UN, UK Treating Persecuted Christians as “Enemies”


How long will Christians in America and however many Christians left in Multiculturalist Europe remain silent as Christians are exterminated in Muslim dominated lands AND the same persecuted Christians refused asylum in a safer (BUT not safe as long as there is Muslim influence) West? EVEN the Western Press ignores persecuted Christians as one has to go to alternative news sources to learn the UN and UK dominated by intolerant Islamic influences goes along with exterminating Christianity.

 

JRH 12/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some healthy coffee.

 

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

****************************

UN, UK Treating Persecuted Christians as “Enemies”

 

By  Raymond Ibrahim

12/26/2019

Originally posted at Gatestone Institute

RaymondIbrahim.com

 

Ibrahim photo – gbm

 

The United Nations Refugee Agency appears to be committed to blocking persecuted Christians from receiving any assistance.  According to a recent CBN News report:

 

Christian Syrian refugees … have been blocked from getting help from the United Nations Refugee Agency, the UNHCR, by Muslim UN officials in Jordan.

 

One of the refugees, Hasan, a Syrian convert to Christianity, told us in a phone call that Muslim UN camp officials “knew that we were Muslims and became Christians and they dealt with us with persecution and mockery. They didn’t let us into the office. They ignored our request.”

 

Hasan and his family are now in hiding, afraid that they will be arrested by Jordanian police, or even killed. Converting to Christianity is a serious crime in Jordan.

 

According to Timothy, a Jordanian Muslim who converted to Christianity, “All of the United Nations officials [apparently in Jordan], most of them, 99 percent, they are Muslims, and they were treating us as enemies.”

 

Addressing this issue, Paul Diamond, a British human rights lawyer, recently elaborated:

 

You have this absurd situation where the scheme is set up to help Syrian refugees and the people most in need, Christians who have been “genocided,” they can’t even get into the U.N. camps to get the food. If you enter and say I am a Christian or convert, the Muslim U.N. guards will block you [from] getting in and laugh at you and mock you and even threaten you…. [saying]  “You shouldn’t have converted. You’re an idiot for converting. You get what you get,” words to that effect.

 

The next obstacle those few Christians who make it past U.N. refugee camps face are the immigration centers of Western nations themselves.  For example, the discrimination is apparently so obvious in the United Kingdom that Lord George Carey is suing the U.K.’s Home Office for allegedly being “institutionally biased” against Christian refugees and therefore complicit in what he calls “the steady crucifixion of Middle East Christians.”

 

He is hardly the only one making such charges.  One independent report said that when it comes to offering asylum, the UK “appears to discriminate in favour of Muslims” instead of Christians. Statistics seemed to confirm this allegation:  “out of 4,850 Syrian refugees accepted for resettlement by the Home Office in 2017, only eleven were Christian, representing just 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK.”

 

Due to such figures, Lord David Alton of Liverpool, a life peer in the House of Lords, wrote to Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who then headed the Home Office:

 

It is widely accepted that Christians, who constituted around 10 per cent of Syria’s pre-war population, were specifically targeted by jihadi rebels and continue to be at risk….  As last year’s statistics more than amply demonstrate, this [ratio imbalance between Muslim and Christian refugees taken in] is not a statistical blip. It shows a pattern of discrimination that the Government has a legal duty to take concrete steps to address.

 

Such imbalances appear even stranger on the realization that the Islamic State, which precipitated the refugee crisis, is itself a Sunni organization that only targets non-Sunnis—primarily Christians, Yazidis, and Shia—all minority groups that the U.S. has acknowledged experienced a “genocide.”

 

Two of the strangest individual cases of anti-Christian bias were reported earlier this year, when the U.K. denied asylum to persecuted Christians by bizarrely citing the Bible and Islam.  Both Christians, a man and a woman, were former Muslims separately seeking asylum from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the ninth worst persecutor of Christians, particularly former Muslims.

 

In his rejection letter from the UK’s Home Office, the Iranian man was told that several biblical passages were “inconsistent” with his claim to have converted to Christianity after discovering it was a “peaceful” faith.  The letter cited biblical excerpts—including from Exodus, Leviticus, and Matthew—as supposed proof that the Bible is violent; it said Revelation was “filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence.”  The rejection letter then concluded: “These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful’ religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.”

 

In the second case, an Iranian female asylum seeker was sarcastically informed in her rejection letter that “You affirmed in your AIR [Asylum Interview Record] that Jesus is your saviour, but then claimed that He would not be able to save you from the Iranian regime. It is therefore considered that you have no conviction in your faith and your belief in Jesus is half-hearted.”

 

Discussing her experiences, the rejected woman said: “When I was in Iran I converted to Christianity and the situation changed and the government were [sic] looking for me and I had to flee from Iran….  In my country if someone converts to Christianity their punishment is death or execution.”  Concerning the asylum process, she said that whenever she responded to her Home Office interviewer, “he was either chuckling or maybe just kind of mocking when he was talking to me….  [H]e asked me why Jesus didn’t help you from the Iranian regime or Iranian authorities.”

 

Similarly, when Sister Ban Madleen, a Christian nun who was chased out of Iraq by the Islamic State, wanted to visit her sick sister in the U.K., she was denied a visa—twice.  A number of other Christian orderlies were also denied visas, including another nun with a PhD in Biblical Theology from Oxford; another nun denied for not having a personal bank account; and a Catholic priest denied for not being married.

 

In another case, Britain’s Home Office not only denied entry to three Christian leaders—archbishops celebrated for their heroic efforts to aid persecuted Christians in Syria and Iraq who had been invited to attend the consecration of the U.K.’s first Syriac Cathedral, an event attended by Prince Charles—but also mockingly told them there was “no room at the inn.”

 

Considering that persecuted Christian minorities—including priests and nuns—are denied visas, one may conclude that the Home Office is extremely stringent concerning its asylum requirements.  However, this notion is quickly dispelled on the realization that the Home Office regularly grants visas and refugee status to extremist Muslims (not to mention one has yet to hear about Muslim asylum seekers being denied because the Koran is too violent, or because they do not have enough faith in Muhammad).

 

For example,  despite having no papers on him—and despite telling the Home Office that “he had been trained as an ISIS soldier”—Ahmed Hassan was still granted asylum two years before he launched a terrorist attack on a London train station that left 30 injured in September 2017.  The Home Office also allowed a foreign Muslim cleric to enter and lecture in London, even though he advocates decapitating, burning, and/or throwing homosexuals from cliffs.  According to another report, “British teenagers are being forced to marry abroad and are raped and impregnated while the Home Office ‘turns a blind eye’ by handing visas to their [mostly Muslim] husbands.”

 

The case of Asia Bibi—a Christian wife and mother of five who spent the last decade of her life on death row in Pakistan for challenging the authority of Muhammad—best sheds light on the immigration situation in the UK.  After she was finally acquitted in November, 2018, Muslims rioted throughout Pakistan; in one march, more than 11,000 Muslims demanded her instant and public hanging.

 

As Pakistanis make for the majority of the U.K.’s significant Muslim population—Sajid Javid, then head of the Home Office, is himself Pakistani—when they got wind that the U.K. might offer Asia Bibi asylum, they too rioted.   As a result, then Prime Minister Theresa May personally blocked Bibi’s asylum application, “despite UK playing host to [Muslim] hijackers, extremists and rapists,” to quote from one headline.  In other words, Britain was openly allowing “asylum policy to be dictated to by a Pakistan mob,” reported the Guardian, “after it was confirmed it urged the Home Office not to grant Asia Bibi political asylum in the UK…”

 

On the other hand, the Home Office allowed a Pakistani cleric who celebrated the slaughter of a politician because he had defended Asia Bibi—a cleric deemed so extreme as to be banned from his native Pakistan—to enter and lecture in U.K. mosques.

 

Discussing how “visas were granted [by the Home Office] in July [2016] to two Pakistani Islamic leaders who have called for the killing of Christians accused of blasphemy,” Dr. Martin Parsons, a human rights activist, expressed his frustration: “It’s unbelievable that these persecuted Christians who come from the cradle of Christianity are being told there is no room at the inn, when the UK is offering a welcome to Islamists who persecute Christians.”

 

In short, Muslim influence against Christians is not only at work in U.N. refugee camps, as recent evidence indicates, but in the U.K’s immigration policy as well: Christian “infidels” need not apply, whereas radical Muslims are welcomed with open arms.

++++++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

__________________________________

© 2019 · RaymondIbrahim.com

 

About Raymond Ibrahim

 

RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist.  His books include Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (Da Capo, 2018), Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (Regnery, 2013), and The Al Qaeda Reader (Doubleday, 2007).

 

 

Ibrahim’s dual-background—born and raised in the U.S. by Egyptian parents born and raised in the Middle East—has provided him with unique advantages, from equal fluency in English and Arabic, to an equal understanding of the Western and Middle Eastern mindsets, positioning him to explain the latter to the former. His interest in Islamic civilization was first piqued when he began visiting the Middle East as a child in the 1970s. Interacting and conversing with the locals throughout the decades has provided him with an intimate appreciation for that part of the world, complementing his academic training.

 

After a brief athletic career—including winning the 1993 NPC Los Angeles Bodybuilding Championship as a teenager—Raymond went on to receive his B.A. and M.A. (both in History, focusing on the ancient and medieval Near East, with dual-minors in Philosophy and Literature) from California State University, Fresno. There he studied closely with noted military-historian Victor Davis Hanson. He also took graduate courses at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies—including classes on the history, politics, and economics of the Arab world—and studied Medieval Islam and Semitic languages at Catholic University of America. His M.A. thesis examined an early military encounter between Islam and Byzantium based on arcane Arabic and Greek texts.

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

Motives Behind the False Narrative on Islam and the West


I found a Raymond Ibrahim post on FrontPageMag.com that writes about the poisonous propaganda spewed by Left-Wing Multiculturalist and Islamic Apologists brainwashing susceptible Western minds for decades. You should read to discover if YOU are a victim or a collaborator of said brainwashing.

 

JRH 12/2/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

 

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

***************************

Motives Behind the False Narrative on Islam and the West

How — and why — reality was turned upside down.

 

An Islamic Mosque

 

By Raymond Ibrahim

December 2, 2019

FrontPageMag.com

 

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

 

Any honest and objective appraisal of Islam’s historic jihad on the Christian world must be eye-opening, to say the very least.  In the first century of its existence (between 632-732) Islam permanently conquered, Arabized, and Islamized nearly three-quarters of the Christian world, thereby permanently severing it.  Europe came to be known as “the West” because it was literally the remaining and westernmost appendage of Christendom not to be swallowed up by Islam.

 

For roughly a millennium thereafter, Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Tatars—all of whom called and saw themselves as Muslims—launched raid after raid, all justified and lauded as jihads, into virtually every corner of Europe.  They reached as far as Iceland and provoked the U.S. into its first war as a nation.  The devastation was indescribable; some regions in Europe, particularly in Spain and the Balkans, remain uninhabitable due to the incessant raiding.  Some 15 million Europeans were enslaved during this perennial jihad and, according to contemporary records, treated horrifically.

 

In short, “if we … ask ourselves how and when the modern notion of Europe and the European identity was born,” writes historian Franco Cardini, “we realize the extent to which Islam was a factor (albeit a negative one) in its creation.  Repeated Muslim aggression against Europe between the seventh to eighth centuries, then between the fourteenth and the eighteenth centuries … was a ‘violent midwife’ to Europe.”

 

Here the inevitable question arises: How could such a long, well-documented history of unmitigated Islamic aggression that had immense repercussions on the development of Western civilization now be presented as the antithesis of reality?

 

The answer revolves around a number of modern philosophies—from the Enlightenment to moral/cultural relativism—that have each contributed to an all-pervasive “Narrative” concerning the historic relationship between Islam and the West.  In presenting the West as aggressor and Islam as victim—hence the latter’s ongoing “grievance”-based animosity—this history is as entrenched as it is the reverse of reality.

 

To understand this, one must first understand that, despite its many manifestations, permutations, and emphases over the centuries, the Narrative’s unspoken driving force has largely been the same: to demonize and thus justify a break away from Europe’s traditional heritage, religion, identity, and mores.  If this sounds farfetched, consider: whereas by any objective standard the West is responsible for practically every boon taken for granted today—from scientific, technological, economic and medicinal advances, to the abolition of slavery and anti-discrimination laws—today no people of any race or civilization despise their heritage except Western people.    Clearly something is amiss.

 

Or consider how leftists/liberals/progressives who forever whine against any vestige of Western traditionalism, habitually make common cause with Islam—despite the latter’s truly oppressive qualities.  Thus feminists denounce the Western “patriarchy”—but say nothing against the Muslim treatment of women as chattel; homosexuals denounce Christian bakeries—but say nothing against the Muslim execution of homosexuals; multiculturalists denounce Christians who refuse to suppress their faith to accommodate the religious sensibilities of Muslim minorities—but say nothing against the entrenched and open Muslim persecution of Christians.

 

The reason for these discrepancies is simple:  “The enemy [Islam] of my enemy [Christianity] is my friend.”

 

From here, how and why such a formally well-known history of Muslim aggression against Europe was not merely suppressed but reversed should start making sense: of all non-European, non-Christian peoples, only Muslims lived alongside and interacted with (that is, constantly encroached and warred on) Europe for over a millennium; this made Muslims the only people—the only foil—that could be used to support the Narrative’s argument against premodern Europe.  But first an intellectually satisfying way of casting Muslims as victims not conquerors was needed.

 

Enter literary professor Edward Said’s 1978 book, Orientalism.  Its central thesis is that the Orientalists—the Europeans who began the academic study of the East centuries ago—were not writing objectively about Muslims and their history, but rather intentionally slandering and stereotyping them in order to justify dominating them during the colonial era.

 

This made perfect sense—but only because the postmodern Western mind had already been primed for it.  For if, as Marxist Materialism teaches, ideas/religions have no influence on history (and thus, economic want, not “jihad,” caused Muslims to expand); if, as Relativism and its spawn Multiculturalism teach, there are no absolute truths, religious or otherwise (and thus no culture or civilization is “better” than another); if, as pop psychology teaches, violent and negative behavior is always a product of societal injustices (and thus the more Muslims behave violently, the more that only proves they are frustrated victims)—then what does one make of the aforementioned centuries of European writings that uniformly depict Muslims as ideologically driven by violence and lust?

 

Simple: dismiss them all as bigoted and hypocritical lies by nefarious Europeans intent on demonizing a superior, more tolerant faith and civilization.   Thus a whole new academic approach to Islam—stripped of all historic writings not conforming to the Narrative—was born.  History would no longer shape ideas and attitudes; rather, preexisting ideas and attitudes—wishful thinking—would shape history.

 

Bernard Lewis, himself a target of Edward Said’s Orientalism, summarized this new approach—or “pseudo history”—well:

 

According to a currently fashionable epistemological view, absolute truth is either nonexistent or unattainable.  Therefore, truth doesn’t matter; facts don’t matter.  All discourse is a manifestation of a power relationship, and all knowledge is slanted.  Therefore, accuracy doesn’t matter; evidence doesn’t matter.  All that matters is the attitude—the motives and purposes—of the user of knowledge, and this may simply be claimed for oneself or imputed to another.  In imputing motives, the irrelevance of truth, facts, evidence, and even plausibility is a great help.  The mere assertion suffices” (Islam and the West, 115).

 

Orientalism’s success lay less in anything intrinsic to it—American classicist Bruce Thornton characterizes it as an “incoherent amalgam of dubious postmodern theory, sentimental Third Worldism, glaring historical errors, and Western guilt”—and more because it fit the West’s prevailing zeitgeist (which, of course, thrives on “dubious postmodern theory, sentimental Third Worldism, glaring historical errors, and Western guilt”).

 

Nor does the Narrative predominate today because people are well read or pay attention to academe; as French historian Marc Ferro demonstrated in his Cinema and History (1988), the overwhelming majority of Western people’s knowledge of history comes from movies.  And almost any major film dealing with premodern Europeans and Muslims—Robin Hood (1991), Kingdom of Heaven (2005), etc.—contrasts hypocritical, intolerant, and fanatical Christians with sophisticated, advanced, and tolerant Muslims.   Commenting on such films back in 1997, Lewis wrote, “The misrepresentation of the past in the cinema is probably the most fertile and effective source of such misinformation at the present time…”

 

Twenty years later the Narrative has only metastasized and infected all aspects of public life, including politics and so-called “mainstream news.”   Meanwhile, social and other media giants—YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter—increasingly censor material that contradicts the Narrative.

 

Such is how a previously well-known history was turned upside down and used to weaken the West—the greatest sin of which is ever again to think or behave like its “awful” ancestors did concerning Islam.

 

For more on the true history between Islam and the West, see the author’s recent Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West

+++++++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

_______________________

© Copyright 2019, FrontPageMag.com

 

Donate to Front Page Magazine

 

ABOUT FPM

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four  Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining the chief groups and individuals of the Left and their organizational interlocks.  It is a full service encyclopedia of the READ THE REST

 

Donate to Front Page Magazine

 

‘Nothing More than a Slut, a White Whore!’


DISGUSTING Muslims and their Multicultural Leftist enablers!

JRH 9/6/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

***********************

‘Nothing More than a Slut, a White Whore!’

How the Left validates Islam’s sexual fantasies and victimization of Western women.

 

By Raymond Ibrahim

September 6, 2019

FrontPageMagazine

 

POLIS

 

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

 

Western women are to blame for being raped by Muslim men.  Such is the latest position—the latest apologia—being offered by those Western elements dedicated to exonerating undesirable Muslim behavior, particularly in order to continue taking in more Muslim migrants.

 

According to an August 9, 2019 report, “in the Swedish city of Uppsala … four women were raped in as many days….  Two ‘completed rapes’ took place last weekend, with another attempted rape on Saturday night, and another sexual attack in the early hours of Wednesday morning.”

 

So many (reported) rapes in so brief a time span should be unsurprising considering that, since opening its doors to “multiculturalism”—which mostly means taking in male Muslim “refugees”—rapes in Sweden have increased by 1,472 percent, making it the rape capital of the world.

 

Although Uppsala Police failed to issue descriptions of the rapists—usually a sure sign of their origins—they did issue warnings for women to “think how they behave,” to “think ahead,” and not “go out alone” (original Swedish language report here).

 

Sweden is hardly the only Western European nation to implicate victims with their own rape.  In late 2018 in Germany, seven Muslim migrants raped a teenage German girl in a park, after drugging her at a disco in Freiburg.  (She at least survived; in a similar case that occurred a week earlier in Italy, the drugged rape victim was left murdered.) Freiburg’s police chief responded by warning German women not to “make yourself vulnerable by using alcohol or drugs.”

 

Advice against alcohol, drugs, and reckless behavior would be more welcome and sincere were it not made under duress.  As things stand, it is a copout.

 

For example, after mobs of Muslim migrants sexually assaulted as many as one thousand women on New Year’s Eve 2016 in Cologne, Germany, its mayor, Henriette Reker, called on women to “be better prepared, especially with the Cologne carnival coming up. For this, we will publish online guidelines that these young women can read through to prepare themselves.”

 

Or, as another report discussing the aforementioned rape in Freiburg puts it, “The focus on prevention is a good thing, but also shows how German authorities and media barely hold the migrant crisis responsible for the disaster that is unfolding in Germany.  Political correctness has caused officials to put the blame for the criminal acts on the women instead of Merkel’s guests.”

 

Similarly, in Austria, after a 20-year-old woman waiting at a bus stop in Vienna was attacked, beat, and robbed by four Muslim men—including one who “started [by] putting his hands through my hair and made it clear that in his cultural background there were hardly any blonde women”—police responded by telling the victim to dye her hair:

 

At first I was scared, but now I’m more angry than anything. After the attack they told me that women shouldn’t be alone on the streets after 8pm. And they also gave me other advice, telling me I should dye my hair dark and also not dress in such a provocative way. Indirectly that means I was partly to blame for what happened to me. That is a massive insult.

 

In Norway, Unni Wikan, a female professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, insists that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes,” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West need to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

 

So much for the feminist claim that women are free to dress and behave as promiscuously and provocatively as they want—and woe to the man who dares cite this as justifying male sexual aggression.  Apparently this feminist refrain does not apply to Muslim men.

 

But perhaps the greater irony is that all these excuses that implicate female victims in their own rape agree with Islam’s unwavering view—on display past and present—that European women are by nature sexually promiscuous.

 

Consider Islamic views concerning the first “white” women encountered.  Muslims habitually portrayed neighboring Byzantine women as sexually promiscuous by nature. Thus, for Abu Uthman al-Jahiz (b. 776), an Abbasid court scholar, the females of Constantinople were the “most shameless women in the whole world”; “they find sex more enjoyable” and “are prone to adultery.” Abd al-Jabbar (b. 935), another prominent scholar, claimed that “adultery is commonplace in the cities and markets of Byzantium”—so much so that even “the nuns from the convents went out to the fortresses to offer themselves to monks.”

 

For all these reasons and more, Byzantine women became Islam’s “beautiful femme fatale who makes men lose their self-control,” as the author of Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs explains:

 

Our [Arab/Muslim] sources show not Byzantine women but writers’ images of these women, who served as symbols of the eternal female—constantly a potential threat, particularly due to blatant exaggerations of their sexual promiscuity. In our texts, Byzantine women are strongly associated with sexual immorality. . . . While the one quality that our [Muslim] sources never deny is the beauty of Byzantine women, the image that they create in describing these women is anything but beautiful. Their depictions are, occasionally, excessive, virtually caricatures, overwhelmingly negative.

 

Such fevered fantasies—which “are clearly far from Byzantine reality”—existed only in the minds of Muslim men. “The behavior of most women in Byzantium was a far cry from the depictions that appear in Arabic sources.”

 

Regardless, not only did Muslim writers/scholars fail to “revise” their opinion concerning Byzantine women; they subsequently went on to portray all white/European women encountered—including Frankish, Spanish, and Slavic women—in the same manner.

 

Today, little has changed (except, as shall be seen, Western responses): all European women continue to be seen as naturally promiscuous and provoking Muslim men into raping them.  Thus in the United Kingdom, a Muslim man explained to a British woman why he was raping her: “you white women are good at it.”  Another Muslim man called a 13-year-old virgin “a little white slag”—British slang for “loose, promiscuous woman”—before raping her.

 

Another British woman was trafficked to Morocco where she was prostituted and repeatedly raped by dozens of Muslim men.  They “made me believe I was nothing more than a slut, a white whore,” she recollects. “They treated me like a leper, apart from when they wanted sex.  I was less than human to them, I was rubbish.”

 

In Germany, a group of Muslim “refugees” stalked a 25-year-old woman, hurled “filthy” insults at and taunted her for sex.  They too explained their logic to her—“German girls are just there for sex”—before reaching into her blouse and groping her.  A Muslim man who almost killed his 25-year-old German victim while raping her—and shouting “Allah!”—asked afterwards if she enjoyed it.

 

In Austria, an “Arabic-looking man” approached a 27-year-old woman at a bus stop, pulled down his pants, and “all he could say was sex, sex, sex,” prompting the woman to scream and flee.

 

In Australia, a Muslim cabbie groped and insulted his female passengers, including by saying “All Australian women are sluts and deserve to be raped.”

 

In short, the ancient Islamic motif concerning the alleged promiscuity of European women is alive and well—irrespective of the latter’s behavior—and continues justifying the Muslim rape of Western women.

 

The only thing “new” is that Muslim would-be rapists can turn to those “progressive” elements that dominate Western society for cover.  For, just as “the Left” has worked long and hard to portray Islamic intolerance, violence, and terrorism as the West’s fault—because of the crusades, because of colonialism, because of Israel, because offensive cartoons—it now adds Islam’s perverted fantasies concerning Western women to the list of reasons that “provoke” Muslims to lash out.

 

Note: For numerous documented examples of Muslims sexually objectifying and enslaving Western women throughout history, see author’s new book, Sword and Scimitar, which also sources many of the above quotes.

_________________________

© Copyright 2019, FrontPageMag.com

 

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum. His books include Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (Da Capo, 2018), Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (Regnery, 2013), and The Al Qaeda Reader (Doubleday, 2007).

 

The Jihad on the Christian Cross


Here is a politically incorrect thought sure to be reviled by Left Wing Multiculturalists and maybe even some Religious Liberty-minded Conservatives: Islam is soooo anti-Christian and Antisemitic in its revered writings, the death-cult should be illegalized as a legitimate religion in ANY Western Nation but especially in the U.S. of A.

 

Unless you are a Muslim supporter of this cult you might ask, “Why?”

 

I suspect Raymond Ibrahim would not publicly agree with me for politically correct reasons, his recent post – “The Jihad on the Christian Cross” – is a good enough reason to me to illegalize Islam.

 

JRH 6/7/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

***********************

The Jihad on the Christian Cross

 

By Raymond Ibrahim 

06/07/2019

RaymondIbrahim.com

 

Cover story photo of the 15th issue of Islamic State magazine, Dabiq, titled “Break the Cross.”

 

A 37-year-old Muslim migrant in Rome was recently arrested for homicide after he stabbed a Christian man in the throat for wearing a crucifix around his neck.  “Religious hate” is cited as an “aggravating factor” in the crime.

 

This is hardly the first “religious hate” crime to occur in the context of the cross in Italy.  Among others,

 

 

  • A Muslim migrant invaded an old church in Venice and attacked its large, 300-year-old cross, breaking off one of its arms, while shouting, “All that is in a church is false!”

 

 

The fact is, Islamic hostility to the cross is an unwavering phenomenon—one that crosses continents and centuries; one that is very much indicative of Islam’s innate hostility to Christianity.

 

For starters, not only is the cross the quintessential symbol of Christianity—for all denominations, including most forms of otherwise iconoclastic Protestantism—but it symbolizes the fundamental disagreement between Christians and Muslims.   As Professor Sidney Griffith explains, “The cross and the icons publicly declared those very points of Christian faith which the Koran, in the Muslim view, explicitly denied: that Christ was the Son of God and that he died on the cross.”  Accordingly, “the Christian practice of venerating the cross … often aroused the disdain of Muslims,” so that from the start of the Muslim conquests of Christian lands there was an ongoing “campaign to erase the public symbols of Christianity, especially the previously ubiquitous sign of the cross.”

 

This “campaign” traces back to the Muslim prophet Muhammad. He reportedly “had such a repugnance to the form of the cross that he broke everything brought into his house with its figure upon it,” wrote one historian (Sword and Scimitar, p. 10).  Muhammad also claimed that at the end times Jesus (the Muslim ‘Isa) himself would make it a point to “break the cross.”

 

Modern day Muslim clerics confirm this.  When asked about Islam’s ruling on whether any person—in this case, Christians—is permitted to wear or pray before the cross, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Tarifi, a Saudi expert on Islamic law, said, “Under no circumstances is a human permitted to wear the cross” nor “is anyone permitted to pray to the cross.”  Why?  “Because the prophet—peace and blessings on him—commanded the breaking of it [the cross].”

 

Islamic history is a reflection of these sentiments.  For instance, the aforementioned Sheikh al-Tarifi also explained that if it is too difficult to break the cross—for instance, a large concrete statue—Muslims should at least try to disfigure one of its four arms “so that it no longer resembles a cross.”  Historic and numismatic evidence confirms that, after the Umayyad caliphate seized the Byzantine treasury in the late seventh century, it ordered that one or two arms of the cross on the coins be effaced so that the image no longer resembled a crucifix (Sword and Scimitar, p. 54).

 

Testimonies from the very earliest invasions into Christian Syria and Egypt of Muslims systematically breaking every crucifix they encountered abound.  According to Anastasius of Sinai, who lived during the seventh century Arab conquests, “the demons name the Saracens [Arabs/Muslims] as their companions.  And it is with reason.  The latter are perhaps even worse than the demons,” for  whereas “the demons are frequently much afraid of the mysteries of Christ,” among which he mentions the cross, “these demons of flesh trample all that under their feet, mock it, set fire to it, destroy it” (Sword and Scimitar, p. 27).

 

Reminiscent of the recent drawing of a cross in fecal matter on a French church, in 1147 in Portugal, Muslims displayed “with much derision the symbol of the cross. They spat upon it and wiped the feces from their posteriors with it.” Decades earlier in Jerusalem, Muslims “spat on them [crucifixes] and did not even refrain from urinating on them in the sight of all.” Even that supposedly “magnanimous” sultan, Saladin, commanded “whoever saw that the outside of a church was white, to cover it with black dirt,” and ordered “the removal of every cross from atop the dome of every church in the provinces of Egypt” (Sword and Scimitar, pp. 171, 145, 162).

 

Lest Muslim hostility to the cross still seem aberrant—limited to some obscure saying of Muhammad or “ancient history”—below is a very partial list of examples of how the crucifix continues to throw even “everyday” Muslims into paroxysms:

 

Egypt: A young Coptic Christian woman named Mary was mauled to death when her cross identified her as a Christian to Muslim Brotherhood rioters.  Similarly, 17-year-old Ayman, a Coptic student, was strangled and beaten to death by his Muslim teacher and fellow students for refusing to obey the teacher’s orders to cover his cross.

 

Pakistan: When a Muslim man saw Julie Aftab, a Christian woman, wearing a cross around her neck, he attacked her, forced battery acid down her throat, and splashed it on her face—permanently damaging her esophagus, blinding her in one eye, and causing her to lose both eyelids and most of her teeth.

 

Turkey: A 12-year-old boy in Turkey wearing a silver cross necklace in class was spit on and beaten regularly by Muslim classmates and teachers.

 

Malaysia: A Christian cemetery was attacked and desecrated in the middle of the night by unknown persons in the Muslim-majority nation.  Several crosses were destroyed, including by the use of “a heavy tool to do the damage.”  Separately, a Muslim mob rioted against a small Protestant church due to the visible cross atop the building of worship.  It was quickly removed.

 

Maldives: Authorities had to rescue a female Christian teacher after Muslim “parents threatened to tie and drag her off of the island” for “preaching Christianity.”  Her crime was to draw a compass—which was mistakenly taken for a cross—as part of a geography lesson in class.

 

As Islam’s presence continues to grow in Europe, it should come as no surprise that attacks on crosses are also on the rise.  Aside from the aforementioned attacks in Italy, the following occurred either in France and Germany, where attacks on churches and crosses have become endemic:

 

  • A Muslim man committed major acts of vandalism at two churches, including by twisting a massive bronze cross.  (Click for images.)

 

 

  • A Muslim man who checked himself into a hospital for treatment went into a sudden frenzy because there were “too many crosses on the wall.”  He called the nurse a “bitch” and “fascist” and became physically aggressive.

 

  • After Muslims were granted their own section at a cemetery, and after being allowed to conduct distinctly Islamic ceremonies, these same Muslims began demanding that Christian symbols and crosses in the cemetery be removed or covered up during Islamic funerals.

 

  • A German language report from notes that in the Alps and in Bavaria alone, some 200 churches have been attacked and many crosses broken: “The perpetrators are often youthful rioters with a migration background.”

 

In light of the above, it should come as no surprise that groups such as the Islamic State also make hostile references to the cross in their communiqués to the West: “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah[.] … [We will cast] fear into the hearts of the cross-worshipers[.]”  The Islamic State even once disseminated a video showing its members smashing crosses in and atop several churches in territories under its sway (since taken down by YouTube); it beheaded and stabbed a man with his own crucifix; and it published pictures of its members destroying Christian crosses and tombstones in cemeteries under its jurisdiction.

 

Similarly, in post “Arab Spring” Libya, a video of a Muslim mob attacking a commonwealth cemetery near Benghazi appeared on the internet.  As the Muslims kicked down and destroyed headstones with crosses on them, the man videotaping them urged them to “break the cross of the dogs!” while he and others cried “Allahu akbar!”  Toward the end of the video, the mob congregated around the huge Cross of Sacrifice, the cemetery’s cenotaph monument, and started to hammer at it, to more cries of “Allahu akbar.”  Other Christian cemeteries in Libya have suffered similarly.

 

In Iraq, pictures emerged from a Christian cemetery that was vandalized by the Islamic State.  Broken and scattered crosses appear.  In one picture, the jihadis broke into a coffin, snapped off the head of the withered corpse, and threw the crucifixes surrounding it on the ground.

 

Such is the history and continuity of Islamic hate for the cross—that symbol which represents the heart of the Christian faith, namely the death and resurrection of Christ, two events Islam vehemently denies.

 

The jihad on the cross began with Muhammad, was carried out by early caliphs, and continues to this day by the jihadis of the world, not to mention the occasional “everyday” Muslim.

 

Note: For more on the long history of jihad on the Christian cross, see author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.

_________________________

© 2019 · RaymondIbrahim.com ·

 

About

RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist.  His books include Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (Da Capo, 2018), Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (Regnery, 2013), and The Al Qaeda Reader (Doubleday, 2007).

 

Ibrahim’s writings, translations, and observations have appeared in a variety of publications, including the New York Times Syndicate, CNN, LA Times, Fox News, Financial Times, Jerusalem Post, United Press International, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, and Weekly Standard; scholarly journals, including the Almanac of Islamism, Chronicle of Higher Education, Hoover Institution’s Strategika, Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst, Middle East Quarterly, and Middle East Review of International Affairs; and popular websites, including American Thinker, Bloomberg, Breitbart, Christian Post, Daily Caller, NewsMax, National Review Online, PJ Media, and World Magazine. He has contributed chapters to several anthologies and has been translated into dozens of languages.

 

Among other media, he has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, C-SPAN, PBS, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, and NPR; he has done hundreds of radio interviews and some of his YouTube videos (here and here for example) have received over a million views each.

 

Ibrahim guest lectures at universities, including the National Defense Intelligence College, has briefed governmental agencies, such as U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency, provides expert testimony for Islam-related lawsuits, and has testified before Congress regarding the conceptual failures that dominate American discourse concerning Islam and the worsening plight of Egypt’s Christian Copts.

 

Ibrahim’s dual-background—born and raised in the U.S. by Egyptian parents born and raised in the Middle East—has provided him with unique advantages, from equal fluency in English and Arabic, to an equal understanding of the READ THE REST

 

Genocide of Christians Reaches “Alarming Stage”


If someone ever tells you there is a Moderate Islam and a Radical Islam and the latter is not representative of Islam, that person is an outright liar or is deceived into believing a lie.

 

It’s kind of like telling a Jewish Holocaust Survivor there is a Moderate Nazi and a Radical Nazi.

The horror that is Islam is being experienced NOW by Christians in Muslim dominated nations. Can you say GENOCIDE?

 

JRH 5/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Genocide of Christians Reaches “Alarming Stage”

 

By Raymond Ibrahim
May 26, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Many of the world’s most persecuted Christians have nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism or missionaries. Those most faced with the threat of genocide — including Syria’s and Iraq’s Assyrians or Egypt’s Copts — were Christian several centuries before the ancestors of Europe’s colonizers became Christian and went missionizing

 

  • The BBC report highlights “political correctness” as being especially responsible for the West’s indifference….

 

  • Among the worst persecutors are those that rule according to Islamic law, or Sharia — which academics such as Georgetown University’s John Esposito insist is equitable and just. In Afghanistan (ranked #2), “Christianity is not permitted to exist.”

UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt (pictured) commissioned an “Independent Review into the global persecution of Christians,” which was recently published. (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

 

Christian persecution ‘at near genocide levels,'” the title of a May 3 BBC report, cites a lengthy interim study ordered by British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and led by Rev. Philip Mounstephen, the Bishop of Truro.

 

According to the BBC report, one in three people around the world suffer from religious persecution, with Christians being “the most persecuted religious group”. “Religion ‘is at risk of disappearing’ in some parts of the world,” it noted, and “In some regions, the level and nature of persecution is arguably coming close to meeting the international definition of genocide, according to that adopted by the UN.”

 

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is also quoted on why Western governments have been “asleep” — his word — concerning this growing epidemic:

 

“I think there is a misplaced worry that it is somehow colonialist to talk about a religion [Christianity] that was associated with colonial powers rather than the countries that we marched into as colonisers. That has perhaps created an awkwardness in talking about this issue—the role of missionaries was always a controversial one and that has, I think, also led some people to shy away from this topic.”

 

Whatever the merits of such thinking, the fact is that many of the world’s most persecuted Christians have nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism or missionaries. Those most faced with the threat of genocide — including Syria’s and Iraq’s Assyrians or Egypt’s Copts — were Christian several centuries before the ancestors of Europe’s colonizers became Christian and went missionizing.

 

The BBC report highlights “political correctness” as being especially responsible for the West’s indifference, and quotes Hunt again in this regard: “What we have forgotten in that atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are some of the poorest people on the planet.”

 

Although the BBC report has an entire heading titled and devoted to the impact of “political correctness,” ironically, it too succumbs to this contemporary Western malady. For while it did a fair job in highlighting the problem, it said nothing about its causes — not one word about who is persecuting Christians, or why.

 

The overwhelming majority of Christian persecution, however, evidently occurs in Muslim majority nations. According to Open Doors’ World Watch List 2019 [WWL], which surveys the 50 nations where Christians are most persecuted, “Islamic oppression continues to impact millions of Christians.” In seven of the absolute worst ten nations, “Islamic oppression” is the cause of persecution. “This means, for millions of Christians—particularly those who grew up Muslim or were born into Muslim families—openly following Jesus can have painful consequences,” including death.

 

Among the worst persecutors are those that rule according to Islamic law, or Sharia — which academics such as Georgetown University’s John Esposito insist is equitable and just. In Afghanistan (ranked #2) , “Christianity is not permitted to exist,” says the WWL 2019, because it “is an Islamic state by constitution, which means government officials, ethnic group leaders, religious officials and citizens are hostile toward” Christians. Similarly, in Somalia, (#3), “The Christian community is small and under constant threat of attack. Sharia law and Islam are enshrined in the country’s constitution, and the persecution of Christians almost always involves violence.” In Iran (#9), “society is governed by Islamic law, which means the rights and professional possibilities for Christians are heavily restricted.”

 

Equally telling is that 38 of the 50 nations making the WWL 2019 are Muslim majority.

 

Perhaps the BBC succumbed to silence concerning the sources of Christian persecution — that is, succumbed to “the atmosphere of political correctness” which it ironically highlighted — because in its own report, it did not rely on the WWL. The problem with this interpretation is that the study the BBC did rely on, the Bishop of Truro’s, is saturated with talk concerning the actual sources of Christian persecution. In this regard, the words “Islam” and “Islamist” appear 61 times; “Muslim” appears 56 times in this review on persecuted Christians.

 

Here are a few of the more significant quotes from the Bishop of Truro’s report:

 

  • “The persecution of Christians is perhaps at its most virulent in the region of the birthplace of Christianity—the Middle East & North Africa.”

 

  • “In countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia the situation of Christians and other minorities has reached an alarming stage.”

 

  • “The eradication of Christians and other minorities on pain of ‘the sword’ or other violent means was revealed to be the specific and stated objective of [Islamic] extremist groups in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria and the Philippines.”

 

  • “[T]here is mass violence which regularly expresses itself through the bombing of churches, as has been the case in countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia.”

 

  • “The single-greatest threat to Christians [in Nigeria] … came from Islamist militant group Boko Haram, with US intelligence reports in 2015 suggesting that 200,000 Christians were at risk of being killed… Those worst affected included Christian women and girls ‘abducted, and forced to convert, enter forced marriages, sexual abuse and torture.'”

 

  • “An intent to erase all evidence of the Christian presence [in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria and the Philippines] was made plain by the removal of crosses, the destruction of Church buildings and other Church symbols. The killing and abduction of clergy represented a direct attack on the Church’s structure and leadership.”

 

  • “Christianity now faces the possibility of being wiped-out in parts of the Middle East where its roots go back furthest. In Palestine, Christian numbers are below 1.5 percent; in Syria the Christian population has declined from 1.7 million in 2011 to below 450,000 and in Iraq, Christian numbers have slumped from 1.5 million before 2003 to below 120,000 today. Christianity is at risk of disappearing, representing a massive setback for plurality in the region.”

 

The BBC should be commended for (finally) reporting on this urgent issue — even if it is three years behind the times. As the Truro report correctly observes, “In 2016 various political bodies including the UK parliament, the European Parliament and the US House of Representatives, declared that ISIS atrocities against Christians and other religious minority groups such as Yazidis and Shi’a Muslims met the tests of genocide.”

 

At the very least, it appears that the BBC has stopped trying to minimize the specter of Christian persecution as it did in 2013, when this situation was just starting to reach the boiling point.

________________________

Raymond Ibrahim, author of the new book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

 

Follow Raymond Ibrahim on Twitter and Facebook

 

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not ask or receive such permission; hence if requested this cross post will be removed.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the transparency and accountability of international organizations.

 

Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. We are grateful for your support. Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.

 

Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

 

Fr. James V. Schall: Sword and Scimitar Is “a Detailed, Well-Researched” and “Most Welcome” Book


I am gratified the GOP still controls the Senate and displeased the Marxist oriented Dems is the majority political party in the House – all be it slim majority. The jury is out on how a divided Congress manages the rule of law in this nation, but if the proven Dem/media lies against President Trump the emerging proof of a lying smear campaign (HERE, HERE, HERE & HERE) against Justice Brett Kavanaugh is any indication – government gridlock is in the future for at least two-years.

But moving on … It is time to refresh our memory on just how dangerous Islam is to Western Culture. I’ve been reading Robert Spencer’s new book “The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS” – Book Review HERE.

 

And now another book exposing Islam’s history and true nature is out by Raymond Ibrahim: “Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West”. After reading the book review on Ibrahim’s blog, I’ll picking that book up as well.

 

JRH 11/7/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Fr. James V. Schall: Sword and Scimitar Is “a Detailed, Well-Researched” and “Most Welcome” Book

 

By Raymond Ibrahim 

11/07/2018

RaymondIbrahim.com

 

Fr. James V. Schall during his final lecture at Georgetown University in 2012

 

James V. Schall, S.J. — a longtime professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University and author of On Islam — recently reviewed my book, Sword and Scimitar.  First published in the Catholic World Report, and titled, “On the Purpose of Islam: A Review of Raymond Ibrahim’s Sword and Scimitar,” it follows:

 

“Unlike most military histories—which no matter how fascinating are ultimately academic—this [book] offers correctives; it sets the much discussed historical record between these two civilizations straight and, in so doing, demonstrates once and for all that a Muslim hostility for the West is not an aberration but a continuation of Islamic history.” — Raymond Ibrahim, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (New York: De Capo Press, 2018), xvi

 

“For unlike Manzikert (1071), which was more a Turkic victory, the conquest of Constantinople (1453) had greater significance for all Muslims. Even in Egypt, where the Ottoman’s chief rivals the Mamluks reigned, the ‘good tidings were proclaimed and Cairo decorated’ to celebrate ‘this greatest of conquests.’ The Sharif of Mecca wrote to Muhammed (II), calling him ‘the one who has aided Islam and the Muslims, the Sultan of all kings and sultans,’ and—further underscoring the idea that conquest over infidels is the epitome of Islamic piety—‘the resuscitator of the Prophet’s sharia.’” — Raymond Ibrahim, Sword and Scimitar, 247.

 

I.

 

Some things we prefer not to know. Among these, it often seems, is an accurate account of the origins, extent, and the means of expansion of Islam over its now 1200 year history. During this time period, the armies of Islam managed to conquer a good fifth of the world’s geography and population. This growth and expansion show few signs of abating, in spite of Islam’s expulsion from Spain in the fifteenth century and from the Balkans in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The main reason that Islam is not larger is because—and only because—it was defeated in some major historic battles. In recent years, with its high birth-rate and its immigration, Islam has a new lease on life in the West, particularly in Europe, from which it had been turned back in the eighth century at the battle of Tours and in the fifteenth at Vienna. Both Europe and America are now dotted with mosques in hundreds of places, the construction of which is usually financed by Saudi Arabia.

 

Sword & Scimitar bk jk

 

In this riveting account of the history of Islam’s military accomplishments, Raymond Ibrahim shows that Islam has followed a consistent policy that has combined politics, war, terror, and religion. Its purpose was, and remains, essentially religious, however unwilling we might be, because of our own presuppositions, to grant that fact. This purpose follows a reading of the Koran as Islam’s central guide and ultimate justification as the message of Allah to mankind. It also manifests the core reason why Islam, throughout its history, has sought to expand. Other motives—economic, ethnic, and political—were also present, but this religious motive was at its core. Until that core is rejected by enough individual Muslims, it will continue to inspire, , by ever varying means—sometimes peaceful, sometimes violent—this drive to conquer what is not yet under Islamic control.

 

What is difficult for many to understand is the persistence of a singular purpose, carried on century after century: the submission of the world to Allah. Both those who believe in nothing and those who believe in other gods are tempted to think such a concept to be preposterous or impossible. Yet this purpose is what motivated and inspired the Muslim caliphs, beys, emirs, sheiks, merchants, and peasants, whether Sunni or Shiite, to continue their mission no matter how hopeless it seemed at first.

 

This expansion involved massive genocides and slaughters in various parts of the world and in different eras, about which Ibrahim gives a detailed and often graphic account. But such shocking means, deliberately undertaken, do not obviate this prior religious purpose. Indeed, this religious purpose is part of the rationale of the expansion, which used whatever means that worked. The philosophical voluntarism that finally explained Muslim actions came into being to justify the use of violence in religion. As explained by al Ghazelli in the eleventh century, Allah could will the opposite of what he willed; everything depends on Allah’s will that is bound to no permanent truth.

 

II.

 

To understand Islam, it is necessary to follow its history, which is inspired by the Koran and its interpretations. Thus we have both what the Koran teaches and the historic record of what Islam did following upon those teachings. Noted historian Victor Davis Hanson, in the “Foreword” to Ibrahim’s book, gives a brief list of its major theses: 1) “Islamic armies saw themselves as expansionary and messianic, eager to engage the West and to annex its territory and convert its people”; 2) The wars against the West were not seen primarily as localized but “as religious rather than national or ethnic…their warring against the Westerners was so seen as mostly a monolithic struggle against Christendom rather than against particular European States”; 3) Islamic leaders have seen Christianity as inherently against Islam; 4) Muslims in Western states had much more freedom than Christians in Muslim states.

The book is a detailed, well-researched account of the major battles between Islam and the West. The same methods of warfare, conquest, and imposition of Muslim law occur again and again. The Crusades were not signs of Christian aggressiveness but of a final, usually desperate effort to protect themselves from Muslim incursions. Two things are striking in this presentation. The first is that the positive use of violence is considered a legitimate way to deal with those deemed as enemies of Islam. With almost monotonous regularity this factor is seen in every battle and its aftermath. It can be, from an Islamic perspective, justified from Koranic verses and from the historical record. The only time a Muslim doubts his faith is when he is soundly defeated in battle. But military defeat is only temporary. As long as the Koran is read, Islam will rise again. Islam, we see again and again, is both patient and unforgiving.

 

The second striking thing is the extent and prevalence of slavery, of slave markets, of the need of slaves to make possible the kind of life that Muslim leaders carved out for themselves. Most Americans are aware that slavery existed in their own country. What is not so widely known is the place of Arab middle men who were the slave brokers for both black and white slaves. Though slavery is found in many cultures throughout history, it was a constant element in Muslim life. And the slaves were not mostly black, but white; the choice slaves were acquired by raids along the European coasts or as the booty of conquest.

 

Near the end of the book, Ibrahim recounts the experience of the early American founders with Islam. The first American war, some might be surprised to learn, was with the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. The United States paid regular and enormous ransom fees to recover Americans held as hostages. Ibrahim cites the letter that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson wrote to Congress on March 28, 1786:

 

We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their (Muslim) pretentions to make war against nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The (Muslim) ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war on them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise (284).

 

This analysis of Adams and Jefferson sketches and summarizes the essential theses of this book, which draws out in detail the record and working out of the Muslim practice of warfare and governance as seen embodied in its history.

 

III.

 

The book leaves us with several questions. Can one really be a faithful Muslim and not accept this history and its rationale? Can non-Muslims rest content that this religious warfare in various forms will not be unleashed on them whenever the opportunity arises? As Ibrahim points out, a Muslim is free to say in public that he will not practice violence provided that he secretly agrees in his heart that he will follow, when he can, the Koran and what it says about such violence.

 

A further issue is whether an accurate knowledge of Islamic warfare and history is not somehow illiberal, unfair, or, yes, provocative. Those who maintain, in spite of all evidence, that Islam is a religion of peace do neither Islam nor themselves any favor. We honor Islam best by judging it first by its own standards and purposes. In this sense, Ibrahim’s book is most welcome. It does not pretend that the record of what Islam does and says of itself is something else other than it is. And no one denies, of course, that Islam is composed of many internal struggles both of its theology and of its politics.

 

In many ways, Islam has been its own worst enemy. Efforts to democratize Islam have taught many Muslims how to use democratic processes for their long term goals. While Islam approves of conquest by arms, it does not disdain any other way to power if it can finally impose its law (Sharia). While there are no Muslim armies today capable of defeating any major power in the field, the use of terrorist tactics can, if unchecked, still effectively disrupt and even weaken any modern society.

 

IV.

 

In Belloc’s 1900 book Miniatures of French History we find a chapter entitled “The Breaking of Islam,” which is about the Battle at Poitiers and Tours in 732, a seminal battle that Ibrahim likewise covers. It was a battle that saved France and probably Europe. To explain why Islam was in France in the first place, Belloc wrote:

 

Mahomet, acquainted with the Faith, selected from manifold Christian truth what few points seemed good to him, and composed a new heresy alive with equality and the reduction of doctrine to the least compass. He denied the Incarnation and left the Eucharist aside. Mahomet had vision and heard divine commands. Stones spoke to him and he perceived the glories of heaven. But more than this…he was filled with a command to teach what he had seen and known. He must remake men. For this mighty task he found two mighty levers—brotherhood and simplicity—and to these he joined the delight of arms.

 

Belloc, as Ibrahim also notes, was far ahead of his time in seeing the meaning and scope of Islamic thought and history. Belloc paid the honor to Islam of taking its religious side, its history, and its messianic purposes seriously. He could do this because he could understand the call of its faith. This understanding of Islam’s faith is what is important in Sword and Scimitar. We cannot read Muslim history as if it is explained by the liberal mind that cannot (or will not) understand the call of such a faith over time. Christians have been mostly driven out of Muslim lands. They have suffered attacks and killings in our day, the same kind of atrocities that occurred again and again in the past. We pay little or no attention. Those most eager to dialogue with representatives of Islam usually do not know its history. They cannot understand why this dialogue results mostly in an effort to settle more and more of Mohammed’s followers in lands that Islam could not conquer before by arms.

 

Belloc, in his book The Crusades—in a section on the Battle at the Horns of Hattin (1187), after the crushing of the Crusaders’ last hold in the Holy places—said that if Islam ever gains the power again, it will do exactly as it did before. He wrote this in the 1930s; by the second decade of the 21st century, it is clear that he was right. Ibrahim’s book provides the background to verify this thesis.

 

Islam cannot reform itself by denying its own history and the methods to achieve its successes. And it cannot be Islam and deny what is in the Koran. Wherever the Koran is read carefully and seriously, the drive to world submission to Allah will reappear and continue. Sometimes it will be defeated; at other times it will succeed. Islam is content to wait, but it always is prodding. It understands that its immediate enemy is the West—not China or India or Russia. It has every reason to believe that it is gradually but definitely making inroads into Europe, often without the need of bloodshed. It has not repudiated terror, but it has realized the possibility of using Western political means to bring the Sharia into effect in any given city or country. If it can expand by democratic means as well as with terror and war, so much the better. The end remains the same–the conquest of the world for Allah, the mission assigned to it from the beginning.

 

Islam today is divided into various factions and dozens of states, some struggling against others. It has no final authority of interpretation of its texts; it has no unified army. The recent defeat of ISIS on the ground made clear that its expansion might now use other means. Historically, Christians and non-Christians falling under the control of Muslim majorities have been required to pay a fine and accept second class citizenship, convert, or die. Peace for Islam means the condition brought about when everyone is Muslim. Until then, a state of war with non-Muslims de facto exists. Again, the purpose of Islam is the subjection of all men and nations to Allah. Without this ultimate goal, Islam is not Islam. One cannot but admire this religious impetus, while, at the same time, doing one’s best to see that it never succeeds—both for the good of non-Muslims and Muslims alike. Sword and Scimitar offers a challenging and direct explanation why these things make sense.

____________________

© 2018 · RaymondIbrahim.com ·

 

 

 

About

 

RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist.  His books include Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (Da Capo, 2018), Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (Regnery, 2013), and The Al Qaeda Reader (Doubleday, 2007).

 

Ibrahim’s writings, translations, and observations have appeared in a variety of publications, including the New York Times Syndicate, CNN, LA Times, Fox News, Financial Times, Jerusalem Post, United Press International, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, and Weekly Standard; scholarly journals, including the Almanac of Islamism, Chronicle of Higher Education, Hoover Institution’s Strategika, Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst, Middle East Quarterly, and Middle East Review of International Affairs; and popular websites, including American Thinker, Bloomberg, Breitbart, Christian Post, Daily Caller, NewsMax, National Review Online, PJ Media, and World Magazine. He has contributed chapters to several anthologies and has been translated into dozens of languages.

 

Ibrahim guest lectures at universities, including the National Defense Intelligence College, has briefed governmental agencies, such as U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency, provides expert testimony for Islam-related lawsuits, and has testified before Congress regarding the conceptual failures that dominate American discourse concerning Islam and the worsening plight of Egypt’s Christian Copts.

 

Among other media, he has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, C-SPAN, PBS, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, and NPR; he has done hundreds of radio interviews and two courses for Prager University, each of which has been viewed over a million times on YouTube.

 

Ibrahim’s dual-background—born and raised in the U.S. by Egyptian parents born and raised in the Middle East—has provided him with unique advantages, from equal fluency in English and Arabic, to an equal understanding of the Western and Middle Eastern mindsets, positioning him to explain the latter to the former. His interest in Islamic civilization was first piqued when he began visiting the Middle East as a child in the 1970s. Interacting and conversing with the locals throughout the decades has provided him with an intimate appreciation for that part of the world, complementing his academic training.

 

After a brief athletic career—including winning the 1993 NPC Los Angeles Bodybuilding Championship as a teenager—Raymond went on to receive his B.A. and M.A. (both in History, focusing on the ancient and medieval Near East, with dual-minors in Philosophy and Literature) from California State University, Fresno. There he studied closely with noted military-historian Victor Davis Hanson. He also took graduate courses at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies—including classes on the history, politics, and economics of the Arab world—and studied Medieval Islam and Semitic languages at Catholic University of America. His M.A. thesis examined an early military encounter between Islam and Byzantium based on arcane Arabic and Greek texts.

 

Ibrahim’s resume includes serving as an Arabic language and regional specialist at the Near East Section of the Library of Congress, where he was often contacted by and provided information to defense and intelligence personnel involved in the fields of counterterrorism and area studies, as well as the Congressional Research Service; and serving as associate director of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia think tank.

 

He also often functions as a journalist and has been a Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a CBN News analyst.  His knowledge of Arabic and familiarity with Middle Eastern sources have enabled him to offer breaking news.  Days before the Obama administration blamed an anti-Islamic movie for Muslim uprisings against a U.S. consul and an embassy in Libya and Egypt respectively, Ibrahim showed that the demonstrations were pre-planned and unrelated to the movie.  Similarly, he was first to expose an Arabic-language Saudi fatwa that called for the destruction of any Christian church found on the Arabian Peninsula.

 

Raymond Ibrahim is currently the Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

 

Grim Life for Christians in Muslim Pakistan


Christian Pakistani Victims – RescueChristians.org

I have been posting Christian Pakistani Shamim Masih (journalist and Christian Human Rights activist) for years. Shamim paints a grim picture of the persecution of Christians in Pakistan – It is quite brutal. Here is my SlantRight 2.0 Search Shamim Masih link to read just how thorough he has been. I have posted so many reports that there is a good chance the “Search” will not do justice or you will grow weary in reading the evil horrors Muslims (including so-called peaceful Moderate Muslims) have perpetuated against Christians in Pakistan.

Below I am cross posting scholar-blogger-Counterjihad Writer Robert Ibrahim’s snapshot of what Christians have endured in Pakistan JUST in the month of October 2015. Seeing Ibrahim validation of Shamim’s reporting I encourage to send whatever amount you can to shore-up any financial Christmas efforts Shamim has accomplished. As far as I know Pakistan does not allow PayPal transactions ergo you will have to contact our Christian brother in Pakistan with his email – shamimpakistan@gmail.com – for instructions OR you can use Western Union sending money with this LINK to a Western Union agent in Islamabad. Include Shamim’s phone – +92-300-642-4560. When I can spare the cash I use Western Union (Full Disclosure: My financial situation has not allowed me to be generous for quite some time, I pray someone whose financial situation is blessed enough to send Shamim any amount.)

JRH 12/30/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Grim Life for Christians in Muslim Pakistan

Raymond Ibrahim

December 27, 2015

RaymondIbrahim.com

Originally: Gatestone Institute

The U.S. State Department lists only nine nations as “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) — a designation for those nations considered to be the worst violators of religious freedom. These include governments that “engage in or tolerate” systematic, ongoing, and unspeakable violations of religious freedom.

According to many human rights activists, this list is far from complete: “the State Department has seemed unwilling to recognize the grave unspeakable abuses of religious freedom in a number of Muslim-dominated countries that the USCIRF [U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom] considers CPCs: Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Tajikistan.”

Accordingly, on October 21, the USCIRF issued a press release calling on “the State Department to further expand its CPC list to reflect the severe violations occurring in other countries, such as Pakistan, which USCIRF has called the worst situation in the world for religious freedom for countries not currently designated by the U.S. government as CPCs.”

To understand why Pakistan was highlighted, consider the following 10 accounts, all of which took place in the month of October — the same month that the U.S. State Department was being urged to include Pakistan and other countries in its list.

On October 23, a deaf, married Christian woman was gang-raped by three Muslim men who broke into her home while her husband was out working. Despite her screams, no one came to help her. Although one man was arrested, rights activists say he will eventually be released. According to Sardar Mushtaq Gill, a Pakistani lawyer and human rights activist, “Often in these cases the police take no action or, worse, side with the rapists. Christian families or witnesses are pressured to withdraw complaints.”

On October 15, eight days before the deaf Christian woman was raped, two Muslim men, both named Muhammad, who had earlier raped two teenage Christian sisters at gunpoint, were acquitted in court. Not only did a key witness change his statement after receiving a bribe, but according to the girls’ father, “The lawyer didn’t fight the case very well and with commitment. Mostly, he stayed absent from the hearings of the case during the proceedings. The lawyer didn’t even participate in the cross-questioning with the culprits in the court. … We face serious life threats from the culprits now, as they are being released from jail.”

A report from October 5 cites three separate incidents in which five young Christian girls were abducted and sexually abused: Two were kidnapped and gang-raped by a group of Muslim men; a 13-year-old Christian girl was kidnapped and raped; and two other Christian girls were abducted and abused by a group of human traffickers who forced them into prostitution.

Nabila Bibi, a Christian woman who had been engaged to a Christian man for a year and was preparing to marry him in a few weeks’ time, was abducted, forcibly converted to Islam, and then forcibly married to a Muslim man named Allah Rakha. After discovering her whereabouts, her fiancé went to the kidnapper’s home on October 15 and demanded to see her. Rakha, who had 15-20 other Muslims with him, refused, and warned the Christian that because his fiancée was now Muslim, he must never seek her out again, or else suffer “dire consequences.” The report adds that such Christian abductees “may be subjected to sexual violence, rape, forced prostitution, human trafficking and sale, or other domestic abuse or discarded from home after passing some time.”

On October 23, Sonia Bibi, a 20-year-old Christian woman, was set on fire and almost burned to death after she refused to marry a Muslim ex-boyfriend. According to the woman’s testimony, when she turned down his proposal, Latif Ahmed doused her with petrol and set her alight. Burns covered nearly half of her body.

On October 5, Saddique Azam, a Catholic teacher who was appointed headmaster at a primary school in a small village, was beaten and tortured by a group of three Muslim teachers who resented being under the authority of an “infidel.” The Muslims barged into Azam’s office and ordered him to resign. When he refused, they beat him so severely that he needed to be hospitalized.

According to an October 14 report, rights activists are concerned for the life of Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five who has been on death row since 2010. A Muslim woman, apparently with a personal vendetta against Bibi, had accused her of speaking blasphemy against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad. “She could be killed by any inmate or even a prison guard, so we have to be careful,” said an official. Bibi was put in solitary confinement, where her health has been steadily deteriorating. “She was vomiting blood last month and having difficulty walking.”

Asia Bibi and two of her five children prior to 2010 imprisonment

An October 23 report titled, “Christians required only as sweepers,” notes that “Christians make up most of the non-Muslim minority in central Punjab and account for 1.5 per cent of the total population. Their representation in sanitation work, however, is above 80 percent.” After noting that Pakistan was named “Land of the Pure” in reference to its Muslim identity (as opposed to that of its largely Hindu neighbor, India), the report adds, “The attitude of forcing Christians into degrading occupations based on their descent continues and owes its existence to this long-entrenched dichotomy of ‘pure’ and ‘impure.’”

An October 19 report tells of a Christian family — a father, mother, and two daughters — who have been on the run since 2006. Their “crime” was that the woman, formerly a Muslim, converted to Christianity and married a Christian man. This prompted threats and attacks from Muslims, including her family:

“Jobless and desperate, they are unable to meet their own needs, as they continue to be threatened, hounded, and attacked because they want to live a Christian life and raise their children in accordance with Christ’s teachings,” notes the report. Due to the stressful experiences and unsanitary conditions they are forced to hide in, the woman has miscarried their third child. The father was shot in the leg and run over by a motorcycle. Even so, “Attempts to file a case against their tormentors have fallen on deaf police ears.”

On October 7, more than 1,000 Christians gathered in front of the Punjab Assembly to protest an “anti-minority” bill that “denies voting rights to women” and “does not allow religious minorities to elect their own representatives.” Religious minorities argued that an appointed official “cannot do anything” except to “become a puppet in the hand of their party.”

These ten accounts from October alone are a typical sampling of what Christians, who reportedly make up roughly 1% of Pakistan’s population, routinely experience. (Over 96% of Pakistan’s population is Muslim).

Worse, the majority of atrocities, according to human rights activists, never get reported for fear of reprisals. It took five years for the account of a two-year-old toddler, who was savagely raped because her Christian father refused to convert to Islam, to become public. She has undergone five surgeries and still remains disfigured. Her family lives in constant fear and in hiding.

According to human rights activist Sardar Mushtaq Gill, who is involved with many of the above-mentioned cases, “Violence against women and children of religious minorities, the weak and vulnerable, is widespread in Pakistan and is often carried out in silence. These cases and the stories do not come to light and when victims talk about it they are intimidated.”

In light of all this, it is high time for Pakistan to be labeled a “Country of Particular Concern” by the U.S. Department of State. Otherwise, the crucial question persists: Why is it not?

_______________________

Online Free Speech Ensured by FreeSpeechDefense.net

Content copyright Raymond Ibrahim, you may share content from this site provided a link to the source is supplied.

About Raymond Ibrahim

RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist. His books include Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007). His writings, translations, and observations have appeared in a variety of publications, including the New York Times, CNN, LA Times, Fox News, Financial Times, Jerusalem Post, New York Times Syndicate, United Press International, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, and Weekly Standard; scholarly journals, including the Almanac of Islamism, Chronicle of Higher Education, Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst, Middle East Quarterly, and Middle East Review of International Affairs; and popular websites, such as American Thinker, the Blaze, Bloomberg, Breitbart, Christian Post, FrontPage Magazine, Gatestone Institute, the Inquisitr, Jihad Watch, NewsMax, National Review Online, PJ Media, the UK’s Commentator, and World Magazine. He has contributed chapters to several anthologies and been translated into dozens of languages.

Ibrahim guest lectures at universities, including the National Defense Intelligence College, briefs governmental agencies, such as U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency, provides expert testimony for Islam-related lawsuits, and has testified before Congress regarding the conceptual failures that dominate American discourse concerning Islam and the worsening plight of Egypt’s Christian Copts. Among other media, he has appeared on READ THE REST