A Man Who Changed the World

You are here

A Man Who Changed the World

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

It’s a rare thing when one man is able to change the entire world.

We were recently reminded that one man can indeed accomplish that. In the space of just under a decade, this man upended the thinking of much of the human race. He changed many people’s perception of religion. His actions changed the pattern of daily life for much of the human race, and nearly all of the Western world.

He spawned the birth of new industries and created hundreds of thousands of jobs. His actions helped create massive new government programs at a cost of trillions of dollars. He almost killed off some industries at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

He caused governments to rise and caused governments to fall. He caused some governments to rethink their place in the world and to reorder their military and economic priorities accordingly.

He affected the lives of every one of us.

He was a mass murderer.

His name was Osama bin Laden.

Unless you’re under about age 15, you can probably remember exactly where you were on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. You probably remember exactly how and when you heard the news of the unimaginable, the incomprehensible.

America was attacked. Thousands were dead. The nation’s entire air-traffic system was shut down. Even the Pentagon wasn’t safe. Nowhere was safe. Where would they strike next?

America lost its innocence that day. The country would never be the same again, at least not in this lifetime.

With several hijacked airliners, he changed the world as we know it.

Two wars and thousands of American casualties later—not to mention countless innocent bystanders slain by bullets and suicide bombings—we’re still dealing with Bin Laden’s heinous legacy.

Who was Osama bin Laden?

He’ll be most remembered for perfecting mass murder as a tactic of terrorism. His devotees have used planes, trains, buses, bombs, bullets and beheadings to spread his message. The list of attacks and carnage attributed to his followers could easily fill this page; a list of his thousands of victims would fill many more.

Bin Laden is gone, but his legacy lives on. The week after his death, in London, “Hundreds of Osama bin Laden supporters clashed with English Defence League extremists today as a ‘funeral service’ for the assassinated terror leader sparked fury outside London’s US Embassy,” said the intro to one article. “Islam will dominate the world,” said the protesters’ signs.

In the Middle East, the Hamas prime minister of the Gaza Strip condemned Bin Laden’s killing, as did the Muslim Brotherhood, poised to gain great political clout in upcoming Egyptian elections. (And these are the people Western governments are pushing as “partners for peace” with Israel!)

Bin Laden is gone, but sadly, there will be others to fill his shoes. Another of his accomplishments was to essentially “franchise” his al-Qaeda terror operation by encouraging other to set up similar groups such as “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia” (Iraq) and “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” (Saudi Arabia and Yemen). They are pledged to carry on his bloody work. How successful they will be remains to be seen. Bin Laden is gone, but the fight is far from over.

These events remind us that we worship another Man who was able to change the entire world.

Rather than a mass murderer, He is a mass life-giver.

Rather than one who spreads chaos and confusion, He spreads peace and perfection.

Rather than trafficking in terror, fear and hatred, He traffics in care, compassion and love.

He has already changed the world, but those changes are nothing compared to those He will yet bring! He will return to earth to establish a Kingdom of peace and righteousness, when the ultimate terrorist will be bound away for a thousand years, man will no more learn the ways of war and terror, and, as Micah 4:4 tells us, “no one shall make them afraid”!

Comments

  • Eric V. Snow

    As Robert Spencer has explained in such books as "Onward Christian Soldiers," "Religion of Peace?," and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)," conservative Muslims who sincerely interpret their standard sources of religious authority literally inevitably believe that violence is justified against unbelievers. True, the "infidels" are supposed to be given the option of submitting to the control of "The House of Peace" (i.e., all nations under the Islamic Sharia law) politically before being attacked or converting to Islam. And there are many moderate, lackadaisical and/or just plain ignorant Muslims who don't know what's in the Quran, the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad), and the Sharia (mostly early court rulings interpreting how to apply Islamic law to everyday life). But if one compares those sources of authority with the equivalent Catholic ones (the Bible, the early Catholic writers, and canon law), they have far less warrant for violent crusades compared for violent jihads in the Islamic sources.

    Secular, agnostic academics, journalists, and others often have a hard time believing that seriously religious people will change their behavior based upon their religious beliefs. For example, Marxist ideology, which maintains that ideology (the "superstructure" of society) is only a product, not a cause, of the mode of production (the economic foundation of society). As a result of the still lingering affects of this materialistic conception, academics still have trouble believing people who believe in a faith will act upon its tenets, Therefore, they will blow off as having real practical effects all the Quranic and other texts that someone like Qutb cites, who is the author of "Milestones" and the past leading ideologist for the Muslim Brotherhood before Nasser's Egyptian government had him executed. Yet if Muslims believe in the interpretative principle ("naskh") that the later, more bellicose Medinian texts of the Quran override the earlier, more peaceful Meccan texts, inevitably that will justify violent actions against even peaceful infidels.

    It's not merely a matter that the Muslims are responding against past 19th-early 20th century European imperialism, since that in turn was largely provoked by the great Turkish jihad historically. Even if the Middle East hadn't been colonized by the Europeans (which includes the Zionist Jews from the Arab Muslim viewpoint), there would still be a violently aggressive jihadist ideology among many Muslims that would provoke wars and terrorism. There has been lots of colonialism and imperialism in the rest of the world, but once most of those former colonies became independent and the Cold War's conclusion soon ended almost all serious Communist agitation, terrorism largely ceased to be a problem in those areas. For example, America intervented in Latin America far more than in the Middle East historically in the past 210 years, yet far more international terrorism against America originates from the Middle East than from Latin America. As a result, in the post-colonialist, post-Cold War world, although most Muslims aren't terrorists, almost all terrorists are Muslims. (Here "terrorism" has a definition that assumes the participants aren't part of a formal government, but that they are part of a non-governmental political group that commit acts of violence against civilians in order to inspire fear that results in favorable political policy changes).

    One day the EU nations will awaken out of their "multiculturalist" slumber, after presumably some more spectacular Muslim terrorist attacks take place. Possibly one or more major terrorist attacks on a major continental European capital (i.e., Berlin, Paris, Rome, or maybe Brussels) may help provoke the "Eurobeast" into existence and "The King of the North" into power. Then we'll see a modern "crusade" strike back against all the "jihads" of recent decades.

  • Zaragoza

    Most of the long-time readers of the Good News Magazine will be well familiar with the 26th chapter of Leviticus which spells out the future course of rebellious, disobedient nations. More and more, the Western World is fitting that description. The word "terror" is used in that chapter along with a very unpleasant scenario if the disobedience continues. I cannot see that the killing of one terrorist leader will make much difference in the outcome. What would make a difference would be if the US and other Western nations were to abandon their current philosophy of "do your own thing" in favor of realizing that we were once "...one nation under God." We could be again if we so desired, but now even that expression in the salute to the flag is being scrutinized and may no longer be in that pledge of allegiance. This is definitely not a good sign for the road ahead for the US.

  • Roger Christiansen

    Liked your comment.

    He gave words for a span of only three & half years. Had twelve Apostles for half of that time, and in the end He paid for it all with His life. Then left no physical material evidence behind, only His word, I'd say that's really amazing.

  • Join the conversation!

    Log in or register to post comments