CBN News

Who is ultimately responsible for the ongoing attacks on Christians and their churches throughout the Islamic world?

Focusing on one of the most obvious nations where Christians are regularly targeted—Egypt’s Coptic Christians—one finds that the “mob” is the most visible and obvious culprit. One Copt accused of some transgression against Muslim sensibilities—from having relations with a Muslim woman, to ruining a Muslim man’s shirt—is often enough to prompt Muslim mobs to destroy entire Christian villages and their churches.

Recently, for example, after her cross identified Mary Sameh George as a Christian, a pro-Muslim Brotherhood mob attacked, beat, and slaughtered her.

However, a recent Arabic op-ed titled “Find the True Killer of Mary” looks beyond the mob to identify the true persecutor of Christians in Egypt. According to it:

Those who killed the young and vulnerable Mary Sameh George, for hanging a cross in her car, are not criminals, but rather wretches who follow those who legalized for them murder, lynching, dismemberment, and the stripping bare of young Christian girls—without every saying “kill.” [Islamic cleric] Yassir Burhami and his colleagues who announce their hate for Christians throughout satellite channels and in mosques—claiming that hatred of Christians is synonymous with love for God—they are the true killers who need to be tried and prosecuted… The slayers of Mary Sameh are simply a wretched mob, with the body of a bull but the brain of a worm. It’s not the puppets on the string who need punishing, but rather the mastermind who moves the puppets with his bloody fingers behind closed curtains that needs punishing.

One fact certainly validates this Arabic op-ed’s assertions: the overwhelming majority of attacks on Christians in Egypt and other Muslim nations—including the slaughter of Mary Sameh George—occur on Friday, the one day of the week that Muslims congregate in mosques for communal prayers and to hear sermons.

The significance of this fact can easily be understood by analogy: what if Christians were especially and consistently violent to non-Christian minorities on Sunday—right after they got out of church? What would that say about what goes on in Christian churches?

What does it say about what goes on in Muslim mosques?

The Arabic op-ed also does well to name Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami as one of those who “announce their hate for Christians throughout the satellite channels and in mosques, claiming that hatred of Christians is synonymous with love for God.”

For example, Dr. Burhami—the face of Egypt’s Salafi movement—once issued a fatwa, or Islamic edict, forbidding Muslim taxi- and bus-drivers from transporting Coptic Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as “more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar.”

As for hating non-Muslim “infidels,” many Islamic clerics, especially Salafis, believe that the doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity” (or wala’ wa bara’) commands Muslims never to befriend or be loyal to non-Muslims.

Burhami himself appears on video asserting that if a Muslim man marries a Christian or Jewish woman (known in Islamic parlance as “People of the Book”)—even he must still hate his wife, because she is an infidel.

When asked at a conference how Islam can allow a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman and yet expect him to hate her, Burhami expounded as follows:

Where’s the objection? Do all men love their wives? How many married couples live together despite disagreements and problems? Huh? That being the case, he [Muslim husband] may love the way she [non-Muslim wife] looks, or love the way she raises the children, or love that she has money. This is why he’s discouraged from marrying among the People of the Book—because she has no [real] religion. He is ordered to make her hate her religion while continuing marriage/sexual relations with her. This is a very standard matter…. Of course he should tell her that he hates her religion. He must show her that he hates her because of her religion, and because she is an infidel. But if possible, treat her well—perhaps that will cause her to convert to Islam. He should invite her to Islam and call her to Allah…. In fact, let me tell you: whoever rapes a woman, does he necessarily love her? Or is he just sleeping with her? He’s sleeping with her for her body’s sake only, and he does not love her in reality, because if he loved her, he wouldn’t have hurt her. Therefore it is possible to have sexual relations [between a Muslim man and a Christian or Jewish woman] without love. This is possible, but as we said, he is commanded to hate her (emphasis added).

Burhami even said that the Muslim husband cannot initiate greetings to his non-Muslim wife when he comes home—according to the teachings of Islam’s prophet as recorded in the hadith.

Like all other Islamic clerics, Burhami justified “infidel-wife-hating” by quoting some of the Koran verses that form the cornerstone of the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity:

Otherwise what do you do with the undisputed texts [of the Koran], such as “Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist [or reject submission to] Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred… “O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors…” [Koran 58:22 and 5:51, Yusuf Ali translation]. What do you do with such a verse? What do you do will all these verses?

Indeed, what does a Muslim do with all these Koran verses and sayings attributed to Islam’s prophet Muhammad?

Such is the dilemma.

From here it becomes clear that the aforementioned Arabic op-ed discussing the slaughter of Mary Sameh George is only partially correct. It is true that behind the mindless mob stand Islamic clerics like Burhami, inciting hatred for Christians and other infidels. But that is not the complete picture; for behind all these clerics stand Islam’s scriptures—the Koran and hadith—commanding enmity for the infidel.

In short, it’s not just a few “radical clerics”—a few “rotten apples"—that incite mobs to attack Christians, but rather the core texts of Islam itself.

By Bob Taylor

Communities Digital News

CHARLOTTE, NC, April 14, 2014 – Whenever Barack Obama uses his favorite five word phrase, “Let me be perfectly clear,” it is a signal to turn and run as fast as you can in the opposite direction.

It is time to clear the air and make it clearer about what “being perfectly clear” really means.

In Islam there is a doctrine, which is primarily upheld by Sunni Muslims, known as taqiyya. Sunnis derive their name from the word sunna which means “example.” The sunnah is regarded as the normative way of life for Muslims based upon the teachings and “examples” of the Prophet Muhammad.

Basically taqiyya is lying, which is permitted in Islam when used to deceive the enemy or to protect yourself against the infidels. Thus, normative Islam says that duping the enemy is a major facet of jihad.

The concept of taqiyya, like most things in Islam, is considerably more complicated than the simple definition provided above, but the basic premise is enough.

Beyond taqiyya however, there is a corollary known as tawriya which, though lesser known, is, in its own way, perhaps a more dangerous doctrine that its bigger brother. As the prolific Middle Eastern writer, Raymond Ibrahim, points out, tawriya “allows Muslims to lie in virtually all circumstances provided that the lie is articulated in a way that it is technically (emphasis added) true.” In other words the best use of the doctrine of tawriya is when you say something that means one thing to the listener but is purposely vague to mean something else to the speaker.

Conspiracy theorists will scoff at the idea that Barack Obama would employ such a tactic, but the evidence dramatically says otherwise. Like the birther issue, the idea that the president is a Muslim is typically rejected as Obama bashing perpetuated by the president’s fiercest opponents.

Having said that, it is undeniable that the first third of Obama’s life was heavily influenced by Islamic teachings. Certainly the concepts of both taqiyya and tawriya were an integral part of that upbringing. In fact, during his first presidential campaign, the Islamic aspect of the president’s life was considered one of his strengths to deal with the complexities of the Middle East. Sadly, the arena of foreign policy has proven to be one of his greatest weaknesses.

Using simple examples by Raymond Ibrahim, it is not difficult to get the gist of how tawriya works. Writes Ibrahim, “if someone declares ‘I don’t have a penny in my pocket,.’ most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies. This is legitimate according to Islamic law…and does not constitute ‘lying.’”

In another example Ibrahim explains that “it is permissible for a Muslim even to swear when lying through tawriya. Munajid, for example, cites a man who swears to Allah that he can only sleep under a roof; when the man is caught sleeping atop a roof, he exonerates himself by saying ‘by roof, I meant the open sky.’ This is legitimate. ‘After all,’ Munajid adds, ‘Qur’an 21:32 refers to the sky as a roof.’”

Transpose those examples into the phrase “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” In that case, Obama was obviously misleading, yet when he was called down on it he simply used the familiar “that’s-my-story-and-I’m-sticking-to-it defense” which is commonplace throughout his tenure.

A better example of tawyira would be Mr. Obama’s “hope and change” campaign philosophy. Though the words themselves are vague, there was no doubt about what the positive promises implied in Obama’s guarantee to “fundamentally change” America. Indeed he has done just that, only not in the manner that most Americans interpreted those words. It represented tawyira in its purest sense, because Barack Obama knew exactly what he meant when he uttered those words.

Some people would just label it as politics as usual. In Barack Obama’s case it is far more sinister and devious than that. Omitting clarifying information while touting other facts and figures have become a hallmark of Obama’s presidency.

If, in fact, it is true that more than seven million people signed up for Obamacare, what is not true is that that number is accurate. Television analysts have been pointing that out since the end of March when the president was taking his victory laps.

Since then Obama has been blaming republicans for wanting to deny Americans healthcare which is also not true, but being “perfectly clear” he can justify it through a concept known as tawyira.

As for global applications, Iran is using the same process in our negotiations over nuclear weapons. Either Obama is being beaten by his own game or, more likely, he understands the situation and is doing nothing about it. Either way it spells danger for the West.

The Pied Piper is leading his rats off the edge of a cliff, and the time has come for Americans to pay the piper because of it.

“Let’s be perfectly clear.” When Barack Obama uses that phrase, it’s a pretty good bet that tawriya is lurking in the shadows.