Title: 13
Author: Joe G
Last saved by: Auth User
Company: GDC

© 2005 Joe Griffin		05-07-26.CC02-477 /

Hindu Thugs & Islamic Assassins vis-à-vis Today’s Terrorists: Fedayeen; Separate from Criminals, Prov 1:10-16; Separate Led by Doctrine not Emotion
			The Thugs’ motivation was to rob material goods of the innocent while the Assassins’ were originally inspired by the politics of Islam.  The end result of both is the same as present-day terrorism: the murder of innocents.
			Today the goal is to perpetrate widespread fear in order to disrupt the political status quo of the West followed by the Islamic conquest of the world.
			The similarities of the Hindu Thugs and the Muslim Assassins to present-day Islamic terrorists are striking:
		Thugs						Terrorists
•	Violent: strangled victims		Violent: decapitates victims
•	Religious: Hindu				Religious: Islam
•	Worships Kali, goddess of destruction	Worships al-ilah, moon god
•	Humans sacrificed to Kali		Humans sacrificed to Allah
•	Strategy: uses 5th column		Strategy: uses 5th column
•	Targets: innocent civilians		Targets: innocent civilians
The Assassins					Terrorists
•	Blind obedience to spiritual leader	Blind obedience to spiritual leader
•	Murdered foes				Murders foes
•	Spread throughout Muslim world		Spread throughout the world
•	Devotees sought martyrdom		Devotees seek martyrdom
•	Killed for political & religious reasons	Kill for political & religious reasons 
So what do we call the present-day incarnation of these villains?  The Progressives insist that they are not terrorists.  Even the U.S. Government does not have an official definition for terrorism.  Historically their ilk has been called Thugs, who were Hindus, and Assassins, who were Muslims.
The body of individuals who have perpetrated attacks on civilians in the twenty-first century range from being called benign “freedom fighters” or, their most recent nom de guerre from the British, “bombers,” to the more graphic terms of “terrorists” and “homicide bombers.”
The collective term that seems to capture the philosophy of the Islamic Wahhabism is Assassins.
The best term for the individual Assassin is Thug.  Thus we are engaged in the War of the Assassins and their operatives are the Thugs.  But in our politically-correct madness we will not refer to them with such insensitive names.  So we shall let them name themselves as they already have: the fedayeen:
	The New Oxford American Dictionary, s.v.:
Fedayeen \fe‑dā‑yēn'\ plural: origin: from colloquial Arabic fidā‑’iyīn, plural of classical Arabic fidā‘ī ‘one who gives his life for another or for a cause,’ from fadā ‘to ransom someone.’  The singular fedai (from Arabic and Persian fidā‘ī) had previously been used (late 19th century) to denote an Ismaili Muslim assassin.
A verification of this conclusion is provided by:
Lewis, Bernard.  “The Rise of Terrorism,” chap. 9 in The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror.  (New York: The Modern Library, 2003), 136-37; 143-45; 147:
Most Muslims are not fundamentalists, and most fundamentalists are not terrorists, but present-day terrorists are Muslims and proudly identify themselves as such.  Usama bin Ladin and his Al-Qa‘ida followers may not represent Islam, and many of their statements and their actions directly contradict basic Islamic principles and teachings , but they do arise from within Muslim civilization, just as Hitler and the Nazis arose from within Christendom, and they too must be seen in their own cultural, religious, and historical context.  (pp. 136-37)
Followers of many faiths have at one time or another invoked religion in the practice of murder.  Two words deriving from such movements in Eastern religions have even entered the English language: thug, from India, and assassin, from the Middle East, both commemorating fanatical religious sects whose form of worship was to murder those they regarded as enemies of the faith.  (p. 143)
The practice and then the theory of assassination in the Islamic world arose at a very early date, with disputes over the political headship of the Muslim community.  Of the first four caliphs of Islam, three were murdered … the third and fourth by pious Muslim rebels who saw themselves as executioners carrying out the will of God.  The question arose in an acute form in [a.d.] 656 with the murder of the third caliph ‘Uthman \uth‑man'\, by Muslim rebels.  (pp. 143-44)
Members of the Muslim sect known as the Assassins, active in Iran and then in Syria from the eleventh to the thirteenth century, seem to have been the first to transform the act that was named after them into a system and an ideology.  Their efforts, contrary to popular belief, were primarily directed not against the Crusaders but against Muslim rulers, whom they saw as impious usurpers.  In this sense, Assassins are the true predecessors of many of the so-called Islamic terrorists of today, some of whom explicitly make this point.  The name Hashīshiyya, with its connotation of “hashish taker,” was given to them by their Muslim enemies.  They called themselves fidayeen—one who is ready to sacrifice his life for the cause.  (pp. 144-45)
In two respects, in their choice of weapons and in their choice of victims, the Assassins were markedly different from their present–day successors.  The victim was always an individual, a highly placed political, military, or religious leader who was seen as the source of evil … and generally avoided collateral damage.  (pp. 145, 147)
For the new-style terrorists, the slaughter of innocent and uninvolved civilians is not “collateral damage.”  It is the prime objective.  Inevitably, the counterattack against the terrorists—who do not of course wear uniforms—also targets civilians.  The resulting blur of distinctions is immensely useful to the terrorists and to their sympathizers.
Thanks to the rapid development of the media, and especially of television, the more recent forms of terrorism are aimed not at specific and limited enemy objectives but at world opinion.  Their primary purpose is not to defeat or even to weaken the enemy militarily but to gain publicity and to inspire fear—a psychological victory.  (p. 147)
In the year 2005 we are again facing the propaganda of the Islamic assassins combined with the moral relativism of American Progressives.  In the face of the religious fanaticism that motivates these thugs to unspeakable acts of carnage, the United States is losing yet another war of public opinion.  First, to the communists of North Vietnam, this time to the Islamic fedayeen—the dupes who willingly offer themselves upon the altar of al-ilah, the ancient Mesopotamian moon god.
Driven by power lust and instructed by demonstrably dysfunctional Progressive ideology a frenzied Fifth Column of political pettifoggers and the special-interest shysters have mounted a vociferous campaign that gives aid and comfort to this band of obsessed madmen bent on our destruction.  Some of these infamous Quislings are Angry White Men called U.S. Senators who have become Al-Qa‘ida’s mouthpieces in our halls of government.  They each have innocent blood on their hands and divine justice will not overlook their transgressions.
The doctrine of separation includes these types in its requirements to avoid those who are involved in criminal activities and there are no more worthy candidates for its application than these Jacobinic spawns masquerading as honorable men but who are in fact craven cowards.
Therefore our obligation as good soldiers for Christ is to separate from anyone who is involved in criminal activity.  When we discern high crimes committed by politicians within our jurisdiction, we must aspire to separate them from our government through the power of the ballot box.  Their ilk is described by Solomon in:
Proverbs 1:11 -	If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood [ br^a* ’arav: with intent to kill ], let us ambush the innocent [ yq!n* naqiy: an innocent person; the shed blood of an innocent person ] without cause [ <N*j! chinnam: undeserved, without cause, innocent as having no offense ];
v. 12 -	let us swallow them alive like Sheol [ an idiom for excessive brutality ], even whole, as those who go down to the pit;
v. 13 -	we shall find all kinds of precious wealth, we shall fill our houses with spoil;
v. 14 -	throw in your lot with us, we shall all have one purse,”
v. 15 -	my son, do not walk [ El^h* halak: Qal imper., “metaphorically to speak of the pathways (i.e., behavior) of one’s life” (TCWSD:OT, 265) ] in the way [ Er#D# derek: the path that is traveled; refers to individual conduct; “metaphorically to refer to the pathways of one’s life, suggesting the pattern of life” (TCWSD:OT, 246) ] with them.  Keep your feet [ un^m* mana‘:	an idiom that implores the volition to separate from those who are involved in criminal activities ] from their path [ byt!n* nathiyv: a caravan route; signifies the conduct of people who are hostile to one another (TWOT, 3:280); those who possess wheel-tracks of righteousness must avoid those who have blazed a trail—a caravan rout—of behavior patterns, that are facilitated wheel-tracks of wickedness ],
v. 16 -	for their feet run to evil [ facilitated wheel-tracks of criminal lust ], and they hasten to shed blood.
TCWSD:OT: The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament.
TWOT: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
There are several Psalms that address the plight of innocents who are victims of the “wicked” and the fate of the latter for doing so.  See Psalms 10, 94, and 106.
	9.	Principle:	Separation requires doctrinal discernment not emotional reaction:
(1)	The purpose for this doctrine is to alert the believer that although he is in the Devil’s world he is not part of the Devil’s world.
(2)	Once saved, spiritual growth is a gradual process of transforming the soul from a vessel of dishonor to a vessel of honor.
(3)	During this renovation the believer will experience an ongoing battle that rages on three fronts from external fifth columns, internal fifth columns, and an arrogant manner of life described in 1 John 2:16.
(4)	As this growth continues it will occasionally become necessary to reassess your own personal behaviors and those of your acquaintances.
(5)	When the viewpoints, attitudes, actions, and behaviors of associates come into conflict with your own then you must first rely on unconditional love.
(6)	This requires mental separation so that although you are in their presence you are not in agreement with their lifestyle.
(7)	However, when you are being identified by others with the lifestyle your associates exhibit then you must separate physically.
(8)	This physical separation is necessary to protect your soul from their influence and validate your witness toward others who otherwise would rightly accuse you of hypocrisy.
(9)	Separation is designed to protect your soul from influences and temptations that would retard your spiritual growth while at the same time provide the environment for learning that would accelerate that growth.
(10)	And finally remember this admonition from Menander quoted by Paul in:
1 Corinthians 15:33 -	Stop being led astray!  Evil associates corrupt good norms and standards.

Grace Doctrine Church Media Ministries:	     www.gracedoctrinechurch.com          www.joegriffin.org          www.gdcmedia.org