(Continued from page 185)
governments try to impose their will on the church.Who is being armed in Libya?
Libyan Rebels Terrorize Black Africans
The military mission America and NATO have decided to pursue in Libya against Gaddafi has resulted in questionable 'alliances'. One Libyan rebel leader, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, recently revealed to the Italian press that some of his rebel fighters ('around 25 men') from the Derna area in eastern Libya, had been recruited by him to fight coalition troops in Iraq, also admitting that he had also fought against America's 'foreign invasion' in Afghanistan. Doubtlessly the hypocrisy of the position of al-Hasidi will be lost on Islamists who believe in the Satanic doctrines of Muhammad, where black can be called white to justify the desired end. Once again the thoroughly Christian-inspired humanitarian decision made by the forces of the West will be seen as a typically weak democratic act by Islamists.
U.S. and British officials confirmed that al-Hasidi had been captured in 2002 in Peshwar, Pakistan, handed over to the United States, and finally sent back to Libya on his release in 2008. Apparently he was also a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which was reportedly responsible for the killing of dozens of Libyan troops in a series of guerrilla attacks near the cities of Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996. LIFG is known by American military officials to have an 'increasingly co-operative relationship' with al Qaeda who have come out in support of the Libyan rebel forces, claiming their victory would lead to 'the stage of Islam' in the North African nation.
Idriss Deby Itno, president of Chad, claims that the Al Qaeda offshoot in North Africa, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), helped itself to arms including surface-to-air missiles (including SAM 7 missiles) from a Libyan arsenal and secured them in sanctuaries in Tenere, part of the Sahara desert region stretching from northeast Niger to western Chad (ref. African weekly Jeune Afrique). Itno believes that this would make AQIM a genuine army - 'the best equipped in the region' - and he also backed the claim of Gaddafi that al Qaeda helped to orchestrate the current uprising, but also insisting that AQIM 'took an active part in the uprising.' He also called the NATO 'intervention' a 'hasty decision' - a conclusion severely at odds with many who were much more concerned about the massacres inflicted on the Libyan people; but, then, the overall picture of despotic Islamic rule worldwide is that the people are always massacred if they dare to make any protest against the ruler (even when he was self-appointed as is so often the case, re. the current rulers in all these Islamic countries!).
The U.S. has apparently considered the legality of arming the 'Libyan rebels' but one of the 'unintended consequences' of U.N. resolution 1970, which requires all member nations to 'immediately take the necessary measures' to prevent the supply or sale of weapons to the Libyan government, contains no exceptions for supplying anti-Gaddafi forces. Thus the U.S. and NATO are exploring a legal framework by which rebel forces could be armed if they could prove such arms were necessary to 'defend themselves from Gaddafi's forces' - and the media evidence would certainly seem to indicate that air support alone is insufficient.
Mark Kornblau, spokesman for U.S. Ambassador Dr. Susan Rice, confirmed the possibility: 'Resolutions 1970 and 1973, read together, neither specify nor preclude such an action ...'. Britain and France are reportedly considering similar options with a coalition diplomat claiming the U.N. mandate 'authorizes all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack,' and that any action taken 'will be consistent with the United Nations Security Resolution and with international law.'
Such assertions raise a couple of questions. First, as AOL news is reporting, rebel forces are on the offense, seizing the towns of Brega, a main oil export terminal, and Al-Egila 'on their way to the massive oil refining complex of Ras Lanouf.' Rebel forces are reporting no resistance, claiming Gaddafi's forces have 'just melted away.' So, does such action still constitute 'defense?' U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon says the U.N. is not trying to 'change a regime' but provide protection to 'save the lives' of innocent civilians, which moves rapidly onto the second question: Does the protection of civilians include those civilians who are pro-government?
Khaled Kaim, Libya's deputy foreign minister asserts the coalition's claims of neutrality are bogus: 'This is the objective of the coalition now, it is not to protect civilians because now they are directly fighting against the armed forces ... they are trying to push the country to the brink of a civil war.' British Defense Secretary Liam Fox denied the charge: 'Losing Gadhafi is an aspiration, it is not part of the U.N. resolution'. Fox then added to the overall confusion: 'We are not arming the rebels, we are not planning to arm the rebels,' he claimed, contradicting the above report.
Perhaps the Obama administration should take heed, not of Mr. Fox, but of the U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center who hold a cache of formerly secret Iraq files, known as the 'Sinjar documents' which were captured by coalition forces in 2007 and which revealed that 'Libya sent more fighters to Iraq on a per-capita basis than any other Muslim country, including Saudi Arabia,' and that most of these forces 'came from eastern Libya,' where uprising against Muammar Gaddafi is most intense. 'Libyans were more fired up to travel to Iraq to kill Americans than anyone else in the Arabic-speaking world,' noted Andrew Exum, counterinsurgency specialist and former Army Ranger in a blog posting on March 10th: 'This might explain why those rebels from Libya's eastern provinces are not too excited about U.S. military intervention. It might also give some pause to those in the United States so eager to arm Libya's rebels.'
President Obama attempted to stick to his humanitarian script at this juncture: 'So make no mistake, because we acted quickly, a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided and the lives of countless civilians-innocent men, women and children - have been saved,' he claimed, despite waiting more than a month to take action. Obama also noted that, while the U.S. cannot get involved in every world crisis, Gaddafi was threatening a 'bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region … it's in our national interest to act ... and it's our responsibility.'
How far will the U.S. go to prevent de-stabilization 'of the entire region?' Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was non-committal, saying it was 'too early' to discuss intervention in Syria, where Bashar Assad's slaughter of innocents looks remarkably similar to Gaddafi's. Defense Secretary Robert Gates speculated that Yemen may be particularly troubling because '[T]he most aggressive branch of al-Qaeda … operates out of Yemen…so if the government collapses or is replaced by one that is dramatically more weak, then I think we'll face some additional problems out of Yemen.'
Where does it end? National Review's Andrew McCarthy explained what to expect with regard to Libya - and possibly beyond: 'The rebels are not rebels - they are the Libyan mujahideen. Like the Afghan mujahideen, including those that became al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the Libyan mujahideen comprise different groups. What overwhelmingly unites them, besides opposition to Qaddafi, is sharia ... the Libyan mujahideen will exploit us but never befriend us…[[I]f we empower them, we will eventually rue the day.'
After ten years in Afghanistan, eight in Iraq, both with no end in sight, most Americans already 'rue the day.' Enmeshing ourselves in Libya, where 'victory' may consist of replacing an anti-American regime with another anti-American regime even more closely associated with al Qaeda, is troubling. Furthermore, an operation which the administration finally admitted 'could continue for months,' contradicted the previous week's assertion that it would last 'days, not weeks,' illuminating a disturbing reality regarding Obama's administration: It makes up policy as it goes along. And such policies look like they will often aid the mortal enemies of the USA and the West.
Islam and the Slave Trade they perpetuate still!
Wherever Islam is involved we can expect to see aspects of Muhammad's nature - and the current Libyan conflict is no exception in displaying an illogical, unforgiving, brutal, racial element. Media claims that Gaddafi used black African mercenaries in his war against the rebels led to violent retaliatory attacks by the rebels on African immigrant workers living in Libya on the assumption that mercenaries were recruited from amongst these workers. Before the uprising began an estimated 1.5 million Africans inhabited Libya, many as low-paid labourers, but the violence quickly led to a large number of them fleeing the country or going into hiding.
The resultant beatings, kidnappings, robberies and executions are among the crimes the rebels are accused of committing against immigrant Africans and 'suspected' black mercenaries. Videos exist revealing irrational and inhuman cruelty towards innocent people including a merciless beating and a beheading in Benghazi, the rebel stronghold. The blood-covered man was shown suspended upside-down while hundreds of onlookers cheered and chanted 'Allahu Akbar.'
NATO Fumbles in Libya
The savage animosity Libyan rebels exhibit toward black Africans is actually rooted in a deeply embedded, centuries-old, Arab racism which has its roots in the institution of Islamic slavery. From the seventh century to the twentieth, it is estimated that 14 million black Africans were violently enslaved and transported under harsh conditions to countries around the Islamic world. Skin colour and the menial work forced on a people treated as chattels became synonymous in Arab eyes with inferiority and the victims were invariably treated as being less than human. Unlike the abolition movement, led by Christians such as Wilberforce in the once 'Great Britain', and an actual Civil War fought in the USA to attempt to establish the black slave's humanity, there has been no comparable battle in Islam so that Africans continue to be considered as sub-human in the Arab world view. Anyone attempting to explain away these atrocities in Libya needs to also consider the treatment meted out to African children in the Sudan in attempted forced conversions to Islam by their brand of 'Islamic rebels' who have murdered millions of Christians and animists over many years - this included such tortures as pouring boiling water into the ears of very young children!
Dutch-Somali writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote a highly acclaimed book, Infidel, relating the Arabs' persistent and de-humanizing racist attitude toward black Africans and its Islamic slavery base which she experienced while attending school in Saudi Arabia. Ali recounts how, as the only African child in the class, she was regularly struck with a ruler by her Egyptian teacher who called her 'aswad abda' ('black slave-girl'). Ali writes: 'To be a foreigner (in Saudi Arabia), and moreover a black foreigner, meant, you were scarcely human, unprotected: fair game.'
Even the word Arabs use today for black Africans, both Muslim and non-Muslim, is 'abeed' ('slave') and, apart from being a regular insult, is clearly a derogatory term reflecting the regular view of many Arabs that black people are still only fit for slavery. The treatment of Africans in other Arab countries is similar and African columnist Naiwu Osahon writes: 'In Algeria, Arabs throw stones at black people, including diplomats, in market places ... In Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Mauritania and the rest of the Arab world, Africans are treated like scum … Blacks in those countries cannot aspire to positions of respect or authority. There are hardly any Africans in high government positions in Arab governed countries … It is simply a way of life that's all. Blacks do not really exist or, at best, are not human.'
Arab racism still takes its strongest and cruelest form towards Africans in the form of the slave trade which still exists in Islam, e.g. Mauritania (which is nearly 100% Muslim, most of whom are Sunnis) has supposedly abolished slavery about six times, but an estimated 500,000 Africans still remain the property of Arab masters. Similarly, northern Islamic Arabs in Sudan enslaved several hundred thousand black Africans in southern Sudan during the jihad that has continued from 1989 until the recent referendum in Southern Sudan (from 9 January to 15 January 2011) to determine whether the region should remain a part of Sudan or become independent. This referendum was one of the consequences of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement between the Khartoum central government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) and the final results (on 7 February 2011) revealed that 98.83% of the population voted in favour of independence (the predetermined date for the creation of an independent state is 9 July 2011). in 2005.
Yemen and Mali also have slave trades and, in northern Mali, the Berber-descended Touareg tribe retains its claim to keep black slaves as a generational 'right' while, in Yemen's interior, tribes continue to possess African slaves. In Mali the government has signed international agreements on slavery that have clearly not had any obvious effect.
This ingrained, centuries-old, institution of Islamic slavery is also legal under sharia law and Cairo University professor Dr. Abu Zayd, an Islamic theologian, revealed the dangers and complications of challenging sharia law's slavery provisions by contending that 'keeping slave girls and taxing non-Muslims' was contrary to Islam. He was consequently declared an apostate and a sharia court forcibly divorced him from his wife leading him to flee to Europe to escape Islamic extremists who threatened to kill him because of his new apostate status!
The situation in Libya regarding the nature of the 'black mercenaries' does not represent the first outburst of Arab racism resulting in the deaths of Africans in Libya. In 2000, blamed by officials for the high crime rate, dozens of Africans 'were targeted during street killings.' In response to the killings, the Libyan government was censured by the toothless United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination over 'Libya's practices of racial discrimination against dark-skinned migrants and refugees.'
Ironically, while apparently using black Africans to stay in power, Gaddafi has himself treated Africans appallingly in the past and, at one time, he had 200 Nigerians on death row in his prisons. While chairman of the African Union, Gadaffi was also accused of the extra-judicial executions of 40 other Nigerians who were apparently not tried in a proper court and who were also subjected to torture. In Benghazi, the Libyan rebels' home base, guards in a prison were accused of opening fire on Somali prisoners, killing 20 (in 2009).
The latest horrific persecution of black Africans in Libya will surely cause a loss of sympathy for the rebels in sub-Saharan Africa despite the African Union's silence although, despite the obvious dislike among many Africans for Arabs due to Islamic slavery's cruel past and present-day Arab racism, many in African nations seem oblivious to the real nature of Muhammadism. There is an obvious lack of publicity, or opportunities for tourism to the real homes of fundamentalist Islam, to open the eyes of the African population in the way Black Muslim former hero and subsequent victim, 'Malcolm X', had his life-changing epiphany when he witnessed first-hand the disgusting racist nature of real Islam. Another irony is that the black mercenaries the rebels are persecuting may not even be foreigners but, rather, dark-skinned Libyans from southern Libya. However, since the form of savagery the rebels are visiting on black Africans is not based on politics but on a Satanic hatred for a people that, for Muhammad, was to be as widely dehumanized as his other pet hatred of the Jews.
Is it possible that past and present Libyan racism caused Africans in Libya to heed Gaddafi's call for mercenaries to fight rebels who may be every bit as racist? The temptation to gain revenge for years of abuse while being handsomely rewarded by Gaddafi may have been too much for some men whose hatred for the Arab Libyan, and instructions from him to maximize violence, would have made them perfect in the dictators mind to cow the population and crush the rebels.
Islamists Make Inroads into Egypt's New Government
The Obama Administration delayed action in Libya until it received the approval of the Arab League, the United Nations and NATO to make sure the war was fought under an international banner, even though the U.S. would bear the brunt of the burden. The French government staunchly opposed giving command over to NATO, leading to fierce arguments between officials. France tried to throw its weight around in its traditional way, believing that it should have political leadership, along with the U.S. and U.K., over the war with NATO playing a supporting role. The French were forced to cave in under American and British pressure.
But fractures in NATO soon appeared after the handover as the French Foreign Minister and the British Foreign Secretary openly criticized other alliance members for not committing to the effort. While only half of NATO's members officially participated in the war, as well as some non-NATO countries, only six were willing to actually carry out bombing raids with the other four being Norway, Canada, Denmark and Belgium. Many of the countries placed heavy restrictions on their military's participation, forbidding bombing raids and attack missions and refusing to destroy certain types of targets like trucks. The end of the U.S. combat role also decreased the range of American aircraft available, such as the invaluable A-10 Warthog close-support aircraft.
Libyan rebels quickly noticed a change and complained about the sudden decline in air strikes. Again, we find Muslims fail to hold their 'brothers' to account for failing to back them in their jihadist endeavours and Abdul Fatah Younis, the rebels' top military commander, proclaimed 'NATO has become our problem' and then threatened to complain to the U.N. Security Council, saying that he would recommend that the National Transitional Council suspend its partnership with NATO if the problems persisted: 'One official calls another and then the official to the head of NATO and from the head of NATO to the field commander. It takes eight hours.' He specifically pointed out the unwillingness of NATO to protect civilians in Misurata, which had been under siege from Qaddafi's forces, claiming: 'This crime will be hanging from the necks of the international community until the end of days.' No it won't - it will simply be another chapter in Islamic lying contradictions! The local opposition government in Misurata was, of course, quick to ask U.N. or NATO ground forces to save them just as Younis, et al, and infamously, of course, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait whined in past years: 'Save us, Britain; save us USA'. Save us from whom? Yes - as always - 'SAVE US FROM OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS!'
Islamic attempts to project its worst traits onto Christians
While initial protests were claimed to be calling for democracy in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood has emerged, with the blessing of President Barack Obama, as a partner in whatever government the military decides is best for the country. While many try to deny any direct participation by the Muslim Brotherhood, and they remain apparently dormant, they nevertheless continue to work behind the scenes to prepare for an eventual takeover which will add Egypt to the growing list of caliphate and Mahdi (Anti-christ!) ready Islamic nations.
The Brotherhood has clearly managed to influence the military that was formerly used by Mubarak to keep it in check and Elijah Zarwan of the International Crisis Group stated: "There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on. It makes sense if you are the military - you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street."
While the protest 'leaders' believed they had been successful in ousting Mubarak they now find that demonstrations and sit-ins have been outlawed and there is little transparency regarding their demands for democracy and an end to the corruption that had long gripped Egypt. Television producer Amr Koura expressed the feelings of many: "We are all worried. The young people have no control of the revolution anymore. It was evident in the last few weeks when you saw a lot of bearded people taking charge. The youth are gone."
Coptic Christians in Egypt have also found good reason to be wary of what the future may hold for them for they were rapidly targeted even more savagely than in previous years. Whether the Brotherhood or the ultraconservative Salafi (Islamic sect) gain power the prospects for Christians in Egypt are not good. Already (May 8, 2011) mobs instigated by the Salafi leaders have set two churches on fire in western Cairo in clashes between Muslims and Christians triggered by rumours of an interfaith romance that left 12 dead in some of the worst sectarian violence since the ousting of Mubarak. The army and police tried to break up the crowd with tear gas, but failed to clear the streets for hours. Attackers chanted "With our blood and soul, we defend you Islam." Egypt's state news agency said six Muslims and three Christians were killed and a total of 144 were injured in the violence that spread throughout the neighbourhood.
The true story behind this recent Islamist attack on Egypt's Copts is, as always, illuminating and sordid. The Salafists demonstrated before St. Mark Cathedral, insisting that their "Muslim sister" Camelia Shehata be released by the Coptic Church which was supposedly holding and torturing her, a Copt, for converting to Islam. Camelia reiterated her previous statements unequivocally: 'She never converted to Islam, and would live and die as a Christian'. The Islamists immediately began rioting about how another Coptic girl, Abeer Talaat, had converted to Islam and was abducted and imprisoned by the Coptic Church and began the violent rampage.
The truth is that Abeer had converted to Islam - but her family did not know, believing that their married daughter had run off with another man. They merely brought her to stay at a guest house belonging to the church - a building designed to help separated couples reconcile. According to the priest of this church she had left this guest house well before the Islamists began insisting that she was being held "against her will" in the church.
It would appear that Abeer converted to Islam to get an instantaneous divorce from her husband for, she revealed, a Muslim cab-driver had told her that if she converted to Islam and "married" him (i.e., lived with him), that would automatically annul her marriage from the Christian. This of course is a Sharia stipulation, though one that (currently) contradicts Egyptian law which views her as a bigamist for marrying another man while still being legally married to her lawful husband. As a consequence she is currently in jail and the case is under investigation.
Asked in a recent interview if she converted to Islam for its own appeal, or simply to get rid of her Coptic husband, Abeer said: "No, I had a lot of problems with my husband and that's what caused me to do this [convert to Islam]. I asked 'How can I be rid of him [her husband]' and was told to 'be done of him by changing your religion' [to Islam], so I did this to be rid of him."
When asked: "Do you want to stay a Muslim, Abeer?" she responded in a quiet voice: "Well, it's something that there's no return from." The last statement is certainly true as we have written in many other places on this site. In Islamic controlled countries - and even in the West now - apostasy from Islam is a death sentence!
The 'Islamophobia' tactic in the U.K.
It is precisely the opposite scenario - Muslims kidnapping Christian women and forcing them to convert to Islam - that is the true state of affairs in Egypt. Last year a bipartisan group of eighteen members of the U.S. Congress wrote to Ambassador Luis CdeBaca, director of the State Department's Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Office, documenting how Coptic females are increasingly subject to "fraud, physical and sexual violence, captivity, forced marriage, and exploitation in forced domestic servitude or commercial sexual exploitation, and financial benefit to the individuals who secure the forced conversion" (excerpt from Christian Solidarity International - report on the abuse of Christian women in Muslim Egypt).
Islam's Sharia law mandates perpetual war and the plundering of non-believers (infidels) and the Qur'an and hadith, as well as contemporary records, are rife with examples that show clearly that the overwhelming majority of what came to constitute the Muslim world was taken by force. Many Islamic apologists, including Muslim preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huweini, boast that jihad is one of the highlights of Islam, specifically because it allows the plundering of infidels and enslavement of their women and children!
Even as the military in Egypt co-operates with the Islamists to make life for the Coptic Christian minority even more difficult, the prominent Egyptian cleric Khalid al-Jundi complains that in Egypt: "Muslims have fewer rights than Christians, and even do not have the right to worship like Christians [insisting that more mosques need to be built] ... for those which have been built are not enough." In reality, of course, it is Egyptian churches that cannot be built or even repaired - in accordance with Islamic law - without a presidential decree, e.g. during Mubarak's final weeks, Egyptian security stormed the St. Mary church in Talbiya, forcing a stop to construction, demolishing stairs and toilets. While al-Jundi complains of Christians receiving more rights than Muslims, the fact remains that:
"More than one million Copts live in the Talbiya area, without a single church to serve them, having to travel for miles every Sunday with their children to the nearest church. The protesters pointed out that the area is full of mosques without licenses, but when it comes to the Copts, they toil for years to obtain a permit for a church, then security comes out with some sort of excuse to stop them from praying there."
Thousands of Muslims recently surrounded a church in Egypt, refusing to allow it to open, insisting that it should not display an external cross and threatening to burn it down like other Coptic churches.
The Islamic tactic of projecting their own sinful ideas of how to behave towards infidels was made particularly obvious when Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, former secretary-general of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, appeared on Al-Jazeera (September, 2010) and, in a wild tirade, accused the Copts of: "stocking arms and ammunitions [imported from Israel - 'the heart of the Coptic Cause'] in their churches and monasteries ... [and] preparing to wage war against Muslims [and claiming that] ... if nothing is done [the] ... country will burn [and incited Muslims to] ... counteract the strength of the [Coptic] Church."
Al-Awwa even claimed that Egypt's security forces cannot enter the monasteries to search for weapons. This is an amazing assertion, considering that Coptic monasteries are not only at the mercy of the state but are easy prey to Islamist and Bedouin attacks, with monks tortured and their Christian symbols, such as crucifixes, destroyed.
Because of all these wild accusations, the 86-year-old sick and ailing Coptic Pope Shenouda III was accused last year of being: "a U.S. agent, an abductor and torturer of female Muslim converts from Christianity, who was stockpiling weapons in monasteries and churches with a view to waging war against the Muslims and dividing Egypt to create a Coptic State." Recently, forty six Islamist lawyers filed a complaint with the Attorney against Pope Shenouda III, demanding the Pope 'open churches and monasteries for inspection to verify of the existence of weapons, and illegal places for the detention of citizens.'
All of these accusations are as inapplicable to the Coptic Church as they are perfectly applicable to Islamists. The evidence shows that it is Islamists who habitually kidnap Christian women and force them to convert to Islam and stockpile weapons in their mosques. It is not unreasonable to consider that the traits of dawah and taqiyyah will lead Muslims to use the same tactics, no matter which country they occupy, as revealed by the TV documentary exposés in the UK which uncovered the regular dissemination of materials (mainly from Saudi Arabia) promoting jihad - for the same or very similar materials were found to be just as widely available when the same mosques were investigated a year later!
In Egypt, where Islam reigns supreme and Sharia law (based on Sura 9:29) is part of the Constitution, Coptic Christians have been conditioned for centuries to be content with just being left alone. When you are surrounded by a large majority of a Satanic religion that will try and take your life if the opportunity arises - and tries to fill you with such fear that you will invariably refrain from trying to share the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ with disciples of the false prophet Muhammad - it is clearly unreasonable to believe that these down-trodden Christians plan a violent takeover of Egypt!
Yet these are the charges that Islamic leaders hurl at Coptic Christians in Egypt. While the evidence shows that Islamists stockpile weapons, particularly in their mosques, in preparation to violently seize power in Egypt or whichever nation they reside in, it is ironic that al-Awwa slipped up during his accusations by accidentally admitting that: "Muslims are arrested every day [in Egypt] for extremism and the possession of arms."
If we reference Egypt to the Israel situation it is ironic, yet again, to compare the Islamic charge that Copts are trying to divide Egypt to create their own state! This is apparently based mainly on a candid remark made by Coptic Bishop Bishoy some months ago: "Muslims are guests in this country, Christians are the original residents. Prior to the Arab invasion of Egypt, which took place in the seventh century, the majority of Egypt's population was Christian." This otherwise historically accurate observation has enraged Muslims and been cited as "proof" that the Copts seek to divide Egypt and establish their own state. The fact that Muslims took over Egypt in this historical fashion will probably be claimed to be in the dim and distant past but how far back in history is each nation or group of people allowed to appeal in their claims? Is there a limit? Is it too late for Israel to make a full claim for the return of all of their 'Promised Land' which was historically theirs two thousands years ago? The nations of the world - with the major collusion of the UK - even robbed Israel of 81% of the land they had promised to return to them in 1947. So exactly why should Israel give up any of their land now?
It is Muslim minorities who habitually try to secede from non-Muslim countries, either by creating their own nations (e.g., Pakistan), or creating enclaves in the West, for the belief in separating from the infidel is commanded in the Koran (e.g., Sura 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22), codified in the doctrine of al-wala' wa'l bara', and imprinted on the Muslim psyche. Muslims have predictably taken to project this divisive impulse onto the Copts as well.
Muslim similarly project their doctrines onto Christianity and the Al Azhar Scholars Front, which consists of Al Azhar alumni, declared: "Christianity … is constantly defining its overt and covert policy of eliminating all its rivals or degrading [the followers of other religions] and depriving them of every reason to live so that they will be forced to convert to Christianity." Again, the truth is precisely the opposite, for Islam uses jihad to "eliminate all its rivals," or, through the institution of dhimmitude, "degrade [the followers of other religions] and deprive them of every reason to live so that they will be forced to convert to" Islam. This is easily proven from the doctrinal emphasis in the Qur'an - and the resultant historically violent conquering Muslim armies that swept across much of the world.
Muslims who try and play the 'moderate' card will endeavor to pull the wool over the eyes of the ignorant by quoting peaceful verses from the Qur'an to try and combat the many obviously aggressive and warlike verses. Since Muslims are generally brought up reciting the Qur'an and many know it 'off by heart' (or close to that level of knowledge), it is a great pity that their knowledge of the history of Islam so rarely matches this ability. This is assuming that the inbuilt ability to practice taqiyya (deception) allows them to gain any kind of understanding of the doctrine of abrogation which is really, in logical terms, the height of hypocrisy and one of the surest signs of the massively evil nature of the religion of Muhammad.
Islamic scholars generally agree that over 120 peaceful verses in the Qur'an were abrogated, or annulled, and replaced by later verses that call for jihad, war and violence against infidels. The peaceful verses in the Qur'an relate predominately to the Meccan period of Mohammad's life, while the warlike verses relate to the Medinan period, which occurred after Mohammad migrated from Mecca to Medina but, more tellingly, reflected his rise from the leader of a small, peaceful, weak cult to a very large, powerful, rich religion. And all this was achieved by his merciless attacks on weak groups - many of them Jewish - who had substantial wealth that Muhammad used to enrich himself and, effectively, bribe his armies of followers. Combined with the promise of wealth, Muhammad offered the desires of the flesh to his men. The slaves captured in his wars of aggression testify to this fact and, in particular, the abuse of women that he demonstrated so thoroughly by even 'abrogating' his own views on marriage and indulging in behaviour towards young girls that would have him incarcerated as a paedophile in contemporary Western societies:
When Bishop Bishoy declared that Egypt's Christians are reaching the point of martyrdom due to the increase in persecution al-Awwa used this, during his Al Jazeera rant, to assert that:
"Father Bishoy declared that they would reach the point of martyrdom, which can only mean war. He said, 'If you talk about our churches, we will reach the point of martyrdom.' This means war."
The belief that a martyr is someone who wages and dies in jihad ('holy war') is intrinsic to Islam (e.g., Qur'an - Sura 9:111) while Christian martyrdom has always meant being persecuted and killed for refusing to recant Christianity. This is clearly the definition that Bishop Bishoy was referring to in speaking of martyrdom and it is enunciated in many Bible verses, e.g. Hebrews 11:35ff.:
Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; 36 and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated 38 (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. 39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.
Islamists regularly abduct, abuse and rape Coptic Christian girls to compel them to convert to Islam, thereby following the example set by their founder. Should we be surprised that Libyan dictator, Colonel Gaddafi, is now being accused of using rape in his own country to subdue the population that has grown thoroughly tired of his particular brand of Islam?
Perhaps the most ironic attempt to whitewash their religion is when Islamist projection accuses others of what they are most guilty of practicing. Islam actually accuses those who quote and expose the hatred that permeates their own scriptures and world-view and is subsequently revealed by Muslims towards all infidels - and particularly Jews - of "spreading hate"! The accusation of 'Islamophobia' is their most desperate attempt to prevent infidels from exposing the truth about their 'prophet' and his religion.
When David Cameron's minister Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, co-chairman of the Tory Party, claimed that prejudice against Muslims has 'passed the dinner-table test' and become socially acceptable in the U.K., it was not unreasonable to suspect she was merely employing another dawah tactic - the 'Islamophobia' tactic! Her warning against dividing Muslims into moderates and extremists also accused the media of superficial discussion of Islam and that anti-Muslim prejudice is now seen by many Britons as normal and uncontroversial.
Warsi's claims to use her position to fight an 'ongoing battle against bigotry' and attempts to blame 'the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media', for making Britain a less tolerant place for believers. The fact that >99% of all terrorist acts - particularly by suicide bombers - are committed by Muslims couldn't have anything to do with making the British public somewhat less 'tolerant' towards those of a certain faith, could it?!
Warsi apparently raised the issue of 'Islamophobia' with Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to Britain last year, urging him to 'create a better understanding between Europe and its Muslim citizens'. Did she also discuss with him the fact that the majority of wordlwide anti-Semitism is committed by Muslims - or did she recognise that this would ahve been futile since the Papal Cult is the second most regular offender in this particular form of racist bigotry?!
Warsi claims to say publicly what many Muslims privately complain about - that prejudice against them does not attract the social stigma attached to prejudice against other religious and ethnic groups. Really? On what planet is this?!
She told the 2009 Conservative Party conference that anti-Muslim hatred had become Britain's last socially acceptable form of bigotry, and claimed in a magazine article last October (2009) that 'taking a pop at the Muslim community in the media sold papers and didn't really matter.' She claims that the description of Muslims as either moderate or extremist encourages false assumptions. When you know that the Muslim doctrines of dawah, taqqiyah, and jihad exist you can clearly safely say that any Muslim could be correctly taking part in any one stage of an approved Muhammadan doctrine - and none of us would be any the wiser! It doesn't even help their cause to argue whether it 'is a Shi'ite practice only' - since some Sunnis see taqqiyah as a Shi'a error to be refuted and a reason why Shi'ites can't be trusted by Sunnis, for it is variously said to contradict the Qur'an - or the hadith. Since abrogation (annulment) is another Muhammadan doctrine this does not clarify the situation in the slightest!
Baroness Warsi can try and argue that to believe terror offences committed by a small number of Muslims should not be used to condemn all who follow Islam - but the three doctrine rule floors her there too.
She can urge Muslim communities to be clearer about their rejection of those who resort to violent acts - since two of the three doctrines will be correctly followed if they do this they are not really condemning those who follow the third (jihad)!
When she says: 'Those who commit criminal acts of terrorism in our country need to be dealt with not just by the full force of the law' it does not matter, even if fellow Muslims following two of the doctrines turn in their fellow faithful Muslim following jihad and they are executed - because to die while partaking jihad is to enter paradise with all its sensual promises!
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi appears confident, likeable, and a truly modern Muslim woman, the antithesis of a stereotypical Tory and apparently proof that David Cameron's Conservatives have a 'gem' on their team. Eight months on from the election victory and only eight years into her political career, at 39 Warsi is now one of the most powerful women in the country. Chair (i.e. Chairman) of her party, with a seat in cabinet as minister without portfolio, Warsi has been given a wide-ranging brief to work across government. As the former shadow minister for 'community cohesion' and 'social action', she will be expected to focus foremost on social cohesion, and on the elusive matter of mending 'broken Britain'. How did Britain get 'broken'? By departing from belief in the Living God and allowing the cults of humanism, Muhammadism and every other 'ism' to infiltrate the U.K.!
Warsi is clearly being used by men and the Devil for:
she is an outspoken opponent of the Iraq war (presumably she would have argued against action against Hitler too, so that more Jews would have been exterminated in line with the shared anti-Semitic view of Islam and Nazism?);
she has called for dialogue with hardline Muslim groups (so, clearly accepts dialogue with the Gadaffi's of the world is acceptable too);
argued for asylum seekers to be granted the right to work (whether their 'right' to be in the U.K. is genuine or not?; do Islamic countries have applications from asylum seekers and what are her views on the ejection of Jews from Islamic countries, theft of their property, refusal to allow Jews and their synagogues - or Christian churches either - into Saudi Arabia etc.)
criticised anti-terror legislation for radicalising Muslim youths (where is her proof that anti-terror moves ever radicalised such 'youth' - it is a fact that every survey of Muslim youth reveals a high percentage supporting Islamic jihad!)
Not everyone in the Conservative Party is as dull as the current leadership for, when Cameron made her a peer in 2007, an article by officials from the Margaret Thatcher Centre For Freedom condemned her appointment as 'the wrong signal at a time when Britain is fighting a global war against Islamic terrorism and extremism'.
Warsi has gained considerable support for many of her views, such as her criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury for suggesting that allowing sharia law in parts of Britain could foster social cohesion. As a result she has been pelted with eggs by Muslim protestors, who accused her of not being 'a proper Muslim'. Perhaps the fact that she suffered an arranged marriage at 19, divorced in her early 30s, and was a single mum (her daughter, 13, goes to a convent school) before recently remarrying to a Muslim divorcee, must grate dreadfully in the world of forced submission of women that is Islam (the figures revealing that many duped U.K. women are 'converting' to Islam show that studying facts is not a priority in most peoples choice of religion - although, of course, Acts 17v11 reveals that this is the approved method for Christian conversion!). One of the many Islamic extremist preachers allowed to continue to peddle their filth in the U.K., Anjem Choudary, has revealed his racist roots by warning that 'she is in danger', for 'betraying Allah' and becoming 'a 'coconut' - brown on the outside but white on the inside'.
Warsi is vehemently opposed to a ban on the burka, but reveals an utterly naive/disingenuous view:
'Why should we tell women what to wear? What it boils down to is choice. If women don't have a choice over what to wear then they are oppressed. But if a woman has a choice, and she chooses to wear whatever she chooses to wear, then she's not oppressed, is she? She's choosing what she wants.'
If you follow a religion based around a man, as Islam is based on the 'revelations' of Muhammad, and it is men who make the decisions based on sharia laws they have formed, which include the apparel worn - and the enforcement of such laws takes place behind the closed doors of the family home - then you cannot argue that it was absolutely the woman's choice of dress, can you?
Warsi is clearly hamstrung by her attempt to defend Islam over matters that are clearly indefensible and her claims that 'The principle is one of equality and opportunity' do not get off the ground in countries such as Saudi Arabia where women are not allowed to drive vehicles - whether they can see sufficiently well to do so while wearing a burka, or not.
Warsi talks passionately about the isolation and abuse of immigrant women unable to speak English well and therefore unable to understand their rights in the U.K. and incapable of seeking help. This may be ironic since the Pakistani ex-wife of Warsi's new husband recently claimed that she cannot speak or read English and therefore didn't understand she was being divorced, actually mistaking the decree nisi she received for a utilities bill (according to a Sunday tabloid paper article).
The Brotherhood make their move
"First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people"
While the Brotherhood initially kept a low profile until the hard work had been done, perhaps by Egyptians who may have been genuinely hungry for democracy, they have now begun to make their presence known. The organization seems to have taken charge in many areas and a well-positioned member of the Brotherhood stood alongside the new prime minister, Essam Sharaf, when he spoke to the protesters gathered in Tahrir Square while another member now sits on the committee appointed to draft the new Constitution. One of the proposed amendments to the constitution calls for holding parliamentary elections prior to September and this gives a decided advantage to the two best organized groups: the Muslim Brotherhood and Mubarak's National Democratic Party.
The Brotherhood is not above fear tactics and eligible voters were cautioned in one flier that, if they failed to endorse the amendments, Egypt would be a country without religion: "This means that the call to prayer will not be heard anymore like in the case of Switzerland; women will be banned from wearing the hijab like in the case of France. And there will be laws that allow men to get married to men and women to get married to women like in the case of America."
The tactic resulted in 77.2 percent of the voters voting affirmatively for the amendments. The Brotherhood leadership continues to claim that it has no proprietary interest in running the country and their Supreme Guide reiterates that the group does not intend to present a candidate for president and will run for only a little more than one-third of the seats in the Parliament. This seems very reasonable, but many insiders suspect that the Brotherhood has made some agreement with the ruling military, former dean of Zagazig law school, Nabil Ahmed Halmy, expressing his concern: "I worry about going too fast towards elections, that the parties are still weak. The only thing left right now is the Muslim Brotherhood. I do think that people are trying to take over the revolution." The rise of the formerly banned group is troubling many for good reason, but it is a little late for hopeful would-be leaders of the 'democratic revolution' to plead for better organization.
The desire for 'democracy' in Egypt may turn into nothing more than a sectarian war between the different factions or a massive rise to power of a group that has long been a major source of fundamentalist jihadist leaders and their groups. Is this another catalyst for more evil dictators from the Muslim Brotherhood whose ultimate goal is to see all infidels (non-Muslims!) in submission - or dead.
"First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people." This statement is used by Islamists to describe the order in which they will commit murder. First the Jews, the Saturday people. And then the Christians, the Sunday people. The global conquest envisioned by radical Islam depends on their disappearance - and they plan it in this order.
The mainstream media - suffering from excessive concern about Muslim sensitivities and from editors' and reporters' anti-religious bias - has blacked out much of the violence (who can forget the foolish claims on worldwide TV that Egyptian rebels had achieved the overthrow of Mubarak without violence or deaths), but the Middle East remains the source of the most violent conflicts in our world and all inspired by the most evil and Satanic religions - Muhammadanism!
Jewish communities in the Arab World that just a half century ago numbered in the millions have all been driven to brink of extinction. Either hunted down or forced to flee their ancestral homes, these communities that had survived for thousands of years have vanished from history. If not for the existence of Israel, the Jews who once lived there would have vanished too. Meanwhile, Christian communities' suffering in the Muslim world find their conditions worse than ever before. Scholars estimate that every three minutes a Christian is being tortured in the Muslim world. In 2009, the last year for which statistics are available, more than 165,000 Christians were killed in Muslim countries - because of their faith in Christ!
(Continued on page 187)