FrontPage Magazine

As the world reacts with shock and horror at the increasingly savage deeds of the Islamic State (IS)—most recently the immolation of a captive—U.S. President Obama’s response has been one of nonjudgmental relativism.

Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 5, Obama counseled Americans to get off their “high horse” and remember that Christians have been equally guilty of such atrocities:

Unless we get on our high horse and think this [beheadings, sex-slavery, crucifixion, roasting humans] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.

There is so much to be said here. First, the obvious: the wide gulf between violence and hate “justified in the name of Christ” and violence and hate “justified in the name of Muhammad” is that Christ never justified it, while Muhammad continuously did.

This is not just a theoretic point; it is the very reason that Muslims are still committing savage atrocities. Every evil act IS commits—whether beheading, crucifying, raping, enslaving, or immolating humans—has precedents in the deeds of Muhammad, that most “perfect” and “moral” man, per Koran 33:21 and 68:4 (see “The Islamic State and Islam” for parallels).

Does Obama know something about Christ—who eschewed violence and told people to love and forgive their enemies—that we don’t? Perhaps he’s clinging to that solitary verse that academics like Philip Jenkins habitually highlight, that Christ—who “spoke to the multitudes in parables and without a parable spoke not” once said, “I come not to bring peace but a sword.” (Matt. 10:34, 13:34).

Jesus was not commanding violence against non-Christians but rather predicting that Christians will be persecuted, including by family members (as, for example, when a Muslim family slaughters their child for “apostatizing” to Christianity as happens frequently).

Conversely, in its fatwa justifying the burning of the Jordanian captive, the Islamic State cites Muhammad putting out the eyes of some with “heated irons” (he also cut their hands and feet off). The fatwa also cites Khalid bin al-Walid—the heroic “Sword of Allah”—who burned apostates to death, including one man whose head he set on fire to cook his dinner on.

Nor is the Islamic State alone in burning people. Recently a “mob accused of burning alive a Christian couple in an industrial kiln in Pakistan allegedly wrapped a pregnant mother in cotton so she would catch fire more easily.”

As for the Islamic “authorities,” Al Azhar—the Islamic world’s oldest and most prestigious university which cohosted Obama’s 2009 “New Beginning” speech—still assigns books that justify every barbarity IS commits, including burning people alive. Moreover, Al Azhar—a religious institution concerned with what is and is not Islamic—has called for the cutting off of the hands and feet of IS members, thereby legitimizing such acts according to Islamic law.

On the other hand, does Obama know of some secret document in the halls of the Vatican that calls for amputating, beheading or immolating enemies of Christ to support his religious relativism?

As for the much maligned Crusades, Obama naturally follows the mainstream academic narrative that anachronistically portrays the crusaders as greedy, white, Christian imperialists who decided to conquer peace-loving Muslims in the Middle East.

Again, familiarity with the true sources and causes behind the Crusades shows that they were a response to the very same atrocities being committed by the Islamic State today. Consider the words of Pope Urban II, spoken almost a millennium ago, and note how well the portions in bold perfectly mirror IS behavior:

From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians [i.e., Muslim Turks] … has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country [as slaves], and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion …. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent…. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength…

If the crusaders left their own lands and families to come to the aid of persecuted Christians and to liberate Jerusalem, here is Obama portraying them as no better than the Islamic State—which isn’t surprising considering that, far from helping persecuted Christians, Obama’s policies have significantly worsened their plight.

The true lesson of the Crusades is that Islamic violence has been remarkably consistent, down to its very patterns of persecution. And, according to primary historical texts—not modern day fantasies peddled by the likes of Karen Armstrong—Muslim persecution of Christians was indeed a primary impetus for the Crusades.

As for the Inquisition, this too took place in the context of Christendom’s struggle with Islam. (Isn’t it curious that the European nation most associated with the Inquisition, Spain, was also the one ruled longest by, and heavily populated with, Muslims?) After the Christian reconquest of Spain, Muslims, seen as untrustworthy, were ordered either to convert to Christianity or go back to Africa whence they came. Countless Muslims feigned conversion by practicing taqiyya and living as moles trying to subvert Spain back to Islam. Hence the extreme measures of the Inquisition—which, either way, find no support in the teachings of Christ.

Conversely, after one of his jihads, Muhammad had a man tortured to death with fire in order to reveal his tribe’s hidden treasure and “married” the same man’s wife hours later. Unsurprisingly, the woman, Safiya, later confessed that “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” before “marrying” her.

In short, Obama’s claim that there will always be people willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends” is patently false when applied to the Islamic State and like organizations and individuals.

Muhammad himself called for the murder of his enemies; he permitted Muslims to feign friendship to his enemies in order to assassinate them; he incited his followers to conquer and plunder non-believers, promising them a sexual paradise if they were martyred; he kept sex slaves and practiced pedophilia with his “child-bride,” Aisha.

He, the prophet of Islam, did everything the Islamic State is doing.

If Muslims are supposed to follow the sunna, or example, of Muhammad, and if Muhammad engaged in and justified every barbarity being committed by the Islamic State and other Muslims—how, exactly, are they “hijacking” Islam?

Such is the simple logic Obama fails to grasp. Or else he does grasp it—but hopes most Americans don’t.

Greek

Portuguese

Earlier today I was interviewed on Ave Maria Radio’s “Kresta in the Afternoon.” Topics included the significance of the Islamic State's burning of a Jordanian pilot and the Muslim world's reaction. The 12-minute interview can be heard here and begins around the 41-minute mark

Coptic Solidarity

A 26-year-old Coptic Christian man and his fiancé were arrested yesterday on the accusation that they blasphemed against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, and his child-bride, Aisha, on Facebook.

When news, or the accusation, that Michael Munir had posted something offensive concerning Muhammad, dozens of Muslims surrounded his house in the village of Dimyana in Daqhiliya governate, Egypt.

The angry Muslims were reportedly about to burn his home before security forces arrived and arrested him. The Copt is being held for four days pending investigation. It is not clear if his fiancé also remains jailed or was released (reports are conflicting).

Fonte/Source: Fatwa: How Islamic State Justifies Burning Pilot Alive Por Raymond Ibrahim

Mais uma vez, o Estado Islâmico (ISIS) realiza uma atrocidade, assustando a mente Ocidental, e uma vez mais aponta seu homônimo – o Islã – para justificar a sua depravação.

O ISIS acaba de lançar um vídeo mostrando o piloto Jordaniano cativo Mu’ath al-Kaseasbeh numa jaula, queimando vivo (imagem/capa). Postaram também uma Fatwa em vários sites jihadistas permitindo a imolação (queima) de seres humanos.

Nota: No léxico, a palavra árabe ´fatwa´ significa dar uma resposta satisfatória em relação a certo assunto. Na linguagem técnica da “Sharia”, a palavra árabe ´fatwa` esclarece a aplicação de Lei Islâmica em uma resposta dada a uma questão ou conjunto de questões, normalmente relacionadas a um assunto Islâmico.

A breve fatwa argumenta que “Hanafis e Shafi’is [duas das quatro escolas ortodoxas Sunitas de Jurisprudência do Islã] permitem a queima” de pessoas. Ele também cita o tafsir ou exegese, de Muhalab ibn Safra (d. 702), relativo a uma afirmação atribuída ao profeta do Islã: “Somente Allah atormenta com fogo.” De acordo com o tafsir a declaração de Muhammad não se destina a proibir jihadistas de usarem o fogo para atormentar as pessoas, e sim um reflexo de “humildade” – indicando que Allah sozinho pode realmente atormentar.

Em seguida, a fatwa cita o eminente Hafiz ibn al-Hajar (d. 1449), comentando que “as obras dos companheiros [de Muhammad] evidenciam a permissibilidade da imolação; que o profeta colocou para fora os olhos dos homens de Urayna com ferro quente [ele também cortou fora suas mãos e pés]; e que Khalid bin al-Walid queimou algumas das pessoas que apostataram (que renunciaram a fé).”

Quanto ao Khalid – a reverenciada “Espada de Alá” – escrevi sobre ele aqui, incluindo como ele uma vez decapitou um “apóstata”, estuprou sua bela esposa, e em seguida, jogou a cabeça do homem decepada nas chamas antes de cozinhar seu jantar sobre ela.

Nada disto é surpreendente. Como discutido no artigo “Estado islâmico e o Islã“, cada atrocidade ESTÁ comprometida – quer seja decapitando, crucificando, estuprando, escravizando ou, como agora, imolando – e tem precedentes no Islã, seja através das ações de Muhammad, o homem mais “perfeito” e “de moral” (Alcorão 33:21, 68: 4), ou dos seus companheiros venerados.

Tradução: Sebastian Cazeiro

Arabic – Danish

The one glaring fact concerning the persecution of approximately 100 million Christians around the world today is that the overwhelming majority of it is being committed by Muslims of all races, nationalities, languages, and socio-political circumstances: Muslims from among America’s allies (Saudi Arabia) and from its enemies (Iran); Muslims from economically rich nations (Qatar) and from poor nations (Somalia and Yemen); Muslims from “Islamic republic” nations (Afghanistan) and from “moderate” nations (Malaysia and Indonesia); Muslims from nations rescued by America (Kuwait) and Muslims from nations claiming “grievances” against the U.S. (fill in the blank __).

This fact is underscored in Open Doors’ recent 2015 World Watch List—a report that highlights and ranks the 50 worst nations persecuting Christians. It finds that “Islamic extremism” is the main source of persecution in 40 of the top 50 countries—that is, 80 percent of the nations where Christians are persecuted are Muslim. As for the top ten worst countries persecuting Christians, nine of them are Muslim-majority—that is, 90 percent of nations where Christians experience “extreme persecution” are Muslim.

Still, considering that the 2015 World Watch List ranks North Korea—non-Islamic, communist—as the number one worst persecutor of Christians, why belabor the religious identity of Muslims? Surely Christian persecution is not intrinsic to the Islamic world, but is a product of repressive regimes and other socio-economic factors—as the North Korean example suggests and as many analysts and media maintain?

Here we come to some critically important but blurred distinctions. While Christians are indeed suffering extreme persecution in North Korea, these fall into the realm of the temporal and aberrant. Something as simple as overthrowing the North Korean regime would likely end persecution there overnight—just as the fall of Communist Soviet Union saw religious persecution come to a quick close.

In the Islamic world, however, a similar scenario would not alleviate the sufferings of Christians by an iota. Quite the opposite; where dictators fall (often thanks to U.S. intervention)—Saddam in Iraq, Qaddafi in Libya, and ongoing attempts against Assad in Syria—Christian persecution dramatically rises. Today Iraq is the third worst nation in the world in which to be Christian, Syria fourth, and Libya 13th.

The reason for this dichotomy is that Christian persecution by non-Muslims (mostly communists) is often rooted in a particular regime. Conversely, Muslim persecution of Christians is perennial, existential, and far transcends this or that regime or ruler. It is part and parcel of the history, doctrines, and socio-political makeup of Islam—hence its tenacity; hence its ubiquity.

Moreover, atheistic communism is a relatively new phenomenon—about a century old—and, over the years, its rule (if not variants of its ideology) has greatly waned, so that only a handful of nations today are communist.

On the other hand, Muslim persecution of Christians is as old as Islam. It is a well-documented, even if suppressed, history.

To further understand the differences between temporal and existential persecution, consider Russia. Under communism, its own Christians were grossly persecuted; yet today, after the fall of the USSR, Russia is again reclaiming its Orthodox Christian heritage (and is prominent among Western nations for showing support for persecuted Christians).

North Korea—where Kim Jong-Un is worshipped as a god and the people are shielded from reality—seems to be experiencing what Russia did under the Soviet Union. But if the once mighty USSR could not persevere, surely it’s a matter of time before tiny North Korea’s walls also come crumbling down, with the resulting religious freedom that former communist nations have experienced. (Tellingly, the only countries that were part of the USSR that still persecute Christians are Muslim, such as Uzbekistan, ranked #15, “severe persecution,” and Turkmenistan, ranked #20, also “severe persecution.”)

Time, however, is not on the side of Christians living amid Muslims; quite the opposite. The histories compiled by objective, medieval Muslims make abundantly clear that century after century of religious persecution and discrimination is responsible for transforming territory that in the seventh century made up half of the Christian world—Egypt, Syria, Turkey, North Africa—into what is today casually called the “Muslim world.”

One example: in Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi’s (d. 1442) authoritative history of Egypt—which was a major center of Christianity before Islam invaded—anecdote after anecdote is recorded of Muslims burning churches, slaughtering Christians, enslaving their women and children. The only escape then—and even today, as groups like the Islamic State make clear—was for Christians to convert to Islam.

After recording one particularly egregious bout of persecution, where reportedly some 30,000 churches in Egypt and Syria were destroyed, the pious Muslim historian concludes: “Under these circumstances a great many Christians became Muslims.”

In short, Muslim persecution of Christians exists in 40 nations today as part of a continuum—or “tradition”—that started nearly 14 centuries ago. As I document in Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (where al-Maqrizi’s anecdotes are referenced, pgs. 39-41), the very same patterns of Christian persecution prevalent throughout the Muslim world today are often identical to those from centuries past.

A final consideration: North Korea, the one non-Muslim nation making the top ten worst persecutors list, is governed by what is widely seen as an unbalanced megalomaniac; conversely, the other nine nations are not dominated by any “cults-of-personalities” and are variously governed, including through parliamentarian democracies (Iraq), republics (Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Syria), Islamic republics (Afghanistan, Iran), one-party states (Eritrea), and monarchies (Saudi Arabia, ranked 12).

The common denominator is that they are all Islamic nations.

Thus, long after North Korea’s psychotic Kim Jong-Un has gone the way of the dodo, tens of millions of Christians and other “infidels”—short of a miracle, either from Western intervention or true Islamic reformation—will continue to suffer extreme persecution, till what started in the seventh century reaches fruition and the entire Islamic world becomes “infidel” free.

Victor Bet-Tamarz, a sickly 60-year-old Assyrian Pentecostal church leader who was among many Christians to be arrested after Iranian security forces raided his Tehran home during a Christmas celebration, as well as another unidentified Christian, remain behind bars, as of February 2:

Police was seen filming the arrests, forcing each Christian to state their identity, explain why they were there and why they thought they were being detained. Authorities reportedly separated men from women and proceeded to search them, confiscating Bibles, mobile phones and identification papers. Police also searched Pastor Victor’s home, seizing his computer, mobile phones and books, Christians said.

WND

By F. Michael Maloof

WASHINGTON – The gruesome murder of captured Jordanian F-16 pilot Lt. Muath al-Kasabeh by ISIS may have strengthened the resolve of the Jordanian government to launch all-out assaults against the jihadist army as members of the U.S.-led coalition.

But it also could have a boomerang effect as Jordanians question why their country should further engage ISIS, according to Middle East sources.

Meanwhile, the killing also has raised concerns that members of the coalition – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates – will be emboldened to launch more attacks against ISIS targets in Syria, where their interest has been primarily on overthrowing the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, sources add.

One indication of that concern is that following the capture of the pilot in December, the United Arab Emirates suspended its air operations over Syria as a part of the coalition bombing ISIS targets in Syria.

U.S. officials have confirmed to WND that the UAE has halted its participation because there was no contingency plan to rescue downed aircrew.

One Middle East source told WND that when Kasabeh was downed by ISIS last December, the leader of the squadron of F-16s was Maj. Mariam al-Mansouri, the first UAE female fighter pilot. Reports confirm she was in the squadron, but WND could not independently confirm she was the leader.

Whether the killing of the Jordanian pilot will mean an Arab commitment of boots on the ground by these Arab countries also was questionable as Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Joudeh said the reaction would not be ground troops but a greater commitment to assist the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Peshmerga Kurds.

However, there were unconfirmed reports out of Jordan Tuesday night that Jordan could send troops to Syria to fight ISIS.

‘Wave of anger and frustration’

Despite the Jordanian government’s hanging of two convicted al-Qaida prisoners and the pledge of an “earth-shaking” response, there is concern that the pilot’s killing actually may increase popular opposition to the coalition efforts against ISIS.

“I think it will be business as usual,” Jeb Babbin, a former under secretary of defense, told Fox News, referring to Arab countries’ reaction to the killing of the Jordanian pilot.

Clare Lopez a former CIA operations officer and current Middle East expert at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, told WND that ISIS “is trying to create chaos to invade Jordan.”

“ISIS has supporters in south of Jordan, (in the) north and (in) Palestinian camps; (and) on more than one occasion demonstrators challenged the regime and declared Amman is the Fallujah (Iraq) of Jordan,” Lopez said. “Palestinians in camps across Jordan are supporters of ISIS. ISIS is desperate for a sea port. A port of Aqaba will give them access to the Red Sea.”

Middle East expert Raymond Ibrahim, Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, believes that more “moderate” Muslims ultimately will prevail in the fight against ISIS.

“The burning of the pilot,” Ibrahim said, “will continue to create a “rift among Muslims — from the many who cannot tolerate such acts, cannot tolerate the idea that their religion condones such atrocities, to those who are willing to accept reality, willing to accept that Islamic texts and history are littered with such barbaric behavior — beginning with the prophet of Islam.”

Ibrahim said it’s “interesting to watch the debates now a days between Muslims — the ‘moderates’ are becoming much more vocal and courageous, which does not necessarily translate into anything concrete, but is a start,.”

“The Islamic State has really driven home the true nature of debate — that is, what is Islam and what does it teach, and it’s making many Muslims uncomfortable having to deal with these questions which for long have been ignored but … with every day ISIS brings them to the fore,” Ibrahim said.

“And yes, while once cannot really account for what U.S. leadership will do, I do believe that these continuing atrocities will drive the governments of various Arab countries to work closer together.”

Middle East expert Osama al-Sharif said that the killing of the Jordanian pilot will trigger “a wave of anger and frustration” that could spark a political crisis for Jordanian King Abdullah II. The king cut short a visit with President Obama Tuesday to return to Jordan after ISIS released a 22-minute video purportedly showing the pilot being burned alive.

“It will strengthen the position of those who believe Jordan should withdraw from the fight against ISIS,” Sharif said.

Before knowing the fate of the pilot, his father, who comes from a prominent Jordanian tribe, had told CNN Arabic that the king “had no business with the coalition, and those who had sent my son to fight beyond Jordan’s border must now bring him back.”

Even before the pilot’s capture, Abdullah was under fire internally from the country’s Palestinian population, the Muslim Brotherhood and a growing number of ISIS backers.

Islamist opposition groups had voiced opposition to joining the anti-ISIS coalition when it was first announced.

As Sharif pointed out, Abdullah defended his position and insisted that the war against ISIS was “our war.” This was especially apparent when ISIS fighters moved up to the Jordanian border last year, in Iraq’s Sunni Anbar province, where they have remained.

An ISIS invasion of Jordan could jeopardize a critical buffer against ISIS access to the rest of the Levant.

As WND recently reported, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has designated Jordan as the next target of his caliphate. The government was split over joining the anti-ISIS coalition, however. The internal dissension comes from growing support for ISIS from a myriad of jihadist groups and the country’s poor economic conditions.

At the time, Jordanians were seen on videos burning their passports. ISIS even threatened to “slaughter” the king after invading Jordan.

“It is ISIS’ objective to destabilize its neighbors,” according to syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, an expert on the Middle East.

“Jordan is a miracle in the region. It has the most stable regime, yet it’s the weakest, it has no oil and yet since – for the last 70 years it has had only three rulers, but it has huge divisions internally; it’s got a lot of Muslim Brotherhood, it has some ISIS sympathizers, and I think the objective here was to draw Jordan into a war where it was a peripheral player,” Krauthammer said.

“This highlights, I think, the danger we all worship at the shrine of multilateralism, broad coalitions to bring everybody in as a way to restrict American action. Obama’s now involving the UAE, the Saudis and of course the Jordanians and now we see the result.

Krauthammer said Jordan “being drawn into a direct war with ISIS is not a good thing” for the U.S.

“Jordan will not defeat ISIS on its own. It even wouldn’t defeat ISIS even if it had some coalition partners,” he said.

“It’s the United States essentially which is – or Turkey, perhaps – the only partners,” he said. “So, here we are bringing in Jordan for symbolic reasons. Yet, a real pilot is shot down in real time and then executed in this horrible way, causing a reaction in Jordan where the king is now on the spot.

Krauthammer said Abdullah “will have to do something intense, important, punishing and that will draw him in.”

“And he’s got – he’s got refugees from of course Palestine but of course Syria, Iraq. He’s got a lot of internal dissent which we have seen over the years, and this is a way to stir the cauldron in a country that is stable, was stable, but is easily destabilized, and that is what ISIS is after.”

Underscoring the internal dissension and the increasing support for ISIS, the founder of the forerunner to ISIS – Al-Qaida in Iraq – was founded by the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A deputy to Zarqawi was Baghdadi, who would go on to create the Islamic State of Iraq, which then morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, and then the Islamic State, once he had taken over portions of Syria and Iraq to create the caliphate.

“ISIS sympathizers feel injustice and anger at America and Israel and always felt that Islam was under attack by crusaders,” Murin Khoury, a leading Jordanian pollster, recently told the Guardian newspaper of London. “And now they don’t agree with Jordan being involved in the coalition.”

The killing of the Jordanian pilot, however, also is seen as a means to polarize Jordanian society, especially among the tribes, which Sharif says are often considered the backbone of the support for Abdullah’s government.

ISIS, he said, is conducting psychological war against Jordan.