Archive for January, 2010
A United Nations Declaration of Religion?
The totalitarian ideology of Islam only recognizes Shari’ah Law, which violates the Constitution in several ways. Islamic Shari’ah Law violates the First Amendment granting freedom of speech and the press, and the separation of church and state. It violates the Fifth Amendment requirements for a grand jury and due process of law. It violates the Sixth Amendment granting legal council and an unbiased jury for criminal offenses. It violates the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. And finally, since rights in Islam are only relative to Shari’ah Law, it violates the tenth amendment guaranteeing that powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states or to the people.
Article Two of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights is repeated from Chapter One to stress its severity:
“(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason.
(b) It is forbidden to resort to such means as may result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind.
(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by God is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah.
(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Sharia-prescribed reason.”
The OIC and its allied organizations have aggressively engaged in efforts to expand Islamic Shari’ah law in the West. If adopted, the UN Defamation of Religion resolution would make it illegal in Islamic dominated countries, and countries that reach them via the Internet, to hold discussions, to debate, have opinions, or point out historically accurate information that describe Islam unfavorably. Cruel and unusual Islamic punishment methods of stonings, hangings, amputations, honor killings, punishments for blasphemy, executions of apostates, sanctioned wife-beatings, female genital mutilations, and the legitimization of modern Islamic slavery could be practiced worldwide regardless of ones religious persuasion.
The OIC’s Declaration on Human Rights in Islam makes it clear that the UN Defamation of Religion resolution is based on, and would adhere to Islamic Shari’ah law, legalizing discrimination against women and non-Muslims, criminalizing free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. In persistent efforts by the OIC, the so far non-binding UN Defamation of Religions resolution has received landslide votes every year since 2005. The OIC has declared its intention to seek a binding resolution requiring UN member states to criminalize criticism of Islam.
The Defamation of Religion resolution is rightly viewed by concerned non-Muslims as contradictory to human rights. The purpose of the UN as set forth in its charter is “to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.” Peace, security, and human rights are for people, not belief systems, therefore religious opinion is not susceptible to the dictates of the UN.
On March 28, 2008, the U.N. Human Rights Council voted for a Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report on cases where freedom of expression is “abused.” Such “abuse” of freedom includes using free speech to analyze Islamic doctrine, and criticizing Islamic doctrine that somehow “justifies” violence against non-Muslims.
The U.S., Canada, and European countries abstained from voting on the 2008 Special Rapporteur Resolution, but no nation voted against it. What would cause them to not take a stand? Perhaps they do not take Islamic doctrine at its word, or perhaps they are intimidated by the presence of OPEC nations. Any sane human being would have to wonder if they are terrified cowards, the recipients of bribery, dangerously naïve, extorted; or all of the above.
The UN resolution threatens those who try to inform others about the Islamic manifesto to Islamize the world. Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian, is an example of a victim of the twisted definition of freedom of expression. GeertWilders lives in hiding for producing “Fitna,” a forthright documentary that accurately reveals the aggressive Islamic manifesto to make the world submit to Islam according to the dictates of the Koran.
Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer wrote an article together when Geert Wilders was prosecuted by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals for his statements about Islam. Wilders and Spencer wrote that:
“Civilized states have no business participating in a forum that has been hijacked by the Islamic-supremacist agenda to replace fundamental human rights with the barbaric strictures of sharia.” 
Justifiable concerns are that the resolution will eventually criminalize the practice of Christianity and Judaism under international law. According to the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a United States non-profit organization that launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide, anti-defamation started as a plan to specifically ban defamation of Islam, but wording in the document was later modified to sound like it includes all religions. 
An article, “U.N. Schemes to Make Christians Criminals,” by Bob Unruh, dated September 10, 2008, for World Net Daily, said that the ACLJ’s European division, the European Center for Law & Justice (ECLJ), submitted arguments in June 2008 to the UN opposing the proposal:
“The position of the ECLJ in regards to the issue of ‘defamation of religion’ resolutions, as they have been introduced at the U.N. Human Rights Council and General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression.”
The brief noted that in Islamic dominated countries, the laws protect Islam and harass religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution. Unruh’s article revealed concerns of many who understand the definitive consequences of the resolution, citing an ECLJ quote that said:
“The implementation of domestic laws to combat defamation of religion in many OIC countries reveals a selective and arbitrary enforcement toward religious minorities, who are often Christians. Those violations are frequently punishable by the death penalty.”
The ACLJ said, in promotion of its petition opposing the resolution, that:
“They’re attempting to pass a sinister resolution that is nothing more than blatant religious bigotry.” “This is very important to understand. This radical proposal would outlaw Christianity … it would make the proclamation of your faith an international crime.” 
The resolution draft submitted in March 2008 only claimed discrimination against Muslims specifically. It condemned a growing trend of “Islamophobia,” which is itself a derogatory term for those who oppose Islamic standards. It hypocritically expressed concern over negative stereotyping, urging a provision of “adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion results from the defamation of any religion.” Without mentioning any other religions, it would make the proclamation of other faiths an international crime because in Islam, it is a crime to have any other faith except Islam. This is itself an act of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, coercion. Actually, it is extortion.
Durban I, a committee preparing for a conference held in Durban, South Africa, April 2009, was principally incompatible with U. S. interests and the Constitution because the plan contained offensive references to limits on free speech, contained anti-Israel and anti-Jewish provisions while alleging the victimization of Muslims are a result of counter-terrorism “racists.” The U.S. and Israel walked out of Durban I—but without standing up for the U.S. Constitution and Israel.
Durban II was held in Geneva in April 2009. Its planning committee consisted of a Libyan chair, an Iranian vice-chair, a Cuban rapporteur, with Russian Yuri Boychenko presiding. Anne Bayefksy, an observer of the UN who runs the EyeontheUN.Org website, wrote about the U.S. State Department team Barack Obama sent to the February 2009 planning conference for Durban II in a Forbes column:
“The Obama administration’s decision to join the planning of the UN’s Durban II ‘anti-racism’ conference has just taken a new twist: ‘cover-up’. On Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration. The trouble is that they didn’t. The Feb. 20 State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in Geneva ‘outline our concerns with the current outcome document’ and in particular ‘our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism.”
Baefsky wrote further that a member of the delegation told The Washington Post that Obama’s delegation did not object to framing Israel in “an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims.” Baefsky also wrote that:
“Obama’s Durban II team slipped easily into the UN’s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach that ‘fitting in’ was best accomplished by staying silent.”
European states to boycott Durban II were undermined when the US agreed to participate. France, England, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands were considering boycotting but found it unrealistic for ally countries to disengage because U.S. participation effectively legitimized it.
A Human Rights Council session in March 2009 preparing for Durban II opened with Human rights authorities from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Russia, Yemen, the Arab Group, the African Group, Malaysia, Bahrain, Senegal, and the OIC. The opening statement given by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Secretary-General of the Durban II Conference had a demeaning tone:
“The Review Conference has also been the target of a disparaging media and a lobbying campaign on the part of those who fear a repetition of anti-Semitic outbursts. This, in my view, is completely unwarranted…Narrow, parochial interests and reflexive partisanship must be cast aside in the interest of a greater common good.”
Iran’s representative who spoke next, contradicted himself by saying:
“The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the timely decision of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council for holding the Durban Review Conference in 2009. We are of the view that the Durban Review Conference and its preparatory process can provide the international community with an ample opportunity to take stock of the Durban commitment as well as to further strategize in the global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance and to address their contemporary forms and manifestation with a view to adopting further initiatives and actions. The struggle against racism has led to a persisting manifestation of racism and intolerance including racial and religious profiling and the rise of Islamophobic incidents in certain parts of the world.”
The last statement is illogical and hypocritical, as it clearly says the struggle against racism begets more racism. It further labels those who disagree with Islam as “Islamophobes”, while blurring the distinction between race and religion.
At the exclusion of followers of every religion except Islam, the draft adopted in March 2009 mentions the word “Muslim” four times, and the plural “Muslims” one time. Near the end of the document, a request was made for the Special Rapporteur to report cases of Islamophobia in particular.
Then, the April 2009 Durban Review Conference, or Durban II, did not include the word religion in its name as it previously had. Its official name was “World Conference Against Racism” (WCAR). The conference was boycotted by Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and even the United States. Twenty-three European Union countries sent low-level delegations, and the Czech Republic discontinued its attendance on the first day. Concerns were that the conference would be used to promote anti-Semitism and laws contrary to free speech.
On the first day of the conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a speech condemning Israel as “totally racist.” Ahmadinejad’s attendence was controversial because of his past statements on Israel and the Holocaust, such as statements accusing the West of using the European Holocaust as a “pretext” for aggression against Palestinians.
The UN-sponsored “Alliance of Civilizations” reflects the views of the OIC and mimicks the UN Defamation of Religion resolution. A 2005 statement issued after a summit in Mecca explains the Alliance mission to internationally criminalize defamation of Islam as a form of racism:
“The Conference underlined the need to collectively endeavor to reflect the noble Islamic values, counter Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and its values and desecration of Islamic holy sites, and to effectively coordinate with States as well as regional and international institutions and organizations to urge them to criminalize this phenomenon as a form of racism.” 
Along with various sovereign states, members of the Alliance include the OIC, the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (set up by the OIC), the Arab League, and the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization. There is no representation from Israel in the Alliance. Obama was scheduled to attend an Alliance meeting in April 2009, but the White House did not confirm if he actually did.
After Bush resisted years of such initiatives at the UN, the Obama Administration is co-sponsoring with Egypt, another anti-free speech resolution at the UN. This resolution has no immediate effect in law but provides Muslim countries with ammunition when they feel central tenets of Islam are being challenged. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council in early October 2009, it calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” 
The real hate and discrimination is directed against non-Muslims in the UN Defamation of Religion. The U.S. has no business participating in alliances and organizations that endorse a specific religion or in any way limits free speech. Against all the freedoms enjoyed and valued in the West, if we remain members of the UN, we will not only be assimilated into a one-world government, but a Shari’ah one-world government that dictates everything from finances to personal and religious rights. All that the Constitution stands for is being mocked and abused by even allowing such an organization to convene on American soil.
 “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,” http://www.oicun.org/articles/54/1/Cairo-Declaration-on-Human-Rights-in-Islam/1.html
 Wilders, Geert & Spencer, Robert; “2009: A Year to Defend Free Speech,” January 26, 2009, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODBhOTYyZWYzYjQ2MDUxOWI2OTU2YTY4Yjc2ZmFlMTk=&w=MA
 “Petition Opposing The Organization of Islamic Conference,”, https://www.aclj.org/petition/Default.aspx?AC=DNE0807017&SC=3359
 Unruh, Bob; “U.N. Schemes to Make Christians Criminals” , July 10, 2008, http://propheticnews.net/content/view/6380/67/
 Bayefsky, Anne; “A Foreign Policy of Obsequiousness,” February 17, 2009, http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTNlNmE3NDdkMTc0M2I4ODYyYjI1YTNlMmM2N2VjYzU
 Bayefsky, Ann; “The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel,” February 22, 2009, http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/22/obama-israel-holocaust-durban-opinions-contributors_united_nations.html
 “Durban Review Conference,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_II, May 11, 2009
 Gaffney, Frank Jr.; “Gaffney: “Friends of the Muslim Brotherhood are no friends of America,” March 16, 2009, http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025266.php
 Rosett, Claudia; “The UN’s Alliance of Civilizations,” March 26, 2009, http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/25/alliance-of-civilizations-opinions-columnists-obama-un.htm
l Spencer, Robert; “Obama Declares War on Free Speech,” October 8, 2009, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33869
By Professor Moshe Sharon
Link to original article
A War Between Civilizations
The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations – between
the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based
on the Koran. And this must be clear.
There is no fundamental Islam. “Fundamentalism” is a word that came
from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by
the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the
Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no
fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how
the Koran is interpreted.
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are
politicians in the western world. They know better than all the
speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against
anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians
know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to
differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to
read a word of Arabic.
The Language of Islam
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in
fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam
in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak
about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of
parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own
dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists
in the world says that doing is like a cricket reporter describing a
cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or
civilization the language of another. For Islam, you’ve got to use the
language of Islam.
Driving Principles of Islam
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam.
Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only
But it’s not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to
acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohamed is his prophet.
These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one
cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave
first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the
individual, society and nations with rules of behavior. If you are
Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are
set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings
of the Bible.
Let me explain the difference.
The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very
long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let
me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the
Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.
In Judaism, it leads to national salvation – not just a nation that
wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That’s the
idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.
The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal
salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation which, from time
to time, meet each other.
But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each
individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through
His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are
talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the
Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this
fact of salvation.
Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly
important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God.
Therefore, you don’t just walk around and obliterate the image of God.
Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside
down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the
name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their
fundamentals speak about honoring the image of God and the hope of
salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.
The Essence of Islam
Now let’s move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea
that it should rule the world.
Let’s look, then, at the difference between these three religions.
Judaism speaks about national salvation – namely that at the end of the
story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own
land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about
the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his
sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in
Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a
verse in English. “Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that
it should rule over all the religions.”
The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world
at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule
When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years –
640 – the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken
from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet
Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians
could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic
superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and
Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.
Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems
Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before
him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham
was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and
Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and
all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history
is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.
Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets
brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat,
which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the
Evangelion or Gospel – namely the New Testament.
The Bible vs. the Koran
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?
Mohamed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had
they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the
Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam
concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].
Nevertheless, the laws a very clear – Jews and Christians have no
rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic
rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.
Islamic Rule and Jihad
What happens if Jews and Christians don’t want to live under the rules
of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called
Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don’t want to accept
the Islamic superior rule. That’s jihad. They may be Jews; they may be
Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don’t have too many
Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East – their war is
against the Jews and Christians.
A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world
by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the
Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but
because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There
are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet
there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are
desecrating the home of the prophet.
The Koran sees the world as divided into two – one part which has come
under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic
rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very
clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it.
The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) – that’s
the place where Islam rules – and the other part which is called Dar
al-Harb – the house of war. Not the “house of non-Muslims,” but the
“house of war.” It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of
time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war
until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it’s so in the Koran. God has
sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will
overcome all other religions.
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern
the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict.
In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.
However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with
differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over
the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these
schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of
Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the
meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it’s war.
There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations
over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened
in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought
traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should
not be killed in war.
These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is
very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is
extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of
the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other
schools of Islamic law, when we’re talking about fighting against the
Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the
Hanbali school of law that is being followed.
Islam and Territory
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about
territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-
Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes
over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be
This is why whenever you here about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear
– territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the
conflict, but territory is highly important.
The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious
opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for
which it was created.
Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every
single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies
in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how
he dies, because – and this is very important – this is an eternal word
between the two civilizations. It’s not a war that stops. This was is
there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is
a war that will not end.
Islam and Peace
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only
be between Moslem and Moslem.
With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only
one solution – a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an
eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic
The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this
idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent,
which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in
Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.
Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace – you wouldn’t
believe that you are reading! You would think that you were reading
some science-fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can’t believe
that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with
Islamic policies and civilization.
A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to
Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he
apologized, saying, “Do you think I signed something with the Jews
which is contrary to the rules of Islam?” (I have obtained a copy of
Arafat’s recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat
continued, “That’s not so. I’m doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed
Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What
Arafat was saying was, “Remember the story of Hodaybiya.” The prophet
had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But
then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their
city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.
Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states
that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years.
Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the
jihad [thus breaking the “peace” agreement].
In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to
understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems.
It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that
they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is
virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war
and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German
terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.
Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing – when the enemy is
too strong. It is a tactical choice.
Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating
conditions. It’s allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under
humiliating conditions. That’s what Arafat said to them in
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, “What are
you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don’t understand the
mechanisms of politics.”
Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where
power is. And I want to tell you one thing – we haven’t seen the end of
it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or
biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.
Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an
impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major
component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is
weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab
world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has
been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.
Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is
because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you
have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic
What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What’s
happening between Pakistan and India?
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic
world has not only the attitude of open war, but there’s also war by
One of the things which the western world is not paying enough
attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western
world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something
that came from the outside. And if America doesn’t wake up, one day the
Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an
atomic war – inside the U.S.
End of Days
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of
days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the
vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah – peace between nations, not
just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more
need for weapons and nature will be changed – a beautiful end of days
and the kingdom of God on earth.
Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself
is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That’s the vision.
I’m speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the
end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally
Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final
Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic
traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by
somebody and they’ll be replaced by the Christians.
The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of
days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should
be killed. I’m quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from
the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be
killed. They’ll be running away and they’ll be hiding behind trees and
rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees
and they will say, “Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill
him.” Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental
Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will
happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?
The answer is, “No. Not in the foreseeable future.” What we can do is
reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.
But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse
of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam
by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one
meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave
mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule,
now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule;
Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.
And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over
Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.
I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support
each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don’t know. Israel finds
itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister
civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the
help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can
be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to
This article is adapted from a lecture presented at the Feast of
Tabernacles Celebration 2001* by Professor Moshe Sharon. Sharon
received his Doctorate in Medieval Islamic History from the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem. He has served as an Advisor on Arab Affairs to
former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin as well as the Ministry of
Defense. Prof. Sharon is a former director of the World Zionist
Organisation branch in Johannesburg, South Africa and currently
lectures as professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University.
Other on-line articles by Prof. Sharon:
· “Palestinian Ideology And Practice: 5 Years After Oslo” · Word
Other resources on Islam:
· the Muslim-Christian debate website · Reaching out to Muslims
* Feast of Tabernacles Celebration 2001 was sponsored by ICEJ
This article is provided for information purposes only. It does not
necessarily represent the views of the MJAA
Moshe Sharon has studied Islam for 35 years, and he believes Americans
need to understand the fundamentals of the faith. “They ought to know
that Islam divides the world into two parts: one part that is already
under the rule of Islam, the other part which must come under the rule
of Islam in the future. And this can happen either if the rest of the
world, which is non-Islamic, succumbs to Islam or is conquered by
This division of the world was reflected within bin Laden’s recent
statement. He said, “These events have divided the whole world into two
sides. The side of believers and the side of infidels.”
International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues Young
Messianic Jewish Alliance Messianic Conference
by Srdja Trifkovic
Link to original article
A book that relates the untold story of the murder of 45 million
Christians in the 20th century alone has caused controversy in Italy.
The author of The New Persecuted: Inquiries into Anti-Christian
Intolerance in the New Century of Martyrs, Antonio Socci, has been
accused that by raising the issue of Christian suffering in the Muslim
world he “demonizes Islam.”
Socci provides evidence that in the past 2,000 years some 70 million
Christians have been killed primarily or exclusively for the reason of
their faith, two-thirds in the past 100 years alone, with Joseph Stalin
as the chief culprit. He says that an average of 160,000 Christians
have been killed every year since 1990, the vast majority by Muslims in
the Third World. Chronicling attacks, pogroms and wars in East Timor,
Indonesia, Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, India, and the Balkans, Socci
identifies Islamic extremism as the main danger. And yet, says he,
“This global persecution of Christianity is still in progress but in
most cases is ignored by the mass media and Christians in the west.”
Western indifference to Christian suffering, documented by Antonio
Socci, is well illustrated by the recent standoff at the Church of the
Nativity in Bethlehem, one of the holiest Christian sites in the Holy
Land, which was re-consecrated last month after being occupied by Arab
gunmen and besieged by the Israeli army for 38 days. While extensively
covered because of its photogenic value and its potential for further
bloodshed, the stand-off has caused hardly a ripple in the Western
world on what should be the obvious grounds for media scrutiny and
public concern: the misuse and abuse of a Christian shrine by warring
non-Christians in pursuit of their political objectives. The Bethlehem
episode is thus illustrative of two parallel processes overlooked in
the current Middle Eastern crisis: the apparently terminal decline of
the Christian remnant in the Middle East after two millennia of
precarious and mostly painful existence, and the remarkable
indifference of the post-Christian Western world to its impending
Already by their choice of the stage for what soon became a propaganda
exercise the Muslim gunmen who occupied the church desecrated the
basilica built on the site of the grotto where Jesus Christ is believed
to have been born. They ate the food they found on the premises until
it ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They consumed
alcoholic drinks that they found in priests’ quarters, undeterred by
the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol. They tore up Bibles up for toilet
paper. They turned one corner of the ancient church into an impromptu
mosque. They even attempted to bury seven of their comrades, who were
subsequently killed by Israeli snipers, inside the church or on its
grounds-obviously intending to turn one of the holiest Christian
shrines into a place of Islamic pilgrimage to the fallen “martyrs.”
It may be worth noting that when Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount,
two years ago, the world reacted angrily to what was interpreted as a
gesture calculated to inflame the Muslims, and Palestinians treated his
mere presence near the al-Aqsa mosque as sufficiently provocative to
justify a new intifada. Their double standards and cynicism are
breathtaking, but they were not the only ones to treat Christian
shrines with contempt.
Two weeks before the siege of the Church of the Nativity, as Israeli
forces stormed into Bethlehem, an Israeli tank shell hit the facade of
the nearby Holy Family Church, in a complex with an orphanage, hospital
and hostel. The soldiers then fired, from fifty yards’ distance, at the
statue of the Virgin atop the Holy Family Church. The statue lost its
left arm and its face was disfigured. The Israeli army expressed regret
and promised investigation, but this did not look like an accidental
shot: no terrorist could possibly hide behind the figure on the
pinnacle of the hospital church. The story was reported by Reuters, and
a picture taken by an AP photographer. It was available to the world
media but ignored.
These two incidents illustrate the predicament of the dwindling
Christian remnant in the Middle East. Once thriving Christian
communities are now minorities squeezed between the warring Jews and
Muslims who may hate each other but all too often share their aversion
to Christianity. Within Israel the indigenous Christians, as Arabs, are
regarded as indistinguishable from Palestinian Muslims, and have
suffered accordingly. In 1948 two-thirds of the Palestinian Christians
were driven from their homes with the creation of a Jewish state.
Within Arafat’s Palestinian Authority the Christians are viewed with
distrust as non-Muslim. They resent Israeli incursions and occupation
as much as their Muslim neighbors, but they also feel uncomfortable
amid the tide of Islamic radicalism-symbolized in the rise of Hamas-
that has engulfed the Palestinian community. They are also deliberately
exposed to Israeli reprisals by their Muslim compatriots: in the West
Bank city of Beit Jala Muslim gunmen chose the rooftops of Christian
homes as sites from which to fire on neighboring Jerusalem.
Institutionalized or covert discrimination to which Christians are
subjected in Syria, Israel, Egypt, and Lebanon, accompanied by
occasional eruptions of anti-Christian violence by the Muslim majority
in the last two countries, have contributed to an exodus that threatens
to eradicate the believers in Christ in the lands of his birth and
At the outset of the Islamic conquests under Muhammad’s successors all
of these lands were 100 percent Christian. At the outset of the Ottoman
rule they had a Christian plurality, and in Palestine and Lebanon the
outright majority. Under the British Mandate, Palestine officially was
a Christian country, with Bethlehem having a population that was 90
percent Christian. Today they are literally disappearing. Among almost
three million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem,
only 50,000 Christians remain. Within the pre-1967 borders of Israel
there are six million people; only 2 percent are Christians. In the
city of Jerusalem the Christian population has declined from 45,000 in
1940 to a few thousand today. At the current rate of decline, the
Christian population will be a fraction of one percent in the year 2020
and there will be no living church in the land of Christ. It is a cruel
irony that the plight of indigenous Christians remained invisible to
hundreds of thousands of Christians from Europe and North America-from
mainstream churches and fringe groups-who descended on the Holy Land to
mark the 2,000th anniversary of their faith.
If the Jewish or Muslim population of America or Western Europe were to
start declining at a similar rate, there would be an outcry from their
co-religionists all over the world. There would be government-funded
programs to establish the causes and provide remedies. The endangered
minority would be awarded instant victim status and be celebrated as
such by the media and the academe. By contrast, when the President of
the United States visited Jerusalem in October 1994, he was steps away
from the most sacred Christian shrines but did not visit any of them.
He did not meet a single representative of the Christian community that
remained invisible to him. Eight years later, as busloads of American
evangelicals still come to the Western Wall in pursuit of their dream
of a rebuilt temple that will provide an eschatological shortcut
through history, the remnants of that community are on the verge of
UNDER THE PROPHET’S SWORD
At the time of Muhammad’s birth Christianity had covered, outside
Europe, the ancient Roman province of Asia extending across the
Caucasus to the Caspian Sea, Syria with the Holy Land, and a wide belt
of North Africa all the way to the Atlantic Ocean.
Christians numbered over thirty million by A.D. 311, in spite of
imperial persecution that often entailed martyrdom. Most of them lived
not in Europe but in Asia Minor and Africa, the home of many famous
Christian fathers and martyrs, starting with St. Paul of Tarsus, such
as St. Augustine, Polycarp of Smyrna, Tertullian of Carthage, Clement
of Alexandria, Chrysostom of Antioch, Origen of Tyre, or Cyprian of
Carthage. The Seven Churches of Revelation were all in Asia Minor.
(Smyrna was the last of these, and kept her light burning until 1922,
when the Turks destroyed it, along with its Christian population.)
Between Muhammad’s death in 632 and the second siege of Vienna, just
over a thousand years later, Islam expanded-at first rapidly, then
intermittently-at the expense of everything and everyone in the way of
its warriors. Unleashed as the militant faith of a nomadic war-band,
Islam turned its boundary with the outside world into a perpetual war
zone. When Muslims conquered the hitherto Christian lands of the Middle
East in the 7th century the subject peoples were not immediately aware
of the momentous quality of what had come to pass. For many dissident
Christian groups that had been denounced as heretical in Europe, it
seemed preferable at first to be ruled by largely absentee non-
Christian overlords who cared only about taxes and did not feel
strongly one way or another about the finer points of Christology.
Slaughters did occur in the initial wave of conquest: during the Muslim
invasion of Syria in 634 thousands of Christians were massacred; in
Mesopotamia between 635 and 642 monasteries were ransacked and the
monks and villagers slain; while in Egypt the towns of Behnesa, Fayum,
Nikiu and Aboit were put to the sword. The inhabitants of Cilicia were
taken into captivity. In Armenia, the entire population of Euchaita was
wiped out. The Muslim invaders sacked and pillaged Cyprus and then
established their rule by a “great massacre.” In North Africa Tripoli
was pillaged in 643 by Amr, who forced the Jews and Christians to hand
over their women and children as slaves to the Arab army. They were
told that they could deduct the value of their enslaved family from the
poll-tax, the jizya. Carthage was razed to the ground and most of its
inhabitants killed. Nevertheless, since dead bodies paid no taxes,
while the captives were an economic asset, once the conquerors’ rule
was firmly established a degree of normalcy was reestablished at the
For a long time the outcome of the early onslaught was in doubt. The
first wave of attacks on Christendom almost captured Constantinople
when that city was still far and away the important center of the
Christian world. The Greeks stood their ground against Islam for
another six centuries. But the Muslims also conquered Spain, and had
they gone further the Kuran -in Gibbon’s memorable phrase-might have
been “taught in the schools of Oxford” to a circumcised people: the
Muslims crossed the Pyrenees, promising to stable their horses in St.
Peter’s at Rome, but were at last defeated by Charles Martel at Tours,
exactly a century after the prophet’s death. This defeat arrested their
western conquests and saved Europe.
The last attempt in pre-postmodern times, going through the Balkans,
took the Sultan’s janissaries more than halfway from Constantinople to
Dover (1683). On both occasions the tide was checked, but its
subsequent rolling back took decades, even centuries.
The Crusades were but a temporary setback to Islamic expansion, and the
source of endless arguments that sought to establish some moral
equivalence between Muslims and Christians at first, and eventually to
elevate the former to victimhood and condemn the latter as aggressors.
Far from being wars of aggression, the Crusades were a belated military
response of Christian Europe to over three centuries of Muslim
aggression against Christian lands, the systemic mistreatment of the
indigenous Christian population of those lands, and harassment of
Christian pilgrims. The postmodern myth, promoted by Islamic
propagandists and supported by some self-hating Westerners-notably in
the academe-claims that the peaceful Muslims, native to the Holy Land,
were forced to take up arms in defense against European-Christian
aggression. This myth takes AD 1095 as its starting point, but it
ignores the preceding centuries, starting with the early caliphs, when
Muslim armies swept through the Byzantine Empire, conquering about two-
thirds of the Christian world of that time.
On the eve of the First Crusade the prominent Islamic scholar Abu Ala
Al-Mawardi prepared the formal blueprint for the Islamic government,
based on the Kuran, the Tradition, and the practice of the previous
four centuries of conquest. It reiterated the division the world into
the House of Islam, where umma has been established, and the House of
War inhabited by Harbis, that is, the rest of the world. The House of
Islam is in a state of permanent war with the lands that surround it;
it can be interrupted by temporary truces, but peace will only come
with the completion of global conquest. The progression was from Dar al
Sulh-when the Muslims are a minority community, and need to adopt
temporarily a peaceful attitude in order to deceive their neighbors
(Mecca before Muhammad’s move to Medina is the model for which the
Muslim diaspora in the Western world provides contemporary example)-to
Dar al Harb, when the territory of the infidel becomes a war zone by
definition. This happens as soon as the Muslim side feels strong enough
to dispense with pretense.
The example was provided by Muhammad, who accepted a truce with Mecca
when he was in an inferior position but broke it as soon as his
recuperated strength allowed, and offered his pagan compatriots the
choice of conversion or death. In Europe today the early signs of this
forthcoming stage, amounting to a low-intensity civil war, are visible
in ethnic disturbances in English and French cities, when young
English-born Pakistanis or French-born North Africans venture out from
their no-go areas. The final objective all along is Dar al Islam, where
Muslims dominate and infidels are at best tolerated, at worst expelled
or killed. This applies even to “the people of the book”:
Declare war upon those to whom the Scriptures were revealed but believe
neither in God nor the Last Day, and who do not forbid that which God
and His Apostles have forbidden, and who refuse to acknowledge the true
religion until they pay the poll-tax without reservation and are
totally subjugated. The Jews claim that Ezra is a son of God, and the
Christians say, ‘the Messiah is a son of God.’ Those are their claims
that do indeed resemble the sayings of the Infidels of Old. May God do
battle with them!
The Muslims are obliged to wage struggle against unbelievers and may
contemplate tactical ceasefires, but never its complete abandonment
short of the unbelievers’ submission. This is the real meaning of
Jihad. Indeed, in certain contexts and in certain times it may also
signify “inner striving” and “spiritual struggle,” but to generations
of Muslims before our time-and to an overwhelming majority of believers
who are our contemporaries-the meaning of Jihad as the obligatory and
permanent war against non-Muslims has not changed since Al-Mawardi’s
time. At all times, according to Allah (i.e. Muhammad), “Those who
believe fight in the cause of God.” For the fallen and victorious
alike, the rewards are instant and plentiful.