Muslim extremism redefined

Right now, whether you know it or not, the Obama administration is busily redefining Muslim extremism. If those in the administration get their way, it no longer will be politically correct to use any of the following words in conjunction with terrorism or extremism: Muslim, Islam, Muhammad, jihad, Koran, or any other word that will tie Al Qaeda or the jihadist in with the Muslim religion. The new term suggested is the word, “Takfirism.”

Now, let me ask you a question, do you have any idea of what the word means? . . . No? . . . I didn’t think so. Neither did I, and I consider myself better informed than the average.

Well, in case, you are interested (and you should be!) “Takfirism” is the practice of Muslim fanatics killing fellow Muslims who disagree with them. In other words, a Muslim fanatic can kill a brother Muslim over a religious disagreement, simply because they consider them apostates. This is why you have Sunnis killing Shiites, and visa-versa, in Iraq and elsewhere.

Of course, I disagree with these Obama revisionists. But, for the sake of argument, let me concede the point. That takes care of Muslims who want to kill Muslims who disagree with them. Now, what about the almost 3,000 non-Muslim innocents slaughtered on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001? The overwhelming majority of casualties were non-Muslim civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.

Who killed those people? Takfirs? I think not. These murders were not out to just to kill non-conforming Muslims. They wanted to kill us—Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, any of the so-called infidels.

Come on now, let’s get serious. These people are Muslim extremists. And, dressing them or their deeds up in all kinds of fancy politically correct words will not change their character or their intention. We had just as soon call Osama bin Laden, Santa Claus, and expect that to change his character, as we have to change the nature of these beast.

So, as long as the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his cohorts insists on tar and feathering virtually every Christian on the face of the earth because of the Crusades, and deny the Holocaust, and bow down towards Mecca 5 times a day, I think it is appropriate to call them Islamic extremists.

Dressing up sin and evil in a fancy suit of words only encourages more of the same, in my opinion.

Now, for those who question my attitude towards these extremists allow me to say that I know many peaceful Muslims, who by disposition would not harm anyone. Some of them are my friends. But, in saying so, I must not deny that Islam by its very nature is anti-Christ, for as John writes,

1 John 2:22-23 "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who acknowledges the Son has the Father also." This is someone who denies Christ as the only anointed one and refuses the interrelationship of the persons who are deity.

1 John 4:2-3 "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." Several times this term is used in the plural, and can be applied to almost anyone who is opposed to Christ. Those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh are anti-Christ or of the spirit of antichrist. This is one of the ways to discern a false teacher from a true one.

John is writing after the resurrection and is using perfect tense in Greek which denotes a past action with continuing results into the present, and continuing on into the future. He came in the flesh, rose in the flesh, and is still in the flesh. The same body that He was born and died with, He rose with. If one claims that Christ rose as a spirit creature, and not physically, they are of the anti Christ spirit and are denying the third point of the Gospel. It was the Gnostics that John is specifically addressing in his epistles.

The word Anti can be understood to mean either against Christ or it can also means in place of, a substitute is the fuller meaning. He will be a substitute for the real one. In this way he opposes him. The common use of this title applies to the great world dictator, the last Caesar in the end times. He is Satan's chosen vehicle the beast receiving from the dragon dominion and power (Rev.13:2).

Now, may I ask you, who in history best fits that description? If you answer that question truthfully, then you have identified the False Prophet with the spirit of the antichrist.