A Muslim Cries Out To Jesus

Powerful testimony from a former Muslim:

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." - Matthew 5:44

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." - Ephesians 6:12

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30

Sharia Law: Quite Possibly in a City Near You

Visit AnsweringMuslims.com for the latest information on this recent event.

More videos on Sharia Law here.

Fundamental Radical Extremist

We hear these words all the time, but what do they really mean? Often these adjectives precede or follow a religious term in the case of "radical Muslim" or "Christian fundamentalist." In an interview this week of Muslim turned atheist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, TV show host Travis Smiley made the statement that Christians commit murder every day. Citing shootings inside post offices and schools, he says "There are so many more examples of Christians, Ayaan, who do that [murder] than you could ever give me of Muslims who have done that inside this country where you live and work" (full video here).

The claim by Smiley seems to be that Christians are responsible for as much violence as Muslims. They say people commit crimes from all religious backgrounds, so the problem isn't religion, but extremism. On the contrary, religion is the center of the problem. Smiley, like Rosie O'Donnell before him make three major errors in reasoning.

The True Face of Islam

Well, at least one thing can be said: these Muslims are consistent with the teachings of the Qur'an and life example of Muhammad.

Make no mistake about it. This is the true face of Islam.

Who needs free speech anyway?



In case you were unaware, the Qur'an does not contain a parallel verse to Matthew 5:44: "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

Sharia law. Coming to a city near you!

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 7 of 7

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 1 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 2 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 3 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 4 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 5 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 6 of 7

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our earliest Islamic sources depict the life of Muhammad as one filled with warfare, assassinations, and constant violence. While the majority of Muslims today are peaceful, the grounding for this attitude within Islam seems to be without authority. Muhammad was not a peaceful man instilling a peaceful religion. His life depicts the evolution of a man from a tolerant street-preacher to a power-hungry political and military leader willing to engage in atrocious acts for the cause of his religion. When we understand the revelations contained within the Qur’an, the law of abrogation, and the context set within his biography, we are presented with a man whose life example is not to be emulated but rather avoided and condemned by all. Until more Muslims are willing to come forward and denounce this “prophet” it is hard to take seriously the notion that Islam is a religion of peace.

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 6 of 7

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 1 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 2 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 3 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 4 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 5 of 7

VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE, AND MORE VIOLENCE

Muhammad continued to lead successful campaigns and increased in power and financial resources. After the nullification of a peace treaty between Muhammad and the city of Mecca, the Prophet and an army of ten thousand men invaded Mecca in the year 630 A.D. Ibn Ishaq says that “The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Ka’ba.”(1) Among those ordered to be killed was ʽAbdullah b. Saʽd because he had apostatized from the Muslim religion. However, ‘Abdullah was a foster brother of a close companion of Muhammad and was able to receive a hearing from the Prophet in order to request immunity. Muhammad remained silent for a long time until he reluctantly granted ‘Abdullah immunity. Afterwards Muhammad told his followers, “‘I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!’ One of the Ansar said, ‘Then why didn’t you give me a sign, O apostle of God?’ He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing."(2) Among the others ordered to be assassinated by Muhammad were those who had brought insults against him. Two of these were girls who “used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed,” and another was a man “who used to insult him in Mecca.”(3)

As Muhammad continued his raids he was preparing to send one of his commanders on an expedition. He instructed ‘Abdu’l-Rahman b. ‘Auf to “Fight everyone in the way of God and kill those who disbelieve in God. Do not be deceitful with the spoil; do not be treacherous, nor mutilate, nor kill children. This is God’s ordinance and the practice (sira) of his prophet among you.”(4) Muhammad here gave his commander explicit instructions to fight and kill all non-Muslims who disbelieve in Allah. Notice also that Muhammad says this has been ordained and is the common practice that he himself follows. If Muslims then are expected to follow the path of Muhammad it is easy to see where they get there justification for violence and oppression.

Assassinations continued throughout the last years of Muhammad’s life. Abu Sufyan, Muhammad’s uncle, was the leader of the pagan opposition to the Prophet in Mecca. Muhammad ordered that he should be killed and sent two of his followers, one of them being ‘Amr b. Umayya. Upon arriving at Mecca, ‘Amr and his companion were recognized and pursued, leaving them unable to assassinate Abu Sufyan. While hiding in a cave ‘Amr recognized an enemy and “went out and stabbed him under the breast with the dagger.” Continuing back to Medina ‘Amr met a one-eyed shepherd who sang “I won’t be a Muslim as long as I live, Nor heed to their religion give.” ‘Amr recounts that as soon as the man was “asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck.”(5) ‘Amr fled and came across two Meccans sent to spy on the apostle. He shot and killed one and took the other captive. When ‘Amr finally reached Medina with his captive he stated that Muhammad “asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me.”(6)

Immediately after this we are told of a man named Abu ‘Afak. He had shown disaffection toward the killings of Muhammad and wrote a poem against him. Muhammad responded, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?”(7) Salim b. ‘Umayr rose to the challenge and went forth and killed Abu ‘Afak. After this assassination we are told of a woman named ‘Asma’ d. Marwan. She did not like that Abu ‘Afak had been killed so she composed a poem against Muhammad and his followers. When Muhammad found out he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Ibn Ishaq tells us that ‘Umayr “who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, ‘You have helped God and his apostle, O ‘Umayr!’” ‘Umayr then asks if he would have to suffer any consequences for his actions to which Muhammad responds “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her.”(8) So ‘Umayr returned to his people.

CONSISTENT ISLAM IS VIOLENT ISLAM

These examples of Muhammad’s involvement in warfare and killing and his approval of assassinations and torture are but a small example. Does this seem to be the life of a man who has been appointed by God to be the moral example for all mankind? If this is the sunna that modern day Muslims are expected to follow it is no wonder that 28 of the 32 Muslim states worldwide were classified as “Terror States” in 1991.(9) Do Muslims really still believe that this example of Muhammad is applicable to today? It seems that many do. One translation of the Qur’an titled “The Noble Qur’an” is published at the King Fahd complex in Saudi Arabia. Notice how they translate Sura 8:60. It states, “And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know.” The words in parenthesis are obviously not in the original Arabic. They were added by the translators because they believe that the words of the Qur’an are just as applicable today as they were when they were written. The life example of Muhammad is to be followed today just as it was during the first 100 years after the death of Muhammad when Islam proceeded to conquer nation after nation. Historians have commented that if it were not for Charles Martel stopping the Muslim advancement at the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D. there is a good possibility we might all be speaking Arabic right now. It is no wonder that Westerners are often skeptical when Islam is touted as a religion of peace. These “radical” or “extreme” Muslims seem to be the true Muslims who are following true Islam and the life example of Muhammad. It is easy to see where their authority comes from.
___________________________________________________________

(1) Ibn Ishaq, 550.

(2) Ibid., 550.

(3) Ibid., 551.

(4) Ibid., 672.

(5) Ibid., 674.

(6) Ibid., 675.

(7) Ibid., 675.

(8) Ibid., 676.

(9) Lingel, Course Pack.

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 5 of 7

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 1 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 2 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 3 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 4 of 7

ASSASSINATIONS GALORE

Muhammad not only participated in raiding campaigns but ordered a number of assassinations as well. The first in a series was the murder of an old Jewish man named Ibnu’l-Ashraf who had composed insulting poetry about Muslim women. Muhammad said, “Who will rid me of Ibnu’l-Ashraf?” One of his followers answered, “I will deal with him for you, O apostle of god, I will kill him.” Muhammad responded by saying, “Do so if you can.”(1) Muhammad then gave his followers permission to lie and use trickery if need be to get the job done. His followers venture to the house of Ibnu’l-Ashraf in the middle of the night and deceive him in order to coax him out of his house. Ibn Ishaq tells us they cried, “Smite the enemy of God!” and Muhammad’s follower recounts, “I remembered my dagger when I saw that our swords were useless, and I seized it. Meanwhile the enemy of God had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust it into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground.” He concludes by saying, “Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life."(2) Immediately after this Muhammad states, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” Upon hearing this, a follower of Muhammad named Muhayyisa b. Mas’ūd killed a Jewish merchant. Muhayyisa’s older brother Huwayyisa objected to the killing at which point Muhayyisa says, “Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.” Huwayyisa was astonished. We are told, “He exclaimed, ‘By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!’ and he became a Muslim.”(3) Not only does the Prophet of Islam command Jews to be killed but apparently this was seen as evidence of a grand religion.

One of the most horrific and violent acts in the life of Muhammad was performed after the battle of the ditch.(4) According to this account, the Meccans sought to crush Muhammad once and for all by advancing against Medina with an army of 10,000 led by Muhammad’s uncle, Abu Sufyan. Muhammad and his followers were able to withstand a two-week siege through various tactics including digging a trench around the city of Medina, after which the Meccans gave up and withdrew. Proclaiming victory, Muhammad proceeded to attack the last Jewish tribe in Medina, Banu Qurayzah. Ibn Ishaq tells us that after the tribe surrendered, Muhammad confined them in Medina and “went out to the market of Medina…and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches…This went on until the apostle made an end of them."(5) Ibn Ishaq tells us the number of men killed that day by Muhammad was between six hundred and nine hundred. The biography goes on to say that Muhammad “divided the property, wives, and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth."(6) Muhammad even chose one of the captured women for himself. At this time Allah sent down a revelation to Muhammad found in the Qur’an: Sura 33. Sura 33:26 reads, “And those of the people of the Book who aided them—Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.” The fact that Ibn Ishaq makes known that Sura 33 is revealed at this time is very significant because it allows the context of the sura to be established. Here in the holy book of Islam and the biography of Muhammad we have reference to the assassination of hundreds of men by the Prophet along with the explicit approval of Allah. It goes on to say that Allah showed great pleasure toward Muhammad for this and addressed the believers saying, “In God’s apostle you have a fine example for one who hopes for Allah and the last day.”(7)

Another incident described by Ibn Ishaq is the torture and killing of Kināna b. al-Rabīʽ. Kināna had custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadīr and was questioned about it by Muhammad. Kināna denied knowing where the treasure was located. Muhammad responded, “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” The Prophet was told of a certain ruin where Kināna would go every morning and when the ruin was searched part of the treasure was found. Muhammad questioned Kināna as to the location of the rest of the treasure but he refused to cooperate. We are then told that, “the apostle gave orders to al-Zubar b. al-ʽAwwām, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head.”(8)
____________________________________________________

(1) Ibn Ishaq, 367.

(2) Ibid., 368.

(3) Ibid., 369.

(4) Ibid., 450.

(5) Ibid., 464.

(6) Ibid., 466.

(7) Ibid., 467.

(8) Ibid., 515.

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 4 of 7

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 1 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 2 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 3 of 7

THE SUNNA OF MUHAMMAD

Nevertheless, perhaps these violent verses are simply taken out of context. We need only look to Muhammad to find out since the most telling indication of how these verses are to be interpreted comes from examining the sunna of the Prophet himself. If anyone knows the proper context of these verses and how they should be applied it is Muhammad. After all, Muhammad is the receiver of these revelations and the restorer of true monotheism by the commissioning of Allah. He is the final and greatest prophet to mankind and the example which one and a half billion Muslims seek to emulate in their everyday life. He is held by Muslims to be beyond sin and the perfect moral example for humankind. Kamal ud Din ad Damiri states, “Mohammed is the most favored of mankind, the most honored of all apostles, the prophet of mercy…He is the best of prophets, and his nation is the best of nations;…He was perfect in intellect, and was of noble origin. He had an absolutely graceful form, complete generosity, perfect bravery, excessive humility, useful knowledge…perfect fear of God and sublime piety. He was the most eloquent and the most perfect of mankind in every variety of perfection.”(1) In order to find out if this is really the case we need to turn to our primary text on the matter, the Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq. It is important to remember that this biography is not some foreign text written by a disenchanted, anti-Islamic apologist in an attempt to discredit the Prophet. It is a very open, honest, and early look into the life of the prophet Muhammad written by one of his own followers. In reading this account the question must be asked, “Is this the life of a man beyond sin who sets the moral example which we are to emulate?”

THE SIRAT RASUL ALLAH: VIOLENCE PERSONIFIED

The Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq is a biography filled with violence, assassinations, and constant warfare. It is nearly 700 pages in length and yet the majority of the text, nearly 500 pages, focuses exclusively on the last ten years of Muhammad’s life in the city of Medina. It is during this Medinian period that numerous examples of violence and Jihad can be found. Therefore, because this Medinian period is the heart of the biography it should also be the focal point in examining the sunna of Muhammad. This period establishes the context in which the violent verses in the Qur’an were revealed and gives insight into the life of the Prophet himself.

Medina was a city filled with numerous indigenous Arab clans. Conflict in the city arose between the Jewish settlers and Arab immigrants of the tribes of al-Aws and al-Khazraj. Prior to Muhammad’s coming these quarrels had resulted in bloodshed and instability. Muhammad was seen as a wise and just outsider who could arbitrate and establish order.(2) He wrote the constitution of Medina(3) which regulated relations between the Arab clans and Muhammad’s followers. It states, “A believer shall not slay a believer…Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders…The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.”(4) It was during this period that Muhammad began his raiding campaigns that would continue in the following years. Ibn Ishaq tells us, “Then the apostle prepared for war in pursuance of God’s command to fight his enemies and to fight those polytheists who were near at hand whom God commanded him to fight.”(5) In approximately 623 A.D., Muhammad and his men began their raids of Meccan caravans with divine approval. However, the Prophet and his followers were unsuccessful in their first three raids. It was not until early 624 A.D. when they had their first success in raiding a caravan near Mecca, killing one man and taking two prisoners. The success of this raid was due in large part to the fact that it took place during the holy month of Ramadan and was not expected. Bloodshed during this month was to be avoided and Muhammad immediately began to receive criticism. Fortunately for Muhammad, he received a revelation from Allah justifying his raid. Sura 2:217 reads, “They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque and drive out its members.’ Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.” Muhammad continued receiving these convenient revelations, suitable to the needs of the moment, which allowed him to establish political, legal, and military power and authority.
_________________________________________________

(1) As quoted in Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), 174.

(2) Trifkovic, 35.

(3) Ibn Ishaq, 231.

(4) Ibid., 232.

(5) Ibid., 280.

Sharia Law Comes to Michigan

(www.answeringmuslims.com) David Wood

Watch this Video!



A Detailed Explanation of the Video

On June 21st, I moderated a peaceful public debate between Mary Jo Sharp and Ehteshaam Gulam. After the debate, Nabeel, Mary Jo, and I went to the Dearborn Arab Festival, which had already become an open celebration of persecution against Christians. The festival organizers had declared that Christians could not distribute materials on the public sidewalks or street, and, when the matter was brought before the courts, the judge agreed that Christians could not freely distribute information during the festival. (Note: This decision has been defended in the media by claiming that the “no-distributing-materials” rule applied to everyone, and therefore wasn’t unfair to Christians. However, anyone who was at the festival knows that this is not true. People were walking up and down the sidewalks distributing pamphlets and brochures, right in front of security. The rule was only enforced against Christians, and therefore only the rights of Christians were violated.)

Muslim security guards (one of whom had “Hezbollah” tattooed down his forearm) took things a step further and wouldn’t even allow Christians to talk about their beliefs openly. Security guards also repeatedly entrapped Christians in an attempt to get us to violate the court order.

This even happened to me, despite the fact that I wasn’t talking to anyone about Christianity or Islam. I had a pamphlet in my front pocket, and one of the Muslim security guards walked up to me and said, “That looks like a really interesting pamphlet. Could I have it?” She even had her walkie-talkie in hand! Fortunately, I had already heard about this woman and other Muslim security guards doing this repeatedly at the festival, so I didn’t fall for it. That’s when Nabeel and Mary Jo entered the tent in an attempt to question a group of Muslims about a horribly inaccurate pamphlet they were distributing. What happened next may be outlined as follows:

• We see a booth that is specifically for answering questions people have about Islam.
  
• Nabeel walks up to the booth and attempts to ask a question.
  
• When the Muslims don’t want to talk on camera, Nabeel begins walking away.
  
• One of the Muslims (a former member of Tupac’s crew!) then invites Nabeel back for a dialogue.
  
• Security grabs our camera and forces MJ to turn it off. Security then breaks up the discussion, despite the fact that the Muslims at the booth agreed that we could record the conversation.
  
• We leave the tent and ask a police officer if we are free to record; he responds that we are in a public area and can record all we want. He also says that it is illegal for anyone to touch our cameras or force us to turn them off.
• We walk up to some non-Muslim security guards and ask if we can record a dialogue; they reply in the affirmative.
  
• Nabeel attempts to reestablish the discussion, but this time the Muslims at the booth don’t want to talk on camera.
  
• We leave the booth, and I see the woman who had grabbed the camera and forced MJ to turn it off. I begin recording the woman (in case we need to identify her later), at which point she gets on her walkie-talkie and informs her fellow Muslim security guards that we are harassing her.
  
• Following their pattern of entrapping Christians at the festival, the Muslim security guards convince two teenagers to strike up a conversation with Nabeel and snatch a pamphlet from his hand.
• While one of the teens distracts Nabeel with a conversation, the other snatches the pamphlet from Nabeel's hands.
  
• Within seconds we’re surrounded by a mob of Muslim security guards.
  
• The Muslim security force slaps our cameras, threatens us, shouts profanity at us, openly proclaims that our rights as Americans are meaningless, pushes us, kicks and tries to trip Nabeel, and lies to the police.
  
• The head of security then informs the police that we must be removed from the festival.
  

Fortunately, we got most of this on tape! See the video at the top.

Now think about this. We insisted on our Constitutional rights to (i) ask a question at a booth, and (ii) record in a public place. This was enough to get us banned from a public sidewalk in Dearborn, Michigan (the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the U.S.). By comparison, the Muslim security guards openly harassed, intimidated, bullied, threatened, entrapped, and assaulted Christians; they openly proclaimed that they don’t care about our rights as American citizens; they used profanity as they insulted us; they lied to police. This behavior was perfectly welcome in Dearborn, even at a family festival! (There were other examples of open hatred as well.)

I have contacted the Arab Chamber of Commerce (the organization responsible for planning the festival, selecting the security team, and deciding that Christians are no longer free to distribute information in public places). I have asked for an apology and for their thoughts on how such horrendous treatment of Christians will be avoided in the future. They have not responded.

Going back to the time of Muhammad, whenever the population of Muslims becomes significant, followers of other religions are suppressed, and the proclamation of non-Muslim beliefs is forbidden. This second-class status for non-Muslims is prescribed by Sharia, and the victims are called "dhimmis." Welcome to Sharia in the United States, my friends.

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 3 of 7

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 1 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 2 of 7

LIBERAL MUSLIMS AND THE LAW OF ABROGATION

Despite these seemingly obvious verses within the Qur’an which encourage warfare and fighting in the name of Allah, many modern day Muslims object. Critics of radical Islam often say these verses are taken out of context and misapplied by the vehement pseudo Muslims of today. Liberal and moderate Muslims speak of Islam as a religion of peace which in no way condones violence for the sake of Allah. What critics often forget, and what many Muslims are unfamiliar with, is the Islamic doctrine known as the law of abrogation. Muslim authorities state that “certain passages of the Qur’an are annulled (Mansukh) by verses revealed chronologically later, known as Nasikh verses.”(1) In other words, the revelations Muhammad received later in his life take precedence and may cancel out verses revealed earlier. The Qur’an teaches this principle in a number of passages. Sura 2:106 states, “None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?” Sura 16:101 reads, “We substitute one revelation for another—and Allah knows best.” These verses indicate a type of progressive revelation with which Allah is able to conveniently substitute and change previous revelations for newer ones. The law of abrogation is an inexact science and the number of abrogated verses within the Qur’an has been estimated to be anywhere from five to 500.(2) It seems odd that revelation from God would need to be changed and updated within a 22 year time span and yet this is exactly what we would expect if Muhammad and his followers were simply making things up as they went along.

The law of abrogation is not only found within the Qur’an but is spoken of by Ibn Ishaq in his biography of Muhammad, the Sirat Rasul Allah. As mentioned earlier, Allah revealed Sura 8 to Muhammad after his victory at the battle of Badr. Ibn Ishaq provides some commentary on the circumstances surrounding this particular revelation. We are told in the biography that Allah speaks to Muhammad saying, “O prophet, God is sufficient for thee and the believers who follow thee. O prophet, exhort the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast ones among you they will overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they will overcome a thousand unbelievers for they are a senseless people.”(3) This revelation contained within the biography corresponds with Sura 8:65. Muhammad here is told to encourage the Muslims to fight because they will be able to overcome great odds. Twenty Muslims will be able to defeat two-hundred unbelievers in battle and one-hundred Muslims will be able to defeat one-thousand. Ibn Ishaq then provides us with some interesting information regarding the response of the followers of Muhammad. We are told that “when this verse came down it came as a shock to the Muslims who took it hard that twenty should have to fight two hundred, and a hundred fight a thousand.”(4) It appears the Muslims did not really like these odds and became discouraged that they should be commanded to fight in light of such overwhelming numbers. How does Muhammad respond to this? What we do not find the prophet saying is, “Be of good cheer, Allah is all-powerful, most wise!” Instead, Ibn Ishaq tells us the following: “So God relieved them and cancelled the verse with another saying: ‘Now has God relieved you and He knows that there is weakness amongst you, so if there are a hundred steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you they shall overcome two thousand by God’s permission, for God is with the steadfast.”(5) In the Qur’an this verse is found in Sura 8:66, immediately after the first verse revealed. In this account we see that Muhammad speaks a verse which is not accepted well by the people and so Allah immediately calls upon the law of abrogation because apparently the people knew better than Allah. The first verse revealed is immediately canceled out by the second and yet both verses still appear in the Qur’an, one right after the other. Both the Qur’an and the biography of Muhammad testify to the fact that the law of abrogation was part of Islamic theology from the very outset.

Why is all of this important? The law of abrogation is highly significant in understanding the role of violence in the life of Muhammad and the religion of Islam because verses in the Qur’an encouraging warfare were revealed later in the prophetic career of Muhammad, abrogating the earlier verses encouraging tolerance and peace. Verses such as Sura 2:256 which reads, “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error,” was revealed in the early part of Muhammad’s preaching while in Mecca. Remember that Islam is a tale of two cities: Mecca and Medina. During the first twelve years of Muhammad’s prophetic career the revelations he received tended to advocate an attitude of acceptance and peace. It was not until the later Medinian period of his life that Muhammad’s preaching of violence and Jihad came to full fruition in verses such as Sura 9:5. What does all this mean? It means that when we take Islam seriously and apply the law of abrogation consistently, as early orthodox Muslims did, we find absolutely no grounding to say that Islam is a religion of peace. It is more appropriate to say that Muhammad advocated a religion of peace established through war. Once everyone converts to Islam, agrees to pay the Jizya tax, or is killed by the sword, then peace will reign. The Dictionary of Islam states, “When an infidel’s country is conquered by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives: 1) the reception of Islam, in which case the conquered became enfranchised citizens of the Muslim state, 2) the payment of the Jizya tax, by which unbelievers obtained “protection” and became Dhimmis,(6) provided they were not idolaters, and 3) death by the sword to those who would not pay the Jizya tax.”(7) In light of the law of abrogation it is simply intellectually dishonest to say that Islam in its truest form was anything other than violent and oppressive.
____________________________________________________________

(1) Lingel, Course Pack.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Ibn Ishaq, 326.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Ibid.

(6) Dhimmis are members of a protected community, especially referring to Jews and Christians who live under Muslim rule. The right to practice their own religion was guaranteed by their payment of a special poll tax, the jizya (Rippin, Andrew, Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, 3rd ed., 313).

(7) As quoted in the Christian Apologetics to Islam Course Pack, Lingel.

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 2 of 7

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 1 of 7

THE EVOLUTION OF A PROPHET: FROM MECCA TO MEDINA

According to Islamic scholars, 86 of the suras revealed to Muhammad were given to him in Mecca while 28 were given to him in Medina (though it seems portions of some suras were recited in both places).(1) What is interesting is that the content and timing of these Meccan and Medinian suras seem to correspond exactly with the content and timing of Muhammad’s prophetic career. In other words, as Muhammad’s status evolves from that of an unknown preacher in Mecca to a strong political, religious, and military figure in the Arabian Peninsula, the content of his message changes as well from one of tolerance and acceptance to violence and oppression. For example, when Muhammad first began to preach his religion of Islam in the city of Mecca he was not well accepted. The Meccans of the time were heavily involved in polytheism and did not receive the version of monotheism proclaimed by Muhammad. It is during this time that Muhammad received revelations such as Sura 2:256 which reads, “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error.” This aya(2) seems to show Muhammad refraining from forcing his religion on anyone but content in simply declaring it to be true. It makes sense that Muhammad would take a more charitable attitude during this time given the fact that he was heavily outnumbered and suffering persecution in Mecca. Looking at a verse such as this gives the impression that the Qur’an encourages tolerance and that Muslims are to be at peace with neighboring faiths. However, in 622 A.D. Muhammad and a group of approximately 150 followers fled to Medina. This emigration, known as the Hijra, was the monumental turning point in the prophetic career of Muhammad, and for Islam itself.

It is significant that just prior to leaving for Medina, Ibn Ishaq tells us that Muhammad received his first revelation allowing him to fight the Meccans.(3) Sura 22:39-41 reads, “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged…(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right—(for no cause) except that they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’” These revelations seem very convenient as Muhammad enters Medina and establishes his power base. Once Muhammad gained political and military power in Medina the revelations he received became increasingly intolerant and violent. After the Battle of Badr, a very important military victory for Muhammad in which 300 of his men defeated approximately 1000 Quraysh, Ibn Ishaq tells us that Allah revealed Sura 8 to Muhammad.(4) Sura 8:12, 39 reads, “I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them…And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.” It is during this time in Medina that Muhammad received many of his revelations concerning Jihad, or Holy War.

THE SWORD VERSES

These verses dealing with Jihad are sometimes referred to as the “sword verses.” There are approximately 164 clear and direct sword verses within the Qur’an which deal specifically with military expedition, fighting, or distributing war spoils.(5) This figure does not include numerous other verses in which Muhammad speaks of further aspects of Jihad such as his poor opinion of those who do not go on Jihad and the heavenly rewards which Jihadists can expect when they die and enter paradise. One such well known verse commanding Jihad is Sura 9:5 which says, “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” Sura 47:4 reads, “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them).” That Muhammad understood these verses to be applicable to Muslim life is found in the fact that he personally was involved in 29 battles and planned 39 others.(6) This means that during the last ten years of Muhammad’s life he was either directly involved in, or commissioned others to participate in, 68 battles (almost seven battles a year). This warfare mentality was carried on by Muhammad’s successors and confirms the idea that to be a Muslim during the first 100 years of Islam was to be a soldier fighting for the cause of Allah.
_________________________________________________

(1) Lingel, Course Pack.

(2) Aya means "miracle" in Arabic and refers to the individual verses in suras.

(3) Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Trans. A. Guillaume (London: Oxford, 1955), 213.

(4) Ibn Ishaq, 321.

(5) See www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html.

(6) Lingel, Course Pack.

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 1 of 7

INTRODUCTION

One and a half billion Muslims in the world today look to the prophet Muhammad as a life example and truest practitioner of Islam. Islam is currently the second largest religion in the world making Muhammad one of the most significant and influential figures in history. Indeed, the inception, growth, and current state of the Muslim religion cannot be understood without looking into his life and teachings. A prophet springing from the Arabian Peninsula, Muhammad was a man characterized by violence and a quest for political and military power as evidenced in the earliest written Islamic sources. The sunna(1) and teachings of Muhammad found in two of these earliest sources, the Qur’an and the Sirat Rasul Allah(2) by Ibn Ishaq, present a disturbing picture of a man whom many revere as God’s final prophet to mankind. This paper will look at the teachings of the Qur’an, the Islamic theological doctrine of the law of abrogation, and the life example of Muhammad himself.

THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY

There is a problem that modern day scholars are facing in attempting to study the life and teachings of Muhammad. They find themselves forced to depend entirely on Muslim sources and tradition for most, if not all, of their information. There are simply no sources outside of Islam with which to corroborate the early Islamic history which Muslims assume to be true. But the problem gets worse. The Islamic sources we do have are written anywhere from 150 to 300 years after the events which they describe.(3) In other words, we have no primary sources to go to in researching the life and teachings of Muhammad but only secondary sources which rely on other material no longer in existence. Therefore in looking at the Qur’an and the Sirat Rasul Allah it is not to be assumed that these sources are factually accurate and dogmatically correct in all respects. But this is not the issue or even what is most important in this particular discussion. What is important is the fact that these sources have shaped the minds and lives of billions of Muslims who have looked to them as guides and examples to be followed. Ultimately this is what matters more than the authenticity of the sources.(4) We look to their sources to find out about their prophet to see if he really was a man who can be called the final and greatest spokesman of God. It is appropriate than to begin with the Qur’an.

WHAT IS THE QUR'AN?

The Qur’an is acclaimed by Muslims to be the most important and authoritative revelation from Allah. It is God’s final revelation to mankind and held to be an exact word-for-word copy of eternal tablets existing in heaven. The word Qur’an, which means “to recite,” places Allah as the central figure of the book and consistently emphasizes His uniqueness and oneness. According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad was called to be a prophet of Allah at the age of forty in the year 610 A.D. During his twenty-two-year prophetic career he received numerous revelations from Allah via the angel Gabriel which were eventually compiled into the 114 suras (chapters) of the Qur’an. Muhammad spent the first twelve years of his prophetic life, from 610 to 622 A.D., in the city of Mecca and the last ten years, from 622 to 632 A.D., in the city of Medina. This is highly relevant to our discussion because the life of Muhammad, and therefore the religion of Islam, is really a tale of two cities: Mecca and Medina. Mecca was a time of peace in the life of Muhammad while his time in Medina was largely filled with war and violence. The contrast between these two periods in Muhammad’s life can be seen in the revelations he received and the example he set.
__________________________________________________

(1) The life example of Muhammad which is then emulated by Muslims.

(2) The earliest biography of Muhammad as found in written form.

(3) Lingel (comp), Christian Apologetics to Islam Course Pack (La Mirada, 2008).

(4) Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 2002), 12.

Obama and the Holy Qur'an

(Onenewsnow.com) Jim Brown

A Christian writer says President Obama's recent speech in Cairo praising Islam is further evidence the American president has a "low view" of biblical Christianity.

Robert Knight, a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries, has written a column titled "Obama Nation's Low View of Christianity." Knight says he wrote the column as a service to everyone who wants thorough documentation -- not just bits and pieces -- of President Obama's statements distorting Christianity.

Knight argues that the most disturbing thing President Obama said in his Cairo speech was that the Middle East was the first place where Islam was "revealed."

"That word 'revealed' is very important," Knight explains. "It means an unveiling, and it means a divinely-inspired unveiling -- which would indicate that the president is saying the Koran is a holy book. In fact, he referred to the Koran several times as the 'Holy Koran.'"

Such a perspective from their elected chief executive, says Knight, should concern Bible-believing Christians.

"If you're a Christian, you don't regard the Koran as a holy book of any sort," he states. "You regard it as springing out of the Old Testament, because it incorporates a lot of the Torah, as does the Christian Bible -- but then it goes off into a false religion."

Knight says to call the Koran a holy book goes beyond diplomacy, yet Obama understood the significance of what he was saying because "of all people, he knows the power of words." However, Knight points out that most of the press in the United States missed or ignored the remark.

Obama, Tiller, Islam, and Little Rock

(Onenewsnow.com) Fred Jackson

WASHINGTON - The Justice department announced late Friday afternoon that it is launching an investigation to see who else may have been involved in the murder of abortionist George Tiller.

Tiller was gunned down at his church in Witchita Kansas last Sunday. Authorities quickly tracked down and arrested a man believed to be the shooter. 51-year old Scott Roeder of Merriam, Kansas is now facing a first degree murder charge.

Pro-life groups who have long protested the thousands of abortions that Tiller has performed over the years, including late term abortions, were quick to condemn the Tiller murder.

But in its press release on Friday, the Justice Department made it clear that it believes others may have been involved in Tiller's death.

Here is how the press release reads : "The Department of Justice will work tirelessly to determine the full involvement of any and all actors in this horrible crime, and to ensure that anyone who played a role in the offense is prosecuted to the full extent of federal law," said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "We will conduct a thorough investigation that will complement and build upon the fine work of the Sedgwick County District Attorney and other state and local law enforcement agencies."

The Justice department's announcement also states " The federal probe will consist of a thorough review of the evidence and an assessment of any potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) or other federal statutes. The FACE Act was enacted by Congress in 1994 to establish federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for violent, obstructionist or damaging conduct affecting reproductive health care providers and recipients."

In the wake of the Tiller murder, the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to "offer protection to appropriate people and facilities around the country." The directive was given in the apparent belief that other violent incidents might take place.

Some conservatives have questioned the extent of the reaction to the Tiller killing by the Justice department. They have pointed to an incident in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Monday of this week when a Muslim convert opened fire at a military recruiting center, killing one young man and wounding another. The conservatives have noted that there was no indication from the Obama administration that it feared there might be similar incidents at other military recruiting facilities or any attempt to link the Muslim man's actions to a possible larger Muslim campaign against U.S. military personnel or facilities.

And while President Barack Obama issued a statement saying he was "shocked and outraged" by the Tiller murder, he has made no public statements about the death of the young recruit in Little Rock.

Personal Reflection: First, the murder of George Tiller was wrong, no doubt. It is impossible to reconcile murder with a "pro-life" position. Even if you believe that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, and even if you believe that capital punishment is justified in certain circumstances (as I do), to carry out capital punishment is not the role of the individual but rather the role of the state. Pro-life organizations have rightly condemned the shooting of George Tiller.

Second, I am amazed to see how inconsistent pro-abortion choice advocates are in their thinking. This was no better demonstrated then by the President himself. He is "shocked and outraged" by the murder of an abortionist such as George Tiller who was known for his willingness to perform late-term and partial-birth abortions, yet at the same time, he is not "shocked and outraged" by the thousands of abortions that take place in this country everyday (each of which takes an innocent human life) but rather endorses abortion wholeheartedly. Rather then be shocked and outraged, why not just say that Scott Roeder was exercising his right to choose when he shot George Tiller? But that would be wrong of course. You cannot justify the taking of another individual's life simply by labeling the decision to take it "pro-choice." Yet this is exactly what pro-abortion choice advocates such as the President do when it comes to taking the life of the unborn.

The Dangerous Rise Of Islam

Islam is growing worldwide at an alarming rate. Here are some important things to keep in mind:

(1) Statistically speaking, in terms of children, religious families by and large outproduce secular families.

(2) As America and other European countries become more secular, the fewer children we should expect to see in the next generation.

(3) These anti-religious, anti-child cultures create a religious vacuum, as well as a population vacuum, making it easy for Muslims to immigrate and fill in both the religious and population gaps.

(4) Were it not for immigration, America itself would be a dying nation (this should be no surprise considering we kill one-third of the next generation through abortion).



It is always disheartening to see non-Christians display a greater commitment to their false religion then Christians do with true Biblical Christianity. The tremendous growth of Islam is an excellent example. The Church in America needs to wake up.

Do Roman Catholics and Muslims Worship and Believe In the Same God?

Section 841 of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

In dialoguing with my Roman Catholic friends I have often asked them what they make of this section. Do Roman Catholics really believe that Muslims worship and believe in the same God? One of my friends responded by saying that the word "same" is not used in the section above, though I think the context clearly indicates this. Nevertheless, I felt this topic was something I needed to look at closer.

A short while after I happened to stumble across this post by TurretinFan of Alpha and Omega Ministries. It contains several quotes directly relating to this matter from the two most recent popes, John Paul II (JP2) and Benedict XVI (Ben16). These quotes show that both popes have clearly indicated that Muslims do in fact worship and believe in the same God:

"As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham."

JP2 1985 (source")
"I thank you for your visit, all representatives, leaders, of the Muslim community here in Uganda. Archbishop Wamala said that you are cooperating and that in doing so, you are also accomplishing the will of God, our Creator, our Father. God has created all of us, men and women, the whole human race, to cooperate–to cooperate in order to improve the world. He, our God, committed us, the world, to being inhabited, to being used, not abused, not abused, used, and to serving the human being, human existence. It is necessary to cooperate all together, for the riches of the world are sometimes in danger and the human community is many times is in danger. It requires the cooperation of all of us who believe in the same God, the one God of Abraham, the Father who gave us his son Jesus Christ. Thank you very much for your visit."

JP2 1993 (source")

"We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection” (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497)."

JP2 1999 (source")
"This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them. Its followers worship the same God and willingly refer to the Patriarch Abraham."

Ben16 2005 (source")

Personal Reflection: It should be clear to anyone who has compared the teachings of Islam with the teachings of orthodox Christianity that the two do not worship or believe in the same God. How could they? Islam and Christianity hold to contradictory, mutually exclusive beliefs about God. One example should suffice: the Trinity. One of the great doctrines Muslims hold to is that of tawhid, or God's oneness (Sura 112). To ascribe partners to God, as Muslims claim Christians do with the concept of the Trinity, is to commit shirk, the greatest sin imaginable for the Muslim. On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine! Never mind any similarities there may be between Allah and the Christian God, it is the differences that matter.

Either God exists as a Trinity or He does not. If He does, the Trinitarians are right and the non-Trinitarians are wrong. If He does not, the non-Trinitarians are right and the Trinitarians are wrong. But under no circumstances can they both be right. To say that Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians worship or believe in the same God is to violate the fundamental laws of logic. And it is not enough to say that Muslims merely claim to worship the God of Abraham or "profess to hold the faith of Abraham." The above mentioned quotes show both popes were willing to go much further in saying that Muslims do not merely profess but do in fact worship and believe in the same God. But other groups, such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, would also claim to worship and believe in the God of Abraham. Are we now obligated to adopt religious pluralism? Though these groups may claim to worship and believe in the one true God, it should be obvious that not everyone can be right since their views of God are radically different. To reconcile these inherently contradictory views would be an impossible feat, yet this is seemingly what the Catechism, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI attempt to do in claiming Muslims worship and believe in the same God as Roman Catholics.

As I have pointed out to my Roman Catholic friends, I believe this obviously false teaching greatly undermines the authority of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). The teachings contained within the Catechism are supposed to be without doctrinal error. The teaching of the "infallibility of the church" places a tremendous burden of proof on Roman Catholics. If one teaching or doctrine of Roman Catholicism can be shown to be false, the entire system of infallibility collapses. In other words, if the Catechism is wrong in one area, where else is it mistaken? This is why one of the great "solas" of the Protestant Reformation was sola scriptura. The Bible alone is God-breathed (theopneustos, 2 Tim. 3:16) and is therefore the only adequate and infallible rule of faith for the church. (As a side note, Protestants do face a similar problem when they reject biblical inerrancy, i.e. if the Bible is wrong in one area, where else is it mistaken?)

To be sure, I do not believe Roman Catholics worship a false god. Historically, orthodox Roman Catholics and Protestants have held to the same beliefs concerning the nature and character of God. At the same time, I am quite certain that Muslims do not worship the God of the Bible. That is why a teaching such as this, contained within the Roman Catholic Catechism and taught by the two most recent popes, leaves me absolutely bewildered and disturbed as to why anyone, pope or no pope, would ever try to equate Allah with the God of the Christian faith.

The Elephant in the Room: Intimidating Critics of Islam

Politicians and citizens who raise questions about the religion are targeted.

(The Philadelphia Inquirer) Rick Santorum

We lost more than a million jobs in the past few months, the headlines remind us. So last month's story about a Dutch court's ruling that Geert Wilders was "inciting hatred and discrimination" - and that "it is in the public interest to prosecute" him - understandably didn't make the American news.

Did Wilders rip off a minority in a Madoff-style Ponzi scheme? No, he's a member of the Dutch parliament, and his precise villainy was releasing a 15-minute film. Entitled Fitna, it suggests a direct link between certain verses of the Koran and acts of terrorism.

Not to be outdone, the United Kingdom this week banned Wilders from entering the country. Its reasoning: His "presence in the U.K. would pose a genuine, present, and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society." A letter from the home secretary went on to tell Wilders that "your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security."

In 2007, Cambridge University Press destroyed unsold copies of Alms for Jihad after it was sued by Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi-Irish businessman whom the book accused of financing al-Qaeda. So much for academics standing up against book-burning.

In 2005, reporters from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten were forced into hiding after publishing a series of 12 cartoons about Muhammad. Islamic fundamentalists found the images blasphemous and threatened to bomb the paper's offices and kill its cartoonists - apparently, in certain quarters, an alternative to a letter to the editor.

Last year, at the urging of the Canadian Islamic Congress, author Mark Steyn was forced to defend himself against charges of racism and "Islamophobia" that were filed with three Canadian human-rights commissions, based on his columns in Maclean's magazine.

And, following a 2008 U.N. resolution urging nations to outlaw "defamation of religion," several nations - including Italy, the Netherlands and France - are attempting to ban "hate speech" against religious groups.

All of these incidents are calculated to intimidate critics of Islam in Europe and across the West. The message in the European Union is clear: Politicians, religious figures, and even private citizens with religiously and politically incorrect opinions will be subject not only to Muslim protest, but to criminal prosecution and violent retribution.

What publisher will print Steyn's next book if it can be labeled a hate crime and banned in most countries? "Pretty soon, your little book is looking a lot less commercially viable," Steyn has said. "At the end of the day, there'll be a lot of . . . American books that will go unpublished here in America."

In addition, these incidents deflect attention away from real - rather than trumped-up - religious discrimination. In the arena of actual persecution of religious minorities, Arab and Islamic nations are much of the problem.

Look at the U.S. State Department's 2008 Report on International Religious Freedom. Among the dozens of limitations on religious freedom in the Arab-Islamic world are the crimes of apostasy - converting from Islam to another religion - and blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad, both punishable by death under Muslim Sharia law. Coptic Christians are, at best, second-class citizens in Egypt; Baha'is are savagely persecuted in Iran; and churches and synagogues are banned in Saudi Arabia, as is any non-Muslim religious activity in public.

This is not a front- or even back-page story in the American press today. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the economy.

The gathering storm I have been warning of for years has now formed over the West. Yet instead of fighting the gradual incursion of Sharia and the demands of an intolerant, even militant Islam, Westerners are cowering and fatalistic. Last year, the Archbishop of Canterbury conceded that acceptance of some parts of Sharia in Britain seemed "unavoidable."

So how did the market do today?

Jihadists in Anaheim

A friend of mine from church went to an anti-Israeli protest this past weekend. She sent me this picture and an e-mail of which the following is an excerpt:

"We went out to one of the anti-Israeli protests yesterday right there in Anaheim. It was fairly big, and very, very hostile. Tons of anti-Israeli stuff around, chanting about the infitada, etc. Signs with the Star of David on it and a swastika written over it. Anti-Jew, anti-American signs, death to Israel, death to America. Just ugly stuff.

George (the director of ACP) and I got out and walked around, and the anger and hate was so intense it was out of control. At one point when George was speaking about Christ being the only way to peace and that the land in Sudan, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon etc., had all been taken over by the sword and Muhammad, and that Islam was the problem, he and I were surrounded by a pack of Muslims full circle. They shouted over George, even threatened us. George had to call the police from his cell phone. But they, of course, never showed up.

Anyway, I wanted to share a picture of two girls who might have been in their late teens, early 20's, who were at the protest standing on the corner, dressed in full Hamas terrorist garb head to tow, holding a sign reading 'Jihad on Zionists.' They are calling for the out right killing of the Jews, right here in the good old USA. Who would have ever thought, that you could present yourself as a Hamas terrorist and hold a sign promoting murder?

The time has come when American citizens ARE in fact turning there backs on Israel and God. When we were leaving, George tried to talk to a young Arab couple with a baby. He told them that he was a Chirstian from Sudan, and that tons of Christians in Sudan were being murdered. What about them? The woman turned around to George and said to him, 'I hope you are one of them.' My friends, the time is short."

Pray for Israel. Pray for the Jews.

*Photo used with permission by Anna Wong