PDA

View Full Version : "Destroy All the Churches"



Odysseus
03-22-2012, 11:04 AM
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE (http://www.nationalreview.com/) www.nationalreview.com (http://www.nationalreview.com/)



‘Destroy All the Churches’ (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/articles/294112/destroy-all-churches-clifford-d-may)
By Clifford D. May (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/author/18025)

March 22, 2012 12:00 A.M. (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/articles/294112/destroy-all-churches-clifford-d-may)

Imagine if Pat Robertson called for the demolition of all the mosques in America. It would be front-page news. It would be on every network and cable-news program. There would be a demand for Christians to denounce him, and denounce him they would — in the harshest terms. The president of the United States and other world leaders would weigh in, too. Rightly so.

So why is it that when Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah Al al-Sheikh, the grand mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, declares that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches in the Arabian Peninsula,” the major media do not see this as even worth reporting? And no one, to the best of my knowledge, has noted that he said this to the members of a terrorist group.

Here are the facts: Some members of the Kuwaiti parliament have been seeking to demolish churches or at least prohibit the construction of new ones within that country’s borders. So the question arose: What does sharia, Islamic law, have to say about this issue?

A delegation from Kuwait asked the Saudi grand mufti for guidance. He replied that Kuwait is part of the Arabian Peninsula — and that any churches on the Arabian Peninsula should indeed be destroyed, because the alternative would be to approve of them. The grand mufti explained: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) commanded us, ‘Two religions shall not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ so building [churches] in the first place is not valid because this peninsula must be free from [any other religion].” In Saudi Arabia, of course, non-Islamic houses of worship were banned long ago, and non-Muslims are prohibited from setting foot in Mecca and Medina.
There’s more: The inquiring Kuwaitis were from the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS). That sounds innocent enough, but a little digging by Steve Miller, a researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/), revealed that ten years ago the RIHS branches in Afghanistan and Pakistan were designated (http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/NSQE07002E.shtml) by the United Nations as associates of — and providers of funds and weapons to — “Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban.”
The U.S. government has gone farther, also designating (http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1023.aspx) RIHS headquarters in Kuwait as “providing financial and material support to al Qaida and al Qaida affiliates, including Lashkar e-Tayyiba” which was “implicated in the July 2006 attack on multiple Mumbai commuter trains, and in the December 2001 attack against the Indian Parliament.” Such activities have caused RIHS offices to be “closed or raided by the governments of Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, and Russia.”

This should be emphasized: Al al-Sheikh is not the Arabian equivalent of some backwoods Florida pastor. He is the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, where there is no separation of mosque and state, and the state religion is the ultra-orthodox/fundamentalist reading of Islam known as Wahhabism. He also is a member of the country’s leading religious family.

In other words, his pronouncements represent the official position of Saudi Arabia — a country that, we have been told time and again, changed course after 9/11 and is now our ally and solidly in the anti-terrorism camp.
None of this might have come to light at all had it not been for Raymond Ibrahim (http://www.meforum.org/3191/saudi-church-destruction), the Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum. He was the first to call attention to the grand mufti’s remarks, based on reports from three Arabic-language websites, Mideast Christian News (http://www.mcndirect.com/showsubject_ar.aspx?id=32143), Linga Christian Service (http://www.linga.org/international-news/MzYzMg),and Asrare (http://www.asrare.com/religion/212.html), also a Christian outlet. It occurred to me that perhaps these not entirely disinterested sources had misunderstood or exaggerated. So I asked Miller, who reads Arabic, to do a little more digging. Calls to the State Department’s Saudi desk and the Saudi embassy proved fruitless, but he did find the mufti’s comments reported ina well-known Kuwaiti newspaper, Al-Anba (http://www.alanba.com.kw/AbsoluteNMNEW/templates/local2010.aspx?articleid=274106&zoneid=14), on March 11.

All this stands out against the backdrop of the most significant news story the mainstream media insist on ignoring: the spreading and intensifying persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries (an issue I’ve written about before, here (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257092/war-against-christians-clifford-d-may) for example, and which Ibrahim has written about, most recently here (http://www.meforum.org/3193/muslim-persecution-of-christians-february-2012)). Churches have been burned or bombed in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The ancient Christian communities of Gaza and the West Bank are shrinking. In Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, is facing the death penalty for allegedly “insulting” Islam. In Iran, Youcef Nadarkhani, sits on death row for the “crime” of choosing Christianity over Islam.

This week, as Nina Shea reported (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293960/world-s-worst-religious-persecutors-nina-shea), the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released its 14th annual report identifying the world’s worst persecutors. Of the 16 countries named, twelve have Muslim majorities or pluralities.

Why are the reporters covering the State Department and the White House not asking administration officials whether they are troubled by Saudi Arabia’s senior religious authority meeting with supporters of al-Qaeda and telling them that, yes, Christian churches should be demolished? Why have reporters covering the U.N. decided these issues are of no concern to the so-called international community? How about the centers for “Islamic-Christian understanding” that have been established — with Saudi money — at such universities as Harvard and Georgetown? Do they suppose there is nothing here to understand — no need for any academic scrutiny of the Saudi/Wahhabi perspective on church-burning and relations with terrorist groups?

My guess is that all of the above have persuaded themselves that there are more pressing issues to worry about, such as the worldwide epidemic of “Islamophobia” and the need to impose serious penalties on those responsible. I understand. I really do.

— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/), a policy institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.




Permalink (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/articles/294112/destroy-all-churches-clifford-d-may)








© National Review Online 2012. All Rights Reserved.

Novaheart
03-22-2012, 11:12 AM
Bump, because too many people have their heads in the sand on this one.

"They said the same thing about the Irish and the Italians." - gets the back of my hand the next time I hear this in real life.

I have often wondered if Jews and/or homosexuals of Berlin sat around coffee shops being intellectual and witty about the rising Nazi movement in the country. You know they surely did. The West has more than enough warning to see international islamic jihad for what it truly is, and yet we have people who call us "racist" for accusing Sami Al Arian of being a terrorist sympathizer, and then move on when he fucking confesses to being a terrorist sympathizer.

Anyone who thinks this is just liberals is an idiot. The only people on the right wing who matter and who have voice who will speak out against the spread of Islam are those on the fringe, discounted in their every word by their stupid, unconstitutionally supported, or fanatical positions on other matters.

If the Center does not rise up, then then country really is doomed.

Arroyo_Doble
03-22-2012, 11:25 AM
If the Center does not rise up, then then country really is doomed.

Rise up and what? Nuke Dearborn Michigan?

Novaheart
03-22-2012, 11:34 AM
Rise up and what? Nuke Dearborn Michigan?

Bulldozers perhaps.

Arroyo_Doble
03-22-2012, 12:01 PM
Bulldozers perhaps.

Ethnic cleansing, with the exception of the Jackson years, is usually frowned upon in this nation.

FlaGator
03-22-2012, 12:04 PM
Ethnic cleansing, with the exception of the Jackson years, is usually frowned upon in this nation.

In some circles...

Odysseus
03-22-2012, 12:10 PM
I have often wondered if Jews and/or homosexuals of Berlin sat around coffee shops being intellectual and witty about the rising Nazi movement in the country. You know they surely did. The West has more than enough warning to see international islamic jihad for what it truly is, and yet we have people who call us "racist" for accusing Sami Al Arian of being a terrorist sympathizer, and then move on when he fucking confesses to being a terrorist sympathizer.

I have no doubt of this, and even after the ovens were blazing away in the camps, there were those who refused to believe what was happening. There are some people who are either unable or unwilling to defend their own cultures, either because they don't appreciate what they have, or they are too "sophisticated" to take their own side in the fight. And, there are those who simply respond with snarky BS, because the actual arguments are beyond them, or because they know that they cannot win on the facts, and have no other recourse but to ridicule what they cannot otherwise defeat. And speaking of that...


Rise up and what? Nuke Dearborn Michigan?

Obviously not. The issue is that Islam, as it is understood and practiced by the vast majority of Muslims, including those in Dearborn, is an imperialistic and totalitarian project that seeks to impose itself on all people, in all places. Those Muslims in Dearborn who support this project are a danger to the rest of us. Those that do not are in danger themselves. The solution is not genocide, but honest discussion of the nature of the threat and taking those steps which encourage those Muslims who seek to live in the west as it is, and prevent the rise of those who seek to destroy it. It means identifying jihadis, calling them out, deporting them and otherwise defeating them when they seek to impose Shariah on the rest of us. It means not being afraid of the libels of those who equate defense of American democracy with genocide. It means standing up to those who would destroy our culture, and those useful idiots who would help them out of a misguided belief that they are somehow aiding the oppressed, instead of enabling oppression.

Articulate_Ape
03-22-2012, 12:49 PM
Bump, because too many people have their heads in the sand on this one.

"They said the same thing about the Irish and the Italians." - gets the back of my hand the next time I hear this in real life.

I have often wondered if Jews and/or homosexuals of Berlin sat around coffee shops being intellectual and witty about the rising Nazi movement in the country. You know they surely did. The West has more than enough warning to see international islamic jihad for what it truly is, and yet we have people who call us "racist" for accusing Sami Al Arian of being a terrorist sympathizer, and then move on when he fucking confesses to being a terrorist sympathizer.

A la The Onion:

http://i531.photobucket.com/albums/dd359/JamesSavant/Onion.jpg

noonwitch
03-22-2012, 02:51 PM
Interesting that the Grand Mufti assumes that a church is a building, vulnerable to the forces of man and nature, and not the spiritual entity (fellowship of believers) that it truly is. The Saudis can and probably have destroyed all the church buildings in their country, but there still seem to be christians there.


I'm not getting into the muslims in Dearborn issue except to say that their presence seems to bother people in other communities much more than they bother the people in metro Detroit (except Debbie Schlussel and Jack van Impe). We are used to their ways at this point, and have a mostly peaceful coexistence. There are occasional problems, but not really that often.

Lanie
03-22-2012, 05:04 PM
This is so full of crap (the Saudi government). First of all, Muhummad did allow Christians and Jews to coexist in Muslim countries.

Next, what exactly can we Americans do about it? I'm serious. If there's something that can be done, I'm all for it.

Lanie
03-22-2012, 05:09 PM
Bump, because too many people have their heads in the sand on this one.

"They said the same thing about the Irish and the Italians." - gets the back of my hand the next time I hear this in real life.

I have often wondered if Jews and/or homosexuals of Berlin sat around coffee shops being intellectual and witty about the rising Nazi movement in the country. You know they surely did. The West has more than enough warning to see international islamic jihad for what it truly is, and yet we have people who call us "racist" for accusing Sami Al Arian of being a terrorist sympathizer, and then move on when he fucking confesses to being a terrorist sympathizer.

Anyone who thinks this is just liberals is an idiot. The only people on the right wing who matter and who have voice who will speak out against the spread of Islam are those on the fringe, discounted in their every word by their stupid, unconstitutionally supported, or fanatical positions on other matters.

If the Center does not rise up, then then country really is doomed.

Nova, I remember being pretty pissed off at Bush years ago because he insisted on us being Saudi Arabia's friend. I don't know if Obama wants to be their friend, but he sure doesn't say a word against them either.

Some say this is all because Saudi Arabia is a big oil supply country and ticking them off would not be wise. Some say that it's because they're our supposed ally in the war against terrorism. Every last 9/11 killer came from Saudi Arabia, but they're out friends. Sure they are.

The first thing we have to do is to get our leaders to put the needs of innocent people over our country's economical needs, over this supposed alliance against terrorism (which SA is not our friend, I don't care what people say). As long as this country isn't ran by ordinary people, I don't see that happening.

Lanie
03-22-2012, 05:10 PM
As for the ethnic cleansing argument, let's not forget that the Nazis claimed to be Christians. We didn't have to kill all Christians to stop the spread of Nazism.

Rockntractor
03-22-2012, 05:13 PM
As for the ethnic cleansing argument, let's not forget that the Nazis claimed to be Christians. We didn't have to kill all Christians to stop the spread of Nazism.http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/asile/camisole.gif

Taylor2012
03-22-2012, 08:33 PM
What we can do is demand that the UN take action against this assault on religious freedom and we can withhold our "donations" to the UN unless or until they do.

Oh wait. I keep forgetting who and 'what' we have residing in the White House. He's probably sending the UN even more US tax dollars if they will look the other way for his Muslim bros.


This is so full of crap (the Saudi government). First of all, Muhummad did allow Christians and Jews to coexist in Muslim countries.

Next, what exactly can we Americans do about it? I'm serious. If there's something that can be done, I'm all for it.

Kay
03-22-2012, 10:24 PM
Interesting that the Grand Mufti assumes that a church is a building, vulnerable to the forces of man and nature, and not the spiritual entity (fellowship of believers) that it truly is. The Saudis can and probably have destroyed all the church buildings in their country, but there still seem to be christians there.

Well said.


Next, what exactly can we Americans do about it? I'm serious. If there's something that can be done, I'm all for it.

We can exterminate them like the evil cockroaches they are
to curb their breeding.


Nova, I remember being pretty pissed off at Bush years ago because he insisted on us being Saudi Arabia's friend. I don't know if Obama wants to be their friend, but he sure doesn't say a word against them either.

Shortly after taking office the man bowed before his king.
And you wonder if he wants to be their friend?

Odysseus
03-23-2012, 07:26 AM
This is so full of crap (the Saudi government). First of all, Muhummad did allow Christians and Jews to coexist in Muslim countries.

Next, what exactly can we Americans do about it? I'm serious. If there's something that can be done, I'm all for it.

No, he didn't. In fact, the Mufti was quoting Mohammed, who ordered the elimination of Judaism and Christianity from the Arabian peninsula.

Lanie
03-24-2012, 12:17 PM
No, he didn't. In fact, the Mufti was quoting Mohammed, who ordered the elimination of Judaism and Christianity from the Arabian peninsula.

It's a historical fact that once the battles were over, Christians and Jews were allowed to live on the land as second class citizens. That's more than people could get in the Christian countries, which didn't even tolerate a different type of Christian.

Rockntractor
03-24-2012, 12:21 PM
It's a historical fact that once the battles were over, Christians and Jews were allowed to live on the land as second class citizens. That's more than people could get in the Christian countries, which didn't even tolerate a different type of Christian.

http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/asile/fourateau.gif

Lanie
03-24-2012, 10:58 PM
http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/asile/fourateau.gif

Hmmm. Can I have one of those emoticons named after me? lol.

Rockntractor
03-24-2012, 11:15 PM
Hmmm. Can I have one of those emoticons named after me? lol.

Actually that one sums up my day pretty well!http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/metiers/fermier-cowboy/fermier.gif

Odysseus
03-24-2012, 11:39 PM
It's a historical fact that once the battles were over, Christians and Jews were allowed to live on the land as second class citizens. That's more than people could get in the Christian countries, which didn't even tolerate a different type of Christian.

You're wrong. The Caliph Umar made it his first order of business to expel the remaining Jews of the Arabian Peninsula under the last command of Mohammed. This is documented in a number of the Hadiths.


Narrated Said bin Jubair:
...The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula...
Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288
__________________________________________________ _______

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib

that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Muslim, Book 019, Number 4366
__________________________________________________ _______

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah's Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah's Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah's Apostle told them, "We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish." So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there until 'Umar forced them to go towards Taima' and Ariha'.

Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 531
__________________________________________________ _______

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Umar bin Al-Khattab expelled all the Jews and Christians from the land of Hijaz. Allah's Apostle after conquering Khaibar, thought of expelling the Jews from the land which, after he conquered it belonged to Allah, Allah's Apostle and the Muslims. But the Jews requested Allah's Apostle to leave them there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits (the land would yield). Allah's Apostle said, "We shall keep you on these terms as long as we wish." Thus they stayed till the time of 'Umar's Caliphate when he expelled them to Taima and Ariha.

Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 380

The Jews of Khaibar were the survivors of the tribes that Mohammed had originally banished from Medina. He had conquered them and, after slaughtering the men of one tribe and enslaving the women and children, he permitted another tribe to relocate on the condition that they became serfs. Umar completed Mohammed's work and every subsequent Caliph barred Jews from Arabia.

NJCardFan
03-25-2012, 04:11 AM
It's a historical fact that once the battles were over, Christians and Jews were allowed to live on the land as second class citizens. That's more than people could get in the Christian countries, which didn't even tolerate a different type of Christian.
Name me one of these countries. I'll wait. And do try to keep it within the past 100 years or so.

Odysseus
03-25-2012, 10:40 AM
Name me one of these countries. I'll wait. And do try to keep it within the past 100 years or so.

She does a have point. Spain expelled all Jews in 1492 and would not permit any churches except the Catholic church, and there have been other Christian states that expelled Jews at one time or another, but it has always been a function of the individual ruler, rather than a stated doctrine of Christianity. OTOH, the expulsion, murder or suppression of non-Muslims is one of the most basic doctrines of Islam, and is a constant theme of the Qur'an and the Hadiths.

Zeus
03-25-2012, 10:54 AM
As for the ethnic cleansing argument, let's not forget that the Nazis claimed to be Christians. We didn't have to kill all Christians to stop the spread of Nazism.

NAZI Religion (http://histclo.com/act/rel/hist/nazi/rhn-nr.html)


While the NAZIs adopted a wide range of policies to undermind traditional religion, they did not ban the mainline denominations or close churches. This would have been disruptive in a country as thoroughly Christian as Germany. And especially after launchiung the War, Hitler wanted nothing that would disrupt the war effort. There were those planning a new NAZI religion for Germany and this would have occured had the NAZIs won the War. Hitler and other leading NAZIs were contemptuos of Christianity, viewing it as a religion for weaklings. The NAZIs rejected beatiudes like "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." [Matthew 5:5] This was not what they wanted young people taught. Along with other radical social plans, the Nazis postponed a major acrion against religion until after they had won the War. The term being discussed in NAZI circles was the “coordination” (Gleichschaltung) of church life. Whether the churches would have been purges or restricted in various ways or completely eliminated, we can now only speculate about. SS Reichführer Himmler was one of greatest enemies of Christianity in the NAZI heirarchy. Thus trends in the SS provide us an insiught on NAZI plans for the maineline Christian churfches. Himmler strongly promoted his SS men to break with the church. He wanted SS members who he saw as an elite knighthood of the Reich along with their families to leave the church, As for marriage, he favored a “marriage consecration” (Eheweihe) rather than a church wedding. Thiis was one of many pseudo-Germanic Teutonic rituals that Himmler wanted to replsace traditional Christian rituals. Where Germany was headed can be seen in the SS. We see secular SS weddings outside of churches without clerical officiating. SS weddings were offiated by the men's commnders. And we see baptisms being replaced with a name giving ceremomy in front of an altar with Hitler's portrait. Many families would have wanted Christian cremonies, especially the middle class families from which SS-men came. I am not sure to what extent these ceremonies were required, but it is where Germany was headed if the NAZIs had won. ...............


he NAZIs adopted a wide range of policies to undermind traditional religion. Hitler and the NAZIs initiated an assault both on traditional Christian values, but religions institutions as well. The NAZI assault on Judism is best known. But here the focus were the Jews themselves and not the religion. One religion seen in more positive terms was Islam, in part because it was helful in the effort against Jews. It was Christianity that suffered most from the NAZIs, primarily because it posed the greatest danger to the NAZIs. Sects like the 7th Day Adventists were attacked because they opposed military conscriptiom. The mainstream church that suffered the greatest was the Catholics. Despite signing a Concordant with the Vatican in 1933, the NAZIs steadily undermined the power and influence of the Church in Germany and arrested many priests.