Injustices of the Past are not true Christianity (Crusades; Anti-Semitism, Racism, harsh treatment of American Indians, etc.)

50 Reasons Why Jesus Christ Came to Die, by John Piper

I highly recommend this book, from one of my favorite preachers.   Scroll down and see that is available in many languages, including Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Amharic, Hindi, and many others.

John Piper:

“It is a tragedy [I would say it is a horrible tragedy] that the story of Christ’s death has produced anti-Semitism against Jews and crusading violence against Muslims.  We Christians are ashamed of many of our ancestors who did not act in the Spirit of Christ.  No doubt there are traces of this plague in our own souls.  But true Christianity – which is radically different from western culture, and my not be found in many Christian churches – renounces the advance of religion by means of violence.  “My Kingdom is not of this world”, Jesus said.  “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting”  (John 18:36)  The way of the cross is the way of suffering.  Christians are called to die, not kill, in order to show the world how they are loved by Christ.”  [I would also add other Scriptures to that principle: Matthew 5:38-48; Matthew 26:52; Ephesians 6:12; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5]

“Today this love humbly and boldly commends Christ, no matter what it costs, to all peoples as the only saving way to God.  “Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me.”  (John 14:6)  But let it be crystal clear:  It is not Christian to humiliate or scorn or despise or persecute with prideful putdowns, or programs, or crusades, or concentration camps.  These were and are, very simply and horribly, disobedience to Jesus Christ.  Unlike many of His followers [in my opinion, they were not true Christians], He prayed from the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”  (Luke 23:34)

Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die, John Piper, Crossway books, 2006, page 14.  (Originally published as, The Passion of Jesus Christ, Crossway, 2004)  [ with my comments added in blue]

This is not to say that I am a pacifist or that I don’t believe in the government’s right to use police force or military force to defeat evil.  Romans 13 clearly says that government is ordained to use “the sword” to punish evil.  The role of the allies in World War 2 was a great force for good against Hitler and the Nazis.  But that issue is a different subject from the quote; and a different issue that the spirit of this post.

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, church history, Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Evangelism, missions. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Injustices of the Past are not true Christianity (Crusades; Anti-Semitism, Racism, harsh treatment of American Indians, etc.)

  1. James Bradshaw says:

    I was listening to John MacArthur the other day. He’s a hard-core Calvinist, so for him, the sovereignty of God is given greater emphasis than His love or mercy. He stated: “God wills evil”, whether it’s the Holocaust or anything else.

    Think about that again: God *wants* evil to happen and, being sovereign, He ensures that it does.

    Of course, MacArthur would deny that this implicates God in being responsible for evil or being the “source” of evil. As He explained it, God wills evil for His glory, ultimately so that His wrath might be displayed and that the full knowledge of His Holiness might be known.

    Displayed to whom? I assume the saved, which means that the “joys” of Heaven include watching the suffering of the damned (whether it’s Hitler or one’s own family members for merely not having the right beliefs). It also sounds like God “needs” evil for humans to appreciate Him more.

    This is warped to me.

    This is why I simply never embraced fundamentalism. The insanity of it all cannot be taken to heart without becoming a bit psychotic oneself.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Before I seek to address what you bring up with John McArthur, what did you think of what John Piper wrote above, (the subject of the post), who is also a Calvinist (and good friend of MacArthur)?

      I want to at least hear your thoughts on that before discussion of what Pastor MacArthur said.

  2. Ken Temple says:

    Also, tell me exactly which sermon you heard from MacArthur (they are all free at Grace to You website. http://www.gty.org )- so that I can hear the section you are talking about. Context is important also.

  3. James Bradshaw says:

    Ken, In terms of Piper’s comments, I can say that while I appreciate his belief that persecutors are not living up to the ethics of Christianity, I’m not sure it can be said that they are not “true Christians”. Martin Luther himself was notoriously anti-Semitic (and had even suggested that the Jewish synagogues be burned to the ground). John Calvin had other Christians expelled and even had one executed (Michael Servetus) for not accepting his theological doctrines. Were these men “not Christians”? I can’t say that. Further, if we condemn the notion of religious persecution, we’d have to condemn Moses who had not just adults killed in religious wars, but infants (who cannot be seriously said to be guilty of any crime worthy of death, even under the harsh laws of Leviticus).

    Part of MacArthur’s comments can be found here: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/GTY125/Answering-Big-Questions-About-the-Sovereignty-of-God

    Or at Grooveshark.com under the search “John MacArthur”‘s sermons under “The Problem of Evil”, parts 1 and 2.

  4. Ken Temple says:

    Luther’s infamous comments about the Jews were at the end of his life, (he “lost it”, to put it mildly); and many Lutheran scholars have argued that his words were not meant in a racial sense, but in a theological sense because he was frustrated with the lack of response of Jewish people to the Messiah. He also wrote good things about and to the Jews when he was younger.
    Granted, his words about the Jews in that tract are awful and tragic, and disgusting; but keeping them in context is also important.

    I agree that he was a true Christian, as was Calvin.

    I think those things are really different than Nazi’s planning the Holocaust and implementing it; the Crusaders; and policies like the trail of tears against the Cherokee Indians.

    I have a hard time though, believing that any of the Nazis that were directly involved in the planning and implementing things in the concentration camps, etc. were born again Christians. The Crusades was not done to convert any Muslims or spread the gospel, but to defend Constantinople first from the attacks of the Seljuk Turks (battle of Manzikert in 1071 near Van and the subsequent battles to Constantinople was what caused the Eastern Orthodox to ask the Pope in France for help), and to win back the land of Israel/Palestine from the Turks and Muslims. It was the Muslims who attacked and conquered first in 636 AD onward. (conquering all of the middle East, North Africa, Spain, and Persia by 722 AD). The problem is that perception that the Crusaders gave by using the cross, the RC penance and indulgence system of promise of release from purgatory if they fought. (an awful theology) and by the way they were carried out so often – the slaughter was an awful thing, especially turning on the Eastern Orthodox in Constantinople.

    Piper actually has written about Luther and Calvin and the fact that they both made mistakes in those things (Piper says they followed the Devil in those 2 sins of theirs); but those things do not take away from their positive contributions. (The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: the lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/books/the-legacy-of-sovereign-joy
    in the introduction Piper says that Luther was influenced by the devil in writing that tact “On the Jews and their Lies” – it is possible for good people to say and do evil things.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/martin-luther-lessons-from-his-life-and-labor

    Very well researched article by James Swan:
    http://tquid.sharpens.org/luther_Jews.htm

    This is a good article on Luther’s legacy of that shameful tract that he wrote:
    http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-legacy-of-shame-luther-and-the-jews.php

    Calvin approved of the government’s decision to execute Servetus, but the Roman Catholic Church was going to do the same thing to him but he escaped from prison and fled to Geneva.

    Here is a good article on Calvin and Servetus and links to Piper’s lecture on Calvin also.
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2007/06/22/calvin-and-servetus/

  5. Ken Temple says:

    Regarding God’s Sovereignty and the problem of evil –

    When Calvinists and Reformed Christians speak of God’s Sovereignty and God’s decreed will, it is important to understand that whenever we speak of “God ordaining all things” – when it pertains to sin and evil, it means that “God decided to allow it”, but He Himself is NOT the doer of the sin. God ordained the fall of Adam and Eve – God gave them free will to choose –

    both to the angel who became Satan (Ezekiel 28 – the evil spirit behind the king of Tyre is said to have been in the Garden of Eden and was a beautiful and wise cherub, before the pride swelled in his heart and he was cast down)

    and to Adam and Eve, but they chose the evil.

    One really good book, probably the best book and from someone who has suffered a lot – is Joni Erickson’s Tada and Steve Estes – “When God Weeps” http://www.amazon.com/When-Weeps-Joni-Eareckson-Tada/dp/0310238358

    “God allows what He hates in order to accomplish what he loves” – a great statement in that book. Joni Erickson Tada speaks with a lot of authority because of her accident which rendered her paralyzed from neck down. (quadriplegic )

    John Piper always does a good job of explaining that issue. If you look around at DesiringGod.org
    he has lots of articles on that very issue.

    there are different forms of “fundamentalism” – some of it is not good – the legalism and “fighting fundy” types. But if one means a commitment to fundamental doctrines of the Bible – that is a good thing.

    The harsh laws in the OT were for theocratic Israel. There is no more theocratic Israel. Jesus took the kingdom of God way from them. (Matthew 21:33-46)

    When you say about God’s sovereignty and His right to be in control as Creator, Lord, and Judge – when you use words like “warped” and “psychotic” and “insane” (insanity) – you seem to me to be admitting a subtle rebellion against God’s right to rule and be God. That is actually the root of all skepticism, atheism, and agnosticism – it is the problem of suffering and evil that is the root of all anger at God and atheism, etc.

    If I may ask, what was your church background? and how did you even come to want to listen to John McArthur’s message?

    • James Bradshaw says:

      “If I may ask, what was your church background? and how did you even come to want to listen to John McArthur’s message?”

      I was raised a Catholic. I became a traditionalist, fundamentalist Catholic while in college but eventually abandoned it after I realized I couldn’t subscribe to its beliefs. From there I eventually joined an independent Christian church (which I still attend). I’m not an atheist (even though I might give that impression). I’m simply a libertarian on political issues. As far as my own beliefs, I’d say I’m a Deist who believes in the Christ but who denies that any believer is infallibly able to interpret Scripture. As such, whether Scripture itself is inerrant is irrelevant. (In other words, that Scripture is “perfect” doesn’t help us much if we are unable to come to an agreement on what it means.)

      My own beliefs are just that: beliefs. I may be wrong, in the end. My beliefs inform my actions, however. Since I believe stealing is wrong, for example, I don’t steal. As such, I seek to test my own beliefs through continual learning of ideas other than my own: this includes all varieties of Christian philosophy (Calvinism, etc) as well as the challenges posed by atheists like Christopher Hitchens. I’ve read Calvin, CS Lewis, Spurgeon, Karl Barth, Aquinas, Augustine, some of the church fathers, Catholic saints, etc. It’s varied.

      • Ken Temple says:

        Thanks James; very interesting indeed.
        “A Deist who believes in the Christ . . . ”

        Virgin Birth ? (matthew 1-2; Luke 1-2) ?
        the word from all eternity past ? (John 1:1) ?
        Messiah of the prophets (Psalm 2, Daniel 9:24-27, who is also Son of God – the Jews also knew Messiah would be Son of God – Mark 14:60-64 – notice the Jews question to Him)
        Was He crucified and dead?
        Did He rise from the dead in real time and space and history and in the same body He died in?

        if not any of that or some of those, who was he?

        That’s a big jump from catholic to traditionalist Roman Catholic in college to now an independent Christian Church –

        Do you mean the Roman Catholics who believe Vatican 2 is wrong and that they should go back to the Latin Tridentine Mass, and they object to the modern over-turning of the tradition that “there is no salvation outside of the RC Church” ?? If I am not mistaken, they believe all Popes after Pius XII are wrong. right?

        What was the first or first few things that caused a problem?

        Was it Roman Catholic dogmas as opposed (infallibility of Pope, prayers to Mary, confession to priests, denial of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, etc.) to Protestant faith; that gave you most trouble or things that Protestants also share with RCC – Trinity, Deity of Christ, Virgin Birth, resurrection, etc.?

        that’s great that you have read all those famous Christians.

        What do you think about Jesus’ own words in Matthew 19:3-6 and how He alludes to the Creator, the beginning, male and female, and the two becoming one – all from Gen. 1:1; 1:26-28; 5:2; and 2:24?

        Thanks for sharing.

  6. Ken Temple says:

    Here is a good panel discussion of Calvin and the Michael Servetus issue:

  7. Ken Temple says:

    that above video is only part 1 out of 8 – on the Calvin-Servetus issue.

    there is part 3 – look around for the rest of them there at You Tube – good balance

  8. Ken Temple says:

    James,
    Since you mentioned you read the challenges to faith like Christopher Hitchens, did you see the film/debate of him with Douglas Wilson in “Collision”?

    http://www.collisionmovie.com

    And did you see Douglas Wilson’s lectures and answering questions from college students and others who attended, here:

    http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/

  9. James Bradshaw says:

    Ken asks: “What was the first or first few things that caused a problem?

    I had attended a very forboding-looking church in New York filled with candles and plaster statues and the usual pious tchotchkes, populated mostly by elderly people, some who were mentally ill and occasionally would even utter things during the service about “Freemasons” who were supposedly running the country. The priests were nice but didn’t seem like very happy people.

    I was first turned off by the hysterical delusions of the Marian movements (which is really more of a fringe than a part of mainstream Catholic life). Despite the claims that communion with the *actual* body of Christ was supposed to infuse one with “special” graces that were apparently denied the rest of humanity, it didn’t seem to help me with anything. It also didn’t seem to do anything about the widespread corruption displayed not only in the child abuse that occurred at the hands of the clergy who were immersed in its rites on a daily basis, but in its cover up by the hierarchy. From there it just sort of steamrolled. That’s not to say that Catholics don’t believe in Christ or the atonement. They obviously do. It’s just there was too much excess baggage I didn’t need.

    Although I don’t believe the Pope has any particular inside knowledge that is not given to the rest of us, I might suggest that there’s no such thing as “Sola Scriptura”, either. If Scripture alone was authoritative, that is, if you could reach conclusions about matters of faith and ethics from Scripture alone, why read Calvin and Spurgeon? Why attend a seminary or a college that teaches exegesis and textual criticism? All of these things are ways of explaining Scripture and defining things about Scripture that are outside of Scripture itself. What would our views be on the atonement without the conclusions made by the Synod of Dort?

    John MacArthur doesn’t just read Scripture and let the individual believer come to their own conclusions. He goes into long excursions, extracting this meaning or that meaning from Scripture based on his own understanding. Other pastors like Charles Stanley or James Kennedy will come to different conclusions … sometimes to a degree sufficient that it impacts the way you live or what you believe about the nature of God.

    As such, while Protestantism has no Pope, it certainly has popular gatekeepers of orthodoxy, if you will. Who you deem them to be will vary based on the presuppositions and ideas that you already have.

    In terms of Matthew 19:3-6, well, Christ said many things, most of which was not recorded. He did say that there will be “eunuchs” for the Kingdom of Heaven as well, though I don’t think He was recommending that as a path for everyone. In some circumstances, He even suggested that a man *abandon* his family to follow Him. I don’t believe that’s a general command for everyone, either.

    Thanks for asking. I find people’s faith journey to be interesting as well … although some folks seem to get to their destination very early and never move from there.

  10. Ken Temple says:

    James,
    Thanks for sharing more details of your journey –

    Lord willing, I will make some response to some things as I have time.

    you wrote –
    I might suggest that there’s no such thing as “Sola Scriptura”, either. If Scripture alone was authoritative, that is, if you could reach conclusions about matters of faith and ethics from Scripture alone, why read Calvin and Spurgeon?

    It appears you have a wrong understanding of what “Sola Scriptura” actually is.

    What do you think the actual definition of the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is?

    • James Bradshaw says:

      Sola Scriptura:

      “Beyond the Reformation, as in some Evangelical and Baptist denominations, sola scriptura is stated even more strongly: it is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ”

      Clear to the rational reader. This means that the vast majority of people will read it the same way, much like a cookbook or instruction manual. A half cup of sugar, a quarter cup of flour. What’s to misinterpret? I don’t see this being the case with the Bible. Pentecostals are reading the same book that the cessationists are. Calvinists claim to know the Bible as well as the Arminians do. Catholics read the same passages every Sunday that Protestants do. The abolitionists found an entirely different set of ethics emanating from Scripture than those that supported slavery.

      Are you suggesting that one side on each of these matters is “irrational”? If Scripture is that clear, why the confusion over what it means? These differences are so profound that they have led to the shedding of blood throughout history.

      “Its own interpreter”. That is: you shouldn’t need a windy explanation from a pastor or theologian. Its words are self-evident. If that were the case, why bother listening to the teachings of men like MacArthur or Sproul? Just go to the source.

  11. James Bradshaw says:

    How about this: Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation.

    Is it? I don’t know.

    Here: can you be condemned for unrepentant sin? I understand that you can’t “earn” your salvation, but can sin keep you out of Heaven? What if you don’t believe yourself to be in error?

    You’ve referred to slavery as being “wrong”. Well, many earnest Christians and devout believers kept the slave trade alive in America. Are they in Hell? If so, then they are despite their reverence of Scripture and determining that slavery was morally neutral at worst and possibly even ordained by God — based on their understanding of Scripture. Sure, there might have been a few opportunists … but ALL of them?

    If their understanding of Scripture led them to Hell, then no … Scripture was obviously not sufficient .. for them.

  12. Ken Temple says:

    How about this: Scripture alone is sufficient for salvation.
    Is it? I don’t know.

    Thanks James for hanging in there and continuing to comment. I am glad you are still interested in discussing spiritual issues. Sorry I don’t always answer quickly, but I will try to eventually get to answering most people’s questions. (Unless it becomes too many to handle. Not there yet.)

    No, this is not exactly the definition of “Sola Scriptura either. The reason why you asked the questions about “Why listen to or read Calvin, or Luther, or Spurgeon or John McArthur?” is precisely because you don’t know the exact definition of what “Sola Scriptura” is.

    “Sola Scriptura” does not mean the we don’t use any other source for help in spiritual knowledge or helping us interpreting a passage of Scripture. Sola Scripture is “Scripture is the only infallible source for establishing doctrine and guidance for Christian living.” The key word is “infallible”. There are other sources that are good secondary sources that are not infallible, such as creeds (Nicea – 325 AD, Chalcedon – 451 AD), doctrinal statements (Westminster Confession of Faith, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, etc.), good commentaries, historical writings and facts, and gifted pastors and Bible teachers throughout history. So, we can glean from past teachers who have written down their thoughts and comments on Scripture, but only Scripture is infallible. Scripture is the “final court of arbitration”. So, now you can see why we can listen to John McArthur or John Piper or R. C. Sproul or D. A. Carson or Al Mohler or James White, today; and why reading Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin and Luther and Spurgeon, etc. of the past is good also. But we always test them by Scripture to see if what they say is true. I hope that is helpful.

    A couple of good books on this is Scripture Alone, by James White;
    http://store.aomin.org/christian-apologetics/basic-training/books/scripture-alone.html

    and The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Matthison.
    http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Sola-Scriptura-Keith-Mathison/dp/1885767749

    I sincerely hope that is helpful for you to understand that issue better.

    What you earlier had said (the quote that appears to be from the wikipedia article on it) is actually a sub- category under Sola Scriptura, called the “perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture”, but even that does not mean that everything is clear. What it means is that the main things are plain and clear as to what the original author’s intention is – what he wants the reader to understand.

    As I wrote in my response to your question about slavery at Denny Burk’s blog – there is a big difference between that actual slave trade that originally brought the slaves to the colonies, and the inheriting of slaves in the subsequent generations. I don’t justify either one. There is no way to judge except by a case by case study of the lives of the slave owners and how they treated them – where they kind to them, and educated them and taught them the Bible, so as the effect was like a blue collar or factory type job as in today’s world? Or if they were cruel and prideful and evil, etc. – then I think it is obvious that those kind of slave owner were probably not Christians.

    I am a southerner, and I am glad for President Abraham Lincoln and the victory of the Union armies in the US Civil War. I believe it was a judgment on the whole institution of slavery.

  13. θ says:

    Unfortunately, the remaining Christian Crusade – but now it is indirectly by-proxy – is called “Israel state.”

    During the time of Jesus, there are certain Non-Jewish tribes in Jerusalem such as Canaanites, Samaritans, Phoenicians, Syrians, et cetera. Christian Crusades have committed usual injustice and discrimination by recognising only one-sided homeland claim of Jews.

    Violence and wars in Middle East is caused by:
    (i) Christian world followed political agenda and propaganda of Israel.
    (ii) Self-fulfilling destruction of Non-Moslems.

    Self-fulfilling expectation of Non-Moslems.
    (i) Per Q.59, v.13, Moslems and God of Islam are not always synonymous for Non-Moslems. In the sight of Non-Moslems, Moslems are more uncompromising, intolerable, frightful, agonizing than Allah.

    (ii) Per Q.34, v.20, Qur’an blames Satan for having indulgence of fulfilling the self-loathing expectation, “negative mood”, desire of self-destructive, self-weakening, and bad hope that is circulated and propagandised by the Non-Moslems to feed themselves with fear and discomfort.

    It explains much why each propaganda or news about terrorists in one occurrence somehow inspires or produces other self-fulfilling copycats, similar violence, in other places, at other time, by other perpetrators against Non-Moslems.

    It is because Satan loves the self-fulfillment of evilness of his worshipers.

    At one side, phobia of Moslem’s action becomes self-fulfilling and circular.
    At other side, the suffering Non-Moslems by hands of Moslems in one single event becomes what the news sells, or what causes populism, hence it becomes “suggestive” for more selling and more bad news.

  14. Ken Temple says:

    Islam attacked the Middle East first and conquered the land of “Palestine”, that was called that by the Romans, became part of the Byzantine Empire later. Islam under Omar attacked and conquered first in unjust and aggressive warfare. (636 AD and beyond)

    The Jews had the land from Joshua’s time to Solomon to the Roman times, although, at times, under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman rule off and on.

    The Jews were expelled from the land in 70 Ad and 135 AD (Bar Khoba rebellion) – scattered all over the world. Many settled in Europe.

    The Byzantine Empire was the government in 600s when Islam attacked.

    The Crusades were largely about self-defense (though 300-400 years later) against the Seljuk Turks and other Muslims who were killing pilgrims and stopping them from going on pilgrimmage to the “Holy Land” and the Seljuks attacked the Byzantines at the battle of Manzikert in 1071 AD. I don’t agree with the Roman Catholic motivations of the Crusades of penances and indulgences and gaining time and forgiveness out of Purgatory for fighting, but if it was for self-defense, that was right. But they made many gross sins – killing Jews, and the Eastern Orthodox in the 4th Crusade in Constantinople.

    The Ottomans controlled the land of Israel / Palestine from 1500s – 1918, but were justly punished for joining Germany in World War 1. The Jews wanted to go back to their homeland, the modern Zionist movement beginning in 1880s and at first buying back land from rich Arab land owners.

    The Muslims never accepted even the 2 state plan of 1947-1948, began attacking first, and always loosing more and more territory. It is a matter of justice that there is a Jewish state.

  15. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: Muslims never accepted even the 2 state plan of 1947-1948, began attacking first, and always loosing more and more territory. ”

    Jews may win a battle but effectively lost the wars.

    Israel-Palestine issue starts the new era of Political Islam.
    Moslems learn how to play a diplomacy with the West (hence Israel was forced to retreat after Camp David and Oslo Accord). Moslems learn how to argue using “humanitarian refugees” (hence Palestinians have UNWRA and UNHCR). Moslems learn how to play a card of the Cold War’s bluffing (Egyptian Sues crisis). Moslems learn how to use the issues of Antisemitism and Apartheid. Arabs learn how to develop “Arab Lobby”. Above all, Moslems learn to unify again.

    However, actually Arabs had been satisfied with the creation of state of Palestine Mandate for 25 years. From 1922 to 1947 there’s no significant complaint from Arab world of the British efforts of stopping Jewish migrations, preventing Jewish state, suppressing Jewish terrorist groups, and forcing Jews to remain in some stateless districts.

    The League of Nations created Palestine Mandate with San Remo Resolution in 1922. The US quickly ratified the formal recognition of Palestine state in 1925.

    The UN Partition Plan of 1947 is made just to affirm the recognition of state of Palestine Mandate and Jewish non-state cantons.

  16. θ says:

    Territorial conquest prior to the Crusades has nothing to do with Christianity as religion, but it is just the long term campaign to destroy the oppressive hegemony of the worldly empires.
    (i) On the prologue of war of Mu’tah, the Bysantines initiate the war on Islam.
    (ii) Ethiopia or Abyssinia was the great kingdom of Christian. None of Moslems or Caliphs has ever called a Jihad against it for 1,400 years. It is a consistent proof that Jihad is not motivated by the imperial conquest.

    Medieval Moslems can’t just say “no” when the oppressed invite them to help the people’s liberation from the empires. It is not typical of Moslems to suggest them to cowardly flee from a city to another city for more than 2,000 years till the coming of Christ.
    Early Jihadists were practical saviors and liberators of the weak and the poor, not the statesmen for caliphs. Qur’an asks a Jihad’s liberation rhetoric.
    Q.4, v.75. And what is wrong with ye to not fight in the cause of Allah and on behalf of the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people, and appoint for us from Yourself a savior, and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?

    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah
    The Battle of Mu’tah was fought in September 629 C.E. (1 Jumada al-awwal 8 A.H.),[1] near the village of Mu’tah, east of the Jordan River and Karak in Karak Governorate, between the forces of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad and the forces of the Eastern Roman Empire.In Muslim histories, the battle is usually described as the Muslims’ attempt to take retribution against a Ghassanid chief for taking the life of an emissary. According to Byzantine sources, the Muslims planned to launch their attack on a feast day. The local Byzantine Vicarius learned of their plans and collected the garrisons of the fortresses. The Muslims were at first pushed back when three of their leaders were killed. The muslims then chose Khalid ibn waleed as their commander. The Muslims continued small scale fighting in Mutah and then Khalid ibn waleed changed the entire army position to make it look as if new troops had arrived from Mecca. He gave an entire battalion new banners to also make it seem as new troops had arrived. He also told his cavalry to go behind the hill at night and then in the morning to raise as much dust as possible to make it seem yet more troops were arriving. The Byzantines belived in these new troops arriving and thus withdrew. This gave the Muslims control of the battle field and they withdrew also. [7]

    Christians contradict themselves concerning the radicalism. They hate if Sharia Law is institutionalised into the Secular West, but in the foreign issue they allied themselves with the radicals and undemocratic regimes in time when Moslems resist them from trying to replace the Sharia Law of Moderate Moslems with their theocracy. If Christians were consistent, let them replace the Secularism in the West with Sharia Law first.

Comments are closed.