Doc's Talk: Will Pope Francis Become a Dupe of the Islamists?

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Will Pope Francis Become a Dupe of the Islamists?

Ryan Mauro

The Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Azhar University want to shake hands with the new Pope Francis. One of the first pledges he has made is to embrace interfaith dialogue with the Muslim world. Will he become the latest dupe of the “moderate” Islamists?

Pope Francis is a critic of Pope Benedict’s 2006 speech in Germany where he quoted a Byzantine Emperor that said “show me just what Mohammed brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

It caused a rupture in relations between Muslim authorities and the Vatican, with almost 40 Muslim scholars signing a letter of protest. Five churches were attacked in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, reinforcing the negative depiction of their religion that they were so offended by.

Pope Benedict said he was “deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims” and “These were in fact a quotation from a Medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought.” It fell short of the direct apology that was demanded.

He tried to make amends by praying inside Turkey’s Blue Mosque and visiting Jordan in 2009, where he reflected upon the “common history” of the Abrahamic religions. He visited more mosques than any other pope, entering twice as many as his predecessor.
Pope Benedict’s reaction to the killing of 23 Egyptian Coptic Christians in a church bombing in 2011 was the last straw for Al-Azhar University. His offense was demanding that Muslim countries do more to protect non-Muslim minorities. Al-Azhar University suspended its dialogue with the Vatican because of his “repeated treatment of Islam in a negative way.”
Now, Al-Azhar University and the Muslim Brotherhood are reaching out to Pope Francis for a fresh start. The International Union of Muslim Scholars, a body led by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi, said it is ready to engage the Vatican.
“We will work together for an integrated system of moral values and we will remain united to fight injustice, corruption and violations of human dignity in the world,” the Islamist group said.
As is often the case with Islamist interfaith outreach, there is a political objective. The Union emphasized, “We will remain united in defending the legitimate rights of the Palestinian and Syrian populations.” Qaradawi has previously shown his commitment to genuine dialogue by refusing to participate in interfaith events that include Israelis.
Pope Francis needs to know who is trying to become his interfaith liaisons. Qaradawi has also said that meetings with Christians are a “waste of time” because “they do not recognize Muslims and say that Muhammad…is dishonest and that he created [the] Koran and attributed it to himself.” On the other hand, Qaradawi views Islam as tolerant because “Muslims recognize Christianity, Jesus Christ, and his book and religion.” He also demands an apology for the Crusades, as if Islam’s history is absent of blemishes.
In other words, Christians are unreasonable because they don’t worship Mohammed. Islam is tolerant because it includes Jesus, even though it denies the central tenets of what Christians believe about him. What Qaradawi is advocating isn’t true interfaith dialogue. It is dawaa and a form of jihad.
Qaradawi’s dawaa-disguised-as-interfaith was on display in a speech he gave in Egypt in February 2011. He assured the Coptic Christians that the Brotherhood wishes them no harm. Then, he tried to lead everyone in Islamic prayer—including the Christian attendees.
The Muslim Brotherhood condemns anti-Christian violence by more hardline Salafists and points to it as proof of its “moderate” credentials. Every time the Islamists offer to protect Christians, they are actually advocating for an Islamic State. In such a state, Christians are protected if they pay the jizya tax. Egyptian President Morsi reportedly said that once Egypt becomes a Sharia state, Christians will have three choices: Convert to Islam, leave or pay the jizya.
A professor at Al-Azhar University, Dr. Mahmoud Shu’ban, said the same thing. He stated, “If non-Muslims were to learn the meaning of ‘jizya,’ they would ask for it to be applied—and we will apply it, just like Islam commands us to.”
Pope Francis should also be aware of how the Islamists plan to restrain Christianity. The Sharia-instituting Egyptian constitution says that “insulting prophets and messengers is forbidden.” This prevents non-Muslims from criticizing Islam when discussing their beliefs.
With Sharia as the law of the land, Christians can even be prosecuted for “blasphemy” for simply proclaiming their faith. Islamist judges can cite Sura 5:72 that says, “They do blaspheme who say: (Allah) is Christ the son of Mary” or Sura 5:73 that says, “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah.”
These same Islamists who talk of friendship between Christians and Muslims want to kill any Muslim who leaves the faith. Recently, Qaradawi frankly admitted, “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment Islam wouldn’t exist today.”
Christians are also threatened by Islamists for standing against the creation of a Sharia state. The previously-mentioned Dr. Mahmoud Shu’ban of Al-Azhar University approves of the murder of Egyptian opposition figures (Muslim and non-Muslim) that dare to oppose the Muslim Brotherhood.
Brotherhood cleric Wagdy Ghoneim, who preached at rallies for Morsi during the presidential campaign, sounds like a pleasant interfaith partner when he says to Coptic Christians, “Respect yourselves and live with us and we will protect you…when you live in my country, it is forbidden for me to be unjust to you…” Then, he finishes with “but that doesn’t mean we are equal. No, no, no.”
He also warns Christians that their protection comes with conditions. He warned, “if you conspire and unite with the remnants [opposition] to bring Morsi down, that will be another matter…our red line is the legitimacy of Dr. Muhammad Morsi. Whoever splashes water on it, we will splash blood on him.”
The Pope and other Christian leaders must not be lulled into a false sense of security by the smooth semantics of the Islamists.
This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/will-pope-francis-become-a-dupe-of-the-islamists/

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk