god who is the first principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed. – st. Thomas Aquinas (God the Architect of Creation — Frontispiece of la Bible Moralisée – Codex Vindobonensis, circa 1220-1230)
After a month of negotiations with the Taliban, President Trump cancelled a secret meeting at Camp David scheduled for this past weekend between the U.S. and its Afghan partners: Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, and leaders of the Taliban.
Trump called off the meeting after an attack by the Taliban on Thursday that killed an American soldier and 11 others in the Afghan capital of Kabul. “If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway,” Trump stated. “How many more decades are they willing to fight?”
Wanting to end America’s longest standing war (the U.S. has been fighting in Afghanistan for 18 years) as well as bring peace to the region, Trump has accepted the fact that the Taliban – for better or worse — are a political force to contend with and has involved them in the negotiations.
While we can all accept that the Taliban are “the worst,” it is also worth taking a look at the horrific culture of our other Afghani “partners,” who ignore and many times condone the rampant phenomena in the country of the sexual molestation and prostitution of boys.
In what is called Bacha Bazi (boy play), boys are dressed like women and dance for their would-be male predators — primarily Sunni Pashtun Afghan males. The practice often includes child pornography, sexual slavery and prostitution.
It is believed by some that this corrupt behavior stems from “[t]he seclusion of women and the practice of polygamy [which] limit[s] the access of young men to normal heterosexual outlets for their urges, so Islamic societies, particularly in the less developed areas, have come to resemble prison culture with their sexual predators and [defenseless young males].”
Others claim that this normalization of sodomy, despite Islamic teaching prohibiting it, is the result of Pashtuns being “[s]heltered by their pastoral setting and unable to speak Arabic—the language of all Islamic texts—[for which] many Afghans allow social customs to trump religious values, including those Quranic verses eschewing homosexuality and promiscuity.”
Pashtun social norms, which remain “largely misogynistic and male-dominated due to deeply-ingrained Islamic values,” hold that Bacha Bazi does not oppose Islamic teachings on homosexuality or pedophilia, and is far more ethical than defiling a woman. So long as the man does not love the boy, the sexual act is not reprehensible, provided that the perpetrator is the only active partner in the encounter. Some assailants claim that they can have sex with boys, referring to some hadiths that apparently are used to encourage such behavior:
Buhaysah reported on the authority of his father: My father sought permission from the Prophet. (When permission was granted and he came near him) he entered him and his shirt, and began to kiss him and embrace him.—Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 9, Hadith 1665
Usaid ibn Hudair reported: While he was talking to people and telling jokes to make them laugh, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, poked him in the side with a staff. Usaid said, “Let me retaliate!” The Prophet said, “Take retaliation.” Usaid said, “Indeed, you are wearing a shirt and I am not.” The Prophet lifted up his shirt, so he hugged him and kissed his side. Usaid said, “This is all I wanted, O Messenger of Allah.”— Musnad Ahamda, Sunan Abu Dawood, hadith 5224
According to estimates, “as many as 50 percent of the men in the Pashtun tribal areas of southern Afghanistan take boy lovers, making it clear that pedophilia or abuse of males who are still minors is a pervasive issue affecting entire rural communities.” This practice primarily exploits street orphans and poor boys, some as young as 11 years of age, whose parents are paid to hand over their sons to their new “masters.”
Research also shows that many Pashtuns who purchase or kidnap boys for this type of sexual exploitation (among them are local governors, military commanders and police chiefs) do so because for them, it becomes a symbol of their power in the community.
The United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have upheld a nonintervention policy because of the political and international ramifications of those who engage in the practice. Since the Afghan Pashtuns have openly opposed the Taliban, the US-led international community has taken the position to overlook their abhorrent practices for fear of alienating them — at the cost of overlooking the plight of the boys who are being sexually abused by them.
As the U.S. is now engaged in negotiating with both sides in the Afghan conflict, it is time to call out this abuse for what it is and stop the morally unsupportable practice of failing to stand up for abused children.
N. B. This article was originally published by the Clarion Project on September 9, 2019.
Not too long ago I had a conversation with a millennial who criticized the Crusades carried out by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, arguing that they were both unprovoked and immoral. He sustained, without any convincing evidence, that they were launched by the popes against innocent Muslims for the sole means of imposing papal hegemony. There is quite a bit of misunderstanding, especially from revisionist historians and people who willfully choose not to inform themselves, as to the reality of the Crusades and how close the then-civilized world was almost conquered by Muslims.
Raymond Ibrahim in his article Just War vs Plain-Old Jihad states that “[w]herever one looks, the historic crusades against Islam are demonized and distorted in ways designed to exonerate jihadi terror. Unless we get on our high horse,” Barak Obama once chided Americans who were overly critical of Islamic terror, “and think this [beheadings, sex-slavery, crucifixion, roasting humans] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” Islamic scholars and activists who insist that Islam is a religion of peace go so far to say, if not equate, the Crusades to the jihad carried out by ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Islamic terrorist gourps.
There is, however, a clear and substantial difference between the Crusades and jihad. A jihad is based upon an Islamic political doctrine justifying looting, killing, and conquest of non-Muslims with the aim of imposing the sharia as the rule of law. The Crusades were a collective response to the ongoing conquest that began with the taking of the Holy Land (Jerusalem) by Muslims in 638 and other Christian territories. Even if some of them were unjust, such as the sack of Constantinople of 1215 (which was condemned by Pope Innocent III, not to mention that he also excommunicated the Venetians who carried out the raid), they were not doctrinal in the literal sense, as jihad is to Islam. Also, contrary to popular opinion, when Pope John Paul II made an apology on March 12, 2000, for the sins and crimes committed by those who represented the church in its history, he never offered one to the Muslims for the Crusades.
Ibrahim goes onto say that “[t]he great irony concerning the mainstream condemnation of the historic crusades is that a closer examination of them — what they meant, what inspired them, how they were justified, who could participate — in comparison to the requisites of jihad, not only exonerates the crusades but exonerates the West of any wrongdoing against Islam, past or present.”
The First Crusade, which was called by Pope Urban II in 1095 (457 years after Jerusalem was overrun by Muslim armies), came at the behest of the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus. He had asked the pope in Rome for assistance to turn back the Muslim Turks, who were invading what is now Turkey; they took property as they went, turned churches into mosques, and forced Christians to convert to Islam. Approximately two-thirds of the ancient Christian world had been already conquered by Muslims by the end of the 11th century, including the important regions of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia. It was also that time that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the place traditionally held where Jesus Christ was buried, was destroyed by Abu ‘Ali Mansur. Soon thereafter all Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land were cut off by Muslims. While Mansur did not attack Christendom directly, he demonstrated scorn for the religion, in addition to destroying 30,000 churches in the Middle East.
The goal of the Crusades, as already mentioned, was to retake and ensure that Christianity could continue to be practiced without any type of Islamic imposition. Attempting to check this advance, they initially enjoyed success, founding a Christian state in Palestine and Syria, but the continued growth of Islamic states ultimately reversed those gains. By the 14th century the Ottoman Turks had established themselves in the Balkans and would penetrate deeper into Europe despite repeated efforts to repulse them. By the mid 1550s they had slowly conceived of a long-term offensive, a pincers movement first by sea and then by land, to conquer the whole northern shore of the Mediterranean. Their ultimate aim was to take all Italy; then all Europe. It was not until the victory at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 that, under the coalition of Pope Pius V, the Islamic onslaught began to be turned back as Western civilization was saved — the Crusades were formally over by the 16th century, though the spirit of defending Christendom against Islamic jihad was still in place.
The Crusaders, for their part, kept their military operations within lands that were Christian, for their goal was never to overthrow the Turkish Empire, which is why they never attacked Saudi Arabia, specifically Mecca, unlike what the Muslims had done to Constantinople in 1453. That being said, in order to appreciate the necessity of the Crusades, one has to understand how comprehend the 1,400-year-old Islamic threat of jihad subjugate humanity
Islamic jihad or holy war was initiated on what we today define as terrorism carried out by the Prophet Muhammad. He used terror tactics by ensuring discipline among his followers by making public examples of traitors and backsliders. In Muhammad’s day the penalty for apostasy in Islam was death. He also ordered some of his political enemies assassinated, including poets and singers who had publicly ridiculed him. After Muhammad’s famous victory at the Battle of Badr in 624, the Jewish clan Bani Qainuqa were stripped of their goods and expelled from Medina. In 626, the other two remaining Hebrew tribes, the Bani Nadir and the Bani Quraiza, were besieged. After their unconditional surrender, the Jews were slaughtered, had their riches confiscated, and their women and children enslaved. In 628, surmising that his forces were still not strong enough to overcome the rival and once-native Quraysh tribes, Muhammad agreed to the Hudaybiyya Accord, named after the place in which the ten-year treaty was signed; he reneged on this pact less than two years later, after consolidating his power. The Prophet eventually ordered all the tribe’s adult males, some nine hundred, beheaded in the city square, the women and children sold into slavery, and their property distributed among his Muslim followers.
History demonstrates that as Muslims grew in power, their use of violence changed from skirmishes to outright warfare. We see this during the last nine to ten years of Muhammad’s life, when he personally participated or deputized eighty-six battles: an average of nine-plus battles a year, and they culminated in intensity until he died. According to Patricia Crone, the renowned Islamic historian, after the capture of Mecca in 630, “Muhammad’s God endorsed a policy of conquest, instructing his believers to fight against unbelievers wherever they might be found; and if we accept the testimony of non-Muslim sources, he specifically told them to fight the unbelievers in Syria [the Caravan raids], Syria being the land to which Jews and Arabs had a joint right by virtue of their common Abrahamic descent. In short, Muhammad had to conquer, his followers liked to conquer, and his deity told him to conquer.”
The first legitimate jihad after the Prophet Muhammad’s death, according to various Islamic scholars, occurred when Muhammad’s successor, Abu Bakr, suppressed the many Arab tribes who rejected his authority. Bakr’s intransigent and belligerent response towards those who refused his governance, historically known as the ridda (apostasy) wars (632-33), paved the way for the Arabs to attack and conquer most of the areas bordering the Arabian Peninsula: Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc. These jihadist conquests (from 634 to ca. 740) transmuted the Middle East by causing a linguistic shift from Aramaic and Greek to Arabic and transforming Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism to Islam (over a period of centuries), thereby creating an Islamic empire that would last until the fall of the Ottoman dynasty in 1924.
We know from history that the once powerful Roman and Christian North Africa, the land that gave birth to a number of great Catholic heroes and heroines, such as saints Cyprian, Augustine, Felicity, and Perpetua, vanished under Muslim assaults. Except for their moral and intellectual accomplishments, those great figures might as well never have existed in present-day North Africa. Those who still criticize the Crusades should be reminded that discussing peace in the Middle Ages with the Muslim jihadists — as the United States is doing with the Taliban — would have been as effective as British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler in 1938; a peace treaty the latter reneged just as the Prophet Muhammad did with the aforementioned Hudaybiyya Accord. What followed afterwards on both Islamic and Nazi fronts were onslaughts to “purify” society. Just as it was necessary for America to enter World War II to stop Hitler, had it not been for the Crusades, unsuccessful as many of them were, perhaps Islam would have already taken over the rest of the world since there would have been no opposition to the Muslims’ ambitions of Islamizing society.
A couple of months ago Russian President Vladimir Putin, during an interview with the Financial Times, in contempt for liberal democracy in America said that liberalism has “become obsolete [and] outlived its purpose [since] it has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population.” This echoed what Vladimir Lenin used to say about democratic governments — they were “historically obsolete” and predicted that it was just a matter of time before they disappeared. President Donald Trump concurred with his Russian counterpart by criticizing the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, which he said are “sad to look at” because they are “run by extraordinary group of liberal people.”
At first glance, who would disagree that today’s “liberals,” i.e., those associated with the American center-left Democratic Party are not destroying the fabric of society, spefically the institution of the family, with their socialist, abortion, and LGTB policies? Putin would appear to have a point on how liberalism has depleted us from the exercise of conscience, i.e., the judgment of the practical intellect deciding, from general principles of faith and reason, as well as government being able to act and legislate accordingly. That is not, however, what the former KGB colonel meant, especially in light that he has rolled back on human rights, such as freedom of speech and peaceful assembly of the people, to say nothing of the Russian Federation having one of the highest abortion rates in the world since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Liberalism, first and foremost, is the political and moral philosophy that emerged from the theories of John Locke, specifically his Second Treatise on Government, which is to provide people the right to be free from the control of a tyrannical or corrupt government. Its goal is individual freedom, i.e., the faculty to exercise the self-evident truths in “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is the foundation upon which the American Founding Fathers built and what Abraham Lincoln called government of the people, by the people, for the people. This is in contrast to neo-liberalism, which is solely concerned with advancing the individual interests of the propertied and the shareholder. It is unconcerned with the common good for it is against every form of virtue and happiness; it gives way to austerity and the legal recognition of promiscuity as human rights.
Russian liberalism, if it ever existed, generally emphasized the importance of legality in government and the state’s positive role as guarantor of civil liberty. Any gradual achievement of social justice through reform was shaped by circumstances: it evolved in response to challenges and developed within changing institutional and international settings.
Putin’s criticism of American democracy is pretentious at best, sustaining that the people are not heard. Hence, his scorn for the US electoral college system pointing out that as a result more than once the would-be winner, despite winning the popular vote, lost the bid to become president. What the Russian autocrat and others fail to admit that the core beliefs of classical liberals did not necessarily include government by a majority vote by citizens, which is why the Father of the US Constitution James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy. The reason was that in a pure democracy a “passion or interest of will, in almost every case, [would] be felt by a majority of the whole […] and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.” The electoral college, as an example of a constitutional republic, gives the same voice and vote to states that do not have highly populated cities, as opposed to those that do. The purpose was to prevent such big states, which normally think homogeneously from becoming despotic — if this is not a true sense of democracy, what would be? Perhaps this is why he took it upon himself to interfere in the 2016 US presidential elections as Donald Trump publicly admitted.
Trump’s affinity for Vladimir Putin, unfortunately, as his proclaimed “great friendship” with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, has helped subvert true liberalism to populist dictators, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and now Brazil’s Jair Bolosnaro who have consequently legitimized their anti-liberal agendas — what is meant by populist dictators are both outright dictatorships, in which despite being elected to office, the opposition no longer has a realistic chance of changing the government through elections, and competitive authoritarian regimes, in which elections retain real significance even though the opposition is forced to fight on a highly uneven playing field.
They also tend to share the same “romance” with Putin’s Russia which springs not just from practical ties of support but a shared conservative reaction against liberalism, globalization, multiculturalism. In the words of the scholar Alina Polyakova, they see Putin “as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values who has challenged US influence and the idea of ‘Europe’ in a way that mirrors their own convictions.” The most recent example of this was the announcement of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to suspend parliament in order to allow a “no deal” Brexit — I have my critiques of the European Union, especially their eradication of our Christian roots, in lieu of political Islam and the suppression of free speech.
Putin who does not have to worry about political opponents or criticism from the state-controlled press as he has periodically are arrested, harassed, and even murdered journalists and opposing politicians by agents of the state. Columnist and historian Anne Applebaum says: “That’s what happens when you don’t have the rules and practices of a liberal society to protect them. It’s a world that is more comfortable for despots and dictators, and it’s unsurprising that Putin prefers it.” The shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state and both its ascending global influence and acceptance by populist dictators, puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.
Many Catholics today, or for that matter, members of Orthodox churches and ecclesiastical communities who equally choose to identify themselves as Christians — this includes Muslim converts — have been quite disillusioned, if not misled, by the interreligious meetings with Islamic clerics promoted by Pope Francis. The confusion has been on the pretension that the Christian faith is on par with Islam. Such ambiguity was further incited when the Bishop of Rome co-signed with co-signed with Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Sunni Islamic world — the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together during his visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) this past February when he partook of the “International Interfaith Meeting on Human Fraternity.” The Vatican, together with the UAE, notwithstanding the country’s violation of human rights, has now created a special committee to draw out the principles contained in the controversial Abu Dhabi document, signed by Francis and el-Tayeb — who hailed Francis as the defender of Islam — that asserts that “God wills a plurality of religions just as He wills a plurality of colors, sexes, races, and languages.”
The text was subsequently criticized by prominent theologians for “devaluing the person of Jesus” and “undermining the gospel itself” since it seemed to propose that God willed the existence of a plurality of religions just as He wills a plurality of sexes, races, and languages, rather than willing that all people find their salvation in Jesus Christ. At a later date, the pope seemed to walk back that passage, but he never requested to have it amended and the entire statement reads today just as it did last February. The joint declaration will now be the foundation and reference point for a committee set up for its implementation.
In a statement this past Monday, Pope Francis said he was pleased that the joint document, titled Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, would become the object of study and a font for new initiatives in interreligious dialogue. “Although sadly evil, hatred and division often make news, there is a hidden sea of goodness that is growing and leads us to hope in dialogue, reciprocal knowledge and the possibility of building, together with the followers of other religions and all men and women of good will, a world of fraternity and peace,” Francis said in his communiqué.
BishopMiguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot, head of the Vatican Council for Interreligious Dialogue and also part of the UAE committee, was asked in an interview with Vatican News about the religion of Islam, specifically “if a concrete application of the declaration could be a first step in ending this ‘clash of civilizations’ seen in mass terrorist attacks such as happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States.” Rather than address the fundamental aim of normative Islam to conquer and Islamize society — through jihad, deception, casting terror into the hearts of disbelievers, etc. — Ayuso Guixot simply answered “that if the concepts of the declaration are put into action, they will lead to peace.” And that “prayer, dialogue, respect and solidarity are the only winning weapons against terrorism, fundamentalism and every type of war and violence.”
At the core of Ayuso Guixot’s reasoning is blaming others for the ills of Islam worldwide. He does this by suggesting that if only there were more Christian prayer, dialogue, respect, and solidarity with Islamic leaders, then there would be world peace, and thus an end to the global jihad, an end to the rape of infidels, an end to Christian persecution. Such position, which resembles that of so many other Western leaders, does not take into account the fact that the jihad has been raging for 1,400 years and is fully backed up by Islamic doctrine. In other words, aside of further misleading the Christian faithful, this new approach will not make the violence disappear just because Christians are friendly to Muslims.
When we claim that Christianity and Islam are similar to one another, as Francis comes off, what we essentially do is give analytical priority to the classification of “religion” as constituted by the historical experiences of both Western and Eastern Europe. We can then conclude that there is a categorical equality in value between them that makes it significantly important to speak of Islam in paradigmatic terms of Christianity. If this is the case, we forbear to give sufficient attention to whether there are inherent, fundamental, or categorical qualities with regard to Christianity that render it essentially different from Islam, different to the point that it so severely diminishes the utility of the analytical classification of religion as a meaningful analysis for Christianity or any other religious entity. For example, with regard to the matter of equality between a man and a woman, Christian doctrine embraces the natural law principle that both are equal. In Islam, the supremacy of the religious law denies this equality, to say nothing of the murders, raids, and even pedophilia of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Catholic Church has come a long way since the days of Pope Callixtus III, who vowed in 1455 to “exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet [sic] in the East.” It serves us all to recall the clear teaching by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928)in which the pope said: “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians… Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy… Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it…” In other words, the shepherds of the Church should focus more on carrying out the Lord’s last command before He returned to the Father: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”
N.B. The certain facts as well as the quotes from Pope Francis and Ayuso Guixot are taken from Christine Douglass-Williams’ article Vatican creates special committee to promote document on dialogue with Islam accused of “devaluing person of Jesus” posted by Jihad Watch on August 29, 2019.
Winston Churchill once said, “Individual Moslems [sic] may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.” Islam and how it is observed by Muslims is almost exclusively based on the Prophet Muhammad’s life. All Muslims are conditioned by him because in both the Quran and Islamic tradition, he is the example par excellence of behavior for everyone to follow. His words and deeds are agreed upon by all Muslims as identifying Islam, since he was faithful to Allah’s will as dictated in the Quran: And “[h]e who obeys the Messenger [Muhammad], obeys Allah.” (Sura 4, 80) Allah established in the life of the Prophet Muhammad general, eternal, and all-inclusive characteristics, and he gave every human being the possibility to imitate him and take his life as a model.
According to Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, in the history of the human race, “no religious leader has as much influence on his followers as does Muhammad..… So much so that the words, deeds and silences (that which he saw and did not forbid) of Muhammad became an independent source of Islamic law. Muslims, as part of religious observance, not only obey, but also seek to emulate and imitate their Prophet in every aspect of life. Thus, Muhammad is the medium as well as a source of the divine law.”
Robert Spencer says: “If the jihadists are correct in invoking his example to justify their deeds, then Islamic reformers will need to initiate a respectful but searching re-evaluation of the place Muhammad occupies within Islam.” The problem is that the Quran hardly offers anything on Muhammad’s life itself. On the contrary: it does not show us the Prophet from the outside at all, but rather takes us inside his head, where Allah is speaking to him, telling him what to preach, how to react to people who poke fun at him, what to say to his supporters, and so on.” In other words, we perceive the original Muslim society through Muhammad’s eyes, and the elusive style of the Quran makes it difficult to put facts into perspective. And as far as the hadiths — the sayings and acts of Muhammad — are concerned, it would be superfluous even attempting to resolve their many disparities.
One can then argue that the fundamentalists and other Islamists may wrongly be justifying their positions. All this being said, there is confusion as to whospeaks for Islam and how Islamic law (the sharia)is to be employed, especially in light of the Sunni-Shi’ite division. Nevertheless, the manner in which both physical and cultural jihadists invoke their legal tenets in order to justify their jihad leads one to confirm that their indiscriminate acts are sanctioned by the Islamic texts:
[Remember] when you asked help of your Lord, and He answered you, “Indeed, I will reinforce you with a thousand from the angels, following one another … I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip. That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger—indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” — Sura 8, 9; 12–13
Imitating the Prophet could be as innocuous as wearing a full beard or entering a mosque with the right foot, as recorded by the hadiths. The dilemma is that the adherents of Islam cannot subjectively pick and choose, for once they declare that Muhammad is the messenger of God — as per the profession of faith contained in the shahada — they affirm that everything he did was good because it was in furtherance of Allah’s cause. While some of the deeds of the Prophet are considered criminal in the West, they are presented in Islamic biographical works as pious.
Incidents in the life of an Arab conqueror, in this case Muhammad, the tales of raiding, private assassinations and public executions, perpetual enlargements of the harem and so forth, might be historically explicable and therefore pardonable. It is another matter that they should be taken as a setting forth of the moral ideal for all time.
Muslim apologists have become defensive at the accusations from the West that Islam is to blame for terror acts carried out by Islamists as well as labeling Islam as an evil religion and Muhammad as a Prophet of violence and sexual promiscuity. However, they have not been able to fully explain otherwise, partly because there have not been any profound studies on Muhammad sufficient enough to exonerate him as a promoter of violence, misogyny, or even the pedophilia: “Aisha reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he [the Holy Prophet] died she was eighteen years old.” — Sahih Muslim, Book 8, hadith 3311
Former UN Undersecretary for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel Hans Corell indicated that part of this dual problem is that a given few who exercise and exert power over the many tend not to look at their own record on human rights. “There is a tendency among some [Islamic] States to criticize others for not respecting international rules on human rights. Unfortunately, this criticism is often all too well founded but in order for a State to criticize others with legitimacy, that State must pay attention to its own observance of human rights.”
This opportune shift from moral absolutism to moral relativism is both fickle and troubling. If it is wrong to condemn practices we hold to be immoral in Arabia and in the rest of the Muslim world, then it is out of line for Muslims to judge the Christian disciplines or democratic principles of our culture. But if condemning immoral observances is acceptable for Islamic apologists, then they need a better response to criticisms of the Prophet’s killings, raids, and sexual practices, especially since he is the ideal pattern of conduct for Muslims and is considered to be morally infallible.
It is both duplicitous and oblique to promote human rights while holding that if marrying a girl at six or seven years of age and consummating marriage with her at nine — as Muhammad did with Aisha when he was in his 50s — was acceptable in seventh-century Arabia, it is perfectly fine in today’s society. This is precisely why this pedophile practice continues in certain Muslim countries today. And yet, most Western leaders and Christian officials refrain from criticizing such observances out of respect for Islamic culture, holding that it can coexist with ours. Culture, however, is supposed to create harmony and foster human development, not suppress them. Until there is a re-examining of the Islamic texts, putting them into exegetical and historical context, there can be no moderation of Islam nor can it coexist with Western culture. If, however, there is a reformation of the texts, and if the person Muhammad of is consequently restructured, it then can be a part of our civilisation, but it would no longer be Islam.
In 2015 then-President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir said that the fight against jihadist extremism must engage militants on an ideological level, and not solely concentrate on military action against them. He also claimed the CIA, America’s intelligence agency, (and Israel’s Mossad) were behind the Islamist militant groups Boko Haram and ISIS. If true, what would then have been the motive behind such covert operations?
While one can dismiss this as an unfounded conspiracy theory, if one looks at the history of American presence and intervention in Africa, they are not there to exclusively fight Islamic terrorism. US objectives apparently are to influence and control strategic locations and natural resources including oil reserves. This was confirmed more than eight years ago by the US State Department: In 2007 US State Department advisor Dr. John Peter Pham commented on AFRICOM’s (United States Africa Command) strategic objectives of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance, a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.”
This would not have been the first time the US government has clandestinely sought to manipulate people in a third world country, such Nigeria in order to exploit their natural resources. In 1974, in what was the NSSM-200 (also known as the Kissinger Report — now declassified) the US National Security Council under then-US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries — thirteen nations including Nigeria — was a grave threat to American national security. In what was none other than a food genocide program, Kissinger, in order to confront his alleged threat, proposed to implement birth control and related population-reduction programs. Another measure was curtailing food supplies to targeted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies. Mark P. Fancher of the Global Research Center holds that the continues to be a hypocrisy and “imperialist arrogance” of western countries, which “notwithstanding the universal condemnation of colonialism,” are evermore willing “to publicly declare (without apologies) their plans to expand and coordinate their military presence in Africa.”
The war against Boko Haram is reminiscent of the failed Kony 2012propaganda cloaked in humanitarian ideals — from 1986-2009 in northern Uganda, Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army kidnapped tens of thousands of children and youth for use as soldiers and sex slaves, while displacing more than a million people into camps. Fancher argues that US-led military campaigns are used as a smoke screen to avoid addressing the issue of the victims of the war on terror and the real causes of terrorism in order to justify another military invasion. It is true that Boko Haram makes victims, however the goal of Western intervention in Africa is not to come to their rescue, just as the CIA operations in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s; the goal was the commerce of opium.
Boko Haram is based in northeast Nigeria where the largest economy in Africa is to be found. Nigeria is the largest oil producer of the continent with 3.4% of the world’s reserves of crude oil. In May 2014 African Renaissance News published an in-depth report on Boko Haram, wondering whether it could be another CIA covert operation to take control of Nigeria. It claimed that the greatest prize for AFRICOM and its goal to plant a Pax Americana in Africa would occur when it succeeds in the most strategic African country, Nigeria. This is where the raging issue of Boko Haram and the widely reported prediction by the United States Intelligence Council on the disintegration of Nigeria by 2015 comes into perspective.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s Nigeria assisted several African countries in clear opposition and defiance to the interests of the US and its western allies which resulted in a setback for Western initiatives in Africa at the time. Nigeria exerted its influence in the region through the leadership of the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), an army consisting of soldiers from various African countries and set up by the Economic Community of West African States and which intervened in the Liberian civil war in the 1990’s.
The Western powers, first and foremost the US, are obviously not willing to let Africans have a multinational army in which they have no leading role. The Africa Crisis Response Initiative — a US Defense Department that supported a training initiative intended to enhance the capacity of selected African militaries to respond effectively to peacekeeping or humanitarian relief operations on the continent — which later became AFRICOM, was formed in 2000 to contain Nigeria’s influence and counter ECOMOG, thus avoiding the emergence of an African military force led by Africans.
According to Wikileaks reports, the US embassy in Nigeria has served as an operating base for wide and far reaching acts of subversion against Nigeria which include but are not limited to eavesdropping on Nigerian government communication, financial espionage on leading Nigerians, support and funding of subversive groups and insurgents, sponsoring of divisive propaganda among the disparate groups of Nigeria and the use of visa blackmail to induce and coerce high ranking Nigerians into acting in favor of US interests.
Reports also indicate that some Nigerian commanders may be involved in fueling the insurgency. According to the report, a Nigerian soldier in Borno state confirmed that Boko Haram attacked Gamboru Ngala in their presence but their commander asked them not to repel the attack. The soldier told BBC Hausa Service that choppers hovered in the air while the attacks were ongoing. Three hundred people were killed, houses and a market burnt while soldiers watched and were ordered not to render assistance to those being attacked. The soldier said that the Boko Haram insurgency will end when superior officers in the army cease to fuel it. At the abductions of Chibok girls in 2014, one soldier in an interview told Sahara Reporters, “…we were ordered to arrest vehicles carrying the girls but just as we started the mission, another order was issued that we should pull back. I can assure you, nobody gave us any directives to look for anybody.”
Despite such reports, the mainstream media will once again try to convince us that what the world needs most at the moment is to get rid of the terrorist group Boko Haram and that a military intervention is the only solution, even though the so-called war on terror has actually increased terrorism globally. As Washington’s Blog pointed out in 2013, “global terrorism had been falling from 1992 until 2004… but has been skyrocketing since 2004.”
What the mainstream media fails to mention is that groups, including Boko Haram and the Islamic State, have been, in one way or another, armed, trained and financed, just as the Mujahideen, the forefathers of al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, by the US and their allies in the Middle East. Thanks to the covert support of Western countries, arms dealers and bankers profiting from killing and destruction, the war on terror is alive and well. The West advocates for endless military interventions, pretending to ignore the real causes of terrorism and the reason why it expands, hiding its role in it and thereby clearly showing its real intent: fuelling terrorism to destabilize and destroy nations, thus justifying military invasion and achieving their conquest of the African continent’s richest lands under the pretext of saving the world from terror.
Most of us in the West have heard of the kidnapping of 276 female students were from the Government Secondary School in the town of Chibok in Borno State, (northeast) Nigeria in 2014 by Boko Haram. One of the goals of Boko Haram — which has kidnapped thousands of girls, boys and women, forcing some of them to blow themselves up, killed thousands of others and displaced millions — is to stop children receiving what it perceives as western-style education. What has been generally missing by such reports is their overall end, as with other Islamists, to eradicate Christians in order to impose a sharia-based society.
Christian persecution in Nigeria, which can be traced back to the Sokoto caliphate (1804-1903), has surged since 2015 when Muhammadu Buhari was elected president. The late-Catholic bishop Joseph Bagobiri of the Diocese of Kafanchan (northwest Nigeria which has hadsharia law since 1999) had stated: “The persecution of Christians in Nigeria is not given anything like the same level of international attention as persecuted Christians in the Middle East.” A most recent example of this — unreported by the Western mainstream media — was the killing of Father Paul Offu (southern Nigeria) at the hands of the Islamic Fulani herdsmen the 1st of the month. This let the former Nigerian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, to write an open letter to President Muhammadu Buhari, warning him of the risk of a “Rwandan-style genocide” of Christians in Nigeria if the government does not take immediate measures to stop the violence — Buhari has yet to have condemned the Fulani militants as terrorists since he stems from the same tribe. What can be surmised is that this is all part of a well-organized operation to exterminate Christians altogether.
Last month I had the opportunity to visit the persecuted Christians from Muslim fundamentalists, specifically Boko Haram, in the Catholic Diocese of Maiduguri (northeast Nigeria). As I traveled through the mostly 51,000 square mile terrain — in the outskirts of the city of Maiduguri — I spent some time with a woman whose husband, Yohanna, had been kidnapped by Boko Haram just two days prior. She was very much comforted by the parishioners of her parish of St. Augustine, who were praying and hoping against hope that he would be released. Regrettably, just hours after spending some time with her, Yohanna’s dead body was found. Like Offu’s murder, this is just one of many tragic stories that go unreported. While the US-led west and NGOs hold they can drive out Islamic terrorism with arms — just as with ISIS — they fail to get at the root of the problem, and that is the sharia ideology that continues to be indoctrinated in the youth, as with the Almajiri boys.
Derived from the word “hajarah” (to flee one’s country, to migrate, to emigrate), these boys are supposed to be “knowledge” seekers as commanded by Allah in the Quran: “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many [alternative] locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him — his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah.” — Sura 4, 100
For many families, the Almajiri system is an alternative to sending them to a state school which costs money. Most of the religious schools provide free tuition. But the Almajiri pupils have to take care of their own daily needs which is why many of them go begging when they do not have to be in the classroom. According to the National Council for the Welfare of Destitute report in 2017, approximately 7 million Almajiri roam the streets of northern Nigeria every day. Many of them concede to the strongest wind that blows: street violence, child trafficking, diseases, or hunger. Those who manage to resist their vulnerability and grievances within the society remain unskilled, and ultimately undertake menial jobs with very limited future perspectives. Critics, both from Nigeria and abroad, say the young Almajiri pupils — and I encountered numerous of them — who wander through the streets and seek religious orientation are ideal recruits for extremists.
Of course, within the past few years, some of the victims to Boko Haram and the Fulani nomads have been Muslims. However, when the destruction of lives and property is done and it comes to rehabilitation/reconstruction and rebuilding of lives, government funds are used to rehabilitate Muslim communities and compensate Muslims, meanwhile Christians are left out and discriminated upon. Some of the visible and practical forms of persecution and challenges that Christians have learnt how to live with for decades include:
denial of land to build places of worship (churches). The last time that a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for a church building within the Diocese of Maiduguri was in 1979;
denial of Christian religious curricula in the primary and secondary levels; instead they are forced to study Islam.
denial of jobs and promotion in government parastatals;
political exclusion and denial of political office;
forceful abduction and marriage of Christian girls;
reserved courses for Muslims in higher institutions of learning.
As the Father John Bakeni, a priest from Maiduguri, told me, the persecution of Christians is prevalent. “About four years ago, they came to us. There was no place for them to stay. Nobody wanted to take them in, not even the housing communities. The diocese has been solely responsible for their welfare and their upkeep. Like other displacement centers, they have received little or no attention from the government. Not even NGOs of Christian roots and origin. People don’t want us to say this in public, but that is the fact.”
The Bishop of Maiduguri, the Most. Rev. Oliver Dashe Doeme, in addition to taking in the victims of Islamism, has also purchased land to set up clinics, not just for his own faithful, but for anyone who is in dire need of medical attention, in addition to rebuilding churches and parish schools to educate the youth. The needs are costly, yet the spirit the Nigerian Christians is strong, not just to persevere in their faith but to help restore peace and stability in Nigeria.
Please make a donation to help Christians in Northeast Nigeria! The Diocese of Maiduguri covers three states: Adamawa, Borno, and Gombe.
Bank Address: Diamond Bank PLC Maiduguri NSITF Building 20 Shehu Laminu way P.M.B 1291 Maiduguri, Borno State. Nigeria
Name of Account: Catholic Diocese of Maiduguri: Pastoral Centre Account
Account Number: 0004900097
Name of Bank: Diamond Bank Plc, Maiduguri Branch Nigeria .
Account Holder: Catholic Diocese of Maiduguri
N. B. All Transactions with Diamond bank from Europe goes through their agent bank (Citi Bank) with the following details.
Citibank NA – Main Operation Centre, Lewisham House
25, Molesworth Street, Lewisham – London SE1 37EX
Sort Code: 18 50 08
(EUR) Diamond Bank Plc, AC Number 8761124 IBAN – GB18CITI18500808761124
(USD) Diamond Bank Plc, AC Number 5530636 IBAN – GB18CITI18500805530636
A new Syria is continually emerging from the rubble of war. In Homs, which Syrians once dubbed the “capital of the revolution” against President Bashar al-Assad, the Muslim quarter and commercial district still lie in ruins, but the Christian quarter is reviving. Churches have been lavishly restored; a large crucifix hangs over the main street. “Groom of Heaven”, proclaims a billboard featuring a photo of a Christian soldier killed in the seven-year conflict.
His Holiness Archbishop Hanna Atallah Hanna, the Archbishop of Sebastia from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem with President Bashar al-Assad, August 14, 2017. (Photo: Public Domain)
According US Senator Richard Balck: “President Al Assad is protecting the Christians not just in Syria but elsewhere in the Middle East too, and he does not consider Christians just as a “minority” but rather an important and integral part of the Syrian society.” Even His Holiness Archbishop Hanna Atallah Hanna, the Archbishop of Sebastia from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, August 14, 2017, stated: “The restoration of the Christian Churches, destroyed by terrorism in Syria, is ongoing under the personal care, follow up by President Bashar Al-Assad. I salute His Excellency and do appreciate his steadfastness, courage and ability to withstand the ongoing crisis in Syria. During the past few years Christians have suffered a lot but thanks to President al-Assad there is hope now as was also seen in Ma’aloula where wounds are slowly healing.” Yet two thousand years of Christianity in Syria could be wiped out by the very forces Western governments are supporting, as Anglican Rev. Andrew Ashdown has stated.
Homs, for example, like all of the cities recaptured by the government, now belongs mostly to Syria’s victorious minorities: Christians, Shias and Alawites (an esoteric offshoot of Shia Islam from which Assad hails). These groups banded together against the rebels, who are nearly all Sunni, and chased them out of the cities. Sunni civilians, once a large majority, followed. More than half of the country’s population of 22 million has been displaced — 6.5 million inside Syria and over 6m abroad. Most are Sunnis.
Ashdown and other on-hand clergy, including Middle East expert Dr. Erica Hunter, have been criticized, especially for their visit to Syria April of last year, which took place hours after British, French and American pilots carried out an airstrike on alleged chemical weapons facilities run by President Assad. The airstrike, near Homs, was ordered in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack — never proven to the public — and was backed by EU foreign ministers.
As reported by the Clarion Project, American troops and approximately 100,000 Christians are endangered by a pending Turkish attack on northeastern Syria. The situation has prompted a Christian self-defense force to beg the American army for protection.
A partner of the Christian force, the Syriac Military Council, sent a message to Clarion Project asking for help. The SMC’s public statement says: “We urge the Christians in the U.S. to ask that the U.S. Army that is present in North-East Syria will not allow the Turkish army and jihadists to invade North-East Syria. Will the U.S. Army stand by idly while we are killed?”
Aram Hanna, the commander of the Syriac Military Council, told the Clarion Project that the SMC is 3,000-strong (including its police branch named Sutoro). It also includes a Christian female unit as well as Christians identifying as Syriacs, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Aremenians. The Christians fought in the campaign against ISIS, including the Battle of Raqqa.
The force expects to be targeted for destruction by the Turkish military and its jihadist proxies, putting the entire Christian population in the area “under direct threat.” According to Sanharib Barsoum, the deputy head of the Syriac Union Party in Syria: “We don’t consider these [Turkish] threats to be against Kurds only. It is a threat against this democratic project, and all the people who live east of the Euphrates, including Christians.” The deputy head said recent threats by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has “created fear among the Christian people” in Syria’s north.
The exact number of US troops in Syria is classified, but it is significantly less than the 2,200 that were there in December when President Trump unexpectedly announced a complete withdrawal from Syria after taking a phone call from Erdogan. (That announcement caused Secretary of Defense James Mattis to resign in protest.)
Trump later changed course, agreeing to temporarily leave a minimal force of 400 U.S. troops to maintain the fight against ISIS. The British and French agreed to send troops to Syria, and there are unconfirmed reports of troops from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates arriving. Trump also tweeted at the time (January 2019) that the United States “will devastate Turkey economically if they hit Kurds.”
In addition to the threat to US troops, our allies and persecuted Christians, there are major national security consequences if Turkey is not stopped:
ISIS will very likely to able to rebound;
Turkey will eliminate the U.S.’only ally in Syria;
Turkey will be strengthened as will Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman aspirations of creating a Turkish caliphate with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood;
Iran will be strengthened;
A Turkish victory will be a major ideological defeat for the West.
The ideological war with Islamism cannot be won solely by defeating Islamist terrorists. It requires the success of ideologies that are not at war with the West and against Islamism. The autonomous Kurdish areas of Syria and Iraq have the potential to put Islamism on life support. The Syriac Military Council has repeatedly asked President Trump for help. Now, it is focusing on the American public — especially the American church — to try to influence his decision-making.
Erdogan just angered President Trump by buying the Russian S-300 air defense system, causing Trump to follow through on his promise to cancel the scheduled delivery of the American F-35 combat aircraft to Turkey. Before that, Trump placed sanctions on Turkish officials until they released the American pastor Andrew Brunson in November. Now, Turkey is preparing to crush our best ally in Syria, endanger the lives of 100,000 Christians, and put US, British, and French troops at risk. President Trump must be alerted to what is about to happen before it is too late.
This past week a series of attacks rocked Afghanistan Thursday, killing at least 58 people, including 38 members of Afghan security forces — three blasts in eastern Kabul on July 25 left at least 10 dead, including five women while 41 others were wounded — as the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph F Dunford, Jr., met with Afghan officials in a renewed momentum in peace efforts to put an end to the country’s nearly 18-year war.
Violence in Afghanistan has intensified in recent weeks as both Afghan forces and Taliban militants attempt to increase their leverage in ongoing peace talks. During State of the Union Address, President Donald Trump stated negotiations for peace with the Taliban were underway to facilitate a pullout of US troops from Afghanistan. It is something he said he would never do a year ago. Yet many Afghans worry that Trump’s desire to pull American troops from Afghanistan will override doubts about the Taliban’s sincerity. Early in the talks, Hamdullah Mohib, national security adviser to Afghan Predient Ashraf Ghani, said counting on the Taliban to control other militants could be like “having cats guard the milk.”
Phyllis Chesler, author of American Bride in Kabul, recently said: “I do fear for the Afghan people — particularly women and young girls — if and when America leaves, especially those who have shown so much courage in standing up for themselves against incredible odds.”
From the 1920s when Queen Soraya (wife of King Amanullah) pushed for changes to improve women’s lives and their position in the family, to the early 1970s, Afghan women were able to exercise some rights. As the wife of the king, Soraya fought to prohibit the wearing of the veil and the observance of polygamy. Women and girls were encouraged to get an education, and not just those in the capital city of Kabul, but also in the countryside.
Notwithstanding the violent protests by the country’s religious sects which forced the king to abdicate the throne in 1929 and go into exile, women maintained a certain amount of freedom, at least some by Western standards. Yet even as late as the 1960s in many secluded areas of Afghanistan, polygamy, child marriage and honor killing were practiced, and women were forced to wear the burqa.
When the Soviet Union invaded the country in 1979 in response to US covert operations in the region [which had been well in place for six months to overthrow the Communist People’s Republic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA)], women still enjoyed certain rights. Co-ed education was introduced in elementary schools by the PDPA and women were able to teach.
This began to change when the U.S. government backed the drug-trafficking Mujahideen— the forerunners of the Taliban — to oust the PDPA. (There is actual video footage showing then-US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski directly inciting the Mujahadeen rebels in Pakistan.)
As US drug adviser to President Carter, David Musto, said, because “we [went] into Afghanistan to support the opium growers,” moderate Sufi leaders in the countryside were replaced by radical ones. This was due to massive financial support from agents of the Pakistani Inter-Services, funds that came from both the United States and Saudi Arabia, which were allocated toward jihadist ends.
According to Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway of TheWashington Post, “The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.”
Nevertheless, because of the Afghan Women’s Council, Afghan women were able to maintain some rights, which were altogether eradicated once the Taliban took over the reins of government in 1996. Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught.
Women were denied medical treatment for illnesses if a male chaperone did not accompany them. They were also publicly beaten if their burqas slipped or if an ankle or a strand of hair showed. They were stoned to death for “adultery” when raped. Women were even forbidden to laugh loudly as it was considered improper for a stranger to hear a woman’s voice.
Trump’s reasons for wanting the US to leave Afghanistan are not just understandable but legitimate. Over 2,400 American soldiers have been killed and approximately 20,320 wounded, not to mention the trillions of dollars spent in an 18-year campaign with no end in sight. And there are approximately 20,000 foreign troops, most of them American, stationed in Afghanistan as part of the US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some Yet, while America did not initiate this socio-political chaos, it provoked it in its support of radical Islamists.
When the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, as Chesler points out, it was not to defend the helpless women but to kill Osama bin Laden. In fact, America remained silent when Afghan President Hamad Karzai, in an effort to appease the Shi’ite minority, approved Article 132 of the Civil Code, which specified that a woman is legally required to yield to her husband’s sexual requests.
Yet, forging a peace treaty with the Taliban is just as bad as brokering one with ISIS or Boko Haram. If the US does, in fact, reach an agreement with the Taliban and pull out of the country, to say nothing of restarting religious freedom and stability for the country, what assurances will be made for the rights of the women and girls?
Many in the West today are grappling as to how Islam has been able to get a foothold in our society. We know of Islamists’ present-day means to get government officials to capitulate to their whims through lobbying and the mainstream media, presenting themselves as victims of the same Western society that has helped them. But how have they been able to acquire such political leverage? Apparently, there has been a willful lack of circumspection or foresightedness of this to come. Back in the 1970s, the late-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had said: “As long a Muslims are an insignificant minority in a Christian country, they can live on friendly terms, because they accept the laws and customs of the country that receives them. But as soon as they become numerous and organize, they become aggressive and try to impose their laws, which are hostile to [Western] civilization.”
Protagonists, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both pretentious allies of the United States — have been able to forge or manipulate situations, as it did with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, and now with the terrorist Iranian regime. Getting politicians and the mainstream media to give them prime-time and “exclusive” attention — the same can be said of the Trump-Ilhan Omar polemics — has distracted us from confronting the true Islamic threat. In other words, they have successfully molded a quasi-invincible ignorance into people, leading them to believe that the threat of Islam is only in some far-off distant land, as with the Sri Lankan suicide bombings this year, which killed at least 290 and injuring 500 others. And whenever there is a terrorist act committed by a Muslim in the Western home front or against Westerners in a foreign land, such as the Benghazi (Libya) attacks of September 11, 2012, that killed the US ambassador and three others, officials are quick to downplay them as isolated cases. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali explained, because of the West’s obsession with terror we have become blind to the broader threat of the dawa, (Islamic proselytizing): the ideology behind the terror attacks, — and what drives numerous Muslims to Islamize us.
One opening given to Islamists has been the educational field. Saudi money, for example has financed institutions alongside multitudes of other Islamic organizations across the world and within the United States (80 percent of 1,200 mosques operating in the United States were built after 2003). Qatar’s equal vision for America is being peddled through our children’s classrooms, targeting a pliable population and one with a long shelf life. Beyond its media empires and bought-off D.C. influencers and think tanks, and Saudi Arabia are both setting their sights on the next generation of Americans.
Another powerful tool has been the mass immigration of Muslims and the low fertility of Westerners. As of 2017, there are about 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, according to the Pew Research Center; together, they make up nearly one-fourth of the world’s population, making Islam the world’s second largest religion after Christianity. Within the second half of this century, Muslims are expected to become the world’s largest religious group. The Pew Research Center estimates that by 2070, Islam will overtake Christianity, due to faster birth rate (2.7 children per family vs. 2.2 for Christian families).
Islam, since its foundation, has always been transnational as it spread across the world when the nation-state and national identity were at best inchoate and more often non-existent. This has impelled many Muslims, regardless of their views of democracy, to utilize the democratic instruments of pluralism and freedom of expression to insert themselves in society with the goal of propagating Islam at the expense of others. Reading the collapse of Western demographics, Islamists see our century as the time to make their move if they are going to have a realistic opportunity to Islamize the West. While a key strategy to arrive at this has been immigration, a more effective weapon, as already indicated, has been the multiplication of the progeny in apposition to the demographic collapse.
According to some experts, a reason for the latter given is that millennials are not having or postponing having children because of financial strains. Yet those with a family income of less than $10,000 had a birth rate of almost 50 percent higher than for those with family incomes of $200,000 or higher. As Jeremy Carl, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution explains,“The lack of commitment of middle-class and wealthy Americans to having and parenting their own children goes hand in hand with our elite’s casual approach to other issues – in particular, mass immigration.” The understanding that we can simply import foreigners to make up for the child-rearing job we have refused to do ourselves completely ignores the cultural, civic and economic impacts of immigration – as well as the impacts to ourselves when we bring in foreign adults as a substitute for raising our own children. In any case, in 1970 there were one hundred thousand Muslims in America; today there are nearly four million.
With most popular name for babies born in both Belgium and Berlin in 2018 being Muhammad, it is reflective of what former Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi stated in 2006: “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquest – will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
Perhaps this is why President Erdogan told his fellow Muslim-Turks who are already living in Europe Europe: “Have not just three but five children.” Aside from the observance of polygamous marriages, the fact that Muslims for the most part do not practice abortion or artificial contraception increases the child rate per family. Since the birth rate in the West is low in comparison, Muslims are inevitably geared to taking over. At this rate, it may just be just a matter of a few generations before this also happens in America.
All this being said, when the US-led West continues to adamantly support rogue regimes like Saudi Arabia, which, aside their public beheadings and public display of the beheaded corpses (salb), according to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Arab human rights organizations, has jailed hundreds — if not thousands — of peaceful activists, bloggers, lawyers, judges, journalists, and religious scholars since the Arab Spring of 2011; or Qatar whose penal code does not criminalize domestic violence or marital rape, it is a no-brainer that unless there is a sudden and substantial change, the Islamization of our society may happen sooner than later.