror.” Therefore, as part of preparations for jihad, actions will be oriented on weakening the non-Islamic’s “Faith,” while strengthening the Islamic’s. What that weakening or “dislocation” entails in practice remains ambiguous. Malik concludes, “Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent.” The soul of man can only be touched by terror.57

Malik then moves to a more academic discussion of ten general categories inherent in the conduct of Islamic warfare. These categories are easily translatable and recognizable to most western theorists; planning, organization, and conduct of military operations. In this regard, the author offers no unique insight. His last chapter is used to restate his major conclusions, stressing that “The Holy Quran lays the highest emphasis on the preparation for war. It wants us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost. The test . . . lies in our capability to instill terror into the hearts of our enemies.”58

Evaluation of The Quranic Concept of War

While the extent and reach of Malik’s thesis cannot be confirmed in the Islamic world neither can it be discounted. Though controversial, his citations are accurately drawn from Islamic sources and consistent with classical Islamic jurisprudence.59 As Malik notes, “Quranic military thought is an integral and inseparable part of the total Quranic message.”60 Policy planners and strategists striving to understand the nature of the “Long War” should consider Malik’s writings in that light.

Malik makes clear that the Quran provides the doctrine, guidance, and examples for the conduct of Quranic or Islamic warfare. “It gives a strategy of war that penetrates deep down to destroy the opponents’ faith and render his physical and mental faculties totally ineffective.”61 Malik’s thesis focuses on the fact that the primary reason for studying the Quran is to gain a greater understanding of these concepts and insights. The Prophet Mohammed, as the Quran attests, changed the intent and objective of war—raising the sphere of war to a Godly plane and purpose; the global proclamation and spread of Islam. This obviously rejects the Clausewitizian politics and policy dyad: that war is simply policy of the state.

Quranic warfare is “just war.” It is jus en bellum and jus ad bellum if fought “in the way of Allah” for divine purposes and the ends of Islam. This contradicts the western philosophy of just war theory. Another important connotation is that jihad is a continuum, across peace and war. It is a constant and covers the spectrum from grand strategy to tactical; collective to the individual; from the preparatory to the execution phases of war.

Malik highlights the fact that the preservation of life is not the ultimate end or greatest good in Quranic warfare. Ending “tumult and oppression,” achieving the war aims of Islam through jihad is the desired end. Dying in this cause brings direct reward in heaven for the mujahid, sacrifice is sacred. It naturally follows that death is not feared in Quranic warfare; indeed, “tranquility” invites God’s divine aid and assistance. The “Base” of the Quranic military strategy is spiritual preparation and “guarding ourselves against terror.”62 Readers may surmise that the training camps of al Qaeda (The Base) were designed as much for spiritual preparation as military. One needs only to recall the example of Mohammed Atta’s “last night” preparations.63
The battleground of Quranic war is the human soul—it is religious warfare. The object of war is to dislocate and destroy the [religious] “Faith” of the enemy. These principals are consistent with objectives of al Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations. “Wars in the theory of Islam are . . . to advance God’s purposes on earth, and invariably they are defensive in character.”64 Peace treaties in theory are
temporary, pragmatic protocols. This treatise acknowledges Islam’s manifest destiny and the approach to achieving it.
General Malik’s thesis in The Quranic Concept of War can be fundamentally described as “Islam is the answer.” He makes a case for war and the revitalization of Islam. This is a martial exegesis of the Quran. Malik like other modern Islamists are, at root, romantics. They focus on the Quran for jihad a doctrine that harkens back to the time of the Prophet and the classical-jihadist period when Islam enjoyed its most successful military campaigns and rapid growth.

The book’s metaphysical content borders on the supernatural and renders “assured expectations” that cannot be evaluated or tested in the arena of military experience. Incorporating “divine intervention” into military campaigns, while possibly advantageous, cannot be calculated as an overt force multiplier. Critics may also point to the ahistorical aspect of Malik’s thesis; that Islam is in a state of constant struggle with the non-Islamic world. There are examples of Muslim armies serving side by side with Christian armies in combat and campaigns are numerous, with Iraq being but a recent example.65

Malik’s appraisal of the Quran as a source of divine revelation for victory in war can likewise be criticized by historical example. Were it fully true and operationalized then the 1,400 years of Islamic military history might demonstrate something beyond its present state. War and peace in Islam has ebbed and flowed as has the conduct of war across all civilizations, ancient and modern. Islam as an independent military force has been in recession since 1492, although the latest jihadist’s threat of terror against the international system is, at least in part, a possible reaction to this long recession. Malik’s thesis essentially recognizes this historical pattern; indeed, Malik’s book may be an attempt to reverse this trend. The events of 9/11 may be seen as a validation of Malik’s thesis regarding the spiritual preparation and the use of terror. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were intended to seed “respect” (fear) in the minds of Islam’s enemies. These acts were not only directed at Western non-believers, but also the Muslim leaders who “profess the faith but are treacherous in their hearts” (allies and supporters of the United States). The barbarity of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and others in Iraq reflect a focus on extreme terror designed to wilt the will of Islam’s enemies.
Malik and Brohi both emphasize the defensive nature of jihad in Islam, but this position appears to be more a defense of a manifest destiny inevitably resulting in conflict. In their rendering of jihad both, not surprisingly, owe an intellectual debt to the Pakistani Islamist theorist, Abu al-Ala al-Mawdudi. Al-Mawdudi is an important intellectual precursor to the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb, and other modern Islamic revivalists. As al-Mawdudi notes, “Islamic jihad is both offensive and defensive” oriented on liberating man from humanistic tyranny.66

The author’s most controversial and, perhaps, most noteworthy assertion, is the distinction of “terror” as an ends rather than as a means to an end. The soul can only be touched by terror. Malik’s divine principal of war may be summarized in the dictum “strike terror; never feel terror.” Yet, he does not describe any specific method of delivering terror into the heart of Islam’s enemies. His view of terror seems to conflict with his earlier, limited, discussion of the concept of restraint in warfare and what actually
constitutes “excesses” on the part of an enemy. It also conflicts with the character and nature of response that the author says is demanded. Malik leaves many of these pertinent issues undefined under a veneer of legitimating theory.

In spite of certain ambiguities and theoretical weaknesses, this work should be studied and valued for its insight and analysis relate to jihadists’ concepts and the asymmetric approach to war that radical Muslims may adapt and execute. With respect to global jihad terrorism, as the events of 9/11 so vividly demonstrated, there are those who believe and will exercise the tenets of The Quranic Concept of War.

1. Brigadier S. K. Malik, The Quranic Concept of War (Lahore, Pakistan: Associated Printers, 1979). Quranic War or Quranic Warfare refers to Malik’s treatment in his book.
2. Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins Press, 1955), p. 64.
3. R. D. Hooker, “Beyond Vom Kriege: The Character and Conduct of Modern War,” Parameters, 35 (Summer 2005), 4.
4. Paul Sperry, “The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo,” FrontPage Magazine, 14 December 2005,
5. Antulio Echevarria, Towards an American Way of War (Carlisle, Pa.: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, March 2004).
6. Patrick Poole, “The Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project,’” FrontPage Magazine, 11 May 2006,
7. Farhand Rajaee, Islamic Values and World View: Khomeyni on Man the State and International Politics,” (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1983), p 71.
8. Irfan Yusuf, “Theories on Islamic Books You Wouldn’t Read About,” Canberra Times, 21 July 2005, opinion&story_id=410105&y=2005&m=7.
9. Malik, pp. I-ii.
10. Ibid., p. 1.
11. Ibid., pp. I-ii.
12. See for example the discussion by Dr. Mary R. Habeck, “Jihadist Strategies in the War on Terrorism,” The Heritage Foundation, 8 November 2004,
13. David Cook, Understanding Jihad, (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 2005). There is approximately 1,400 years of jihad scholarship beginning with Mohammed and his military campaigns. Classical approaches to jihad as described by Mohammed’s successors, Abu Bakr for example, and the challenges presented by the struggles of succession to Mohammed.
14. Malik “Forward.”
15. Ibid., “Preface,” p. I.
16. Ibid., p. I. Note the Christian concept of the Trinity contained in the Nicene Creed is considered polytheistic according to Islam. The Trinity is not tawhid.
17. John Esposito, Islam, the Straight Path (3d ed.; New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998), pp. 12-14, 89.
18. Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 72; Khadduri, pp. 65, 70-72; Cook, Understanding Jihad, pp. 35-39.
19. Brohi, “Preface,” p. ii.
20. Ibid., p. iii.
21. Ibid., p. iii.
22. Cook, pp. 95-96. Cook places these concepts of jihad doctrine in the lineage of contemporary and radical theory.
23. The indexed term for jihad is redirected to the term “Holy War” in this classic book of Islamic law or sharia by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, ed. and trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Beltsville, Md.: Amana Publication, 1997).
24. Malik, “Preface,” p. v.
25. Ibid., p. vii.
26. Cook, p. 107; Christoper Henzel, “The Origins of al Qaeda’s Ideology: Implications for US Strategy,” Parameters, 35 (Spring 2005), 69-80.
27. Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State: An Analysis of the Ideological Controversy in Pakistan (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987).
28. Malik, “Preface,” p. x. While in the Western tradition the state is viewed as a territorial and political body, based on “temporal elements such as shared memory, language, race, or the mere choice of its members.” Khomeini rejected this view, seeing the secular, political state and nationalism as Western constructs of imperialistic design to damage the cohesion of the ummah and impede the “advancement of Islam.” Rajaee, pp. 7, 67-71.
29. Ibid., p. x.
30. Khadduri, p. 63.
31. Malik, p. 6.
32. Ibid., p. 20.
33. Ibid., pp. 20-21. (Baqara: 190).
34. Malik, p. 11.
35. Ibid., p. 22. (Baqara: 217) and (Nissaa: 76).
36. Ibid., p. 23.
37. Ibid., p. 29.
38. Malik, p. 29. (Tauba: 7).
39. Ibid., p. 31.
40. Khadduri, p. 212. Jurists disagree on the allowable duration of treaties, the operative concept is that the dar al-Harb must be reduced to dar al-Islam over time.
41. Malik, p. 27.
42. Ibid., pp. 33-34.
43. Khadduri, p. 141.
44. Malik, p. 40
45. Ibid., pp. 37-38. (Baqara: 216).
46. Ibid., pp. 42-44. (Al-I-Imran: 169-70) and (Nissa: 95).
47. Ibid., pp. 42-44.
48. Cook, pp. 77, 124.
49. Malik, p. 49.
50. Ibid., p. 54.
51. Ibid., p. 57.
52. Malik, p. 57.
53. Ibid., p. 57.
54. Ibid., p. 58.
55. Ibid., p. 58.
56. Ibid., pp. 58-59.
57. Ibid., p. 60.
58. Ibid., p. 144.
59. Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam (Princeton, N.J.: Markus Weiner Publishers, 1996), pp. 44-51, 128.
60. Malik, p. 3.
61. Ibid., p. 146.
62. Ibid., p.58.
63. “In Hijacker’s Bags, a Call to Planning, Prayer and Death,” Washington Post, 28 September 2001.
64. Malik, “Preface,” p. iii.
65. Four notable examples are the Crimean War where French, British and Ottoman Forces allied against the Russians; Fuad Pasha of the Ottoman Army served as a coalition partner with French Army during the 1860 Rebellion in Syria; more recently Muslim Arab and Kabyle soldiers served in the Harkis of the French Army in the French-Algerian War; and, of course, today in Iraq. Malik would address some of these events as alliances of convenience serving Islam’s interests in accord with the Quran and Sharia Law, others as takfir or treason.
66. Cook, pp. 99-103. Peters, p. 130.
The Reviewer: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph C. Myers is the Senior Army Advisor to the Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. A graduate of the US Military Academy he holds a Master of Arts from Tulane University. In 2004 he completed a Senior Army Fellowship at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. Previous assignments include Army Section Chief, US Military Group, Argentina. He also served as Chief of the South America Division and Senior Military Analyst for Colombia at the Defense Intelligence Agency.