Evangelicals Embrace Islamists at Maryland Interfaith Event


Messages of interfaith tolerance against bigotry are always welcome. But Islamists, who use these platforms deceitfully, are anything but tolerant.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Oct. 7, 2015:

Major evangelical leaders are teaming up with Islamist activists for the Spreading Peace Convocation at a church in Maryland on October 22. Messages of interfaith tolerance against bigotry are always welcome, but attendees should be aware of the incendiary records of the Islamists who will use this platform as proof of their “moderate” credentials.

One of the main speakers is Mohamed Magid, former President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and current head imam of the ADAMS Center of Virginia. The Justice Department identified ISNA as an entity of the Muslim Brotherhood when it designated ISNA in a terrorism-financing trial. One of ISNA’s fellow components in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network was successfully prosecuted for financing Hamas.

Magid is currently listed (with a different spelling of his name) as one of the experts of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), a hardline Islamist group whose extremism is not hidden. Magid also is a signatory to a letter that received positive media coverage for condemning the Islamic State but endorses all kinds of radicalism, such as sharia governance, rebuilding the caliphate and jihad against perceived oppressors of Muslims.

Another listed speaker is Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, who is described as the most influential Muslim-American but also endorsed the aforementioned letter. He also has a history of inflammatory preaching and founded Zaytuna College with other extremists. At one Zaytuna event, Yusuf called for prohibiting speech that “mocks” religion because of the dangers that free speech allegedly creates. What he was calling for was moving the U.S. towards compliance with Islamist blasphemy laws.

And yet another is “Suhail Webb,” presumably referring to Suhaib Webb of the Islamic Society of Boston’s sister mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center. According to its own website, the Cultural Center is run by the Boston branch of the Muslim American Society. Federal prosecutors confirmed in 2008 that Muslim American Society was “founded as the overt of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

The Islamic Society of Boston has a radical history that includes being founded by an admitted U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who was convicted on charges related to terrorism-financing. He also vocally supported Hamas and Hezbollah.

The organization’s second mosque in Roxbury, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, also listed the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yousef al-Qaradawi, as an official. In addition to fundraising for the mosque, Qaradawi is ferociously radical and supports Hamas. The Treasury Department blacklisted a network of charities he oversaw for financing Hamas.

Americans for Peace and Tolerance have more documentation of the mosque’s extremism here and here. The ideology was so extreme at the mosque that one Muslim activist, Sheikh Ahmed Mansour, said, “Their writings and teachings were fanatical. I left and refused to go back to pray. I left Egypt to escape the Muslim Brotherhood, but I had found it there.”

Webb also says Muslims should refuse to work with the FBI unless the FBI restores its relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The FBI severed ties with due to evidence tying it to Hamas.

He also condemned secularism as a “radical, lunatic ideology…we’re talking about the loss of holy power in politics. It’s very difficult to find any place in the world now that is ruled by someone who is ruling by divine authority.” He said that only the Islam of Prophet Mohammed’s era is equipped for political rule today.

Two of them evangelical leaders are Pastor Bob Roberts of Northwood Church in Texas and Pastor Joel Hunter of Northland Church in Florida. Hunter sits on the boards of the National Association of Evangelicals and the World Evangelical Alliance. The two previously went on an interfaith trip to Iran to meet with regime-approved clerics and came back regurgitating its propaganda. Roberts also had a major Islamist-filled interfaith event in Texas and Hunter has his own unsettling history of political activism on issues related to Islamism and the Middle East.

Other Christian leaders include Pastor David Anderson of Bridgeway Community Church, Dr. Rick Love of Peace Catalyst International and Pastor John Jenkins of First Baptist Church Glenarden, who is hosting the event.

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents show the network was instructed to embrace interfaith allies for political purposes. One such file is a 1991 memo that describes its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.”

When the Brotherhood says “their hands,” they are referring to non-Muslim hands in the U.S. It then tells its network to “possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption,’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.” It then lists ISNA as the very firstcomponent of this network—yes, the same ISNA that was led by one of the event’s main speakers.

Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, work with interfaith partners to develop political alliances, broaden their platform and solidify their status as the “moderate” Muslim-American leadership.

They then use this platform to deflect legitimate concern about Islamism, manipulating it to defame their critics. Radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood tar opponents with the “Islamophobe” label that they even slap onto their fellow non-Islamist Muslims.

Muslims who stand against Islamism have condemned the dishonesttactic.

These interfaith partners are deployed to accuse opponents of being anti-Muslim bigots, even holding church events to warn of their baneful influence. They are also utilized for undermining Christian support for Israel and protesting counter-terrorism investigations and policies.

Constructive interfaith dialogue requires knowledge and honesty. Participants should be aware of their partners’ histories and views and, when it comes to Muslim involvement, be as inclusive as possible to make sure that the anti-Islamist Muslims who often struggle for a platform are not left out.



Frontpage, by Marilyn Stern,Sep. 28, 2015:

American interfaith groups are being infiltrated and undermined by the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliate, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  In their eagerness to find Muslim faith partners whom they want to believe share their values of religious tolerance and mutual respect, Jewish interfaith leaders allow themselves to be exploited. Under the guise of interfaith dialogue, Islamist organizations like ISNA that have ties to extremism, insinuate themselves into faith organizations while advancing their hidden agendas.  Faith leaders who disregard ISNA’s ulterior motives place their congregations at risk.

In its June 2015 ruling in favor of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who was denied employment for wearing a headscarf, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the American judiciary’s prohibition on workplace discrimination based upon religious practice.  In the American melting pot, there are benefits to all faiths that successfully negotiate societal challenges between the secular and the religious, but these benefits are only guaranteed by a legal system that upholds a universal human rights standard.  Blind spots in the interfaith movement, however, undermine common cause when religious leaders pursue interfaith outreach at any cost.

One such example was described in an article in a Jewish community paper written by a participant in a Christian/Jewish interfaith partnership with the Muslim organization, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  The current head of ISNA’s interfaith relations, Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, a sociolinguist by training, is a founder and former executive of ISNA.  At the invitation of its rabbi, Nancy Fuchs Kreimer, Syeed met with faith leaders of various denominations, professors of religion, and “interested citizens” at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College (RRC) in suburban Philadelphia.  The rabbi presented Syeed “to guide our thinking about these issues.” Rabbi Kreimer is founding director of the Multifaith Studies Department of the RRC, the seminary of a branch of Judaism on the left side of the political spectrum and self-described as liberal progressive.

In Kreimer’s article, “Standing with American Muslims, Upholding American Values,” also the title of ISNA’s key interfaith program, the rabbi extolled the virtues of partnering with ISNA in its interfaith initiatives.  She stated that ISNA is the largest membership organization of Muslims in America to support the RRC’s plan to engage in “relationship-building” retreats.  Kreimer’s article was published in the March 10, 2015 issue of the Philadelphia Jewish Federation’s newspaper, the Jewish Exponent, under its editor at the time, Lisa Hostein, whose stated priority for the paper was “inclusiveness.”  Kreimer’s endorsement of ISNA was disseminated to the Exponent’s circulation of 30,000 households.

ISNA’s website page, “About ISNA,” states that it works with various religious organizations on a range of public policy issues to “provide…outreach programs…with religious communities and civic organizations.”  Touted among “ISNA Accomplishments,” is that it has “condemned and rejected the actions of terrorists and terrorism as being completely antithetical to the teachings of Islam.”

Among the “relationship building” ISNA initiatives Kreimer referenced are the program, Shoulder-to-Shoulder, part of an interfaith coalition “dedicated to ending anti-Muslim sentiment”; Walking the Walk, aimed at high school students as a project of the Interfaith Center of Philadelphia and Religions for Peace (USA); and ISNA’s online resource book, Sharing the Well: A Resource Guide for Jewish-Muslim Engagement.  Shoulder-to-Shoulder hosted a leadership seminar for Jewish and Christian “emerging religious leaders” who attended ISNA’s annual convention earlier this month.

What do all these initiatives share in common?  ISNA’s interfaith guide, Dr. Sayyid Syeed.

Who is Dr. Sayyid Syeed?

In 2003, prior to Syeed’s current role as ISNA’s interfaith guide, Syeed met with the editorial board of theDallas Morning News to discuss how reporters “needed to partner with ISNA to promote peace and tolerance.”  Rod Dreher, an editorial writer and columnist at the paper who had looked into ISNA’s board members, asked Syeed why, if ISNA claims to promote peace and tolerance, were so many of its board members directly connected to Islamic extremism.  Syeed’s mask of professorial demeanor abruptly dropped as he shook his fist at Dreher, comparing him to a Nazi inquisitor.  Rather than answering Dreher’s question, Syeed accused Dreher of bigotry and persecution with the veiled threat that Dreher should “repent.”

In Dreher’s words:

I told him mine was a fair question, and that I would appreciate an answer.  I didn’t get one.  But I had learned an important lesson about how groups like his operate: by evading legitimate queries, and browbeating journalists into retreat by calling them bigots and persecutors.

Soon after reporting his experience in the paper, Dreher found himself labeled “The New Face of Hate” on an Islamic blog because of his paper’s investigative articles uncovering “alleged connections between the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) charity and Hamas.”  HLF is a known affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, a supremacist Muslim organization with its origins in the Middle East, and Hamas, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department since 1997.

The term “Islamophobia” is invoked by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations to avoid scrutiny from journalists like Dreher, enforce Islamic sharia anti-blasphemy laws and restrict freedom of speech.  A mass media campaign to promote the use of the term was launched by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in 2005 as the Ten Year Programme of Action.    According to the OIC’s website, it is “the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations which has membership of 57 Member States spread over four continents.”  Since 1998, the OIC has pressed for a U.N. resolutionto counter what it calls discrimination against Islam.  The OIC’s public relations campaign adopted the term “Islamophobia” from a 1997 report by the Runnymede Trust, a British think tank, to muzzle critics of sharia anti-blasphemy law.

The OIC Secretary General endorsed ISNA’s interfaith programs and Syeed attended a June 2013 OIC-hosted meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, held to “determine how best to implement ‘measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.’”  As a result of the OIC’s successful “Islamophobia” propaganda campaign, First Amendment-protected free speech in America has suffered, primarily through self-censorship.  This censorship ranges from a largely complicit mainstream media to individuals intimidated by U.S. Islamist entities attempting to silence them through lawsuits, as part of an intimidation strategy that has come to be called lawfare.  The “Islamophobia” label is a handy tactic employed by Brotherhood groups to shield Islamists from exposure as the OIC inches closer to their goal of criminalizing any perceived slight to Islam.

Dreher’s 2008 Hudson Institute article, “Reporting the Muslim Brotherhood,” included ISNA as one of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s front group organizations.  Challenging Syeed’s disingenuousness, Dreher concluded that while ISNA and other U.S. Muslim Brotherhood-related groups have the right to their beliefs as long as they don’t engage in violence, these groups deserve “informed opposition” to expose their hidden agendas and make them, and their apologists, accountable.

Read more

E-BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

3673405460Center for Security Policy, PRESS RELEASE September 22, 2015:

In this new monograph, adapted from Annex 1 of his superb recent book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy Stephen Coughlin explains what’s really behind the so-called ‘interfaith dialogue movement’ and how the Muslim Brotherhood has co-opted the well-meaning but misguided intentions of the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Coughlin’s expertise in the nexus between Islamic Law (shariah) and Islamic terrorism informs his exposure of the manipulative Brotherhood strategy to use the interfaith dialogue arena as an opportunity to edge Catholics toward a dislocation of faith so as to pave the way for the insinuation of shariah into American faith communities and society in general.

At a time when Vatican policy seems to many to have become unmoored from the traditional doctrinal teachings of the Church in ways advanced by the permissive environment of the interfaith dialogue movement, including tolerance of anti-Constitutional, anti-Western, shariah-based Islamic principles as well as those who promote them, this publication hits home hard. As Mr. Coughlin points out, it is intellectually impossible to adhere faithfully to Church doctrine and yet grant acceptance to principles that are fundamentally opposed to such precepts at the same time. Only a dislocation of Catholic faith could allow such moral equivalence. Ultimately, as he argues, the objective of Islamic supremacists is the prioritization of interfaith relationships over advocacy on behalf of fellow Christians being slaughtered elsewhere by the co-religionists of their Muslim interfaith partners—in other words, the neutralization of the Catholic faith community as a serious obstacle to the encroachment of shariah.

In praise of this new Center publication, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said,

While the interfaith dialogue movement presents itself as a laudable effort to ‘bridge’ the distance between faiths, those more familiar with the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood know that the actual agenda of too many such efforts is, in fact, modeled after the well-known dictum of Sayyid Qutb, who candidly reminded Muslims that such a ‘bridge’ is ‘only so that the people of Jahiliyyah [society of unbelievers] may come over to Islam.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere: The Catholic Church’s Case Study in Interfaith Delusion is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.


Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in Kindle format.

Click here for a full PDF of the monograph.

Blindfolded America

Crisis Magazine, by Wiliam Kilpatrick, June 19. 2015:

If you’ve ever noticed that U.S. policy in regard to the war on terror is confused, you’ll appreciate Stephen Coughlin’s just released book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

The confusion is no accident, says Coughlin, but is the result of a deliberate Muslim Brotherhood plan to influence decision-making at the highest levels of the government and the military. Coughlin is an attorney, intelligence officer, and an expert on Islamic law and ideology. He is well-known for his “Red Pill” briefings to the security and defense establishments and to members of Congress. The “Red Pill” is a reference to the pill which allowed the characters in The Matrix to see reality as it is and to leave behind the false virtual reality that had been constructed for them.

Coughlin discusses the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the government, the military, the security establishment, transnational bodies, and even the interfaith community. Just as importantly he explains the overall strategy which guides the Muslim Brotherhood’s various influence operations. A major component of the strategy is deception. Thus, in America, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups—who are anything but moderate—present themselves as the moderate experts on Islam who possess the knowledge to counter the radicals.

Of course, they don’t advertise themselves as the Muslim Brotherhood. But when American security agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security consult with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, or a dozen other such groups, they are in effect dealing with the Brotherhood. The connections between these organizations and the Brotherhood are well-established, but for various reasons our agencies ignore the evidence. One reason is that many in the government believe that the Muslim Brotherhood—the progenitor of almost all terrorist groups—is genuinely moderate. Another reason is that the Brotherhood-linked groups are practically the only game in town. They are well-organized, well-funded, and have been ingratiating themselves with successive administrations for decades.

coughlin-coverWhatever the reason, these are the groups our security leaders turn to for advice. And, according to Coughlin, it’s not just input that is sought, but also direction. In effect, he says, we have outsourced our understanding of Islam to groups who do not have the best interests of America at heart. The other side of the coin is that the advice of other competent experts is ignored. When the advice of the Muslim experts contradicts the advice of non-Muslim experts, the Muslim advice is favored and the non-Muslim expert might well find himself out of a job.

Why does Muslim expert advice consistently trump non-Muslim expert advice? According to Coughlin, the security-intelligence establishment is in thrall to the same multicultural and relativist dogmas that afflict the rest of us. One of these dogmas, elaborated in Edward Said’s 1978 book Orientalism, is that no culture can ever explain another culture. Each culture is the final arbiter of its own meaning. For an outside culture to try to explain Islam is therefore tantamount to an act of cultural imperialism. Thus, says Coughlin, Muslim cultural experts are not even required to provide evidence for their assertions: “Often, all that is required to halt an inquiry or analysis are the words, ‘Islam does not stand for this’ from a cultural expert.”

The upshot, says Coughlin, is that many of our critical decisions on homeland security and on military and foreign policy are guided by groups whose main objective is to turn all societies into Islamic societies.

According to Coughlin, a prime instance of a Muslim Brotherhood influence operation occurred in 2012, when the White House purged more than one thousand documents and presentations from counterterror training programs for the FBI and other agencies. This was done in response to a letter to John Brennan, then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. The letter, which was signed by dozens of leaders of Muslim activist groups, complained about the “use of biased, false, and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” After the FBI training program was made Islam-compliant, the Department of Defense followed with what Coughlin describes as a “Soviet-style purge of individuals along with disciplinary actions and re-education.”

Coughlin contends that a similar kowtowing to Islamic interests has undermined our war efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Rules of engagement that subordinate the safety of our troops to the overriding principles of “respect for Islam” have a profoundly demoralizing effect on soldiers and make them think twice about a career in the Army. Coughlin cites a survey of West Point graduates showing that nearly half of young officers think the current military leadership is weak, while 78 percent think that the high exit rate of good officers threatens national security.

According to Coughlin, such demoralization is among the chief aims of Islamic strategists. “The Islamic way of war,” he writes, “places substantial effort on the preparation stage, the object of which is to induce a collapse of faith in the cultural, political and religious institutions underpinning the target.” As an example of this strategy he cites The Quranic Doctrine of War, a book by Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik. Malik stressed that the chief effort prior to actual warfare should be to “dislocate” the enemies’ faith:

To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy [it] is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror. A weak faith offers inroads to terror…. Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting lines of communication or depriving it of its routes to withdraw. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s faith is destroyed.

Coughlin observes that the object of jihad, of both the stealth and armed variety, is the destruction of faith. Therefore, “jihad is primarily understood in terms of spiritual war … a form of warfare that the Pentagon is not disposed to recognize.”

There is, however, one organization that should be disposed to recognize spiritual warfare. Unfortunately, says Coughlin, the Church has proved no better at recognizing and resisting Islamic influence operations than the government and the military. The appendix to his book contains a sixty-three-page chapter titled “Interfaith Outreach.” While Coughlin’s main concern is the undermining of national security, he maintains that Islamic activist groups have taken the entire culture as their target. In “Interfaith Outreach,” he discusses the Muslim Brotherhood attempt to subvert the interfaith community—a process that parallels the penetration of the military and is likewise intended to result in a “dislocation of faith.”

Coughlin focuses in particular on the interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Catholics. Like the security establishment’s “dialogue” with Muslim representatives, the interfaith dialogue, he claims, is rigged to discourage any critical analysis of Islam. One of the principles that guides the dialogue process is that the participants “speak in a way that people of that religion can affirm as accurate.” This, of course, is simply an extension of Said’s contention that one culture has no business explaining another culture. It means that the Catholic dialogue participants should defer to Islam’s interpretation of Islam. Thus, if a Catholic had the temerity to bring up the subject of Islamic violence, it would be enough for his Muslim counterpart to state that Islam has nothing to do with violence, and perhaps to recite a couple of verses from the Koran, and that would be that.

Full and frank discussion is further inhibited by an overarching emphasis on trust and friendship. The ground rules stipulate that “dialogue must take place in an atmosphere of mutual trust.Moreover, to quote from Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims, dialogue partners must pledge “to remain committed to being friends when the world would separate us from one another.” That sounds nice, but isn’t there a danger that the bonds of friendship might get in the way of objectivity? That friendship might actually undermine objectivity? Thus, writes Coughlin, “persons who undertake a reasonable effort … [of] performing a competent assessment of the ‘others’ religion could be characterized as lacking the requisite trust….” Too deep an inquiry might bring accusations that one is uncharitable, intolerant or Islamophobic. So, in order “to remain committed to being friends,” dialoguers tend to avoid the crucial questions in favor of discussing the common ground between Muslims and Christians.

Read more

Stephen Coughlin’s “Red Pill” Brief

red pill brief
Maj. Stephen Coughlin is a retired U.S. Army officer and one of the foremost experts on Islamic law in the United States. For years he was well-known inside the Beltway for his “Red Pill” briefings of military commanders and defense officials on the topics of jihad and sharia. He was so effective in his work that the Muslim Brotherhood successfully arranged to have him pushed out of the Pentagon.

More recently, he is the author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, which incorporates material from the “Red Pill” brief, as well as much additional material on the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of Western governments, transnational bodies, NGOs, and the “interfaith” industry.

The videos below are of a “Red Pill” briefing Maj. Coughlin gave to the Wiener Akademikerbund on May 23 under the auspices of Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa, following his participation with the team at the OSCE conference in Vienna.

Recorded by Henrik Ræder Clausen and edited by Vlad Tepes (h/t Gates of Vienna)


More with Stephen Coughlin:

Gülen Movement Presents Yet More Interfaith Bloviating

The setting of the Rumi Forum gives a idea of how “interfaith” it is.

The setting of the Rumi Forum gives a idea of how “interfaith” it is.

Religious Freedom Coalition, by Andrew Harrod, June 18, 2015:

Perhaps the naïve expected insightful discussion of modern Islamic violence worldwide at the April 12 Fairfax, Virginia, panel “Community and Faith Leaders’ Role in Countering Radicalization,” recently available online.  Befitting the panel’s banal title anddubious Gülen movement sponsors, however, the panel’s inane multicultural, politically correct platitudes whitewashed critical issues concerning political Islam before about 50 listeners.

The Institute of Islamic and Turkish Studies (IITS), a member of the Hizmet (Service) movement of the shadowy Turkish Muslim leader Fethullah Gülen, hosted the event along with another Gülenist organization, Washington, DC’s Rumi Forum.  In his introduction, IITS imam Bilal Ankaya explained that Hizmet is “always an advocate of moderation” before an audience that had respectfully removed its shoes inside IITS’ carpeted mosque space.  Hizmet seeks to “build bridges between communities,” just as diverse “people lived in peace and harmony” supposedly in the movement’s native Turkey.

Panel moderator and IITS Senior Research Associate, Dr. Margaret A. Johnson, opened the panel by addressing brutal jihadist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  The veiled devout Muslim Johnson considered it “unfathomable that such crimes can be committed in the name of Islam.”  “This blessed mercy has become so maligned,” she said, and argued that with ISIS the Islamic “words are familiar but everything else is foreign.”

Declaring “I feel Allah’s presence here very, very strongly,” Rabbi Gerald Serotta, InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington executive director, added to the panel’s emphasis on ecumenical moderation.  He referenced the oft-quoted Quran 49:13 (God “made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another… the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous”).  He blithely asserted that Judaism’s “daughter” monotheisms, Christianity and Islam, both possess divine covenants, but said nothing about Islam returning the compliment.  Yet well-documented, persistent Islamic anti-Semitism and condemnation of Christianity derive from Islamic orthodoxy’s claimed supersession of biblical scriptural corruption.

“In their origins” these three monotheisms “were peaceful and loving traditions,” Serotta stated.  Extremist phenomena like terrorism resulted from an ecumenical “tremendous ignorance” in all three Abrahamic faiths that necessitated “challenging texts which appear to be exclusionary.”  Jewish oral tradition (Talmud), for example, modifies Old Testament “genocidal texts” and declares, among other things, that purely idolatrous peoples deserving destruction no longer exist.  He offered, however, no parallel interpretation negating Islam’s violent canons.

Global Peace Foundation (GPF) Director of Interfaith Partnerships Gail Hambleton then explained GPF’s vision of “One Family under God” as announced on a slide.  “Our rights are endowed to us by our Creator,” she stated without mentioning the biblical origins of this proposition announced in America’s Declaration of Independence.  Such “universal principles that we all hold dear” are “incredibly powerful,” she asserted without recognizing that natural law does not rule the world as much as Americans like Hambleton might wish.

Hambleton asserted “deep, deep shared heritage” of humanity is an “essential reality more important than the divisions that separate us.”  While everyone has “unique doctrines & ways of faith” in their “Divine Focus,” her slides announced, a “Civil Focus” unites with “civic virtues,” Islamic sharia law’s (sharia) human rights violations apparently notwithstanding.  Such unity is important given that people often seek to “avoid those who are different” and “stay in our comfort zone,” such that “communication breakdown” causes conflict.  Nonetheless, she left uncommunicated GPF’s founder, Dr. Hyun Jin Moon, who in GPF has pursued some of the more benign ideas of the Unification Church cult founded by his bizarre father, Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Notwithstanding “civic virtues,” some Muslims seek a “sense and purpose” by joining ISIS, analogous to “youth at risk” in gangs, Hambleton argued, an analysis continued by Talib Shareef.  The imam from Washington, DC’s Masjid Muhammad saw parallels between adolescents who “become beasts” in groups like ISIS out of “protest” against parental neglect and the youth from broken homes he encountered in anti-gang initiatives.  “Everybody is crying out for something” and “we really don’t have a nature that wants to disobey God,” he stated with implicit invocation of Islam’s rejection of biblical original sin.

Shareef added that a “deeper stuff goes back to the Crusades,” Western colonization of Muslim societies, and conflicts over “Palestine” in creating global Muslim hostilities.  “To have been at the top” among history’s civilizations only to fall to a modern “third world” status means that the Muslim world “has not overcome hurt.”  He also attributed to such Western incursions the damaging of supposedly enlightened Muslim educational institutions.

The Quran, by contrast, inspired Shareef to “stand firmly for justice,” his paraphrasing of verse 4:135.  Like many Islam apologists, he misquoted Quran 5:32 to suggest Quranic support for sanctity of individual human life.  “The Quran explains itself” and its more troubling verses upon further reading, he asserted, and Islam’s prophet Muhammad “was the Quran walking,” giving two supposed guides for moral enlightenment.  He therefore called Saudi Arabian Bible seizures contrary to Islam, although his “I love Turkey” praise of his travels to his Turkish hosts ignored that Turkey has its own de facto Islamic blasphemy prohibitions.

The discrete radicalism of planned panelist Zia Makhdoom, a northern Virginia imam from Afghanistan, would have provoked plenty of disturbing questions from critical observers.  Funerary duties prevented his appearance, although his nationally (in)famous-for-15-minutes congregant Saba Ahmed, omnipresent at Washington, DC-area events on Islam, attended.  Thus the one disquieting note in this multicultural lovefest for Islam came from an audience questioner from Uzbekistan.  He considered “fundamental and revolutionary reforms” in Islam such as religion-state separation necessary for stopping groups like Al Qaeda and criticized the undiscussed Islamic origins of today’s “most powerful terrorism.”

The questioner drew varying responses.  Shareef conceded suddenly that these issues were among the “primary problems,” but stated that about six Quran verses (Are they abrogated?) described God refraining from forcing people into one faith.  “I just bristle when I hear ‘Islamic terrorism,’” a “perversion of Islam,” Serotta however countered.  He found in a mythological past Islamic “Golden Age” a “very robust theory” about the “compatibility of Islam and democracy.”

So ended a potpourri of Islamic pious hopes, unsubstantiated ecumenism, Moonie-derived humanism, selectively picked and interpreted Quran verses, Islamic victimization, and deprivation-causes-jihad fallacies.  None of this serves to counter Islam’s authoritarian, aggressive, and doctrinally-derived elements that continue to dominate world events in the 2015 centenary of Ottoman genocide against Armenian and other Christian populations.  In contrast to other institutions, the panel’s Hizmet hosts have had no events concerning 1915 and the parallel roles of Islam then and now in Turkey’s bloody region.  Do such wasted educational efforts reflect ignorance, critics must ask, or intentional misdirection in the name of various ideological agendas?

National Cathedral Presents More Kumbaya Islam

muslims-hold-prayer-inside-the-washington-national-cathedralFamily Security Matters, by Andrew Harrod, May 19, 2015:

The Very Reverend Gary Hall declared “one of the great blessings” in his life as being able to “encounter Islam” while introducing in Washington, DC, an April 21 National Cathedral presentation on “Islam and Politics in the U.S.”  The National Cathedral dean’s words once again set in this “spiritual home for the nation” a politically correct tone for a subsequent discussion naively presenting Islam as morally equivalent to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

An Islamic prayer service in the National Cathedral indicates that total lack of obedience to Jesus Christ in this alleged church which is now more more than a general for rent auditorium.

Like the previously analyzed first session of the National Cathedral’s “Exploring Islam in America” series, Hall emphasized ecumenism before about 60 mostly middle- and senior-aged individuals in the Perry Auditorium.  His opening prayer invoked the “God of the Prophet Muhammad” along with the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” and the “God of Jesus.”  He then cited religion scholar Huston Smith for the proposition that a Martian “would see one religion with three branches” in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  “Deep continuity” and “respect” marked in his view the relationships between these three faiths claiming ancestry from Abraham.

Other event participants complemented Hall’s ecumenism.  As at the previous “Exploring Islam in America” presentations, the late Edward Said‘s sister Grace introductory prepared remarks befitted her brother’s distorted leftist views.  She discussed coming from an Arab community in which her Christian faith supposedly harmoniously coexisted with Islam throughout history.  “Exploring Islam in America” moderator Yvonne Haddad, a Georgetown University professor from a Christian Arab background like the Saids, likewise emphasized intra-Muslim harmony among Shiites and Sunnis.  She discussed how they had lived together and intermarried until the 20th century, overlooking an often bloody history of Shiite-Sunni animosity that has reemerged in recent years to make their intermarriages lethally acrimonious in places like Iraq.

The evening’s featured speaker, Brookings Institution fellow Khaled Elgindy, also asserted monotheistic and moral commonalities between Judaism, Christianity, and an “Islam…firmly rooted in the Abrahamic tradition.”  Concurring with Haddad’s assessment that the United States has “shariaphobia all over the place,” he found “no more abused term in the Islamic lexicon than sharia,” in American discussions of which  the “vast majority is nonsense.”  He cited the Islamic doctrine that sharia protects five fundamental values, namely life, worship, intellect, property, and lineage (a person’s knowledge of their ancestry), goals that could count as “natural rights in a liberal sense.”

Elgindy’s reference to these goals is a popular argument for sharia apologists, but scrutiny reveals the inadequacy of such platitudes in protecting human dignity in an Islamic context.  Muslims, for example, cite Quran 5:32‘s text that “whoever saves one-it is as if he had saved mankind entirely” in support of protecting human life.  Such citations, though, omit this verse’s exception for killing a person for taking a “soul or for corruption [done] in the land” such as blaspheming Islam, the capital punishment for which the subsequent verse 5:33 brutally delineates.

Likewise the “primary goal of sharia is to preserve the deen” or religion, notes one Muslim commentator, raising questions about worship in Islam suppressing the free expression of non-Muslim faith.  References to intellect also do not explain Muslim restrictions on intellectual pursuit of truth to protect against criticism.  Property under sharia excludes interest and forbidden items like pork while “penal laws that govern the breach of this right” noted by the commentator include Quran 5:38‘s command to amputate a thief’s hand.  That “Islam seeks to protect the lineage and honor of people” in his words can also include prohibitions against criticizing an Islamic faith with which many Muslims identify.

Elgindy found “frightening how pervasive” is “nonsensical fearmongering” concerning sharia, “almost like a straw man,” and decried that 22 states had passed anti-foreign law/sharia legislation to deal with an “imaginary threat.”  He repeated stock canards against such American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) initiatives, saying that they could prohibit Islamic marriage or inheritance while analogizing sharia to Jewish religious law (Halacha).  He also noted the sharia doctrine that Muslims should obey the laws of the lands in which they live.

Elgindy’s anti-ALAC arguments do not withstand scrutiny.  Such laws merely prohibit American courts fromapplying foreign law like sharia in their judgments in violation of state and federal constitutional rights, leaving unobjectionable matters like marriage or inheritance unaffected.  ALAC thereby parallels British law, which recognizes sharia contracts, but only upon court review of their conformity with British law as the Center for Islamic Pluralism’s report on sharia infiltration in Western Europe notes.

Elgindy’s sharia-Halacha equivalence is also false.  Halacha nowhere constitutes foreign law (not even in Israel) applicable under ALAC and recognizes a country’s civil law as binding, thereby relegating Jewish religious courts to minor ceremonial roles and private arbitration.  Additionally, one rabbi notes, “generations of interpretation explain a number of mitzvoth (Torah commandments) out of existence according to the principle of Torah Lo Bashamayim Hi (Torah exists here for us, not in Heaven).”  Therefore Old Testament passages contrary to modern human rights norms have no current applicability.

Elgindy’s comments notwithstanding, sharia diverges from Halacha’s subordination to civil law.  ALAC, after all, concerns American judicial application of foreign sharia laws, under which Muslims would indeed obey the laws of a land, just not America.  Obeying the laws of the land also says nothing about changing a country’s law and practices in conformity with Muslim norms, as evident in various Western societies with respect to matters like polygamy.

To prove that “Islam does not preclude the notion of modern citizenship rights” such as religion-state separation, Elgindy cited as a “social contract” the seventh-century Constitution of Medina drafted under Islam’s prophet Muhammad.  This popular Islamic apologia, though, inflates the importance of what was essentially an alliance between the early Muslim community and Medina’s Jewish tribes.  This alliance, moreover, ended with conflict between Muslims and Medina’s Jews and the latter’s expulsion and extermination.

Elgindy’s whitewashing of Islamic law has special significance in light of his comment that “not that huge” a distance separates Saudi Arabia from the murderous Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  While Saudi authorities refrain from wearing black masks and publicizing their beheadings, “ideologically there are clearly similarities” between this globally prominent Muslim state and ISIS.  The latter’s proclaimed caliphate also has a “very romantic” appeal for many Muslim youth, further refutation of his contention that brutal Muslim groups like ISIS or the Taliban come to power primarily due to political chaos.

Elgindy has previously made ludicrously benign prognoses of Islamic developments flying in the face of facts.  This former advisor to the Palestinian Authority, for example, wrote in 2012 that the jihadist terrorist group Hamas’ “shunning by Washington may be…outdated and counter-productive.”  Unnoticed by others and perhaps influenced by the Brookings Institution’s Qatari funding, he found that a “growing pragmatism” and “yearning for political normalcy” marked Hamas’ “significant changes in recent years.”

Despite Elgindy’s best efforts, he simply cannot explain away serious Islamic controversies.  Problems associated Europe’s “ghettoized Muslim communities” are not simply attributable to, for example, a French “inherited sense of superiority” towards immigrants from former colonies or phobias about “swarthy men.”  Sharia-supporting Muslim groups with their dangers are not similar to “revivalist movements” in other faiths like evangelical Christians.  National Cathedral personnel like Canon Patty Johnson, however, are unlikely to understand these issues anytime soon.  At the presentation’s end, she hawked copies of the leftist Center for American Progress’ report Fear, Inc. on the “Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” as a “wonderful document…one of the best I have ever seen.”

Islam and the Omaha Tri-Faith Initiative

Tri-Faith-Logo-381x350Frontpage, April 30, 2015 by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby:

Currently underway in the Heartland of America is an experiment in interfaith dialogue and coexistence: the Tri-Faith Initiative in Omaha, Nebraska. The goal of the Tri-Faith Initiative is to have a synagogue, a mosque, and a church located on a common piece of land, each with its own separate building; the Tri-Faith hopes to later add a fourth building as a shared Tri-Faith Center. The location for this venture is 35 acres in the Sterling Ridge development in Omaha.

The original institutional members of the Tri-Faith Initiative were Temple Israel, the American Institute of Islamic Studies and Culture (AIISC), and the Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska. In 2014 the Episcopal Diocese asked Countryside Community Church to takes its place as the Christian partner in the Tri-Faith. On April 12, 2015, Countryside voted in favor of relocating its church to the Tri-Faith grounds and becoming the Christian partner.

The Tri-Faith’s Memorandum of Understanding states, “In working together, our vision is to build bridges of respect, trust and acceptance…” Unfortunately, Islamic doctrine prohibits Muslims from respecting, trusting, or accepting Jews and Christians (unless of course the latter pay the jizyah).

So I decided to contact three non-Muslims who are heavily involved in the Tri-Faith Initiative: Rabbi Aryeh Azriel of Temple Israel; Reverend Eric Elnes of Countryside Community Church; and Susie Buffett, daughter of multi-billionaire Warren Buffet, a member of Countryside Community Church, and Chairperson of the Sherwood Foundation.

I sent each of them the following e-mail:

In light of your extensive involvement with the Tri-Faith Initiative, I am interested in your view on the following matter.

The Vision Statement of the Tri-Faith Initiative talks about building “bridges of Respect, Trust and Acceptance” between Jews, Christians, and Muslims.  This is a commendable idea, but how can such bridges be built when Islamic doctrine prohibits it?  Please consider:

The Koran says the following about Jews and Christians:

  1. Allah is angry with the Jews, and the Christians are misguided because they believe that Jesus is the son of God (1:7).
  1. Muslims are commanded not to make friends with Jews and Christians (e.g. 5:51), although Muslims can pretend to be friends if the situation so dictates (3:28).
  1. Jews are among the worst enemies of Islam (5:82).
  1. Muslims are commanded to fight Jews and Christians until the Jews and Christians pay protection money with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (9:29).
  1. Allah curses the Jews and the Christians (9:30).
  1. Jews and Christians are among the worst of creatures and “will abide in the fire of Hell” (98:6).

Muhammad spoke for Allah (4:80), Muslims are commanded to obey Muhammad (59:7), and he is considered the timeless standard by which Muslims should conduct themselves (33:21). Consider that Muhammad said:

  1. Jews and Christians are each worth only half of a Muslim (Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 2644).
  1. Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it(Sahih Muslim, No. 2167).
  1. The Hour will not be established until you fight against the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim!  There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him(Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 2926).
  1. The Jews were grave robbers (Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 3452).
  1. Jews and Christians will take the place of Muslims in Hell (Sahih Muslim, No. 2767R1).
  1. I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims(Sahih Muslim, No. 1767).

If the Koran truly consists of the commands of Allah, and if Muhammad truly spoke for Allah and is to be obeyed, how can Islam be a partner in building “bridges of Respect, Trust and Acceptance” with Jews and Christians?

Unfortunately, after sending the e-mail twice to each of the three, and after waiting a number of weeks, I have still not received replies from Azriel, Elnes, or Buffett.

Non-Muslims and Islamic Doctrine

Why would the non-Muslim portion of the Tri-Faith Initiative appear to deny or simply ignore the Islamic doctrine that undermines the idea of this venture? Due to the silence of Azriel, Elnes and Buffett, we do not know.

However, we do know that there are many millions of dollars involved in the Tri-Faith Initiative.

In December 2011, the Episcopal Diocese purchased 6.35 acres of land in the Sterling Ridge development for almost $1.3 million. At that same time the Tri-Faith Initiative organization itself purchased 3.6 acres in an adjoining lot for almost $800,000.00.

In December 2011, Rabbi Azriel and the congregation of Temple Israel purchased 13.54 acres of land in that development for almost $3 million; this was to be the site of their new synagogue. In August 2013, the congregation moved into their new synagogue. It is 58,500 square feet in size (a third larger than the previous synagogue), and features stone from a Jerusalem quarry and artwork done by an international group of artists.

With the successful vote on April 12, 2015, Countryside Community Church can now move forward. Countryside’s new church will be an estimated 71,100 square feet in size; the existing church is only 58,000 square feet. The cost, including the land, is estimated to be about $25 million. Reverend Elnes stated that there was already $16.1 million in financial commitments, mostly from among the 1,500 congregation members.

Susie Buffett’s Sherwood Foundation is extensively involved. She was quoted as saying that she would provide an unspecified amount of financial support for the new Countryside church. In fact, according to available IRS records (Form 990’s), in 2011-2013 the Sherwood Foundation had contributed $191,000.00 to Countryside church. These records also showed that during that same time period the Sherwood Foundation had contributed $1,305,000.00 to the Muslim partner, the AIISC. This was almost 79% of the total amount of contributions received by AIISC during that time period. And during the years 2012-2013, the Sherwood Foundation contributed $270,000.00 to the Tri-Faith Initiative itself.

Millions of dollars have been spent, and many more millions will be spent, by non-Muslims to see the Tri-Faith Initiative a success. With so much money involved, non-Muslims could tend to view the Islamic doctrine that undermines the very goals of the Tri-Faith Initiative as a minor annoyance to be denied or ignored.

Muslims and Islamic Doctrine

We have commands of Allah in the Koran and teachings from Muhammad that prohibit the idea of the Tri-Faith Initiative. Non-Muslims can deny or ignore them. But what about the Muslims in AIISC (now known as the American Muslim Institute)? They are committed to the Tri-Faith Initiative. After all, in December 2011, AIISC spent a little over $800,000 to buy 3.85 acres in the Sterling Ridge development. So let’s consider some additional, relevant Islamic doctrine.

Muhammad said that anyone denying a verse of the Koran could be killed:

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever denies a Verse of the Qur’an, it is permissible to strike his neck (i.e. execute him)…”

Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 2539

In Chapter 59, Verse 7, the Koran specifically commands Muslims to obey Muhammad:

…And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it). And fear Allah; verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.

And Muslims are not only expected to know the Koran, but they are also expected to act on its commands. In the following authoritative hadith, Muhammad talks about the penalty for knowing the Koran, but not acting on it. He tells us what he saw when the angels Gabriel and Michael had taken him to visit the “Sacred Land”:

…we went on till we came to a man lying in a prone position, and another man standing at his head carrying a stone or a piece of rock, and crushing the head of the lying man with that stone. Whenever he struck him, the stone rolled away. The man went to pick it up and by the time he returned to him, the crushed head returned to its normal state and the man came back and struck him again (and so on).

When Muhammad asked about this man, the angels replied:

The one whose head you saw being crushed is the one whom Allah had given the knowledge of the Qur’an (i.e. knowing it by heart), but he used to sleep at night (i.e., he did not recite it then) and did not use to act upon it (i.e., upon its orders etc.) by day; and so this punishment will go on till the Day of Resurrection.

Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 1386

It is blasphemy for a Muslim to deny a verse of the Koran or a teaching of Muhammad. But it is also blasphemy, and potentially head-crushing, for a Muslim not to act on a command from Allah or a teaching of Muhammad. With this in mind, it will be interesting to see if the larger Muslim community in Nebraska decides to support the Tri-Faith Initiative, or follow the commands of Allah and the teachings of Muhammad.


Don’t miss Mark Christian on The Glazov Gang discuss Confronting the Muslim Brotherhood in the American Heartland:

Blood on the Hands of Christian Leaders

coexistUTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 5, 2015:

Across the globe today, Christians are increasingly being forced underground, barbarically tortured and killed by the tens of thousands – 100,000 per year according to a Vatican report – by Muslims who claim they are waging Jihad in the name of Allah in order to impose Sharia (Islamic Law).  The words and deeds of a large number of Christian leaders, especially in America, reveal an ignorance of the true teachings of Islam and an unwillingness to boldly lead the disciples of Jesus forward in a way that follows what Jesus taught.

When Jesus said “Love thy enemy” he meant it – including the barbaric Muslim hordes crossing continents beheading children, raping women, and crucifying innocent people of many nationalities and faiths.  However, this command comes with the logical and reasonable imperative that you KNOW your enemies, and respond accordingly.  This is the same Jesus, after all, who admonishes his disciples to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.  It appears that far too many leaders of the flock of Jesus’ disciples are stuck on the “gentle as doves” part and may be forgetting the “wise as serpents.”

As has been detailed on many occasions at UTT, Islamic doctrine is clear, and there is unanimous consensus by Muslim scholars from the very beginning of Islam with regards to the definition of “Jihad” and it obligation to be waged until the entire world is under Islamic rule (Sharia/Islamic Law).  Elementary and Junior/Senior high school Islamic text books across the globe teach what Al Qaeda, ISIS, and all the jihadi organizations say Islam commands.  The most popular 7th grade text book in Islamic schools in America (What Islam is All About, written by Muslim Brother Yahiya Emerick) states jihad is one of the three “duties” of Muslims and “The word jihad is most often associated with the act of physically confronting evil and wrong-doing…If anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically will go to Paradise(p164).”  It further states “There is no separation of Masjid and state for the object of the Islamic state is the establishment of the Deen of Allah (Sharia)…The basis of the legal and political system is the Sharia of Allah (p381).”

Al Azhar University, the most prominent and oldest school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world, has always taught the purpose of Islam is to wage jihad until the world is under Islamic rule.  There is no authoritative Islamic text on the planet that states otherwise.  That is the starting point for this discussion.

The Sharia (Islamic Law) also has unanimous consensus of Islamic scholars that lying to non-Muslims is obligatory in the pursuit of obligatory goals.  Jihad is obligatory and 100% of all Islamic Law only defines jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

In Islam, Mohammed is considered the “insan al kamil” or “the perfect man.”  Mohammed himself said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat.”  Then Mohammed waged war against non-Muslims.

Christians were commanded by Jesus to love God and their neighbors (Mark 12:30-31).  No such proclamation exists in Islam.  Islamic teachings state the only reasons Muslims “build bridges” with non-Muslims is to bring them to Islam.  While Christians are called to bring the gospel to all people, they must do so with the knowledge and understanding of Islam so they can be “wise as serpents.”  Today, Christian leaders are befriending Muslims naively and in ignorance of Islam, and the enemy is having their way with the Christian community because of it.

When the leadership of the global Muslim community published “A Common Word” it was a part of an intentionally  campaign to deceive and fabricate common ground between the teachings of Islam and Christianity that do not exist.  Christian leaders who use this “common ground” as a base from which to open discussions with Muslim leaders do so at their own peril, the peril of their flocks, and at the peril of their faith.

Most frequently, Christian leaders meet Muslim leaders around the person of Jesus and the belief that we all worship the same God.

6a00d8341bffb053ef0133f40783fe970b-450wiIslam teaches “Allah has no son nor father and Allah has no partners.” (Sura 112/Sura 19:35-36)  Islam further teaches:  (1) at the end of days Jesus will return and break all crosses and cast all Christians into hell for not converting to Islam; and (2) all Jews must be holocausted so that Muslims can enter paradise.  These are universal teachings from Bukhari, the most authoritative Hadith scholar in Islam, and has unanimous consensus from Islamic scholars.  [Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656; Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657]

For instance, Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425 states “Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig (Jews) and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government).”

The same God who calls the Jews his “chosen” people cannot be the same God who calls for them to be holocausted so that all Muslims go to paradise, nor can the God who calls Jesus his “son” and the savior of the world have him return at the end of time to cast all Christians to hell for not believing he was just a prophet and not converting to Islam.  Logic and reason do not allow these to exist simultaneously.

The teaching in Islam is that no original Jewish or Christian texts exists, so all Torahs and Bibles are fraudulent.  According to Islam, the Jewish and Christian scholars omitted, changed, and distorted the portions of the Old and New Testament which identified Mohammed as the final prophet of Allah, and that all prophets from Adam to Jesus are Muslim prophets.

Entering into “Interfaith dialogue” with Muslims and not understanding this is to walk into the lair of the wolves believing they are lambs.  Since all of the interfaith dialogue in the U.S. is organized by Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations – Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – this further highlights the folly of American Christian leaders who enter blindly into these relationships.

Across American colleges and universities Christian leaders are increasingly supporting Muslim Student Association (MSA) interfaith events, which may be the reason anti-Semitism is growing on college campuses here.  As a reminder, the MSA was the first national Islamic organization in America and was created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood in 1963.  There are over 630 MSA chapters in all 50 states.  Their purpose is to recruit jihadis and support jihad.

The effect of these outreach programs has proven disastrous, to say the least.

jesus (1)Best selling author and internationally aclaimed Christian pastor Rick Warren speaks at Hamas fundraising events for groups like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) – which Muslim Brotherhood historical documents state is the “nucleus” for the Islamic/Jihadi Movement in America and the Department of Justice identified as a fundraising source for the terrorist group Hamas in documents proferred in the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008).  When Mr. Warren invoked the name of “Isa” – the Muslim prophet Jesus  – at President Obama’s first inaugural prayer, thus equating the biblical Jesus to the Islamic prophet Jesus, he not only blasphemed the name of Jesus, he was acting as an agent of a designated terrorist organization to spread their disinformation.

Josh McDowell, another well-known Christian author and speaker produced a video entitled “Sharia Love” in which he praised Arab Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan for being “nice” because they acted nice when they spoke to him.  He neglects the reality that Dearborn has one of the highest concentration of jihadis in America.  While there are individuals who self-identify themselves as “Muslim” yet do not adhere to Sharia, it is not realistic and is condescending to assume the “vast majority” of muslims do not follow the very thing to which they say they subscribe – Sharia.  This type of touchy-feeling Christianity which disconnects itself from reason and logic has no place among the disciples of Jesus.

Recently, I had an exchange with a leading Christian leader and author who flatly denied Islam teaches the things that have been detailed above, and followed it with “My best friends are Muslims.”

This may explain why this “Christian leader” is pro-Palestinian and ignorant of true Islamic doctrine.  What is also noteworthy is that a large number of Christian leaders respond to the truth about Islam by immediately stating “there is violence in the Bible too” or they brush it off and stating we must just come together around the person of Jesus.  While Jesus can do anything and heal anyone, one must go into these relationships with Muslims from a knowledge of what Islam is and who Jesus is to them.

Islam understands language the way Sharia defines it.  Peace is the condition that exists when the entire world is under Islamic rule.  Justice is the justice obtained under Sharia.  And the Jesus of the Quran is not the Jesus of scripture.

In a recent trip to Arizona, my presentation was met with strong public outcry from known Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations.  Standing with them were many of the prominent Christian leaders in Arizona.

Across America we see numerous assaults on America’s Christians while Christian leaders, to a great extent, stand silent.  The Veteran’s Administration being ordered by the White House to cover all symbols of Christian faith in all of their offices is just one example.

In his seminal work, Strength to Love, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. admonishes Christians to be tough minded, incisive thinkers, and discerning in their approach to evil.  “This prevalent tendency toward soft mindedness is found in man’s unbelievable gullibility…Soft mindedness often invades religion…Soft-minded persons have revised the Beatitudes to read, “Blessed are the pure in ignorance:  for they shall see God.”

It is time for the flock to demand their pastors, priests and rabbis speak the truth about Islam no matter what the cost.  We must do so in love, but we must also understand that love is not the mushy feeling in our bellies, but a decision and an attitude to take the actions of love.  Sometimes that means defending your home from the invader who seeks to steal, kill, and destroy.

Georgetown Panel Promotes One-Way Interfaith ‘Dialogue’

Hamza-Yusuf-Robert-George-300x174Jihad Watch, By Andrew Harrod, JANUARY 2, 2015:

Princeton University professor Robert P. George lauded Imam Hamza Yusuf, the radical president of Berkeley, California’s Zaytuna College, as “my beloved friend, my brother” at a recent Georgetown University day-long conference. George, a Catholic conservative luminary, was disturbingly uncritical of the Islamic apologetics that suffused the “keynote conversation” for “Muslim Minorities and Religious Freedom: A Public Dialogue.”

Before an audience of about 120 in the Rafik Hariri Building’s Fisher Colloquium, George emphasized ecumenical cooperation among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, notwithstanding the latter’s assaults worldwide on non-Muslims. These “laborers in the same vineyard” have “common values,” such as combatting pornography, an issue that, in the past, brought George and Yusuf together. Thus George at Jesuit Georgetown referenced Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate with its praise of Muslims as fellow monotheists.

George noted that conference speaker Jennifer Bryson, an Arabic and Islam specialist, had found “laptop computers stuffed with pornography” among captured Guantanamo Bay terrorists. This contradicted for him the idea that increased Islamic piety incites jihadist violence. Yusuf concurred with George, pointing to his “defilement theory of terrorism” under which to “blow yourself up” is the “ultimate restoration” for Muslims consumed by sins of the flesh. Both speakers’ analysis ignores the Islamic doctrine that martyrdom cleanses all sin and provides the only assurance of paradise, a teaching not incompatible with sexual vice.

Catholic school alumnus and founding director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, John Esposito, complemented George and Yusuf’s claims with his customary apologetics. Esposito’s past research purported to show that jihadist recruitment “drivers . . . were not primarily religious” but involved “underlying political issues,” with Islam being merely the “legitimator” and “motivator.” He did not explain how, for instance, Muslim aggression against Iraqi Christians or by Iran against Israel results from rational controversies, not Islamic sectarianism.

Esposito bemoaned the alleged “growth of Islamophobia” in the U.S., which he claimed is “almost a part of the fabric of our society,” with “hardline Christians” being the “most Islamophobic.” These Christians “bypass the incredible number of passages in the Old Testament” referencing violent prophets, yet criticize Islamic canonical accounts of wars waged by Islam’s prophet Muhammad. This tired false analogy overlooks traditional Islamic understandings of Muhammad’s commands to violence as eternally valid, unlike the Old Testament’s singular events.

Echoing George’s analysis, Esposito discerned among these same Christians “family values that are very close to what Muslims emphasize,” ignoring Islam’s less wholesome “family values,” such as polygamy. Indeed, evidence indicates that some Muslims in Western societies might welcome a homosexual redefinition of marriage as a precursor to acceptance of Islamic polygamy. George would not be pleased.

Yusuf presented an undeservedly benign understanding of Islamic doctrine, pronouncing Islam’s prophet Muhammad “profoundly concerned about . . . all human beings.” Thus, he claimed, the “violent transformation” of the “Muslim world is really very alien to . . . scholastic Islam,” a “very odious” Saudi Arabian global promotion of its “type of Islam” notwithstanding. Intoning a popular academic talking point, he alleged “a lot of similarity” between the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and “thousands of beheadings . . . south of our border” perpetrated by drug cartels. Yet, “we are not invading Mexico,” he added, as if ISIS merely consisted of greedy criminals with no explicitly stated designs on the wider world.

Yusuf praised Muslim Brotherhood-linked Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah as “one of the preeminent scholars of jurisprudence” in Islam, despite his extremism, including calls for violence against Israel and American forces in Iraq. With respect to “blaspheming” against Islam provoking violence, he warned ominously that, “if you push buttons in certain cultures . . . see what happens.” “Religious identity and racial identity have great similarities,” he added, while reprising his previous advocacy of restricting criticism of Islam, an idea, as if it were an ethnicity exposed to prejudice. Prompted by George’s reference to Iranian “theocracy,” Yusuf astonishingly called it a “completely alien term to the Islamic tradition.” He conceded that a “relationship obviously to the religion” existed in Islamic governance, but explained that Muslim rulers always recognized their fallibility, as if this somehow negated defining faith-based Muslim rule as theocratic.

Before the 1979 Iranian revolution, Yusuf argued, the eclectic leftist intellectual Ali Shariati“redacted Islam completely . . . into basically a religious Marxist ideology.” He portrayed this one revolutionary, whose beliefs are analogous to Liberation Theology in Christianity, as more influential in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s development than all the Shiite ayatollahs. For Yusuf, Shariati manifested how “Marxism had a massive impact on Islam,” with the Muslim Brotherhoodbeing a “good example,” as if adaptions of Marxist elements replaced Islamic ideology. Volumes byHizb ut-Tahrir (Islamic Party of Liberation) Yusuf saw as a child in Berkeley, California, “look just like Chairman Mao books,” he explained, therefore attributing aggressive and authoritarian elements in Islam to foreign influence.

Yusuf and Esposito’s dubious, misleading, and ahistorical apologias for Islam suffused the panel, while George’s understandable desire for ecumenical outreach with Muslims precluded critique. Yet, as fellow Catholic and oft-accused (by Esposito, for example) “Islamophobe” Robert Spencer has extensively analyzed, real religious dialogue demands a firm foundation of truth, however inconvenient. By contrast, blind acceptance of George’s interfaith friend Yusuf can only create the illusion of mutual understanding. The resulting mirage will surely fade.

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project; follow him on twitter at @AEHarrod. He wrote this essay for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Complaint Filed Over Presbyterian Church USA’s Hezbollah Links

Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon (Photo: © Reuters)

Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon (Photo: © Reuters)

By Ryan Mauro:

Islamist interfaith engagement with American Christians has received significant attention in recent months. Now, an Israeli legal organization has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service over the Presbyterian Church USA’s meetings with Hezbollah members.

The Israel Law Center’s 38-page complaint with the IRS also accuses the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) of violating its non-profit status with extensive political lobbying along with meeting with a terrorist group overseas.

“There is no mention in PCUSA organizing documents that it perceives fulfilling Christ’s work by meeting with and endorsing statements of a US-designated terrorist organization found to be responsible for the death of United States civilians and marines,” the Center says.

In 2004, the PCUSA’s Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy sent a delegation of two dozen representatives to Beirut, Lebanon to meet with Hezbollah. The terrorist group had a field day with it, showing the meeting on its Al-Manar propaganda station. The clips included one delegate praising Hezbollah.

“We treasure the precious words of Hezbollah and your expression of goodwill towards the American people,” Elder Ronald Stone of East Liberty Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh said.

Stone also appealed to Hezbollah’s anti-Semitism by saying that dialogue with Islamic leaders is easier than with Jewish leaders.

Read more at Clarion Project

What Happened at the National Cathedral Last Friday?

washnatmasjidGates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, Nov. 17, 2014:

On Friday November 14, 2014 the Episcopal Church in the United States hosted an “ecumenical” Muslim prayer service at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C.

The date was the 100th anniversary to the day of the last jihad declared against non-Muslims by the last Caliph, the sultan of the Ottoman Empire.

Here are three brief excerpts from what the imams said in their prayers. But what were they really saying?

Many thanks to Dr. Andrew Bostom for his invaluable research, to ritamalik for the timing and translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


Watch the full video (1 hour 20 minutes).

Let’s take a look at the details behind these clips (time-stamps refer to the full video)…

Ebrahim Rasool, South African Ambassador to the United States, reciting Qur’an 5:82

24:24 These are Christians about whom the Koran says:
24:30 “And nearest to the believers in love you will find those who say,
24:36 ‘We are Christians.’ Amongst them are those devoted to learning,
24:42 renouncing the world, and they are not arrogant.”

What Mr. Rasool omitted is the opening half of verse 5:82: “Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikun (i.e., ‘idolatrous’ Hindus, Buddhists, and Animists).” The Jew-hating nature of this verse was re-affirmed by Sunni Islam’s most prestigious center of religious education, Al-Azhar University, and its current leading cleric, Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Qur’an 3:26-27

39:58 Say, “O Allah , Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom You will.
40:09 You honor whom You will and You humble whom You will. In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are over all things competent.
40:15 You cause the night to enter the day, and You cause the day to enter the night; and You bring the living out of the dead,
40:24 and You bring the dead out of the living. And You give provision to whom You will without account.”

Authoritative classical and modern exegeses on this verse show its implied threat of violent jihad.

Maulana Muhammad Shafi (1898-1976), a former grand mufti of India (prior to the August, 1947 partition), was the author of “Maariful Qur’an”, the best-known Koranic commentary in Urdu. His modern gloss on Koran 3:26 establishes a 600-year consensus of opinion, adding ominous, threatening contemporary overtones of ongoing Islamic conquests in our era:

Appearing in the form of a prayer, this verse [3:26] so eloquently brings into focus the most perfect power of Allah as it manifests itself in the rise and fall of nations and in the revolutions that rock countries. At the same time it gives a hint that the prophecy made by the Holy Prophet [Muhammad] will come to pass and Persia and Byzantium will fall to Muslims. Here, enemies of Islam have been warned that they have not learned their lesson from the rise and fall of past wielders of power for they judge events and personalities from the material angle while the truth is that all powers and governments of the world are in the hands of the most pristine power of Allah, the one in whose hands lies all honor and disgrace.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Qur’an 1:7 (final verse of The Fatiha)

44:23 “The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray.”
44:40 Amin.

The phrase from Qur’an 1:7 mentions two groups of people who have failed to win the favor of Allah: those who have incurred his wrath, and those who have “gone astray” or are “misguided”.

The following authentic saying by Muhammad was collected by At-Tirmidhi, whose hadith are considered fifth in strength of the six major hadith collections:

I asked the Messenger of Allah about Allah’s saying about, ‘Those who have earned [Your] Anger’, and he said, ‘It refers to the Jews.’ I then asked about, ‘Those who have gone astray’ and he said, ‘The Christians are those who have gone astray.’

This is a warning for Muslims not to follow in the evil footsteps of Jews and Christians.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The historian Robert Conquest had this to say concerning Communism and the “useful idiots” who were duped by it:

A con job needs a con man and a sucker. In their case many suckers even managed not to take in what they saw with their own eyes, or rather somehow to process unpleasantness mentally into something acceptable… ‘Mindset’ seems too strong a word: these were minds like jelly, ready for the master’s imprint…This was an intellectual and moral disgrace on a massive scale.

Islam is the Communism of the 21st Century.


Janet Mefferd show with Dr Andrew Bostom 17 11 2014

Watch: Gohmert Speaks Out On Islamic Prayer Service Held at the National Cathedral

100 YEARS AGO: Last Caliph Publicly Calls for War Against Infidels

Published on Nov 14, 2014 by GohmertTX01

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor today about the DC’s National Cathedral hosting of a Muslim prayer service on the anniversary of when the last Caliph declared war against the infidel.


Gates of Vienna – The ECUSA Joins the Ummah:

washnatmasjidShortly after this post goes up, the live stream will begin for the first-ever Friday prayers at the brand-new National Masjid in Washington D.C.

Allahu Akhbar, y’all!


Jamie Glazov Exposes Muslim Brotherhood Charade in the American Heartland

 hjkl1-450x250Front Page, by Bob Unruh, Reprinted from WND.com:

A prominent Muslim has been challenged to explain whether or not Islam demands the slaughter of Christians and, if not, why American Muslims aren’t vocally condemning atrocities in the Middle East.

In a panel discussion held in Omaha, Nebraska, by the Global Faith Institute, Muslim panel member Naser Z. Alsharif, head of the Middle East Cultural and Educational Services, was challenged by FrontPage Magazine Editor Jamie Glazov.

“Frankly … it’s so sickening how you snicker so condescendingly on this stage while Christians are being massacred by your co-religionists,” Glazov said.

“You should be up here apologizing that there is an Islamic theology that you’re a party of that your co-religionists are quoting while they’re massacring Christians and kidnapping Nigerian Christian girls.”



The panel was put together by Mark Christian, the president of Global Faith, a group that is trying to stop the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the “Tri-Faith Initiative” in Omaha, an effort where planners want to build a Jewish synagogue, Christian church and Muslim mosque on the same campus.

Glazov, author of “United in Hate” and “Showdown with Evil,” recently was criticized by a guest on Sean Hannity’s Fox News Channel program as “a disgusting person” for claiming people who contend Islam has nothing to do with terrorism are complicit in acts of violence carried out by Muslims.

A Muslim proponent of the Omaha interfaith project responded to criticism that it is joining forces with groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America. Defenders argue the groups are allowed to do business with the federal government.

But Glazov pointed out the two Islamic groups were named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-funding trial, the largest of its kind in U.S. history.

Further, he said, CAIR and ISNA were founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has declared its objective in America is to destroy society from within.

In an interview with WND, Glazov explained what America would look like under Islam.

“Killing of apostates, church and synagogue burnings, genocide against religious minorities, slavery, stoning of adulterers and other monstrosities would be codified into the law. In other words, a nightmare,” he said.

Glazov said “our totalitarian and terrorist enemies manipulate and exploit ‘dialogue’ with us as a weapon to weaken and destroy us – a tactic which is found in Muslim Brotherhood documents.”

He said the political left, “which controls our culture,” tries to

“appease our enemy, a desire which is based on the Stockholm Syndrome assumption that we can change our enemies’ intentions toward us by us doing something for them or changing something in our own behavior.”

He made it clear that ISIS, whose reported atrocities across Iraq include beheading Christian children and crucifying their parents, is “the true Islam.”

“Anything we see in the West which looks ‘moderate’ appears that way because Muslims who are lucky enough to be separated from Shariah by Western influences, laws and environments, can practice ‘selective’ Islam,” he explained. “They will not have that privilege when Islam becomes the ruler of the land.”

Since its founding, Islam has had rules for Christian minorities under Muslim domination. Among the restrictions: Christians cannot build or repair a church without permission, display a cross, proselytize or “congregate in the open.”

ISIS is applying those restrictions and others in Iraq and Syria.

Glazov noted that a memorandum of understanding under which the three religious buildings would be constructed in Omaha stipulates that there be “no outward indications of the Jewish faith” and “no exterior display of the cross.”

The planned mosque, however, “features a very prominent crescent and star, an internationally known symbol of Islam.”

On the Hannity program, Glazov said, “So many people are afraid to come forward because they’re called ‘dangerous’ people. They’re called ‘racists, Islamophobes.’ But we’re the ones on the side of the victims, including Muslims.”

Video of the exchange on “Hannity,” Glazov speaks at the 11:45 and 32:00 minute marks:


In an interview on his own “The Glazov Gang” Web program with Ann-Marie Murrell, a WND columnist and author of the upcoming book, “What Women (Really) Want,” Glazov contended the left is winning the culture war, in part, because of its effective strategy of “demonizing” those who tell the truth about Islam:


“What I’m so tired of hearing and what I was saying on the show is how the left has constructed the boundaries of debate,” he said.

“[We’re] standing up for the victims of jihad and Islamic gender apartheid, and this means we’re also standing up for many Muslim victims, for many Muslim people. Do you think we’re ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’ because we spend so much of our time trying to save and protect the victims? … Those are Muslim women, those are Muslim girls.”

To order Jamie Glazov’s United in Hate, click here.