Friday’s attack in Paris, when ISIS terrorists attacked a concert hall, a soccer stadium, and a neighborhood known for its cafes, killing at least 129 people and wounding another 350, was the second wave of terror launched against the City of Light just this year. Back in January, terrorists attacked the offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket, killing a dozen people.

According to French president Francois Hollande, ISIS has “declared war” on France and that France’s response will be “pitiless.”

And the most common reaction here in the States, besides pity for the victims, is fear… that what happened there could happen here, wherever “here” might be for you. So let’s start by making one thing clear: for the Christian, the fear of God casts out all other fear. Yes, it’s reasonable to be concerned about personal and public safety, but we’re commanded throughout scripture to not be afraid. That’s because in the death and resurrection of Jesus, God has definitively dealt with evil.

Now it may not look that way after Friday. But as the author of Hebrews wrote, “At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him,” that is, Jesus Christ. Christianity acknowledges the fact of evil and suffering. A Christian worldview isn’t about sticking our heads in the sand and seeing the world in a Pollyannaish sort of way.

But other worldviews aren’t able to call evil, “evil.” In an article in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, residents of the neighborhood that was attacked on Friday described the perpetrators as “victims.” One person said that the terrorists were “victims of a system that excluded them from society . . . who live here in alienation, and we are all to blame for this alienation.”

Another added that “These are people the government gave up on, and you have to ask why.” As Haaretz put it, “No one wanted to talk about Islamists or the Islamic State, even after it took responsibility for the attacks and French President Francois Hollande announced that the group was behind them.”

Secular liberalism simply can’t wrap its mind around the kind of unadulterated evil that ISIS represents, in large part because it can’t understand what motivates ISIS and its supporters.

That motivation, as the March 2015 issue of The Atlantic told readers is a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately bringing about the apocalypse.

Actually, a better word than “apocalypse” would be “eschaton,” the end of the present age and the ushering in of what they consider to be the reign of Allah.

Since it no longer believes in the Christian eschaton, the West cannot even begin to understand an Islamic one. So it treats ISIS like it does the rest of our broken world: something that we can master, provided we bring the correct tools, politically correct language, public policy, and techniques to bear.

Never mind that this kind of utopian approach has a lousy track record even when dealing with much smaller evils than ISIS. Never mind that it’s absurd to “declare war” on an evil when many of your people can’t bring themselves to call it “evil.”

That’s sticking your head in the sand.

But there’s more to that verse from Hebrews. The author goes on to write, “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.”

Christ has triumphed! And while events might tempt us to fear and even doubt, like the original recipients of the letter to the Hebrews, we are called to look past events and see what is ultimately true and real.

So as Christians our work is to continue to participate in God’s work to restore all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And neither ISIS nor any event in Paris should change that.

This article was originally posted at BreakPoint.org.

Written by Stan Guthrie

Confucius once said, “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” When it comes to radical Islam, it’s clear that too many people have chosen foolishness over wisdom. The question is, in these dangerous times, are there enough of us willing to embrace wisdom?

Our answer will go a long way toward determining whether the West, founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, will prevail over radical Islam. For, as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said recently, “You cannot remedy a problem if you will not name it and define it.”

The Obama administration’s verbal contortions over the nature of our self-avowed enemies would be comical if they weren’t so seriously misguided. After a recent atrocity by the Islamic State (also called ISIS or ISIL), the president opined, “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.” Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean offered this: “I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic cult. I think it’s a cult.” These statements bring to mind the odd Bush administration mantra after 9/11: “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Then there’s the absurd statement by one of the current president’s spokesmen. He asserted that the Taliban—which murdered nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and which saw one of its affiliates slaughter 132 schoolchildren and nine staff in Pakistan—isn’t a terrorist group. No, it’s merely an “armed insurgency.” Cut from the same cloth is the refusal by Al Jazeera’s English service to use words such as “terrorist,” “jihad,” and “Islamist” when describing Al-Qaeda and ISIS. As one executive at the network said, “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.”

Contrast this kind of politically correct denial with the growing realization in Europe that things must be called by their proper names. The massive march in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo massacres is one sign. Another is the willingness of growing numbers to speak up.

“Europe has tacitly accepted that from now on the freedom of satire is valid for everything but Islam,” writes Angelo Panebianco in Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper. “Now [Islamists] are aiming for a more ambitious objective to strike at the religious heart of the West, forcing us to accept that not even the pope is free to reflect aloud on the specificity of Christianity or that which differs from Islam.”

Czech President Miloš Zeman warns that the world faces a challenge similar to the Nazis. “We have to ask ourselves if a repeat of the Holocaust could happen,” Zemen said in a recent speech in Prague marking the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. “This time it would not comprise 6 million Jews, but rather members of countless faiths as well as atheists—and even Muslims. Which is why I would like to welcome the fact that moderate Arab countries recently joined in the battle against Islamic State.”

Another president, Egypt’s Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, says it is time for a fresh start for Islam, which he avows is a tolerant religion. “The terrible terrorist attacks which we have seen and this terrible image of Muslims is what led us to think that we must stop and think and change the religious discourse,” he said, “and remove from it things that have led to violence and extremism. We need a new discourse that will be adapted to a new world and will remove some of the misconceptions.”

Removing those things won’t be easy. In an editorial, National Review acknowledges that most Muslims worldwide seek to live peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors. But that does not end the discussion about whether Islam is a tolerant faith or ISIS killers are “true” Muslims.

The editorial notes “a large minority of Muslims—maybe hundreds of millions worldwide—who cleave to interpretations of their faith that enjoin murder, rape, torture, and cruelty as pious, even mandatory, acts. They take their diabolic faith seriously, and the result is what we saw in Paris. . . .

“Thus, there are in practical terms two Islams—a religion, if not of peace, then of peaceful accommodation, and a religion of death.”

That is so for several reasons that cannot be dismissed lightly. First, there appear to be two basic approaches to interpreting the Qur’an and how to make sense of verses that call for violence, side by side with those that call for peace and tolerance.

The older, classical school of interpretation, the one followed by the Islamists, endorses what is called the “law of abrogation.” This law, actually a hermeneutical principle, says that earlier verses in the career of Muhammad must be interpreted in light of later ones. If there is an apparent contradiction, they say the later ones must hold sway. Defending this approach, they point to verses such as 2:106: “When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?”

The problem for those who insist that “Islam is a religion of peace” is that the later verses reflect the more warlike stance of Muhammad and the Muslim community, when the movement was strong and aggressive. So the oft-cited verse, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), has been abrogated in the minds of Islamists. They point to later verses, such as 9:5: “Kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush.” They say the later, more violent verses are controlling.

Of course, so-called “moderate Muslims,” such as El-Sissi, disagree. They point out that the law of abrogation implies that the Qur’an has errors, which they do not believe. It is an ongoing theological debate among Muslims worldwide.

There is a second reason we cannot dismiss the fact that there are at least two Islams around the globe. Simply put, there is no interpretative authority that all Muslims recognize. There is no “pope” or modern-day prophet to resolve all the theological disputes within Islam. Not only are there two main branches of Islam—Sunni and Shi’a—there are multiple religious leaders, each with varying levels of influence. While all Muslims revere the Qur’an and Muhammad and seek to follow the Five Pillars, they do not agree on all the particulars of the religion. Whatever you or I might think of the “true” DNA of Islam, if this global faith of 1.6 billion people is ever going to settle on a peaceful vision, it won’t be non-Muslims who talk them into it.

That’s why pronouncements from the White House or various media quarters about what constitutes “true Islam” are ludicrous. These self-appointed experts about Islam might as well declaim on whether all Christians must come under the authority of the pope.

Islam, in practical terms, is however Muslims themselves practice it—peacefully and violently. Let us pray for and encourage the former, knowing also that God is drawing many Muslims to Christ these days. But let’s also recognize that simply wishing for something doesn’t make it so.

We can start by calling things by their proper names.

This article was originally posted at the BreakPoint.org website.

 Islam in America
A Christian Response 
featuring Dr. Erwin Lutzer

May 7, 2015
CLICK HERE for Details

According to President Barack Obama, 99.9 percent of Muslims reject the terrorists’ understanding of Islam. That still leaves 1.3 million jihadis or jihad sympathizers, but never mind that for now — where is this 99.9 percent? Where are the Muslim organizations that are dedicated to working against the jihadists? Where are the Muslim marches and protests against al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and all the hijackers of Islam? We have seen many protests lately by Muslims against the latest Muhammad cartoons in Charlie Hebdo. Where are the Muslim protests against the killing of the cartoonists and in support of the freedom of speech? Why is this 99.9% so silent and passive in the face of this “hijacking” of their religion?

“Obama says terrorists not motivated by true Islam,” by Dave Boyer, The Washington Times, February 1, 2015:

Criticized for avoiding the phrase “Islamic extremism,” President Obama said he doesn’t want to alienate the majority of peace-loving Muslims as the U.S. fights to defeat terrorist networks around the world.

“I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge, it’s very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9 percent of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for: order, peace, prosperity,” Mr. Obama said on CNN. “And so I don’t quibble with labels.”

The president also said he doesn’t want to “overinflate” the importance of terrorist groups by sending U.S. troops to occupy countries in the Middle East or by “playing whack-a-mole” against terrorist leaders because it drains America’s financial strength….

“I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities, and that the Middle East and South Asia are sort of ground zero for us needing to win back hearts and minds, particularly when it comes to young people,” Mr. Obama said. “But I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology. I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war, because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam.”…

This article was originally posted at the JihadWatch.org website.

The Leftist media and Islamic supremacist groups have been doing a victory dance ever since Saturday night, when Fox News issued an apology for statements made on the air by terror expert Steve Emerson and others about Muslim no-go zones in Britain and France. However, the apology doesn’t say what it has widely reported as saying – and there is considerable evidence that Muslim areas in both countries are a growing law enforcement and societal problem.

Fox Report host Julie Banderas stated:

Over the course of this last week we have made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France. Now, this applies especially to discussions of so-called ‘no-go zones,’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in and police supposedly won’t go.

To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.

There are certainly areas of high crime in Europe as there are in the United States and other countries — where police and visitors enter with caution. We deeply regret the errors and apologize to any and all who may have taken offense, including the people of France and England.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s joyous headline read: “Fox News admits ‘no-go zones’ are fantasy.” The far-Left Crooks and Liars blog exulted: “Fox Pundits Finally ‘Apologize’ After A Week Of Being Mocked For ‘No Go Zones’ Claim.” More restrained but still unmistakably gleeful was the New York Times: “Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France.” The Leftist media has seized on Fox’s apology to declare that there are aren’t any no-go zones in France or Britain – and by extension that there is no problem with Muslim populations in Europe. NewHounds’s summation was typical: “Fox News has become the laughingstock of Europe this week as first England and then France lampooned its ignorant, Islamophobic reporting.”

The only problem with all the cork popping around Fox’s apology was that there is a problem with Muslim areas in Europe – and the Fox apology didn’t go so far as to say there wasn’t. To be sure, the controversy began with undeniably inaccurate statements from Emerson. He said on Fox on January 11 that “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.” That is false, and Emerson has acknowledged that and apologized.

However, Emerson was not guilty of fabrication, just of overstatement. Some of the comments on a piece in the UK’s Daily Mail about his gaffe and British Prime Minister David Cameron’s reaction to it (he called Emerson a “complete idiot”) insisted that Emerson was at least partially right: “Just shows cameron doesn’t even know what is happening in this country , as the news presenter is totally correct , its a no go zone .” “There ARE some parts of Birmingham where you darent or shouldn’t go !” “Is he far off the truth? Maybe it’s not true for Birmingham as a whole but there are certain areas where it is true. Certainly it is true of certain other Towns in the UK. Bradford, Leicester, Luton spring to mind.”

Fox’s apology stated that,

“To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.”

That says as much as it says, and no more. It says that neither the British nor the French government has designated any areas to be no-go zones where non-Muslims aren’t allowed in, and that there is no evidence that non-Muslims are not allowed into any areas in either country.

But this carefully worded statement does not actually say that there aren’t areas in Britain or France in which non-Muslims are menaced for not adhering to Islamic law. That is a real and abundantly documented problem. Emerson pointed to it when he said:

“In parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound, seriously, anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.”

While Emerson’s implication that this was an ongoing phenomenon was false, there were indeed such Sharia enforcers in London between 2011 and 2013. In July 2011, the UK’s Daily Mail reported:

“Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up. Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’”

In December 2013, members of one of these self-styled “Muslim patrols” were imprisoned; according to the Guardian, in London they

“harassed people, berating them with shouts of ‘this is a Muslim area!’ They forced men to dump their alcoholic drinks, instructed women on the appropriate way to dress, and yelled insults at those they perceived to be gay.”

They didn’t just berate people; as Emerson said, they beat them. In YouTube videos, they threatened to do so, saying: “We are coming to implement Islam upon your own necks.” In June 2013, Muslims attacked an American who was drinking on the street, grabbing the bottle out of his hands and smashing him in the eye with it, causing permanent injury. In August 2013, according to the Daily Mail, “two brothers in law who went on a sponsored walk wearing comedy mankinis had to be picked up by police – after they were pelted with stones and eggs by residents who told them ‘this is a Muslim area’ and demanded they leave.”

A “Muslim area” – maybe even a “no-go zone.” Not in the sense that non-Muslims are barred from entering, but in that, if they do enter, they have to adhere to Sharia restrictions.

The Fox apology is all the more curious in light of the fact that others, even on the Left, have noticed the no-go zones in France before some Fox commentators began talking about them in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. David Ignatius wrote in the New York Times in April 2002:

“Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.”

Newsweek, hardly a conservative organ, reported in November 2005 that

“according to research conducted by the government’s domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, French police would not venture without major reinforcements into some 150 ‘no-go zones’ around the country–and that was before the recent wave of riots began on Oct. 27.”

The police wouldn’t venture into these areas without major reinforcements in 2005. Does anyone really think that the situation has improved in the intervening years?

And the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre set off Fox’s discussions of no-go zones in France, the reliably Leftist New Republic wrote:

“The word banlieue (‘suburb’) now connotes a no-go zone of high-rise slums, drug-fueled crime, failing schools and poor, largely Muslim immigrants and their angry offspring.”

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republic reported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something that Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Clearly there is a problem in these areas. Two of the three Charlie Hebdo murderers were born and raised in France. Where did they get their ideas about killing blasphemers? Not from French schools. They learned them in the Muslim areas where they were born and raised. What’s more, France leads the West in the number of Muslims who have traveled from there to wage jihad for the Islamic State, with well over a thousand Muslims leaving France to join the caliphate. Where did they get their understanding of Islam?

In objecting to Fox’s coverage, the French government objected to claims that these areas were outside their control and subject to Sharia, but it is obvious that whatever control they do have over these areas is not enough to prevent the indoctrination of all too many young Muslims into the jihad ideology.

There needs to be a balanced, honest public discussion of these Muslim areas in Britain and France. The controversy over what has been said on Fox in recent weeks only obscures the need for that discussion. And Fox’s apology, however carefully worded, only plays into the hands of Leftists and Islamic supremacists who have a vested interest in rendering people ignorant and complacent about the reality of what is going on in these areas.

So now would be a good time for Fox to apologize for its apology – and to devote extended attention to the Muslim areas of Britain and France, and shed light on what is really going on in them. That would be to provide a service far greater than the usual surface-scratching of television news.

This article was originally posted at the Front Page Magazine website.

Written by Chad Groening

In the wake of Wednesday’s horrific murder of 12 people at a Paris newspaper office, liberals – including President Barack Obama – have once again refused to acknowledge that the attack was “Islamic terrorism.” Obama just referred to the attack as “terrorism” – which J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department attorney, finds perplexing.

“The perpetrators say they’re doing it in the name of Islam,” Adams points out. “So you have to confront the Islamic component one way or another because the murderers themselves are saying that it is Islam and they’re muttering Islamic prayers as they’re doing the murders.

“So let’s figure out why Islam seems to be the trademark for so many murderers around the world.”

Adams, who now serves as legal editor for PJ Media, also finds it ridiculous that former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean said the Paris terrorist killers were not Muslim, but members of some kind of cult.

“Folks like Howard Dean and the president have a seriously difficult time identifying evil. I think they’re actually uncomfortable with the entire notion,” he suggests. “It’s [the terrorists themselves] who are saying I’m doing this in the name of Islam – it’s not conservatives accusing them of that. They’re confessing as they do these things, so obviously there’s a problem. How it gets resolved remains to be seen.”

Adams says the barbarians who believe they are acting consistent with Islamic teaching are a threat to civilization now and in the foreseeable future.

European backlash against ‘Islamisation’

In the days before the attack in France, rallies were taking place in neighboring Germany by thousands of citizens frustrated with the way the Islamic influence has been allowed to grow in the country. While Chancellor Angela Merkel denounced the protests in her own country as “racist,” she described the Paris attack as “an attack against the values we all hold dear, values by which we stand, values of freedom of the press, freedom in general, and the dignity of man.”

National defense analyst Robert Maginnis believes the terrorist attack in Paris is just the latest example of why there is a growing backlash against the Islamisation of Europe. The senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council points to a major undercurrent throughout Western Europe against the failure of the Muslim populations to integrate into the culture.

“So as a result you get these Islamic ghettos that are all over Western Europe that don’t allow the policemen [to come in], don’t use the language, don’t allow the culture – and there is a backlash,” he tells OneNewsNow. “It’s been brewing for the last two decades, and I think it’s intensifying even now.”

Maginnis admits he’s worried about the Islamic problem growing worse in the United States with Barack Obama in the White House for two more years.

“We’re at the mercy of Mr. Obama and his appointees, who have purposely turned a blind eye to the threat that is growing within our borders due to certain immigrants [as well as] the threat that is outside our borders – [specifically] his tepid response to ISIL in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he states.

This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

Islam in America:
A Christian Response

featuring Dr. Erwin Lutzer
May 7, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details