"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"

Father God, thank you for the love of the truth you have given me. Please bless me with the wisdom, knowledge and discernment needed to always present the truth in an attitude of grace and love. Use this blog and Northwoods Ministries for your glory. Help us all to read and to study Your Word without preconceived notions, but rather, let scripture interpret scripture in the presence of the Holy Spirit. All praise to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Please note: All my writings and comments appear in bold italics in this colour
Showing posts with label Ishmael. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ishmael. Show all posts

Monday, February 19, 2024

A short video puts the Arab-Israeli conflict into perspective

 

LETTER IN YEMEN FROM 800 YEARS AGO

EXPOSES THE TRUTH ABOUT MUSLIMS

November 30, 2023 2.5K views


This letter in Yemen written by the famous Jewish sage the Rambam reveals something about Muslims that the world refuses to admit.


I contend that the Arab-Israeli conflict began with Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was jealous of Isaac's favour from Abraham, and Ishmael's rejection. And, as the speaker says, that jealousy continues to this day as Israel flourishes without any significant oil and gas industry, while the only reason some Arab countries aren't desperately poor is because of the presence of oil. Also, several Arab countries have attacked tiny Israel several times and lost every time.

Arab's are bright enough to know that God blesses the Jews more than they, but are not bright enough to realize that it is because of there false religion.


================================================================


Friday, September 23, 2022

Islam - Current Day > The real reason for the war against Israel and the west

..

The real reason for the war against Israel and the west


Lapid’s support for a Palestinian state compounds a disastrous error


Melanie Phillips
Sep 23

Israel’s acting prime minister Yair Lapid addresses the UN, September 22 2022


As soon as it emerged that Israel’s acting Prime Minister Yair Lapid would tell the United Nations General Assembly this week that he supports the establishment of a Palestinian state, he was engulfed by outrage, incredulity and dismay.

Critics charged that he was endangering Israel’s security by seeking to establish a terrorist state on land to which Israel is lawfully entitled. This, they said, would incentivise yet more Palestinian terrorism.

In his actual remarks, Lapid appeared to row back from an earlier briefing by an official that he would say, “Israel must move toward a two-state solution”. Maybe as a sop to his critics, he confined himself instead to bland support for a “peaceful” Palestinian state.

Nevertheless, this was the first time in many years that an Israeli leader expressed support for such a state at the UN — and at a time when Palestinian radicalisation and terror attacks are increasing.

Of course, Lapid’s initiative has gone down well with the left which believes the Arab-Israeli conflict is a dispute over territorial boundaries, fuelled by the supposedly extremist Jewish belief in a biblical entitlement to the Land of Israel.

This ignores the fact that only the Jews — the one people for whom the Land of Israel was ever their national kingdom — have any legal, historical or moral entitlement to the land. In the 1920s, the League of Nations itself enshrined the right of the Jews alone to settle what is now Israel, Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

People in the west are either ignorant of these truths or choose to ignore them. In order to uphold their false narrative about the Middle East, they also ignore the Nazi-style demonisation of the Jews that pours out of both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, framed by Islamic theology. Westerners ignore it because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Failing to grasp the significance of Palestinian Jew-hatred, they miss what is driving Palestinian rejectionism.

This doesn’t just explain why the Middle East conflict is so intractable. It also explains why the west has never faced up to the Islamist threat to itself. Many believe that fury over the absence of a Palestinian state drives both Palestinian intransigence and the Islamist war against the west. This is the wrong way round. Both Palestinian rejection of Israel and the Islamist war against the west are driven by a jihad (holy war) against the Jews.

The fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that we know as Islamism, which among others spawned the Muslim Brotherhood, Osama bin Laden and bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist group, originated in the 1920s and 1930s with the Egyptian fanatic and ideologue Sayyid Qutb.

In his 1950 diatribe Our Struggle with the Jews, Qutb declared that the Jews were the adversaries of God who were conspiring to penetrate governments all over the world to “perpetuate their evil designs,” including a plan to take control of all the “wealth of mankind”. Qutb’s rantings became the rocket fuel of Islamist ideology.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Hitler formed an alliance with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, who pledged to annihilate every Jew in the Middle East — and who remains the hero and role model for Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

In 1998, bin Laden said, “The enmity between us and the Jews goes back far in time and is deep rooted. There is no question that war between us is inevitable… The hour of resurrection shall not come before the Muslims fight Jews”. In a sermon in 2003, he stated, “The Jews are the murderers of the prophets, the violators of agreements … usurers and whoremongers. They will leave you nothing, neither this world nor religion”.

Matthias Kuentzel, a German scholar who has produced pioneering work on the alliance between the Nazis and the Palestinians, is one of the few who understands all this.

In a speech last week at the opening of the London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, Kuentzel pointed out that bin Laden’s hatred of the United States was based on the conviction that the Jews control all aspects of America, which he believed they abused for their own Jewish and Israeli ends.

So, although 9/11 was an attack on America, its motivation was antisemitic hatred. But most governments, mass media and activists didn’t want to talk about this. In the section on “Bin Laden’s Worldview” in the 9/11 Commission report, the word “antisemitism” does not even appear.

After 9/11, this omission had disastrous consequences. Kuentzel said, “The refusal to recognise al Qaeda’s true motives resulted in a reversal of responsibility. The more deadly the terrorism, so many believed, the greater the American or Israeli or British guilt. The perpetrators were declared the victims and the victims the perpetrators.”

This is like Metropolitan Bishop Chrysostomos blaming girls for being raped. He refuses to believe that God would allow a girl to become pregnant from rape unless she actually wanted it. Hence, he blames the girl for being raped. This is not the consensus of the Greek Orthodox Church, but Chrysostomos is a powerful Bishop. 

So why does the west ignore the Islamic religious roots common to both the war against Israel and the war against the west?

It’s principally because the west seeks to explain everything in terms of reason, in which it believes religion can have no place. Thus, it denies the religious beliefs behind the onslaughts against Israel and the west and looks instead for pragmatic causes.

So it fixates on the supposed illegality of Israel’s actions and the denial of Palestinian rights as the reason for Palestinian rage. In a similar vein, it tells itself that the Islamists’ war against the west must be caused by the west’s historic oppression of the developing world.

This also helps explain western passivity regarding Iran and its nuclear programme. The Iranian regime regularly announces its intention to annihilate Israel. Its Revolutionary Guards boast that they “will raze the Zionist regime in less than eight minutes”. A countdown clock in Tehran shows the number of days before Israel’s appointed end is supposed to occur.

Yet, Kuentzel said, western governments don’t take this genocidal antisemitism seriously. “Why? Presumably because they are yet again in the grip of the cause-and-effect delusion, and rationalise Tehran’s Jew-hatred by believing that Israel must in some way be responsible for it.”

The core reason, however, why the west has gone through the looking-glass over all this is its total incomprehension of antisemitism.

No other prejudice shares the characteristics of antisemitism: its driving belief that the Jews control the world; that they are leaders of a conspiracy to harm others to serve their own interests; that they are a supernaturally demonic power.

Two events happened in the Book of Genesis that contribute greatly to the beginning of Jew-hatred. One was the slaughter of Shechem, (Gen 34), after the rape of Dinah; the other is the rejection of Ishmael by Abraham, (ultimately by God, Gen 21:12), Who declared Isaac to be Abraham's only son (Gen 22:2).

This was certainly the beginning as we see by Islamic writings where they attempt to replace the truth with wishful thinking when talking about Ishmael being the inheritor of Abraham, and the near sacrifice of Isaac on Mount Moriah changed to Ishmael and occurring near Mecca. Such rewriting of history was necessary to hide the rejection by God.

Such rejection has been fuelled through the centuries by God favouring the Israelites time and again in their conflicts with the descendants of Ishmael. The jealousy just gets more and more frustrating for Muslims. The only way they can justify their hatred of Jews is to believe that God will destroy the Jews and they are getting awfully impatient with Allah.

Ultimately, antisemitism is a form of lunacy that defies explanation. But the west cannot grasp this, because it believes everything has a rational cause.

So it seeks to explain antisemitism as just another form of racism; the result of jealousy towards the Jews’ astonishing achievements; or something the Jews bring upon themselves by being clannish, keeping themselves separate, looking down on everyone else and other supposed offences.

Similarly, the west tries to explain the Nazi Holocaust not as the result of psychotic antisemitism but rather of Germany’s humiliation and bankruptcy after World War I. It holds that the Palestinians are driven to behave as they do by dispossession and despair. The fact that the Islamist war against the west is fundamentally driven by a religious war against the Jews is simply unknown.

Israel has never accurately presented the war against itself as Islamic jihad. When asked, some Israelis have said this is because holy war is a supremely fearsome thing. With Israel’s nine million citizens potentially pitched against the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims, the Jewish state prefers to cast the conflict as a nationalistic struggle it can deal with by fighting the fires that break out day by day, week by week.

The result is that Israel has done a disservice to itself and to the world. It has failed to explain the murderous reach of antisemitism. It has allowed the west to undermine its own defences against a holy war it doesn’t understand. It has enabled a false narrative about the Palestinians to spread without fundamental and essential challenge.

And now an Israeli prime minister has compounded the error.



Wednesday, June 13, 2018

U.N. General Assembly Condemns Israeli Violence Against Palestinians

By Danielle Haynes

The U.N. General Assembly did not have the two-thirds majority vote to pass an amendment to the resolution blaming violence in Gaza on Hamas. Photo by Ismael Mohamad/UPI | License Photo

UPI -- The U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday passed a resolution condemning Israel's use of excessive force on Palestinian civilians.

The resolution passed by a vote of 120-8 with 45 countries abstaining.

Boy, there are a lot of antisemites in the General Assembly

A U.S. bid to condemn Hamas, a Palestinian fundamentalist group, for attacks on Israel also received a majority vote in favor -- 62-58 with 42 abstaining -- but the president of the General Assembly rejected it because it didn't have the required two-thirds majority to pass.

The resolution is unlikely to lead to any action against Israel because the United States, a close ally of the nation, would veto it.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who introduced the amendment to blame Hamas, criticized the UNGA for focusing on violence in Israel instead of in Nicaragua, Yemen or Myanmar.

"Gaza is important, but what makes it more urgent than many other desperate places?" she asked. "What makes Gaza different for some is that attacking Israel is their favorite sport."

The primary resolution was introduced by representatives in Turkey, on behalf of the Islamic Cooperation, and Algeria, on behalf of the Arab League.

Turkish Ambassador to the United Nations Feridun Siniroglu told the UNGA before the vote that the resolution wasn't about taking sides.

"It is about supporting de-escalation on the ground. It is about deterring further violence from taking place," he said. "It is a call to the secretary-general to come up with his recommendations on how to protect civilians from further attack. It is a call to all sides to put an end to loss of lives."

What a crock! There is a very simple way to stop the violence on the Gaza border - the Palestinians simply have to stop rushing the Israel border. Go home, find a job, dig a tunnel, or something. Their actions are beyond stupid and easily qualify as insane. The Palestinians don't mind dying, obviously, so why should the UN be so upset about it.

The IDF has shown extraordinary restraint in protecting the border. They deserve commendation not criticism. But, the Arab nations in the UN obviously think the IDF should be ordered to only respond with sling-shots and stones. 

Arabs and Muslims hate Israel because there are about 1.5 billion of them and only a few million Jews, and they cannot eliminate the Jews no matter how hard and how many times they try. Deep down they know that God is on the side of the Jews and they just can't accept that. They haven't been able to accept that since the days of Isaac and Ishmael, when God called Isaac, Abraham's only son!

Monday, June 13, 2016

Brilliant Analysis of Muslim's Way of Thinking

Op-Ed: Why Arabs are so Easily Offended

The writer analyzes a culture that is diametrically opposed
to what we are taught
Ron Yager  Arutz Sheva
The writer, a 25-year veteran of the I.D.F., served as a field mental health...

“Call me Ishmael”, is the opening sentence that opens the novel “Moby Dick” authored by Herman Melville. Ishmael, who is telling the story of Moby Dick, recounts that he is sailing to sea out of a sense of alienation and cultural inadequacy.

Ishmael describes the behavior of Captain Ahab who is so relentless in his obsession to kill the great white whale, that he is willing to endanger the entire ship, all of his sailors, just to kill the great white whale.

The name Ishmael, the son of the Patriarch Abraham from the old Testament as well as the Koran symbolizes more than anything the sense of being rejected and being scorned my one’s peer’s and by one’s civilization.

Ever since the days of Napoleon's landing upon the shores of Egypt at the very end of the 18th Century and bringing with him the modern era to the Middle East, Islam has been unable to free itself from the shackles of inferiority and self-destructive primal rage that typifies the hatred of modern day Islamic radicalism against Western civilization.

In recent years, despite Israel being at the foci of much of what has been termed the "war of civilizations" between the Western world and Islam, Europe is undergoing a rapid demographic transition that will lead to a large Muslim population harboring an unchanging, hostile attitude toward their national communities.

Four main differences of Muslims
and how they interact with Western influences.
They concern anger, self-confidence, 
the so-called "locus of control" and identity.
Nicolai Sennels

Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who has had extensive experience with treating Muslim youths has identified four main differences that are important in order to understand the behavior of Muslims and how they interact with Western influences. Without dismissing the intrinsic value of multiculturalism or the need to identify with ones cultural roots Sennels has identified four main differences that are important in order to understand the behavior of MuslimsThey concern anger, self-confidence, the so-called "locus of control" and identity.

Westerners are brought up to think of anger as a sign of weakness, powerlessness and lack of self-control.

In Muslim culture, anger is seen as a sign of strength. To Muslims, being aggressive is a way of gaining respect. When we see pictures of bearded men hopping up and down and shooting in the air, we should take it for what it is: these are the true role models of acceptable behavior.

In Western culture, self-confidence is connected with the ability to meet criticism calmly and to respond rationally. We are raised to see people who easily get angry when criticized, as insecure and immature.

In Muslim culture it is the opposite; it is honorable to respond aggressively and to engage in a physical fight in order to scare or force critics to withdraw, even if this results in a prison sentence or even death. They see non-aggressive responses to such threats and violence as a sign of a vulnerability that is to be exploited. They do not interpret a peaceful response as an invitation to enter into a dialogue, diplomacy, intellectual debate, compromise or peaceful coexistence but the opposite.

"Locus of control" is a term used in psychology, and relates to the way in which people feel that their lives are controlledIn Western culture, we are brought up to have an "inner locus of control," meaning that we see our own inner emotions, reactions, decisions and views as the main deciding factor in our lives. There may be outer circumstances that influence our situation, but in the end, it is our own perception of a situation and the way we handle it that decides our future and our state of mind. The "inner locus of control" leads to increased self-responsibility and motivates people to become able to solve their own problems.

Muslims are brought up to have an "outer locus of control." Their constant use of the term inshallah ("Allah willing") when talking about the future, as well as the fact that most aspects of their lives are decided by older traditions, clan tribal affiliations and authorities, leaves very little space for individual freedom. Independent initiatives are often severely punished. This shapes their way of thinking, and means that when things go wrong, it is always the fault of others or the situation.

Finally, identity plays a big role when it comes to psychological differences between Muslims and Westerners. Westerners are taught to be open and tolerant toward other cultures, races, religions, etc. This makes us less critical, impairs our ability to discriminate, and makes our societies open to the influence of other cultural trends and values that may not always be constructive.

Muslims, on the other hand, are taught again and again that they are superior, and that all others are so bad that Allah will throw them in hell when they die. Muslim culture's self-glorification achieves the opposite with their culture and identity.

In general, Westerners are taught to be kind,
self-assured, self-responsible and tolerant,
while Muslims are taught to be
aggressive, insecure and intolerant

The spreading and sprawling map of open Muslim violence against Americans and against America as the leader of the Western World in recent years was brought home with the assassination of America's Ambassador to Libya. All this despite President Obama's attempt to "reset" relations between the U.S. and the Muslim World and put Israel on "stand-by" mode.

In effect, American foreign policy towards the Middle East since Obama came to power has been characterized by a public relations practice called “public diplomacy" a nebulous term meant to hide the true intention: "soft power".

The cornerstone of this policy was the statement: “America is not at war with Islam.”

In June 2009, newly elected President Obama went to Egypt and made a pronouncement that raised false expectations in the Arab world: “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." This stunning pronouncement flies in the face of the First Amendment, and, by committing to protect the image of a specific religion and political philosophy, Obama gave the Muslim world the false impression that he could control media content in America — like dictators control the media in the Arab-Islamic countries.

Unfortunately Obama's natural inclination to go overboard with a destructive need to self- blame and take responsibility when it is wholly unwarranted has resulted in the opposite result. This mix of a Western tendency to being overly forgiving in response to Muslim self-pity and blame is the psychological crowbar that has opened the West to invite escalating Muslim violence against what we know in the West as "the other".

Newt Gingrich has stated that "the Islamists cannot reconcile with a secular system of laws. They cannot tolerate a West that maintains a presence in the Arabian Gulf or that would defend Israel's right to survive as a country. They cannot tolerate freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom for women." In short, their demands are irreconcilable with the modern world. While trying to understand the volatility of millions of Middle Easterners taught from birth to hate America and to despise Israel, we in the West should be asking one basic question.

The real question to be asked is why we feel the need to pander and apologize to the most radical, violent and intolerant extremes around the world, to let them set the tone; a tone designed to stifle all criticism of Islam, to declare as blasphemy any attempt to reform radical Islam.

This more than anything else might explain why Arabs are so easily offended.