One of the people that I turn to on a regular basis concerning the Arab-Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East and Africa is Raymond Ibrahim.I have discussed his work on a number of occasions because he is one of those individuals such as, for example, Ryan Bellerose, who is filling a niche in the conversation that should not be a niche, but should be central. Ibrahim focuses on the current Arab-Muslim genocide of the native Christian population in that part of the world. This is natural for him as his heritage is Egyptian Coptic.
Bellerose, whose primary focus is standing up for the rights and well-being of the Métis people, natives of North America, focuses his writings on the Arab-Israel conflict within the framework of indigeneity. His most pronounced insight, in my opinion, is the recognition that if people wish to stand up for indigenous rights consistency is necessary and that means standing up for the indigenous rights of the Jewish people, as well.
The header of his Facebook page reads:
We do not want nor will we accept this pro-Palestinian solidarity with its price tag of betrayal of another indigenous nation.G-d bless Mr. Bellerose.
In any case, here are a few tid-bits from Raymond Ibrahim.
None of this is fun:
Mokhls Youssef Batk, an Iraqi Christian, was blinded by the Islamic State (ISIS or IS) after he refused to convert to Islam.
A 12-year-old girl, raped by an Islamic State fighter, was told that "what he was about to do was not a sin" because she "practiced a religion other than Islam."
Somalia: A Muslim convert to Christianity (name withheld) managed to escape from Al Shabaab -- the dominant Islamic front -- but only after the jihadis chopped off four fingers from his right hand while interrogating him about his conversion.And there is plenty more where that came from. I do not need to beleaguer the point.
And the point, in case it is lost on anyone, is that there is a violent and fascistic political movement raising its face in the Middle East known, variously, as Islamo-fascism, Islamism, Jihadism, or political Islam.
The failure of the West to stand up for Christians in the Middle East, or even acknowledge their plight, is one of the great moral failures of our time.
And, to be sure, if the white semi-Christian West will not stand up for Christians, they will definitely not stand up for the Jews.
Is that not obvious?
Not any sort of -ism. Just plain Islam. There is no other kind.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is a remedy, but no politician is willing to even discuss it.
What is that remedy?
DeleteSame one romans used to stop Judean cult from becoming THE religion of Mediterranean. Took 3 devastating wars in 67, 115, and 132, but in the end it was gone.
DeleteWhat remained evolved into Christianity, and Judaism, both opposed to reestablishing Jewish state and rebuilding the Temple. At least until the Messiah comes (never).
Islam also has THE temple.
Destroy it and never allow it rebuilt. If we keep at it long enough, most will quit the religion of losers, and those who remain will develop Islam prohibiting Haj and Jihad until Mo comes back.
Related:
ReplyDeleteA war against Theocracy
John Robert Gallagher wrote this essay to explain why he went to Syria to fight with the Kurds against ISIS.
He was, reportedly, killed on Wednesday.
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2015/11/a-war-against-theocracy.html
You can read the entire essay, originally published in the National Post, linked in the above blog post.
It's an extraordinary piece, and he was, clearly, an extraordinary man.
Everything above is h/t to Mick Hartley.
DeleteI stupidly forgot to put that in the comment.
Apologies.
Jacob and Kate,
Deleteyou point to a central question.
Is the problem Islam or is it "radical Islam" or "political Islam"?
Turkish PM Erdogan agrees with Jacob that Islam is Islam and that's it.
But you see the various problems this raises, yes?
There are something close to 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.
Well, Erdogan outta know, right? Moreso than say American presidents and other apologists.
DeleteI still find it utterly remarkable that after the '67 war Israel simply handed the Temple Mount to its enemies.
ReplyDeleteThe amazing stupidity of that move flabbergasts.
In all probability, if Israel had held on to control of the Temple Mount that would have ended up being used against Israel as a weapon. For all we know, it might have made things worse. It's entirely possible that it would have been worse. Once you accept that Israel would be demonized whatever it did, the idea that things would be so much better if only that hadn't happened, doesn't really work.
Delete