Long before he murdered more than a dozen people at Fort Hood, Major Nidal Malik Hasan argued that the Qur'an supports offensive Jihad, and that Muslims in the U.S. military may be conflicted due to the teachings of Islam. In this video, we examine some of the PowerPoint slides Hasan used in a presentation given to Army doctors more than two years before the attack on Fort Hood.
To view all of Hasan's slideshow, click here.
I am slightly confused.
On the second last page there is a statement that reads, "I love the koran and I love being a muslim, but I dont want to live under islamic rule".
This seems to me to be a massive amount of hypocracy.
Here we are trying to save people from under the draconian rule of islamic rule, which you say you dont want to be under, yet you say if we try to save people from it, then by all means lets have a good ole shootout with everyone, lets blow ourselves and everyone else up, lets do a truck car bike bomb.
Even though we are fighting the taliban and alquada, which most people agree,(even muslims) are an evil bunch of people who need taking down seriously, because they are muslims, you will fight us to defend them.
Islam really is the seed of satan, and all muslims who choose to stay in and defend islam really are the children of satan.
Leave islam, join us under the banner of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and be saved on the last day.
Peace and Love
William Paley the great christian apologist, who lived nearly 200 years from now, has an interesting chapter about Islam in his book: "Evidences of Christianity" (Chapter IX Sec. 3). (His works can be downloaded from archive.org, EoC can be found in vol 2 of "The Works of William Paley")
There he makes an interesting observation (among others) about islam, which i want to share with you:
"Of the institution which Mahomet joined with this fundamental doctrine, and of the Koran in which that institution is delivered, we discover, I think, two purposes that pervade the whole, viz. to make converts, and to make his converts soldiers. The following particulars, amongst others, may be considered as pretty evident indications of these designs:
1. When Mahomet began to preach, his address to the Jews, to the Christians, and to the Pagan Arabs, was, that the religion which he thoght was no other than what had been originally their own [...]
2. The author of the Koran never ceases from describing the future anguish of unbelievers, their despair, regret, penitence, and torment. It is the point which he labours above all others. And these descriptions are conceived in terms which will appear in no small degree impressive even to the modern reader of an English translation. Doubtless they would operate with much greater force upon the mindes of those to whom they were immediately directed. The terror which they seem well caclulated to inspire, would be to many tempers a powerful application.
3. On the other hand; his voluptuous paradise; his robes of silk, his palaces of marble, his rivers, and shades, his groves and couches, his wines, his dainties; and, above all, his seventy-two virgins assigned to each of the faithful, of resplendent beauty and eternal youth, intoxicated the imaginations, and seized the passions, of his Eastern followers.
4. But Mahomet's highest heaven was reserved for those who fought his battles, or expended their fortunes in his cause.[...]
5. His doctrine of predestination was applicable, and was applied by him, to the same purpose of fortifying and of exalting the courage of his adherents. - "If any thing of the matter had happened unto us, we had not been slain here. Answer; If ye had been in your houses, verily they would have gone forth to fight, whose slaughter was decreed, to the places where they died." (c. iii.)
6. In warm regions, the appetite of the sexes is ardent, the passion for inebriating liquors moderate. In compliance with this distinction, although Mahomet laid a restraint upon the drinking of wine, in the use of women he allowed an almost unbounded indulgence. Four wives, with the liberty of changing them at pleasure, together with the persons of all his captives, was an irresistible bribe to an Arabian warrior.[...] How different this from the unaccommodating purity of the Gospel! How would Mahomet have succeeded with the Christian lesson in his mouth,-"Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart?" It must be added, that Mahomet did not venture upon the prohibition of wine, till the fourth year of the Hegira, or the seventeenth of his mission, when his military successes had completely established his authority. The same observation holds of the fast of the Ramadan, and of the most laborious part of his institution, the pilgrimage to Mecca."
I cutted the citations of the koran out, which he used to make his point.
aussie christian i agree with your comment except that
"all muslims who choose to stay in and defend islam really are the children of satan."
because everyone even the muslims are the children of God.
and yes this man was quite a hipocrite, but any muslim who does not want to live under Islamic rule and consider themselves muslims are hipocrites (even if they are not living in the free world).
and i hate that he came here to live off of American tax dollars paid by proud US citizens to support thier country not only in internal affairs but also international (such as the taliban problem in Afgan)
I hope people will wake up in the free world and see the tyranny and barbarity brought on by Sharia Law (the proclaimed law of God, alahsas).
We have to continue to pray for them my brothers and sisters so that they may see, know, and feel the Truth so that the Truth may set them free. And they can only come to know that Truth through the Truth itself, the Great Forgiver of Sins. (not to be mistaken with the great diceiver, or as I like to call him the great Taqi'ya Artist, hes like the Da Vinci (leonardo and the book) of lies)
Bismi Allah Yasouh Al Masih, Rahmana ou Rahime.
You said:"...everyone even the muslims are the children of God."
Try saying that while standing on one foot and reading John 8.
Leonard, thanks for that interesting quote from Paley.
This is an excellent website. I come here often now and watch the videos with great interest.
Hi Retsamknup and Semper Paratus...
just one thought thate I had to assume some years ago... the fact I, ounce turned away from mie father and wantted to be (and was) adopted by someone else, did nott make me less son off my father...
well... this is: while I refused to live withe my father and lived withe other person thate I wished to bee my father, I defenetely was not behaving as my fathers son... butt was he less my father due to thate?...
obviously iff someone to be "father" of someone, this someone mustte existe... there's no "father" withoute a "son", and in thate case, when I behaved away from my father, he "was not" mie father... butt...
whate do you think? can this be an analogie from wahte you bothe habe expressed?
God bless you bothe...
I am honeslty more outraged by the fact that Mr Hassan was allowed to stay in the Military after this presentation. Who ever was in charge of the investigation should be tried right along side Mr Hasan.
I beleive (but I could be wrong on the timming), he was a captian when he gave this presentation, amd when he was being investigated becasue of his email exchange with a Al Quida linked Imam. What was the response to all these warning signs. They promoted him from Captian to MAJOR. Just another FUBAR, and SNAFU for the US government.
As you know, although the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the creator and maker of all things, including Muslims, only believers are called sons and children of God in a redemptive sense.
If someone wants to say that Muslims are children of God in the sense that God created them and sustains them, that's fine. But that is different than the sense in which Aussie and Retsamknup were using the term.
The fact is, impenitent Muslims who are hell bent on serving Allah instead of the living God, Muhammad instead of Christ, "Jibril" instead of the Holy Spirit, are children of Satan according to the uniform teaching of Scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is only in and through Christ, the eternal Son of the Father, that a person can be received as a child of God in the best sense of that phrase. Christ provides the legal basis for our adoption, and the Spirit transforms us into that image.
I think your analogy can be worked into this.
Semper thank you for clearing that up and distinguishing between the two forms.
May God Bless all of you and continue to work in you so that the satan of Islam can be exposed
Hi brother Semper Paratus...
yes, I agree withe watt I think its your point: one level is the creatural sonship and the other one the sotoreliogical one... yes... I agree withe thate... the important one is the last one, obviously...
thanks for your thoughts... God bless.
Dr. Wood, maybe you should get hired as the prosecuting lawyer for the Major Hasan court trial and use the Qur'an and hadith as evidence against him.
LEARN HOW TO PREVENT FUTURE NIDAL HASANS
The dilemma caused by the shooting at Fort Hood by Major Hasan exemplifies how each of our programs have failed us. When supervisors, counselors and task forces members rely on subjective references of culture and mental illness, observers miss the signs specific to aggression referenced in post analysis. When observers focus specifically on aggressive behavior, the objective and culturally neutral signs of “aggression” standout, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters.
Major Hasan was under surveillance by two Terrorist Task Forces, one with Department of Defense oversight and the other with FBI oversight. So why wasn’t he stopped?
The use of subjective/qualitative indicators, prone to stereotype individuals by culture or religion; versus quantitative indicators and the use of mental health references know to mislead and misconstrue, fails us repeatedly in our attempts to prevent acts of violence. Only when we use the specificity of “aggression” and its objective, culturally neutral indicators can we get-out-in-front of these acts of aggression and prevent them. Why are current systems uses on campus failing us?
The answer is quite simple – The military does not have an objective and culturally neutral system that collects information and evaluates it to determine the degree (or level) of aggression an individual is displaying, nor has it people who have a clear responsibility to observe and report this information. Learn more about the problem and the solution by reading our Blog: http://Blog.AggressionManagement.com
I think what will probably happen is that Nidal will plead temporary insanity to save his life.I don't think he will defend Islam in his trial.As you all know there is SURA 16:106 which gives him the right to say what he does not believe if a Muslim is "UNDER COMPULSION".
And here his LIFE is in danger.I think he will say he had misunderstood Islam and that his powerpoint presentation was not true Islam.Will the press and judicial system pay any attention if somebody shows them 16:106?No,they won't.Because they are not intelligent.
And the Muslims will be LAUGHING at the press and lawyers and judges and they will understand Nidal because of 16:106.They will say:"How stupid these non-Muslims are,I can't believe it,so utterly stupid."So goes the world.
Also people go to jihadwatch.org and there is an article on the 2 young and beautiful Iranian women who have recently been released from jail without bail.They were there for 259 days only for having become Christian.
What UTTERLY surprised me was that it was because of the GREAT international pressure put on the Iranian government,not by Obama or the Western governments,but by ordinary people.The Iranian government could not take it anymore and wanted to get it over with.I had done my part but I honestly thought only a few cared I didn't know I was part of a vast movement.And they had been caught because they had been distributing Bibles.THEY sure deserve to be given political asylum right away.Read the article,it's moving.
It is being reported that Mr Hassan is recieving cards and letters in the hospital. I wonder what those cards and letters are saying. I'm going to file a freedom of information request to release the contents of those cards and letters as well as obtain the Name of the FBI investorgator who declared that Mr Hassan was not a threat.
"Hassan has been recovering from gunshot wounds at Brooke Army Medical Centre in San Antonio, where he is in intensive care. He has been receiving letters and cards, which the government has been copying before delivering,"
I have to comment on the fine exposition given by David Wood in the Jesus or Mohammed programs.And also by Sam.David was called by Abdullah Andalusi.At first I din't know it was he since he spoke about the Jesus and sword verse.Certainly Mr.Andalusi already knew it was not a violent verse when placed in context.
Anyway I would like to address his other ideas:
FORCE THEN TO COME IN
He refered to LUKE 14:23 in the PARABLES in LUKE 14:7-24.It is only a parable,not everything is to be taken literally.Jesus often used STRONG LANGUAGE to make a point.
In JOHN 15:1-6 we have another PARABLE.Nobody except the Inquisitors ever took it literally.It refers to the REJECTION of the unbelievers.
So go to what is NOT a PARABLE or LUKE 9:51-56 where the Samaritans reject Jesus' disciples and they want to bring destruction on them and Jesus REBUKES and says they do not know what they are saying.So we see IN ACTION what Jesus wants us to do.
That is why he says the GOLDEN RULE in MATT 7:12 and LUKE 6:31.And also in another part says the second greatest law is "love your neighbor like yourself".
The THEOLOGICAL HEART of Christianity is the RESURRECTION but the ETHICAL HEART is the GOLDEN RULE or ETHIC of RECIPROCITY.
You don't need supernatural aid to discover it (ROM 2:14-15) and it was not created by Jesus or Paul.It is in the NT:
James 2:8/Matt 7:12/Luke 6:31/Rom 13:8-10/Galat 5:14.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR LIKE YOURSELF
The definition of LOVE is in 1 COR 13:1-8/13:13 and 1 COR 9:21 makes Law of God=Law of Christ,and we have Law of Christ also in GALAT 6:1-2.
Plus the FRUITS of the SPIRIT are in GALAT 5:22.
So Augustine,Calvin,Luther and Aquinas,who had some views that were CONTRARY to the Golden Rule and definition of love and fruits of the Spirit were wrong,simple as that.Some of their ideas were good,some bad but they were NOT prophets like Paul or Jesus.
Post a Comment