Mosul Christian: Our Muslim neighbors drove us out

I listed some examples here of this kind of thing happening elsewhere. For these neighbors of the Christians, their loyalty to Islam overrode everything else — and so when the jihadis came, they sided with them, not with their longtime friends and neighbors.

“Christian Refugee from Mosul: Our Neighbors Drove Us Out,” MEMRI, July 30, 2014:

In an interview to the Lebanese LBC/LDC TV channel, a Christian refugee from Iraq recounted how his Sunni neighbors drove the Christians out of Mosul. “[Our neighbors] said that this land belongs to Islam and that Christians should not live there,” he said.

Following are excerpts from the interview, which aired on July 30, 2014:

Unnamed Christian refugee: We left Mosul because ISIS came to the city. The [Sunni] people of Mosul embraced ISIS and drove the Christians out of the city. When ISIS entered Mosul, the people hailed them and drove out the Christians.

Why did they expel just the Christians from Mosul? There are many sects in Mosul. Why just the Christians? This is nothing new. Even before, the Christians could not go anywhere. The Christians have faced threats of murder, kidnapping, jizya. This is nothing new.

Jizya is the tax that the Qur’an says must be collected from the subjugated Jews and Christians (“People of the Book”): “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)

I was told to leave Mosul. They said that this was a Muslim country, not a Christian one. I am being very honest. They said that this land belongs to Islam and that Christians should not live there.

Interviewer: Who told you that?

Christian refugee: The people who embraced ISIS, the people who lived there with us…

Interviewer: Your neighbors?

Christian refugee: Yes, my neighbors. Our neighbors and other people threatened us. They said: “Leave before ISIS get you.” What does that mean? Where would we go?

[…]

Christians have no support in Iraq. Whoever claims to be protecting the Christians is a liar. A liar!

Islamic State to Yazidis: "Either you convert to Islam or we slaughter you"
Kosovo: Imam arrested for recruiting jihadis to fight in Iraq and Syria
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. Rinzai says

    This is the fruit of ”beautiful islam” . The Pope talks about it, David Cameron talks about, Barack Obama talks about it… the entire enlightened, superior, secular west is simply IN AWE of it…

    • Rezali Mehil says

      Why is this a surprise?

      If Christians were attacking the village instead …then these very Christians would have dobbed in their Muslim neighbours….it stands to reason.

      Personally I have always advocated a salt and pepper mix where muslims and christians live as each others neighbours…certainly this is the case in the UK…and will remain so Inshallah..

      I guess in this case ..the Sunni were so intoxicating that the local friendly muslims …pretended that they were on their side to start with …to appeal on the Christians behalf …but they did not hang around long enough to find out about the answer.

      • Wetwork56 says

        Personally I have always advocated a salt and pepper mix where muslims and christians live as each others neighbours…certainly this is the case in the UK…

        Under what rock do you live Rezali Mehil??? The Islamic immigrants in EVERY country that has graciously offered you a better place to live then the shit holes you previously occupied, have not assimilated into the host country’s culture–on the contrary–they have constructed Islamic neighborhoods and do NOT show any form of loyalty/patriotism to their host nation. They are also like vampires sucking every penny they can from the welfare/social system and then sow seeds of discontent in mosques. So spare me the lies.

        • Beagle says

          Rezali wants the entire world to be subject to the sudden violent whims of Islam. That’s their mission, to spread it far and wide until it consumes us all. Then we can all get on to the more important business of killing our fellow Muslims.

        • noel eliscu says

          Please, it seems Muslims are unhappy wherever they live. UK they are unhappy and in other countries too.They are unhappy if the Muslim next door is of a different branch of the religion. They cannot except different views and most of them that riot and murder are lower than snakes in the grass. Putting a 7 year old on the internet holder a head of a dead soldier is sick. Animals kill for survival Muslims kill for nothing but a sickness and a thirst for evil. The religion is 500 years behind the times.

      • Beagle says

        “If Christians were attacking the village instead”

        Citation please. That’s your problem right there. At this point if Christians did attack a village it would be in response to brutal, unprovoked, ongoing aggression by Muslims.

        • Tradewinds says

          Like what’s been occurring in the Central African Republic for the last year, Beagle. Select Central African Republic in the “Categories” and read all about it. I’m sure you already have.

      • Champ says

        “rezali mehil” wrote:

        Personally I have always advocated a salt and pepper mix where muslims and christians live as each others neighbours …

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        And have someone like “rezali” for a neighbor? …no thank you! Talk about the neighbor from hell.

      • gravenimage says

        The repulsive Rezali Mehil wrote:

        Why is this a surprise?

        If Christians were attacking the village instead …then these very Christians would have dobbed in their Muslim neighbours….it stands to reason.
        ………………………………………..

        When is the last time Christians attacked a village?

        Then, notice what “stands to reason” for this vicious Muslimah—the idea that everyone would turn on their non-Christian neighbors, and want to see them driven out or butchered?

        But if this is what Christians really want, then why aren’t they doing this—*anywhere in the world*? What crap. Muslims assume that everyone is as vile as they are.

        And notice that it never once occurs to this vicious Muslimah that these Mohammedans might have sided with their non-Muslim neighbors over a violent invasion force full of foreign fighters. It never occurs to her that they might have any loyalty to Iraq. It never occurs to her that they might not welcome the vicious imposition of Shari’ah law.

        And why would it? The establishment of a Caliphate; the imposition of brutal Shari’ah law; and the oppression, driving out, or slaughter of Infidels (and their “other-sect” coreligionists) is something *every* pious Muslim wants to see.

        These villagers turning on their Christian—and Yazidi—neighbors is mainstream Islam.

        More:

        Personally I have always advocated a salt and pepper mix where muslims and christians live as each others neighbours…certainly this is the case in the UK…and will remain so Inshallah..
        ………………………………………..

        Rezali Mehil’s “salt and pepper” view means that Muslims infiltrate an area and slowly take it over, oppressing non-Muslims more and more as they go.

        And then the only difference of opinion between Muslims like Rezali Mehil and squeezethejuice (“squeeze the Jews”) and those in the new Islamic State is that the former believe that Infidels should be exploited and via the Jizya.

        Why drive out Infidels when you can enslave and humiliate them? Of course, ISIS prefers religious cleansing.

        Who says Islam is ‘monolithic”? sarc/off

        More:

        I guess in this case ..the Sunni were so intoxicating that the local friendly muslims …pretended that they were on their side to start with …to appeal on the Christians behalf …but they did not hang around long enough to find out about the answer.
        ………………………………………..

        I’m not even sure what the semi-literate Rezali Mehil is positing here—she’s not very clear.

        Certainly, *no* Muslim appears to have appealed on the Christians’ behalf.

      • Mirren10 says

        rezali, rezali !

        Is this an attempt at what you think passes for ‘dialog’ (sic) ?

        ”If Christians were attacking the village instead …then these very Christians would have dobbed in their Muslim neighbours….it stands to reason”

        Of *course* it does ! Well, only in the mindset of an evil and twisted mohammedan. Treachery against one’s neighbours *is* reasonable to you mohammedans, goes without saying ! And not only reasonable, but exactly what you would *expect* others to do. mohammedan projection, again.

        By the way, there are no Christians attacking villages, only mohammedans, dumbo.

        Thanks again for illustrating so neatly the putridness of the mohammedan mindset, me old son !

        ”Personally I have always advocated a salt and pepper mix where muslims and christians live as each others neighbours…certainly this is the case in the UK”

        Well, of course you do ! Because ‘when the time comes’, (as I’m sure your twisted brain is already salivating over ) *you* can dob in your neighbours.

        But of course, the boot’s on the other tootsie, isn’t it ? mohammedans, thank God, mostly live in mohammedan enclaves, so when the shit hits the fan, they’ll be relatively easy to round up, and throw out.

        ” … certainly this is the case in the UK”

        How would you know, living in pakiland and cossetting your beard ? I bet you put on at least a stone over ramadamadindong, whilst the four little wifies were cooking up a storm, and you were gorging from night till morning. Giving up lunch is *such* a hardship, and really shows how spiritual and special you all are … :)

        Managing to cope with all those ‘whispers and pointing fingers’ ? Gooood …

        ”I guess in this case ..the Sunni were so intoxicating that the local friendly muslims …pretended that they were on their side to start with …to appeal on the Christians behalf …but they did not hang around long enough to find out about the answer.”

        This is too convoluted, even by your standards, to parse, but let’s face it, repulsive one, there’s no difference between shiite shits and sunni shits, as every brain functioning Christian in the Middle East knows.

        Thanks again, for reminding us how evil and repulsive many mohammedans are, as always, so illuminating !

        More later, chumbawumba !

        • gravenimage says

          Mirren wrote:

          [Rezali Mehil] ”Personally I have always advocated a salt and pepper mix where muslims and christians live as each others neighbours…certainly this is the case in the UK”

          Well, of course you do ! Because ‘when the time comes’, (as I’m sure your twisted brain is already salivating over ) *you* can dob in your neighbours.
          ……………………………

          You’re right, Mirren—this is is *exactly* what the nasty Rezali Mehil is saying she would do. *Ugh*.

  2. Jay Boo says

    Muslims hold their hands up once again at prayer as if to say.

    “Look our hands are washed clean of all evidence before Allah.”

    If they weren’t so incredibly guilty in the first place Muslims would not feel such a gut-wrenching need to display their ‘prayer’ washed hands.

  3. gravenimage says

    Mosul Christian: Our Muslim neighbors drove us out

    In an interview to the Lebanese LBC/LDC TV channel, a Christian refugee from Iraq recounted how his Sunni neighbors drove the Christians out of Mosul. “[Our neighbors] said that this land belongs to Islam and that Christians should not live there,” he said.

    Unnamed Christian refugee: We left Mosul because ISIS came to the city. The [Sunni] people of Mosul embraced ISIS and drove the Christians out of the city. When ISIS entered Mosul, the people hailed them and drove out the Christians.
    ………………………………………

    All of this gives the lie to the idea that all Sunni Muslims in the invaded “Islamic State” are victims just like their Christian and Yazidi neighbors.

    It also gives the lie to the idea that ISIS is just “foreign” fighters with not support on the ground in what was Syria and Iraq.

    More:

    Why did they expel just the Christians from Mosul? There are many sects in Mosul. Why just the Christians? This is nothing new. Even before, the Christians could not go anywhere. The Christians have faced threats of murder, kidnapping, jizya. This is nothing new.
    ………………………………………

    Even before this latest horror, the Christians of Mosul were treated like threatened dhimmis by their Muslim neighbors.

    And the reference to Jizya shows that this was all on Islamic grounds.

    Not wonder these Muslims embraced the pious thugs of ISIS and their new, Christian and other Infidel-free “Caliphate”. *Ugh*.

    • says

      More numerous in the Iraq violence even than ISIS jihadists are garden-variety Sunni jihadists, including many so-called “Baathists” (whom we have been taught over the years are all “secular”). It’s not clear what the relations are between the ISIS and non-ISIS Sunni jihadists and whether it’s mercurially shifting.

      As Andrew Bostom reported back at the beginning of July:

      Who is Fighting in Mosul and the Sunni Areas of Iraq?

      10-20% ISIL
      Several Iraqi armed groups with full coordination on the ground:

      1- Baathist (6 different groups including former Iraqi army officers under the name of Jihad and Liberty Front).

      2- Moderate Islamist [note: whatever that means!]

      3- Tribal rebels

      Dagher concluded, with understatement, “ISIL benefited from the wide, strong dissatisfaction among Sunnis.”

      Most striking, were data from 200 telephone interviews of Mosul residents conducted in the period of June 19-21, 2014, i.e., after the city had come under control by the Sunni insurgents, including the jihad terror organization ISIL.

      Notwithstanding subsequent dissatisfaction with ISIL, and its newly minted “Caliphate”—already emerging (as documented yesterday, 7/1/14 by the Washington Post’s Loveday Morris) within 3-weeks after the regular Iraqi army and police forces of the al-Maliki central government were crushed, or fled—two key sentiments were apparent in the immediate aftermath of the Sunni takeover:

      81.5% of Mosul’s predominantly Sunni residents felt more secure after the Sunni insurgents seized control of the city;

      they overwhelmingly rejected—i.e., 84.5%!—U.S. involvement with the (longstanding Iranian proxy) Maliki government to repulse the Sunni insurgents, including ISIL.

      http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/07/06/my-pjm-blog-this-past-week-on-why-u-s-should-stay-out-of-iraqs-sectarian-morass/

      • gravenimage says

        All very true. I think a lot of Westerners have the idea that ISIS is “occupying” parts of Syria and Iraq—but in many cases they have been welcomed, and “ordinary” local Sunni Muslims have not just been complicit, but are now an active and willing part of the Caliphate.

  4. Bro. Nick says

    The true beliefs and goals of the Satanic followers of the false prophet Mohammed are now more clearly being shown and demonstrated. The Mohammadens want a worldwide Caliphate and they are actively working to get it.
    IS (formerly ISIS / ISIL) is yet another manifestation of the nearly unthinkable barbarism that those who follow the moon god ‘allah’ are capable of!

    Watch out Europe and ‘Amerika’ and Canada – our turn is coming! – possibly very soon.

    “The word of the LORD” always says it clearly and plainly:
    “The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.”
    (Ps 12:8 – KJV)

  5. Face_The_Truth says

    One common misunderstanding about Muslims is a faithful Muslim is a reasonable person with his/her non-Muslim neighbors, friends and non-friends.

    The fact, however, is when a person willingly adheres to the ideology of Islam, that person values Islam above any other thing such as friendship with non-Muslims, patriotism for the country of birth and regards for the humanity.

    Islam’s founder was a psychopath who claimed to hear voices in his head. But, one aspect no one would disagree was his love for his birthland, which are modern day territories of Saudi Arabia.

    So, during his 63 years of life, Islam’s founder did everything to uplift the status of his nation by subjugating and annihilating Jews, Christians and Pagans as well as giving his followers a new distinctive identity called “Mussalmans”.

    For having such a distinction, Muslims do not feel same as non-Muslims in terms of social identity and do not find any reason to value friendship with non-Muslims above his/her allegiance to the most revered ideology called “Islam”.

    Repeatedly I hear non-Muslims claiming to feel the pain and sufferings of Muslims in news media and in other venues; but, in life I never heard any Muslim crying for the sufferings of Jews, Christians and Pagans (i.e., “Hindus”, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Atheists, etc.) anywhere on earth.

    So, why do non-Muslims expect faithful Muslims to fight for them when the very respected Islamic ideology in one form or another forbids all Muslims not to?

    • Michael Copeland says

      Even if muslims wish to be loyal to Christian neighbours they are “persuaded” by the heavies at the mosque, who, after all, have in their support the Koran’s veto of friendship with Christians. The “Community Centre” does so much for keeping the community together.

    • gravenimage says

      Face the Truth wrote:

      Islam’s founder was a psychopath who claimed to hear voices in his head. But, one aspect no one would disagree was his love for his birthland, which are modern day territories of Saudi Arabia.
      ……………………………..

      Good post—but I would quibble with the above.

      The vile “Prophet” ensured that Arabia would remain an arid, barbaric, Dark Ages wasteland—he even stripped it of what little culture and decency it had.

      If it had not been for the accident of oil and the Infidel expertise to extract it, Saudi Arabia would be utterly impoverished financially, as well—it would, essentially, be Yemen.

      Certainly, Muhammed used Arabia as a base from which to wage violent Jihad, and used Arabic supremacism as his model—but it’s difficult to see any of this as real love for his birthland—or to think that with the founding of Islam he did Arabia any real favors…

      • Face_The_Truth says

        “The vile ‘Prophet’ ensured that Arabia would remain an arid, barbaric, Dark Ages wasteland—he even stripped it of what little culture and decency it had.”

        You’re simply wrong along with Robert Spencer as Mr. Spencer wrote a book called “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?”.

        Muhammad ibn Abd’Allah was one of the shrewdest men ever lived on earth!

        He figured out at an earlier age that Jews were very wealthy people and if he could murder as many of them and take over Jewish wealth, his newly invented “religion” would make his followers very wealthy and he succeeded in doing so during his lifetime in Arabian Peninsula.

        Modern day Saudi Arabia should forward 2/3rd of its oil revenues to world’s Jewry; because, Jews were the largest owners of Arabian lands in 7th century A.D., who were either murdered or driven out of their rightful existence.

        Muhammad ibn Abd’Allah also made sure the rests of the world would bow, kneel down and prostrate towards his birthland 5 times a day!

        Due to lack of time, I am not writing anymore here.

        Please read Anwar Shaikh’s “Islam: The Arab National Movement”, if you have time to waste.

        http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=790

        • gravenimage says

          Face the Truth wrote:

          “The vile ‘Prophet’ ensured that Arabia would remain an arid, barbaric, Dark Ages wasteland—he even stripped it of what little culture and decency it had.”

          You’re simply wrong along with Robert Spencer as Mr. Spencer wrote a book called “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?”.
          ……………………………..

          Actually, Robert Spencer’s book was called “Did Muhammad Exist?”.

          I was referring to the Muslim view of the “Prophet” and what he wrought—whether or not he was an actual historic figure.

          And do you disagree about Arabia’s culture and decency? If so, on what grounds?

          More:

          Muhammad ibn Abd’Allah was one of the shrewdest men ever lived on earth!
          ……………………………..

          Hitler was a pretty “shrewd” guy, as well—that doesn’t mean I admire him…

          Sure, I can have a certain rough “respect’ for Muhammed as a cagey, successful warlord—but no more than I would for any other barbarian, like Attila the Hun.

          More:

          He figured out at an earlier age that Jews were very wealthy people and if he could murder as many of them and take over Jewish wealth, his newly invented “religion” would make his followers very wealthy and he succeeded in doing so during his lifetime in Arabian Peninsula.
          ……………………………..

          Not only is this morally repellent, but keep in mind that until the modern discovery of and exploitation of oil that Arabia had long been an impoverished sh*t-hole.

          Muhammed’s vicious followers had long since rendered Arabia “Judenrein”—all the Jews had long since been slaughtered and driven out.

          The fact is that today—except for unearned oil wealth—that most of the Muslim world is backward and impoverished.

          And why shouldn’t it be? Muslims prefer to live parasitically off the productive labor of others, and have never learned to create wealth.

          The fact is that stealing from more productive people—besides being morally repugnant—is *not* a good model for wealth creation.

          That is why the West is so much wealthier and more advanced.

          I will read your link at Faith Freedom as soon as I am able.

        • Face_The_Truth says

          “Figures such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, William Wilberforce, and Winston Churchill have inspired both their own people and others to live lives that are more committed to democracy, equality, and freedom—and they have benefitted immensely as a result.”

          The sheer amount of time that you spent analyzing my comments is indeed praiseworthy!

          By the way, I copied and pasted a wrong link above for your perusal.

          The correct link is here for “Islam: The Arab National Movement”:

          http://islamreview.org/anwarshaikh/arabnationalism/index.html

        • gravenimage says

          Face the Truth wrote:

          By the way, I copied and pasted a wrong link above for your perusal.

          The correct link is here for “Islam: The Arab National Movement”:

          http://islamreview.org/anwarshaikh/arabnationalism/index.html
          ……………………………..

          As I noted with Anwar Shaikh’s other article, Face the Truth, there is quite a bit to admire there.

          But I believe that he is off-base on some matters.

          He asserts something we have heard all too often—that Muslims are actually prevented from using violence to enforce the vile creed of islam, and hence Jihadists are all “hypocrites”.

          Anyone really familiar with the texts of Islam knows that this assertion is at best mistaken.

          Also, his idea that Islam is primarily an expression of violent “semitic culture” seems odd—after all, Jews and Arab Christians are not intrinsically violent.

          Rather, it has more to do with the *ideology* of Islam.

          As for his main point, that Islam is fundamentally an Arab national movement, there is a great deal to this. Certainly, Islam seeks to replace the culture and language of others with Arabic.

          There is no doubt that Islam is Arab supremacist.

          But even here, Islam trumps all—while it definitely considers Arab Muslims superior to Asian, Indian, sub-Saharan African, and European Muslims; it would also take the part of any of these Muslims over Arab Christians or atheists.

          Anyway, your links were well worth reading. It has been interesting corresponding with you.

      • Face_The_Truth says

        “Hitler was a pretty ‘shrewd’ guy, as well—that doesn’t mean I admire him…”

        Führer Adolf Hitler was a piker when historically compared with Muhammad ibn Abd’Allah!

        Furthermore, most of Nazi officials were Catholics (i.e., Christians indoctrinated in the Holy Roman Catholic Church) who deserve not a shred of admiration for what they did to 30 million Russian Orthodox Christians and millions of helpless European Jews.

        I am not a supporter of Führer Adolf Hitler, although my diplomat father once told me in my childhood that Germans were the most civilized people on earth.

        “Sure, I can have a certain rough ‘respect’ for Muhammad as a cagey, successful warlord—but no more than I would for any other barbarian, like Attila the Hun.”

        Nowhere on earth I wanted anyone to respect Islam’s founder of 7th century A.D.

        So, please do not put word on me even if you somehow misunderstand my English!

        • gravenimage says

          Face_The_Truth wrote:

          “Hitler was a pretty ‘shrewd’ guy, as well—that doesn’t mean I admire him…”

          Führer Adolf Hitler was a piker when historically compared with Muhammad ibn Abd’Allah!
          ……………………………

          Probably so—certainly, the “Prophet” Muhammed has been responsible for even more suffering and carnage over the centuries than has Herr Hitler.

          More:

          Furthermore, most of Nazi officials were Catholics (i.e., Christians indoctrinated in the Holy Roman Catholic Church) who deserve not a shred of admiration for what they did to 30 million Russian Orthodox Christians and millions of helpless European Jews.
          ……………………………

          I’m afraid this is a mischaracterization. Many Nazis were Protestant, and many Atheist.

          But in any case, Fascism was *never* a religious movement—your belief that it was a Catholic movement is mistaken.

          In fact, Catholics—particularly the clergy—were *targeted* under Nazism, if not as savagely as were the Jews.

          More:

          I am not a supporter of Führer Adolf Hitler…
          ……………………………

          Nor did I ever think that you were, or imply that you were. I just said that ultimately my “respect” for barbaric figures like the “Prophet” Muhammed runs no deeper than that for other superficially shrewd thugs like Hitler and Attila the Hun.

          More:

          …although my diplomat father once told me in my childhood that Germans were the most civilized people on earth.
          ……………………………

          Well, in many ways your father was right. And this is why so many civilized people were so shocked by the rise of Hitler and slow to believe what it portended—because German culture was erudite and held a great love for arts, literature, and music, as well as for science, medicine, and engineering—as well as a love for children and animals. Unfortunately, none of these elements were enough in themselves to stop the rise and flourishing of Fascism.

          More:

          “Sure, I can have a certain rough ‘respect’ for Muhammad as a cagey, successful warlord—but no more than I would for any other barbarian, like Attila the Hun.”

          Nowhere on earth I wanted anyone to respect Islam’s founder of 7th century A.D.

          So, please do not put word on me even if you somehow misunderstand my English!
          ……………………………

          Again, I was not implying that you did. I don’t believe that I misunderstood your post—your English is fine.

          I just note that I cannot even regard Muhammed as having been in any real way beneficial for his own people.

          In the early days of the Reich, when Nazi forces were blitzkrieging their way across Europe and sending the spoils back to Germany, a lot of Germans thought that this was an excellent thing for Germany.

          But even if they had not met resistance from the Allies things would not have gone well for Germans and German culture. In fact, it probably would have been much worse for them, ultimately, if they *hadn’t* faced opposition.

          Even in such a short period, Fascism seriously warped the German character, and would have done a great deal more to deform it if it had continued.

          It would have rendered all of Europe a paranoid, oppressive, and hideous polity, and the oppressors as well as the victims would have suffered under it.

          This is the condition with Islam—while it is a supremacist creed, it also renders its followers paranoid, unable to really love or trust, and incapable of benefiting from democracy and a civil society.

          Ultimately, I don’t believe that Muhammed did his followers—any more than his victims—any favors in creating and propagating his foul creed.

        • gravenimage says

          Face the Truth, I did a quick read through on the link you provided at Faith Freedom.

          I agree with Anwar Shaikh on a lot of points.

          There are some, however, that I take issue with. For one thing, I don’t think that the whole concept of “prophethood” is a issue—more the baleful nature of the “Prophet” of islam himself.

          After all, there are dozens of Jewish prophets—none of them have had the baleful legacy of Muhammed.

          He is also incorrect when he says that Jews and Christians *worship* prophets and patriarchs. They may respect them, but have always regarded them as flawed human being fully capable of error.

          He goes on to castigate the Jewish prophets in great detail, which seems rather besides the point, since they acknowledged as being flawed.

          Moreover, no Jew or Christian is oppressing or brutalizing people today in the name of the prophets or patriarchs.

          Only Islam considers the “Prophet” the ideal man, and the model of behavior in every particular.

          Shaikh wrote:

          The Prophet Muhammad of Arabia (peace be upon him), when assessed fairly, undoubtedly emerges as the greatest national hero that any country ever produced.
          …………………………..

          Again, I disagree. He may well have instilled Arab Muslims with a great sense of supremacy and entitlement, but other than that he hasn’t done such pious Muslims any real favors.

          Figures such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, William Wilberforce, and Winston Churchill have inspired both their own people and others to live lives that are more committed to democracy, equality, and freedom—and they have benefitted immensely as a result.

          Whereas, the legacy of Islam is a malignant one—harmful not just to its Infidel victims, but to its most fanatical followers, as well.

      • Face_The_Truth says

        “I’m afraid this is a mischaracterization. Many Nazis were Protestant, and many Atheist. But in any case, Fascism was *never* a religious movement—your belief that it was a Catholic movement is mistaken.”

        Again, to defend my reputation, I never say that Fascism of any type is a “Catholic Movement”.

        But, I can say from my experience that the Holy Roman Catholic Church frequently remain either silent or side with Fascism whether it is called Nazism or Islamism!

        Here’s a link for your interest:

        http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/NaziLeadership.html

        “Among the many Nazi leaders who were Roman Catholics, in addition to Adolf Hitler, were Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, Heinrich Müllerv and Rudolf Hoess, (not to be confused with Hitler’s Deputy Fuëhrer and secretary, Rudolf Hess).

        Hermann Goering, on the other hand, had mixed Catholic – Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds.

        Not one of the top Nazi leaders was raised in a liberal or atheistic family.”

  6. Michael Copeland says

    Remember Maaloula?
    “We knew our Muslim neighbours all our lives …but we thought they would never betray us. We ate with them. We are one people.” Georgios remembers how he peered over his balcony, “One of them had a Kalashnikov rifle in one hand and a sword in the other,” he says, shaking his head in disbelief.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-in-sacred-maaloula-where-they-speak-the-language-of-christ-war-leads-neighbours-into-betrayal-8839610.html

  7. Brazooka says

    Christian refugee: Yes, my neighbors. Our neighbors and other people threatened us. They said: “Leave before ISIS get you.” What does that mean? Where would we go?

    That’s pretty much how my Armenian great-grandparents Turkish neighbors acted toward them. Warning your neighbors they are about to be slaughtered unless they leave their homes as destitute refugees, and then claiming their property as one’s own, is the Muslim idea of mercy.

  8. reyol says

    Try talking to just about anyone about the dangers of Islam and they will tell you about some wonderful Muslims that they know. There are many examples in history of Muslims slaughtering their dear neighbors just because their imam told them to.

  9. Geraldo says

    In my personal opinion, one way to win this war is by engaging Muslims in discussion about the One True God and the True Holy Book. The West must be willing to promote education about The Holy Bible and New Testament Apostolic Doctrine. Islamic Countries lack knowledge about Christian foundational believes as it relates to salvation, holiness, Christian living, women and minorities rights. This is a spiritual warfare. We will not win by just preaching about “multiculturalism and acceptance”. Muslims need to be educated about the core foundations of Christianity, life, accomplishments and promises of Jesus Christ. Moreover, Muslims need to learn the Biblical steps of salvation that will lead them to Heaven/Kingdom of God or Paradise: Repentance, Baptism and infilling with the Holy Ghost. Many are Anti-Christians because they don’t know what Christianity is really about.

  10. Angemon says

    I was told to leave Mosul. They said that this was a Muslim country, not a Christian one. I am being very honest. They said that this land belongs to Islam and that Christians should not live there.

    Interviewer: Who told you that?

    Christian refugee: The people who embraced ISIS, the people who lived there with us…

    Interviewer: Your neighbors?

    Christian refugee: Yes, my neighbors. Our neighbors and other people threatened us. They said: “Leave before ISIS get you.”

    No surprise there, for a good muslim islam trumps anything. After the assassination of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf for making poems mocking muslims (which set the precedent of using lies and deceptions to advance the cause of islam), muhammad gave the blanket statement of “kill any jew you can get your hands on”. The first victim was a jewish trader, Ibn Sunayna, killed by Muhayissa. Muhayissa’s elder brother, Huwayissa, was not a muslim and rebuked him for having done so. Muhayissa showed no regret and replied “had I been given the order, I would have cut off your head”. As islamic narrative has it, Huwayissa was so impressed with his brother’s “piousness” he became a muslim.

    • gravenimage says

      Thank you for the additional detail, Angemon—that was exactly the Hadith I was referring to.

  11. Pavelina says

    The Muslims who are turning on their Christian neighbors are the “moderate” Muslims.