Image of Jesus Christ Left at Mosque Considered Offensive

Someone left an image of the crucified Jesus Christ outside a mosque in New York and now the police are investigating it as a possible “bias incident” (i.e. a hate crime).

There are a number of things which make this news story interesting.

First, the mere fact that an image of Jesus left at a mosque is considered a hate crime is indicative of the increasing hostility to Christ in this country.  The police do not know who left the image or why.  In fact, the people at the mosque have stated that they do not consider it offensive.  Instead, the self-appointed guardians of “fairness” and “inclusion” have decided that the image of Jesus Christ is offensive.

Second, it brings to the forefront that the religious differences between Islam and Christianity are centered on just who Jesus Christ is.  Indeed, Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet (and therefore are not offended by the image left at the mosque).  A quote in the original article from the NY chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) states: “Bias may have motivated this incident, but it could serve as a teaching moment for the perpetrator and for the community if it leads to greater understanding of the love Muslims have for Jesus, peace be upon him.”

However, Christians believe that Jesus is more than a prophet.  He is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (cf. Matthew 16:13-20).  In fact, Christians believe that Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity of Father, Son, Holy Spirit.  He is the Word spoken by the Father in Genesis to create all things and who became flesh for our salvation (cf. John 1:1ff).  In contrast, Islam rejects the Trinity and the divine nature of Christ.

Third, have we regressed so far as a culture that images or ideas with which we may disagree cause us to invoke the police power of the state to remove these from our presence?  I know the answer is, sadly, “yes.”  If the state can force a person to perform work they don’t want to do (see the article about the Christian baker), then it also has the power to control speech and other forms of free expression.

Finally, at what point does the proclamation of the Christian Gospel itself become a “bias incident” and a hate crime?  Other countries are already headed down this path (e.g. Canadian and UK examples).  Will America follow?  Will the Church rise to the occasion to maintain the truth of its witness to God’s Word?

Linda Sarsour Calls For Jihad Against Trump

This is not a sensational headline. Sarsour actually gave a speech over the weekend and called for “jihad” against President Trump. Watch the two-minute clip for yourself:

Speaking at the 54th annual Islamic Society of North America convention on Saturday, Sarsour made several shocking statements.

“I hope that when we stand up to those who oppress our communities that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad. That we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or in the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House,” said Sarsour.

Sarsour told the audience that the priority of Muslims must be to protect their own community and not to assimilate.

“Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community, it is not to assimilate and please any other people and authority,” she stated. “Our obligation is to our young people, is to our women, to make sure our women are protected in our community.”

The convention was held in the Chicago suburb of Rosemont, Illinois.

While being a public figure for quite some time, Sarsour rose to prominence as the co-chair of the 2017 women’s march against Donald Trump. Many critics point to the irony of a person defending Shariah Law while also being considered a women’s rights advocate. For her part, Sarsour carries top liberal bona fides. She was a delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention, a vocal surrogate for Bernie Sander’s presidential campaign and is a sharp opponent of President Trump. She is a frequent guest on the “Rachel Maddow Show”.

Sarsour also has a serious rap sheet of sympathetic statements towards radical Islam.

“My Arab pride was hurt… I felt humiliated by the way Hussein was caught and shown, disheveled and pathetic-looking, on international television,” Sarsour once said in regard to American forces’ capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. She has continually expressed compassion for Palestinian terrorists and is an outspoken advocate of the BDS Movement – the boycott, divestment and sanctioning movement against the state of Israel. Many critics label her an anti-Semite.

Sarsour’s presence in progressive circles is a testament to the paradox liberals are in. They claim to be advocates for women and the LGBT community. They also claim to be the defenders of Muslim immigrants – fighting those “racist islamophobes” every chance they can. But what do they do when members in the Muslim community show disdain for women and gays? Liberals like Bill Maher and Sam Harris at least aren’t hypocrites on this issue – they have sharply criticized radical Islam. Liberals like Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, wear Ramadan-themed socks to a Pride parade and shout “Pride Mubarak” to the cameras.

How ridiculous.

Also ridiculous – Sarsour’s position as co-chair of the women’s march against Trump. She is a known terrorist sympathizer. She speaks fondly of Shariah Law. Those on the left giving her an outlet must be taking crazy pills.

“When I wake up every morning and remember who is sitting in the White House, I am outraged,” Sarsour said during her Saturday speech.

Good. Here’s to hoping for eight years of outrage.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Wore Islamic-Themed Socks To Gay Pride Parade

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave us the best example of liberal delusion over the weekend at Toronto’s gay Pride parade.

The leader of Canada, determined to represent every single identity group, did have a dilemma on his hands. The gay pride parade was on Sunday. The end of Ramadan, Islam’s holy month, was on Saturday. How do you stay “woke” with so much going on in one weekend?

Wear Ramadan-themed socks to the major LGBT event, of course.

Anyone who remotely keeps up with the news would understand the extreme irony in this action. Homosexuality is strongly condemned in Islam. In fact, many Muslim-majority countries outlaw LGBT activity or worse. Being gay is punishable by death in seven Muslim countries. In ISIS-controlled territory, people even suspected of being gay are thrown off buildings – survivors are subsequently stoned.

None of that seemed to matter to Trudeau. The leader of Canada’s Liberal Party has long held virtue signaling in high regard. Last year, he became the first sitting Canadian prime minster to attend the Pride parade.

He didn’t just stop with the inappropriate attire. While speaking to the media, Trudeau wished everyone a happy “Pride Mubarak,” a play on words for Pride day and the end of Ramadan.

Dear Western Europe: Surrender to Islam

The headline here isn’t a joke. Western Europe unwittingly became engaged in a culture war with a more powerful and attractive world view, and lost. At this point, there is no strategy that can result in an end without massive bloodshed, other than surrender.

Before you dismiss this as crackpot garbage, give me a chance to explain.

For 623 years, the Ottoman Empire ruled from Vienna to as far as Algiers. And for most of that time, wars were the exception rather than the rule. The Caliphate established by the Muslim Turks was one of the most advanced and tolerant societies in the world, and it was based on the same world view that millions of European citizens now hold.

Until the last 100 years, there was only one other world view that rivaled the Ottomans, that being Christianity. Since Western Europe freed itself from the shackles of that ancient religion, there is now only post-modern secular pluralism and progressive democracy to stand against the strong call of Islam.

The demographics are irrefutable.

Since 1960, European “natural” birth rates have fallen, while immigration has increased.

The low contribution of natural increase to total population growth is the result of two factors. The first is the considerable increase in net migration in the EU-28 since the mid-1980s. The second is the fall in the number of births and increase in the number of deaths. The gap between live births and deaths (see Chart 3) has considerably narrowed since 1960. Since the number of deaths is expected to increase as the baby-boom generation continues to age and assuming that fertility remains low, a negative natural change (more deaths than births) cannot be ruled out in the future. The extent of population decline or growth will therefore depend on the contribution made by migration.

Over the years, migrants have come in, replaced the birth rate declines of native Europeans, and done so at an increasing rate. They’ve come from many places, but millions of them have come from Muslim-dominated countries. They are younger and more fruitful in their fertility than the Europeans they’ve replaced.

Europeans, being enlightened post-modern, pluralistic secular humanists, see no issue with this, given that all religions are equal, all pathways to wisdom involve some measure of “faith” and all supernatural stories of “god” are hokum. But Islam has as its goal to subdue the entire earth in the name of Allah.

Lest we stick our heads in non-working ovens looking for the pilot light and breathing the gas (don’t do that), it’s pretty obvious why there is terror in England. There is clear “division” between Brits and those who blow themselves to bits to kill young girls at a pop concert. Mark Steyn:

Britain is “divided”, perhaps fatally. It’s not so much the comparatively small numbers of suicide bombers, or even the support group of family and friends – the dad who works at the mosque pending his return to the battlefield, the sister who congratulates him on entering Paradise, the sister’s schoolmates who drop out to be become brides of Isis, the bomb-maker who lives down the street, the other friends and family who turn a blind eye to it all. Beyond all that is the larger comfort zone of “British” Muslims who support the ultimate goal of Salman Abedi – an Islamic state where once was England – and for the most part live their daily lives as if it’s already here. “Britain” has no purchase on them, and its “values” command no allegiance – even though, lest they give offense, non-divisive officials are careful never to spell out precisely what those “values” are”. Easier to chant the approved abstractions, and warn against the non-approved ones: Diversity good, division bad.

The signs of this have been known for years. Muammar Gaddafi said in 2006 that Islam will conquer Europe “without firing a shot” due to the demographics.

To counter this, Prime Minister Theresa May offered a “hearts and minds” strategy, along with “difficult” and “embarrassing” conversations about how to deal with the violence. But the violence is a feature to those who live as Muslims under a non-Islamic regime.

What makes May think that “pluralistic, British values” are inherently better than the five pillars of Islam, followed by paradise after a life spent in surrender to Allah? Does she really think the secular Europeans can persuade millions of Muslims to abandon their faith before the demographics work against her?

The mayor of London is a Muslim. Perhaps she can ask him.

The answer is clear. Surrender.

For generations, Europeans attended church without believing in the God to whom the oldest and most ornate cathedrals were dedicated. They’d go to Mass (in France), and attend High Church at the Church of England, recite liturgies, perform rituals, and believe none of it.

Millions of Muslims all over the world pray five times a day, facing Mecca, attend Friday services at mosque, fast at Ramadan, and believe none of it. It’s not hard to find a bar, or a pork slider, in certain Muslim cities–I’ll put it that way–and not everyone in those places is an infidel.

What’s the difference between secular, lapsed Christians and secular, lapsed Muslims? I don’t know, maybe someone more evolved in their sensibilities can explain it.

Europeans and secular thinkers tell Christians to “get off our high horses” because of the Crusades (against the Muslims) and the Inquisition (against the Jews) and walk into a future of Reason and Peace. Amen.

If Europeans want a future of Reason and Peace, all they have to do is say some words they don’t believe. Muslims call it the Shahada. It’s the first pillar of Islam. When Boko Haram terrorists in Africa attack a village, they ask all the residents to recite the Shahada. Those who don’t, die. Those who do are left alone. There’s no test for “do you believe it?”

To many in the Muslim faith, that’s how jihad works. Infidels must submit or die. There’s no way to get rid of that particularly troubling teaching of Islam without getting rid of Islam. And secular humanism is no match for Islam.

Therefore, the best course for Europeans is to surrender and allow the Muslims to set up a Sharia state on top of the secular state. Negotiate the terms, pay the jizya, or tax to support Islamic charitable causes, make Islam the state religion (instead of the Church of England, for instance), and continue with your unbelieving lives.

Like the Ottomans, the new Caliphate will leave you alone, in peace. They’ll even fight ISIS for you  (because ISIS kills many more Muslims than Christians or others). The moment you surrender, there will be no more terror in England, France, Belgium or anywhere else in Western Europe. The Muslim community will deal with ISIS and terrorists their own way. You don’t have to watch the public beheadings, just continue with your lives.

At this point, there are only two possibilities for secular Europe to deal with the problem of radical Islam. Europeans can fight a war that’s already lost, or surrender to Islam and live in peace. Why fight it when you can’t win?

England Cannot Routinize Terror

In Jerusalem, stabbings have become a way of life, like rocket attacks in Sderot. In certain areas of Paris, non-Muslims have to be careful or they could be randomly assaulted. In some suburbs of Brussels, the police don’t patrol, they only go in for raids.

The attacks in the heart of London last night, killing seven (so far), and injuring “at least 48” according to Washington Post reports might seem to some the logical consequence of having nearly 2.8 million Muslims living there (about 5 percent of the population). So far, in England and other Western European nations, governments are at a loss on how to combat this terror.

In a pluralistic, secular democracy, it’s very difficult to pin the problem on “Islam” because that would move the needle off dead-center in the issue of religious tolerance. Since there aren’t Christians running in the streets, mowing down civilians, blowing themselves up at concerts, and attacking nightclubs, blaming the problem on Islam would seem to indicate that somehow Christianity is “better” than Islam. (If you define “better” as not killing innocents.)

But to deny that terrorism is related to Islam creates a massive loop in logic. It pins the problem of terror on “terrorists” who commit “terrorism.” So “anti-terrorism” laws would protect citizens from “terror.”

The same criticism was leveled at President George W. Bush in his “war on terror.” Terror is a tactic, not an enemy. ISIS is an enemy.

So in England, who is the enemy? Apparently, they’re having trouble identifying it.

And that will lead to more terror. The danger is that the terror will become routine, and the laws dealing with terror will subject citizens to ever-more government intrusion, without ever identifying the enemy.

Or worse, they will deny there is an enemy and simply classify terror as another form of common crime. Stealing purses, bar fights, and mowing down civilians will become equal in society’s eyes.

Or they’ll blame it on ISIS, and when ISIS is eliminated from the Middle East (which will happen), they’ll wonder why terror continues.

In Israel, where terror is a way of life, terrorists don’t stop life as usual there. They’ve built a wall to keep terrorists out, but they continue to filter in–instead of blowing up buses, they stab. They’ve destroyed tunnels, and suffered international condemnation for sending troops into Gaza to stop the rockets, but the rockets continue. They know who the enemy is and why the enemy wants them destroyed.

Islam is not (only) a religion. It’s a socio-economic, political, governance, and legal system which has as its foundation a religion. The religion and its spiritual requirements are inseparable from many of the other aspects of being a Muslim. Islam doesn’t just involve “believe and pray.” It involves a whole lot of “do and comply.”

Muslims in power (imams) do not quickly or forcefully condemn attacks on infidels, because many of them believe it’s the right things to do. Pluralistic democracy is incompatible with the Quran. As individual Muslims come to believe that, they will continue in acts of terror (jihad).

The enemy is a worldview that promotes this. Call it Islamophobia, or discrimination, or whatever you want. It’s simply a recognition that this will continue and become routine until the enemy is properly identified and the issue is dealt with. A socio-economic, political, governance, and legal system that only recognizes one religion and its adherents as citizens with full rights, and others as second-class citizens cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of the world.

After years of routine terror, Israel has found itself in a terrible quandary. Western European pluralistic secular democracies are in danger of sliding into that same quandary if they routinize terror as a way of life.

Wahhabism, Terrorism, and the Attack in Manchester

A new article by Patrick Cockburn at The Independent, a UK online newspaper, argues that the recent terrorist attack in Manchester and similar attacks across the globe can be attributed to the Islamic Wahhabism belief system which has its roots in Saudi Arabia.  He asserts that Western governments – particularly the U.S. and U.K. – are reluctant to place the blame on Wahhabism, because they do not wish to anger the Saudis, and therefore instead place blame more generically on “radical Islam.”

Cockburn’s point is that until Wahhabism is called out as the problem, a solution to Islamic terrorism will be elusive.  Simply pinning “radical Islam” as the culprit is not specific enough to lead to solutions.

Indeed, the U.S. and U.K. have been reliant on Saudi Arabia for decades, both for oil as well as for geo-political support in the Middle East.  Particularly with the downfall of a strong Iraq, the resultant rise of Iran, and the slide of Turkey into the Islamic abyss and the Russian embrace, Saudi Arabia is the strongest counter to Iran in the region.  For these reasons, calling out Saudi Arabia for actively supporting and spreading Wahhabism is problematic.

What is Wahhabism?  It is a reactionary branch of Sunni Islam which, as mentioned, arose in Saudi Arabia.  The Saudis actively promote and seek to spread Wahhabism abroad, although not necessarily promoting the terrorist groups which hold to Wahhabist belief.  Wahhabism pushes a strict, literal interpretation of the Koran and views any who do not hold the same beliefs as kafir (a derogatory term for unbelievers).  Those who are kafir may be deceived, held as slaves, tortured, and killed.

This is exactly what the groups who trace their lineage to Wahhabism do.  What do al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, and al-Shabaab have in common?  They are all Wahhabist groups.  They have spread throughout the Middle East and Africa, like a cancer, enslaving and killing those they encounter who disagree with their beliefs.

Now, Wahhabism has struck in Manchester, England, killing a crowd of young women and girls exiting that most Western of events, a music concert.


FL Man Kills Roommates in Bizarre Islam/Neo-Nazi Twist

A Florida man was arrested for murdering his two roommates after holding up a smoke shop and admitting his crime to three hostages. While the murders themselves are shocking it is the motivation that provides a bizarre, stunning twist.

Devon Arthurs, 18 told police he shot and killed Jeremy Himmelman, 22, and Andrew Oneschuk, 18 because he was angry about Islamophobia. Arthurs had originally moved in with Himmelman and Oneschuk because he shared their neo-Nazi views. At some point, Arthurs converted to Islam and decided his roommates were too disrespectful of his faith.

In an interview with investigators, Arthurs provided specific details about the shooting, including the rifle he used, the order in which he killed the men and which part of their bodies he targeted.


Arthurs stated that, prior to the killings, “he had been privy to neo-Nazi internet sites threatening to kill people, and he had developed a thinking that he should take some of the neo-Nazis with him.”


The police report obtained by the Tampa Bay Times says after the murders Arthurs held up a local smoke shop. He threatened 2 employees and a customer with a semiautomatic pistol.

Arthurs, 18, entered the smoke shop at 15325 Amberly Drive about 5:30 p.m. and removed a semiautomatic pistol from his waistband.


“Do me a favor and get the f— on the ground!” he yelled to a female employee and male customer, the report states. Arthurs asked the customer, “Why shouldn’t I kill you?”


A few minutes later, another customer entered the store and Arthurs ordered him to get on the ground. He told all three people in the store that he had already killed someone.


“He further informed all three victims that he was upset due to America bombing his Muslim countries,” the report by police Detective Kenneth Nightlinger.


Two Tampa police officers arrived about five minutes after the second customer entered the store. One of the hostages ran out of the store, and the officers were able to persuade Arthurs to let the other two leave. After several more minutes of negotiating, he surrendered and allowed the officers to place him in handcuffs.


Radical Islam and neo-Nazism are definitely kissin’ cousins but it truly a bizarre twist to see a nazi convert to Islam only to murder his former compatriots. It seems doubtful many tears will be shed for either the alleged murderer or his victims.

BREAKING: Trump Talks Terror In Saudi Arabia



President Trump has just completed a major speech on Islam and terrorism in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In the speech, the president attempted to draw a line between peaceful Muslims and terrorists, calling the war against terror, “a battle between good and evil,” according to CNN.

Trump stressed that the fight against terrorists was not a religious war, saying, “This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects or different civilizations,” Trump said. “This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it. This is a battle between good and evil.”

The president was conciliatory to his Muslim audience, calling Islam “one of the world’s great faiths.”

“There is still much work to be done. That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamists and Islamic terror of all kinds. We must stop what they’re doing to inspire — because they do nothing to inspire but kill,” Trump said. “In sheer numbers the deadliest toll has been exacted on Arab, Muslim and Middle Eastern nations, ” he added. “More than 95% of the victims of terrorism are themselves Muslim.”

President Trump called upon Islamic nations to drive radicals out of their countries. “Drive them out,” he said. “Drive them out of your places of worship … drive them out of your holy land. Drive them out of this earth.”

Read the full transcript of Trump’s speech here.