The following is taken from Jamal Jivanjee’s FaceBook wall on which he posted an open letter to the church in Ohio, rebuking it for apathy and disinterest in the plight of Rifqa Bary. Well worth the read.

To the church of central Ohio,

I have been a part of the church in central Ohio since I became a Christian at the age of 18. I am thankful for the many people whom have enriched my life, and whom I have served with in this church over the years. I have since moved away from the central Ohio area, but because of my history in Columbus, the church here holds a special place in my heart. Because of this, I must tell you that what I am about to say does not come easy for me. I am compelled to say what I am about to say out of a heart of love for the church in central Ohio however. Since the rally for Rifqa here in Columbus, I have spent the last few days here in the city processing things, and praying. I have debated whether or not I should share these things with you, but I cannot keep silent about this any longer. I must share these things out of a personal sense of obedience. You can take this message to heart, or you can discard it. The choice is yours, but I must share this. I humbly but strongly ask you to read this letter in its entirety.

I can honestly say that in my entire 34 years of life, I cannot remember a time in which I was angrier than I am right now. In my 34 years of life, I have never experienced the type of strong nausea that I feel right now in the depths of my soul. I have never felt anguish like I have felt these last few days. In my 34 years of life, I can honestly say I have never been more broken for a group of people than I am right now. I began to wonder if I should be feeling like this, and if there was something wrong with me. A good and wise friend of mine shared something with me that greatly helped me however. She said that I don’t have to apologize for being angry, because God gets angry and he created us with this emotion. There is such a thing as righteous anger, and somebody in the body of Christ needs to feel the emotions that God feels. I believe these emotions are His, and not mine. So, what is the cause of my anger, nausea, anguish, and brokenness?

The institutional church in central Ohio!

It is absolutely heartbreaking to see just how spiritually dead or comatose that the institutional central Ohio church has become. I am absolutely ashamed to have come from you. I know that is harsh, but the facts speak for themselves. What facts am I talking about? Let me give you just one.

Cowardice

The institutional church in central Ohio has demonstrated its cowardice through its silence regarding Rifqa Bary’s struggle. Don’t get me wrong, there have been several precious and courageous people from central Ohio who have prayed and / or emailed, called authorities, or have spoken out in some way about Rifqa’s situation. Please know that this letter does not apply to you. This letter is addressed to the institutional church as a whole that has been utterly silent or ignorant of Rifqa Bary’s situation. There are literally almost 1000 local church communities in the greater Columbus metro area alone that represent tens of thousands of people. To my knowledge there are only 2 local church communities that have done ANYTHING to stand with Rifqa Bary!

WHAT AN ABOMINATION!

by Cinnamon Stillwell
American Thinker
November 15, 2009

Reposted from the Middle East Forum

In the wake of the horrific attack at the Fort Hood military base in Texas earlier this month, and the mounting evidence that the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was motivated by Islamist beliefs, the media has turned to Middle East studies “experts” for enlightenment. Instead, what the media, and, by extension, the American public, has received is the moral relativism and obfuscation that too often meets any effort to address Islamism or jihadism in an intellectually honest manner.

Writing for the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog, John Esposito, professor and founding director of the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, extends his long tradition of issuing apologias for radical Islam by conflating Hasan’s actions with “extremists” of all religions. In the process, he professes ignorance as to why there might be suspicion directed towards Islam in the wake of 9/11, the worst Islamic terrorist attack in U.S. history:

Why this common tendency and double standard towards Islam and Muslims post-9/11? We judge the religion and majority of mainstream Muslims by the acts of an individual or an aberrant minority of extremists. Yet, when Jewish fundamentalists kill a prime minister or innocent Palestinians or Christian extremists blow up abortion clinics or assassinate their physicians, somehow the media is capable of sticking to all the facts and distinguishing between the use and abuse of a religion.

Having written this post while news of Hasan’s fanatical leanings and possible terrorist connections was still developing, Esposito warns against a “rush to judgment” that might, as he puts it, “negatively impact the American public’s perception of Islam.” Heaven forbid Americans start to suspect that Islam itself contains the seeds for Islamism. Contrary to popular belief, this awareness need not implicate all Muslims. Rather, it asks the faithful to address Islamist violence and aggression by implementing theological and cultural reform.

Esposito continues the moral equivalency and non sequiturs in a later “On Faith” post:

by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
November 18, 2009

Posted in the Middle East Forum

One of the difficulties in discussing Islam’s more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today. In fact, some Westerners have difficulties acknowledging even those problematic doctrines that are openly upheld by Muslims — such as jihad. How much more when the doctrines in question are subtle, or stealthy, in nature?

Enter Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychiatrist, U.S. Army major, and “observant Muslim who prayed daily,” who recently went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans (including a pregnant woman). While the media wonders in exasperation why he did it, offering the same old tired and trite reasons — he was “picked on,” he was “mentally unbalanced” — the fact is his behavior comports well with certain Islamic doctrines. As such, it behooves Americans to take a moment and familiarize themselves with the esotericisms of Islam.

Note: Any number of ulema (Muslim scholars) have expounded the following doctrines. However, since jihadi icon and theoretician Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two, has also addressed many of these doctrines in his treatises, including by quoting several authoritative ulema, I will primarily rely on excerpts from The Al Qaeda Reader (AQR), for those readers who wish to source, and read in context, the following quotes in one volume.

Wala’ wa Bara’

Perhaps best translated as “loyalty and enmity,” this doctrine requires Muslims to maintain absolute loyalty to Islam and one another, while disavowing, even hating (e.g., Koran 60:4), all things un-Islamic — including persons (a.k.a. “infidels”). This theme has ample support in the Koran, hadith, and rulings of the ulema, that is, usul al-fiqh (roots of Muslim jurisprudence). In fact, Zawahiri has written a fifty-page treatise entitled “Loyalty and Enmity” (AQR, p. 63-115).

One of the many Koranic verses on which he relies warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them” (Koran 5:51), i.e., he becomes an infidel. The plain meaning of this verse alone — other verses, such as 3:28, 4:144, and 6:40 follow this theme — and its implications for today can hardly be clearer. According to one of the most authoritative Muslim exegetes, al-Tabari (838-923), Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community” (AQR, p. 71).

Sheikh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328), takes the concept of loyalty one step further when he tells Muslims that they are “obligated to befriend a believer — even if he is oppressive and violent towards you and must be hostile to the infidel, even if he is liberal and kind to you” (AQR, p. 84).

In ways, Hasan’s life was a testimony to loyalty and enmity. According to his colleague, Dr. Finnell, Hasan “was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second.” If his being “vocal about the war” is not enough to demonstrate unwavering loyalty to Islam, his insistence that he is first and foremost a Muslim is. Other evidence indicates that the primary factor that threw him “over the edge” was that he was being deployed to a Muslim country (Afghanistan) — his “worst nightmare.”

According to a fellow Muslim convenience store owner who often spoke with Hasan, the thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” Hasan also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims,” again, showing where his loyalty lies. Tabari’s exegesis comes to mind: the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community,” i.e., he too becomes an infidel (AQR, p. 71).

Another source who spoke with Hasan notes that “in the Koran, you’re not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christian or others, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”

At any rate, surely none of this should come as a surprise. In April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait. According to the AP, “he launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

Taqiyya

This doctrine, which revolves around deceiving the infidel, is pivotal to upholding loyalty and enmity wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live among non-Muslim majorities.

In an article in the December 5, 2009 issue of World Magazine, author Lynn Vincent hits the nail on the head: U.S. analysts, constrained by politics, are loath to conclude and publicize what the facts already show: that jihadist Muslims who state that they kill non-Muslims because their religious ideology demands it are in fact doing so. They have successfully infiltrated the United States from foreign countries, have won and radicalized Muslim converts among U.S. citizens, and—if the uptick in busted plots is any indication—are planning violence at an increasing rate.”

The article mentions five separate “lone wolf” incidents of Islamist-style jihadist attacks that were discovered this year and halted in time, before anyone actually lost their lives. Then, almost as if it was an oversight, one slipped through the cracks: Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, in what some are calling the worst case since 9-11 of domestic terrorism. But our government and military leaders are not so quick to draw such a conclusion.

It is only through continuing willful ignorance that we will see more and more of these acts perpetrated on our soil. Until our leaders recognize these events for what they are, they will be unable to form a strategy to counter them.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is reporting that statements made recently by Prez Obama are misleading at best, and outright deception at worst.

On November 9, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama told Reuters in an interview that an unsettled political situation in Iran may be complicating efforts to seal a nuclear fuel deal between Tehran and major world powers. This implies that a deal was reached with Iran during the nuclear talks in Vienna, but that Iran is having a hard time ratifying that deal due to criticism of it at home.

This depiction of the October 18-19, 2009 Vienna talks, and the explanation that the unstable political situation in Iran is making it difficult for the Iranian regime to announce that it agrees to the deal, are misleading. Iranian public statements since the end of the talks to date attest that:

1) No deal was ever reached during the Vienna talks….

2) Iran’s regime is currently stable…

Also noteworthy in the article are the following statements. I suggest reading the entire article for an analysis you will not get from the White House.

The West continues to extend the deadline for Iran to weigh its proposal but the Iranian position is unchanging.

Iran regards itself as a superpower which is entitled to nuclear energy for civilian purposes, and stresses that it is unwilling to debate this status or its nuclear program with anyone…

The West has tried, and is still trying, to set conditions for Iran’s request by insisting that it send 75% of its nuclear fuel, or approximately 1,200 kg, outside the country for enrichment; however, this enrichment will neutralize it so that it can no longer be used for military purposes. Iran rejected this condition…

The enrichment by the West will turn the uranium into fuel rods, which will prevent it from being used for military purposes. This, apparently, is why Iran is unwilling to transfer most of its enriched uranium reserves to a third country, preferring to keep it in its possession.

Is there any room left for doubt as to Iran’s intention to acquire nuclear fuel?

Why has Obama been less than truthful about discussions which occurred in Vienna? What, if any, recourse does he have to apply additional pressure on Iran to come clean on their intentions regarding nuclear capability? Why am I asking so many rhetorical questions?

The truth is that we have no leverage and have never had leverage. Iran is a rogue nation with a rogue President who has made no secret of his desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map. There is no amount of bargaining that will work with such people or nations: see my earlier post on taqiyya and kitman.

It’s time to take care of business with Iran, and forget diplomacy. If we won’t, Israel will. Either way, be prepared for the consequences: prepare your family, secure a supply of food and water, purchase a mode of transportation that does not require oil, and get ready to hunker down for some rough times.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is interviewed by an acquaintance of mine, Nabeel Qureshi who, along with David Wood, comprise the Acts17 Apologetics Ministry. I was with David and Nabeel this past summer in Dearborn when the now infamous Shari’a in America video was made, which now has over 1.6 million hits on YouTube.

Note at about 4:30 into the interview, Nabeel asks Robert if there is any hope or if there is any light at the end of the tunnel. Spencer says there is no solving this problem; there is only managing it. I have to disagree. The problem will be solved when Muslims worldwide meet the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ himself and yield to Him as Lord and Savior. Being the good Catholic man he is, Robert Spencer should know this.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Here we go again! Obama, like a toothless tiger, is warning Iran to come clean on its nuclear program soon, or else! And once again Iranian leadership will ignore the toothless tiger and keep doing what it’s been doing: developing nuclear technology for military use. And once again we will press for meaningless sanctions in the United Nations (or is that the United Nothing). This is really getting old!

One would think that given his Muslim roots, which he now so strongly emphasizes, Obama would understand the Islamic notions of taqiyya and kithman, particularly as it relates to Iran’s nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad knows the United States and the United Nations will do nothing; one need only look at the track record thus far. With Obama’s approval rating continuing its downhill slide, you would think he might provide actual leadership the American people can be proud of and get behind.

A rally for Rifqa Bary took place as scheduled in Columbus, Ohio on Monday November 16, but the court hearing for Rifqa did not take place as scheduled. Instead, her next hearing has been postponed until December 22. No explanation has been given by the court system for the delay. In fact, no information of Rifqa has been provided at all. Nobody knows if she is even still in the country. Her contact with the outside world has been cut off: no phone, no internet, nothing. She is being held a prisoner in her foster home, for the crime of embracing Christianity.

You have to love how the media is spinning the rally held on Nov. 16. As the headline of the following article notes, this was sponsored by “Christian Activists.” Pamela Geller, who spearheaded the rally, is Jewish! Once again, the media is reporting on an event for which they know nothing and have failed to do their homework. But to put the spin that this was only “Christian activists” sets the tone that this is a fringe group worthy of only being ignored.

Christian Activists Draw Attention To Rifqa Bary Case At Public Rally

Here are video clips of the rally.

Part 1

Muslim Mafia

If you have not yet purchased this book, you should do so. A six month undercover operation that penetrated deep into the heart of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) discovered that this organization, which bills itself as a civil rights group for all Muslims, is anything but. The thousands of documents smuggled out of CAIR show it to be another front group for the Muslim Brotherhood and a money funnel for radical Islamist groups worldwide.

Since the release of the book, Congresswoman Sue Myrick, who wrote the forward for the book, has issued an official call for a full congressional investigation of CAIR. But the rest of congress does not seem to be listening. So Brigitte Gabries of ACT for America has started a petition drive to collect enough signatures to get the attention of congress and kick start the investigation.

Meanwhile, a judge has ordered the return of the documents obtained from CAIR offices. If CAIR successfully sues to suppress the evidence against them, this book could become forbidden and removed from store shelves. It would not be the first time a Muslim group has applied pressure to have certain books censored. Try looking for a book called Alms for Jihad, published by Cambridge University Press. You won’t find it. Cambridge pulled it for essentially the same reason, fearing backlash against them from radical Muslims.

Major Nadal Malik Hasan

None dare call what happened in Texas by its real name: Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

by Ebrahim Ashabi