In the Name of Islam

kenyaBy :

Denial is the first stage of coming to terms with the unthinkable.

In Westgate, a Kenyan mall oriented toward expats, terrorists separated Muslims from non-Muslims before killing them. The Muslims were allowed to go free if they could recite a Muslim prayer.

During the attack, Al Shabaab’s Arabic Twitter account quoted the Koran, “Plant firmly our feet and give us victory over (Al-Kafireen) the disbelieving people.”  (Koran 2:250). The Kuffar, the non-Muslims of Westgate, included small children.

“I don’t understand why you would shoot a five-year-old child,” one of the survivors said. But the five-year-old was not a Muslim.

Moments like these put the Clash of Civilizations into bloody context. This isn’t abstract politics. It’s not about economics, the environment or foreign policy. It’s about a worldview in which a five-year-old who can’t recite the Islamic confession of faith deserves to be killed.

The crime is not being a Muslim.

Or as Al Shabaab put it on Twitter, “Only Kuffar were singled out for this attack. All Muslims inside #Westgate were escorted out by the Mujahideen (Islamic Holy Warriors) before beginning the attack.”

Not getting the message, UK Prime Minister David Cameron declared, “These appalling terrorist attacks that take place where the perpetrators claim they do it in the name of a religion – they don’t.”

“They do it in the name of terror, violence and extremism and their warped view of the world,” he elaborated. “They don’t represent Islam or Muslims in Britain or anywhere else in the world.”

Considering the number of British Muslims who have joined Al Shabaab or support it financially, including reportedly at least one of the attackers, that is not the case.

Cameron, hardly an expert theologian even on his own religion, describing himself as a “committed,” but “vaguely practicing” Christian, is in no position to expostulate on Islamic theology. But that hasn’t stopped him before.

When a British soldier was beheaded in London, Cameron called it “a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.” Demonstrating again his utter ignorance, he added, “There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”

The attackers who had quoted the Koran during their butchery clearly disagreed. But every politician becomes an instant expert on Islam when it comes to giving it a clean bill of health after every attack.

Challenged on the Islamist orientation of the Syrian rebels, Senator McCain claimed that Allahu Akbar was just like “Thank God.” Allahu Akbar originates from a Hadith describing Mohammed’s attack on a Jewish settlement; a chain of atrocities culminating in the Muslim ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians from what is today Saudi Arabia.

The Syrian rebels screaming Allahu Akbar are living up to its original use as a battle cry by Mohammed in the Khaybar Massacre. Syria is low on Jews, so the Allahu Akbarers are ethnically cleansing Christians from places like Homs using weapons supplied to them by the CIA.

It’s an authentic war crime overseen by John Kerry, who had built his political career on falsely accusing American soldiers in Vietnam of having “cut off ears, cut off heads… blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”

Now Kerry is helping run guns to the Genghis Khans who cry Allahu Akbar before cutting off a head. And they don’t mean “Thank God.” They mean Allah is superior to your god because he enables me to cut off your head.

In July, Al Shabaab terrorists burst into the African Inland Church in Kenya and opened fire. Among the eleven dead was a nine-year-old boy. Twelve other children were injured.

“The Mujahideen punished with their hands those believing and worshipping other than Allah,” Sheikh Hassan Takar, an Al Shabaab leader, explained.

Read more at Front Page

John McCain and ‘Allahu Akbar’

john_mccain_syria_visitBy Robert Spencer:

Tuesday morning, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) got a bit hot under the collar when Brian Kilmeade of Fox News noted that the Syrian rebels whom Barack Obama and McCain want to aid militarily were shouting “Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!” as rockets hit Syrian government offices. McCain’s response to Kilmeade demonstrated not only his ignorance of Islam, but his abysmal misjudgment of what is happening in Syria. And on the basis of that ignorance, he is aiding Obama’s rush to yet another war.

“I have a problem,” Kilmeade said, “helping those people screaming that after a hit.” That incensed McCain, who shot back: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘thank God? Thank God?’ That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.”

Wrong on all counts. In the first place, it does not mean “thank God,” as McCain seems to have affirmed when he said, “That’s what they’re saying.” Allahu akbar means “Allah is greater” – not, as it is often translated, “God is great.” The significance of this is enormous, as it is essentially a proclamation of superiority and supremacism. Allah is greater – than any of the gods of the infidels, and Islam is superior to all other religions.

Al-Islam.org states this obliquely: “Allahu akbar implies that God is superior to all tangible and intangible, temporal and celestial beings.” This may seem to be an innocuous theological statement until one recalls that Islam has always had a political aspect, and Islamic jihadists always shout “Allahu akbar” when attacking infidels. It is a declaration of the superiority of their god and their way of life over those of their victims. 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta also stated that it was meant to make the infidels afraid. He wrote instructions to jihadists that were found in his baggage: “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

In equating this war cry, which we recently saw Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members shouting as they destroyed a church and tore off its cross, with “thank God,” McCain was manifesting the moral equivalence that is not only fashionable these days, but required for acceptance into polite society. Only wretched “Islamophobes” don’t accept the mainstream media and government dogma that Christianity is just as likely as Islam to incite its adherents to violence. That there aren’t any Christians anywhere shouting “thank God” as they fire rockets at anyone doesn’t deter McCain from making this equivalence. Religious dogmas, and that’s what the idea that Christianity and Islam are equally violent is, are not subject to the same standards of evidentiary proof as are more mundane realities.

And he guarantees that the Syrian rebels are moderates? This is the John McCain who, according to Lebanon’s Daily Star, “was unwittingly photographed with a known affiliate of the rebel group responsible for the kidnapping of 11 Lebanese Shiite pilgrims one year ago, during a brief and highly publicized visit inside Syria” in May.

Read more at PJ Media

 

 

No Justice for Victims of Terrorist Nidal Hasan

Staff Sgt. Alonzo M. Lunsford Jr. was shot seven times by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan during an attack at the Fort Hood Army base in 2009.

Staff Sgt. Alonzo M. Lunsford Jr. was shot seven times by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan during an attack at the Fort Hood Army base in 2009.

By :

“I hear someone yell ‘Allahu akbar,’” Sergeant Shawn Manning told Army Times. “Usually something bad is going to follow after that, so I look up at him and he started shooting. He probably fired five or six shots before he shot me in the chest.”

Manning, a veteran of two deployments in Iraq, was referring to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who gunned down 13 and wounded 32 at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009. Nearly four years later the case is finally coming to trial but it is already clear that Major Hasan received more preferential treatment than his victims.

Hasan is still in the Army and retains his rank of major. The Army is still paying Hasan his full salary and has received more than $278,000 since his arrest in 2009. The Army is also taking care of the paralyzing injuries Hasan sustained in the gun rampage. That was before Hasan shot the unarmed Sergeant Alonzo Lunsford once in the head and six times in the body. Lunsford played dead and then fled the building but Hasan chased him down and shot him in the back. The bullet is still there but Lunsford told reporters that the Army refused to cover an operation to remove it, and docked his pay when he was undergoing treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

“We don’t get passes the way Major Hasan got passes,” Lunsford told the New York Times. “Each one of us has gotten a raw deal somewhere down the line.” Shawn Manning still carries a bullet in his back and fights for the pay he lost due to the Army’s ruling that Hasan’s attack was not terrorism, therefore the wounds were not related to combat.

Hasan had been emailing terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki about the prospect of killing infidel American soldiers, and Hasan did everything but take out a two-minute ad on the Super Bowl to announce his jihadist intentions. True to form, he yelled “Allahu akbar,” before killing 13 people, more than twice as many victims as the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. On his website, Anwar al-Awlaki was orgasmic with joy that Hasan had done his duty. Even so, the Army refused to call Hasan’s killing spree terrorism, gun violence or a hate crime. Rather, the government proclaimed the mass murder spree a case of “workplace violence.” The trial is taking the same course.

Read more at Front Page

 

 

Obama Honors Trayvon Martin, Ignores Fort Hood Killed

071013_Lunsford_1050

“I’m Disappointed, Embarrassed By Admin’s Handling of Hasan Case”

IBD:

War On Terror: The jury has been selected and the trial date set for the jihadist accused of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 of attempted premeditated murder acting, as he says, in defense of the Taliban.

Army Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford has not received a phone call from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Nor does the African-American veteran who was shot seven times by Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood expect to. He is merely relieved that nearly four years after the massacre at the Army base in Texas, a jury has finally been selected and a trial date has been set.

Thirteen people, including a pregnant soldier, were killed and 32 others shot Nov. 5, 2009, at the Killeen facility during Hasan’s rampage against soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan. Hasan has said he did it in defense of the Taliban, a self-admitted act of terrorism on behalf of a foreign entity.

One would expect that when a self-proclaimed “soldier of Allah” shouting “Allahu Akhbar” opens fire on dozens of American citizens and soldiers, killing and maiming as many innocents as he can, it would have been called an act of terror. One of the great scandals of the Obama administration has been its shameful designation of the massacre as “workplace violence.”

Attorney General Eric Holder has refrained from filing terrorism charges in the case and is currently busy in Florida announcing his intent to find George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman found innocent of murdering Trayvon Martin, guilty of something, anything, to satisfy the racial grievance industry.

“Not only am I disappointed (in Holder), I’m embarrassed. Mr. Holder needs to understand the repercussions of his actions,” Sgt. Lunsford says.

Lunsford also expressed outrage at the fact that some victims are financially struggling, but that because of the categorization of the shooting as a “workplace shooting,” he and those other victims are not entitled to combat-related benefits they would have received had they been injured overseas.

Meanwhile, Hasan has continued to receive paychecks over the past four years, amounting to $287,000.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily

 

Syria’s Graphic Beheading Videos

Murad-450x295By :

Based on a widely circulated video and statements from the Vatican, it was believed that Fr. Francois Murad, a Catholic Syrian priest, was recently beheaded in Syria.  It was not long before others “vigorously denied” the story, saying that the Christian priest was actually shot dead.  And now that’s fast become the “big” news.  For example, according to the Telegraph, “The footage, said to show Father Francois Murad, 49, as the victim in a brutal summary execution by foreign jihadists is likely to be an older video that bares no relation to the death of the Catholic priest. Father Murad ‘died when he was shot inside his church’ in the northern Syrian Christian village of Ghassaniyeh on June 23, three separate local sources, who did not wish to be named, told the Telegraph.”

So apparently that makes it better?  That seems to be the Telegraph’s take, for it continues: “Claims that Father Murad was one of two men to be decapitated by a foreign jihadist group went viral, with outrage expressed in blogs and articles worldwide.”

So now that he wasn’t beheaded, only shot dead inside his church, there’s no longer any call for “outrage”?

At any rate, welcome to the “distraction” tactic being exploited by the many elements trying to minimize the atrocities being committed by the jihadis—also known as the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA)—in Syria.  Supporters of these jihadis exploit the fact that, in a time of war, as currently in Syria, news is not always reliable.  They also claim that any news that portrays the Syrian government as the “good guys”—such as nonstop videos of the FSA committing atrocities—is just pro-Assad propaganda, that cannot be trusted (they never seem to see the flipside to this logic, that Western media can be disseminating false anti-Assad propaganda).

Thus, let’s not focus too much on the exact particulars—for indeed, exact information is not always clear—and rather acknowledge the big picture: namely that beheadings have become very common in Syria, even if we don’t always know the identities of those beheaded.  But we do know who are doing the beheadings: al-Qaeda linked jihadis who are trying to transform Syria into a Sharia-ruling emirate.

Consider the video which some are now saying was not Fr. Murad—who was only shot (whew!)  Whoever the men being beheaded are, what you are witnessing is the true face of the Syria “rebellion”—jihadis, most of them obviously foreigners.  The ring leader appears perhaps Chechnyan, and can hardly speak proper Arabic (but one of the few phrases that he utters that is understandable is “we are enforcing the rules of Allah”).  The bound men are then beheaded to wild cries of “Allahu Akbar!”

Read more at Front Page

 

‘Branding Terror’ and the Art of Propaganda

Branding-Terror-HR21-272x350By :

Branding Terror, The Logotypes and Iconography of Insurgent Groups and Terrorist Organizations is a new book that claims to present an objective analysis of terrorist symbols. The authors, Odessa-born, German Artur Beifuss, a former United Nations counter-terrorism analyst, and Italian professional graphic designer Francesco Trivini Bellini, produced a beautiful but biased reference guide for members of the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Merrell, the book’s publishing company, specializes in art, fashion and gardening books, which should be the first clue that the information in this counter terrorism reference guide is problematic. The book’s 60 beautifully illustrated emblems, accompanied by a symbolic analysis and description of each group’s ideology, have a decidedly anti-American, anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian liberal bias that only serves to perpetuate the propaganda issued by the very terrorist organizations that are included in the book.

Beifuss and Bellini are more fascinated with the branding, marketing and visual communication of the terrorist groups than with the ugly realities of what these symbols represent. The book smells of political correctness, beginning with its disclaimers and apologies for the terrorist groups represented in the book, making it clear that the selected emblems were the result of a combination of designated terrorist lists from five countries.  As if compensating for having to have to include so many Palestinian terrorist organizations, the authors perpetuate anti-Israel bias in their analysis of five Palestinian group symbols that include the map of Israel in their logo (Palestinian Islamic Jihad p. 173, Palestinian Liberation Front, p. 255,  Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine p. 263, PFLP military wing p. 265 and the PFLP General Command p. 271). In each emblem the authors neglect to identify the obvious image as the map of Israel and choose to refer to it as an outline of Palestine. It is difficult to imagine that Beifuss, who worked for the United Nations as a counter-terrorism analyst, would not be aware of the fact that depicting the map of Israel as Palestine proliferates this classic anti-Semitic propaganda. This is reinforced by their descriptions throughout the book of the perception of Israel as occupying Palestine.

Political correctness is also evident in Beifuss and Bellini’s analysis of the emblems of Islamist jihadist terrorist groups, particularly their choice to camouflage the meaning of very significant concepts such as jihad, dawa, sharia and the phrase “Allahu Akbar.” The phrase “Allahu Akbar” appears in three emblems in the book and in each symbol the authors refer to it as the “takbir” which they define in their glossary as ‘The Arabic term for the Arabic phrase Allahu Akbar (“god is the greatest”) used by Muslims as an expression of faith; in prayer; in times of distress; and to express celebration or victory, determination or defiance” (p. 329). The terrorist organizations in the book that used this phrase in their emblems include: the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is linked with the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi; The Caucasus Emirate, the Chechen group that is likely affiliated with the Boston Marathon bombing; and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which committed numerous suicide attacks, killing dozens of civilians. The phrase “Allahu Akbar” in their emblems does not represent a benign expression of faith, it represents the battle cry of the Mujahideen before, during or after they are killing the enemies of Islam.

Read more at Front Page

Here’s another example of “branding”, from Bare Naked Islam:

Oh MY! Striking similarity between Obama’s logo and Egypt’s radical Islamist Salafi al-Nour party’s logo

The Al‑Nour Party is an ultra-conservative Islamist party maintaining a strict version of Islam, known as the Salafi methodology. Salafis believe in practicing Islam as it was practiced by the Prophet Muhammad, with their main source of governance strictly based on the Quran and the Sunnah.

1013410_10152947660065142_1489660670_n-1

Hasan: I Shot Comrades to Defend Taliban

Nidal-Hasan-beard-620x424-450x307 (1)by IPT News:

EUROPE’S MELTDOWN: A CAUTIONARY TALE

sweden_riot_AFPby PAMELA GELLER:

Muslims rioted in Sweden for a week, burning cars and attacking police. This is just the latest in an unremitting Islamic campaign, a continent-wide jihad initiative leaving death and destruction in its wake. It is a glimpse into the present and future of Europe, due to its disastrous and suicidal immigration policies, and a cautionary tale for America.

And it isn’t just in Sweden. It’s in France as well, where there have been periodic Muslim riots, featuring the same car-burnings, screams of “Allahu akbar,” and attacks on police. All over the continent, we see the effects of Muslim immigration in Europe. When a Muslim tried to assassinate free-speech activist Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, the New York Timessmeared Hedegaard and prised Muslims.

Last year, Belgium was shaken by a Ramadan crime wave, with threats of jihad grenade attacks on public buildings. A devout Muslim called for the murder of members of a pro-freedom political party in Germany. Other Muslim thugs “patrolled” the streets of London, harassing those they believed do not conform to Islamic law. There are evenSharia zones enforced in the U.K. Gay man are targeted by Muslims who threaten them to “get out of here, you bloody fag.” In Italy recently, a jihadist was arrested in Rome and there were police raids in Milan, Palermo, Cagliari, Cuneo, and Salerno. But Muslims nonetheless are violently rioting and attacking non-Muslims in that country. In Spain, a jihadi plotted to poison the tourist water supplyA jihadi trio was arrested “in possession of explosives and poison.”

And because of this mass Muslim immigration, the Islamic antisemitism has increasingly rendered Europe hostile to Jews. Norway’s Jewish population is almost nonexistent,French Jews are fleeing in droves, and a Jewish school in Belgium has been forced to shut down. In Sweden, Muslims shot rockets and hurled pipe bombs at Jews and attacked Jews at a peaceful pro-Israel rally. In Germany, Muslims rioted, chanting “Jews out, Germans out, allahu akbar, f**k off Jews, kick the Jews out, burn the Jew.” A Hezbollah courier was found guilty of playing a role in a Cyprus jihad terror plotHezbollah was also behind the bombing of a bus full of Jewish tourists in Bulgaria. In Italy, a Muslim was jailed for a Milan synagogue bomb plotThere are now sweeping “no-go areas” for Jews in Europe.

Think it can’t happen here? At a Los Angeles rally, Muslims chanted “Long live Hitler” and “Put Jews in ovens.”

The mainstream media, true to form, seldom identifies the perpetrators. Instead, in a characteristic move they blamed the Swedish riots on the right and attribute it all to poverty, saying: “Some seven years of centre-right rule, however, have chipped away at benefits.”

Read more at Breitbart

Islam’s rule of numbers and the beheading in London

london_terror2-620x395By :

In London last week, two Muslim men shouting jihad’s ancient war-cry, “Allahu Akbar” beheaded a British soldier with a cleaver—in a busy intersection and in broad daylight.  They boasted of their crime in front of passersby and asked to be videotaped.

As surreal as this event may seem, Islamic beheadings are not uncommon in the West, including the U.S.

In 2011, a Pakistani-American who helped develop “Bridges TV”—a station “designed to counter negative stereotypes of Muslims”—beheaded his wife.

In Germany in 2012, another Muslim man beheaded his wife in front of their six children—again while hollering “Allahu Akbar.

Beheading non-Muslim “infidels” in the Islamic world is especially commonplace:

In Yemen a “sorceress” was beheaded by the “Supporters of Sharia”;

In Indonesia, three Christian girls on their way to school were beheaded; in Syria last Christmas, U.S.-supported rebels beheaded a Christian man and fed his body to the dogs;

In Africa—SomaliaTanzaniaMali—Christians are regularly decapitated.  (For a comprehensive picture of Christian suffering under Islam, see my new book, “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.”)

Most recently, a disturbing video surfaced from “liberated” Libya of a machete-wielding masked man hacking at the head of a captive—again, to cries of “Allahu Akbar!”

But the greater lesson of the London beheading concerns its audacity—done in broad daylight with the attackers boasting in front of cameras, as often happens in the Islamic world.

It reflects what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers,” a rule that expresses itself with remarkable consistency:  The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, brazen violence against “infidels”—appear.

In the U.S., where Muslims are less than 1% of the population, London-style attacks are uncommon.  Islamic assertiveness is limited to political activism dedicated to portraying Islam as a “religion of peace,” and sporadic, but clandestine, acts of terror.

In Europe, where Muslims make for much larger minorities, open violence is common. But because they are still a vulnerable minority, Islamic violence is always placed in the context of “grievances,” a word that pacifies Westerners.

With an approximate 10% Muslim population, London’s butchers acted brazenly, yes, but they still invoked grievances. Standing with bloodied hands, the murderer declared: “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone…. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.”

Grievances disappear when Muslims become at least 35-40% of a nation and feel capable of waging an all-out jihad, as in Nigeria, where the Muslim-majority north has been terrorizing Christians—bombing hundreds of churches and beheading hundreds of infidels.

Read more at Fox News

 

Denial is still a river in Londonistan

images (55)By Melanie Phillips:

On one thing the British liberal class is certain – the hacking to death of a soldier in a Woolwich street yesterday had absolutely nothing to do with religion.  The murderers screamed ‘Allahu akhbar’ as they tried to decapitate the soldier (a barbaric hallmark of Islamic terror), announced proudly that ‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you’ and quoted the Koran as religious justification.

But the atrocity, we have been repeatedly told, had nothing to do with religion. Ever since 9/11, the UK and US political and media establishment, along with much if not most of the British security service and increasingly the US security establishment, has repeated this mantra. Killing in the name of Islam is a warped hijacking of the religion, a perversion of the religion, the very antithesis of the religion. But based on the precepts of the religion itself? Good heavens, no.

For more than two decades, the British political and security establishment has gone to extreme lengths to deny the true religious nature of the Islamic jihad, or holy war, against the free world and ‘backsliding’ Muslims (who are the jihad’s most numerous victims). There are several reasons for this state of denial, of which in my view the key is that to the official mind a holy war is such a fearsome prospect – it’s uncontrollable, can last for decades, is driven by wholly irrational motives immune to negotiation and is characterised by unmitigated savagery — they cannot admit that this is what it actually is.

So instead they come up with absurd statements like the one made to me some years ago by a very senior security official, who said this couldn’t be an Islamic religious war because to say it was would demonise all Muslims.

This was clearly a risible non sequitur. The fact that many Muslims not only do not support the jihad but are being themselves persecuted by it does not make it any less of a holy war against their perceived backsliding or heresy.

Nor can anyone plausibly claim that the jihad is based on a ‘warped’ or ‘perverted’ form of Islam and is therefore not actually Islam at all. It is clearly an interpretation of Islam which, whatever you may think of it, is grounded in the religion. The fact that many Muslims reject this interpretation – and that there are indeed other rival interpretations — is irrelevant to this point. It is arguably as authentic as more pacific interpretations – and more to the point, dominates the Islamic world today. To deny that is to deny its endorsement by the world’s leading Islamic jurists and scholars – or to pretend that they, too, are somehow not ‘real’ Muslims.

Read more at Melanie’s blog

Why Christian Persecution Is Islam’s Achilles’ Heel

11-09-2012_LBy

Which of the following three headlines is most difficult for the media—including the usual array of liberal pundits, apologists, academics, and politicians—to whitewash or rationalize away?  Which most exposes Islam’s inherent intolerance?

A)   “Allahu Akbar” screaming Muslims fire rockets into Israel

B)   “Allahu Akbar” screaming Muslims riot and commit acts of violence in Europe

C)   “Allahu Akbar” screaming Muslims torch a Christian church in a Muslim country

The answer is C—Christian persecution.

Why?

Because in both scenarios A and B, Muslims will always be portrayed and seen as the “underdogs”—and hence always exonerated for their behavior.  No matter how violent or ugly, no matter how many Islamic slogans are shrieked—thus placing their behavior in a purely Islamic context—Muslim violence against the West and Israel will always be dismissed as a product of the weak and outnumbered status of Muslims—their status as underdogs, which the West tends to romanticize.  And so they will always get a free pass, without further ado.

They may be screaming and rioting, firing rockets and destroying property—all while calling for the death and destruction of the “infidel” West and/or Israel to cries of “Allahu Akbar!” Still, no problem.  According to the aforementioned array of pundits, apologists, academics, and politicians, such bloodlust is a natural byproduct of the frustration Muslims feel as an oppressed minority, “rightfully” angry with the “colonial” West and its Israeli proxy.  Indeed, that is precisely how even the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. by al-Qaeda were rationalized away by many “experts”—even as al-Qaeda’s own words exposed their animus as a direct product of Muslim doctrine not temporal grievances.

Most recently, the New York Times, in the context of the rocket attacks on Tel Aviv, asserted that Israel “needs a different approach to Hamas and the Palestinians based more on acknowledging historic grievances,” thus taking all blame off the “aggrieved” and “underdog” Muslims and Palestinians.

But if Muslims get a free pass when their violence is directed against those currently stronger than them, how does one rationalize away their violence when it is directed against those weaker than them, those who have no political influence whatsoever?  Consider the most obvious of these scenarios, the growing epidemic of Muslim persecution of Christians.  From one end of the Islamic world to the other—whether in Arab lands, African lands, Asian lands, or Sinic lands, wherever Muslims are a majority—the largest non-Muslim religious group, Christians, suffer untold atrocities.

The rationalizations used to minimize Muslim violence against the West and Israel simply cannot work here—for now Muslims are the majority, and they are the ones violent and oppressive to their minorities, often in ways that would make the worst Israeli treatment of Muslims look kind and benevolent.

In short, Christian persecution is one of, if not the clearest reflections of Islamic supremacism.   Vastly outnumbered and politically marginalized Christians simply wish to worship in peace, and yet still are they hounded and attacked, their churches burned and destroyed, their women and children enslaved and raped (see monthly “Muslim Persecution of Christians” reports for an example).

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Bulletin of Christian Persecution October 30,2012 – November 30, 2012 (politicalislam.com)