Posts

Bishop Slaughtered for Refusing to Convert to Islam to be Beatified

Nowadays Bishop Flavien-Michel Malké’s feckless successors among the U.S. Catholic bishops bow and scrape before the children and heirs of those who killed him, silencing those who speak out about the Muslim persecution of Christians and consigning today’s new martyrs to their fate, sacrificing them on the altar of their fruitless, delusional and self-defeating quest for “dialogue” with Muslims.

How many Christians has that “dialogue” prevented from being persecuted or martyred? Why, absolutely none, of course. But the comfortable suburban Church continues on its comfortable suburban way, secure in its illusions and delusions.

One day, however, the truth it has so assiduously endeavored to ignore, deny and suppress will dawn upon it with undeniable and terrifying reality, and maybe some of those bishops will realize how ill they served their people by enforcing and reinforcing their ignorance and complacency.

“Syriac Bishop Will Be Beatified on the 100th Anniversary of His Martyrdom (832),” National Catholic Register, August 11, 2015:

DIYARBAKIR, Turkey — On Saturday, Pope Francis approved a decree recognizing the martyrdom of Flavien-Michel Malké, a Syriac Catholic bishop who was killed in 1915, amid the Ottoman Empire’s genocide against its Christian minorities.

The decision was made during an Aug. 8 meeting between Pope Francis and Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

Bishop Malké will be beatified Aug. 29, the 100th anniversary of his martyrdom, during a liturgy celebrated by Ignatius Youssef III Younan, the Syriac patriarch of Antioch, at the convent of Our Lady of Deliverance in Lebanon. It is expected that thousands of Syrians and Iraqis displaced by the Islamic State will attend the beatification.

“In these painful times experienced by Christians, especially the Syriac communities in Iraq and Syria, the news of the beatification of one of their martyrs, will surely bring encouragement and consolation to face today’s trials of appalling dimension,” read an Aug. 9 statement of the Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch.

“Blessed Martyr Michael, intercede for us, and protect especially the Christians in the Orient and all the world in these hard and painful days.”

Malké was born in 1858 in the village of Kalaat Mara, a village of the Ottoman Empire in what is now Turkey, to a Syriac Orthodox family. He joined a monastery of that Church and was ordained a deacon, but then converted to the Syriac Catholic Church. (Both the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics use the West-Syrian rite.)

After his conversion, he was ordained a priest in Aleppo in 1883. He was a member of the Fraternity of St. Ephrem and served parishes in southeastern Turkey, near his home.

Ottoman persecution of Christians began in earnest with the Hamidian massacres of 1894-1897. Malké’s church and home were sacked and burned in 1895, and many of his parishioners were murdered, including his mother. In total, the massacres killed between 80,000 and 300,000 Christians.

He was selected to become a bishop in the 1890s, serving as a chorbishop and helping in the rebuilding of Christian villages. In 1913, he was consecrated bishop and appointed head of the Syriac Diocese of Gazireh (modern-day Cizre, 150 miles southeast of Diyarbakir).

A second round of persecution of Christians in the Ottoman Empire began in April 1915. Known as the Armenian Genocide, it targeted the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christian minorities in the empire. The Assyrian genocide (the portion of the mass killings directed against Syriac and Chaldean Christians) is also known as the Seyfo Massacre, from the Syriac word for sword.

Some 1.5 million Christians were killed, and millions more were displaced during the genocide.

During the summer when the genocide broke out, Bishop Malké was in the Idil district, near Gazireh. In June 1915, hearing the Ottoman forces were preparing to massacre Gazireh’s people, he returned.

According to the Syriac Patriarchate, when his friends and acquaintances urged him to withdraw from Gazireh to a safer location, he replied, “Even my blood I will shed for my sheep.”

Together with four of his priests and the Chaldean bishop of Gazireh, Philippe-Jacques Abraham, he was arrested and imprisoned for two months.

Bishop Malké refused to convert to Islam, and on Aug. 29, 1915, he was martyred.

He was the last Syriac bishop of Gazireh; after his death, the diocese was suppressed, and, today, the Syriac Catholic Church has no presence in Turkey.

In an Aug. 8 interview with Vatican Radio, the postulator of Bishop Malké’s cause, Father Rami Al Kabalan, spoke of the bishop’s deep spiritual life as well as the relevance his martyrdom has today.

The bishop, he said, “played a fundamental role in encouraging people to defend their faith in the difficulties of the time, during the persecutions of the Ottoman Empire.”

Bishop Malké lived a life of poverty, even selling his liturgical vestments in order to assist the poor and help fight poverty, Father Al Kabalan said.

In addition to his closeness with the poor, the priest said that Bishop Malké was extremely zealous in his apostolate and visited all of the parishes within his diocese.

One of the bishop’s most striking phrases, his postulator said, comes from when he was pressured to renounce the faith and to convert to Islam. Rather than giving in, the bishop replied, “I will defend my faith to the blood.”…

Imam converts to Christianity; Muslims beat and jail him, and burn his house down
Australia: Son of jailed Muslim cleric stopped from heading to Syria

Tel Aviv on the Seine Flushes Out the Slithery Creatures — Part 1

It’s the 14th edition of Paris Plages, a charming operation that transforms the banks of the Seine, from the Quai du Louvre all the way to rue de Crimée, into a summer playground. From mid-July to mid-August the quais are dressed up as sandy “beaches” with deck chairs, picnic tables, fun & games, rental bikes for kids, restaurants, cafés, ice cream stands, a lending library, and—for want of a dip in the river—a stretch of cool-off mist. It’s all done in nice French taste with a pretty blue & white striped and bright yellow color scheme, t-shirted monitors, and an international crowd.

One day each summer a guest country is invited to bring an exotic accent to the Paris Plages river beach. Tomorrow, August 13th, it’s Tel Aviv sur la Seine and, don’t you know, the slithery creatures are climbing up the riverbanks, determined to strangle the very thought of Tel Aviv and the Israel that goes with it. From pseudo-intellectual analyses of the stalemate in the peace process, attributed exclusively to Israel, to ill-concealed threats to smash up the whole thing if the City Hall doesn’t cancel it, the “debate” spins around a few simplistic notions. Should Tel Aviv be coddled because it’s not really Israel, it’s more of a Levantine Paris on the Mediterranean, populated by peace-making leftist gay-friendly secular progressives who detest Netanyahu like we do, or should Tel Aviv be kicked off the river bank until it can be kicked out of the world, no less guilty than the last baby-burning Occupier on a West Bank hilltop whose army massacred all of Gaza one year ago.

The pathetic postman Olivier Besancenot, whose moribund anti-capitalist party [NPA] was revived last year by acting as straw man for Islamic protests against the Protective Border Operation, is ready to lead another rampage tomorrow. The Euro-Palestine site is in a state of volcanic anti-Zionist eruption. An anti-Tel Aviv petition boasts of 23,000 signatures. Riot police have been mobilized and no one knows how they will handle an ambulatory population of Zionists, non-Zionists, anti-Zionists, tourists, and caliphators moving along a narrow band between the river and the quais. To make things merrier, Euro-Palestine reports that the préfecture has authorized a mixed salad of Palestinian tifosi to hold a Gaza Beach demonstration on a stretch of the riverbank that runs from Châtelet, where the commuter trains roll in from the banlieue, and the Notre Dame bridge, where the Tel Aviv beach begins.

Resisting pressure from members of her governing coalition and beyond, the Socialist mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, currently vacationing in her native Spain, stands by Tel Aviv…after a fashion. The idea of inviting Tel Aviv germinated, she says, during her visit to Israel last May. I was there when our mayor, smartly dressed in black set off with a raspberry red jacket, addressed the opening ceremony of the 5th Global Forum for Combatting Antisemitism, organized in Jerusalem by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Speaking alternatively in French and English the mayor expressed her affection for Israel, its startups, its warmth, and vibrant energy. She was no less enthusiastic about French Jews, without whom France would not be France.

Indeed, that is the aim and purpose of domestic and foreign caliphators working to conquer, beyond a little stretch of riverbank, whole neighborhoods, the entire city, and turn the country into something that would not be France. The wedge of that operation is sic the Jews!

Nothing to do with antisemitism, perish the thought. Personally, I don’t ferret out antisemites, and I like to call people what they call themselves. So let’s see how and why they won’t let us enjoy a falafel on the river bank tomorrow. The general idea is that there’s something indecent about hosting Tel Aviv so soon after “an 18 month-old Palestinian baby was burned alive by Jewish extremists.” Not to mention last year’s massacres in Gaza.

Danielle Simonnet (Parti de Gauche), a member of the mayor’s coalition, denounces the “cynicism” of honoring “a festive Tel-Aviv… one year after the massacres in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli State and army while the government intensifies its policy of colonization …” Furthermore, she laments, there was nothing planned with “Israeli humanists,” no debate on the condition of the Palestinians! “Tel-Aviv is not Copacabana,” she blurted out in a radio interview. “Tel-Aviv is the capital of Israel!”

The mayor’s defense is curiously close to Simmonet’s attack. Tel-Aviv shouldn’t be confused with the State of Israel. The Paris Plages invitation is in no way a show of support for Benyamin Netanyahu’s conservative government. Tel Aviv is appreciated for its night life, it welcomes sexual minorities, it’s so progressive that all the intolerant people in Israel detest it! What’s more, the mayor congratulates Tel Aviv for the most impressive demonstrations of solidarity with the “Palestinian child burned alive by fanatics.”

Bruno Julliard, who worked his way up rather quickly from student rabble rouser to a major role on Mayor Hidalgo’s team, is more succinct: “There should be no confusion between the brutal policies of the Israeli government and the city of Tel-Aviv, whose residents and elected officials take a progressive stand on the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

A few rare voices were heard from political figures on the right. Congratulating the mayor on her refusal to give in to pressure, Eric Ciotti [Les Républicains] is outraged by the controversy fueled by the far left “with anti-Semitic undercurrents.” Claude Goasguen, unfailing friend of  Israel, goes one giant step further, asking how Tel-Aviv, which is something more than a beach, can be distinguished  from the State of Israel. “I don’t think the residents of Tel-Aviv refused to defend their country when it was victim of Hamas rockets.”

Law enforcement, apparently, is far more concerned about the possibilities of uncontrollable violence like they had to deal with last summer, than with the geopolitical niceties of Tel Aviv as opposed to Israel, the colonies, and all that. An unidentified riot policeman admits that they are all thinking about the “antisemitic climate” that raged in Sarcelles in July of last year. While the police are stalking potential troublemakers on social media and with phone taps, elected officials, political cartoonists, militants, and commentators are stoking the flames. Or gently stirring them.

In a Libération op-ed, Alexandra Schwarzbrod cautions: As important as it is to denounce the Occupation and clamor for dismantlement of the colonies that deprive Palestinians of a future, it is just as important to refrain from stigmatizing everything Israeli. The reaction to the “premeditated destruction of a Palestinian family burned alive by what some in Israel call ‘Jewish jihadists’” is understandable. One might question the wisdom of the Mayor of Paris of inviting Tel Aviv a year after a war “between the Israeli army and the Palestinians of Hamas left Gaza in ruins.” But, she concludes, contact should be maintained with secular, open-minded Israelis “revolted by the occupation and the climate of intolerance that ravages their country.”

Socialist deputy Alexis Bachelay brought the debate to incandescence. Tel Aviv on the Seine, he tweeted, is tantamount to Pretoria on the Seine in the days of apartheid South Africa. Heating up from tweet to tweet, Bachelay opined that the South African apartheid regime was probably gentler than Israel’s Far Right government with its “separate development” in the form of the separation fence and the colonies. In a last attempt to clarify his statements, Bachelay explained that he was referring to last year’s Gaza conflict; a level of force never used by the “militarization of apartheid.”

The poor guy went too far. Fellow Socialist Jérôme Guedj awarded him a gold medal for the most idiotic tweet. I too congratulate him for displaying the crude inner pyrotechnics that are feeding this controversy and driving the anti-Zionists crazy. One thinks Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, Bachelay knows the Israeli government is worse than apartheid South Africa, another pinches his nose over Netanyahu’s “brutal politics” and most of them hug Tel Aviv as if it were an annex to the Quartier Latin.

What will tomorrow bring? A standoff, a clash, or maybe a thunderstorm. A real one, the kind nature produces.

Next year they could invite Iran. There’s nothing controversial about Tehran’s unsullied beaches and they can work out the details when President Rohani will be the guest of President Hollande this November.

Obama’s Failed Islamic State Narrative by Raymond Ibrahim

“However, when State Department spokeswoman Mary Harf appeared on live television and asserted that the best way to defeat the Islamic State was by offering its members better ‘job opportunities,’ the idea that the State Department is run by fools became increasingly plausible.”

“Critic Blasts Obama Narrative on Islam,” by F. Michael Maloof  for WND, August 8, 2015:

WASHINGTON – The persecution and slaughter of Christians throughout the Middle East has become a major humanitarian crisis, with Pope Francis warning that the atrocities border on “genocide,” according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Yet critics say the U.S. State Department just apologizes for the terror and never seems to find a good reason to go to bat for Christians.

One reason, a prominent Middle East expert explains, is that the U.S. State Department, as well as other government offices, “are infiltrated by Islamists and their sympathizers.”

But Raymond Ibrahim, author of “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians,” told G2 Bulletin in an interview there’s another reason, too.

“I believe the greatest reason is that for whatever reason the Obama government has a ‘narrative’ that it’s trying to sell to the American people, one that maintains that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance – so it’s not in the State Department’s favor to allow persecuted Christians to expose the truth about Islam.”

Ibrahim said the problem isn’t just with the State Department but exists throughout the Obama administration.

“It seems more systemic,” he said. “Again ‘The Narrative’ – that is, the lie – must prevail, and most politicians who often care little for truth and/or reality are willing to go along with the ‘Narrative’ in the hopes that they gain favor from on high, that is, the Obama administration.”

ISIS’ attacks on Christians have been horrific in recent months. They’ve included recordings of mass beheadings, crucifixions and worse. There even have videos of children under the control of ISIS firing guns point-blank into victims.

But in spite of the atrocities against Christians, Ibrahim said, he’s never received any communication from the State Department acknowledging the attacks on Christians.

“No, any criticism of Islam is not welcome by this government,” he told G2. “For example, back in February 2009, I was asked to testify about Islamist and counter strategies before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. Although my testimony was posted on the Armed Services website, it was later removed (but can be read on my website).”

At the time, the U.S. House of Representatives was run by Democrats, with Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House Speaker. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee at the time was Ike Skelton, D-Mo.

Ibrahim went on to say State won’t even acknowledge that the attacks by the Islamic State on Christians and their churches are part of an overall religious conflict between Christianity and Islam, whose leaders repeatedly have vowed to establish a worldwide caliphate and force everyone to either be Muslim or be punished.

The reason for that, Ibrahim said, is that the State Department “is either composed of fools or it is lying. There are no other alternatives.

“I generally believe that the State Department is merely lying,” he said. “However, when State Department spokeswoman Mary Harf appeared on live television and asserted that the best way to defeat the Islamic State was by offering its members better ‘job opportunities,’ the idea that the State Department is run by fools became increasingly plausible.”

A request to the State Department for comment on Ibrahim’s allegations went unanswered.

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Where do the loyalties of two current Muslim members of Congress lie?”

Iran deal “does nothing to change the fact that, in plain Farsi, Iran is committed to world conquest by Islam”

Where do the loyalties of two current Muslim members of Congress lie?

So asks the Daily Caller, and adds: “The Koran forbids allegiance to non-Muslim authority, preventing these congressmen from serving two masters at once. As the Koran dictates Islam is in a perpetual war against all infidels until a sharia-dominant world is established, which master do they then serve in this conflict?”

“With Obama’s Help, Assembling Allah’s Domestic Army Is Now Easier,” by James Zumwult for The Daily Caller, August 7, 2015:

If immigrants to the U.S. seek citizenship but are reluctant to take an oath of allegiance because it requires a commitment to help defend the country, what is the solution?

If the immigrants in question are Muslim and you have a pro-Muslim U.S. president, the solution is simple — just change the oath to accommodate them.

For years, the oath for citizenship included a requirement the declarant agree to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law. But the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) now says, “a candidate may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The quandary for U.S. citizen candidates who are Muslim is this: Just like America’s first two wars as a new nation were against Muslims, so too have its last two been. However, Islamic law — sharia — prohibits Muslims from fighting fellow Muslims. While this prohibition seems somewhat hypocritical in light of extensive Muslim-on-Muslim violence running rampant in the Middle East today, the concern of would-be U.S. citizen Muslims is that a non-Muslim U.S. could require they fight other Muslims.

To accommodate this concern, President Obama now gives Muslim immigrants wishing to become U.S. citizens a free pass: they no longer are required to undertake a responsibility which even he has relinquished — defending our nation against any Islamic threat.

Raymond Ibrahim’s August 6th article “Obama Alters U.S. Oath of Allegiance to Comply with Islamic Law” explains another important aspect of sharia that is at odds with Muslims taking an allegiance oath to America.

While sharia imposes the above prohibition upon Muslims gaining U.S. citizenship, it also prohibits them from giving fidelity to any non-Muslim government. The act of taking such an oath and not really meaning it is permissible in Islam under the concept of “taqqiya” — feigning loyalty to non-Muslims when necessary to do so to gain their confidence.

This was why naturalized U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad — convicted of attempting the May 2010 Times Square car bombing only to have the fuse to his device, and his hope of killing infidels, fizzle—when asked by the judge about having taken an oath of allegiance to America said he swore it “but I didn’t mean it.”

As authority for taqqiya, Ibrahim cites Prophet Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”

This is why Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate in a host country. While retaining one’s identity is not a concern in and of itself, it is the Muslim’s purpose in doing so that is. His purpose is to use his increasing numbers to eventually wield enough influence to replace the host nation’s fundamental laws with those of sharia.

Among those who discourage assimilation by Muslim immigrants in order to support what is known as “creeping sharia” within a host nation is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In February 2011, he addressed thousands of Turkish immigrants in Germany, challenging them to turn Germany into Turkey by refusing to assimilate.

Years earlier, as mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan boldly proclaimed democracy was but a temporary vehicle on the journey to establish global Islam. He said: “Democracy is merely a train that we ride until we reach our goal. Mosques are our military barracks, minarets are our spears, and domes are our helmets.” The goal of Islamists, like Erdogan, is to use non-assimilation to eventually claim non-Muslim lands as Muslim.

Erdogan made the mistake of revealing his intentions at a time Turkey was still very much secular, resulting in his arrest. However, today, his efforts to take the train of democracy back to the days of the Ottoman Empire are very obvious.

Erdogan is not alone in defending non-assimilation by Muslims. As Ibrahim cites, numerous verses from the Koran support it including:

Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions;” and

Koran 58:22: True Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.”

Lest we simply ignore the above sharia mandate in the interests of political correctness, we should reflect upon incidents in which Muslims have chosen the loyalty of religion over that of country — with deadly consequences for U.S. citizens. While there are several, among them are:

– The April 2005 grenade attack by U.S. Army soldier Hasan Akbar, prompted by his concern over U.S. troops killing his fellow Muslims in Iraq. He killed two and wounded 14.

– The November 2009 Fort Hood shooting by Major Nidal Hasan, prompted by his concern he would be deploying to the Middle East. Rather than doing so, he turned his weapon upon his true enemy—fellow U.S. soldiers—killing 13 and wounding more than thirty.

Ibrahim observes of the former incident: “In short, the first loyalty of any ‘American Muslim’ who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality. It is not to American ‘infidels.’”

Of the latter incident, he adds: “Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity. According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.”

It is chilling to reflect on statements by Islamist supporters such as Tarik Shah who, residing in the U.S., sought to assist al-Qaeda establish training camps here. Arrested in 2005, he boasted, “I could be joking and smiling (with non-Muslims) and then cutting their throats in the next second.”

The two observations above by Ibrahim should cause us to ask a question which, due to political correctness, never will: Where do the loyalties of two current Muslim members of Congress lie?

The Koran forbids allegiance to non-Muslim authority, preventing these congressmen from serving two masters at once. As the Koran dictates Islam is in a perpetual war against all infidels until a sharia-dominant world is established, which master do they then serve in this conflict?

Either these two congressmen are true Muslims serving Allah and, therefore, unable to serve America, or, they are true patriots serving the U.S. and, therefore, unable to serve Allah. The latter, incidentally, would make them apostates under sharia — a crime punishable by death….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minnesota: Attorneys for Somali refugees arrested on terrorism charges say ISIS not a terror group

Obama’s failed Islam narrative

VIDEO: Victim of Muslim Rape Gangs Speaks Out

On this special episode of The Glazov Gang, we are joined by Toni Bugle, the founder of M.A.R.I.A.S. (Mothers against Radical Islam and Sharia).

She came on the show to discuss her victimization at the hands of Muslim grooming/rape gangs — and her efforts to help victims and to protect future potential victims of a barbaric ingredient of Islamic Jihad. 

EDITORS NOTE: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Please donate to keep it alive, subscribe to its YouTube Channel and LIKE it on Facebook. For details on advertising on our show or arranging your own appearance on a special segment, email us at theglazovgang@gmail.com.

MAP OF LOCATIONS OF RAPE GANGS IN THE UK:

muslim rape gangs map

RELATED ARTICLES:

Only a matter of time: Islamic State jihadis in UK ready to attack

UK allows jihadi preacher to stay in country despite “extremist” views

American Muslim Leaders Shocked, Shocked to Find that Terrorism Is Going On Here!

Over at PJ Media, I ask why authorities are still taking mosque leaders’ statements after terror arrests at face value.

It’s an iconic moment in American cinema, from Casablanca: Captain Renault tells Rick Blaine that he is “shocked! shocked!” to discover that gambling is going on in his establishment, and that it will be immediately closed — just as a clerk approaches and hands Renault his winnings. Muslims aren’t generally known for cinematic tributes, but mosque leaders around the country deserve Oscars for how they reenact this scene every time a jihadi is apprehended. For how long are law enforcement officials going to fall for the act?

The latest example comes courtesy of Arafat Nagi of Lackawanna, New York, who was arrested last week for recruiting for the Islamic State. According to WIVB, the local Muslim community is “devastated and in shock.”

In shock, eh? Dr. Khalid Qazi, President of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said that Nagi “had withdrawn from the community about three years ago. He had some domestic issues, some family issues.” Ah, that does explain it. Qazi is implying that Nagi was a bit unbalanced, leading to his involvement with the Islamic State, and that if he hadn’t withdrawn from the peaceful Muslim community three years ago, this wouldn’t have happened.

But wait: back in 2002, Nagi had wanted to join the Lackawanna Six – six local Muslims who attended an al-Qaeda training camp.

According to Qazi, Nagi only withdrew — he wasn’t expelled for his “extremism,” but withdrew — from the local Muslim community only three years ago. That means that for ten years after trying to join an al-Qaeda group, Nagi was presumably a member in good standing of the local Muslim community.

Clearly his recent arrest shows that he hadn’t given up his “extremism.” Yet when Nagi is arrested, the local community is “in shock”? They knew for at least thirteen yearsthat Nagi was a supporter of the violent jihad doctrine they supposedly reject and abhor. What was shocking about his arrest?

Qazi was, of course, posturing for the media and law enforcement authorities, and there is no indication that either didn’t wholly swallow his act. Indeed, despite the fact that this same act has played all over the country, it always gets rave reviews.

It played in Birmingham, Alabama, last April, when a young Muslim woman fled to the Islamic State. A spokesman for the girl’s parents — why did they need a spokesman? — said:

For them this is worse than losing the life of a child, to have them join such a horrible, horrible gang of violent extremists. Nothing can describe the pain they are facing.

The spokesman was none other than Hassan Shibly, a lawyer and the chief executive director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group with established ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Shibly claimed that the woman had withdrawn from the local Muslim community a year before joining the Islamic State, and added:

The reason she withdrew from the community is because the Muslim community is very vocal against groups like ISIS … she made the decision based on her communication online with them that she wanted to join them.

He didn’t bother to explain why the peaceful Islam the young woman presumably learned from the community and her shocked and devastated parents wasn’t able to withstand the appeal of a supposedly twisted, hijacked version of the religion. He didn’t have to: he could be secure in the knowledge that no one would ask him to do so.

And so it goes. After the July 16 jihad massacre of U.S. Marines in Chattanooga by Mohammod Abdulazeez, the Times Free Press reported that Bassam Issa, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga:

… has said how shocked he was to find out that a young man who went to his mosque harbored radical ideas. He doesn’t see how anything Abdulazeez learned locally could have led to such thinking or to such a tragic plan.

And last April, a Muslim woman named Noelle Valentzas was arrested for plotting, along with another Muslim woman, a jihad bombing on U.S. soil. Valentzas’ husband, Abu Bakr, said of his wife’s arrest:

I don’t believe any of it, period. We are all shocked, the whole community. That’s not who she is.

But back in 2007, Abu Bakr was photographed at the Muslim Day Parade in New York City with the black flag of jihad. He carried it at other parades as well.

A particularly hammy version of this play-acting came in Rochester, New York in June 2014, when Mufid Elfgeeh, a Muslim local restaurant owner, was arrested for plotting to murder American soldiers. Sareer Fazili, President of the Islamic Center of Rochester, said:

Our religion is one of peace and one of submission and I think all of our friends in the faith based community know that. … I’m very shocked, I’m very upset, very disappointed that somebody who claims they follow Islam, the same religion that has been taught for so many years would think that he is within the bounds of our teachings because nothing could be further from the truth.

He was shocked to hear that someone who professes to be a Muslim would commit an act of violence? Really?

Had Sareer Fazili never heard of 9/11? 7/7? The Bali bombing? The Boston Marathon bombing? The Fort Hood massacre? Or any of the thousands of other jihad attacks perpetrated by people who not only profess to be Muslim, but say that when they bomb and kill they are following the teachings of Islam?

Fazili also said, according to WHEC, that he “does not believe Elfgeeh has ever been a member of the Islamic Center.” That may be, but it is noteworthy how so many devout Muslims who turn to violent jihad — Elfgeeh had tweeted “about the prophet Muhammad and terrorist groups fighting in the name of Allah” — never seem to go to mosque.

Every time there is a jihad attack or plot in the U.S., local Muslims say that no one knew him, he never went to mosque. Yet by their own words, these people are fanatically devout and observant….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iraqi archbishop: US more concerned about image of Islam than victims of persecution

New Jersey Muslim charged with conspiring to support the Islamic State

Arming Children: The Islamic State and Mexico’s Gulf Cartel

There is much talk about disarming law abiding American citizens by the Obama administration but little done to stop the use of children as hit-men by Mexican drug cartels  and soldiers by the Islamic State.

This is the worst form of child abuse – using children to kill, slaughter, behead, assassinate.

child soldier of Islamic StatePamela Geller in her column “Generation Kill: The Child Soldiers of the Islamic State” writes:

Look at this child [right]. Remember him. This is your children’s future.

This is who your children will face in the future. These children are being trained to kill. These children are being schooled in the sharia and jihad. Our children are being disarmed and misled about the genocidal ideology behind this war. Sheeps to slaughter.

The below video, called “The Cubs of Dijla” in a reference to the young boys being indoctrinated and groomed to fight, shows children as the clip’s primary speakers. They deliver monologues and recite verses of the Quran, marking the first time the Islamic State has depicted boys—one as young as three—speaking at length directly into the camera.

gulf drug cartel child killerMia De Graff writing for the Daily Mail reports:

These are the baby-faced members of Mexico’s menacing Gulf Cartel [right].

In an unprecedented series of photos, scores of hitmen have unmasked themselves to apparently prove: ‘We aren’t afraid to show our faces, we want you to see nothing but the Gulf Cartel.’

Shockingly, some look as young as 12.

The Gulf Cartel is one of Mexico’s oldest, dating back to the Prohibition era.

With roots in the United States, Europe, West Africa, Asia, Central America, and South America, the organization wields significant power over the drug-trafficking trade – despite losing ground to rivals in recent years.

Read more.

Here is a video about Mexican drug cartels:

The use of children as killers is as bad as using children as sex slaves. Evil is evil. Not to call this evil is a travesty. Sadly the Gulf Cartel and Islamic State continue to recruit, train and use children to kill — these are the baby-faced hit men of the 21st Century.

Why doesn’t the Pope go to Syria?

A good opportunity for “Muslim-Christian dialogue”:

Let’s put the pope’s Muslim-Christian “dialogue” policy to the test. Here’s the perfect destination for the next papal trip: Raqqa, the de facto capital of the Islamic State’s caliphate.

Last Sunday, Pope Francis called for the release of Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim (the Syriac Orthodox archbishop of Aleppo), Boulos Yazigi (the Greek Orthodox bishop of Aleppo), and Italian Jesuit priest Paolo Dall’Oglio, who — if they are still alive — have all been held captive for two years now by Islamic jihadists in Syria. Said the pope:

I hope for a renewed commitment by the competent local and international authorities, so that these, our brothers, will soon be restored to freedom.

He must know that the “competent local and international authorities,” if there are any, aren’t going to do a thing to free these clerics.

If the pope wants it done right, he is going to have to do it himself – and in doing so, he can prove the value of the Church’s insistence and dependence upon “Muslim-Christian dialogue.”

The pope should go to Raqqa and appeal personally to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s Caliph Ibrahim, for the release of Ibrahim, Yazigi, and Dall’Oglio. Pope Francis has said that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” and he has assiduously called for “dialogue” and denounced violence in virtually every situation. So he should go there, and display the correctness of his recommendations by initiating an in-person “dialogue” with the caliph or other appropriate Islamic State representatives, during which he can explain to them how they are misunderstanding the Qur’an and Islam.

This will fix everything: not only will the Islamic State forthwith release the bishops and the priest, but they will lay down their arms, and distribute flowers to all the children. The power of “dialogue” over all forms of violence will be abundantly established before the eyes of a world struck with awe, yet again, at the wisdom of this pope and the compelling power of his humble, saintly personality.

As he prepares for this “dialogue” trip, however, the pope may face resistance from his own bishops.

Robert McManus, the bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, two years ago (ironically not long before Ibrahim, Yazigi, and Dall’Oglio were abducted) summed up the prevailing view of the U.S. Catholic bishops:

Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.

So what is Pope Francis doing even talking about these abducted clerics? He should keep quiet about such matters, so as to preserve the “dialogue.” Will Bishop McManus and the other American bishops, recognizing the dignity but also the limitations of his positions, humbly but unmistakably call him on the carpet and “oppose him to his face, because he stood condemned,” as St. Paul did to Francis’ first predecessor, St. Peter (Galatians 2:11)?

Of course they will say nothing, and Pope Francis will not go to Raqqa, because in both cases the concerned parties probably know full well that the sham of the “dialogue” policy would be exposed to the world.

The contemporary Catholic Church, especially in the West, has confused niceness with charity.

It may be nice to avoid unpleasant matters and to enjoy delicious hummus and pita down at the mosque, but it is not charitable to confirm Muslims in their bullying and supremacism by kowtowing to their wishes.

It is not charitable to keep silent about the atrocities they commit in the name of their religion and in accord with its teachings….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ex-Soviet army officer who converted to Islam guilty on jihad terror charges

“We are committed to being active participants in our society, but it has to be on Islam’s terms”

Former DIA Director: Obama made “willful decision” to support al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood in Syria

Mehdi Hasan is a highly suspect analyst and Foreign Policy Journal appears to be a pro-jihad paleocon publication, and Al Jazeera is certainly a pro-jihad propaganda outlet. All that is noted, but if this transcript is accurate, former DIA director Michael Flynn is confirming that the Obama Administration knowingly decided to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and directly enabled the rise of the Islamic State. And given the Obama Administration’s general stance toward the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, what would be unbelievable about that?

In a sane political atmosphere, this would be enough to bring down the Obama presidency. Instead, it will get little notice and no action whatsoever.

“Rise of Islamic State was ‘a willful decision’: Former DIA Chief Michal [sic] Flynn,” by Brad Hoff, Foreign Policy Journal, August 7, 2015 (thanks to Joshua):

In Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.” [Lengthy discussion of the DIA memo begins at the 8:50 mark.]

Amazingly, Flynn actually took issue with the way interviewer Mehdi Hasan posed the question—Flynn seemed to want to make it clear that the policies that led to the rise of ISIL were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making:

Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

Flynn: I think the administration.

Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.

Hasan himself expresses surprise at Flynn’s frankness during this portion of the interview. While holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan reads aloud key passages such as, “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did the State Department soon after its release, Flynn does the opposite: he confirms that while acting DIA chief he “paid very close attention” to this report in particular and later adds that “the intelligence was very clear.”

Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on the Syrian regime:

Hasan: In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you’re worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?

Flynn: I hate to say it’s not my job…but that…my job was to…was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be….

As Michael Flynn also previously served as director of intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda, his honest admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature….

RELATED ARTICLE: Iraqi Christian: Islamic State jihadis blinded me after I refused to convert to Islam

VIDEO: Preventing Prevent? Challenges to Counter-Radicalisation Policy On-Campus

The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) heard from Lloyd Randle, Former Prevent Engagement Officer, Hampshire Constabulary, Dr Usama Hasan, Senior Researcher at the Quilliam Foundation, and Rupert Sutton, Director of Student Rights at The Henry Jackson Society.

The speakers discussed the findings of the recent Student Rights report ‘Preventing Prevent: Challenges to Counter-Radicalisation Policy On-Campus’, on-the-ground experiences counter-radicalisation efforts, including the challenges posed by student opposition, and the narratives used by extremists to undermine efforts to challenge extremism on our campuses.

RELATED VIDEO: A team of Highbury College Media students produced this documentary into the world of radicalisation as a global concern and, more concerning, on our doorstep.

Proselytizing of Islam At Chautauqua

The Chautauqua Institution, deemed an adult education center, is less education than it is indoctrination to the world of The Left. In the month of July, in an idyllic setting, the Institution invited Islamists who speak of “Love and Justice in a World of Suffering,” hiding the truths about the suffering caused by Islam – both the harsh Sharia law already in effect for its adherents and to establish it in Dar Al-Harb (House of War), the countries not yet under Sharia – until the entire world will writhe under Islamic oppression.

Omid Safi, appointed director of Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center  in July, 2014, spoke in terms to please the under informed.  He and they would prefer that hideous acts of violence, such as perpetrated by ISIS, ISIL, Boko Haram, Hamas, and countless others with like purpose, be removed from the news media and replaced with stories of compassion.  In so doing, of course, he would silence the reporters and critics and destroy our freedom to speak, report, and inform the masses about the evils perpetrated by Muslims, so that we would remain oblivious to Islam’s stealth control over our media and our minds. He would then pursue and obtain legal accommodations without obstacle, force Sharia law over our Constitutional laws without hindrance, and threaten all our freedoms through influence, treachery, and force.

The “pain and suffering” he referenced in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Staten Island, have been shown to be largely incitement encouraged by outsiders who represent Islam and the Left; conquest is best accomplished during turmoil and disorder. The mayhem forces the unprepared, unarmed victims into appeasement mode, to cede their rights and ability to speak and defend in favor of assuaging the unmanageable horde that cries “victimhood.”  Peace at any cost.  The chaos allows the aggressive to dominate and, under the guise of “love and justice,” impose its law on all nations – thus implementing the laws of Allah through jihad.

Safi was also sure to remind that there was insufficient money for social issues but a glut for our military – an absolute inverted fabrication to which the unaware nod in assent because Chautauqua provides no discussions, no debates, no visitors to provide an opposing view. The rhetoric that passes for intellect remains unchallenged; the audience is never encouraged to analyze and grasp that the narrative undermines their very survival.

In fact, the growth in national health spending and welfare programs have accelerated to levels that, unchecked, will bring our country to bankruptcy. The federal government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have expanded to cover additional and improved services for 200 million people; and an average of 46+ million people received food stamps on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during 2012, with more illegal aliens and “new Americans” still coming to our shores – unvetted for physical and mental illnesses, crime, or productivity. The programs thwart incentive to strive, inhibit growth and achievements, and cut back funds for investments, new jobs and opportunities for the many – a future of prosperity.

He advocates cuts to our military budget, already at a pre-World War II low, when the threat to our national security is at an all-time high. Severe cuts in defense spending have already subjected our nation to accumulating strategic risks to such as crisis-readiness, sustaining pilot skills with sufficient flying hours, and maintaining a Naval presence in key regions.  Our military must continue diplomatic, economic and intelligence elements for preserving trade routes and stability in vital regions, and serving global interests. Financial support is crucial for military infrastructure and civilian and contractor defense workforce.  Safi instigates his audience to desire further increases in social expenditures (higher taxation and prices, shrinking wealth, increased poverty, and compounded national debt) and to diminish our self-defense and military superiority against Islamic or any tyrannical expansionism. Disarmed, submissive subjects are easier to rule and more likely to provide the revenue and manpower needed for further conquest.

Safi reminded his audience of the human condition, always to plead for Muslim suffering, as though they are the eternal victim rather than the perpetual offender.  As I mentioned in my previous essay, Mosquitoes in the Mosque,  Islam is guilty of jihadi expansionism and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of victims since its inception in 824 A.D., unparalleled by any other people, and ongoing.  The FBI has reported that ISIS exists in “every single state,” and Chautauqua has its numerous visitors from the Muslim Brotherhood, including the notorious Imam Rauf, who failed to develop his Cordoba Mosque on Ground Zero but is planning one for this vacation spot in southwestern New York state.

While Safi urged his audience to love and empathize with “the human condition everywhere,” he fails to address those who have fallen prey to Islam. An ardent champion for the end of a Jewish Israel, this corrupt jihadist has written fallacious articles that blamed Israel of atrocities against Arabs, using Holocaust-era photos of bodies from Buchenwald concentration camp!  Who invites these speakers to so misinform those who presumably come to learn?  How are they vetted and allowed these opportunities to propagandize against our liberties, our nation, and against Israel?

The Chautauqua Institution, originally designed to bring culture, hope, and promise during the Great Depression, now presents a façade of scholarship, intellect, and critical thinking, its attendees duped at a critical time in American history.  Alas, idealism does not protect one from ignorance, dogmatism, and foolishness.

EDITORS NOTE. To contact Tabitha click here, this column originally appeared on TPATH. To read Mosquitoes in the Mosque referenced above click here.

Franklin Graham’s Comments about Halting Muslim Immigration has Refugee Resettlement Contractor Shaking

Could there be a little rebellion in the ranks?

I’m talking about federal refugee resettlement contractor World Relief (aka National Association of Evangelicals).  It seems that in the wake of Evangelist Franklin Graham’s call for a halt to Muslim immigration following the Chattanooga murder of four Marines and a Naval officer by an immigrant Islamist, the multi-faith folks went into defense mode.

What did they do?  They invited representatives of one of the most infamous mosques in the Washington area—All Dulles Area Muslim Society (Adams Center)—-and representatives of two leading Muslim Brotherhood front groups to join them in a multi-faith love fest in Washington (on Capitol Hill!) to send the message that they (including ‘Evangelists’) disagreed with Franklin Graham.

Here is the news at something called World Religion News (emphasis below is mine):

Denouncing Franklin Graham!

Bob_Roberts_Jr-238x300

Know the opposition! Bob Roberts Jr.

But the gathering has an even more important purpose, and that is to denounce and contradict the statements released by another Evangelic leader, launched on his public social network account. Those statements were rather sensitive, not reflecting the tolerance and acceptance promoted by the Christian church, which may have detrimental backfires on a society already tried by so much violence.

It all started when Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, a well-known Evangelic leader, said on his Facebook profile that Muslim immigrants should not be permitted to enter the USA anymore. This happened due to a violent shootout in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where five out of seven people shot by a Muslim young man died. Ever since, even the organizations that help relocate religious refugees started facing issues. Not because they were imposed to stop helping Muslims, but because people started to be afraid to accept them. Many volunteers and churches involved in resettling actions regarding religious refugees are frightened by the fact that the Muslims will turn into dangerous terrorist or even install the Shari‘ah law, once they get settled on American land.  [Gee! wonder where they got that idea!—ed]

As interesting as all that is, this (below) is the part that jumped out at me.  So, could there be a rebellion brewing?  Are there some not-so-happy Christians working with World Relief (one of the top nine resettlement contractors)?

This is so disingenuous!  What is not being reported here is that World Relief does resettle significant numbers of Muslim refugees because they must in order to get their federal contracts (read: federal cold hard cash!).

And, by the way, the federal government disallows any proselytizing by its contractors.  Some uninformed supporters of the federal contractors will tell you that they want to get the Muslims here to convert them to Christianity, don’t believe them.

World Religion News continued….

Graham’s statement is also not seen very well by World Relief, an organization based in Baltimore, which helps religious refugees to start a new life in America. Since they work mainly with church volunteers, they also faced the fear of some churches to accept Muslim refugees.World Relief mainly takes care of Christian refugees, but they never refused any person in need of help, regardless of their religion or background. Still, they know that by refusing to accept a Muslim refugee, they will also face problems with the Christian ones as well, as it will as well become harder for them to enter the resettling program.  [Huh?—ed]

Here is Franklin Graham’s website.  You might want to reach out to him and tell him you support what he said about Muslim immigration.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Frank Sharry of ‘America’s Voice’ blasts Trump, but where is the attack on Bernie?

Arabic: Most Common Language of Refugees in America

U.S. Muslim Leader: “We Must Rise Up and Kill Those Who Kill Us,” “I’m looking for 10,000… who say death is sweeter…”

EDITORS NOTE:

A reader suggested that when I write a post relating to Muslim immigration to be sure to remind you that this is the Hijra—Mohammed’s command to migrate and spread Islam across the world.  In order to succeed in building a worldwide caliphate, what do they need?  Numbers of course! And, two more things:  My first post this morning is also labeled ‘Know the opposition.’  See our category entitled ‘The Opposition’ for more such posts. Follow me on twitter!  There is so much happening that I can’t possibly post on it all, so I have been sending refugee/immigration articles to twitter.  I am @refugeewatcher.

“I Will Always Remember Where I Was When Cecil The Lion Was Killed”

This is the state of the world today. “I Will Always Remember Where I Was When Cecil The Lion Was Killed,” Duffel Blog, August 3, 2015 (thanks to David):

The following is an op-ed written by “Mohammed,” a Syrian War Refugee.

I am sorry it is taking me so long to post my outrage over Cecil the Lion. My village has been without electricity for the last week after the Americans bombed our power plant. I had to walk for two days — hiding from ISIS along the way — before I found this Internet cafe. But my anger over the death of Cecil is still hot as the desert sands.

I remember exactly what I was doing when I heard what had happened.

It started off as a normal day for my town, with the Syrian Air Force dropping barrel bombs on several neighborhoods and a local school. As I dug the bodies of several women out of the rubble, one of the other rescue workers asked if I’d heard that Cecil the Lion was killed.

I froze in shock, dropping part of what I assume was once a human arm on the ground. “Not Cecil the Lion!” I exclaimed. “Not him! Truly, is there no innocence left in this world?” I cried harder than when we discovered my brother was gay and ISIS forced us to throw him off a building.

The rest of the day was a numb blur: watching my neighbor getting beheaded by Sharia enforcers, foraging for food in bombed-out buildings, burying my daughter after she died of cholera, and registering my outrage that rich Americans can fly anywhere in the world and kill whatever they want.

My entire family — the ones not gassed to death — are also in shock. My sister was beside herself with tears from the acid that was flung in her face, but I am sure her tears were meant for poor, majestic Cecil.

It is times like this I thank Allah that my wife was kidnapped into sexual slavery last year and was spared the horror of learning what happened to this beautiful and majestic creature.

I often wonder what is wrong with America. You do not hear stories like this in Syria, partly because we already killed all our lions but also because we killed all our dentists….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Malaysian mufti: “Islam is based on faith…Don’t make any remarks based on the intellect or logic”

DHS warns: Jihadis could target airports, sensitive sites with drones

In Defense of The Center for Security Policy 2015 Poll on American Muslims

On June 23, 2015 the Center for Security Policy (CSP) released the results of a survey of 600 American Muslims entitled Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad.  Three days later, the Bridge Initiative released a response to the CSP study entitled New Poll on American Muslims Is Grounded in Bias, Riddled with Flaws.  Two weeks later (July 07, 2015), the Bridge Initiative article was re-posted in the Religion section of the Huffington Post, under the title Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Trust the Latest Poll on American Muslims.

According to the Bridge Initiative, the findings of the CSP survey, which ‘cast doubt upon American Muslims’ loyalty to their country,’ included the following three takeaway points:

  1. “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”
  2. “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”
  3. “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

In addition, the Bridge Initiative article asserted that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously,’ while citing the following four critiques:

  1. It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and “studies” about the threat of shariah, and
  2. Was administered using an unreliable methodology.
  3. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and
  4. Falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this article is to objectively evaluate whether the three takeaway points in the 2015 CSP survey are accurate (or not).

Note: It follows that if such an objective evaluation provides adequate proof that the three takeaway points in the CSP survey are accurate, then the Bridge Initiative’s assertions that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously’ must be considered invalid (irrelevant).

Analysis Methodology

To accomplish this, I followed the premise that the most reliable approach would be to compare the findings in the 2015 CSP survey with the results of as many other similar independent surveys (and/or statistical reviews) as possible. Thus, a comprehensive search for such surveys provided the following dates and titles (all URL’s accessed July 17, 2015):

February 19, 2006       Poll Reveals 40% Of Muslims Want Shariah Law In UK

August 14, 2006          Many British Muslims Put Islam First

March 16, 2008           Why Shariah?

July 07, 2008               Iranians, Egyptians, Turks: Contrasting Views on Sharia

May 25, 2009              Public Opinion In The Islamic World On Terrorism, Al Qaeda & US Policies

August 13, 2009          New Poll Shows 78% of Pakistanis Support Death Penalty for Leaving Islam

December 02, 2010     Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah

December 22, 2010     1 In 3 British Muslim Students Back Killing For Islam & 40% Want Sharia Law

August 30, 2011          Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism

November 02, 2011     62% Of Muslims In Canada Want Some Form Of Sharia

October 30, 3012         Guess Who U.S. Muslims Are Voting For?

April 30, 2013             The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

May 01, 2013              Seventy-Two Percent of Indonesian Muslims Favor Shariah Law

September 10, 2013     Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups

December 13, 2013     Europe: Islamic Fundamentalism is Widespread

April 07, 2014             The Support for Sharia Law Around the World

October 14, 2014         Arab Public Opinion & The Fight Against ISIS

November 12, 2014     The Military Campaign Against The Islamic State In Iraq And The Levant

November 28, 2014     Support For ISIS Stronger In Arabic Social Media In Europe Than In Syria

March 04, 2015            Public Opinion Towards Terrorist Organizations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen & Libya

June 28, 2015               ISIS Has Up To 42 Million Supporters in the Arab World

Results

After a careful review and comparison of these 21 published surveys with the 2015 CSP survey’s three takeaway points, we arrive at the following conclusions:

1.  “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”

Overall, an average of at least 64% of Muslims in more than 50 countries worldwide would prefer to be governed by shariah law.  At 51%, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

2.  “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”

Overall, more than 20% of Muslims around the world support the use of violence to defend Islam from its enemies. In some parts of the Islamic world, this number is consistently higher than 20%.  However, as with Point [1], the American Muslim community falls well within the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

3.  “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

The use of violence [Jihad] to make shariah the law of the land is the stated goal of groups such as Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, & etc., as well as the Quran itself (i.e., see 2.191-193 & 8.59-60).  Support for these Islamist groups varies from a low of 13% to a high of 52%, depending on the particular group and/or country in question.  Once again, as with the two points above, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

Conclusion

An analysis of 21 surveys conducted over a 10-year period reveals that the spectrum of opinions within the American Muslim community on shariah law and the use of violence either to punish the enemies of Islam, or to make shariah the law of the land, are exactly the same as the spectrum of opinions held by Muslims in the rest of the world.  Muslims in America are not an anomaly within the greater Islamic community (Ummah), nor do they depart significantly from the beliefs on shariah and/or Jihad that are held by Muslims in the rest of the Islamic world.  In other words, the CSP survey not only represents the views of Muslims nationwide, but globally as well.

Rather than habitually recycling ad hominem attacks against their opponents, while emphatically asserting that the results of the 2015 CSP survey were ‘riddled with flaws,’ the Bridge Initiative should:

  1. Provide an acceptable working definition of Shariah law (which dictates every aspect of an observant Muslim’s moral life),
  2. Conduct their own statistically valid survey, based on this acceptable working definition, and then
  3. Publish the results for the world to see.

Perhaps then, we could begin to build trust, and reduce some of the ‘generalizations about American Muslims ricocheting across the Internet and social media.’  Perhaps then, we could also begin dispelling some of the ‘misunderstanding of Islam’ among the poorly informed and non-equipped general public…that we hear about, so often, and so loudly.

Meanwhile, rather than ignoring an extensive 10-year archive of surveys documenting historical trends within the global Islamic community – trends that fully support the results of the 2015 CSP survey – it seems reasonable that we should expect a much higher level of scholastic integrity from such a prominent and well-endowed institution as the Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  As per its stated purpose, an improvement in professional integrity would be a much more effective way to build bridges, ‘improve relations’ and ‘enhance understanding of Muslims in the West.’

President Thomas Jefferson’s Koran and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

keith ellison

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-MN, District 5.

On January 4, 2007, newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison made history. He became not only the first Muslim to be elected to the United States Congress, but he also took the ceremonial oath of office holding his hand on the Koran that had been owned by Thomas Jefferson. Dozens of television cameras, including one from the Arab network Al-Arabiya, were on hand to record this historical event.

Ellison had explained the importance of this ceremony in an interview the day before, “…in a private ceremony…I’ll put my hand on a book that is the basis of my faith, which is Islam…” (“Keith Ellison and the Jefferson Koran,”The Nation – The Beat Blog, January 3, 2007).

A few weeks after the swearing-in, Ellison said that the Koran “is the scripture that I read every day and it’s the book that I draw inspiration from” (“Rep. Keith Ellison: First Muslim in Congress,” FinalCall.com News, January 20, 2007).

The significance of this event was even recognized two years later, on June 4th, 2009, as President Obama was giving a speech in Cairo, Egypt. In the portion of the speech when Obama was talking about how Muslim-Americans had “enriched” the United States, he pointed out that Congressman Ellison had taken his oath on Jefferson’s “Holy Koran.”

So President Obama and Congressman Ellison proclaimed that Ellison had placed his hand on an actual Koran for this ceremony.

Jefferson’s Koran

The Koran Ellison used was a two volume translation of the Koran done by George Sale, a non-Muslim. It was titled The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed. It was first printed in 1734, but the two volume translation used by Ellison was from a second printing done in 1764. Digital copies of both volumes of this second printing can be located online. So let’s examine this particular Koran.

In the first volume Sale had three sections before his actual translation of the Koran began: Dedication,Introduction, and Preliminary Discourse. In the Dedication, Sale lamented the “detestation” with which the name Muhammad was laden. But then Sale contrasted the religion and laws of Muhammad to the laws of Jesus and Moses, “whose laws came really from heaven.” So according to Sale, Muhammad’s religion and laws had not come from heaven. Sale then went on to note that Muhammad used “an imposture [fraud] to set up a new religion.”

In the Introduction, Sale wrote that the Koran was a “forgery” (p. vii) and it “pretends to be the Word of God” (p. xiii). Sale criticized Muhammad for “imposing a false religion on mankind” (p. x). And Sale explained that he was providing “an impartial version of the Koran” because

it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture [fraud]… (pp. vii-viii)

In the Preliminary Discourse, Sale repeatedly pointed out that Muhammad had “pretended” to be a messenger from God (pp. 52-53, 93, and 96). Sale stated that Muhammad had “pretended” to receive the “revelations…which compose his Koran” (p. 55). And on numerous pages Sale repeated his assertion that Muhammad had “pretended” to receive those revelations (pp. 56, 64, 66, 82, 84, 100, 143, 190, and 192).

Sale addresses Muhammad’s “Night Journey” on pp. 61-62 of the Preliminary Discourse. In this journey Muhammad claimed to have traveled from Mecca to the seven levels of Heaven. He claimed he was accompanied by the angel Jibril (Gabriel) and rode on Al-Buraq, a white, horse-like animal, smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey. Muhammad claimed that he had visited the first six levels of Heaven, meeting one or more of the earlier prophets on each level. On the seventh level he had met Abraham and Allah, and received certain instructions from Allah. Sale wrote that Muhammad “feigns to have made a journey to heaven,” and only pretended that he had spoken with Allah. Sale summed up his feelings about Muhammad’s “Night Journey”:

And I am apt to think this fiction, notwithstanding its extravagance, was one of the most artful contrivances Mohammed ever put in practice…

And Sale believed that Islam was simply a “human invention” based on violence:

It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Mohammedism was no other than a human invention, that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword…

(Preliminary Discourse, p. 65)

Questions Sent to Congressman Ellison

There had been much excitement over Congressman Ellison using Jefferson’s Koran for his ceremonial swearing-in. Jefferson’s Koran had been declared an official Koran by Ellison and President Obama. Yet this translation of the Koran had been done by a non-Muslim who not only considered Islam to be a manmade religion “that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword,” but who also considered Muhammad to be a charlatan, and the Koran itself to be false and a forgery.

With this in mind, on March 13, 2015, I sent an e-mail to Congressman Ellison in Washington DC, in care of his Communications Director, Mike Casca. The e-mail summarized the information above with regard to Sale’s beliefs about Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran, and I presented the following two questions for the Congressman’s consideration:

  1. Do you think Sale’s negative beliefs about Islam affected the accuracy of his translation of the meaning of each of the verses in the Koran? If they did, how might they have affected that translation, and can his translated work then be accurately referred to as a Koran?
  1. If you consider his work to be an accurate translation of the meaning of the verses in the Koran, how would you explain to your Christian and Jewish constituents verses such as these found in this work:

They are infidels, who say, Verily God is Christ, the son of Mary.

Vol. 1, p. 133  (Koran 5:17)

(So Christians are infidels.)

War is injoined [sic] you against the Infidels…

Vol. 1, p. 38    (Koran 2: 216)

…for the infidels are your open enemies.

Vol. 1, p. 114  (Koran 4:101)

Take not the Jews, or Christians for your friends; they are friends one to the other…

Vol.1, p. 141   (Koran 5:51)

Thou shalt surely find the most violent of all men in enmity against the true believers [Muslims], to be the Jews, and the idolators…

Vol. 1, p. 147  (Koran 5:82)

My first e-mail to the Congressman went unanswered. After I had sent a second e-mail on March 19th, Casca responded that same day asking when I needed the answers. I replied that with the Congressman’s busy schedule, one or two weeks would be fine.

Now, four weeks, and two unanswered e-mails to Casca later, it appears that the Congressman has decided not to respond.

Based on the available evidence, Congressman Ellison apparently considers Sale’s work to be an accurate translation of the meaning of the verses in the Koran, and to also be a legitimate Koran. Consequently, it might be worthwhile for the congressman’s Jewish and Christian constituents to ask him why he has such high esteem for a book that speaks ill of Jews and Christians, and specifically calls Christians the “open enemies” of Muslims.

So let’s close with some verses from the book upon which Congressman Ellison placed his hand, and from which he said he draws inspiration:

As for the infidels…they shall be the fewel [fuel] of hell fire.

Vol. 1, p. 55    (Koran 3:10)

O true believers [Muslims]! wage war against such of the infidels as are near you; and let them find severity in you…

Vol. 1, p. 265  (Koran 9:123)

When ye encounter the unbelievers [non-Muslims], strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them…

Vol. 2, p. 376  (Koran 47:4)

Mohammed is the apostle of God: and those who are with him are fierce against the unbelievers, but compassionate towards one another.

Vol. 2, p. 387  (Koran 48:29)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. The featured image of a Koran is courtesy of Shutterstock.