"The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." (-John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).

"Where the bishop is, there let the people gather; just as where ever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church". -St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca 110 AD)a martyr later thrown to the lions, wrote to a church in Asia Minor. Antioch was also where the term "Christian" was first used.

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic." -CCC 811
Showing posts with label Political Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Islam. Show all posts

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Muslims Terrorizing Sweden, 1 died

Islamization is one of the many problems Europe and the Americas is facing today. The pandemic threat of Islamic terrorism is a fact we all have to face. Muslims' failure to assimilate in our free society damages our own system because they use our democracy and our freedom to demand for their rights but are not ready to reciprocate either. They brag about Muslim converts but killed those who leave Islam. Now they want our cities under their spell. May God protect our cities. -Catholic Defender

One dead after suicide bombing in Stockholm
Source: The Local Sweden's News in English


Two nearly simultaneous explosions rocked central Stockholm on Saturday evening, killing one person and injuring two others in what is believed to be a suicide attack.

The fatal blast occurred just minutes after a car exploded on another nearby street sending two people to hospital.

Roughly ten minutes before the explosions, Swedish news agency TT received an email telling Muslims in Sweden and Europe it was "time to take action".

Sveriges Television (SVT) reported that both explosions, which occurred about 200 metres from one another, were part of a suicide attack in the Swedish capital.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Egyptian Security Used Live Ammunition on Christian Coptic Protesters, 4 Killed

Please continue pray for our Coptic brothren in Egypt. Let's all storm heaven with our prayers that there would no more shedding of blood. Our Father.... Hail Mary... Glory be... Our Lady of Zeitoun, pray for us!

(AINA) -- Christian Copts worldwide were shocked and enraged at the use of live ammunition by Egyptian state security forces against unarmed Coptic protesters, causing the death of three Coptic young men. A four-year old child suffocated from tear gas thrown inside the chapel. Rights groups inside and outside of Egypt have condemned the use of excessive violence by security forces and the use of live ammunition against Coptic demonstrators.

Efforts by State Security to hide the use of firearms on unarmed protesters were in vain, as the rising death toll, hospital reports on those admitted, and video footage and eyewitness testimony have revealed the details of the incident. Coptic activists Sherif Ramzy and Ramy Kamel have conducted interviews with witnesses.

CSW Advocacy Director Andrew Johnston blamed the violence on "excessive" police tactics and expressed his sadness at the "unnecessary" loss of life and injuries.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Violence Against Egyptian Christians Raises Concerns

By Judith Sudilovsky
Source: Catholic News Service
Published: Monday, November 29, 2010

Coptic Patriarch Antonios Naguib of Alexandria,
Egypt, center, arrives for the opening Mass
of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East.
JERUSALEM (CNS) — Episodes of violence in Egypt that left Christian houses and businesses burned and ransacked have raised concerns among Egypt's Christian community, said a Christian worker.

The Nov. 28 elections have been seen as a possible reason for the increased violence, said the Christian, who asked that his name not be used for his safety.

"The situation is confusing. At the same time, we will (soon) have elections, and many harmful activities are taking place. The government wants to reduce the impact of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that is provoking some people to attack Christians," he told Catholic News Service.

Christians "have started to be worried. People feel something wrong in the air. They are taking more care, being more reserved, and avoiding contacts with Muslims," he said.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

The tragedy of Iraq’s Christians is that it does not interest anyone, Chaldean Catholic says

by Nirmala Carvalho
Under Saddam Hussein, Christians in Iraq were around a million. Today, more than half have fled, living as refugees in other countries, in particular Syria and Jordan. Those who are left behind feel betrayed and abandoned by the government and the international community, with only one desire, to be able to live and worship in peace.

Birmingham (AsiaNews) – “There is now a real danger that Christians in the Middle East, and in Iraq in particular, of being exterminated, due to both persecution and large-scale emigration,” this according to Dr Joseph Seferta, an Iraqi-born Chaldean Catholic living in Birmingham, Britain, where he is a member of the Commission for Inter-faith Dialogue of the Archdiocese of Birmingham. He gave an exclusive interview to AsiaNews about the difficult situation Christians face in Iraq and across the Middle East. Here it is.

“I belong to the Chaldean Catholic Church, which makes up the majority of Christians in Iraq. Others include Assyrians, as well Syrian, Armenian and Byzantine Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox. Christians under Saddam Hussein totalled some one million, but now only half that number remains in the country, the rest having fled and are living as refugees, particularly in Syria and Jordan.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

UK: Pictures From Today’s Muslims Against Crusades Rally by Logans Warning

Thanks to LogansWarning for these photos taken in London where Muslims USING our DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM for their own GAIN rallied against "Crusaders". A separate video was uploaded by the same blogger. This extremist IDEOLOGY legitimizes terrorist groups within Islam in attacking ARAB CHRISTIANS in their own lands. Let's fight evil by doing what is good in the eyes of God (الله‎ for Arab Christians, Jews and Muslims); who is LOVE (not hatred and revenge).  "Make me a channel of your peace, where there is HATRED let me bring LOVE." St. Francis of Assisi.



Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Free Asia Bibi! Christian Woman Sentenced to Death in Pakistan under 'Blasphemy Law'

By Deacon Keith Fournier
11/9/2010

Christian Woman to Die for sharing her Faith in Pakistan!

We call on our readers to join with us in praying for our Christian sister Asia Bibi, sentenced to death for bearing witness to Jesus Christ in Pakistan. We must raise our voices and demand that she be freed! We also join with Bill Donohue and the Catholic League in opposing a U.N. Resolution allegedly condemning defamation being proposed by Pakistan! We have witnessed what such resolutions can mean for Christians such as Asia Bibi. They are designed to persecute Christians and criminalize Christianity.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (Catholic Online) - The Pakistani Christian post is one of several news sources carrying the horrific story of the death sentence handed down against a Christian woman named Asia Bibi (Christian woman sentenced to Death on accusation of Blasphemy) They reported:

"A Christian woman named Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by District and Session Courts after year long trial on accusation of blasphemy filed by Muslim villagers of Ittanwali, where she was residing from generations. While working in farms with other Muslim women, Asia Bibi was dragged in religious dialogues on June 19, 2009, when Muslim women termed her an "Infidel" and Christianity a "Religion of infidels" and pressed her to embrace Islam. Asia Bibi who is married and have two children, defended Christianity with her little knowledge and told Muslim women that Christianity is only True religion on which Muslim women made a roar and accused her defiling Prophet Mohammad".

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Why Muslim Leaders are So Corrupt

On October 25, 2010, in Blog, by Farid Ghadry

I wrote once, in an Op-Ed published by the Israeli Ynet, that while having dinner with an ex-prime minister of a western country, he asked me a question: "What differentiates you from other Arab leaders". It was a relatively easy question and the answer was even easier "Because I never killed anyone, robbed from anyone, or stifled the liberty of anyone".

According to my friend, there lays the problem. "Most western countries want to see corrupt Arab and Muslim leaders occupy positions of power." Why? "Because it is easier to control them (and seek the concessions we want from them)". He did not say the latter part but the implication was obvious.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Lebanon's PM says Middle East is 'heading for disaster'

Watch this VIDEO at BBC Live News - Help Failure to reach a comprehensive peace deal in the Middle East will lead the region into disaster says the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri.

He told the BBC's Jeremy Bowen the whole world will be affected by failure and that Europe and the US are already paying the price of extremism.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Islam and Assyria: an Impossible Coexistence

Peter BetBasoo in zindamagazine.com
Chicago

Assyrian Catholic Christians (Photo Source: drzz.info)
Islam proclaims that once a territory is conquered by Muslims it can never revert to non-Muslim rule. It is this law that even today grieves Muslims for having lost Spain. Very few conquered territories have regained their independence from Islam since the beginning of the Muslim war on the world in 630 A.D.. Those that have succeeded have often faced intense pressure from surrounding Muslim states. New non-Muslim states that have sprung in the heart of "Islamic territory" -- Israel, for example -- have been perennially at defensive war with the surrounding Muslim states.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Geert Wilders Victory Will Help Islam

Thanks to Farid Ghadry:
After the political left in Holland exhausted all venues to force Geert Wilders off the stage, it seems that his exoneration from an ill-defined and an ill-advised lawsuit (given his rising popularity in Holland and beyond) won him accolades from all corners of the world. The accolades come from those who view his right for freedom of speech as an essential element to debate civilizational differences when they arise.

Many Muslims criticize other religions when they deem it necessary. We call Judaism a "Blood Sucking" religion. This is not a one-time incident but something that is taught in Syrian schools at a very early age. And when the text books appear too soft on the Jews, not to worry because our teachers will fill the vacuum by adding the necessary insults and lies to the whole discussion. Not every Muslim condemns Judaism, only those who grow in oppressive and violent countries like Syria.

Geert Wilders, in my opinion, represents a new core of principles upon which weak European politicians, unwilling to adjust to certain realities when the threat of terror increases at home, will define a New Europe more adaptable to danger and the frictions we see taking place as borders shrink and cross-country immigration increases. Political correctness will manifest itself in contrarian collective policies rather than the singularity it has managed over the last 30 years or so.

This will only help Islam. Instead of repeated and unproductive whispers to wake a sleeping giant from his destructive slumber, it will be a bucket of cold water. So, thank you Geert Wilders for bringing the world's attention to the dilemma our religion lives. The next step is to call for freedom in oppressive countries to thwart the tide of Muslim immigration who escape to Europe and the US for better economic conditions and future.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Islamic Desecration of St. Peter's in Rome and St. John Lateran in 846 A.D. etc

Two Momentous But Little Remembered Dates In Western & Church History

Recently two momentous events in Western and Church History passed with hardly a mention. Actually, these events may be better known in the Muslim world than the Christian world; the Islamic army’s desecration of St. Peter’s in Rome, along with St John Lateran and other churches in 846, and the stunning defeat of the Islamic military onslaught by Charles the Hammer Martel at Tours, France in 732. Though these two events occurred over 100 years apart, they do point out that until the Ottoman-Turkish Islamic defeat in 1683 at the gates of Vienna; Europe was facing a never ending threat from radical Islam. Yet how is it that according to the mainstream media it was the fault of Christians, and specifically Catholics? In my last article, I wrote of the naval Battle of Lepanto in 1571 and the land at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. Some wondered why I didn’t right about Charles the Hammer Martel and some of the earlier Islamic incursions into Europe. Now is a good time to delve into that subject. (For more on Charles the Hammer Martel and the Battle of Tours please read this excellent article by my colleague Donald McClarey.)

Ask most practicing Catholics, Evangelicals and mainline Protestants who Charles the Hammer Martel was and you would probably get blank stares. Perhaps a few young people might be under the false impression that he is some sort of up and coming professional wrestler. However, you would probably stand a better chance of having someone in the Islamic world tell you about Charles the Hammer Martel. The same might be true for the sack of Rome in 846 by Muslim forces who disembarked at Ostia (the Tiber port) and marched right into Rome desecrating holy sites like St Peter’s and St John Lateran and leaving the Eternal City with their plunder. Many in the western world might be surprised why they have never heard this and why those who reside in the Islamic world are better informed of these events than in the Western World. Let us peer back into time to see what we can learn about the past and what it might mean for the future.

It is said that God can make the best out of the worst. As Charles Martel grew older and realized that his mother was simply a consort of his regal father, Charles must have realized that he could have been abandoned to poverty, or worse yet aborted (if that had happened Christianity might have been confined to Ireland!) Charles must have developed a thick skin and a courageous spirit that enabled him not to run at the first sign of trouble. Europe was in a state of near panic by 730 as the well seasoned professional Islamic Army had laid waste to much of the Middle East and North Africa leaving the homes of those past saints like Augustine in ruins. Europe was in the Dark Ages, armies were merely feudal in their makeup, a far cry from the type of regimented units needed to stop the largest invading armies Europe had seen since the days when Rome ruled the world.

Martel wasn’t above putting the fear of God into nobleman and clergy alike to make them realize what life would be like under Islamic rule. Finally, the Church and Manor agreed to give him the men he needed. Martel’s battle plan was as crafty as it was strategic. The Hammer knew that he must attack the invaders head on, along with planting the seed that the booty they had acquired in their previous conquests, and left back at their base camp, was not safe. Both plans worked and Western Europe was saved in the latest of rounds. However, this didn’t mean that the banner of Islam would not be waved again over Europe.

A mere one hundred years later, Islamic forces disembarked from their 73 ships at Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber. From there they marched to Rome, desecrating (old) St Peter’s, destroying the altar, and vandalizing various pontifical tombs, including that of the first pontiff, St Peter. It didn’t end there. St John Lateran, the pope’s official church was also targeted and the tombs of many other saints around Rome, including that of St Paul saw the wrath of this invading army.

While most of Europe would be spared from Islamic rule, Sicily and Spain were the exception. Islamic rule in the agriculturally rich island of Sicily would last for some time. Western words like assassin were really Arabic words that became part of the Sicilian nomenclature. Another Sicilian tradition that would arise from the long stay of the Arab Conquest would become known as the Mafia. Strong men would emerge who would do whatever was necessary to keep political control over a region, sometimes that meant making alliances with other important families, and sometimes that meant killing them.

Spain saw the longest Islamic reign in European History. Islam’s long hold over Iberian Peninsula wouldn’t end until 1492, the same year as an Italian sailing under the Spanish flag would discover not a short cut to India, but the New World. The Reconquestia of Spain took many centuries and the lessons learned here could have wide ranging implications in our modern world.

There is a belief that once a land is conquered for centuries there is no way to get it back to its cultural roots. Yet, in our own 21st century we are seeing before our very eyes in Kosovo that the Christian presence via the Catholic Church is still strong, some have speculated that centuries after the Islamic conquest of much of Albania, there are many crypto Catholics in the land that gave us Mother Teresa.

Why is it that many Muslims both in the western world and in the Middle East and North Africa know far more about their history and that of the Christian West than many Christians? I saw this first hand in the little rust belt Catholic school in which I attended and taught. I also observed this in college. Now I can understand this in college but I am from a small rust belt town, a town which is not unlike many small towns, where doctors who are Muslim send their children to Catholic schools. I believe the answers lies in the strong beliefs of many Muslim families. They simply believe their faith over what they are told by the education and media gatekeepers. Sadly, many Christian families including Catholic families bought into the historical lies that were told by mainstream media and the Higher Education Establishment. I am thinking specifically now of the lies told about Muslim Conquest of Europe and the meek answer of the Christian West, known as the Crusades.

I am not going to delve into the Crusades because I discussed that in this article. In addition, my colleague Joe Hargrave also delved into the subject with great care and circumspect. However, in a quick summary the Crusades were a small defensive action fought by a group of poorly skilled western soldiers who had more in common with those noble but outmatched members of the Charge of the Light Brigade than any modern western trained fighting force. The original Islamic invading armies were as skilled as they were ruthless.

I would be remiss in my duties if I didn’t mention the various Marian apparitions that many feel demonstrates the Blessed Mother’s continuing outreach to the Muslim world. Fatima in Portugal is the only town in Portugal with an Islamic name, and yet this is where the Blessed Mother appeared in 1917. Zeitoun in Egypt not only saw many Christians healed of various ailments, but it also saw many Muslims cured as well. Even famed leaders like Gamal Adbul Nasser came to see and believe in the 1968 apparition. One must remember that Christ never called Mary, “mother, “because she is the world’s mother. Perhaps through these apparitions she is reminding the Muslim world that before the Middle East and North Africa was Muslim, it was Christian. (For more on this please read, Trials and Tribulations Follow Marian Apparitions.)

The Western World and particularly Western Europe has bought into the popular lies of reproduction or lack thereof. The truth of the matter is while Muslim family size in Europe resembles the Catholic family of old, much of the lapsed Anglican, Luther and Catholic families of Western Europe are aborting and contraception themselves right off the planet. For our friends who are Protestant and thinking, “what a minute this Catholic belief in non contraceptives has nothing to do with us?” Actually, the truth of the matter is until 1930 not one Christian church allowed contraceptives. The Anglican Church was the first.

It would stand to reason that when you allow the Dictatorship of Relativism, as our brave but often ridiculed Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has defined it, you are going to be deceived every time. The deception didn’t end with abortion and contraception, it continues on with a false notion that our Christian and specifically Catholic forbearers were blood thirsty aggressors trying to rid the helpless Muslim world of their belief. While much of the western world salutes Saladin, the famous Islamic general during the Crusades, all too often academia denounces both the Catholic Church and the Knights Templar for their roles in the Crusades.

Even iconic explorers like Christopher Columbus have been demonized by academia. Columbus was either a blood thirsty conqueror taking advantage of the sinless Native Americans, or some sort of Bible thumping explorer bent on converting heathens to Catholicism. Both counts are hideously in error. The New World was plagued with the same sort of blood thirsty marauding tribes as was Dark Ages Europe.

For his part Christopher Columbus was far from sinless, but because he was very devout in his Catholic beliefs, the treatment of Native Americans was far better than most explorers. Columbus named most of the islands he discovered for the various saintly titles ascribed to the Blessed Virgin Mary. A recent Discovery Channel show about Columbus conceded that he was more religious and pious than other explorer. However, one of the “Columbus experts” featured in the show described Columbus in terms that one would think of as a religious nut. The expert said he certainly was “a holy roller.”

Why do Christians take this sort of abuse from academia when the Muslim world would object in the most strenuous terms to their famous ancestors being treated in this way? Perhaps the answer lies in faith, or lack thereof for the modern world. Too many in the western world’s main ambition is to be liked and admired by the secular powers that be. Jesus foretold that this would happen and reminded us we can’t serve two masters. Unfortunately it would appear that for many in the western world, they have already decided which master they will serve.

Where did this all start? Shortly after the Protestant Reformation Martin Luther was abruptly shown the door at the Marburg Colloquy (1529,) when he became upset that some of his fellow reformers didn’t believe in the Eucharist and (and some would later deny most of the miracles of Jesus.) Luther’s ego thought all those who disagreed with some of the abuses of the clergy within the Catholic Church would naturally listen to his ideas. They didn’t and so the division that Jesus warned us about had begun (John 10:16.) It would escalate in the ideas of the French Revolution, where thousands of the faithful from simple peasants to Catholic clergy would meet their earthly end with the guillotine. From there it morphed off into the radicals ideas of Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Sigmund Freud, Saul Alinsky and on it went. The poor would be used as a foil by those saw in them a way to grab power. The elites could now mold and shape the world in their warped image of rebellion and anger. They were not happy warriors but warriors of death and mayhem.

Where will it end? It will not end until those merchants of death and mayhem have seized control. A hint may lie in their treatment of Pope Benedict XVI. While then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, he was hailed for his action in putting an end to the Abuse Scandal. However, now that he is pontiff, the New York Times and CNN use the lies of an ambulance chasing attorney and his sidekick, a disgraced former archbishop who was blackmailed by his secret homosexual partner. Instead of apologizing for his actions, this former archbishop has made no bones about his hatred of Pope Benedict XVI and the traditional sexual teachings of the Catholic Church. Many in the mainstream media realize that many of the abusers were of their camp, those who wanted to change the Church to suit the whims of the world. Who might be next? Perhaps those who faithfully live by the teachings of the Catholic Church like Eve Tushnet who admits that she is same sex attracted, but faithfully lives under the teachings of the Church. (For more on this read this positive article some time ago from the New York Times on Eve Tushnet.)

Thankfully, there are some in the west who haven’t been swayed by those who truly hate God, His goodness and His love. This remnant band of goodness is still faithful to what they were taught. This can easily be seen in the fruits of their labors. In my book, The Tide is Turning Toward Catholicism, I noted the dioceses where orthodoxy is flourishing and where vocations to the priesthood and women’s religious life are increasing. A new crop of orthodox minded bishops are paving the way for young priests and nuns (who joyfully wear the veil or habit.) They happily embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church and don’t apologize for it. Sadly outside of Catholicism and Evangelicalism, much of Western Christendom is in a statistical freefall. While the mainstream media embraces those churches and leaders who have changed their doctrine to suit the Dictatorship if Relativism, the faithful have voted with their feet and left for more orthodox minded churches. (If this last paragraph intrigues you, please read If You Want The Political Left To Run Governments, Look At What The Religious Left Had Done To Religion (Left It In Tatters.) along with The Coming Open Rebellion Against God and finally The Jesus the Professional Left Chose To Ignore.

The speed of the liberal churches demise is happening at an alarming rate. Fifty years ago the Anglican Church of CS Lewis was the epitome of respect; rates of attendance at Anglican churches in Britain were some of the highest seen in the western world. Today the Archbishop of Canterbury has welcomed the establishment of some form of futuristic Sharia Law for Britain, all the while there are more Britons attending Friday prayers in their respective mosques than Anglicans attending church services on Sunday morning.

These sad events didn’t happen out of thin air, they occurred because too many Christians put their faith in trust in the latest whims of the modern world. They sold their birthrate for a mess of relativistic pottage that said the demented rants of men like Voltaire, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Freud and Alinsky were on par and often superior than that of Jesus, St, Peter, St Paul, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, St Theresa Avila, St Joan of Arc and Pope Benedict XVI. In addition, many Christians forget not only the teachings and lives of these important men and women, but they also forget the dates and events that made up not only their lives, but the heritage and lives of all those today who call themselves Christians. We know this doesn’t have to be, so and in places where the Faith hasn’t been watered down, the faith is alive. We just have to decide which master we will serve.

Dave Hartline

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Fear Stalks Muslim Apostates in the West

by David J. Rusin
David J. Rusin is a research associate at Islamist Watch and a Philadelphia-based editor for Pajamas Media. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the University of Pennsylvania. Please feel free to contact him at rusin@meforum.org.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persuading Western Muslim leaders to repudiate Shari'a-sanctioned violence against apostates can be a frustrating exercise, as Prince Charles discovered in 2004. Troubled by the treatment of Muslims who convert to Christianity in Islamic nations, the prince convened a summit of senior figures from both religious communities. It ended in disappointment. The Islamic representatives failed to issue a declaration condemning the practice, which the Christians had requested; they also cautioned non-Muslims not to discuss such matters in public, arguing that moderates would be more likely to make progress if the debate were kept internal.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, the outspoken Anglican prelate of Rochester, attended the meeting but rejected their advice. While continuing to highlight the perils faced by those who leave Islam in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, he now has turned his focus to the harassment of apostates in the West. Last year the bishop warned that a convert could die in Britain unless prominent Muslims affirm the right of all people to change their faith. There have been few takers, despite the dire need for this message: a poll indicates that 36% of younger British Muslims believe death to be an appropriate punishment for renouncing Islam.

Their views are grounded in Shari'a law. All major schools of Islamic jurisprudence stipulate that a sane adult male must be put to death for abandoning Islam, though varying interpretations persist on whether females should be killed or merely imprisoned. Many Islamic states outlaw apostasy and seven list it as a capital offense. However, freelancers such as angry relatives present the greatest danger to ex-Muslims, as Sunni and Shiite scholars largely agree that Shari'a empowers individuals to punish converts. This tradition has followed Muslims to the Western world.

Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and other high-profile apostates have brought needed attention to the risks that ex-Muslims encounter, even in liberal democracies. Pope Benedict XVI recently underscored the plight of this vulnerable population by baptizing the Italian journalist and former Muslim Magdi Allam on the most public of stages: Easter Vigil mass at the Vatican. Having suffered threats for opposing Islamic fundamentalism, Allam now speculates that he will endure "another death sentence for apostasy."

Ordinary Muslim apostates face similar fears, which were palpable when Christian converts from Islam met in Virginia four years ago at the first Muslim Background Believers Convention. One woman admitted that she had not yet told her family about embracing a new faith. "I know they're going to disown me," she said, "if they don't kill me." Another relayed that her brothers were not speaking to her because she had married an American. "Can you imagine what they would do if they found out I was a Christian?"

For other ex-Muslims, the intimidation is far more concrete. Khaled emigrated from Iraq to the Netherlands, hoping to freely practice his new religion; instead he receives death threats from Islamists. Sofia was beaten and told by her father that she deserves to die; she ultimately was thrown out of their London house. Hannah, the daughter of a British imam, has changed residences forty-plus times since converting to Christianity; she went underground in 1994 when her home was attacked by a horde of men that included her father, whom she describes as "shouting through the letter box, 'I'm going to kill you.'" In April Dutch politician Ehsan Jami announced that he is closing down his Central Committee for Ex-Muslims after less than a year of operation because people are too scared to join.

Aiding apostates begins with acknowledging what endangers them: the prescription of death under Shari'a law. Yet Islamist lobby groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations labor to obscure the facts. During the diplomatic crisis that centered on Abdul Rahman, a convert to Christianity who faced capital punishment in "liberated" Afghanistan two years ago, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper initially shrugged, "We haven't dealt with that issue." Once media interest in the story had made silence untenable, CAIR released a statement claiming that "Islamic scholars say the original rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion."

Other leading Western Muslims justify, or even promote, the punishment of apostates. For example, Syed Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, argues that freedom of religion implies the ability to be governed by one's religious laws. From this he concludes that, in the spirit of "tolerance," Canada must allow Muslims to discipline people who abandon the faith. He does grant that these penalties would not necessarily include death, but one may wonder whether his position is just a matter of expediency. After all, he surely recognizes that multiculturalism has its limits.

Given the prevailing climate, Bishop Nazir-Ali has called for governments to do more to protect former Muslims. However, it is clear that many officials are too swayed by political correctness to comprehend the dangers associated with leaving Islam. This sad reality is demonstrated by the case of Nissar Hussein, a British citizen and Christian convert. When he reported to police that locals had threatened to burn down his home, he says he was told to "stop being a crusader and move to another place."

Intimidation of ex-Muslims has not succeeded in dissuading Christian missionaries from going about their usual business, even when they themselves face bullying in Islamist-heavy neighborhoods. Nazir-Ali recently stirred controversy by chiding the Church of England for its oversensitivity toward Muslims. He recommends more proselytization instead. At the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem on June 24, he observed that "just as Muslims have a right to invite others to join Islam, Christians have a right to invite others to Jesus."

His statement reflects the thriving marketplace of religious ideas that has characterized the West for several centuries. Yet the perils suffered by Muslim apostates offer a powerful reminder that upholding such freedoms demands vigilance. How our societies respond to this challenge will help set the parameters of freedom in the twenty-first century by determining whether fundamental rights truly are guaranteed for all.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

"Christian Day" Parade in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran but wait...

Christians in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran held their respective "Christian Day" Parade while police watch... wait...

While Christians experienced continued PERSECUTION in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and in many other Islamic states, Muslims living in the United States of America LAVISHLY celebrated this year's "American Muslim Day" with a "show of force" blocking every street while they performed "al-salat" or prayer (see the story here).


The same people professing the faith are persecuting Christians and non-Muslims, not only in Saudi Arabia but any place in the world where Muslims are majority.

No Christian can do this overly politicizied Islamization of the West.  Not even to DISPLAY a cross or his/her Bible in public in Saudi Arabia can be allowed. Houses of worship in secret were raided. Those who were caught were subjected to humiliation and were deported JUST BECAUSE they were CHRISTIANS.  If these Muslims enjoying the beauty of Democracy would rally its own people for RECIPROCITY then maybe they would stop accusing those critical of Islam as "islamophobes".

And the same people professing the same faith wanted to dominate the world expressing their intention in a "free world" of democracy.

Photo Source: wethepeople
Are they willing to give what they are asking from us?

Monday, September 27, 2010

The People behind the Ground Zero Mosque

You might be wondering who are these people behind the "PUSH" in building the "Ground Zero Mosque". Here is a viable information from 60 Minutes.

Read American Catholic's article on the much heated debate. .

The Ground Zero Mosque and Religious Freedom, Part Three

In my previous posts on this topic (Part One and Part Two) and the comments contained therein, one of the things which I feel is missing in this discussion is a dialog about the humanity of Muslims. Are Muslims human? Do Muslims have a religious sense? Do Muslims desire for truth, beauty and goodness? In stead of writing about this, I am going to show you. Watch this entire 60 Minutes program and judge it. It is simply amazing. Let us dialog about it in the comments.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Still UK Muslims Wanted to Kill the Pope

I really cannot understand why extremist and Muslim activists can freely chant "Death to the Pope" in UK while quickly condemn anyone who exercizes his/her freedom to say "Death to Muslims", not even the halted "Burn the Quran" spared the lives of innocent victims in Islamic states around the world.

Choudary should be lectured on the historical facts why such Crusades did occur in history. Let me say this. It was because Muslims drove Christians out from the Middle East and spared no one until the sack of Jerusalem. Muslims attacked Christian pilgrims that prompted Christians to protect the Holy Land from "moors".

Of course there were abuses that happened but the late Servant of God Pope John Paul II had apologized for all the mistakes we as a Church did in the past. (Read Crusades from Wikipedia).

Now, it's HIGH TIDE for Muslims to apologized too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam Meets Catholicism as Muslim Protesters Call for Death of Pope Benedict
by Lisa Graas from newsrealblog:


Though the Crusades were fought centuries ago and are rarely, if ever, mentioned in Catholic classrooms, Muslims today who want Jihad continue to flaunt them in vengeful tones and wallow in hatred for Catholicism. So it was when Pope Benedict XVI visited the United Kingdom and was met on his itinerary by a group of angry Islamists urging for his death and calling him “responsible” for the Crusades.

Muslim demonstrators shouted “Pope Benedict, you will pay, Islam is on its way”, “Sharia is on its way”, “Justice is on its way” (a lot is coming our way, it seems) and threatened that Sharia would be “declared” against all who insult Muhammad. They shouted to the Pope, “Watch your back,” swore that he will “burn in hell” and claimed that he “deserves the death penalty.”

Watch the video here.
Anjem Choudary, who helped lead the protests, is the chief spokesman for Al-Muhajiroun, a fundamentalist Muslim organization based in England that was ostensibly “disbanded.” Choudary and fellow protester Abu Rayah, both participated in the burning of the American flag on the steps of the U.S. Embassy in London on the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

"After a short speech by an MAC spokesman, Abu Rayah, explaining that while they were “not against one hillbilly trying to burn the Koran, we are against the constitution that attacks Muslims every day”, the US flag was set alight. Some 50 protesters chanted: “Democracy, you will burn.”

"At the far end of the square, a very different spectacle was taking place. Under a wooden pavilion bearing the inscription “Peace is the price we pay for love”, in the British Memorial Garden grown after 9/11, a steady stream of people came to lay flowers and wreaths. Some were from the families of the 67 British people killed nine years ago. Others, such as John Watts, came to pay respects. Now 60, he lost his wife shortly after the towers fell: 11 September 2001 was his last wedding anniversary. His memories of it, like those of so many with no direct connection to the attack, are overwhelmed by what happened that day."
Ambassadors of genuine peace in the world, no matter their creed or station in life, are not recognized as such by those who hold to the core teachings of Islam, a so-called “religion of peace“, where “peace” is defined as living in “submission“.

The “meeting” of Pope Benedict XVI and Anjem Choudary on the streets of London, though the Pope was apparently oblivious to it, is most noteworthy because in it we see the personification of the two largest religions that are contradictory at their core. On the one hand, we have the Pope who stands as “Vicarius Christi“, the “Vicar of Christ” or “servant overseer” of Christianity to 1.147 billion Catholics in the world. To them, the Pope is the representative of the core teachings of the Christian Faith which are, if nothing else, peaceful in nature. On the other hand, Anjem Choudary is rightly characterized as one who both knows and professes the core teachings of Islam, a religion that recently surpassed Catholicism in membership and claims about 1.27 billion members worldwide.

Though all Muslims do not hold to Choudary’s views, only the blind or ignorant could sincerely claim that he misunderstands what Islam teaches. At the same time, though all Catholics do not hold strictly to the catechism, it is clear to all but the blind or ignorant that it, at minimum, professes a peaceful message and one that the Pope consistently promulgates as the Bishop of Rome.

Since devout Muslims refuse to forget the Crusades and are shouting death threats to the Pope, perhaps it is time to bring this chapter of Catholic/Muslim history back into the Catholic classroom. Catholic students may do well to understand what the Crusades were really about from Catholic history, not the revised version currently popular thanks to leftist apologists for Islam. We have not forgotten, as a Church, that the Crusades were defensive wars in response to Muslim atrocities which occurred after Islamists conquered what had been Christian lands. If Muslims refuse to forget the Crusades and want to continue stabbing forks into that wound, neither should we forget what they were really about.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Opinion: What’s the difference? Media, The Koran Burning, and the Pope’s U.K. Visit

Commentary by Matthew Anderson

September 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)One can’t help but notice that religion is all the rage in the news these days. First there was the planned burning of the Koran on September 11 by a Florida pastor, and second, the visceral reactions by some British against the Pope’s visit.

Interestingly (but perhaps unsurprisingly) the reaction from the mainstream media has been rather different regarding these two stories: One is decried as an outrage, while the other is protected under freedom of speech.

This gives rise to an important question: What is the difference between Islam and Christianity? Why are journalists, and the majority of people for that matter, ready to rush to the aid of Islam, but they allow Christianity to be openly attacked?

It goes without saying that burning the Koran was a terrible idea, and there should have been an outcry against it. I may not believe the Koran is inspired, but many people do; and destroying something that many people love (though that love may be misguided) for no constructive purpose, is against charity. For the same reason, non-Catholics should be disturbed by the treatment the pope has received at the hands of certain members of British society. It is extremely offensive to Catholics when the Holy Father is abused so viciously by such as British scholar Claire Rayner, who recently referred to the pope as “this creature,” and said that she has “never felt such animus against any individual” (See previous LSN Coverage here)

Yet, despite the similarities between the two situations, they haven’t been treated alike at all.

For instance, after the burning of the Koran didn’t happen, CNN posted a story on its blog called, “Lessons from the Whole Quran Episode.” For the large part, the comments from the CNN writers who contributed to the post were dead-on.

Akbar Ahmed, a contributing writer and professor at the American University in Washington said, “We … learned how Jews, Christians and people of other or no faiths all categorically rejected the idea of burning the Quran as disrespectful and even harmful. In that sense, Jones' story had a happy ending, showing that there is such a thing as reason and compassion in the hearts of the high and mighty and the ordinary folk, which trumped hatred and bigotry.”

But last week CNN posted a story under a picture of the pope entitled, “Opinion: Why I Oppose the Pope’s Visit,” that does anything but advocate for “reason and compassion in the hearts of the high and mighty.”

The author, Peter Tatchell, the UK’s most prominent gay activist, says, “As a democrat, I defend the right of Pope Benedict XVI to visit Britain and to express his opinions. But people who disagree with him also have a right to protest against his often harsh, intolerant views.” But Tatchell’s defense of the remarks of Rayner, or Richard Dawkins (who has been hurling an endless stream of abusive epithets at the pope for months now) is a far cry from the media’s reaction to the burning of the Koran. When the abuse is aimed at a Christian figure, the media is happy to allow it in the name of free speech.

So again I ask, what’s the difference between Islam and Christianity that leads to this disparate treatment? The primary difference may be found at the very root of each religion: man’s relationship with God. One believes God can never be subject to anything outside himself, the other believes God’s willingness to be a servant to man and humiliated by him is what defines His identity as Love itself.

In Islam, God is all powerful. He is far beyond man’s grasp, and thus to attack him strikes against his nature. He is incapable of being subject to anything. Even depicting God is forbidden. This “untouchable” aspect of God is transmitted to Islam as a whole, making any offense against Islam, such as drawing the prophet or burning the Koran, incompatible with God’s nature.

The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, expressed the Islamic view of God recently when he said, in reference to the planned Koran burning, “Humiliation of the holy book represents the humiliation of our people.” It is humiliation that cannot be tolerated. An all-powerful God cannot be humiliated; any attempt at humiliating him must be rejected.

Christianity, however, is built upon the greatest humiliation God could ever endure. No one sums this up better than St. Paul who describes Christ as he “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2: 6-11)

In Christianity, unlike Islam, God allows himself to be attacked. It is a religion where God allows all to touch him, in love or in hate. Those who approach Him out of love are invited deeper; those who approach Him out of hate only advance His will and face judgment in the end. But all are allowed to approach Him.

The media takes advantage of God’s humility and allows any and all to attack Christianity. Because he won’t come down from the Cross, the media is not afraid of the Christian God, not realizing they will one day face judgment for their silence in the face of such attacks, or, indeed, their complicity in them.

More importantly, they do not realize the attacks they are allowing only further the mission of the Church they often criticize. They forget that the Crucifixion comes before the Resurrection. The Pharisees wanted to get rid of Christ so they had him murdered, but this only advanced his mission. By aiding those who attack Christianity, the media does not realize it has taken the place of the Pharisees in furthering Christ’s mission in our day. It still has not learned the lesson of the Cross: that God brings redemption out of suffering, and victory out of defeat.

The view of God as one who “humbles himself and becomes obedient unto death” and the view of God as “unapproachable” are polar opposites. Surely, the religions that espouse each view will be treated differently by outsiders. One will be accepted as the target of criticism while the other will remain untouchable. However, as Christians we must have faith. Good Friday always comes before Easter Sunday.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Burn the Koran or the Constitution

[Source: Sultan Knish Blog] - The media's coverage of the 9th anniversary of the Muslim murder of 3,000 people was overshadowed by their panicked coverage of the possibility that Terry Jones, the pastor of a tiny Florida church, might actually burn the Koran. Last week Newsweek ran Fareed Zakaria's piece insisting that Americans overreacted to 9/11. So instead the media showed us where their priorities lie, by shortchanging the dead, ignoring their killers and instead turning the pastor of a small Florida church into a villain for even talking about the possibility of torching a book, whose contents helped inspire 9/11. It's as if on Holocaust Memorial Day, the key topic of discussion was not the murder of 6,000,000 Jews, but a protester who wanted to get his Bic lighter close to Mein Kampf.

In the weeks leading up to the anniversary, the media had been sanctimoniously lecturing Americans that their sensitivities regarding Ground Zero were irrelevant in the face of a Muslim desire to put up a massive and completely unnecessary Islamic complex in the area. Constitutional freedoms, real or imagined, trumped any sensitivities. But when a Gainesville pastor proposed returning a couple of copies of the Koran back to the environment by way of lighter fluid, suddenly freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and all that other stuff created by dead white men before the age of Walter Kronkite and CNN, were irrelevant in face of Muslim sensitivities.

Time Magazine and USA Today both ran polls asking whether burning the Koran should be criminalized as a hate crime. CNN gave a forum to a Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri to argue that burning a Koran would have been worse than 9/11 and warned that such actions "should be stopped by the U.S. government at any cost". Now Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri shows in his article that while he may not know the difference between "principal" and "principle", or "ensure" and "insure", he understands exactly how to push for the imposition of the horrifying barbarity of Islamic Sharia law in America.

In Dr. Qadri's own words: "any act of an individual or group which... hurts the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslim should be stopped at any cost." There are no details of just what "any cost" would imply, but certainly Dr. Qadri argues that Freedom of Speech cannot be used to protect anything that offends Muslims. And since just about everything from eating on Ramadan to liquor in taxi cabs to ice cream cones that look like Allah, has been known to offend Muslims, that means for September 11 you can kiss freedom goodbye. Or risk offending 1.5 billion Muslims. And we know what happens every time you offend the peaceful worshipers of the Religion of Peace. Riots, murder, terrorism and of course burning the American flag.

The same media which has consistently opposed a Constitutional amendment that bans flag burning (generally because they tend to agree with the flag burners), has now decided that burning the Koran should be a crime. Because burning the flag or killing thousands of Americans is no big deal-- but burning a Koran, someone should make a law about that.

Given a choice between burning the US Constitution or burning the Koran-- the media happily raises a lighter to the First Amendment. To them nothing American is sacred, but everything Islamic is.

Their defense of the Ground Zero Mosque was never about the Constitution. It was about kowtowing to the morally superior victims of American imperialism, starving in Dubai or Islamabad. If it helps them make their case to the people they think of as "The Great Unwashed", still clinging to their guns and religion, they will invoke the Constitution or the Magna Carta or an instruction manual from IKEA. From Obama on down, centuries of ideas about self-government are nothing but toys that they keep in the attic and bring out whenever particularly dull company comes over. They don't believe in self-government themselves. That is something they have in common with their brethren ruling with an iron fist beneath the sickle and hammer, or the crescent and star. Ideas, not the referendum or a national legacy of rights and responsibilities, are their source of political power. What the people and the law have to say about it, doesn't matter.

And so we come down to the ugly choice. Burning the Koran or burning the Constitution. The left has already made its choice. You can walk down the streets of Europe's greatest cities and see what remains of centuries of national struggle, republican ambitions and millions dying so that their language and their culture might have the shelter of a nation of their own. Now America is being presented with the same option. Touch your head to the floor or risk offending 1.5 billion Muslims. And what is the value of freedom compared to the feelings of a bunch of followers of Mohammed, with a long string of zeroes trailing after them around the globe.

It isn't about whether burning someone else's sacred book is right or wrong. To appease Muslim sensitivities, the US military burned a large number of Christian bibles last year. The same media which is panting breathlessly at the notion that anybody would dare use a holy book for kindling, smiled approvingly then. Because the issue isn't about burning anyone's holy books, but offending Muslims. That is the one law we are left with, after all the others have been tossed into the fire. Thou Shalt Not Enrage the Mohammedan.

What offends Muslims is anyone who disobeys their laws. And if our laws are to always defer to their sensitivities, then that means we have replaced the United States Constitution... with the Koran.

The media has put on a show of being concerned about US troops as outraged murderous members of the Religion of Peace might try to kill US soldiers in the full fury of their peacefulness, but if the media hadn't focused attention on the story, how would all those peaceful bearded types in Pakistan have even known about the Koran burning? In 2005, Newsweek falsely reported that American personnel in Gitmo had flushed a Koran. There was no actual truth to the report, but still 15 people died in the rioting. Yet the smug blond talking head on CNN who berated Terry Jones for "having blood on his hands", did not accuse Newsweek of having blood on their hands, even though they actually did. Just as there are no "blood on their hands" accusations for the media outlets who broadcast the heavily edited Wikileaks tape, or any of the Bin Laden videos, or leaked sensitive information about US military operation.

Dead US soldiers, like the Constitution, are only of interest when they're a handy talking point. If dead US soldiers were of interest to the media or General Petraeus, perhaps there might be some interest in just how many US soldiers have died in Afghanistan because they were denied proper aerial support or the right to fire on their assailants under McChrystal and Petraeus's Rules of Engagement, which put the focus on appeasing Muslims, over the lives of American boys on the front line.

But like the Constitution, the bodies of American soldiers must burn, in the name of Muslim sensitivities.

In 1987, the National Endowment for the Arts partially funded Piss Christ, an image of a crucifix in urine. Two decades later in 2007, a Koran in a Pace University toilet triggered a 10 month investigation (in New York City, few murder cases are investigated half that long) and finally led to the arrest of one Stanislav Shmulevich on Hate Crime charges. Piss Christ, you see is a work of art. But Piss Koran is a hate crime. Similarly burning the Christian Bible soothes Muslim sensitivities. Burning the Koran inflames them. Killing US soldiers makes Muslims feel good. Killing Muslim terrorists inflames their sensitivities.

The Pace University case, in which a Muslim NYPD detective was assigned to pursue a student for a violation of Muslim law, served as a warning that the media chatter at Time, USA Today and CNN about making burning the Koran into a hate crime should not be taken lightly. Under the Constitution, burning the Koran is completely legal. But the Islamists and their Leftist allies have no regard for the Constitution. No more than they do for the lives of US soldiers or the dead at Ground Zero. They prefer Islamic law, with all its concomitant tyranny and brutality, over the freedoms and values of Americans.

Why do the hate the Constitution of ours so much? Because it is premised on legal equality and self-government, two sets of values anathema to the left and Islam. Under Islamic law, Christians, Jews, Hindus and all others are inferior to Muslims. Women are inferior to men. Koranic experts are superior to ordinary Muslims. First wives are superior to second wives. And so on it goes, a pyramid of discrimination and segregation, sanctioned and approved by Allah, Mohammed and Islam.

Under Islamic law, the sensitivities of Muslims trump the rights of non-Muslims. That is why in the Muslim world, no church or synagogue was allowed to be taller than a mosque. The Twin Towers which dared to be one of the world's tallest buildings, had to be knocked down to make way for Muslim skyscrapers in Dubai and Malaysia. Such is the arrogance and brutality of the Islamic worldview. And such are the horrors that it gives birth to.

Today at Ground Zero, a man did burn the Koran. He gave no interviews, only to say; "Americans should never be afraid to give their opinion". Such a view is not favored by Islam and the Liberal media, which is very determined that people should be afraid to give their opinions. And this last week has been a tremendous exercise in just that. In intimidating Americans. In intimidating America itself, with the threat of 1.5 billion Muslim sensitivities inflamed into a killing rage. Yet again.

But these handful of pages from the Koran were not the first thing burned at Ground Zero. Nine years ago, thousands of human beings were burned alive in the name of the Koran at this place. Pages from their books, their Rolodexes, their memos and their family photographs flew burning into the air, taking wing over the city and drifting down to the place where Imam Rauf and his gang of grinning henchmen would like to erect their symbol of contempt for the dead. The Muslim world did not tremble at the sensitivities of 300 million Americans when they burned 3,000 people at this spot. Like Fareed Zakaria, they either did not care, or they grinned in triumph, and danced in the streets.

Now when the moderate Muslims crawl out of their sewers to warn us that burning the Koran will lead to murder-- all they manage to do is show off their sick and hateful values. A value system that places a higher priority on printed pages than on the lives of non-Muslims. Such a value system cannot and must not be allowed to impose its will on the people of a free nation. Not on this sacred day, and not on any day. Ever.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Why the "Cordoba Mosque" now Park 51 should not be there!

Megamosque to rise beside Ground Zero?

POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr. (The Philippine Star) Updated August 29,

CORDOBA: Americans, especially New Yorkers, are grappling with the highly emotional question of whether or not to allow near Ground Zero the building of a megamosque packaged with an Islamic center originally called Córdoba House.

Ground Zero refers to the site of the World Trade Center twin towers that al-Queda terrorists destroyed by crashing jetliners into them on Sept. 11, 2001. Almost 3,000 persons were killed in that worst attack ever on the mainland US,
A number of Americans steeped in religious tolerance would allow Córdoba House (now renamed Park51 after its address on Park Place in Lower Manhattan, because of the emotional objections to “Córdoba”). But many others object.
<

The Córdoba House, to cost $100 million, will be a 13-story glass and steel structure. Beside the mosque, it includes an auditorium, a performance arts theater, a fitness center, a swimming pool, children’s area, art studio, a food court, a 9/11 memorial, and prayer space for 2,000 people.
* * *

PROS & CONS: Córdoba House would replace an old Italianate-style building damaged in the 9/11 attacks — if the building erected in the 1850s is not given a “landmark” status and thus preserved.

The center’s sponsors said its original name was meant to invoke 8th-11th Century Córdoba, in Spain, which they called a model of peaceful coexistence among Muslims, Christians and Jews. The center, they added, would be a platform for interfaith dialogue.

But opponents said the name recalls the Islamic conquest of the Christian city of Córdoba. Other objections refer to the lack of transparency in its funding, and the center’s nearness (two blocks) to Ground Zero.

Polls have shown that a majority of Americans and residents of New York State and New York City oppose the center’s being built near Ground Zero, while a majority of Manhattan residents allow it.

* * *

PINOY MUSLIMS: Reacting to perceived threats and domestic police problems, some European countries have been reviewing their handling of Islamic inroads, as they have also started revising their immigration rules.

Here, we had a mini-controversy years ago when a mosque was proposed to be built in the Unimart area in Greenhills, San Juan, which has an unusual number of Muslim stallholders selling duty-free stuff.

An outcry from the generally Christian community shelved the idea.

But more than a decade ago in Quiapo, a “golden mosque” suddenly materialized without anybody sounding an alarm, or at least posting a notice. Now the Muslims eking out a living around it sometimes figure in police news stories.

* * *

MY FEELING: New York is too distant for us Filipinos to bother with, but the issues of religious freedom, cultural diversity, and America’s being a nation of immigrants cannot but draw us into the debate.

My feeling from the very beginning was that the Córdoba House was just too close to the memorial being built on the WTC site. It seemed to me that Islamic proponents of the center were taking advantage of America’s democratic tolerance.

I could not compose my thoughts on the issue until I came upon the statement attributed to former Speaker Newt Gingrich objecting to it. I agree with him, especially on the lack of reciprocity and the center’s closeness to Ground Zero.

* * *

NEWT’S OBJECTION: Here is Gingrich’s statement on Córdoba House:

“There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia . The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

“The proposed ‘Córdoba House’ overlooking the World Trade Center site — where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks — is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites.

“For example, most of them don’t understand that ‘Cordoba House’ is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Córdoba, Spain — the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.

“Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to ‘symbolize inter-faith cooperation’ when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Córdoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.

“Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for ‘religious toleration’ are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca. And they lecture us about tolerance.

“If the people behind the Cordoba House were serious about religious toleration, they would be imploring the Saudis, as fellow Muslims, to immediately open up Mecca to all and immediately announce their intention to allow non-Muslim houses of worship in the Kingdom. They should be asked by the news media if they would be willing to lead such a campaign.

“We have not been able to rebuild the World Trade Center in nine years. Now we are being told a 13-story, $100-million megamosque will be built within a year overlooking the site of the most devastating surprise attack in American history.

“Finally where is the money coming from? The people behind the Córdoba House refuse to reveal all their funding sources. America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

“No mosque. No self deception. No surrender.

“The time to take a stand is now — at this site on this issue.”

* * *

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

How The 'Ground Zero Mosque' Controversy Is Challenging Democracy

Abigail R. Esman (Source: Forbes.com)
(Abigail R. Esmanis a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands. Her most recent book is Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West.)

It isn't for the reasons that you think.

She said what? They did what?

As the pandemonium over the project alternately dubbed "the mosque at Ground Zero" or "the mosque near Ground Zero" (depending on your point of view) grows louder and more cacophonous, the stakes grow ever higher--and the outrageousness and outrage more severe. Not only has the project taken over the debate at cocktail parties: It has taken over the political debate as well. And just as has happened in Europe, American democratic principles as a result are now at risk.

Hyperbole? I don't think so.

Some contend that opposition to the mosque is itself anti-American, a violation of the right to practice one's religion--all religions. But that's a false argument. No one has oppressed the practice of Islam. No one has suggested that Muslims may not pray. They have simply argued that this place--this specific place--is not the right place, just as prayer is banned from public schools.

Rather, the attack on democracy has come from those who support the project, beginning earlier this month with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's endorsement of what then was called "Cordoba House." Since when do politicians intervene in religious issues in this country? (Some have argued that President Obama also expressed approval, though I disagree: Rather, he observed the legal right of the prospective founders to build it but wisely stopped short of offering an opinion.) Subsequently, other politicians, both Republican and Democrat, both for and against, have entered the fray. None of them belong there.

More recently, the politics grew even more appalling: Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposed investigating the funding of those who oppose the project--including, I suppose, private citizens like me. I can almost hear Joe McCarthy cheering from his grave. Has Pelosi spent so many years in politics that she cannot imagine people holding viewpoints nobody has paid for? Who has paid for hers?

Here's one possibility: Sheikh Al-Waleed bin Talal. After 9/11, Al-Waleed offered $10 million in aid to New York City--but only after first blaming Americans themselves for the attacks, a viewpoint Feisal Rauf, Cordoba House's leader and the imam of the mosque-to-be, evidently shares. (Then-mayor Rudy Giuliani refused the gift.) After all, Al-Waleed, who has donated $27 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and sponsored telethons for their cause, appears to share Pelosi's view: He has given $305,000 to the project. (Yes, I know Al-Waleed is also a primary shareholder of Fox News; I'm disgusted by that too.)

Also last week, Imam Rauf began a tour of the Middle East on behalf of the U.S. State Department. Yes, a religious leader is now an official representative for the United States. Could the State Department really not find another Muslim for the job? Should U.S. taxpayers really be subsidizing the travels of a cleric? Has the U.S. ever sent a rabbi, say, to Palestine or Israel, or a Catholic priest to Britain or Ireland? (This last is a sincere question: I honestly don't know.)

Officials insist that Rauf will not be soliciting funds during this trip, and therefore that the American taxpayers are not funding his fundraising. But let's be realistic. Fundraising is not done in a single meeting. It is done by building relationships. And while in the Middle East, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, Rauf will be meeting people he would not otherwise have met. And he will be building relationships with them, because that is what he has been sent over there to do. Inevitably, one if not more of these people will offer to subsidize his project, either now or in the very near future. So unless the U.S government prohibits everyone Rauf meets during this trip to send monies to the project--which it cannot do--then yes, the U.S. government--or rather, you and I--has funded this trip, which is, indeed, a fundraising mission for Park51 aka Cordoba.

Let's talk about that "Park51" moniker for a moment. Until a couple of weeks ago, when people started recognizing the implications, the project was called "Cordoba." Then Rauf and his wife, Daisy Kahn, went on a PR binge, and the name magically changed overnight into one worthy of a top ad agency campaign: Park51. It has the allure and cachet of "Park Avenue," of course, and the chic of a nightclub like Studio54. But a mosque by any other name is still a mosque, and a bad idea is still a bad idea no matter what you call it.

And it is a bad idea--one that just keeps getting worse. For Rauf and his entourage, there is no backing down: As Muslims, they have their all-important "honor" to preserve. They will not give. They will simply force their will. Meantime, those opposed remain opposed, and many increasingly find Rauf's intractability aggressive, even threatening. Chances are, if or when Cordoba/Park51 is built, confrontations will flare. Someone will get hurt. We can nearly guarantee it.

So yes, Speaker Pelosi: I think it is a terrible idea, a catastrophic idea that has already infiltrated the very freedoms you and others who support this operation claim to be defending. And it will get worse.

And before you violate my personal affairs on this, let me reassure you: No one is calling for a ban on Muslim worship. Some of us simply are insulted. Others are afraid. No one paid us to feel that way. They only had to live their lives: make a film, like Theo van Gogh; write an article, like Steven Vincent, or a book, like Salman Rushdie; draw a cartoon, like Kurt Westergaard; ask a question, like Daniel Pearl; or simply be: in the wrong place, at the wrong time, on a certain sunny September morning.

My Blog List

My Calendar