[Note: The following interview was conducted by the Venn Institute with Raymond Ibrahim]

Raymond Ibrahim is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam expert, and author most recently of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians. Follow him on Twitter @RaymondIbrahim5

Venn Institute: Most Americans see persecution of Christians and other minorities in Muslim majority nations as a recent phenomenon. Why is that not the case?

Ibrahim: It’s been going on, and the same exact patterns, for centuries. Such persecution is well recorded in the world’s primary historical texts—western and eastern. It’s not so well known in the West, however, because Western mainstream media are less interested in reporting ugly truths than they are in validating their secular, liberal narrative—a narrative which maintains that Muslims are fundamentally peaceful, and, far from being persecuted, Christians are the oppressors.

Venn Institute: What are the Conditions of Omar and how are they being revived worldwide?

Ibrahim: They are a set of stipulations purportedly ratified between the second caliph of the same name and a conquered Christian community in the 7th century. Among other debilitations and humiliations, churches must not be built or fixed; crosses and bibles and even church singing must be suppressed around Muslims; Christians must get out of their seats if Muslims want them and over all “honor” Muslims. Today, as Muslims reclaim their Islamic heritage—to applause from Western multiculturalists—they are increasingly enforcing the Conditions on Christians.

Venn Institute: Most Christian traditions encourage their followers to study, research, and ask the hard questions so they can be confident in their faith. Yet Sharia outlaws apostasy, so-called blasphemy, and proselytism to Muslims, all in an effort to prevent Muslims from leaving their faith. How does this religious and social control impact culture in Muslim majority countries?

Ibrahim: To those Muslims who can still think—and they are not a few—they immediately see through Islam’s low self-confidence and thus need to keep people from critically thinking or questioning, and they often become apostates, even if only secretly. Conversely, those with less critical skills—who are popularly called “Islamists”—often buy into the Islamic worldview, based on Sharia teachings, and become “radical,” or, in short, espouse the 7th century mentality of a desert Bedouin they deem infallible, that is, their prophet.

Venn Institute: You wrote extensively about the horrific and systematic rape, beating, kidnappings, and forced conversion of Christian women and girls including the frequent targeting of girls as young as 9 years old. How is it that Americans are not more aware of this epidemic of violence, and why aren’t women’s rights groups speaking out about it?

Ibrahim: I discuss this at some length in Crucified Again. Suffice to say, so many so-called Western “humanitarians” and “feminists pick and choose who is worthy of their support—and considering that so many of these are of the liberal/secular mentality—which often is tinged with anti-Christian sentiment—Christian victims of rape, etc., are unworthy of attention.

Venn Institute: Americans are typically uncomfortable with religious value claims or offending people of other faiths. Presumably critics consider you anti-Islam when reading quotes from your book such as, “The long record of Muslim violence specifically targeting churches, monasteries, and crosses is conclusive evidence of Muslim hostility toward the Christian religion itself. This centuries-old, continents-wide pattern of violence cannot be explained by the race, culture, or particular circumstances of the perpetrators…The common factor in all these attacks on Christian worship-the real reason behind them-can only be Islam itself.” How do you respond to claims that you are anti-Islam and how do you hope your research will make a difference amongst skeptics?

Ibrahim: I document. For example, one of the things even critics of the book have extolled is that Crucified Again has some 60 pages of endnotes and citations alone. Thus, my assertions, such as the one you quote, are borne out by a myriad of sources which I document. Unfortunately, those who whitewash Islam are not held to the same standard. If you read one of Karen Armstrong’s popular pro-Islam books, it all sounds good and sensible to the Western mentality—but for those who know better, we are left wondering where she gets her facts, as she rarely documents. On the other hand, because a book like mine is critical of Islam, I need to document all my findings—not that doing so will still fend off the anti-Islam charges that you mention come my way.

Venn Institute: You gave many examples of how the Obama Administration has supported terrorists and Islamists who have in turn persecuted minority faith and political groups, suppressing human rights and democracy. Why would the US government pursue a foreign policy so contrary to American values and national interest?

Ibrahim: Because Americans are only half awake—saturated as they are by a mass media campaign dedicated to making them oblivious to reality while directing their gaze to meaningless and vain things—I can barely listen to the mainstream media for more than a few minutes before running for shelter, as the things they highlight as “newsworthy” are beyond silly, even as the U.S. administration openly empowers Islamic jihadis around the world—the same fellows behind 9/11 and any number of other anti-American attacks. So we have a situation today where people around the world are insisting that Obama is in league with the jihadis, while Americans are busy talking about Kim Kardashian.

Venn Institute: Why should people of all faiths or no faith be concerned about the resurgence of Islamism worldwide, and what can they do to protect and promote religious freedom or all?

Ibrahim: The story of Crucified Again is about Christian suffering under Islam. However, the same hostility that Christians experience is felt for all non-Muslims. The only difference is that Christians are currently under Islamic hegemony—as most of the so-called Islamic world is really conquered Christian territory with Christian remnants—and so they are vulnerable to persecution. The U.S. for the moment is not; but if the opportunity ever comes, the same attacks on Christians will come to everyone who becomes vulnerable.

Venn Institute: How can people keep up with your research and publications?

Ibrahim: When it comes to the topic of Christian persecution by Muslims, my book really says it all. But for up to date research and publications, my website carries them all, www.RaymondIbrahim.com

By Enza Ferreri, guest contributor

When one thinks of the events and processes that developed during Morsi's one-year presidency of Egypt, it's difficult to see how a person who loves democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and of religion cannot but welcome his ousting.

In that time, for example, the Egyptian Minister of Religious Endowments Ali Afifi, in an interview aired on Sada Al-Balad TV on March 14, 2013 said: "[W]e hope that the words of the Prophet Muhammad will be fulfilled: 'Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim , oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him – except for the gharqad tree, which is one of the trees of the Jews.' We fully believe that the future of this land lies with Islam and the Muslims." He was accused of appointing in leading positions in his ministry figures with ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi movement.

In the year 2012, under the Islamist rule of the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm, the fatwas, Sharia-based legal decrees issued by learned Muslims, differed considerably from the previous Egyptian fatwas. The more power the Brotherhood has, more rooted in the worst authoritarian and violent elements of Sharia law the fatwas are.

Raymond Ibrahim translated a summary of them. Among others, they include calling for the destruction of the Sphinx and the Great Pyramids; opposing setting a minimum age in the new constitution concerning the marriage of minor girls, saying “they can get married at any time”; ruling that the peace treaty with Israel contradicts the teachings of Sharia and should be annulled, quoting the Koran; denouncing all Muslims opposed to President Morsi, explaining that the Koran declares it to be forbidden to disobey those in authority; banning congratulating Christian Copts on their religious holidays, and forbidding Muslim cab and bus drivers from transporting Christian priests to their churches; forbidding all Muslim women from marrying any of the sons of the “remnants” of the old regimes, portraying them as non-pious Muslims; banning people from joining Muhammad al-Baradei’s “Dustor” political party, claiming him to be a secularist and opposed to the implementation of Allah’s laws.

Morsi may have been democratically elected – although there are suspicions of rigged elections – but so were Hitler and Mussolini. And, just like them, once elected he assumed dictatorial powers. His new constitution was intended to establishd a Sharia state in Egypt.

Until now, counterjihad analysts have been practically the only ones to make the correct predictions about the "Arab Spring" being an Islamist takeover, even though the underlying people's rebellion may have been sustained by genuine economic and political concerns.

In Egypt, we are now witnessing perhaps the first sign of a process that upsets those neat predictions and complicates matters. For the good.

The figures speak volumes: "Obama probably hates it that the 30 million souls who took to the streets in Cairo and throughout Egypt for the largest protests in human history dare to call it a ‘revolution’, says Canada Free Press.

So, how to interpret the new developments? Since I live in London, let's look at what the UK media make of them.

Is it a coup or is it not a coup? This seems to be one of the dominant questions about the ousting of Egypt's Morsi in the British media.

The answer to that question depends very much on the respondent's opinion on whether the ousting's outcome is positive or negative, which in turn rests on his/her view of the Muslim Brotherhood.

As can be expected, left-wing media outlets like The Guardian tend to have a favourable view, even sympathetic, of this "democratically elected" Islamist presidency, so they, taking their cue from the Muslim Brotherhood, call Morsi's deposition a coup.

Generally speaking, right-wing papers like The Telegraph take the view that what counts as democracy is not just the elections but the will of the population however expressed. Morsi acted like an autocrat, did not give people what he had promised them, betrayed the spirit of the revolution and, in the face of mounting popular opposition, refused to concede early elections. So, rather than using force to impose its will, the military deployed its might to implement the will of the people. Ergo, they say, it's not a coup.

But things are never so simple and black-and-white. The Telegraph's chief political commentator, Peter Oborne, thinks that the Islamist regime in Egypt, like that of Algeria in 1991, has not been given a chance. To do what, I'd like to ask, cut off more hands? Massacre more Christians? Talking of whom, that's what he says: "Mohammed el Baradei (and the Coptic Church) have done himself great damage by backing the military intervention. Whatever form of government comes next will lack legitimacy because of the methods used today."

Morsi has committed no crime and doesn't deserve to be in custody, Oborne claims, and current events are disastrous for the relationship between the West and the Muslim world.

Whether the ousting of Morsi is viewed favourably or not, although dependent on the commentator's political ideas, also rests on the division "between those who emphasize process and those who emphasize substance", as New York Times columnist David Brooks put it.

It's an exceptional circumstance if I find myself in agreement with the NYT, so you'll forgive me if I expand on that. He sums up the two camps as, in the former, those for whom following the correct democratic electoral procedure is more important, thinking that ruling in a democracy will reform the Brotherhood and make it moderate. And in the latter those who don't think that democracy lies in "counting heads" but in what you intend to do once you're in power, and in that respect Morsi can be elected till kingdom come he'll never be democratic and he'll never renounce radical Islamism.

Brooks adds:

World events of the past few months have vindicated those who take the substance side of the argument. It has become clear — in Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Gaza and elsewhere — that radical Islamists are incapable of running a modern government.

The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the other elements of the anti-Mubarak, anti-old-regime opposition can do that.

Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born, London-based Philosophy graduate, author and journalist. She has been a London correspondent for several Italian magazines and newspapers, including Panorama, L’Espresso, and La Repubblica. She is on the Executive Council of the UK’s party Liberty GB. She blogs at www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk.

It seems the more time passes, the more the name of Muhammad Morsi — former Egyptian president and Muslim Brotherhood leader — appears in connection with violence and bloodshed.

Earlier, for example, a Libyan document implicated Morsi with the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi.

Now, days after the brutal mob attack and murder of Sheikh Hassan Shehata and four other Shias in Egypt in June 2013, a video of an Egyptian Salafi sheikh preaching against the Shia has appeared where he makes the following assertion: "President Muhammad Morsi has issued orders for national security, to follow and arrest all Shias in Egypt."