Tag Archive: islam and christianity
No doubt they lied to him too. via Cardinal Dolan makes first visit to NYC mosque, meets with Staten Island Muslim leaders | SILive.com.
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, made his first visit to a mosque in New York City and it was the Albanian Islamic Cultural Center in Tompkinsville where he met with Muslim and other faith leaders.
The cardinal spent more than two hours touring the mosque and the Miraj Islamic School and having lunch with about 40 clergy and laity.
“I thank God that this day has arrived,” the cardinal said. “I thank you for your welcome, I thank you for making me feel like a friend and a member of a family.”
The cardinal asked questions about the Muslim faith and emphasized throughout his visit how much the two religions and their members have in common.
“You love God, we love God and he is the same God,” the cardinal said of the Muslim and Roman Catholic faiths.
Cardinal Dolan stressed that Catholics and Muslims have a mutual love of the United States and of the religious freedom that this country affords, especially the ability to meet with people of different beliefs that would not be possible in some other nations.
“Your love of marriage and family, your love of children and babies, your love of freedom — religious freedom particularly– your defense of life, your desire for harmony and unity and your care for others, your care for God’s creation and your care for those who are in need,” the cardinal said, were Islamic values also shared by Catholics and areas where there could be mutual cooperation.
Can anyone point out any semblance of truth in any of those statements?
An update on this post, New Bible appeases Muslims, yanks ‘Father,’ Jesus as ‘Son of God’
After a year’s work, a World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) panel has released its report on the Muslim-context translation practices of Wycliffe Bible Translators and its partner SIL International. Wycliffe requested the audit of its policies after controversy erupted last year over the world’s premier translator supporting translations that altered the phrases “Son of God” and “God the Father” in Muslim contexts.
Western mission agencies have been concerned about literal translations of “God the Father” and “Son of God” in Muslim contexts because the terms imply God had sexual relations with Mary. One SIL-supported translation of Matthew in Turkey rendered “God the Father” something along the lines of “the great protector,” according to locals. (See “The battle for accurate Bible translation in Asia” from the Feb. 25, 2012 issue of WORLD Magazine.)
Both the Assemblies of God and the Presbyterian Church in America threatened to withdraw support from Wycliffe over the issue. Western mission agencies have also felt backlash from local believers in Muslim contexts who felt the agencies were changing the terms out of impatience over church growth. Frontiers, a missions agency that funds translation work, has also supported translations that alter the divine familial terms, but unlike Wycliffe it has not publicly submitted to an audit of its practices or policies. The WEA report may set the standard for Frontiers whether it officially adopts the recommendations or not.
The report never overtly rebukes Wycliffe/SIL, but it does draw clearer lines for the organizations’ translation practices. (Download a PDF of the report.)
Wycliffe’s earlier standards said translators should use a literal translation of the divine familial terms in a “majority” of cases, but left open the possibility of using an “alternative term with equivalent meaning” when the literal translation might “communicate wrong meaning.”
The new report is clearer. “The WEA Panel (hereafter referred to as ‘Panel’) recommends that when the words for ‘father’ and ‘son’ refer to God the Father and to the Son of God, these words always be translated with the most directly equivalent familial words within the given linguistic and cultural context of the recipients,” the report says.
They needed a report to conclude the most directly equivalent words should be used when translating?
The panel says where the familial words had a sexual implication, the translators should add qualifying adjectives to the familial word rather than change the word itself, using terms like “anointed Son of God” or “heavenly Father.” They also recommend that translators use “paratext” (footnotes or commentary) to explain the terms rather than alter the text itself.
The report notes “the centrality of the word for “son” in the biblical presentation of salvation,” and says the centrality “demands that translators render the word with the most direct equivalent possible.”
The report also recommends standards for local involvement in translations and urged Wycliffe to set up a process for handling controversies over the familial terms. The panel says Wycliffe should be transparent about the translation decisions it makes.
Wycliffe had suspended the controversial translations while the review moved forward. A Wycliffe spokesman said that all the suspended translations (and all future translations) would meet these new standards prior to publication.
Critics of Wycliffe’s translation practices were cautious about embracing the report until they had studied it more fully.
Some readers may be interested in this web seminar talk recorded online with questions and answers on the topic. We have not had an opportunity to review it.
Wycliffe, based out of Orlando, Florida is listed by Forbes as #70 The 100 Largest U.S. Charities.
(UPDATE BY AUTHOR: I thought long and hard about naming names. The teacher no longer teaches at the school and I, for the most part, hold the school in high regard. it was a problem, i dealt with it and i won. But naming the school misses the point I was trying to make: that all teachers come from the same background and have been educated in the same schools, etc. and we kid ourselves if we think we can turn our backs and leave “educating” to the “experts”, no matter if we send our kids to private, parochial, public schools.)
“Don’t need a lunch today,” said my then 8th grader youngest of four. My first reaction, and second for that matter, was celebration: of all the mom chores, facing mayonnaise in the morning is the one I hate most, and for once the little darling remembered to tell me before I had tackled the chore. Two reasons to be happy and the sun not yet up? Color me grateful.
I didn’t ask him why he didn’t need lunch until he pounced on dinner. “I fasted today for extra credit,” he answered.
Fasting? Extra credit? To get information out of this child one needs threaten water boarding at a minimum. But eventually we got the story. A religion class each year at our Catholic school is mandatory, and in 8th grade a class in comparative religions is taught.
As part of the class, Sam’s teacher offered extra credit to fast on the first day of Ramadan.
“What else have you been offered extra credit for?” I asked. “Nothing,” he mumbled.
During a telephone call to the teacher, I asked the same question: Has extra credit been offered for any other religious practices? No, none. And none were planned. I then explained in simple terms that by selecting ONLY an Islamic practice for extra credit, she was elevating its stature above all other religions being studied. She disagreed, and then lectured me on the superiority of Muslims to Christians. Sort of like arguing, “I didn’t kick your dog, but it bit me first.”
I demanded Sam be given extra credit for having been circumcised. She laughed. I didn’t. My chilly silence convinced her I was serious. The disagreement was escalated to the principal. I eventually won the battle (without proof of circumcision being required, much to Sam’s relief) but I have to admit I didn’t change any minds. The principal, who is a good friend (with four kids, I did my share of time in his office) did not and does not understand why I found the offering of extra credit for only an Islamic practice to be offensive.
It has been a financial sacrifice to send our four children to Catholic School K-12; it’s a decision we don’t regret. That having been said, I learned an important lesson. All teachers have gone to the same colleges and universities, done the same graduate work and been trained using the same curriculum. They have been steeped in liberal ideology. They have literally never left school. They have never had to face the long-term effect of the principles they teach. There are concepts that teachers learn and teach that defy real-world reality (boys and girls are the same, it’s only societal constructs that make boys prefer trucks and girls prefer dolls; all religions have terrorists; violence is never the answer, etc. etc.)
Are all teachers liberal? Most are, but it’s not their politics that scare me; it’s their wholesale belief in studies and experts (and they consider themselves to be an expert) and their wholesale rejection of common sense and reality. They are convinced that since they are trained “educators”, they should be given free rein in all education-related issues and that as parents we need to support them in every way.
Obvious problem: what they believe is education related is not the same as what we understand is education related.
As parents we want them to teach. And teaching, by definition, is measurable. While we were busy raising our families, educators changed the definition of teach, right around the same time they changed their title. It’s now their job to “educate” about social awareness, tolerance and environmentalism, which now teaches as fact that our current lifestyle is “unsustainable”. That’s the topic of an AP Environmental class, by the way, that my niece is now earning college credit for as a high school junior.
My son’s teacher told me she worried my youngest was “intolerant” and she felt it was her job to change that. I explained that all my children had been taught since the earliest of ages to tolerate everything–that is, everything that is tolerable. Cliterectomies, for instance, are never to be tolerated. Nor is wife beating or bigamy. Or flying planes into buildings. And anyway, I told her, if he ended up a loser, it would be my garage he would be living in as an adult. Unless she was willing to give him her address and leave a key under the mat, I instructed her to do her job, teach him about the different religions without elevating one over the other, and I would do mine. My job being defined as everything required to ensure that he would not be living in my garage when he is 27.
Teachers and what I call “the educational complex” figured it out before I did: get them early and they are yours for life. Whether by happenstance or design, teachers and the educational complex are usually the first voice our children hear on a subject. It never dawned on my sister to discuss same-sex marriage with her fifth grader until said child came home with some questions on California Proposition 8. And the reason for her questions? The teacher was wearing a “No on 8, No on hate” button in class. How many kids saw that button and never gave their parents the opportunity to give another view? My children, at certain ages, could have been easily convinced I would vote “yes on hate”.
We as parents have influence, but who has time to de-brief every child on every subject at the end of every day? And how many children come home chatting with news of the day? Mine dropped the practice somewhere around 2nd grade, long before any controversial subjects were discussed.
And why are we sending our kids to spend the better part of every day to listen to adults, adults in authority, who think they know better than we what our children need to be taught to become functioning, responsible adults?
The Arab Spring takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood has run amok, with reports from several different media agencies that the radical Muslims have begun crucifying opponents of newly installed President Mohammed Morsi.
Middle East media confirm that during a recent rampage, Muslim Brotherhood operatives “crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others.”
Raymond Ibrahim, a fellow with the Middle East Forum and the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said the crucifixions are the product of who the Middle Eastern media call “partisans.”
“Arabic media call them ‘supporters,’ ‘followers’ and ‘partisans’ of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Ibraham said.
Ibrahim also says the victims can be anyone, including Egyptian Christians.
“It’s anyone who is resisting the new government,” Ibrahim said. “In this particular case, the people attacked and crucified were secular protesters upset because of Morsi’s hostile campaign against the media, especially of Tawfik Okasha, who was constantly exposing him on his station, until Morsi shut him down.”
Ibrahim said extra brutality is reserved for Christians, but the crucifixions are because of Islamic doctrine and are required by the Quran. The time and other details about the crucifixions were not readily available.
Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Clare Lopez cited chapter and verse from the Quran to explain that crucifixions are not simply normal for Islam, they’re demanded.
“Crucifixion is a hadd punishment, stipulated in the Quran, Sura 5:33, and therefore an obligatory part of Shariah,” Lopez said. “It’s been a traditional punishment within Islam since the beginning, even though it’s not exclusively Islamic. The Romans used it too.
“So, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood haven’t the option to not include crucifixion within their legal code. It’s obligatory to comply with Shariah. And yes, it’s for shock value also to be sure,” Lopez said.
Lopez includes a warning for Egypt’s Christians and compares the coming treatment of the Christians to the Jews in Germany.
“The Copts must get out of Egypt as soon as possible – for the many millions who will not be able to get out, I expect things will continue to deteriorate – just as they did for Germany’s and Europe’s Jews from the 1930s onward,” Lopez said.
“The warnings were there long before the ghettos and round-ups and one-way train trips to the concentration camps began in the 1940s,” she said.
Author Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, an analyst of the Middle East and Islam, fully agrees and also cites the Quran.
“The Christians are in serious trouble, because the Quran in Sura 9:29 commands Muslims to wage war against them and subjugate them, and they’re also identified with the hated West and the U.S.,” Geller said.
Geller also turned to Sura 5:33.
“These are Islamic hardliners who do everything by the Quran. The Quran says, ‘Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land,” Geller said.
International Christian Concern’s Middle East analyst Aidan Clay believes there is a relationship between the recent attacks on the regime’s enemies, a recent Sinai military skirmish and Morsi’s moves against the ranking generals.
The “Sinai skirmish” involved suspected Hamas guerrillas trying to cross into Gaza from Egypt. The Israeli Defense Force and intelligence learned of the attempted crossing in advance and stopped the incursion. Sixteen Egyptian border guards were killed in the attempted Rafah border crossing incident.
“It’s hard to believe that President Morsi could have dismissed Field Marshall Mohammed Tantawi without the help of lower-ranking military officers. The military’s sense of prestige, which millions of Egyptians still take great pride in, took a battering following the militant attack in Sinai that killed 16 soldiers,” Clay said.
“The military should have been prepared for the attack. Israel was. And the blame has largely been placed on Tantawi for his negligence and for embarrassing the military establishment,” he said.
Lopez agrees that Israel’s preparedness is a slap against the Egyptian army.
“That border skirmish that resulted in deaths of Egyptian border guards was known ahead of time by Israeli intelligence, which warned their Egyptian military counterparts,” Lopez said.
She notes that Israeli intelligence avoided contact with the Muslim Brotherhood in the incident because the attacks were a Hamas plot.
Lopez added that even after notification, the Egyptian army didn’t act.
“The Egyptian military did nothing, even as Israel expected. Thus the attack was carried out, Israel was totally prepared and responded and the result was Egyptian military deaths,” Lopez said.
Responding to ‘crisis’
She added that Morsi wasted no time in responding to the “crisis.”
“Morsi jumped on the incident as the perfect reason to purge the top ranks of the Egyptian military, install his own MB-sympathizers in positions across the top, chief of staff and intel chief,” she said. “Some call it an internal coup d’etat – and I agree. It put Morsi in sole control of the legislative branch (there is no parliament right now) and in control of the political power in Egypt. The new defense minister is a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. Things are moving very fast.”
Clay said there are mixed feelings among the military top brass in Egypt. He said some still support Tantawi; some have called for change.
“While many senior military officers maintained their support for Tantawi, his reputation took a dive among many younger officers who saw the need for a replacement. It wasn’t just the attack in Sinai that led to this, but the military’s reputation has been on the decline since a few months following the country’s uprising early last year,” Clay said.
“For some, the Sinai attack was the final straw and Morsi may have viewed it as an opportune time to remove Tantawi and other high-ranking officers from key positions,” Clay said.
He noted that Morsi, not the military, took the lead in responding to the Sinai attacks.
“In doing so, while also forcing Tantawi out of his cabinet, Morsi has set a precedent that it is he who decides who runs the army,” Clay said.
“While the generals will still advise Morsi, he can decide whether or not to listen to them. It’s apparent that Morsi is quickly becoming Egypt’s sole leader which means control of the country will be in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.
However, Geller believes Morsi had a second motive for his action.
Reign of terror
“I suspect that Morsi’s action was timed in part to forestall any further military action against the jihadis,” Geller said, adding that the results will make Egypt’s government more monolithic than it already was.
“Morsi is instituting a reign of terror to consolidate his power,” Geller said.
American Enterprise Institute Middle East analyst Michael Rubin agreed: Morsi is after the power.
“Morsi certainly wants absolute control. The Egyptian army have never been saints, but Morsi will broker no checks to his power as the Muslim Brotherhood writes a constitution and imposes its dream of an Islamic state on Egypt,” Rubin said.
Lopez says this all means that Morsi is shedding his “moderate” veneer.
“The point I would make is that Morsi is not bothering to play ‘moderate’ anymore. He’s moving very aggressively to consolidate power for the Muslim Brotherhood,” Lopez said.
She added that Morsi is now free to act without any concern for public opinion.
“He doesn’t seem to care who thinks what anymore. He knows he’s got the USG and president in his corner no matter what he does. He doesn’t have to pretend, no need for ‘plausible deniability.’ He also knows he’s got the majority of the Egyptian people behind him,” Lopez said.
Rubin believes, however, that Morsi will still try to play the “moderate” to continue to gain U.S. support.
Playing the moderate?
“Morsi is going to play the moderate and the mediator for the world media, all the while complaining that he can’t take more forceful action against the extremists because the radical fringe won’t allow him to do more,” Rubin said.
“It’s nonsense, of course, but still an explanation that will satisfy American diplomats, safe behind the walls of their compound,” Rubin said.
Lopez added to Rubin’s explanation, but points to the White House as the main cheerleader for Morsi and the Brotherhood.
“This is exactly what many of us expected him to do (consolidate power) and I think the White House knew, too, and not only expected but wanted Morsi and the Brotherhood to take over Egypt,” Lopez said.
“As far as I know, the White House invitation for Morsi in September still stands – nor have I heard the slightest hint of criticism from any top U.S. government leadership figure about Morsi’s coup. He knows he’s on solid ground with this administration,” Lopez said.
A perverse ‘Process’
By NINA SHEA
Last Updated: 3:54 AM, December 17, 2011
Posted: 10:15 PM, December 16, 2011
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday ended the “Istanbul Process,” a three-day, closed-door international conference hosted by the State Department on measures to combat religious “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization.”
The conference was intended to “implement” last March’s UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, on the same subject. Notwithstanding Clinton’s final speech defending freedoms of religion and speech, the gathering was folly.
Resolution 16/18 was adopted in the place of one that endorsed the dangerous idea that “defamation of religion” should be punished criminally worldwide. That call for a universal blasphemy law had been pushed relentlessly for 12 years by the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an essentially religious body chartered to “combat defamation of Islam.” It issues fatwas and other directives to punish public expression of apostasy from Islam and “Islamophobia.”
Leading OIC states behind this campaign — Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and Pakistan — imprison and/or sentence to death “blasphemers.”
Resolution 16/18 deplores religious intolerance but doesn’t limit speech — the result of a deft State Department maneuver. The administration should have let matters rest there.
Instead, while co-chairing an OIC “High Level Meeting” addressing Islamophobia last July in Istanbul, Clinton invited the OIC to Washington to discuss how to “implement” resolution 16/18.
While the Washington conference ended inconclusively, it should not have been held because:
* It offered a transnational venue for the OIC to reintroduce its anti-defamation push, just as the issue had been laid to rest at the United Nations. The administration erred in viewing resolution 16/18 as a meeting of minds between the OIC and America on freedoms of religion and speech.
In Istanbul, Clinton asserted that the United States does not want to see speech restrictions — but her conference announcement immediately reignited OIC demands for the West to punish anti-Islamic speech.
As the OIC reported it: “The upcoming [Washington] meetings . . . [will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”
* It unfairly held up the American experience for special scrutiny and critique.
A legal official’s opening keynote address gave a one-sided historical depiction of American bigotry against religious minorities, including Muslims, without explaining our relatively exemplary achievement of upholding individual freedoms of religion and speech in an overwhelmingly tolerant and pluralistic society. He told the participants, some representing the world’s most repressive states, that America can learn to protect religious tolerance from them.
* By standing “united” (as the OIC head put it in a Turkish Daily op-ed) with the OIC on these issues, America appears to validate the OIC agenda, thus demoralizing the legions of women’s rights and human-rights advocates, bloggers, journalists, minorities, converts, reformers and others in OIC states who look to the United States for support against oppression.
* It raises expectations that America can and will regulate speech on behalf of Islam, as has happened in Western Europe, Canada and Australia.
The European Union mandated religious-hate-speech codes after global riots and other similar violence erupted in 2006 over a Danish newspaper’s publication of caricatures of Mohammad. America is facing pressure to conform to this new global “best practice”; this will only intensify it.
* Clinton on Wednesday naively importuned Islamist diplomats: “We have to get past the idea that we can suppress religious minorities, that we can restrict speech, that we are smart enough that we can substitute our judgment for God’s and determine who is or is not blaspheming.”
Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi establishment isn’t likely to find such “infidel’” arguments persuasive.
US diplomats should stop the “Istanbul Process” and begin to energetically and confidently promote the virtues of our First Amendment freedoms. They should be thoroughly briefed about the OIC’s intractable position on blasphemy laws and the extent of atrocities associated with them. They must end signaling that there is common ground on these issues between us and the OIC.
Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and co-author, with Paul Marshall, of “Silenced: How Apostasy & Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedoms Worldwide.”
Posted on July 8, 2012 by actforamericahouston
By Susan Carroll
She was 16 years old, working as an operator in a tiny, public call office in Pakistan, when a man walked in and saw the silver cross dangling around her neck.
He asked her three times: “Are you a Christian?”
Julie Aftab answered, “Yes, sir,” the first two times, and then got frustrated.
“Didn’t you hear me?” she asked.
They argued, and the man abruptly left the little office, returning 30 or 40 minutes later with a turquoise bottle. Aftab tried to block the arc of battery acid, but it melted much of the right side of her face and left her with swirling, bone-deep burns on her chest and arms. She ran for the door, but a second man grabbed her hair, and theypoured the acid down her throat, searing her esophagus.
A decade and 31 surgeries later, Aftab is an accounting major at the University of Houston-Clear Lake with a melodic laugh. She spoke no English when she arrived in Houston in February 2004, but is poised to take her citizenship test later this month.
Doctors in Houston have donated their time to painstakingly reconstruct her cheek, nose, upper lip and replace her eyelids. Over time, her scars have faded from hues of deep wine to mocha.
And, with time, the 26-year-old said, she has learned to forgive.
“Those people, they think they did a bad thing to me, but they brought me closer to God,” Aftab said. “They helped me fulfill my dreams. I never imagined I could be the person I am today.”
Eldest of seven
Aftab was born in Faisalabad, Pakistan, the eldest of seven children in a Christian working-class family.
She dreamed of becoming a doctor, but dropped out of school at age 12 to work in a sewing factory after her father, a bus driver and the family’s sole breadwinner, broke his back in an accident. After the sewing factory closed when Aftab was 16, she took a job as a telephone operator helping people place phone calls from the small office in the city’s center.
It was June 15, 2002, two weeks into her new job, when the customer spotted her silver cross, a gift from her grandfather. She wore it despite knowing it branded her as Christian, a tiny minority in the Muslim-majority country.
You are living life in the gutter, the Muslim man told her.
She tried to ignore him, remembering what her mother had taught her since she was a child: “You are no one to insult someone’s religion. If someone is insulting religion, they have to answer to God.”
You are going to hell, the man told her. You are living in darkness.
“I am living in the light,” Aftab replied.
So you think Islam is in darkness? the man demanded.
Aftab was frightened. She knew Christians had been accused of violating Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws in the past when others had twisted their words, to make it sound as though they had attacked Islam.
“No, you said that,” she replied. “Not me.”
But the man was enraged and returned with the battery acid and his friend. When she finally broke away from them, the acid searing her skin and throat, she ran down the street. As she screamed, teeth fell from her mouth and hit the ground.
A woman heard her screams and threw her head cover on Aftab so she could touch her without getting burned. The woman took Aftab to her home and poured water on her. Others eventually came to help take her to the hospital.
People in the neighborhood detained the two men who assaulted her until police arrived.
Why did you do that? the men were asked.
They said Aftab insulted Islam, that she said Muslims are living in the darkness and are going to hell.
“They all turned against me,” she said. “Even the people who took me to the hospital. They told the doctor they were going to set the hospital on fire if they treated me.”….
….Slowly, she started to heal. Three months and 17 days after being burned, she spoke again and was able to see through her left eye. She spent almost a year in the hospital.
Aftab quickly learned that in her old neighborhood, she was a pariah. Her mutilated face was plastered on the news, associated with insulting Islam. Her family was persecuted, and their house was burned down.
“They wanted to hang me,” she said. “They thought it would be an insult to Islam if I lived.”….
This is what sharia looks like. This young woman is innocent- she did no wrong, she committed no crime. She was treated brutally, viciously, simply because she is a Christian. This is what life is like for non-Muslims in Muslim lands. It is very easy to accuse a Christian of blasphemy.
Now, keep the above story in mind, and see what our own government is doing to restrict our freedom of speech:
HRES 728 IH
H. RES. 728
Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commending Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 12, 2012
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. HOLT, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Mr. RUSH, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. FUDGE, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Ms. MOORE, Mr. STARK, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. HONDA, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas, Ms. CHU, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. CLEAVER, and Mr. FILNER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commending Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith.
Whereas since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, threats and incidents of violence have been directed at law-abiding, patriotic Americans of African, Arab, and South Asian descent, particularly members of the Islamic faith;
Whereas, on September 14, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution condemning bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia in the wake of the terrorist attacks;
Whereas it is estimated that there are approximately 1,500,000,000 Muslims worldwide;
Whereas nearly 6,000 Muslims serve as members of our Armed Forces;
Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and
Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan commences at dusk on July 20, 2012, and continues for one lunar month: Now, therefore, be it
(1) during this time of conflict, in order to demonstrate solidarity with and support for members of the community of Islam in the United States and throughout the world, the House of Representatives recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world; and
(2) in observance of and out of respect for the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, the House of Representatives acknowledges the onset of Ramadan and expresses its deepest respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this significant occasion.
- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -
Islamic Terror vs. Norway Massacre
Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On June 15, 2012 @ 12:35 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 25 Comments
Ever since last year’s Norway massacre, when Anders Breivik killed some 70 people, the relativists and Muslim apologists of the world felt exonerated: for here at last, thought they, was proof positive that terrorism had nothing to do with Islamic teachings per se. If Christianity cannot be blamed for Breivik, why blame Islam for al-Qaeda?
This question was restated in a recent email to me from Gehan D. Sabry, editor of Cross Cultures, a website dedicated to “Promoting Harmony Through Knowledge and Better Understanding.” Regarding my recent article “A Tale of Two American Martyrs,” where I discussed the slayings of two American Christians in the Muslim world due to allegations of proselytizing, she wrote:
[…] I know enough fellow Christians who agree with me that the majority of Muslims and Christians, in fact the moderates of ALL religions … get along just fine, and only the radicals of each are the ones who make the news, and cause turmoil and tragedy in this world … when I read this article of yours, I immediately remembered the psycho from Norway who killed over 70 youth recently … why don’t you try to explain that away for me?
My explanation, which may be of general interest—this question of moral equivalency plagues the many who think on superficial terms—follows:
First, the two murdered American teachers were killed by Muslims under accusations of proselytism. As it happens, according to mainstream Islamic interpretations of Sharia, proselytizing Muslims is a capital offence. In fact, it is mentioned as far back as the so-called Pact of Omar, which Muslim doctrinaires still quote from, and which delineates what non-Muslims (it was first made with Christians in Syria) must—and must not—do to safeguard their blood.
One of the stipulations they had to agree to was, “We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.” At the very end of the pact, they had to agree that “If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant, and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition,” which is death.Thus the Muslims who killed the American teachers accused of Christian proselytism had doctrinal backing from Islam—one that, by the way, has manifested itself regularly throughout the course of Muslim history.
On the other hand, Anders Breivik had absolutely no Christian support—doctrinal or scriptural—for his shooting spree. Nor did he articulate his terror in the name of religion, the way Koran-waving Islamic terrorists do daily. The importance of this contrast should be clear to objective thinkers.
Also, as earlier explained, the terror campaign of Breivik—who openly confessed that al-Qaeda was his “inspiration” to the point that he tried to emulate its tactics by beheading and videotaping his victims—was influenced, consciously or subconsciously, by Islamic-style jihad and terror.
Finally, let us not overlook the fact that the American teachers who were killed by Muslims, and the 70 Norwegians who were killed by Breivik, were all killed in response to Islam—the former directly, the latter indirectly.
Along with the countless non-Muslims daily persecuted under Islam, the Americans were slain in direct accordance with Islam’s punishment for proselytism. Conversely, though only Breivik is directly responsible for his murderous spree, it was, nonetheless, indirectly prompted by his conviction (shared among many Europeans) that Islam—from mass and illegal immigration, to calls for Sharia and death for cartoon publishers—is making cataclysmic inroads in Europe.
Without removing the sole responsibility from Breivik, the question is: Would there have been a Norway massacre if there was no Islam in Europe—with all the troubles associated with it?
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com