"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" Hamlet - William Shakespeare
You may have been perplexed by the fuss about some cartoons. We saw Muslim demonstrators in London demanding the beheading of infidels and warning Europe that its 9/11 is coming. Muslim mobs in other countries burned down Danish embassies and Muslim mobs in Nigeria murdered 50 Christians and burned down 30 churches. Christians do not do this sort of thing even in response to incredibly disrespectful depictions of Jesus; so what is going on? Our leaders and our media don’t seem to be able to offer satisfactory explanations; presumably because so few understand the spiritual realm. Perhaps I can draw from the more informed comment that is available and give a Bible based insight.
(The same arguments apply to the row caused when the pope quoted an ancient comment on Islam)
The media and politicians are trying to find politically correct and even-handed explanations in order to avoid attracting the rage (or losing the votes) of a large and increasingly influential Muslim community. Thus all issues are approached assuming an equal validity to Islamic faith and our native Christian faith. Clearly we who believe Jesus is the only way are at odds with this viewpoint straight away; but let’s examine some of the core arguments.
Muslims around the world expressed outrage that a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the prophet, Mohammed – ( see the cartoons at http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com ) the greatest outrage being over one depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban. However, the cartoons were published in September but the outrage did not erupt until February, so it was hardly spontaneous. The cartoons, which western journalists were at pains to describe as badly executed and offensive, were actually well executed and a fair comment on the terror that the prophet’s followers are bringing to the world. The offence is actually due to the alleged prohibition on Muslims depicting their prophet, even though this presented no problem to Muslims in earlier centuries, when Muslim art often depicted Mohammed.
It is hypocritical of Muslims to be outraged by these cartoons when the media in Islamic lands daily publishes, vicious, crude and hateful cartoons (9)(10) against Jews and Christians. Sadly, Muslims have never demonstrated outrage about these, nor about terrorist atrocities against innocent men, women and children in New York, London, Madrid, Tel Aviv, Beslan, etc, etc.
It was laughable when Dudley Council capitulated to Muslim pressure and banned from their offices, all coffee mugs carrying pictures of Winnie the Pooh’s friend Piglet. However, what is actually being sought is the imposition of Islamic observance on the rest of us. Both the violent anti-cartoon protests, and the demonstrations by “moderate” Muslims pressing parliament for changes to the law to forbid depictions of Mohammed are determined efforts to impose Islamic intolerance upon us; the former by intimidation, and the latter by use of British tolerance and democracy. This campaign suffered a setback with the defeat of the parts of the Religious Hatred Bill, which would have been used to silence the proclamation of our Christian Gospel, but the cartoons have got the campaign under way again.
Those who oppose this process are accused of “Islamophobia”, but this is just a campaigning tool designed to equate criticism of Islam with hatred of the Muslim.
Islam is not just a religion, comparable to Christianity and Judaism; it is an empire; a total way of national life – government, legal system, politics as well as religion. There is no separation between church and state, sacred and profane. Democracy, freedom of choice and freedom of speech have no place, as can be easily seen by examination of the workings of any Islamic nation and of the history of Mohammed and his followers, which clearly shows a military campaign. When Mohammed failed to win converts in Medina, he abandoned preaching and tuned to conquest by the sword.
Islam divides the world into two categories, Dar al Salaam – The House of Peace (under Islam) and Dar al Harb – the house of War – (not yet under Islam). The duty of every Muslim is Jihad, to work towards the day when the whole world is Dar es Salaam – under subjection to Islam / Allah. The word Islam means “submission” and Muslim means “one who submits”. The only place for a Jew or Christian in a Muslim country is as a “Dhimmi”, whose status defined by a raft of regulations designed to emphasise his inferiority and domination. Muslims are also committed to advancing Islam by Hijra, which is migration, such as that into Britain. Once territory has been gained for Islam, it becomes “sacred space” belonging to the umma (the totality of Muslims worldwide) and it must never be relinquished. If it is lost it must be regained by any means! This is what lies behind the conflict in Israel – all the talk of “occupation” is a smokescreen. Spain and much of France are in the same category!
At this stage, it is worth considering the context in which the cartoons were published in Denmark. The newspaper discovered that no Danish artist would dare illustrate a children’s book about Mohammed, for fear of Islamic Law (and Islamic violence) The newspaper boldly set out to reassert the rule of (Non Islamic) Danish law. Danes stood up to bullying (as is their tradition) while the USA and UK governments gave in, made weak apologies and took us all several steps closer to a dhimmi status of subjection and fear.
Many are confused by references to the three Monotheistic, Abrahamic faiths, and are reassured that, “we all worship the same God.” If this were true, why do Muslims say (in Arabic obviously) “first we kill the Saturday people; then we kill the Sunday people”? And why are acts of terrorist violence performed to the cry of, “Allah hu-akbah”, which means “Allah is greater”; not as is commonly supposed, “God is great.”?
“Allah” is the only Arabic word for god, and therefore appears for “God” in an Arabic language Bible. But the deity which Muslims worship is different from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; The father of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we used the name of God (1) the distinction would be impossible to miss. Indeed, it is a fundamental teaching in the Qur’an(8 (Koran) that Allah has no son. This is written around the inside of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Although Jesus is known as the Messiah and acknowledged to have performed miracles, his death and resurrection are denied. Muslims are taught that another was crucified in Jesus’ place and that Jesus was taken up into Heaven. Jesus is expected to return to support the Muslim Mahdi, slay the Antichrist marry, die and be buried next to Mohammed before the Day of Judgment. (at this time, all Christians will become Muslims and the Jews will all be killed)
Having realised that the observant Muslims are committed to defeating us and taking over our nation, what should be our attitude be towards them? Obviously no one should suggest violent rampages every time a Muslim slights Jesus. Jesus certainly never advocated spreading his message by the sword. He told us to, “make people from all nations into disciples….”; but not to conquer nations. (The concept of conquering nations opens the door to all the errors of believing in Crusades, “Christendom” and “Christian countries.”) We also need to remember that Jesus warned us that, “a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.” For many of our fellow Christians, in lands where Islam is strong, these words are already a reality. While the media is not interested, the Barnabas Fund (2) is speaking out. Barnabas Fund is now including the UK in its monitoring of Muslim persecution of Christians.
Sadly, the world’s media tends to talk of Christian / Muslim conflicts around the globe in terms of Moral Equivalence(3) – as if both sides are equally to blame. But this is because the world does not like Christians and is happy to overlook the fact that the violence stems from Muslims advancing their religion by the sword. A world map marked with the wars that are in progress will show they are moving outwards around the perimeter of the Islamic Empire.
Some advocate Interfaith Dialogue as the answer to inter religious conflict. The Three Faith Forum works with the aim of getting Jews, Christians and Muslims to talk to each other to avoid misunderstanding and mistrust, which is clearly a good idea. But there are two problems with this dialogue. If we believe Jesus is the only way, how can we affirm the Muslim’s faith and leave him to face judgment without redemption through Jesus? And, what if the people with whom we dialogue are not committed to coexistence but to conquest and subjection? Whilst most Muslims living in our land, the ones that we might get to dialogue with, are sincere and peaceable people others are committed to fundamental demands of the Qur’an to pursue world domination.
Since we know that Jesus is The Way and that Muslims are worshiping a god who has no son, they are clearly in need of salvation. We need to be aware that the Muslim has no assurance of salvation, as we have. He must obey the demands of his religion and hope that his good deeds (the five pillars of Islam; plus fighting the enemies of Allah) will outweigh his bad deeds on Judgment Day. The required standard is not defined, there is no atoning sacrifice and Allah is fickle; hence the phrase, “Insh-Allah” – “if Allah wills”. The only guaranteed way to Paradise is through Shahada – Martyrdom – dying whilst fighting infidels. This is the reason for the modern day phenomenon of “suicide bombing”.
Reading the Qur’an makes it clear that Islam defines itself by contradicting the Bible of Jews and Christians. The spirit of Islam has a very strong hold over its one billion adherents, so winning Muslims to faith in Jesus, the one who died and rose again for their sins is not easy. Jesus taught about not attempting to plunder the strong man’s house unless he has first been bound. Perhaps you will join those who are fasting and praying on Fridays(4) (the day Muslims pray to Allah) for the binding of the spirit behind Islam, and the release of his captives. Pray too that Jesus will continue to appear to Muslims in dreams and visions.(5) Pray also for the fellowships in Israel where Jews and Arab ex Muslims are coming to faith in Jesus (Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah) and being reconciled as brothers.
Be encouraged by the testimonies of men like Walid Shoebat(6) and Tassir abu Sada,(7) who Jesus saved from being Palestinian terrorists and who now love Israel and the Jewish people they once hated so passionately.
If you have the opportunity to talk with Muslims, take it in the spirit of the love of Jesus. It is useful to understand the differences in our beliefs, but as Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund said, “For Christians who would preach the Gospel to Muslims, nothing less than the power of God released by the Holy Spirit is adequate. Most Muslims who come to Christ are not won over by intellectual argument, but rather they have a personal encounter with Christ.”
If you would like to understand more about Islam, please see the pages on Islam and the books list on wildolive.co.uk.
A horrific massacre in Paris, in which al-Qaida terrorists systematically targeted and gunned down journalists, cartoonists, and policemen at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in revenge for its mockery of Islam, has shocked Europe by its barbarism and its symbolism.
A core western value, freedom of expression, was snuffed out with contemptuous ease along with 12 innocent lives, among them some of France’s most iconic and beloved cartoonists.
The emotion behind the “Je Suis Charlie” demonstrations, as an expression of solidarity with the murdered Charlie Hebdo staff, was very understandable.
But did anyone actually mean it? For what Charlie Hebdo did was what very few people have ever done. In continuing to publish its scurrilous images of Islam and Islamists, Charlie Hebdo had refused to be cowed by Islamist terrorism. Plainly, therefore, very few people indeed mean “Je Suis Charlie,” since the media response to the massacre has been carefully to obliterate the images Charlie Hebdo published that so offended al-Qaida.
The French have also been declaring defiantly that free speech will never be surrendered. But there has been no free media expression about Islam ever since the 1989 Iranian fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie over his book, The Satanic Verses and in Britain, people supporting Rushdie’s murder were never prosecuted. As his book was burned on British streets, establishment figures turned on the author for having offended Islam.
"If the West cannot even bring itself to acknowledge what it is up against, then it will surely be defeated by it." Melanie Philips
Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo told, Le Monde journalists In 2012, that he was not afraid of retaliation. "I have no kids, no wife, no car, no mortgage.
It may come off as a bit arrogant but I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."
Surely, one should only claim, "Je suis Charlie" who would also say as Stéphane Charbonnier did, "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."
Je suis nes'pas Charlie
New York Daily publishes a picture of Stéphane Charbonnier holding a cartoon showing Mohammed and a Jew.
But Selective pixelization has been applied to blur Mohammed, while leaving the hooked-nosed Jew.
Welcome to dhimmi status, New York Daily.
The Hamburger Morgenpost had, like many German media outlets, published images from the satirical weekly in the aftermath of a terror attack that saw 10 of its journalists killed on Wednesday. Police said rocks were thrown through the cellar windows of the building in the early hours of Sunday morning, followed by an “incendiary device”.
"Insulting religions, faiths, or religious symbols cannot in any way be a part of freedom of belief or freedom of expression."
Religious lesson in official PA daily:
"The struggle between truth and falsehood is as ancient as life upon this earth... The conflict between us and the Jews is not a conflict about land and borders, but rather a conflict about faith and existence."
Much of what was said above applies equally to the rampages that followed the posting of a puerile video on YouTube.
A video attacking the Prophet Mohammed has sparked an attack on US embassy in Libya in which the American ambassador was killed. (September 11th 2012)
US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed together with three other consulate workers after a pro-Islamist riot broke out in the city of Benghazi. Mr Stevens, who served as deputy principal officer and political section chief at the consulate in Jerusalem during his career in foreign service, was 52.
Liam Hoare, writing in timesofisrael
On the morning of September 12, Sam Bacile – an Israeli-American filmmaker and real-estate developer based in California – had gone into hiding. His movie, “The Innocence of Muslims,” had sparked assaults on United States embassies and consulates in Cairo and Benghazi. The two-hour film was reported to have cost $5 million to produce, and was funded by donations from more than 100 Jewish donors. A gentleman called Steve Klein had come forward as one of the movie’s producers.
By the time the Sunday papers went to print, this Judeo-façade had crumbled. Sam Bacile was in fact a 55-year-old Egyptian immigrant by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian with a sizable criminal record. “The Innocence for Muslims,” in the absence of a cabal of Jewish financiers, was produced by Media for Christ, run by another Egyptian Copt named Joseph Nassralla Abdelmasih. The $5 million the 100 donors were purported to have given over evidently never existed, given that the film was produced largely in front of a green screen using non-union actors.
Daniel Pipes -
When Muslims take to the streets in nearly 30 countries to engage in various degrees of anti-Western violence, something important is underway. Reflections on what this might mean:
The Rushdie Rules have gone viral: Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 masterstroke of imposing a death edict on Salman Rushdie has now spread and become the hum-drum response of Islamists to perceived insults. By telling the West what can and cannot be said about Islam, Khomeini sought to impose Islamic law (the Shari'a) on it. The recent round of violence has mostly taken the form of demonstrations and violence against Western buildings (diplomatic, commercial, educational) .... So far, about 30 people have lost their lives. The Iranian and Egyptian governments both want to get their hands on the filmmakers of Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Muhammad film on YouTube they blame for the violence.
......Western civilization in the balance: Islamist aspirations grow with improved communications and weakened Middle Eastern governments, ultimately posing an existential question for Westerners: Will we maintain our historic civilization against their challenge, or will we accept Muslim dominion and a second-class dhimmi status?
In sum, Islamists want to impose Shari'a, Westerners are divided, and the battle of wills is just getting started.
Daniel Pipes made some more interesting clarifications after his writings on these riots had been criticised as "hate speech." This accusation is another tool for stifling criticism.
This appeal prompted a solemn reply from Sheila Musaji of The American Muslim website, who deemed it "irresponsible and beyond the pale." Why so? Because, as she puts it, "The solution to escalating violence and hate speech is not more hate speech."
That sounds sensible enough. But does mocking Muhammad, burning a Koran, or calling Islam a cult constitute hate speech?
Hate speech, legal authorities agree, involves words directed against a category of persons. Here's a typical definition, from USLegal.com: "incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like." Attacking the sanctities of a religion, I submit, is quite unlike targeting the faithful of that religion.
From Nonie Darwish - Full article - - http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3396/islam-free-speech
The truth regarding that low-budget video, however, is that all the stories in it were taken from the Islamic books on Mohammed's life, "Sirat Rasul Allah" ["The Life of the Messenger of Allah"], the earliest biography of Muhammad, as well as from quotes in the "Hadiths," acts or sayings ascribed to Muhammad. The stories were not the invention of the producer of the film; they were tasteless and unholy, but they are all found in Muslim scriptures. The problem with Islam is that Muslims riot and burn and kill those who repeat what already exists in their scriptures.
When the life and acts of Mohammed were written and documented by Muslims, it was a source of pride for them; but in the 21st century it has become a source of shame, and now they cannot go back and remove what they already have written about the actions of Mohammed, so all they can do is riot burn and kill anyone who speaks about it. Their prophet has done a lot of unholy acts, but speaking about Islam and Mohammed's actions in an analytical way has become a crime. United Nations Resolution 1618, "The Istanbul Process," sponsored last December in a three-day, closed-door meeting in Washington D.C. by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attempts to make it an international crime to discuss "religion" -- code for Islam. This proposal to criminalize free speech was repeated in September at the UN by the Ambassador from Pakistan, its sponsor; and repeated again by Egypt's new President, Mohamed Morsi.
The scary part now is that the U.S. president seems to agree.
It was difficult to listen to the President of the United States recent statement at the United Nations, that, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." The president of the United States was declaring to the world that critics of Mohammed are wrong; that they do not have a rightful cause; that they must not be heard, respected, taken seriously, and that they will have no future in America.
For thirty years, I grew up hearing similar threats from Islamic sheikhs across the Middle East. They told us, "You insult the prophet Mohammed, you die" -- as the Islamic law of Sharia requires. There are still Sharia books bought and sold in America; they clearly say: "The penalty for insulting the prophet is death, even if one repents." What constitutes "insulting the prophet" could be anything minor, such as saying that Mohammed married a nine-year-old -- a fact -- but if the remark is stated in way that might be perceived as critical, it is considered an "insult."
Sharia law also condemns to death – or, as Obama states, "must have no future" -- those who leave Islam, or even simply state they have left Islam -- and why. Islam considers stating why a person leaves Islam also to be an "insult," as well as subversion of the Islamic State; it, too, constitutes a capital crime.
From Front Page
The Sexual Pathology of the Libyan Attackers
Posted By Mark Tapson On September 21, 2012 - In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
Soon after the terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in Libya, reports began coming in that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was not only murdered by the Muslim mob, but also sodomized both before and after his death, and his corpse dragged through the streets. This grotesque defilement was wilfully suppressed by the mainstream media, ....
As FrontPage Shillman Journalism Fellow Raymond Ibrahim writes
Sexual abuse and degradation is a common tactic used against non-Muslims, especially women, as the repeatedly raped Lara Logan found… Nor are men immune from such rapes. In fact, the photos of Ambassador Stevens—stripped of clothes, bloodied and tortured right before he was killed—very much resemble the photos of Gaddafi right before he was killed. One U.S.-supported “freedom-fighter,” for example, can be seen sodomizing Gadaffi with a rod as others dragged him along.
There is a strange story about Muslims forcing companies to change their logos so that they do not offend Muslims by looking like the name of Allah.
This an offending Burgerking ice-cream cornet top that caused "offense."
But there have been no Muslim protests since, in 1987, the United Nations Human Rights Commission changed its logo from a flame into something that looks strikingly like the Arabic word "Allah."
Was the change in the UN Human Rights logo a coincidence? Some specialists do not think so.
(comment following the murder of American diplomats and burning of embassies)
This video is not offered being as a Christian viewpoint - simply as a common sense observation
One has to observe that Christians and Jews have been suffering abuse for centuries, largely at at the hands of Muslims, but we do not go out murdering and burning. Why should we tolerate such an intolerant religion?
Daniel Pipes commented that Muslims should be desensitized to criticism of their behaviour and their prophet, and should not be accommodated as they seek to bring us under their law. He said that daily publication of Mohammed cartoons might cause the Muslims to see that their manufactured offence is failing to achieve their objectives.
Unfortunately, their orchestrated rampages are proving successful at present, as politicians and media rush to be seen as enlightened and to ward off accusations of being "racist" or "Islamophobic".
Finally - Why do followers of Islam and Christianity react so differently to ridicule of their respective faiths?
"Christianity has a Savior who has been beaten and battered. A Savior who endured the public ridicule and mockery of crowds as He was stripped and hung on a Roman cross for our sins. A Savior who was betrayed and spat upon and who endured shame and derision so that we might be redeemed.
Our God does not need to be defended. He is holy, all-powerful and eternal. He needs no man to protect His honor. . . . He will have the last word on the Day of Judgment when all men will bow before Him."
Click the banner below to go to the site map and choose another page