• Religion Of Peace

  • Archives

  • Elisabeth was found guilty of hate speech crimes for speaking the truth about Islam. Click to donate to her legal defense fund

  • Categories

  • Meta

  • This blogsite / website is not the official website of ACT! for America, Inc. This blogsite / website is independently owned and operated by that ACT! for America chapter named on this site. The statements, positions, opinions and views expressed in this website, whether written, audible, or video, are those of the individuals and organizations making them and and do not necessarily represent the positions, views, and opinions of ACT! for America, Inc., its directors, officers, or agents. The sole official website of ACT! for America, Inc. is www.actforamerica.org
  • Statements, views, positions and opinions expressed in articles, columns, commentaries and blog posts, whether written, audible, or video, which are not the original work of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite, and is named on this website / blogsite are not necessarily the views, positions, and opinions of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite
  • Advertisements


By Daniel Greenfield

Give it a few years and the police will be telling women attacked by Muslims to wear hijabs and then burqas. This is how Islamic law happened originally. It’s happening all over again in countries being invaded by Islam.

The incident happened when the young woman, identified only by her first name Sabina, who lives in the capital Vienna had been waiting for a train on the S6 line at the city’s main Westbahnhof station.

The 20-year-old, who was hospitalised after the attack by four men in which she was beaten and robbed, told Heute newspaper: “I felt so helpless.”

“I had been standing on the platform waiting for the train when a man came up to me and spoke to me in a foreign language. He then started putting his hands through my hair and made it clear that in his cultural background there were hardly any blonde women. I told him to go away, and for a short while he really did go away.”

“But it was only to get his pals and a bit later he came back with three others. They stole my handbag and my cards.”

And if that was not enough, she said that the four had then attacked her, bashing her to the ground in a rage before running off.

She said that from what they had said she understood they were from Afghanistan and that as she lay on the floor in agony nobody on the platform had helped.

After being treated at hospital for bruising to her head, shoulder and elbow as well as her spine and hips, she went to police.

And her distress had turned to anger when police had told her that she should change her hair colour and should not have been travelling alone after 8pm on public transport.

And yes, with mass Muslim migration, this is the new normal.

She said: “The police told me that attacks are now a daily routine. And it’s going to get worse.”



Islam Has No Right to Build Mosques, Spread Islam, or Institute Sharia Law In America

Publius Huldah, a retired attorney, Constitutional scholar and JAG, addressed the Act for America Chapter in Fayetteville, Tennessee recently and demonstrated that the First Amendment does not give Islamists the right to build mosques, proselytize, and institute Sharia law in the United States. She also took time to point out that multiculturalism is not and that Islam is not a peaceful religion.

Her presentation can be seen here (approx 40 min long):

“We face a grave threat,” she began. “Islamists are infiltrating our country and taking over. Our Federal, state and local governments won’t even acknowledge the threat.”

Publius Huldah points out that the “Islamists seek to replace our Constitution, our religion and our culture with Sharia, their totalitarian political, economic, military, social and legal system. They are making progress and conquering our country because we are not resisting. We are not resisting because people actually believe Islamists have ‘constitutional rights’ to build mosques and proselytize here and that those who oppose them are haters, racists, xenophobes (someone who hates and fears other cultures), and intolerant.”

“So the dreadful message we are getting from all sources, “she continues, “is that our Constitution renders us powerless to resist because, and this is the great lie, the First Amendment gives Islamists the right to do what they are doing and that oppose them are bad people.”

Publius Huldah refers to our God given rights as our “shield” against the Islamic conquest in America and says that a proper understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is needed and this is what she then sets out to put forth. “Rights come from God. Rights do not come from the Constitution,” she declared. “We cut our own throats, when we say that rights come from the Constitution. Our sword is our Constitution.”

Publius Huldah then lists four provisions in the Constitution are available to stop the Islamic conquest in our country.

  • The “Supremacy Clause” in Article Six, clauses 2 and 3. Since the U.S. Constitution is the law of our land, there is not a corner of our country in which Sharia is not forbidden because it is contrary to the Constitution.
  • Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 delegates the power to Congress to control immigration.
  • Article 4, Section 4 requires the Federal government to protect the states from invasion.
  • Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 authorizes Congress to call forth the militia (the armed citizens) to suppress insurrections and repel invasion.

She then pointed out that we are allowing an Islamic invasion, and I’ll add a Hispanic invasion as well, because we simply do not know what the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution says and that we have been “conditioned” to think that all cultures are equal and that nothing special happened when America was formed.

  • Publius Huldah then went on to point out that the prevailing dogma of our day is that multiculturalism, the belief that all cultures and religions are equal, is good, except for Western culture which is really, really bad. This is also tied to the rhetoric we hear being perpetrated that unrestricted immigration is a really, really good thing and those that oppose it are “bad people,” because they are racists and xenophobes.
  • Second she points out the lie of Islam being a peaceful religion.
  • Finally, she pointed out a prevailing dogma that the First Amendment gives Islamists the right to build mosques, proselytize and institute Sharia.

The issue of multiculturalism was addressed first and Publius Huldah points out that those who have sought to destroy us have told us that we have been bad from our inception claiming the Founders had slaves, were bad to the Indians and so on. Because many of the founding principles have not been taught in the public education system for some time, there is no wonder that many do not understand them, but instead misrepresent them.

Because of the intimidation of multiculturalists, many are afraid to claim that the American culture was better in any respects to other cultures. However, Publius Huldah declares, “But we were the shining city on a hill. We were a Christian country, based on Judeo-Christian principles of morality and civil government.” She pointed to the Declaration of Independence’s reference to God as the Creator, Supreme Judge of the World and as our divine Protector. Article 7, just above the signatures, recognizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ she says.

Publius then quotes John Jay from Federalist 2 (additional citation mine):

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

While she does note that our culture was not perfect because man is fallen, the culture that had been established was superior to other cultures. Some of the things she specifically referenced of our imperfections was slavery. “We fixed that (the issue of slavery) at great cost, which is what a culture deserves when it violates God’s laws,” she said. However, she now points to the fact that we murder babies which must also be addressed.

“You can’t protect your culture if you permit it to be overrun by people with different cultures who import their own inferior cultures and refuse to embrace your culture,” she declared. “Our Framers knew this.” This is why they put in writing Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1.

In 1965 multiculturalists insisted that we had to let anyone in. They hated our culture because it was based upon the Bible. They set out against our once Puritan, English speaking, and Christian culture with people from different cultures, religions, and languages who had no comprehension of limited, civil government set forth in the Constitution and Bible. It was Teddy Kennedy who pushed for the Immigration Act of 1965 and those that opposed it were silenced by being called names. It abolished the National Origins quota system which limited immigration primarily to those coming from cultures that were similar to ours.

“Multiculturalism never works. Cultures clash and the sub cultures who have the most children and are the most violent wipe out the host culture. It’s happening in Western Europe.”

Publius Huldah said that we don’t need to import Mexican culture because it is a criminal culture and they need to work that out there, not import it into the U.S. “Why is it a good thing to import third world people who don’t share our language, our culture or our values?” she asks.

With this she transitioned into the Islamic culture and told the audience she spoke to, “Look at the photos of the mutilated Muslim women who have been disfigured or murdered by their husbands, fathers and brothers. Look at the way they kill each other.” She went on to speak about cultures and ethnicities and the need and provision for redemption through Jesus Christ being available to all men. The idea of allowing believers or those of similar culture in smaller numbers to immigrate here was to force them into the culture, not allow them to transform it. We wanted them to leave their former cultures, languages and such behind and embrace the American culture.

Publius Huldah then stated there wasn’t a need to spend much time on the idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion.” She then referenced Allen West as the only politician who has had the guts to tell the truth about this, though he did capitulate shortly before his re-election bid last year in a congressional letter. She pointed out that George W. Bush babbled about Islam being peaceful while Ron Paul tried to say their cruelties and actions were America’s fault. Paul said what the CIA had said and that was the fact that 9-11 was part of “blowback,” but I’ve never heard him defending their cruelties under Shariah or such, but the point is taken that Paul is naive about Islam. “Islam is not even a religion,” she said. “Islam is a totalitarian system which controls every aspect of the lives of those who have the misfortune to be subjected to it. It masquerades as a religion in order to intimidate us and to claim what we have been told are First Amendment protection, but once we understand that Islam is just another vicious totalitarian system like Communism and Fascism, we can deal with it.”

She then gave encouraging words to those willing to stand up and demand that those who are ignorant of Islamic history and what is taking place around the world today at the hands of Muslims. Publius Huldah encouraged people not to be afraid to call out the multiculturists and show them the photos of what Islam does to its women. “Remember,” she said, “multiculturists are just ignorant little people who have repeated what they have been told.”

She then took on the final lie in her presentation and that is that the First Amendment gives Islamists rights to build mosques, proselytize and institute Sharia. She then quotes the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Publius Huldah rightly points out that the First Amendment doesn’t grant rights to anyone, but rather prohibits Congress from making laws about religion, speech, the press or assembly. The states retained powers to make laws about religion and speech. The states have always held that power and if you say they don’t, then why is slander, libel, intentional affliction of emotional distress and other such “speech” considered criminal? It’s because that is the states’ powers retained under the Constitution. Many of the states, even following the ratification of the Constitution had established state religions.

Therefore, Islamists don’t have a right to engage in any of their activities because the First Amendment restricts Congress, but not the states from dealing in matters of speech and religion. Also it does not put forth any right in the First Amendment.

Publius Huldah then points to the Declaration of Independence and states that it provides the source from where men’s rights come from, God.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

Source: http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/08/islamists-dont-right-build-mosques-proselytize-institute-sharia-law-america/

There is no love in a beheading

by David Lawrence

I do not understand what liberals mean when they say that not all Muslims are killers. I understand that not all killers are Muslims.

But whether all Muslims are or are not killers is irrelevant. Studies vary, but one Pew report says that thirty-one percent of Muslims in America have murder or suicide bombing in their hearts.

Consider that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. That means that if you reproduce the Pew results globally, approximately 480 million Muslims are potential killers. That’s more than the total American population.

Consider that there are only 22 million Jews in the world. And Jews don’t have the impulsion of the Koran leading them to murder for adultery, honor, or apostasy. Thus, of the 22 million Jews, probably an infinitesimal number have killing in their hearts.

If every Jew transformed into a murderer the Jews would have only about 20 percent of the potential Muslim killers. So when a liberal says that the Muslims are not that bad and that we shouldn’t profile them, turn your head to the liberal’s profile and say, “You facilitate evil. ”

It’s time the good Muslims cleaned house. It’s time they swept the jihadists and terrorists into the well.

It’s time the liberals stopped speaking up for them. It’s time the misogynistic, self-punishing feminists quit supporting Muslim barbarity.

It’s time we stopped applauding the revolt against traditional values and recognized that our supposedly outdated forefathers were actually right.

It’s time Muslims reformed their religion. Call it the Muslim Reformation. The mosque has become corrupt like the Catholic Church before the Reformation.

A religion that promulgates violence has forfeited its right to be a religion. There is no love in a beheading. There is no spiritual beauty in an amputation.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/no_love_beheading.html

Islam Is Neither a Religion Nor Peaceful

It’s misleading to call Islam a religion. While Islam, literally translated, means “submission” [to Allah—or death], it’s very much a political ideology.

The Qur’an, Hadith, and the Sunnah all clearly articulate Islam’s goal to implement worldwide totalitarian rule through implementing Shari’a Law.

This is why President Obama’s White House Homeland Security advisor Mohamed Elibiary (a Muslim Brotherhood member) asserts, “America is an Islamic country” with an “Islamic Compliant Constitution.” He views America within what will soon be a Muslim majority world.

This is why Obama’s close friend, Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council on America-Islamic Relations), says, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.”

The political ideology of Islam is why many Islamists work in the Obama Administration. Two notables are Mohamed Magid, a member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Board (Magid is president of the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA, founded by the Muslim Brotherhood]), and Louay Safi, the Pentagon’s Muslim military chaplain (and ISNA’s Director of Leadership Development).

This is also why the Muslim Brotherhood recently announced it is creating a political party to engage Muslims in U.S. politics and has attempted to add Shari’a Law to each U.S. state constitution.

Muhammad explicitly states that no Muslim can alter or ignore any part of his clear and direct commands in the Qur’an, throughout which he refers interchangeably to Islam and Shari’a Law. They are one in the same. Islam’s totalitarian political ideology specifies a mandatory legal system to oversee all areas of society.

Islam orders “religious worship,” financial transactions and contracts, morality, philosophical and other beliefs, and criminal and civil law. Islamic Shari’a Councils exist throughout European societies to institutionalize and regulate honor killings, child marriage and domestic violence. Child marriage is more than accepted because Muhammad, when in his fifties, added to his many wives by marrying six-year old Aisha, with whom he consummated his marriage to her when she was nine years old. (Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 62, Number 64, 65, 88; Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)

Islamic law rejects every aspect of western law. Drinkers, gamblers, and unmarried sexual partners must be whipped; all gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people are to be executed. Free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to worship or not worship, do not exist in Islam.

As Belgian leader Abu Imran explains, “democracy is the opposite of Islam. A Muslim who supports democracy is equivalent to a Jewish Muslim. It’s impossible to be both Jewish and Muslim and impossible to be a Muslim against Shari’a.” It is a Muslim’s duty to transform all governments to Shari’a Law.

The Qur’an, written over the course of Muhammad’s lifetime, instructs violence. The passages written later in his life are understood to supersede the earlier written passages. Because the “peaceful” or “tolerant” passages were written first and the violent and “intolerant” passages were written later, the latter are prioritized.

Muhammad commands in the Qur’an 9:29:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad] have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth [Islam], out of those who have been give the Book [the Bible, given to Christian and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of [Muslim] superiority and they [Christians and Jews] are in a state of subjection [dhimmitude, i.e. third-class legal status for non-Muslims].

Like ISIS, Muhammad was barbarically violent. The earliest, most comprehensive, and widely respected biography about Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq, Sira of Ibn Ishaq, reveals that Muhammad and his followers were brutally and mercilessly violent.

Ishaq describes one of Muhammad’s first acts, ordering the torture and beheading of a man Kinana b. al-Rabi’ to take his gold. After he stole al-Rabi’s wealth, he killed him, and took his new widow Safiya to consummate his marriage to her (English transl. p. 511-517).

The Hadith tells of Muhammad’s soldiers who raped “some excellent Arab women” because they “were suffering from the absence of [their] wives.” Muhammad told them it didn’t matter if they practiced ‘azl because “every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born” (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3371).
Ishaq writes that Muhammad warned, “if you do not follow him [Allah] you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell” (English transl. p. 222). (Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348; Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

This is why those who reject or leave Islam are “liable to be killed,” beaten, stomped on, stabbed, burned, imprisoned, and killed.

In fact, the majority of Muslims surveyed in a 2010 Pew Research poll support the death penalty in their country for those who leave Islam. The Qur’an orders death for anyone who criticizes Muhammad, Allah, and the Qur’an.

Following the Qur’an led to the beheading an Oklahoma woman because she rejected Islam. Both a Harvard Chaplain who supports death to non-Muslims and the Ground Zero Imam who openly claims those who leave Islam should be imprisoned, follow the Qur’an.

Following the Qur’an has resulted in Muslims killing more than 3,000 Americans on American soil in more than 75 terrorist attacks over the last 40 years. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of women, children and blacks enslaved in 57 Islamic countries.

Muslims who claim Islam is peaceful are following taqqiya, Qur’an-instructed deceit, or are not Muslims at all. As Abu Ad-Darda, Muhammad’s companion explained, “we can smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” And the Qur’an 3:185 states, “The life of this world is only the enjoyment of deception.”

Any reference to peace in Islam only means the world will be at peace when every country is Shari’a ruled. Obama supports this goal in both word and deed. He has said and written, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” and “I will stand with the Muslims if the Political Wind shifts in an ugly direction.”

Bethany Blankley worked in politics for over ten years, on Capitol Hill for four U.S. Senators and one U.S. Congressman, and in New York for a former governor. She also previously taught at the New York School of the Bible and worked with several non-profits. She earned her masters degree in theology from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and her bachelors degree in politics from the University of Maryland. She is a political analyst for Fox News Radio, and she has appeared on television and radio programs nationwide. Follow her: @BethanyBlankley http://www.bethanyblankley.com
Source: http://www.christianpost.com/news/islam-is-neither-a-religion-nor-peaceful-131779/

The Evil of Whitewashing Islam

by Craig Biddle October 26, 2014

One religion today regularly motivates large numbers of its followers to murder, behead, rape, and enslave people across the globe. That religion is Islam. Not Christianity. Not Judaism. Not Buddhism. Islam. Only Islam. You know this. I know this. Everyone paying attention knows this.

The Koran explicitly and repeatedly commands Muslims to engage in jihad or “holy war” whether they like it or not. “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know” (e.g., 2:216, 9:38). The Koran explicitly and repeatedly commands Muslims to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (e.g., 2:191, 9:5), “strike off their heads” (e.g., 8:12, 47:4), make sex slaves of their wives and daughters (e.g., 4:24, 33:50), and continue this jihad “until all opposition ends and all submit to ‘Allah’” (e.g., 8:39, 9:29). You know this. I know this. Everyone paying attention knows this.

According to Islam, the “Prophet” Muhammad is the ideal role model for all boys and men; he sets the perfect example for how to live and wage jihad. Muhammad regularly killed and beheaded unbelievers (e.g., the massacre of Banu Qurayza), made slaves of those he conquered but didn’t kill (he had many slaves), “married” (i.e., repeatedly raped) slave girls (e.g., Safiyah and Rayhana), raped children as young as nine years old (e.g., Aisha), and founded a religion in which all such behavior is regarded as morally great because the “Prophet” did it. You know this. I know this. Everyone paying attention knows this.

Of course, not all Muslims engage in the above-mentioned behavior. But this does not change the fact that Islamic scripture commands or condones such behavior. It simply means that some Muslims don’t take Islam seriously. For that we can be thankful.

Unfortunately, as anyone can see by glancing at the news, many Muslims do take Islam seriously. Jihadists across the globe—from the Middle East to Africa to the United States to Canada—are murdering, beheading, enslaving, and raping “infidels” wherever and whenever they can. And these jihadists are supported by Islamic theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which encourage and fund such barbarism.

Everyone paying attention knows at least that much. Granted, some know it in greater detail than others. But everyone with a functioning mind who has not been asleep since September 11, 2001, has a basic understanding of the foregoing facts.

Read the rest at: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/10/evil-whitewashing-islam/


Islam: A Blind Spot of the Left

Their moony embrace of multiculturalism has rendered modern liberals unable to connect the dots between beliefs and consequences. Rooted in moral relativism, multiculturalism is the notion that all moral codes are valid within their respective cultures, with no people group privileged to make moral judgments of others.

The person boorish enough to criticize the mores of another culture will quickly find himself banished from polite company for being racist, bigoted, intolerant, or (fill in the blank)-phobic. Just ask Sam Harris and Bill Maher, both establishment liberals, who were excoriated by Ben Affleck on an HBO panel discussion for their illiberalism. Their offense: calling Islam dangerous for the atrocities committed by Islamists.
To remain a member of the left in “good standing,” one can never, but never, attribute evil to the belief system that spawned it, even when the perpetrators themselves do so. One must stick to the liberal script, characterizing the actors as fringe, radical, extremist, misguided, and not representative of the true beliefs of their culture—except, that is, when those actors are Christian.

Double standards

Had the target of Harris’s and Maher’s criticism been Christianity, I doubt it would have elicited so much as a raised eyebrow from Affleck. Indeed, it has become standard practice in liberal circles to blame Christianity for hate crimes against gays and abortion clinic bombings, among other things.

But when the crime in question is a suicide bombing by ISIS, Al Qaeda, or other Islamist group, the well-bred liberal will respond, first, with appropriate outrage, then, with an ever-so-reassuring explanation that such is not the action of Muslims, but of religious fanatics; because Islam, “true” Islam, is a religion of peace and Muslims are a tolerant people.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who sided with Affleck on the HBO panel, commented that ISIS militants who cite Islamic teaching to justify their barbarism “give all Islam a bad name.” Former Muslim Ibn Warraq knows better.

In a statement made shortly after the September 11 attacks, Warraq wrote,

“There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the Hadith—Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The fundamentalists, with greater logic and coherence than so-called moderate or liberal Muslims, have made Islam the basis of a radical utopian ideology that aims to replace capitalism and democracy as the reigning world system.”

Ibn Warraq is not alone. In an interview in the New England Review, Mohammed Asghar, another former Muslim, said this about the Fort Hood massacre,

“Major Hasan’s action was in accord with the concept of Jihad, as it has been laid down in the Quran. Though the Jews and Christians are called the People of the Books, even then they are Unbelievers, as they do not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad. For this refusal of theirs, Muslims must kill them ‘for the sake of Allah.’”

False equivalence

What critics like Warraq and Asghar understand is that despite the benign attitudes and behaviors of moderate Muslims, it is the fundamentalists who take Islamic tenets seriously.

Islam teaches that sin is the result of man’s forgetfulness, forgiveness is attained through good works, and paradise is certain only when those works include dying in holy war. The end game is a utopian state where every aspect of political, economic, and social life is governed by Islamic law under a church-state theocracy. To that end, the holy texts of the faith as well as the life of its founder Muhammad teach that the use of forceful means, when called for, is commendable. As Mohammed Asghar explains,

“There are at least 109 verses in the Quran that call Muslims to war, and to kill those who do not believe in both Allah and Muhammad. ‘. . . . Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).’ (The Quran; 9:5).”

It’s a point that Kristof acknowledges—“it is true that the Quran has passages hailing violence”—but not without attempting a moral equivalence, “but so does the Bible, which recounts God ordering genocides, such as the one against the Amalekites.”

Kristof’s effort at equivalence fails because, unlike the Quranic teachings, which apply to all Muslims at all times, the biblical directives alluded to were provincial, teleological, and transient—that is, they were given to a certain people group, for a certain purpose, for a certain time only. None apply today, to anyone, especially Christians who are under the authority of Jesus’s teachings, as summarized in His Sermon on the Mount and exemplified by His life.

The liberal sympathizer who suggests that the Jihadist is no more representative of Muhammad than the Klansman is of Christ, hasn’t made a studied comparison of the two or ignores their differences, starting with how they came unto their own: Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey with a few hundred followers bearing palm branches to be crucified; Muhammad entered Mecca on a stallion with 10,000 warriors bearing swords to be victorious. Whereas Jesus gained followers by overcoming evil with good, Muhammad gained subjects by overcoming cities with the sword.

Although the Islam fundamentalist can rightly claim to follow the teachings of the Quran and the life of Muhammad in using oppressive force to gain converts, the Christian would have to disregard the clear teachings and life of Christ to do so.

Another consequential difference concerns the view of mankind. The Christian teaching of man as Imago Dei (created in God’s image) gave birth to the Western notions of human dignity and the unalienable rights of all persons. With no such view of man promoted by Islam, the ideals of democracy, equality, and individual liberty are non-existent in Islamic states, which explains why they consistently top the lists of bad actors in human rights violations.

Mainline Muslims

Folks like Affleck and Kristof are right to say that religiously motivated violence is prosecuted by a small segment of the Muslim population. What they don’t say, or know, is that it enjoys considerable support in the wider Muslim community.

As reported by the Pew Research Center, Muslims who believe that “suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians” are justified include “26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.” Even in the U.S., only 81% of Muslims say such acts are never justified, which means a fifth of them say they are justifiable—levels of belief exceeding what could be soberly characterized as “fringe.”

What’s more, many “mainline” Muslims who publicly denounce such violence privately support it, knowingly or unknowingly, through the “zakat.” One of the five pillars of Islam, the zakat is a tithe (designated as almsgiving) that functions as an income tax used to fund social services—but also jihad, which, according to classical Islamic jurists, is the duty of faithful Muslims everywhere in the struggle against the enemies of Islam.

Read the rest at http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/breakpoint-columns/entry/2/26419

The real enemy within

%d bloggers like this: