Home Pharos Fiction Site Map Updates Search


                                                                                                                        Back Next

Halexandria Foundation
Sacred Mathematics
Connective Physics
Chronicles of Earth
Justice, Order, and Law
Extraterrestrial Life
Creating Reality
Tree of Life

The Rules of Holy War

New -- 11 November 2010

Most if not virtually all of the religions of the world contain within their most fundamental philosophies all manner of rules and prescriptions which laud mercy, justice, and benevolence as a high priority and an essential personality characteristic of devotees. The Golden Rule, for example, shows up over and over again... from one religion to the next. As has been pointed out by the Dalai Lama [1]:

"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal."

Shouldn't such commonality of fundamental precepts preclude even the existence of Holy War? Well, if we base our answer on the history of the last four or five thousand years, then obviously and consistently not! Inevitably, when it comes to philosophical differences, the religious leaders almost never apply the Golden Rule to anyone whose religion... or even their sect or branch of the same religion... differs from that of the leaders.

For example, in the Albigensian Crusade... when members of the besieging army were asked about how to treat the defenders once the battlements were breached... or more importantly, how to distinguish between the innocents and the guilty... they were told to: "Kill them all; let God sort them out." [2]

Keep in mind that while the speaker of these infamous words might or might not have had the actual authority to order a slaughter of innocents, this same individual was nevertheless obeyed by the military officers of the siege... thereby demonstrating very early on the essential validity of the Milgram Effect. The fact that religions constantly bestow authority upon individuals who may be demented and fundamentally evil, with said authority being in turn inflicted upon the masses... makes pretty clear the dangers of religion and/or Holy Wars.

Modern crusades might hopefully be somewhat less cavalier with human life and dignity, but as the actions at Abu Ghraib in Iraq might suggest... quite possibly not. The fact that the more extreme "kill them all" scenario has been adopted by certain, allegedly secular combatants in modern times would in fact probably lay the possibility of religious tolerance in warfare to rest... permanently [pardon the pun]. While there might be a great deal of lip service on how to treat prisoners, combatants and bystanders... one always has to wonder to what degree there is any real effort to restrain the soldiers on the front lines... those who are risking their lives in a genuine life and death struggle... from taking their vengeance against what they might quite rightly have perceived as their injuries and the loss of their comrades.

It's very, very hard to fight a war and simultaneously maintain a calm philosophical attitude about the nature of life, the universe, and everything. Having all manner of death directed toward you tends to motivate one to focus very narrowly on the essentials of life... as in staying alive.

Some optimists might tend to be encouraged by the assumption from classical Islamic jurisprudence, concerning the rules associated with armed warfare, which are covered at great length. Such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas. One must wonder if not killing women applies to female soldiers and sailors. Probably not... particularly in light of the fact that said rule has apparently never been followed to the letter in all of history.

Of course, modern Muslims have tried to interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam. Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.

Such a view might appear to be quite legitimate... until... one tries to interpret precisely what is meant by "persecution" and/or "oppression." Is "criticism" included... i.e., can you be killed merely for criticizing a religion. The issuing of Fatwas by certain Islamic "authorities" against writers or cartoonists who have directly or indirectly criticized Islam, makes it clear that "criticism" can always be treated as a crime by religious fanatics... be they Islamic, Christian, Jewish (e.g., as in an Anti-Defamation League?). Clearly, both "persecution" and "oppression" could occur even via long-distance... and include verbal criticism.

To really appreciate the depth and breath of Fatwas, for example, consider the following pages:

"The most infamous of all fatwas took place on February 14 [1989] when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran pronounced a death sentence on the novelist Salman Rushdie for his book, The Satanic Verses."

There is the even more encompassing: "...statement from Usama bin Laden and his associates purports to be a religious ruling (fatwa) requiring the killing of Americans, both civilian and military."

But for a proper appreciation of the word, there is: "The fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, issued on Sunday by the kingdom's governing body of clerics, said the cashier jobs were not permissible because they resulted in the women mixing with unrelated men, which is prohibited under Saudi Arabia's ultra-strict form of Islam."

Based upon all of the above, one can see the immediate problem:

If enough devout Muslims “consider the meaning of jihad as a holy war...” [and one based upon aggression and/or expansion of the Islamic state]... then even a majority of Muslims rejecting this notion would have no effect, as the war-initiating devotees could still easily wage an all-out holy war and/or jihad without any further ado... even including against those Muslims disagreeing with them. A Binding Resolution prohibiting an aggressive war and expansion of the Islamic state... is not a notion that’s likely to be put to a vote by all Muslims.

Also, importantly, it appears highly unlikely that any moderate Muslims will be vainly attempting to forcibly (or even diplomatically) impel any self-styled mujahideen to lay down their arms.

This is particularly unfortunate in that:

"Religious designations are sometimes used as shorthand for cultural and historical differences between combatants, giving the often misleading impression that the conflict is primarily about religious differences. For example, there is a common perception of The Troubles in Northern Ireland as a religious conflict, as one side (Nationalists) was predominantly composed of Catholics and the other (Unionists) of Protestants. However, the more fundamental cause is the attachment of Northern Ireland to either the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom and while religion played a role as a cultural marker, the conflict was in fact ethnic or nationalistic rather than religious in nature. Since the native Irish were mostly Catholic and the later British-sponsored immigrants were mainly Protestant, the terms become shorthand for the two cultures, but it is inaccurate to describe the conflict as a religious one. [3]


"The characteristic that distinguishes holy wars from normal technical disputes is that in a holy war most of the participants spend their time trying to pass off personal value choices and cultural attachments as objective technical evaluations. This happens precisely because in a true holy war, the actual substantive differences between the sides are relatively minor." [4]

Minor including, perhaps, the issue of female cashiers in supermarkets. Wow!

Meanwhile, on the eastern shores of the north Atlantic Ocean, there is a prevailing view that the European Union will not exist very much longer... in part due to what is being called Islamization. The consensus now is talking about civil wars in Europe... especially in those countries with large Muslim populations.

in fact, according to the CIA and EU, these civil wars will in fact occur because of Islamization AND because the social systems are breaking down. This latter, critically important, economic reason is due in large part to the Muslims who are coming to Europe, who are allegedly insufficiently educated, committed to living on the dole, and/or, perhaps more importantly, refusing to integrate in their host countries' societies. Instead, in many cases, these Muslims have moved directly into the existing social support systems, the latter which in turn only get worse because there is simply insufficient money to support everyone. Most Muslims appear to be unwilling to learn their adopted country's language, and simultaneously seem to be demanding special privileges for their Islamic culture (like praying rooms in schools, more mosques, etc.), as well as the enactment of laws that are used against non-Muslims. There is also widespread belief that if Turkey, a predominantly Islamic nation, is allowed to join the European Union, that there may be a lot of EU stalwarts dropping out.

Naturally, the United States is unlikely to be immune from this disease.

Consider, for example, the dire prediction from such prophets as Gerald Celente who is predicting Civil War in America (and Europe) by 2012 (and likely lasting until 2016)::

"Of all the Trends Journals I have published since 1991, this issue stands apart. Were I to rank it, I would say it is among the most important. The United States is on a path that, if not diverted, will lead the world into the first “Great War” of the 21st century.

"The economy, climate change, health care legislation, immigration … all become secondary issues when confronted by the implications and repercussions of the impending “Great War.”

"While the trends I foresee are leading to the “Great War,” its inevitability has not yet been set in stone. The course of history can be changed – but only if enough people take action." [5]

Or from the perspective of the future (in 2012):

"Civil War to “Great War” In the summer of 2012, as the world moves ever closer to the “Great War,” the immediate threat to America looks more like civil war. The two political parties, themselves fractured, are more polarized then ever. The schisms that began with Tea Parties and Tax Protests in 2009 would culminate in disuniting the United States into multiple irreconcilable factions.

"With most revolutions, civil wars and world wars, there is no single defining cause. Politics always plays a role, but not necessarily the defining role. The 2nd American Revolution contains elements of both the War for Independence and the War Between the States. As with both, there was more than one issue behind the chaos and discontent.

"With civil war brewing and politicians playing one faction against the other, the media will oversimplify the discontent to paint it as a clearly defined “North vs. South” ideological battle. It is not. Yes, the Union itself is in jeopardy, but on a grander scale. The too-small-to-saves are rising to confront the too-big-to-fails. Champions of State Sovereignty are challenging Federal Rule. It’s the police state vs. mass civil disobedience; martial law vs. Constitutional Law. [6]

"...with new, fraud-friendly, ballot-less electronic voting systems controlled by political operatives, the process would be more efficient and difficult to detect. Nevertheless, with pre-voting and exit polls confirming dissatisfaction with politics as usual in the high double-digits, angry Americans would fight rather than be forced to accept the phony tallies. Election 2012 was not Bush-Gore 2000. It would prove to be a pivotal battle in the 2nd American Revolution. [7]

"Trend Forecast: With its dozens of failing economies, Europe (East to West) would provide the flash points and serve as a battle ground for the “Great War” — as it had done before. By 2010, there were already signs that history would repeat itself. Germany, humbled after half a century of waging world wars, was on the march again. But this time, it wasn’t Kaiser or Führer fomented — it was the US, France and England that cajoled and coerced its erstwhile bitter enemy into its hostilities and aggression." [8]

"Trend Forecast: By 2012, not only would the European Union be in danger of disuniting, individual European countries would be splintering. The persistent examples of Welsh, Scottish and Basque separatist movements would become the norm rather than exceptions as ethnic, racial, religious, economic and regional sentiments came to dominate national political agendas. The forces that had cobbled together nations and alliances — usually spoils of war or marriages of economic convenience — dissipated as economies floundered and governments faltered. Ancient simmering resentments, long embedded in the tribal DNA, could not be engineered out of the human psyche by legislation, coercion or reason. The passion for autonomy would manifest peacefully in secessionist movements and violently in civil wars. Underpinning the seemingly unrelated uprisings was a common cause: a Big Backlash against Big. Big Government, Big Banks, Big Corporations … Big Brother." [9 ]

"Trendpost: Leave Europe before it’s too late? In 2010, such a thought was far beyond far-fetched. Make plans to escape Europe before war breaks out? War? What war? 2010 wasn’t 1930. There was no Hitler or Mussolini in sight. Economies may have been troubled, yet there was no real public concern or glaring indicators of an imminent crash.

"There were, however, tell-tale signs in plain view. Aware of their past, many Europeans who recognized the fragility of the times and the potential for a system-wide collapse became big gold buyers. They knew the history of Weimar Republic hyperinflation and had heard the stories of how gold bought freedom in the buildup to World War II … and even during it. As the world equity markets lost all their 2010 gains and fluctuated wildly, not only were Europeans buying
gold, the rest of the world also caught gold fever, pushing the price to record highs" [9]

"Trendpost: As economies decline in Europe, terrorism increases and Middle East wars spread, nationalistic fervor will make foreigners feel threatened and unwelcome. Already in 2010, anti-immigrant sentiments were running high and nationalist movements were gaining strength. As evidenced by the burqa bans sweeping Europe and the Swiss minaret prohibition, for Muslims, the need to develop escape plans is by no means far-fetched and is already being considered by many." [9]

Okay... you get the idea.

Meanwhile, from another source, we have:


Note the video as well... albeit it is worth also noting:

That FOX News is probably the most biased TV channel in the US.  They are so obviously an ultra-conservative, right wing, Republican PR unit... that most anything about Obama is always going to be negative. Also, "Prison Planet", the website is also pretty well known for its excessive paranoia.  And finally, the interview was done in a BAR? 

Still... bits and pieces of Celente's predictions are probably going to become true.  There is the apparent appearance of a third party in the US now, The Tea Parties, where its participants are wanting to ELIMINATE Social Security (retirement, disability, health, survivor's insurance), free public education, all government health care programs and welfare, and of course, reduce taxes for everyone, including the rich.  AND... if they don't get their way, then they're talking about taking up arms to demand their way.

The Tea Parties might have been taken as lunacy in years past, but for the recent national election (2 November 2010), there were numerous Tea Party candidates on the Republican ticket who won victories in the Senate and Congressional races. 

BTW, Technically, the Tea Party is NOT a third party... it's a subset of the Republican Party. (It is very ha rd for any third party to get past the hurdles imposed by the R and D cabal... the latter specifically designed to avoid having any third parties.)

On the other hand, Thomas Friedman has reported in the New York Times (not a conservative newspaper) that other third parties... with no allegiances to either the Democratic or Republican parties are already prepping for 2012. It could become very interesting.

Accordingly, note: An American Third Party, and A Third Party That Knows How to Party.

In any case, you might decide that much of this sounds pretty serious. 

There are many who already see the first skirmishes of the coming civil wars... aka holy wars. These include numerous examples in various Western capitals of demonstrations of pseudo power in the from of blocking streets. Others have also claimed that these are but a part of a master plan. See, for example,


This “death by percentages” may be quite important... especially in that many of the current actions of the day appear to be in full accordance of this “method behind the madness”... all aimed at the imposition of Sharia Law throughout the world.

One might also note:


...as well as taking special note of the Pope’s comment, i.e., "Show me just what (Islamic Prophet) Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

[For the moment, we will ignore the historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church arrived where it is today, by a heavy use of the sword to convert reluctant outsiders.]

The noises in recent years of the Pope’s inclination toward holy war... just might not be all that far fetched as many might have imagined.

The Case of the Moderate Muslim

One vitally important key is whether or not so-called moderate Muslims are likely to welcome Shari’a in their adopted country, particularly in the United States where such an assumption has become pretty much routine.  In other words, is there a significant percentage of Muslims living in the West who have no interest in returning to a religious state?  To buttress this idea, there was a news report recently on NPR radio where they were talking about there being more openness in Syria, as the youth found the ideals of the West to be more attractive than those in the Middle East.

In other words, is everything really going to be all right... and we can ignore all of these fear mongers?

Well... take the case of Turkey, a country that has been forcibly secular for several decades.  There is now happening a notable turn toward Islamic fundamentalism. Any generals or military officers who are attempting to maintain the secular state... are being systematically eliminated.  That's not a good sign. 

Plus which, virtually no government in the world has ever really listened to their students and youth!

Recently, The Week [10] reported on a statement by Clifford May in the American ultra conservative National Review Online that: “Only a small minority of the world’s Muslims share [Osama] bin Laden’s violent world view -- a mere 7 percent, by some estimates. But that amounts to ‘more than 80 million people -- a formidable force backed by enormous Middle Eastern oil wealth.’"

However... as a very strange aside:

The New York Times has noted that the United States has roughly 1% of its adult residents behind bars for various crimes. This is the most of any of the roughly 240 countries in the world (where the median rate is 1/6th of the US rate). The US rate may or may not be responsible for a lower rate of crime. Also many of those incarcerated in other countries are often for political reasons, while brothers who kill their raped sisters ("honor killings") are not even prosecuted, much less incarcerated. (And of course, routine beheadings do not lead to incarceration either.)

But the fun part... so to speak... is that in the US, the National Institute of Mental Health reports that roughly 6% of the population suffer from serious mental disorders. Accordingly, if one considers the total of the US criminal class and those suffering from serious mental disorders, i.e., 7% of the population... this turns out to be roughly the same as the "mere 7 percent" of ultra-conservative Muslims. Curious coincidence, eh what?

[Okay, the flaw is that the US statistics -- which on the one hand shows a more determined effort in the US to find alternative lodging for the truly bewildered -- does not show, on the other hand, the numbers of nuts belonging to various mentally unstable classes, such as various political parties, bridge clubs, and book-burning clubs.]

On the much less amusing side, the fact remains that 80 million Muslims... if they respect no limitations whatsoever on what they can do... can greatly influence cowardly governments throughout the world.

That should give most anyone... pause.

Okay... did you pause" If not, go back and do it again.

(Naturally, True Believers need not bother. Come to think of it, True Believers never do really pause... nor consider, think, or open their eyes.)

A possibly more moderate view is that of Azril Mohd Amin, writing in Malaysia’s New Straits Times [16]:

"Let us be honest.” On 9/11, “much of the Muslim world cheered” the collapse of the World Trade Center. Some of us reacted “as if it had been some universal video game in which the unlikely good guys, the Muslims, had won against the well known Great Satan.” Sure, there are plenty of reasons to criticize Americans -- their wars in Muslim lands, of course, but also their insistence on maintaining their energy-gobbling, “fabulous lifestyle” that is causing global warming and “threatening the entire world with natural disasters.” But opposition to such policies should be political, not religious. Those Muslims who join militant jihadist movements have corrupted Islam my making their religion not about serving God but destroying America. “Hating America may be justified in some ways; however, it should be no part of Islam.”

But of course, it has been precisely that.

Another ASIDE... but one that is curiously relevant:

It needs to be noted that the date, “9/11”, is far more important than just the date of the World Trade Center take down... or even as a handy, easily remembered emergency telephone number. 9/11 is also the anniversary of the defense in 1683 of Vienna from the Ottoman Empire (whose army consisted of mostly Turks). One might conjecture that King Leopold of Vienna was making his own emergency call to Jan III Sobieski, the King of Poland, for assistance... when Jan baby, with numerous others, arrived to break the siege, just on the verge of Vienna’s defeat.

According to one version, the Ottoman Empire had been expanding into Europe, even before the fall of Constantinople... Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia having already fallen. Vienna was critical as the unfettered entrance into the rest of Austria and the rich principalities of southern Germany. As it turned out, the previous successes of the Ottoman Turks was likely due to the fact that their Christian enemies had always been unable to unite against them. But despite their natural animosities, the Poles accepted the Pope’s call to defend Christendom and save Vienna. The King of Poland arrived at Vienna on the evening of 9/11, where the 140,000-strong Turks had mistakenly attempted to starve out the 11,000 defenders of Vienna (and thus had lost valuable time). The end result (although not immediately apparent) was that the Ottoman tide had been turned at the Gates of Vienna, and thus began a long withdrawal from the Balkans and Greece into Asia Minor.

On the other hand, from the Muslim viewpoint, striking the World Trade Center on 9/11 was a lot more than a coincidence... even more than a 318th anniversary of Vienna’s 9/11. It was, in fact, almost certainly, a “call to arms” for all Muslims to take up arms against the Great Satan... i.e., the Americans.

(Not quite as memorable as "Remember the Alamo", but effective nonetheless.)

Accordingly, Americans, while perhaps not taking things personally, might nevertheless avoid accepting at face value the idea that hating Americans is simply politics... and not a mandate of some religion.

It’s just that being Muslim means literally to be someone who submits to God... and such submission has traditionally been that everyone either submits to God, OR submits to those who did submit.

There is, of course, the problematic bit of what exactly constitutes “God” [See for example, Oh, God,] but Islam... like most major religions... has pretty well found innumerable authorities to provide a definitive definition of God (and the interpretation of His demands upon humanity)... and thus every Muslim must be viewed as someone who submits to the authority of his or her choice of God... sort of a cafeteria style of “Will the real God please stand up?”

Holy Peace

In terms to moderation... It has been said that peace is an Islamic goal. Well yes... but there is world peace... and on the other hand, a quite different "temporary" peace. The latter is, in fact... technically not peace... but rather a breathing spell for the war forces of Islam to gather back their power after losses in the battles of the day. (There's also a clever dodge called Taqqiya.) The important point is that there is never any intention by a true, orthodox Muslim to honor a peace or a treaty except as a means to gain time and reposition the Muslim forces of war. (Sometimes, this can take decades, but Muslims can also be patient... at least patient in their goal of world conquest -- it’s a big job.)

An excellent video -- albeit about 100 minutes long -- on many of these topics is:


Among other things in this video, one should note that all the passages in the Koran about “peace with others” was written in Mecca, when Islam was insufficiently strong to survive conflicts with others. The other, conflicting bits -- such as the absolute requirement of Muslims worldwide to subjugate (to servant status) and/or kill all the Jews, Christians, and non-Muslims -- these bits were written later in Medina. And yet these kill-all-infidels precepts actually take precedence. It turns out that in cases of conflicting views in the Koran, the latter statements are given priority over the earlier ones. Thus, the being nice to other religions can... and is... in fact ignored... in full accordance with the Koran.

The big peace... i.e., world peace, or the absolute peace envisioned by many Muslims is actually more of a Pax Romana, where no one is at war because everyone is under the dictatorial rule of Rome. (Of course, even the Romans were somewhat tolerant of other religions. Well... perhaps except for the Jews who at the time were in turn notably intolerant of the Roman gods, gentiles, pigs, and so forth and so on).

The great horror of any religion, when infused with political and armored power, is that EVERYTHING IS JUSTIFIED IN THE NAME OF THE RELIGION. This applies equally well to the Grand Inquisitors of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy (and all the minor, self-anointed inquisitors of modern day Catholics, Protestants, and Republicans)... as well as Islam. This Dominionism style thinking is the fundamental [pardon the pun] threat to anyone on the planet who is not sufficiently demented to adhere to a whole wrath of fantasies, idiocies, and/or licenses to main, kill, or just be thoroughly nasty.

Currently, any Muslim... according to the Koran and related “holy” books -- is not only licensed to maim, lie, and kill to their heart’s content... but are actually rewarded for every such act that might... in the broadest possible terms... be considered as defending the faith, being martyred for an entrance ticket to paradise, and in general participating in jihad... with the latter being selectively and uniquely defined by most any Muslim cleric on the planet.

Also importantly, the very notion of a moderate Muslim is something of an oxymoron. By definition of the Islamic holy books, one cannot be a “cafeteria Muslim” (picking and choosing those attributes that one will adhere to). The only true Muslim, the only true member of Islam, should be out there subjugating and/or killing all the non-believers. The only possible justification for being a “moderate Muslim” is that, until Islam has the political and war powers to conquer by the sword, it is permissible (if not advisable) to lie and deceive the enemy (every non-Muslim on the planet). According to the Koran, “War is deceit”.

But then... if one looks at the holy books of Jews and Christians (the Old Testament, e.g.), there is not a lot of tolerance of other religions and beliefs by these westernized religions either. It’s not so much being a Muslim that is suspicious; it’s being religious in the style of orthodox, absolute and unchanging-despite-all-the-evidence faith. Of course when the same is applied to Christianity, et al, it's pretty much the same for the orthodox... where cafeteria Christians are also wholly unacceptable.

Points of View

One might suspect that any and all of the above is something of a slanted view... and it probably is. However, it might also be sufficiently accurate to say that any discrepancies may ultimately have no effect in the greater scheme of things. Many allegedly moderate Muslims may in fact rush to note all of their peaceful intentions... but in order to actually be an orthodox Muslim and adhere strictly to Islam, they would likely be lying in order to deceive their enemies, so that ultimately they can defeat them. And please note, that if you’re not a Muslim, then you’re one of “them”...one who is destined to be deceived.

The fact that many Muslims can go absolutely ballistic when someone makes the slightest off color remark (or cartoon) of their religion... and when so-called moderate Muslims do not disown themselves from such ballistic behavior... AND when otherwise non-Muslim authorities either allow the religious fanaticism and/or punish those with an alternative view... this tells us that it’s really time to show those who can’t live in a country where tolerance is valued, that the religious fanatics need to be shown the door. This applies to all of the religious fanatics who persist in attempting to impose their views on others by force of law or conquest... and hopefully they won’t get hit in the rear on their way out.

One hopeful note is that just as the Christians and other major religions eventually grew up... i.e., accepted the fact that their opinions and beliefs were not carved sufficiently deep in stone in order to whether the ages... then, perhaps we can hope for Islam to do the same. After all, when the Catholics were on a rampage to conquer the world -- just as the Muslims might be dreaming of now -- there were the Protestants to put a damper on their ambitions. And there might be some actual-in-fact moderate Muslims with the same intentions. But thus far, there hasn’t been the sort of feedback that the Protestants demonstrated in standing up to the Catholic hoards.

Accordingly, every non-Muslim might want to consider whether or not they want to “submit to God”... i.e., adhere strictly to someone living on gruel in a cave and making inane and essentially insane comments about the universe. Or whether or not it’s time to cease the Islamization of the non-Muslim enclaves (their nations, communities, or homes).



[1] http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

[2] See: http://www.hendersons.net/straitway/2001/03012001.htm or http://www.military-quotes.com/misc%20quotes.htm... the latter which demonstrates how a religious philosophy... or merely the interpretation of a religious philosophy by one possibly demented church leader... can carry over into wars other... supposedly... holy.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

[4] http://www.ist.rit.edu/~jxs/jargon/html/H/holy-wars.html

[5] Gerald Celente, "The History of The Future: Trends 2012; The Great War,” The Trends Journal, Spring, 2010, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, page 2.

[6] "The History of The Future: Trends 2012; The Second Greatest Story Ever Told,” The Trends Journal, Summer 2012, Vol. XVIII, No. 23, page 22.

[7] ibid, page 9.

[8] ibid.

[9] ibid, page 10.

[10] The Week, September 24, 2010, page 6.

[11] ] ibid, page 18.


Comparative Religions         Chronicles of Earth

Forward to:

The Milgram Effect

Freedom of Religion        Holy War

Racism and Culturalism         Multiculturalism         Perils of Immigration

Free Speech         The (9) Supremes         The Halls of SCOTUS

An American Third Party         A Third Party That Knows How to Party





                                                                                      The Library of ialexandriah       

2003 Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved                     [Feedback]    

                                                                                                            Back Next