Posts

Allah, One in the Same with the Triune God?

Benozzo_Gozzoli_-_Scenes_from_the_Life_of_St_Francis_(Scene_10,_north_wall)_-_WGA10241.jpg
St. Francis of Assisi preaching Jesus Christ to the Sultan al-Khamil by Bennozo Gozzoli – 15th c. (Image: Public Domain)

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in a recent interview that Christians. “cannot pray like or with Muslims [since] their faith in God and his self-revelation is not only different from the Christian faith in God, but even denies its formula, claiming that God does not have a Son, who, as the eternal Word of the Father, is a divine person, and, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is the One and Trinitarian God.” In other words, they outright refute the divinity of Jesus and, consequently, the Christian profession on the fullness of who God is: the Holy Trinity (Father, Son [Jesus], and Holy Spirit): 

They [Christians] have certainly blasphemed who say, “Allah [God] is the Messiah, the son of Mary,” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord:” for there is no God except one God Allah. They have certainly blasphemed who say, ‘Allah is the third of three’.” (Sura 5, 72)

Muslims do hold that Jesus is the Messiah, but not in the Christian understanding that He is the Redeemer of the human race: “Verily the Messiah [al-Masīḥ], Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah” (Sura 4, 171). He is a human messenger like Muhammad, though not as important. The term al-Masīḥ, while related to the Hebrew notion of being “anointed,” as al-Tabari explains, is an honorific title understood to refer to his having been purified by Allah of sin. Consequently, the merciful god of Islam is one who has mercy for whom he wants and not on those who displease him: “Allah might bring mercy on whom He will[ed]” (Sura 48, 25). This is similar to the Old Testament when God speaks to Moses, saying, “I who show favors to whom I will, I who grant mercy to whom I will” (Exodus 33,19). In the Hebrew scriptures, however, God always cherished and stayed faithful to His people even when they had committed wickedness: “The Lord [Yahweh] gives his love to the sons of Israel even though they turn to other gods.” (Hosea 3, 1)

Mercy or love in Islam is equated with the rich man who is obliged to stoop over the poor and offer him something. He bestows not necessarily because he is rich or because he pities the status of the destitute person. Instead, he gives solely so that the latter can acknowledge and publicly exalt his richness, as expressed in the daily Islamic prayer of the tasbih, which means to exalt, as manifested in the ninety-nine attributes of Allah. 

Müller also explained that even if “Islam has faith in the one God, [it] is understood as a natural faith in the existence of God and not as faith as a virtue infused with hope and love, which makes us sharers in the life of God, ensuring that we remain in him and he in us.” This is because, Allah also stands alone, transcendent and majestic: “He is Allah, other than whom there is no god, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Perfection, the Keeper of Faith, the Guardian, the Majestic in Might [the Transcendent], the Superb” (Sura 59, 23). Unlike in Christianity which teaches that God is humble, Allah “is far above humbleness, that is to say He has nothing which may disgrace or discredit Him or impel Him to show lowliness or humbleness.” The medieval scholar Abu al-Qasim, also known as Zamaksharia (1070–1143), explained that we were created by Allah solely to worship him and therefore can only acknowledge to our human imperfection and earthly deficiency. As a result, creation is left to subsist for itself, since Allah begets an inferiority complex in us, who are the sole rational creatures capable of understanding this isolation.

The Christian teaching of the interpersonal relation among the three divine Persons, the Holy Trinity, which serves as the basis for our friendship with God and with other people in society, shows that God acts according to reason (i.e., for our ultimate good). Muslims, instead, hold that He is pure will, which connotes arbitrariness; submitting to Allah’s will, which is necessary, does not have to be reasonable, since he is above such attributes of goodness and reason; Allah exults in exercising his will. This is why the ability for Muslims to exercise their rights is constrained to observance of statutes in which they cannot discern otherwise.

One can then conclude why Cardinal Müller said that Muslims “can only pray to a distant God, submitting to his will as an unknown destiny. Their prayer expresses the blind subordination to the dominant will of God. The Christian instead prays that the will of God be done, a will that we do in liberty and that does not make us slaves, but free children of God.”

N.B. Sources not cited and further explanation between the concept of the Triune God and Allah can be found in author’s book  Islam: Religion of Peace? The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up.

The Crusade Against Abortion: It is Up to Us

IMG_2459.jpg
Pro-Life March in Rome – May 18, 2019 (Photo: Personal Stock)

The ninth March for Life in Italy took place this past Saturday in Rome — although I am an American, I live in Florence; I therefore report from Italy. The march was one that brought faithful and non-faithful alike from all parts of Italy to fight against Law 194, which legalized abortion in 1978. While there were numerous priests, religious, young families, and children, only three bishops were present this year: Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta; Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk, Metropolitan Archbishop of Utrecht; and the Bishop-Emeritus of Ferrara Luigi Negri. Naturally, not all Italian bishops could have been present. Yet the fact that every six minutes, according to the latest available data, a child is killed in the womb in Italy was not enough to make them, with the exception of Negri, to walk the streets with their flock to defend the infants who have no voice. While the situation in Italy is different from that in the United States—notwithstanding their misgivings, there are still numerous bishops and their flock that take part in the March to Life every January—it is reflective of a failure from both church and government officials throughout the world to take on human rights violations. Dismal as this may be, let us not get discouraged for the tide is starting to turn.

In his State of the Union address this year, President Donald Trump called on Congress “to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb.” Despite this, and the fact that the US House of Representatives had just passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill requiring medical care for babies surviving botched abortions, the US Senate on February 25, 2019, failed to pass it by a 53-44 vote. Perhaps this finally propelled states, such as Alabama, Missouri, and Louisiana to pass legislation that restricts the killing of the infant in the womb. In any case, the upheld legislation maintained that babies who are aborted do not survive the process. This could not be any further from the truth.

Let us take, for example, the testimony of Gianna Jessen, who survived an abortion procedure. Jessen had been in her mother’s womb for seven months when her mother went to a Planned Parenthood, where she was told to have a late-term saline abortion. A saline abortion, also known as an instillation abortion, takes place as follows:

Unknown.jpeg
This baby was aborted by the saline abortion method – Picture provided by Priests For Life

A saline solution (which includes substances such as saline, digoxin, potassium chloride, and prostaglandin) is injected into the mother’s uterus and into the baby. The saline solution poisons the baby, burning him or her inside and out, and burning off the outer layer of his or her skin. The baby suffers in these conditions for over an hour until he or she dies, and the mother must deliver her dead child after about one day.

Jessen survived her mother’s late-term, saline abortion. She remained in the saline solution and was delivered alive in the abortion clinic. By the grace of God, the abortionist at the clinic was not yet present, and Jessen was sent to the hospital. Although diagnosed with cerebral palsy due to the lack of oxygen during the abortion procedure, by age four, Jessen was walking with the assistance of a walker, leg braces, and her foster mother. Today, she walks with only a small limp and acts as a voice for the voiceless and hope for the hopeless through her pro-life activism. In her own words: “Death did not prevail over me… and I am so thankful!”

The point I would like to make is that we all have a duty and responsibility to defend and promote natural rights, especially for those, whether mentally or physically handicapped or in the womb who cannot speak for themselves. President Trump has already defunded the International Planned Parenthood abortion group during his first week in office — keep in mind that it also sold aborted baby parts to business partners. He has also reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits US taxpayer funding to groups that promote or perform abortions overseas. The policy does not stop non-abortion international assistance. It ensures US foreign aid will continue to go to health care and humanitarian relief in the millions of dollars. It just will not subsidize abortion overseas. All this being said and done, this is just the start of our crusade, especially when popular presidential hopefuls, such as Bernie Sanders insist that abortion is a “constitutional right.”

Regardless of how conception comes about, life begins at that very moment. As a priest for now twenty-years I have been dealing with repentant mothers who have aborted their child — most of them having a difficult time accepting God’s forgiveness. Yet, with His help, they have not only overcome their trauma, but like Gianna Jensen, they have become adamant defenders of life. Therefore, let us not give up faith or hope when those who should take the lead in this crusade do not. Instead, let us look at ourselves as willed and loved by God who has given us specific gifts and expects us to use them. In this manner we can be His instruments for the voiceless to have the opportunity to exercise their natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Criticize Islam: Hate Speech – Insult Jews and Christians: Freedom of Speech

LondonProtest.jpg
Photo: Citizen Warrior

Last week Omar Suleiman, founder and president of the Dallas-based Yaqeen Institute—an organization that describes itself as a resource about Islam—led the invocation at the House of Representatives. Controversy spurred because Suleiman has a long record of incendiary social media statements about Israel, calling on multiple occasions for a third Palestinian Intifada, or violent uprising, likened Israeli troops to Nazis, and calling them “the enemies of God.” Despite this, he has not been likened to hate speech by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi or most lawmakers. While the West is preoccupied with fighting hate speech, Islamophobia, and white supremacist groups, it seems to have willfully ignored the cultivation of Muslim hate speech and supremacist attitudes toward non-Muslims. This discriminatory movement on the part of Muslims is not a dissent from Islamic teaching but part Quranic doctrine.

The Quran states that “the disbelievers among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding therein; it is they who are the worst of creatures.” As Dr. Bill Warner, founder for the Study of Political Islam said: “When I’m called the worst of creatures, does this qualify for hate speech?” Another verse of the Quran: “Indeed, the vilest of animals in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved [kafirs: Jews and Christians].” The same Warner says: “So I’m the lowest of animals according to Allah. Hate speech?”

Just a few days ago, the United Kingdom refused “to adopt a working definition of ‘Islamophobia’ proposed by an all-party Parliamentary group (APPG). The definition, as put forward by the British Muslims APPG in December of last year, determined that Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” In a letter to Prime Minister Theresa May, the leader of Britain’s police chiefs, Martin Hewitt, warned that “anti-terrorist operations would be hampered if Theresa May bows to pressure to create an official definition of Islamophobia.” Hewitt further warned that the definition “risked exacerbating community tensions and undermining counter-terrorist policing powers and tactics.”— a risk that would certainly be expedient for Islamic supremacists.

Most neo-conservative and liberal politicians and Christian leaders (of all denominations), whether they are well-informed about Islam or not, almost instantly either downplay or flatly reject that the hate speech or violent acts committed by Muslims have anything to do with the Islamic texts or their interpretation. They thereby isolate and accuse anyone who raises a concern that there may be a connection between the two as a racist or Islamophobe, to say nothing of those who wholeheartedly say that they are inherently related. 

At a joint news conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir in February 2017, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, in an apparent effort to appease his Muslim guests, stated: “One of the things that fuel terrorism is the expression in some parts of the world of Islamophobic feelings and Islamophobic policies and Islamophobic speeches.” This type of talk has only aided protagonists, such as Linda Sarsour and Ilhan Omar who have personified themselves in the media as victims of religious hatred. With the help of philanthropists, such as George Soros, and organizations like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Council of American-Islamic Relations, and the American Civil Liberties Union they have orchestrated conditions through public communications utilizing defensive terminology, thereby classifying Islamophobia as a crime.

behead-infidels.jpg
Photo: Citizen Warrior

According to many Western governments and journalists, such aforementioned Islamists  have every right to say and promote hate speech, even if it advocates violence. The ultimate concern, as already highlighted, is that questioning, let alone pointing out, some of the hatred and the call for violence against non-Muslims found in the texts Muslim hold sacred: the Quran and the hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad is automatically identified as unwarranted prejudice against Muslims. Yet avowed Islamists can openly, and for the most part without any liability, expound their hate speech and incite violence against Jews and Christians, or anyone who does not submit to their sharia-based global campaign. This is not freedom of speech or freedom of religion, as guaranteed to us under the First Amendment. It is, rather, and abuse and exploitation of it, which they consequently forfeit since such exercise seeks to undermine and eventually eradicate our pursuit to life, liberty, and happiness that has been endowed onto us by our Creator.

___________________________

I invite you to take a look at my book Islam: Religion of Peace? The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up. Everything you wanted to know about Islam so as to better defend ourselves is in it!

 

 

Holy War Against Christians and the Refusal to Acknowledge It

Risultati immagini per jihad against christians

On Sunday, April 28, in Sirgadji village in the north-eastern province of Soum about 124 miles from the capital city of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, an Assemblies of God church was attacked by jihadists linked to al-Qaeda. The Muslims demanded that its leader and five members convert to Islam. When the pastor and the other believers refused, they were executed. In like manner, according to the Anambra-based nongovernmental organization known as the International Society for Civil Liberties & the Rule of Law (Intersociety), 100 Nigerian Christians in were killed and hundreds of others injured in April of this year by Islamic Fulani herdsmen and armed jihadist groups like Boko Haram. The report details that between 750—800 Christians have been killed by armed jihadist groups in the African nation during the first four months of 2019. News like this, to say nothing of the pillaging and the sexual exploitation of women and girls, has become all too familiar but met with indifference, at best, by the international community. What is perhaps more shameful is that there is still a refusal from most world and the church leaders to admit that there is a holy war on the part of Muslims to exterminate Christians.

Pope Francis stated in 2016: “The world is at war, but it is not a religious war…all religions, seek peace. It’s others who want war. Understand?” Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said that the pope’s rejection that we are involved in a war between Christendom and Islam “is proven by the fact that Islamic terrorism strikes, from a numerical point of view, more Muslims than Christians.” The very fact that according to US National Counterterrorism Center, from 82 to 97 percent of terrorist-related fatalities from 2013—2017 were Muslims, supports the aforementioned argument. This is quite apparent since the percentage of Muslims to Christians in the territories where terrorist acts are committed by Islamic extremists is overwhelming. This does not mean that Christians, as the Siro-Catholic Patriarch of Antioch Ignatius Joseph III Younan stated have [not] been singled out because of [their] faith. [Christians] are often accused of being the “fifth column”, allied to the so called “colonialist” countries of the West! Christians are a tiny, peaceful minority [in the Middle East]. They are law abiding citizens… who never made enemies or took part in a sectarian conflict. They never attempted to attack or conquer lands nor had any ambition to topple governments.”

The reality is that there is a holy war against Christians on the part of Muslims. Yet as the Middle East expert Raymond Ibrahim wrote last year: “The the international community [and ecclesiastical leaders]…have from the start done little to address the situation. This lack of participation is not surprising: they cannot even acknowledge its roots, namely, the intolerant ideology of jihad. As a result, the death toll of Christians has only risen — and will likely continue to grow exponentially — until such time that this reality is not only acknowledged but addressed.”

Villagers stand at a mass grave of fellow Christians who were killed by Muslims in Dogon Na Hauwa, Nigeria, in 2010. (Photo: Reuters/Credit Akintunde Akinleye)

As I explain in depth in my book Islam: Religion of Peace? The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up, jihad or holy war is inherent to Islam as dictated by the Islamic texts and religious body. The conclusive analysis that Muslims are more susceptible to Islamic terrorism is an incomplete picture of the problem. Muslims abuse and kill each other over doctrinal conflicts at an alarming rate. Most of that violence and oppression, in fact, is not terrorism per se but rather comes from sectarian violence or military conflicts dating back to the early Islamic community; nearly two-hundred-seventy-million have been killed since its inception fourteen hundred years ago: one-hundred-twenty-million Africans during the slave trade, sixty-million Christians, eighty-million Hindus, and ten million Buddhists. While the number of Jews killed in jihad does not significantly affect the final tally, the jihad in Arabia against them has been 100 percent effective.

armenian-genocide-1915.jpeg
Armenian Christians hung to death by Ottoman Turks during Word War I (Photo: Armenian Genocide Museum, Yerevan)

In February of this year Pope Francis took part in the “International Interfaith Meeting on Human Fraternity” in United Arab Emirates, where  he co-signed with Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the Document on Human Fraternity, which declares that “religions must never incite war, hateful attitudes, hostility and extremism, nor must they incite violence or the shedding of blood” — as if the Gospels or Catholic doctrine does. Francis said such “tragic realities are the consequence of a deviation from religious teachings.” With all due respect, Muslim fundamentalists do not deviate from their teachings, they observe them to the fullest. As the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Erbil (Iraq) Bashar Warda stated in 2018: “The violent Muslim persecution of Christians … did not begin with the Islamic State’s rise to power in 2014, … but rather many centuries ago. Having faced for 1,400 years the slow-motion genocide that began long before the ongoing ISIS genocide today, the time for excusing this inhuman behavior and its causes is long since past.”

Mosques: Places of Worship or Islamist Indoctrination?

Friday prayers at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center March 15, 2019 in Falls Church, Virginia. A 2002 Customs and Border Protection document states that the center is 'operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.' (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Friday prayers at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center March 15, 2019 in Falls Church, Virginia. A 2002 Customs and Border Protection document states that the center is ‘operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.’ (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

After the Easter attacks in Sri Lanka, we need to have an honest discussion about mosques: are they places of worship or indoctrination? Here’s a look at the facts:

The Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka, which killed more than 250 people, was yet another example of how Christians continue to be targeted by Islamists in their global jihad to purify, according to their tenets, the world from infidels and establish a sharia-based society.

The Sri Lankan government discovered that the suicide bombers were linked to ISIS, showing the extremist group’s continued reach even after the collapse of its self-declared caliphate.

It was also revealed that Mohammed Nasar Mohammed Azar, 34, one of the perpetrators, was caught on CCTV praying at the Jami Us-Salam mosque in Batticaloa just hours before the attack. This should not be a shock to anyone, since one of the central outposts for the proliferation of Islamist ideology in the 1,400-year history of Islam has been the mosques.

A mosque, to the common observer, is the physical place designed for Muslims to worship Allah. Throughout Islamic history, the mosque has been the gathering place for the community of Allah’s faithful. Although all men are expected to pray inside a mosque, especially on a Friday (yawm al-jumu’a), they are not obligated to do so, since they can fulfill their duty anywhere they see fit. Women pray in a segregated area and are often encouraged to stay at home to pray.

Boys at the East London Mosque, which is known for its extremism (Photo: Rob Stothard/Getty Images)
Illustrative photo of boys at the East London Mosque, which is known for its extremism. It involves a literal interpretation of the Quran, an ideology espoused by some of the some of the most radical clerics that move to the UK from Afghanistan and Pakistan, among others. (Photo: Rob Stothard/Getty Images)

At the same time, as once stated by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, senior jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood and chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, who advocates anti-Semitism and the conquest of the West: “In the life of the Prophet [Muhammad] the mosque has had a role in urging jihad for the sake of Allah.”

 

2011 survey of 100 mosques in America indicated that 80 percent of them advocated or otherwise promoted violence:

  • 51 percent had texts on their internet site rated as severely advocating violence
  • 30 percent had texts rated as moderately advocating violence
  • 19 percent had no violent texts at all

See video of Philadelphia mosque indoctrinating children to go on jihad

Mosques that were identifiable “as shariah-adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-shariah adherent counterparts,” the survey stated.

  • In 84.5 percent of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts
  • 58 percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad

After Sayfullo Saipov’s October 31, 2017 attack in New York City, Police Deputy Commissioner John Miller said, “This isn’t about the mosque he attends.” His comment came despite the fact that the New York Police Department had been monitoring Saipov’s mosque until it dismantled its investigative Demographics Unit in 2014 after Islamist activist Linda Sarsour led a campaign complaining that the program was “causing psychological warfare in our [Islamic] community.”

Risultati immagini per mosque jihad teaching
Pakistani-American Muslim Imam Qadhi. Since 2001, he has served as Dean of Academic Affairs at the Al-Maghrib Institute in Houston, Texas. He also teaches in the Religious Studies department in Memphis, Tennesse. (Photo: PJ Media)

Our Western leaders have continually turned a blind eye to this, specifically to the numerous mosques have been built by extremist countries such as Saudi Arabia. As former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia Sir William Patey commented, Saudi Arabia has been funding mosques throughout the West that teach extremism, “which may down the road lead to individuals being radicalized and becoming fodder for terrorism.”

These observations do not warrant a blind, discriminatory view that all mosques inspire hatred and violence, let alone cast judgment on the faithful who seek only to render homage to their Creator. But unfortunately, jihadist principles are preached from many mosques. That situation must be acknowledged and dealt with.

_____________________________

N. B. I invite you to take a look at my book Islam: Religion of Peace? The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up. Everything you wanted to know about Islam so as to better defend ourselves is in it!

Child Marriages in Islam – Not “Pedophilia”

Child bride.jpg
Faiz Mohammed and his bride, Ghulam Haider,
who was 11 years old on the day of her wedding (Photo: Public Domain)

Early this year, a madrassa teacher and an imam of a mosque in Hatia Upazila, Noakhali (Bangladesh) were physically attacked by the Muslim community from allegedly trying to preventing a child marriage of a 13-year-old girl. While the practice of under-aged girls being married off to older men is not limited to the Islamic world, where the   is prevalent, even those of pre-pubescent girls tend to be common. Regrettably, this is something that has not been directly challenged by the international community. In January 2014, the UN in Geneva rightfully criticized the Roman Catholic Church for its negligence in handling the cases of child-sex-abuse by priests. Yet the same UN Human Rights Council continues to remain silent about the practice and public advocacy of female child-marriages in Muslim countries.

In the Islamic world, a female in her prepubescent years can be forced into a marriage with an older man, so long as her father or mother or male guardian consents to it. This, notwithstanding appeals such as that of Nada al-Ahdal, an eleven-year-old Yemenese, who in 2013 spoke from her own personal trauma when her mother tried to marry her off to an older man: “What about the innocence of childhood? What have the children done wrong? Why do you want to marry them off like that?…It’s not our fault. I’m not the only one. It can happen to any child. I’m better off dead. I’d rather die.”

You may view Nada’s testimony here

Pedophilia is “an ongoing sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children.” Islamic doctrine validates such conduct under the pretense that it is not child abuse but a young girl’s capacity to live out her dignity as a woman. Despite many Islamic states prohibiting such matrimonial contracts, sharia courts have the power to override state laws. In various Islamic countries, a nine-year-old girl is not, according to sharia law, considered a child for she can already be considered to have reached the age of puberty. Justification of this is found from the hadith (the Sunna) of Sahih al-Bukhari:

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: The Prophet married me when I was a girl of six (years)… while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends [my mother] called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house…Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

maxresdefault.jpg
(Photo: maxresdefault.jpg)

In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, despite recent opposition, there does not yet appear to be a minimum age limit in which a girl can be forced to marry a man. In 2009, the Issuing Fatwas Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh upheld this practice: “It is incorrect to say that it [is] not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger. A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she [is] too you are wrong and they are being unfair to her.… We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls. We should know that Sharia law has not brought injustice to women.”

In some places, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, this observance has the approval of state law. In fact, its first Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. He called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing” and advised the faithful, “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” Khomeini’s justification was found in the Shi’ite hadith: “The Prophet entered upon ‘A’ishah when she was 10 years old, and that one does [not] enter [upon] a jaariyah [girl] until she became a woman.”

The notion of pedophilia as a deviant or disturbed sexuality did not exist in seventh-century Arabia. In fact, when Muhammad married Aisha, he was doing no less than what other men of his time were doing themselves. Islamic jurists try to get around this by saying that Aisha was nineteen or twenty years of age when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her. They argue that the hadiths are being misinterpreted, especially in light that they was written a couple of centuries after the Prophet’s death. Assuming that they are correct (although they fail to provide clear evidence to sustain their position), the hadith of al-Bukhari records that Aisha was allowed to have her dolls and would play with her:

“I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girlfriends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me.” Why then would she be allowed to play with dolls if she was not a child?

Muslims are quick to point out immorality in Western society, since it is in contradiction to the perfect and unalterable law of God. Whenever the moral character of the Prophet is scrutinized, especially with respect to his marriage with Aisha, Islamic scholars argue that marriage to prepubescent girls was common in biblical times. While this may be true, it has nothing to do with God endorsing the practice.

 

Latest Massacre in Nigeria – Don’t Say the “C” Word and Don’t Blame Islam

People pack the rest of their belongings following an attack, at the Sajeri village, on the outskirts of the Borno state capital, Maiduguri
People pack what’s left of their belongings following an attack at the Sajeri village on the outskirts of the Borno state capital, Maiduguri. (Photo: Getty)

This past Monday (April 29) Boko Haram Islamists attacked the Kuda-Kaya village in Adamawa State village in northeastern Nigeria, killing at least 25 people who had just returned home from a wedding. Rebecca Malgwi, a sister-in-law of two victims, said the attackers went from house to house, and that many people could not escape because the shooting came from all directions. While news of this has not necessarily been minimal, what journalists failed to report—you guessed it—is that the victims Christian and that the perpetrators carried out the atrocities in compliance with Allah’s command to wipe out the infidels.

President Jeff King of the International Christian Concern—a Washington, D.C. based human rights organization to help persecuted Christians worldwide—Nigeria is the main killing ground for Christians today: a total of fifty thousand to seventy thousand have been killed by Islamists within the last twenty year. Christian persecution in Nigeria, which can be traced back to the Sokoto caliphate (1804-1903), has surged since 2015. The late-Catholic bishop Joseph Bagobiri of the Diocese of Kafanchan (northwest Nigeria which has had sharia law since 1999) expressed dismay back in 2016 that the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is not given anything like the same level of international attention as persecuted Christians in the Middle East.”

According to certain figures, 245 million Christians in the world are apparently persecuted simply for their faith. Last November, The organization Aid to the Church in Need released its Religious Freedom Report” for 2018 and reached the a similar conclusion: 300 million Christians were subjected to violence. Christianity, despite stiff competition, has been called the most persecuted religion in the world.” Yet in line with Pope Francis who had said: Authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence;” when jihadists have been responsible for their jihad against the followers of Christ, the Islamic religion continues to be absolved. The latest example of this was the response of the Cardinal Archbishop of Colombo, Albert Malcolm Ranjith, to the Easter attacks in Sri Lanka, which killed more that 250 people: What took place is neither political or religious, but the result of the actions of some misled people.”

It is not my place to pass individual judgment, but such flagrant silence is not only deafening but contributes to the problem. As then-candidate Donald Trump said during the second presidential debate in 2016: These are radical Islamic terrorists and [Hillary Clinton] won’t even mention the word and nor will President Obama. He won’t use the term radical Islamic terrorist, no. To solve a problem you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least, say the name. She won’t say the name and President Obama won’t say the name. But the name is there. It’s radical Islamic terror. And before you solve it, you have to say the name.”

ISIS Defeated – Think Again!

Risultati immagini per ISIS
(Photo: GETTY)

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that at least one suicide bomber in the Easter attacks in Sri Lanka, which killed more than 250 people, trained with the Islamic State. The Sri Lankan government first believed the attackers had been inspired by Islamic State’s ideology, but as investigations have progressed, officials in Colombo are discovering that the links extend further to training and support, reflecting the extremist group’s continued reach after the collapse of its self-declared caliphate. This is because ISIS has now become an international terrorist group, very much like al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Americans elected Donald Trump with the hope that he could drain the swamp. For many of us it includes bringing a halt to the threat of Islamism—terrorism and the Islamic infiltration that seeks to eliminate our freedom of speech and exercise of religion—which transcends any ethnic or cultural attachment to one’s native land. However, the US-led strikes against ISIS and training of Middle East and African countries to fight Islamic extremism has not only prolonged the fighting; it has inadvertently brought ISIS fighters and their Islamist doctrine inside the Western home front. 

American policy for years in the Middle East, however, has failed to address the root of the problem, which is an anthropological and political one: the Islamization of society. Instead of clamping down on the Wahabbi diffusion of the Saudis and naming the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, it has thus far pursued a realpolitik approach. Far be it for me to place myself in the role of the Chief Executive or the statesmen who make decisions for us, but we have limited ourselves to sustaining economic ties with (rogue) Islamic nations so long as they comply in carrying out military operations against ISIS and its affiliates. This only creates tribal factions, as with the Sri Lankan bombings.

There is also a lack of strategy as to how to reconstruct ISIS-held areas after its eventual defeat. For example, part of the Popular Mobilization Forces, who have helped in the fight against ISIS, are composed of members of Hash’d al-Sha’bi, a predominately Shi’ite paramilitary unit. Since half of the PMF fought against the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, they have been dogged by allegations of war crimes and human rights violations. Are they going to have a future political role in the region?

Despite certain inconsistencies, Trump has displayed more constancy in fighting Islamic radicalism than his predecessors. The most important one, I hold, associating the terrorism carried out by Muslims to their religion: Islamic extremism. He has imposed a line of new sanctions on an Iranian-backed terror organization, Hezbollah, and its top allies in the Hamas movement operating in the Gaza Strip, as well as the Islamic Liwaa al-Thawra, which assassinated Egyptian General Adel Ragai in 2016, and the Hasm Islamists, who killed other Egyptian national security figures. Trump has also taken on some nongovernmental organizations that have at least indirectly aided Islamic terrorists, such as his decision to withhold $65 million of a planned $125 million funding installment to UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine, specifically $45 million pledged to the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA). The Saudi-backed Hamas has been carrying out military training for UNRWA UNRWA children: they are given “machine guns and schooled for war, while top Hamas officials on site encourage jihad, and lecture on the importance of taking back their villages — by force of arms.”

The truth of the matter is that persuading the public that atrocities carried out by Muslims are spontaneous and not contrived from Islamic texts has only aided, as the mainstream media, most politicians, and many churchmen argue, Islamists in their collective crusade to achieve a sharia-based global community. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali explained, “The West is ‘obsessed’ with terror and this makes it blind to the broader threat of the dawa, ‘Islamic proselytizing:’ the ideology behind the terror attacks.” We can only hope that Trump and our allies can eradicate the Islamic threat by getting to the root of the problem, but we have to do our part, too!

___________________________

I invite you to take a look at my book Islam: Religion of Peace? The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up. Everything you wanted to know about Islam so as to better defend ourselves is in it!

 

The Iran Nuclear Deal: Deception and Insufficient Response

Unknown-1.jpeg
(Photo: aim.org)

A couple of weeks ago Iranian lawmakers dressed in paramilitary uniforms chanted “Death to America” as they convened for an open session of parliament after the White House designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a foreign terrorist organization. One may think that President Donald Trump has a unified staff behind him with respect to Iran…well think again.

Early this year, CIA Director Gina Haspel, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee saying— in contradiction to President Trump—that Iran is abiding by the nuclear deal it made with the world powers in 2015. Apparently what this trio—as well as the entire European Union—failed to notice was that just a few days earlier—Iran’s nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi disclosed how Iran made a mockery out of the agreement, even to the point of admitting pictures of cement being poured down the Arak plutonium reactor’s core (as required by the agreement) were photoshopped. Iran did pour concrete down the pipes of the heavy water reactor, but only after procuring new replacement pipes, Salehi revealed in a January 22 interview.

Watch the interview in English by clicking here

Only Salehi and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei knew there were additional pipes, but did not tell anyone else about it. Salehi also said Iran took “preliminary steps…to design modern 20 percent [nuclear] fuel and [that it is] on the threshold of producing it.” Salehi affirmed that domestic specialists will be able to keep all kinds of reactors similar to the Tehran Research Reactor running and outlined a number of ways Iran had exploited the agreement. According to retired Lt. Colonel Michael Segall, a senior analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, “Iran continues with its nuclear activities unabated. Iranian leaders confess they continued with nuclear development.”

In 1987, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed the INF (intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. But Reagan only signed the agreement after the Russians conceded certain human rights to their citizens. In contrast, the Iranian nuclear deal made allowances for Iranian human rights violations, thereby subordinating American human rights concerns to the deal.

As a consequence, instead of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the official name for the deal) serving as leverage for stability, countries in the Middle East such as Syria became a repository for dead bodies as Iran funneled its new-found money to terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah. And while the European Union and other nations condemned Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal, their adverse judgment was clearly not out of concern for nuclear proliferation—to say nothing of human rights—but due to the fact they would have risked capital losses.

France’s trade with Iran grew 118 percent from January to October 2017, for example, (as compared to the same timeframe from the previous year). The French oil company Total concluded a $4.8 billion deal to develop the world’s largest gas field in Pars (southwest Iran) over the next 20 years. Germany gained $3.5 billion in exports to Iran in 2017. China’s trade with Iran was more than $37 billion in 2017; it exported $18.59 billion worth of goods, a growth of 13% from the previous year. Perhaps even worse, then-President Barak Hussein Obama, the “mastermind” behind the JCPOA, gave Iran brief access to the U.S. financial system despite specifically telling Congress that such access would remain banned under terms of the controversial agreement.

In contrast, U.S. sanctions, implemented after its pullout from the JCPOA, triggered mass protests throughout Iran calling for an end to their theocratic form of government. Yet, U.S. lawmakers and the EU seemed to ignore what Trump said when he announced the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement: “It has now been almost 40 years since this dictatorship seized power and took a proud nation hostage. Most of Iran’s 80 million citizens have sadly never known an Iran that prospered in peace with its neighbors and commanded the admiration of the world. But the future of Iran belongs to its people. They are the rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land. And they deserve a nation that does justice to their dreams, honor to their history, and glory to God.”

Traditionally, the Shi-ite idea of jihad is intimately linked to its perceptions of historical suffering and grievances, especially in light of the Twelfth (missing) Imam, who Shi’ites believe will return during the end of times and restore Islamic world order. The (Shi’ite) Iranians hold that this Twelfth Imam can only be awakened from his trance by cataclysmic world events, which may be one of the reasons the ayatollahs are so adamant to acquire nuclear weapons.

All this being said, despite Iran’s national currency, the rial, dropping to historic lows and its flow of funds being cut off, the U.S. sanctions do not appear to be substantially effective, let alone to have coerced a change of government. Prices of international crude oil—Iran’s main export—already up 44% this year, jumped nearly 3% more. This is in part due to the U.S. granting exceptions to China, Japan, South Korea, and five other countries to buy any oil from Iran. This compelled Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to announce this past Monday that the U.S. would end sanctions waivers for countries that import Iranian oil. “Our goal has been to get countries to cease importing Iranian oil entirely. Last November, we granted exemptions from our sanctions to seven countries and to Taiwan. We did this to give our allies and partners [an opportunity] to wean themselves off of Iranian oil, and to assure a well-supplied oil market. Today I am announcing that we will no longer grant any exemptions. We’re going to zero.” If the Trump policy is going to have any efficient and constant result: keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons and halt its human rights violations—even ousting the regime—key nations, such as the United Kingdom, which continues to openly do business in Iran, have to hop on board.

N.B. This article was originally published by the Clarion Project under the title CIA: Iran Abiding by Nuke Deal. Seriously? on February 4, 2019. Final paragraph was added to update to current events.

__________________________

I invite you to take a look at my book Islam: Religion of Peace? The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up. Everything you wanted to know about Islam so as to better defend ourselves is in it!

Marriage in Islam and the Exploitation of Women

many-wivesPS_3044464b.jpg
Hasan talking a still with his wives and children in England. Polygamous marriages in the West are more frequent than what we may think. (Photo: Channel 4 UK)

Many women, especially in countries where sharia is the law of the land, are forced into marriages against their own will; a woman has no say as to who her husband will be since he is preselected by a male within her family. Such marriages, according to human rights activist and former Muslim Sandra Solomon, are nothing else than “institutionalized ” or legitimized abuse of children, as with the North Sudanese Noura Hussein who in 2015 was forced to marry at the age of fifteen. After fleeing and hiding from her spouse for three years, she was returned to him by her own family. The husband, with the help of his brother and two other men, then raped her. When Hussein’s husband tried to rape her a second time, she fatally stabbed him in self-defense, for which she was sentenced to death. The decision was eventually overturned in favor of five years’ imprisonment and financial compensation, customarily known as Diya or “blood money”, to the tune of about $8,400.

As I detail at length in my book Islam: Religion of Peace? — The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up, marriage in Islam, which is not exclusively monogamous, is founded on the reciprocal natural interest between the parties. While the husband has a duty to provide nafaka (maintenance) to his wife as long as the marriage lasts, she has a duty to obey and respect him, which is often materialized in yielding to her husband’s sexual desires. If she fails in her “duty to obey and respect” him, then he has the right to correct and punish his wife. Physical correction is to be used “after using words and withholding conjugal relations has failed to restore marital harmony.” Harmony in this sense would seem to be, from our Western comprehension, submission of a wife to her husband’s carnal gratification: “Men are in charge of women by what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in absence what Allah would have them guard. But those from whom you fear arrogance – advise them; forsake them in bed; and, strike them. But if they obey you, seek no means against them.” (Sura 4, 34) What is sad is that in most cases when physically beaten by their husbands, the women believe they have done something wrong .

While the raping of a woman is a crime in all countries, sharia courts in Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Libya allow a rapist to escape punishment by marrying his victim. In other instances, the victim who asks for justice is often prosecuted with the crime of zina (adultery). This is because since the sharia does not allow forensic evidence to be used, such as DNA; rape can only be proven if the rapist admits to the crime or if there are four male witnesses who corroborate the woman’s testimony. If the rape is not proven, as it often appears to be the case, the woman’s complaint then becomes a confession of adultery, for which she can be flogged or stoned. The male aggressor remains unpunished, since he never admitted to a sexual act.

47607634081_7b975b379c_z.jpg
Woman in Saudi Arabia being punished for adultery. (Photo: Flickr)

In some Islamic countries, such as North Sudan where the legal age of marriage is ten, marital rape is not against the law. This is why the aforementioned Noura Hussein was sentenced to death. In Western nations, as well as those Muslim ones that do not operate under the sharia, Hussein’s husband would have been arrested and tried in court for the crime of forced sexual assault. Yet, in other Islamic states rape can go unpunished because it was permitted by Allah in the Quran: “The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers…they guard their private parts [abstaining from sexual relations], except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Sura 23, 1–6)

Since a male is believed to possess a superior intellect, meaning females cannot decipher for themselves, it is only logical that they need to be under the custody of their husbands. Under this rationale, with respect to marriage, a man can have up to four wives but not vice versa:And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those [which] your right hand possesses [slaves]. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].” (Sura 4, 3)

A Westerner may say: “What has this to with us? This only exists in Muslim countries.” Whether a surprise or not, this is already being observed and protected in certain parts of the United States and Western Europe where the sharia operates in the shadow of the official legal system. Imams, for example, who administer sharia law with impunity many times do not recognize a female’s capacity to exercised her right to divorce even if she is being abused by her spouse. In Germany, for example, to the website Einwanderungskritik, a district court has cited sharia law to validate a Syrian immigrant’s marriage to a 14-year-old girl. An act that would land a native German man in prison for child molestation is being sanctioned by the court as a valid “marriage,” simply because it as recognized as such by Islamic law. We have a duty to defend the unfortunate since, at least for the time being, we have political clout. While politicians (and churchmen) may ignore such horrors in order to maintain their political and economic power, remaining silent when we could at least make our voices heard would be complying with such injustices.