Islam - This Day in History > Arguably the most Significant Christian-Muslim Battle of All Time

..

Today in History: Islam Tears Christendom Apart

BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM

AUG 20, 2021 3:03 PM ET

   

(Illustration of the Battle of Yarmuk, Public Domain)

Today in history, on August 20, 636, arguably the single most consequential battle between Islam and the West took place—that of Yarmuk.  Occurring just four years after Muslim prophet Muhammad had died, not only did the military engagement decide whether the Arabian creed thrives or dies; it became a chief source of inspiration and instruction for jihadis throughout the centuries, right down to the Islamic State.  And yet, very few in the West are even aware of the Battle of Yarmuk’s existence—much less how it motivates contemporary Islamic terrorists.

The contestants were the Eastern Roman Empire, under Emperor Heraclius, and the newly born Arabian caliphate, under the second caliph, Omar.  After a couple of years of Muslim depredations in then Christian/Roman Syria, the two forces met along the Yarmuk River.  The pre-battle exchange between the two generals, the Roman-Armenian Vahan and Khalid bin al-Walid—Islam’s much revered (and near cannibalistic) “Sword of Allah”—is instructive:

The Christian commander began by diplomatically blaming Arabia’s harsh conditions and impoverished economy for giving the Arabs no choice but to raid Roman lands. Accordingly, the empire was pleased to provide them with food and coin on the condition that they return home. “It was not hunger that brought us here,” Khalid responded coolly, “but we Arabs are in the habit of drinking blood, and we are told the blood of the Romans is the sweetest of its kind, so we came to shed your blood and drink it.

Vahan’s diplomatic mask instantly dropped and he launched into a tirade against the insolent Arab: “So, we thought you came seeking what your brethren always sought” — plunder, extortion, or mercenary work. “But, alas, we were wrong. You came killing men, enslaving women, plundering wealth, destroying buildings, and seeking to drive us from our own lands.” Better people had tried to do the same but always ended up defeated, added Vahan in reference to the recent Persian Wars, before continuing:

As for you, there is no lower and more despicable people — wretched, impoverished Bedouins. . . . You commit injustices in your own nation and now ours. . . . What havoc you have created! You ride horses not your own and wear clothes not your own. You pleasure yourselves with the young white girls of Rome and enslave them. You eat food not your own, and fill your hands with gold, silver, and valuable goods [not your own]. Now we find you with all our possessions and the plunder you took from our coreligionists — and we leave it all to you, neither asking for its return nor rebuking you. All we ask is that you leave our lands. But if you refuse, we will annihilate you!

The Sword of Allah was not impressed. He began reciting the Koran and talking about one Muhammad. Vahan listened in quiet exasperation. Khalid proceeded to call on the Christian general to proclaim the shahada—that “there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”—and thereby embrace Islam, in exchange for peace, adding, “You must also pray, pay zakat, perform hajj at the sacred house [in Mecca], wage jihad against those who refuse Allah, … and befriend those who befriend Allah and oppose those who oppose Allah,” a reference to the divisive doctrine of al-wala’ wa al-bara’. “If you refuse, there can only be war between us. . . . And you will face men who love death as you love life.”

“Do what you like,” responded Vahan. “We will never forsake our religion or pay you jizya.” Negotiations were over.

Things came to a head, quite literally, when 8,000 marching Muslims appeared before the Roman camp carrying the severed heads of 4,000 Christians atop their spears. These were the remains of 5,000 reinforcements who had come from Amman to join the Roman army at Yarmuk. The Muslims had ambushed and slaughtered them. Then, as resounding cries of “Allahu akbar” filled the Muslim camp, those Muslims standing behind the remaining 1,000 Christian captives knocked them over and proceeded to carve off their heads before the eyes of their co-religionists, whom Arabic sources describe as looking on in “utter bewilderment.”

So it would be war: 30,000 Christian Romans against 24,000 Muslim Arabs along the Yarmuk River in Syria.  On the eve of battle, writes historian A. I. Akram, “the Muslims spent the night in prayer and recitation of the Quran, and reminded each other of the two blessings that awaited them: either victory and life or martyrdom and paradise.”

No such titillation awaited the Christians. They were fighting for life, family, and faith. During his pre-battle speech, Vahan explained that “these Arabs who stand before you seek to . . . enslave your children and women.” Another general warned the men to fight hard or else the Arabs “shall conquer your lands and ravish your women.” Such fears were not unwarranted. Even as the Romans were kneeling in pre-battle prayer, Arab general Abu Sufyan was prancing on his war steed, waving his spear, and exhorting the Muslims to “jihad in the way of Allah,” so that they might seize the Christians’ “lands and cities, and enslave their children and women.”

The battle took place over the course of six days.  On August 20, 636, the sixth and final day, a dust storm — something Arabs were accustomed to, their opponents less so — erupted and caused mass chaos, particularly for the Romans, whose large infantry numbers proved counterproductive. Night fell.  Then, according to historian Antonio Santosuosso,

[T]he terrain echoed with the terrifying din of Muslim shouts and battle cries. Shadows suddenly changed into blades that penetrated flesh. The wind brought the cries of comrades as the enemy stealthily penetrated the ranks among the infernal noise of cymbals, drums, and battle cries. It must have been even more terrifying because they had not expected the Muslims to attack by dark.

Muslim cavalrymen continued pressing on the crowded and blinded Roman infantry, using the hooves and knees of their steeds to knock down the wearied fighters. Pushed finally to the edge of the ravine, rank after rank of the remaining forces of the imperial army fell down the steep precipices to their death. “The Byzantine army, which Heraclius had spent a year of immense exertion to collect, had entirely ceased to exist,” writes British lieutenant-general and historian John Bagot Glubb. “There was no withdrawal, no rearguard action, no nucleus of survivors. There was nothing left.”

As the moon filled the night sky and the victors stripped the slain, cries of “Allahu akbar!” and “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger” rang throughout the Yarmuk valley, the Arabian chronicler narrated.

Mere decades after Yarmuk, all ancient Christian lands between Syria to the east and Morocco to the west — nearly 4,000 miles — had been conquered by Islam. Put differently: Two-thirds of Christendom’s original, older, and wealthier territory was permanently swallowed up by the scimitar of jihad. (Eventually, and thanks to the later Turks, “Muslim armies conquered three-quarters of the Christian world,” to quote historian Thomas Madden.)

But unlike the Germanic barbarians who invaded and conquered Europe in the preceding centuries, only to assimilate into the religion, culture, and civilization of Christianity, and adopt its languages, Latin and Greek, the Arabs imposed their creed and language onto the conquered peoples so that, whereas the “Arabs” were once limited to the Arabian Peninsula, today the “Arab world” consists of some 22 nations across the Middle East and North Africa.

This would not be the case, and the world would have developed in a radically different way, had the Eastern Roman Empire defeated the invaders and sent them reeling back to Arabia. Little wonder that historians such as Francesco Gabrieli hold that “the battle of the Yarmuk had, without doubt, more important consequences than almost any other in all world history.”

Moreover and as the alert reader may have noticed, the continuity between the words and deeds of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and those of its predecessors from nearly 1,400 years ago are eerily similar. This of course is intentional. When ISIS proclaims that “American blood is best and we will taste it soon,” or “We love death as you love life,” or “We will break your crosses and enslave your women,” they are quoting in verbatim — and thereby placing themselves in the footsteps of — Khalid bin al-Walid and his companions, the original Islamic conquerors of Syria.

Similarly, ISIS’s invocation of the houris, Islam’s celestial sex-slaves promised to martyrs, is based on several anecdotes of Muslims dying by the Yarmuk River and being welcomed into paradise by these immortal concubines. So too is the choreographed ritual slaughter of “infidels,” most infamously of 21 Coptic Christians on the shores of Libya, patterned after the ritual slaughter of 1,000 captured Roman soldiers on the eve of battle.

Here, then, is a reminder that, when it comes to the military history of Islam and the West, the lessons imparted are far from academic and have relevance to this day — at least for the jihadis, whose mindset many in the West still refuse to acknowledge.

Note: The above account was excerpted from Raymond Ibrahim’s Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West. 

Islam - Current Day > Taliban Captures 2nd & 3rd Provincial Capitol Plus Most of Kanduz; USA Sends in B52 Bombers

..

Taliban captures second Afghan provincial capital in as many days,

after withdrawal of US troops – reports

7 Aug, 2021 14:51

FILE PHOTO: Afghan security forces keep watch at a checkpoint. © Reuters / Jalil Ahmad

Taliban fighters reportedly entered the capital of Afghanistan’s Jawzjan province on Saturday, amid a large-scale offensive that saw the group take over the main city of the southwestern Nimroz province (3rd story on link) just a day earlier.

The militants swept through nine out of 10 districts of the northern province, which borders the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan, before forcing their way into the regional capital, Sheberghan, local official Mohammad Karim Jawzjani told the AP news agency.

The Afghan central government said the strategic city hadn’t yet fallen and that fighting was continuing in the streets. However, sources told TOLONews the security forces were in control only of the provincial airport, in Khwaja Dako, some 17km (10 miles) from Sheberghan.

More than a dozen media outlets, including television and radio networks, reportedly stopped broadcasting in the province on Saturday. There were heavy airstrikes in Sheberghan, according to locals. They also reported that the militants had freed the inmates from the local prison.

The Taliban entrenchment in Sheberghan represents a major setback for the government, as the city serves as a stronghold of the US-allied Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, whose militias are supporting Kabul in the ongoing conflict.

On Friday, the Taliban gained control of Zaranj, in Nimroz province – the first provincial capital to succumb to the group. Their fighters have been filmed making victory laps around the city in the US-made Humvees they seized after the retreat of government troops.

The gains come amid a major offensive by the group, which have increased in recent weeks, starting with districts in rural areas and expanding to the provincial capitals.

The Taliban intensified its military activities and terror attacks in Kabul and other major cities as soon as US troops, who had been stationed in Afghanistan for two decades, began leaving the country. The withdrawal, the deadline for which is August 31, is currently 95% complete, according to US Central Command.

On Saturday, US warplanes were still providing aerial support to Afghan forces in an effort to contain the insurgents in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

Apparently, it's not working so well.

Taliban overruns most of Kunduz as Afghan military

clings to strategic city’s airport

8 Aug, 2021 14:35

FILE PHOTO. Afghan security personnel patrol along a road on the outskirts of Herat, on August 6, 2021. © AFP

Taliban militants have captured another provincial capital, Sar-e Pul, and most of the fifth-largest city of Kunduz, according to local officials. Afghan special forces have been deployed in a bid to re-take the latter.

The militants seized all the key government buildings in the two cities overnight, pushing the government troops to military installations on their outskirts. The troops are currently clinging onto the airport in Kunduz, in the north of the country.

“Heavy clashes started yesterday afternoon. All government headquarters are in the control of the Taliban. Only the army base and the airport is with ANDSF [Afghan security forces] from where they are resisting the Taliban,” provincial lawmaker Amruddin Wali told Reuters.

Footage circulating online shows the militants roaming the city streets en masse, with the group’s flags hoisted on multiple military vehicles.

Kunduz’s market was destroyed in the fighting, with disturbing footage purporting to show the whole location on fire. It was not immediately clear how exactly the market was obliterated, with some reports suggesting it was targeted by American warplanes supporting the Afghan troops. On Saturday, the US military launched airstrikes against the Taliban in a bid to halt its offensive, sending in B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers and AC-130 Spectre gunships.

Although the Taliban claimed it was in full control of Kunduz, the government said it had re-deployed special forces units to the city and was trying to push back the militants. A short video released by Afghan military spokesperson Fawad Aman shows special forces troops advancing through the streets, firing at unseen adversaries.

The situation in the northwestern city of Sar-e Pul appears to be similar to that in Kunduz. Its key locations have been overrun by the militants, with government forces retreating to a military base on its fringes.

“Government headquarters, including the governor’s house, police command, and the National Directorate of Security compound, are captured by the Taliban,” Mohammad Noor Rahmani, a Sar-e Pul provincial council member, told Reuters.

Over the past few days, the Taliban has put the government troops under heavy pressure, apparently switching the focus of its offensive from rural areas to major cities. Two provincial capitals, Zaranj in the southwest and Sheberghan in the north, have already fallen into the hands of the militant group.

This is eerily like watching ISIS as they charged freely across northern Syria and Iraq. Will American B52 bombers be able to do anything to stop the charge other than destroying Afghan cities?

The ‘Farcical and Empty Claims’ of Islam’s Greatest University - Al Azhar

01/28/2021 

by Raymond Ibrahim

Al Azhar, the Muslim world’s most prestigious if not authoritative Islamic university, recently blasted Jerome, the archbishop of Athens and all Greece, for saying during a January 14 interview that: “Islam, its people, is not a religion but a political party” — that Muslims are “the people of war … who seek expansion,” which is a “characteristic of Islam.”

Instead of replying with outrage and accusations of “Islamophobia” — as Turkey and other nations did, on January 19, the Observatory, a branch of Al Azhar, denounced “these irresponsible statements by the archbishop of Athens,” adding that they are “merely farcical and empty claims — trivialities unworthy of responding to or discussing.”

Why?  Because, continued Al Azhar, “Islam is the final, heavenly message that Allah Almighty sent to our master Muhammad, the seal of the prophets and apostles, to bring humanity from out of the darkness and clutches of ignorance and into the light of truth and the sun of guidance.”

To anyone unconvinced by this hagiographic explanation, Al Azhar continued:

Accusing Muslims of being people of war and expansion is a pure lie — a fraud and falsification of Muslim history, which is replete with forgiveness and pardon[.] … The Prophet’s invasions were either in defense of Muslims or to discipline those who reneged on their pacts[.] … [Islamic history] is inconsistent with the claim that Muslims want to expand!

Indeed, the only thing not inconsistent here is Al Azhar’s denial of the militant, expansionist history of Islam.  For example, on April 30, 2020, during his televised program, which is watched by millions in Egypt and the Arab world, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb — Al Azhar’s grand imam and Pope Francis’s close ally — declared that “Islam doesn’t seek war or bloodshed, and Muslims only fight back to defend themselves.”

This somewhat surreal claim was even the grand conclusion reached at — and therefore making a mockery of — a recent mega-conference dedicated to finding solutions to “extremism.”  Hosted in Egypt by Al Azhar, and attended by leading representatives from 46 Muslim nations, al-Tayeb capped off the two-day conference by again declaring:

Jihad in Islam is not synonymous with fighting; rather, the fighting practiced by Prophet Muhammad and his companions is one of its types; and it is to ward off the aggression of the aggressors against Muslims, as opposed to killing those who offend in [matters of] religion, as the extremists claim.  The established sharia rule in Islam bans antagonism for those who oppose the religion.  Fighting them is forbidden — as long as they do not fight Muslims.

Needless to say, such claims fly in the face of more than a millennium of well documented Islamic history.  Beginning with Muhammad — whose later wars were hardly defensive, but rather raids meant to empower and aggrandize himself and his followers over non-Muslims — and under the first “righteous” caliphs and virtually all subsequent sultans and rulers, jihad consisted of “inviting” neighboring non-Muslims to embrace Islam or at the very least submit themselves to its political authority (as second-class dhimmis); if non-Muslims refused, as they almost always did, if they insisted on maintaining their own religious identity and freedom from Islam, then jihad was proclaimed, the non-Muslims’ lands were invaded, and the aftermath looked like an ISIS setting, with pyramids of heads, burned churches and other temples of worship, and slave markets of women and children littering the landscape.

One need only look at a map of the Muslim world today and realize that the vast majority of it — all of the Middle East, North Africa, Turkey, Central Asia, as far east as Pakistan and farther — was taken by violent conquest in the name of jihad.  There is nothing “defensive” about that.

Indeed, within the context of his interview, Archbishop Jerome’s words were especially accurate, for he was discussing the Islamic conquest of Constantinople in 1453.  As with the aforementioned Muslim conquests preceding it, the only reason it was attacked and its citizens treated in mind-boggling ways is because it refused to submit to Islam, preferring to remain Christian, as it had been for over a thousand years.

In short, the history and subsequent expansion of Islam is almost entirely based on violent conquest, or jihad.  Anyone who denies that — and that goes for the Muslim world’s most prestigious and authoritative institution, Al Azhar — is the one making “farcical and empty claims — trivialities unworthy of responding to or discussing.”

Raymond Ibrahim, author of Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.

‘Un-Islamic’: Pakistani Student Stabs Professor to Death for Planning Co-ed Party With Women Dancing

This is not terrorism; it is not radical Islam;

this is Islam when it is in the majority - Pakistan

A teacher at a reputable college in Pakistan’s Punjab province was stabbed to death by a student for organizing a co-ed party. Reports say the attacker believed the inclusion of females at the event was vulgar and blasphemous.

Prof. Hameed

Students were gathering in order to plan a “farewell party” when their classmate sprang on English language professor Khalid Hameed and began to stab him in the stomach. While the others rushed to their teacher’s assistance and tackled their classmate to the ground, Hameed’s wounds were already too severe, and he died en route to the hospital. Tragically, he was scheduled to retire in just four months.

“My father then fell down and I rushed to him; the student held his knife and started shouting ‘I have killed him, I had told him that a gender mix reception is against Islam’,” Hameed’s son Waleed Khan, who had dropped his father off at the office and witnessed the attack, told AFP. In a cruel twist, he revealed his father wasn’t even involved in organizing the event.

Khateeb, the assassin

A note has been making the rounds on social media which was allegedly written by a group of students enraged over the decision to include women in the get-together. Local channel Samaa TV says that male and female students were supposed to take part in a folk dance, and the group fumed that it was “promoting vulgarity,” claiming that “Islam doesn’t allow it.”

While police were still checking if the attacker was a member of any extremist group, they said he considered the dance to be “un-Islamic.”

“Apparently, the accused has no link to any religious group but we are investigating about his past and the reasons behind his mindset,” said local police representative Farhan Hussain. The student is currently in police custody, and will be charged with murder.

The attack took place at Sadiq Egerton College in Bahawalpur, a school where women outnumber men two-to-one, a rarity in the conservative Pakistani education system. Several women on Twitter saw the murder as an expression of the country’s deep-rooted discriminatory attitude.

Gee, ya think?

Meanwhile, the victim’s son said he believes the attack occurred as a result of “brainwashing.” He also lashed out at the government for seemingly allowing radical views to flourish.

“I demand justice,” Waleed told media. “I am feeling threatened. We have not been given security.”

The majority of Pakistanis are Sunni Muslim. Globally, the majority of Muslims are Sunni.

Saudi Arabia Expels Canada’s Ambassador, Freezes All New Trade with Ottawa

By Rahul Kalvapalle
National Online Journalist Global News

In this Nov. 2, 2015 file photo, protesters take part in a rally outside the Saudi embassy in Ottawa to call for the release of jailed liberal blogger Raif Badawi. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Saudi Arabia has asked Canada’s ambassador to leave the country within 24 hours, just two days after Canada criticized the arrest of women’s rights and human rights activists in the Arab kingdom.

In a statement, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Canada of making “false” statements and interfering with Saudi internal affairs, and said ambassador Dennis Horak was no longer welcome in the country.

The ministry said it rejected Canada’s characterization of events in Saudi Arabia, and said it wouldn’t stand for outside intervention.

It added that Saudi Arabia would freeze all new trade and investment transactions with Canada, and would consider taking further action.

The move comes two days after Global Affairs Canada issued a statement criticizing the arrest of Samar Badawi, the sister of jailed dissident blogger Raif Badawi. Samar Badawi is the sister-in-law of Raif Badawi’s wife Ensaf Haidar, who lives in Canada and recently became a Canadian citizen.

Foreign Policy CAN -

 Canada is gravely concerned about additional arrests of civil society and women’s rights activists in #SaudiArabia, including Samar Badawi. We urge the Saudi authorities to immediately release them and all other peaceful #humanrights activists.

Amnesty International said the arrest of Samar Badawi and another prominent female activist, Nassima al-Sada, was part of a larger crackdown on human rights in Saudi Arabia.

“These brave women represented the last vestiges of the human rights community in the country, and now they too have been detained,” Amnesty International’s Middle East research director Lynn Maalouf said in a statement.

And they seemed to be doing so well for awhile there.

Chrystia Freeland -

 Very alarmed to learn that Samar Badawi, Raif Badawi’s sister, has been imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. Canada stands together with the Badawi family in this difficult time, and we continue to strongly call for the release of both Raif and Samar Badawi.

Samar’s brother Raif was arrested in 2012 and later sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail for criticizing clerics.

He received 50 lashes in January 2015 during a public flogging but is not believed to have received any more corporal punishment since then.

Samar, herself, was arrested 2.5 years ago, but was, apparently released. Yet she chose to stay in Saudi Arabia. Was it because she has some access to her brother, or her willingness to be a martyr for women's rights where they don't exist? 

In any event our thoughts and prayers are with her and Nassima. 

What does this mean for Canada? I believe Eastern Canada gets all its oil from Saudi Arabia. Quebec has refused to allow an oil pipeline to go through the southeastern corner of the province so that the Maritimes can receive Alberta or Saskatchewan oil. Consequently, should Saudi Arabia turn the tap off, Canada has to quickly find another source of oil which could easily end up being another country with an appalling human rights record. Meanwhile, Alberta oil lies in the ground. Crazy, eh? 

Fighting Islamic Terrorism

‘Own it!’ Terrorism is an Islamic issue, say some Muslims

Panel agrees we have to fight radical ideology in Islam but we can only do that by exposing the truth about Islam itself

Cathy Lynn Grossman RNS

A panel of Muslim leaders, speaking at The Heritage Foundation on Dec. 3, 2015, said it’s critical to recognize the religious roots of terror to defeat it. From left to right: Zudhi Jasser; Naser Khader; Farahnez Ispahani, and Asra Nomani. Photo courtesy of The Heritage Foundation

WASHINGTON (RNS) While details are still unfolding as to why a California Muslim couple turned to murder, Muslims in the West must step up and admit terrorism is rooted in extremist Islam, said four Muslim panelists speaking at a conservative think tank on Thursday (Dec. 3).

They criticized major U.S. Muslim groups that lament such tragedies but say their religion is not responsible. They insisted the violence has roots in Islam, and that Islamist political terror is nurtured in Saudi Arabia’s strict Wahhabi branch of the faith.

And they blasted the Obama administration for steadfastly refusing to brand terror as Islamic extremism. President Obama decried the deaths and pledged a thorough investigation of the attack but cautioned against setting blame based on the killers’ Muslim names.

“President Obama simply does not embrace reality,” said Farahnez Ispahani, a former member of the Pakistani Parliament and author of an upcoming book on that Pakistan’s religious minorities.

She mocked the way that the administration responds to attacks. Rather than calling in progressive Muslim leaders in U.S civil society, she said: “They call in imams and they hold an interfaith event and they are all happy.

“But there is no clear ideological campaign to fight ISIS or Islamists,” she said, to a smattering of applause in the audience of about 50 people. Islam has been “hijacked” and people are afraid if they admit it, it will spark Islamophobia, Ispahani said.

“Terror is a Muslim issue, an Islamic issue within the house of Islam,” said M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, “and we must own it” to fight it. He moderated the event held at the Heritage Foundation, which had been planned after the Paris attacks.

Naser Khader, a member of the Parliament of Denmark for the Conservative People’s Party, said Muslims themselves must lead the fight rather than hide behind excuses that killers are not truly Muslim. Instead, they should condemn Islamist jihadists ”without any excuses.”

“If we the Muslims do not face the problem of violence, how will we ever succeed in lifting this from those powers and bring it into the 21st century?” Khader asked. He called for rereading the Quran in the light of modern times and presenting strong religious arguments for change.

Khader and Ispahani were part of a weeklong “Summit of Western Muslim Voices of Reform against the Islamic State and Islamism.” Under the umbrella of Jasser’s forum, 20 people from the U.S., Europe and the Middle East identified as “Muslim reformers” met to propose ways to counter “the ideologies which fuel global Muslim radicalization.”

Thursday, the finger of blame was pointed directly at Saudi Arabia, which the panelists said stands on strict Quranic literalism. This takes a seventh-century view of unbelievers, women and minorities that allows for terror, murder and deprivation of human rights, they agreed.

“As an evangelical Christian obviously I disagree with Islam fundamentally,” Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told NPR’s “Morning Edition” on Friday.

“At the same time, I’m very disturbed when I hear the sorts of talk that we’ve been hearing over the last several months about shutting down mosques, about identifying Muslims in this country.

“That is a very dangerous place to be, both at a human rights level but also in terms of religious liberty,” said Moore.

He's right, of course, although one could argue that what we are currently doing, or not doing, is equally dangerous, and perhaps more so. Liberalizing Islam will never fly! People will always gravitate to essential fundamentals of their religious beliefs, and in Islam that is the life of Mohammed.

As the panel pointed out, we must fight radical Islam at the ideological level. But to simply point out that radicalism is wrong and not true Islam is going to accomplish nothing when it is obvious that Mohammed, himself, would be considered an extremist today. He was a murderer, an antisemite, a pedophile in his later years, a liar and a warmonger. He was also incredibly selfish. And, he put the Arab world back under 'the Law' from which Jesus Christ had set us free nearly 700 years earlier.

Of course such inflammatory statements are very dangerous and likely to be counterproductive. But such ideas can be slowly and gently raised in a manner that causes people to think and explore for themselves. It would take courage, and, unfortunately, I don't think there is anyone in the western media with that kind of courage.

Islamic radicalism cannot be defeated without defeating Islam, and that cannot be done on the battlefield.

“I Just Consider Myself to be a Practicing Muslim”

American Wannabe ISIS Fighter Donald Morgan 

Gets 20 Years in Prison

ABC News By LEE FERRAN

A North Carolina man who tried and failed to join the terror group ISIS was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison, the Department of Justice announced today.

Donald Ray Morgan, 44, (who was born Catholic) was arrested last August at New York’s JFK airport after returning from the Middle East. There, he had tried to travel from Lebanon through Turkey and on to Syria to join ISIS but was stopped at the Istanbul airport and sent back to Lebanon.

In Lebanon, Morgan told a freelance journalist working for NBC News he wanted to join ISIS because “they’ve proven time and time again to put Islamic law as the priority and the establishment of an Islamic state as the goal.”

“I would not classify myself as a radical, but by western definition I would be classified as a radical,” he said then. “I just consider myself to be a practicing Muslim.”

Donald Morgan

Morgan said he suspected the U.S. and other law enforcement were already hot on his heels, but he decided to go back to the U.S. anyway.

After he was arrested on a gun charge, Morgan eventually pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS and to felony possession of a firearm. Morgan was already a convicted felon from an unrelated 1997 incident in which he fired a weapon “into occupied property” in North Carolina, according to court documents.

“The sentence in this case demonstrates that we will continue to bring to justice those who engage in this conduct, and that protecting the nation against these threats remains one of our highest priorities,” Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin said in a DOJ statement today.

Where Do Muslims Really Stand on Shariah Law?

Global Study Provides Fascinating Revelations

Many Muslims across the globe embrace shariah law (Islamic and Koranic law) and believe that it should be adopted as “the law of the land,” according to a new report by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Based on more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews with Muslims in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, the survey offers in-depth research about the lives and views of Islamic adherents across the globe.

Of course, there are differences among believes based on both region and county. But perhaps the most intriguing elements observed are the findings that many of the Muslims who want shariah law in a number of countries also embrace harsh penalties such as stonings for adulterers and thieves’ hands being cut off.

IS SHARIAH THE OFFICIAL WORD OF GOD — OR MAN?

Pew notes that most Muslims see shariah law as “the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God.” Overall, believers also seem to embrace the notion that shariah has only one, true meaning, although the level of this adherence varies in certain countries. On a base level, the more engaged one is in the Islamic faith, the more likely he or she is to say that shariah is the revealed word of God.

As for applicability, opinions differ about how Islamic law should be implemented. According to Pew, “Generally, supporters of sharia are most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes.” Obviously, the challenge when it comes to shariah is determining whether it should also be integrated into the legal system.

When asked whether shariah is the revealed word of God, in 17 of the 23 nations where the question was asked, at least half of believers answered affirmatively. The proportions of those claiming that shariah came directly from God verses those who believe that it was developed by man from God’s word differ, depending on the country in which respondents were asked.

Photo Credit: Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

When it comes to understanding shariah, there are also a variety of opinions. Large proportions, depending on the country, believe that there is only one understanding — but this varies too. While majorities in Tajikistan, Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan maintain that there is one meaning (at least 55 percent in each country), in Albania, Kosovo and Uzbekistan, large proportions (at least 35 percent) seem to embrace the notion that there could be more than one way to interpret shariah.

SHOULD SHARIAH BE INTEGRATED INTO THE LEGAL SYSTEM?

Shariah may certainly have a place in the personal and family lives of many Muslims, but should it also be a part of the system that determines penalties for criminal activity? Pew investigated this phenomenon, once again finding stark differences depending on the nation in which the poll was conducted.

The research firm notes the intriguing regional differences. While only a minority of Muslims in Southern and Eastern Europe and Central Asia want shariah as a legal code, nations in South Asia, Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa are the most in favor of shariah as public law. Pew explains:

In South Asia, high percentages in all the countries surveyed support making sharia the official law, including nearly universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%). More than eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan (84%) and Bangladesh (82%) also hold this view. The percentage of Muslims who say they favor making Islamic law the official law in their country is nearly as high across the Southeast Asian countries surveyed (86% in Malaysia, 77% in Thailand and 72% in Indonesia).

In sub-Saharan Africa, at least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they favor making sharia the official law of the land, including more than seven-in-ten in Niger (86%), Djibouti (82%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (74%) and Nigeria (71%).

Support for sharia as the official law of the land also is widespread among Muslims in the Middle East-North Africa region – especially in Iraq (91%) and the Palestinian territories (89%). Only in Lebanon does opinion lean in the opposite direction: 29% of Lebanese Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land, while 66% oppose it.

The proportions can be viewed in the below table. More than half of twenty-five of the countries’ respondents stated that they want to see shariah become the law of the land:

Photo Credit: Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

The level of commitment to the faith, as Pew notes, impacts views on legality. Generally speaking, the more Muslims pray and engage in the faith, the more likely they are to support shariah becoming the law of the land. As noted elsewhere, recently, younger Muslims in Europe are considerably more engaged in Islam than their parents. Not a good sign for sleepy Europeans.

When it comes to whether shariah should apply to Muslims and non-Muslims, alike, in only a few countries majorities endorse this notion. Pew reports that this phenomenon exists most prominently in the Middle East and North Africa.

“The belief that sharia should extend to non-Muslims is most widespread in the Middle East and North Africa, where at least four-in-ten Muslims in all countries except Iraq (38 percent) and Morocco (29 percent) hold this opinion,” Pew explains. “Egyptian Muslims (74 percent) are the most likely to say it should apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, while 58 percent in Jordan hold this view.”

HOW SHOULD SHARIAH BE APPLIED?

Making shariah the law of the land obviously spawns some important questions. Among them: What, exactly, would this look like? Overall, there seems to be support for allowing religious judges to handle personal and family affairs. But there is also support — though among lower proportions — for severe punishment, such as cutting off the hands of those who steal and stoning individuals who commit adultery.

Here’s just a sample of what this looks like in Pew’s findings:

Among those who want sharia to be the law of the land, in 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis at least half say they support penalties such as whippings or cutting off the hands of thieves and robbers. In South Asia, Pakistani and Afghan Muslims clearly support hudud punishments [apostasy]. In both countries, more than eight-in-ten Muslims who favor making sharia the official law of the land also back these types of penalties for theft and robbery (88% in Pakistan and 81% in Afghanistan). By contrast, only half of Bangladeshis who favor sharia as the law of the land share this view.

In the Middle East and North Africa, many Muslims who support making sharia the official law also favor punishments like cutting off the hands of thieves. This includes at least seven-in-ten in the Palestinian territories (76%) and Egypt (70%), and at least half in Jordan (57%), Iraq (56%) and Lebanon (50%). Only in Tunisia do fewer than half (44%) of those who want Islamic law as the law of the land also back these types of criminal penalties. [...]

In 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half of Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land also favor stoning unfaithful spouses.

Some of the highest support for stoning is found in South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa region. In Pakistan (89%) and Afghanistan (85%), more than eight-in-ten Muslims who want Islamic law as their country’s official law say adulterers should be stoned, while nearly as many say the same in the Palestinian territories (84%) and Egypt (81%). A majority also support stoning as a penalty for the unfaithful in Jordan (67%), Iraq (58%). However, support is significantly lower in Lebanon (46%) and Tunisia (44%), where less than half of those who support sharia as the official law of the land believe that adulterers should be stoned.

Here’s are some of these findings, represented below:

Photo Credit: Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

As for apostasy, there wasn’t as much support among adherents surveyed. As for Muslims who believe that shariah should be the law of the land, at least half of those surveyed in six of the 20 countries report supporting executions for apostates (those individuals who convert away from Islam). In Egypt (86 percent), Jordan (82 percent) and Palestine (66 percent) agree with this notion. The full results are available here.

Read the entire shariah portion of the “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society” report here. In addition to Muslim law, the study provides believers’ stances on politics and women’s rights, among other issues.

Syria's Civil War Could Stabilize Its Region

by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times

Population shifts resulting from Syria's four-year long civil war have profoundly changed Syria and its three Arabic-speaking neighbors: Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan. (Turkey and Israel have changed too, but less so.)

Ironically, amid tragedy and horror, as populations adapt to the brutal imperatives of modern nationalism, all four countries are becoming a bit more stable. That's because the fighting has pushed peoples to move from ethnic minority status to ethnic majority status, encouraging like to live with like.

Majority Arab (yellow) and non-Arab areas of the Middle East

Before looking at each country, some background:

Unprecedented violence in the Middle East is encouraging like to live with like.

First, along with the Balkans, the Middle East contains the most complex and unsettled ethnic, religious, linguistic, and national mix in the world. It's a place where cross-border alliances deeply complicate local politics. If the Balkans set off World War I, the Middle East might well spark World War III.

Second, historic tensions between the two main Muslim sects, Sunni and Shi'i, had largely subsided before Ayatollah Khomeini's rise to power in 1979. Driven by Tehran's aggression, they have since flared anew.

Third, the imperialist European powers nearly ignored the identity of the peoples living in the Middle East as they defined most of the region's borders. Instead, they focused on rivers, ports, and other resources that served their economic interests. Today's jumble of somewhat randomly defined countries (e.g., Jordan) is the result.

Finally, Kurds were the major losers a century ago; lacking intellectuals to make their case, they found themselves divided among four different states and persecuted in them all. Today, they are organized for independence.

Sunnis (light green) and Shi'is (dark green) dominate the religious mosaic
of the Middle East

Returning to Syria and its Arab neighbors (and drawing on Pinhas Inbari's "Demographic Upheaval: How the Syrian War is Reshaping the Region"):

Syria and Iraq have undergone strikingly similar developments. After the demise of monstrous dictators in 2000 and 2003, each has broken into the same three ethnic units – Shi'i Arab, Sunni Arab, and Kurd. Tehran dominates both Shi'i-oriented regimes, while several Sunni-majority states (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar) back the Sunni rebels. The Kurds have withdrawn from the Arab civil wars to build their own autonomous areas. Once-ambitious dictatorships barely sustain functioning foreign policies. Also, the century-old boundary separating Syria and Iraq has largely vanished.

Syria: The part of Syria still ruled by Bashar al-Assad is becoming more Shi'i. An estimated half of the pre-war Syrian population of 22 million has been driven from its homes; of them, the 3 million refugees, mostly Sunni, who fled the country are unlikely to return both because of the continuing civil war and the Assad regime's revocation of their citizenship. The regime appears also to have intentionally reduced its control over the area near the border with Jordan to encourage Sunnis to flee Syria. In another ploy to increase the Shi'i population, reports indicate it has welcomed and re-settled about 500,000 Iraqi Shi'is, conferring Syrian citizenship on some.

However gruesome, the Syrian civil war potentially renders the Middle East a less combustible place.

Iraq: The Syrian civil war provided the Islamic State (or ISIS/ISIL) with an opportunity to move into Iraq, seizing such cities as Fallujah and Mosul, leading to an exodus of non-Sunnis (especially Shi'is and Yazidis), and remaking Iraq along ethnic lines. Given the country's intermingled population, especially in the Baghdad area, it will be years – perhaps decades – before the sides sort themselves out. But the process appears inexorable.

Lebanon: Sunnis are growing more powerful, beating back Iranian influence. The million new Sunni refugees from Syria now constitute 20 percent of the country's population, roughly doubling the Sunni community. Also, Hizbullah, the dominant Shi'i organization in Lebanon, is neglecting its own constituency and losing influence domestically by fighting on behalf of the Assad regime in Syria.

Jordan: The recent influx of Syrian refugees follows an earlier wave of approximately one million Iraqi refugees. Together, the two groups have lowered the percentage of Palestinians in Jordan to the point that the latter probably no longer constitute a majority of the country's population, a shift with major political implications. For one, it reduces the potential Palestinian threat to the Hashemite monarchy; for another, it undermines the Jordan-is-Palestine argument championed by some Israelis.

In brief, Iraq and Syria are devolving into their constituent religious and ethnic parts, Lebanon is becoming more Sunni, and Jordan less Palestinian. However gruesome the human cost of the Syrian civil war, its long-term impact potentially renders the Middle East a less combustible place, one less likely to trigger World War III.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

This is all well and good, of course, until you throw IS in the middle of it all. IS has no regard for borders and will slaughter Sunnis as well as Shias if they aren't as fanatical as IS. There will never be peace in the middle east for more than a few years at a time. 

Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her (Hagar), "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count."
The angel of the LORD said to her further, "Behold, you are with child, 
And you will bear a son; 
And you shall call his name Ishmael, 

Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.

"He will be a wild donkey of a man, 
His hand will be against everyone, 
And everyone's hand will be against him; 

And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
Genesis 16:9-12

The Mask of U.S.-Saudi Friendship Is Finally Slipping

Saudi princes accused of being patrons of al-Qaeda by 9/11 conspirator

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, her head uncovered,
stand in a receiving  line, in Riyadh, in January, to express their condolences
 on the death of the late King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud

The Saudi embassy in Washington says Zacarias Moussaoui is a deranged criminal.

He may well be; the so-called "20th hijacker" is certainly a criminal, confined to the most secure federal prison in America, and certainly portrayed himself as crazy during his 9/11 trial, 10 years ago in Virginia.

I covered it, and his courtroom rants were either delusional or meant to be perceived as such. (It didn't work; the presiding judge pronounced him competent to stand trial and "extremely intelligent.")

But his most recent testimony, given at the super-max penitentiary in Colorado last year and made public this week, reads like what it is: a detailed accounting by a man who holds a master's degree from a British university.

And what a remarkable account it is.

Moussaoui states that the 9/11 hijackers were supported not only by Saudi Arabian charities, but by Saudi princes and diplomats.

He reels off names he says were in an al-Qaeda database of moneyed donors, making it clear the jihadists couldn't really have accomplished much without them.

Moussaoui was testifying in civil proceedings in support of families of 9/11 victims who are suing the Saudi government.

So far, the White House has protected the kingdom. It has classified part of a congressional investigation — widely believed to have examined Saudi sources of funding for the attackers —  and has never emphasized that most of the attackers were Saudi citizens.

One suspects the feds weren't too keen on allowing Moussaoui to testify in the lawsuit, either.

Deranged or not, though, Moussaoui's testimony is further straining an ugly diplomatic bargain: In return for open gushers of oil and military co-operation, America and other Western nations smile and overlook the sometimes ugly elements of the Saudi regime.

A telling scene

It's instructive to watch video of President Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia last month. He abruptly rearranged his schedule to publicly mourn the dead king and fawn over Salman, the newly installed one.

The official welcoming ceremony was all smiles and fellowship, yet another staged display of American-Saudi solidarity.

(Also among the leaders who sent messages of high praise for the deceased King Abdullah was Stephen Harper, the same fellow who made a big deal of only reluctantly shaking Vladimir Putin's hand.)

But the kingdom's contempt for the West was easy to see.

Michelle Obama, forced to stand away from and behind her husband, keeping her face blank, as a procession of important Saudis conspicuously ignored her.

Saudi Arabia's new King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, (center) poses with
members of the consultative Shura Council in Riyadh.

Most Saudi men practise a fundamentalist version of Islam, and won't publicly touch a woman. Especially one who had the nerve to appear before them with her hair uncovered.

The American first lady no doubt did that quite deliberately; she has covered her hair in other places, notably Indonesia and the Vatican.

Presumably, as a feminist, she disapproves of trying women in terrorism courts for the crime of driving, and hacking the head off a screaming, struggling woman in public, as someone videotaped it all, and a voice on a loudspeaker read from the Qur'an.

(No press releases after that episode about "barbarity" or "mindless violence" of the sort the State Department issues about ISIS beheadings, only diplomatic silence.)

At last month's welcoming ceremony, as one VIP after another shook the American president's hand, a man approached, ignored Obama, who seemed to try to shake his hand, too, and spoke directly to the king. It was prayer time.

The monarch and every other Saudi man present abruptly turned and walked away, leaving Obama standing there.

Obama, striving to maintain presidential dignity, turned to a nearby diplomat and began chatting, as though he hadn't just been left hanging.

It was a telling scene, one that belied the mask of amity the two countries wear in public.

The gift of secrecy

Obama, having endorsed the Arab Spring as a wonderful expression of the people's will, also had to look the other way in 2011 when the Saudis sent troops across the causeway into Bahrain to violently crush Shia crowds protesting their treatment by the emirate's Sunni rulers.

Saudi's minority Shias have met with similar treatment; a respected Shia cleric was sentenced to death recently for criticizing the government.

The Saudis, who fund the building of mosques in America and around the world, strictly prohibit the presence of any religion but Islam on their soil, and America, the champion of religious freedom, says nothing.

The Saudis also openly scorned Obama for not being quick enough or generous enough in funding Syria's rebel forces. (As it turned out, of course, much of the Saudi funding ended up being channeled to ISIS and its cohort, but never mind.)

Zacarias Moussaoui

Outspoken Moussaoui

But the American public's willingness to tolerate the hypocrisy around Saudi Arabia is wearing thin. According to reports in U.S. media, Obama was unwilling or unable to form any sort of real friendship with Abdullah, the recently deceased king.

Increasingly, Saudi Arabia is being discussed in the U.S. media with the same tone accorded Pakistan, another official ally with at least informal links to al-Qaeda.

Pakistani officials are still angry that Obama sent a team of assassins to Osama bin Laden's hideaway in Abbottabad without telling them. (They were completely unaware, of course, that bin Laden was living there, just down the road from one of their military bases.)

Now, politicians on both sides of the aisle in Congress have called on Obama to declassify the 9/11 chapter concerning the Saudis.

The American public, they say, has the right to know what their own Congress discovered.

It was ironic that Moussaoui would have testified in support of the 9/11 families; it would be profoundly so if this "20th hijacker," from his captivity in Colorado, forces the White House to lift the gift of secrecy it's extended to the Saudis. Delicious irony!

Iran’s Supreme Leader: Jihad Will Continue Until America is No More

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, all but said on Sunday that negotiations over the country’s illicit nuclear program are over and that the Islamic Republic’s ideals include destroying America.

“Those (Iranians) who want to promote negotiation and surrender to the oppressors and blame the Islamic Republic as a warmonger in reality commit treason,” Khamenei told a meeting of members of parliament, according to the regime’s Fars News Agency.

Khamenei emphasized that without a combative mindset, the regime cannot reach its higher Islamic role against the “oppressors’ front.” So much for the religion of peace!

“The reason for continuation of this battle is not the warmongering of the Islamic Republic. Logic and reason command that for Iran, in order to pass through a region full of pirates, needs to arm itself and must have the capability to defend itself,” he said.

“Today’s world is full of thieves and plunderers of human honor, dignity and morality who are equipped with knowledge, wealth and power, and under the pretence of humanity easily commit crimes and betray human ideals and start wars in different parts of the world.” Wish I could disagree with him there, but, not so much.

In response to a question by a parliamentarian on how long this battle will continue, Khamenei said,“Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist. … This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. … This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and need for great strides.”

Battle and jihad are endless - anyone who still thinks Islam is a religion of peace, give your head a shake.
get rid of...America - why are we handling these guys with kid gloves when they are out to destroy America?
great strides - scariest of all these statements, it probably refers to nuclear war.

Iranian nuclear facility

Khamenei cited the scientific advancement of the country. “The accelerated scientific advancement of the last 12 years cannot stop under any circumstances,” he said, referring to the strides the regime has made toward becoming a nuclear power.

As reported on May 19 on The Daily Caller, Iran has put up new roadblocks to reaching a deal with the P5+1 world powers over its illicit nuclear program. The powers are the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany.

Three days of negotiations in the fourth round of Geneva meetings ended recently without concrete results when the Iranian team presented the country’s new “red lines” — diminishing any hope by the Obama administration to claim victory in its approach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, according to reports from Iran.

The Obama administration had hoped that with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif showing an eagerness to solve the nuclear issue and address the West’s concerns, there would be a possibility for a negotiated solution. An interim agreement penned last November in Geneva was touted as a “historic nuclear deal.”

Under that agreement, Iran, in return for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, limited its enrichment activity to the 5 percent level with a current stockpile of over 10 tons (enough for six nuclear bombs), converted much of its 20 percent enriched stock to harmless oxide and agreed to allow more intrusive inspections of its nuclear plants by the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose inspections were limited to only agreed-upon facilities.

Bushehr Nuclear plant, Iran

The Iranian delegation last week presented new red lines that could not be crossed, including the expansion of the country’s research and development for its nuclear program, the need of the country to continue enrichment, and the fact that the country’s ballistic missile program — despite U.N. sanctions — is not up for negotiation. But their nuclear research is entirely for peaceful purposes!!! 

At the same time, IAEA officials met again with their Iranian counterparts last week in Tehran to discuss information on the work on detonators and needed collaboration by the regime to clear outstanding issues on its nuclear program as part of seven transparency steps Iran had agreed to fulfill by May 15, which has yet to take place.

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran