For All My Muslim Friends

Two video's for my Muslim friends with great respect and love. May the Almighty God draw you to Himself.

Part of the Great Contribution of Radical Islam to the World

A picture worth a thousand words. Here is a then (1970) and now (2010) picture of Kabul. It is heartbreaking to see the effects of war, radical Islam, and hatred. That thick stew is deadly combination on civilization everywhere on the globe. Use the bar at the bottom of the page to toggle right and left to get the full before and after effect of the picture.

91% of "Honor Killings" (sic) are Done by Muslims

Islamic honor killing in Kentucky: Muslim slits throats of his three children, rapes his wife and hits her with a hammer

Because he suspected her of infidelity. This happened in 2006, but is just coming to trial now for some reason.

Of course, this story makes no mention of Islam. Said Biyard is just a "Somali man." And generally whenever an honor killing takes place in North America or Europe, the mainstream media tells us that honor killing is a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam -- despite several facts indicating the contrary. It is no accident or coincidence that Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'" And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

Nonetheless, the media drumbeat is constant: honor killings have nothing to do with Islam. And as long as that continues, we will see more and more murders like this one.

"Police describe grisly scene in Somali man's trial in deaths of his children," by Jason Riley in the Courier-Journal, April 18 (thanks to Twostellas):

Louisville Metro Police officers described in court on Monday a grisly scene when they walked into the home of Said Biyad's family on Oct. 6, 2006, with a trail of blood starting in the hallway and leading to bedrooms with his four children lying dead, their throats cut.

“He left them laying in pools of their own blood,” Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Christie Foster said in her opening statement about Biyad, whose murder trial began on Monday in Jefferson Circuit Court.

Foster told Judge James Shake that Biyad “brutally” killed his four children — Goshany, Khadija, Fatuma and Sidi Ali, ages 2 through 8 — and raped and assaulted his wife before turning himself in at police headquarters and admitting what he had done.

Detective Brenda Wescott testified that three of the children were found in one room, with the youngest apparently trying to put her thumb in her mouth before she died. The other child was found in a separate room in bed, partially covered in blankets.

Wescott, who had to compose herself once during her testimony, said she arrived at the scene to find a veteran officer looking “shell-shocked.”...

Defense attorney Mike Lemke said in his openings to Shake that they believe Biyad is mentally ill and will offer expert testimony that he is a paranoid schizophrenic.

Lemke said Biyad has for years believed people were trying to kill him and get his money, and that he was a multimillionaire celebrity.

He said this trial will show “clear evidence of a person who is mentally ill” and provide a “peek into a brain that does not function in a normal way.”...

The first witness for the prosecution, Officer James Clark, said Biyad was sitting calmly in the lobby of the police station on Seventh and Jefferson streets, his hands crossed, when he first met him.

Biyad “kept saying he had done very bad things,” Clark said.

Clark testified that Biyad told his story, in broken English, “matter-of-factly.”

Biyad told police he had slit the throats of his children, making a motion by sweeping his hand across his neck, and believed they were dead. He said his wife, Fatuma Amir, may also be dead. Amir was beaten and raped, but survived.

Clark said Biyad was angry because he believed his wife was cheating on him and he was asked to pay money to the elders to have a relationship with her.

Biyad allegedly raped his wife and beat her with a hammer before she was able to lock herself in a room.

Biyad said he then went to the rooms of each of his children, cutting their throats, before throwing the knife in a garbage can, according to court documents.

When Officer Krissy Hagan went to the home, she said she heard Amir crying inside.

“A sob I won't forget,” she said.

Biyad is not facing the death penalty through an agreement between defense and prosecutors and the maximum sentence he faces is life in prison.

What kind of agreement?

Posted by Robert on April 19, 2011 8:11 AM |

The comment thread on this article at its source is at 40 as of April 20, 2011.

Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/04/islamic-honor-killing-in-kentucky-muslim-slits-throats-of-his-three-children-rapes-his-wife-and-hits.html

Multi-ethnic -- Yes. Multi-cultural -- No!

As the planter of a multi-ethnic church that at one time had as many as 23 countries of birth represented in the congregation, the vision of the nations coming together to worship the King of Kings is near to my heart. But a multi-ethnic congregation that bows to Christ is far different from the vision of mulculturalism espoused by the cultural mavens of our media and social planners. The following article is from Kairos Journal.

“Multiculturalism Has Run Its Course”—Jonathan Sacks (1948 - )

Jonathan Sacks is the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Educated in his native Britain, he was knighted by the Queen in 2005 for his services to interfaith relations. He is a widely published author, with his book The Dignity of Difference(2004) winning the Grawemeyer Award for Religion.

In his The Home We Build Together - Recreating Society (2007), Sacks considers the fractured state of British society in the early twenty-first century. He subjects public policy to close scrutiny and gives particular critical consideration to multiculturalism, a doctrine that has dominated immigration policy in Britain (and many other Western countries) since the 1970s.

Multiculturalism has run its course, and it is time to move on. It was a fine, even noble idea in its time. It was designed to make ethnic and religious minorities feel more at home, more appreciated and respected, and therefore better able to mesh with the larger society…

But there has been a price to pay, and it grows year by year. Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation. It has allowed groups to live separately, with no incentive to integrate and every incentive not to. It was intended to promote tolerance. Instead the result has been, in countries where it has been tried, societies more abrasive, fractured and intolerant than they once were.

Liberal democracy is in danger. Britain is becoming a place where free speech is at risk, non-political institutions are becoming politicised, and a combination of political correctness and ethnic-religious separatism is eroding the graciousness of civil society…

If there is no agreed moral truth, we cannot reason together. All truth becomes subjective or relative, no more than a construction, a narrative, one way among many of telling the story. Each represents a point of view, and each point of view is the expression of a group….

Right or wrong, one thing is clear: the new tolerance is far less permissive than the old intolerance…

Ever-new “isms” are invented to exclude ever more opinions. New forms of intimidation begin to appear: protests, threats of violence, sometimes actual violence. For when there are no shared standards, there can be no conversation, and where conversation ends, violence begins…

A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation, is greater than that of others…

Without a national culture, there is no nation. There are merely people-in-proximity. Whether this is sufficient to generate loyalty, belonging and a sense of the common good is an open question. National cultures make nations. Global cultures may yet break them.¹

Footnotes:

1	Jonathan Sacks, “Wanted: A National Culture,” Times Online, October 20, 2007, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2697772.ece (accessed April 7, 2010).

Islam's Advance Calls for Love Not Fear

I could do without the final scene in this video, but otherwise, from a factual standpoint, it is right on target describing Islam's advance.

At the same time, there is no need for either panic or anger. These issues call for love and faith and gospel proclamation. Let's go out and love our Muslim neighbors. Let's go out and proclaim the gospel to our Muslim neighbors and let's go out in the faith and trust that our God, the real God is still in control and sovereign. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, the bride of Christ and the apple of his eye.

Christianity Produces Better Martyrs Than Islam

The Beauty of the Gospel on Display is on display in this story of a Christian Martyr in Pakistan. All religions are not equal. Some are more helpful or harmful to society. But only one can be true. Christianity is alone. It and its Lord, is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) and there is no other way to the Father except through Jesus.

That isn't a politically correct statement. It will be perceived by some as a narrow statement. But it is a true statement.

BREAKPOINT DAILY TRANSCRIPT

Greater Love : A Christian Martyr in Pakistan
December 23, 2009

This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship president Mark Earley.

At Christmastime, we’re reminded that our God is the God of great reversals. As we set out humble nativity scenes, we may forget how unthinkable it is that the King of Kings lowered himself not just to be born in human flesh, but in a lowly stable amidst the braying of animals and the smell of manure.

Our God seems to love reversals such as this. Jesus tells us that the first shall be last, the least will be the greatest in the kingdom. He elevates repentant sinners and tax-collectors above Pharisees and wealthy leaders. And through His apostle Paul, He reminds us that He chose the foolish things of this world, the weak, and the despised, to show the glories of his wisdom.

A recent story coming from Pakistan seems to fit this pattern exactly. In late October, at Islamabad’s International Islamic University, an Islamic suicide bomber tried to attack the women’s side of campus. But there worked a lowly janitor, Pervaiz Masih, who like so many of the 2 percent Christian minority in this 95 percent Muslim country are relegated to the most menial jobs in society -- garbage collectors, sewage workers, and servants.

The suicide bomber was making his way to a cafeteria of some 300 to 400 women students, when Masih came between him and his goal. Masih is a common name among the Christian minority -- it means Messiah. And on October 20th, Masih certainly followed in the footsteps of Jesus, the true Messiah. He refused to let the bomber pass. In the process the bomb detonated, killing Masih, the bomber, and three girls nearby. Meanwhile, the 300 to 400 Muslim girls inside the cafeteria were unharmed.

In the midst of the rubble from the explosion lay two martyrs. A so-called Muslim “martyr” had maliciously murdered others. Meanwhile, a Christian martyr had laid down his life for his brethren. A Christian died to save Muslims from a fellow Muslim.

CNN reported Professor Fateh Muhammad Malik, a rector of the university, as saying that Pervez Masih “rose above the barriers of caste, creed and sectarian terrorism. D espite being a Christian, he sacrificed his life to save the Muslim girls.”

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that not “despite being a Christian” but because of being a Christian, Masih laid down his life.

As news cameras showed the garbage-strewn cemetery where Masih is buried, I couldn’t help but think of God’s great reversals. A King born in a manger. A hero buried beneath garbage. And I couldn’t help thinking how one day this upside-down world would be turned on it its head at the second Advent, when Christ comes in glory.

In the meantime, pray for persecuted Christians in Pakistan who suffer under unjust blasphemy laws, and who as recently as this past July were murdered, beaten, and had their homes set on fire simply for bearing the name of Jesus.

Pray that Masih’s heroic actions will help many Pakistanis to see Christians in a different light. And pray that Islamic extremists would have their eyes opened to what it means to be a true martyr, that is, to give one’s life to save others, not to give one’s life to kill others.

Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship

Why it is Dangerous to Trust Muslims

There is principle of Islam that allows Muslims to lie to advance the cause of Islam. I first ran into this distasteful and wicked practice not with Muslims but with cultic followers of the Korean sect know as "Moonies" because they follow the Rev. (sic) Sun Young Moon and then later with a group called the "The Local Church" (led by Witness Lee) and another cultic group, "The Children of God." All three groups practiced what the latter called, "Holy Deception." Their members were encouraged to lie if it would advance the cause of the group.

Muslims call the same principle TAQIYYA. The video below exposes Islam on this point.

All of this reminds me of text from the apostle Paul in the book of Titus. Quoting one of Crete's own poets, Paul writes in Titus 1:12:

"Even one of their own prophets has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.'"

The verse always posed this philosophical conundrum for me: "If a Cretan tells you that all Cretans are liars, can you believe him?"

The same is true for every Muslim I know, including my next door neighbor, who I think is a really nice guy, is not out to kill me, is against terrorism, and who I don't think lies to me, etc.

True, people who say they are Christians, can lie too. But when they do so, they go against everything that Christ was, taught and expected from his followers. This is radically different from the principle of Taqiyya in Islam. (By the way, the Wiki article on Taqiyya has been sanitized.)

See Video here:
Disclaimers: The makers of the video are atheist not Christians. Ignore the comments on Youtube.com. Many of the comments are written by people who are filled with hate for Muslims and are clearly bigoted. I don't want to be associated with any of them. It is the video that I want to interact with.

Terrorists are Terrorists and only Understand One Language

Here's a forgotten piece of history that we would do well to remember. Muslim extremists understand one language and it has a very small vocabulary. The article below is from Kairos Journal.

“To the Shores of Tripoli”

Calling the gravely-injured American serviceman John Morrison an “infidel and a dog,” his Muslim captor struck him several times and pronounced him a shirker. Three days later, the 27-year-old Morrison was dead.¹ His fellow prisoners, colleagues in arms, were also beaten regularly, and several others would die, never again to see their homeland. Their last residence would be a “crumbling, verminous dungeon.”² The year was 1803, the locale, North Africa, where Morrison and his comrades were shipmates from the U.S. frigate Philadelphia, run aground in America’s first war on terror—with the Barbary Pirates.

For years, these Islamic marauders had commissioned their corsairs (swift pirate ships) in the shipyards of Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli with the cry, “Allahu Akbar!” (“God is Great!”). Lamb’s blood was poured ritually upon the ships’ prows in “the fervent hope that the raiders soon would spill Christian blood.”³ Their bitterness was grounded in an historic reversal—Muslim expulsion from Spain in 1492, the year that Columbus sailed for America.⁴ The Moors had controlled the Iberian Peninsula since 711, when 7,000 Muslim invaders under Tarik stepped off boats at a rock which would later bear the commander’s name—Gebal-Tarik (Gibraltar).⁵ Forced to retreat to North Africa over seven centuries later, many of these exiles would dedicate themselves to tormenting the navies and merchant fleets of Christian Europe.

So successful was their piracy that by the time the United States was born in the late 18th century, European nations were paying annual financial tribute to Algiers to guarantee their safety—$100,000 from Spain, $24,000-30,000 from the Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and Venetians, and a whopping $280,000 from the British.⁶ America could scarcely hope to escape this “jihad protection racket,”⁷ and sure enough, in 1795, the nation signed a treaty with Algiers, one which would eventually cost “$500,000 or more in tribute, gifts, and military stores.”⁸

When America balked at escalating demands in 1800, a Barbary corsair from Tripoli seized and stripped the New York brigCatherine, which was bound for Italy.⁹ And adding insult to injury, Yusuf, the ruler of Tripoli, forced the U.S. warship George Washington to ferry presents and bribe money to the Ottoman sultan in Constantinople.¹⁰ That was the last straw, and soon the U.S. was at war with the Barbary state of Tripoli.

The war was won by an extraordinary military feat, one immortalized in the United States Marine Hymn, which begins, “From the halls of Montezuma, To the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country’s battles, In the air, on land, and sea.”¹¹ William Eaton led a contingent of troops 520 miles overland from Egypt to defeat the Tripolitans.¹² When he was wounded in the initial assault, Marine Lt. Presley O’Bannon took charge and led the men to victory on April 27, 1805.¹³ Yusuf was forced to release the crew of the Philadelphia, and all was well. Almost.

Needing reinforcements to hold the captured ground and fearing slaughter of the prisoners, American consul Tobias Lear negotiated a settlement with Yusuf, one involving the payment of $60,000 for the men of the Philadelphia, the reciprocal release of 81 Barbary prisoners, and a pledge to withdraw from the Tripolitan town of Derna.¹⁴ Back in America, many were incensed at the compromise, and they were right to be indignant. By 1807, the Barbary states were up to their old ways, capturing American merchant ships,¹⁵ and it was not until 1816 that the U.S. was finally free from tribute. Thanks to an 18-ship Mediterranean squadron, including the Independence, America won a peace “dictated at ‘cannon’s mouth.’”¹⁶ The nation had learned that there was no substitute for the force of arms when dealing with terrorists, who took every act of accommodation as a sign of weakness. It is a lesson well remembered today.

Footnotes:

1	Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror 1801-1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003), 177.
2	Ibid., 174-175.
3	Ibid., 16.
4	Ibid., 12.
5	Ibid., 11.
6	Ibid., 58.
7	Ibid., 31.
8	Ibid. 345. The tribute included “$21,600 worth of military supplies each year, $17,000 in biennial gifts to the dey’s officers, and $20,000 each time a new consul arrived in Algiers.”
9	Ibid., 95.
10	Ibid., 97-98.
11	“Marines’ Hymn,” Marines Website, http://www.marines.com/page/usmc.jsp?pageId=/page/Detail-XML-Conversion.jsp?pageName=Marine-Hymn&flashRedirect=true (accessed June 22, 2006).
12	Ibid., 284.
13	Ibid., 283-284.
14	Ibid., 299.
15	Ibid., 343.
16	Ibid., 359.

A Friendly Response to a Reader and Friend's Push Back

Yesterday, one of my old high-school buddies wandered into this blog, read the entry and wrote me a brief email.

Kurt Schaum is an old friend who was one of the men I was honored to have stand up with me at my wedding. We rarely see each other these days and I miss him. He is fun, always quick with a biting comment and we share a lot of history together.

Today he read this blog and sent me an email. I am attaching it below.

Marty,

I just read the article you posted by that Carol woman on the “Intolerance of Liberals.”

I realize it might make me “elitist” and “intolerant”, but this liberal would like to point out three important facts that Carol seems to ignore:

1. The proposed building is not a mosque, but a community center.

2. It is not located at Ground Zero, but two New York City blocks away.

3. It is Constitutionally protected Freedom of Religion.

The same right that protects church planting in areas that may be hostile to your beliefs.

Thanks,

Kurt

Here's my response:

Hey Kurt,

Good to hear from you. I hope you are doing well. I had no idea that you were "creepin" through any of my blogs. I'm honored. Have you been able to get together with Ron and Waz at all?

The blog you responded to is kind of a sideline. I'm not really that invested in it. When I find an article that has a perspective I think is worth sharing. I might repost it with some small comment of my own. I have written on the horrific right/left divide on a couple of posts over the years. Here in the Chicago area, there was a time where on my ride up to Trinity Seminary to teach my church planting classes you could see what I called, "dueling billboards." One billboard for a radio station declared "Liberals Hate Us". Two miles up the road was another station, from the left that advertised, "Conservatives love to hate us."

Clever.

Anyway, I decided to listen to one on my way up to Trinity, and the other on my way home. It was enlightening. I did that for about a month. What I discovered is that both sides seemed to be talking right past one another. Each assumed they knew what the other was going to say. Each assumed they knew the motives of the other. Neither seemed to be willing to listen to anything that was said except to collect phrases that they might fit into their preconceived notions about the other. It was really kind of comical. But it was also sad, because, as I have learned from counseling close to 100 couples over the years about difficulties in their marriage, once one person assumes they know either what the other will say or what the other's motives are, all productive listening and discussion ends. Which is why Carol Platt Liebau's marriage illustration (see the article) makes so much sense to me.

Anyway, let me address the three points you mentioned. But if you don't mind, I am going to take them in reverse order.

3. It is a constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

You are absolutely correct. If there are people on the right or left saying that the proposed mosque is not allowed to be built on constitutional grounds they clearly have no leg to stand on. But I haven't heard anyone say that. (Though I'm sure we could find some idiot who would love the camera time!) The most reasonable arguments against the mosque are on completely different lines. Don't go by the sound bites on the right (FOX) or the left (ABC, NBC, ABC, CNN). You'll have to get below and beyond the rhetoric of how these media outlets retain their already convinced audiences.

The arguments I think make the most sense are that if the mosque is supposedly to be built for its stated purpose--to be a bridge and bring reconciliation after 911, then all the polls of NY city, NY state, and the nation show that it isn't working. The level of distrust is still too raw and visceral for most Americans. It seems insensitive rather than sensitive, inflammatory rather than conciliatory. If the shoes were reversed, and a group that I supported wanted to build a church in an area where it was not wanted, and raised this level of animosity, my counsel to my friends would be, "Hey for the sake of your mission, find another place. You may have the right, but it is not wise to continue. There are better options and you will win more friends by not going against the majority of the community wishes."

2. It is not located at Ground Zero, but two new York City blocks away.

Indisputably true again. But to my mind, it is a point without a point. The Islamic cleric and groups associated with the proposal, the whole media complex (right and left), the Associated Press directives to their reporters, almost the entire discussion has associated the mosque with Ground Zero in some way. That association is "sticky." It influences all the discussion and the emotions associated with the proposal. As a result, while technically, it is true--it isn't at ground zero, the technicality is mute. Either way, I am not going to lose any sleep over the difference.

1. The proposed mosque is not a mosque but a community center.

I would argue similarly to what I said to your second point. But I would also point out that it depends somewhat on what your leanings are. Liberals see it as a community center with a mosque. Conservatives, tend to see it as a mosque with a community center. The clerics have not helped matters by calling it one or the other depending on the audience they have in front of them. This doesn't build trust in an already charged atmosphere.

Kurt, you know me. I can be an idiot sometimes. But even when I'm an idiot, I think your experience with me is that I am neither unreasonable nor bigoted. I pastored a church with 23 countries of birth represented in the congregation. I regularly engage with Muslims in friendly, loving and compassionate ways. My next door neighbor is Muslim and I have had him in my house for pie and conversation, we are planning a BBQ, and he tells me I am the best neighbor he has ever had. He voted for Obama and has a deep Muslim heritage in Pakistan.

Hopefully, our friendship can stand this test. I hope my words here help clarify at least where I stand and why (at least some of my why).

Former Wife of Muslim Extremist

I have a number of Muslim friends. I have had some wonderful conversations with Muslims both here in the United States as well as in Indonesia, Thailand and England. All Muslims are not a part of the extremist organizations that this video uncovers.

But Islamic extremism is real. The brainwashing that is talked about is real. The danger is real. What is the solution? The gospel is the solution. Christians need to love better and more radically and we must be willing to sacrifice more than others. Meet your Muslim neighbors. Invite them into your home. Love them. Pray for them. And don't be afraid to preach the gospel to them.

For some help on how to do that see this link and the two just after it.

Does Islam Stand Up to Historical Examination

Acts 17 Team on Islamic Apologist beginning to take seriously some of the serious issues raised against Islam. interesting video.

Learn the Constitution and Live by it --- or, You are Welcome to Leave

Muslims in America are welcome to stay in America. They have the right, under our constitution, to evangelize for their worldview. There is nothing wrong, under our constitution, with them setting up booths to distribute information, celebrate Islamic culture or engaging in dialog about Islam. But many Arab Muslims in America clearly do not have any value or appreciation for the constitution as this video clearly show.

Watch the video and then take a look at this link to a better worldview. And Christian, don't let the creeping influence and intimidation of Islam in the culture and around the world keep you from loving, sacrificing for, and preaching the gospel to your Islamic neighbors. Jesus wants to rescue them as well as you from the "wrath to come." You are no better than them. Love them and preach to them for Christ' sake, for their joy, even if it costs you much.

Angelina Jolie's Dad Writes a Letter to the President

Dear Mr. President ... from Jon Voight

• 6-22-2010
• Categorized in: American History, Constitution, Ethics, Government, Law, Politics, Radical Islam

An open letter from actor Jon Voight to President Obama:

June 22, 2010

Dear President Obama:

You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy - and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.

You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientist and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals and want Israel eradicated.

You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.

With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,

Jon Voight

Story Preview Window

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/22/dear-mr-president-jon-voight/

Sharia Law in Deerborn, MI

President Obama is neither Christian nor Muslim. Muslims are not our enemy. They are sincerely deceived. They need the gospel like the rest of mankind. They need our prayers, our compassion and our love. But most of all they need the gospel.

Unfortunately, Islam is intimidating an America that has lost its courage. But Islam is on the march and only a gospel revival and a bold, compassion presentation of the truth is capable of overcoming. Everyday, along our borders and inside our cities, Americans are giving up theri constitution to fear. Will America wake up.

Radical Islam is a Menace

Mark Steyn is a controversial person. Some call him a racist. Some call him xenophobic. I don't know the man, so my opinion is not relevant. But the ideas expressed in this article are what I think are relevant. Increasingly, our culture is unable to deal with ideas on a rational, reasonable, logical basis.

Hopefully, here at this site, that is not true. The facts are these:

Radical Islam is a menace to civilization.

Radical Islam is a menace to women.

Radical Islam is growing and is systematically intimidating the world discourse.

Radical Islam must be resisted with an iron will and courage.

For Christians, it must be resisted with a bold and loving proclamation of the gospel. [The following is from National Review Online.]

MARK STEYN

MAY 15, 2010 5:00 A.M.

Nicking Our Public Discourse
Listening to Attorney General Holder, one is tempted to modify Trotsky: You may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you.

W

hat with the Fort Hood mass murderer, the Christmas Pantybomber, and now the Times Square bomber, you may have noticed a little uptick in attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. mainland in the last few months.

Rep. Lamar Smith did, and, at the House Judiciary Committee, he was interested to see if the attorney general of the United States thought there might be any factor in common between these perplexingly diverse incidents.

“In the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam,” said Representative Smith. “Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?”

“Because of . . . ?”
“Radical Islam,” repeated Smith.
“There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions,” replied Eric Holder noncommittally. “I think you have to look at each individual case.”

The congressman tried again. “Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?”
“There are a variety of reasons why people . . . ”
“But was radical Islam one of them?”
“There are a variety of reasons why people do things,” the attorney general said again. “Some of them are potentially religious . . . ” Stuff happens. Hard to say why.

“Okay,” said Smith. “But all I’m asking is if you think, among those variety of reasons, radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.”
“You see, you say ‘radical Islam,’” objected Holder. “I mean, I think those people who espouse a — a version of Islam that is not . . . ”
“Are you uncomfortable attributing any actions to radical Islam?” asked Smith. “It sounds like it.”

And so on, and so forth. At Ford Hood, Major Hasan jumped on a table and gunned down his comrades while screaming “Allahu Akbar!” — which is Arabic for “Nothing to see here” and an early indicator of pre-post-traumatic stress disorder. The Times Square bomber, we are assured by the Washington Post, CNN, and Newsweek, was upset by foreclosure proceedings on his house. Mortgage-related issues. Nothing to do with months of training at a Taliban camp in Waziristan.

Listening to Attorney General Holder, one is tempted to modify Trotsky: You may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you. Islam smells weakness at the heart of the West. The post–World War II order is dying: The European Union’s decision to toss a trillion dollars to prop up a Greek economic model that guarantees terminal insolvency is merely the latest manifestation of the chronic combination of fiscal profligacy and demographic decline in the West at twilight. Islam is already the biggest supplier of new Europeans and new Canadians, and the fastest-growing demographic in the Western world. Therefore, it thinks it not unreasonable to shape the character of those societies — not by blowing up buildings and airplanes, but by determining the nature of their relationship to Islam.

For example, the very same day that Eric Holder was doing his “Islam? What Islam?” routine at the Capitol, the Organization of the Islamic Conference was tightening its hold on the U.N. Human Rights Council — actually, make that the U.N. “Human Rights” Council. The OIC is the biggest voting bloc at the U.N., and it succeeded in getting its slate of candidates elected to the so-called “human rights” body — among them the Maldives, Qatar, Malaysia, Mauritania, and Libya. The last, elected to the HRC by 80 percent of the U.N. membership, is, of course, a famous paragon of human rights, but the other, “moderate” Muslim nations share the view that Islam, in both its theological and political components, should be beyond discussion. And they will support the U.N.’s rapid progress toward, in effect, the imposition of a global apostasy law that removes Islam from public discourse.

Attorney General Holder seems to be operating an advance pilot program of his own, but he’s not alone. Also last week, the head of Canada’s intelligence service testified to the House of Commons about hundreds of “second- or third-generation Canadians” who are “relatively well integrated” “economically and socially” but who have become so “very, very disenchanted” with “the way we want to structure our society” that they have developed “strong links to homelands” that are “in distress.” Homelands such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

Hmm. If you’re wondering what those countries might have in common, keep wondering. No words beginning with “I-” and ending with “-slam” passed the director’s lips. If the head of the Crown’s intelligence service has narrowed his concerns about “disenchanted” “second- or third-generation Canadians” to any demographic group in particular, evidently it’s classified information and can’t be disclosed in public.

The U.N. elections are a big victory for the Organization of the Islamic Conference. By the way, to my liberal friends who say, “Hey, what’s the big deal about the Organization of the Islamic Conference? Lighten up, man”: Try rolling around your tongue the words “Organization of the Christian Conference.” Would you be quite so cool with that? Fifty-seven prime ministers and presidents who get together and vote as a bloc in international affairs? Or would that be a theocratic affront to secular sensibilities? The casual acceptance of the phrase “the Muslim world” (“Mr. Obama’s now-famous speech to the Muslim world” — the New York Times) implicitly defers to the political ambitions of Islam. And, if there is a “Muslim world,” what are its boundaries? Forty years ago, the OIC began with mainly Middle Eastern members plus Indonesia and a couple more. By the Nineties, former Soviet Central Asia had signed on, plus Albania, Mozambique, Guyana, and various others. In 2005, Russia was admitted to “observer” membership.

But along with the big headline victories go smaller ones. These days, Islam doesn’t even have to show up. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has quietly pulled representations of Mohammed from its Islamic collection. With the Danish cartoons, violent mobs actually had to kill large numbers of people before Kurt Westegaard was sent into involuntary “retirement.” Even with South Park, the thugs still had to threaten murder. But the Metropolitan Museum caved preemptively — no murders, no threats, but best to crawl into a fetal position anyway.

Last week, the American Association of Pediatricians noted that certain, ahem, “immigrant communities” were shipping their daughters overseas to undergo “female genital mutilation.” So, in a spirit of multicultural compromise, they decided to amend their previous opposition to the practice: They’re not (for the moment) advocating full-scale clitoridectomies, but they are suggesting federal and state laws be changed to permit them to give a “ritual nick” to young girls.

A few years back, I thought even fainthearted Western liberals might draw the line at “FGM.” After all, it’s a key pillar of institutional misogyny in Islam: Its entire purpose is to deny women sexual pleasure. True, many of us hapless Western men find we deny women sexual pleasure without even trying, but we don’t demand genital mutilation to guarantee it. On such slender distinctions does civilization rest.

Der Spiegel, an impeccably liberal magazine, summed up the remorseless Islamization of Europe in a recent headline: “How Much Allah Can the Old Continent Bear?” Well, what’s wrong with a little Allah-lite? The AAP thinks you can hop on the sharia express and only ride a couple of stops. In such ostensibly minor concessions, the “ritual nick” we’re performing is on ourselves. Further cuts will follow.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2010 Mark Steyn.

Not Politically Correct

Warning: the following post is not what you have come to expect from an American pastor. The following article advocates a view of Islam that will get the writer of this blog in hot water with many on the left and even some on the right. Worst of all, it will get him in hot water with some evangelicals.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

PC Alert: Rev. Franklin Graham Banned by the Pentagon for Telling the Truth About Islam

by Doug Giles

Franklin Graham, distinguished Christian minister and son of an American evangelical treasure (i.e. Billy Graham) was banned from praying at the Pentagon for their upcoming May 6th National Day of Prayer event because he called Islam “evil.”

Apparently Franklin didn’t get the memo that we can’t say squat about Islam anymore. Oh, hell no. Muslims are groovy no matter what they do, and anyone who says otherwise … is … well … evil … in the eyes of the thought police who’re heading up the United States of Political Horse Smack.

Check it out: When Muslims kill 3,000 Americans, we can’t call them “wicked.” When they abuse women, cut off little girls’ clitorises, stone unruly wives, honor kill their teenage daughters for texting someone not named Achmed, and keep precious women in stone-age bondage worldwide, we can’t say that’s BS because that might offend them. And God forbid we should offend folks who’re six bubbles off level and don’t get basic women’s rights.

I’m scratching a bald spot on the back of my head on this one because we won’t put up with that bollocks with any other people or religion except with Islam; they get a free pass. Yes, we’re being whipped into believing that we’re misjudging them even though the preponderance of historical evidence indicates that those who believe they’re bogus are spot on.

I think it is legitimately safe to say—and extremely sad to say—that Political Correctness has officially seeped its fetid sewage into the brass inside the beltway.

Matter of fact, I’m wearing black today because I’m in mourning. As far as I’m concerned, it’s calamitous when the U.S. Army bans a solid Christian minister and upstanding citizen (who has added much to America’s Christian heritage and the well-being of millions of suffering people worldwide) from praying for our troops just because he called Muslim crap crap. You can read the full horror story here. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/21/army-weighs-rescinding-invitation-evangelist/)

Lastly, I’d like to thank Franklin for having the holy testosterone—amidst the many craven and neutered capitulating clerics, pundits and politicians across our land—to call Islam’s actions wicked because … duh … they are. Good job, old chap. It seems as if only South Park, Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, a smattering of other analysts (mostly women) and Graham will come out and verbally hammer these cats for their “faith”-inspired atrocities against non-Muslims and their own women.

Oh, by the way: If you’re not convinced Islam is evil, check out this video. (http://www.terrorismawareness.org/videos/108/the-violent-oppression-of-women-in-islam/)

About The Author

---

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.