Tag Archive for: Christian

1,070 Iraqis admitted to U.S. since October 1st — 85% are Muslim

Since my two previous posts are so popular—the first is on Syrians admitted to the U.S. in FY 2016 (which began on Oct. 1) and the second on Somalis admitted in those same 6 weeks, I thought you might like to know about the Iraqis who have been coming into the US (over 100,000 since Obama took office. Here is one summary through 2013 and a large portion of 2014. I’ll get more complete numbers later).

My Somali post made it to Drudge!  What an honor!

This is where the 1,070 have gone in the last six weeks.  Top five Iraqi resettlement states so far this year are: Texas, California, Michigan, Washington and Colorado.

map Iraqis first six weeks

And here is how their religions break down (directly from the Refugee Processing Center data base, these are their categories and spelling):

Atheist:  3

Catholic: 69

Christian: 24

Moslem:  44

Moslem Shiite: 427

Moslem Suni: 435

Orthodox: 20

Yazidi: 40

Interesting isn’t it!  When you see almost equal numbers of Shiites and Sunis don’t you wonder why we are bringing in both sides of the warring factions?

Supposedly the bill being supported by Speaker Paul Ryan that seeks to get administration assurance that no terrorists are getting in through the refugee stream to America only involves Syrians and Iraqis.  What about Somalis?  And, isn’t it a bit late considering we have admitted over 100,000 Somalis and over 100,000 Iraqis to live in your towns and cities?

Anyone want to write a book on the Iraqi resettlement, we have 673 previous posts going back 8 years on that resettlement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Babin Bill to suspend Refugee Admissions Program has 74 co-sponsors as they get on board after Paris

France 24: Eight suspected terrorists arrested in Turkey posing as “refugees”

White House secret: Governors (even Democrat govs) can’t find out where refugees are being resettled

WND: Ryan plotting ‘meaningless show-vote’ on refugees

War on Paris

war on paris magazine coversIt is like the death of a loved one. The death of our city that we love despite its failings, misdeeds, and particular misbehavior that I have been chronicling over the past fifteen years. A city is more than its current events. And today the heart of our city is broken. We do not have the fibre of Israelis who live with miraculous vitality in a permanent state of war & peace, but Parisians are not entirely devoid of courage and sharp instincts in the face of utmost danger. Anecdotes and eyewitness testimony are slowly emerging. The hard facts are at a minimum.

A soft spoken young man in an elegant overcoat describes the scene at the café on Rue de Charonne. He was present, he saw people picked off like sitting ducks. “They didn’t have a chance.” And yet he himself cannot believe what he saw. The Public Prosecutor delivers official information in an appropriately neutral tone. A hundred shell casings are left at each of the cafés attacked. No one was spared. Those who are not dead are in desperate condition.

It was to be expected, but it is shocking, unreal. Friday night it seemed that the whole city was screaming with sirens. As you followed events on television you could hear the broadcast sirens echoing the wails that came from the streets and boulevards. Who doesn’t have a friend who was in the Bataclan music hall or looking down from his apartment at dead bodies that only a short while before had been eating, drinking, laughing, enjoying life?

In the global village, grieving families just a few days ago witnessed the massacre in Beirut or sobbed with the bereaved of the Sharm el Sheik-St. Petersburg flight.  And now it is on their doorstep and has ripped apart their lives forever. We don’t have to tell Israelis how it feels. But Europeans must wake up to the kinship they so earnestly tried to ignore. Last week a French jihadi was arrested before going into action. He had ordered an army knife and two face masks from a firm in China. I suppose, in his infinite intelligence, he thought an order from a Chinese company would be undetectable. Or maybe he was attracted by the discount price? Well, the cheap packaging fell apart in transit, or so we are told, and a postal employee informed the police of the delivery of the killer knife. The young man intended to slaughter sailors at the Toulon naval base. A smartass TV commentator, implying that the police had over-reacted, shrugged it off. He said it was la guerre des boutons which, freely translated, means kids playing cops and robbers. “Like what’s happening in Israel right now,” he added.

Je-Suis-Paris-Sign-France-640The knifings, firebombings, car rammings, and rock bashings… child’s play to this snide observer. I honestly can’t remember which anchor or expert it was, there are so many of the same stripe. Plentiful as the punk jihadis that poison our lives. The widespread consistent errors of appreciation on all that touches Israel and the Jews did not cause the November 14th Paris massacre; it was waiting to happen and nothing could have prevented it or another, similar one. But the massacre may well lead to the long awaited recognition that jihad strikes in Israel and in Europe with same genocidal hatred from the same source. The cold indifference to the wave of knife attacks in Israel this fall, the perverse reverse chronology that made Israeli forces guilty of gunning down Palestinians that (admitted in a whisper) had in fact tried or perhaps in some cases succeeded in stabbing…well, you know, a colon, or ultra-religious deserving victim… The tally of dead Palestinians was brandished with the righteous indignation that has been digging into our souls since the dawn of the 21st century. No gory details of the suffering inflicted on Jews in Israel were ever given in French media. Nothing that could make you taste the blood and feel the blade digging into your spine, your heart, your guts.

Now blood has been spilled in the streets of Paris. Except for the misfired explosive vests outside the soccer stadium, all the other attacks took place in the 10th and 11th arrondissements, on streets and boulevards that converge at Place de la République. Sébastien Selam was slaughtered and mutilated in the 10th arrdt, Ilan Halimi worked in a cell phone shop on boulevard Voltaire in the 11th arrdt. The first recorded public cries of Death to the Jews were heard in October 2000 at Place de la République in a pro-Palestinian demonstration focused on the “death” of Mohamed al Dura. Last week a small clutch of Salafists shimmied one of those huge parallel-to-the-ground Palestinian flags and chanted “Arms for Hamas, Arms for Jihad.” In the summer of 2014 pro-Hamas caliphators brandishing the black flag of jihad massed around the statue of Marianne in the Place de la République, screaming for Jewish blood and.

Marianne, the symbol of the French Republic, was defiled. The way Swedish women and forlorn British girls are defiled. Now, French people doing what French people do on a Friday night were mowed down. The way Jews in the Hyper Cacher were executed. Daesh has proudly signed the massacre of the “Crusaders,” and promised more of the same if France does not cease and desist from meddling in Iraq and Syria. Ha! Sounds familiar. Muslims would stop stabbing Jews to death in Israel if the Zionists ended the Occupation. Don’t bet on it. Cease and desist is the first in a long line of orders that will be barked at us in the coming months. Or years. Until we decide to go on the offensive.

The otherwise ineffectual President Hollande has promised a no holds barred fight against Daesh at home and abroad. French media, as far as I could see, have not dared to dissociate the massacre from the Islam that inspires it.  The same media that were gushing over the refugees a few weeks ago are now reporting that one of the shahids who jumped the gun outside the Stade de France was carrying a Syrian passport stamped with a passage through Leros in Greece on October 3rd. Exactly what we expected.

A walk through the Marais early Saturday afternoon. Most of the shops were closed. Shabat, for some, the bloody events for others. So few cars in the streets, so few people strolling where on a normal Saturday afternoon the sidewalks would be overflowing. We had taken to joking about it: looking down the rue des Francs Bourgeois at the never-ending crowd, we would say “the refugees are coming.” It looked so much like the human chain snaking through Slovenian fields. No soldiers, no police in the Marais this Saturday. So strange.  Is it ominous? Does it mean there’s no one left to protect the Jews now that the “Crusaders” are targeted?

Sunday morning shopping in an open market is almost a religion in France. This morning, heartbroken television cameras panned the dark empty alleys of the Marché Richard Lenoir where the ordinary cheerful bustle always impresses me as a model of peaceful coexistence. People of all origins and classes mingle and brush up against each other in the narrow aisles, all with the same goal of filling baskets and carts with good things to eat. Whether selling their own produce or stock that comes from the giant wholesale market at Rungis, salt-of-the-earth vendors, up since the break of dawn, exposed to the elements, lugging crates and arranging the merchandise with loving care, sell at a fast clip without a pause and never a complaint. The Richard Lenoir market is located in what we could call the massacre neighborhood, not far from theCharlie Hebdo offices, now vacated, and the modest restaurants targeted Friday night.

Eagles of death Metal, the American band that was playing at the Bataclan, has performed in Israel. The Bataclan was owned by Jews who sold it only two months ago. But let us take the mass murderers at their word: this time they were aiming at the Crusaders, the Christians. Most of the victims will turn out to be young people. Quite a few journalists enjoying a night out found themselves in “civilian garb” at the center of the action. It will change their world view and their discourse.

Though many French journalists (or is it coming directly from the infamous Agence France Presse?) have taken out of mothballs their al Aqsa Intifada misnomer, kamikazes, they are fostering no illusions about the legitimate aspirations of the shahids who have wreaked havoc in Paris. What a pity that it has taken so much bloodshed to ignite the spark that could bring together the decent citizens of the free world. Prime Minister Manuel Valls promises to annihilate, here and abroad, the forces that are attacking us. Public gatherings are prohibited at the moment, because of the security risk, but people come to city squares to light candles, shed tears, leave bouquets and messages of grief and defiance. Handmade signs declare Même pas peur (not even afraid), adding “We are Paris” to the “Je suis Charlie” stickers pasted to the base of the Marianne in January. “Pray for Paris” signs with the same funereal Je suis Charlie graphics are posted on the gates of churches.

The facts, as I said, are still at a minimum. The media have finally pronounced the name of the French shahid identified at the Bataclan by his severed finger: Ismael Omar Mostefai. A petty criminal convicted eight times but never sent to prison. Flagged but obviously not followed by security services. He went to Turkey in 2014 and, presumably, from there to Syria. Three alleged accomplices have been arrested in Molenbek (near Brussels), headquarters of some of our famous Islamic killers, platform of the weapons trade, cornucopia of Kalachnikovs. The thwarted Thalys train shahid set out on his mission with a suitcase full of weapons from his sister’s apartment in Molenbek.

Flagged radicals, networks, cells, Daesh nomads, hate preachers, and manifestos of jihad conquest…it’s all out there, all so familiar, so hotly active, toying with the soft underbelly of our democracies. Barbarians. And why are they getting away with it? We are not a decadent empire that deserves to be destroyed. They are not a daunting invulnerable gigantic monster gobbling us up like peanuts. Much is made today, by experts and commentators, of the military prowess of the three teams that shot up Paris Friday night. They’re not bumbling amateurs like the Thalys jerk whose Kalachnikov jammed (but he managed to do quite a bit of damage with his handgun and box cutter). They’re not clumsy fumblers like Glam who shot himself in the leg and only managed to kill one young woman but never made it to shoot up the Crusaders in the church at Villejuif. These guys were organized! It took planning. Nerves of steel to mow down people having a drink at a sidewalk café and pick off one by one almost a hundred in a concert hall. And the courage to blow themselves up for an encore.

I submit that there is hardly any difference between the bungling fools, the successful mass killers of Friday night in Paris, the Daesh savages spreading their caliphate like an oil spill in the Middle East, and the hordes that followed the enraged medieval prophet of Islam. When this light dawns on Europe the spirit of la résistance will speak its mind. Instead of labeling products from the “colonies” like a snippety schoolteacher giving zeroes, Europe could begin to mobilize its resources and face the challenge intelligently. An enlightened Europe, battered by bitter experience, could draw the United States back into the concert of free nations where its indispensable military resources would finally weigh in the balance.

No, this is not the Third World War. This is the ongoing jihad conquest. And every magnificent European square is the gates of Vienna.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Why Tennessee Forces Seventh Graders to Learn Islam by Kevin Currie-Knight

How big is the distinction between education and indoctrination? Not terribly, if you ask some Tennessee lawmakers. They are pushing to remove any mention of religion from Tennessee’s State Academic Standards. At issue is an apparently controversial unit in seventh grade world history class that spends some time exploring Islam. At some point, the students even need to commit the five pillars of Islam to memory.

Needless to say, this issue has generated a lot of heat on all sides. State Representative Sheila Butts (R) believes that exposing students to Islam threatens to indoctrinate them. Others argue that students can’t effectively learn about world history without developing an understanding of the religions that shape that history, which includes Islam. (And for the record, the Tennessee State Academic Standards cover Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Shinto; it just so happens that in seventh grade world history, students cover Islam before other religions.)

Let’s put aside the question of what the right way to teach history is, at least for a moment. What worries me, as a school choice advocate, is that within a public school system, whatever decision is made will be a political one, and the results will apply to all public schools across the state. There will be a winning side and a losing side, and the losing side — throughout the entire state of Tennessee — will have little choice but to send their children to public schools that teach in a way they see as unsatisfactory. And who will choose what side prevails? The state’s department of education.

Within a public school system, whatever decision is made will be a political one, and the results will apply to all public schools across the state. 

Religion has always been a thorny issue in US schools. In the early 1800s, American “common schools” were very Protestant, which led to a stand-off in New York by Catholics who understandably didn’t want their tax money going to Protestant public schools. (Eventually, many frustrated Catholics formed their own private Catholic schools.)

In 1922, the state of Washington outlawed all private schools (a law the Supreme Court found unconstitutional), largely motivated by a desire to eliminate Catholic schools. Since then, we’ve had legal battles over school- led prayer and student-led prayer, over whether schools can or should teach creation accounts of human origins in biology classes, and even over whether schools can allow “released time,” where students can leave school premises to learn about a religion of their choice during the school day.

Few of these controversies would have been as heated in a system of private schools. With markets, what goes on within one firm doesn’t dictate what must go on in another. If Chick-Fil-A wants to stay closed on Sundays, that doesn’t mean that Burger King can’t choose to remain open. Back in the days when video stores were a thing, Hollywood video could choose to carry “racy” films, but that didn’t mean that Blockbuster (which took a “family values” approach) had to. People are free to shop at stores that are most in line with their values.

But that is not how disagreements play out in public schools. In the government’s school system, curricular and other decisions apply across a large territory, usually the entire state. When textbooks for science classes are chosen, all public schools in the state must use those textbooks. When the courts decide that schools cannot lead students in prayer, that decision applies to all public schools across the state. And when curricular standards for seventh grade world history are revised for the state of Tennessee, the resulting standards apply for all public schools in the state.

In a private market, these decisions could be what economists call non-zero-sum situations. If you are appalled that your child must memorize the five pillars of Islam in our children’s history class and I am not, you can decide to take that up with the school and, if you still don’t get your desired result, you can try to find a school that better aligns with your values. But that won’t negatively affect other families who are fine with their children learning about Islam. Neither of us is in a position where a central department of education makes those decisions for everyone. All of us are free to find or start schools in line with our values.

These differences turn into heated conflicts when you and I disagree in a public school system, because for either of us to get our way, the other will have to lose. Instead of taking the issue up with the school, we take it up with the school board for the entire state to see who can garner the most favor.

Imagine if Chick-Fil-A could only close on Sundays if it got enough support to sway the Board of Rapid Dining Establishments to force Burger King and all other restaurants to do the same.

Historian of education Charles Glenn has written about the noisy history of religion’s place in America’s public schools. He writes of the difficulty American public education has had in finding one approach that accommodates all of our rich religious and cultural diversity. He concludes, “We have reason to hope that America may achieve a degree of pluralism in its schools, but important changes are needed. American public education should be disestablished and demythologized.”

But wait, critics might say; if we disestablish public education and allow for robust school choice, doesn’t that mean that some will choose educational forms that I regard as abhorrent?

Yes, I am sure that will happen. But in the world we inhabit, there is vast and persistent disagreement about what the proper elements are for a good education, a very complex issue. Until the day when we reach a truly voluntary consensus on what a good education looks like (not, as we do today, a consensus forced on us by legislation), the better path is to allow individuals to opt out of schools they believe teach inconsistently with their values.

That means you can go your way, I can go mine, and the state department of education never has the thankless task of deciding who is right.

Kevin Currie-Knight

Kevin Currie-Knight

Kevin Currie-Knight teaches in East Carolina University’s Department of Special Education, Foundations, and Research.

VIDEO: Christian Persecution on the Temple Mount

This exclusive video expose’ of the holiest of Judeo/Christian sites where members of the Islamic Waqf force threw Danish Christian Jerusalem Jane Kiel off of the Temple Mount because she is accused of recently singing and praying FOR Israel on the Mount.

This is an extremely serious development especially as Muslims in America are running to Christian Churches and Jewish Synagogues trying to convince everyone that Islam is a religion of peace and part of the Abrahamic faith of Jews and Christians.

This incident makes it clear that Muslims despise Jews and Christians and are simply trying to gain acceptance for ulterior Islamic reasons.

Now, you see this enmity toward Jews and Christians being played out on the Temple Mount with our dear, brave, Jerusalem Jane!

Jerusalem, Israel – October 28, 2015 – At 9:30 this morning officials from the Islamic Waqf forced Danish Christian blogger “Jerusalem” Jane Kiel off the Temple Mount. During a peaceful visit, Jane was approached by a guard employed by the Jordanian-run Islamic Waqf who called her by name. “Jane, …we waited two months for you!” he announced labeling her a “born again” “believer.”

In a video of the incident (above), the Waqf guard pointed to the Hebrew inscription on her ring and claimed to be “Jordanian Police.” In an audio recording, he further produced what he claimed was a Jordanian Police identity card. The Waqf official insisted that Jane and her companion delete their video and threatened to arrest them if they did not leave the Temple Mount immediately. He then told Jane he was taking her to the Israeli police, but instead brought her to a man he referred to as the Waqf “boss” of the Temple Mount, who ordered her to leave.

This is the second time Jane was expelled from the Temple Mount; on a previous visit Waqf officials took her phone, deleting all the videos and photos.

Within the last ten months, Jane has received a series of death threats after documenting Muslim harassment of Jewish visitors on the Temple Mount. Jane’s activities have been lambasted on the “Quds” Arabic language website, which the guard pulled up on his phone during the encounter.

Here is the first video that went viral in the Arab world media, leading to Jane being targeted by Muslims and denied entrance to the Temple Mount. Jane sang Shema Yisrael On The Temple Mount:

Social Science and the Nuclear Family by Steven Horwitz

The question of the importance of family structure, specifically marriage, is back in the limelight. Conservatives are promoting three papers that provide some strong evidence that children raised by married parents do better along a number of dimensions than those raised in other household forms.

For many commentators, this makes for a strong case against those who appear to claim that family structure has either a minimal effect or doesn’t matter at all. As someone who might well fall into that group, or at least appear to, I think there are several responses to these new studies, all of which can acknowledge the empirical evidence that being raised by two loving parents is better for kids than alternative family structures.

One side note: conservatives might wish to not use the term “family structure denialists” as Wilcox does in the link above.

Comparing a legitimate disagreement over empirical evidence and public policy to those who would deny the overwhelming evidence of the Holocaust is an unacceptable rhetorical move whether it comes from leftists speaking of “climate change deniers” or conservatives speaking of “family structure deniers.” The disagreements in both case are legitimate objects of intellectual discussion and the language of “denier” indicates a refusal to engage in good faith debate.

On the substance of this issue, the conservatives cheering these recent studies don’t always note that there are differences among single-parent households formed through: 1) the choice to have and raise a child by oneself; 2) death of a spouse; and 3) divorce. Each of these presents a different set of circumstances and tradeoffs that we might wish to consider when we think about the role of family structure.

The conservative defenders of the superiority of the two-parent family (and it’s presumably not just “two parents” but two parents of the opposite sex, which raises a whole other set of questions), might wish to disentangle the multiple reasons such a family structure might not be present. For example, the children of widows do better than those of women who choose not to marry the fathers of their children, and the children of widows have outcomes that look more like those of kids from two-parent families.

The empirical evidence under discussion has to be understood with an “all else equal” condition. A healthy marriage will indeed produce better outcomes than, say, single motherhood. But there is equally strong social scientific evidence about the harm done to children who are raised in high-conflict households. Those children may well be better off if their parents get divorced and they are raised in two single-parent households with less conflict.

When parents in high-conflict marriages split up, the reduction in their stress levels, especially for women, leads to improved relationships with their children and better outcomes for the kids. In general, comparisons of different types of family structures must avoid the “Nirvana Fallacy” by not comparing an idealized vision of married parenthood with a more realistic perspective on single parenthood. The choices facing couples in the real world are always about comparing imperfect alternatives.

In addition, to say that married parents create “better” outcomes for kids does not mean that other family forms don’t produce “acceptable” outcomes for kids. It’s not as if every child raised by a single mother, whether through divorce, widowhood, or simply not marrying the father, is condemned to poverty or a life of crime.

Averages are averages. Though these three recent studies do continue to confirm the existing literature’s consensus that marriage is “better” for kids, there is still much debate over how much better those outcomes are, and especially whether other family structures are or are not sufficient to raise functional adults.

And this leads to the next point, which is that parents matter too.

The focus of the “family structure matters” crowd is almost exclusively on the outcomes for kids. That parents matter too is most obvious with divorce, where leaving a bad marriage may be extremely valuable for mom and/or dad, even if it leads to worse outcomes for the kids. The evidence from Stevenson and Wolfers that no-fault divorce has led to a decline in intimate partner violence, as well as suicides of married women, makes the importance of this point clear.

We can acknowledge that higher divorce rates have not been good for kids, but we can’t do single-entry moral bookkeeping. We have to include the effects of divorce on the married couple, because adults matter too. When we add this to the idea that conflict in marriage is bad for kids, the increased ease with which adults can get out of marriages, and the resulting single parenthood, is not so clearly a net problem when we consider the well-being of both children and adults.

These calculations are complicated and idiosyncratic, which seems to suggest that they should be left to those with the best knowledge of the situation and not artificially encouraged or discouraged by public policy.

This last point raises the final question, which is what do these studies mean for public policy?

If two-parent families are better than the alternatives, what does this imply? Are conservatives suggesting that we subsidize couples who have kids? Should that apply to only biological parents and not adoptive ones? Isn’t this a case for same-sex marriage? Should we make divorce more difficult, and if so, what about the probable result that doing so would reduce the number of marriages by increasing the cost of exit?

I would certainly agree that we should stop subsidizing single-parenthood through various government programs, but I’d make the same argument about two-parent families as well. In any case, what’s not clear is what the conservatives trumpeting these studies think they mean for public policy.

Perhaps, though, they think the solutions are cultural. If conservatives wish to argue that these studies mean that we should use moral suasion and intermediary institutions such as houses of worship to encourage people to marry and stay married if they wish to have kids, or that we should encourage young people to use contraception and think more carefully about when and with whom they have sex, that’s fine. And in fact, teen pregnancies are down.

But if intermediary institutions can do all of that, then they can also play a key role in helping single parents who make the difficult decision to divorce or continue a pregnancy in the complicated circumstances of their lives. Such institutions will also likely do that more effectively than can the state.

So if we are genuinely concerned about single parenthood, we should be asking what are the best ways to deal with it. Libertarians like me might well agree with such conservatives if they think the solutions are cultural or should rest in the hands of such intermediate institutions. But if they think there are public policy solutions, particularly ones that limit or penalize the choices facing couples, I wish they would spell them out explicitly in the context of their discussions of these studies.

One last thought: It ill-serves libertarians to deny the results of good science and social science, whether it’s climate change from the left or family structure from the right. We should, of course, critically interrogate that work to make sure that it is, in fact, good. But if it is good, we should welcome it as we should first be concerned with the truth and not our ideological priors.

The next questions we should ask, however, are about the implications. In the case of these recent studies on family structure, it is incumbent upon us to assess both the quality of the work and its implications, and we should pay particular attention to what is not being seen and what questions are not being asked.

Just because one family structure is better for children all else equal means neither that other family structures aren’t good enough for kids, nor that all else is always equal, nor that we shouldn’t consider the well-being of adults when we discuss the consequences of alternative family structures.

This post first appeared at the excellent philosophy blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

Catholic bishops call for ‘complete decarbonization’ by 2050, silent on Muslim slaughter of Christians

Complete decarbonization? You first, fellas. No more jetting to Rome to cause trouble for everyone by canonizing hard-Left Democratic Party policies. And let’s see you portly prelates start bicycling from parish to parish — no more driving for you, McManus. That wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.

While the bishops call for this destruction of the global economy, they continue to ignore a genuine and growing threat from the global jihad.  Syriac Catholic Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III Younan recently appealed to the West “not to forget the Christians in the Middle East.” And he is not the only one. “Why, we ask the western world, why not raise one’s voice over so much ferocity and injustice?” asked Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference (CEI). The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory III has also said: “I do not understand why the world does not raise its voice against such acts of brutality.”

I do. It’s because the bishops in the West believe that the spurious and self-defeating “dialogue” they’re conducting requires them to be silent about Muslim persecution of Christians: “Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.” — Robert McManus, Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, February 8, 2013

That’s why bishops such as McManus, Kevin Farrell of Dallas, Jaime Soto of Sacramento and others move actively to silence and demonize voices that tell the truth about this persecution. Meanwhile, their “dialogue” hasn’t persuaded a single jihadi to lay down his arms. Nor has it prevented a single Christian from being murdered by Muslims in pursuit of that jihad. Nor has it kept a single church from destruction at the hands of those jihadis.

The Church could have and should have been a voice for a genuinely charitable response to the jihad threat, and a robust defense of the value of Judeo-Christian civilization. Instead, it parrots Leftist talking points about climate change.

“Global bishops call for ‘complete decarbonisation’ by 2050,” AFP, October 26, 2015:

Bishops launched a global appeal Monday for a break-through at upcoming Paris climate talks, including a “complete decarbonisation” of the world’s economy and more help for poor countries battling the effects of climate change.

The bishops said any agreement “should limit global temperature increases to avoid catastrophic climatic impacts, especially on the most vulnerable communities”.

From across five continents they called “not only for ‘drastic reduction in the emission of carbon dioxide and other toxic gasses’, but also for ending the fossil fuel era”.

The goal should be “complete decarbonisation by mid-century, in order to protect frontline communities suffering from the impacts of climate change, such as those in the Pacific Islands and in coastal regions”.

The November 30-December 11 conference in Paris will be the culmination of six years of work since the ill-fated 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, which failed to lock down significant agreements.

The bishops urged those taking part to “keep in mind not only the technical but particularly the ethical and moral dimensions of climate change” as laid out in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“Those responsible for climate change have responsibilities to assist the most vulnerable in adapting and managing loss and damage and to share the necessary technology and knowhow,” they said in a statement….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Syria: Islamic jihadis hit Roman Catholic church with mortar shell during Mass

Graphic video: Islamic State executes man by running him over with tank, justifies act by quoting Qur’an

Trump: If elected, I would shut down certain U.S. mosques

The Hamas-linked terror organization CAIR, which works assiduously to silence and marginalize everyone who speaks out against jihad terror, is now pretending to support the freedom of speech: “Donald Trump’s apparent willingness to close down American mosques that he deems ‘extreme’ is totally incompatible with the Constitution and our nation’s cherished principle of religious freedom,” said CAIR Government Affairs Department Manager Robert McCaw. “The government should not be in the business of deciding what is acceptable free speech or religious belief. Donald Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks are both un-American, and un-presidential.”

The freedom of speech and the freedom of religion do not give anyone a license to plot murder or sedition. It is completely reasonable to shut down mosques in which jihad terror is preached or plotted. Our American Freedom Defense Initiative called for that in 2013. This shouldn’t be controversial at all: churches in which murder is plotted or preached should also be shut down. No institution in which murder and sedition are preached or plotted should remain in operation.

Trump doesn’t understand the war against free speech or the implications of self-censorship in the face of violent intimidation, and that is a very serious flaw; but he is right on this one, and the sinister Islamic supremacists speaking out against him — Hamas-linked CAIR, Linda Sarsour — are testimony to that.

“Donald Trump: I would shut down certain mosques in U.S. if elected,” by Adam Edelman, New York Daily News, October 21, 2015 (thanks to David):

Donald Trump on Wednesday promised to close certain mosques in the U.S. if elected President.

Trump, discussing his strategy to fight ISIS during an interview on Fox Business Network, also said he would revoke the passports of U.S. citizens who have traveled abroad to fight for ISIS.

“I would do that,” Trump said during a telephone interview after FBN host Jim Varney asked him if he would favor revoking passports and closing mosques. “Absolutely. I think it’s great.”

“If you go out, you go fight for ISIS, you can’t come back. Why can’t you do it? You can do it here,” he added.

Varney, however, then pressed the 2016 Republican front-runner, asking again: “Can you close a mosque? I mean, we do have religious freedom.”

“Well, I don’t know,” Trump responded in an apparent backpedal. “It depends on if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear, I don’t know. You’re going to have to certainly look at it.”

The comments drew immediate rebuke from leaders within the Muslim-American community.

“It is truly outrageous that the leading Republican presidential candidate would announce openly that he would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by closing down religious institutions,” Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based advocacy and rights organization, told The News. “I hope this finally prompts people to speak out against this off-the-rails Islamophobia that we are seeing from the right wing of the American political sector. ”

Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab-American Association of New York, called the comments “dangerous” and warned that unless other politicians publicly chastised Trump, his remarks could put people within the community at risk.

“That the Republican front-runner for president is calling for the closing down of religious institutions in the land of religious freedom is outrageous,” Sarsour told The News. “This rhetoric, if it’s allowed to continue, has real consequences for the Muslim community in the U.S.”

“It creates suspicion and stigma against an entire community,” she added. “It’s unfair and unjust.”

Even Trump’s fellow Republicans took issue with the remark, with Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island) — who himself hasn’t exactly been an ally of the U.S. Muslim community — taking the candidate to task.

“Donald Trump is talking before he knows what he’s talking about. I have been critical of people in the Muslim community, but the fact is you can’t be going around shutting down mosques,” King said on Fox

The front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination also said he would revoke the passports of U.S. citizens who have traveled abroad to fight for ISIS.

“I think we should have surveillance of mosques. I think we should be trying to find out what is going on in a mosque, find out if there’s activity in that mosque, where there’s weapons or conspiracy going on,” he added. “Then yes you can take action. But to be casually, the way Donald Trump seems, to be talking about shutting down mosques? No.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim hacker says he will release CIA top dog Brennan’s emails

Muslim from UK murders and wounds 80 in jihad suicide attack for Islamic State

Hate Mail: “People will rise up and make sure that your kids are raped”

I received this wise missive from a “Seana Fenner,” Odinia@outlook.com. Once again we see how magnanimous and perceptive our moral superiors really are — as if it were Jews, and not Leftist multiculturalists, who were presiding over the migrant influx that hails the demise of free societies in Europe.

Note also the unconscious racism, as if it is somehow worse to be raped to death by blacks than by anyone else. In any case, for a certain kind of Leftist, and a certain kind of Islamic supremacist, everything is the Jews’ fault. Everything.

Dear Robert,

As a student of history, I am curious. You and I both know Jews have been expelled for committing monstrous crimes many times, but in this case Jews are preying upon practically ever country with central banking fraud, and on European heritage countries in particular with mass non European immigration and the like, and one wonders, in the sense of parallels of history, what might happen. How long do you think it will be until Jews like you are expelled, not just from one country but from all countries, for your crimes? Do you figure you have 10-20 years, 5 years, more or less? Do you think you will just be expelled or do you suppose that people will rise up and make sure that your kids are raped to death by blacks or otherwise tortured and killed in front of you, in other words, that all of you will meet the same sort of fate as your victims at Dresden, Holodomor, or Palestine? Just curious… Do you actually think you will get away with it or do you plan to flee?

Regards,
S. Fenner

RELATE ARTICLE: California Muslim wanted to blow up daycare center because it was “Zionist”

Sears stops selling “Infidel” hats after Muslim complaints

Islamic supremacist Imraan Siddiqi complained to Sears about the hats, and it was apparently his complaint alone that was enough for them to remove the hats from sale. After he succeeded in strong-arming Sears into removing the hats, he screamed “Allahu akbar”:

Imraan Siddiqi

Imraan Siddiqi armedImraan Siddiqi Sears

This incident, along with the TPM article about below, is a good example of how Islamic supremacists such as Siddiqi and the mainstream media stigmatize resistance to jihad, trying to make people think there is something wrong with standing against jihad terror. Krueger’s lead paragraph comes straight from Siddiqi’s Twitter feed, and picks up his attempts to smear and demonize resistance to jihad terror: Krueger slavishly takes from Siddiqi the reference to “fringe websites” (which she artfully renders as “sketchy anti-Islamic sites”), along with the nasty and unfounded insinuation that this hat would only find favor among those who attend “armed mosque protests.” Siddiqi and Krueger want you to know that no decent person would be caught wearing this hat, which the Hamas-linked terror organization the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), also following Siddiqi, flagged as “Islamophobic” in its daily mailing.

But what, exactly, is so wrong with a hat that says kafir, “infidel” in Arabic? In his 2002 letter to America, Osama bin Laden declared, “The first thing we are calling you to is Islam.” In that sentence and in his entire letter he delineated the global conflict as between those of Islamic faith and those without it, i.e., infidels. It was, therefore, entirely reasonable and understandable for those who defy Osama and others like him, and who will never submit to Islam, to adopt the name “infidel,” much as other groups have proudly adopted terms of derision used of them by their opponents (“queer,” etc.).

But in her sloppily edited piece, Krueger informs us that the Islamic Society of North America, to which she gives the acronym “ISBA” (Borth America?), and which she doesn’t bother telling us has admitted links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, says that “infidel is not a correct translation for Karif.” Karif? That’s kafir, infidel. How Islamophobic of Krueger to get the word wrong. But in any case, the “ISBA” says: “Islam does not consider people of other faiths as ‘infidels,’ and does not advocate violence against them.”

And that’s that, right? Except for one little problem known as the Qur’an. “Unbelievers are those who say: Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary” (Qur’an 5:17; cf. 5:72). The Arabic word used for unbelievers, or infidels, in this verse is kafara, كَفَرَ. Derived from kufr, unbelief. The Qur’an also contains an invective against the People of the Book in general and the Jews in particular. The Jews “traffic in error” and, and wish that the Muslims would “lose the right path” (4:44). They twist Allah’s words, and Allah has “cursed them for their unbelief” — كُفْرِهِمْ, kufrihim (4:46) — a word that is also derived from kufr.

There, then, are two Qur’anic passages clearly calling Christians and Jews unbelievers, or infidels — which the Islamic Society of North America and many others insist the Qur’an never does.

And does Islam really not mandate violence against those infidels? The Qur’an says: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29) Also: “And fight them until there is no fitnah and the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” (8:39) Thus Muslims are commanded to fight against the People of the Book if they don’t believe in Allah or the Last Day and don’t forbid what Allah and Muhammad has forbidden. And Muslims are to keep up this fight until religion, all of it, is for Allah. Does that sound like advocating violence against people of other faiths to you? It certainly does to me.

So why did Sears cave so readily? Because Sears doesn’t know or care about any of this. Sears just wants to make money. It doesn’t want to have a big controversy, and denunciations of racism, and boycotts, and all the rest of it that Siddiqi and his sinister ilk can make happen. It knows that Islamic supremacists carry weight with the media (cf. this TPM piece) that the defenders of freedom cannot muster. And so, predictably, it threw in its lot with its bottom line.

“Sears Says It Will Stop Selling Arabic ‘INFIDEL’ Hats,” by Katherine Krueger, Talking Points Memo, October 19, 2015:

No need to patronize sketchy anti-Islamic sites to get “infidel” hats to wear to your next armed mosque protest – Sears has you covered.

As activist Imraan Siddiqi flagged on Twitter Monday, the big box retailer sells “INFIDEL Baseball Cap Patriotic Hat Arabic” on Sears.com via a third-party retailer.

The hats, which the site shows were added Oct. 12, are listed for $19.98 to $34.99, depending on the color. They are sold by Dreamway Trading, LLC through the legacy retailers’ site.

Reached Monday by TPM, a spokesman for Sears Holdings, the corporation that owns Sears and Kmart, said that after unspecified “feedback,” the company is pulling the merchandise.

“This item is sold by a third-party seller via the Sears Marketplace. Given the feedback we’ve received it is being removed,” the spokesman said in an email to TPM.

The hats appear to have been removed from the Sears site as of late Monday afternoon. Sears Holdings did not respond to further questions about the vetting process for third party retailers. Sears.com offers users a free account to upload their wares, with the company charging retailers a $39.99 monthly fee, plus a commission on sales, to sell through the site.

Conservative groups repurposed the term “infidel” for an individual who rejects religion as an anti-Islam rallying cry post-9/11. Touting “infidel” has remained popular with the advent of anti-Sharia law hysteria, and among the far-right fringe groups loosely united by a penchant for habitually equating Islam, a faith that counts nearly 1.6 billion followers around the world, with violent extremism.

The term has also been embraced in some military circles as an antagonistic middle finger to the enemy in the wars in the Mideast, espoused by brands like Major League Infidel.

According to a guide on terrorism and religious extremism from the Islamic Society of North America, infidel is not a correct translation for Karif [sic], the Arabic word used on the hats.

“Islam does not consider people of other faiths as ‘infidels,’ and does not advocate violence against them,” according to the ISBA [sic]….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Australia: Muslims threaten to murder journalists who report on jihadi mosque

Pakistan: Police fabricate false blasphemy accusation against Christian

EDITORS NOTE: For those readers interested in purchasing Infidel hats, clothing, patches and banners please check out this website, one of many.

American Refugee Do-Gooders: This is how real Christian charity is done!

This is a message to all of you working for American resettlement contractors pretending to be Christian charities.

It is easy to bring Muslim refugees to America while pretending to be Christian charities preaching from your cushy offices in New York, Baltimore and Washington, DC—that means you—US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, World Relief (Evangelicals), Episcopal Migration Ministries, and Church World Service!

It is easy for you ‘religious’ refugee resettlement contractors to bully local communities into accepting refugees with appeals to their Christian charitable spirits, but this is a story about real Christian charity.

(By the way, don’t fall for the idea that these resettlement contractors are working to bring Muslim refugees to Christ when they get them to your towns. They are strictly forbidden to preach to Muslim refugees, or any refugees, when taking government money, see here.)

Christian Aid Mission goes to the Middle East and helps refugees where they are with material needs and at the same time brings some to Christ.

The article at Christian Headlines (hat tip: Joanne), begins by confirming something we knew—that UN camps are full of terrorists and criminals (and that is where we are getting most of our refugees for your towns).

Syrian militants are among refugees fleeing to other countries, and they don’t leave their Islamic extremist practices behind. They have brought brutality and a culture of fear into some refugee camps, the director of a ministry in the Middle East said.

In United Nations camps in Jordan, Islamist gangs bring the same practices that refugees have fled: coercion to join terrorist groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS), conflict between militias on both sides of the civil war and the criminal buying and selling of females as sex slaves.

Then get this!

Reaching any Middle Eastern Muslim, much less one associated with ISIS, with the gospel is a delicate, gradual process, and the ministry’s 32 full-time workers and 400 volunteers throughout the region are trained to initiate relationships, answer doubts, share the good news of Christ’s salvation and develop disciples.

One member of ISIS from northern Syria came to visit his relatives who had fled to Jordan because he had heard Christians were providing them aid, the director said. He intended to kill the Christian workers providing aid to his relatives, who were not living in a refugee camp. After hearing the gospel and witnessing the love of the Christians, he put his trust in Christ.

“He first saw how Islam brainwashed him about Christianity, and how that contrasted with the reality of what he saw in the Christians,” the director said. “And we’re talking about an area of Jordan that has three Salafist [a strict, fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam] mosques. They raise up people to go and fight.”

There is much more, read on!

RELATED ARTICLE: Seattle has a commission on refugees and immigrants, November meeting coming up

VIDEO: Interfaith group working to colonize Connecticut with Syrian Muslim ‘refugees’

Council on American Islamic Relations becomes a player!

I’ve been reporting this morning (here) and in the last week (here and here) that there is a new player promoting the resettlement of third world refugees from countries where people hate us (from Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Burma and most recently Syria).

Having followed this issue for eight years I can attest to the fact that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), although stepping in to defend the ‘rights’ of Muslim refugees to, for instance, pray in the workplace, have not until just recently played an active (visible!) role in the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program.

It seems that all of that is changing, and this video news clip from Connecticut shows CAIR’s leadership role in Connecticut to colonize ten towns with Syrian refugees. And, readers, beware! these so-called ‘Interfaith groups’ are willing participants in changing the demographic make-up of your communities.  See CT Senator Richard Blumenthal (reduce security screening) in the clip!

“A group of leaders, activists and concerned people from various faith traditions in the region gathered on Oct. 11, Sunday, at Berlin Mosque, pushing for “Hope for Humanity” Syrian Refugee Initiative. The interfaith network includes representatives from Council on American-Islamic Relations, First Congregational Church of Old Lyme, Catholic Charities as well as refugee resettlement organizations including Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services and the International Institute of Connecticut.

‘Seeding’ ten cities as Connecticut colonization gets underway!

The group is looking to place ten Syrian refugee families in ten cities including New London and Old Lyme.”

Demand transparency!

The best advice I can give for Connecticut citizens (potential ‘Pockets of Resistance’) is for you to go to your local elected government and ask what the Mayor and council (or county commission) are going to do to demand, at minimum, transparency so that everyone in the city or county knows what they are in for as the cost to local and state taxpayers is enormous (not to mention the social costs of ‘welcoming’ diverse ethnic and religious immigrants who have no intention of assimilating).

Demand that the US State Department and its contractors present a plan to the local community that includes the cost of resettlement and describes the potential social and cultural impact to the community.

The mayor of Athens, Georgia demanded such a plan a year ago and as far as I know, no refugees have yet been resettled there.

See here where we learned that the U.S. State Department is telling reporters and Congress that there is “consultation” with the community.

Go to this list and find the resettlement contractors working in Connecticut.  Call them and ask for the R & P Abstract for FY2016 and ask them for a schedule of the upcoming “quarterly consultations” they hold with stakeholders (you, as tax payers, are stakeholders—maybe the most important stakeholders of all!)

By the way, Connecticut did resettle the largest number of refugees of the New England states in FY2015 which ended on Sept. 30th, see map here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

314 Criminal Illegal Aliens Arrested in Florida

CAIR steps into refugee debate in Redlands, CA

After visiting Lesbos, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin calls for 100,000 Syrians to be admitted to U.S.

ACT for America launches citizen action campaign urging 18 mayors to re-think their demand for more Syrian refugees

Netherlands’ NIMBYs: Dutch Jews do not want Middle Eastern refugees housed near them

Idaho petition drives underway to shut down refugee resettlement in Twin Falls, and in the whole state

Video: Muslim persecution of Christians — the speech the U.S. Catholic Bishops don’t want you to see

On August 13, 2015, I was the keynote speaker at the annual convocation of the North American Lutheran Church in Dallas, Texas. I spoke about the global Muslim persecution of Christians.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sends a representative to the North American Lutheran Church convocation every year. However, this year, when the USCCB found out I was the keynote speaker, they pulled their rep from the Lutheran convocation. Kudos to the North American Lutheran Church for not caving in to this lily-livered fascism and allowing me to speak anyway, rather than canceling me so that the Catholic rep would come. The Lutheran bishop told me that what I had to say was “too important” for that.

Watch this speech and see what the Catholic Bishops of the United States find so objectionable that they can’t even be in the same room while it is being said. Find out what they don’t want you to know.

(Note: there is about 15 minutes of the NALC convocation on this video after I speak. This has nothing to do with my talk and is just an editing error.)

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ahmadi Muslim leader Qasim Rashid slanders Ben Carson, lies about Islam

Jordanian MP’s son joins Islamic State, dies in jihad suicide attack

What is your Religion?

On 26 Nov 2008 at a tourist hotel in Mumbai India, a group of Islamic terrorists murdered 266 innocent people and injured over 250 more.  Their common question to the tourist’s at the hotel was “What is Your Religion”?  Christians and Jews were murdered because of their religion.  Muslim for the most part were allowed to live. Islamic terrorist’s Murder Jews and Christians

On 1 Oct 2015, Chris Harper-Mercer entered a community college in Oregon and murdered 9 people and injured many more.  He asked students, “What is Your Religion”?  Article by Pamela Geller Oregon Shooter Islamic Ties

Have you heard any discussion on the major news outlets about Chris Harper-Mercer’s religion or his ties to Jihad support?  Have you heard any Oregon law enforcement discussing Harper-Mercer’s ties to Islam?  Anything from the FBI or our pseudo President Obama?  No and you will hear little of anything about Harper-Mercer’s ties to Islam and his support of jihad (murder) against non Muslims at the Oregon community college.  You will only get such information from great people like Pamela Geller.

America will continue to have Islamic supporters murder our children in their schools for many years to come.  I have written several articles since 2003 about Islamic terrorists who have openly stated they will target our children in America.

What can be done.  In reality very little can be done to prevent these type murders because our senior law enforcement and politicians led by America’s number one Islamic supporter (Obama) will not allow common sense security measures to be implemented.

It is common sense that if one military force has an enormous supply of weapons and the other side has virtually none, the more heavily armed will conquer their foe.  This is why we give billions of dollars to Iraq and Syrian rebels.  We want them to be on the same playing field and have an equal chance of defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

The same common sense concept needs to be applied in America.  Instead of limiting the number of people and guns that American citizens can own and legally carry/store in their homes and to be allowed to carry openly and concealed in public must increase.  Obama and the media (to include FOX News) will never advocate or encourage every lawful American over the age of 18 to carry a firearm with them at all times.  This means at schools, work, sporting events, and yes even our military on U.S. bases and recruiting centers.  Seems strange we should even have to discuss U.S. military personnel being allowed to be armed in America.  Seems common sense to me.

The vast majority of Americans are law abiding and the number of mass murderers are minimal.  If every lawful student in the Oregon college had a firearm do you think the murderer would have been able to kill nine and injure even more?  If criminals knew every American homeowner had firearms, every student in higher education schools had a firearm, every person in a bank had a firearm, every person at a sporting event had firearms, and every teacher and administrators in our elementary and high schools had firearms, do you think they would second guess themselves before planning a criminal act using a firearm.  Of course they would.

Islamic based terrorists and their supporters at all levels will continue to attack and murder innocent Christians and Jews around the world, and yes there will be more school type attacks in America.  Unfortunately there will continue to be Islamic terrorist supporters at the top level of our political chain who will continue to provide more rights for Muslims than they will for Christians and Jews.

America needs a leader who is strong such as Russia’s President Putin.  We need someone such as Donald Trump, otherwise America will fall just as Rome fell many years ago.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why gun laws miss the mark – The Orange County Register

Oregon aftermath: America needs God

Oregon massacre: Singling out Christians for murder is standard practice among Muslims

Yesterday, an Oregon gunman curiously singled out Christians during rampage:

A woman who claimed to have a grandmother inside a writing class in Snyder Hall, where a portion the massacre unfolded, described the scene in a tweet.

“The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian,” she wrote. “If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn’t shot, but she is very upset.

For the record, there is a precedent here:  Whenever Islamic terrorists raid large centers where Muslims and Christians are intermingled, they routinely separate Muslims from Christians, before massacring the latter.

For example, last April in Kenya, gunmen from the Somali Islamic group, Al Shabaab—“the youth”—stormed Garissa University, singled out Christian students, and murdered them, some beheaded.  Read here for more examples.

RELATED ARTICLE: “Non-religious” Oregon gunman targeted Christians, had Muslim friend who praised “the brave Mujahideen heroes”

Muslim woman reads Qur’an, leaves Islam

“It’s about hating and killing those who disagree with Islam. It’s about conquering. Mohammed, he was immoral. He was a bloodthirsty man. He was terrible man, and Muslims can read that in his biography—what he did to Jews, how he raped women, how he killed people. I mean, he killed everyone who didn’t agree with him.” How did Mona Walter miss all the love and peace in the Qur’an and the biography of Muhammad that is so obvious to non-Muslims such as John Kerry, David Cameron, Pope Francis, the U.S. Catholic Bishops, and all the rest? How did she come to misunderstand Islam in the same way that greasy Islamophobes do — and after reading the Qur’an, that noble book of peace, no less? It’s an outrage! I trust that Bishop McManus is on his way to meet her right now (not driving, I hope), to set her straight about what Christians really ought to think about Islam — and to warn her of the ostracism and defamation that come from Christian leaders to those who dare to dissent on this point.

“‘Islam all about hating and killing’: Muslim woman turns to Christ after reading Quran,” by Andre Mitchell, Christian Today, September 26, 2015:

Mona Walter grew up in Somalia, believing in the Islamic faith, but without actually having read the holy book of the Muslims, the Quran.

At age 19, Walter went to Sweden as a war refugee. She recalled getting excited about being in a modern European nation, primarily because finally, she will be able to read the Quran.

“I discovered Islam first in Sweden. In Somalia, you’re just a Muslim, without knowing the Quran. But then you come to Sweden and you go to mosque and there is the Quran, so you have to cover yourself and you have to be a good Muslim,” Walter shared.

Walter’s excitement, however, immediately turned into sadness and disappointment, when she began reading the Quran. She said that going over the holy book of the Muslims made her realise that Allah, the god she believed in for almost two decades of her life, is a god of hate, and that Islam is not a religion of peace.

“It’s about hating and killing those who disagree with Islam. It’s about conquering. Mohammed, he was immoral. He was a bloodthirsty man. He was terrible man, and Muslims can read that in his biography—what he did to Jews, how he raped women, how he killed people. I mean, he killed everyone who didn’t agree with him,” she explained.

Her disappointment with Islam and the Quran prompted Walter to briefly become an atheist, until she discovered another book that will change her life forever: the Holy Bible.

A family member encouraged Walter to read the Holy Scriptures. While leafing through the pages of the Bible for the first time, she read Matthew 5:44, where Jesus said: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Walter immediately recognised the difference between Christianity and Islam.

“It was very strange for me to ‘love your enemy,’ because in Islam it is ‘kill your enemy.’ ‘Kill your enemy and anyone who refuses Islam.’ But Jesus Christ was all about love and peace and forgiveness and tolerance, and for some reason, I needed that,” she said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pope says 9/11 caused by “inability to find solutions which respect the common good”

Canada revokes citizenship of Toronto 18 jihad plot ringleader