The Interfaith Scam

Daily Roll Call, by Cathy Hinners, July 2018

Part One

Just because the word “interfaith” indicates faith, doesn’t necessarily mean yours, but you can be certain it does mean Islam Interfaith is to our religious institutions like the words diversity and culture are to our Education system, a disguise called Dawa. Dawa is the proselytizing of Islam, an obligation that must be performed by all good Muslims. What is a good Muslim? To infidels or kafirs (all non-Muslims) it would be a pious person that ascribes to the doctrine of their religion, and is accepting, tolerant and respectful of fellow human beings. Not quite. A good Muslim will ascribe to their religious beliefs, which is summed up in the first pillar, the Shahada. “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the Prophet”. But looking deeper, they believe Islam is meant to dominate, not be dominated or equal to any other religion.

In a document called the “Methodology of Dawa” written by Shamim A. Siddiqui and published in 1989, the true objective is indisputably clear. There must be an Islamic Movement in the United States, and Dawa is the path to that goal. The below excerpts are from this book, and are some of the more revealing ones.

From the Introduction of the book (pg. 20) “That is why, it is very important that a full-fledged Islamic Movement is established in the United States of America and elsewhere in Europe and Latin America to serve the greater interest of Islam, the Muslim world and humanity at large. This is a game of strategy. We have to find out and create new friends for Islam and its cause on the side of the enemy, inside and at the rear of the forces fighting against Islam and its emergence as a force anywhere in this world is a future reality of great magnitude.”
Interfaith is a game of strategy.
(pg. 21)” A Muslim has to put all that he has either to change the society into an Islamic society or state or be perished for it. A Muslim has no other choice”.
Society must be changed into an Islamic society
(pg. 58) “Acting upon the foregoing process, the Islamic Movement will produce the team of workers which is essentially required to meet the following needs:
1. To accelerate the pace of Dawa Ilallah to a greater and greater number of people in order to bring more and more individuals to the fold of Allah(SWT) and increase the number of workers till the movement becomes a force to be reckoned with”
The movement becomes a force to be reckoned with.
(pg.59) “The workers of the Islamic Movement will have to mobilize a relentless war against immoral practices, drugs, pornography, alcoholism, racial discrimination, homosexuality, and other like these. They will have to educate the public opinion, warn the society about their horrible consequences and mobilize people’s opinion through meet-the-people campaigns”
Relentless war against immoral practices, such as homosexuality
(pg.59) “In the initial stage there may not be any opposition to Dawa work. For some time, the Islamic Movement of America may have some smooth sailing. But with the increase in Dawa efforts, in the number of activities and growth of the strength of the organization, the anti-Islamic forces will take notice of the multifarious activities of the Movement.”
The multifarious activities of the Movement
(pg.60) “Through this process, the Movement will penetrate deep into the hearts of the common folk, gain sympathy against oppression and generate a befitting counter-offensive campaign against the false propaganda of Batil. Simultaneously, the movement may also seek legal protection from the court for fundamental human rights to propagate what its adherents believe to be correct and to profess the same through democratic, peaceful and constitutional means”
Penetrate deep into the hearts of common folk, and seek legal protection from the court.

(pg. 109) The Christian community of America will need a special approach to make them understand their misguided concept about Jesus (PBUH). Prophet Jesus (PBUH) was also a messenger of God, as others were. He was born without a father as a miracle of God. There is nothing spectacular in it, if we believe in God, in His absolute power and in His total control over the natural phenomenon. He can create anything just by ordering “Be” and “it is done.” He created Jesus without a father. He created Adam without a father or a mother, and Eve without a mother. They do not ascribe the attributes of God to either one of them. How then, can they profess Jesus to be the Son of God. It is illogical and quite absurd. Jesus was a Prophet and a man. He had all the human needs and weaknesses. He ate food for his existence, slept for rest and did all the other things a human being needs for his survival. By their misconstrued conception innovated by St. Paul, Christians have made Jesus (PBUH) into a “Human-God.” This is clear idolatry. Making partners with God is a sin. He will never forgive this sin.

Each of these notions that have been captured in the first several chapters are evidence to the agenda, ideology and their position on the superiority of Islam. Interfaith = Dawa, not exactly the impression they believe all religions are equal.
Interfaith is a game of strategy.
Society must be changed into an Islamic society
The movement becomes a force to be reckoned with
Relentless war against immoral practices, such as homosexuality (remember they have embraced the gay community)
The multifarious activities of the Movement
Penetrate deep into the hearts of common folk, and seek legal protection from the court
Misguided concept of Jesus, Professing Jesus to be the son of God is Illogical and absurd

So far, the facade the Islamic community portrays as being open and respectful of your religion is quite untrue.

Part 2

The Methodology of Dawa Is quite a find. As you read in part one of the Interfaith Scam, Dawa is simply the instrument Islamists use to convince others they are just like us, their god is the same as ours. Well, no it’s not.
The following excerpts are from the last few chapters in the “Methodology of Dawa.” Judge for yourself.

(pg. 117) Prophets’ day like Abraham’s Day, Moses’s Day, Jesus’s Day and
Muhammad’s Day (Peace be upon all of them) will be organized and celebrated by the Islamic Movement on national scale with seminars and symposium all over the country. In these gatherings the religious leaders/scholars of Jewish and Christian communities will be invited to express their views freely. The speeches will be followed by an open discussion in a scholarly manner. This will provide a good opportunity to attract the Judeo-Christian community in great numbers and put the correct status of these Prophets before them in a historical perspective. It will be presented in a very academic atmosphere, with no aggressiveness at all under any circumstances. This discussion will crystallize the position of each prophet as the Prophet of Islam and the people will have a unique opportunity to understand Islam in its true historical background. This will pave the way to present Islam to these communities as a continuity of the message from the Creator, each Prophet proclaiming, “be obedient to God alone and shun the evil forces
(Batil/Taghut)” (H.Q. I6:36).

Islam will thus be presented to them, not as something new but as the historical development of Judeo-Christian Islam which is neither traceable in the Torah nor in the Bible. The Qur’an will thus emerge as the only book of Guidance that bears the correct and up-to-date teachings of Islam and the life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as the only model to humanity to follow. This will also provide the valuable opportunity to portray the life and teachings of all the previous prophets, whose life and teachings had been distorted in the Old and New Testaments, correctly. The version of the Qur’an about these prophets is the only authentic account of their lives now available to mankind.

Islam will thus be presented to them, not as something new but as the historical development of Judeo-Christian Islam which is neither traceable in the Torah nor in the Bible.”

(pg.119) Through Contacts With Churches, Synagogues, Colleges And Universities: These are very important public platforms that must be used for the spread of Dawa when available, either on the invitation or by offering the services of the Da’ee to these institutions for presenting the viewpoint of Islam on various issues of the time The religious dignitaries and the learned teachers of Universities and colleges will also be invited to speak in the arranged open Dawa programs of the Movement on various issues and topics of common interest. The speeches will be followed by open discussions and Question/Answer sessions. This will give an opportunity to the Da’ee to thrash out the issue and bring the discussion to the desired conclusion
“arranged open Dawa programs and bring the discussion to the desired conclusion”
(pg. 120) Here in the educational institution, the teacher should be the top target. They are free, they have the time and they exert a lot of influence upon the students. If they are convinced about Islam as a way of life, they can motivate their students to that effect in great numbers. Teachers will therefore, be the special Dawa targets of the Islamic Movement
“they exert a lot of influence upon the students”.

(pg128) Service to humanity (to the common folk of the society) is perhaps one of the most effective means of communicating and delivering the message of Islam to the people.

(pg.129) Service to Elderly People There are about 60 million people who are above the age of 65 and retired from active service. Many of them are normally sick or incapacitated and confined to homes or elderly people care centers. They are a useful electorate

Service to Youth and Runaway Children- services will provide great opportunities for Dawa work among the neglected youth of the society
“Reconciliation Service to Battered Families” This counseling service to battered husbands and battered wives will ultimately bring them nearer to Islam. They will all feel obliged to the teachings of Islam that changed their lives and made their matrimonial life happier and rejuvenated.

Dawa is equal to another dirty deed of society, called drug dealing. Supply those in need with what makes them feel good, and they become hooked.

Also  see:

Andrew C. McCarthy: Lessons from the Blind Sheikh Terror Trial, What Animates Jihadists, Why U.S. Middle East Policy Fails, Collapsing Iran’s Regime (Part I)

BIG IDEAS WITH BEN WEINGARTEN PODCAST, By Ben Weingarten, June 6,2018:

READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPT

My Guest

Andrew C. McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) is senior fellow at the National Review Institute, contributing editor of National Review and author most recently of essential books on the threat of Islamic supremacism including Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the JihadThe Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America and Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.

In addition to being one of the nation’s foremost national security analysts and legal experts — formerly serving as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the vaunted Southern District of New York — he is one of the most humble, insightful and devoted patriots I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.

In Part I of my in-depth interview with Andy McCarthy, we discussed his experience prosecuting the jihadist mastermind of the first World Trade Center attack and what it taught him about the Islamic supremacist threat America faces, the primacy of religion for Muslims in the Middle East and in the West, why Islamic supremacists choose jihadist savagery over assimilation, willful blindness in American national security and foreign policy regarding the nature of the jihadist threat, folly in American foreign affairs from Syria to Libya, and the imperative to collapse the Khomeinist Iranian regime.

What We Discussed

  • How McCarthy, an Irish Catholic kid from the Bronx became one of the nation’s foremost legal experts on jihad and Sharia law
  • The prosecution of the Blind Sheikh and his terrorist cell over the first World Trade Center attack and plots to destroy other New York City landmarks
  • McCarthy’s impressions having sat face-to-face with some of the world’s most evil jihadists, and why their portrayal as genocidal maniacs is wholly inaccurate
  • The strength of religion over other animating factors when it comes to jihad, and the West’s projection and mirror-imaging
  • Why Islamic supremacists do not want to assimilate into Western culture or adopt Western principles such as freedom of religion and individual liberty
  • The willful blindness and arrogance of America’s national security and foreign policy establishment over Islamic supremacism and the Middle East
  • Whether America is better off in homeland security and foreign affairs almost 17 years after 9/11
  • McCarthy’s belief in the Bush Doctrine
  • What America’s national interest is in Syria
  • McCarthy’s fear that America will be unwilling to engage in future wars of necessity given the expense in blood and treasure of the last two decades
  • What McCarthy would do if he were counterjihadist czar
  • The West’s disastrous record of colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots
  • The disaster of Iran Deal and the imperative to collapse Iran’s Khomeinist regime

Muslims Inadvertently Call for Ban on Islam

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, April 19, 2018:

The very same logic that Muslims cite in their ongoing efforts to criminalize anti-Islamic speech in Western nations would require the criminalization of Islam itself.

Secretary-General of the Muslim World League Mohammed al-Issa argues that “Europe must do more to … criminalize religious hate speech.” In an April 9 interview with Reuters, this prominent Saudi said: “We believe that European countries, where there is much debate now, and other countries around the world … need to … criminalize hatred and contempt for adherents of religions because this threatens the safety of the community.”

The “hatred and contempt for adherents of religions” that Muslims complain of is ecumenical code for “Islamophobia.” Thus, on April 5 Ömer Serdar, a senior official from Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, announced that he and a “group of Turkish lawmakers will travel to the heart of Europe,” where they will “investigate whether authorities take measures against the hostility of Islamophobic discrimination in Muslims’ daily lives.” Afterwards, “they will hold meetings with state authorities during their visits to Germany, France, and Belgium” and “discuss the issue of marginalization.”

All of this is in line with policies of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the “collective voice of the Muslim World” and second-largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations. For years — especially after a Muslim massacred a dozen people at France’s Charlie Hebdo offices for publishing satirical caricatures of Muhammad — the OIC has called on the United Nations to criminalize the “defamation of religions,” meaning criticism of Islam.

Everyone — especially Muslims — seems to miss the grand irony. If international laws would ban speech, cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame religions, those laws would ban the entire religion of Islam itself.

Islam is the only religion whose core texts actively, unequivocally defame other religions, including by name.

Consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation,” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” But in Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC and others cynically maintain that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam (even as Muslim governments ban churches, destroy crucifixes, and burn Bibles). Disingenuous or not, the OIC’s wording suggests that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts — beginning with the Koran itself?

The Koran repeatedly slanders, denigrates, and blackens the reputation of other specific religions. Consider these passages about Christianity:

— Koran 5:73: “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity.

— Koran 5:72: “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary.”

— Koran 9:30: “[T]he Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may God’s curse be upon them!”

The word “infidel” (kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms. What if a core Christian text — or even a Western cartoon — declared: “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God — may God’s curse be upon them”?

If Muslims consider that a great defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard, it must be admitted that the Koran defames Christians and Christianity.

Consider how the Christian Cross, venerated by billions, is defamed in Islam. According to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses. Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.”

Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.

What if Christian books or Western movies specifically named the sacred symbols of Islam — perhaps the Black Stone in Mecca’s Ka’ba — as “idolatry” that Muhammad himself will return and destroy? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islamic teaching defames the Christian Cross.

Here is perhaps the most particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment: According to Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad will be married to and copulating with the Virgin Mary in paradise.

Imagine if anything — from a core Christian text to a cartoon — portrayed, say, Muhammad’s “favorite” wife Aisha, the “Mother of Believers,” as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven.

If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Such defamation of Christianity is hardly limited to Islam’s core scriptures. In fact, modern-day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree: it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity. “Islam Web,” which is owned by the government of Qatar, even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.

The grandest irony of all is that the “defamation” that Muslims complain about — and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world — revolves around things like cartoons and movies, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves. On the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns — in a word, “defames” — all other religions.

And we haven’t even mentioned the specific calls for violence against Christians, Jews, and adherents of all other religions (e.g., Koran 9:29).

It is this issue — Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy — that the international community should address.

And the right to freely discuss and criticize Islam’s penchant to defame and destroy is what the international community must protect.

Indonesia: Jakarta’s Christian governor guilty in “blasphemy” trial, gets two years prison

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, May 9, 2017:

Ahok committed the cardinal sin of being a Christian in a position of authority. Islamic law forbids non-Muslims to hold authority over Muslims. That Ahok was governor of Jakarta made something like this show trial inevitable. That Islamic supremacists got him on blasphemy, and had to get him in the first place for the crime of being a Christian in authority, is an indication of how far Indonesia has moved from its supposedly “moderate” character.

“Jakarta governor Ahok found guilty in landmark Indonesian blasphemy trial,” by Ben Westcott, CNN, May 9, 2017:

(CNN)Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, commonly known as Ahok, has been sentenced to two years in prison, after being found guilty of blasphemy in a trial seen as a test of Indonesia’s religious tolerance.

In April, prosecutors had called for the blasphemy counts to be dropped in exchange for a lesser charge of “spreading hate,” but the judges appear to have ignored that recommendation.

The controversial Chinese Christian politician was put on trial in December over accusations that he insulted Islam while campaigning for re-election. He repeatedly denied the charges.

Ahok was detained immediately after the verdict and taken to the Cipinang detention center in East Jakarta, local media reported. He said he would immediately appeal the court’s decision.

The Jakarta governor sparked controversy in late 2016 after quoting a verse from the Quran to prove to his supporters that there were no restrictions on Muslims voting for a non-Muslim politician.

Almost no one who has been charged under the blasphemy law has ever escaped conviction, associate professor of Indonesian politics at the Australian National University Greg Fealy told CNN.

“The blasphemy law has really been a blight on the rule of law and democracy in Indonesia for decades,” he said, adding that “the fact that Ahok was charged at all was really a product of massive street demonstrations that frightened the government into acting.”

Growing conservatism

…While Indonesia has built a reputation as a tolerant, diverse nation, experts say Ahok’s conviction is the latest example of the country’s growing conservatism.

Recent years have seen large anti-LGBT protests in Jakarta in early 2016, a push to criminalize homosexual sex and passionate reactions to allegations of blasphemy.

An estimated 200,000 people converged on the center of the Indonesian capital to demand the arrest of its minority-Christian governor on November 4.

Since an edited video of Ahok’s remarks was released, hundreds of thousands of Muslim Indonesians have protested against him on the streets of Jakarta, with many calling for his jailing or even execution.
Roads near the Agriculture Ministry where the verdict was due to be delivered were closed from Monday evening in preparation, local media reported….

PC kills: Will the West ever wake up from delusional approach to jihad?

oneinchpunch | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Benjamin Weingarten, April 2, 2017:

A jihadist attacks individuals in the public square of a Western town.

The media refuses to provide a description of the attacker, reporting only the weapon he used.

A physical description of a man of African, South Asian, or Middle Eastern descent leaks out in the ensuing hours.

Law enforcement authorities deliver a press conference confirming the attacker’s Islamic name and stating that at this time, his motive is unclear.

Rumors on social media percolate about the man screaming “Allahu Akbar.”

Mainstream reporters ask local Muslim community leaders and neighbors about the attacker. They express universal shock, describing him as a decent man who might have been rough around the edges but never showed signs of being a terrorist. The man came from a middle-class family, liked playing video games with friends, and by all accounts lived a normal existence. Toward the end of the stories, those close to the attacker note that he had grown increasingly devout in recent years.

Bloggers begin to research and quickly find that the attacker was a member of a mosque led by an imam who had been recorded preaching hatred and violence toward the West. The attacker posted violent verses from the Quran and railed against the “Crusaders’” wars in the Levant on social media pages captured by screenshot before they were taken down. It emerges that he had spent months in the Middle East during recent years.

Several days later, law enforcement authorities report that the attacker in fact appears to have been a terrorist. But he had no direct ties to IS or Al-Qaeda, so there is no reason for alarm.

Politicians plead with the public that this man perverted one of the world’s great religions – Islam, “the religion of peace” – and that his acts were “non-Islamic.” They urge us all to come together in a shared belief in tolerance and diversity. Love trumps hate. Lone wolves are a fact of life, and their efforts only underscore the need for community engagement to “counter violent extremism.”

How many times are we in the West going to see the above script play out before something changes?

How long will we live a naïve fantasy in which we act as if all is well as the global jihadist movement metastasizes, bringing the violent murder of infidels to our shores?

If the murder of 3,000 innocents on American soil has not caused the West to openly and honestly examine who the enemy is and what animates him, and to develop a comprehensive strategy that mobilizes all of our resources and capabilities to defeat him, do we expect anything to change the next time we experience a mass attack?

Meanwhile, those who do understand the enemy are dismissed as cranks or called bigots. Those who assert that jihad is the motive – that violent subversion with the goal of world domination is justified by core Islamic texts, as the jihadists themselves clearly illustrate – are told to pipe down.

If you offend by speaking truth, you will cause violence. Shut up, and maybe you can keep your head.

Government service predicated on an understanding of the theopolitical Islamic supremacism that animates jihadists is simply out of the question. Heaven forbid that national security and foreign policy officials have any understanding of the Sharia law that both de facto and de jure governs the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

What will it take for the West to flip this script?

To date, murder, bloodshed, and fear abound. In spite of that fact, much of the West would rather cling to a narrative that makes it feel good about itself than recognize the reality of a global jihadist menace that threatens its very survival. This insane delusion will continue to have fatal consequences until we wake up.

Ben Weingarten is Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. A graduate of Columbia University, he regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal, The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics. 

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?

A Proposed Trump Doctrine Against Islamic Supremacism

trump2

Jihad Watch, by Jamie Glazov, December 27, 2016:

December 25 marked the 25th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union. On this occasion, it is urgent for us to reflect on 3 key lessons that the fall of the Evil Empire provided. They are lessons that the new incoming Trump administration must put into action immediately vis-à-vis our enemy in the terror war.

Lesson #1: Go on the Offense Against Islamic Supremacism

While we know that the Soviet Union collapsed, on many realms, from within, the record is clear that President Reagan also fueled the collapse. By moving against détente and beyond containment, Reagan’s aggressive anti-communism saw the U.S. take on a strategic offensive against the Soviet Union which led to victory. As Paul Kengor has documented in his book, The Crusader, Reagan fought not to just contain, but to win. His administration’s massive defense build-up, support of anti-communist rebels around the world, support of dissident movements behind the Iron Curtain, promotion of SDI, and many other aggressive policies put a heavy pressure on the Soviet Union that ultimately broke its already fragile legs.

Thus, we see how in our present-day conflict with Islamic Supremacism, we need to go on the offensive. In order to do that, we must first take two crucial steps. The first step is to name the enemy; the second is to formulate an actual doctrine against him. As Sebastian Gorka urges in Defeating Jihad, the U.S. government needs to lay down a vision, an actual “threat doctrine analysis” in a thorough document, just like George Kennan’s Long Telegram and NSC-68 did in laying out the strategic foundation to fighting communism in the Cold War. The new incoming Trump administration, therefore, must articulate a threat doctrine analysis and then shape it into a Reagan-like doctrine of offense.

Lesson #2: Deceive the Totalitarian Enemy into Being Pluralistic

In Reagan’s War, Peter Schweizer revealed how the Reagan administration cleverly promoted the process of change within the Soviet Union towards a more pluralistic political and economic system. This was a brilliant approach, seeing that Gorbachev’s policies of Glasnost and Perestroika clearly triggered communism’s collapse.

Henry Kissinger has shrewdly delineated how Gorbachev’s effort to reform, as well as to salvage, Soviet communism was the very ingredient that fueled its disintegration. Indeed, once Moscow ended its total and intrusive control of its satellites, and once it allowed free discussion, it signed its own death warrant. Gorbachev wanted to de-Stalinize, yet he could not do so without destroying the regime itself. Kissinger writes:

Gorbachev’s gamble on liberalization was bound to fail. To the degree that the Communist Party had lost its monolithic character, it became demoralized. Liberalization proved incompatible with communist rule — the communists could not turn themselves into democrats without ceasing to be communists, an equation Gorbachev never understood.

To be sure, the whole idea of de-Stalinization was based on the assumption that the Soviet regime could survive without its despotic component; that it could endure a reconciliation with its past. But a legitimate examination of the causes of Stalinism could not occur without an uncensored evaluation of Leninism, which the Soviet system could not allow without risking the de-legitimization of its entire foundation.

This is a crucial lesson for our leadership in the terror war. But first, let us be clear: we must not buy into Natan Sharansky’s naive assumption that all people want freedom. They do not, especially Sharia-believers. The dark consequences of the so-called “Arab Spring” taught us this painful lesson well, as we witnessed the process of “democratization” in the Middle East lead to a totalitarian Islamist Winter.

But this does not mean that we do not heed one of Sharansky’s profound implications: that we must follow Reagan’s example of undermining the enemy by encouraging certain tyrannical entities to behave like pluralists. There is huge potential in nudging tyrants to open up free discussion and to hold their terror back – for freedom and spoken truth have a corrosive effect on tyranny’s chains. Indeed, just imagine, for instance, if leaders within the Islamic world started showing off how pluralistic they were and began allowing a free and honest discussion on the ingredients of their prophet Mohammed’s life.

Lesson #3: Verbally Take the Moral High Ground

In his June 1982 speech before the British House of Commons, President Reagan announced that he had a long-term plan “which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history.” The next year, on March 8, 1983, he famously called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire.” Four years later, in June 1987, he challenged Gorbachev to “tear down” the Berlin Wall. All of these pronouncements were crucial in the U.S. strategy of defeating Soviet communism. They upped the stakes and achieved moral clarity. They cut the dividing line between the good guys and the bad guys, and they called out the Soviets for the evil oppressors that they were. In so doing, these pronouncements also made it clear that the future was not on the Soviets’ side.

William F. Buckley, Jr. profoundly noted that by calling the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire,” Reagan had formulated the galvanizing summation to Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago and, consequently, “the countdown for Communism began then.” And indeed, two years after challenging Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, the wall came down.

The lesson here for the new incoming president is that the moral difference between our side and Islamic Supremacism must be spoken. The divide must be drawn in no uncertain terms.

President Trump can be most effective in this regard by bringing attention to all the victims of Sharia and Jihad, and emphasizing that Muslims are also the victims of Islamic Supremacism. One of the most urgent causes to promote is the women’s rights issue. American leadership must make it transparently clear, once and for all, which civilization stands for women and what entity denigrates and mutilates them.

Trump must deliver a special speech that unveils the victims of honor killings, acid attacks and female genital mutilation, and of forced veiling, forced marriage and forced segregation under Islam – and issue a concrete challenge as Reagan did to Gorbachev. He must point to the tyrannical wall of Islamic gender apartheid and pronounce unequivocally: Imams, muftis and clerics of the world, tear down this wall.

Trump must do this while simultaneously shattering the Left’s and Muslim Brotherhood’s favorite propaganda lie: that standing up to Islamic Supremacism and telling the truth about its inspirations is somehow instigating hatred of all Muslim people. This is a pernicious ploy based on a faulty conflation of Islam with Muslims. It must be made categorically clear that we are dealing with an ideology; we are not hating all the people who fall under its grasp. There are millions of people who go under the label “Muslim” but who may not agree with, or follow, all Islamic mandates, or who may want to reform them, or who may not even know anything about them – or who may have simply been born into the religion and were never even given a choice as to who they wanted to be. We have no problem with these people. And as a matter of fact, our standing up to Islamic Supremacism is a defense of these Muslims because they are, like millions of Muslims around the world, also victims of Islamic Supremacism.

All in all, the point must be driven home that we are on the side of Muslim people, and especially of those, like Zuhdi Jasser, who seek to reform Islam and bring it into the modern world.

And so, in reflecting on these three lessons of the fall of the Soviet Union 25 years ago, we begin to gauge how, if applied with precision, they can help our new incoming president launch a winning strategy against our enemy in the terror war. Trump shows every sign that he can and will achieve this. He has demonstrated himself to be a good man who loves his country and who wants the best for it. He has shown a willingness to name the enemy and to take the war to him. He has also surrounded himself with all the noble and high-caliber people who are determined to set America on the winning course.

If all these pieces fall into place, President Trump will succeed, as Reagan did, in setting the stage for yet another glorious chapter – a chapter that sees an Evil Empire stagger to its knees and then, when finally shamed and crippled, cast where it belongs: on the ash heap of history.

Reprinted from Breitbart.com.

Jamie Glazov is the editor of Frontpagemag.com. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of United in Hate, the host of the web-TV show, The Glazov Gang, and can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.