Ghastly Evidence of Islamic “Hospitality and Love”

Ugandan Attacked by Muslims Feels “At Home” in Israel 

Description: rabbi tuly and ugandan preacher

A Christian preacher from Uganda who recently began promoting support for Israel, is currently being treated in an Israeli hospital after an acid attack upon him from Muslims. 

Upon hearing the news, United with Israel representative Rabbi Tuly Weisz went to visit Umar Mulinde in the hospital and presented him with several gifts on behalf of United with Israel and well-wishers from around the world. The gifts consisted of art (doves of peace) and jewelry made from the remains of thousands of rockets fired by Hamas from Gaza that have been exploding in israel, symbolizing how good can come out of evil; an encouraging message for Mulinde to hear.

 

Rabbi Weisz also presented messages that were sent from well-wishers around the world via Facebook – to raise Mulinde’s morale and lift his spirit. Mr. Mulinde and his wife were overwhelmed with joy and appreciation and feels “at home” with the warm hospitality and care he has received in Israel. He thanked Rabbi Weisz and United with Israel for their love and support – and for the meaningful gifts that will be cherished forever.

 

Umar Mulinde, 38, arrived in Israel on Jan. 5 for emergency medical treatment at Tel Aviv’s Sheba Medical Center following an acid attack that severely burned his face and torso and damaged his right eye.

The attackers shouted “Allah Akbar” (Allah is greater) after pouring acid on Mulinde in Kampala, Uganda. Mulinde converted to Christianity after spending much of his life as a Muslim.

After determining that he needed more advanced treatment for his injuries than the hospital in Uganda could provide, Mulinde contacted JerusalemOnlineU.com Executive Director Andrea Gottlieb of Philadelphia for financial and logistical help.

 

Description: people in uganda

Mulinde had learned about Israel through JerusalemOnlineU.com, an online portal for Jewish distance learning. He then taught the courses in his church and to neighboring ministers, and organized a 5,000-person teach-in about Israel at a local stadium.

Our prayers go out to Umar Mulinde – a Ugandan supporter of Israel who was attacked for teaching his beliefs. Mulinde was flown to Israel for emergency medical care and is now recuperating at a Tel Aviv hospital.

 

Isolated incident?  Wake up.  Discover the Networks

 

Is it racist to criticize Islam?

April 28, 2011

www.actforamerica.org

VIEW our latest TV show episodes here (latest on the Ground Zero Mosque) & here (getting Congress to see the threat)

“Is it racist to criticize Islam?”


America’s rich heritage of free speech and public debate is one of the hallmarks of our country’s greatness.

But when it comes to the topic of Islam, rather than engaging in honest debate about such aspects as jihad, sharia law, treatment of “infidels,” or treatment of women, what we frequently see instead is a barrage of personal attacks intended to muzzle any and all debate.

One of the more vile is the false accusation of “racism.” “Citizen Warrior” has posted a powerful rebuttal of this accusation (see below) which we encourage you to read and forward to everyone you know.


Is it Racist to Criticize Islam?

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/09/is-it-racist-to-criticize-islam.html

 


Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a racist? She was born in Somalia, from which she escaped to avoid an arranged marriage, and she eventually became a member of Parliament in the Netherlands.

She helped produce a film with Theo Van Gogh which criticized Islam’s treatment of women. Van Gogh was shot to death by a Muslim in retaliation, and a note was pinned to his chest with a knife — a note that threatened Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

She made her way to the United States, and has since written two books critical of Islam: Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.


Is Wafa Sultan a racist? She was born and raised in Syria, and was trained as a psychiatrist.

On February 21, 2006, she took part in an Al Jazeera discussion program, arguing with the hosts about Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory. A six-minute composite video of her response was widely circulated on blogs and through email. The New York Times estimated it was seen at least one million times. In the video she criticized Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently, and for not recognizing the accomplishments of Jews and other non-Muslims. The video was the most-discussed video of all time with over 260,000 comments on YouTube.


Is Brigitte Gabriel a racist? She’s an Arab, born in Lebanon. Gabriel watched her country become an Islamic state. Lebanon was a Christian country and “the jewel of the Middle East” when she was young. But the Muslims in Lebanon, supported by Syria and Iran, slowly became more militant until they turned the country into a war zone.

She made her way to America only to find, to her horror, the Muslim Brotherhood here in her newly adopted country, going down the same road. She decided to warn her fellow Americans about the dire results you can expect from appeasing orthodox Muslims, so she founded ACT! for America, a grassroots organization dedicated to educating the public about Islam’s prime directive.

Gabriel is the author of two books, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, and Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.


Is Ibn Warraq a racist? Warraq was born in India to Muslim parents who migrated to Pakistan after the partitioning of British Indian Empire.

Warraq founded the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society. He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, focusing on Quranic criticism.

Warraq is the author of seven books, including Why I Am Not a Muslim and Leaving Islam. He has spoken at the United Nations “Victims of Jihad” conference organized by the International Humanist and Ethical Union alongside speakers such as Bat Ye’or, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Simon Deng.


Is Tapan Ghosh a racist? The president of Hindu Samhati, he speaks all over India and the United States about the ongoing Islamic invasion of West Bengal.

In an article about him, a correspondent wrote, “A life of 25 years of relentless service has strengthened the resolve of Tapan Ghosh to unite Hindu masses to fight against injustice and the oppressive attitude of the authorities in the face of ever-increasing Islamist aggression.”

Ghosh said, “As someone who has suffered enormously from the Islamist onslaught in eastern India, both after the partition of India as well as the partition of erstwhile Pakistan to form Bangladesh, Islamic terrorism has deeply affected my life and the life of millions in the Indian subcontinent. The horrific events of 1971 where nearly 3 million Bengalis, mostly Hindus were exterminated by the Pakistani military regime left an everlasting impression on me. Since then, I have worked relentlessly for the service and upliftment of people reeling under the scourge of radical Islam.”

Is Seyran Ates a racist? Born in Turkey of Kurdish parents, and now working as a lawyer in Germany, Atest is highly critical of an immigrant Muslim society that is often more orthodox than its counterpart in Turkey, and her criticisms have put her at risk.

Her book, “Islam Needs a Sexual Revolution,” was scheduled for publication in Germany in 2009. In an interview in January 2008 on National Public Radio, Ates stated that she was in hiding and would not be working on Muslim women’s behalf publicly (including in court) due to the threats against her.

Ates is the author of the article, Human Rights Before Religion: Have we forgotten to protect women in our bid to accommodate practices carried out in the name of Islam?

(CONTINUE READING HERE FOR PROFILES OF FRANCIS BOK, NONIE DARWISH, MARK GABRIEL, WALID SHOEBAT, SIMON DENG, BABU SUSEELAN, WALID PHARES, ZEYNO BARAN, ZUHDI JASSER, MAGDI ALLAM, FARSHAD KHOLGHI, BASSAM TIBI, KHALED ABU TOAMEH, AND TAWFIK HAMID)

 

 

Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad

Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad

By Mark Musser  |  April 25, 2011

Being the progressive Muslim that he paints himself to be, Rep. Keith Ellison was very impressed with Matin’s abilities and proudly decided to endorse his book.

(A Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism)

Rep. Keith Ellison, the Muslim Congressman from Minnesota who shed tears in protest over the congressional hearings on the growing radicalization of Muslims in the U.S., wrote the foreword to a book entitled Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet. In Arabic, “deen” means religious creed. The author of Green Deen is Ibrahim Abdul Matin. He wrote his book to demonstrate that there is a close relationship between Islam and modern environmentalism.

It turns out Ellison would have been a good witness to how Muslims are being radicalized as foot solders not only for global Jihad but for a “green” future. It is an unholy alliance that threatens our future but which escapes the attention of media predisposed to believe that radical Muslims working with environmentalists could only produce positive results.

What is fascinating is that Matin works in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s environmental planning department as a policy advisor for New York City’s long term sustainability, and was one of the Muslims promoting the idea that the new mosque being considered near Ground Zero should be a green one. In fact, Matin devotes one whole chapter of his book to “Green Mosques” and provides a list of environmentally friendly practices that can and should be implemented at each local mosque. Being the progressive Muslim that he paints himself to be, Keith Ellison was very impressed with Matin’s abilities and proudly decided to endorse his book.

One of the reasons Ellison decided to work with Matin was because of his own growing personal involvement in the green movement, which surprisingly enough, is becoming more popular among Muslims. In an interview posted on the DC Green Muslim’s website, Ellison commented that “my involvement in politics is really rooted in my desire to try to promote unity among people, trying to promote unity with the Earth and creation, and trying to promote justice.” Ellison is also involved in an organization called the “Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota (EJAM).” Ellison, the first Muslim Congressman in U.S. history, thus believes in green Islamic social justice of sorts—a veritable Islamic political ecology.

Ellison first met Matin in 2008 at a Muslim American seminar caucus in Washington, D.C.  Matin was a fellow of “Green For All,” the very organization founded by communist Van Jones to help promote the financial wonders of the so-called Green Economy. Matin also helped organize Green For All’s National Day of Action calling for “Green Jobs Now” which more than 50,000 people attended. Ellison was very impressed by Matin’s influence at the caucus: “Ibrahim made an important connection that day—that the faith community needs to be involved in the green movement.” He went on to conclude his foreword by saying that “Green Deen brings faith communities into the environmental movement by changing the conversation from the facts of global warming to the fact that we all live and work here together and have a collective responsibility to keep this place clean and safe for everyone.”

While there is certainly no small controversy over exactly what a caliphate may be, especially with regard to how Sunnis and Shias view it, or how closely it may be tied to the ushering in of Sharia law, Islamic totalitarianism, terrorism and violence, it is a word that shows up often in Matin’s Green Deen. Matin innocuously translates the word “caliphah” to simply mean “steward,” a very environmentally-correct term. While this may satisfy the environmental consciousness of modern Western elites, this definition is, of course, very far removed from how most of Muslim history has understood this word.

However, no matter how green a Muslim may or may not be, by definition, the caliphate must still be an Islamic theocratic state under the dominion of Allah. Even though Matin maintains that he wrote his book to help rebrand Muslims from being considered terrorists to environmentalists, he still prefaces his entire book with the idea that “the earth is a mosque.”  This means at once that the environmental holism being espoused by Matin must necessarily be subject to Allah’s totalitarian authority over the earth. In other words, environmental holism and Islamic totalitarianism go hand in hand in Matin’s Green Deen.

Secret Conquest

If the entire earth is a mosque, as Matin maintains, then Allah’s boundaries are boundless, and this means that simultaneously Americans must live under the theocratic dictates of Allah, and environmentalism can easily be used alongside Sharia law to help bring America to its knees under Islamic jihadist control. While many on the left would naively consider such a possibility beyond the pale, something along these lines is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood has in mind for the future of America. Indeed, in 1991, the radical Muslim Brotherhood espoused that “the process of settlement…in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In other words, something like environmentalism can be easily used as a jihadist tool in the hands of a green Muslim to help sabotage America from within. After all, Matin says that “Muslims have a personal connection to the color green,” and that “the favorite color of the Prophet Muhammad was green.”

More troubling is that Keith Ellison’s pilgrimage to Mecca in 2008 was paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, which is just another name for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ellison also likes to attend Hamas rallies, and has even worked with communist front groups like the National Lawyers Guild. He even once went so far as to praise the terrorist record of Bernardine Dohrn—the wife of the infamous Bill Ayers. After converting from Roman Catholicism to Islam, Ellison also praised the likes of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam during his college days. This hot-wiring of the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, together with environmentalism, only helps to serve up an explosive eco-fascist concoction not seen since the 1930’s.

With such a cadre of characters and organizations under Ellison’s belt, is it any wonder that suspicions should arise over his activities, even over something as allegedly harmless as environmentalism? Which brings us back to Matin. Why in the world would Matin want Ellison’s endorsement if all he wants to do is try and show Americans that Muslims are not terrorists but are becoming progressive environmentalists? Neither should it be overlooked that the Muslim American Society also touts the Green Deen book. Matin even considers Malcom X to be a green Muslim, who was also one of his heroes as a child when he used to listen to his tapes. Such disconcerting connections betray the image that Matin’s Green Deen is as benign as it reads.

Indeed, Matin’s whole approach to energy is viewed as a green Muslim apocalyptic dichotomy between heaven and hell. Matin considers gas, coal and oil as energy from hell, i.e., from the ground: “it is dirty, and it is a major cause of pollution and climate change.  Energy from hell is non-renewable; it takes away from the Earth without giving back. It disturbs the balance of the universe and is therefore a great injustice.” As such, it appears that energy from hell needs to be placed under the caliphate control of Allah to help bring about a green Muslim social ethic on the earth: “one way we can stand out firmly for justice is by ending our reliance on oil and coal. Energies from hell are particularly devastating and unjust to people and the planet.”

From One Hell to Another

With the likes of the OPEC oil cartel largely run by the Middle East, coupled with the environmental restrictions on the homefront, perhaps the earth indeed is becoming one giant mosque. Worse is that Matin’s Green Deen only promises to become more hellish, leaving America increasingly exposed to the harsh natural elements of the sun, storm and wind. Yet, Matin views such exposure as a gift from heaven. For him, solar and wind power are Allah’s answers to America’s energy problems: “energy from heaven comes from above. It is not extracted from the Earth and it is renewable…energy from above is a gift from heaven.” The problem now, however, is that America’s electrical grid is not ‘smart’ enough yet to incorporate Allah’s heavenly gifts into her energy system.

Matin also proudly notes in his book that the EPA received much needed help from a green Muslim by the name of Dr. Aziz Saddiqi. In the 1960’s Saddiqi was a young doctoral candidate who was doing groundbreaking research in the Houston area on chemical engineering. The University of Houston was so impressed with his work that he was offered a job: “Soon he found himself guiding the development of curriculum that would help the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency carry out its new mission of enforcing the Clean Air Act.” His chemical engineering expertise was much needed at the beginning to help the EPA get off of its feet: “In 1973 the EPA was only three years old and did not understand the full breadth of its power.” The EPA thus had a lot of growing up to do, and Dr. Saddiqi was at the heart of it all at the very beginning: “The EPA, its scientists, and its partner agencies needed to be trained on how to monitor pollution from smokestacks and other commonly used industrial practices.”

In fact, it seems that they were all on the learning curve together on this, as Dr. Saddiqui “had to learn how to explain his research in chemical engineering to this group of regulators.” Not to be outdone, Dr. Saddiqi “also authored the training materials used to teach EPA scientists how to sample ambient air and develop pollution controls.” Today, Dr. Saddiqi is in charge of the largest Islamic community in the United States called the Islamic Society of Greater Houston.

It is certainly comforting to discover that the EPA had a green Muslim helping them all out at the beginning on how to be good regulators. Environmentalism and the Islamic caliphate working together arm in arm at the very foundations of the EPA?  Green hippies and a green Muslim expert working hard together trying to come to grips with the full regulatory power of the Clean Air Act?

Conflict of Civilizations

However innocent some green Muslims and environmentalists may or may not be in this whole ecological experiment that America is increasingly rushing headlong into, ratcheting up secular problems with apocalyptic concerns and solutions will only feed radicalism and religious fervor. It also draws in the naïve and unsuspecting to do things that they would not normally do. By apocalypticizing their worries and concerns, environmentalists have managed to take something as banal and neutral as handling natural resources and have turned it into a gigantic worldwide ethic of ecological social justice requiring immediate action that now is even beginning to draw in the Muslims as well.

Muslims like Ibrahim Abdul Matin and Keith Ellison would do well to think again about the differences between Gaia, considered the spirit of the earth by environmentalists, and Allah. Though both have totalitarian goals, they are by no means the same. Ecological pantheism cannot be mixed with monotheism, even if the Muslim religion is symbolized by a crescent moon. At some point, these two ideologies will collide, and even though I am not a betting man, I would put my money on the growing juggernaut of Western pantheism. It has already largely devoured the Judeo-Christian worldview in America, and is well on its way to spitting out the pieces of what is left of free market capitalism.

Mark Musser is the author of “Nazi Oaks: The Green Sacrificial Offering of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust”. He wrote, “The ‘Green’ Mosque Near Ground Zero,” for Accuracy in Media.

Follow AccuracyInMedia on Twitter

   Find AIM on Facebook


Facts and descriptions for those who doubt the black clouds of radical terror plots will affect them in their home…

Islamic Jew Hatred: **GRAPHIC** Muslim Massacre Jewish family of Five, Three Year Old Stabbed in the Heart, Baby’s Throat Slashed – Atlas Shrugs

Media_httpatlasshrugs_jgapf

Evil? These are the “good deeds” that the warped mind of the nearby Muslim horde celebrate. This is but one of thousands of examples of a most inhumane ideology that lusts for domination. For centuries, this ideology has justified murder, rape, pillaging, and more.. as though they were doing “God’s work”.. Look closely.. Would an honest man call any of this “God’s work”?

Who could do this? Who would do this? Open your eyes America.. to the facts. Hate, intimidation, and a fascination with the murder of innocent, unarmed men, women and children fuel radical Islam. As Satan’s minion;s, they show us the character and intentions of evil.. Death and Destruction

Muslims Celebrate Mass Murder with Passing Out Candy to Children

 

 

 

 

Endless Jihad

S  p  e  c  i  a  l    R  e  p  o  r  t

Endless Jihad

The Truth about Islam and Violence

Jihad.

It was once a word unfamiliar to American ears. But in recent years it has become all too familiar. The actions of Muslim militants and terrorists have seared the word into American consciousness.

Yet even with thousands of innocent civilians killed on American soil by Islamic terrorists, the full significance of the Muslim concept of jihad has not been g.asped by the American public.

In the days after September 11, 2001, American leaders rushed to portray Islam as a peaceful religion that had been “hijacked” by a fanatical band of terrorists. One hopes that these assurances were merely tactical—that nobody was meant to believe them and that they were meant to assure the Muslim world that the inevitable American reprisals were not directed at their religion as a whole.

If the world Muslim community perceived America as attacking Islam in general then the duty of every Muslim to fight for his religion—the duty of jihad—would have been invoked on a broad scale. The war against terrorism, instead of simmering with occasional flare-ups, like the Cold War, would have boiled over into a global conflagration, with the Muslim countries of the world—1.2 billion strong—mobilizing against America and the West.

Muslim apologists also rushed forward to assure the public that Islam was a peaceful religion. They disingenuously declared that the word Islam means “peace.” And they tried to portray the terrorists as a fringe group outside the mainstream of Islam.

These were lies.

The usual meaning of Islam in Arabic is not “peace” but “submission.” And if the terrorists were so far outside the mainstream, why did Muslims all over the world burst into joyful, spontaneous celebrations when the hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Why are Islamic governments afraid to show “too much” public support for the war against terrorism? Further, why are all the governments that covertly support terrorism centered in the Muslim world?

The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace. This is not to say that every Muslim is violent at heart. Many are not. Muslims have the same.aspirations for living peaceful lives that people have the world over. But they also have the same potential for violence as others, and Islam as a religion and an ideology seeks to exploit that potential.

Though there are millions of Muslims who want peaceful relations with the West, millions who.aspire to live in free societies like America, there nevertheless remains a deep and powerful strain of violence within Islam, and it is important that Americans understand it.

They will have to face it in the future.

The Muslim Worldview

To understand the connection between Islam and violence, one must understand certain facets of the Muslim worldview. One of the most important is the fact that, according to the historic Muslim understanding, there is no separation between religion and government—what in Christianity would be called the separation of church and state.

We are not speaking here of the secularist idea that the state should marginalize religion and discourage people from voting their consciences as Christians. We are talking about the idea that church and state are not the same thing and that they have different spheres of activity.

This idea of a separation between religion and government is not characteristic of most peoples in world history. It is a contribution to the world of ideas that was made by Christians—indeed, by Christ himself. In his book Islam and the West, historian Bernard Lewis explains:

“The notion that religion and political authority, church and state, are different and that they can or should be separated is, in a profound sense, Christian. Its origins may be traced to the teachings of Christ, notably in the famous passage in Matthew 22:21, in which Christ is quoted as saying: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.’ This notion was confirmed by the experience of the first Christians; its later development was shaped and in a sense even imposed by the subsequent history of Christendom. The persecutions endured by the early Church made it clear that a separation between the two was possible.”

During much of Christian history church and state were united in that each Christian state had an official church, whether it was the Catholic Church or one of the Orthodox or Protestant churches. In many countries that is still the case. Nevertheless, the awareness remained that the two institutions were distinct and had different functions and different spheres of legitimate authority. They could in principle disagree and go their separate ways when necessary.

Most peoples in world history have not shared this understanding. In most societies, religion and government have been inseparably linked. This is true in Muslim society as well. Lewis explains:

“In pagan Rome, Caesar was God. Christians were taught to differentiate between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God. For Muslims of the classical age, God was Caesar, and the sovereign—caliph or sultan—was merely his viceregent on earth. This was more than a simple legal fiction. For Muslims the state was God’s state, the army God’s army, and, of course, the enemy was God’s enemy. Of more practical importance, the law was God’s law, and in principle there could be no other. The question of separating church and state did not arise, since there was no church, as an autonomous institution, to be separated. Church and state were one and the same.”

This means that, in the historic Muslim understanding, Islamic society is or should be a theocracy—a society in which God himself is the monarch, reigning on earth through subordinates.

In the earliest days of Islam, the subordinate was the prophet Mohammed, who founded Islam and conquered the Arabian Peninsula. Thereafter the subordinate was the caliphs and in the centuries after Mohammed’s death they expanded Muslim society by conquering peoples as far west as Spain and as far east as India. In the process, they absorbed half of Christian civilization. Eventually, the power of the caliphs waned, and new leaders—such as the Ottoman sultans—were the subordinates. Throughout it all, God himself was regarded as the ruler of Islamic civilization.

Islam as Ideology

That Islam sees itself as a theocracy has enormous ramifications for how it regards itself and for the behavior of Muslims.

First, it means that Islam is not only a religion. It is also a political ideology. If the government of the Muslim community simply is God’s government, then no other governments can be legitimate. They are all at war with God. As a result, Muslims have typically divided the world into two spheres, known as the Dar al-Islam—the “house of Islam” or “house of submission” to God—and the Dar al-Harb, or “house of war”—those who are at war with God.

Second, it means that Muslims have believed themselves to have a “manifest destiny.” Since God must win in the end, the Dar al-Harb must be brought under the control of Muslim government and made part of the Dar al-Islam.

Third, since the Dar al-Harb by its nature is at war with God, it is unlikely that it will submit to God without a fight. Individual groups might be convinced to lay down their arms and join the Muslim community by various forms of pressure—economic or military—that fall short of war. In history some groups have become Muslim in this way, either fearing Muslim conquest, desiring Muslim military aid against their own enemies, or.aspiring to good trade relations with the Muslim world. But many peoples would rather fight than switch. This has been particularly true of Christians, who have put up more resistance to the Muslim advance than have pagan and animistic tribes.

Because of the need to expand God’s dominion by wars of conquest, Islam’s ideology imposes on Muslims the duty to fight for God’s community. This duty is known as jihad (Arabic, “struggle, fight”). Although it is binding on all Muslims, it has been particularly incumbent on those on the edges of the Muslim world, where there was room for expansion. Only by continual jihad could the manifest destiny of Islam to bring the world into submission to God be fulfilled.

As eminent French sociologist Jacques Ellul notes, “Jihad is a religious obligation. It forms part of the duties that the believer must fulfill; it is Islam’s normal path to expansion.”

A fourth and final consequence of Islam’s view of itself as a theocracy is that in theory all Muslims should not only form one religious community but should be subject to one government as well—God’s government, a kind of Muslim superstate. Yet this has not happened. Muslims have been ruled by different governments since the early days of Islam.

Ideology Meets History

The fact that Muslims are not united under a single government is due to a variety of historical factors. As Muslim territory expanded the problems with the idea of uniting all Muslim peoples under a single government became all too obvious. Islam grew from a tribal base, and tribal societies are not known for stability. The factions and rivalries that are inherent in such societies manifested as Islam grew and made it difficult to keep Muslims under a single head.

Another factor that kept a stable Muslim superstate from developing is the fact that—especially in a pre-technological world—local areas have to be governed locally. Large empires have had to cede large amounts of autonomy to local governments, and therein lay the seeds of their eventual dissolution. As local governments grew in power, they desired more and more autonomy, desiring eventually to throw off the yoke of their masters and to be truly independent.

As a result, even in the classical period of Islam the Muslim community was divided politically, with rivalries between various parties—for example, between the Ottomans and the Persians, who maintained a tense and sometimes violent rivalry for centuries. The conflicts within the Muslim community helped slow its expansion and helped lead to stagnation and decay.

A threat also was growing in the non-Muslim world.

Europe for centuries had been terrified by the Muslim advance, with continual warfare on its borders to the west and to the east as Christians struggled at first to check the Muslim advance and later to reclaim their homelands.

The fight was not easy for Europe and, for a long time, it did not go well. Lewis notes of medieval Christendom: “Split into squabbling, petty kingdoms, its churches divided by schism and heresy, with constant quarrels between the churches of Rome and the East, it was disputed between two emperors and for a while even two popes. After the loss of the Christian shores of the eastern and southern Mediterranean to the Muslim advance, Christendom seemed even more local, confided in effect to a small peninsula on the western edge of Asia which became—and was by this confinement defined as—Europe. For a time—indeed, for a very long time—it seemed that nothing could prevent the ultimate triumph of Islam and the extension of the Islamic faith and Muslim power to Europe.”

As chronicler of Muslim expansion Paul Fregosi notes, “‘From the fury of the Mohammedan, spare us, O Lord’ was a prayer heard for centuries in all the churches of central and southern Europe. Fear of the jihad has not entirely vanished even now, particularly among peoples who have known Muslim domination.” Muslims conducted raids to capture slaves as far west as England and Ireland. They attacked Iceland. And they plunged deep into Europe.

They captured Sicily and invaded the Italian mainland. “Naples, Genoa, Ravenna, Ostia, and even Rome itself were all for a time pillaged or occupied by the Saracens. Human beings became a cheap and abundant commodity. In Rome, in 846 . . . the Muslims even looted the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the pope had to buy off the invaders with the promised tribute of 25,000 silver coins a year. Pope Leo IV then ordered the construction of the Leonine Wall around the city to protect St. Peter’s from further assault.”

The threat continued for centuries, with Muslim forces laying siege in 1529 and 1683 to Vienna, the capital of the Holy Roman Empire, located in the heart of Europe.

But as Islam stagnated, new doors opened to Europe, particularly through the discovery of the New World and the vast material resources it offered. As Europe grew economically, technologically, and militarily through its colonies and the rise of global trade, the balance of power shifted, and the Islamic world became vulnerable.

Even before the discovery of the New World, Christians in both western and eastern Europe had begun to reclaim their conquered homelands from Muslim dominion, and the tremendous new resources that Europe had at its disposal as a result of the Age of Exploration only made things worse for Muslim.aspirations to world political supremacy. Their own governmental structures—particularly the Ottoman empire—began to lose power and disintegrate, with Europeans stepping in to take control as colonialization progressed.

For three centuries the Muslim world lost ground, and by the first half of the twentieth century almost all of it had been reduced to being colonies or protectorates of European powers.

Lewis notes, “By 1920 it seemed that the triumph of Europe over Islam was total and final. The vast territories and countless millions of the Muslim peoples of Asia and Africa were firmly under the control of the European empires—some of them under a variety of native princes, most under direct colonial administration. Only a few remote mountain and desert areas, too poor and too difficult to be worth the trouble of acquiring, retained some measure of sovereign independence.”

What was the Muslim reaction to this alarming sequence of developments?

Shock and Awe

In the seventeenth century it had begun to sink into Muslim consciousness that something was desperately wrong in the world. Though Muslim society had previously been more advanced economically and in some ways culturally than European society, it began to dawn on Muslim leaders that the barbarian infidels of Europe were catching up and in certain ways were ahead of Muslim society.

It is difficult for Westerners to realize just how crushing a realization this was, but it was devastating given Muslim self-perception.

The triumphal advance of Islam seemed to confirm to Muslim minds that they were the chosen of God and that civilization itself was identical with Islam, with only ignorant barbarians and infidels outside its borders.

In What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, Bernard Lewis notes that Christian Europe was seen “as an outer darkness of barbarism and unbelief from which there was nothing to learn and little even to be imported, except slaves and raw materials. For both the northern [European] and southern [African] barbarians, their best hope was to be incorporated into the empire of the caliphs, and thus attain the benefits of religion and civilization.”

Shock and awe thus were the responses of Muslims as they saw their civilization collapsing and their former enemies—Christian Europeans—seizing control of their homelands. How could this happen? How could God’s people suffer such a reversal of fortune? How could their former might be so completely outclassed by the overwhelming economic and military might of Christendom, whose religion was their only serious rival for the role of a world faith?

Angry about the present and fearful of the future, Muslims began a process of introspection, explains Lewis.

“When things go wrong in a society, in a way and to a degree that can no longer be denied or concealed, there are various questions that one can ask. A common one, particularly in continental Europe yesterday and today in the Middle East, is: ‘Who did this to us?’ The answer to a question thus formulated is usually to place the blame on external or domestic scapegoats—foreigners abroad or minorities at home. The Ottomans, faced with the major crisis in their history, asked a different question: ‘What did we do wrong?’”

A debate followed, with various Muslims trying to analyze and propose remedies for the developing situation. “The basic fault, according to most of these memoranda, was falling away from the good old ways, Islamic and Ottoman; the basic remedy was a return to them. This diagnosis and prescription still command wide acceptance in the Middle East.”

These twin explanations for the recent misfortune of Islam—that it was caused by a failure to observe Islam in its pure form and by the malicious meddling of foreigners (first Europeans and now Americans)—bode ill for tomorrow.

The Clash of Civilizations

European domination of the Muslim world was short-lived, ending in the 1960s with the close of the de-colonialization that followed World War II. Yet it had an enormous effect on the Muslim psyche.

This effect was somewhat muffled by the Cold War and the tense balance of power between the Western and Soviet spheres. The new Muslim states—the borders of which had been largely and not always skillfully drawn by the withdrawing colonial powers—were too weak to be assertive and fell into the orbits of either of the United States or the Soviet Union. Nationalistic assertiveness was subsumed during the tense, global standoff.

But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, matters changed. At first, some hailed the event as “the end of history,” but other, wiser observers pointed to new dangers in the world, including Islamic militancy.

Samuel Huntington, director of Harvard University’s John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, presciently warned that the end of the Cold War would lead to a period he referred to as “the clash of civilizations.” A major flash point he envisioned in this conflict, unsurprisingly, was between Islam and the West.

“After World War II, the West, in turn, began to retreat; the colonial empires disappeared; first Arab nationalism and then Islamic fundamentalism manifested themselves. . . . [The] centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent. The Gulf War left some Arabs feeling proud that Saddam Hussein had attacked Israel and stood up to the West. It also left many feeling humiliated and resentful of the West’s military presence in the Persian Gulf, the West’s overwhelming military dominance, and their apparent inability to shape their own destiny.”

Huntington noted a common consensus that an inevitable clash between Islam and the West, a clash initiated by the former, was soon to come: “On both sides the interaction between Islam and the West is seen as a clash of civilizations. The West’s ‘next confrontation,’ observes M. J. Akbar, an Indian Muslim author, ‘is definitely going to come from the Muslim world. It is in the sweep of the Islamic nations from the Maghreb to Pakistan that the struggle for a new world order will begin.’”

That confrontation came with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the inauguration of the war against terrorism.

What did the terrorists hope for?

They hoped for a conflict with the West that would end the long, dark winter that Islam has experienced. They hoped that the fortunes of their religion and civilization would be reversed. They hoped for a war that would smash the might of the West and allow a wave Islamic revolutions to sweep away the worldly tyrants ruling Muslim nations. They hoped for a return to purer, stricter Islam, free of Western corruption and values. They hoped that the blessings of God would descend upon their civilization, allowing it to return to its rightful place at the head of nations, with a resurgence of Muslim nationalism that would give birth to the Islamic superstate that long had eluded them.

And they hoped for a new wave of expansion that would allow Islam to establish its destiny of bringing the entire world under Muslim control. In the famous al-Qaeda “dinner conversation” found on videotape in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden expressed the view that the war he initiated would lead to a wave of Muslim expansion not seen since the religion’s first century, when it consumed half of Christian civilization.

These dreams of a renewed, purified Islam, of the overthrow of existing Muslim governments, of a triumphant smashing of the West, and of expansion through a new jihad are far from confined to bin Laden and his terrorists. They are the dreams that inspire the seething rage of “the Arab street,” which so often breaks forth into violent demonstrations at political events beyond its control.

Taming the Dragon?

Within the Muslim world, government officials have been trying to cling to power in the face of rising anger on their streets. Trying to buy time, they have funded radical Islamic schools, media establishments, and even the terrorists themselves, hoping to direct and diffuse ineffectual Muslim rage toward the West as a scapegoat.

The West has responded with the war against terrorism, which Muslim governments would like to see succeed in ridding their society of its most radical elements, which seek their overthrow. Yet they hesitate to support the war too much lest they hasten their own demise through coup d’ etats.

Some in the West have suggested trying to cure the economic roots of the dissatisfaction and despair in Muslim society that contribute to radicalism and terrorism. The problem is not lack of wealth. Many Muslim countries are oil-rich and have had money in abundance for decades, yet the elites have refused to pursue policies leading to greater economic prosperity for their populaces. Instead, they have enriched themselves and shut their own people out of economic development.

Many in the West have proposed trying to spread freedom and democracy in the Muslim world, thinking that greater political involvement and opportunity would help dry up the roots of terrorism.

While democracies generally have done better helping secure economic development for their populations, it is unclear how freedom and democracy could be brought to the Muslim world. It would mean effective regime change in the countries in question, and it is unlikely that many countries would change their own regimes voluntarily, though some might be pressured into making reforms in this direction. To introduce any form of truly representative government in many countries would require armed intervention, as it did in Afghanistan.

There is then the question of how democracy could be sustained in the Muslim world. Muslims have no historical experience of Western freedom and democracy. Middle Eastern society is still largely dominated by tribalism, which has a tendency to subvert the democratic process, with one tribe coming into power and then brutally suppressing its rivals.

The only halfway democratic Muslim country is Turkey, which actually is a country where the military holds power but does not govern. It allows political parties to vie for and exercise governance within Turkey, but only on condition that they do not transgress limits set by the military.

If genuine democracy were achievable, what would the results be? Given the current state of the Arab street, the results would not be pretty. In his analysis, Samuel Huntington argued:

“Many Arab countries, in addition to the oil exporters, are reaching levels of economic and social development where autocratic forms of government become inappropriate and efforts to introduce democracy become stronger. Some openings in Arab political systems have already occurred. The principal beneficiaries of these openings have been Islamist movements. In the Arab world, in short, Western democracy strengthens anti-Western political forces.”

The introduction of freedom and democracy to the Muslim world is thus fraught with problems and, in any event, is not a solution to problems in the short term.

One thing that can be done in the short term—as illustrated by the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq—is the use of military force. Could this help? It certainly has dealt a tremendous blow to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, even though that organization is not yet out of business.

Some have argued that the use of military force will inflame Muslim hatreds and produce a new crop of terrorists. Undoubtedly some Muslims will become terrorists on the pretext that the West has used force. But then some Muslims would become terrorists if the West didn’t use force. Indeed, to a significant degree the al-Qaeda terrorists of September 11 were the product of the view that the United States was a faltering, weak superpower that could be defeated just as the Soviet Union had been humiliated in Afghanistan.

Muslims respect strength. They cheer whoever displays it. Regardless of how many times their towns change hands during an armed conflict, the populace will turn out to cheer their newest liberators, whether they are genuinely on a mission of liberation or not.

Due to its effectiveness in dealing at least temporarily with problems in the Muslim world, the use of military force in finding a long-term solution is likely to be essential. It certainly must be wielded with discretion and in keeping with the Church’s just war doctrine, but its use is likely unavoidable. It also is certainly not sufficient. Military force will have to be used in conjunction with other initiatives, including diplomatic and economic ones.

But is a solution achievable?

Paradise and Power

Can the historic connection between Islam and violence be broken?

Some would argue that it can. After all, our own forebears in Christendom were more violent than we are. Europe was riven by conflict between petty kingdoms for centuries, but eventually a society developed from it that is stable and not at constant war with either itself or its neighbors. Perhaps Muslim society could be led or forced down the same path.

Perhaps. But the proposition is not quick, easy, or certain.

The development of a stable Europe took centuries of bloody conflict that finally wore out the resolve of Europeans to keep killing each other and prompted them to try a different path. This was not achieved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, Europe underwent two massive convulsions of violence, the First and Second World Wars. Key to both of these was the intervention of the United States, which at the end of the Second World War pacified Europe and refused to let its states continue to pursue their bitter, historic rivalries in ways that could destabilize Europe and lead to another war.

Post-war Europe also was united by an outside threat: Soviet Communism, which dominated Eastern Europe. It was the continued presence of U.S. forces in Western Europe during the Cold War that helped protect it from Soviet invasion while new, more healthy political and economic ties were developing between its states as they sought to form a united front against the Soviet threat.

The sequence of events that led to the current state of affairs in Europe is unique and may not be repeatable. Trying to force the Muslim world down the same path is an uncertain proposition, and, even if it could succeed, it might well require the same dramatic military interventions and conflicts as the pacification of Europe. It might require world wars and cold wars.

And then there is a factor that makes the pacification of Islam less likely than the pacification of Europe.

The Roots of Muslim Violence

It is simplistic to characterize any of the major religions as being strictly “of violence” or “of peace.” As Solomon pointed out, “For everything there is a season; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time for war, and a time for peace” (Eccles. 3:1, 3, 8). That’s the way life works in a fallen world, and every religion capable of serving as the basis of a culture has recognized both the need for peace and the need for the use of force in certain circumstances.

Sects that are totally pacifistic have to rely on the good graces of others who are willing to use force to protect them, while sects that are totally given over to violence do not survive long since they kill themselves off or are broken up by their neighbors as a matter of self-protection. For a religion to serve as the basis of a culture, it must seek to preserve peace but also be willing to use force. All major religions tend toward this mean.

Yet some religions are far more prone to violence than others. Among the major religions, Islam is by far the most violent. This may be seen by comparing it to the religions most closely related to it, Judaism and Christianity.

Though belief in the true God goes back to the dawn of mankind, Judaism in its traditional form was founded by Moses, who, if evaluated politically, could be considered a warlord, leading the tribes of Israel toward the Promised Land and the conquest that would follow. The Old Testament contains numerous commands to use violence to protect and promote the nation of Israel. This potential for violence is reigned in, though, by the fact that Judaism is a religion for just one ethnic group confined to one territory.

Christianity, by contrast, is a universal religion, meant for all peoples in all countries. It has much greater breadth, and much lower intrinsic potential for violence. Its founder—Christ—was a martyr, who refused to fight to save his life. Though the New Testament acknowledges that the Old Testament revelation is from God, it does not contain new commands to use violence, as Christianity was not to be allied from its birth to a state in the way Judaism was.

The fact that in Christianity church and state are distinct means that as a religion Christianity has less potential for violence since it is not called upon to use force in the way a state is. This, coupled with Jesus’ own example and his “love thy enemy” teachings (e.g., Matt. 5:44), gives Christianity less innate potential for violence.

In contrast, Islam’s founder was a warlord who rose from nowhere and who by his death was the undisputed master of Arabia Peninsula. The holy book he produced is filled with commands to use violence in the service of its religion and nation. This potential for violence is similar to that possessed by Judaism except it is immensely augmented by the fact that Islam views itself, like Christianity, as a universal religion meant for all peoples in all countries. It also makes no distinction between church and state and is thus a political as well as religious ideology.

As a result, Islam has been willing to employ violence on a massive scale, as illustrated by the first century of its existence, when the Islamic Empire exploded outward and conquered much of the known world.

The attitude of Islam toward using violence against non-Muslims is clear. Regarding pagans, the Quran says, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful” (Surah 9:5). This amounts to giving pagans a convert-or-die choice.

Regarding violence against Jews and Christians, the Quran says, “Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day, who do not forbid what God and his messenger have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued” (Surah 9:29). In other words, violence is to be used against Jews and Christians unless they are willing to pay a special tax and live in subjection to Muslims as second-class citizens. For them the choice is convert, die, or live in subjection.

The Quran also has stern words for Muslims who would be slow and reluctant to attack unbelievers: “Believers, why is it that when you are told: ‘March in the cause of God,’ you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? . . . If you do not go to war, he [God] will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men” (Surah 9:38-39).

And, of course, there is the promise of reward in the afterlife for waging jihad in this one: “Believers! Shall I point out to you a profitable course that will save you from a woeful scourge? Have faith in God and his messenger, and fight for God’s cause with your wealth and with your persons. . . . He will forgive you your sins and admit you to gardens watered by running streams; he will lodge you in pleasant mansions in the gardens of Eden. This is the supreme triumph” (Surah 61:10-12).

It must be pointed out that there are people of peace and people of violence in all religions. There are violent Christians. There are peace-loving Muslims. Changing historical circumstances do much to bring out tendencies toward violence and peace among the followers of different religions. Yet, even when these qualifications are made, it is clear that Islam as a religion and an ideology has by far the greatest tendency to violence.

There are, indeed, many Muslims who desire peace, but, their views often do not count for much in Muslim society. Author Serge Trifkovic notes: “Some critics may object that this account of Islam in the modern world does not pay much attention to Islamic moderation, to the everyday wish of everyday Muslims for a quiet life. This is not because such moderates are rare, but because they are rarely important. Religions, like political ideologies, are pushed along by money, power, and tiny vocal minorities. Within Islam, the money and the power are all pushing the wrong way. So are the most active minorities. The urgent need is to recognize this. Our problem is not prejudice about Islam, but folly in the face of its violence and cruelty. And in any case, the willingness of moderates to be what are objectively bad Muslims, because they reject key teachings of historical Islam, may be laudable in human terms but does nothing to modify Islam as a doctrine.”

The prospect of modifying Islam’s doctrine regarding violence is problematic. Although some Muslims in history have tried to “spiritualize” the Quran’s declarations regarding violence, there is always a countervailing fundamentalist push to return to the sources of Islam and take them literally.

Indeed, this reaction is what characterizes the Wahhabite movement that dominates Saudia Arabia and inspired Osama bin Laden’s ideology. Philosopher Roger Scruton notes that in the Wahhabite view, “whoever can read the Quran can judge for himself in matters of doctrine.”

This attitude, which is tantamount to an Islamic version of sola scriptura, is likely to prove as durable in Muslim circles as it has been in Protestant Fundamentalist circles. As long as that is the case, there will be fresh waves of Muslim “martyrs” willing to take the Quran’s statements on killing literally, apply them to today, and then hurl themselves into combat with whomever they perceive as “the Great Satan.”

Conclusion

We have seen the roots of Islamic violence in the life and teachings of Mohammed. We have seen that world events have conspired to place Islam and Christianity in a conflict of civilizations that has stretched from the sixth to the twenty-first century.

What the future holds is unknown. What is known is that Islamic civilization has a strong tendency to violence that stretches back to the days of Mohammed and that has begun to flare up in resurgent terrorist and revolutionary movements.

The conflict with militant Islam may last a long time—centuries, potentially—since even if curing Muslim society of its violent tendencies is possible, it would involve ripping out or otherwise neutralizing a tendency that has dominated Muslim culture since the days of its founder.

This is not an easy task, for Muslims willing to make the change would be portrayed as traitors to their religion, amid renewed calls to practice Islam in its original, pure, and more violent form in order to regain the favor of God. The signs of the times suggest that we are, indeed, in for a “clash of civilizations” that will be neither brief nor bloodless.

But what also is known is that God has a plan for history and that his grace can work miracles. It is yet possible that—through one means or another—God will bring about a more peaceful world in which militant Islam either is not a threat or nowhere near the threat that it is today.

If this is to happen, our cooperation with God’s grace will require prayer, courage, resourcefulness, and a realistic understanding of the threat we are facing. Until then there can be no illusions about Islam and its endless jihad.

This article is good background preparation for today’s congressional hearings concerning Islamic Terror on America’s soil..

» Will Rep. King Expose Rep. Ellison’s Pro-Terrorist Record?

The Washington Post on Tuesday published two columns on Rep. Peter King’s potentially explosive radical Islam hearings scheduled for Thursday. One column by Eugene Robinson carried the print edition headline, “Aiding the Jihadists,” and charged that the hearings would be exploited to benefit radical Islam. The column below that by Richard Cohen carried the headline, “Fuel for the Bigots,” and charged that the hearing would benefit irrational opponents of radical Islam. So King can’t win, according to the Post, no matter what he does.

But King could turn the tide on Thursday because the first witness is none other than the first Muslim member of Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who is the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Ellison’s purpose is to defend his Muslim constituents, but King’s investigators must know that Ellison has a lot to answer for, and that his anti-terrorist credentials are suspect.

As we have pointed out: “In addition to being the first Muslim member of Congress, which is usually mentioned by the media, Ellison was an official of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), cited as a Communist Party front organization by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It remains the U.S. affiliate of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the old Soviet front. In that capacity, Ellison had been a vocal supporter—and attended a fundraiser for—Sara Jane Olson, a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), an off-shoot of the Weather Underground that is probably best known for kidnapping Patricia Hearst.

“An Ellison speech on behalf of Olson, in which he called the terrorist a freedom fighter, has been eliminated from most websites, including one devoted to her legal defense, but a Minneapolis blogger who followed the case saved and posted it. One notices the lavish praise that Ellison bestows not only on Olson, also known as Kathleen Ann Soliah, but to Bernardine Dohrn, the former leader of the communist terrorist Weather Underground. Ellison also praised cop-killers Mumia Abu-Jamal, on death row in Pennsylvania, and Joanne Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur), who escaped the U.S. and is now living under the protection of the Castro dictatorship.”

This notorious record suggests that if Ellison had trouble recognizing the nature of terrorism when the radical left carried it out on American soil, he may have a similar blind spot when it comes to members of his own religious group.

King may decide not to go into any of this. But that could be a big mistake. Ellison wants to confront King over these hearings, and King has every right to respond and highlight Ellison’s record. It is a record that the major media have decided to largely ignore.

In advance of the hearings, of course, the media have been trying to put King on the defensive.

The Washington Post, for example, has published two items in support of the hearings. But what follows are some of the articles, blogs, and columns carried by the Post in its print edition and/or on-line over the last couple months which have been critical in advance of what King is doing:

  • “Hearings on Muslims Trigger Panic” by William Wan. January 24, 2011.
  • February 16, 2011, “Does public support Pete King’s hearings into Muslims? Yes and No,” by Greg Sargent. February 16, 2011.
  • “Anxiety on all sides of upcoming House hearings on radicalization of U.S. Muslims,” by Michelle Boorstein. February 27, 2011.
  • “White House praises Muslims ahead of House hearing,” By Eileen Sullivan and Lolita C. Baldor, The Associated Press. March 6, 2011.
  • “Congressman King defends himself against criticism over hearings on radical Islam,” by Emil Kolawole. March 6, 2011.
  • “Pete King admission undermines his own case for anti-Muslim hearings” by Adam Serwer. March 7, 2011.
  • “The limited scope of Peter King’s ‘radical’ hearings” by Jonathan Capehart. March 7, 2011.
  • “Peter King vs. the American public” by Robert P. Jones CEO, Public Religion Research Institute. March 8, 2011.
  • “Japanese Americans decry Rep. King’s Muslim hearings as ‘sinister,’” by David Nakamura. March 8, 2011.
  • “Rep. King’s hearing is the wrong answer to the wrong question” by Welton Gaddy. March 8, 2011.
  • “President Washington or Congressman King?; ‘To bigotry, no sanction,’” by Arthur Waskow. March 8, 2011.
  • “Singling out one faith affects them all” by J. Brent Walker. March 8, 2011.
  • “Rep. Eric Cantor defends Rep. Peter King’s hearings on radical Islam” by Felicia Sonmez. March 8, 2011.

This is the same paper, incidentally, that carried a small item about radio host Fred Grandy leaving WMAL that made no mention of the role of radical Islam in his departure.

Here is how the Post reported it: Fred Grandy—the ‘Love Boat’ star turned Iowa congressman turned morning drive-time talk-radio star—is leaving his gig as star of WMAL’s ‘The Grandy Group.’ Grandy’s ratings have lagged behind the station’s other conservative hosts, and he has clashed with management for months over how to boost them.”

The Post attempted to blame his departure on ratings when the criticism that he and his wife had been making of radical Islam was the critical factor.

The omission can clearly be explained by the bias of the paper, as reflected in the large number of critical articles and columns about the King hearings.

One can only surmise that the hostile reaction to the hearings is based, at least in part, on the fear that the investigation of radical Islam will inevitably lead to questions about Ellison himself.

It turns out that Ellison may be the embodiment of one of Glenn Beck’s so-called “conspiracy theories”—that the radical left and revolutionary Islam are working hand-in-glove against America.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

Rate this post:

 

Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)

Will Rep. King Expose Rep. Ellison’s Pro-Terrorist Record? , 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings  

Finally… this hearing is WAY past due. CAIR exposed once again for who and what they are. And Ellison? Let’s see who he pals around with.. Very illuminating.  More information related to this issue..

 

update 3/9/11 3:19pm

Rep. King Gets Threatening Phone Calls Before Islam Hearings

By Dan Weil

In a chilling development before his hearings Thursday on Islam in America, Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., has received numerous threatening phone calls, some from overseas. The calls have spurred increased police protection for the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, The Hill reports.

king, telephone, threatsKing says he feels perfectly safe and will go ahead with the hearing. “There were some threats from overseas and a number of other remarks,” he told The Hill. “Whatever threat analysis police have done, they believe I warrant security. I don’t ask for it, and I certainly don’t turn away any security that police think I should have. I leave it up to them.”

While some in Washington have said the hearing itself may motivate terrorists, King says it’s important anyway to inform the public and encourage Muslim Americans to fight terrorism.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Rep. King Gets Threatening Phone Calls Before Islam Hearings
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

‘Shariah: The Threat to America’ – By Andrew C. McCarthy – The Corner – National Review Online

‘Shariah: The Threat to America’

That’s the name of a report I’ve been working on for several months, along with a team of national security experts led by Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, Generals Jerry Boykin and Ed Soyster, Claremont’s Brian Kennedy, and serveral other notables. The idea was to try to replicate the “Team B” of a generation ago, which questioned U.S. policy regarding the Soviet Union (particularly detente). It’s far from a perfect analogy — for one thing, we were not invited by the government to render a second opinion and consequently were not given access to classified information. But that’s not much of a hurdle. As I’ve argued in The Grand Jihad and Willful Blindness, the information Americans need to know is ready to hand — the problem is that people in the ruling class choose not to deal with it. 

The report is now available at the CSP website, here. It’s about 180 pages long, but it starts with an executive summary, prefaced by an introduction I wrote with Director Woolsey and Gen. Soyster. (We turned the intro into an essay, published Wednesday by the Washington Times – as noted in the NRO web briefing). The ”Team B – II” report is also being published in segments at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace site. Frank just did his radio show (“Secure Freedom Radio”) on the report, featuring interviews with Gen. Boykin, me, and a couple of other members of the team, my friends Diana West and Steve Coughlin.

At a press conference on Capitol Hill yesterday afternoon, we presented the report to three members of the House who have been stalwarts on the challenge posed by Islamist ideology, Trent Franks (R., AZ), Pete Hoekstra (R., MI) and Michele Bachmann (R., MN). You can find coverage at Fox, CBN, and by Connie Hair at Human Events.

Comprehensive, authoritative report – follow links.