A BROKEN, TRANSPARENT, AND TRULY APPEALING CHURCH

I hate false, unbiblical teaching, which poses as Biblical. I know that “hate” is a strong word, but I think that it is warranted here. Look at Paul’s reaction to those who had been preaching a false gospel:

·       But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9; ESV)

Yesterday, online, I was deeply grieved to read several testimonies of people who had departed from the faith. How did this happen? They had all been assured by the teachers of their churches that they should experience evidences of the Holy Spirit guiding them. They should be able to hear His voice and experience His presence. However, they didn’t and concluded that they were something the matter with them. Years later, they confessed:

·       "One of the main issues I had with trying to believe for so many years was no voice, no feeling of presence, no nothing. My only options were people were pretending or fooling themselves.

·       Everyone else I was surrounded by always seemed to hear that voice [of God], and I never really did, which is why I struggled a lot as far as fearing that I was doing something wrong or sinning all the time. I so much wanted to just follow God and obey him and hear him, and I tried and tried over the years. Everyone always seemed so confident about what God was "calling" them to do… I never felt confident confirmation like everyone else always seemed to have. Not hearing him wasn't what made me lose faith, but after I did stop believing, I was able to look back and realize there's a reason I didn't hear him."

Both of these young ladies had ceased to believe and insisted, and even though they had wanted Christ, they are now no longer interested.

Please, before you dismiss these two accounts by concluding, “Well, evidently, they were never part of the elect and never really believers, please consider Jesus’ condemnation of false teaching:

·       Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.” (Luke 11:52)

Jesus didn’t question whether those “hindered” were actually part of the elect. For Him, it was enough that they had been hindered.

Or consider Paul’s lamentation:

·       For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:10-11)

Whatever their motive, these false teachers had misled many, even driving some away from the faith.

What had driven those women away? Disappointment, doubt, and the tormenting sense that there must be something the matter with them!

Please understand, I am not trying to say that God doesn’t intervene miraculously. He does. However, because of doubts and a large dose of spiritual insecurity, many speak as if God is always audibly talking to them, and that this should be the expectation for any Christian.

Well, doesn’t the Spirit guide us and shouldn’t we have a sense or experience of this? Not necessarily. God is able to infallibly lead us without having a sense of His leading. There are so many biblical examples of God infallibly leading even those who were enemies of God. He was able to bring pagan kings to march their armies against nations He wanted to chasten.

The martyr Stephen had explained to his executors:

·       “And the patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him and rescued him out of all his afflictions and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household.” (Acts 7:9-10)

God leading the kings and the Pharaoh didn’t require them to hear the voice of God. Instead, our God is able to lead, even pagans, to perform the very service that He requires:

·       The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will. (Proverbs 21:1)

God had been leading Israel’s first king, Saul, to the Prophet Samuel who would anoint him king. However, Saul was aware of only one thing. He was pursuing his donkeys who had run off. Meanwhile, God informed Samuel:

·       “Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince over my people Israel. He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines. For I have seen my people, because their cry has come to me.” (1 Samuel 9:15-16)

God was able to perfectly lead Saul to the exact place He intended without Saul having a clue about was really going on. This is why we are taught to trust in the Lord rather than to listen for His voice:

·       So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Corinthians 5:6-7)

While God can provide miraculous reassurances, we mustn’t demand them like doubting Thomas who refused to believe unless Christ would appear to him. However, after Christ did appear to Thomas, He also reprimanded him:

·       Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

Also, blessed are those who believe without hearing His voice. We are to trust in God’s leading without demanding evidence:

·       Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

Some pastors attempt to validate their spirituality and authority by claiming that they hear God speak certain messages to them. While God can do this, a person who claims to be a prophet must also live up to the requirements of a prophet:

·       But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

My prayer is that we would learn the lesson God had taught Paul. So that Paul wouldn’t become proud of virtue of his spiritual insights, God had afflicted Him and wouldn’t remove the affliction, despite Paul’s many prayers. Finally, Paul got the message – that he should boast in his weakness and infirmities and not in his spiritual successes:

·       But he [God] said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)

Perhaps if Christians would be more transparent about their weaknesses, the church might become a more hospitable place for the suffering and the weak.

What does it take to become more accepting of our brokenness and neediness? Faith! Simple believing that it is no longer about us but about the One who loves us (Gal. 2:20)!

I asked the two women (and many others) if there is anything that can now be said to make things better – anything that might bring them back to Christ. They both resolutely informed me that this ship has already sailed, and that they are now glad to be without the church.

CAN WE RELY ON GOD’S PROMISES?

Certainly, but there are verses that would lead us to doubt God’s promises, for example, His promise to Nineveh of their impending destruction:

·       Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you.” So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey in breadth. Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:1-4)

From this, it sounds as if Nineveh was absolutely doomed to destruction in 40 days! However, we later find that this prophecy had not been fulfilled:

• When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. (Jonah 3:10)

Is this a contradiction? It seems like it is until we read about the conditional quality of some of God’s promises, as He had revealed to Jeremiah:

• “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.” (Jeremiah 18:7-8)

Some will charge that this is simply an example of Jeremiah contradicting Jonah. However, if we understand Scripture in context, we see that even Jonah understood the conditionality of God’s promise about Nineveh:

• "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.” (Jonah 4:1-2)

Jonah had so hated Nineveh that he would have been glad to deliver a message of Nineveh’s unconditional destruction. However, Jonah knew that his God is one who relents, and therefore, he fled, refusing to preach a message that might lead to Nineveh’s repentance.

Interestingly, Nineveh also understood the conditionality of God’s promise. Therefore, they repented.

Any statement has to be understood in context. This is also true of Biblical interpretation. I often say, “I love chocolate.” While this is true, it doesn’t mean that I always love chocolate. I do not love chocolate after I have already ODed on sugar. Also, I don’t love to eat it when I am nauseous.

Do these exceptions mean that my original statement was wrong? No! It just means that my statement has to be understood within the context of the entirety human experience with its many nuances. No one would call me a “liar” for saying that “I love chocolate” if I decline it when I am nauseous. Instead, they understand that it is perfectly okay to state a generalization without stating each exception to the rule.

Does this mean that all of God’s promises are conditional rather than unconditional verities? Jesus promised that He will return. Does the case of Jonah suggest that Jesus might relent on this promise because of other circumstances? Not at all!

Why not? Let’s examine God’s promise to Nineveh. Actually, it was a warning to repent. If Nineveh’s destruction was actually an unconditional prophecy, God wouldn’t have sent Jonah to warn Nineveh, and Nineveh wouldn’t have repented. In fact, God had explicitly explained as much to Jeremiah:

• “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.” (Jeremiah 18:7-8)

Perhaps another example might be helpful. King Hezekiah had been a good king. And yet, because of his success and wealth, he became proud and had distanced himself from God. Therefore, God struck him down with a fatal disease and sent the Prophet Isaiah to him:

·       Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the LORD: Set your house in order, for you shall die, you shall not recover.” (Isaiah 38:1)

Although this sounds like a written-in-stone promise, it was actually a warning, and the king understand it as a warning and repentantly petitioned God:

·       Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, and said, “Please, O LORD, remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah: “Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and will defend this city. Isaiah 38:2-6 (ESV)

Despite God having said that Hezekiah would not recover, he did. Is this a contradiction? Certainly not! Hezekiah repented of his sins and God relented from what He had warned.

Although repentance might not seem explicit in the above, Hezekiah’s repentant spirit is obvious in his subsequent prayer of thanksgiving (Isaiah 38:10-20).

He too understood the “promise” of his impending death as a warning and cried out to his Lord. In contrast, Jesus’ promise of His return and of our heavenly, eternal blessedness is not warning but an ironclad promise.

Well, what if we rebel? We will not! Why not? He will not allow that to happen. Just look at His promise through Jeremiah:

·       And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. Jeremiah 32:38-41)

Just look at all the times where God says I will! Yes, there are conditions. For one thing, Israel must not turn away from their God. However, He guarantees that He will fulfill the conditions for our everlasting salvation. Praise be His glorious Name for ever and ever!

BEING SPIRIT-FILLED DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU WILL BE LOVED

What does being Spirit-filled look like? We can take a look at one who was Spirit-filled:

·       And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. (Acts 6:8; ESV)

Stephen was also filled with wisdom,  a fruit of the Spirit:

·       But they [the Jewish opposition] could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. (Acts 6:10)

When we walk closely with God, we drink of His wisdom and have a holy boldness, which comes from the assurance we derive from Him. When we spend time with the Lord, it also becomes apparent to others that there is something special about us, even if they hate us for what they perceive in us:

·       And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel. (Acts 6:15)

Nevertheless, the council had hardened their hearts and were intent to convict Stephen of a capital offence. Stephen began to make his defense in all gentleness and respect: “Brothers and fathers, hear me” (Acts 7:2). However, he was preparing them for the Word of God – something that would convict them. Stephen concluded his lengthy talk:

·       “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.” (Acts 7:51-53)

The council had been so convicted by Stephen’s words, that they “cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears” as they “rushed together at him” (Acts 7:57).

Meanwhile, Scripture reiterates that Stephen “full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God” (Acts 7:55). Clearly, Stephen’s cutting words reflected the Words of the Spirit.

However, today such words are controversial. Aren’t we supposed to be gentle, non-provocative, and winsome? James gives us a portrait of the Godly wisdom:

·       But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (James 3:17-18)

James words seem opposed to Stephen’s cutting words (and certainly Jesus’ words). Stephen’s words were not aimed at making peace but at convicting of sin. Stephen had to know that his words would cut deeply, as they did. Then didn’t his approach contradict James’ teachings? Just superficially.

How then do we reconcile these two portraits? I think that before we can learn calculus, we first have to learn how to add and subtract, and learning biblical truths seems to follow this pattern. Hebrews teaches us about two sets of truth – the milk of the word and the meat. The milk must first be mastered before we can go on to the meat:

·       For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14)

Not every Christian has the discernment to “distinguish good from evil.” This can only come with practice. Consequently, we are not all ready to act as Stephen had. Instead, we first have to concentrate on the basic teachings, as specified by James. We first have to learn how to live in peace before we can confront.

Because of this critical distinction, Paul taught that not everyone was ready to correct others:

·       Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. (Galatians 6:1)

Only those who are spiritual, having mastered that milk of the Word, are in a position to correct others and to speak as Stephen had. Yes, there is a place for judging others. However, we first have to deal with our own blindness before we can see clearly enough to correct another (Matthew 7:1-5).

Similarly, we need to begin by understanding the grace of God. However, after learning this foundational truth, we then have to understand how grace imposes upon us Godly responsibilities. One of these requires us to speak truth in love, something that might provoke.

Stephen didn’t speak such harsh words because he lacked love for his brethren but because he truly loved them and knew that they needed to be convicted of their sin, for their own welfare. Of course, this concern also motivated Jesus to speak as harshly as He did.

When we speak in this manner, we will be hated as the Prophets of Israel had been hated and murdered. However, this is what being Spirit-filled might look like.

DECEPTION, SCRIPTURE, MUHAMMAD, AND INTERFAITH DIALOGUE

Ian Mevorach calls himself a “Christian Minister,” but insists that:

• The time has come for Christians to recognize how wrong we have been in these assessments [about Muhammad as a false prophet] and to correct the record by affirmatively identifying Muhammad with “the Spirit of Truth” [as Jesus taught in John 14 -16].

Mevorach claims that he is writing to:

• Open the minds of Christians to receive a future revelation not as something that competes with or diminishes the Gospel, but rather as something that glorifies Jesus. Unfortunately, these words in the Gospel of John have been totally missed by Christians who reject and belittle the Qur’an; we have for the most part completely ignored the unity of the Gospel and the Qur’an in terms of their common revelatory source. However, if we take Jesus’ words seriously, we have the opportunity to receive the Word of God in the Qur’an in accordance with Jesus’ promise that the Spirit of Truth “will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

Could Jesus have possibly been referring to Muhammad in John 14-16? Well, let’s take a look:

• “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” (John 14:15-17)

Did Muhammad “dwell with” the Israelites and would he “be in you?” Even Muslims would deny this. Would Muhammad “be with you forever?” Certainly not!

• “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

Did Muhammad bring to remembrance “all things… that I have said to you?” Certainly not! The Qur’an even denies Jesus’ teachings about dying for the sins of the world and being the “Son of God.”

• “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.” (John 15:26-27)

Instead, Muhammad bore witness to a different Jesus, denying the Crucifixion, the Deity of Christ, and salvation through Him:

• [Qur’an 4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

• [5:75] They do blaspheme who say, “God is Christ, the son of Mary” …Whoever joins other gods with God – God will forbid him the Garden and the fire will be his abode.

• [3:85] If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

Mevorach acknowledges that Jesus’ references to the “Spirit of Truth” refer to the Holy Spirit but later, they refer to Muhammad:

• The major objection to applying these predictions to Muhammad or any other prophet is that Christians normally read them as part and parcel of Jesus’ promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit… But as Jesus’ farewell discourse proceeds these titles become multivalent and, in John 15:26-27 and 16:7-15, they begin to refer more to a future prophet than to the Holy Spirit.

What Mevorach is asking us to believe is absurd. It would be like writing a story about the passing of you “mother” and then, without any indication otherwise, you are referring to “Mother Teresa.” However, Jesus gave no indication that the “Spirit of Truth” would gradually refer to Muhammad. In support of this theory, Mevorach cites Jesus in John 16:

• “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:12-15, NRSV)

How is Muhammad a fulfilment, since Muhammad didn’t “declare” the biblical Jesus? Instead of glorifying Jesus, Muhammad detracted from Jesus, denying His Deity, Sonship, and even the moment of His greatest glory:

• And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” (John 12:23-25)

Besides, Jesus insisted that “All that the Father has is mine.” However, if Muhammad is the greater prophet, who surpasses even Jesus, this assertion cannot be truth.

Yet, Mevorach insists that John 16 provides us with an unmistakable portrait of Muhammad, but how? The verses prior to the ones he cites provide addition problems for Mevorach:

• Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper [Muhammad] will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.” (John 16:7-8)

How was Muhammad able to convict the world of sin? Was he as omnipresent as the Spirit? (omnipresence would be a requirement for anyone who was going to convict the world of sin!) Instead, of convicting the world of sin, his teachings have led to endless wars for world conquest, causing Islam to be called the “Ultimate Killing Machine.”

In addition to this, Jesus insisted that the “Spirit of Truth,” the Helper, would come when Jesus would leave and would teach His Apostles what they “cannot bear” to hear when Jesus was with them. However, Muhammad did not come until almost 600 years later and was not received by the people of Jesus, let alone did Muhammad ever instruct His Apostles.

What evidence does Mevorach have to claim that these teachings are fulfilled by Muhammad? Why not the head of the Mormons, Jim Jones, or David Koresh? Mevorach can offer only the Qur’an, a book compiled 600 years after Jesus:

• For centuries Muslim interpreters have seen Muhammad as this “Advocate,” based on Qur’an 61:6, a verse in which Jesus predicts the coming of a future prophet named Ahmad: “O Children of Israel! Truly I am the Messenger of God unto you, confirming that which came before me in the Torah and bearing glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me whose name is Ahmad.”

However, 600 years earlier, the Holy Spirit came upon the Christian Church, transforming a fearful group of people into bold ambassadors for Christ – people that Islam had to put to death by the millions in order to secure their ends. And their genocide continues today under the names of ISIS, Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, and many other groups, all assured that, according to their holy writings, they are serving Allah.

Meanwhile, Muslims in the West use other means. Mevorach assures us that fear and threat are not at all at stake here, just friendly persuasion:

• Based on the promises of Jesus, Christians can encounter the Qur’an without fear, knowing that it is a revelation which glorifies Jesus and, in a spiritual sense, is from him.

You might then ask, “How can Mevorach call himself a “Christian minister? Easy! Islam is a religion of deception (Taqiyya). Even friendship is to be used as a tool of deception:

• [Qur’an 3:27] Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah unless it is done [deceptively] to guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully.

• [5:54] O ye who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other.

• [60:1] “O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth”

• [60:4] “Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’”

How do Muslims understand these verses? This is an important question, since Western Muslims will claim that this is all just a matter of interpretation. Therefore, it cannot be taken literally. However, one representative commentator writes (www.koranqa.com; fatwa 59879):

• “Undoubtedly the Muslim is obliged to hate the enemies of Allaah and to disavow them, because this is the way of the Messengers and their followers.

• “Based on this, it is not permissible for a Muslim to feel any love in his heart towards the enemies of Allaah who are in fact his enemies too. Allaah says”:

• “But if a Muslim treats them with kindness and gentleness in the hope that they will become Muslim and will believe, there is nothing wrong with that, because it comes under the heading of opening their hearts to Islam. But if he despairs of them becoming Muslim, then he should treat them accordingly.”

What does it mean to treat them accordingly? In order to answer this question, we have to understand the overall thrust of Islam – for the entire world to live in submission to Islam, by persuasion or by bloodshed.

Ibn Khaldun, the 15th century Tunisian historian, states:

• In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Here’s the Koranic basis for this:

• [Qur’an 8:37] Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion (Islam) reigns supreme.
  

• [4:5]  When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners [like Jesus] to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way.

• [Qur’an 8:12, cp. 8:60]   Strike off the heads of the disbelievers,” “Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (2:191) and “murder them and treat them harshly” (9:123).

The West regularly hosts many interfaith discourses, thinking that these will promote friendship and harmony, as evidenced by this Mevorach’s article in the Huffington Press. However, the West is merely providing a platform for a deception of the unwary, a platform gladly embraced by every Islamist. Meanwhile, such discussions cannot occur in the Islamic world without heads rolling. Perhaps this should tell us something about the true intents of Islam.