For Some, Sure - But bin Laden Did Not Offer Freedom of Love - Where's the Hero Status in That?

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), May 10, 2011 at 15:31

Presuming that Osama bin Laden did not get his fill of all that this temporal life offered, some are probably wondering if he will be pleased with what he faced in eternity. Since the promise in the paradise offered to Muslims that kill in the name of 'allah seems to be limited in its rewards, one wonders what will fill the rest of Islamic eternal state (which by their words seems to be nothing more than extensions of this existence) for Muslims according to their beliefs.

From an evangelic fundamentalist Christian disciple of Yeshua HaMashiach's perspective, giving a life in the cause of Christ means defending life, not taking it. This means that a life so given in the cause of Christ for the sake of others has a value of such eternal importance, it is central to the Gospel of Yeshua HaMashiach's life here on earth, and of His sacrificial death. Can that be said of the passing of bin Laden? The answer appears that bin Laden not only disbelieved in the sacrificial death of Yeshua, but further provided the example of a death chosen in disobedience to love and loss of freedom.

Bin Laden took his hatred with him. Hatred carries no peace. If hatred is to be found in the Islamic paradise, then how does one reconcile celebrating the deaths by hatred so instilled in bin Laden's way on earth when eternity is supposed to be filled with peace? That conflict cannot mean there is peace in the Islamic paradise. Someone with a Muslim's take on the Islamic tenet of eternity needs to reflect on that one, for it is totally inconsistent with the evangelic fundamentalist Christian disciple of Yeshua HaMashiach's understanding of true peace as found in the Hebrew Holy Bible.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".