Islamic Projection: Why Muslims Hate Infidels

By Raymond Ibrahim, March 29, 2017:

A little known fact: When Muslims persecute religious minorities in their midst, they often justify it by projecting the worst aspects of Islam onto the “infidels.”  A well-known phenomenon, “projection” is defined as “the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people.” One academic article states, “Projection allows the killer to project his (unacceptable) desire to kill (torture, rape, steal, dominate, etc.) onto some target group or person. This demonizes his target, making it even more acceptable to kill.”

Accordingly, anyone who listens to the last video made by ISIS inciting violence against Egypt’s Copts would think the Christian minority is oppressing the Muslim majority—hence the need for “heroic” ISIS to “retaliate.”  Similarly, after ISIS slaughtered 21 Egyptian Christians on the shores of Libya in 2016, it made a video portraying its actions as “revenge” against the Coptic Church, which ISIS bizarrely accuses of kidnapping, torturing, and forcing Muslim women to convert to Christianity—all things Muslims regularly do to Christians in Egypt. (Apparently the killing of nearly 60 Christians in a Baghdad church a few years earlier—which the jihadis then also portrayed as revenge against the Coptic Church’s forced conversion of Muslim women—was not enough).

When a Muslim cleric said that “whenever they [U.S.] invade a Muslim country, they strike on a Sunday. Always,” he too was projecting what he knows of Muslim attacks on infidels.  Look to almost any report of Muslim mob uprisings against Christians and their churches, especially in Egypt; they are almost always on Fridays—and naturally so: for that is the one day of the week when Muslims congregate in mosques for prayers, only to invariably hear sermons that rile them up against infidels.

But perhaps the best example is Ayat Oraby—the smiley-faced, pink-hijab wearing, Muslim woman and activist with many Muslim followers on social media.  In a video she made some months back (around the same time that one authority said Egyptian Christians were suffering attacks “every two or three days”), this Muslim woman who often resides in America sought to foment as much hostility for the Copts as possible; and she did this by accusing them of doing to Muslims what Muslims are always doing to them.  After calling the Coptic Church a “bunch of gangsters” and a “total mafia” that “rules [Egypt] behind the curtains,” she accused it of “stockpiling weapons in churches” and “striving to create a Coptic statelet” in an effort to continue waging “a war against Islam.”

Meanwhile, back in the real world—which consists of some 200 nations—Egypt is the 21st worst nation for Christians to live in; there they experience “very high persecution,” according to Open Doors, an international human rights organization.  The abduction of Christian women and children and their forced conversion to Islam is par for the course; entire Christian villages and churches are regularly set aflame on the rumor that a Christian somewhere “blasphemed” against Muhammad on social media, or that a Christian man is dating a Muslim woman.

But many Muslims, such as this Ayat Oraby, ever seeing themselves as victims, are blind to such facts; their notions of reality are informed by Islam.  And if Islam calls for constant hostility against the “other”—the non-Muslim, the infidel—who must be subverted or subjugated one way or the other, that must mean the “other” is constantly working to subvert and subjugate Muslims.  This sort of thinking goes right to the beginning: the 7th century Islamic conquests—those wonderfully “altruistic openings”—are constantly portrayed, not as offensive warfare, but defensive.  Muslims supposedly left Arabia, conquering and plundering their way through the Middle East, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and into France, to preempt the infidels who apparently were preparing to set off for Arabia to snuff out a nascent Islam.  Such is how the discipline of history is regularly mocked in Islamic schools around the world.

Let’s return to Ayat Oraby and consider her “projective” claims.  She accuses Egypt’s Christians of controlling events “behind the curtains.” This is as ironic a claim as it is old.  In 2010, prominent Egyptian cleric Khalid al-Jundi  complained that in Egypt “Muslims have fewer rights than Christians, and even do not have the right to worship like Christians.” In reality and as is well known, Christian churches face immense restrictions; just talk of building one sets off mass riots and attacks on Christians.   Facts speak plainly: there are 114,000 mosques in Egypt but only 2,000 churches; that’s 57 mosques for every one church, even though Christians are at least ten percent of the population.

Moreover, in a country where Islam reigns supreme; where Sharia (which mandates the subjugation of non-Muslims, a la Koranic verse 9:29) is part of the Constitution; where Copts have been conditioned over centuries to be content with just being left alone—is it reasonable to believe that these selfsame, down-trodden “infidels,” who make up ten percent of the population, are planning a violent takeover of Egypt?

As for Oraby’s claims that Egypt’s Christians are “stockpiling weapons in churches,” and “striving to create a Coptic statelet” to continue waging “a war against Islam,” this is another tired charge.  Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, former secretary-general of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, once appeared on Al-Jazeera  and, in a wild tirade, accused the Copts of “stocking arms and ammunitions in their churches and monasteries”—imported from Israel no less, “the heart of the Coptic Cause”—and “preparing to wage war against Muslims.” He warned that if nothing is done, the “country will burn,” inciting Muslims to “counteract the strength of the [Coptic] Church.”

In reality, all that ever burns are Coptic churches at the hands of Muslim mobs and terrorists—as when nearly 70 churches were attacked and many destroyed following the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi.  Moreover, it is Muslims who smuggle and stockpile weapons, including in mosques, in order to fuel their separatist jihads to secede from “infidel” powers (e.g., Chechneyan or Mindanao jihadi separatist attempts against Russia and the Philippines respectively; during the Muslim Brotherhood retaliation against the Sisi government, vast stores of weapons were regularly discovered in mosques).

As Coptic activist Mounir Bishai once put it: “Suddenly we [Copts] have shifted from complaints to self-defense, from demanding [our] rights to [trying to] convince the public that we are not depriving others of their rights… now we are being accused of amassing weapons… How have we suddenly turned from persecuted into persecutors, from the weak [party] into the strong and tyrannical [one], from the attacked [party] into the infamous attackers, and from the poor [party] into the rich exploiters? How did these lies become widespread, without us gaining any ground or improving our situation one whit?”

Even in the field of theology, Muslims are apt to project Islam’s notions of jihad and “martyrdom,” fighting to the death for Islam, onto Christian theology.  For example, in the midst of the accusation that the Copts are stockpiling weapons to wage war on Muslims, the Al Azhar Scholars Front, which consists of Al Azhar alumni, once declared: “Christianity…is constantly defining its overt and covert policy of eliminating all its rivals or degrading [the followers of other religions] and depriving them of every reason to live so that they will be forced to convert to Christianity.”

In fact, this is precisely what Islam does: through jihad, “eliminate all its rivals,” or, through the institution of dhimmitude, “degrade [the followers of other religions] and deprive them of every reason to live so that they will be forced to convert to” Islam. This is both historically and doctrinally demonstrable.

Similarly, when Bishop Bishoy declared that Egypt’s Christians are reaching the point of martyrdom due to the increase in their persecution, this, too, was thoroughly “Islamicized” as a declaration of “war-to-the-death,” including by al-Awwa, who, during his aforementioned Al Jazeera rant, asserted that “Father Bishoy declared that they would reach the point of martyrdom, which can only mean war. He said, ‘If you talk about our churches, we will reach the point of martyrdom.’ This means war!”

Of course, the notion that a martyr is someone who wages and dies in jihad, or “holy war,” is intrinsic to Islam (e.g., Koran 9:111). Even the authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary translates shahid (“martyr”) as “one killed in battle with infidels.” On the other hand, Christian martyrdom has always meant being persecuted and killed for refusing to recant Christianity—and this is precisely the definition that has for centuries applied to Egypt’s Christians, the definition that Bishop Bishoy clearly meant (see this article for more on the important differences between Christian and Muslim notions of martyrdom).

To recap:

  • Muslims regularly abduct, abuse, brainwash, and compel Christian girls to convert—and now Christians are accused of doing the exact same thing;
  • Muslims regularly smuggle and stockpile weapons, including in their mosques—and now Christians are accused of doing the exact same thing;
  • Muslims are constantly either trying to break away or conquer infidel nations—and now Egypt’s Christians are accused of doing the exact same thing;
  • Muslims seek to eliminate or subjugate the infidel according to the doctrine of jihad and dhimmitude—and now Christians are portrayed as seeking the exact same thing;
  • Islamic violence regularly pops up on Fridays, and now Christians (or merely Westerners) are accused of targeting Islam on Sundays.
  • Islamic martyrdom means killing others and oneself while waging jihad to empower Islam—and now Christian martyrdom, which has always meant accepting death rather than the renunciation of faith, is defined as the exact same thing.

This lengthy excursion into Islamic projections onto Christians using Egypt as a paradigm serves another purpose: it suggests that, if civilizational projection so pervades the Muslim world, despite reality, could that also be why the people of the West—most of whom either profess Christianity or are at least influenced by its ethics and mores—cannot accept the realities of Islam: because they too project the ideals of their religious heritage—one that preaches love, tolerance, and forgiveness for enemies—onto Muslims and Islam?

Sharia – Muslims Cannot “Show the Way to Police” Against Other Muslims

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, August 2, 2016:

Why haven’t Muslims in America and Europe come out of the woodwork by the thousands to provide the identities of jihadis at their mosques, Islamic schools, and neighborhoods to law enforcement?

The reason is the same as it always is:  it is a violation of Sharia (Islamic Law) – the guiding doctrine which drives Islam and the Muslims who submit to it.

Islamic Sacred Law (Sharia) specifically makes Apostasy (“Leaving Islam”) a capital crime stating…

quote from Reliance oftheTraveler

Sharia goes on to say:  “There is no indemnity for killing an apostate since it is killing someone who deserves to die.” (o8.4)

But Apostasy is not simply “converting out” of Islam.  It is much more than that.

According to authoritative Sharia, “Acts That Entail Leaving Islam” (Apostasy) include:

“To be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law (Sharia) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world.” [Ibid, o8.7 (19-20)]

It is a capital crime in Islam for Muslims to deny Sharia in any way.  Islam is Sharia and Sharia is Islam.

In the West there is a reason why the Muslim community is not helping law enforcement at the local and federal level.  It is because it is unlawful under Sharia.

It is all about Sharia.

Specifically, the Islamic Laws of SLANDER and TALEBEARING are clear and make it impossible for Muslims to help law enforcement officials against other Muslims without putting themselves at risk.

“Slander and talebearing are two of the ugliest and most frequently met with qualities among men…Slander means to mention anything concerning a person (Muslim) he would dislike.”                         (Um Dat al Salik, r2.1-2.2)

This is why people who draw cartoons or make movies about Islam are at risk of being killed.

Theo Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim in 2004 for making a film about women in Islam

Theo Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim in 2004 for making a film about women in Islam

Koran 49:12 specifically states “Do not slander (spy on) one another” and “Woe to whomever disparages others behind their back or in their face.” (Koran 104:1)

Mohammad said “The talebearer will not enter paradise” and “The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim. He does not betray him, lie to him, or hang back from coming to his aid.”

Sharia defines “talebearing” as follows:  “The reality of talebearing lies in divulging a secret, in revealing something confidential whose disclosure is resented.” (Ibid, r3.1)

Sharia specifically identifies that (r7.0) “Giving Directions to Someone Who Wants to Do Wrong” is considered “Talebearing,” and includes “showing the way to policemen.”

Any questions?

Muslims follow sharia because that is what being a Muslim means – someone who submits to Islam. Submitting to Islam means obeying the Sharia of Allah.

Muslims risk their lives under sharia if they help non-Muslims against the Muslim community.  The threat of death makes many people comply – as evidenced by the fact the Muslim community is silent in the face of a global holocaust except when it is to attack the non-Muslim world.

‘Radical’ vs. ‘Moderate’ Islam: A Muslim View

koran-cover_1

Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, June 1, 2016:

Originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

After his recent electoral victory, it emerged that Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, had described moderate Muslim groups as “Uncle Toms”—a notorious racial slur used against blacks perceived to be subservient to whites, or, in this context, Muslims who embrace “moderate Islam” as a way of being subservient to the West.

One of Iran’s highest clerics apparently shares the same convictions.  After asserting that “revolutionary Islam is the same as pure Muhammadan Islam,” Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad recently declared:

Some say our Islam is not revolutionary Islam, but we must say to them that non-revolutionary Islam is the same as American Islam. Islam commands us to be firm against the enemies and be kind and compassionate toward each other and not be afraid of anything….

According to AB News Agency, “Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad stated that revolutionary Islam is this same Islam. It is the Islam that is within us that can create changes. The warriors realized that Islam is not just prayers and fasting, but rather they stood against the enemies in support of Islam.”

How many Muslims share these convictions, one from a Sunni living (and now governing) in London, the other from a Shia living and governing in the Middle East?

An Arabic language article offers perspective.  Titled (in translation) “The Truth about the Moderate Muslim as Seen by the West and its Muslim Followers,” it is authored by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr in 2011.

According to the findings of this article,

Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call “moderate Islam” and “moderate Muslims” is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them.  They also see that the division of Islam into “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam” has no basis in Islam—neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality.

Khadr goes on to note the many ways that moderates and radicals differ.  For instance, radicals (“true Muslims”) aid and support fellow Muslims, especially those committed to jihad, whereas moderates (“false Muslims”) ally with and help Western nations.

This sounds similar to Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad’s assertion that “non-revolutionary Islam is the same as American Islam. Islam commands us to be firm against the enemies [“infidels”] and be kind and compassionate toward each other.”

Among the more important distinctions made in Khadr’s article are the following (translated verbatim):

  • Radicals want the caliphate to return; moderates reject the caliphate.
  • Radicals want to apply Sharia (Islamic law); moderates reject the application of Sharia.
  • Radicals reject the idea of renewal and reform, seeing it as a way to conform Islam to Western culture; moderates accept it.
  • Radicals accept the duty of waging jihad in the path of Allah; moderates reject it.
  • Radicals reject any criticism whatsoever of Islam; moderates welcome it on the basis of freedom of speech.
  • Radicals accept those laws that punish whoever insults or leaves the religion [apostates]; moderates recoil from these laws.
  • Radicals respond to any insult against Islam or the prophet Muhammad—peace and blessing upon him—with great violence and anger; moderates respond calmly and peacefully on the basis of freedom of expression.
  • Radicals respect and reverence every deed and every word of the prophet—peace be upon him—in the hadith; moderates don’t.
  • Radicals oppose democracy; moderates accept it.
  • Radicals see the people of the book [Jews and Christians] as dhimmis [third class “citizens”]; moderates oppose this.
  • Radicals reject the idea that non-Muslim minorities should have equality or authority over Muslims; moderates accept it.
  • Radicals reject the idea that men and women are equal; moderates accept it, according to Western views.
  • Radicals oppose the idea of religious freedom and apostasy from Islam; moderates agree to it.
  • Radicals desire to see Islam reign supreme; moderates oppose this.
  • Radicals place the Koran over the constitution; moderates reject this.
  • Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.
  • Radicals embrace the wearing of hijabs and niqabs; moderates reject it.
  • Radicals accept killing young girls that commit adultery or otherwise besmirch their family’s honor; moderates reject this.
  • Radicals reject the status of women today and think it should be like the status of women in the time of the prophet; moderates reject that women should be as in the time of the prophet.
  • Radicals vehemently reject that women should have the freedom to choose partners; moderates accept that she can choose a boyfriend without marriage.
  • Radicals agree to clitorectimis; moderates reject it.
  • Radicals reject the so-called war on terror and see it as a war on Islam; moderates accept it.
  • Radicals support jihadi groups; moderates reject them.
  • Radicals reject the terms Islamic terrorism or Islamic fascism; moderates accept them.
  • Radicals reject universal human rights, including the right to be homosexual; moderates accept it.
  • Radicals reject the idea of allying with the West’ moderates support it.
  • Radicals oppose secularism; moderates support it.

Khadr makes other charges outside of his chart, including that moderates believe religion has no role in public life, that it must be practiced in private, while radicals want it to govern society; that moderates rely on rationalism, while radicals take the text of the Koran and hadith literally; that the first place of loyalty for moderates is the state, irrespective of religion—marveling that the moderate “finds hatred for non-Muslims as unacceptable”—whereas the radical’s loyalty  is to Islam, a reference to the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.

Khadr’s conclusion is that, to most Muslims, “moderate Muslims” are those Muslims who do not oppose but rather aid the West and its way of life, whereas everything “radicals” accept is based on traditional Islamic views.

If true—and disturbing polls certainly lend credence to Khadr’s findings—the West may need to rethink one of its main means of countering radical Islam: moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.

ISIS or Islam: Which Breeds Terrorism?

unnamed (40)

Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, April 12, 2016:

Originally published by PJ Media.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

A lie conceals the truth.  And ugly but hidden truths never have a chance of being acknowledged, addressed, and ultimately ameliorated.

Because of this simple truism, one of the greatest lies of our age—that violence committed in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam—has made an intrinsically weak Islam the scourge of the modern world, with no signs of relief on the horizon.

One of the latest manifestations of this lie took place in Pakistan.  On Easter Sunday, March 27, a suicide bombing took place near the children rides of a public park, where Christians were congregated and celebrating the resurrection of their Lord.  At least 74 people—mostly Christian women and children—were killed and nearly 400 injured.  “There was human flesh on the walls of our house,” recalled a witness.

Who—or what—was responsible for this assault?  “We claim responsibility for the attack on Christians as they were celebrating Easter,” said Jamaatul Ahraar, a splinter group of the Taliban.  In a media statement, the group said it had “deliberately targeted the Christian community,” adding that “we had been waiting for this occasion.”

The Taliban and its affiliates are not alone.  Click herehereherehere, and here, for numerous examples of similarly lethal attacks on Christians celebrating Christmas or Easter by other Islamic groups and individuals around the world who also “had been waiting for this occasion.”  Even “the terror cell that struck in Brussels [last month, killing 34] was planning to massacre worshippers at Easter church services across Europe, including Britain, intelligence chiefs believe.”

Still, connecting the dots and understanding what binds all Islamic terrorist groups is a big no-no for the so-called mainstream media.  The problem, we will be told, is the “Taliban,” which “has nothing to do with Islam.”  Rather, it’s a finite, temporal, localized problem: defeat it, and the problem vanishes.

Meanwhile, about 5,000 miles west of Taliban territory, in Nigeria, Christians are also under attack.  Indeed, according to a new report, since 2000, some 12,000 Christians have been slaughtered for their faith and 13,000 churches destroyed.  Just last month, over 500 Christians were butchered.

According to the official narrative, something called “Boko Haram” is responsible.  This is another group that defines itself exclusively according to Islam; another group thathabitually bombs churches during Christmas and Easter; and another group that, we are told, “has nothing to do with Islam,” but rather is a finite, temporal, localized problem: defeat it, and the problem vanishes.

About 5,000 miles west of Nigeria, in the U.S., Americans were told that something called “al-Qaeda” attacked and killed 3,000 of their countrymen on 9/11; defeating that finite group would cease the terror.  Its leader, Osama bin Laden, was killed, and victory loudly proclaimed—except that an even more savage manifestation, this time called the “Islamic State” (it too “has nothing to do with Islam”) came on the scene and has gone further than al-Qaeda could’ve ever dreamed, in great part thanks to the Obama administration.

It gets worse.  The problem is not only that the media and decision-makers refuse to connect the dots and insist on treating each of the aforementioned groups as disparate, finite groups with different motivations—none of which has to do with Islam.  The problem is that regular Muslims who are not called “Taliban,” “Boko Haram,” “al-Qaeda,” “ISIS,” ad infinitum commit similar acts, and much more frequently, though this is rarely ever mentioned by the MSM.

Thus, although the “Taliban” was behind the recent Easter Day massacre, it is everyday Muslims who discriminate against, persecute, enslave, rape and sometimes murderChristians every day in Pakistan (click here for a typical month); it was everyday Muslims who burned a young Christian couple alive due to unsubstantiated rumors that they had insulted Muhammad.

Those who slaughtered 500 Christians last month in Nigeria were not “Boko Haram” but rather un-affiliated (but Muslim) herdsmen.  Likewise, “Northern Muslim political and religious elite are also major actors of targeted violence towards the Christian minority.”

Although ISIS claimed the Brussels attack, it is everyday Muslims who ban, burn, bomb, and urinate on Christian churches, and who, as in Pakistan and other Muslim majority nations, target non-Muslim European women for rape on the basis that they are subhuman “infidels.”

This is the real issue.  While the media may name the terrorist groups responsible for especially spectacular attacks—followed by the customary admonitions that they “have nothing to do with Islam”—few dare acknowledge that Muslims in general engage in similar acts of violence and intolerance against non-Muslims.  According to a recent study, Muslims —of all races, nationalities, languages, and socio-political and economic circumstances, hardly just “terror groups”—are responsible for persecuting Christians in 41 of the 50 worst nations to be Christian in.

These statistics are consistent with a recent Pew poll finding that, in 11 countries alone, at least 63 million and as many as 287 million Muslims support ISIS.  Similarly, 81% of respondents to a recent Al Jazeera poll supported the Islamic State.

In sum, what “extremist” “terrorist” and “militant” groups (that “have nothing to do with Islam”) are doing is but the tip of the iceberg of what Muslims are doing all around the world.  (See “Muslim Persecution of Christians,” reports which I’ve been compiling every month since July 2011 and witness the nonstop discrimination, persecution, and carnage committed by “everyday” Muslims against Christians.  Each monthly report contains dozens of atrocities, any of which if committed by Christians against Muslims would receive 24/7 blanket coverage.)

Media aren’t just covering up for Islam by pretending that the spectacular attacks committed by Islamic groups on non-Muslims “have nothing to do with Islam.” They are covering up for Islam by failing to report the everyday persecution non-Muslims experience at the hands of everyday Muslims—Muslim individuals, Muslim mobs, Muslim police, and Muslim governments (including America’s closest “friends and allies”)—not just Muslim “terrorists.”

Because of these entrenched lies, the world must continue to suffer from Islamic terror.  Not only have these lies allowed countless innocents to be persecuted into oblivion in the Muslim world, but they have allowed the same persecution to enter America and Europe, most recently via mass immigration.

The fact remains: an ugly truth must first be acknowledged before it can be remedied.   It may be hard to acknowledge an ugly truth—that Islam, not “radical Islam,” promotes hate for and violence against non-Muslims—but anything less will just continue to feed the lie, that is, continue to feed the jihad and terror.

Muslim Reporter Stops Newscast to Call Out Who’s Really Responsible for Terrorism…And It’s on Fire

Shutterstock

Shutterstock

IJ Review, by Mike Miller, April 9, 2016:

A Saudi Arabian newscaster interrupted her own program recently to strongly condemn radical Islam and acts of terrorism. Host Nadine Al-Budair criticized Muslim “hypocrites,” who claim terrorists “do not represent Islam or the Muslims.”

Al-Budair provided multiple examples, including: “People who spilled the blood walk at a dead man’s funeral, and cry.” She asked: Why do we shed our own conscience?

***

Saudi Writer Asks How Muslims Would Feel if Christians Were Blowing Themselves Up and Trying to Convert Muslims The Blaze, by Sharona Schwartz, Feb. 29, 2016

A Saudi journalist asked her readers in a recent article to imagine how Muslims would feel if Christians were blowing themselves up on their streets and if Christians were trying to convert Muslims, two activities associated with jihadist groups such as the Islamic State.

Nadine Al-Budair, a liberal Saudi journalist who lives in Qatar, asked the provocative questions in which she essentially switched the words “Muslims” with “Christians” to challenge her readers to condemn Islam-fueled atrocities.

The Middle East Media Research Institute posted translated excerpts this week from her article, which was published in December by Kuwait’s Al-Rai newspaper:

Imagine a Western youth coming here and carrying out a suicide mission in one of our public squares in the name of the Cross. Imagine that two skyscrapers had collapsed in some Arab capital, and that an extremist Christian group, donning millennium-old garb, had emerged to take responsibility for the event, while stressing its determination to revive Christian teachings or some Christian rulings, according to its understanding, to live like in the time [of Jesus] and his disciples, and to implement certain edicts of Christian scholars […]

Imagine hearing the voices of monks and priests from churches and prayer houses in and out of the Arab world, screaming on loudspeakers and leveling accusations against Muslims, calling them infidels, and chanting: ‘God, eliminate the Muslims and defeat them all.’

Al-Budair praised Western countries that have offered Middle Eastern migrants asylum, jobs, free education and health care only later to be attacked.

She asked readers to visualize if those who they welcomed into their country later “consumed by hatred and bloodlust … killed our sons on our streets, in our buildings, in our newspaper [offices], in our mosques and in our schools.”

“Imagine a Frenchmen or a German in Paris or Berlin leading his Muslim neighbor [somewhere] in order to slaughter him and then freeze his head in an ice box, in a cold and calculating manner … as one terrorist did with the head of an American in Riyadh years ago,” she wrote.

The writer contrasted the West’s treatment of Muslims who have “been on [Western] soil for years without any fear or worry” with the Muslim treatment of Christians:

How would you react if a European blew up a theater in your city or a cafe that your son frequents? What would you do if you heard curses against your religion and faith every Sunday, as they hear [against theirs] from some of our imams on Fridays and other days?

Imagine being in Amsterdam, London, or New York and knowing that students [there] learn as part of their curricula that you are an infidel, and that killing you is jihad that leads to the virgins of paradise. Would you extend your stay there to the end of the summer, or stay away? [Would you] blow yourself up [as the Muslim terrorists do], or would you do less than that: [Merely] conquer your rage and demand to ban Christians from entering Arab countries. What would you do?

Al-Budair warned that the West’s welcoming policy toward Muslims could end as a result of frustrations with Islamic terrorism that is fueled by the “extremist curricula” taught in the Middle East. She pointed to anti-Muslim statements like those made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as an example of the changing tide of public opinion toward Muslims.

See more excerpts from her article at MEMRI.

***

In his recent post, Signs of an Incipient Islamic Reformation?, Dan Miller asks – Might recognition of the Islam-terrorism nexus be a step toward the moderation of Islam? Apparently, the censors let Ms. Al-Budair message get through. Why? 

An Up-close Look at the Liberal-Muslim Alliance

1000922_432486470201470_1578099232_n-630x414American Thinker, by Jack Cashill, March 31, 2016:

I have read about the paradoxical alliance between Islam and the left for years. I have even written about it — at some length, in fact, in my newest book Scarlet Letters. But it was only a few weeks go that I got to see up close the mechanisms that allow people who celebrate homosexuals to find common cause with those who, when the law allows, happily sever their heads.

As a result of my book, I was invited to sit on a panel titled “Muslim in the Metro,” an event sponsored by an enterprise called American Public Square and televised in edited form — fairly, I must say — on the regional PBS channel here in Kansas City, KCPT.

There were five panelists — myself, a Republican state rep from Kansas, a fiftyish Muslim woman in the diversity business, a U.S. attorney appointed by Obama, and a female Muslim college student who used the word “microagression” as something other than a punch line to a joke. The moderator was also a former Obama appointee.

I would use names, but I am confident if American Public Square ran a comparable event in other cities, the four Muslim advocates — the moderator included — would espouse almost identical views. They represent a type. So too did the overwhelmingly liberal audience. I could have written their questions for them.

These American Public Square debates feature an active online fact checker and a civility bell. I was a little queasy about the civility bell, but I welcomed the fact checker. He proved to be my greatest ally.

The state rep did a fine job. As an elected official he had to be a little cautious, but he made his case about terror and immigration well.

My strategy was a little different. Knowing that I was not about to convert anyone, I thought I could at least confuse the audience members with the truth, and the truth is that their affection for Islam makes no apparent sense. This proved to be a difficult assignment, and here is why.

The left has a unique ability to deny the obvious.

In attempting to establish my premise, I said to the panel, “Muslims are culturally very conservative around the world,” adding rhetorically, “Is that fair to say?”

This premise struck me as inarguable. My fellow panelists felt otherwise. The two women, both wearing Hijabs, and the moderator all shouted out “No” or some variant. Said I, “When it comes to issues like family, women, abortion, gay rights, you’re telling me they’re not conservative?”

The moderator admonished me. “Jack,” he said, “you’re asking a question, and they didn’t give you the answer you want.” He then challenged me to make my case or move on.

Knowing there was a fact checker, I pulled out my one file card and read through the numbers from Pew Research Foundation, a liberal but generally reliable source. When asked about gay rights, 87 percent of Germans approved but no more than 9 percent of Muslims in any country surveyed and as little as 2 percent in some.

On the question of whether a women should always obey her husband, 87 percent of Muslims approved. On the question of whether apostates should be executed, 56 percent of Muslims who approved of Sharia law said yes. Asked whether they held “highly unfavorable” views of Jews, 99 percent of Jordanians and 100 percent of Lebanese sad yes. The fact checker could not deny what I was saying.

My fellow panelists could and did. They protested that these attitudes did not reflect American Muslims, but I had to repeat that I began my discussion by saying these surveys were done in the countries that comprise our immigration pool, and that the threat of immigration motivated the anti-Muslim sentiment about which they complained.

The left instinctively denies the worth of America.

I did concede that American Muslims were likely more moderate in their views. This relative moderation, I argued, reflected the “palliative effect of American culture on Islam.” This comment drew boos from the audience. From the left’s perspective, nothing America does is palliative.

The left controls the debate.

When I added, “If you go to Cologne, Germany you’re going to meet people who haven’t had that [palliative] experience,” the moderator insisted that I stick to local issues. Europe seemed particularly off limits. Although this was billed as a nonpartisan event, it proved to be no more nonpartisan than PBS in general or CNN or NBC or the New York Times. The moderator unabashedly took sides.

The left inevitably falls back on false moral equivalence.

Indeed, from the Muslim women and especially from the U.S. Attorney, there was so much talk of Timothy McVeigh, Clive Bundy, the KKK, the Sovereignty movement, and even the mid 19th-century Know-Nothing Party, a latecomer might have thought the event about Christian terrorism. Of course, in none of these conversations did the moderator insist the speaker restrict himself to local issues.

The left is plagued with cognitive dissonance.

I kept returning to the transparently separate standards liberals held for traditional Christians and traditional Muslims. I pointed out, for instance, that the Kansas City Star designated a prominent liberal pastor a “drum major for justice” for his denunciation of the Christian right as “a threat far greater than the old threat of Communism.”

The fact checker confirmed that to be an exact quote. And the threat the pastor alluded had nothing to do with violence. No, what troubled him was that Christian conservatives were running for office. They were “anti-pornography,” he warned, and opposed — he noted daintily — a woman’s “having a say about what goes on in her own body.”

Had he said something half as outrageous about Muslims, he would have lost his pulpit, if not his head. Focusing his spite on Christians, however, got his speech excerpted in the New York Times and won him the Harry S. Truman Good Neighbor Award.

The alliance validates the left’s moral superiority.

At one point, the older Muslim woman claimed to have been so appalled by the “anti-Muslim” tenor of the Republican debates that she would not let her children watch them. Echoed the U.S. Attorney, “Their children see grown men espousing hate.”

Bingo! There was the money quote. Indeed, if there is one shared feel good experience among leftists of all stripes it is the imputation of “hate” to others. Author Shelby Steele coined the phrase “zone of decency” to describe the sacred preserve in which progressives imagine themselves clustering. By aligning themselves with Muslims, liberals assure themselves a place in the zone and “decertify” those not quite so keen on self-destruction.

Did I mention that the left denies the obvious?

My opponents on the panel repeatedly insisted that terrorists did not represent Islam. “You have places called the Islamic State,” I countered. “These guys think they’re the real deal.”

“What one chooses to call oneself is not necessarily the only test we have to apply,” said the moderator who had long since abandoned anything resembling neutrality.

“There is an element of disingenuousness about this conversation tonight,” I replied. I pointed out that there are millions of Muslims who subscribed to ISIS or who supported ISIS “To make believe that there is not a religious thread to this,” I concluded, “is to deceive ourselves.”

“What’s disingenuous is to blithely say there are millions,” the moderator snapped back. He then made the fatal mistake of asking for a fact check on my numbers. Said the fact checker, “Pew says 63 million Muslims support the Islamic State in the eleven Muslim countries polled.”

“That,” I said with my final words, “is a lot of Muslims.”