Gentiles & Jews Unite

We may only do it once a year, but when Jews and Christians join forces to lobby government on behalf of Israel, we sure do it with passion.

I spent yesterday with the British Zionist Federation and Christian Friends Of Israel – two groups that work closely together to try and get Israel a fair hearing in Britain. For the past five years, these groups have spent a day every year meeting with various MPs and discussing the way the British media represents – or rather MISrepresents Israel.

Last year there were around three hundred of us. This year, even more people showed up and the atmosphere was one of genuine frustration with the BBC and also with various MPs who are openly hostile towards Israel.

One thing which struck me was that, for all the supposed ‘differences’ between Jews and Christians, we do share a good sense of humour. The two hosts, Eric Moonman(ZF) and Geoffrey Smith (CFI) are both wonderful and had us laughing at the start of the day with their irreverant and charming humour.  Geoffrey Smith also reminded us of a vital point to convey to those who argue: why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons, since Israel does?

Smith pointed out: Israel has had nuclear weapons for several decades. Not once did any of the nearby Arab nations demand their own nuclear devices – because they’ve always trusted Israel. But since Iran has started enriching uranium and it’s become clear that Ahmadinejad has nuclear ambitions, several of those same Arab countries have stated that now they too want nuclear weapons.

This is an excellent point and one which we need to remind people of.

A lot of other interesting information was conveyed at the various sessions yesterday – I’m going to post something on them tomorrow so for those who may be interested, watch this space…!

Oh, and before anyone starts leaving stupid comments about Britain’s ‘israel lobby’, they might care to note: one of the MPs yesterday told us that British Muslims and several Muslim groups are ‘constantly throwing receptions and dinners’ for British politicians….

The Missionary Position

Something strange is happening in London.


Especially in areas with large Jewish communities. Take 14 year old Rachel, whose family lives in a north London suburb. Last month, she opened the front door to find three Orthodox Jews standing there. Greeting her warmly, they explained they were from the Beth Shalom Synagogue, and were in her area, doing ‘outreach work’. Specifically, they wanted to learn how to make Synagogue ‘more relevant’ for teenagers.

Might Rachel spare them ten minutes of her time…?

Feeling perfectly safe, Rachel invited them in, and made some tea. And for the next forty minutes,she enjoyed a lively conversation with her fellow Jews, about religion, and life in London, and sundry other topics.

And then one of these Orthodox Jews asked Rachel what she thought about Hell.  Which was kind of strange – since  Rachel knew that in Jewish belief there is NO ‘hell’.

Baffled, she asked ‘Chaim’ to elaborate. Leaning forward with a look of great concern, Chaim asked Rachel if she was worried about her parents, and her six year old sister. After all, surely she didn’t want them to ’spend eternity in hell?’ Chaim then explained this was just what would happen – if Rachel’s family ‘failed to find Jesus’. So Rachel now found herself, bizarrely, with three Orthodox Jews who were preaching Christianity!

Uneasy, she asked Chaim which specific Jewish sect he represented.

‘Messianic’, came the beaming response, a ‘new group in which you can remain Jewish AND still know Jesus.’

And while this did not enlighten Rachel, her mother knew precisely what it meant when she arrived home ten minutes later and threw ‘Chaim’ and his friends out.

You see, these ‘orthodox jews’ were not Jews at all.

They were Christian missionaries.

Or, as they prefer to be known, ‘messianic jews’.

Confused? That’s what Messianics count upon.

The “messianic jewish” movement has been steadily expanding across North America over the past decade. Despite claiming to be ‘jewish’, it is a purely Christian movement.

It was founded by evangelical Christians, and it is funded 100% by evangelical Churches. In short, the Messianic movement is about as ‘jewish’ as a plate of pork chops.


It’s estimated that 95% of Messianics were never Jewish to start with.

To be clear: the Messianic movement is a very specific, evangelical Christian group. It does not represent all Christians.

Indeed, many Christian movements have publicly condemned Messianics, for the lies they tell.

But don’t dismiss Messianics  as some fringe cult. While it may have started that way, Messianics are managing to convert thousands of naive young Jews every year from Judaism to Christianity. The most aggressive and infamous Messianic group is ‘jews4jesus’, but this is  just one group among many.

What is it that Messianics want?

Simple. The same thing that Christianity, as a movement, has wanted for some 2000 years. Namely, for Jews to accept Jesus as ’son of god’, as ‘messiah’ and as ’saviour’.

And when all their previous efforts to convert Jews failed, American evangelists rebranded. Now they call their Churches ’synagogues’, they address their preachers as ‘rabbi’, and they themselves are not ‘Christians’ but rather ‘messianic jews’.

Their target audience?  Naive young Jews, who fall for the line that Messianics represent a ‘new jewish group which recognises Jesus.’

And right now in the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia, Messianics are doing a hell of a lot more than just knocking on the doors of Jewish homes.

For they are also very busy convincing the entire non Jewish world that they, the Messianics, are in fact the ‘real jews’.


Rachel was lucky. The approach made to her was clumsy and pretty much destined to fail.  But numerous young Jewish students away from home for the first time have been lured into embracing Christianity without even realising it.

Take Jonathan. He was away at University, in his first year, studying Politics. When a fellow student, Suzanne, befriended him, he was delighted. She was obviously Jewish – she was wearing a Magen David.

After a few weeks, Suzanne invited Jonathan to go with her to ’synagogue’. Not the one that most Jewish students at that University preferred but another, ‘more friendly’ synagogue. Jonathan said yes, and didn’t give it another thought.

And  the following Friday night, he was impressed by the warm reception he got at this ‘temple’. Everyone was smiling. Welcoming. The synagogue looked like every other synagogue he’d ever attended. The ‘Rabbi’ was charismatic, and gave an interesting service. The kiddush was lovely. Jonathan went home feeling great.

And so when, a few weeks later, Suzanne and some of the other members of the temple suggested to Jonathan that he take a look at a ‘wonderful Hebrew scripture’, he shrugged and figured, ‘Where’s the harm?’.

Suzanne explained that the scripture was called the ‘Brit Chadasha’.

She gave Jonathan some photocopied pages; an ‘English translation’.  He glanced through them. They were fairly interesting. Prettily written. Jonathan had never been very into religion – sure, he was Jewish, but he wasn’t ‘observant’.

But Suzanne was keen to discuss the scriptures and Jonathan soon found himself enjoying their chats. When the name ‘Yeshua’ came up, Jonathan didn’t make the connection. He liked this new form of “messianic judaism”.

The problem? ‘Brit Chadasha’ is Hebrew for New Testament.

Jonathan had been studying the Christian bible without even knowing it!

All choice had been taken away from him, as he’d been convinced that he was simply following an authentic Jewish text, as part of an authentic Jewish group.

He was not now a ‘messianic jew’. He was now on his way out of Judaism – because for a Jew to affirm belief in Jesus or any other human as ‘divine’ is blasphemy.


Now of course, people switch faiths. Christians become Jews. Jews become Christians. But they do it consciously.

Jonathan was troubled once he discovered that he’d been so thoroughly hoodwinked. And when he confronted his Messianic ‘friends’,  their response was to turn on him and issue dire warnings about his ‘fate’ if he now ‘rejected jesus’.

Messianics are also busy in cyberspace. In debate forums that feature religion as a topic, they are busy representing ‘judaism’ and convincing millions of well meaning non Jews that ‘real jews DO embrace Jesus!’

Fortunately in some forums there are genuine Jews who are countering this deception. Even then, they come under attack from the Messianics who accuse the Jews of ‘discrimination’.

In other words: Jews are being told they have to accept a Christian evangelical group as part OF Judaism – or be guilty of ‘discrimination’!

And Messianics are also busy  hijacking Jewish festivals. At Pesach, hundreds of thousands of Messianics celebrate ‘the real passover’, in which Jesus is the ’sacrificial lamb’. They have also inserted Jesus into other sacred Jewish rituals and festivals, in a way that is offensive in the extreme.

In short: Messianics are slowly but surely taking everything that Judaism holds as sacred, and Christianising it.

And in doing so,  they are twisting both Judaism and Christianity.

In America, Jews are actively addressing this new threat from Christian missionaries, and have organised some great resources, primarily in the form of ‘Jews For Judaism’, which aims to counter, specifically but not exclusively, ‘jews4jesus’.

But here in the UK, while Messianics are becoming more proactive, the Jewish community remains silent. Recently, ‘jews4jesus’ yet again took to the streets and started bombarding the public with leaflets and books in central London.

Yet not a single Jewish newspaper so much as mentioned this.

And let’s all be crystal clear: these evangelists have one basic goal: they wish to eradicate us.

Oh sure – they’ll do it with smiles, and they’ll claim to ‘love’ us, but make no mistake.

The Messianic movement aims to convert as many Jews as humanly possible, to its own peculiar, confused brand of evangelical Christianity.

Only now, Messianics are that much cleverer. And if they have to steal our very identity in order to succeed, so be it.

Perhaps the most worrying comment comes from a 30-something Jewish man who, having battled Messianics in ‘real life’ and internet forums for several years now, concludes:

‘Within another ten years, nobody out there will even understand that these Messianics are not Jewish. For some bizarre reason, the world thinks that this group within Evangelical Christianity gets to REdefine Judaism, and just accepts whatever Messianics claim. Never mind that we genuine Jews are trying desperately to counter these evangelical lies. Nobody gives a damn.’

The Predicament Of British Christians

 

I sincerely wish Melanie Phillips was running this country. She remains one of the few, sane voices left in Britain right now.

Here she is on the difficulties facing British Christians of late:

 

Sleepwalking off the cultural cliff

Daily Mail, 14 December 2009

 

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, comes in for a lot of stick — not least from columnists like me.

But in the past few days, he has said something important. He has criticised Government ministers for thinking that Christian beliefs are no longer relevant in modern Britain, and for looking at religion as a ‘problem’.

Many Government faith initiatives, he observed, assumed that religion was an eccentricity practised by oddballs, foreigners and minorities.

This is not just a seasonal exercise in special pleading by a Church leader. Dr Williams has put his finger on what should be a cause of extreme disquiet — the war of attrition being waged against Christian beliefs.

In recent times, there has been a string of cases in which it is no exaggeration to say that British Christians have been persecuted for expressing their faith.

In July, Duke Amachree, a Christian who for 18 years had been a Homelessness Prevention Officer for Wandsworth Council, encouraged a client with an incurable medical condition to believe in God.

As a result, Mr Amachree was marched off the premises, suspended and then dismissed from his job. It was a similar case to the Christian nurse who was suspended after offering to pray for a patient’s recovery.

Christians are being removed from adoption panels if they refuse to endorse placing children for adoption with same-sex couples.

Similarly, a Christian counsellor was sacked by the national counselling service Relate because he refused to give sex therapy sessions to gays.

What this amounts to is that for Christians, the freedom to live according to their religious beliefs — one of the most fundamental precepts of a liberal society — is fast becoming impossible. Indeed, merely professing traditional Christian beliefs can cause such offence that it is treated as a crime.

Take, for example, the case of Harry Hammond, an elderly and eccentric evangelical who was prosecuted for a public order offence after parading with a placard denouncing immorality and homosexuality — even though he was assaulted by the hostile crowd he was held to have offended.

Or look at the case of the Vogelenzangs, a hotelier couple from Merseyside, who last week were cleared of a ‘religiously aggravated’ public order offence after being prosecuted for insulting a Muslim guest.

While their behaviour may have been offensive and unwarranted, it is nevertheless a source of wonderment that for the police, ‘hate crime’ doesn’t seem to occur whenever Christianity is pilloried, mocked and insulted — as happens routinely — but only when a minority faith is in the frame.

Indeed, the Archbishop’s complaint echoed an earlier Church-backed report that accused the Government of merely paying lip service to Christianity while focusing support on Muslims.

The curious fact is that Labour’s hostility to faith is highly selective. It does everything it can to protect and support minority creeds while appearing to do everything it can to attack Christianity.

The root of this double standard is the unpleasant prejudice that minority faiths hail from cultures where people are less well-educated and so cannot be blamed for their beliefs. This, of course, is a deeply racist attitude, and is commonly found on the Left.

As Dr Williams observed, one of the effects of the modern hostility to religion is to give the impression that faith is not really very British. But on the contrary, it is part of the national psyche — even among people who don’t go to church.

To stop the denigration of religion, the Archbishop has called on government ministers to be more willing to talk about their own faith. But since this is seen as the province of cranks, politicians are reluctant to do so because of the risk of public ridicule.

This well-nigh insuperable difficulty was acknowledged yesterday by Tony Blair in an interview about his religious beliefs. As his former spin doctor Alastair Campbell once famously observed: ‘We don’t do God.’

This is because among the intelligentsia, the animosity to religion runs even deeper than the upside-down value system of the multicultural agenda. It springs from the fixed view that reason and religion are in diametrically opposite camps.

Anyone who prays to God must therefore be anti-reason, anti- science and antifreedom – in other words, an objectionable, obscurantist nutcase.

But this is the very opposite of the truth. Rationality is actually underpinned by Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Without the Biblical narrative, which gave the world the revolutionary idea of an orderly universe that could therefore be investigated by the use of reason, science would never have developed in the first place.

And it was the Judeo-Christian belief that all individuals are made equal in the image of God that gave rise to human rights and democracy.

Of course, terrible things have also been done in the name of religion. And equally, people without religious faith can believe in freedom and equality, and lead moral lives.

But that’s because they draw upon a culture that rests on religious foundations. Strip away those foundations and what’s left would be a brutalised and chaotic society.

You don’t have to be a religious believer to be mightily concerned by such a likely consequence. But anxiety over fundamentalism has resulted in rising hostility to all religion.

Notably, however, this is not the case in the U.S., which remains overwhelmingly an upfront Christian society. Its politicians are neither ashamed nor embarrassed to call upon God to bless America at every opportunity.

Unlike U.S. mainstream Churches which, as descendants from the English Puritans, remain deeply wedded to the Biblical tradition, the Church of England has always looked down on true Scriptural believers as half-wits.

With such a half-hearted foundation of religious belief, it has been more vulnerable than other Churches to the secular onslaught against religion.

Dr Williams exemplifies this weakness by trying to go with the flow of social change and is for ever apologising for Christianity.

Certainly, it did some terrible things in the past to people of other faiths. But it is also responsible for the astonishing achievements of western civilisation.

Rather than complaining about politicians, Dr Williams should use his office to teach the nation about the seminal importance of Christianity to this society. But to do that, he has to have faith in his own Church — a faith that too often appears to be lacking.

The key point about the U.S. is that it still believes in itself as a nation and in its values, which are rooted in religion. Loyalty to their churches follows from loyalty to the nation in a kind of benign cycle.

In Britain, however, religion and nation have formed a vicious cycle in which hostility to the country’s identity and values reflects and feeds into hostility to the religion upon which they are based.

The Archbishop’s anguish at the onslaught upon Christian faith is very real. But unless he starts promoting the Church as the transcendental custodian of a civilisation rather than the Guardian newspaper at prayer, the society to which it gave rise will continue to sleepwalk off the edge of a religious and cultural cliff.

Judenfrei

My, how easily the world condones the notion of this new, racist Palestinian state as championed by Obama.

The plan supported by his administration will lead to a new Palestinian Arab nation – in which Jews and maybe also Christians are banned from living.

At the same time, of course, Israel is being told she must kick out  Jews in Judea and Samaria, to make way for this new, ‘Judenfrei’ Palestinian Arab state.

The world either doesn’t care, or doesn’t recall, that 80% of what was Palestine is already taken up by Jordan – which is already Judenfrei, as  no Jews are permitted to live there.

Has anyone, ever,  read any pieces in the international press condemning Jordan for this racism…?

I know I haven’t.

Thus while the world yells in rage the second Israel lifts a finger to respond to Palestinian terrorism, Israel is  held to a far higher standard than either Jordan, or any Muslim country, or the new Palestinian state which is being carved out of Israel by the Arabs and Obama.

In other words, land is being taken from Jews, to form part of a Palestinian Arab, Judenfrei state.

And the world nods and smiles and mutters ‘about time’ as it sits back and watches this happen.

So when a few of my regular readers and even blogger friends chastise me for claiming that Obama is less than fair to Israel, well, they can chastise all they want.

What – am I as a Jew now meant to praise an American leader who seeks to turn the only middle eastern democracy into the size of a postage stamp?

Am I expected to cheer the idea of a Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel that will serve as a base for yet more terrorism?

The world is, again, either forgetting or ignoring what happened when Israel left Gaza. Israel gave the Palestinian Arabs what they were demanding – and what happened? Increased terrorism.

A new Palestinian Arab state beside Israel will just be Gaza redux. So excuse me if I’m not throwing a party and cracking open the champagne at the prospect.

And just to illustrate how Palestinian Arabs truly feel on these issues, here’s a fascinating glimpse into their hopes for this new state, courtesy of Arutz Sheva:

A poll released this week showed that PA Arabs are reluctant to grant rights to Jews or Christians within areas demanded for a PA state.

A survey conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development among 1,200 Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, found that many felt Jerusalem should not be shared with Jews and Christians.

When asked to what extent they agreed with a statement made by Barack Obama that Jerusalem should be “a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims,” less than 17% said they agree, while 20 percent said they “somewhat agree.” More than 42 percent said they disagree with the statement, while 17 percent “somewhat disagree.”

More than 45 percent of those surveyed disagreed with a second statement of Obama’s in which the president called on the Arab world to reject violence and killing as a means of struggle.

Twenty-two percent did not give an answer, while the remainder said they “agree” or “somewhat agree” with the statement.

Roughly 300,000 Jews reside in Judea and Samaria,   and approximately 250,000 more live in Jerusalem neighborhoods now being demanded by the Palestinian Authority.

The PA demands that any future Arab state in Judea and Samaria be rid of the current Jewish minority.

Jewish holy sites in Judea and Samaria include the Tomb of the Patriarchs (Me’arat Hamachpelah) in Hebron, Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem, and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem.

Jews are currently allowed full access only to the latter site, while the Tomb of the Patriarchs is split into Jewish and Muslim sections, and Jews are allowed to visit Joseph’s Tomb only intermittently.

I think we can all envisage the rage and the threats 0f violence if Muslims  were not allowed total access to their holy sites! Yet many of them would ideally ban Jews and Christians from Jerusalem.  Talk about rank hypocrisy.

Jerusalem was holy to Jews and Christians before Islam even existed.

So to those who complain when Jews dare to use words like ‘Judenfrei’ and ‘Judenrein’ in connection with Obama’s plans for a new Palestinian Arab state, I say: tough.

It’s the ugly policy that you should be protesting – not the accurate words Jews use to describe it.

Additional information:

The excellent Elder Of Ziyon blog offers this information about Jordan’s bans on both Jews and Israelis:

In 1933, a number of prominent Arabs in Transjordan asked Great Britain to allow Jews to settle there, to help its ailing economy, and Zionists were enthusiastic about the idea. But since the British saw the riots that were happening in Palestine at the time they didn’t want to worry about more problems of that type, so they created a law banning Jews from living there.

This policy was ratified — after the emirate became a kingdom — by Jordan’s law no. 6, sect. 3, on April 3, 1954, and reactivated in law no. 7, sect. 2, on April 1, 1963.

It states that any person may become a citizen of Jordan unless he is a Jew. King Hussein made peace with Israel in 1994, but the Judenrein legislation remains valid today.

So, yes, Jordan really has a law banning Jews – not Zionists, but Jews – from becoming citizens. And the original source of this law was none other than Great Britain.

Here’s the law: (h/t british18)

The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:

(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;

(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;

(3)Any person whose father holds Jordanian nationality;

(4)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of a mother holding Jordanian nationality and of a father of unknown nationality or of a Stateless father or whose filiation is not established;

(5)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of unknown parents, as a foundling in the Kingdom shall be considered born in the Kingdom pending evidence to the contrary;

(6)All members of the Bedouin tribes of the North mentioned in paragraph (j) of article 25 of the Provisional Election Law, No. 24 of 1960, who were effectively living in the territories annexed to the Kingdom in 1930.

But what if a Jew wants to become a naturalized citizen? Well…

Any Arab who has resided continuously in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for not less than 15 years may acquire Jordanian nationality, by decision of the Council of Ministers taken on a proposal by the Minister of Internal Affairs, if he renounces his nationality of origin and the law of his country permits him to do so..



‘Judenfrei
‘ and ‘Judenrein’

Nazi terms used to designate an area free of Jewish presence. The words bear slightly different connotations; while Judenfrei merely refers to “freeing” an area of all of its Jewish citizens, Judenrein (literally “clean of Jews”) demands that any trace of Jewish blood be removed as an impurity.

Some of the locations declared Judenfrei

Establishments, villages, cities, and regions were declared Judenfrei after they were ethnically cleansed of Jews.

  • Gelnhausen, Germany – reported Judenfrei on November 1, 1938 by propaganda newspaper Kinzigwacht after its synagogue was closed and remaining local Jews forced to leave the town.
  • German-occupied Luxembourg – reported Judenfrei by the press on October 17, 1941.
  • German-occupied Estonia – December, 1941 . Reported as Judenfrei at Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942
  • German-occupied Belgrade, Serbia – August, 1942
  • Vienna – reported Judenfrei by Alois Brunner on October 9, 1942
  • Berlin, Germany – July 16, 1943

Check out also ‘Jordan’s Identity Crisis’ over at Elder Of Ziyon:

Christians Suffering In Somalia: The ‘religion of peace’ Beheads Two Boys

 

Ah yes – yet another example of  Muslim ‘respect’ for their Christian neighbours.  This is a disturbing account of how two young Christian boys have been beheaded in Somalia – for refusing to rat out a Church leader. And now apparently those ‘peaceful’ Muslims are searching for the boys’ father, to deliver the same fate.

 

 The boys’ father, Musa Mohammed Yusuf,  lead an underground Church in Yonday village, Somalia. He had been taught about the Christian faith by  Salat Mberwa.

 

Then, in February, terrorists from the Islamic group al Shabaab arrived in Yonday, made for Yusuf’s home, and interrogated him about his friendship with Mberwa. Mberwa is a leader of a small Somali Christian  fellowship.  Meetings are held at his house.

 

 Yusuf told his interrogators that  he knew nothing of Mberwa and had no connection with him. The Islamic extremists left but threatened to  return the next day.

 

“Immediately when they left, I decided to flee my house for Kismayo, for I knew for sure they were determined to come back,” Yusuf said.

 

At noon the next day, as his wife was making lunch for their children in Yonday, the al Shabaab militants showed up. Batula Ali Arbow, Yusuf’s wife, recalled that their youngest son, Innocent, told the group that their father had left the house the previous day.

 

The Islamic extremists ordered her to stop what she was doing and took hold of three of her sons – 11   year-old Abdi Rahaman Musa Yusuf, 12 -year-old Hussein Musa Yusuf and Abdulahi Musa Yusuf, aged 7.

 

Several  neighbors beseeched the militants not to harm the three boys, tragically to no avail.

 

Arbow said:

I watched my three boys dragged away helplessly as my youngest boy was crying. I knew they were going to be slaughtered. Just after some few minutes I heard a wailing cry from Abdulahi running towards the house. I could not hold my breath. I only woke up with all my clothes wet. I knew I had fainted due to the shock.”

 

The following day, Arbow buried the bodies of her two sons.

 

In Kismayo, Yusuf received the news that two of his sons had been killed and that the Islamic militants were looking for him, and he fled on foot for Mberwa’s home. It took him a month and three days to reach him, and the Christian fellowship there raised travel funds for him to reach a refugee camp in Kenya.

 

Later that month his family met up with him at the refugee camp.When the family fled Somalia, they were forced to leave their 80-year-old grandmother behind and her whereabouts are unknown. Since arriving at the Kenyan refugee camp, the family still has no shelter, though fellow Christians are erecting one for them. Yusuf’s family lives each day without shoes, a mattress or shelter.

 

But Arbow said she has no wish to return.

“I do not want to go back to Somalia – I don’t want to see the graves of my children,” she said amid sobs.

 

Meanwhile, Western intelligence agencies say that al Shabaab is merely a proxy for  Al Queda. Christians in Somalia are suffering terribly and those in refugee camps are desperate.

 

“We have nowhere to run to,” Mberwa told Compass. “The al Shabaab are on our heads, while our Muslim brothers are also discriminating against us. Indeed even here in the refugee camp we are not safe. We need a safe haven elsewhere.”

 

Al-Shabaab has been waging a bloody war against the fragile government of Somali President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed. In a show of power in the capital city  of Mogadishu, last week  Islamic insurgents sentenced four young men each to amputation of a hand and a foot as punishment for robbery.

 

After mosques announced when the amputations would take place, the extremists carried them out by machete in front of about 300 people on Thursday (June 25) at a military camp. It was the first such double amputation in Mogadishu by the Islamists, who follow strict Sharia Law  (Islamic law) in the parts of south Somalia that they control.

 

Al Shabaab militants are battling Ahmed’s government for control of Mogadishu while fighting government-allied, moderate Islamist militia in the provinces. In the last 18 years of violence in Somalia, a two-and-a-half year Islamist insurgency has killed more than 18,000 civilians, uprooted 1 million people, allowed piracy to flourish offshore, and spread security fears round the region.

 

Hmmm…. odd. Where is the outcry from the international media, denouncing these Muslims terrorists as ‘Nazis’…? Oops! Silly me! That’s reserved for Israelis seeking to defend their civilians against Islamic terrorist group Hamas.

 

And when you read about the atrocities in Somalia, and elsewhere, that result from Sharia Law, remember: this is the religious system that Barack Obama praised and paid tribute to in Cairo. Clearly Obama doesn’t intend to ‘meddle’ on behalf of Christians in Somalia. No, he’s far too busy ordering Israelis not to have any more children if they live in Judea and Samaria.

 

And this upsetting tale from Somalia is not an isolated atrocity. Christians in Muslim countries around the world are suffering and are in need of support and help.

 

All of which begs the question: why isn’t Obama – himself a Christian – doing more to help his co-religionists…? Why is he instead busy sending increased aid to Muslim countries and banging his head against a brick wall in his continued bid to make Iran his New Best Friend…?

 

 

Original story at Compass Direct News

Sharia Courts In Britain – Ruling Against British Law?

Eighty-five Sharia Courts are issuing private rulings that contradict British law, claims a new report. Independent think tank Civitas has issued this warning with regard to the Muslim courts that rule on things including child custody, polygamy and marriage.

Given that under Islamic laws, women have few rights, there is rising concern about these Sharia Courts. They meet behind closed doors and apparently don’t maintain any form of records.

Sharia courts have existed in Britain since 2007, primarily in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester. The courts’ rulings are legally binding under the 1996 Arbitration Act, on condition that  both parties are happy touse them, and as long as their decisions do not contradict British law.

But the Arbitration Act specifically excludes rulings on divorce and child-care cases.  Now Civitas notes that many  Sharia courts are exceeding the original mandate.

“Some of these courts are advising illegal actions,” said the report’s author, Denis MacEoin, a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic studies. “And others transgress human rights standards.”


Last year, the House Of Lords ruled in one case that Sharia law ‘is wholly incompatible’ with human rights legislation.

In this case, British law  prevented the deportation of a woman whose child would have been removed and placed with an abusive father under sharia law in Lebanon.

As he could not gain access to the actual Sharia courts,  MacEoin has  had to examine online fatwas ( religious decrees) issued by websites run by British mosques. He says:

Among the rulings … we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as they are applied by British courts.

Here are some examples: A Muslim woman may not under any circumstances marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam; such a woman’s children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man.


Also, polygamous marriage ( two to four wives) is considered legal … a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce … sharia law must override the judgments of British courts …

…taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law … a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia …

a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent (which may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden … a woman may not retain custody of her child after 7 (for a boy) or 9 (for a girl) …

fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty ….”

Neil Addison, an expert on the law as it applies to religion, says:


“About two thirds of Muslim marriages are not being registered under the Marriages Act, which is illegal.  A woman in this type of marriage would have to submit to sharia law for a divorce proceeding. But it’s not the way arbitration is supposed to work.”


Some people argue that Sharia courts are the same as the Jewish Rabbinical courts, the Beth Din.

But Addison begs to differ:

“The beth din acknowledge that ‘the law of the land is the law,’ and a rabbi cannot perform a synagogue marriage ceremony unless a registrar is present to simultaneously register the marriage under English law.”


Several newspapers have carried stories of how, for instance, Sharia courts have arranged for fees of up to ten thousand pounds to go to youths attacked by Muslims, to avoid  any legal action on the part of the victim.


Now, I ask you: can you imagine the reaction if either Jews, or Christians or indeed any other religious group behaved in this manner?

Christians would be lambasted in the media if they ever sought to buy victims’ silence. Similarly, we all can envisage the slurs that would fly if the Jewish Rabbinical courts went around bribing people to avoid the courts!

But when it is the Muslim community doing it, well, that’s just fine, apparently.

It seems to me – and indeed to most sane people, I’m guessing – that the issue is a clear one. If a person – of any faith – wishes to live in Britain, they must abide by British law. It’s not complicated. It really isn’t.

Thus Muslim women have every right to wear the niqab or the burkha – in Muslim countries.

And if Muslim families wish to buy the silence of victims of their relatives’ aggression, then again – fine, in Muslim countries.


But here, in Britain, we already have an albeit flawed legal system and all people should be equal under the law. After all, isn’t this premise at the heart of  democracy…?

What All Sane People Would Like To Tell Obama:

If like me you had to reach for a bucket after reading the transcript of Obama’s Love Letter to Islam, then you’ll appreciate this. It originally appeared at the superb Townhall.Com.

Enjoy!

Let’s All Accept Islam

by Bruce Bialosky

“Mr. Obama, your speech in Cairo encouraged me to reconsider my thoughts on how I view Islam as a religion in today’s society. I have really thought it over and decided to fully accept Islam … with just a few caveats.

First, they have to stop treating women as second class citizens. Don’t tell me those head covers are worn by choice. They are forced on them just like honor killings. It is sad the French have it right and we don’t on this issue. This is a country where we have worked for a hundred years to bring equality to women. Allowing any woman to be subservient is disgraceful. And come to think of it, tell your Secretary of State and Speaker of the House to stop covering their heads on visits. They are supposed to be beacons of the women’s movement. By covering their heads, they are not being respectful to their hosts– they are disgracing every woman who ever fought for equal rights.

Next, tell the Islamists to stop killing gays. Maybe gays are not totally accepted in this society, but we have made great progress in the last 50 years. We may not agree on gay marriage, but we certainly agree on equal rights for gays. We don’t allow them to be killed just for being gay.

How about the issue of freely elected democratic governments in the Muslim world? Not too many of those around, are there Mr. Obama? When the Islamic world stops being run like feudal societies given up by the rest of the world half a millennium ago, I think it would then be a grand time to accept the Muslims. I know it is sometimes politically expedient to deal with dictators. We even had to make a deal with a mass murderer named Stalin to try and fight another mass murderer named Hitler. But please explain to me why in today’s world, where the great majority of people live in democracies, that we need to make nice-nice with dictators. This country is all about not accepting autocracies, Mr. Obama.

Next, the Muslims should stop trying to tell us they really care about the Palestinians and that the trouble in the Middle East is because of their problems. The Arabs have done nothing — I repeat nothing — to help them for 60 years, and we all know that. The Palestinian problem did not start in 1967. It started in 1948 when the Arabs attacked Israel and got their butts kicked. These people willingly relocated out of the Israeli territory, and their Arabs friends did nothing to help them. So please be honest and stop lying to us because we both know it is a lie. Once you do that, we can all move forward.

Mr. Obama, we also want an apology for all those Christians and Jews kicked out of the Arab countries. While they have been really good on creating a lie about the Palestinians being kicked out of their land, they have done an excellent job of covering up all those people they kicked out. Well, they did not really kick them out. They offered them to convert or die. Moving was a much better option. If anyone wonders where all those Jews in Israel came from they should check it out. Not just Europe or Russia, but from all those neighboring Arab states where they were no longer welcome. That may answer why it is such a big deal that Jews are building settlements in the West Bank. It is not that they are Israelis – it is that they are Jews and if Israel gives back the West Bank, Jews and Christians will no longer be welcome.

Last, when Muslims start protesting the murders and indecencies performed in the name of Islam then I will accept them. We are told that the people who do these acts are a small minority of Muslims. So where are the protests, where are the books, where are the articles, where is the Islamic Pete Seeger? If Islam is really a religion of peace, then start showing it. We have been waiting for it and the memories I have are of Muslims out partying after the Twin Towers went down.

Mr. Obama, it is nice that you want us to accept Islam, but would you have asked us to accept Nazism or Communism with their mass murders and mistreatment of people? I suggest you remember we did not elect you to be Brown-Noser-in-Chief or Apologist-in-Chief; we elected you as Commander-in-Chief. I respectfully suggest you start acting like it because these apologies to mass murderers and intolerant sons-of-bitches are really getting tiresome

Latest Lunacy From UK: Ditch The Red Cross Symbol – It’s ‘Offensive’…

Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant is suggesting we find an alternative symbol for the Red Cross because of the logo’s supposed links to the Crusades.

MPs are debating the adoption of the ‘red crystal’ – a diamond-shaped badge – to avoid the religious connotations of the cross and crescent symbols currently used by the international body.

But critics said the new insignia was a sop to political correctness and warned that it may be the first step towards it replacing cross and crescent. Others fear that it may not be as widely recognised on the battlefield.

‘It is, in an effort not to be contentious, possibly too anodyne to serve its purpose,’ Tory MP John Hayes said.

Philip Davies, a Tory backbencher, said: ‘At face value to the layman it seems at best a solution looking for a problem and at worst another example of extreme political correctness.

‘There is also a risk of confusion with many different symbols, and that terrorists may exploit that to mask themselves when carrying out attacks,’ he added.

The founding Conference of the Red Cross Movement in 1863 adopted a red cross on a white background – the reverse of the Swiss flag – as the emblem of the voluntary medical personnel who assisted the wounded on the battlefield.

It was never intended to have any religious meaning and is thought to have been intended as a tribute to traditionally neutral Switzerland, which hosted the conference.

However, the symbol unintentionally raised suggestions that it was somehow linked to the Hospitallers, a military order which took part in the Crusades, the centuries long series of military campaigns waged by Christians from Europe.

Subsequently, a red crescent emblem was adopted in tandem.

Mr Bryant told the Commons: ‘The reference to the Crusades is… not lost to some people which, of course, anybody involved in the Red Cross would wholly deprecate.

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement hope that the neutrality of the red crystal will help improve protection for casualties, military medical services and humanitarian workers.

It was chosen because it is devoid of religious and other partisan connotations.

Answering The Apologists For Islam

Those who seek to justify Islamic terrorism, often do so by stating that both Judaism and Christianity also have violent histories. Islam, they insist, is being ‘unfairly’ singled out, even though the other Abrahamic faiths are also inherently violent.

The two favourite and increasingly weary examples offered are the slaying by the Hebrews of the Canaanites (Judaism) and the bloody crimes of the Crusades (Christianity).

And this tactic by apologists for Islamic terrorism often works. It helps shore up the pervasive yet false premise that Islam is ‘just like other religions’.  Or, to put it another way: it is not Islam that causes Islamic terrorism, but rather human nature.

One of the best responses I’ve read to this apologist tactic, comes courtesy of writer and expert on radical Islam, Raymond Ibrahim. Here is what he says on the issue of whether Judaism and Christianity also promote violence in the same manner as Islam (emphasis is mine):

Such questions reveal a great deal of confusion between history and theology, between the temporal actions of men and the immutable words of G-d. The fundamental error being that Jewish andChristian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theologywhich commands violence.

Of course all religions have had their fair share of violence and intolerance towards the “other.” Whether this violence is ordained by G-d or whether warlike man merely wished it thus is the all-important question.

The Israelites’ violence is an interesting case in point. G-d clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of G-d’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Tanakh is just that—history. It happened; G-d commanded it.

But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e. the Halakha).

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Tanakh —commanded by G-d and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in Islamic law (i.e. the Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Koranic verses:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the pagans wherever you find them—take them [captive], besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [i.e. submit to Islam], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (9:5).

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [i.e. Islamic law], nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [i.e. Islam], from the people of the book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued (9:29).

As with Tanakh  verses where G-d  commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, these Koranic verses also have a historical context. Allah (through Muhammad) first issued these commandments after the Arab tribes had finally unified under the banner of Islam and were preparing to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors.

But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Tanakh  these so-called “sword-verses” subsequently became fundamental to Islam’s relationship to both the “people of the book” (i.e. Christians and Jews) and the “pagans” (i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc).

In fact, based on the sword-verses (as well as countless other Koranic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad), Islam’s scholars, sheikhs, muftis, imams, and qadis throughout the ages have all reached the consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world, until the former subsumes the latter. (It is widely held that the sword-verses alone have abrogated some 200 of the Koran’s more tolerant verses.)

Famous Muslim scholar and “father of modern history” Ibn Khaldun articulates the dichotomy between jihad and defensive warfare thus:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [i.e. jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...
The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people.

That is why the Israeilites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g. a “caliphate”]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations]…

But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations (The Muqudimmah, vol. 1 pg. 473, emphasis added).

Even when juxtaposed to their Jewish and Christian counterparts, the Islamic sword-verses are distinctive for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay non-believers today no less than yesterday.

G-d commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did G-d  give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their descendants the Jews, to fight and kill gentiles.

On the other hand, though Islam’s original enemies were, like Judaism’s, historical (e.g. Christian Byzantines and pagan Persians), the Koran rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—“until they pay tribute with willing submission and feel themselves utterly subdued” (9:29) and to “slay the pagans wherever you find them” (9:5).
The two conjunctions “until” and “wherever” demonstrate the perpetual nature of these commandments: there are still “people of the book” who have yet to be “utterly subdued” (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and “pagans” to be slain “wherever” one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa).

Aside from the divine words of the Koran, Muhammad’s pattern of behavior—his “Sunna” or “example”—is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]” (33:21).

And Muhammad’s pattern of conduct vis-à-vis non-Muslims is quite explicit. Sarcastically arguing against the concept of “moderate” Islam, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world’s support per a recent al-Jazeera poll, portrays the prophet’s Sunna thus:

“Moderation” is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women” (from The Al-Qaeda Reader).

In fact, based on both the Koran and Muhammad’s Sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded (e.g. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50, etc.).

While law-centric and legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though recorded in the Tanakh  never went on to be part of Jewish law. Neither Abraham’s “white-lies,” nor Jacob’s perfidy, nor Moses’ short-fuse, nor David’s adultery, nor Solomon’s philandering ever went on to instruct Jews. They were merely understood to be historical actions perpetrated by fallible men who were often punished by G-d for their less than ideal behavior.

And regarding the Crusades, Raymond Ibrahim points out:
In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the Crusades ironically help better explain Islam. For what the Crusades demonstrated once and for all is that irrespective of religious teachings—indeed, in the case of these so-called “Christian” Crusades, despite them—man is truly predisposed to violence and intolerance. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved—who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute them—how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill, and plunder non-believers?

Read more of Raymond Ibrahim’s excellent articles here

The Religion Of Peace Strikes Again – Christian Graves Desecrated

One thing you can say for sure about Islam: it’s an equal opportunity offender. It doesn’t just teach hatred of Jews, but also Hindus, Christians and in fact, all non Muslims or as Islam fondly refers to them: Infidels.

This week, its Christians’ turn to feel the wrath of the ‘Religion Of Peace’:

Israel National News, May 25:

Palestinian Authority Muslims went on a rampage Sunday and desecrated 70 Christian graves two weeks after the Pope praised efforts for a new Palestinian state and tried to appease Muslim anger over previous disputes between the two religions.

The vandals smashed gravestones and knocked metal and stone crosses off graves in the village of Jiffna, near Ramallah, home to approximately 900 Christians and 700 Muslims. Greek Orthodox Church official George Abdo told Reuters the head and hand of a statue of Madonna also was severed….

Sunday’s anti-Christian attack follows years of harassment from Muslims that has escalated a lengthy exodus of Christians from Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The areas enjoyed strong economies from 1967, when Israel took over administration of the areas following the Six-Day War, until 2000, when PA terrorists launched the Oslo War, also known as the Second Intifada.