Renowned Evangelical flagship Wheaton College has been embroiled in a controversy generated by the Facebook statement from associate professor of political science Larycia Hawkins that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. She made this statement when she announced that during the entire Advent season, she would wear a hijab, the traditional head-covering required of Muslim women when in public. Hawkins viewed this as an act of “embodied politics, embodied solidarity” as opposed to what she deems “theoretical solidarity.” Wandering around America wearing a hijab was Hawkins’ rather peculiar application of James 2:26: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.”

Hawkins also strangely believes that her claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same God is not a theological statement. Perhaps she didn’t intend it to be a theological statement, but it quite definitively is.

In a justifiable attempt to discern how closely Hawkins hews to the Statement of Faith that all Wheaton faculty sign, she was asked to clarify her theological beliefs and subsequently to clarify her murky “nuanced” clarification (Her clarifying theological statement has a curious explanation of the Eucharist), at which point Hawkins took umbrage, arguing that her annual signature on the Statement of Faith is sufficient. She has been suspended, and Wheaton is under attack from within and without the Wheaton College community.

Poisonous allegations have emerged from those who detest the biblical orthodoxy of Wheaton and the cultural beliefs that emerge from it that Wheaton administrators and/or trustees are treating Hawkins unfairly because of hidden or not-so-hidden racism. Less poisonous but problematic nonetheless are complaints that the culture of Wheaton restricts academic freedom and limits diversity.

Hawkins’ suspension and the debate about whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God reveal a troubling fissure created by a handful of Wheaton faculty members who tilt leftward on both theological and so-called “social issues.” This divide needs to be more comprehensively and clearly exposed to all Wheaton College stakeholders, including alumni donors.

With dancing-on-pinheads complexity, Wheaton urban studies associate professor Noah Toly, Princeton systematics professor Bruce Lindley McCormick, and Yale theologian Miroslav Volf have all assured the nation that there are strong (though abstruse) arguments to defend Hawkins’ theological view of the sameness of the god of Islam and the God of the Bible. But then there are others, like president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Dr. Al Mohler, Moody Bible Church pastor Dr. Erwin Lutzer, theologian Peter Leithart, and Christian apologist for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries Nabeel Qureshi, all of whom, though acknowledging the complexity of the theological issue, argue that the god of Islam and the God of the Bible are not the same.

What is most interesting about the debate is that those Wheaton professors most ardently supportive of Hawkins’ liberal-ish theological views are also those professors most ardently liberal on social issues. Coincidence?

Two of the most prominent defenders of Hawkins are also likely sitting port-side on the flagship Wheaton: Michael Mangis and Brian Howell.

Professor Michael Mangis

Dr. Michael Mangis is a psychology professor who on Monday, the first day of the new semester, shivered around campus and to his classes wearing his academic regalia (i.e., cap, gown, hood) to signify solidarity with Hawkins and to show his commitment to “learning,” which he asserts Wheaton has lost as evidenced by their effort to ensure that Wheaton faculty affirm theological orthodoxy:

The academic robe has long been a symbol of learning. And learning requires humility and a willingness to be changed….[The] college as an institution is refusing to learn. I’m going to wear this robe as a reminder and a call to us to return to learning.

I wonder if Mangis is open to learning and willing to change.

Christian parents of Wheaton students, Wheaton donors, trustees, and administrators should be deeply troubled by the comment that Mangis left under Hawkins’ initial Facebook post: “If you get any grief at work give me a heads-up because I’ll be leading my spring psychology of religion class in Muslim prayers.” Even liberal supporter Mangis could see the problematic nature of Hawkins’ theological claim even before the imbroglio began.

A young pastor and friend who attended Wheaton for both undergraduate and graduate school asked the question that parents, trustees, and administrators should be asking: “In what universe should Christian instruction include Muslim prayers?”

In an interview about the controversy, Mangis shared that he’s volunteered to teach about “white privilege” at a student-organized “teach-in.” No need for Wheaton students to travel to the annual White Privilege Conference when they’ve got ever-learning, ever-changing psychology professor Mangis right there at Wheaton.

In a biased Chicago Tribune “news” story yesterday, Mangis whined about lack of diversity at Wheaton:

We have been entrenched in a white male evangelical groupthink for so long….We need to get out of that. It has come by bringing fresh voices and new perspectives. But when you have those fresh voices, you can’t say you don’t sound enough like a white male evangelical. [Hawkins] was not sounding enough like the old school way of doing things.

Yeah, you wouldn’t want any old-school, white, male perspectives on the nature of God to interfere with political science professor Hawkins’ fresh perspective on it.

But wait. I’m confused. Those arguing that, yes, indeedy, Christians and Muslims worship the same God explained that such a perspective is old, very, very old, and espoused by a boatload of men, many of whom had the distinct misfortune of being white.

It is true that the ideological diversity of faculty members is limited by Wheaton’s intellectual and moral commitments, just as the ideological diversity of faculty members at colleges that formally espouse liberal intellectual and moral commitments regarding homosexuality and gender dysphoria is limited. What liberals really desire is the eradication of institutional places for orthodox theological views and conservative moral views to be taught. If one exists, they seek to regulate it out of existence or infiltrate it and change it from within.

Professor Brian Howell

Mangis wasn’t alone on Monday. With his solidarity snazzily embodied, anthropology professor Dr. Brian Howell also sashayed about campus in his academic regalia. Howell first came to my attention following the resignation last July of Julie Rodgers, Wheaton College’s most recent and notable bad hire. (Interesting side note, Rodgers was standing behind Hawkins at her recent press conference.)

Rodgers is well-known for her self-identification as a “celibate gay Christian.” She was hired in the Fall of 2014 as a ministry associate for spiritual care in the Chaplain’s Office to counsel students experiencing same-sex attraction. When she was hired many people who love Wheaton College were deeply troubled because of Rodger’s perspective on and seeming flippancy about homoerotic attractions as revealed in statements like this:

When I feel all Lesbiany, I experience it as a desire to build a home with a woman that will create an energizing love that spills over into the kind of hospitality that actually provides guests with clean sheets and something other than protein bars…. This causes me to see the world through a different lens than my straight peers, to exist in the world in a slightly different way. As God has redeemed and transformed me, he’s tapped into those gay parts of me that now overflow into compassion for marginalized people and empathy for social outcasts

A year later, in July, 2015, Rodgers wrote that she had evolved and no longer opposes homoerotic relationships:  “I’ve quietly supported same-sex relationships for a while now. When friends have chosen to lay their lives down for their partners, I’ve celebrated their commitment to one another.” Rodgers then rightly resigned.

After her resignation, president of the Manhattan Declaration and Wheaton College alumnus Eric Teetsel wrote on his Facebook page that Wheaton College owed Wheaton students, their parents, and alumni an apology for hiring her. Howell arrogantly and hostilely replied both to Teetsel and to other commenters:

Eric, you are being a jerk here. Wheaton does not need to “apologize” for Julie. She did not “affirm” or counsel students into same-sex relationships. She SAYS, if you will READ it, that she assumes some, in their desire to follow Jesus, will find themselves in same-sex relationships. I knew this would happen. People who make a living stoking the fires of the culture war would throw this down. “See, told you so! Gay people! It’s how they are!” I just wish you could be better than that.…

Sometimes bad behavior needs to be called out, and this sort of culture warring is un-Christian and reprehensible. I’m not impugning [Eric’s] salvation. Yes, he is a Christian. I just don’t think he’s acting like it right now….[Eric’s] post is just a smug little victory dance and is, well, jerky.

…

For the record, Eric was a student of mine (for one class) when he was at Wheaton, so, yes, I may take a condescending tone, but I will always see him as a younger brother and former student. That’s just how it goes.

As a parent of two Wheaton grads (who married Wheaton grads), I wholeheartedly agree that the Wheaton administration owed students and their parents an apology for such a terrible hire. The problematic nature of Rodgers’ ideas about homosexuality was clear before Wheaton hired her.

Leftist arrogance is on display when Howell claims that “this sort of culture warring is un-Christian,” while apparently believing his sort of culture-warring is Christian. Howell’s implicit accusation that Teetsel is stoking the fires of the culture war is absurd. It’s pyro-“progressives” who started the fires and unashamedly fuel them. Every politically engaged conservative I know sincerely desires for the cultural conflagration to be extinguished posthaste but not at the cost of sacrificing marriage, truth, and the eternal lives of those trapped within false religions or destructive ideologies.

“Progressives,” on the other hand, seem to want the fires to die down only after they’ve engulfed the entire culture. They would like theologically orthodox men and women to pipe down while children, teens, and adults become entangled in deception and confusion. Far too many theologically orthodox Christians have been silent in response to the pernicious ideas torching the earth.

I spent some time on Howell’s Facebook page to see if I could figure out which “sort of culture-warring” is  Christian:

• He’s glad about InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s controversial invitation to a representative from the far Left, homosexuality-affirming Black Lives Matter organization to speak at a recent conference.
• He wants America to stop talking about building a fence on the border with Mexico.
• He wants Nevada to go solar.
• He wants more persons of color in academia (I haven’t seen any posts yet about the dearth of conservatives—both colorless and colorful—in secular academia).
• He supports Bernie Sanders’ position on student debt.
• He opposes palm oil plantations that harm rainforests.
• He supports more government regulation of guns.

Since Howell posts a lot about injustice, I was eager to read his posts about the most egregious ongoing injustice in America—the genocide of the unborn—which became a huge national debate following the release of undercover videos that exposed the reality of abortionists’ view of humans in utero. I managed to find one post by Howell on this unspeakable American horror. He posted a piece from liberal Jesuit magazine America that he described as “a very careful and balanced perspective.” The article is an extended criticism of the Center for Medical Progress for what the writer believes is unfair, selective editing. The following day after intense criticism, the writer added a clarification that he opposes abortion. Howell posted his recommendation of the article prior to the clarification.

So, other than opposing unfair, selective editing of the undercover videos, Howell is silent on the legalized slaughter of the unborn.

Perhaps I overlooked them, but I also couldn’t find any posts about the gross injustice represented by the Obergefell travesty that imposed same-sex faux-marriage on the entire country—a decision with grave implications for children’s rights and the First Amendment.

I did notice a couple of Howell’s Facebook “likes” that are difficult to reconcile with theological orthodoxy. He “likes” Wild Gender, “an online art space born out of gratitude for the gift of full expression. Who would we be without those who walked so wildly before? As such, WG strives to provide a space for  queer and gender-variant art makers and purveyors to share work and praxis, aiming to amplify those with intersectional identities.”

He also “likes” Rainbow Moms which invites “Proud Rainbow Moms [and] parents of LGBTQ kids! We are proud of our kids, and we are here to support each other in our new community! What is NOT welcome: Intolerance, Religious rhetoric, Anti LGBT speech or links.”

While Wheaton is under scrutiny for the doctrinal beliefs of a faculty member and cultural application of those beliefs, perhaps it would be a good time to hear with clarity what Mangis, Howell and all other Wheaton faculty members believe about issues upon which theology directly appertains, like abortion, homosexuality, and gender dysphoria.

What is really revealed through this controversy is not hidden racism, white privilege, academic provincialism, or an institutional resistance to learning. What is revealed is spiritual warfare. The nature and intensity of the criticism directed at this small private college, which stands courageously for Christ and His Kingdom in the midst of an ocean of colleges and universities that stand arrogantly in opposition to Christ and truth, exposes nothing other than old-as-the-hills spiritual warfare. Make no mistake, doctrinal fidelity at Wheaton College matters.

Worldview Conference with Dr. Wayne Grudem

We are very excited about our second annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem on Saturday, February 20, 2016 in Barrington. Click HERE to register today!

In the morning sessions, Dr. Grudem will speak on how biblical values provide the only effective solution to world poverty and about the moral advantages of a free-market economic system. In the afternoon, Dr. Grudem will address why Christians—and especially pastors—should influence government for good as well as tackle the moral and spiritual issues in the 2016 election.

We look forward to this worldview-training and pray it will be a blessing to you.

Click HERE for a flyer.

My goal here is not to offend. Neither is it to persuade. In matters of the spirit, there is but One capable of opening the eyes of the heart. Rather, my objective is to sow seeds of Truth so that the Holy Spirit might, according to His perfect pleasure, purpose and will, cultivate the soul as He deems just.

We Christ followers are admonished to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (see Matthew 5:44). This obliges us to at once love and pray for, among other antichrist subsets, the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, including the hundreds-of-millions who faithfully embrace Muhammad’s myriad commands to violence against the Christian, the Jew and all other non-Muslims.

It is impossible to do this in our flesh and can only be accomplished through the supernatural grace and power of the Holy Spirit. It is, indeed, our great hope and prayer that every Muslim – every human being – might surrender self and come to the saving knowledge and grace of Christ Jesus, who, alone, is “the way and the truth and the life.” For, “No one comes to the Father except through [Him]” (see John 14:6).

To be sure, it is the express desire of both God the Father and Christ His Son that each and every Muslim on earth should abandon Muhammad’s broad path to perdition, turnabout and move toward Christ’s narrow path to eternal life. “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

God both created and loves, in a way incomprehensible to the finite human mind, every human being ever born, or otherwise. He wove us together in our mother’s wombs and numbered our every hair. Yet God the Father has but one begotten Son. The rest of us, in order to become God’s children, must be adopted and grafted into the vine by, in and through the One who is the Son – He who is the Vine: Christ Jesus (see John 15:5).

Those who are not adopted by God are not children of God.

And so the Muslim is not a child of God.

Indeed, to become a child of God, we must ask God, through Christ, to adopt us. We mustn’t just believe upon Him – for “Even the demons believe that” (see James 2:19) – but, rather, we must also receive Him as Lord and Savior. We must follow Jesus, the one true God, as our only God. “But to all who believed him (Jesus) and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12).

The pluralist notion that, “There are many paths to God,” is an insidious lie spread by the father of lies himself. Jesus said, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” (Matthew 7:13).

Jesus is the “narrow gate.”

Merriam Webster defines “pluralism” as “a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality.”

To embrace pluralism is to embrace certain death.

The aim of pluralist philosophy is to muddy the waters and divert mankind from the “narrow gate” that leads to eternal salvation (Jesus), while, at one go, herding us along the “broad road” to eternal damnation (anything and everything that denies the singular and exclusive deity of Christ, or that rejects the certainty that He alone can save us from hell).

Pluralism is a non-starter. It is inherently self-contradictory and, therefore, self-defeating. Each of the world’s major religions fundamentally contradicts the other. They cannot all be true. Either one is true or none is true. Pick your “ism,” be it Muhammadism, Hinduism, Buddhism, humanism, atheism, et al., and, serving to undo each, you will find the leavening lie of pluralism.

Christ is both tolerant and intolerant, utterly exclusive and wholly inclusive. Romans 10:13 promises, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (Jesus) will be saved.” And John 3:36 warns, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

Not only do Muslims reject Christ, the Son of God, but those who are faithful to the teachings of their “prophet” Muhammad persecute, under flame and sword, His very body: the Christian faithful.

As I’ve said before, Islam is Christianity’s photo-negative. While Christianity brings eternal life to those choosing to surrender to Jesus, who, as He declared in no uncertain terms, is, alone, “the way and the truth and the life,” Islam brings eternal death to those who surrender to Allah, who, as declared Muhammad, is “the best of deceivers” (“[A]nd Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers.” [see Surah 3:54])

It’s worth again mentioning here that the Bible similarly calls Satan a deceiver. Revelation 12:9, for instance, explains that he “deceives the whole world.” Even though it is often claimed that Muslims, Christians and Jews “worship the same God,” this is so very much not so. Allah is not God. Allah is the deceiver, and, insofar as Christianity, true Christianity, spreads peace, love and truth – Islam, true Islam, spreads violence, hate and deception. Allah definitely exists. He’s just not God. Though he wanted to “ascend above the tops of the clouds” and “make [himself] like the Most High” (see Isaiah 14:14), Allah, most assuredly, is not God.

Indeed, the “best of deceivers” cares not whether we worship the idol of self, as do the secular-”progressives,” the deceiver himself, as do the Muslims, or some other false god. The deceptive one cares only that we deny God the Father, Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit, three in one.

To the Muslim, to everyone, know this: You may deny Christ until the day you die. But soon after, you will deny Him no more. Hate Him you may still, but deny Him you will not. Philippians 2:10-11 assures us, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The die was cast before time began. Every Christian, Jew, atheist and pagan, to include each and every Muslim on earth – or, like Muhammad, who once walked the earth – will, in the end, bow a knee in worship to Jesus.

Because “in the end” is just the beginning.

Yet, whether you bow first in this life, or first in the next, you will bow.

And the when and how will mean much.

For it will decide the where and how of your eternity.

Written by Clare Lopez

The entire debate about what it means to be “Muslim” and shariah-compliant might be solved with a quick lesson in Arabic grammar.This is because the word “Muslim” contains in its Arabic meaning its own definition.

You see, the word “Muslim” in Arabic has two parts: the “Mu” prefix and the triliteral root that forms the word “Islam.” That root word, “Islam,” is a verbal noun that means “submission.” When an “Mu” prefix is attached to such a root in Arabic, the resulting noun means “a person who does the thing that root word denotes.”

Therefore, with “Islam” being a verbal noun meaning submission, “Muslim” therefore means “one who submits.” Submits to what? To Allah’s will, which is shariah. Islamic Law. Thus, anyone who presents as a Muslim is by definition shariah-adherent, because that’s what the word itself actually means. If someone claims to be a Muslim, or converts to Islam, or was born into Islam but does not apostatize or separate from it, then it is reasonable to conclude that such a person is shariah-compliant-at a minimum, tacitly-unless and until told otherwise. And the converse must also be true: one who does not submit to shariah, one who does not adhere to shariah, does not meet the linguistic definition of “Muslim.”

As for “shariah,” which is defined and understood by the Islamic scholars to be an all-encompassing, legal-military doctrinal system that features some religious beliefs, it is binding for Muslims, even as the word “Muslim” dictates. Although shariah includes a multitude of obligations, among which many are innocuous (to believe in the oneness of Allah; to pray five times per day; to avoid eating pork, etc.), jihad as warfare to spread Islam is also a core, compelling obligation. All who are Muslim by birth or conversion are obligated to actively support the establishment of a universal governmental system (Caliphate/Imamate) based on shariah and the replacement by means of jihad of any political system not governed by shariah.

It is this commandment to Islamic supremacism that is most problematic for non-Muslims and responsible for much of the debate about what exactly “being Muslim” means. But if we realize that the answer lies in the etymology of the Arabic word “Muslim” itself, then it will be understood that unless and until that identity as “one who submits” is abjured by the individual in question, the person is accorded full credit for living a shariah-adherent life.

This article was originally posted at the Accuracy in Media website.

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever
you find them.  Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush
everywhere for them.”  ~The Quran, Surah 9:5

When it comes to the global scourge of orthodox Islam, the Western world, which Islamists expressly seek to “destroy from within,” is an upside-down realm wherein objective facts, logic and reason must yield to multiculturalist make-believe, “progressive” propaganda and political correctness run amok. Faithful Muslims want to kill you, and faithless progressives seem all too happy to help them along. Look at the ongoing Muslim invasion of Europe. This progressive paradise, a burgeoning multicultural dystopia, is beginning to look an awful lot like hell on earth.

Fact: Islam is about control. The word itself means “submission.” It is a socio-political pseudo-religion based upon the incoherent scribblings of one man – the “prophet” Muhammad, a warring tyrant who, as even the Quran concedes, was a murderous misogynist and pedophile. This unholy book is loosely plagiarized from the Bible’s Old and New Testaments – Scriptures that, by contrast, were seamlessly transcribed over centuries by roughly 40 men under the direct and divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that elusive, perpetually mute category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels. They’re bad Muslims and so, according to the Quran, not Muslims at all.

To be sure, “moderate Muslim” is a contradiction in terms. It is intrinsically oxymoronic. Whereas “moderate” (read: liberal) “Christians,” such as those belonging to the PCUSA, embrace certain apostasies that run directly counter to the biblical teachings of Christianity (e.g., the pagan embrace of homosexual sin and child sacrifice by way of abortion), “moderate Muslims” likewise embrace an apostate version of Islam that runs directly counter to the clear teachings of the Quran.

While devout followers of Jesus Christ, who is Life – God incarnate – are, like He, characteristically peaceful; devout followers of Muhammad, the dead, child-raping, woman-beheading founder of Islam – demon incarnate – are, like he, characteristically violent. Whereas “Muslim extremists,” that is, faithful Muslims, kill people extremely; “Christian extremists,” that is, faithful Christians, love people, including their enemies, extremely.

Islam explicitly requires a worldwide caliphate (global domination and the violent imposition of Islamic Shariah law). This fact is not open for serious debate and is available for all to read, hear, see and, tragically, experience. Islam, therefore, is inherently at odds with freedom, democracy and the United States Constitution. While devout followers of Muhammad readily admit this reality, the suicidal left yet remains hell-bent, head in the sand, on “tolerating” itself, and the rest of us, to death.

According to the Islamic watchdog group TheReligionofPeace.com – a fantastic resource for the unfiltered facts on Islam – “The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.” The aim of these verses is to dehumanize all non-Muslims, making it easier for Muslims of every stripe to slaughter them with impunity when the time is right. In addition to Surah 9:5, cited above, here are but a handful of Muhammad’s bloody calls to arms:

• “Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” – Quran (9:73)
• “O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.” – Quran (9:123)
• “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” – Quran (17:16)
• “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.” – Quran (48:29)

From the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad):

• “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” – Bukhari (52:177)
• “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” – Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992
• “Allah’s Apostle said … ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’” – Bukhari (52:220)

“But the Bible says to kill unbelievers too!” cry the Muslim apologists. Nonsense. “Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence,” observes ReligionOfPeace.com, “the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.” (Christian theologian Dr. Michael Brown has penned a brilliant contrast/comparison between the Quran and the Old Testament, which thoroughly debunks manipulative false equivalencies often drawn by those who wish to sow confusion.)

Still, we need only look to the many polls to affirm the alarmingly high percentages of Muslims (hundreds-of-millions in number) who seek, through the most violent means imaginable, Islamic world domination. Again, here are but a few:

• 83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll (2009).
• 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
• Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
• 38.6 percent of Western Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified. Gallup (2011).
• 45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
• 38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. (Forty-three percent disagree.) The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
• One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
• 78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
• 80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
• Nearly one-third of Muslim-Americans agree that violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran is acceptable. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
• 68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
• 51 percent of Muslim-Americans say that Muslims should have the choice of being judged by Shariah courts rather than courts of the United States (only 39 percent disagree).The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
• 81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeera poll (2015).

Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and the moderate Muslim: Even as we hear of the occasional sighting, most reasonable people remain skeptical as to whether, in reality, these mysterious creatures even exist.

“I’m sick of these white male NRA Republicans and their mass shootings beca … um, Sayed Farook? Hey, let’s not vilify an entire group.” ~Jon Gabriel, editor-in-chief, Ricochet.com

Workplace violence strikes again. “Allahu Akbar!” evidently means, “I quit,” and pipe bombs are the new resignation letter. Southern Baptist redneck Syed Rizwan Farook and his Irish Catholic wife, Tashfeen Malik, are reported to have been inexplicably in touch with ambiguously international, not-at-all-Islam-related terrorists under investigation by the FBI prior to mowing down 35 white-privileged American citizens at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.

Investigators feverishly search for a motive.

Multiculturalism was unavailable for comment.

It’s said that not all Muslims are terrorists, but that most terrorists are Muslims. Bleeding heart “religion of peace” Jihad-deniers may explain away the global scourge of Islamic terrorism as “workplace violence,” the “result of climate change” or a “gun control issue” (California has the strictest gun laws in all 50 states, and Paris France has banned guns altogether), but the facts, common sense and our own observations reveal the truth. It’s world-class stupid to insist that, when demon-possessed Muslim terrorists mow down a room full of law-abiding citizens, the “progressive” panacea is to disarm the law-abiding citizens. “Enough is enough,” all right. Sit down, liberals. The adults are talking. We don’t need more gun control, we need more Islam control.

Brigitte Gabriel is a world-renown national security expert. Her concentration is on the – ahem – explosive rise in Islamic terrorism. She notes that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Of them, intelligence agencies estimate that 15-25 percent are orthodox Muslims, meaning they actually follow the teachings of the Quran.

“That leaves 75 percent of [Muslims being] peaceful people,” observes Gabriel. “But when you look at 15-25 percent of the world’s Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big as the United States,” she concludes.

Indeed, with these harrowing numbers in mind it’s no surprise that there have been nearly 27,500 terrorist attacks worldwide committed by faithful Muslims since 9/11.

There have been zero committed by faithful Christians.

Here’s why.

Muslims, true Muslims, follow the teachings of their dead “prophet” Muhammad, a warring tyrant who, as even the Islamic Quran concedes, was a murderous misogynist and pedophile. Christians, true Christians, follow the very-much-alive Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, whose teachings are found in the God-breathed Holy Bible.

Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that elusive, perpetually mute category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels or “idolaters.” They’re bad Muslims, and, so, according to the Quran, not Muslims at all. “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” commands Surah 9:5. “Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Faithful Muslims, true followers of Muhammad, “slay the idolaters wherever [they] find them” (see ISIS, Hamas, Syed Farook, et al.).

It’s what Muslims do.

On the other hand, Jesus taught His followers, who are called Christians, to “do to others what you would have them do to you” (see Luke 6:31); that, “You shall not murder” (see Matthew 19:18); and that we are to “love [our] enemies and pray for those who persecute [us]” (see Matthew 5:44). It goes without saying that those who do not follow these teachings are not following Christ.

Indeed, while many may claim to be “Christian,” the word only applies to those who are justified in Christ, spiritually reborn and regenerated through the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. The true Christian walks in Christ’s steps through faith and obedience.

Terrorism is in direct disobedience to Christ.

It’s in direct obedience to Muhammad.

Whereas “Muslim extremists,” that is, faithful Muslims, kill people extremely, “Christian extremists,” that is, faithful Christians, love people, including their enemies, extremely.

Islam is Christianity’s photo-negative. While Christianity brings eternal life to those choosing to surrender to Jesus, who alone is “the Way, the Truth and the Life,” Islam brings eternal death to those who surrender to Allah, who is “the best of deceivers” (“[A]nd Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers.” [see Surah 3:54]).

Which brings us to last week’s mass shooting near an abortion slaughterhouse in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Even as the secular left was gleefully screaming, “Christian terrorism!” Garrett Swasey, a pro-life, Christian pastor and police officer, was laying down his life for those inside the very Planned Parenthood he abhorred.

It’s what Christians do.

(For the record, this marks the first time in history that any liberal has been concerned for human life at a Planned Parenthood.)

Still, again, and so our liberal, anti-Christian friends fully understand, Officer Garrett Swasey was a pro-life Christian. Robert Dear, the evil, reclusive, deranged pothead who killed him, is not. Dear murdered three innocent people. He is, by definition, not “pro-life.” Neither is he Christian. He is, much like Planned Parenthood, “pro-death.”

Peas in a pod.

To be sure, pro-life Christians like Officer Swasey agree: Murdering babies is wrong. And murdering the murderers who murder babies is also wrong. Shooting innocent people is evil. Just like dismembering baby girls alive and selling their body parts is evil.

No, Robert Dear is no “Christian terrorist.” He may be a terrorist, but he’s not a Christian terrorist. He can’t be. He doesn’t follow Christ. If anything, Robert Dear’s actions are more like those of Planned Parenthood, orthodox Islam and Syed Farook.

Bloody bosom buddies.

Yes, there have been terrorists who call themselves Christian.

But there has never been a Christian terrorist.

“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant.
It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
~Ronald Reagan

What was President Obama’s immediate and instinctive response to this month’s Islamic terror attacks in Paris? Did he offer prayers for the families of the slaughtered and vow to wipe out the global cancer that is Islamic Jihad? Did he pledge to come alongside France and work with our wounded European ally until every last Islamic State barbarian is wiped from the face of the earth?

No, America’s eunuch-in-chief preened like a petty peacock, mocking and berating the very Americans he’s sworn to protect and serve. He stated – vomiting the word “Christians” with sanctimonious disgust – that there will be no “religious litmus test” on Syrian refugees, while hypocritically employing a religious litmus test of his own that favors Muslims over Christians by a rate of 97 to 3 percent.

Indeed, during his post-Paris rant, this Oval Office dhimmi promised business as usual, doubling down on his failed policy of containment and appeasement, and inexplicably swearing to aid and abet our enemies by rapidly increasing his importation of Shariah-compliant Islamic refugees. As even his top security advisers warn, these refugees are marbled through with Muslim terrorist infiltrators hell-bent on doing to you and your family what they did to the people of France.

Yet the court jester continues to juggle.

To be sure, some of the Paris terrorists posed as Syrian refugees, and ISIS has pledged to do the same thing here. The question is not “if” but “when” more Americans will die as a result of Obama’s Pollyannaish response to the threat of Islam. He is either catastrophically naïve, or something far more sinister. At best, Barack Hussein Obama is weak and dangerously obtuse. At worst, he is an enemy within.

Either way, he must be stopped.

Still, the jihadist genie is, even now, out of the bottle. Nearly 70 Muslims, including refugees, have already been arrested within America’s borders in the last 18 months. In just the past week, over a dozen Syrian refugees have been caught at our borders with fake passports and bad intentions. Understandably, a majority of Americans agree that we must employee a compassionate alternative to Obama’s suicidal plan to import hundreds-of-thousands of unscreenable Syrian refuges.

But what is that “compassionate” alternative?

Well, it’s certainly not the open-borders approach pushed by America’s “progressive” left. While engaging in hollow #RefugeesWelcome hashtag bravado on Facebook and Twitter may provide a fleeting sugar rush of moral superiority, it is not an answer.

Neither is it tethered to reality.

It’s abject foolishness.

No, the compassionate response is the Christian response. We must be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (see Matthew 10:16). It is possible to be at once wise and compassionate. The two are not mutually exclusive. Christ modeled for us the perfect solution to this problem with His parable of the Good Samaritan:

“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have’” (Luke 10:30-35).

There are many important metaphorical parallels here. Note that the Good Samaritan did not take this man into his own home to care for him. He administered first aid and then took him to a separate location, an inn, giving a charitable donation to the innkeeper and instructing him as to the man’s further care.

Americans, especially Christian Americans, are the most charitable people in the world. The answer to the Syrian refugee crisis is to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Rather than taking these Shariah-compliant followers of Muhammad – many of whom, as our own intelligence has established, are either ISIS sympathizers or operatives – into our own home, we must unequivocally demand that oil-rich Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran and others open their own sealed borders to their fellow Muslims in need. They share the same value system and religion, both of which are rooted in Islamic Shariah law – a sociopolitical worldview that is anathema, indeed hostile, to America’s Judeo-Christian values and constitutional-republican form of government.

Undeniably, Saudi Arabia alone has the means to immediately house at least 3 million of these Syrian refugees in its vacant, air conditioned tent city, used only occasionally to accommodate Muslims on their pilgrimage to Mecca. America can also help subsidize, build and facilitate additional refugee camps throughout the Middle East.

Even so, and for our own national security, safety and survival, there is much we can do to help them there, without bringing them here.

And those who are here, we must move there.

The pagan left and the pagan Muslims share a common enemy. He is Christ, Who is Truth. They are both antichrist. The spiritually blind “progressive” West is being played masterfully by the burgeoning Islamic caliphate. What we are witnessing is called “Immigration Jihad,” and Obama is chief among the worldwide Muslim leadership’s dhimmi patsies. They are not only sending a Trojan Horse through our gates, but Obama is helping them to both build it and physically transport it here, with your tax dollars, next door to you and your family.

Yes, we must all have compassion for the innocent women and children suffering under this Islamo-progressive-created humanitarian crisis, but we cannot allow the Islamic State, which represents the purist form of orthodox Islam, to use them as pawns in this war between the civilized world and the demonic savagery that is Muhammadism.

Wise as a serpents, innocent as doves.

Support the work & ministry of Illinois Family Institute!

From Eagle Forum

In the wake of the evil and horrific events in Paris, Congress decided to react to President Obama’s promise to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees to America. The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a bill that adds an extra level of certification for refugees from Syria and Iraq. Passed by a vote of 289-107, H.R. 4038, the American SAFE Act requires additional certification – from the FBI Director, National Intelligence Director, and Secretary of Homeland Security – that each Syrian or Iraqi refugee is not a security threat before he or she is resettled in the United States.

FBI Director James Comey has testified that there is no data available to vet Syrian refugees. In the absence of this data needed to properly certify a refugee, congressional leadership argues that today’s bill effectively pauses the program. Unfortunately, this argument neglects the Obama administration’s willingness to ignore the law to accomplish its own goals. Further, this bill only pertains to individuals with documents from Iraq and Syria in spite of reports that terrorists are using forged documents for entry. Just yesterday, five Syrians were caught in Honduras attempting to enter the U.S. with stolen Greek documents.

At the end of July, U.S. Rep. Brian Babin (TX-36) introduced a bill, H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act, that would pause the Refugee Resettlement program until properly vetted for efficiency and effectiveness. The bill has gathered support from almost one-third of the Republican conference.

[Last week,] in an effort to improve the American SAFE Act, Rep. Babin and 15 of his colleagues [Brat, Brooks, Meadows, Duncan (SC), Barletta, Loudermilk, LaMalfa, Hice, DeSantis, Sanford, Gohmert, Culberson, Graves (LA), Garrett, and Walker] offered a modification of H.R. 3314 that would halt the resettlement program for 180 days and require a GAO study within 90 days on the economic impact on state and local government. Chairman Pete Sessions and Republican leadership rejected this and every other amendment, instead opting for a closed rule that enabled leadership to rush through H.R. 4038.

The most prudent and humanitarian response is to stop the refugee resettlement program and reallocate that funding to safe zones or refugee camps abroad. The Center for Immigration Studies reports that for the money spent to resettle one refugee in America, we could be helping twelve refugees abroad. Therefore, if the goal is to help as many people as possible while keeping America safe, Congress could choose to help twelve times more refugees in areas close to their home without increasing the security threats facing our nation.

Considering almost thirty governors, including liberal Republicans and a Democrat, have publicly announced their opposition to resettling Syrian refugees in their states, this is no time for surrender or show-votes. Government funding expires on December 11th. Congress has an opportunity to use the upcoming omnibus funding bill to deal with the refugee crisis in an efficient, cost-effective way that protects the American people.

Take ACTION:  Call your representative and senators and ask them to support adding Rep. Brian Babin’s bill, H.R. 3314, to the upcoming spending bill, with an added provision to have the money from refugee resettlement reallocated to helping refugees abroad.

U.S. Capitol Switchboard in D.C. (202) 224-3121

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 Michele Malkin

On the anniversary week of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Obama is rolling out the welcome mat to tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees. What could go wrong?

There’s no need to hypothesize. Our nation remains utterly incapable of screening out legitimate dreamers from destroyers, liberty-seekers from liberty-stiflers. Indiscriminate asylum and refugee policies rob the truly deserving of an opportunity for freedom — and threaten our national security.

It’s shameful that our leaders in Washington, sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution and our people, suffer chronic amnesia about the fatal consequences of open borders. I’ll keep reprinting my reminders. Maybe someday someone in a position of power will pay heed, throw political correctness out the window, and stop hitting the snooze button.

Have you forgotten? Boston jihadist brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev received dubious asylum status through their parents thanks to lax vetting. After entering on short-term tourist visas, their mother and father (an ethnic Chechen Muslim) won asylum and acquired U.S. citizenship. Next, younger son Dzhokhar obtained U.S. citizenship. Older son Tamerlan, whose naturalization application was pending, traveled freely between the U.S. and the jihad recruitment zone of Dagestan, Russia, a year before executing their Boston Marathon massacre. Though they had convinced the U.S. that they faced deadly persecution, the Tsarnaevs’ parents both had returned to their native land and were there when their sons perpetrated their bloody terror rampage.

Have you forgotten? Ramzi Yousef landed at New York City’s JFK airport from Pakistan and flashed an Iraqi passport without a visa to inspectors. He was briefly detained for illegal entry and fingerprinted, but was allowed to remain in the country after invoking the magic words “political asylum.” Yousef was released for lack of detention space and headed to Jersey City to plot the deadly 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Have you forgotten? Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a Palestinian bomb-builder, entered the U.S. illegally through Canada in 1996-97. He claimed political asylum based on phony persecution by Israelis, was released on a reduced $5,000 bond posted by a man who was himself an illegal alien and then skipped his asylum hearing. In June 1997, a federal immigration judge ordered Mezer to leave on a “voluntary departure order.” Mezer ignored him. He joined the New York City bombing plot before being arrested in July 1997 after a roommate tipped off local police.

Have you forgotten? Mir Aimal Kansi, convicted in 1997 of capital murder and nine other charges stemming from his January 1993 shooting spree outside the CIA headquarters in McLean, Va., also exploited our insane asylum laxity. Despite his history as a known Pakistani militant who had participated in anti-American protests abroad, Kansi received a business visa in 1991. After arrival, he claimed political asylum based on his ethnic minority status in Pakistan. While his asylum application was pending, he obtained a driver’s license and an AK-47, murdered two CIA agents and wounded three others.

Have you forgotten? Somali national Nuradin Abdi, the al-Qaida shopping mall bomb plotter convicted in 2007, first entered the U.S. in 1995 using a false passport. He entered again illegally from Canada in 1997 and secured asylum on false grounds. Abdi then was able to fraudulently obtain a refugee travel document, which he used to fly to Ethiopia and, yes, Chechnya for jihad training.

Have you forgotten? Among the convicted Fort Dix (N.J.) jihad plotters were three ethnic Albanian illegal alien brothers, Dritan, Shain and Eljvir Duka, who snuck into the country through Mexico with their parents. In 1984, the father applied for asylum, but the feds ignored them for two decades. In the meantime, as America showed the Dukas’ refugee community unmatched compassion and generosity, the Muslim trio returned the favor by planning to massacre U.S. soldiers.

Have you forgotten? Are you not paying attention? The Somali refugee population in Minnesota has been a gold mine for jihadist recruiters for ISIS. America has failed miserably to assimilate waves of young Muslims from Africa and the Middle East.

Our asylum and refugee programs are routinely abused by ordinary fraudsters and Islamic terror plotters alike. Our immigration enforcement failures are compounded by deadly illegal alien sanctuary policies, a deportation abyss that allows hundreds of thousands of deportation fugitives to run loose, and the persistent lack of a tracking system to identity and kick out millions of foreign visa overstayers.

When will Washington finally make it a priority to get our own trashed house in order?

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

Written by Chad Groening

“We need to give serious consideration as to how better protect our people even here at home,” observes Bob Maginnis, a senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council.

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez fired into a U.S. Marine recruiting office on July 16, sparing the lives of the unarmed service members. Across town, however, he shot and killed four service members outside a U.S. Navy support facility. A fifth died hours later.

Maginnis says there could be many more radicalized Muslims in virtually every American community.

“According to surveys of Muslims in the United States,” Maginnis says, “if one million Muslims believe in the use of violence, every community is going to have some.”

A female office worker was beheaded by a Muslim co-worker last August in Oklahoma. He stabbed a second woman before the company’s CEO shot Alton Nolen and stopped the attack.

That attack and many others have been recorded since 2001 by terrorism expert Pamela Gellar, who is herself a target of Muslim jihadists.

There have been other attacks on military personnel, too. The most infamous was in 2009 at Ft. Hood in Texas, where U.S. Army psychiatrist Nidal Hassan shot and killed 13 people and wounded 30 more – none of them armed.

Much like the Chattanooga shooting, a Muslim shot at U.S. Army soldiers who were standing in front of their Little Rock recruiting pffoce in 2009. One soldier was killed and another wounded.

The office used by the U.S. Marines in Chattanooga displayed a “gun-free zone” sticker on the front window.

At such military facilities, says Maginnis, the Pentagon should allow some individuals to be armed and ready to defend themselves against an attack.

Instead of arming themselves, however, military recruiters were advised in recent days to close the blinds andstay in civilian clothes while on the job.

At his nomination hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, U.S. Army General Mark Milley, slated to be the next Army Chief of Staff, said it might be appropriate, in some cases, to arm service members at recruiting stations.

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

Written by Joseph Backholm

You may not know what dhimmitude is and hopefully you never experience it.

But you’ve probably heard of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and you’re almost surely aware of what Christians are.

Dhimmitude is an Islamic system that governs non-Muslims who have been conquered through Jihad by folks like ISIS.

If you surrender to Muslim control – though not Muslim – you are referred to as dhimmi.

Sounds fun, right?

If ISIS took over the town you live in, they might move door to door and give you three options: “convert to Islam, pay the jizya, or die.”

The jizya is a tax for not being Muslim.

It doesn’t apply to everyone, but paying it is seen as proof of your subjection to the Jihadist state and its laws. In return, non-Muslim subjects are permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state’s protection from outside aggression.

Acknowledging the difference, there are parallels between the way Jihadists treat those who are in dhimmitude and the way the new sexual revolution in America seeks to treat those who disagree with their (religious?) beliefs about sexuality and marriage.

Once they have political power, they are giving businesses three options “convert, pay a fine, or die” (economically, not physically).

After Arlene’s Flowers was sued for declining to decorate for a same-sex wedding, Attorney General Bob Ferguson offered to settle (demanded the jizya) for $2,000 on the condition that she would “convert,” or agree to make business decisions according to the state’s new values.

Only a few days ago, a judge in Oregon fined a bakery $135,000 because they attempted to run their business according to their Christian beliefs about sexuality rather than the government’s. When they rejected the government’s demands that they convert or pay the jizya, the government opted for what amounts to the economic death penalty.

“Nonsense,” you argue. “They broke the law. Having penalties for breaking the law isn’t exactly innovative. Nor is it jihadist.”

Fair enough.

But the left’s new found impulse to be sticklers for the letter of the law misses the larger point.

The left is proposing a regime change that fundamentally alters freedoms that have been taken for granted for in America for centuries.

Christians, Jews, Muslims and others have been not participating in same-sex “weddings” for millennia.

But under the new regime, doing what has always been done is illegal.

Your choice. Convert, pay a fine if you refuse to convert and then convert, or experience economic death.

Like the jizya, the non-discrimination law discriminates.  It protects one person’s right to decline to participate in an activity they disagree with, but denies that right to others. 

The good news is that if you accept the terms of the new regime, you will still be allowed a measure of communal autonomy, and be entitled to other benefits from the state.

Imagine a new law compelling church attendance or pork consumption on the grounds that refusing to participate is discriminatory. (Which, of course, it is. But that’s the kind of discrimination lefties still like.)

Being indignant with the atheist who objects to compulsory church attendance would be stupid since he’s simply doing what atheists have always done.

“But it’s the law,” you say, self-righteously.

“But it shouldn’t be the law, and you should know better,” he says in response.

And of course he’s right.

The way non-discrimination laws are being interpreted right now is not a modification to the building code that frustrates some builders or a change in the speed law that catches unsuspecting drivers.

It is a regime change that seeks to fundamentally alter the way Americans have always lived. It seeks to create the kind of conformity that America was created in opposition to.

America doesn’t and shouldn’t have conquered peoples. We make room for the atheists, Christians, Muslims, or Jew to be who they are, not just in their preferred place of worship, but in the rest of their life as well. We respect the right for people to be who they are, even if we think they’re silly and ignorant. We understand that we’re different and we make room for that.

Dhimmitude is for jihadists, not for Americans.

This article was originally posted on the blog of the Family Policy Institute of Washington.

It’s strange that the liberals in the media who always complain about Joe McCarthy once having a list of communists in government are so quick to cite the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of so-called right-wing extremists or “haters.”

With the help of the media, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is setting people up for terrorist attacks inside the United States. Pamela Geller is the latest on the list of the SPLC that has now been targeted for death by the jihadists. ISIS says “…we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.”

ISIS is angry that Geller, an opponent of jihad, has defended the First Amendment right of free speech against Islamic Sharia law.

In response, ISIS tried to massacre people at Geller’s Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas on Sunday. Two terrorists were killed and an unarmed security guard protecting the event was shot in the leg.

It’s an open secret that ISIS can get locations for its targets from the SPLC website. That’s how homosexual militant Floyd Corkins discovered the location of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. and showed up at its headquarters, opening fire on a security guard. He had hoped to conduct a massacre of FRC staff.

Indeed, Corkins told the FBI after the shooting that he intended to “kill as many as possible” and smear the 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches he was carrying in the victims’ faces. Chick-fil-A had been in the news because its CEO had defended traditional marriage.

As we noted in a previous column, “The SPLC targets its critics by name…labeling them ‘hate groups’ and running photographs of officers and employees so they can more easily be identified.”

The SPLC sends its “intelligence reports” around the country, listing people and groups by name with their locations. This puts the leaders of these groups and their families at risk of terrorist attack.

Rather than express disgust with this tactic, the media regard the SPLC as somehow a credible source of information.

This brings a human face to the slogan “if it bleeds, it leads,” and makes the media complicit in the planned jihad on American soil and its victims.

The SPLC exercises what journalist James Simpson calls “partisan tolerance,” which means conservatives and Christians must be demonized and destroyed. On the other hand, anyone on the left is acceptable. That’s why the SPLC hailed the “educational” work of Weather Underground terrorist bomber Bill Ayers.

As the leading spear-carrier in the cultural Marxist war on America, the SPLC is one of the most despicable groups on the political scene these days, and yet it is accepted by the media as somehow authoritative and respectable.

No matter how many times the group is exposed for sloppy research and money-making scams, it is still considered a source of legitimate information by some in the media.

That’s why its apparent role in the targeting for death of Pamela Geller has to be highlighted and exposed. News organizations are helping terrorist groups by giving the SPLC unwarranted sympathy and publicity.

ISIS has figured out that all it has to do in order to identify their critics is go to the SPLC website and search its “hate map” and various “lists” of so-called extremists. The SPLC makes it easy for terrorists to wage jihad on American soil.

Yet, for a time, the Obama/Holder Justice Department and its FBI openly collaborated with the SPLC. For example, Judicial Watch discovered that SPLC head Morris Dees had appeared as the featured speaker at a “Diversity Training Event” on July 31, 2012, at the Department of Justice. The FBI has even listed the SPLC as a credible source of information on “hate crimes.”

The SPLC tends to focus its critical attention on opponents of radical Islam and critics of the homosexual agenda.

The media’s reliance on this organization was disclosed publicly by the hapless Bob Schieffer on a recent “Face the Nation” episode when he interviewed Tony Perkins of the FRC and began by noting, “You and your group have been so strong in coming out…against gay marriage that the Southern Poverty Law Center has branded the Family Research Council an anti-gay hate group. We have been inundated by people who say we should not even let you appear because they, in their view, quote, ‘You don’t speak for Christians.’ Do you think you have taken this too far?”

This comment proves that Schieffer has lost it as a newsman. Did he even bother to investigate the SPLC? Was he aware of the terrorist attack on the FRC offices inspired by the SPLC?

Simply because the homosexuals inundated the CBS switchboard, Schieffer felt compelled to take their objections seriously. This is not the usual way journalism is done. But it’s the way liberals in the media operate. Their ignorance is astounding.

Geller understands what is happening and frames the issue this way: “Truth is the new hate speech.”

The media need to educate themselves quickly about how they are playing into the hands of not only the SPLC but the terrorists who are targeting enemies on American soil.

This assumes, of course, that the media do not want to inspire more violence in America.

Typically, the liberal media describe the SPLC as a “civil rights organization.”

For those in the media who want to avoid violence and report the facts, for a change, Jim Simpson’s recent talk on “cultural Marxism” is required viewing.

In a report, Simpson defines partisan tolerance as expressing “partisan hatred for everything non-leftist,” noting that it “seeks to actively muzzle the views of the majority.” This lies behind the labeling of conservatives and Christians as extremists or “haters.”

He notes that the concept of partisan tolerance is associated with cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse and is based on “an extreme arrogance that assumes they are infallible in their utopian fantasies, and have the right to impose their will on us no matter what we think.” The notion that all positions incompatible with leftist designs can and must be suppressed is at “the heart” of their worldview, Simpson points out.

He adds, “The idea was further developed in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, especially rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Alinsky popularized the tactic, but Marcuse invented the concept.”

In the ISIS message targeting Geller for death, the group said, “The next six months will be interesting…May Allah send his peace and blessings upon our prophet Muhammad and all those who follow until the last Day.”

It’s time for the media to stop encouraging the bloodshed.

Originally published at AIM.org.

Written by Louis Palme

In 539 BC, King Belshazzar of Babylon saw a dismembered hand-written four prophetic words on the wall. This “handwriting on the wall” was finally interpreted by the prophet Daniel as predicting the fall of the kingdom. He was right. Babylon fell to the Medes-Persians that very night.

Like the “handwriting on the wall” that Prophet Daniel had interpreted, there are four Arabic words, which could lead to submission of the entire world to Islam, if non-Muslims do not fully understand their meaning and implications. Those words are takiyya, tawriya, kitman, and muruna.

Each of these words describes a different style of deception used by Muslims when discussing Islam or their activities as Muslims.Muhammad famously said, “War is deceit.” (Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 268)  The Quran boasts that Allah is the “master of all scheming” (Surah 13:42) and that he is “profound in his machinations” (Surah 8:30). Western civilizations are not accustomed to dealing with people, who have developed deception into an art form. Knowledge is power, and the best way to combat the Islamist agenda is to say, “We are wise to your shenanigans. Knock it off!”

Takiyya

Takiyya is defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity. It comes from the verse in the Quran that says, “Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful – he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah – except in self-defense (illaa an-tattaqu minhum tuqah) (Surah 3:28). This “self-defense” justifies dissimulation. Islamic Sharia Law provides, “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.” (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2) Examples include lying to protect Islam or a Muslim.

Tawriya

Tawriya is defined as concealing, and it could be called “creative lying”. It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath. (Reliance of the Traveler, sections o19.1 and o19.5) How does this work? Suppose someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because it is a supplication Muslims make to Allah seventeen times a day to keep them from the path of “those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way”. A Muslim might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is practicing tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and Christians by name, but he knows full-well that the words “those” refer to Jews and Christians.

Another example would be when a Muslim responds to your greeting of “Merry Christmas!” He might say, “I wish you the best.” In your mind, you think he has returned a Christmas greeting. In actuality, he has expressed his wish for you to convert to Islam; he wishes the best for you which, in his view, is becoming a Muslim.

Kitman

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts. Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihadand its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.

Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant, contradictory verse. Here is an example:

“There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256) Early Medina

“Are they seeking a religion other than Allah’s, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?” (Surah 3:83 Later Medina)

Another example:

“Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged.” (Surah 22:39) Late Mecca

“When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” (Surah 9:5) Late Medina

Muruna

Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Surah 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.” Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart.

At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. Nothing is more valuable these days to the Islamists than a blue-eyed Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.

Another common way of using muruna is for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim or to behave like a non-Muslim so their true agenda will not be suspected. The 9/11 hijackers visited strip clubs and bars during their off-times while taking classes in the U.S. to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House. Many Americans believe Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, married Jewish Congressman Anthony Weiner at least in part to burnish her security credentials so she could infiltrate the highest levels of the Administration.

The implications of these highly-honed tactics of deception for unassuming Western societies. Twenty years ago, psychologist Paul Ekman wrote an insightful book, “Telling Lies”, which demonstrated that people give off recognizable clues when they are practicing deceit. Their consciences cause them, involuntarily, to sweat or raise their voices or make other recognizable gestures. However, Dr. Ekman’s research was exclusively with people from Western cultures. Muslims, on the other hand, show no discernible signs when they are being deceitful because there is no feeling of guilt. In their minds they are doing exactly what Allah wants them to do to advance Islam. Because any Western person who has raised children knows almost intuitively when someone is lying, so they assume they can do that in all cases. Unfortunately, those same Western people can be easily duped by Islamic deceit because there are no tell-tale signs in the deceiver.

Hopefully, this article will be a wake-up call to the unsuspecting infidels. Trust but verify – as was an old American strategy in dealing with potentially hostile parties – is the way to go in dealing with Islamists.

Originally published at jewsnews.co.il.

With the influence of Islam ever increasing, Dr. Erwin Lutzer of Moody Church says the Christians must be ready of the challenges and opportunities that are coming our way. See video below.

Dr. Lutzer will be speaking live on the topic on May 7th at Medinah Baptist Church in Medinah, Illinois. For more information about IFI’s event, Islam in America: A Christian Response, CLICK HERE.

“Remember that the real threat to the United States is not so much terrorism, but Islamism, which intends to challenge our constitutional liberties and take advantage of political correctness to silence discussion and debate about Islam and to undermine our national security…” ~Dr. Lutzer

---

For flyer, CLICK HERE.

 Thursday, May 7, 2015, 7 – 9 PM

Medinah Baptist Church
900 Foster Avenue, Medinah, IL 60157

$10 per person/$25 per family

Free admission with a student ID

Written by Samuel Gregg

The way that a culture understands the nature of God shapes its conception of man, reason, and society. Though this presents enormous challenges for the Islamic world, it also has significant implications for the sustainability of Western civilization.