President Apostate?

An Op-Ed piece in The New York Times, President Apostate?, states what those of us who have studied Islam have known all along: according to Islamic law, Barak Obama is a Muslim.

May 12, 2008

Op-Ed Contributor

President Apostate?

By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Chevy Chase, Md.

BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership — a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. The resulting emotional intensity adds greatly to the more conventional strengths of the well-organized Obama campaign, and it has certainly sufficed to overcome the formidable initial advantages of Senator Hillary Clinton.

One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.

This idea often goes hand in hand with the altogether more plausible argument that Mr. Obama’s election would raise America’s esteem in Africa — indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in his father’s native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent.

But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

Read the rest of it here.

The point is not that Barak Obama is a Muslim. By our standards, taking the man at his word, he is not. However, to the Muslim world he is a criminal of the worst kind, an apostate. Do you really think he will be able to just sit down and talk our Muslim enemies into making peace?

And think of the unprecedented problem for the Secret Service if President Obama visited any place with a significant Muslim population (including Detroit!).

You won't believe this!

Is it any wonder that Christianity is rapidly declining in England and Europe, with "leaders" like this?

Archbishop says nativity 'a legend'

By Sophie Borland
Last Updated: 1:25pm GMT 20/12/2007

The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men was nothing but a 'legend'.

Dr Rowan Williams has claimed there was little evidence that the Magi even existed and there was certainly nothing to prove there were three of them or that they were kings.

He said the only reference to the wise men from the East was in Matthew's gospel and the details were very vague.

Dr Williams said: "Matthew's gospel says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that's all we're really told. It works quite well as legend."

The Archbishop went on to dispel other details of the Christmas story, adding that there were probably no asses or oxen in the stable.

He argued that Christmas cards which showed the Virgin Mary cradling the baby Jesus, flanked by shepherds and wise men, were misleading. As for the scenes that depicted snow falling in Bethlehem, the Archbishop said the chance of this was "very unlikely".

In a final blow to the traditional nativity story, Dr Williams concluded that Jesus was probably not born in December at all. He said: "Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival."

His comments came during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live with Simon Mayo yesterday. Later on in the show, the Archbishop was challenged by fellow guest Ricky Gervais, the comedian, about the credibility of the Christmas story.

Gervais told Dr Williams he was concerned about "brainwashing" of children who are sent to faith schools at an early age, comparing teaching that God exists to belief in Father Christmas.

Dr Williams said faith schools expose children to the full range of human experience and values and he did not believe they indoctrinated people.

From the Telegraph of London.

Too Horrible for Words!

Update:

The Washington Post, in this AP story, reports:

Saudi King Pardons Rape Victim

By ABDULLAH SHIHRI
The Associated Press
Monday, December 17, 2007; 11:27 AM

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- A gang-rape victim who was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her was pardoned by the Saudi king after the case sparked rare criticism from the United States, the kingdom's top ally.

Outrage over the sentence prompted unusually strong comments from President Bush, who said that if the same thing had happened to one of his daughters, he would be "angry" at a government that didn't protect the victim. The White House called the sentence "outrageous."

In past weeks, Saudi officials have bristled at the criticism of what they consider an internal affair _ but also appeared wary of hurting their image in the United States.

Bush's National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the White House thinks the Saudi king "he made the right decision" by pardoning the woman.

With the pardon, King Abdullah appeared to be aiming at relieving the pressure from the United States without being seen to criticize Saudi Arabia's conservative legal system, a stronghold of powerful clerics adhering to the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.

Justice Minister Abdullah bin Mohammed al-Sheik said the pardon reported by Saudi media Monday does not mean the king doubted the country's judges, but that he was acting in the "interests of the people."

- - - -

Emphasis added.

------------------------------------

Original post:

Breitbart.com has published this article:

Saudi punishes gang rape victim with 200 lashes
Nov 15 10:51 AM US/Eastern

A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a newspaper reported on Thursday.
....

Read the rest of the article here.

This is Islamic Sharia law.

Notice the use of the term "ultra-conservative" in the article. This is part of a campaign to equate conservative Christians and conservative Muslims.

What the two groups share is that each believes in the fundamental truths of their religion. However, the behavior and actions that result could not be more different.

The Devil Is In the Details

Mea culpa.

Special Report: The Devil Is In the Details
Time for a Reality Check
In Defense of the Faith
Friday, December 07, 2007
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

The new NIE consensus opinion that Iran abandoned its active quest to build nuclear weapons four years ago, whether accurate or not, brings back to the forefront of discussion the two main principles of accurately understanding Bible prophecy.

The first is the scholar’s adage warning of the dangers in interpreting Bible prophecy by the light of current events, instead of the other way around.

We’ll discuss that in greater detail in a moment.

The second is summarized by the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans; “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Romans 3:4)

Bible prophecy tells us what to expect, but not exactly what to look for. That is an important distinction. God accomplishes His will according to His plan, not ours.

For example, for centuries, students of Bible prophecy knew to expect the existence of a physical nation called “Israel” but they didn’t know what to look for until it happened.

God tells us the “end from the beginning, and from the ancient times the things that are not yet done,” (Isaiah 46:10) but He doesn’t always reveal the exact mechanism by which He intends to accomplish it.

For a better example, let’s use Hal Lindsey’s 1969 book, “The Late, Great Planet Earth.” If these ARE the last days, as Hal argued in 1969, then from the Bible Hal knew he could expect three specific geopolitical events -- events that no secular analyst could possibly have predicted at the time.

First, there must be the development of a single, European super state that would eventually attain superpower status.

In 1969, the idea of Europe unification was decades away, if ever. But since Bible prophecy demanded the existence of a revived Roman Empire, if these were the last days, a European super state would have to come into existence.

But the Bible didn’t give details of how that would come about – only that it would, so in 1969, that was all Hal had to work with.

Second, the Bible makes no mention of a vast, Soviet superpower overshadowing Europe, but rather, the other way around. If these were indeed the last days, Hal argued, then the Soviet Union must decrease so that revived Rome could increase.

Third, since there is no reference to the existence of a Western superpower resembling the United States overshadowing revived Rome, somehow, America must decrease so that revived Rome could increase.

Hal couldn't know the exact details of how it would all happen -- only that they must happen-- if these are indeed the last days.

In 1969, at the height of the Cold War, the most likely scenario to accomplish these three events was a war between the United States and Russia that would leave Europe intact to pick up the pieces.

That scenario was perfectly consistent with both probability and Bible prophecy, but it turned out to be the wrong one.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Berlin Wall came down, and Europe reunified, critics were quick to call Hal a ‘false prophet’ because he got some of the details of ‘how’ wrong.

To this day, that is still the first criticism leveled at him. In so doing, the critics missed the ‘what’ part, which he got right -- and more importantly, its significance.

The point Hal was making in 1969 was this: IF this is the generation that will see the return of Christ, those three things would happen. None existed in 1969 -- but in 2007, two of them are history, and the third, the decline of the US as a global superpower, is already well advanced.

Does that mean Hal Lindsey is a prophet? No. Prophecy comes from the Bible. Hal merely cited examples that demonstrated that global current events were all trending in the Bible’s predicted direction. They still are.

What it proves is that this is the generation that will see the return of Christ.

From his vantage point forty years ago, Hal Lindsey (and everyone else in 1969) might have been wrong on a few details of how things would come together, but history continues to prove him 100% right on what the Bible said would develop as a result.

The point, than as now, was this: “If this IS the generation of His return, somehow, some way, God will bring about the predicted end results." Beyond that, the best any human can do is take the Bible's predicted results and work backwards to try and figure out how.

Everybody was so busy nit-picking Hal’s details back then that they missed the point the book was written to make. Many still do.

The point was, and is, that the prophetic time clock has begun the final countdown.

Among the list of old sayings that become 'old sayings' because they are universally true is "the devil is in the details." Once one makes their stand on their interpretation of the details, rather than the Bible's Big Picture, one becomes most vulnerable to his attack.

Every year, somebody stakes their reputation on their interpretation of the details, calculating using various formulas, the exact date of the Rapture. Others will argue all day regarding their interpretation of the timing of the Rapture. What gets lost in it all the hubbub and argument is the Rapture itself.

Or those who will argue all day that they know the identity of the antichrist. They are interpreting the Bible to fit current events. It is the Bible that is infallible -- current events are only current until things change.

The devil is in the details.

When it comes to Iran, the Bible says that Persia participates in a subordinate leadership role as part of the larger Gog-Magog alliance. That alliance, for reasons not entirely clear, eventually embarks on a surprise invasion of Israel at a time when Israel is “dwelling at peace” as a “land of unwalled villages.”

When events began to suggest an impending war between Israel and Iran, it was tempting to look for ways to make that war fit into Ezekiel’s scenario.

In addition, we have the developing trends that are moving Russia rapidly back into the arms of a new authoritarian dictatorship to consider. Coupled with Russia’s traditional ties with the same nations Ezekiel predicted will eventually be part of the Gog-Magog alliance, it is easy to speculate on how God will bring about His will.

But no matter what, in order for Persia to participate in an invasion of Israel, it is clear that Persia and Israel must both be there at the time, precluding an imminent Iranian-Israeli nuclear war.

As to the imminence of the Gog-Magog invasion, Israel is not a land of unwalled villages and it is not dwelling at peace.

I’ve tried to be careful, but I know I’ve succumbed to the temptation to mold current events to fit Bible prophecy -- especially when it comes to connecting the current Iranian crisis .

The fact of the matter is neither I nor anyone else has a crystal ball or some secret spiritual knowledge not available to anyone willing to crack a Bible and do a little research.

The best anyone can honestly offer is an educated guess on the details -- guided by prayer and based on the Bible's certain foreknowledge of the outcome – but neither the source of that foreknowledge nor the predicted outcome are a secret.

It’s all right there in the pages of Scripture.

Bible prophecy wasn’t given to this generation for the purpose of amazing our friends by playing The Amazing Kreskin.

That was never the point.

Prophecy was given to this generation to impart a sense of urgency to the lost, and to provide evidences for the Church that, no matter how confusing things look at any given moment, the ultimate outcome is assured.

That is the ultimate reason for the study of Bible prophecy. To credibly articulate the lateness of the hour, demonstrate the certainty of the judgment to follow, and share the good news that God has made Provision for our pardon.

Even if the exact path sometimes seems murky, the outline of the predicted destination grows clearer with each changing event.

And it is the destination that is important, not so much the details of how God intends to get us there. We are to watch for the signs of His return and to shout the warning.

Regarding pet interpretations and nit-picking details, well, God has made provision for that, too.

“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.” (Proverbs 3:6-7)

From Omegaletter.com.

I know that I have said it repeatedly, but Jack makes the point very well: No one knows God's timetable.

But sometimes the temptation to think otherwise, to think that I know what is about to happen, is too much to resist.

Israelis hit Syrian ‘nuclear bomb plant’

Last month the story broke that in September Israel had bombed and destroyed a target within Syria, a fact which Syria initially denied. Gradually, more and more information has surfaced about what really happened:

1. Israel bombed a location in Syria.
2. Russia's best air defense system, just sold to and installed in Syria, failed to even detect the presence of Israeli jets.
3. In spite of what could be trumpeted as an "act of aggression" by Israel, all of the nations in the area have attempted to pretend that the attack did not happen.
4. The Syrians have completely cleaned up the site of the installation that was bombed, leaving no trace behind.
5. Early reports claimed that the site was a nuclear reactor under construction. This evolved into several other things, including an installation for producing "dirty" bombs.
   

Yesterday, The London Sunday Times (timesonline.com) published this report:

Israelis hit Syrian ‘nuclear bomb plant’
Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Michael Sheridan in Seoul

ISRAEL’S top-secret air raid on Syria in September destroyed a bomb factory assembling warheads fuelled by North Korean plutonium, a leading Israeli nuclear expert has told The Sunday Times.

Professor Uzi Even of Tel Aviv University was one of the founders of the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona, the source of the Jewish state’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.

“I suspect that it was a plant for processing plutonium, namely, a factory for assembling the bomb,” he said. “I think the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] transferred to Syria weapons-grade plutonium in raw form, that is nuggets of easily transported metal in protective cans. I think the shaping and casting of the plutonium was supposed to be in Syria.”

All governments concerned - even the regime in Damascus - have tried to maintain complete secrecy about the raid.

They apparently fear that forcing a confrontation on the issue could spark a war between Israel and Syria, end the Middle East peace talks and wreck America’s extremely complex negotiations to disarm North Korea of its nuclear weapons.

The political stakes could hardly be higher. Plutonium is the element which fuelled the American atomic bomb that destroyed the Japanese city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

Critics in the United States say proof that North Korea supplied such nuclear weapons material to Syria, a state technically at war with Israel, would shatter congressional confidence in the Bush administration’s diplomatic policy.

From beneath the veil of military censorship, western commentators have formed a consensus that the target was a nuclear reactor under construction.

But Even said that purely from scientific observation, he had reached a different conclusion - that it was a nuclear bomb factory, posing a more immediate danger to Israel. He said that satellite photos of the site, taken before the Israeli strike on September 6, showed no sign of the cooling towers and chimneys characteristic of nuclear reactors.

Syria’s haste after the attack to bury the site under tons of soil suggested that hundreds of square yards were contaminated and there were fears of radiation, the professor added.

Since then the Syrians have sealed up the location, levelled the site and diverted curious journalists to a place that had not been attacked by Israel.

The professor’s theory fits with authoritative technical evidence about North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. The North Koreans are able to produce weapons-grade plutonium, which is electro-refined, alloyed and cast into shapes ready to be machined to fit into a warhead, according to a team of distinguished American nuclear weapons scientists who visited the country’s laboratories.

....

Read the rest here.

My post last month, Syria has been testing missiles with chemical warheads, spoke of other attempts by Syria to prepare for all-out war with Israel, and pointed to Isaiah 17 as a warning to the leadership in Damascus.

This article in timesonline.com also calls to mind something called The Sampson Option, which is widely rumored to be official Israeli policy. According to these rumors (which I fully believe), if Israel believes that it is about to be overrun and utterly destroyed they will launch nuclear missles at the capitals of all of their Arab and Islamic enemies in the region. They will take their enemies with them, just as Sampson did in the Bible when he pulled his enemies' temple down on all of their heads.

Ezekiel 38 and 39 speak of a coming war of Russia and the Arab Islamic nations against Israel. Isaiah 17 speaks of the utter destruction of Damascus, capital of Syria. Experts disagree about the exact timing of these events, whether they occur together or not and whether they occur before or after the Rapture and before or during the Tribulation. All agree that they will occur during the End Times. Since we are clearly in the End Times, the fulfillment of these prophesies must take place soon. Events like those discussed above only confirm that the stage is set.

In Mark 16:15-16, Jesus commanded us "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." The time is short. Redouble your efforts before it is too late.

Syria has been testing missiles with chemical warheads

The Jerusalem Post reported on Sept. 18, 2007, that Syria was attempting to test a chemical warhead on a missile earlier this year.

'Dozens died in Syria-Iran missile test'
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 18, 2007

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

Reports of the accident were circulated at the time; however, no details were released by the Syrian government, and there were no hints of an Iranian connection.

The report comes on the heels of criticism leveled by the Syrians at the United States, accusing it of spreading "false" claims of Syrian nuclear activity and cooperation with North Korea to excuse an alleged Israeli air incursion over the country this month.

According to globalsecurity.org, Syria is not a signatory of either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), - an international agreement banning the production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons - or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Syria began developing chemical weapons in 1973, just before the Yom Kipper War. Globalsecurity.org cites the country as having one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East.

Given the Jews' experience with the Holocaust, it is my belief that any attack on Israel with chemical or biological weapons will be met by a nuclear response. Remember Isaiah 17:1:

An oracle concerning Damascus.
Behold, Damascus will cease to be a city
and will become a heap of ruins.

This has never yet taken place.

A 200-year-0ld lesson on 9/11

I've known for a while that Chuck Norris is a Christian, but I did not realize how articulate and knowledgeable he is. In his article on WorldNetDaily, he gives an excellent summary of America's earliest wars, the Barbary Wars, and their relevance to today's struggle against the Islamo-Fascists.

A 200-year-old lesson on 9/11
By Chuck Norris on www.worldnetdaily.com
Posted: September 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

With the 6th anniversary of 9/11 among us, as well as the imminent report on the status of the war from Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, America continues to face the fallout and frontlines of the war on terror.

Despite debates over the success of surges and the truths behind 9/11, one of the most significant deliberations remains how many Americans are still in denial about the depth and breadth of extremists' hatred for our nation, liberties and way of life. Do people really think ceasing a war in Iraq will quench their fire to destroy our country?

Radical Muslims' guile existed far before 9/11, and it will be there far after an Iraqi war. In fact, it was apparent from the beginning of our nation, as seen in the Barbary Powers Conflict, a confrontation between the five Barbary nations (Tripoli, Turkey, Tunis, Algiers and Morocco) and what they considered the "Christian nations" (England, Denmark, France, Spain and the new United States).

Though I am not a historian or a military strategist, I believe now is a good time to recall this 200 year-old lesson on extremist Muslim-American relations.

The tower of terror in the treaty of Tripoli

While the United States was mopping up from the Revolutionary War, it was also squaring off against largely Muslim pirates and countries in the Mediterranean. These sea bandits cruised the coastlines stealing cargo, destroying villages and enslaving millions of Africans and hundreds of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans.

Because America was a newborn nation with relatively little naval defense, its merchant ships were exceptionally vulnerable to attack in and out of the Great Sea. America's rebellion against Britain severed its protection by the Royal Navy. And while France helped some during the war, the U.S. was on its own as of about 1783. As a result, its cargo and seamen were captured, and our country's leaders were forced to negotiate with the Mediterranean Muslim contingency.

In 1784, envoys began to be dispatched to secure peace and passage from the Barbary Powers. Treaties were made. Tributes and ransoms were paid. Our cargo and captives were freed. And our ships traveled safely. Over the next decade and a half, millions of dollars were given to these radicals – estimated at 20 percent of America's income in 1800. (Despite that men like Thomas Jefferson argued vehemently against paying ransoms and tribute – he believed the only road to resolve would be "through the medium of war.")

America's first four presidents (Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison) all dealt with this East-West conflict of powers, though to varying degrees. Though numerous negotiations and treaties were made, including "the Treaty of Tripoli" in 1796-7, Tripoli (in present Libya) still declared war against the U.S. in 1801. It is sometimes called America's first official war as a new nation.

So, shortly after his inauguration, President Jefferson declared America would spend "millions for defense but not one [more] cent for tribute." As a result, he deployed Marines and warships to the region, which eventually led to the surrender of Tripoli in 1805. It would take another decade, however, to completely defeat the pirates.

----

Click here to read the rest of Chuck Norris' excellent article.

The bottom line is this: the Islamo-Fascists don't hate us because of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anything we've ever done. They hate us because we are not Muslim, and this has been true for as long as there has been a USA to hate. In the early 1800s we beat them militarily and they pretty much left us alone for the next 150 years or so out of fear of the consequences of attacking us. We need to teach them that lesson once again.