Congress Hears of the Plight of Egypt’s Christians
By Jamie Glazov On December 12, 2011 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
"Ver en calma un cirmen es cometerlo" .... Obama guarda un silencio cómplice ante la persecusión y masacre de cristianos a través de toda Africa a manos de los musulmanes... la masaccre de cristianos coptos en Egipto es parte del jihad para establecer un califato mundial.
FrontPage Interview’s guest today is Raymond Ibrahim, an Islam expert and author of The Al Qaeda Reader. A Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum, he writes frequently on all things Islamic, including Muslim persecution of Christians.
On Wednesday, December 7, Raymond testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the House of Representatives, in a hearing presented by Reps. Frank Wolf and James McDermott, titled “Under Threat: The Worsening Plight of Egypt’s Coptic Christians.”
Videos of Raymond’s testimony are below and then followed by our interview:
Raymond Ibrahim: Shariah, Dhimmitude & the Copts:
Raymond Ibrahim: Whitewashing Jihad, Shariah & Islam:
FP: Welcome Raymond. Good to interview you again.
Ibrahim: Thank you, Jamie; happy to be back.
FP: The suffering of the Christian Copts of Egypt is getting worse, so it’s a great thing you were asked to testify at that hearing—and it’s a positive thing that they even had a hearing. For starters, while we know of your professional credentials concerning Islam, can you tell us a bit about your Coptic ancestry?
Ibrahim: Sure. Though I was born and raised in the U.S., my parents were both Copts who emigrated from Egypt in the late 1960s. According to them, after Egypt’s 1952 revolution, they knew it was time to get going—knew that things would get progressively worse for Christians. And so they have. I believe they understood this, not because they were especially prescient, but rather because what is understood immediately and instinctively on the ground (in Egypt), often take decades to become intelligible thousands of miles away (in the West).
In fact, it’s interesting for me to recall, in retrospect, how, the things I and others constantly write about in order to get the West to understand Islam, Copts know instinctively—simply because they experience in reality what we know in theory. This disconnect is why a group like the Muslim Brotherhood, the mere mention of which for decades would make Coptic hair stand on end, is now touted as a “largely secular” group by the current U.S administration, which has been complacent, if not complicit, in the Brotherhood’s rise to power.
This, by the way, is one of those things that are utterly incomprehensible to Copts and other minorities from the Muslim world—how the West can in any way, shape, or form support Islamic groups like the Brotherhood. Again, this is a reflection of their intimate acquaintance of these groups, their certain knowledge that the Brotherhood is practicing taqiyya merely to dupe their stronger, but naïve, infidel enemies.
Publicado: 12-12-2011 11:40 AM
Un féretro es introducido en la catedral de Abbasiya en El Cairo | Efe
Likewise, regarding Islam’s inroads in the U.S., comments like “So – we left Egypt only to find the same sort of crap we left behind following us here in America!” are common among the diaspora. This, of course, is the sentiment of any number of non-Muslims—not to mention many nominal Muslims—who quit the Muslim world and come to the U.S.
FP: Very eye opening, Raymond. What do you think are the most important points about the plight of Egypt’s Christians, points I presume you made at the hearing?
Ibrahim: Probably the most important thing is to establish continuity; to show that what we’re seeing today—whether churches burned, monasteries attacked, or crucifixes (and those who wear them) destroyed; whether Christian girls abducted, raped, and force-converted; whether expectations of Christians to play the role of cowed “dhimmis”—to show that all of these things mirror, often identically, 1400 years of history in Egypt.
In other words, if you read Islam’s own authoritative histories, you will see that what is today happening to the Copts happened yesterday. The parallels are almost eerie: I’ll read a current report dealing with Coptic persecution, and then later I’ll be reading from Arabic primary sources dealing with Egyptian history, and it’s almost like I’m reading of the same exact events (here’s one example).
Nor is this resurgence of anti-Christian sentiment an aberration in Islamic history. But because there was a lull in such persecution—beginning in the colonial era when Western influence in the Muslim world was widespread and many Muslims were indifferent to Islam, to just a few decades ago—most Westerners, deeming events closer to their time as more representative of reality, overlook the continuum of history and doctrine dealing with persecution, and thus fail to comprehend what is otherwise so obvious and increasingly open for the world to see. This, of course, is exacerbated by the fact that the articulators of knowledge—the media, academia, and apologists of all stripes—in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness, have made such ugly truths all but incomprehensible.
In fact, as I was compelled to point out at the hearing, in a different age, we wouldn’t even need to have congressional hearings, as that unfashionable and outdated thing we used to call common sense would have sufficed to make the realities of Christian persecution under Islam unequivocally clear.
Put differently, the evidence of Muslim persecution of Christians is overwhelming—doctrinally, historically, and daily. What is lacking is a Western paradigm that can accept—and act upon—this evidence.
FP: Thanks for those insights, Raymond, and for joining us today. Any final thoughts?
Ibrahim: Thanks for the invite, Jamie; glad to have shared these words with you and FPM.
As for final thoughts, here’s the bottom line: Inasmuch as Islam returns as a force to be reckoned with, so too will those things intrinsic to its well-documented history—in this case, Christian persecution—return. What we are witnessing now is but the early stages. Left unaddressed, great atrocities if not wholesale massacres are in store; and the blood of those countless innocents will be on the hands of those who enabled their Islamic persecutors—all while blithely ignoring reality and common sense.
Publicado: 12-12-2011 11:41 AM
OBAMA ENCUBRE LOS CRIMENES DEL ISLAM
It’s Not Workplace Violence, It’s Islam
By Ben Shapiro On December 12, 2011 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
This week, the Obama Administration made an announcement regarding the attack on Fort Hood in 2009. In that incident, you’ll recall, gentle Muslim psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan – who had apparently been taking Islamic training from gentle Muslim terrorist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki – picked up a handgun and proceeded to murder 12 soldiers (one pregnant) and one Army civilian employee; another 29 were injured. None of the soldiers were armed. Finally, a civilian police sergeant put Hasan down with five shots, paralyzing the gentle Muslim from the chest down.
Two years later, President Obama’s Defense Department called this incident “workplace violence.”
You know, like when you punch a guy at the water cooler for sleeping with your wife. Except you’re a Muslim and there are forty co-workers, none of whom have slept with your wife, and you’re trying to shoot them to death while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”
There is a legitimate debate to be had regarding the terminology we use to describe Muslim terrorists. Are they Muslims or are they Islamists? Are they radical Muslims, or are they just normal Muslims?
Robert Spencer and Andrew McCarthy have had this debate for several weeks, most prominently at the Freedom Center Restoration Weekend. I come down on the side that says we have no business making a distinction between Muslims and so-called Islamists, since Muslims make no such distinction themselves. Osama Bin Laden knows more about Islam than I do. I’ll take his word for it.
Publicado: 12-12-2011 06:20 PM
But regardless of where you come down on the question of Muslim semantics, there is no doubt that Islam must come into play when we discuss the threat of terrorism.
Labeling Fort Hood “workplace violence” is like labeling September 11 a “building collapse.” It’s not just misleading, it’s sick.
What would drive the Obama Administration to place this absurd Orwellian label on a Muslim terrorist attack? There are two rationales: fear and hope.
First, fear. The Defense Department is deathly afraid of funding cuts – and with good reason, since it is clear that Democrats are far less interested in cutting Granny’s Medicare than in cutting missile defense (a pposition that no doubt has Vladimir Putin grinning in his sleep).
So the military must please the left. They’ve done that by turning the military into a social experimentation center where male sexuality is injected into barracks. Now they’re doing it by upholding the diversity meme.
As General George Casey, the army’s top officer, said in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre, “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
Now, I’m fairly certain that the murder of pregnant women is worse than people accurately labeling Nidal Hasan a Muslim terrorist. And I’m fairly certain that General Casey knows that. But General Casey also knows where his bread is buttered, and so does the entire Defense Department.
Fear is the order of the day in the Defense Department, then.
And then there’s hope. The Obama Administration hopes that by calling the Fort Hood massacre “workplace violence,” we will all accept Nidal Hasan’s presence as a member of the workplace. He’s just the same as Sgt. Bill or Lt. Jane — he just happens to hate America and all that it stands for. Tomayto, tomahto.
What’s the point of this little fiction? By including Hasan in the “workplace,” the Obama Administration hopes to convince Muslims around the world that we want them as part of our global workplace. For the love of Allah, if they can see that we’ll accept even their most militant members into our military, won’t they be able to see that we can all live together in peace?
And thus, the Obama Administration’s idiotic hope combines with the military’s deathly fear to rewrite history. Those who were killed at Fort Hood become ***********///////********//////****** victims of violence rather than martyrs in the clash of civilizations (whereas for Muslims, Hasan is already a martyr in the clash of civilizations). Hasan’s “Allahu Akhbar” becomes a delightfully exotic version of “going postal,” or another incident of a disturbed soldier “going Rambo.”
While we play pattycake with the terminology of Islamic murder, Muslims around the world have no such qualms. In fact, they label everything we do Western imperialism. Protecting Muslims from the Taliban? Western imperialism. Saving Kuwait from Saddam Hussein? Western imperialism. Lady Gaga? Western imperialism.
So, who’s destined to win this fight – the side that insists that Muslim murder is “workplace violence,” or the side that insists that soldierly workplace violence in defense of Muslims is murder of Muslims? It’s a pretty safe bet that the side that sees “Allahu Akhbar” as a call to diversity training will end up on the wrong side of history.
Publicado: 12-12-2011 06:22 PM
Diplomatic Supping With Jihadist Devils
By Bruce Thornton On December 27, 2011 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 15 Comments
While Western diplomats wring their hands over trivial insults to Islam, a slow-motion genocide of Christians has been unfolding in the Muslim world. The latest attack occurred on Christmas day in Nigeria, where the terrorist sect Boko Haram bombed two Catholic churches in the towns of Abuja and Jos, killing at least 39 worshipers. This same group killed 32 Christians last Christmas Eve. In this year alone, Boko Haram has murdered 491 people.
The killings in Nigeria are just one example of continuous violent attacks on Christians and their churches. Yet our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been nearly silent about this war on Christianity. When the Egyptian military participated in the murder of 25 Egyptian Copts, her State Department rejected a request from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to put Egypt on its list of countries that violate religious freedoms. Instead, Secretary Clinton issued a generic warning to the generals ruling Egypt “to ensure that the fundamental rights of all Egyptians are respected, including the rights of religious freedom, peaceful assembly and the end of military trials for civilians, and that efforts be made to address sectarian tensions.”
Compare this reflexive diplo-speak to her more passionate reaction to the recent beating of Egyptian women during a demonstration, one of whom was publicly stripped: “This systematic degradation of Egyptian women dishonors the revolution, disgraces the state and its uniform and is not worthy of a great people,” she said. Apparently, exposing a woman’s blue bra is a more heinous crime than running over a Copt’s head with a military vehicle.
In fact, our official spokesman for American views on foreign behavior hasn’t had much to say about a modern persecution of Christians redolent of those perpetrated by the Romans. Nor have we heard anything about the sectarian cleansing that has been going on for decades. Christians who date their presence in the Middle East to several centuries before Islam was created are fast disappearing from the region, choosing exile and emigration over harassment and murder.
In Iraq, where American blood and treasure were spent to create “democracy” and “human rights,” eighteen priests and two bishops have been kidnapped, and the archbishop of Mosul murdered. In the last six years, mobs have attacked over 70 churches, 42 of them in Baghdad. In October 2010, attackers murdered 58 Christians during evening mass at the Syrian Catholic Cathedral in Baghdad. The Christian population, which once numbered 1.5 million, has dwindled to less than 150,000. The story is the same in Pakistan, Lebanon, the so-called West Bank, Syria, and across the Middle East. A region Christian for six centuries before the rise of Islam will soon be emptied of Christians.
And what has been Secretary Clinton’s response to this assault on Christians? A conference in December to implement the so-called “Istanbul Process,” itself the mechanism for implementing the U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 1618 on religious stereotyping and “stigmatization.” That resolution was a diplomatic effort to keep the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s ongoing efforts to globalize Islamic blasphemy laws law from impinging on free speech.
Clinton no doubt thought she was finessing the OIC’s drive to censor speech about Islam, but the OIC saw the meeting differently: “The upcoming [Washington] meetings … [will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”
Publicado: 12-27-2011 11:15 AM
SUBMISSION. Is he dropping to his knees? What a sickening spectacle.
US President Barack Obama vows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, leader of Islam and keeper of the most sacred Muslim sites, Meca and Medina.
As the Hudson Institute’s Nina Sheareported, “By standing ‘united’ (as the OIC head put it in a Turkish Daily op-ed) with the OIC on these issues, America appears to validate the OIC agenda, thus demoralizing the legions of women’s rights and human-rights advocates, bloggers, journalists, minorities, converts, reformers and others in OIC states who look to the United States for support against oppression.” Having intimidated most of Europe into legally repressing opinions or even statements of fact about Islam, the OIC is obviously using “diplomacy” to pressure U.S. government officials into censoring themselves when it comes to Islam.
Of course, such self-censorship has long been taking place among government officials who take every opportunity to whitewash Islam’s tradition of violence and intolerance. Witness the Department of Defense’s report on Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hassan, which called his murders an instance of “workplace violence,” and despite copious evidence to the contrary, omitted any reference to jihadist ideology as a motivation of Hassan’s attack.
But this sort of government self-censorship is nothing new. The doctrine of jihad, which for 14 centuries has meant waging war against the enemies of Islam, has been redefined as a vague “striving in the path of God,” as the National Counterterrorism Center claimed in 2008. Then there’s John Brennan, Obama’s assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, who in 2009 likewise defined jihad as “to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.”
Publicado: 12-27-2011 11:21 AM
That would be news to Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who said, “Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all,” in line with the Koran’s injunctions to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” “fight those who do not believe in Allah,” “fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness,” “kill them [unbelievers] wherever you find them,” and to execute Allah’s threat: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads.”
Yet Secretary Clinton seemingly is unaware of these facts of traditional Islamic doctrine. Instead, at the conference she indulged the Western pathology of moral equivalence to avoid facing that truth: “Now, I know that in the world today, intolerance is not confined to any part of the world or any group of people. We all continue to deal with different forms of religious intolerance. That’s true here, that’s true in Europe, that’s true among countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, everywhere in the world. It’s true where people, if they are discriminating or intimidating, they’re doing it against Muslims or Jews or Christians or Buddhists or Baha’is or you name it. There has been discrimination of every kind against every religion known to man.”
This statement is factually false. Clinton cannot point to any modern persecution of Muslims, or violence against them and their holy places, that comes close to the incessant violence against Christians on the part of Muslims. In no nominally Christian country are there formal laws against Muslims akin to those in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and other Muslim countries that institutionalize discrimination against Christians and Jews. Nor is there anywhere in the Bible injunctions that legitimize intolerance and persecution of Muslims like those in the Koran and other Islamic scripture that stigmatize Christians and Jews and subject them to poll taxes and Jim-Crow like restrictions on their lives.
Yet despite these facts, despite the absence of widespread pogroms against Muslims in the West, we have created and worry over the “hate crime” of “Islamophobia,” even while rampant Muslim “Christophobia” is slaughtering Christians to the point of extinction, and threatening Israel with a new holocaust, all with the support and encouragement of government officials and religious authorities.
Such moral equivalence is not just intellectually bankrupt; it is moral idiocy. And it is dangerous, for it blinds us to the true causes of jihadist terror: the theologically sanctioned intolerance, violence, and chauvinism of Islam that has driven Muslim behavior for 14 centuries.
Publicado: 12-27-2011 11:24 AM
Obama is Silent on the Hatred of Jews and Christians
LubbockOnline ^ | March 20, 2012
When Jews and Christians are attacked, Obama remains quiet. Obama does not demand the attacks be stopped. There is no visible outrage.
On Monday morning a gunman killed a rabbi and three Jewish children at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France. We have heard nothing yet from the Obama White House. The Associated Press reported,
Authorities ordered increased security at schools and synagogues around the country after an attack that drew high-level uproar in Israel and revolted France, where school shootings and deadly attacks on Jews are extremely rare.
France is particularly sensitive toward the Jewish community because of its World War II past of abetting Nazi occupiers deport Jewish citizens.
News that the gun was used in attacks last week in the Toulouse area that fueled suspicions that a serial killer on the loose is targeting French minorities, and not only Jews.
Tom Chivers of The Telegraph commented on the shootings,
It's the Jewish aspect that is particularly distressing. In Britain, and perhaps especially on the Left, we like to imagine that anti-Semitic attacks are a thing of a sordid past, expunged with Nazism in the fires of the Second World War. But they're not; there were 270 recorded anti-Semitic incidents in this country in 2009 alone. In other European countries, it's even more common.
In this country, the increase in anti-Semitism has been largely driven by the Muslim population.
When a leading Muslim cleric called for all of the Christian churches in the Middle East to be destroyed, there were no statements of opposition from the White House. The Washington Times commented in an editorial,
If the pope called for the destruction of all the mosques in Europe, the uproar would be cataclysmic. Pundits would lambaste the church, the White House would rush out a statement of deep concern, and rioters in the Middle East would kill each other in their grief. But when the most influential leader in the Muslim world issues a fatwa to destroy Christian churches, the silence is deafening.
Publicado: 03-21-2012 10:32 PM
On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.
This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.
Obama clearly has a double standard when it comes to Israel. When Palestinians fire rockets into Israel, Obama is silent. Since becoming President, Obama has repeatedly treated Netanyahu rudely, insisted that Israel stop building homes in Jerusalem, and demanded Israel move back to its pre-1967 indefensible borders.
In March 2011 when a Muslim terrorist bomb was set off at the busiest bus stop in Jerusalem, Obama included his condolences to the Palestinians in his comments regarding the terrorist bombing. For some reason this was not noticed by most of the news media. Aaron Klein, senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief for World Net Daily reported,
President Obama’s official statement on today’s bombing at a crowded bus stop in Jerusalem included a clause expressing his “deepest condolences for the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza yesterday.”
The statement seems to draw a moral equivalence between today’s attack in Jerusalem, in which Jewish civilians were targeted, and the death of four Palestinian civilians who were killed in an Israel Defense Force strike targeting a site used yesterday by militants in Gaza to **noallow** mortars at nearby Jewish population centers.
It is of interest that Barack Obama, like many others on the Left, often neglects the fact that Radical Muslim Terrorists are civilians. When terrorists are killed, one can be left with the impression from the White House and much of the news media that those killed were all innocent bystanders.
When Obama attacks and demonizes “the rich,” the “millionaires and billionaires,” and the “top 1%,” is Obama purposely demonizing the Jews? Is Obama openly directing the hatred of his supporters toward the Jews because they are characteristically thought of as the rich bankers and the Wall Street tycoons?
Does Obama have something against Jews and Christians?
Publicado: 03-21-2012 10:33 PM