Indian prime minister Narendra Modi has earned a deserved reputation as a no-nonsense opponent of appeasement. His expansion of the India-Israel relationship and personal affinity with President Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have strengthened that perception. The latest evidence that it is more than a perception came this week, when Modi’s government discontinued half-century-old government subsidies provided to Muslim pilgrims going on the Hajj. The Hajj is an annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims must carry out at least once, so long as they are physically and financially able – artificial conditions that the subsidy is intended to create.
That’s right: the government of India has been spending badly needed funds for one religious community’s annual pilgrimage. (There is even a special terminal in New Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport exclusively for Hajj pilgrims, which is closed for most of the year.) Since 2008, about 120,000 Muslims have utilized the government money to go on the Hajj, according to the Indian government, costing the Indian people almost a half-billion dollars in the last five years alone. This money now will be used for educational purposes, especially for girls who have been particularly underserved in accordance with community practice.
According to minister for minority affairs Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, “[t]his is part of our policy to empower minorities with dignity and without appeasement.” Putting an end to Modi’s predecessors’ policies not only does that, but also reduces the role of big government in India, which has been another major element in the prime minister’s actions thus far. As he promised to do both during and since the 2013 election that brought him his landslide victory, Modi’s conservative government is eliminating the wasteful spending by leftist opponents, which they often carried out to garner the large and largely united Indian Muslim vote.
Global terror attacks dating from 9/11, London, France, Belgium, Kenya, Pakistan and the ongoing Boko Haram in Nigeria as well as many other wars across many nations of the world all point to a similar source, Islam. In the wake of the European migrant crisis the door has been opened to a new wave of terrorism that can affect most countries in Europe.
According to the demographer Michèle Tribalat, there are about 20 million Muslims in Europe, with some 5 million of them in France. This amounts to roughly 8% of the population of France. The USA, UK, and Germany have 5% respectively.
Both the Charlie Hebdo along with another attack at a Paris kosher market days later, was carried out by French Muslims that were North African and West African Migrants. Well before the attacks, which left 17 dead, the French were discussing the possibility that tensions with the country’s own Muslim community were leading France toward some kind of armed confrontation. Europeans would have never handled such a massive in flux of Muslim migrants at any other moment in their generally xenophobic history. The movement of Muslim migrants coincided with a collapse in European birthrates, which has given the current immigration a nearly unstoppable momentum. With the rise of modern political Islam, which injected Islam with a radical ethos, the migration crisis has now become a threat to world peace.
How can it be Curbed?
There has long been a growing political relationship between the Israeli government and most sub-saharan African countries. In these ties lie the solution and shield against the scourge of radical Islam. Those African countries at war with radical Islam have found Israel to be an experienced and reliable partner. Beyond security, Israel is seen as an ally with little historic baggage and with little interest in undermining the sovereignty of African nations.
The ties between African-Israeli relations can be traced back to the dying embers of colonialism in the mid-1950s. This was followed by a formal recognition of relations through the establishment of official channels. One example is the setting up of the Israeli Embassy in Accra, Ghana in 1956.
From the beginning of its inception, Israel’s own war against Arab nationalism made it a necessity to search elsewhere for partners. Israel being encircled by hostile Arab countries gave it the impetus to build relationships with the newly independent African countries (as well as in Iran at that time). It is important to note that Israel’s motives to provide aid to Africa were driven by ideology, as opposed to the post-colonial guilt motives of the British and other nations.
In the 1970s due to many anti-Israel votes cast by African nations at UN-Conferences, Israel’s political motives moved from being ideological to pragmatic. Israel began to target only African countries where it had clear strategic or economic interests the Israeli presence grew at a fast pace.
The nature of African-Israeli relations has been determined by key changes in the global geopolitical arena. After the burden of colonialism had been lifted off African shoulders, Israel embarked on establishing diplomatic missions based on a twofold policy of diplomacy and technical cooperation.
The most significant undeclared contemporary war of our time is with Islam. The first salvo took place November 4, 1979, the day Iran took US citizens hostage in Tehran and held 52 of them against their will for 444 days. While 9/11 was the worst single tragedy by far, it wasn’t the beginning. That was a wake-up call, which which has largely been ignored, especially by President Obama.
Some may suggest there is no such war. Others claim it is the West that has declared war on Islam. Neither statement is correct. The fact is Islam has declared war. War on democracy, the West, the US, Israel, Jews, Christians and all “infidels,” which includes other Muslims. We are in perilous times. The very fabric of the free world is under attack. Unless democratic nations, especially the US, acknowledge this and take steps to combat the threat, Islam may eventually engulf everyone and everything.
The most important and powerful leader in the free world is the President of the United States. He should be at the forefront of this battle. Yet President Obama has steadfastly refused to correctly identify what everyone else knows — the United States (and the free world) is in the crosshairs of Islam. Their goal is to see the Islamic flag over the White House.
If you are one of those who doesn’t think we are in a crisis, consider this- Prior to the ’79 takeover of the US embassy in Iran, how often did you hear these terms: “jihad,” “Islamic fundamentalist,” “martyr,” “Allah,” “alluah Akbar,” or “Sharia law?”
Today they are commonplace and exemplify the new normal the US and the world lives with. In fact it would be an unusual day if we didn’t hear any of these terms.
I recall when it was possible to walk out to the gate at the airport to meet an incoming passenger. How about when there was no such thing as an airport security check? I guess I’m only showing my age….
Not all Muslims
Before going further, an important distinction should be made. Am I suggesting this war is with all Muslims? No. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists. In fact the majority are not. Yet the terror from the minority is affecting almost everyone, whether Muslim or not in one way or another.
Thus an obvious question becomes how many fundamentalists are there?
Estimates vary widely. Some say it’s as low as 3%, others up to as much as 50% or more, depending on your source. Statistics on this are rare and generally without credible references. This is where some simple math is quite telling. Current population statistics indicate there are 1.65 billion Muslims worldwide. (This is not in dispute) For the sake of this article I’ll use a conservative estimate of 10% being fundamentalists. That means 90% are peaceful.
If 10% are fundamentalists, that translates to 165 million. If all of them lived in one country it would rank #8 in the world. These are numbers no one should dismiss or take lightly.
The next question is who are the “true” Muslims, the 90% or the 10%? Sheer numbers tend to suggest the 90%. Yet is this really the case? Let’s drill down a bit deeper.
The non-violent Muslims will tell you Islam is a religion of peace and the fundamentalists have hijacked it. While peaceful Muslims may indeed be sincere in their commitment to non-violence, are they correct by accusing fundamentalists of hijacking Islam? This needs to be addressed soberly.
The fundamentalists who commit violence in Allah’s name consider themselves to be the true Muslims. In fact they will tell you the ones who accuse them of hijacking Islam are not true Muslims.
Yet both peaceful and fundamentalist Muslims look to the Quran as their holy book.
How can two different groups both claiming to be Muslim read the same holy book and see things so differently? Is one group making claims about the Quran that are false?
Before examining this closer keep one thing in mind. There are approximately 40,000 Christian denominations. Wide differences exist among them on numerous topics. Yet would it be fair for a Pentecostal to accuse a Presbyterian of not being a Christian?
There is one holy book for those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: the Bible, albeit different books are used by Christians (New Testament) and Jews (Torah/Prophets/Writings), and some differences exist between Catholic and Protestant versions. While there is a wide range of interpretations of scripture, a Presbyterian considers himself just as much a Christian as a Pentecostal.
This same principle applies to Muslims.
Due diligence requires examination of the Quran to see if there are verses which substantiate the fundamentalist view of condoning violence.
There are numerous verses in the Quran which make it clear that violence is not only condoned, it is required against disbelievers. This includes against peaceful Muslims who do not engage in violence as instructed in the Quran. Altogether there are over 160 verses in the Quran which support violence or jihad.
Plus, there is clear disdain for Jews and Christians.
What’s also noteworthy is Mohammed himself supported violence. He was responsible for numerous killings, which included massacring several hundred Jews of the Qurayza tribe in Medina in 627.
Based on the aforementioned information, the following conclusions can be drawn-
There is a wide range of Muslims
The Quran sanctions violence
Mohammed himself condoned and engaged in violence
The Quran indicates disdain for non-Muslims
Muslims are both peaceful and violent
Fundamentalists are Muslims
They have not hijacked Islam
With respect to whether Islam is a peaceful religion, after confirming what the Quran says, it would seem such a characterization is not only naïve, it’s incorrect, possibly dangerous. Further, if a Presbyterian doesn’t have the right to say a Pentecostal is not a Christian, it follows that a peaceful Muslim doesn’t have the right to say a fundamentalist is not a Muslim.
If a “true believer” is one who follows everything in their holy book, and the fundamentalists are adhering to this, how should we view peaceful Muslims? While I believe they are indeed Muslims, can it be the fundamentalists are actually the true Muslims?
What’s the takeaway?
The free world should open its eyes, understand there is a war going on. Ignoring it won’t eliminate it. In fact doing so will allow it to continue unabated. We should stop letting naïveté and political correctness govern our views or our laws. Difficult decisions will need to be made, and soon. If the status quo continues, the lifestyle free people are accustomed to will soon become a thing of the past.
Years ago there was a commercial by a manufacturer of engine oil filters that suggested not to ignore the importance of changing filters when necessary. The closing words of the commercial were “pay me now… or pay me later.”
There is nothing more central as a focal point to Jews and Christians than the Temple Mount. It is the place where Jews pray towards three times a day. The Temple Mount is the site where the first and second Holy Temples once stood, and the third is to be rebuilt in the future, ushering in peace throughout the world. For Christians the Temple is a central part of the story of Jesus and serves as hope in the future of a more perfect era.
One would assume that as President of the United States, Obama would urge a policy for his administration that supported freedom of worship at a site that is Holy to three religions. The fact that this is not the case is even more bizarre since the backbone of American culture is freedom of religion. Obama and his administration could have urged the Jordanian Waqf to change its attitude to Jewish and Christian prayer on the Temple Mount, but instead they supported the current trend of Islamification of the Holy City.
Early on in its involvement with the latest round of violence, State Department spokesperson Admiral John Kirby said the following: “Well, certainly, the status quo has not been observed, which has led to a lot of the violence.”
After a lot of condemnation, Kirby retracted.
Despite the retraction, the focus has remained on Jerusalem’s need to keep what can only be described as a self imposed apartheid on non-Muslim prayer at its holiest site as a prerequisite to calming tensions. This point has become more than just clever policy for Obama. It is in fact bordering on obsession.
By reminding the players over and over again of the administration’s support for the Status Quo, it enables Muslims to continue rewriting history and teaching their followers that they must die for Al Aqsa. Of course now the Arab street believes that the entire Temple Mount is considered a Mosque and furthermore they believe the Kotel Plaza is as well as evidenced in their failed attempt to get UNESCO to rename the Kotel Plaza to Buraq’s Plaza.
The Temple Mount is really one part of the administration’s plan to enable the Muslim world to continue to change history. Part of the goal of the Obama administration is to force Israel to relinquish large areas of Jerusalem in order to give hope that a Palestinian State will have access to the Old City in some future agreement. Yet a deeper more obvious reason exists. Obama, ever since his rise to the Presidency, has sought to reframe the American outlook on Islam. From his famous Cairo speech to recent statements that Islam is part of the American story, to suggesting that the USA is no longer a Christian country, Obama has been determined to cut America from its roots. The attack on any sort of Jewish occupancy in formerly historic Jewish neighborhoods is far less connected to a future Palestinian State and is rather an attempt to deny a Jewish connection to its capital and by extension disconnecting Judeo-Christian culture from its source.
The areas known to Jews as Ir David (City of David), Shiloach, and Kfar Temani (Yemenite Village), are called by a later Arab name Silwan. The world has pretty much adopted the Arab narrative that these areas are a centuries old village known by that name. With recent private purchases in these areas by Jews to reclaim stolen property, the administration goes out of its way to claim these are settlements and of course illegal.
Yet history says otherwise. These neighborhoods were thriving areas of Jewish life up until the Arab riots of 1929 and 1936. In fact the neighborhood of Shiloach was home to a community of Jews from Yemen that boasted 5 synagogues and thriving commerce. After 1936 all was destroyed.
By opposing the reclamation of this property unlawfully stolen from Jews by followers of Obama’s “religion of peace”, the administration is actively supporting the Islamic Apartheid policies we see so much across the Arab and larger Muslim world.
The idea that an American administration would be opposed to a reclamation of an old Yemenite Synagogue that was stolen and populated by squatters is at the least absurd and more accurately described as immoral.
The administration’s policy can only be described as supersessionist in regards to Islam being the dominant kin of Judaism. Yet, this is part and parcel of an administration that has sought to “right the wrongs” of American history through outreach to the Muslim world.
The dangers of erasing and the rewriting of history cannot be overstated, however the most dangerous aspect of all is the reconfiguring of America’s connection to the Judeo-Christian principles that have made it so great.