Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Islamification, Christianity and WWIII: Islam’s Subtle Political Maneuvers

If we are to escape further Islamification, we must take back our churches and all of our cultural institutions. Stand up, speak out, and if you must, walk out and withdraw financial support!!!

NEW YORK (BP)--Much of the church is asleep or in “deep, dark denial” about Islam, Anglican Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi of Uganda said in New York City at the Kairos Journal Award dinner Jan. 26. . . . The inner attack on the church is the shifting of authority away from the Bible toward a “false gospel,” Orombi said. But from without, he said, the church’s most significant threat is Islam. . . . the church is generally ignorant about Islam, its doctrine, its ideology and its expansionist strategy, the Anglican leader said. Most churches have no plan or vision about reaching Muslims and even shy away from evangelism out of fear and the prospect of retaliatory violence. . . . Mark Durie, vicar of St. Mary’s Anglican Church, Caulfield, in Melbourne, Australia, echoed that sentiment. Failure to address Islam with the Gospel will result in falling prey to it. At present, he said, the future of the world is less than certain.

What exactly is Islamification?

The simplest definition is can be found at WorldViews in a 2004 review “The Islamification of Europe.” This was a review of a WSJ article by Johns Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami.

Here’s an excerpt: (Bold highlights added by me)

On the op-ed page of the "Wall Street Journal" (subscription required) is a remarkable article by Johns Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami on how radical Islam has been nurtured specifically in Europe, and why the Europeans feel they must be on the Arabs' side, even as they are threatened by an unassimilated and growing population that owes them no loyalty.

Europeans imported huge numbers of Muslim laborers in the 1960's. Their numbers swelled as refugees fled the wars and tyrannies of their own countries. The mideast regimes were so oppressive that the dissidents fled to Europe, where they took advantage of the freedom they could never have at home to develop their radical Islamic ideologies. And, according to Ajami, as the immigrant population booms and the native Europeans have fewer and fewer children, the radicalized Muslims are gaining more and more power in the European democracies. But while they are willing to take advantage of the opportunities afforded in their new homelands, the Muslims are insisting that they owe allegiance to no nationality; only to Islam.

For a good view of Islamification see the video Islamification of Britain.

January 27, 2007: “We are in the midst of a third World War,’ former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told weekly newspaper Expresso.”

SeeWorld War III has already begun, says Israeli spy chief
Former head of Israel's intelligence service tells Portuguese newspaper it would take at least 25 years before battle against fundamentalist terrorism is won; says nuclear strike by Muslim terrorists 'very likely'.

Hat Tip to Mr. Minority

A third World War is already underway between Islamic militancy and the West but most people do not realize it, the former head of Israel’s intelligence service Mossad said in an interview published Saturday in Portugal.

‘We are in the midst of a third World War,’ former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told weekly newspaper Expresso. . .

Halevy, who was raised in war-time London, predicted it would take at least 25 years before the battle against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is won and during this time a nuclear strike by Islamic militants was likely.

Hat Tip to Dhimmi Watch
How the Pope sees Islam (2/6/07) Here’s an excerpt. (Bold highlights added by me.)

The Egyptian Jesuit priest Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, S.J. here explains the thoughtful, careful, and realistic approach that Pope Benedict XVI has adopted toward the Islamic world. "When Civilizations Meet: How Joseph Ratzinger Sees Islam," from Asia News via Chiesa, with thanks to D.:

Benedict XVI is probably one of the few figures to have profoundly understood the ambiguity in which contemporary Islam is being debated and its struggle to find a place in modern society. At the same time, he is proposing a way for Islam to work toward coexistence globally and with religions, based not on religious dialogue, but on dialogue between cultures and civilizations based on rationality and on a vision of man and human nature which comes before any ideology or religion. This choice to wager on cultural dialogue explains his decision to absorb the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue into the larger Pontifical Council for Culture.

While the pope is asking Islam for dialogue based on culture, human rights, the refusal of violence, he is asking the West, at the same time, to go back to a vision of human nature and rationality in which the religious dimension is not excluded. In this way – and perhaps only in this way – a clash of civilizations can be avoided, transforming it instead into a dialogue between civilizations. . . .

. . .But the key point that he tackles is that of shari’a. He points out that:

“the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Shari’a shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself”.

This alienation could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society. When for example an Islamic finds himself in a Western society, he can benefit from or exploit certain elements, but he can never identify himself with the non-Muslim citizen, because he does not find himself in a Muslim society. . . .

With regard to the Jesuit’s statement above concernining Sharia: “it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give” please take a look at “Our Vulnerable Religious Freedoms

Our greatest National strengths can also be our biggest points of vulnerability. I have written earlier that our freedom of expression, freedom of equal protection as citizens, and the “wall of separation” between church and state in the United States, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendments, is vulnerable to being undermined for one specific reason. Our nation has never attempted to define what constitutes a religion. . .

Hat Tip to BookWorm Room

At FrontPage Magazine, you can read an interview with Bill Warner, the the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Warner discusses Islam’s dualistic nature, which can hold simultaneously two opposite thoughts (such as the instruction to treat nonbelievers decently and the instruction that they must be destroyed as infidels). Thus, Warner contrasts Islamic beliefs with the Golden Rule, a principle that appears in all of the world’s other than Islam . . .

Here’s a typical response from a moderate Muslim to all this so-called “Islamophobia”. Although I am very glad to hear a “moderate” Muslim’s response against Islamic terrorism, note the dualistic denial. (BOLD highlights added by me).

Britácora Almendrón
Una mirada al mundo artistico, cultural y political

By Zeeshan Hashmion, who served in the British Army between 2000 and 2005. He is now a student at Cambridge (THE TIMES, 06/02/07):

. . .I do feel increasingly impatient when engaged in debates about my faith, its so-called link with extremism and its so-called rejection of democracy. I wish I could shout out loud and say that a majority of Muslims believe in the core message of Islam, which is peace. We are tolerant of others and comfortable coexisting in a multicultural, multi-ethnic environment. Islam does not dictate that one can only be Muslim and not British or Chinese at the same time.

Unfortunately, there are those among us who are ill-educated, misled and are indeed extremists. My message to those who preach extremism and a false concept of jihad is that our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) not only stood up but asked his companions to do the same when the funeral of a Jew was passing near by. One’s responsibility to the Muslim ummah demands logic and reasoning in achieving long-term, peaceful solutions based upon coexistence. Isolation and extremism is not the answer; initiating a dialogue is.

Those in power should be more responsible and sincere when discussing conflict resolution. Stop using the notion of democracy to justify loss of human life; we need to ensure that we create a more stable and less bloody future for coming generations. This is the least we owe to those who have made sacrifices. Political systems and doctrine can not effectively be imported from one region to another facing a different range of problems.
As individuals, we ought to be more open and receptive in our approach towards fellow humans, in peace time or in conflict. “For those who have had to fight for it, Life has truly a flavour the protected shall never know.”

Trackposted to Right Celebrity, third world county, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, and Conservative Thoughts, Outside the Beltway, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


  1. As usual and excellent post.


    People need to wake up and realize that our way of life IS already being threatened.

  2. Thanks Spree. Just went to that link you provided! Unbelievable

    "The principal of an Islamic school has admitted that it uses textbooks which describe Jews as "apes" and Christians as "pigs" and has refused to withdraw them.

    Dr Sumaya Alyusuf confirmed that the offending books exist after former teacher Colin Cook, 57, alleged that children as young as five are taught from racist materials at the King Fahd Academy in Acton.

    In an interview on BBC2's Newsnight, Dr Alyusuf was asked by Jeremy Paxman whether she recognised the books.

    She said: "Yes, I do recognise these books, of course. We have these books in our school. These books have good chapters that can be used by the teachers. It depends on the objectives the teacher wants to achieve."

    In another exchange, Dr Alyusuf insisted the books should not be scrapped, saying that allegedly racist sections had been "misinterpreted".

  3. FYI - You can get free access to with a netpass from:

    Andrew Tobias blogged about this last week..I thought it was a great tip!

  4. Thanks blogger for peace. That's very good information!

  5. allegedly racist sections had been "misinterpreted".

    Of course, by pigs they mean nice little piggies and by apes they mean cute little monkeys. No harm inteneded.

  6. Excellent article and goes along perfectly with a political article I'm working on. What bothers me is that sometimes I think we are preaching to the choir. The ones who really need to read something like this, probably won't. Too bad.

  7. Well, if you want some feedback from someone who disagrees, here I am!

    What really disturbs me about this kind of writing is that it bears such a striking resemblance to anti-Jewish literature of the past.

    As for contradictions in the Koran: Aren't there contradicitons in the Bible, too? Aren't there sections that claim that God instructed the Israelites to slay the "unbelievers?"

    Having read the Bible throroughly and studied it for years, I'm certain that there are such passages, and they do indeed conflict with the Golden Rule.

    Does that mean there is a "doublethink" concept in Christianity which undermines the peaceful premises of Christianity?

    Of course not.

    Muslims will of course have to wrestle with contradicitions in their scriptures, no less than any other people do. Dialogue about these things, and public discourse is the best way to hash these things out, both among muslims, and among people of differing faiths.

    I find it remarkably amusing that the author thinks that lack of a political definition of religion is a "vulnerability" in the constitution!

    Allow me to shed some light on muslim's insistence that governments must be "muslim." You have to understand what is meant by "muslim" and how it applies.

    Muslim means "faithful to God" and in this sense, muslims are saying that the government shouldn't be corrupt and do things to people that a muslim wouldn't do to another person.

    Muslims who have fled the despotic and colonial regimes of the Middle East are particularly keen on seeing to it that governments do not use corrupt and oppressive practices that are contrary to the rule of law.

    For them, they must look to the source of law that they know: the common law as it evolved under the judicial authority of Islamic clerics.

    Rather than being afraid of shari'a, we should look to those judgements of Islamic clerics that coincide with ethical traditions of our own.

    By emphasizing common law that AGREES, we can establish a dialogue that creates common legitimacy between Islam and other faiths.

    This would be far more constructive than picking things that are in extreme DISagreement, and using them to claim that Islam is mutually exclusive as a whole.

    As a Universalist, I find the religion of the Founders to be a good template for a modern society. Deism is a rational religion, and it does not hold to orthodoxy which defies reason, a shortcoming for many religions, including Islam.

    Yet, there IS a ratonal school of thought within Islam, but it has been long dormant. It was prevalent and dominant during Islam's Golden Age, and it emphasized reason and pursuit of knowledge. Hearkening BACK to that school of thought would be a wonderful inspiration to muslims everywhere, and it would also appeal to the more universalist principles in Islam that promoted tolerance of, and respect for, other traditions.

    It would also provide an alternative to radical fundamentalist jihad, something I'm sure we would all like to see fade away.

    People will not be dissuaded from practicing their religion or asserting their right to self-determination by conquest, harassment, or ostracicism. A different way needs to be sought to find peace.

  8. Dear Sir,
    The following issue can destroy ISLAM or ISRAEL; study it thoroughly to see if there is any truth to it.
    READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of Israel that god gave them the land. If the child is an infant than the Judeo-Christian version becomes null and void and we are wasting our time and resources i.e. we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against Islam the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).
    The COVENANT with Abraham and his DESCENDANTS is central to JUDAISM/CHRISTIANITY/ISLAM.
    Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.
    Genesis 21:14 Contemporary English version se below link;&version=46;
    Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar an animal skin full of water and some bread. Then he put the boy on her shoulder and sent them away.
    GENESIS 16:16
    And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish’mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish’mael to Abram.
    GENESIS 21:5
    Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
    At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!
    NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.
    100 years old – 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING
    Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?
    GENESIS: 21:14 - 21
    So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD) child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child.” And as she sat over against him, the (17 YEAR OLD) child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink. And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
    The age of Ishmael at this stage is crucial to the Abrahamic faiths. If he is 17 than the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN point of view about the Abrahamic covenant is correct. This has devastating theological consequences of unimaginable proportions.
    This makes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac and there descendants a work of fiction. I would strongly suggest it is clear cut case of racial discrimination and nothing to do with god almighty. The scribes have deliberately tried to make Isaac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??
    Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?
    I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces - unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant.
    For background info on the future religion of mankind see the following websites:
    (MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE),,31200-galloway_060806,00.html George Galloway media appearances
    HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 - 122
    101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
    102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!” (The son) said: “O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!”
    103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
    104. We called out to him “O Abraham!
    105. “Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
    106. For this was obviously a trial-
    107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
    108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
    109. “Peace and salutation to Abraham!”
    110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
    111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
    112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
    113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
    114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron,
    115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;
    116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles);
    117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear;
    118. And We guided them to the Straight Way.
    119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:
    120. “Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!”
    121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
    122. For they were two of our believing Servants.
    Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD’s.
    Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583:
    Narrated Ibn Abbas:
    The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka’ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael’s mother followed him saying, “O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?” She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, “Has Allah ordered you to do so?” He said, “Yes.” She said, “Then He will not neglect us,” and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka’ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:
    ‘O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.’ (14.37) Ishmael’s mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).
    When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times.”
    The Prophet said, “This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, ‘O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?” And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zam-zam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it.”
    The Prophet added, “May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael’s mother! Had she let the Zam-zam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.” The Prophet further added, “Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, ‘Don’t be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.’ The House (i.e. Kaba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada’. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it. They said, ‘This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.’ They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water).” The Prophet added, “Ishmael’s mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, ‘Do you allow us to stay with you?” She replied, ‘Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.’ They agreed to that.” The Prophet further said, “Ishmael’s mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them.

  9. Here we have two perspectives of Islam presented in the two comments above. Neither of these individuals appear to have blogs nor to understand blogging comment etiquette. Please keep individual comments down to two or three short paragraphs. Brow-beating doesn’t win converts!

  10. My apologies for my lengthy previous post.

    To clarify, though, I wasn't offering a perspective on Islam. I was just offering a tidbit of knowledge rebutting the oft-repeated assumption that the Islamic religion demands that governments are Islamic.

    There WAS NO "Islamic religion" at the time that Mohammed called for governments to be "muslim." There's no basis for fundamentalist muslims (or any other muslims) to demand, on the authority of the prophet, that governments must be Islamic, as we understand it, ie formed under the guidelines of the Islamic religion. It's a corruption of their religion. It's exactly the OPPOSITE of the universalist founding principles in the Koran.

    In my previous post, I advocated finding COMMON ideals and values, not dickering over who was the first son of Abraham.

    The truth can't be other than universal, no? If murder is a sin for Christians, Muslims and Jews, then none of them are justified in killing each other, are they?

  11. Real Answers to Real Questions:
    Jesus, the Bible, origin of Christianity & more . . .

  12. FYI: The link that anonymous left is an Islamic site designed to promote Islam over and against Christianity. Here's a quote from that site:

    "Whereas, The Bible is a collection of writings by many different authors, the Quran is a dictation (or recitation). The speaker in the Quran - in the first person - is God Almighty (Allah) talking directly to man. . ."