Interplanner
Well-known member
THE JIHAD OF THE SOUL
What they are struggling with
Marcus Sanford, March, 2016
ask@interplans.net
In the 2012 movie BAKHITA, a west African slave girl winds up in Louisian France in a wealthy house where she is nanny for a widower. Bakhita was captured by Islamic slave lords and later liberated. When she was living in the French village, she was shocked to enter the typical Catholic parish and find them worshipping a person who was at one time crucified. “The only people I’ve ever seen treated that way were the ones who tried to escape the slavedrivers. They hung there as examples for a long time.”
I have used an Islamic example because many people do not realize the extent to which Islam controlled the north and west of Africa, or that unscrupulous British merchants decided to copy their slave practices. Obviously being crucified meant one thing to Bakhita and then something else to Christians.
I’m now going to switch our attention from something about Islam by an outsider to a significant example that is hard to understand but within Islam. It seems to be very difficult to figure out what to do with the term ‘jihad’ and we are like the puzzled Bakhita looking at the word and yet having a very different impression of what is going on in the Muslim person.
They have spoken of a personal jihad and have said it has nothing to do with the hundreds of attacks which have happened while Obama was president (based on his 2% theory, there should be about 5000 kind-for-kind non-Muslim terrorist attacks out there, but that is a separate discussion) and, in a scene out of Orwell, told his administration they could not use the word Islamic to modify the word terrorist.
We must go back to Africa. If we go to the US media, we have only further non-communication, because “God” forbid anyone one truly know theology. We have instead the Tom Hartmans saying that terrorism is a response to Bush-Cheney. He says that kind of thing when ISIS itself says a Paris or Brussels attack is in response to a sentence against one of their guys. Or we have the Fox channel saying that Cruze is saying that a Paris was an act of extremist Islamic terrorists, an expression which is 2.5 times unclear. But hey, why use one word when three will do?
The answer: confusion about jihad. If we go back to Africa there is no confusion. There are foreign languages, but there is no confusion. We have, for example, Boko Haram. The US media resists translating because “God” forbid, there might be some theology to learn. (That’s “God” as in ‘acts of God’). But it can be translated, and it does mean ‘the West is forbidden’ or ‘Western things forbidden.’
We must understand that Islam is primitive but perhaps not as we know it. It is primitive in a certain sociological sense in which a group has managed, through a prophet receiving ‘divine’ revelation, to find nearly everything in the Hebrew torah (law of Moses) and take an awkward step backward from it.
I could go into details about treatment of slaves or of women, but that’s your homework. Instead, what I will point out here is that the person is left feeling horribly guilty at the end of the day, because (not counting dietary or ceremonial law), there are some pretty healthy and beneficial laws in the Hebrew Bible.
That snorting sound you hear in the background is the person saying ‘Marcus, you must never have heard of ‘eye for an eye’ and the ensuing one-eyed world. I haven’t because that expression belongs in the category of restitution and what God called for was fair-market replacement. That is, the sentence should read: ‘if you have assaulted a person and they have lost the use of their eye, you need to provide that service to them from that point on.’
But in shari’a, thieves hands are cut off. So much for restitution. One direction is restorative, the other is primitive and degrading.
So there is all that guilt, and so we come to the most astonishing of ex-Muslim comments that I know of. It was from Argon Caner and his brother, and he said:
“The West does not realize that in Arabic when you use the world ‘strapped on’ as in a homicide bombing, the Muslim is using the term that was about lashing Christ to the cross. The Muslim is about to make atonement for himself.”
That’s why there is no theology taught in the West today. It’s not just secularism. It is Muslim-driven-secularism. The only way they know to defeat the Gospel of Christ, who atoned for the sins of all those who believe upon Him for that, is to un-disclose what the Muslim terrorist is doing. The West is not supposed to exist; it is forbidden.
Marcus Sanford recently put his 2008 novel FOOTHOLD in with his group of novels and scripts at Amazon.com. It is an international horror-suspense in which a young Algerian groomed for an op for jihad is ‘intercepted’ by God’s grace. His script development service site is Interplans.net.
What they are struggling with
Marcus Sanford, March, 2016
ask@interplans.net
In the 2012 movie BAKHITA, a west African slave girl winds up in Louisian France in a wealthy house where she is nanny for a widower. Bakhita was captured by Islamic slave lords and later liberated. When she was living in the French village, she was shocked to enter the typical Catholic parish and find them worshipping a person who was at one time crucified. “The only people I’ve ever seen treated that way were the ones who tried to escape the slavedrivers. They hung there as examples for a long time.”
I have used an Islamic example because many people do not realize the extent to which Islam controlled the north and west of Africa, or that unscrupulous British merchants decided to copy their slave practices. Obviously being crucified meant one thing to Bakhita and then something else to Christians.
I’m now going to switch our attention from something about Islam by an outsider to a significant example that is hard to understand but within Islam. It seems to be very difficult to figure out what to do with the term ‘jihad’ and we are like the puzzled Bakhita looking at the word and yet having a very different impression of what is going on in the Muslim person.
They have spoken of a personal jihad and have said it has nothing to do with the hundreds of attacks which have happened while Obama was president (based on his 2% theory, there should be about 5000 kind-for-kind non-Muslim terrorist attacks out there, but that is a separate discussion) and, in a scene out of Orwell, told his administration they could not use the word Islamic to modify the word terrorist.
We must go back to Africa. If we go to the US media, we have only further non-communication, because “God” forbid anyone one truly know theology. We have instead the Tom Hartmans saying that terrorism is a response to Bush-Cheney. He says that kind of thing when ISIS itself says a Paris or Brussels attack is in response to a sentence against one of their guys. Or we have the Fox channel saying that Cruze is saying that a Paris was an act of extremist Islamic terrorists, an expression which is 2.5 times unclear. But hey, why use one word when three will do?
The answer: confusion about jihad. If we go back to Africa there is no confusion. There are foreign languages, but there is no confusion. We have, for example, Boko Haram. The US media resists translating because “God” forbid, there might be some theology to learn. (That’s “God” as in ‘acts of God’). But it can be translated, and it does mean ‘the West is forbidden’ or ‘Western things forbidden.’
We must understand that Islam is primitive but perhaps not as we know it. It is primitive in a certain sociological sense in which a group has managed, through a prophet receiving ‘divine’ revelation, to find nearly everything in the Hebrew torah (law of Moses) and take an awkward step backward from it.
I could go into details about treatment of slaves or of women, but that’s your homework. Instead, what I will point out here is that the person is left feeling horribly guilty at the end of the day, because (not counting dietary or ceremonial law), there are some pretty healthy and beneficial laws in the Hebrew Bible.
That snorting sound you hear in the background is the person saying ‘Marcus, you must never have heard of ‘eye for an eye’ and the ensuing one-eyed world. I haven’t because that expression belongs in the category of restitution and what God called for was fair-market replacement. That is, the sentence should read: ‘if you have assaulted a person and they have lost the use of their eye, you need to provide that service to them from that point on.’
But in shari’a, thieves hands are cut off. So much for restitution. One direction is restorative, the other is primitive and degrading.
So there is all that guilt, and so we come to the most astonishing of ex-Muslim comments that I know of. It was from Argon Caner and his brother, and he said:
“The West does not realize that in Arabic when you use the world ‘strapped on’ as in a homicide bombing, the Muslim is using the term that was about lashing Christ to the cross. The Muslim is about to make atonement for himself.”
That’s why there is no theology taught in the West today. It’s not just secularism. It is Muslim-driven-secularism. The only way they know to defeat the Gospel of Christ, who atoned for the sins of all those who believe upon Him for that, is to un-disclose what the Muslim terrorist is doing. The West is not supposed to exist; it is forbidden.
Marcus Sanford recently put his 2008 novel FOOTHOLD in with his group of novels and scripts at Amazon.com. It is an international horror-suspense in which a young Algerian groomed for an op for jihad is ‘intercepted’ by God’s grace. His script development service site is Interplans.net.