Liberty and Islam cannot coexist. Free Speech and Islam cannot coexist. Women’s Rights and Islam cannot coexist. Human Rights and Islam cannot coexist. Critical Thinking and Islam cannot coexist. Weapons of Mass Destruction and Islam cannot coexist. The future and Islam cannot coexist.
Religious Freedom Coalition, By Andrew Harrod, PhD, April 13, 2015:
Armenian-Canadian writer Raffi Bedrosyan sees Middle Eastern “history repeating itself” in modern Christian suffering in the centennial of the Ottoman Empire’s 1915 genocide of Armenians and other Christian populations. Bedrosyan and other participants of an all-day, March 28 Institute of World Politics (IWP) conference concerning the Ottoman 1915 genocides showed a disturbing continuity of Islamic human rights violations by various actors across a century.
Before over 50 audience members filling IWP’s conference room, Institute of World Politics Professor Marek J. Chodakiewicz indicated the confessional nature of 1915’s slaughter in his presentation on forms of “democide” or governmental mass murder. Descended from “Christendom’s eldest kingdom,” most Armenians in 1915 had a pre-modern understanding of nationality, he said. Despite recent secular legal reforms in the Islamic Ottoman Empire, Armenians still suffered the “scourge of sharia and the whims of the caliphate.”
The East Coast premiere of Turkey, the Legacy of Silence, a French documentary about Turkish citizens uncovering their hidden Armenian heritage, also featured a Christian-Islamic confessional divide. A Turkish man, for example, recounted how authorities in 1915 told one man concerning Armenians that “kill seven and you will go to heaven,” but instead he hid a boy who was later raised a Muslim under the name Abdullah. After another woman’s death, relatives found a Bible in a ceremonial case that usually contains a Quran in Turkish homes. Such individuals, the film noted, were hidden survivors of a brutal attempt to create the fiction of Turkey as a land that has been purely Turkish for millennia.
Concerns for physical survival and social acceptance caused many of these individuals to keep secret their Armenian ancestry even if they knew about it. A woman in the film narrated how Turkish nationalists in the army killed her son on April 24, the day commemorating since 1915 the genocide, 17 days before he completed his military service. Another man whose Armenian heritage became known faced the animosity of his school classmates who read in Turkish textbooks that Armenians betrayed the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Some individuals nonetheless embraced their heritage like the man who accepted baptism and rejected being an “Islamicized Armenian” after learning of his true origins.
Bedrosyan elaborated upon “The Hidden Armenians of Turkey” following the screening and during a subsequent interview. Islamization of Armenians began in 1915 when the Ottoman government initially allowed Armenians to convert to Islam and avoid ultimately deadly deportations. Turkish army orphanages transformed orphan boys of Armenian genocide victims into rabid Muslim Turks while orphan girls became sex slaves or entered forced marriages. One Kurdish chieftain took as his child bride a girl from among the 13 survivors of over 10,500 massacred Armenians from a suburb of southeastern Turkish town Diyarbakir. Bedrosyan expressed amazement at how jihadists in the Islamic State (IS) or Nigeria’s Boko Haram displayed today the same patterns of behavior.
Ottoman efforts to obliterate Armenian culture encompassed property as well as persons. Bedrosyan cited 4,000 churches in Turkey that after 1915 were destroyed or converted to other uses, including one that became a brothel. He noted a destroyed Diyarbakir church used as a government warehouse until its 2011 restoration by private groups as a genocide memorial. Its official opening saw many individuals disclose their Armenian ancestry.
An earlier presentation by stolen property expert Dr. Tania C. Mastrapa elaborated that the Turkish government had closed certain archives as a “national security threat.” Their publication could facilitate property claims by Armenians and others stemming from 1915 calculated in the trillions of dollars. Her co-panelist Kate Nahapetian from the Armenian National Committee of America stated that police today will investigate in certain Turkish villages visitors suspected of searching for lost Armenian property.
Bedrosyan explained that Turkish government actions demonstrated how the Turkish republic throughout its history has assiduously upheld the myth of a homogenous Turkish and Sunni Muslim population. An interviewed Genocide Watch PresidentGregory H. Stanton, whose morning presentation concerned genocide denial, analogized between the Khmer Rouge and Turkish Republic founding father Kemal Ataturk. Like Cambodia’s genocidal Communists who “wanted to start at year zero,” Ataturk’s “utopian vision for a new Turkey” sought cultural erasure of even Christian populations like the Assyrians who predated Turkish presence in Anatolia.
In this environment, Bedrosyan stated, Armenian/Christian affiliations entail discrimination, meaning that many of Turkey’s estimated 2.5 million people with Armenian descent do not recognize or reveal their heritage and remain “Islamicized.” Christians de facto “cannot even become a garbage man” in the public sector, he stated while discussing one public school teacher who broke a taboo by accepting baptism after discovering Armenian roots. Individuals serving in the military sometimes learn of the ineligibility for sensitive positions such as fighter pilots when the government suddenly reveals records of Armenian descent.
Individuals who know of their Armenian heritage therefore often resort to subterfuge in a society where Armenian is a swear word and graffiti like “1915 was a blessed year” vandalizes Istanbul churches. Bedrosyan recounted how one hidden Armenian prayed to Jesus at home while serving as a Muslim imam, while others secretly accepted baptism in Europe before returning to Turkey. Amongst themselves, hidden Armenians often know, and marry their children to, each other.
Steven Oshana, executive director of the Middle East minority advocacy group A Demand for Action, reflected during an interview on the historic continuity of Muslim repression suffered by his Armenian and Assyrian ancestral communities. Assyrians, for example, fled Ottoman genocide to areas of modern Iraq, only to endure the August 1933 Simele massacre by Iraqi troops and another flight to Syria, where Assyrians today are targets of IS. “The genocide just keeps following,” the “methods are the same, the brutality is the same,” stated Oshana.
Oshana and other conference speakers noted how Islam played a role among pious and non-pious alike in conflicts with Christian and other minorities. While IS differed from the Ottomans in publicly claiming credit for atrocities against non-Muslims, he stated that “faith is always a pretext” for political calculations seeking to stimulate violence against non-Christians. Bedrosyan concurred that Ottoman leaders who saw during World War I threats in Armenians and other Christians “were using Islam as an instrument” of mobilization among Muslims like Kurds. This role of Islam was “very, very direct” in the actions of Ottoman leaders, Stanton noted. They cynically urged Muslim authorities such as muftis to call for the killing of Christians considered allied with the Ottoman Empire’s “infidel” enemies.
Institute of World Politics’ Armenian genocide conference instructively brought to light a past that has not passed, but rather remains depressingly relevant today. Time and again Islamic doctrines have repeatedly incited the same patterns of death, destruction, and cultural cleansing against Christians and other non-Muslims. George Santyana’s dictum that “[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” is hardly more relevant than here. Forewarning of these past lessons is necessary for policymakers who want to be forearmed against future dangers.
The International Christian Union, a Christian human rights organization, commissioned this article.
PJ Media, by Davis Solway, March 25, 2015:
We have heard much of late of the slash-and-burn frenzies of the Muslim hordes pillaging and slaughtering their way through parts of Africa and the Middle East. It is not only Christians, lapsed communicants, perceived heretics and foreigners who are the victims of their confessional ferocity and predatory aims, but the architecture and muniments of civilization itself. The threat which Islam poses to the life of the West should be obvious to anyone who is not complicit, gullible or mentally defective. To fully understand the menace, we must recognize that the Islamic attack is multi-pronged, taking place on a number of levels or fronts all working in concert, and gaining traction with every passing day.
Terror is the preferred means of those we call “extremists,” “radicals,” or (the new favorite) “gunmen,” whether “lone wolves” (who often seem to roam in packs) or established, heavily armed organizations the media like to refer to as “militants.” The warrant for their habitual violence is rooted squarely in the Koran and the Hadith, not in poverty or unemployment despite assurances from their sympathizers and appeasers. As the Rand Corporation report on counterterrorism, cited by Raymond Ibrahim in a penetrating article for PJ Media, makes clear:
Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds.
Jihad, Ibrahim points out, “is integral to Islam, doctrinally and historically,” located prominently within the founding scriptures and ancillary texts.
More potent in the long run than the tactic of terror is the strategy of massive immigration, enabling the metastasizing growth of Muslim populations in the progressively febrile democracies of the West. Once Islam in any of myriad forms is allowed into the body social, and in light of the agenda articulated in the Muslim Brotherhood’s “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” a zymotic future is foreordained as societies begin to unravel and countries to lose their national character. Ten percent of the census is the tipping point. Scholars like Peter Hammond and the aforementioned Raymond Ibrahim have canvassed approximately 50 countries on four continents and done the math, and the results are indisputable.
The consequences of this covert invasion are glaringly evident in many European nations where Islamic no-go zones have proliferated, Sharia law has been incrementally introduced, thoroughfares have become prayer venues, welfare rolls have been depleted, jihadist recruitment has escalated, rape has acquired the magnitude of an epidemic (the true “rape culture”), and Muslim voting blocs determine the outcome of elections, as conniving politicians are well aware. Such are the conditions that Western compromisers, accommodationists and tolerists, priding themselves on their putatively enlightened ideas, are ensuring for their progeny, if not for themselves.
Additionally, the Iranian march toward nuclear status is part of the Shi’ite plan for world domination, which in the Twelver version of the faith requires a universal conflagration and bloodletting to hasten or welcome the arrival of the Twelfth Imam, aka the Hidden Mahdi. The Middle East is already heating up to a higher temperature than we have seen before, civil wars erupting everywhere, nations falling apart, Israel bracing for nuclear annihilation, Saudi Arabia signing a nuclear development pact with South Korea — as the administration of Barack Obama continues to stoke the flames. Indeed, U.S. National Intelligence has just dropped Iran, the world’s most tentacular terror state, and Hezbollah, its largest and most lethal terror proxy, from its list of terrorism threats.
As we have been warned repeatedly by the most astute observers and critics among us — Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson, Andrew Bostom, Bruce Bawer, Raymond Ibrahim, Emmanuel Sivan, Serge Trifkovic, Geert Wilders, Peter Hammond, David Horowitz and others — we are under siege by the armies of a supremacist faith operating through terror (the latest such atrocity occurred on March 18 in the Bardo museum in Tunis where twenty European tourists were killed), unfettered immigration and nuclear capability. To this triple array of hostile forces, we must add a fourth front opened (or re-opened) by the warriors of Muhammad — the offensive against the past.
The Taliban demolition of the 1,700-year old Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001 should have sounded the alarm loud and clear. The systematic destruction of Hebrew/Israeli artifacts attesting to the millennial sojourn of the Jewish people in the Holy Land, a project carried out by the Islamic waqf in control of the Temple Mount, is an undeniable attempt to erase the signs and proofs of the historical presence of an entire nation in what was always its natal homeland. And today we see Islamic militias rampaging through the Middle East demolishing synagogues, churches, temples, palaces, statues, biblical tombs, historical monuments, remnant cities like Hatra and Nimrud, and inestimable cultural treasures anchoring antiquity to the living present.
What we are witnessing here, working in tandem, as noted, with terror, social infiltration and the imminent nuclear and ballistic capability of a deranged and religiously dedicated rogue regime, is the deliberate and ongoing effacement of the historical, cultural and architectural record of Judeo-Christian civilization and its ancient precursors. The attack on ancient artifacts amounts to a surgical operation on the cultural psyche of the occident, a kind of chronosectomy, or removal of the temporal organ, leading ultimately to the gradual elimination of communal memory.
According to Daniel Pipes, the motive for this orgy of destruction is to “confirm the superior power of Muslims and, by implication, the truth of Islam.” There is something to this, of course — a platitude need not be untrue. One will also agree with Robert Spencer’s unexceptionable thesis that for the Muslim sensibility, the relics and shrines of “pre-Islamic civilizations, and non-Islamic civilizations, are all jahiliyya — the society of unbelievers, which is worthless,” as stipulated in the Koran (3:137). But the real quarry is the historical logbook of the West and the material ledger of its antecedents. And the goal is their extirpation.
This initiative against the collective memory of the West, tantamount to the razing of a world-historical library, is nothing less than an auto-da-fé of astronomical significance. As London mayor Boris Johnson writes regarding the “moronic demolition of the past” and the unmaking of our “common story,” “I simply cannot understand the sickening silence and complacency with which we are absorbing news of this tragedy.” But it is not entirely unexpected. For the barbaric iconoclasts of Islam have profited greatly from a tribe of elite Western academics. Looked at from the perspective of a mordant irony, it is as if these Islamic marauders constitute the activist arm of the Western university and its curricular reduction of the magisterial pageant of Western history in favor of a postmodern pastiche of marginal cultures, dubious movements and anti-Western polemics. The ground of desecration has been well prepared by a legion of witting and unwitting collaborators. This malignant tillage is now being pursued to its desired harvest by a host of beneficiary savages.
The four-front assault is what the West is currently up against, but it remains plainly incapable of understanding or resisting the combined onslaught upon its cultural integrity, social consensus, political cohesion, and — Islam’s renewed foray against the mind of the West — the retention of the traditional armature of its past, that is, the glue of retrocognition. A person without memory is a hollow shell, living from moment to moment, unable to plan for the future or survive without help. A civilization that loses its heritage, whose evolutionary development is wiped out, and that no longer knows where it has come from or the identity of its parentage enjoys an aimless and frivolous existence until it eventually collapses and disappears. It survives paradoxically only in the triumphant if sketchy memory of the civilization that has replaced it. The eclipse of memory, the decoupling of the archive from the present, is nothing short of death by other means. When, owing to the eradication of memory, time no longer functions as a sustaining medium, the will to persist is paralyzed and life becomes meaningless. The murder of the past is a particularly effective form of cultural homicide.
“It makes me weep with fury even to think of it,” says Johnson. So should we all. Weeping, however, will get us nowhere. “We cannot allow these people to smash our history,” Johnson concludes. “They must be defeated.” He is right — presuming, of course, that we still remember how to fight.
David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, was released by Mantua Books. His latest book is The Boxthorn Tree, published in December 2012. Visit his Website at www.davidsolway.com and his Facebook page here.
Reading the Qur’an to understand why Obama keeps failing with the world’s Muslim states. (Read the prior post here.)
PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, March 18, 2015:
How much is your life worth?
In Islamic law, a Muslim woman is worth half of a man, and a Jew or Christian is worth one-third of what a Muslim is worth.
Skeptical? Read on.
Continuing our tour through “The Cow,” the second and longest sura of the Qur’an, we encounter in verses 141-150 a discussion of the qibla, the direction for prayer. Allah tells the Muslims to face the sacred mosque in Mecca when they pray (v. 150), when previously they had joined the Jews in facing Jerusalem. According to Islamic tradition, this came at the end of Muhammad’s attempts to convince the Jews that he was a prophet in the line of the Jewish prophets.
Allah tells Muhammad that only “the foolish among the people” (v. 142) will protest the change. And who are they? You guessed it: the Jews. On that identification the relatively moderate commentator Muhammad Asad and the comparative hardliner Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Ilahi Bulandshahri agree.
Asad says: “This ‘abandonment’ of Jerusalem obviously displeased the Jews of Medina, who must have felt gratified when they saw the Muslims praying towards their holy city; and it is to them that the opening sentence of this passage refers.”
Allah further criticizes the Jews and Christians for following “their desires” even though they knew Muhammad’s qibla is from Allah (vv. 144-6).
We already saw that Allah’s announcement that when he abrogated a verse, he would replace it with a better one (v. 106), and that some Muslims believe that refers to things in the Qur’an, and others think it applies only to the Bible’s having been superseded by the Qur’an. The change in the qibla has some bearing on this.
Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and an important early Islamic authority, says that “the first abrogated part in the Qur’an was about the Qiblah.” However, there is nothing in the Qur’an directing Muslims to pray facing Jerusalem, so this is an abrogation of an extra-Qur’anic regulation. Abrogation, as we shall see, is far more important in other contexts.
The qibla change is also the first time that we encounter a running theme in the Qur’an: Allah’s solicitude for Muhammad. An attentive reader of the Qur’an will come away thinking that in the eyes of the Supreme Being, Muhammad is the most important person who ever lived — or the authors of the book wanted to make sure that readers thought so.
Allah presents the new qibla as if it is a gift especially for Muhammad, who “will be pleased” by the new direction for prayer (v. 144). Several other passages in the Qur’an show Allah’s special concern for Muhammad; another is Allah’s gently rebuking him for initially declining to marry his former daughter-in-law (a legendary beauty) when Allah wanted him to do so (33:37).
Such passages have led unbelievers to think that Muhammad was enjoying the personal perks of prophethood, but for Muslims they only underscore Muhammad’s special status: the details of his life, and even his desires — in longing to pray facing the Ka’ba — are vehicles through which Allah reveals eternal truths and divine laws. And his example is normative.
Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy explains:
No religious leader has as much influence on his followers as does Muhammad (Peace be upon him) the last Prophet of Islam. … So much so that the words, deeds and silences (that which he saw and did not forbid) of Muhammad became an independent source of Islamic law. Muslims, as a part of religious observance, not only obey, but also seek to emulate and imitate their Prophet in every aspect of life. Thus Muhammad is the medium as well as a source of the divine law.
Allah then encourages the believers to be steadfast (vv. 151-157) and approves of a pre-Islamic practice during the Hajj (v. 158), the pilgrimage to Mecca, before returning to one of favorite themes: the perversity of the unbelievers (vv. 159-177). Those who reject Islam will incur the curses of Allah, the angels, and all mankind (v. 161), and will dwell in hell (v. 162).
Meanwhile, the burden of the believers is not heavy. They only need abstain from certain foods, including pork (v. 173). There are among the unbelievers those who stubbornly conceal what they know Allah has revealed (v. 174).
Those who argue about what Allah has revealed in the Qur’an are in “open schism” (v. 176). The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that these are — yet again — the Jews.
After that, Allah legislates on various matters: zakat (almsgiving), the Ramadan fast, the Hajj, and jihad (vv. 178-203). He establishes the law of retaliation (qisas) for murder (v. 178): equal recompense must be given for the life of the victim, which can take the form of blood money (diyah): a payment to compensate for the loss suffered. In Islamic law (Sharia) the amount of compensation varies depending on the religion of the victim: non-Muslim lives simply aren’t worth as much as Muslim lives.
Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller), a Sharia manual that Cairo’s prestigious Al-Azhar University certifies as conforming to the “practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,” says that the payment for killing a woman is half of that to be paid for a man and for killing a Jew or Christian one-third that paid for killing a male Muslim (o4.9).
For an explanation of this, see the Sufi Sheikh Sultanhussein Tabandeh’s statement here.
The following are among the Qur’an’s most important words about jihad warfare (vv. 190-193).
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress” (v. 190) is often invoked today to show that jihad can only be defensive. Asad says that “this and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims.”
However, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that this verse was abrogated by 9:1, which voids every treaty between the Muslims and nonbelievers. On the other hand, Ibn Kathir rejects the idea that the verse was abrogated.
What constitutes a defensive conflict? A clue to that comes in v. 193: “Fight them until there is no fitnah and worship is for Allah.” Fitnah is persecution or unrest. Ibn Ishaq explains that this means that Muslims must fight against unbelievers “until God alone is worshipped.”
Says Bulandshahri: “The worst of sins are Infidelity (Kufr) and Polytheism (shirk) which constitute rebellion against Allah, The Creator. To eradicate these, Muslims are required to wage war until there exists none of it in the world, and the only religion is that of Allah.”
That amounts to a declaration of perpetual war against all non-Muslim religions.
Nonetheless, this conflict would be essentially defensive, against the aggressions of unbelief: if Muslims must fight until unbelief does not exist, the mere presence of unbelief constitutes sufficient aggression to allow for the beginning of hostilities.
This is one of the foundations for the supremacist notion that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers until those unbelievers are either converted to Islam or subjugated under the rule of Islamic law, as Qur’an 9:29 states explicitly.
As the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, puts it in a hadith:
“I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.” (Sahih Muslim 31)
Thus one may reasonably assume that if one does not accept him as a prophet, one’s blood and riches are not safe from those who read these words as the words of a messenger from the one true God.
In keeping with the theme of war, Allah then warns believers not to doubt, backslide, or follow Islam half-heartedly (vv. 204-210):
“O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely and do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy” (v. 208).
This kind of statement makes reform difficult, for the reformer is always vulnerable to the charge that he is not entering Islam completely.
The meaning of the word Islam is literally “submission”. The goal of Islam, as stated in the Quran, is to force the world to submit to Islam. The meaning of the word Liberty is “you own you”. Islam and Liberty cannot coexist. The enemy of Islamic domination is information. Spread information about Islam. Spread it like Napalm.
The information in the above video has it’s origins in a book by Dr. Peter Hammond. The following is an article he wrote for Frontpage Magazine in 2008 where he explains his ideas on the effects of Muslim demographics on non-Muslim populations:
The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
‘Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. – Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’
It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
The following was written by British author, Babs Barron, a chartered psychologist in independent practice in the UK. Published here with her permission:
However, they will fail utterly unless they educate themselves fully about how Islam perceives other belief systems and their social and cultural mores.
According to the latest census data, there were 33.2 million Christians, 263,346 Jews, and 2,660,116 Muslims in the UK in 2012. One may assume that those who define themselves in terms of their religious beliefs practice those beliefs although to varying degrees. We are told also that the Muslim population is the fastest growing in the UK, which should be a cause for concern, given the supremacist nature of Islam and its declared intention to subsume every other belief system to it.
There is also much discussion about whether Islam can be moderate given the hate-filled verses in the Qu’ran which instruct Muslims how to behave towards and regard non-Muslims. This has led me to examine the texts of the central prayers in each of the three Abrahamic religions as to whether they can be indicators of the intentions of each towards the others and to the wider society.
Orthodox Jews recite the Shema in Hebrew. The Shema is an affirmation of Judaism and a declaration of faith in one God. The obligation to recite the Shema is separate from the obligation to pray and a Jew is obligated to say Shema in the morning and at night (Deut. 6:7). There follows atranslation of it, from an Orthodox Jewish site. Jews are forbidden to write the name of God in full, hence the dashes in the words below:
“Hear, O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is One.
(Recite the following verse in an undertone: )
Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever.
You shall love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be upon your heart. You shall teach them thoroughly to your children, and you shall speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for a reminder between your eyes. And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates.
And it will be, if you will diligently obey My commandments which I enjoin upon you this day, to love the L-rd your G-d and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, I will give rain for your land at the proper time, the early rain and the late rain, and you will gather in your grain, your wine and your oil. And I will give grass in your fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be sated. Take care lest your heart be lured away, and you turn astray and worship alien gods and bow down to them. For then the L-rd’s wrath will flare up against you, and He will close the heavens so that there will be no rain and the earth will not yield its produce, and you will swiftly perish from the good land which the L-rd gives you. Therefore, place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul, and bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be for a reminder between your eyes. You shall teach them to your children, to speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise. And you shall inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates — so that your days and the days of your children may be prolonged on the land which the L-rd swore to your fathers to give to them for as long as the heavens are above the earth.
The L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to attach a thread of blue on the fringe of each corner. They shall be to you as tzizit, and you shall look upon them and remember all the commandments of the L-rd and fulfill them, and you will not follow after your heart and after your eyes by which you go astray — so that you may remember and fulfill all My commandments and be holy to your G-d. I am the L-rd your G-d who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your G-d; I, the L-rd, am your G-d. True.
Note the conditional nature of the second and third paragraphs, taken from Deuteronomy, and how the prayer reminds the one who prays it what will happen if s/he fails to love God and follow His commandments. For all that, however, there is no threat of hellfire for those who stray — the worst the Jewish God threatens is famine.
“Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done on earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory,
For ever and ever. Amen.”
There are commonalities in the Lord’s Prayer and the Shema, notably in the declaration that there is one God. One notable difference, however, is the lack of what Carl Rogers would call “conditions of worth” in the latter — there is no threat of famine or anything else if Christians stray from their path. Even so, both the Shema and the Lord’s Prayer are essentially loving — the former exhorting belief, the latter assuming it.
If we compare the essential prayers of the first two Abrahamic religions — Judaism and Christianity — with Islam, however, we see fundamental differences. Muslims are commanded to say the salat five times a day as part of their prayer ritual. I have reproduced part of it below, with what I believe to be the most important part in both Arabic and English. The recitation of it is very strictly circumscribed and Muslims are commanded to perform specific actions throughout it.
“Oh Allah, we ask you for help and seek your forgiveness, and we believe in you and have trust in you, and we praise you in the best way and we thank you and we are not ungrateful to you, and we forsake and turn away from the one who disobeys you. O Allah, we worship you only and pray to you and prostrate ourselves before you, and we run towards you and serve you, and we hope to receive your mercy, and we fear your punishment. Surely, the disbelievers will receive your punishment.
“اللهم إنا نستعينك , ونؤمن بك , ونتوكل عليك , ونثى عليك الخير , ولا نكفرك اللهم إياك نعبد ولك نصلى ونسجد , وإليك نسعى ونحفد , نرجو رحمتك , ونخشى عذابك , إن عذابك الجد بالكفار ملحق , اللهم عذب كفرة أهل الكتاب الذين يصدون عن سبيلك
“Translation: O Allah, verily we seek your help, we believe in you, we put our trust in you and we praise you and we are not ungrateful to you. O Allah, you alone we worship and to you we pray and prostrate, for your sake we strive. We hope for your mercy and fear your punishment,for your punishment will certainly reach the disbelievers. O Allah, punish the infidels of the People of the Book who are preventing others from following your way (emphasis added).
Note the obsequious nature of the relationship with Allah, to fend off his wrath, and which is very much at the submissive polarity of the authoritarian personality spectrum. There is also “..we forsake and turn away from one who disobeys you…” The commandment not to befriend the infidel can be found in the Qu’ran.
Note also “Surely the disbelievers will receive your punishment” which has no counterpart in the Shema or the Lord’s Prayer and smacks of the spitefulness of pernicious envy to say the least, and particularly, ” O Allah, punish the infidels of the People of the Book who are preventing others from following your way” which underlines the supremacy of Islam in Muslim beliefs and the bitterness that Jews and Christians not only refuse to recognise that but discourage others from recognising it, This has no equivalent in the Jewish and Christian prayers, and it sets the tone for Islam’s oppositional — and as we are now seeing, violent — relationship with Judaism and Christianity.
The salat is explicit that no true and mutualistic relationship should exist between Muslim and non-Muslim.
Do even moderate Muslims who attend mosque regularly say these prayers? If they are at all aware of what they are saying, do they believe that what they are saying dictates how they should behave? If not, why are they saying the salat? Even if the Muslim is not aware of its meaning, the supremacist attitude it represents has very probably been inculcated into him/her since childhood and is all of a piece with the hatred of Jews, Christians and all other faiths than Islam, which is absorbed from early years in a Muslim environment.
In the light of all this, how, without hypocrisy, can a Muslim who says salat five times a day, or even only occasionally, engage honestly in interfaith meetings on equal, mutualistic terms with Christians and Jews and other faiths?
The answer is, of course, that he cannot. As the British Islamist preacher Haitham Al-Haddad has noted, not only is the role of Interfaith a deception, it is a deception that is crucial:
“Of course, as Muslims, we believe that this co-existence cannot take place unless they are living under the umbrella of al-Islam … these visions and strategies are meant to be for a short run, means within fifty years, something like this.
“The far ultimate aim for Muslims is to have Islam governing the whole world, Islamisation of the whole globe. This is the ultimate aim of any Muslim and of all communities, Muslim communities.
“But we are not talking about that at the moment. We are talking about the immediate goals. So, in terms of immediate goals we need this peaceful co-existence, and they claim that they are promoting it and we need to take it from there.”
2 Mar 2015:
Yesterday, terrorists threatened to “behead” Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie if she did not help “introduce sharia law in Australia.”
To her credit, Lambie had recently called for the introduction of the death penalty for terrorists and had been quoted as saying: “If you don’t like our Australian law… then pack your bags and… leave. We will never bow down to sharia law.”
The police do not yet know whether this death threat was sent by Jihadists or by opponents of a planned mosque.
Australia, Down Under? Is there no continent free of lone wolves, wolf packs, citizen-jihadists who turn on their own countrymen or who travel to join ISIS?
Sadly, the answer is no. In fact, yesterday the Australian government barred its citizens from traveling to Mosul to combat “what the government calls growing radicalization among young Australian Muslims, some of whom have fought overseas with militant groups.”
Australia is part of the core group coalition against ISIS, which consists of the United States, Britain, France, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Poland, and Denmark.
Jihad is not new to Australia. According to Mark Durie, writing in Middle East Forum, almost one hundred years ago, in 1915, two Muslim men joined forces to shoot and kill four people and wound several others before being killed by police. They were answering the “call to jihad issued by the Ottoman Caliphate (on 11 November 1914).”
Durie defines three different forms of jihad: “individual jihad,” “jihad by bands,” and “jihad by campaigns,” which is warfare using armies directed by the Caliph. “This is the mode the self-declared caliphate known as the Islamic State is following today.”
These jihadists are not crazy or stupid or impoverished or justifiably angry because they have been persecuted. This is, pure and simple, “a manifestation of Islamic theology.” Westerners, especially our leaders and elites, do not want to believe this. As I have pointed out elsewhere, contrary to Western myth, many Islamic terrorists come from stable homes and have advanced educations; their leaders are often men of enormous wealth.
In December of 2014, “Sheikh” Man Haron Monis took 18 people hostage at the Lindt Chocolate Café in Sydney; he also hung an ISIS flag in the window. Two hostages and the gunman were killed. Like the 1915 Australian jihadists, Monis had experienced difficulties with the law. One of the 1915 jihadists, Mullah Abdullah, had been convicted of slaughtering sheep on an unlicensed premise; in 2014, Monis was facing criminal charges as an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife.
When someone is taught that they are “superior” and should dominate others and yet finds himself treated just like everyone else—or treated punitively due to what constitutes criminal behavior in the West but not in the Muslim world—one’s honor has been assaulted and revenge is called for. Such behavior—attacking Western officers or civilians– means that “sudden” or “instant” jihadists have internalized shame and honor codes and believe that Islam should reign supreme over every other religion and legal system.
Westerners have a very hard time believing this as well.
Jihad has been building for years in Australia. In 1998, a Sydney police station was shot atby four Arabs. In 2004, a Lebanese-Australian told a reporter that he “wanted to undertake a terror attack in Sydney in the name of Islam.”
According to Australian terrorism researcher Andrew Zammitt, in 2003, thirteen Melbourne men and nine Sydney men were arrested and charged with forming two different cells to prepare attacks. Eighteen were convicted. These arrests suggested that Australians had become “newly radicalized” post 9/11.
In 2005, hundreds of Australian women at the beach were harassed by angry, offended Muslims. Two hundred such men thereafter smashed hundreds of cars and windows, bashed several people and threatened women with rape.
In the summer of 2014, when Israel was self-defensively trying to eradicate the diabolical terror tunnels in Gaza, a convoy of cars drove through Sydney, brandishing the black flag of ISIS. Some chanted: “Jew and Christian will not stand. You can never stop Islam.”
In the fall of 2014, in Melbourne, Abdul Numan Haider was going to be questioned for “inflammatory” social media postings. He was on the radar. However, when the police came to talk to him—only to talk to him, not to arrest him—Haider stabbed one officer in the abdomen, neck, and head; he stabbed a second officer in the forearm. Haider was shot and killed.
Haider was considered to be a “gentle, loving, quiet” person, a “skinny small boy” who was a devout Muslim.
A worshipper at Haider’s mosque suggested that the 18 year-old was “upset about the recent cancellation of his passport and the police attention on him, [and] frustrated at what was happening in Iraq and Syria.”
Like the jihadists in 1915 and 2014, Haider did not view Australian law as more important than Sharia law and the “call to Jihad,” and when he got in trouble with the law (he was legally stopped from leaving Australia), and when he was merely questioned, he immediately enacted his own, lone Jihad.
I called a friend in Australia who does not want to be named. He is a physician and has many Arab patients. He shared the following anecdotes.
“I have had many Arab patients. I tell them I am German. Many praised me because Hitler was German and did ‘such a great job with the Jews.’ At a clinic, a Muslim reception clerk often greeted me with Heil Hitler, arm extended, and a smile. He thought I was an Aryan German. A young man, whom Australian Jews had helped, confided in me, saying that ‘Islam is going to take over the world as the fastest growing religion. Even in Australia.’ One of my Australian patients complained that he was harassed and bullied on the street by Arabs, shouting, ‘we are going to take over your f**king country.’ Someone who had been a member of Hezbollah, wanted me to write a letter for him to the Prime Minister so he would not be deported. When I declined, he grabbed me by the neck and threatened me.”
American Thinker, By Carol Brown, January 18, 2015:
As we know by now, after the powers that be at Duke University decided to allow the Muslim call to prayer to be broadcast from the university chapel, they later changed their mind.
This is an act of Islamic supremacism.
If Muslim students at UCLA can’t figure out how to tell time or keep track of when they need to pray, that’s their problem. The call to prayer is something that is blasted over loudspeakers in Muslim majority countries and Muslim enclaves around Detroit. We’ve already heard enough “Allahu Akbar” for a lifetime.
Please speak out. See contact information below:
University of CA, Office of the President (that would be Janet Napolitano), here.
University of CA, Board of Regents, here.
UCLA, Chancellor, here.
UCLA, Associate of the Chancellor, here.
UCLA, Administrative Vice Chancellor, here.
UCLA, Individual Donors, here.
UCLA, Center for the Study of Religion, here.
UCLA, Christian student organization, here.
UCLA, Jewish student organization (Hillel), here.
UCLA Main Operator: (310) 825-4321.
Hat tip: Gateway Pundit
- Master List of Concessions (concess.blogspot.com)
This enemy is different than anything we have encountered before: You can not intimidate an enemy who loves death more than life.
10 News, DECEMBER 31, 2014
I was recently asked: Why fight Islam? The short answer is because Islam fights us and since it knows no borders and it knows no mercy, it will keep fighting us until we are defeated or we – hopefully – stop them forever.
The goal in Islam is world domination and a central part of every Muslim’s religious practise is to spread his faith with all possible means until it covers the Earth completely. Ever since the 6th century where Islam’s founder and self-proclaimed prophet, Mohammed (who maybe never existed), set out to conquer neighbouring towns, killing, maiming, raping and enslaving scores, Islam has spread its suppressing and destructive doctrine as far as it could. Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist countries and cultures have been crushed by relentless waves of jihadis (Arabic: mujahideens), leaving up to 270 million non-Muslims dead, mostly killed in exceedingly barbaric ways. The recent Islamic takeover of areas in Africa, the Middle East and Western cities that until recently were not under sharia, is not a new phenomena. It is just another phase of a 1,400 year old war against non-Muslims, with the aim of consolidating Muslim power over non-Muslims, and Islamic rule over democracy and human rights. With millions of Muslims fleeing to the West from their self-created atrocities, Islam is about to spread to countries that has been almost Muslim-free. Citizens of Eastern Europe and Baltic States who think that West Europe can handle the problem without their help are naive and lack solidarity: it is time for the democratic world to stand together. Since the nature of Islam is to eventually spread everywhere, nobody is safe anyway.
What do they want?
The final goal of Islam is a worldwide Caliphate ruled by Sharia. The world that Islam’s followers dream of is a planet ordered after the wishes of Allah and his prophet. In such a world there is no Free Speech since the slightest criticism of the system is to be punished by death. There is not even Freedom of Thought, since everybody has to believe in Allah and Mohammed as his prophet, pray five times a day, eat halal, and kill family members and others flinching from the Islamic rules. According to Sharia, women are effectively the property of their male family members and men are allowed to have four wives and beat them all. Jews and Christians will be spared death if they pay a protection tax, jizya, and accept the status as dhimmis, second class citizens whom Muslims are allowed to abuse and rape on a whim. People not believing in the Old Testament – Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others – will have the choice between being killed or converting to Islam (which constitutes psychological rape and forces one to live a strict Muslim life, including killing other non-Muslims).
A society where science and research must be aligned with the world view of a crazed pedophile living in the 6th century (Mohammed married and started fondeling Aisha when she was six and had intercourse with her when she was nine) will of course not be able to establish a functioning stable economy, political system or the comforts of modern medicine, technology and infrastructure.
When it comes to human freedom and rights, the Soviet Union was a utopia compared to any Islamic caliphate, which can best be compared to the joy- and loveless, totalitarian worlds of anger depicted by J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of The Rings and in George Lucas’ Star Wars. Should our civilization collapse under Islamic aggression – aided by our own political correctness, cowardice, laziness – the only known place with intelligent life in this universe will be a dark and destroyed planet drifting through space, populated by billions of mostly inbred humans living in total misery, enslaved by the freedom-hating, death-loving, brutal, mind-numbing sharia. What tragedy could be worse than that?
IPT News, Dec. 5, 2014:
Lilley: Tonight’s top story: A 15-year-old boy in Quebec could be the first minor to face terrorism related charges in Canada. The 15-year-old robbed a convenience store at knifepoint. He was allegedly planning to use the money to leave the country for overseas terrorist activities. Steven Emerson is with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. He joins us now from Washington. Steven, you and I have been tracking these stories of young men, mostly young men, but also some young women, going over to join the jihadist movement. This is the youngest that I’ve heard, at 15, and kudos to the boy’s father for ratting him out to police and saying, ‘This is what my son did.’
Emerson: Yeah, kudos to the father, because usually the parents are quiet. This happened recently in Denver, where there were 16-year-old girls that volunteered to and actually flew over to Syria to volunteer for ISIS. And I think they were actually ratted out by their parents. So you know good for the parents for doing that, because that’s really one of the only ways they’re going to be found out. Unfortunately, it also represents the fact that youth, there is a youth culture that is really attracted to this radical Islamic culture that believes in defeating and destroying the West and that’s rampant throughout Europe and throughout the United States and Canada.
Lilley: Now I know that with the whole Edward Snowden issue that started you know what, a year or two ago, that a lot of people are understandably worried about government snooping on social media, on emails. But here we have after the fact this young man finding out that he had Facebook interactions with Ahmad Rouleau, the terrorist that ran down the two, well one in uniform, one not, the two soldiers in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu back in October. So this radicalization is once again happening online, and then the actions flow from there. Police don’t seem to be able to get a leg up to know where the actions are coming until after they’ve happened.
Emerson: Well yes and no. And sometimes the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] and [other] police [agencies] do have indications on social media about what’s going on, as the FBI did with in the case with the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston, but they were unable to do anything because the laws didn’t permit them to act proactively just because they were expressing radical ideas on social media. So [they were prevented from acting because of a …] prohibition against proactive criminal treatment against those that they believe would act aggressively and violently. And in the end you know the pendulum swings both ways. When the Snowden disclosures happened, everyone said ah, it’s an invasion of privacy; now people are saying why aren’t they looking at social media, because that would be an indication of what the intent would be. The guy who you know almost decapitated the Canadian government that was known ahead of time by the Canadian intelligence, this guy was a known jihadist. Why wasn’t he stopped and picked up?
Lilley: They viewed him as a low level threat at that point is what they’ve told us. He was not on, not even on their travelers alert, as we’ve been led to believe originally. Let me ask you about this, so the ISIS theology continues to spread. They continue to get new fighters all the time. We’re not making a big dent on them. I mean they’ve apparently just taken another military base. They continue to gain ground here and there. Is this a losing fight that we’re engaged in with what is essentially an idea, as opposed to a standing army?
Emerson: Well I would tell you this, that I believe that we’re mistaken in basically saying that this is the rise of new radical Islam. This is the old radical Islam. This is Al-Qaeda, this is Hamas, this is Boco Haram, this is Al-Shabab, this is not [new], they’re all from the same tree. When we try to make, when we try to distinguish [each one] from all of these [other] movements, when we make Hamas a political movement and we treat them differently than we treat Boku Haram, […when] we treat Boku Haram differently than we treat ISIS, than we treat Al-Qaeda, we’re making such a horrible mistake, because we’re basically cutting our own faces, we’re cutting our own necks. The fact of the matter is it’s all radical Islam, and they’re all connected by the same one fundamental fact – that they’re at war with the West, they believe the West should be defeated, should be destroyed, and that they should be supreme, they should rule the West. That’s the number one [common] factor. And they will do anything they can, violently or they will use the system [ to further their goal]. Either way, that’s their agenda. And we have to understand that’s the Muslim Brotherhood agenda. The Muslim Brotherhood agenda, Brian, is the parent of all of these groups.
Lilley: Yet we’ve got the Muslim Brotherhood operating in Canada and the United States. You’re telling me though today though that Interpol, is it Interpol, has released an arrest warrant for the head of the Muslim Brotherhood internationally?
Emerson: This is amazing actually because it goes back to what the United Arab Emirates did a week and a half ago. They issued a list of 85 Muslim Brotherhood groups that they designated as terrorists, not just groups that said were [terrorist groups but others] that were front groups, including those in the United States and in Canada and in Europe. This is far beyond what the United States has done, which only two days ago said that the Muslim Brotherhood was non-violent for the last 30 years, even though we have released an article on our website today showing that the Muslim Brotherhood just this year called for armed resistance and terrorism against the Israelis and against Americans. The fact of the matter is the United Arab Emirates and the Saudis are much more aggressive and much more forthcoming in acknowledging and being proactive against the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a terrorist group, and against the spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who they lodged a criminal complaint and induced Interpol to issue an arrest warrant for incitement to murder, and that was just issued several hours ago.
Lilley: Alright Steven, great talking to you as always, always informative. And you can check out the Investigative Project for more.
(Washington, D.C.): On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the start of one of history’s most horrific acts of genocide, a group of prominent figures in the religious, national security and human rights communities have written a letter to the leadership of Washington’s National Cathedral. They urged the Cathedral not to allow a group of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations to utilize its house of worship on November 14th, 2014 for a prayer service that will inevitably – given the nature of the sponsors, their traditional service and the occasion – be a highly symbolic demonstration of Islamic supremacism.
The group’s letter notes:
November 14th, 2014, will be the 100th anniversary of the last sitting Caliph of the Ottoman Empire’s call for jihad against non-believers. The call for violent jihad against non-believers directly resulted in a genocide against the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek residents of Turkey. And while for most westerners the November 14th Jihad declaration is little more than a footnote in the annuls of World War I, for Islamic supremacists like those associated with Muslim Brotherhood, it is a date pregnant with meaning. To permit such a public display, and permit such groups to occupy the National Cathedral of the United States on this date represents an affront to the memories of those who were killed as a result of this genocide, and an affront to those Christians across the Middle East who are currently under threat by those who seek to emulate it.
Among the signatories of the letter, which was organized by the Center for Security Policy, were:
- Lieutenant General William G. Boykin, Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
- Dr. Ron Crew CH (COL) USAR, (Ret.), Executive Director, Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty
- Pastor Jim Garlow, Senior Pastor, Skyline Church
- Reverend Dan Cummins, Founder, Come Pray with Me
- Pastor Paul Blair, Fairview Baptist Church
The group offered to meet with the leadership of the National Cathedral and to provide additional evidence regarding how the groups involved in the November 14th event have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The signatories called to mind that, as proven in federal court, the stated goal of the Brotherhood in America is to “destroy Western civilization from within.”
The letter also notes how the Muslim Brotherhood has “…repeatedly targeted Middle Eastern Christians,” including “bombing places of worship” as well as attacking “fellow Muslims who do not meet the Brotherhood’s strict Shariah standards.” Such atrocities and other acts of violent jihad are not things of the past; they are happening currently.
Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney observed:
The National Cathedral was recently rocked by an unusual earthquake, causing millions of dollars in damage to its exquisite structure. The act of opening its doors to top members and front groups of the Muslim Brotherhood – an organization that epitomizes and practices the worst of Islam’s intolerant Shariah code – on a day that will always be associated with genocidal jihadism should rock the conscience of every member of the Cathedral’s community. If this outrageous event is not cancelled, the damage that will assuredly be caused to the reputation of the institution’s leadership and, by association, the Cathedral itself will likely be far more severe and difficult to repair than any caused by the tremor.
Gatestone Institute, by Burak Bekdil, Nov.13, 2014:
Both Turkey’s President Erdogan and its Prime Minister Davutoglu have declared countess times that Gaza and Jerusalem (in addition to Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia, and the Maghreb) are Turkey’s “domestic affairs.”
In truth, there is no mention of any city’s name in the Qur’an.
Turks have a different understanding of what constitutes an occupation and a conquest of a city. The Turkish rule is very simple: The capture of a foreign city by force is an occupation if that city is Turkish (or Muslim) and the capture of a city by force is conquest if the city belongs to a foreign nation (or non-Muslims).
For instance, Turks still think the capture of Istanbul in 1453 was not occupation; it was conquest.
In a 2012 speech, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (then Prime Minister) said: “Just like Mecca, Cairo and Istanbul are cities of the Qur’an.” In truth, there is no mention of any city’s name in the Qur’an. Never mind.
“Conquest,” Turkey’s top Muslim cleric, Professor Mehmet Gormez, declared in 2012, “is not to occupy lands or destroy cities and castles. Conquest is the conquest of hearts!” That is why, the top Turkish cleric said, “In our history there has never been occupation.” Instead, Professor Gormez said, “in our history, there has always been conquest.” He further explained that one pillar of conquest is to “open up minds to Islam, and hearts to the Qur’an.”
It is in this religious justification that most Turkish Islamists think they have an Allah-given right to take infidel lands by the force of sword — ironically, not much different from what the tougher Islamists have been doing in large parts of Syria and Iraq. Ask any commander in the Islamic State and he would tell you what the jihadists are doing there is “opening up minds to Islam, and hearts to the Qur’an.”
Both President Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu have declared countless times that Gaza and Jerusalem (in addition to Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia and the Maghreb) are Turkey’s “domestic affairs.”
This author wrote in this journal on Oct. 30:
In reality, with or without the normalization of diplomatic relations between Ankara and Jerusalem, the Turks have never hidden their broader goals in the Arab-Israeli dispute: that Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state; and that Israel should be pushed back to its pre-1967 borders. Until then, it will be ‘halal’ [permitted in Islam] for Erdogan to blame Israel for global warming, the Ebola virus, starvation in Africa and every other misfortune the world faces.
As if to confirm this whimsical view, Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan has blamed Israel for democratic failings in the Arab world. “Israel works with [undemocratic] regimes and keeps its ship afloat.” So, it is because of Israel that Arab nations have never established democratic culture — before or after 1948; or before or after the Arab Spring revolts. But fortunately, Palestinians have a new “protector.”
From Prime Minister Davutoglu’s public speech on November 7:
Al-Aqsa [mosque in Jerusalem] will one day be liberated. The Israelis should know that the oppressed Syrians have a protector. The oppressed Palestinians too have a protector. That protector is Turkey. Just as Bursa [the Turkish city where he spoke] ended its occupation, the honorable Palestinians, honorable Muslims will end the [Israeli] occupation. Just as Osman Gazi [a sepulchre in Bursa] was liberated, al-Aqsa too will be liberated. Al-Quds [Jerusalem] is both our first prayer direction and has been entrusted with us by history. It has been entrusted with us by Hazrat Omar. The last freedom seen in Jerusalem was under our [Ottoman] rule. Al-Quds is our cause. It is the occupying, oppressive Israeli government that has turned the Middle East into a quagmire.
Echoing that view, President Erdogan said that protecting Islamic sites in the Holy Land is a sacred mission (for his government), and bluntly warned that any attack against the al-Aqsa mosque is no different than an attack on the Kaaba in the holy city of Mecca.
|Spot the difference: In the eyes of Turkey’s political and religious leadership, Istanbul and its Hagia Sophia (once a Greek Orthodox Basilica) were legitimately “conquered” by the Muslim Ottomans, while Jerusalem and its al-Aqsa mosque (built atop the ruins of the Jewish Temples) are illegally “occupied” by Israel. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)|
No doubt, after Gaza, al-Aqsa (and Jerusalem) has become a powerful Turkish obsession, and a treasure-trove of votes, especially in view of Turkey’s parliamentary elections next June. And do not expect the Turkish leadership only to corrupt facts. Plain fabrication is a more favored method. All the same, someone, sometimes, would unwillingly reveal the truth often when trying to corrupt other facts.
Since Davutoglu claimed that “Jerusalem has been entrusted with the Turks by Hazrat Omar,” it may be useful to refresh memories. Hazrat Omar is Omar bin Al-Khattab (579-644), one of the most powerful and influential Muslim caliphs in history. Within the context of “conquest vs. occupation,” he was referenced by the top cleric, Professor Gormez in a 2012 speech:
After Hazrat Omar conquered al-Quds [Jerusalem], he was invited to pray at a church [as there were no mosques yet in Jerusalem]. But he politely refused because he was worried that the [conquering] Muslims could turn the church into a mosque after he prayed there.
Since medieval historical facts cannot have changed over the past two years, the top Turkishulama [religious scholar], referencing a most powerful Muslim caliph, is best witness that when the Muslims had first arrived in Jerusalem there was not a single mosque in the city. Why? Because Jerusalem was not a Muslim city. Why, then, do Turkish Islamists claim that it is Muslim? Because it once had been “conquered.” Would the same Turks surrender Istanbul to the occupying forces that took the city after World War I because its capture in 1920 made it a non-Turkish city? No, that was not conquest, that was occupation!
Had Messrs Erdogan and Davutoglu been schoolchildren, such reasoning might have been called bullying and cheating.
Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
NRO, By Andrew C. McCarthy:
If you want to understand the challenge Western liberalism faces from Islamic supremacism, take six minutes to watch this extraordinary interview of Ayad Jamal al-Din, a Shiite cleric, Iraqi intellectual, and former member of the Iraqi parliament who campaigns for a democratic Iraq that separates mosque and state. Mr. al-Din was in Washington for the October 17 interview by al-Iraqiya TV in Iraq, and the interview with English subtitles (which I’ve reproduced as a transcript below) was publicized on Monday by the invaluable MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute).
While President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Prime Minister Cameron absurdly contend that the Islamic State, or ISIS, is not Islamic, al-Din – an authentic moderate Muslim who regards the Islamic State as the enemy – patiently explains that the jihadist organization adheres to a firmly established interpretation of Islam that is based on sharia and fiqh (jurisprudence).
I have repeatedly argued that classical, mainstream sharia is repressive, discriminatory, and anti-democratic, and thus that it was self-defeating for the United States to sponsor new constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan that attempted to meld Western democratic principles with sharia (see here, here, and here). It is especially gratifying to hear a passionate, articulate explanation of the incompatibility of Western democracy and Islamic jurisprudence from someone who reveres the former, is steeped in the latter, and understands the stakes.
Moreover, for those of us who frequently point out that mosques – which Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna described as the “axis” of his ideological movement in every city and town – are often centers for jihadist incitement, recruitment, training and fundraising, it is refreshing to hear someone intimately familiar with this phenomenon explain that there are mosques throughout the world directly and indirectly championing the Islamic State by glorifying jihad and the caliphate.
Our national security will not be well served until the United States government ends its futile search for “moderate Islamists” and realizes our allies in the Muslim community are the real moderates, meaning pro-Western democrats who reject the imposition of sharia on civil society. Supporting our enemies only undermines our friends.
Published on Sep 14, 2014 by Q Society of Australia Inc:
Dr Durie speaks at the Q Society event in Melbourne together with Clare Lopez on the evening of 2 September 2014. His topic “Three Choices and the Bitter Harvest of Denial: How Western denial about Islam has fueled Genocide in the Middle East.”
Not many non-Muslim Australian scholars understand Islam and the underlying motivation of radical Muslims like Dr Durie. Q Society hopes this very timely and in-depth analysis will help many Australians to better respond to the challenges we face.
Make sure to view the Q&A section for valuable advise how to help those still caught up in Islamophilia.
by Soeren Kern:
According to Burkhard Freier, the director of domestic intelligence for North Rhine-Westphalia, German Salafists are increasingly inclined to use violence to achieve their aims, and many have travelled to Iraq or Syria to obtain combat training.
“The intention of these people is to provoke and intimidate and force their ideology upon others. We will not permit this.” — Wuppertal Mayor Peter Jung.
“In Germany, German law is determinative, not Sharia law.” — Christian Democratic Union (CDU) politician Volker Kauder.
Salafist ideology posits that Sharia law is superior to all secular laws because it emanates from Allah, the only legitimate lawgiver, and thus is legally binding for all of humanity. According to the Salafist worldview, democracy is an effort to elevate the will of human beings above the will of Allah.
Muslim radicals have begun enforcing Islamic Sharia law on the streets of Wuppertal, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, the state with the largest Muslim population in Germany.
In what government officials say is a blatant challenge to the rule of law and the democratic order in Germany, groups of young bearded Islamists — some wearing orange traffic safety vests emblazoned with the words “Sharia Police” — have declared parts of downtown Wuppertal to be a “Sharia Controlled Zone.”
The self-appointed guardians of public morals have been distributing yellow leaflets that explain the Islamist code of conduct in the city’s Sharia zones. They have urged both Muslim and non-Muslim passersby to listen to Salafist sermons and to refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, listening to music, pornography or prostitution.
A seven-minute propaganda video in German, entitled “Sharia Police: Coming Soon to Your City,” shows a group of men led by a German convert to Islam, Sven Lau, roaming the streets of Wuppertal at night and pressing wayward youth to embrace radical Islam. In some instances, the men physically attempted to prevent young people from entering bars, casinos and discotheques; those who resisted were pursued and intimidated.
|Sven Lau chats on the street with locals in Wuppertal, in “Sharia Police: Coming Soon to Your City”.|
After local residents alerted German authorities, police stepped up their presence in downtown Wuppertal and also established a telephone hotline to enable citizens to report any possible criminal activity.
Local authorities, however, appear uncertain about how to proceed.
Wuppertal Police Chief Birgitta Radermacher said the “pseudo police” represent a threat to the rule of law and that only police appointed and employed by the state have the legitimate right to act as police in Germany. Sheadded:
“The monopoly of power lies exclusively with the State. Behavior that intimidates, threatens or provokes will not be tolerated. These ‘Sharia Police’ are not legitimate. Call 110 [police] when you meet these people.”
Wuppertal Mayor Peter Jung said he hoped the police would take a hard line against the Islamists. “The intention of these people is to provoke and intimidate and force their ideology upon others,” Jung said. “We will not permit this.”
More than a dozen Islamists between the ages of 19 and 30 are now being investigated on charges of illegal assembly. But the men have not been arrested and police say they have no legal authority to confiscate the orange vests, even though impersonating a police officer is a crime. Wuppertal’s Public Prosecutor, Wolf-Tilman Baumert, says it remains unclear whether the men have done anything illegal. “The mere explaining of religious rules is not a crime,” he said.
The vigilantes are followers of Salafism, a radically anti-Western ideology that openly seeks to replace democracy in Germany (and the rest of the world) with an Islamic government based on Sharia law.
Read more at Gatestone Institute