HARDLY a day goes by without some new piece of intelligence coming via our security services about a threat to UK interests…

‘Would al-Qa’eda buy weapons of mass destruction if it could?
Certainly.

Do they have the financial resources?
Probably.

Would they use them?
Definitely.

’ So said Tony Blair in his speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at the Guildhall, London on 12/11/02.

The probable reason Mr Blair chose to speak on this theme at this prestigious occasion was the following briefing given by Tom Ridge, a senior member of the Bush cabinet, on 7/11/02 at King’s College Lon-don: ‘Our transportation networks, power generating plants and industries can be attacked with potentially catastrophic con-sequences. Our public safety and health infrastructures can be quickly overwhelmed producing casualties in the thousands or tens of thousands. This is the inescapable reality of the 21st century’.

After the lecture, Ridge went into conference with British Home Minister, David Blunkett. Hours later, Britain had its first major warning of a potential ‘dirty bomb’ or poison gas attack by ‘fanatical extremists of al-Qa’eda, who would attempt to strike again’. This is the text of the warning handed out to the British media on Friday, November 8: ‘Maybe they will try to develop a so-called dirty bomb, or some kind of poison gas; maybe they will try to use boats or trains rather than planes. The bottom line is that we simply cannot be sure. We cannot be sure of when or where or how terrorists will strike. But we can be sure they will try.’

On 12/11/02 Russian President Putin addressed the European Union summit in Brussels warning that western civilisation faced a mortal threat from Muslim terrorists claiming that they had plans to create a ‘worldwide caliphate’ (Islamic government). He said the world no longer faced isolated acts of terrorism, but ‘a concerted effort and program by a global network bent on slaughter perhaps with nuclear weapons.’

All these senior politicians sending out alarming warnings about the Islamic terrorist threat are heightening the fear of a coming war with radical Islam. Many would say it has already started. During October 2002 Islamic terrorism went global with the Bali bombing in Indonesia, the Moscow theatre attack, the Washington sniper who turned out to be a convert to Islam and a sup-porter of the September 11th attack and the continuing terrorism aimed at Israel.

Since al-Qa’eda has lost its base in Afghanistan (al-Qa’eda means ‘the base’), they are looking for an alternative location from which to operate and export Islamic terror on neighbouring countries and the rest of the world. The islands of Indonesia, Chechnya and the proposed Palestinian state are all in the front line of Islamic terrorist activity. They are all suitable bases from which al-Qa’eda could operate.

The Bali bombing was aimed at asserting Islamic intentions on many fronts. On one level it was an attack on westerners at a nightclub. On another it was an attack on Australians, since Australia has backed the US war on terror and also intervened to liberate predominantly Christian East Timor from Islamic tyranny. On another level it was to attack Bali itself, which is a predominantly Hindu island of Indonesia. All over Indonesia non-Muslims, especially Christians, are facing persecution and death from Islamic militants.

Probably the most ludicrous remark on this issue came from Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Party, in parliament when he said that those responsible for the Bali bomb were motivated by poverty. Islamic terrorism is motivated by the de-sire to smash all opposition and impose a form of religious fascism, which would victimise all non-Muslims.

It certainly creates poverty, as can be seen by the pitiful economic condition of Iran, potentially a very rich country, where the majority of the population now lives be-low the poverty line due to the mismanagement and oppression of the Islamic dictatorship. Ayatollah Taheri, a senior Muslim cleric who had authority in the Iranian city of Isfahan resigned his post in August 2002 in protest of Iran’s human rights violations. He said, ‘The great catastrophe of the flight from religion, disillusionment, unemployment, inflation, poverty, the deepening of the disparities between the classes, economic stagnation, and the drop in state revenue, the sick economy, and administrative corruption, the embezzlement and bribery and absence of an effective solution have tragic consequences, and each moment they threaten the state and the life of the nation.’

Should we speak aboutIslamic terrorists?

Many Muslims are indignant at the connection being made between Islam and terrorism. They ask why IRA and ETA terrorists are not described as ‘Christian’ terrorists. One answer to this of course is that they are not Christians, but even if one leaves aside the Catholic/Protestant question, such people are motivated by nationalism – not their religion. Although there may be some tacit connivance be-tween the IRA and the Catholic Church in some cases, no church endorses terror-ism and the IRA never claims inspiration or motivation from Christianity for their acts. But Islamic terrorists of al-Qa’eda and similar groups do claim inspiration from Islam and many preachers from mosques encourage such activity. The belief of ‘jihad’ warriors that they will go straight to paradise if they kill themselves and others in terror attacks shows that their motivation comes directly from their Islamic beliefs.

Some Muslims also claim that the extremists are misrepresenting Islam. Mr Ahmad wrote to the Jewish Chronicle (8/ 11/02) and said,

‘Islam is unique in believing in the truth of all religions and all prophets sent to all peoples of the world indiscriminately.
… Islamic teaching is that people's feelings should be respected and all conduct likely to cause provocation should be rejected.’

He quotes the verse in the Quran, which says,

‘Surely those who have believed, and the Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians, who believe in God and the Last Day and act righteously on them shall come no harm nor shall they grieve.’

The problem with this argument is that there are verses in the Quran which contradict each other, some apparently tolerant like the one above and some extremely intolerant. Sura 9:29 calls on Muslims to fight Jews and Christians in order to convert them or impose the Jizya tax which non-Muslims were forced to pay to the Muslims when Islam took over their countries:

‘Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) of the people of the Book, (i.e. Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (i.e. submitted to the government of Islam).’

The Quran also teaches Muslims to at- tack and kill pagans:

‘When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.’ —Sura 9:5

Muslims teach that where there is a disagreement between verses in the Quran the later verses abrogate or replace the earlier verses. The verses teaching tolerance tend to come from the earlier part of Mohammed’s career when he wanted to persuade people by preaching his message. The later verses come after he began to fight in order to spread Islam. For this reason it is possible that both those claiming Islam is a peaceful religion and those wishing to impose it by force and terrorism can use the Quran as their authority. But there is actually a greater authority with those who justify violence, both from the fact that they can cite the later verses in the Quran and from looking at the example of Mohammed who was pre-pared to use force to impose Islam.

By contrast no one can use the New Testament or the person of the Lord Jesus to justify violence or terrorism. Examples of violence and persecution in the times of the Crusades and the Inquisition were the result of ignorance and rejection of Jesus’ teaching by the Roman Catholic Church, not obedience to it. Similarly any oppressive means used by Reformation leaders like Luther or Calvin were a denial of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, to pray for those that persecute us (Matthew 5:43). He said that those who conquer by the sword will perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52).

He rebuked the disciples when they were tempted to become vengeful in their attitude to those who rejected their message:

‘As the time approached for Him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, ‘Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?’ And he said, ‘You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’’ —Luke 9:51-56

The threat of terrorism and world government

Conclusion

About
the Author...

Appeared in Issue 16 Vanguard - May 2003
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3