The protest as a threat…

Start ’em young! Children at the Sydney demonstration hold up a provocative banner

Worldwide violence during protests purportedly over a second rate video produced by a convicted US felon have illustrated the fervour and hatred produced by minority militant mobs when they are stirred up to agitate.

US embassies and consulates were particularly targeted. Several people were killed.

Mobs gathered in Sydney and London to protest a day after the main violence in the Middle East, which was started on September 11 to mark the anniversary of militant Islamic attacks on New York, when thousands were killed when planes were flown into the Twin Towers.

The protesters came out after Friday prayers!

Friday prayers? It makes you wonder what they were praying about. Peace wasn’t in their minds, obviously. Of course, the Friday sessions include preaching. What could they have been preaching about to have stirred up the men and women into what became such a frenzy?

There is another shocking side to this. Children as young as three were seen carrying banners which called for the beheading of anyone who mocked their prophet. Some snap for the family album!

Interestingly, Revelation talks about Christians martyred by beheading. One has to wonder if there is, or will be, a connection in the future, in the last days before Christ comes.

Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Revelation 20:4

Something to lose your head over

So you’d behead someone for making a bad movie? A poor cartoon? Thank God Christians don’t attack people for mocking Christ, or Buddhists for mocking Buddha!

Christians have fought each other over bad doctrine, but that is mostly intramural – infernal, yes, but internal – and not because of some stupid movie which mocks Christ, or there would have been hell to pay over movies like The Life of Brian, which actually managed to expose some of the hypocrisies and folly of both religion and politics! Maybe the militants need a good laugh, but they don’t seem to be able to see the funny side of their pomposity.

Hindus, of course, have so many gods you’d never know if one was being mocked anyway, but there is surely something more sinister to this whole protest, burn and destroy thing than is being put about.

Rioting over a second rate movie

What possible reason could anyone have for even bothering to riot over the so-called movie which has ostensibly been responsible for the strong feelings? The film trailer is readily available on YouTube, but if any normal, sensible person can actually get through more that two or three minutes of this abysmal piece of filmmaking they are either masochistic or being paid a huge amount to report on it.

It is truly a dreadful piece of theatre. Everything about it is very, very bad. The acting, the false backdrops, the plot, the direction, the fake beards, just everything. No one could possibly take this seriously. No one in their right mind that is.

But to use it as a pretext to violence and protest is simply banal and beyond belief. No. There is something beyond this particular monstrosity of a movie which is driving these people to the streets and to perform murderous and violent acts of savagery. It has been claimed that the attacks which killed a US Ambassador were not just spontaneous anger but a well-planned and orchestrated attack which contrived to use the movie as a pretext.

What drives people to such acts of desperate violence on such a regular scale and for what are seemingly innocuous incidents, such as the Danish Cartoons, which incited major violence and mayhem in many places? There is something greater than protest and indignation happening here, surely.

A threat to nations

This is a movement making itself known to be a threat. This is a militant wing of a religion that is asking for a jihad. This is saying, ‘If you criticise our religion, our prophet, our way of living or our right to stir up violence we will break up your nation, attack your leaders and disrupt your peaceful way of life, your democracy, and your right to free speech’. This is anarchy.

And it is on the rise in the West, where Governments have opened their borders to the mostly peaceful settlers from other nations, as they should, and said ‘Come and make your home with us, come and join our peace, come and be liberated from your war-torn and impoverished nations, come and let your children grow in safety and security in our beautiful, democratic, fair and welfare state’.

Most migrants to Australia, and, for that matter, the US and European nations have come as peaceful citizens, bringing their culture, their religion, their languages and customs into already thriving countries and made them better for it.

But there are minority groups in every nation which are making it hell on earth for everyone else because of their selfish claims to control of the destiny of every other citizen. People who milk the cow dry then slaughter it in spite and leave it rotting on the roadside.

A peaceful but silent majority

I work with and have neighbours who follow this religion, and we get on well. I am not threatened by them. They are colleagues. Most deplore what is taking place, so I am not saying all are responsible, or even agree with what is taking place. The majority, like all of us, just want to get on with life and be a good neighbour. But how do we know what might take place at any given time in our neighbourhoods? I live in an area which is predominantly Muslim, and it is mostly peaceful. But where are the strong protests about what the militants are doing?

How do we deal with those minority militants who threaten us with their protests, their violence and their intrusion into the way of life we have offered them as an alternative to the religious systems they or their parents left for a better life in a free society?


Posted by Steve

21 thoughts on “The protest as a threat…

  1. The silent Muslim majority need to speak out en-mass against Muslim extremism in Sydney. – Their leaders need to courageously organise peaceful rallies against violent Muslim teaching and teachers and quickly expose the thugs among themselves – or are they afraid of getting their heads chopped off!

  2. WASHINGTON — The mysterious movie that sparked furious protests at U.S. embassies across the Middle East this week might not even exist.

    The film “Innocence of Muslims” appears to be little more than a hokey, badly dubbed YouTube clip promoted by a handful of fringe Christian fanatics bent on provoking a violent response from the Muslim world. They got their wish after the amateurish YouTube “trailer” went viral online and was aired by an Arabic satellite channel.

    Fury over the 14-minute trailer – which depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a sex-crazed child molester and murderer – led to riotous crowds this week at U.S. embassies in Egypt and Yemen. An attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. That incident now appears to have been a coordinated assault planned by Islamist militants.

    The attack, though apparently unrelated, played out at the same time as protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and pulled down and burned the American flag in anger over the YouTube clip, leading media reports to link the two events.

    In the immediate aftermath of the fatal attack in Libya, reporters from the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal tracked down a man who identified himself as Sam Bacile and said he was the film’s writer and producer. He claimed to be an “Israeli Jew” or an Israeli American, and said the movie had a $5 million budget that had been financed by Jews. “Islam is a cancer,” he told reporters.

    But by Thursday the story had unraveled. Bacile is not a real person, and there is little evidence anyone ever saw “Innocence of Muslims” in any theater. Certainly it did not cost anywhere near $5 million to make.

    On the YouTube clip, actors’ lines about Muhammad and Islam are crudely dubbed over. Bizarre, poorly edited scenes of sex and violence play out in front of a cartoonish green-screen desert. Actors who appear in the movie have come forward to say the script they used never mentioned Muhammad’s name, and that they had no idea they would appear in a film that denigrated Islam.

    It now appears the Internet furor over the movie was orchestrated by a trio of anti-Muslim fanatics in the United States.

    The Associated Press eventually traced the cellphone used by Bacile to a residence in Cerrito, Calif. The resident, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, described himself as an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian. He denied to the AP that he had directed the film but said he knew Bacile. Federal authorities have told AP that they believe Nakoula, who in 2010 was convicted of bank fraud, is the man behind the film.

    An anti-Muslim agitator named Morris Sadek, president of an obscure organization called the National American Coptic Assembly near Washington, D.C., promoted the film by email, Twitter and Facebook.

    Sadek is despised in Egypt, even among many fellow Copts who see him as a loose cannon. His citizenship was revoked by his native country in 2011 for “calling for war against Egypt,” among other crimes, according to the Egypt Independent newspaper.

    Sadek did not answer the door of his two-story brick townhome in the Washington-area suburb of Chantilly, Va., on Thursday, nor did he return phone calls and emails from a reporter. His organization is run out of the same address.

    Reached by phone by Reuters on Wednesday, Sadek identified Sam Bacile as the film’s writer and director. He told Reuters that he backed the film to draw attention to the plight of the Coptic Christian minority in Egypt.

    Reuters quoted Sadek as saying “of course” he was sorry about the violent response to the film, but he did not think the movie offended Islam.

    The Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles, Southern California & Hawaii released a statement Thursday, rejecting the “inflammatory movie about the prophet of Islam” and the violence reaction.

    “It is not the Christian way to respond to hatred with hate,” the statement reads.

    The film also has been tied to a Vietnam veteran, Steve Klein. Klein, from Riverside County, Calif., belongs to a tiny church that boasts a “militant Christian separatist worldview,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. He told the Los Angeles Times that “the idea was to locate . . . those folks who believed Osama bin Laden was a great guy and to try to get them to come to the movie.”

    The episode demonstrates how easy it is for a just few extremists to spread chaos around the globe from their computers, said Lawrence Pintak, dean of the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University and author of “The New Arab Journalist: Mission and Identity in a Time of Turmoil.”

    “We’re so far beyond the CNN-effect days. We’re into this YouTube effect, where words are lethal and it’s so easy to manipulate mainstream media and social and extremist media for your own ends,” Pintak said. “. . . All it takes is a laptop and an Internet connection and you can cause people to die and you can play to the script.”

    “In this case it’s quite clear these guys got what they hoped for, and that was they provoked the Islamists.”

    Read more here:

  3. The reason we Christians aren’t all that concerned about blasphemy is that Jesus divinity was itself a matter of blasphemy to Jews.

    For most Catholic Christians, Christ’s divinity is taken for granted. Today, however, this belief is being challenged, attacked and denied on several fronts. Jehovah Witnesses claim that Jesus was merely Michael the Archangel in human form, while Mormons reduce His divinity by claiming that everyone can be a god. Most cults also deny that Christ is God. Even some theologians seriously challenge this traditional belief. Others claim that Jesus was unaware of His divinity until after His Resurrection.

    Assuming that the Gospels are at least historically reliable, Jesus many times claims to be someone quite special. In Mark 2:28, Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10). He also claims to be greater than the Prophet Jonah (Matt 12:41), King Solomon (Matt 12:42) and even the Temple (Matt 12:6). According to Mark 2:1-12, Jesus claims authority to forgive sins and performs a miraculous cure to prove it. The scribes are angered because they believe that only God has the authority to forgive sins. These claims are quite extraordinary for someone who is “humble in heart.” [Matt 11:29]

    Jesus, while arguing with the scribes, makes an interesting statement about Himself and Abraham:

    Jesus answered them: “I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be, I AM.” At that they picked up rocks to throw at Jesus… [John 8:58-59; NAB]

    Jesus claims to have existed also before Abraham – something impossible for a mere human. Moreover the statement sounds grammatically awkward due to tense disagreement. It would sound better if He had said “I WAS” instead of “I AM.” The present tense implies Christ’s eternal existence as God.

    Even though Jesus does not explicitly call Himself “God”, He does refer to Himself with a form of God’s name. The full meaning of His statement in John 8:58 is best understood in connection with Exodus 3:14. In Exodus God reveals His name to Moses:

    God replied, “I AM WHO AM.” Then He added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.” [Exodus 3:14; NAB]

    God’s name – YHWH (Yahweh) – translates as “I AM WHO AM” or simply “I AM.” In John 8:24 & 58, Jesus is referring to Himself with God’s name. The scribes understand Him as such and respond by throwing rocks at Him. They wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy – referring to Himself as God (John 5:18).

    Other people in the Gospels also bear witness to His divinity. Even before His birth, He is referred to as Lord. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth greets the pregnant Mary:

    “But who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” [Luke 1:43; NAB]

    Elizabeth refers to Mary as “the mother of my Lord.” Elsewhere in Luke 1, the title “Lord” refers to God, e.g. “an angel of the Lord” [Luke 1:11]. It should be noted that the name YHWH, being too sacred, could not be uttered, so the Hebrews said “Lord” instead. This passage in Luke suggests that Jesus was God while in the womb of Mary. Also when Jesus was an infant, the wise men worshipped Him according to Matthew 2:11. If the Christ Child were not divine, then this Gospel passage would present idolatry in a positive light. Later Jesus even allows people to worship-adore Him, as in John 9: 38. Finally after the Resurrection, Thomas greets Jesus as “My Lord and my God.” [John 20:28; cf. Ps 35:23] Jesus confirms this greeting without any hesitation, objection or correction. As a teacher Jesus would be obliged to correct an error, especially a blasphemous error.

    According to secular reports, the 2nd-century Christians worshipped Christ as God. Pagans mocked the early Christians for worshipping a crucified God. According to 2nd-century Roman graffiti discovered in 1856 on Palatine, a Christian is caricatured as praying to a crucified figure. Its caption reads, “Alexamenos worships his god.” In 111 A.D. Pliny the Younger wrote in a letter to Emperor Trajan about Christians:

    …it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turn a form of words to Christ as a god.” [Pliny, Epistle 97]

    At least to the 2nd-century pagans, it appeared that Christians considered Jesus as their God.

    Some may object to Christ’s divinity and cite Bible verses pertaining to His humanity, e.g.:

    …there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. [1 Tim 2:5]

    Now it must be understood that Jesus Christ is also human. This mystery is called the Incarnation – God becoming man (Gal 4:4). As St. Paul writes:

    In Christ the fullness of Deity resides in bodily form. [Col 2:9; NAB]

    According to the Tome of Leo as proclaimed during the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., Jesus is a divine Person with two natures: a divine nature and a human nature. Christ is both God and man.

    Others may object to Christ’s divinity and point to Gospel passages that show His lack of knowledge. According to them, the all-knowing God would not need to ask the crowd, “Who touched my garments?” [Mark 5:30] or during the raising of Lazarus, to ask Mary, “Where have you laid him?” [John 11:34] In reply to their objection, it should be noted that these are rhetorical questions and do not prove Christ’s ignorance. God the Father does not show ignorance when He asks Adam, “Where are you?” [Gen 3:9] or Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” [Gen 4:9] These questions are meant to draw a response from the people. A teacher may ask his students questions not out of ignorance but in order to test or teach them a lesson.

    Now a more troublesome verse concerns Christ’s knowledge of Judgement Day:

    “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son but only the Father.” [Mark 13:32; RSV]

    Bishop Richard Challoner responds to this verse in a footnote in the Douay-Rheims Bible:

    Nor the Son. Not that the Son of God is absolutely ignorant of the day of judgement, but that He knoweth it not, as our teacher; that is He knoweth it not so as to teach it to us, as not being expedient.

    In other words Christ knew the Day but was not commissioned to tell us. Some early Church fathers responded by claiming that Christ knew the Day but not through His humanity. For those who are interested, this and other difficult verses are discussed in detail in the book, The Consciousness of Christ by Fr. William G. Most (Front Royal, VA; Christendom College Press, 1980).

    Still some may object to Christ’s divinity claiming that there is only one God – God the Father. Now it is true that there is only one God; however, God is also Holy Trinity: “…in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” [Matt 28:19] The Trinity is three Persons in one God, and not three gods. Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Holy Trinity – God the Son. According to the Bible, “God is love” [1 John 4:16] but for love to be real, it must be between two or more persons. God the Father and God the Son, being two Persons in one divine nature (John 10:30), love each other. This love is so real that it is the third Person – God the Holy Spirit. This is analogous to the love between husband and wife that results in a child (but of course devoid of time and sex). A good discussion on the Trinity can be found in the book, Theology for Beginners by Frank J. Sheed (Ann Arbor, MI; Servant Books, 1981).

    In the Gospel Jesus claims to be an extraordinarily great person yet also humble. Jesus also claims the authority to forgive sins -offenses against God. He claims to be “I AM” -a form of God’s name (John 8:24 & 58). The scribes are angered by His claims, seeing them as blasphemy (John 5:18; 10:30). According to the Gospel, even the demons (Mark 1:27) and the weather (Mark 4:41) obey Him. The several references in the Gospel to Christ’s human weaknesses do not necessarily void His divinity but are a mystery contained in His Incarnation. As St. John writes: “In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” [John 1:1,14]

  4. Greetings and Salaam to all followers of Isa! It is you friend Akhbar!

    Must be telling you NEVER to be use Prophets’ name in disrespect. As we do not use you Isa’s name for wrongly.

    Beheading is not wanted, but Allah commands in the scriptures. Good Muslim cannot disobey this command.

    As you are people of the book, so it is with those who have the fullness of the revelation.

    As-Salamu Alaykum

  5. Akhbar, if Allah is Islam’s one and only *God* why is so much fury shown when the *prophet* Muhammad (and therefore mere man however moral or honourable he was) is dishonoured in *any* way?
    Isn’t that in practice treating Muhammad as if he is a god?

    First commandment: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
    “You shall have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:2-3)

  6. Now the Islamic Councils call out for peace and calm, but where were these leaders in the middle of the conflict? Why wait a week before acting, after the community is incensed by the volatility of the situation, and the thugs who acted so repulsively?

  7. Christine you right there is only one God, not three.

    The Prophet Mohammed (upon his name be peace) was a man, to such a man God spoke.

    Who would disonor the Prophet is disonor God.

  8. Quit whining like a little girl Steve “oh my comments are all gone waaa waaaa waaa” you wanted a GTE free blog and when you got it you didn’t like it. Tough luck buddy.

  9. Akhbar the prophet Muhammad is NOT God and therefore he does not deserve the honour that only belongs to God.

    Jesus is God made flesh. Trinity theology link:

    “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word*, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7 KJV)

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. (John 1:1 KJV)

  10. @Akhbar

    “Beheading is not wanted, but Allah commands in the scriptures. Good Muslim cannot disobey this command.”

    The command to behead?

  11. Sura 47 says ” “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.”

    Blasphemers are unbelievers.

  12. the verse refers to the Battle of Badr, where the Meccans were gathering an army to attack Medina…in context doesn’t that sura simply mean, for that day adn time, that Allah (JHVH) was urging Muslim’s that it was alright to defend themselves? It, like so many of the biblical verses relied upon by literalists on this blog, does not apply to this day and age.

  13. Akhbar, what do you consider to be a battlefield? And, in what circumstances would you consider it right for a Muslim to behead someone?

Comments are closed.