Today, I heard a powerful voice in the media imply that Muslim reformist, Zuhdi Jasser, is equivalent to Jesus Christ, and that the U.S. Constitution — as man’s law — is above any religious law. Now, if you are not a religious person, I can understand why this might not bother you. In fact, you might even agree with it. However, if you are a God-fearing person, then these words should be enough to force you to distance yourself from anyone who says such things — and here’s why:
First, this voice said that Jasser is a Muslim radical in the same way that Jesus was a Jewish radical and Luther was a Catholic radical. Since there was no comment to differentiate between these men and what they did, the implication is that they are equivalent with respect to their religious teachings. Again, to the person who does not believe in God, this might make sense. But for those who do believe, these three men cannot be equal. For those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (i.e. Jews and Christians), Jesus is infinitely more than a radical. He is God incarnate! To the Christian, Luther was a devout follower who recognized that the Catholic Church had perverted Christ’s Gospel message and was trying to turn people back to Jesus. And to the Muslim, Jasser is a “hypocrite” and deserving of death.
This should bother anyone who believes in God. If you are a Muslim, the fact that this person is saying that Islam needs to be reformed is blaspheme. Muhammad said Islam does not change and that all Muslims must either obey every command Muhammad gave, or they are not Muslims, but hypocrites who will burn in hell. So, by advocating for people like Jasser, this media voice is assuming a position greater than that of Muhammad. This would be akin to assuming the authority to change Christ’s Gospel — which is exactly what this voice does when this person equates Jesus with any other religious leader. In any major religion that does not believe man is his own god, this is not only blaspheme, it is the height of arrogance: it is nothing less than assuming the seat of God, Himself.
Then to say that man’s law, in the form of the U.S. Constitution, is above any and all religious law… Well, this is also blaspheme, but it is also ignorance. The U.S. Constitution is not the ‘supreme law’ of the United States. It is just the ‘how‘ of this nation. The Declaration is actually the supreme law of America. The Declaration is the source of the Constitution’s authority, and that same Declaration claims that the Constitution’s authority is the Creator of this universe. This makes the Declaration the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ of America, and it points to God as being the Supreme Law giver — even above the Constitution. In fact, this is exactly how the men who wrote the Constitution saw this issue: they said Scripture was the primary source of the Constitution. But in spite of the Truth, this media voice has repeatedly claimed the Constitution was divinely inspired. This voice speaks of the Constitution in terms that approach the point of deifying the Constitution. Once again, the Constitution is the work of men, so to place it above God is to claim man is his own god.
Now, for the last time: if you do not believe in God, I understand how you might not take issue with what this media voice said today. But if you believe in God, then you should recognize that this voice is not God’s friend, but His enemy. A person can claim they believe in God, and that they seek to obey His laws and to live in peace, but if they then turn and place men and even the writings of men on the same level with God,… Well, such a person is an enemy of God. That is because they are claiming to be God in their own hearts. This is true because, by equating the things of men with God, a person is assuming they are a law-maker above God. This is exactly what 2 Thessalonians 2 calls ‘the man of lawlessness.’
So, if you are a believer, I would strongly urge you to be constantly on guard against such voices. These voices may sound appealing, but this is because they reason as we do — as men. But God does not reason like we do. God is so much higher in His thinking than we are in ours that we cannot understand His ways. All we can do is listen to God’s Word and obey His commands to the best of our ability and trust God to do the rest. But we must not fall for voices that would lure us away from God’s Law; from God’s Way; from God’s Light: all of which lead to Life. If we stray from God’s righteousness, we wonder into darkness, and the only thing we will find in that darkness is death.
The Oil for Your Lamp 
Reblogged this on UZA – people's courts, forums, & tribunals and commented:
Very well said; blessings for the spiritual oil in our lamp; it’s time that we realize that man-made laws are pieces of paper and only have authority over other pieces of paper; whereas religious laws are Creator-given and apply to living men and women; one can simplify it to One Law: “Do no harm, cause no loss and do not impede the freedom of others.” as well as the Golden Rule which is found in every religion: “Love thy neighbour as you love yourself”;
be blessed, in peace
Two Questions. First who was the Power voice in the media ?
Second how would you answer someone who says that the God in the OT is different from the God in the NT ?OT being called unitary and NT being called trinary .
First, I would prefer not to name the voice (but you know who he is).
Second, I would answer by saying God has always been described in Trinity. From the opening of Genesis to the end of Revelation, the Father, Son and His Spirit are there. In Isaiah, we find all three mentioned as being in Israel at the same time, yet we are also told that God is one. That is the Trinity. In Genesis, God says “Let US make man in OUR image.” The angels are not made in the image of God, so God has to have been talking to the Trinity. And the New Covenant after Christ is mentioned in Jeremiah. There is much more, one just has to look for it. Psalms is filled with references to God’s Son. So, it is as Jesus said: people may know the Scriptures, but that does not mean they understand what they are reading 🙂
Thanks !. At some point we should have a talk on this.
Whenever you’d like. You know how to reach me directly, or, if you prefer, I can write a post on it. Just let me know.
On your post. Luther would NEVER have called himself equal to Jesus. IMHO.
No, he wouldn’t have. But this voice has a history of implying that man is his own savior/god. This is just the latest indication of the true belief behind the mask. This is what makes it such a dangerously voice: because it uses the same language as Scripture, but it teaches an Antichrist message.
Yeah. Was just my small attempt to show that “he who will not be named” is not even close to a LUTHER, let alone the lord…. ;- )
No, sadly, he isn’t 😦
I found this 50 minute video with Jasser, McCarthy and Robert Spencer. McCarthy is great of course….you probably know him from Mark Levin and Hannity etc ! I only watched to about the 14 minute mark. But….one wants to believe Jasser ! But I am MUCH more more in agreement with Spencer up til that point !!!!
I have a question for you….and by proxy ( he will not be named”). How do we even know if Zuhdi Jasser isn’t engaging in Taqiyyah, Tawriya, Kitman and/or Muruna ???
Ah, we have the work of Walid Shoebat, former Muslim terrorist and now Christian evangelist and Apologist who does great work warning the West about Islam.
To keep this simple, I will use generic terms:
If a Muslim acknowledges Muhammad beheading the Jews at the Battle of the Trench, he acknowledges Shari’a law. Shoebat reports that he cornered Jasser at an Islamic conference in America some years ago and got him to publicly acknolwedge that Muhammad beheaded the Jews at this battle. When you understand Islam, this is a “check-mate” confession. Whether or not Jasser is sincere is no longer at issue. He has acknowledged Islam’s right to kill innocent non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam, therefore, HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED!
Finally watched the whole video and I’m glad I did. I REALLY like Robert Spencer. Seeing him here reinforced my high opinion of him.
Jasser’s main thrust seems to be to institutute new “insitutions” within islam which separate ‘mosque’ and government. A goal which I dob’t disagree with at face value. However it also seems an approach which uses as part of its success vector the DE_LEGITIMIZING of institutions ( ideologies and emphasis strains) that are now extant within islam and supplanting them with NEW institutions…..which would be LEGITIMIZED by a new set of reformers…( of which he would be one).
The key is that the very most basic of koranic ( muhameddan) commands would remain untouched. And as you ( Joe) well know it is just these commands from mohammed which form the nexus of islamic thought. To translate Jefferson and Hayek and Bastiat into arabic does not address the fact that once translated…..any muslim will have to choose between the obvious divergence between a Jefferson and mohammed. And 1400 years of history has shown the world how that disconyinuity will be resolved by the muslims.
Jasser is what Muhammad called a “hypocrite.” According to Muhammad, this means Jasser is not a Muslim. It also means Jasser will burn in hell (according to Muhammad) and should be put to death. The fact that he is doing this so publicly, and that he still breaths, suggests he may be lying to the West to disarm us and enforce the idea that there are “moderate” and “radical” Muslims.