The Only Way To Beat The Terrorists

Whether people refer to it as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) or ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), feelings toward this group are the same - revulsion and fear, accompanied by a sense that the Islamic State is here to stay. No matter what happens, ISIS continues to move forward, leaving death and destruction in its wake. Many people take for granted that terrorism on American soil is the new normal - something we'll just have to learn to live with. It seems that only two things in life are beyond one's ability to exterminate: cockroaches and radical Islamic terrorism.

In all honesty, the prospects for a world without terrorism do seem very dim. Without uniforms and borders, the terrorists are a hard target to hit. The so-called "civilized" nations of the earth have thus far been unable to destroy ISIS; in fact, one could make a convincing argument that the errant foreign policy of the United States led to the rise of ISIS in the first place, and continues to foster its growth right up to the present time. In addition, the willingness - even eagerness - of members of ISIS to die for its cause, makes it a formidable opponent. 

Based on these facts, it seems unlikely that any conventional military force could ever conquer the Islamic State. Does this mean that we'll just have to learn to live with radical Islamic terrorism, or worse yet, prepare to die at its sword-wielding hand? Is all hope lost? Short of Divine intervention, I can only see one way out of this otherwise hopeless situation . . . and it comes from a source that may surprise you.

ISIS loves to kill, and matters such as religion, race, nationality, and social status make no difference. If you're breathing, you're a potential target. But ISIS seems to get a special thrill from killing other Muslims - particularly those who just want to live and let live. And I propose that it's these same Muslims (the so-called 'peaceful Muslims') who alone can defeat ISIS. And, as Christians like to say, I have scripture for that - directly from the Muslim holy book itself.

In Surah (chapter) 49 of the Holy Qur'an, verse 9, the following admonition is given:

And if two parties of the believers quarrel, make peace between them. Then if one of them does wrong to the other, fight that which does wrong, till it return to Allah's command. Then if it returns, make peace between them with justice and equity. Surely Allah loves the equitable. 

Muslims believe that the words of the Qur'an are the words of Allah Himself; therefore, Allah says that if one group of believers (Muslims) does wrong to another group of believers (fellow-Muslims), those who are wronged must fight their aggressors until peace is achieved, or until the aggressors are defeated. Can any reasonable person deny that many Muslims have been wronged by radical Islamic terrorism? They've been taken captive, tortured, raped, and murdered by proponents of the Islamic State, and many of their mosques have been destroyed. In the above-quoted verse, such Muslims not only have the right, but also the responsibility, to fight their oppressors.

How likely is it that such peace-loving Muslims would be willing to go to war against ISIS? After all, peaceful people by definition have an aversion to violence. Once again, the Qur'an has something to say about it. Surah 2, verse 216, is blunt:

Fighting is enjoined on you, though it is disliked by you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you; and Allah knows while you know not.

According to this verse, one's aversion to violence needs to be subordinated to one's hatred of evil. To refuse to fight against evil is itself evil - perhaps an even greater evil.

In a Hadith (a collection of sayings of the Prophet), Muhammad once said, 'Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is oppressed.' One of his followers, a man named Anas, was puzzled by Muhammad's remark. 'O Allah's Messenger! It is right that I help him if he is oppressed, but how should I help him if he is an oppressor?' Muhammad replied, 'By preventing him from oppressing others; this is how you help him in this case.' Muhammad's words show that Muslims themselves are the best antidote to evil acts committed by their fellow-Muslims; in other words, he taught that Muslims have a responsibility to ensure that evil is never tolerated in their own community.

For the most part, Muslims have failed miserably in this respect. Whenever Islamic terrorists strike, the question is asked, 'Why don't the good Muslims speak out?' In fairness, some do, but their voices are few and their words are often too softly-spoken. Their reluctance to fight verbally makes it highly improbable that they would ever be willing to fight physically. Maybe this is where Divine intervention comes in. While the nations of the world must continue in their efforts to destroy the Islamic State, I propose that the world's best hope of defeating ISIS lies with peace-loving Muslims . . . Muslims who love peace so much that they're willing to fight fire with fire; Muslims who love peace so much that they're willing to rise up and kill the terrorists wherever they find them.

Is The White Man Really A Devil?

In the racially-tense environment in which we live - especially here in the United States - it's becoming more and more common to hear the white man described as a racist, a bigot, and even as a devil. Is there any truth to these allegations? More directly, is the white man really a devil, or is he merely the innocent victim of what is sometimes called 'reverse racism'? Before I offer my opinion, please allow me to lay the foundation for our discussion by defining our terms.

By "white" I mean any person of European ancestry - members of the Caucasian race. "Man" is used in the generic sense, referring to both men and women. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word "devil" is defined (among other things) as an extremely wicked person. Speaking collectively, "devil" could also be used to refer to an extremely wicked group of people.

Now, with these definitions in mind, let's ask the question this way: Is the white race a group of extremely wicked people?

And my answer is . . . Yes.

Before you call me a racist, allow me to tell you a little about myself. Contrary to what you may think, I'm not a bitter black man who wants to lash out at whitey. In fact, I'm not black at all; nor am I Hispanic, Native American, or Asian. I'm white - as white as the sand on a Jamaican beach. As white as baking soda. As white as refined sugar. A few years ago I purchased one of those DNA tests you see advertised, and much to my surprise, I discovered that, unlike many white people in America, I'm 100% white. One hundred percent. If I correctly understand percentages, that's about as white as you can get. I'll put the so-called 'purity' of my whiteness up against anybody else's - the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the skinheads, or the stereotypical snaggletoothed throwback from the Deep South.

Well then, I must be one of those self-hating Caucasians, one who suffers from "white guilt". Wrong again. I don't feel a bit of guilt about being white. While I hate the injustices that whites have perpetrated against non-whites throughout the centuries, I don't take any personal responsibility for those injustices. I do feel extremely guilty, however, for the racism in my own heart, and the racist things I've thought, said, and done in my own life. Beyond that, I don't apologize for being white, and I walk with my head held high. Unlike Rachel Dolezal, I have no desire to be black. I don't want to darken my pasty-white skin, or curl my straight hair, or change my hazel eyes to brown.

So how could I possibly say that my people are a race of devils?

Let's go back to the beginning of the Caucasian race. The European, as we know him, has been on the world scene for only about 6,500 years. By comparison, all other ethnic groups have been in existence for much longer periods of time. If you can envision the human species as a family, the white man would be the baby, the youngest child, the runt of the litter. If you envision it as a neighborhood, the white man would be the new kid on the block. 

What kind of person was the original European? Prior to the middle of the first century A.D., when Christianity was introduced to the continent, the pagan Europeans were as uncivilized as any people could ever be. While other ethnic groups enjoyed the benefits of varying degrees of civilization, whites were living in caves - unclothed, eating raw meat, practicing bestiality and pedophilia, swinging from trees, and worshiping snakes. Maybe this is why so many white people like the theory of evolution; our progenitors do seem to have had more in common with apes than with humans. My white ancestors were a vicious, warlike people. Whatever language they may have spoken (beyond grunts), the word for "peace" apparently wasn't in their vocabulary, and the practice of peace was not part of their lifestyle. It's no coincidence that we get the word "barbarian" from an ancient tribe of Caucasians. As more and more Europeans became Christians, however, they began to develop a culture worthy of the name. Unfortunately, within a relatively short period of time, the white man's primitive nature re-emerged, and so, instead of being changed by Christianity, the European changed Christianity itself, turning it into a weapon with which to oppress and enslave other people. The beautiful, life-giving teachings of Jesus were altered in an attempt to bring about political and economic gain. Rather than taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to the uttermost parts of the earth, the white man took his lust for power and riches to such faraway places as Africa, the Americas, Asia, and the isles of the sea, using Christianity only as a means to that end. Was this not the behavior of a devil?

In order to achieve his goal of world domination, the white man not only changed the gospel of Christ; he changed the ethnicity of Christ as well. Do you recall the account in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 2, where Joseph and Mary are told by an angel to take the baby Jesus and go to Egypt, in order to hide from wicked King Herod? Egypt is located in Africa; how could a white Jesus and his white parents hide in Egypt and not be detected? Wouldn't they stand out like a sore thumb? And yet European Christians went throughout the earth, preaching a Jesus who looked just like themselves, but who looked nothing like the people to whom they were preaching. These missionaries taught the so-called 'heathen' to worship a white Savior, and since this white Savior was said to be the Son of the Almighty, what did that imply about the Father Himself? He must be white too, or at the very least, He must have a preference for white people. Once again I have to ask - was this not the behavior of a devil?

Need I mention the slave trade - whether European or American? Words cannot describe the horror the victims must have felt as they were kidnapped, beaten, raped, enslaved, and murdered by their white captors. Are those not the actions of a people imbued with the nature of a devil?

Have any other people in the history of the world gone to such trouble, and traveled so widely, just to enrich themselves at the expense of others? Did the black man ever leave Africa and go to the other side of the world in search of a victim? What about the Asian man? No, but the white man did, stripping his indigenous prey of their cultures, religions, and names, while imposing his own culture, religion, and name upon them. 

Is such behavior limited to the distant past? Unfortunately not. Even in modern times, the white man just can't seem to behave himself. For example, when there's a mass shooting, who's the culprit in the vast majority of cases? A white male. Margaret Sanger, a white woman, founded Planned Parenthood for the purpose of encouraging both abortion and birth control in the black community, because she viewed black people as inferior and therefore undesirable. There are videos galore of white police officers abusing and even murdering innocent black men and women right now - in 21st century America. Who is the greatest producer of pornography and other forms of filth - not only producing it, but exporting it to the rest of the world? The white man of America. Who benefits the most from child trafficking? The white man. And who travels to Thailand in search of underage girls to exploit sexually? The white man.

Instead of being humble and staying in his place as the youngest member of the human family, the Caucasian throughout history has sought to take the lead, bullying his older brothers and trying to dominate them. To this very day, I and my white brothers and sisters have been taught (either overtly or covertly) that we are superior, and it has become so ingrained in us that we take it for granted, not even realizing how poisoned our minds have become. 

For these reasons alone, I assert that the white man is indeed a devil. I and my fellow Caucasians possess a nature that is inherently evil and wicked. Though more proof exists, none other is needed. Sufficient evidence has been presented, the jury has reached its decision, and the judge has ruled. Now it's up to us to accept the verdict. Somebody in the white community needs to stand up and say this, and today I'm doing just that. But, you may ask, what about the white people who didn't do these horrible things? What about the Caucasians who fought against slavery? What about the 'good white people' of today? What about me? I hope to deal with these questions in my next blog post.