Posts

Tucker Carson vs. Muslim Professor on Islamophobia

Did Islamophobia cause the terror attack at Ohio State?

If that question seems as ridiculous to you, as it does to us, we have a video you need to see!

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, recently debated a Muslim Professor over the motivation for the recent Ohio State terrorist attack.

This conversation outlines perfectly, the discussion taking place in our increasingly divided America.

In one corner, we have those willing to speak the truth about the threat of radical Islam and in the other, we have those who not only deny the reality of the threat, but attempt to shame, and silence those who speak the truth.

To individuals like the Muslim Professor in this video, the reaction to an Islamic terrorist attack is not, “How can we do our best to prevent these horrific incidents from re-occurring?”

Rather, it is “What did we as Americans do to cause this hatred towards us?”

If these appeasers had it their way, our only defense to Islamic terrorism would be silence and submission.

More to it, that is exactly what our radical Islamic adversaries would prefer, for us to keep our lips sealed, and hands tied behind our backs.

We cannot allow ourselves to fall into this fatal trap of tolerance. Instead, we must continue to speak the truth, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes the politically correct appeasers.

Islamic Shari’ah Law: The Threat to Western Civilization

The differences between shari’ah law and United States law is as separate as night is from day.  Contrary to the overbearing all-consuming nature of shari’ah and the Muslim’s efforts to force it upon everyone worldwide. U.S. law is fundamentally territorial and is mostly contained within it’s geographic boundaries.  Laws created in the United States (until more recent years) are positive laws (as opposed to divine laws), enacted by Congress or other United States authorities.

Further, it is a longstanding principle of legal construction that positive law is territorial in nature.  As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., wrote, “The general and almost universal rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where the act is done.”  This principle is axiomatic to the American legal system.

Therefore, while shari’ah travels with a Muslim wherever he goes and is expected to be enforced universally over the law of any other nation.  That is why bigoted Muslims try to take over wherever they move to.  For example, Dearbornistan,MI.  U.S. law is generally limited to the United States and does not apply in other nations.

Unlike here in the west, where separate nation-states are the political norm, Islam “assumes that all people are to be subject or bound to one giant Muslim community, bound by the brutal law of one ruler.  Because Islam asserts that Allah revealed all laws, both religious and secular (in a Western sense), through his prophet Muhammad to the entire ummah community of Islamic believers), Islam is a divine, universal “Nomocracy” meaning a universal state governed by divine law.  Thus, every Muslim is bound by shari’ah, which “binds individuals, not territorial groups.”

As a result, to Muslims, shari’ah supersedes all other law.   Americans can forget the concept of Muslims ever respecting the national sovereignty of the United States, or truthfully pledging allegiance to our republic and what she should be standing for.  While they want to take over the world and abuse non-Muslims throughout the Middle East and Europe, Muslims are calling the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq crusades against Islam.  Funny thing, Muslims desecrate Christian symbols and destroy ancient Christian and Jewish sites and artifacts with regularity.  All in the name of Allah. Mind you, these are the same holy people who marry and sexually abuse nine year old undeveloped little girls.  That alone discredits their peaceful holy religion concept they proclaim to the world.

In the legal context, the loyalty to the Islamic ummah (community of believers) can be seen in the “active international grouping at the United Nations and elsewhere, [by fifty-seven] Muslim governments, which together constitute the so-called Islamic states have joined together to defend and spread Islam universality and require every Muslim to safeguard the “binding divine commands… of Allah.”  Moreover, Islam divides the planet into two territories:  dar al-isla, the territory of islam and dar al-harb, the territory of war.  The dar al-Islam consists of all territories under Muslim rule.  These two territories will always be in strife until (in the eyes of Muslims) Islam conquers the entire world.  (So they believe)

Although the necessary exclusivity of the uhmah (community of believers) distinguishes the “infidels” of the outside world from the community of believers, the ultimate goal of the Islamists is to forcibly bring the entire world into obedience to Allah and his law.

Because Islam grew out of belief in complete world domination, by the sword, every dedicated Muslim is obligated to labor in his own way toward achieving that goal.  It does not matter where he lives or who claims his allegiance.  That is why, it is impossible for a Muslim (not radical, but dedicated) adhering strictly to shari’ah to honestly swear no loyalty to anyone besides Allah.  At the very heart of Islam is the existence of a single Islamic state, which is “entirely exclusive” of all other gods.

Consequently, every Muslim’s obligatory allegiance to the global Islamic state is inherently incompatible with any other oath of allegiance.  That includes an oath of allegiance to the United States of America.  So it was no surprise to witness thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets of Dearbornistan, MI when their Muslim brothers slammed airliners into the World Trade Center on September eleventh 2001.  The Muslims have vowed to bring down America and to force shariah law upon all of us.  In my opinion, that is a declaration of war and “we the People” of America must pray to the same and real God who blessed the founding fathers and the patriots who defeated the British Empire.  Hopefully His wisdom and Providential guidance will once again be sought and utilized. If not, The United States will simply be, one nation gone under.  Many thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice for their contributions.

EDITORS NOTE: The threat doctrine of the enemy of the free world is Islam. The overarching strategy of the Global Islamic Movement (GIM) is Fitna. To understand more about Islam, shariah laws, the threat and why Muslims slaughter visit Fitnaphobia.com.

Dr. Rich Swier joins the Tom Trento Show to explain “FITNA” in TEXAS

Join me and my special in-studio guest Dr. Rich Swier as he explains the Islamic doctrine of “FITNA” and how it is relevant to the Islamic State jihad attack in Garland, Texas. Dr. Swier explains that Fitna (resisting Islam) is worse than the slaughter we see in the Middle East and the slaughter which nearly happened in Garland.

Also in our show today is an Israel update by Arie Egozi detailing a “phantom” attack at a weapons depot in the Sudan and more information on the Iranian nuclear crisis.

After this show was taped UK Imam Anjem Choudary told Pamela Geller on the Sean Hannity Show that she should be tried in Shariah Court and slaughtered… for speaking out against Islam. Why did he say this?

The reason that Imam Choudary believes this is because the Quran says so. What Imam Choudary is demonstrating is the Global Islamic Movement strategy of Fitna. Fitna is defined as “[F]orces that cause controversy, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord within the Muslim community, disturbing social peace and order.”

Quran versus 2: 191-193, reads:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

Imam Choudary is doing what the Quran demands. Slaughter any unbeliever who causes Fitna for the “fitna is worse than killing.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Feds overlooked Texas jihadi because “there are so many like him”

Robert Spencer in PJM: PEN members forget purpose of free speech

What to Make of ISIS Claim of Responsibility for Texas Shootings

Egypt: Five Christian children held for blasphemy – for insulting the Islamic State

What Constitutes an ‘Insult’ to Mohammed

Australia: Muslim cleric quotes Qur’an to incite Muslims against Jews, “strongest people in enmity towards the believers”

“You shall find the strongest people in enmity towards the believers to the Jews and the polytheists.” That’s Qur’an 5:82. “Fight them until there is no fitna [‘strife’], and religion belongs to Allah alone.” That’s Qur’an 8:39. “Fitna is worse than killing.” That’s Qur’an 2:191 and 2:217.

Will some moderate Muslim leader please explain how Ismail Al-Wahwah is misunderstanding and misinterpreting the Qur’an?

Meanwhile, “Al-Wahwah” would be the perfect name for a Muslim leader whining about “Islamophobia.” I hope that will be the subject of this learned imam’s next Friday sermon.

“Australian Islamist Leader Ismail Al-Wahwah Incites to Wage Jihad against Jews: ‘They Are the Most Evil Creatures of Allah,’” MEMRI, March 3, 2015:

In a Friday sermon, Ismail Al-Wahwah, spokesman for the Australian chapter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, said: “The Jews are the most evil creatures of Allah. Moral corruption is linked to the Jews.” He further said: “There is only one solution for that cancerous tumor: It must be uprooted and thrown back to where it came from.”

Following are excerpts from the video, which was posted on the Internet on March 3 by the Hizb ut-Tahrir channel.

Ismail Wahwah: Allah said [in the Quran]: “Fight them until there is no fitna [‘strife’], and religion belongs to Allah alone.” He said: “Fitna is worse than killing.” Refraining from fighting and from waging Jihad against the Jews constitutes fitna. This fitna is worse than killing, because it means that the Israelites will rule the Muslims until Judgment Day.

Recognizing the Jews and giving them even a single inch of Palestine constitutes the epitome of evil, because this will strengthen that cancerous entity. They are the most evil creatures of Allah: “You shall find the strongest people in enmity towards the believers to the Jews and the polytheists.” Refraining from fighting them constitutes widespread evil. It will enable them to kill Muslims and take over their countries, in order to spread corruption upon the land, and to capture and kill women and men. All forms of corruption are linked to the Israelites and their arrogance.

[…]

The wombs of this nation’s women have not ceased to give birth to heroes. This nation is abundant in women giving birth to heroes and mujahideen. It has always been so and will continue to be so until Judgment Day.

[…]

Past, present, and future – since their inception, the Israelites have gone hand in hand with evil and disobedience. “They did not prevent one another from any wrongdoing.” A Jew does not prevent another from wrongdoing. If [a Jew] criticizes another in the media, it is only to pull the wool over one’s eyes. The Jews are in alliance and in concert with one another.

Some superficial Muslims tell you about some Jew who demonstrated against the corruption. As long he is in Palestine, that Jew is an aggressor like any criminal. His very presence in Palestine constitutes an aggression, because he is an occupier, no matter who he is.

We must not be deceived by this. The Jews are the most evil creatures of Allah. Moral corruption is linked to the Jews. Prostitution in the world began with the Israelites. Usury and gambling began with the Israelites. Killing who began with the Israelites. They slayed the prophets without just cause. Prophets must not be killed, yet the Israelites killed them.

[…]

If the Jews were given the whole world, they would want the heavens. That is the nature of the Jews.

[…]

It is a delusion to think that there can be peace and coexistence with the Israelites, with the Jews. It is a delusion to think that we can share one state or two states, and that the Jews can be our neighbors, as suggested by some self-proclaimed, yet deluded, “scholars.” One such [“scholar”] claims that fighting neighbors is forbidden. He is one of them. Therefore, coexistence with Israel and the Jews is a delusion. There is only one solution for that cancerous tumor: It must be uprooted and thrown back to where it came from.

[…]

They have corrupted the world with their corrupt media. The Israelites have corrupted the world with so-called art, cinema, and corrupt films, and with sex trade, drug trade, and moral depravity. They have corrupted the world in every respect. These are the Israelites.

[…]

Whatever the outcome is of today’s battle, it is not the final battle. There is a sea of blood between the Jews and us. They will pay with blood for blood, with tears for tears, and with destruction for destruction. They are deluding themselves if they think that this nation will ever surrender to a gang of foreigners.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Anglican vicar holds Muslim prayer service in his church, asks congregation to praise “the god that we love, Allah”

Islamic State blows up 10th century Assyrian Catholic monastery near Mosul

Why Obama Won’t Call the Jihadis Islamic

An attempt to explain the mystery, over at FrontPage:

Barack Obama aroused controversy over his affinity with Islam yet again in February 2015, when a photo surfaced from the U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in August 2014, showing Obama passing by a group of African delegates with his right index finger raised in a gesture strongly reminiscent of the Islamic State’s now notorious one-finger salute.

For the Islamic State and other Muslims, this gesture signifies allegiance to Islam’s absolute monotheism. Whatever Obama may have meant by it, the revelation that he had made the gesture — coming so soon after his renewed refusal at his “Countering Violent Extremism” summit to identify Islamic jihadists as Islamic — raised new questions about Obama’s relationship with Islam. Why won’t Obama identify Islam as having anything to do with the jihadis, when they themselves consistently explain and justify their actions solely in Islamic terms? Why won’t he do anything about mosques in the U.S. with ties to jihad terror? Why does he coddle the Muslim Brotherhood? Why, in sum, does he seem to love Islam so much, even if he isn’t a practicing Muslim?

And it does seem most likely that Obama is indeed not a practicing Muslim, despite the remarkable persistence of rumors and suspicions to the contrary. It is extremely unlikely that a Muslim would publicly proclaim himself a Christian over and over, as Obama has. While it is possible that this would be justified under Islam’s doctrines of deception, there is no evidence that Muslims have ever behaved this way. Ground Zero Mosque imam Faisal Abdul Rauf did say several years ago, “I am a Jew,” but he only said it once, in the context of ecumenical generosity; he didn’t try to pass himself off as one. There is a way in which a Muslim could say he is a true Jew or true Christian because he follows the true teachings of the Torah and the Gospel, but there is no known case of a Muslim behaving this way in a sustained manner. If Obama were a secret Muslim, he would be the first Muslim to carry out such a sustained deception of claiming not to be a Muslim.

There is little doubt, however, given his consistent policies throughout his presidency, that Obama holds Islam in high regard, for whatever mix of personal affection (his father and stepfather were both Muslims) and political calculation (he may believe that calling the jihadis Islamic will alienate Muslim allies of the U.S., such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, however unreliable those alliances have been). His Administration backed the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt with such loyalty that Egyptian protesters held signs accusing Obama of supporting terrorism. He aided Islamic jihadis to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and continues to aid those trying to overthrow Assad in Syria. (He insists that those he is backing in Syria are “vetted moderates,” but they have ransacked churches, terrorized Christians, and collaborated with the Islamic State too often for that to ring true.) He has repeatedly called for self-censorship to conform with Islamic blasphemy laws, most memorably declaring at the United Nations, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

And while his Justice Department aggressively pursues businesses and educational institutions to compel them to grant special privileges and accommodations to Muslims, it has shown no similar energy regarding terror-tied mosques in the U.S. Not only do these mosques remain open and their leaders uninvestigated and unprosecuted, but all too often the only contact law enforcement officials have with them is for “outreach.”

Only Obama knows what he may be thinking in all this, but a few conclusions seem obvious: he is afraid that speaking honestly about the jihadis’ motives and goals will alienate actual and potential Muslim allies. Since he believes Islam to be a peaceful religion, he doesn’t accept the idea that Muslims become jihadis because the Qur’an and Sunnah exhort them to do so. That leaves only the grievances that Islamic advocacy groups (and jihad groups) endlessly retail as the fundamental engine of the “radicalization” of Muslims – so Obama apparently sees redressing those grievances as the primary means of preventing Muslims from becoming terrorists.

This has led to foreign and domestic policies of accommodation and appeasement, along with an ominously cavalier stance at best toward the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech. Coupled with a dogmatic refusal to identify properly those who have vowed to destroy the United States and address their belief system and ideology, Obama’s stance toward Islam is a recipe for catastrophe. The United States is weaker and more vulnerable for it.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Daily Caller: “The U.S. Constitution is in fact the most Shariah compliant constitution on Earth”

Nigeria: Jihad-martyrdom suicide bombers murder 24 at two bus stations

Ohio: Muslim charged with aiding jihadis, laundering money for jihad

ISIS Is Back With A Super-Duper Scary Training Video To Intimidate Western Infidels

Fitna Is Worse Than Slaughter

First, a note from the author to the reading audience: None of the terms or phrases used in this article are of my own invention; every term or phrase (including the title itself) is derived exclusively from primary Islamic sources (i.e., the Quran, Hadith, Tafsir and Sharia Law).  I encourage everyone to access the hyperlinked references, then evaluate each statement in this article for accuracy and completeness.

fitna definition

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to introduce the complex, abstract concept of Fitnah to those in the West (i.e., the non-Islamic world) who are concerned about the apparent rising tide of global violence associated with Islam.  After several years of intense study and discussion with colleagues, I have come to believe that Fitnah is the most essential motivational component of Islamic theology, i.e., it is the cornerstone of an adversarial, confrontational worldview that inevitably leads to a state of perpetual conflict with the non-Islamic world.

In fact, fighting against the multi-faceted threat of Fitnah is such an essential part of a Quran-based worldview, that it is both the Strategy & Tactics and the ‘BeatingHeart’ of the Global Islamic Movement (GIM).  Removing Fitnah from the world is so fundamental to Islamic ideology that every primary source contains extensive references to this concept.

It also follows, that if overcoming Fitnah is the gravitational force behind the GIM, then some essential Tactical elements (aka ‘Operative Verbs’) must also be involved.  For this reason, two of these key tactical verbs (Qital and Kharaj, or ‘Kill/Slaughter/Slay’ and ‘Displace/Drive Out/Expel,’ respectively) are discussed in this article.

You will also notice that, except for brief references within a discussion of Quran 2.217 and several major Fatwas (see Five Major Fatwas below), this article does not include an analysis of the word Jihad.  My three-fold reason for this is that the verbs Qital and Kharaj are not only [1] much more graphic and violent than the word Jihad, and [2] occur several times more frequently in the Quran than Jihad, but they are [3] much more revealing, in terms of gaining a Quran-based perspective of the Strategy & Tactics of the GIM.

Another assertion I will present here is that Fitnah, as defined in Quran and Hadith, etc., has been re-formatted into what I call a ‘Secular-Political Narrative,’ which has gained a remarkable (ominous) level of international influence.  Those who are concerned about growing threats against free speech have probably already guessed that I’m referring to the term ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA.’  According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) homepage, ‘Islamophobia is a closed-minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims.  An Islamophobe is an individual who holds a closed-minded view of Islam and promotes prejudice against or hatred of Muslims.’  Putting aside this highly subjective definition, Islamophobia is really just another ‘non-religious’ word for Fitnah.

Can We Hope To Ever Understand The ‘Global Islamic Movement’?

On December 28, 2014, Major General Michael K. Nagata, commander of American Special Operations forces in the Middle East, made the following public statement: ‘We do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it.  We have not defeated the idea.  We do not even understand the idea.’

Retired Admiral James A. Lyons made a similar observation on August 29, 2014, when he wrote ‘America’s inconsistent response to the current Islamic State atrocities indicates that we are failing to understand, or deliberately ignoring, the facts that drive the terrorist organization’s ideology…As a result, our warfighters and law enforcement agencies have been denied critical information on combating the Islamic jihadists we are fighting today.’

At this point in time, more than thirteen years post-9/11, is it possible for those of us in the non-Islamic world to ever ‘understand the movement’ and/or ‘the facts that drive the terrorist organization’s ideology’?  My firm assertion is that the answer is ‘Yes.’  We may not like the answer, but if we go to the primary sources of Islamic theology/ideology (as highlighted just above), we can ‘understand the movement’ with absolute clarity.  However, once we do begin to comprehend what really ‘drives the terrorist organization’s ideology,’ the next challenge becomes ‘What then shall we do?

Fitnah In The Quran

The Arabic root of Fitnah (Fa Ta Nun / ن ت ف) occurs 60 times in the Quran, in five derivative forms, sometimes as a noun, and other times as a verb.  Fitnah can be translated in a variety of ways, using many different descriptive adjectives.  In my experience, one of the most insightful translations of Fitnah is the word ‘Opposition,’ so for the sake of simplicity and continuity, I will use the word ‘Opposition’ throughout this article.

For additional clarity and brevity, I have summarized 16 of the most commonly encountered renditions of Fitnah in Table 1 below.  In addition, the right-hand column of Table 1 includes a list of non-Islamic activities and/or responses that, from a Muslim perspective, are seen as Fitnah.  For example, what those in the non-Islamic world see as a legitimate effort to resist the implementation of Shariah Law is seen as resistance, aggression or even incitement to violence (aka Islamophobia) by multitudes of Muslims who support and promote the world-wide expansion of Islam.

Strategy of the Global Islamic Movement – The Religion of Allah Will Prevail in the Earth

Going back to the earlier remarks by Major General Michael K. Nagata and Admiral James A. Lyons, I would now like to address the question, ‘What is the Strategy of the GIM’?  According the Quran, the Strategy of the GIM comes from the phrase Wayakuna Al-Dinu Lillahi, which means ‘The religion should all be for Allah.’

Although this concept (The religion should all be for Allah) is emphasized repeatedly in the Quran, it is most clearly summarized in verses 2.193 & 8.39, which are nearly identical in content and say ‘And fight them until there is no more Fitnah, and the religion should all be for Allah.’ 

Note: In just these two verses (2.193 & 8.39), different respected Muslim scholars translate Fitnah as either Disbelief, Hostility, Idolatry, Mischief, Opposition, Oppression, Persecution, Polytheism, Temptation, Tumult, Unbelief, and/or Worshiping of Others (also see Table I below).

Dr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain, the host of a popular television program in Pakistan called Alim Online, put it into more modern terms in August of 2010, when he paraphrased verse 2.193 as follows: ‘Fight those who interfere with establishing the rule of Allah.’  Of course, the ‘rule of Allah’ he mentions here is Shariah Law.

This tactical approach (‘Fighting until there is no more Fitnah’) so that ‘the religion should all be for Allah,’ is so essential that it forms the ideological foundation for the Muslim Brotherhood and other macro-groups like Boko Haram, the Global Jihad Front (aka Al-Qaeda) and ISIS – along with virtually every other Islamic organization in the world today (and in the past).

Note: For additional detail, see the section below entitled Five Major Fatwas

Meanwhile, according to another well-known Islamic scholar, the mission [Strategy] of Islam…is to ‘Shine with the light of Allah, and gather all the people that have taken the wrong turns, and have gone out in the darkness of the lost paths, and show them where the straight line, where the straight path of light is, that will take them to Allah.’

This scholar also states that the US [and the West] is becoming a ‘fertile ground for Islam, in spite of all the opposition by Zionists and secularists.’  The ‘Opposition’ that he mentions here is just another way to describe Fitnah, which in this case comes from ‘Zionists and secularists.’

In one sense, the dominant theme that emerges here is remarkably simple: The Strategy of the GIM is to continue fighting against Fitnah (Opposition) until Islam becomes the dominant religion in the world.  According to the Quran, this fighting remains obligatory for all Muslims until the non-Muslim world finally stops opposing the advance of Islam.  This deliberate and intentional opposition from the non-Islamic world is just another description of Fitnah, as well as another way of defining Islamophobia.

Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement – Elimination of Fitnah

Now we come to the question, ‘What are the Tactics of the GIM.’?  According to the Quran, once Fitnah (Opposition) is encountered by members of the global Islamic community (aka the Ummah), the Quran provides explicit tactical instructions for Muslims to continue fighting against the Fitnah, until it is finally eliminated.  I refer to these explicit instructions as ‘Operative Verbs.’  The two most dominant operative verbs are [1] Qital (Qaf Ta Lam / ل ت ق), which means ‘Kill/Slaughter/Slay’ and occurs at least 170 times in the Quran, and [2] Kharaj(Kha Ra Jim / ج ر خ), which means ‘Displace/Drive Out/Expel’ and occurs at least 182 times in the Quran.  In contrast, Jihad occurs only about 40 times in the Quran.

Qital is an obscenely violent word that implies abject, utter humiliation, desecration and debasement, while Kharaj, which is no less violent, implies forceful, merciless expulsion of any- and every-one who does not submit to Islam.  We see real-life examples of this every night on the news – think of Boko Haram slaughtering more than 2,000 people in 16 villages on January of 2015, or ISIS relentlessly driving the Yazidis from their homes in August of 2014.  The tactics of Qital and Kharaj are also the underlying force behind the Palestinian group Fatah vis-à-vis Israel (for more on this subject, see the article entitled If Abbas Is A ‘Moderate,’ What’s A ‘Radical’?).

In other words, these are not just two obscure words that are rare exceptions in a list of otherwise benign, peaceful Quranic verbs and nouns.  It is also important to note that these two Operative Verbs occur frequently in the imperative tense, which is a ‘grammatical form that commands, demands attention or action, implying an unavoidable obligation or requirement.’  Simply put, these verbs are seen as absolute commandments to the Islamic Ummah to never stop fighting against Fitnah, whenever and wherever it is encountered, until the world as we know comes to an end.  It is a call to perpetual warfare, often by cadres of otherwise peace-loving Muslims who are nonetheless ‘provoked by uncontrollable, irresponsible incidents.’

I use the allegory of a chemical reaction to help explain the relationship between Fitnah and the Operative Verbs of Qital and Kharaj.  If you put pure, elemental chlorine into a flask with pure sodium, they will not react.  However, when a catalyst is added (in this case, water), the two elements combine violently in what is called an exothermic reaction (light- and/or heat-releasing).  The by-product of this particular reaction is NaCl, aka common salt, which has an entirely different nature than the original inert elements.  In this allegory, the catalyst (water) is Fitnah, while the otherwise inert elements (chlorine and sodium) are Qital and Kharaj.  In other words, Islam exists as a religion of peace (‘inert’)…until it encounters the catalyst of Fitnah, and then it becomes suddenly, violently explosive.

As with the Strategy of the GIM, these Tactical verbs are discussed extensively in the Quran, Hadith, Tafsir and Sharia Law, but are perhaps best summarized in verse 2.191, which says ‘And kill/slaughter/slay them wherever ye find them, and displace/drive out/expel them out of the places whence they drove you out, for Fitnah is worse than slaughter.’  Put another way, no punishment is too great for the crime of Fitnah, including the devastating loss of property (Kharaj), and life itself (Qital).  Also notice that this verse commands Muslims to ‘slaughter them wherever you find them,thus advocating  intentional planning and forethought.  The Muslim conquest of India, and the Armenian Genocide, are two among many examples of the global advance of Islam based on these doctrines.

Ibn Kathir Tafsir (Commentary) For Quran 2.217

Quran 2.217 is similar to verse 2.191, but the Tafsir (Commentary) for verse 2.217 includes some very revealing insight vis-à-vis the concept of Fitnah.  In his introduction to this Tafsir, a famous Islamic scholar known as Ibn Kathir wrote the following: ‘Allah made it obligatory for Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress [=Fitnah] against Islam.  Az-Zuhri said, ‘Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind.’ 

Next, Ibn Kathir adds the following comments to verse 2.217: ‘Fighting [Qital] therein [during the Sacred Months] is a great (sin) but a greater (sin)…is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him…and to drive out [Kharaj] its inhabitants, and Fitnah is worse than killing.’  In this case, the ‘great sin’ of Fitnah is caused by those who would prevent mankind from following the way of Allah.

Every Islamic group in the world today agrees with Ibn Kathir, thus claiming that both secular rulers in Muslim countries, and non-Muslim leaders in western countries, ‘prevent mankind from following Allah’ with malicious intent.  Therefore, it is obligatory for all Muslims to fight against such Fitnah, using whatever means possible.  As mentioned earlier, the shorthand term for such ‘malicious intent’ has become known as Islamophobia.

Five Major Fatwas

Have modern leaders of the GIM followed the Strategy & Tactics of warfare, as authorized in the Quran?  Absolutely.  Here is a summary of five of the most significant Fatwas issued in the last 17-plus years.  Several of them were released to coincide with the Arab Spring, and each one is solidly based on the imperative command to fight against Fitnah, using the operative verbs of Qital and Kharaj, as found in Quran 2.193, 2.217, 8.39 & etc.

[1]           On February 23, 1998, Osama Bin Laden (along with a coalition of four renowned Sheikhs and the leaders of 12 other Islamic caliphates) issued a now-infamous Fatwa, calling for perpetual global Jihad against ‘The Jews and the People of the Cross.’  The introductory paragraph includes the following statement: ‘The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim…This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, Fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression [Fitnah], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.’  In this case, the phrase Al-Dinu Lillahi (‘the religion of Allah’) is translated as ‘justice and faith in Allah’ (see earlier discussion of verses 2.193 & 8.39 above). This is because the Arabic word ‘Din’ can be translated interchangeably as either Religion, Law, or Justice.

[2]           On September 10, 2010, Mohammed Badie, who was the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood at the time, made the following declaration: ‘Resistance [Jihad] is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance & tyranny…Islam is capable of confronting Oppression & Tyranny [Fitnah]…the outcome of the confrontation has been predetermined by Allah.’  Remarkably, this Fatwa was issued right in the middle of the Arab Spring movement, which was promoted as a popular pro-democracy revolution in support of ‘Freedom and Justice.’

[3]           On January 08, 2011, Imad Mustafa, a prominent scholar at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, issued the following Fatwa: ‘Fighting against non-Muslims is…a prescribed duty in cases of aggression [Fitna] from the infidels against Muslims, for we must resist them, make Jihad against them, and defend against them.  This is according to the Quran, for Almighty God has said ‘Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress.’ This Fatwa cites Quran 2.190, which is similar to Quran 2.191, 2.193, 8.39 & etc.

[4]           On January 17, 2011, Anwar Al-Awlaki issued a Fatwa based on Kharaj (Displace/Drive Out/Expel), which stated: ‘Not only was Jihad financed by war booty, but also throughout our early history, when the Islamic treasury itself was mostly dependent on income generated from Jihad.  A tax called Kharaj was placed on land opened [stolen] by Muslims, enslaved POW’s would be sold, and the people of the book paid Jizyah [i.e., a protection tax].’

[5]           On July 05, 2014, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi gave his first public sermon at the Grand Masjid of Mosul City, Iraq.  During the course of his message, Al-Baghdadi quoted directly from Quran 8.39, saying that ‘He the Most High says, And fight them until there is no Fitnah, and the religion, all of it, is for Allah.’

Note: Quran 8.39 is one of ISIS’ ‘favorite’ verses; it is usually narrated in the background of their official anthem, as well as in the execution (beheading) videos they produce.  According to ISIS, all the Fitnah in the world is caused by the Kufarin (Non-believers).  This means that all of the violence and suffering such non-believers endure at the hands of ISIS is their fault, not the fault of the soldiers of Allah.

Summary

Now we come to the heart of the matter.  Apologists for Islam, or advocates of the current political narrative, will insist that the premise for this article is wrong, maybe even dangerous, and that I have misinterpreted the Quran.  My answer would be, ‘Absolutely not.  It may be unpleasant, but it is not wrong.’

The interpretations of the verses included in this article have been established for hundreds of years; the authorized Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement have not changed in nearly 1,400 years.  It is only in relatively recent times – post WWII – that modern technology has made it possible for the Islamic world to promote the global spread of Islam and/or fight the non-Islamic West at near-parity.

According to the Quran, any effort by non-Muslims to oppose the advancement of Islam is considered a flagrant, abhorrent crime.  Also known as Fitnah, such crimes are seen as so egregious that people can be slaughtered, honor-killed, beheaded or crucified (and yes, all of these punishments are found in the Quran, with added endorsements and insights in the Hadith & Tafsir).

Compared to the Fitnah (Islamophobia) of dishonoring Mohammed, or opposing Shariah Law, or calling Jihadiststerrorists,’ or any of a hundred other outrageous offenses, the loss of life and property is considered as less than inconsequential.  For proof, just run an internet query of Charlie Hebdo Cartoon Protests, and you’ll see how violent and widespread these demonstrations have been.  Enraged crowds in Islamic countries around the world have screamed obscene threats, destroyed property, burned churches [Kharaj] and killed people [Qital].  And this is just the latest episode.

Concluding Observations – Where Do We Stand?

On January 27, 2015, retired former DIA Chief Michael Flynn said that the Obama administration is ‘paralyzed and playing defense in the fight against Islamic militancy,’ adding that ‘you cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,’ that the ‘administration is unwilling to admit the scope of the problem,’ and that ‘there are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity,’ so they ‘accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies.’

On September 19, 2014, retired Marine General James Conway, who served as the 34th Commandant of the Marine Corps, publicly stated that President Barack Obama’s strategy to defeat ISIS didn’t have ‘a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.’

President Obama could hardly argue with General Conway’s assessment of ISIS, because on August 28, 2014, he said, ‘I don’t want to put the cart before the horse: we don’t have a strategy yet.  I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.’

During the same interview, President Obama also said: ‘This should be a wake-up call to Sunni, to [Shi‘ite], to everybody, that a group like ISIS is beyond the pale; that they have no vision or ideology beyond violence and chaos and the slaughter of innocent people.’

The problem is, groups like ISIS, Hamas and Boko Haram et al., do have a vision, and an ideology, that goes well beyond the initial spasms of violence, chaos and slaughter (ironically, these are all adjectives describing Fitnah).  However, we in the non-Islamic world will remain ‘paralyzed and playing defense,’ as long as we fail to acknowledge the Quranic origin of their strategic vision, and the true nature of the tactical threat we face.

Adding further irony, Congressional hearings on ISIS were held in September of 2014, sandwiched right in between the comments by President Obama and General Conway.  During the hearings, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both tried to explain some of the apparent contradictions of our ever-evolving policy vis-à-vis the threat from ISIS.  In the end, it became very apparent ‘that there is, and will continue to be, a gaping hole at the heart of our ISIS strategy.’

We’ll close with a final observation: The word ‘Phobia’ has two meanings – either to hate something intensely, or to fear something intensely.  Using these two meanings, it could be said that Muslims and non-Muslims both have ‘Fitnaphobia’ – Muslims because they hate Fitnah, and non-Muslims because they fear it.

However, in the case of the non-Muslim world, it appears that we are much more concerned about causing Fitnah (by Opposing the Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement), than we are about protecting our western civilization from the increasingly aggressive promoters of Shariah Law.

Islamism: If You Can’t Say it, You Can’t Fight it

The left seems to have no problem accusing Republicans of fascism, racism or any other malignant “isms” that come to mind, but they simply cannot speak the truth regarding radical Islam.

While the world was reeling from last month’s terror attacks in Paris, there was finally some acknowledgment of the one-sided religious war being waged against the West, as French officials identified the perpetrators as radical Muslims and called for international solidarity against Islamist extremism.

After turning a blind eye for so long – and after enabling extremist organizations such as Hamas and facilitating resurgent anti-Semitism – Europeans finally spoke truth over political correctness. Whether they have the fortitude for sustained confrontation with theological totalitarianism is another matter, but for at least a brief moment in time they recognized the threat for what it is.

In contrast, the Obama administration continued to ignore any connection between terrorism and radical Islam, instead referring to the perpetrators as extremists without identifying their motivating beliefs. In a recent interview the president actually referred to the attack on the kosher market in Paris as “random.”

This refusal to acknowledge the obvious may be political, but it is also myopic – and it undercuts any serious effort to combat global terrorism. Just as the government’s characterization of the Fort Hoot shootings and Oklahoma beheading as “workplace violence” ignored the national ramifications of the terror threat, the president’s refusal to concede the doctrinal roots of the Paris tragedy showed an astonishing failure of world leadership.

This refusal to acknowledge the obvious may be political, but it is also myopic – and it undercuts any serious effort to combat global terrorism.

The left seems to have no problem accusing Republicans of fascism, racism or any other malignant “isms” that come to mind, but they simply cannot speak the truth regarding radical Islam. And by dialoguing with organizations suspected of having extremist ties, by treating the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas as political organizations, by supporting those who delegitimize Israel, and by providing safe harbor for progressive anti-Semites, the left has actually helped advance the Islamist agenda.

Progressives seem compelled to excuse Islamism or pretend it doesn’t exist, even when doing so compromises their commitment to constitutional principles. Whenever radical Islamists strike, the progressive impulse seems to be to defend Islam before comforting the victims. In response to beheadings of westerners in Syria, Mr. Obama lectured the American public that ISIS was not Islamic, and after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish market in Paris, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the perpetrators were not Muslim. On what exactly do they base such assertions?

They are misinformed at best and disingenuous at worst. Though certainly not all Muslims support ISIS, it does represent a militant form of Islam similar to that which sparked an era of jihad across the Mideast, Asia, Africa and Europe starting in the eighth century. Moreover, the Paris attacks were motivated by a fundamentalism that endorses violence against blasphemers and infidels.

While ISIS, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood do not represent the views of all Muslims, their beliefs are certainly grounded in scripture and theology. It defies logic to say that such groups are not Islamic simply because other Muslims think differently or disagree with them. The same people who hold thus seem to have no problem blaming all conservative Christians for the acts of a minority of anti-abortion zealots. The inconsistency is glaring.

This is not to say that all Muslims condone the actions of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, or that all supported the terror attacks in Paris, the massacre at Fort Hood or the attacks of 9/11. Many Muslims, particularly those acculturated to western democratic values, publicly condemn attacks against non-Muslims. But the question remains whether the wider Arab-Muslim world is philosophically or morally opposed to religious extremism.

Although millions, including Muslim clerics, turned out for the French solidarity march, it remains to be seen whether the event signaled an organic rejection of all forms of terrorism or instead was limited in time and scope. The question hangs heavy in the air amid reports that members of the French government attempted to dissuade Binyamin Netanyahu from attending, but thought it appropriate to invite Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas’s attendance at the rally received front-page coverage, but the press failed to discuss his unity government with Hamas, whose charter calls for jihad and genocide, or to mention that the Palestinian National Covenant continues to delegitimize Israel and the Jewish People. Likewise, the media did not discuss the PA’s continuing support of terrorism, anti-Semitic incitement, and glorification of those who kill Jews. The image of Abbas lauding free speech was surreal considering that the PA and Hamas routinely stifle expression and quash dissent in territories under their control. That Abbas was invited at all suggests a failure to recognize or acknowledge these incongruities. He subsequently praised Hezbollah after its recent terror attacks in the north of Israel.

Those who understand the concept of taqiyya (deception of the infidel) have to wonder how much of the anti-terror sentiment expressed by clerics in Paris was genuine. It does not matter what they say in public before the western media; what matters only is whether they intend to preach tolerance, respect and acceptance in their schools and mosques, and whether reformative change will be reflected in the streets.

The desire for true reformation will only be impeded by those in the west who are more concerned about protecting the sensitivities of a global religious community that numbers more than a billion strong and characterizes outsiders as infidels. Change will not be motivated by those who blame all friction between the West and Muslim society on western chauvinism, but who ignore the historical role of jihad and Islamist supremacism. Neither will it be facilitated by politicians who reflexively deny any connection between radical Islam and terrorism, but who nevertheless accuse their domestic political opponents of the worst kinds of fanatical excesses and malign Israel as a colonial occupier.

Democrats are not all in the leftist camp, but their party has been tilting that way since Barack Obama was first endorsed in 2008. The party’s more progressive elements seem compelled to empathize with nonwestern ideologies they consider to be expressions of indigeneity, but to disparage political opponents who advocate freedom of speech, belief and worship. It is ironic that some progressives accuse Republicans of fascism while giving political cover to extremists whose ideology is truly thuggish and totalitarian. This hypocrisy stems from a traditional affinity for radical ideologies and statism, whether expressed as fascism in the early to mid-twentieth century, or communism until well into the Cold War.

Indeed, as well-documented by author Jonah Goldberg in his book, “Liberal Fascism,” there were many progressive admirers of fascism before Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and Germany attacked Poland four years later. Mussolini’s supporters included H. G. Wells, who in the 1930s exhorted fellow progressives to be “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis,” and who wrote of being struck by fascism’s “relentless logic.” Muckraking journalists adored Mussolini, among them Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell. So did influential publishers, such as Samuel McClure, who described Italian fascism as “a great step forward,” and George Soule, editor of the New Republic, who commended the Roosevelt administration for “trying out the economics of fascism.”

Other progressives expressed admiration for Hitler, including W. E. B. DuBois, co-founder of the NAACP, who described the rise of Nazism in Germany as “absolutely necessary to get the state in order” and who asserted that the Nazi rise to power afforded more democracy than Germany had seen in years.

If statism can be defined as the belief that economic and/or social policy should be left in the exclusive control of government, then the left’s affinity for any kind of totalitarianism should not be terribly surprising. When progressive anti-Semitism and hatred for Israel are factored into the mix, the left-wing’s reluctance to condemn Islamists whose world outlook is totalitarian, or to acknowledge their connection to terrorism, seems quite logical.

Those who preach empathy for Islamists never hesitate to condemn conservative Christians for their views or traditional Jews for their adherence to observance. Yet, they refuse to challenge a supremacist theology that is antithetical to the liberal ideals they claim to hold dear. Liberals often cite the U.S. Constitution to justify perverse political correctness, but the First Amendment does not mandate acquiescence to religious extremism or the acceptance of pernicious dogmas. Though freedom of belief is absolute under the Constitution, freedom of practice may not be when it infringes on the rights and liberties of others. Government has a legitimate interest in monitoring ideological movements that threaten public safety and order, whether comprised of white supremacists who preach racial hatred or radical Islamists who believe in jihad and genocide.

Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama’s media acolytes have drawn false comparisons between activist conservatives and Islamists, implying that the former are just as prone to violent terrorism as the latter, and perhaps even more so. Such comparisons, however, are dishonest and purely partisan.

A common ploy for minimizing the peril of Islamism is to claim that Christian fundamentalism is a greater threat in the United States. But if Christian radicalism can be measured by opposition to abortion, a review of law enforcement statistics shows that it simply is not comparable. Although there has been occasional violence against abortion providers and clinics in the U.S., including arson and a few murders since 1993, such acts – reprehensible though they are – pale in frequency and severity to those of Islamist terrorists, who have attacked and killed tens of thousands of Jews, Israelis, westerners, and even their own people.

Moreover, extreme anti-abortion violence is generally condemned by mainstream Christians, who prefer to express themselves through the political process. In contrast, terrorism against infidels and blasphemers is often celebrated in the Muslim world. It seems ironic that progressives prefer to tarnish all conservative Christians for the acts of a very few, but refuse to condemn supporters of real terrorism.

If President Obama were serious about confronting global terrorism, he would acknowledge the ideology motivating much of it and the historical antecedents that make it possible. This can certainly be done without impugning all Muslims, particularly those who wish to eliminate extremism in their own communities. The president’s failure to do so, and his apparent willingness to appease extremist sensitivities, does not auger well for the war on terror or the continued relevance of American foreign policy.

A Christian Woman Stands Against the Enemy Within by Monica Morrill

“Jesus Christ died on that cross. He is the reason we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior,” Christine Weick declared at the Washington National Cathedral. “We have built …allowed you your mosques in this country. Why don’t you worship in your mosques and leave our churches alone? We are a country founded on Christian principles.”

The complex interworking of Islam inside the West has already established itself. It should be familiar, particularly because much of the same tactics and ideology can be compared to Communism during the Cold War. Communist infiltration during the Cold War has been mirrored and amplified by Muslim infiltration even before the declared War on Terror in 2001. The impact of the Islamic infiltration has been especially insidious, relying on the social paralysis created by political correctness and the misplaced desire to not be seen as discriminating. Entire communities, public spaces, even Christian churches and our nation’s capitol have been infected.

Muslims invaded the Washington National Cathedral, a monument to Christianity, this time under the guise of “prayer” on Friday, November 14, 2014. Disguised as an ecumenical Muslim prayer service, it was being planned in the Cathedral for 12 to 18 months. Whether the Dean of the Washington National Cathedral, Reverend Gary Hall of the Episcopal Church, knew it or not he was actually hosting the precise 100th anniversary of the declaration of Holy War by the Ottoman Empire as the Muslim Caliphate had done on November 14, 1914. It was a bold declaration of Holy War by the Ottomans against the most powerful Christian nations of that time.

It is crucial to highlight history and specific dates, which are significant by the Ottoman tradition of Holy War. The 100th anniversary marked a deliberately disrespectful act by Mohammedan followers to the God of Abraham, Jacob and Moses – Jehovah God. Much to the chagrin of the interfaith leaders, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. Muslims view the God of Moses as inferior to the god of Mohammed.

A Christian Woman Rises

For this 100th anniversary, Muslims began planning to push the boundaries to denigrate Christianity in America’s capital. However, unlike the event of 1914 when the Ottoman Empire declared a Holy War against the great powers of the day: Britain, France, Russia and so on, there was the lone voice of a woman 100 years later in America’s Washington National Cathedral who was not as silent as the mosaics in the church of Santa Sophia. So it was that Christine Weick stood, with her hair down, without a head covering, and made a declaration to honor her Christian faith.

“Jesus Christ died on that cross. He is the reason we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior,” she said. “We have built …allowed you your mosques in this country. Why don’t you worship in your mosques and leave our churches alone? We are a country founded on Christian principles.”

The Muslims weren’t expecting a reaction from anyone, and certainly not a woman, which is quite profound as the “woman” in the Bible symbolically represents God’s anointed ones as a bride to the Lamb of God (Revelation 19: 7, 8). This sole woman, Ms. Weick, scolded Muslims along with their leader in the Cathedral. She threw a spanner into the plans of “Holy War” in America. Not surprisingly, the prayers by the Muslims in the National Cathedral insulted both Jews and Christians just as it did when an imam was praying over the dead bodies of men from the U.S. Military in 2011 at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

When retelling her story Ms. Weick says that she let God direct her path to finally speak out the words that God wanted her to proclaim. One reaction to Ms. Weick’s stance was from another woman who knows well the trickery of Islam in Africa, particularly Sudan and South Sudan. She is Pastor Lynn Childers, the wife of Sam Childers. With the assistance of fellow Christians for the past 18 years, both have been saving thousands of Christian orphans from Muslims who are murdering African Christians and their families.

The Profound Symbolism of the Woman in Christianity

In an exclusive interview, Pastor Lynn remarked, “It was disappointing to know that we Christians had no men to stand up for our faith at that moment. It had to be a woman.” Ms. Weick has inspired people like Pastor Lynn who is now inviting people to join her at Shekinah Fellowship in Central City, Pennsylvania to organize groups to visit mosques nationwide and peacefully pray to the Almighty God in Jesus’ name for Muslims to be enlightened with the truth about Christ. The notion of interfaith worship is inconceivable to both women. For Christians, Jesus is God’s Son and God has anointed Jesus as Lord and King in heaven. This belief is anathema to the Muslims.

That women are standing up for the Christian faith would be a reason to rejoice for other Christians. In the Bible, it was Mary who was chosen to be the mother of Jesus the Messiah, it was Mary Magdalene and a group of other women who first learned that Jesus had been resurrected – Christian women have been abundantly blessed by God. Christian women in turn have blessed others, for example they played an imperative role in ending slavery in the United States, pioneered the way for women’s suffrage, and continue to do so today. Decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus, the aristocratic women of Rome were also among the first Romans to convert, leading eventually to the end of Roman persecution of Christians by Constantine the Great, and to his conversion as the first Christian Roman Emperor.

Unlike women in the Muslim faith, Christian women have been elevated to positions of leadership in both the public and private sphere from the founding of Christianity and even prior to that among the Israelites. Hence, the woman in Christianity is symbolically profound. Jesus Christ is the male figure of Christianity and his anointed ones are the female figure, married in spiritual unity as a husband and wife. Therefore to defile the Christian “woman” of Christ is a desecration against the Father and the Son.

The Lack of American Preparedness

The prayers on that Friday, November 14 by the Muslims in Washington, DC are in reality a desperate attempt by a failed ideological path to rewrite history. In fact, just hours prior to the prayer at the Washington National Cathedral, Hamad Chebli an imam from the Islamic Center of Central Jersey was also praying on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, where Allah was worshipped and praised as supreme.

Observers are astounded at the lack of American preparedness for Muslim manipulations by both alleged Christian leaders and political leaders in Washington, DC. Indeed, a Muslim imam was allowed to pray on the Congressional floor the day before the 100th anniversary of the Ottoman Empire’s declaration of a Holy War against Christian nations under the presence of America’s naive elected public servants. But the imam hurriedly prayed out of despair under the U.S. Congressional roof because the hour of glory will never come for Muslims amidst their willful lies and deceptions (taqiyya) against true Christians in America.

Others remain steadfast and righteous. Christine Weick, a servant of Jesus Christ, stood with the Wisdom of God like the church of the Santa Sophia, and the Washington National Cathedral when they were first built, anchored with God. But it was the people, the custodians entrusted with the Cathedral and U.S. Congress who had vacillated and trembled toward the Mohammedan seductions. Jesus Christ as the figurehead of the Christian world continues to be rejected as the King of Kings and God’s Only Begotten Son by the Islamic world – that is another unwavering truth, and always will be.


Monica Morrill, is the co-author of BETRAYED: The shocking true story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL’s father. She is an Economic Geographer and has taught as an adjunct at the Institute of World Politics. Ms. Morrill is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.

Bosnian Muslims in U.S. used Facebook, PayPal for Jihad plotting

Why would Bosnian Muslims get involved in plotting jihad terror activity? We have for years now been repeatedly assured that all the Muslims in and from Bosnia were moderates who loved America, and threatened with charges of “Islamophobia” if we even questioned that dogma. Those learned analysts have yet to explain the activities of these Bosnians and others like them.

Meanwhile, Facebook would do well to stop its jihad against counter-jihadists and keep better watch on activities like these.

More on this story. “Indictment: Bosnian immigrants plotted over Facebook,” by Jason Keyser, Associated Press, February 7, 2015:

CHICAGO (AP) – Six Bosnian immigrants accused of sending money and military equipment to extremist groups in Syria used Facebook, PayPal and other readily available services to communicate and transfer funds, according to a federal indictment.

All are charged with conspiring to provide and providing material support to groups designated by the U.S. as foreign terrorist organizations, including the Islamic State group and an al-Qaida-affiliated rebel group known as the Nusra Front.

The indictment unsealed Friday in U.S. District Court in St. Louis alleges they plotted by phone, Facebook and email; shared videos and photos related to their plans on social media sites; sent money via PayPal and Western Union; and shipped boxes of military gear through the U.S. Postal Service.

The defendants are accused of donating money themselves and, in some cases, collecting funds from others in the U.S. and sending the donations overseas. It says two of the defendants, a husband and wife in St. Louis, used some of the money to buy U.S. military uniforms, firearms accessories, tactical gear and other equipment from local businesses and ship it to intermediaries in Turkey and Saudi Arabia who forwarded the supplies to fighters in Syria and Iraq.

One of the suspects, Mediha Medy Salkicevic, a 34-year-old mother of four from the Chicago suburb of Schiller Park, appeared Saturday in federal court in Chicago. Wearing an orange jail uniform, she spoke only to confirm that she understood the charges. She appeared calm and smiled occasionally while consulting with her attorney.

Speaking to reporters afterward, defense attorney Andrea Gambino stressed that Salkicevic is considered innocent until proven guilty.

The indictment says the suspects used “coded language” in their communications over email and social media, using terms like “the beach” for places in Iraq and Syria.

But it says they also used terms such as brothers, lions, mujahids and shaheeds, or holy warriors and martyrs. Such language is commonly used among Islamic extremist groups and would seem likely to draw law enforcement scrutiny if posted openly on the Internet.

But terrorism financing expert Loretta Napoleoni said it’s a clever tactic to use such usual channels for communicating and sending money as long as the amounts are small, noting that so many people use them that it’s easy to “go below the radar.”

“That’s the easiest way to send money. … And frankly using the U.S. Postal Service is also a very good way not to be caught,” said Napoleoni, author of “The Islamist Phoenix.” ”There is so much stuff going through.”

The FBI arrested Salkicevic on Friday. If convicted, she could face up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $50,000 on each charge. The case will be tried in Missouri, where several other defendants were arrested. A bond hearing Monday will determine whether Salkicevic travels there on her own or in custody.

The indictment alleges the conspiracy began no later than May 2013.

All six people who are charged are natives of Bosnia who were living in the U.S. legally. Three are naturalized citizens; the other three had either refugee or legal resident status, according to the U.S. attorney’s office.

Besides Salkicevic, the indictment names Ramiz Zijad Hodzic, 40, his wife, Sedina Unkic Hodzic, 35, and Armin Harcevic, 37, all of St. Louis County; Nihad Rosic, 26, of Utica, New York; and Jasminka Ramic, 42 of Rockford, Illinois….

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslims threaten female army cadets with beheading

Jihadis returning to France from Islamic State and making more recruits

Baghdad: Islamic jihadists murder 37 people, wound 86

Obama revealed his true colors at Prayer Breakfast, and true ignorance of history

There is grave danger in statements supporting moral equivalency and religious relativism. What happens is horrific behavior is excused because you have a certain recalcitrance in admitting the existence of evil.

President Barack Obama had the chance to affirm our Judeo-Christian faith heritage at the National Prayer Breakfast just days after the world was exposed to the savage and barbaric actions of ISIS in the burning to death of the captured Jordanian fighter pilot. But he did not.

As we reported yesterday, instead the Islamapologist-in-Chief attempted to find moral equivalency between the brutality of ISIS and Christianity, saying that violence rooted in religion isn’t exclusive to Islam, but has been carried out by Christians as well.

“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Obama also denounced Islamic State terrorists for professing to stand up for Islam when they were actually “betraying it.” “We see ISIL, a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism,” he said criticizing them for “claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.”

Now, being a simple student of history, I’d like to share a simple analysis — and please, I ask all the Islamapologists reading this to sit down and take a deep breath.

First of all, Pope Urban II called for the Crusade in response to Muslim brigands and raiders who were attacking Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land. I find it rather odd that Obama would refer to something that is over 900 years old in order to make a statement of relativism. The sad truth is that no one is running around in Knights Templar white robes declaring “God wills it.” However, the same enemy that Pope Urban II saw as a threat exists to today and still declares, “Allahu Akhbar.”

As for the Spanish Inquisition, consider that this came after the expulsion of Muslim domination on the Iberian Peninsula for some 700 years.

As a matter of fact, Islamists still refer to Spain as “Al Andalusia” which means to this day still consider it Muslim land — after all it was part of their caliphate conquest. Good thing ol’ Charles “The Hammer” Martel turned back an invading Muslim Army in 732 AD at the Battle of Tours — just as was done by the Venetian fleet at Lepanto in 1571 — just as done by the heroic European Knights at Vienna in 1683. Yes, the Inquisition was horrible and severely affected the Jewish population in Spain. It was however, an overreaction to ensure that Catholicism reigned superior and was never again subjugated as it had been under the Moors of North Africa.

I found it interesting that Obama failed to mention the exchange between the Dey of Algiers and Thomas Jefferson concerning the attacks of American vessels and enslavement of Americans by Muslims, the infamous Barbary Pirates. The Dey of Algiers conveyed to Mr. Jefferson that they were only carrying out the dictates of their prophet towards infidels, kafirs. Interestingly enough, hundreds of years later, the Maersk Alabama and Captain Phillips had to deal with the same — Islamic piracy. Back then Jefferson sent the Marines. And thank God a sharp thinking U.S. Navy Commander made a decision to give the green light to the exceptional U.S. Navy SEAL snipers in the case of the Maersk.

You see religious relativism in this case dismisses the actions of ISIS who is actually more closely following the exploits of Mohammad.

If you study history and begin at the Medina phase, approximately 622 AD, you’ll find a murderous warlord who used terror and “religious manipulation” as he led almost 25 combat raids, the first being the Nakhla raid, circa 622 AD. This all came after the “peaceful” first phase of Islam, just 12 years in length.

The world has been exposed to the brutality of militant Islam for some 1400 years – a theocratic-political totalitarian ideology that spread by way of the sword, not peaceful proselytization. Hence why the flag of Saudi Arabia has a koranic verse above the sword of Mohammad.

And if you understand the Koran and the hadiths you’ll find the history laid out here corresponds to a shift in the verses and traditions towards violence — which the latter verse under the premise of “nakeesh” (abrogation) supersede the previous “peaceful” verses — yet all are still held in equal regard as the words of Allah as revealed to Muhammad.

Lastly, as we shared yesterday, Obama should be careful in equivocating slavery and Jim Crow to the actions of ISIS — after all it was those righteous Democrat Christians who supported such heinous actions as lynchings.

I have a simple recommendation for President Obama — don’t attend any more National Prayer Breakfasts. The angst created by these ill-conceived words is just not worth it — better to just not be there, than to be there and call into question your loyalties to the Judeo-Christian faith heritage of America.

Obama once again attempted to lecture us and failed miserably. ISIS is Islamic, they are militant Islamists and they represent an evil that came from a man who went rogue and used a religious belief as a means to an end — power. Now, that should have been the crux of Obama’s comments, but I suppose those “undisclosed” Muslim leaders with whom he met had a different idea.

Mr. President, true, you are not running again, and true, you did win twice. But even truer, you are damning your reputation as a president and may never hold any regard or esteem of the American people. Then again, perhaps that was always your aim, as you fundamentally transform our beloved Constitutional Republic.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com. Image via Townhall.com.

Terrorists and Our #@*%+ President

obamacairYou know something is terribly wrong when three former Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger, George Schultz and Madeleine Albright tell a Senate Armed Services Committee that the President of the United States is an idiot with no idea how to conduct foreign affairs. Well, they didn’t say it in those words, but that was pretty much the message. That was January 29.

Two days earlier retired 4-Star General James Matthis, former head of U.S. Central Command, former Army Vice Chief of Staff and 4-Star General Jack Keane, and Navy Admiral William Fallon, also a former CentCom chief, had also testified before the Committee. They had a similar message as the diplomats. Obama and the other idiots in the White House are completely clueless regarding the threat of radical Islam in general and a potential nuclear Iran in particular.

This is, after all, a White House that is trying to call those intent on taking over the entire Middle East and, after that, the rest of the world anything other than “terrorists.” They have used terms such as “insurgents”, “activists” and “militants.” Here at home, they are still referring to the killings at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” Don’t any of these idiots understand that the terrorists, whether they call themselves al Qaeda or the Islamic State, Hezbollah, Hamas or any other name all constitute the same threat?

That’s what the generals addressed. They told the Senate committee that absence of a White House strategy makes the ISIS, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan wars “unwinnable.” I have been around since the end of World War II and that stretch of U.S. history is one in which we fought to a stalemate in Korea and a loss in Vietnam. After we won the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama pulled out and now they are lost too. There was a time when Americans and their leaders knew how to win wars.

Indeed, there was a time when Americans preferred to elect generals to be their President, starting with George Washington. Among those with that rank were Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Ruther P. Hayes, James A. Garfield. Chester A. Arthur. Benjamin Harrison, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. All the others had also served in the military in some capacity…except Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama not only doesn’t have experience in the military, he doesn’t seem to like them much. He has done everything he can to reduce our military capacity to fight a war anywhere or to show any genuine respect for the troops on active duty. The only uniform he ever wore was as an Indonesian Boy Scout.

Retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis told the Congress “America needs a refresh national security strategy. We need to come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm, strategic stance in defense of our values.” Apparently those values don’t matter to the White House or to those left-wingers who wet their pants over the popularity of “Sniper”, a film that pays tribute to our troops who fought the war in Iraq.

Obama - Failed Foreign Policy

Under Obama’s term in office, radical Islam has increased four-fold in the past five years, ISIS ten times since 2012 and Iran has masterminded control of the capitols in Beirut, Lebanon, Damascus, Syria, Baghdad, Iraq, and now in Sanaa, Yemen. It has been the power behind Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Gen. Keane described Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan as an “absolute strategic failure.” He called radical Islam “the major security challenge of our generation.”

Regarding Iran, Gen. Keane said, “In 1980, Iran declared the United States as a strategic enemy and its goal is to drive the United State out of the region, achieve regional hegemony, and destroy the state of Israel.”

“Is there any doubt that Iran is on the march and is systematically moving toward their regional hegemonic objective?” asked Gen. Keane. “Iran has been on a 20-year journey to acquire nuclear weapons, simply because they know it guarantees preservation of the regime and makes them, along with their partners, the dominant power in the region, thereby capable of expanding their control and influence. Add to this their ballistic missile delivery system and Iran is not only a threat to the region, but to Europe, as well.” The U.S. in time will be in missile range.

“We have no comprehensive strategy to stop it or defeat it,” said Gen. Keane.

Thanks to Barack Obama, the United States of America can no longer be seen as the world leader, opposing the forces that seek to impose control. Former allies, particularly in the Middle East, no longer have any confidence that we would come to their defense if they were attacked.

Thanks to Barack Obama, our enemies have been emboldened and our allies confused, but it is not that confusing. He is an idiot who lacks any grasp of history’s lessons and he is a coward who cannot be expected to seriously respond to our own and our allies’ enemies.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

RELATED ARTICLES:

The emerging Iran nuclear deal raises major concerns – Washington Post

Day after Muslims burned pilot, Obama hosted “American Muslims leaders” at White House, press banned

FBI official: Islamic State is Recruiting U.S. Teens

How could this be? Obama, Kerry, Biden, David Cameron, and everyone else assures us that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam. So why is it so appealing to young Muslims in the West? Why are Muslim parents encouraging their children to join it? The cognitive dissonance is massive, and the FBI isn’t doing what it should be doing: calling upon U.S. Muslims to teach against the Islamic State’s ideology.

Right now, it is not being countered with any organized program in U.S. mosques or Islamic schools, and no one seems to care.

“FBI official: ISIS is recruiting U.S. teens,” by Pamela Brown and Wesley Bruer, CNN, February 4, 2015 (thanks to Aron):

Washington (CNN)For the head of the FBI’s counterterrorist division, Michael Steinbach, the unknown worries him the most.

Steinbach is leading the daunting effort to stay on top of the evolving threat landscape, which includes targeting and recruiting teenage Americans. In an exclusive interview with CNN inside the agency’s Strategic Information and Operations Center, he acknowledged it’s extremely difficult to track every American who might travel abroad to join terrorist groups like the Islamic State.

“I’m worried about individuals that we don’t know about that have training,” Steinbach said. “We know what we know. But there is a number that’s greater than that that we don’t know.”

Steinbach says U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies don’t track individuals leaving the United States to vacation in Europe.

“Once you get to Europe, you can easily get down to Turkey and into Syria” Steinbach says.

There’s growing concern about homegrown violent extremism in the aftermath of last month’s terror attacks in Paris. Those strikes underscored the threat posed to the West by small groups of terrorists with western passports who are influenced by the rhetoric espoused by ISIS. Steinbach is concerned that type of attack could happen on U.S. soil.

When asked if there are ISIS cells in the U.S., Steinbach said “there are individuals that have been in communication with groups like ISIL who have a desire to conduct an attack” and those people are living in the U.S. right now, but he says the term “sleeper cells” is too simplistic, because the threat is much more complicated and diffuse.

In the U.S., the FBI has seen children as young as 15 recruited by ISIS and Steinbach said he “can’t speak with 100% certainty that individuals of that age group have not gotten over there successfully.”

In some cases, Steinbach said parents even encourage their children to be involved with terror groups.

“There are individuals out there who are inspired by the message of terrorist groups and they encourage family members, including their children, to follow that path,” he said, adding in those cases, the FBI holds the parents responsible….

Standing up to Islam: The West Redefines Itself to Death

If Ann Coulter were to live in Russia, her writing would probably be similar to that of Yulia Latynina, one of my favorite Russian-language political commentators and critics of Putin’s government.

Latynina’s latest column, I believe, must be shared with all people living in Western countries, or at least with those not yet trapped inside the intellectual maze of their own invention. In this conflict of civilizations, winning requires clarity of vision — something the West no longer has due to its postmodernist obsession with recalibrating and redefining itself.

West redefines itself

Below is my somewhat loose translation of Latynina’s column — “loose” because, as you will see later, precision sometimes is the enemy of clarity.

“I’m all for free speech, but…” proclaims the chorus of Western intellectuals following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, imagining that their role in this tragedy is to make simple things look complicated. They are gravely misguided: there are no “buts” in that script.

In the 1940s, as scientists began to develop the theory of quantum electrodynamics, they discovered a weird problem in their equations: the electron mass seemed to be correct in the first approximation, but all further attempts to define it more precisely resulted in impossibly divergent series. The more they tried to refine the number, the more absurd it became, with the electron mass growing to infinity.

Finally the American physicist Richard Feynman introduced a cut-off point, suggesting to subtract infinity from infinity. In a work that won him the Nobel Prize, Feynman came up with a procedure called “renormalization.” Roughly speaking, it prohibits endless refinements and claims that the first approximate value is the most correct. In other words, don’t kill yourself with infinite refinements and use Occam’s razor.

West redefines itselfIt seems we now need a similar cut-off point in order to understand what is happening in the real world. Whoever brings “renormalization” into public life will also deserve a Nobel Prize because, frankly, we’re killing ourselves with infinite refinements.

The facts are as plain as a road sign: the French journalists were murdered for exercising free speech. They were real live people. The Islamists did it in order to intimidate the free world and take away its freedom of speech.

“But…” we hear from all directions, “but…”

“…But those cartoons were offensive to believers.”

“…But they overstepped all sorts of boundaries.”

“…But this is merely a mutual misunderstanding of each other’s cultural traditions.”

“…And anyway, let’s not confuse terrorism with Islam, which is a peaceful religion.”

“…And are you saying that Islam somehow promotes extremism? Are you really equating Islam with terrorism? That sounds like fascism! Shame on you!”

“…And aren’t you forgetting that different cultures have different values?”

“…And why all the fuss about those dead journalists when more people are getting killed in the Iraqi war?

West redefines itself

And so on and so forth, until after five or six loops of such “divergent series,” the plain fact of a brutal murder transforms into an infinitely complex cultural phenomenon. And with it, anyone speaking against Islamic terrorism transforms into a narrow-minded bigot, ignorant of traditional cultures with their spiritual values, someone who unjustly smears all Muslims and forgets that the West is guilty before the Third World for colonialism.

Allow me another math metaphor. There is a mathematical concept of a “fuzzy set.” It is vital in developing artificial intelligence and recognition technologies because our world, as it were, consists of fuzzy sets.

We call some women “beautiful” and some others we call “ugly.” We say that some countries are “free” and some others are “dictatorships.” But if we begin to refine our arguments, we will often find out that “free” countries lack certain freedoms, or that an “ugly” woman has a shapely chin, an attractive nose, or at least a mysterious color in her eyes. That’s because beauty and freedom are fuzzy sets. And if your goal is infinite precision, you’ll find neither beauty nor freedom.

Some things don’t need to be precise.

As for the mutual misunderstanding of each other’s cultural traditions, let’s make one thing clear: some traditions are better than others.

At one time India had a tradition of self-immolation of widows in the husband’s funeral pyres. The British colonizers could say, as modern intellectuals do, that this was just a different cultural tradition they had to respect. But the British disrespected local traditions and put up gallows next to the funeral pyres. Anyone who tried to throw a widow into the fire was hanged right next to it. That was the end of the burning of widows.

West redefines itselfThe Maori in New Zealand had a cultural tradition of cannibalism. A young warrior would not obtain a proper social status until he’d cut off the head of a man from another tribe. Once again, the British could start talking about the drama of mutually misunderstood cultural values, but they chose to ban cannibalism and head-hunting.

The Aztecs had a tradition of human sacrifice. But the narrow-minded bigot Hernando Cortes, who conquered Tenochtitlan, was not a multiculturalist and so he told the priests, their hair covered in dried human blood, to knock it off. That almost cost him his life, his victory, and Tenochtitlan.

The world has plenty of other spectacular cultural traditions. Some cultures practiced artificial cranial deformation by binding the heads of their infants. Others are still cutting out the clitoris of their young girls. The Etoro people of Papua New Guinea have a remarkable cultural tradition of all-inclusive pedophilia, as they believe young boys must ingest the semen of their elders daily from the age of 7 until they turn 17 to achieve adult male status and to properly mature and grow strong. The procedure is mandatory — “it’s for the children,” don’t you know.

So not all traditions are equal. Some traditions are absolutely evil. Europe, too, has given up on some of its traditions, like the burning of witches. And China has stopped the foot binding of little girls, along with its time-honored tradition of death by a thousand cuts.

Some may be surprised, but Islam at one point has also abandoned a few traditions. For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century Muslims didn’t blow anyone up for free speech. On the contrary, their best leaders, such as Kemal Ataturk, or Mohammed Zahir Shah, or Reza Pahlavi brought their respective countries closer to Western standards.

West redefines itselfIt was only after the West betrayed its own standards by adopting moral relativity and multiculturalism, that former Ataturks and Zakir Shahs were replaced by Bin Ladens and the Kuashi brothers.

In this sense, the problem with the modern world is not the strengthening of Islamism. It is the weakening of the West, which keeps refining, recalibrating, and redefining itself to death.

It’s a fool’s errand, to look for precision in the world of fuzzy sets. As theoretical physicist Feynman once said, “it is really quite impossible to say anything with absolute precision, unless that thing is so abstracted from the real world as to not represent any real thing.”

At this point in history, precision is the enemy of clarity. The West needs renormalization.

West redefines itself

 EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The American Thinker.

Huge lines to get new edition of Charlie Hebdo — Sells out within Minutes

The people are unbowed and ready to stand for freedom. The mainstream media and the leaders of the West, not so much. “Charlie Hebdo ‘All Is Forgiven’ edition sells out in minutes,” Reuters, January 14, 2015:

The first edition of Charlie Hebdo published since last week’s deadly attack by Islamist gunmen sold out within minutes at newspaper kiosks around France on Wednesday, with readers queuing up for copies to support the satirical weekly.

It came as al Qaeda in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it ordered the killings because it deemed the weekly to have insulted the Prophet Muhammad. A total of 5 million copies of the so-called “survivors’ edition” are to be printed, dwarfing the normal 60,000 print run.

“I’ve never bought it before, it’s not quite my political stripes, but it’s important for me to buy it today and support freedom of expression,” said David Sullo, standing at the end of a queue of two dozen people at a kiosk in central Paris.

“It’s important for me to buy it and show solidarity by doing so, and not only by marching,” said 42-year old Laurent in the same queue, adding he had no guarantee he would get a copy because he had not reserved one the day before.

A few streets away, by Jules Joffrin metro station in northern Paris, one newspaper seller said people were already waiting outside her shop when she opened at 6 a.m. “I had 10 copies — they were sold immediately,” she said….

In a video posted on YouTube, al Qaeda in Yemen said its leadership had ordered last Wednesday’s attack.

“As for the blessed Battle of Paris, we, the Organization of al Qaeda al Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula, claim responsibility for this operation as vengeance for the Messenger of God,” Nasser bin Ali al-Ansi, a leader of the Yemeni branch of al Qaeda (AQAP), said in the recording.

Ansi, the main ideologue for AQAP, said without elaborating that the strike was carried out in “implementation” of the order of overall al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, who has called for strikes by Muslims in the West using any means they can find.

It was not immediately possible to verify the authenticity of the recording, which carried the logo of al Qaeda’s media group al-Malahem….

Dieudonne M’bala M’bala — a French comedian who has been convicted in the past for anti-Semitic comments — was detained for questioning Wednesday for writing on his Facebook account “Je suis Charlie Coulibaly,” adding the surname of one of the gunmen to the ubiquitous “I am Charlie” vigil slogan.

Bordeaux mosque rector Tareq Oubrou urged French Muslims not to overreact.

“I don’t think the Prophet of Islam needs stupid or excited reactions,” he told BFM-TV. “Freedom has its down sides and we must live with them.”

Egypt’s Grand Mufti on Tuesday warned the newspaper against publishing a new Muhammad caricature, saying it was a racist act that would incite hatred and upset Muslims around the world.

What race is insulting Muhammad again? I keep forgetting.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Steve Emerson, Reza Aslan, and the mainstream media: some errors are more erroneous than others

Video: Robert Spencer on Sun TV on Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism” summit

Video: Robert Spencer on Newsmax TV on Obama’s response to the Charlie Hebdo jihad attack

Top 50 anti-Christian Countries

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra in her column “‘Not Forgotten’: The Top 50 Countries Where It’s Most Difficult To Be A Christian” reports that, “Open Doors says 2014 saw the worst persecution of Christians in the ‘modern era’—but not because of violence.”

Zylstra writes:

New research reveals one more reason to remember 2014: for the greatest number of religious freedom violations against Christians worldwide in recent memory—even in Christian-majority countries. Of the worst 50 nations, 4 out of 5 share the same primary cause. And, while the number of martyrdoms did double from 2013, the main driver of persecution in 2014 wasn’t violence.

Open Doors released today its latest World Watch List (WWL). The annual list ranks the top 50 countries “where Christians face the most persecution,” aiming to create “effective anger” on believers’ behalf.

“This year, the threshold was higher for a country to make the list, indicating that worldwide levels of persecution have increased,”stated Open Doors in announcing its analysis of the “significant trends” in 2014 that drove persecution higher worldwide, “even in places where it has not been reported in the past.”

So while countries such as Sri Lanka and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) fell significantly in rank on this year’s watch list (Sri Lanka dropped 15 spots to No. 44, and the UAE dropped 14 spots to No. 49), their level of persecution dropped only slightly from last year’s list (by four points and two points, respectively, on a 100-point scale). And while three countries—Bahrain, Morocco, and Niger—were removed from the list this year, the level of persecution in each remained virtually the same from 2013 to 2014.

Overall in 2014, pressure on Christians increased in 29 countries, decreased in 11, and remained stable in 7. Three countries—Mexico, Turkey, and Azerbaijan—were added to the watch list this year. [See infographic below.]

christian persecution info graphic

For a larger view click on the image.

Open Doors researchers measure persecution by “the degree of freedom a Christian has to live out his or her faith in five spheres of life (private, family, community, national, and church life),” as well as by tallying acts of violence.

Researchers calculate that 4,344 Christians were “killed for faith-related reasons” in 2014, which is “more than double the 2,123 killed in 2013, and more than triple the 1,201 killed the year before that,”reports World Watch Monitor (WWM). (Measuring martyrdoms has drawn debate in recent years, and Open Doors is usually on the conservative end of estimates.) By far the largest number of deaths occurred in Nigeria, where 2,484 Christians were killed; the next deadliest country for Christians was the Central African Republic (CAR), with 1,088 deaths. The remaining three deadliest countries were Syria (271 deaths), Kenya (119 deaths), and North Korea (100 deaths).

In addition, 1,062 churches were “attacked for faith-related reasons” in 2014. The majority of attacks took place in five countries: China (258 churches), Vietnam (116 churches), Nigeria (108 churches), Syria (107 churches), and the Central African Republic (100 churches). Last year’s highest-profile incident: a government campaign to “de-Christianize” the skyline of one of China’s most Christian cities. (The Pew Research Center also recently tallied the countries with the most government destruction of religious property.)

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Open Doors.