Happy Hajj!

In an effort that is sure to warrant a fatwa calling for my death, FrontPage is headlining today my article, Happy Hajj! You're Not Invited!. Or at best, it will prompt some really creative hate mail. Lest anyone think that the Saudis aren't serious about preventing non-Muslims from entering Mecca or Media - or even approaching either city - be sure to read this article published yesterday regarding an Indian citizen traveling to see his wife who works near Medina who lost his way, was stopped by Saudi authorities and was sentenced to death by beheading earlier this week. No one can accuse the Wahhabis about being soft on crime! As the article reports, it was only through the intervention high-ranking Indian government officials with the Saudis that the man's life was spared. I would have included that information in my own article, but I didn't see that piece until I had already turned it in to my editors.

Also of interest is another article from 2003 by Jonathan Last in the Wall Street Journal that discusses the incongruity of Muslims building mosques in the heart of Christian Europe (in this case, right near St. Peter's Square in Rome), versus the prohibition of non-Muslims from entering Mecca.

And just to prove that I'm an equal opportunity critic, read an old article of mine (from Dec. 1997, as I recall), Happy Kwanzaa! (note: the original location of the article is no longer in service, and this site republished it without permission, but it is the only place I can find it; so don't hold me responsible for anything else there that might offend, because I haven't scoped it out.)

For anyone who might still be skeptical of the treatment of non-Muslims around Mecca, here's some visual evidence:

Happy Hajj! Happy Kwanzaa! Happy Hanukkah! And a Merry Christmas to all!

Existential Space goes global!

I was delighted to see earlier today that my article for FrontPage earlier this week, "The War Ayatollah," has been translated and republished in France by ResilienceTV, "L'ayatollah de la guerre". Though I'm not quite sure how well my war-mongering piece today for American Thinker, "Bush's March to the (Mediterranean) Sea" will be received by les Francais, where I recommend that our withdrawal from Iraq be through Syria and Lebanon, where we can take out the Assad regime and help the Israelis put the squeeze on Hezbollah before our troops board ship in the port of Beirut to come home. Nonetheless, I was glad to see Existential Space getting some global love!

Merci, mes amies!

Rise of the Metroevangelical™

An article in today's NY Times offers a portrait of uber-perky actress and current it-girl, Kristin Chenoweth ("She Sings! She Acts! She Prays!"). In the first few paragraphs reporter Jesse Green lets us know that not only does Chenoweth carry authentic evangelical bona fides, having released a CD (As I Am) of Christian power pop, but that she manifests all of the politically correct virtues of the Manhattan elite (her regrets at having appeared on the 700 Club, her support for gay marriage, and wearing an Obama Barack for President button). And then there was the racy bikini spread in FHM (and I have to say she looks hot in the knee-high white leather boots in the NYT article).


Kinky!

For years, culturally-minded evangelicals have been urging Christians to engage culture in order to break out of the "evangelical ghetto". We were supposed to go to the rabidly secular universities, be familiar with all the various media (books, magazines, movies, music) that the world had to offer and generally take our place among the central cultural institutions of America - in short, to be culturally "relevant". Many of us bought into that project, myself included. In these positions of cultural influence, we were told, we would be able to affect the transformation of our culture "for Christ".

There is a lot of wisdom in that model of cultural transformation. Jesus himself never shied from the seedier elements of cultural life in his day, a tradition carried on by noble outreach efforts, such as XXXchurch.

That said, I wonder if there isn't in Chenoweth's story a warning to those of us who want to engage culture of the consequences of the many slight accommodations we are forced to make to get into those positions of cultural influence. With obvious talent, Chenoweth went to college and majored in Theater, eventually cultivating her career into wild success on Broadway, television and Hollywood. Bravo! But what does it say that this self-identified Baptist girl has been forced to reshape her standards to fit into these wildly liberal, but incredibly influential, cultural microcosms? Did anything resonate in her conscience when her gay theater clientele forced her contrition for appearing on the 700 Club and demanded her repentance for the crime of being remotely associated with the bane of East Coast and Left Coast sensibilities, Pat Robertson (who admittedly is nuttier than a loon)? Would Chenoweth be able to return to the small-town Oklahoma world she grew up in and that instilled in her the very values that have made her a success?

As we saw last week in the hand-wringing over uber-evangelical Rick Warren's AIDS conference and the resignation of Christian Coalition president-elect Joel Hunter after a rejection of his "social justice" agenda, these questions about who is really being influenced and in what ways when evangelicals engage culture are not insignificant or inconsequential. In fact, it seems to be the very issue we should be talking about, but really aren't.

Strangely, I think the world has much to teach us here. We only need to look at the many evangelical leaders tripping over themselves to preach on Third World debt (see my thoughts on Bruce "Prayer of Jabez" Wilkinson's disastrous project in Swaziland, "When Jabez Just Isn't Enough)", the environment and AIDS to be able to get a photo op with Bono, and then see that Bono and his U2 pals moving their assets out of Ireland to avoid paying the taxes to fund the very policies they promote. When given the opportunity, the world isn't willing to put their money where their principles are; they just are expecting you to pay for their policies without any complaint. The world must look at the Christian community (rightly so) and laugh at our desperate attempts to be hip and emergent. We are not much unlike the Seinfeld episode when Elaine shows off her horrid dancing skills completely oblivious to how bad they really are.



And I'm sure the Manhattan and Hollywood limousine liberal crowd applaud themselves when they see someone like Kristin Chenoweth fall right into line with their cultural agenda. In becoming agents of cultural change, we need to ask who we have become agents of cultural change for.

If anything, Kristin Chenoweth's success heralds the rise of a new kind of culturally relevant Christian, the Metroevangelical™ - a trend that should give Christian leaders a moment of pause. I would roughly define a Metroevangelical™ to be a thoroughly postmodern American Christian evangelical, who under pressure from popular culture feels compelled to transform objective moral values into subjective personal/political preferences. With that in mind, we would do well to remember that Jesus made a point about being in the world, but not of it.

Some of my previous observations on Evangelicalism:

The SS Titanic of Evangelicalism (12/11/05)

Evangelical Cultural Bankruptcy, Exhibit A (12/12/05)

Evangelical Cultural Bankruptcy, Exhibit B (12/17/05)

Congrats Hilliard Davidson Wildcats!

It's been a great season for football in Central Ohio. Not only are my Ohio State Buckeyes headed to Arizona to play for the National Championship next month after defeating two No. 2 ranked teams - Texas and Michigan - during the season and securing an outright Big Ten conference title, and quarterback Troy Smith looks to be a shoe-in for the Heisman Trophy (Ohio State's seventh, by the way), but also last night my high school alma mater, Hilliard Davidson, won an astounding 2OT victory to win the Ohio Division I-A State Championship 36-35 over Mentor in the first I-A overtime game in history. Since 1972, only one other Central Ohio team has won the I-A championship, which is usually dominated by the mammoth play-for-hire teams from Cincinnati and Cleveland (Mentor has double the enrollment of Hilliard Davidson). In their first trip to the state championship (falling last year in the semi-finals to the eventual winner), the Wildcats clawled their way back from a 14-0 deficit, intercepted a pass in the closing seconds of regulation to push the game into overtime, and in the last overtime went for gutsy a 2-point conversion to win the game, exhibiting Coach Brian White's philosophy - GO FOR THE WIN! Last week, the Wildcats had to beat the USA Today 12th nationally ranked Cincinnati Colerain to get into the title game to play against Mentor.

Congrats to my Hilliard Davidson Wildcats - Ohio Division I-A State Champions!

Next up, Glendale, AZ. Go Bucks!

Islam and the Problem of Rationality

Greetings to everyone visiting today from my article in today's American Thinker, "Islam and the Problem of Rationality". You can find some of my Islam-related blog posts linked on the sidebar to the right, as well as links to my other articles for The American Thinker and also for FrontPage Magazine. Thanks for visiting!

In Defense of Napping

Whenever I get a phone call during the day, invariably the first question usually asked is whether I was asleep or not. In fact, whenever one of my mother's friends stops over at the house, she always asks whether I was still in bed - at two o'clock in the afternoon. Yes, it is well known that I'm a napper. As a result, I experience the heavy weight from the social stigma that comes with being a napper.

But is the social stigma attached to napping warranted? Are nappers just lazy bums? According to Kurt Kleiner of the Toronto Star, the answer is no. In an article published earlier this week, The Modern World Killed Off the Nap, Kleiner explains that not only are researchers discovering that naps are entirely natural, but they are signs of a balanced life. He also notes that some of the greatest and most productive figures in history (Napoleon, Thomas Edison, John D. Rockefeller, Winston Churchill, et al.) were all nappers. I'm in good company, it seems.

But that doesn't relieve the social stigma associated with napping. With my peculiar schedule of working through the night (I was up writing until 5 am this morning before going to bed), many people have concluded that I am an unproductive bum. That may be true, but it isn't because of my sleeping habits. In fact, what I have found is that I usually get less sleep than most of my critics (those critics usually go to bed at 9pm and get up at 6am, while I rarely get more than 7 hours of sleep). And I find that I'm much more productive. When I was a working stiff (much like yourself) I would regularly see that productivity around the office would decline precipitously after lunch. Getting something done after 3pm was virtually impossible. I remedied this problem in my own life by going home during lunch and taking a nap, which usually enabled me to work into the evening long after most of my co-workers had gone home. I was also one of the last persons into the office in the morning, which meant that I avoided long traffic delays and that the office was in full gear by the time I got to work. Thankfully, all of that is behind me now.

So what is the moral of the story? Get in touch with your inner napper and enjoy a more balanced life. There are few things in this world as sweet as a post-lunch sugar coma.

I think it's time for my nap.

Cathedral Music Videos

We are on the cutting edge of technology here at Existential Space. To prove it, I've posted two of my music videos online thanks to something called "YouTube". Maybe you've heard of it. Amongst all the jihadist ranting, moonbat Leftist drivel and ego masturbation there, you can find my "Cathedrals of England, Ireland and Scotland" and "Washington National Cathedral", or you can watch them right here by clicking the controls below. Both videos are comprised entirely of pictures I have taken. Enjoy!

Cathedrals of England, Ireland and Scotland



Washington National Cathedral

Ohio State Prof: "What Terrorist Threat?"

UPDATE #1: Thanks to Charles at Little Green Footballs for the plug, and welcome to all lizardoids. Thanks also to Ciaospirit. And lest any U of Michigan football fan take false hope in Mueller's corrupting influence on the#1 ranked OSU Buckeyes - keep dreaming! GO BUCKS! BEAT THE BLUE!

UPDATE #2: I am informed that Professor Mueller has a book due out in mid-November, Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them (Free Press), that also advances his thesis that terrorism doesn't exist. I just hope he sent an advance copy to Osama bin Laden!

With the fifth anniversary of 9/11 now behind us, I'm sure that few of us can forget the horror and uncertainty of that day. But despite the pervasive presence of that event in our collective memory, some in academia say we do not need to fight a war on terror because we are fighting “an enemy that scarcely exists.”

See as Exhibit A the lead article in the September-October issue of Foreign Affairs – published by the Council on Foreign Relations and considered one of the premiere sources of foreign policy for the East Coast Leftist and inside-the-Beltway establishments, where you will find an article by John Mueller, “Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?”, which is summarized as follows:

Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable – but rarely heard – explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.

This conclusion might strike most of us who pay attention to the news as patently bizarre, but Mueller is not some visiting lecturer at Antioch College or Berkeley; he is a professor at one of the largest and most respected public universities in the country: The Ohio State University (my alma mater). In fact, Mueller holds the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies, named after Ohio State’s beloved pugilistic and military historian football coach, and a professorship in the Department of Political Science (my undergraduate major).

Of course, in August the U.S., UK, and Pakistan foiled a terror plot to attack U.S.-bound airliners, potentially killing hundreds or thousands of Americans, but we find out that Mueller doesn’t let that fact get in his way. More to the point, there is evidence immediately at hand in Central Ohio to refute his ridiculous argument. In June 2004, Nuradin Abdi and Iyman Faris were arrested and charged with terrorism for plotting to blow up a Columbus-area shopping mall and making plans to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris, who admitted to receiving his orders directly from former al-Qaeda terror operations chief, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, pled guilty to the terrorism charges; Abdi’s case comes to trial this month at the Federal courthouse just a few miles from Mueller’s office.

Upon reading his argument that there is no terror threat to the US, I sent Professor Mueller an e-mail identifying myself as an Ohio State alum and Political Science graduate, politely asking him whether the revelations of this most recent plot to blow up US-bound airliners contradicted his thesis that there is no actual terrorist threat. Within a few hours, I received his single sentence reply:

“Why do you think it contradicts my thesis?”

In my response to his question I noted the fairly obvious conclusion that the existence of actual terror plots against the United States would flatly refute his contention that there are no terror plots against the US. That seems logical to me; but then again, Mueller is Political Science faculty, not Philosophy. Needless to say, since I pointed this out to him, I haven’t heard from Mueller again.

In his article, he gives evidence that logic is not his strong suit when openly contradicts himself:

But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited? One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered.

Given their previous history of striking when their media cache sinks, wouldn’t it be more likely that al-Qaeda would attempt another 9/11-style attack to demonstrate their potency and to mask their current "desperation, isolation, fragmentation, and decline," much as he claims they did on 9/11?

Of course, there are a number of factors that have prevented al-Qaeda from striking America again, most importantly our military assaults against them abroad and vigorous law enforcement measures at home. This includes the destruction of Al-Qaeda’s Taliban safe haven, intensive signals surveillance and human intelligence gathering, the capture and dismantling of their terror cells around the world, the identification and freezing of their financial assets and disrupting their sources of income, and the U.S. military pushing what remains of al-Qaeda’s leadership into the remote mountain caves of Waziristan.

None of that fits into his assessment, however: if al-Qaeda actually intended to strike us again they would have successfully done so by now; therefore there is no real terror threat to the US, Mueller smugly concludes. Just who exactly is arguing for the "demonically competent" terrorist, Professor Mueller? But elsewhere he writes that al-Qaeda’s powers are "overblown" and "greatly exaggerated"; that they have reached the point of "desperation, isolation, fragmentation, and decline"; and that they "scarcely exist."

Being the good social scientist, Mueller finally retreats to the data, equating the risk to individual Americans of being killed in a terrorist attack as being hit by a meteor or drowning in the bathtub:

But while keeping such potential dangers in mind, it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaeda­like operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -- about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).

If we were to take Mueller’s argument to its logical conclusion, since the annual fatality rate for car crashes in the US is 14 out of every 100,000 people, we should stop having law enforcement patrol highways. And since the lifetime risk of dying in an airplane crash is a staggering 1 in 8 million, the U.S. government should close down the National Transportation Safety Board, because there really isn’t much of a threat statistically speaking. But what comfort would Mueller's cold calculus be to a grieving widow or widower that lost their spouse on 9/11 that their death was little more than a statistical improbability?

It is interesting to note that one scholar that Mueller cites in support of his argument is Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East studies professor at Sarah Lawrence College, who argues that militant Islam is an invention of the West and that radical Islam had for the most part abandoned violence prior to 9/11 for politics. As Jonathan Calt Harris of Campus Watch explained in the National Review in 2003, Gerges has a habit of trying to hold mutually exclusive positions – all to the detriment of the foreign policy and national security of the United States:

Gerges feels America is wrong for taking militant Islam seriously, wrong for aiding Arab states against militant Islamic opposition and wrong for not aiding Arab states against Israel. America should not "collectively punish," yet should deny aid to a state based on the actions of its unelected ruler. America should not act "hegemonically," yet must "push along" Islamist groups to democracy, and "literally push" Arabs and Israelis to a solution. America cannot escape its "blood legacy" for supporting Saddam decades ago, yet now it is perpetrating a "unilateral military onslaught" by removing him.

Mueller not only quotes Gerges approvingly, but heartily embraces his “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” approach to radical Islam and terrorism. For both, it is as if 9/11 never occurred and that there really is no enemy for us to protect ourselves against – except the Bush Administration, which in their mind is a cross between the Khmer Rouge and Italian fascism. Thus for these “scholars”, any terror-related intelligence gathering, investigations, or (heaven forbid) arrests of terror suspects are gross human rights abuses and war crimes.

The only other scholar cited by Mueller in his Foreign Affairs article is Georgetown law professor David Cole, who has recently received awards from the Communist Party USA-founded National Lawyers Guild (who Erick Stakelbeck has described as “Cheerleaders of Terrorism”), the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (which openly supports suicide terrorist attacks against Israel), and the American Muslim Council (whose chairman was imprisoned in 2003 for terrorism-related charges). In addition, he serves as the legal affairs correspondent for the far Left magazine, The Nation.

Last year, Cole complained to U.S. News and World Report that the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Emergency Support Team was conducting radiation monitoring at 120 sites, including mosques, in the Washington D.C.-area and five other cities to prevent a nuclear attack against the US. Cole asserted that driving by these places each day with a Geiger counter was a violation of the most basic constitutional protections. This past May he protested the fairness of the conviction of Palestinian Islamic Jihad support, Sami al-Arian, and defended al-Arian’s innocence, despite the fact that al-Arian eventually pled guilty to the charges.

Cole is also a volunteer staff attorney and sits on the board of the George Soros-financed Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). The most recent publication by the CCR is the book, Articles of Impeachment of George W. Bush, and their most recent legal victory was securing civil liberties for the captured terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Again, Fawaz Gerges and David Cole are the only two scholars cited by Mueller, both of whom play to the conspiracy-mongers among the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground crowd. Is it any wonder then that Mueller’s Foreign Affairs article is laced with very familiar Leftist catch-phrases (“the ill-considered U.S. venture in Iraq”), politically-charged indictments (“The FBI embraces a spooky I-think-therefore-they-are line of reasoning when assessing the purported terrorist menace”) and completely over-the-top comparisons (likening US terror investigations to the Japanese-American internments of WWII)?

Professor Mueller’s opinion is sure to be sought out by eager New York Times reporters digging for quotes and his Foreign Affairs article cited in the press releases that stream endlessly from Howard Dean’s office at the Democratic National Committee, but what does it say about academia in America today that recognizing the deadly obvious terror threat to our country is considered a Copernican heresy by the faculty of our some of our most prominent colleges and universities? If 9/11 wasn’t sufficient to convince these academics that terrorism exists and that the US is the prime target, it’s doubtful that another attack will.

Having been born and raised in Columbus, having grown up as an Ohio State football fan, and being an Ohio State alumnus, I can safely conclude that if Woody Hayes were still alive, he would punch John Mueller in the mouth as quick as a Clemson football player.

Long live Woody! Go Bucks!

Christian Worldview and Changing Cultures

I am pleased to announce that I am now able to offer all three parts of my essay series published by Christianity & Society, "Christian Worldview and Changing Cultures," which appeared serially in the Summer 2005, Winter 2006, and Summer 2006 issues of that journal:

Christian Worldview and Changing Cultures, Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

I have said previously here that Christianity & Society should be among the subscriptions list of any serious-minded, culturally-aware Christian. Now that many back issues are available for free online on the Kuyper Foundation website, even the most skeptical should be convinced that this excellent international publication is worthy of your support. Subscribe today!

I hope to revise this essay and issue it as a short book in the near future. Comments welcome and appreciated!

The Islamist Cult of Death at Work in Iraq

Welcome to the visitors joining us today from The American Thinker! Thanks for stopping by! For you regulars, the visitors have come to us from my AT article posted this morning, The Islamist Death Cult at Work in Iraq. Here's a sample:

Superlatives are insufficient to describe the horror currently seen in Iraq: bags filled with severed human heads; scores of bodies found with the eyes drilled out; limbs amputated with power saws; crowds of Iraqi children blown to bits for accepting candy from American troops; pits filled with bodies of executed “collaborators”. These are the daily deeds of the self-proclaimed Islamic “freedom fighters” in Iraq – the Warriors of Jihad...

...To begin to get a grip on the scale of awful magnitude of the situation, consider that more people will be murdered by al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies in Iraq this month alone than all of the victims they killed on 9/11 (3,009 murdered in Iraq in August 2006 vs. 2,996 on 9/11). They seem intent on liquidating the entire populace in order to save them for the New World Caliphate.

Thanks to the good folks at The American Thinker for continuing to give me a regular place in their excellent line up. If it isn't a regular stop on your daily reading, it should be!

Rome Getting It Wrong on Islam

I have previously written two posts (Part 1, Part 2) on "Rome Getting It Right on Islam", praising the shift in official Vatican policy regarding Islam from Pope John Paul II to Benedict XVI. Just when it looked like it was safe to loudly cheer Benedict's recent comments regarding Islam at a conference in Regensberg, Germany - comments that have rightly inflamed the Muslim world - it seems that what he has given on one hand, he has taken away with the other.

Daniel Pipes reports that in the wake of violence and condemnations in the Muslim world in response to Benedict's Regensburg address, the Roman Catholic pontiff has this past week acknowledged Islam's filial relationship to Christianity as a member of the Abrahamic faith. In his address to the Ambassadors to Rome from Muslim countries, Benedict reaffirmed the Second Vatican Council's Nostra Aetate Declaration, which equates the Islamic Allah with the Christian God:

The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God.

Benedict went so far as to cite this conclusion as "the Magna Carta of the Muslim-Christian dialogue." This is clearly a step in the wrong direction, though he is following in the path of his predecessor, who said regarding Christians and Muslims while visiting Morocco in 1995, "we believe in the same God, the one God, the living God."

As we are engaged in the most recent phase combatting the 1400 year-long defense of the West against violent and aggressive Islamic imperialism, it is tempting to lose our nerve. In this case, Pope Benedict has lost his. The furor by Muslims over his recent comments has prompted him to retreat into the institutional complacency that has plagued the Roman Catholic Church for the past two hundred years. Benedict has shown signs of breaking this habit. He has made some bold steps to break with the policies of JPII in a short period of time. But this is a time for leadership, not safety.

Islam is not a step forward for monotheism, but is a retreat into paganism. This has been the unmistakable message of the Christian Church since the 7th Century. Benedict is in an unparalleled position to provide leadership the world by proclaiming Christian truth in the face of the Islamic threat to global civilization. He only squanders this opportunity by mau-mauing to the political correctness endemic to the Vatican diplomatic mandarins.

Al-Qaeda's 20-year Plan

For anyone that is interested in the war on terrorism, and article in last week's issue of The New Yorker is must reading. Lawrence Wright's, "The Master Plan," discusses the development of al-Qaeda's strategy since 9/11, gives an overview of their primary strategists, including Abu Musab al-Suri (who I wrote about here back in July, "The Architect of the New Global Jihad"), Abu Bakir Naji (author of The Management of Savagery, now available in a translation by William McCants at the Counter Terrorism Center at West Point), and a critical analysis by Jordanian author Fouad Hussein, who outlines al-Qaeda's 7-step 20-year plan in his book, Al-Zarqawi: al-Qaida's Second Generation. Hussein's book is based off a number of interviews with al-Qaeda leaders and his time in prison with Zarqawi.

The German daily Der Speigel covered Hussein's book last August. They summarized al-Qaeda's 20-year plan:

In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.

• The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."
  
• The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.
• The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.
  
• The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The ultimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.
  
• The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.
  
• The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.
  
• The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half billion Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.
  

Douglas Farah at Counterterrorism Blog asks, "Islamists Have a 20-year Plan: Do We?". According to Wright's New Yorker article, our policymakers have unwittingly played into al-Qaeda's strategy because they refuse to learn from the terrorists themselves:

Although American and European intelligence communities are aware of the jihadi texts, the work of these ideologues often reads like a playbook that U.S. policymakers have been slavishly, if inadvertently, following. “The data don’t get to the top, because the decision-makers are not looking for that kind of information,” a policy analyst who works closely with the American intelligence community told me. “They think they know better.”

It would be suicidal for us to ignore what al-Qaeda is willing to tell us directly. I'll have more on this issue in coming weeks, including some material never made public in English before. Stay tuned.

Hometown Jihad: Citizen Salah Sultan

My newest article, Hometown Jihad: Our Newest Citizen?, is headlining this morning at FrontPage Magazine. Follow the links to my previous articles on this topic, Hometown Jihad, the initial exposé published back in April, and Hometown Jihad: Blowback, which came out in late May.

The newest revelation is that Salah Sultan, the individual who has been the subject of these articles that lives here in my hometown of Hilliard, Ohio, is set to get his US citizenship within the next few weeks. This despite extensive connections and close relationships to terrorists, terror sympathizers, apologists and financiers. He is also the protégé of HAMAS spiritual leader Sheikh Yousef Qaradawi, who the Anti-Defamation League has characterized as the "Theologian of Terror".

For those who have asked me what can be done to prevent Salah Sultan from receiving US citizenship, my suggestion would be to contact Rep. Deborah Pryce , our local congressional representativewho is looking into the matter (be sure to be polite), and Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, who is in a tight race for re-election. Also be sure to contact your own Congressman and Senators. They are the only people who can apply the pressure to the idiots at the USCIS to put the kabosh on this deal.

I'll be sure to post any updates as I receive them.

Agence France Presse Pushes CAIR's Fake Hate Crime Numbers

UPDATE #1: It seems from information gleaned from Ms. Oberman's personal website that she is the sole reporter in AFP's Chicago Bureau. AFP's North American Regional Office is located in Washington DC.

UPDATE #2: Thanks to The American Thinker, Little Green Footballs, Miss Kelly and Solomonia for picking up this blog entry. Apologies if I missed anyone else.

UPDATE #3: A hearty Bonjour! to all of our friends joining us from France, Belgium and the Francophone world, courtesy of Bureau audiovisuel francophone.

UPDATE #4: I finally received a reply from Mira Oberman, the reporter who wrote the AFP article, who informed me that she had received the numbers directly from CAIR and that she wasn't aware of the statistics' dubious authenticity. I appreciate her response. But will the story be corrected? I'm not holding my breath.

I was catching up on the holiday weekend news by visiting Little Green Footballs a few hours ago and noticed an entry from Sunday, CAIR's 9/11 PR Push Continues. It references an article by Mira Oberman of Agence France Presse, "US Muslims plagued by discrimination after 9/11 attacks", that makes the following claim advanced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

CAIR has seen a steady increase in the number of complaints of harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment over the past five years. In 2004, complaints rose 49 percent to 1,522, of which 141 were reports of actual and potentially violent hate crimes.

These numbers are taken from CAIR's May 2005 report, Unequal Protection: The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States 2005:

In 2004, CAIR processed a total of 1,522 incident reports of civil rights cases compared to 1,019 cases reported to CAIR in 2003. This constitutes a 49 percent increase in the reported cases of harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment from 2003 and marks the highest number of Muslim civil rights cases ever reported to CAIR in our eleven year history.

In addition, CAIR received 141 reports of actual and potential violent anti-Muslim hate crimes, a 52 percent increase from the 93 reports received in 2003. (p. 5)

Just one problem: a week after CAIR published the report, Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha revealed ("CAIR's Hate Crime Nonsense") that this report included "a pattern of sloppiness, exaggeration, and distortion", especially that it included incidents that CAIR reported as hate crimes when it was known that the "hate crimes" they cited were perpetrated by the Muslim "victims" themselves. In one case in McAllen, Texas included in the CAIR report, even the New York Times had debunked CAIR's "hate crime" claims seven months prior to the CAIR report's release. In another case reported by CAIR in May 2005 as a "hate crime", an Everett, Washington grocer had been charged with setting fire to his own store in August 2004 - a full eight months prior to CAIR's published report. The Seattle Times reported CAIR's "hate crime" as a hoax in August 2004 when the charges were filed against the owner.

If you read the CAIR report that's posted on their website today you will find that all references to these hate crime hoaxes have been scrubbed, but CAIR has never changed the 2004 statistics in the report to account for these fraudulent incidents. Those statistics remain completely unchanged since the original publication of the report, and these are the very same stats parroted by AFP in the article from this weekend.

CAIR was clearly aware enough of this problematic information to scrub any mention of these incidents from the current version of the report available on their website, but careless or deceptive enough not to change the statistics. Regardless, CAIR nowhere indicates that the report has been corrected. And they are still peddling this fraudulent information to their old media allies, who appear to take any information received from CAIR at face value.

How was I able to catch this fakery by CAIR and their useful idiots in the mainstream media? I mentioned the problems with CAIR's report last week in an article for The American Thinker, "Kafir-phobia: Americans as Violent Anti-Muslim Bigots". My American Thinker article concerned CAIR's promotion of yet another staged "hate crime" this past July in Xenia, Ohio where two Jordanian restaurant owners hired a former employee to vandalize their store and later were severely injured in a blast when one of the owners lighted a cigarette while standing in a pool of gasoline they had spread intending to set fire to the shop later that evening. As of this evening, CAIR still has an uncorrected post on their website, "Blast at Arab-American Restaurant 'Suspicious'", containing false information about this latest incident. As I mentioned in my American Thinker article, it was reported by the local news media, including the Cincinnati Enquirer, that the owners were themselves responsible for the blast a week before CAIR posted the erroneous information on their website.

But I'm still not finished. Remember those two faked hate crime incidents in McAllen, Texas and Everett, Washington I mentioned earlier? A CAIR press release and news brief continue to tout these faked hate crimes almost a year and a half after the Pipes/Chadha exposé was published.

This raises some serious questions:

• The most serious is that CAIR - the most prominent Islamic organization in the US today - is deliberately floating fraudulent information to the media despite CAIR's awareness that the information is bogus. That notwithstanding, they are still the darlings of the old media and inside-the-Beltway establishment elites and cited as a reliable source of information.
• Another concern is that the May 2005 CAIR report has been scrubbed to conceal this problematic information without any notation whatsoever that the report has been changed.
• In all likelihood, Mira Oberman at AFP was unwittingly duped by CAIR, who probably provided her with these stats (see UDPATE #4 above). But has she ever heard of FACTCHECKING or a Google search?
• When the CAIR report was debunked by Pipes and Chadha just a week after its release, none of the mainstream media who covered the report's release corrected their stories. I have emailed Ms. Oberman this evening and informed her of the bogus information included in her report. Will AFP correct it and note the fraud? We'll see...

It should be clear to any informed observer that CAIR consistently and deliberately purveys false and fraudulent information (as the numerous instances cited in this blog entry confirm). They are aided in their deception, wittingly or unwittingly, by their go-to people in the mainstream media, much like Ms. Oberman, who take CAIR's propaganda and run with it without the slightest reservation, disregarding a mountain of evidence that should scream "CAUTION! HANDLED BY CAIR!".

As Pipes and Chadha note at the end of their exposé of CAIR's report:

But why do journalists report the results of CAIR’s survey – as though it came from a source without a viewpoint bias, as though past studies had been reliable, as though its polls are scientific, as though it has not been party to threats against an American Muslim dissident, and as though it has not protected Osama bin Laden’s image, as though five of CAIR’s staff and board members have not already been associated with terrorism, and as though it is not named as a defendant in 9/11 terror lawsuit?

One wonders what it will take for old media to ignore CAIR’s unreliable research and instead start reporting the words of Steven Pomerantz, a former chief of the FBI's counterterrorism section, that CAIR's activities “effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

Those are excellent points to ponder...

Notes on Beethoven

"... there begins in my head the development in every direction ... the fundamental idea never deserts me - it rises before me - grows, I see and hear the picture in all its extent and dimensions stand before my mind like a cast ..."

- Beethoven on composing, to Louis Schlösser, 1822.

Over the past few days I have been viewing the 3-part BBC docu-drama broadcast in June 2005, Beethoven, presented by composer and conductor, Charles Hazlewood. To say that the series is worth the viewing would be an understatement, and to try to summarize it would be foolish. Watch it for yourself.

What impresses me about Beethoven is that his music is intensely personal. As Hazlewood shows, you can chart the progress of his music by what was going on in his life. Beethoven was an absolute egoist self-consumed with his art and his talent. This is hardly unique in the post-modern era where everyone is consumed with themselves and when contemporary art is rarely more than masturbating the artist's ego resulting in absolute drivel; but in his day, it was extraordinary when music was written strictly for patrons and discriminating audiences.

But Beethoven's music also reflects the spirit of his times. Since his life bridges the Enlightenment and the beginnings of Romanticism, it is hardly surprising to find his music both revolutionary and romantic. And he is self-conscious about integrating the philosophy of his day with his music, as seen in Movement 4 in Symphony No. 9, incorporating Schiller's "Ode to Joy" - the first time that choral had been matched with a symphony. As such, Beethoven is full of the contradictions of his day: he is democratic and a humanist, but can't stand people. His paradoxical sentimentality and overbearing fortitude are best expressed in his 5th and 6th Symphonies, which were composed at the same time. The 6th (Pastoral) is light, airy and somewhat nostalgic; whereas the 5th is nothing short of kick-you-in-the-balls brutality. How could I not love Beethoven?

There is much in his tumultuous biography that I can appreciate and identify with, as I am sure is true with many others: his constant financial struggles; his crass and rude behavior that was a defense mechanism to keep others away; his ill fortunes in the area of love; the broken relationships with his family; others taking advantage of his talent for their own purposes. The themes that Hazlewood identifies in Beethoven's music are tension and reconciliation, creativity out of chaos, and integration and creative freedom - all reflective of Beethoven's own experience.

And then there is his deafness. I have pondered as to why Providence would decide that one of the greatest musicians in history should go deaf. We will never know. It would be as if Shakespeare were unable to write. It is a seeming tragedy. But is it? What better testament to the fact that it was God's gift that inspired Beethoven than the faculty through which Beethoven's art was expressed and received by others was the very one denied to him. Who else but God could have allowed the music to dwell in him such that he never needed to hear the music, but just simply had to think it? Those are not talents that are self-developed. They must come with the package.

In contrast to Mozart who expressed his genius within the boundaries and confines of convention, stretching them in the process, Beethoven is about the business of destroying boundaries, breaking rules, shattering and rending worlds. In many respects, Beethoven is the point of no return for music in the West. After him, there was no way to go back and examining the classical age without carrying the baggage and perspective of Modernity. Beethoven is the prism through which we see his predecessors, whether we know it or not. He is much like Kant in philosophy.

As I have been watching the series, I have also been listening to Beethoven's symphonies (the Deutsche Grammaphone collection directed by Herbert von Karajan and played by the Berliner Philharmoniker), as well as several additional pieces. Beethoven's music is still a special challenge to musicians today - think of how difficult it was for the musicians in his own day. The technical demands on the pianist in his piano concertos (think No. 4) are stunning. And then there is the vast range of the music itself in his corpus. Amazing!

The series does an excellent job of demonstrating the meaning of Beethoven's music within the context of the life of the man. It is worth the viewing if you can get ahold of it. Paul Rhys (do the Brits not have vowels?) does as excellent job as Beethoven. Getting a handle on Beethoven's music, however, is not so easy. It has taken me more than a decade to begin to digest his music. The first place I started a number of years ago was a 2-disc set called "Beethoven: The Greatest Hits", which is still in print and available at most music stores. It is a pretty broad selection (including my favorite, the Moonlight Sonata), but most of the work would be familiar to the average listener. That collection is a good jumping-off point before diving into his symphonies, sonatas, concertos, etc. You can only eat the elephant one bite at a time, but the meal is worth the effort!

What's next on the viewing list? BBC's The Genius of Mozart, also presented by Hazlewood, and The Romantics, presented by Peter Ackroyd. The Beeb might be filled with moonbat Leftists, but they sure make good documentaries. Something Americans could learn from.

CAIR's Kafir-phobia

If you're here visiting from my article today in The American Thinker, Kafir-phobia: Americans as Violent Anti-Muslim Bigots, welcome! Feel free to put your feet up and look around a while! For my Islam-related posts, check the sidebar to the right.

Ya'll come back again!

UPDATE (09/01/06): Thanks to WorldNetDaily for linking to the article on their Commentary page.

Remembering the St. Bartholomew Day Martyrs

A contemporary portrait of the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre

It was on this date in 1572 that one of the most tragic episodes in the history of the Christian Church occurred. The slaughter of tens of thousands of Protestants began in Paris at 3am on St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24th to the sound of church bells. One of the first victims was Gaspard de Coligny, the Admiral of France and the leader of the French Calvinists, the Huguenots. Admiral Coligny was arguably the most powerful man in France at the time and one of the closest advisors to Charles IX.

Paris was full of thousands of French Calvinists who were in the city to celebrate the marriage of Henry, King of Navarre, a Protestant, to the Princess Marguerite, the sister of Charles IX. The wedding was held on August 18th much to the dismay of Charles' mother, Catherine de Medici - the she-wolf of European politics and a staunch Roman Catholic. The marriage was intended to resolve tensions between the competing religious factions in France.

When an assassins bullet struck Coligny as he walked the streets of Paris on August 22nd, taking off one of his fingers, Catherine de Medici saw an opportunity to strike against the Protestants while their leader was recovering from his injuries. She pressured her son, Charles, with the help of the Duke of Guise and the Duke of Anjou. She convinced Charles that a Calvinist revolt was imminent. The Huguenot leadership must be eliminated, she argued. She threatened to leave her 23-year old son and return to Italy if he refused to act. Finally, Charles cracked, shouting, "By the death of God, since you choose to kill the Admiral, I consent! But then you must kill all the Huguenots in France, so that not one shall be left to reproach me...Kill them all! Kill them all!"

With that, the butchery began. The king's Swiss Guards were summoned to dispatch the Huguenot leaders, including Coligny (pictured left), who was murdered in his bed by the Duke of Guise. Coligny's body was beheaded, his head presented to Charles, and his body hung up on display.

Spurred on by the Roman Catholic clergy, the masses soon seized upon any Huguenot that could be found. One Protestant witness who survived, Jacques-Auguste de Thou, who would later become a prominent Huguenot leader in his own right, described the horror:

"...the streets and ways did resound with the noise of those that flocked to the slaughter and plunder, and the complaints and doleful out-cries of dying men, and those that were nigh to danger were every where heard. The carkasses of the slain were thrown down from the windows, the Courts & chambers of houses were full of dead men, their dead bodies rolled in dirt were dragged through the streets, bloud did flow in such abundance through the chanels of the streets, that full streams of bloud did run down into the River: the number of the slain men, women, even those that were great with child, and children also, was innumerable."

Within days, 5,000 Huguenots lay dead in Paris alone. In the weeks and months that followed, the mass violence spread to virtually every region of France. In Lyon, Dijon, Tours, Troyes, Rouen, Bourges, and Toulouse, few Huguenots were spared from the savagery. The numbers of those murdered are estimated to be between 30,000-100,000.

The reaction to the massacre in Europe ranged from horror to jubilant celebration. The Spanish Ambassador in Paris rejoiced at the savagery: "As I write, they are killing all of them, they are stripping them naked...sparing not even the children. Blessed be God!" In Rome, Pope Gregory XIII welcomed the news of the massacre with a singing of the Te Deum. Pope Gregory also authorized the striking of a commemorative medal honoring the "Slaughter of the Huguenots" and commissioned the painter Giorgio Vasari to paint a mural of the massacre in the Vatican, bearing the inscription, Pontifex Colbni necent probat ("the Pope approves the killing of Coligny"). A portion of Vasari's painting is shown below to the right.

Commemorative medal struck by Pope Gregory XIII honoring the massacre of the Huguenots

The massacre had more impact amongst the Protestants across Europe. Perhaps one of the most important legacies of the event was the shift in Protestant political theory. For the next thirty years, printing presses would flow with new books contending against the "divine right of kings" and contending for constitutional monarchies. Francois Hotman's Franco-Gallia would argue that French kings were bound to follow the law and to protect their subjects. Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, argued in his The Right of Magistrates over Their Subjects (1574) from classical, medieval and contemporary history that subjects had a right to defend themselves against unbridled monarchical tyranny and that kings were not due unconditional obedience. Phillipe de Plessisis du Mornay -- another French Calvinist -- wrote in his Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos that Scripture allowed for the murder of a tyrannical monarch to defend liberty of conscience. In Scotland, George Buchanan authored a dialogue, De Jure Regni Apud Scots, dedicated to his pupil, King James of Scotland (later King James I of England). As many Founding Fathers attest to, these monarchomach treatises would play an important ideological role in the America War for Independence two centuries later.

The massacres did not have the intended effect in France that Catherine de Medici and her Roman Catholic supporters hoped for. Within two months, the French Wars of Religion flared again as Huguenots were forced by sheer survival to oppose Charles. Within a year, the Protestants had secured from Charles a guarantee of freedom of religion. In 1574, Charles IX died, which began what is known as the "War of the Three Henries". In the end, Henry of Navarre, who had survived the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre by "converting" to Roman Catholicism, became Henry IV of France. He had joined Protestant forces fighting against the Catholic League after again claiming his allegiance to the Protestant faith. When it became clear that Paris would not tolerate a Protestant king, he reconverted to Roman Catholicism in 1594, remarking, "Paris vaut bien une messe" ("Paris is worth a Mass") and was crowned King of France at Chartres on February 27, 1594. This act united the country and laid the ground for the prosperity that occurred under Henry's reign.

In 1598, Henry signed the Edict of Nantes, which granted official toleration of the Huguenots and purchased civil and religious peace for France for a century until Louis XIV revoked the edict in 1685, which prompted most Protestants to leave France forever (who were warmly welcomed by Protestant countries, including England, Germany, Switzerland, the Dutch Republic, South Africa and America).

Ahmadinejad's Apocalyptic Faith

My most recent article, Ahmadinejad's Apocalyptic Faith, is up today at FrontPage. For those of you just joining us in the 21st Century, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Iran's current president and chief sabre-rattler. Here's a preview:

Ahmadinejad’s worldview is shaped by the radical Hojjatieh Shiism that is best represented by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the Iranian President’s ideological mentor and marja-e taqlid (object of emulation), of the popular Haqqani religious school located in Qom. The affection seems to be mutual: in the 2005 Iranian presidential campaign, Ayatollah Yazdi issued a fatwa calling on his supporters to vote for Ahmadinejad.

The Hojjatieh movement is considered to be so radical that it was banned in 1983 by the Ayatollah Khomeini and is still opposed by the majority of the Iranian clerics, including the Supreme Leader of the Supreme National Security Council, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. That should be telling in and of itself. That opposition notwithstanding, it is believed that several adherents of the Hojjatieh sect are in Cabinet-level positions in Ahmadinejad’s government.

Most Shiites await the return of the 12th Shiite Imam, Muhammad ibn Hasan, the last direct male descendent of the Prophet Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, who disappeared in 874AD and is believed to be in an invisible, deathless state of existene, or “occultation”, awaiting his return. Though it is discounted even by the most extremist clerics, a popular belief in Iran holds that the 12th Imam, also called the Mahdi or the sahib-e zaman (“the Ruler of Time”), lives at the bottom of a well in Jamkaran, just outside of Qom. Devotees drop written requests into the well to communicate with the Mahdi. His reappearance will usher in a new era of peace as Islam vanquishes all of its enemies. The Sunnis, who reject the successors of Ali, believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born.

But rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi’s reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.

This is an important issue. Read it all (if I say so myself).

Getting Noticed Across the Pond

Every now and then when I think that no one is listening, evidence arrives that I'm being heard. A few weeks ago, I had a piece published by The American Thinker, entitled, Radical Islamists and Western Governments, about the collusion between Tony Blair's government (America's supposed partner in the Global War on Terrorism) and the Islamist Muslim Council of Britian, and the presence of known Islamists in Blair's Foreign Office, the equivalent of our Department of State. I received suprisingly little feedback, which is unusual for an article of this sort. At least I usually get some hate mail of the "Die Zionist Pig" variety. That's the standard indicator. The absence of any feedback at all led me to believe that it got lost in the wash or ignored altogether.

Lo and behold, a week ago my American Thinker article was positively mentioned in an opinion piece in the left-leaning British Guardian/Observer. It isn't every day that you get international media attention, even if it was offered with a bit of a political jab at conservatives such as myself. But hey, you take what you can when it's offered.

UPDATE #1: Oi vey! I entirely forgot to mention earlier that my FrontPage Magazine article, The Muslim Brotherhood "Project", was recently reprinted by the Paris-based Institut pour la Défense de la Démocratie.

I have some additional articles coming out hopefully this week. Stay tuned for updates!

In Memoriam: Leon Morris (1914-2006)

I was saddened to hear last week of the death of reknowned Australian Reformed Anglican scholar, Leon Morris. In recent years, Morris' works have been the source of tremendous spiritual encouragement and education for me. It was four years ago that I first read his The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, his PhD dissertation for Cambridge that is still today one of the most compelling defenses and expositions of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Covering the biblical themes of Redemption, Covenant, "The Blood", "The Lamb of God", Propitiation, Reconciliation and Justification, it is a tour de force of biblical theology.

What has attracted me to Morris' work has been the centrality of Christ's work of atonement in the Gospel. There is little room for the works of man in our salvation, as this quote (one of my favorites) found in the closing pages of The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross argues:

The people of God on the scriptural view are those who have entered into covenant with Him, and this might well be viewed as an activity of man as well as of God. But the initiative is always thought of as resting with God, and man's part is no more than the accepting of a covenant whose terms have been laid down by God. Thus the very idea of covenant, as the Bible understands it, puts the stress on the divine activity, and this is reinforced by the fact that the covenant in the New Testament is established only because the Son of God died for man and thus put away his sin. There is very little place for human activity in this way of viewing Calvary, and once again we see that atonement is essentially something wrought for, rather than in, man. (p. 300)

The theme of the centrality of the Cross as the heart of the Gospel was a theme I encountered when I read his Galatians: Paul's Charter of Christian Freedom:

That the cross is absolutely central means that the keeping of the law cannot be imposed on Gentile believers. The teachers Paul was opposing apparently did not grasp this. They were insisting that all converts must keep the whole law. The law was part of revealed Scripture and they saw it as binding on all. The law was at the heart of God's purpose, they thought, and this for Gentile believers as for Jews. Paul does not denigrate the law. It was divinely given and it was regarded as a great treasure by the Israelites in general, and Paul in particular. Paul sees it as very important. But it is not the way of salvation. To see the law as divinely given and as an incomparable guide to the way we should live out our salvation is one thing, but it is quite another to affirm that anyone's salvation hangs on the way he or she keeps the law. (p. 27)

These two books are excellent antidotes to those who today want to smuggle man's work and obedience into our salvation under the guise of "covenantal obedience" and other sundry postmodern theological inventions.

It was more than a year ago that Morris' The Cross in the New Testament took a place in my reading stack. Honestly, I have still not finished it, more out of laziness than anything else. But the third that I have read (covering Matthew, Mark and Luke) are a testament to solid biblical scholarship. His footnotes alone are worth the read, for they demonstrate his masterful handling of the vast body of theological literature on the topic. And still, the dominant theme of Christ's work and his identification with sinners is central:

The revolutionary thing in the practice of Jesus was his readiness to identify Himself with ordinary men. He did not take up a position anythig like that of the general run of religious leaders. He did not blame or despise men for failing to keep the traditions. He did not regard Himself as too holy to come into contact with them. He did not thank God that he was not like other men. Instead He sought them out. He talked with them. He dined with them. He made Himself one with them... He made Himself one with sinner because His mission concerned sinners, because He came to do for them that which was vitally necessary, but which they could not do for themselves. (pp. 90-92)

About the same time as I started reading The Cross in the New Testament, I also picked up his New Testament Theology. For good reason, this is a standard theological textbook in many evangelical seminaries. This is an excellent study of theology proper - the study of the person of God. And as Morris progresses through the New Testament, he shows how each biblical writer adds to our understand of who God is.

Morris, of course, is best known for his magnum opus, his NICNT commentary on the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John was a frequent stomping ground for Morris, and his lectures on John (some of which are available for free from SermonAudio) communicate his love for the topic. I hope to get to his commentary soon after finishing The Cross in the New Testament and the NICNT commentary on Hebrews by Bruce.

For me, the particular value of Morris' work has been for its clarity, accessibility, and focus on the work of Christ for us as the paramount message of the Gospel. Excepting The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, which does have some discussion on Greek terminology that might that might require some modest familiarity with the language, Morris writes without all of the flower and show that seems to be endemic with theological writers today. He is a "meat and potatoes" theologian. But it is rock solid. Even in his shorter devotional works, like The Cross of Christ, have meat enough to eat. His commentary on Galatians I cited above is an excellent example of what popular commentaries should be - engaging, informative and readable. Through his theological writings and his many years of teaching, Leon Morris has forged a lasting legacy worthy of the saying, "Though dead, he yet speaks". Blessed in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.

What I'm listening to: At the recommendation of Clay Biggs, I'm listening to Maurice Duruflé, Sacred Choral and Organ Works. I've only listened to the first disc of two thus far (which includes his Requiem, Op. 9), but this is great music to soothe the soul. Very passionate and an excellent blend of organ and voice. As always, this is a good call by Mr. Biggs.

Update #1: D.A. Carson has some remembrances of Morris at Reformation21.