The Catholic World Report, by William Kilpatrick

Donald Trump recently raised the specter of an ISIS attack on the Vatican. Mr. Trump likes to claim that he is always the first to know what the future portends, but in this case others have beaten him to it. Last January I wrote an article titled “Will a Future Pope be Forced to Flee Rome?” A year later it might be more pertinent to ask if the present pope will be forced to flee.

A year ago, Europe was gradually accelerating toward full Islamization. At that time it was generally estimated that the process would take decades or even most of the century to reach completion. But the sudden influx of Muslim migrants and refugees in 2015 pushed the throttle forward to full speed. Germany alone took in more than one million migrants in 2015. And since so many of the migrants were young men, it’s estimated that in less than a year there will be as many Muslim men of fighting age in Germany as there are native Germans of the same age group.

Largely because of its meager welfare benefits, migrants tends not to stay in Italy, so it may be a while for the full effect of Islamization to be felt in Rome. Still, it seems none too early to contemplate the possibility that Pope Francis may be forced out of Rome. Ever since the fall of Constantinople, conquering Rome has been a major goal of Islamists. In July of 2014 Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS renewed the hope by promising his troops “you will conquer Rome and own the world.” Now that ISIS has embedded itself in Libya, the route to Rome is relatively short and direct.

Of course, a forced exit isn’t the only alternative. Depending on how the Islamization process plays out, the pope may be allowed to stay on in Rome. But the Church in Europe would be a greatly diminished Church and the pope would be expected to abide by the rules for dhimmis. His position in that case would be similar to that of the Coptic pope in Egypt: precarious if an Islamist such as Mohamed Morsi ruled; more bearable if an enlightened Muslim such as President el-Sisi were in charge.

But that is the optimistic scenario. In the worst case scenario, we must contemplate not only the departure of the pope, but also the end of Christianity in Europe. Judging by the ongoing persecution of Christians in the Middle East, Africa, and other parts of the Muslim world, one can’t afford to be too rosy about the outlook for European Christians. Indeed, Christian Europe faces the greatest threat to its existence since the armies of Sultan Mehmet IV converged on Vienna in 1683.

Except this time the advanced troops are already inside the gates. Moreover, the politically correct rules of engagement make self-defense a risky proposition—as in the case of the Danish teenager who was fined for using pepper spray to repel a man who sexually assaulted her. The situation is already far worse than anyone could have imagined a year ago. Muslim migrants in German asylum centers assault Christians and sexually abuse women and children. A ten year old boy is raped by a Muslim migrant in a public swimming pool in Vienna. Gangs of Muslim men wielding iron bars roam through small towns all over Europe seeking victims to beat up. A high school boy in Sweden isstabbed to death for defending a girl against a Muslim classmate’s sexual assault. Jews fear to wear yarmulkes. Single women fear to walk alone. Mothers fear to let their children visit playgrounds. The police themselves are often afraid and there are numerous instances of police retreating in the face of Muslim mobs. In parts of Northern England,police have been directed not to drive to work in uniform lest they be attacked.

What’s more, the situation is likely to get far worse with each successive wave of Muslim migrants. As Europeans begin to realize that police are incapable of defending them or unwilling to, they will take matters into their own hands. Numerous resistance movements have already formed all over Europe, along with local self-defense organizations and even vigilante groups. Rifles are selling out in places like Austria and Sweden. Courses in firearms training are oversubscribed. Clashes between locals and migrants have broken out in once peaceful towns. Many are predicting ethnic warfare on a mass scale with tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of casualties.

The irony is, if chaos descends on Europe, Pope Francis along with others in the hierarchy will have to bear some of the responsibility. That’s because they have been in the forefront of those calling for an open embrace of Muslim refugees and migrants.

Pope Francis has addressed the plight of refugees on several occasions. He typically talks about their sufferings, their flight from war and oppression, and their yearning for freedom. He has compared their migration to Abraham’s journey to the Promised Land, to the Exodus of the chosen people, and to the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt. He has spoken also about the beneficial contributions the migrants will make to the host cultures.

As for the host cultures? Here Francis is a little less generous. He cautions the receiving societies against “close-mindedness,” “intransigence,” giving in to fears, and adopting an attitude of “cold indifference.” In his most recent remarks on the subject, he observed, “A person who thinks only about building walls…and not building bridges, is not Christian.” Quite clearly, he feels that Western citizens have a moral obligation to take in refugees.

But do the pope and the numerous bishops who have said much the same about immigration bear a moral responsibility if their hopes for a harmonious continent are unfounded?

Life is unpredictable. And there is no way of knowing for sure if our well-intentioned actions will bear fruit. Still, it’s usually better to err on the side of charity. Some things, however, are more predictable than others. Long before the 2015 wave of refugees arrived, it was painfully obvious that something had gone terribly wrong with Muslim immigration. Muslims, on the whole, were not assimilating to European culture. Many lived in self-segregated ghettos and no-go zones. Muslims had disproportionately high rates of violent crime and welfare dependency. And time after time, they had attempted to impose their own cultural and religious codes on others.

The trouble with the hierarchy’s pro-Muslim immigration stance is its almost total disregard for the facts. In reading episcopal statements on the subject, one gets the impression that all migrations are essentially benign: that, to use the pope’s words, all migrants seek the “dignity and equality of every person, love of neighbor…freedom of conscience and solidarity towards our fellow men and women.” Most Muslims, however, if they take their faith seriously, do not share that common vision. Islam dictates one set of rules for Muslims and another, much harsher code for non-Muslims. Moreover, Islamic theology contains what amounts to a doctrine of manifest destiny. The Koran, along with other scriptures, commands Muslims to fight unbelievers until all worship is for Allah alone. The bishop’s attitude toward Muslim immigration not only shows a disregard for Islamic theology, but also for 1400 years of history. During those fourteen centuries, Islamic aggression against non-Muslims has been a constant that spans cultures, geography, race, and language. As Raymond Ibrahim documents in Crucified Again the pattern of persecution takes exactly the same form whether in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, or Southeast Asia.

And then there’s current history. The bishops must know of the massive population shift that was already underway before 2015. In the Netherlands and Belgium 50 percent of all the newborns are Muslims. In the UK the most popular name for baby boys is “Mohammed.” In Vienna, Birmingham, and Marseilles there are more Muslim children than Christian children. In Southern France there are more mosques than Churches. The bishops must know of the epidemics of rape in England and Sweden. They must know of the numerous terrorist attacks across Europe. They must know that ISIS has stated its intention to infiltrate the refugee population. They must know by now that 70 to 75 percent of the 2015 refugees were young men, not women and children.

Life is unpredictable, nevertheless one can’t afford to ignore the probabilities in life. Both the pattern of the past and the pattern of the present strongly suggest that Europe’s experiment in mass Muslim immigration will end badly. Some bishops are belatedly waking up to that possibility. Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who chairs the German Bishops Conference, was, until quite recently, one of the strongest proponents of Muslim immigration and he made a point of greeting refugees at the train station. Now, perhaps in response to the mass sexual assaults near the Cologne Cathedral, the Cardinal has adifferent message. In a recent interview with the Passauer Neue Presse, he said “As a Church we say that we need a reduction in the number of refugees.” He added, “Germany cannot take in all the worlds needy.” The Church’s response to the migrant crisis, he stated, should not solely be a matter of “charity but also reason.”

A lot of misery could have been prevented had political leaders and Church leaders in Europe applied the rule of reason earlier. As Professor Stephen Krason observes:

To insist that this range of issues concerned with illegal immigration be ignored simply because Scripture say to “welcome the stranger “is not just a literalism impervious to context and qualification, but asks people to surrender their minds. Catholicism, however, is not a “blind faith” religion but one in which faith and reason work in harmony.

Just as we need to be cautious about blind faith we need to be warry of blind charity. One reason the Christian world has been unprepared for the Islamist onslaught is the prevalence of politically correct thinking. In a sense, political correctness is a form of false charity. In the case of Islam, it’s a tacit agreement to spare the feelings of Muslims by pretending that there is no ugly side to Islam. But this charitable silence about the threat from Islam has had the effect of putting Christians at risk by denying them crucial knowledge.

During a recent interview with a French reporter, Jean-Clement Jeanbart, the Melkite Catholic Archbishop of Aleppo, criticized the European media and some of his fellow bishops for ignoring the Muslim persecution of Middle Eastern Christians: “Why are your bishops silent on a threat that is yours today as well? Because the bishops are like you, raised in political correctness. But Jesus was never politically correct, he was politically just!” He added:

“The responsibility of a bishop is to teach, to use his influence to transmit truth. Why are your bishops afraid of speaking? Of course they would be criticized, but that would give them a chance to defend themselves and to defend this truth. You must remember that silence often means consent.”

As for Europe’s embrace of mass immigration, the archbishop had this to say:

The egoism and the interests slavishly defended by your governments will in the end kill you as well. Open your eyes, didn’t you see what happened recently in Paris?

In August, 2014 Emil Nona the exiled Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul issued a similar warning about naiveté over Muslim immigration. Let’s give the last word to him:

Our sufferings are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future…You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.

CDN, by Bob Taylor

CHARLOTTE, N.C., Feb. 29, 2016 – Middle East specialist Raymond Ibrahim has uncovered a shocking report that shows the depth to which ISIS and other Islamic groups will go to convert Christian children into jihadi warriors.

In an article written to explain precisely why the tactics of Islamists shock Westerners, Ibrahim begins by saying, “As Western politicians and other talking heads insist that the Islamic State (‘ISIS’) has ‘nothing whatsoever to do with Islam,’ not only does ISIS correctly implement Islamic law but even the ‘caliphate’s’ arcane jihadi tactics belong (emphasis added) to Islam.”

The operative word that makes Ibrahim’s observations different is the word “belong,” which completely refutes the position of the Obama administration and many other Western leaders.

Using historical precedent to reinforce his argument, Ibrahim writes, “For centuries, Muslim caliphates seized Christian boys from their families, forcefully converted and indoctrinated them in Islam, trained them to be jihadis extraordinaire, and then unleashed them back onto their former Christian kin to wreak havoc in the name of jihad.”

Hardly the story we hear from the White House and elsewhere in the West.

For those willing to look beyond “Islamophobia,” Ibrahim correctly points out that such practices are obvious in our contemporary world and that today other Muslims, including but not limited to ISIS, also follow it.

Offering a solution, while criticizing the West at the same time, Ibrahim writes, “The West would not be oblivious to this ‘new’ Muslim tactic—erroneously concluding that it means ISIS has ‘stretched their resources’—if it had Islamic studies departments that disseminated facts instead of pro-Islamic myths and propaganda. As with all unsavory aspects of Islamic history, this institution has been whitewashed.”

Since the onset of his presidency, Barack Obama has proclaimed that education is key to solving many of the societal problems we face today. Why then is proper education about Islamic history and indoctrination not regarded in a similar manner?

As so often happens in so-called intelligent discussions about Islam, the truth is always twisted in ways that defy logic. A perfect example is pointed out by Ibrahim as he cites the Islamic practice of jizya, a tax paid by non-Muslims for the right to keep from converting to Islam. Of course, if the money is not paid, then unbelievers are often subject to either death or conversion.

In a sane world jizya would be nothing more than outright extortion, but in the Muslim world it is considered a demonstration of “tolerance.”

Over time, the process becomes so convoluted, primarily because apathetic Westerners do not take the time to comprehend the reality of the situation, that keeping track of what is true and what is false is more complicated than an episode of “Spy vs. Spy.”

Using more historical evidence, Ibrahim discusses Spain under Muslim control. At that time there was something known as Crypto-Muslims, or Moriscos, who pretended to be Christian but continually worked in secret to return Spain to Muslim rule. They were in a sense “double agents,” and it really wasn’t much different from the approach taken by organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today.

Crypto-Muslims were Muslims who publicly converted to Christianity and even began going to church and observing Christian rites such as baptism and communion. In other words, Muslims went to the extreme of visibly renouncing their own faith in an effort to make Christians believe they were actually converting from Islam when, of course, they were not. It was an effective ruse.

In response, Ibrahim then brings us back to modern times and our muddy interpretations. “Yet because this historical event is now portrayed as an example of extreme Christian intolerance–the flipside of Western academia’s devotion to whitewashing Islam–another valuable lesson from Christian/Muslim history is lost.”

Ibrahim concludes his argument by once again telling the West that we continue to bury our heads in the sand either by refusing to believe such arguments are true or through out and out denial. Either way the results could be devastating.

As Irahim points out, “because the West refuses to acknowledge Islam’s true doctrines and history, it must ever confront the jihad blindfolded and blindsided.”

As a result, EVERY future major act of terrorism will surprise the West just as their predecessors did, and we will continue to ask the same perpetual inevitable question, “Why do they hate us?”

Breitbart, by Donna Rachel Edmunds (Feb. 25)

Raymond Ibrahim, an American born expert on the Middle East and Islamic affairs claims to have debunked the idea that the Bible is more violent than the Quran, remarking that the Bible describes historical events, whereas the Islamic text is doctrinal, and has “open ended” clauses calling followers to action.

Anti-Islamisation protesters have been criticised for suggesting that Islamic terrorism is inspired by the Quran, with the book’s defenders arguing that the Bible is just as bloodthirsty, if not more so. But their opponents say context is everything: the bloodshed in the Bible is presented purely as history, not as doctrine.

Speaking to the Independent, Dr Ed Kessler, the founding director of the Woolf Institute of interfaith relations has criticised organisations such as the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (Pegida) for claiming that the Quran incites terrorism.

“It’s not the text itself that generates violence, there is Jewish and Christian scripture you can read into to find the same,” he said. “You read the texts through interpretation.”

“There are violent extracts in the Quran as there are in the Old Testament and New Testament,” he said, but he argued that where Salafist Muslims take a literal interpretation of the Quran, Christians and Jews have over the years reinterpreted or dismissed passages which call for capital punishments and violence.

“We tend to overlook those bits because we don’t like them, or interpret them to be more acceptable and relevant to the modern day,” he added. “Interpretation can be used for good or evil, or fundamentalism or liberalism.”

Dr Kessler is not the only scholar to be invited by the Independent to make this argument. Last week Mariam Hakim wrote an article for the paper in which she criticised the sharing of a video in which a female scholar who said that it is permissible for men to rape female prisoners of war to humiliate them.

“That narrative [that the Quran promotes violence] … has mainly been promoted by Donald Trump supporting anti-Muslim bigots, far-right extremists and people who’ll easily believe anything bad about Muslims,” she argued, adding: “Those sharing the video usually make unfounded claims that the ‘North African/Arab’ men accused of the Cologne assaults were motivated by a ‘Muslim background’.”

Similarly, research surfaced in February by software engineer Tom Anderson who ran the texts of the Quran and The Bible through text analytics software to find out which was the most violent.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, considering The Bible is a good deal longer than the Quran, he discovered that The Bible contains more violent passages, and also that The Bible scores higher for anger and much lower for trust that the Quran.

“Of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent,” Mr Anderson said.

“Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1 percent), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3 percent).”

He did concede that the results have no bearing on proving whether Islam “is more violent than other religions”, and that Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have further texts which contribute to religious doctrine, but that didn’t stop The Independent and other left wing media outlets such as the Huffington Post eagerly reporting on his findings.

The study – and similar criticism – was comprehensively debunked by Raymond Ibrahim, an American born expert on the Middle East and Islamic affairs, who wrote for PJ Media: “citing this fact [that the Bible is more violent] as proof that the Quran cannot incite violence more than the Bible is doubtful. For starters, this argument fundamentally ignores the context in which violence appears in all three scriptures.

“Comparing violence in the Bible — both Old and New Testaments — with violence in the Quran conflates history with doctrine. The majority of violence in the Bible is recorded as history; a description of events. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of violence in the Quran is doctrinally significant. The Quran uses open-ended language to call on believers to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims.”

“Critiquing the study specifically, he added: “This study also fails to consider who is behind the violence. It simply appears to count the number of times violent language appears. Due to this, New Testament descriptions of Christians – including Christ – being persecuted and killed are supposedly equally inciting to Christians as Allah’s commandments for Muslims to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them – seize them, besiege them, and make ready to ambush them!” (Quran 9:5).

“This is to say nothing of the fact that Islamic teaching is hardly limited to the Quran. Volumes of canonical (sahih) Hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad) equally inform Muslim actions. […] As it happens, calls to anti-infidel violence in the Hadith outnumber the Quran’s.”

Mr Anderson lamely concluded: “I must also reemphasize that this analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive.

Washington Times, by Dana Rohrabacher (Feb. 8)

It’s now a couple of weeks of news cycles since we learned from satellite imagery that the Islamic State had destroyed the monastery of St. Elijah, which for more than 11 centuries served as a spiritual oasis for the promulgation of Christianity in the Middle East.

Because of our own century’s dizzying acceleration of history, I’m afraid, the unfathomable destruction of this priceless site already may be receding from our minds.

The Sunni terrorists, as we know, have declared war on modernity, on human progress, on civilization itself. They signal this apocalyptic intention by targeting any physical antiquity that stands in their way — prior to St. Elijah, they blew up Roman ruins at Palmyra in Syria.

What we sometimes call Christendom stands idly by, with the exceptional evidence of limited U.S. airstrikes and more aggressive raids by the Russians. This colossal indifference cannot be explained away. By itself it is horrifying.

So what will happen to those individual Christians standing in the way of a murderous caliphate in the making?

Many have been forced into coffins or made to stand in cages, doused with flammable fluid, and set ablaze. Many, as we’ve seen time after time, have been forced to their knees, their heads to be sawed off. Or they have been — to give it a measure of symbolic cruelty — crucified. Christian women, Yazidi women, women of other religious minorities — and the children of all — have been similarly mistreated, tortured or forced into sexual slavery.

The world has watched these monstrous proceedings for more than a year. And whereas many Christian organizations have gone into embattled Mesopotamia to rescue their brothers and sisters, official U.S. policy remains mired in deep denial or at the least an intentional inability to see what is clearly a historic catastrophe.

Consider the astonishing answer Col. Steve Warren, spokesman for our military operations in the region, gave to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, who brought to his attention the slaughter of thousands of Christians and the forced flight of hundreds of thousands more: “Wolf, [the Islamic State] doesn’t care if you’re a Christian . We’ve seen no specific evidence of a specific targeting toward Christians.”

You could almost hear journalist Raymond Ibrahim of the Gatestone Institute clearing his throat when he responded in his blog: “Except that roughly two-thirds of Iraq’s 1.5 million Christian citizens have been killed or forced to flee the country by ISIS and its jihadi predecessors over the past decade. This has nothing to do with their religious identity?”

In fact, what is happening is genocide carried out before our eyes, and its ultimate target is us. Forgive the graphic image, but each day we do not act a jihadi blade is likelier to slice into a Christian neck. Each moment we try to avert our attention Christian flesh is about to be incinerated. When our policymakers adjust their morning showers from scalding to soothing, perhaps they should pause for a moment to contemplate the extreme fiery pain so many victims of ISIS are made to feel in those last moments of life.

Late last year I was among a handful of lawmakers who introduced urgent bills to respond as we are morally called to do, indeed, to preserve our very meaning as a people in the 21st century. Mine, H.R. 4017, is the only one actually to invoke the law so that persecuted Christians and Yazidis would be given emergency status.

In short, my bill says, whether refugee or immigrant, a person targeted for genocide is granted priority status, and it declares Christians and Yazidis to be targets of genocide.

Existing immigration law allows us to do just that. And yet the Obama administration, in all its Orwellian political piety, reacted as if we were engaging in religious discrimination by moving to save victims specifically targeted because they are Christians or Yazidis.

This, Obama officialdom complained, placed Christians ahead of all others; such prioritization, they insisted, was “not who we are” — and other such Beelzebubian blather.

Info Wars, by Kit Daniels (Jan. 25)

A group of Muslims reportedly mowed down three Christians with their car, killing one of them, while claiming Christian girls are only meant for “the pleasure of Muslim men.”

Pakistani police are slow to investigate the Jan. 13 attack by four Muslims who spotted the girls while they were walking home to the Christian community of Baowala and proceeded to flirt with them unsuccessfully.
“How dare you run away from us, Christian girls are only meant for one thing, the pleasure of Muslim men,” one of the murderers shouted.

The men then rammed their cars into the girls.

“Two girls fell to the ground; one’s hip was broken, the other’s ribs were shattered,” journalist Raymond Ibrahim reported. “The youngest, Kiran Masih, aged 17, flew up in the air and crashed into the speeding car’s windshield.”
The killers laughed as Masih died from her injuries.

“In any other nation, the perpetrators would be arrested, convicted for murder and sentenced for a long term,” human rights activist Wilson Chowdhry said. “Violence against Christians is rarely investigated and highly unlikely to be met with justice.”

“Women have a low status in Pakistan, but none more so than Christian women who find themselves under the grip or terror, especially after this attack.”

Meanwhile, in Lübben, Germany, a pregnant woman was sexually assaulted by six Muslim migrants, who only stopped their attack when a bystander stepped in and distracted the migrants.

Other migrants also raped women in Cologne, Hamburg, Stuttgart and other cities during a country-wide mass sexual rampage on New Year’s Eve.

“I am Syrian: you have to treat me kindly; [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel invited me,” one of the rapists said to his victim.

A well-known psychiatrist has since said that Merkel’s refusal to reverse her “completely irrational” open borders policy for migrant rapists is evidence that the German Chancellor is undergoing a “mental breakdown.”

Gospel Herald, by Leah Marieann Klett (Jan. 25, 2016)

A shocking report has emerged out of Pakistan, where a 17-year-old Christian girl in was killed by a group of Muslim men because she rejected their sexual advances. According to a report from the British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA), the girl, simply known as Kiran, and two of her friends were walking home to their Christian community after work when they were approached by four Muslim men in a car. The men, who were heavily intoxicated, began shouting "lewd and suggestive" comments to the girls before ordering them to get in the car "for a ride and some fun," BPCA reported. Explaining that they were Christians, the young women refused to obey the Muslim men, and attempted to flee. According to the survivors, the men became angry and began shouting, "How dare you run away from us! Christian girls are only meant for one thing – the pleasure of Muslim men." The men then ran the girls down in their car, injuring Kiran's two friends, who suffered broken bones. However, Kiran suffered a far worse fate: "The impact of the car lifted her off the ground and onto the bonnet of the car, where she thumped the windscreen," reads the report. "The young men continued to laugh in their drunken stupor and increased their speed, finally braking when they could see another car before them. The momentum of the emergency stop threw Kiran up into the air and rapidly onto the floor where she cracked her head open and smashed numerous bones, the resulting internal bleeding killed her within minutes." In a particularly disturbing move, Pakistani police in turn forced the Kiran's family to pay a bribe before making an official report of the assault and murder. Naveed Aziz, BPCA's representative in the area, said the survivors are "grateful to God for saving them but have been inconsolable at the loss of a close friend. Other girls in the local area are now too scared to travel at night and are being accompanied by the men in their families. The community wants justice for poor Kiran and seeks an end to the targeting of young Christian girls." Pakistan, the world's second largest Muslim country, is ranked #6 on the Open Doors 2016 World Watch List of the worst persecutors of Christians, and has received the maximum score in the violence category. Wilson Chowdhry, chairman of the BPCA, said that violence against Christians in the region is "rarely investigated and highly unlikely to be met with justice." "The usual pattern in these cases is for Christians to pay a bribe to encourage police to complete their duty of registering an investigation, and for the criminals to pay further bribes for the police to spoil the investigation." Chowdhry said the world is ignoring the treatment of Christian women in Pakistan, where an average of two women a day disappear and are raped, sold into sexual slavery, or forced to marry Muslim men. "Evidence exists that some rogue imams declare that such acts of conversion through violence are rewarded in heaven, what a terrifying thought," Chowdhry said. Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War in Christians echoed such warnings, writing, "Even in Western nations, Muslims from Pakistan believe it is their right to rape and sexually abuse 'infidel' women – or even Muslim women if they are out at night unaccompanied or not wearing a veil. Of course a veiled woman might also be attacked, but then the rape would be the same as for a non-Muslim rapist — he wants what he wants and that's that." He added, "But if she is a Muslim out on her own, he can rationalize away or justify the rape as 'his right' since she is acting like an infidel, so supposedly deserves what she gets. This author knows of no instance where a Muslim man targeted a Muslim woman because he thinks it is his 'right'."