The Study of Political Islam

The Study of Political Islam

A neat encapsulation of and new approach to the ideology of Islamic supremacism by Bill Warner in a FrontPage interview with Jamie Glazov:

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced a series on its focus. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors.FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you Jamie for this opportunity.

FP: Tell us a bit about the Center for the Study of Political Islam.

Warner: The Center for the Study of Political Islam is a group of scholars who are devoted to the scientific study of the foundational texts of Islam—Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). There are two areas to study in Islam, its doctrine and history, or as CSPI sees it—the theory and its results. We study the history to see the practical or experimental results of the doctrine.

CSPI seems to be the first group to use statistics to study the doctrine. Previous scientific studies of the Koran are primarily devoted to Arabic language studies.

Our first principle is that Koran, Sira and Hadith must be taken as a whole. We call them the Islamic Trilogy to emphasize the unity of the texts.

Our major intellectual breakthrough is to see that dualism is the foundation and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes in twos starting with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna (words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and Hadith).

Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what is Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the true Islam a radical ideology? Is a moderate Muslim the real Muslim?

This reminds a scientist of the old arguments about light. Is light a particle or is light a wave? The arguments went back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to which quality manifests. Islam functions in the same manner.

Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.

For example:

(Koran of Mecca) 73:10: Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience, and leave them with dignity.

From tolerance we move to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord of the Universe can stand the unbelievers:

(Koran of Medina) 8:12: Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!”

All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.

No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.

Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions.

For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.

FP: Why, in your view, is there so much ignorance about the history and doctrine of political Islam in the West?Warner: First, let’s see how ignorant we are about the history of political Islam. How many Christians can tell you how Turkey or Egypt became Islamic? What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in Paul’s letters? Find a Jew who can tell you the Jewish history of dhimmitude (second class citizens who serve Islam). What European knows that white women were the highest priced slaves in Mecca? Everyone knows how many Jews Hitler killed, but find an unbeliever who can tell you how many died in jihad over the last 1400 years.

We are just as ignorant about the doctrine of Islam. An FBI agent gets two hours of training on Islam and most of that is how not to offend the imam. We are fighting in Iraq. Who utilizes the political, military doctrine of Islam to plan strategy? Who can find a single rabbi or minister who has read the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What governor, senator, congressmen or military leader displays a knowledge of the political doctrine of Islam? Try to find a course available in a college about Islamic political doctrine and ethics. Graduates are schooled in Islamic art, architecture, poetry, Sufism, and a glorious history that ignores the suffering of the innocent unbelievers. Graduates read comments about the Koran and Hadith, but do not read the actual doctrine.

FP: So why this ignorance?

Warner: Let’s start at the beginning. When Islam burst out of Arabia into a decaying Byzantine world, the unbelievers recorded it as an Arabic invasion. Similarly, the invasion of Eastern Europe was by Turks; the invasion of Spain was by Moors. Our scholars were incapable of even naming the invaders.

Mohammed killed every single intellectual or artist who opposed him. It was fear that drove the vast majority of the media not to reprint the Mohammed cartoons, not some imagined sensitivity. Fear is a fabulous basis for ignorance, but that is not enough to explain it all. What accounts for the almost psychotic aversion to knowledge about Islam? Beyond fear is the realization that political Islam is profoundly foreign to us.

Let’s examine the ethical basis of our civilization. All of our politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the Golden Rule:

Treat others as you would be treated.

The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are all the same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that we do not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule—the equality of human beings—we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam.

FP: So how is Islam different in this context?

Warner: The term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam. [It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted.” Koran 4:92  CG]

There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.

By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever. [“Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. Koran 8.55. CG]

Now mind you, unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.

There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But the KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people at all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and easy to see.

The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be “nice”, but in no case is the unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. [“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. Koran 5:51. CG]

A Muslim may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.

FP: You mentioned earlier how logic is another point of profound difference. Can you touch on that?

Warner: To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them has to be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use unitary scientific logic.

Since Islam has a dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is completely foreign to us. Muslims think differently from us and feel differently from us. So our aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of Islamic ethics and logic. This aversion causes us to avoid learning about Islam so we are ignorant and stay ignorant.

Another part of the aversion is the realization that there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. There is no halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic ethics. If you are in a business deal with someone who is a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid getting cheated. No matter how nice you are to a con man, he will take advantage of you. There is no compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic politics, ethics and logic cannot be part of our civilization. Islam does not assimilate, it dominates. There is never any “getting along” with Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on Islam’s terms: submission.

The last reason for our aversion to the history of political Islam is our shame. Islam put over a million Europeans into slavery. Since Muslims can’t be enslaved, it was a white Christian who was the Turkish sultan’s sex slave. These are things that we do not want to face.

Jews don’t want to acknowledge the history of political Islam, because they were dhimmis, second class citizens or semi-slaves, just like the Christians. Jews like to recall how they were advisors and physicians to powerful Muslims, but no matter what the Jew did or what position he held, he was still a dhimmi. There is no compromise between being equal and being a dhimmi

Why should a Hindu want to recall the shame of slavery and the destruction of their temples and cities? After Hindu craftsmen built the Taj Mahal, the Muslim ruler had their right hands cut off so that they could not build anything as beautiful for anyone else. The practice of suttee, the widow throwing herself on the husband’s funeral pyre, came about as a response to the rape and brutality of the Islamic jihad as it sweep over ancient Hindustan.

Blacks don’t want to face the fact that it was a Muslim who rounded up their ancestors in Africa to wholesale to the white slave trader. The Arab is the true master of the African. Blacks can’t accept the common bond they share with whites: that both Europeans and Africans were slaves under Islam. Blacks like to imagine Islam is their counterweight to white power, not that Islam has ruled them for 1400 years.

Dualistic logic. Dualistic ethics. Fear. Shame. There is no compromise. These are the reasons we don’t want to know about Islam’s political history, doctrine or ethics.

FP So is there such a thing as non-political Islam?

Warner: Non-political Islam is religious Islam. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five Pillars—prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.

But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.

Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.

In short, political Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt with and treated.

FP: Can you touch briefly on the history of political Islam?

Warner: The history of political Islam starts with Mohammed’s immigration to Medina. From that point on, Islam’s appeal to the world has always had the dualistic option of joining a glorious religion or being the subject of political pressure and violence. After the immigration to Medina, Islam became violent when persuasion failed. Jihad entered the world.

After Mohammed’s death, Abu Bakr, the second caliph, settled the theological arguments of those who wished to leave Islam with the political action of death by the sword. The jihad of Umar (the second caliph, a pope-king) exploded into the world of the unbelievers. Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest.

Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed.

The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism.

Zoarasterianism was eliminated from Persia.

The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.

In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.

Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.

FP: How have our intellectuals responded to Islam?

Warner: The basis of all the unbeliever’s thought has collapsed in the face of Islamic political thought, ethics and logic. We have already mentioned how our first intellectuals could not even name the invaders as Muslims. We have no method of analysis of Islam. We can’t agree on what Islam is and have no knowledge about our suffering as the victims of a 1400-year jihad.

Look at how Christians, Jews, blacks, intellectuals and artists have dealt with Islamic doctrine and history. In every case their primary ideas fail.

Christians believe that “love conquers all.” Well, love does not conquer Islam. Christians have a difficult time seeing Islam as a political doctrine, not a religion. The sectarian nature of Christian thought means that the average non-Orthodox Christian has no knowledge or sympathy about the Orthodox Christian’s suffering.

Jews have a theology that posits a unique relationship between Jews and the creator-god of the universe. But Islam sees the Jews as apes who corrupted the Old Testament. Jews see no connection between Islam’s political doctrine and Israel.

Black intellectuals have based their ideas on the slave/victim status and how wrong it was for white Christians to make them slaves. Islam has never acknowledged any of the pain and suffering it has caused in Africa with its 1400-year-old slave trade. But blacks make no attempt to get an apology from Muslims and are silent in the presence of Islam. Why? Is it because Arabs are their masters?

Multiculturalism is bankrupt against Islam’s demand for every civilization to submit. The culture of tolerance collapses in the face of the sacred intolerance of dualistic ethics. Intellectuals respond by ignoring the failure.

Our intellectuals and artists have been abused for 1400 years. Indeed, the psychology of our intellectuals is exactly like the psychology of the abused wife, the sexually abused child or rape victim. Look at the parallels between the response of abuse victims and our intellectuals. See how violence has caused denial.

The victims deny that the abuse took place: Our media never reports the majority of jihad around the world. Our intellectuals don’t talk about how all of the violence is connected to a political doctrine.

The abuser uses fear to control the victim: What was the reason that newspapers would not publish the Mohammed cartoon? Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence for his novel. What “cutting edge” artist creates any artistic statement about Islam? Fear rules our intellectuals and artists.

The victims find ways to blame themselves: We are to blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001. If we try harder Muslims will act nicer. We have to accommodate their needs.

The victim is humiliated: White people will not talk about how their ancestors were enslaved by Islam. No one wants to claim the victims of jihad. Why won’t we claim the suffering of our ancestors? Why don’t we cry about the loss of cultures and peoples? We are too ashamed to care.

The victim feels helpless: “What are we going to do?” “We can’t kill 1.3 billion people.” No one has any understanding or optimism. No one has an idea of what to try. The only plan is to “be nicer.”

The victim turns the anger inward: What is the most divisive issue in today’s politics? Iraq. And what is Iraq really about? Political Islam. The Web has a video about how the CIA and Bush planned and executed September 11. Cultural self-loathing is the watchword of our intellectuals and artists.

We hate ourselves because we are mentally molested and abused. Our intellectuals and artists have responded to the abuse of jihad just as a sexually abused child or a rape victim would respond. We are quite intellectually ill and are failing at our job of clear thinking. We can’t look at our denial.

FP: So summarize for us why it is so crucial for us to learn the doctrine of political Islam.

Warner: Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.

We must learn the doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion may and must be used to conquer us. Islam is a self-declared enemy of all unbelievers. [“The unbelievers are your inveterate foe.” Koran 4:101. CG]  The brilliant Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tsu, had the dictum—know the enemy. We must know the doctrine of our enemy or be annihilated.

Or put another way: if we do not learn the doctrine of political Islam, our civilization will be annihilated just as Egypt’s Coptic civilization was annihilated.

Since unbelievers must know the doctrine of political Islam to survive, CSPI has written all of its books in simple English. Our books are scholarly, but easy to read. As an example, anyone who can read a newspaper can pick up A Simple Koran and read and understand it. It is not “dumbed down” and contains every single word of the original.

Not only is the language simple, but logic has been used to sort and categorize. Context and chronology have been restored. The result is a Koran that is an epic story ending in triumph over all enemies of Allah. All of our books and philosophy may be found at our center’s website.

Islam declares that we are the enemies of Allah. If we do not learn the political doctrine of Islam we will end up just like the first victims of Islam—the tolerant, polytheist Arabs of Saudi Arabia who became the Wahabbis (a very strict branch of Islam) of today, the most intolerant culture on the face of the earth.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us today.

Warner: Jamie, thank you for your kindness and efforts.

War Blog



A process, not an event


Detailed map of Baghdad. Click to view.

News that an Iraqi Army brigade and 2,000 American troops have begun an operation in the Sunni dominated neighborhood of Azamiyah has kicked off speculation the Baghdad Security Operation is now underway in full force. Expect the forces to establish one or more Combat Outposts (or COPs) in Azamiyah. But the fact is the operation to stabilize the capital and the surrounding provinces is only in its infancy. Today’s positioning of forces Azamiyah is but one more opening move on the chessboard.

Technically, the operation actually began in Late December when President Bush ordered additional troops to Iraq. The deployment of additional forces and the building infrastructure for the Baghdad piece of the security operation has just begun. Only a few thousand of the 17,500 U.S. soldiers have moved into Baghdad. Iraqi brigades are still moving into position.

Only two of the many planned Combat Outposts have been set up in Baghdad – one in Doura and another in Ghazaliya. Iraqi Army, police and U.S. soldiers will be stationed in the outposts to secure individual neighborhoods. Iraqi Army and police units are just beginning to take up positions around Sadr City. Most of the opening moves have occurred in the North of Baghdad. The U.S. and Iraqis still have plenty of assets to put in place, assets that likely won’t be fully in place until March or later.

Iraqi soldiers man a checkpoint at the entrance of Baghdad’s impoverished Shiite Muslim neighbourhood of Sadr City. (AFP/Ahmad al-Rubaye). Click to view.

Military officers have repeatedly referred to the security operation as a ‘holistic’ approach that encompasses more than just Baghdad. Over 4,000 additional Marines are being deployed in Anbar province to fight al-Qaeda and deal with any potential bleed-out of terrorists from Baghdad. Iraqi and U.S. are also being subtly redeployed from more stable areas into regions where al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Sunnah and the Mahdi Army are likely to seek shelter. Recent operations in Najaf, Anbar and Diyala provide some clues.

The mere announcement of the security plan has already and an affect on the security situation. On a positive note, the death squad activity has dramatically decreased in Baghdad. The near daily reports of bodies being found bound, mutilated and murdered have significantly decreased. A major reason for this is Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his fighters to go to ground and not confront U.S. and Iraqi forces. His senior militia leaders are thought to have fled to Baghdad.

On a negative note, al-Qaeda has stepped up its car and suicide bombing campaign, attacking soft targets in the city such as markets, pet shops, and mosques, with deadly results. While Al-Qaeda is said to have pulled out of Baghdad, an American intelligence official informs us al-Qaeda has largely withdrawn to Diyala province, and is ferrying in suicide bombers into the city. Al-Qaeda is stepping up its bombing campaign in an effort to both discredit the security operations and incite sectarian attacks. It is vital the currier network of bombers and the bombmaking cells be dismantled to reduce the effectiveness of al-Qaeda’s operations in the capital. Further concurrent operations must also be conducted in Diyala to disrupt al-Qaeda’s ability to maintain an intensive bombing campaign.

General David Patreaus, the new Multinational Forces Iraq commander, recently stated the results of the new Iraq strategy won’t be known until the summer at the earliest. The Coalition must be prepared to alter the plan as needed, and remember the enemy always has a voice in war. Sadr, al-Qaeda and other Anti-Iraq Forces will probe for weaknesses, both militarily and politically, and attempt to exploit them. The real failure in Operation Together Forward, the Baghdad security operation in 2006, was a failure in imagination. The U.S. military kept plugging away with the same plan, refusing to alter operations in the face of a concerted enemy campaign that exploited the operation’s weaknesses. America and the Iraqi people cannot afford the same mistakes in 2007.  Wednesday, February 7, 2007

The Islamic Fifth Column gets its man on the Judiciary Committee

The Islamic Fifth Column gets its man on the Judiciary Committee – Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:12 AM
Note that the Black Caucus, which is a leftwing extremist group in the House, was responsible for making this happen — an prime example of the unholy alliance in action.  


Faith  and politics
By Joel Mowbray
Published February 7,  2007
Less  than two weeks after Sen. Barbara Boxer very publicly rebuffed the Council  on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the high-profile Muslim organization  scored a surprising victory courtesy of a different leading
Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

When  Mrs. Boxer rescinded an award that her office had given to a CAIR  official, she cited the group’s terrorist ties and its inability to  condemn Islamic terrorist organizations. Faced with the same public  record, Mrs. Pelosi weeks afterward decided to place a freshman  congressman who was heavily backed by CAIR on the Judiciary Committee,  which oversees all domestic counterterrorism legislation. 

While CAIR’s influence had nothing to do with  Rep. Keith Ellison earning a seat on Judiciary (it was the doing of the  Congressional Black Caucus, according to several Hill staffers), it is  nonetheless surprising that the Islamic group’s role in raising more than  $50,000 for Mr. Ellison did not dissuade Mrs. Pelosi, particularly in the  wake of Mrs. Boxer’s much-publicized critique. 
So far, Mrs. Pelosi’s endorsement of Mr.  Ellison has not hurt her politically, but there is definitely potential  for future headaches, particularly with key Jewish supporters. 

Mr. Ellison has chosen to align himself very  closely with CAIR. Through two fund raisers, including one held in 
Florida, and campaign contributions that
almost certainly were bundled by  CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad, CAIR helped Mr. Ellison raise more than  $50,000. Shortly after he was elected to Congress, Mr. Ellison delivered  the keynote address at CAIR’s annual conference. 
CAIR’s connection to Mr. Ellison is through  its co-founder, Mr. Awad, whom Sen. Charles Schumer said in a 2003  congressional hearing has “intimate connections with Hamas.” That strong  accusation is supported by significant evidence. At the time CAIR was  founded in 1994, Mr. Awad was a high-ranking executive with the Islamic  Association for
Palestine, an openly anti-Semitic
organization that was  long believed by law enforcement to be a political front for Hamas. A  civil court judge in
Illinois in 2005 confirmed those suspicions when
he  declared that there was “strong evidence that IAP was supporting Hamas.” ….

After Mr.  Ellison stated following his election his desire to serve on the Judiciary  Committee, several key Democrats, most of whom were Jewish, contacted Mrs.  Pelosi’s office to express their concerns about such an appointment.  Though her office never gave a blanket guarantee, at least two of the  callers said that they felt they were given assurances that Mr. Ellison  likely would not win a spot on Judiciary. 

Ironically, a key factor in Mr. Ellison  landing his seat on Judiciary probably was the intense criticism he faced  for using a Koran for his ceremonial swearing-in. Most Democrats felt it  was wrong for conservatives, led by talk-radio host Dennis Prager, to  demand that the Muslim congressman perform his ceremonial swearing-in on  the Christian Bible. In conversations this columnist had with a number of  Democratic congressional staffers at that time, it became clear that the  whole flap had made Mr. Ellison into something Democrats love more than  almost anything else: a victim.

Given a chance  to comment on Mr. Ellison’s appointment or his many connections to CAIR,  Mrs. Pelosi’s office demurred. It is not  difficult to see that Mr. Ellison could put his party in a bind.
As he  becomes more prominent — and assuming he maintains his closeness to CAIR  — he could easily raise the concern of leading Democrats, particularly  Jews. CAIR has refused to condemn as terrorist organizations Hamas and  Hezbollah, groups whose core mission is killing innocent Jews. Yet despite  that, any actions Mrs. Pelosi might take against Mr. Ellison would almost  certainly raise the ire of the powerful Congressional Black Caucus. 

All hope is not lost for Mr. Ellison. He is an  attractive political figure, and his Muslim faith is a net positive in a  party that covets minority support. That said, Mr. Ellison has made a  major mistake in embracing CAIR so closely. He simply can’t join the  mainstream of his party while locking arms with a group that has been  rebuked by leading Democrats such as Mrs. Boxer and Mr. Schumer. 

After winning the seat he wanted on Judiciary,  though, Mr. Ellison probably sees no need to change his ways.  


The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is an organization of elected African-American congressional lawmakers. The CBC is officially “nonpartisan,” but since its founding it has functioned as part of the left wing of the Democratic Party.

  • Organization of elected African American congressional lawmakers that functions as an arm of the Democratic Party 

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is an organization of elected African-American congressional lawmakers. The CBC is officially “nonpartisan,” but since its founding it has functioned as part of the left wing of the Democratic Party

The CBC was founded in January 1969. Its founders were Representatives John Conyers and Charles Diggs of Michigan, Ron Dellums and Gus Hawkins of California, Charles Rangel and Shirley Chisholm of New York, Louis Stokes of Ohio, Ralph Metcalf and George Collins of Illinois, Parren Mitchell of Maryland, Robert Nix of Pennsylvania, William Clay of Missouri, and Delegate from the District of Columbia Walter Fauntroy.

Until 1994, when voters returned a Republican House of Representatives, the CBC had been defined as an “official office of Congress” and as such was provided its own offices, staff and lavish budget. The CBC now claims as its address the office of whichever member is serving as Chairman. CBC funding flows largely through the tax-exempt Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc. and is used to fund conferences, parties and other activities to benefit caucus Democratic leaders and their families. Membership in the CBC is accorded automatically to any African-American elected to the House of Representatives, unless that member refuses membership. As of April 2006, the CBC consisted of 5 officers and 38 additional members. All 43 were Democrats, and 22 of them were also members of the radical Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives.

In the 1990s Republican Congressman J.C. Watts of Oklahoma refused CBC membership and described unnamed black Democratic leaders as “race-hustling poverty pimps.” He was elevated to the third highest position in the Republican congressional leadership but chose not to seek reelection in 2002.  Another Republican, Rep. Gary Franks elected from Connecticut in 1990, accepted membership in the CBC but soon found that, despite paying $5,000 in dues, he was never informed of some of its meetings and was locked out of others by Democrats who wanted to keep what they discussed in those meetings secret from Republicans. In 1993, after Franks threatened to quit the Caucus, then-chairman Kweisi Mfume of Maryland persuaded him to stay by agreeing to a deal. Chairman Mfume’s deal was that the “Democratic Caucus” of the CBC — i.e., every member except Republican Franks — would continue to exclude him from their private meetings where they voted to set policies. But these policies, Mfume promised, would then be discussed and voted on again by the full CBC, where Franks was a minority of one.

When Franks was defeated for reelection in 1996, CBC member Bill Clay of Missouri wrote a six-page letter to the departing lawmaker, characterizing Franks as a “foot shuffling, head-scratching ‘Amos and Andy’ brand of ‘Uncle Tom-ism'” and a “Negro Dr. Kevorkian, a pariah, who gleefully assists in suicidal conduct to destroy his own race.” Rep. Clay described Franks as one of those “Negro wanderers” whose “goal … is to maim and kill other blacks for the gratification and entertainment of — for lack of a more accurately descriptive word — ultra-conservative white racists.” No other member of the CBC was willing to condemn or criticize Clay’s remarks. 

According to Carol M. Swain, writing in the The American Prospect, “[T]he most costly mistake” made by the CBC “was probably its apparent embrace of Louis Farrakhan.”  The Caucus made a “covenant” with Farrakhan in 1994 which it was forced to rescind shortly thereafter as result of public outrage. “…Khalid Muhammad, a disciple of Farrakhan, delivered a venomous speech at Kean College attacking Jews, Catholics, and other groups,” wrote Swain. “The ensuing public outrage was so great that it led the Congress, for the first time in history, to pass a resolution condemning the speech of a private citizen. Twenty [Congressional Black] caucus members voted for the resolution, eleven voted against, four voted present, and three failed to vote as the measure passed the House 361 to 34.” But in 1995, a year later, new CBC Chairman Donald Payne led his Caucus to endorse and take part in Farrakhan’s “Million Man March” in Washington, D.C.

See also: John ConyersCharles RangelWilliam Clay, Melvin WattBarack Obama, Corrine BrownChaka FattahJesse L. Jackson, Jr.Barbara LeeSheila Jackson LeeCynthia McKinneyEleanor Holmes NortonMajor OwensBobby RushMaxine WatersDiane Watson, and Kweisi Mfume.

Barack Obama asked to repudiate George Soros’ support

Barack Obama asked to repudiate George Soros’ support

by Bill Levinson

The following was sent to info “at”, and an automatic acknowledgement was just received. Mr. Obama will not be able to claim that he “does not know” these things about George Soros and his friends at if he continues to accept Soros’ support.

Dear Mr. Obama, (also posted to the Internet for the record)

The purpose of this E-mail is to put it ON RECORD that your campaign is aware of George Soros’ endorsement and financial support, and also that George Soros has effectively equated the United States to Nazi Germany.

“Soros, who spent $26 million trying to beat Bush two years ago, is a key supporter of the media-darling Illinois Democrat’s presidential campaign.”
“Sen. Barack Obama is scoring gains in the early campaign-money sweepstakes, pulling in checks from liberal movie moguls, Silicon Valley executives and financiers such as George Soros in a bid to match Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s huge financial advantage in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

‘Nazi America’
George Soros accused the United States of being a Nazi regime at the recent conference in Davos, Switzerland, and nobody noticed. That has Martin Peretz angry.
The New Republic’s editor in chief began his column by citing a New York Times report in which the billionaire liberal says: “America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany. We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process.”

George Soros has a long track record of denouncing and undermining the United States. He has called our country a threat to world peace and said that Israel is responsible for causing anti-Semitism. He also wants to subordinate the United States to the United Nations.

You can be the friend of George Soros or the friend of decent and patriotic Americans, but you cannot be both. You certainly cannot be America’s friend and also the friend of an individual who compares our country, which incidentally has 1/1 (1-7 scale, 1 being best) ratings for civil liberties and political freedoms from Freedom House, to Nazi Germany. It is therefore reasonable to expect you to openly reject and denounce George Soros’ support, and to pledge to refuse all campaign contributions from any organization with which he is involved. I am confident that you will not knowingly and willfully associate with an individual who equates the United States with Nazi Germany, just as no decent candidate would knowingly and willfully associate with a prominent Ku Klux Klansman like David Duke.

You should also be aware that, which was initially funded by Soros, has a long track record of welcoming anti-Semitic, racist, anti-Catholic, and anti-Evangelical hate speech at its moderated Action Forum. Here is what Soros’ friends at have to say about Jews, African-Americans, and Catholics, and this is just a tiny sample. I am confident that the Obama for President campaign will not associate its name with this kind of thing. (Action Forum links no longer work, as the scandal last year forced to take the Action Forum offline.)


Tom Lantos a “whining, arrogant Jew”
Congressman Tom Lantos told PM Olmert of Israel that he wants to freeze the $ 230 million U.S. aid package to Lebanon. Lantos is the ranking democrat on the House Foreign Relations Comte. Lantos said, “The [Lebanese] aid package should be witheld until the Lebanese government displays responsibility”. Responsibility ? Israel is guilty of war crimes in their cowardely attack on Lebanon and the whining, arrogant Jew wants Lebanon to demonstrate responsibility ! This is another example of how many Jews/Zioniosts in our Congress use the U.S. for their own greedy purposes. DUMP ISRAEL.
14 out of 17 voted to AGREE with this.
If you are a Jew and want respect;
Denounce Israel’s abuse and occupation of Palestinians for the last 50 yrs and stop spreading the lies you heard on Fox Israel News.
Condemn AIPACs manipulation of the US foreign policy.
Read and acknowledge the validity of the “Israeli Lobby” papers.
Until you do you’ll just sound like the Bush administration defending their reasons for going to war.
If you just can’t do it deny that you are Jewish.
Our parents abused some of us, some were drunks, some were divorced and some had Jewish parents. We don’t have to hang on to our past.
We can all see how AIPAC/Israel has taken control of America. Not to get nasty but jews have a long history of subverting governments for their own enrichment and glory to the detriment of whole societies. Many more than “6 million” have died by semetic aggression,
Israel has 8,000 Palestinian prisoners, Hezbollah and Hamas has 3 Israeli prisoners.
Israel is killing civilians and their children with our missiles and has never stopped stealing Palestinian land, farms, and precious aquifers.
Removing all Israeli obsessed Jews from congress would stop a lot of killing.

Slur against our Vietnam Veterans
Mr Goody-two-shoes, I hope you didn’t volunteer for Vietnam, otherwise you are just a mercenary like the others. Did you ever wonder what the Vietnamese did to you to be killed by the millions and to have their country burned to the ground?
I wasn’t even referring to the atrocities committed in places like Abu Ghraib but to plain prostitution, the only way to survive for women and children widowed and orphaned by the US war machine. It is a fact that a prostitute in Afghanistan costs the equivalent of 25 cents.
Now, don’t tell me you never saw a prostitute during your stay in Vietnam. Anyway I would have no way to disprove your claim because these are things heroes like you don’t brag about. Arab’s work in your ports, on your teeth, on your heart, in your school and your universities.
You condemn them as sand Niger’s, out to destroy America, if you think, you know better and it’s not true or possibly.
Bin ladin is no worse than Bush. Bush as a subordinate of the neo- Jews. God bless the non neo-Jews.

Thanks Harry, for telling it like it is. Rice and Powell ARE “house slaves”. And the “Republicans ARE like the Jews who worked for Hitler”. And Shrub IS “a tyrant and a terrorist”. Harry, we need people like you in Congress.


(This piece of hate speech was found on Google’s cache)
By continuing the attack on the GOP’s culture of corruption with a call to arrest the Catholic pedophiles of America, we have the ability to break up the perverts and criminals running the country today. WE know there are hundreds of thousands of pedophiles created by the Catholic church’s shuffling them around since 1950.

Yet another Action Forum posting says,

“Especially the modern day human educated since the early eighties when the Catholics were allowed to steal our education money for their pedophile creating private schools. “ will doubtlessly tell you the same lie they told the public: that they did not know about the hate speech, and that shadowy Republican operatives planted it on their site. There plenty of documented proof that knew about the hate speech and welcomed it until they were exposed during last week’s election system. As just one example, MoveOn’s own Web page says MoveOn had to have seen the hate speech: Action Forum FAQ page
proves that’s moderators not only saw every piece of hate speech, they saw each one twice.

How can I make sure someone at MoveOn reads my post ? All comments
are read at least twice. While there is no single criteria, comments
that suggest a possible MoveOn action and are not duplicative are
likely to be immediately passed on, or included in a summary to the
whole MoveOn team. Ratings, while important, are not definitive and
some comments with few or low ratings are included in the summaries.
Important issues are sometimes followed up with a survey to a
sampling of the membership.

Just what does your moderator do? Our moderators are better described as monitors. They spend the vast majority of their time looking for comments to pass on to the MoveOn team and doing weekly forum summaries. With regard to moderating, their goal is to help create a space to facilitate input. It is not their goal to remove every comment that might be inappropriate. [Our experience is, however, that they were very diligent at removing comments that criticized] The first line of moderators are our members, who rate inappropriate comments low. [Our experience, as shown on the evidence pages for this site , is that the members gave them overwhelming approval.]

Posted by Bill Levinson @ 4:32 pm |

Pelosi’s push for jet remains up in air — Why can’t she borrow Hillary’s broom

Islamists’ “Divide and Rule” Tactic

Islamists’ “Divide and Rule” Tactic
By Christopher Hitchens
Slate | February 7, 2007

Replying to Fareed Zakaria’s observation in Newsweek, about Iraq and the Iraqis—that “We did not give them a republic. We gave them a civil war.”—Charles Krauthammer, in our common sister paper the Washington Post, expressed a fine contempt:

Did Britain “give” India the Hindu-Muslim war of 1947-48 that killed a million souls and ethnically cleansed 12 million more? The Jewish-Arab wars in Palestine?

Alas, the answer to the above sarcastic questions is “yes.” (In the first instance by staying several decades too long and then compounding the mistake by leaving much too fast—even unilaterally advancing the date of independence so as to speed up the scuttle—and by capitulating to Muslim League demands for partition; and in the second instance by promising Palestine at different times to both the Zionist and Arab nationalist movements.)

However, this unpleasant historical fact—which has its own implications for Iraq—does not acquit Zakaria’s remark of the charge of being morally idle. In many other people’s minds, too, there is the unspoken assumption that what the United States does in Iraq is a fully determined action, whereas what other people do is simply a consequence of that action, with no independent or autonomous “agency” of its own. This mentality was perfectly expressed, under the byline of Marc Santora, in the New York Times of Jan. 31. Santora explained the background of the murderous attacks on the Shiite festival of Ashura: “At Ashura, Shiites commemorate what is for them the most formative event of their faith, a celebration that had been banned under Saddam Hussein. In recent years, Sunni militants, caught up in a renewed sectarian split, have attacked worshippers on the holiday.” (My italics.)

I suppose that might be one way of putting it. But a factually neutral way of phrasing the same point would be to say that three years ago, the leader of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia wrote to his guru Osama Bin Laden, saying that there was a real danger of the electoral process succeeding in Iraq and of “suffocating” the true Islamist cause. The only way of preventing this triumph of the democratic heresy, wrote Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was to make life so unbearable for the heretical Shiites that they would respond in kind. The ensuing conflict would ruin all the plans of the Crusader-Zionist alliance. I can still remember the chill that went through me when I read this document and realized that it combined extreme radical evil with a high degree of intelligence. Santora’s reportage is not alone in slightly declining the responsibility for facing this central truth.

If there is a sectarian war in Iraq today, or perhaps several sectarian wars, we have to understand that this was latent in the country, and in the state, and in the society all along. It was not the only possible outcome, because it had to be willed and organized, but it was certainly high on the list of probabilities. (The Saddam Hussein regime, which thrived on the worst form of “divide and rule,” certainly represented a standing invitation to run this risk.)

In other words, those who now deplore and decry the “civil war” (or the “civil wars”) must, in order to be serious, admit that they would have deplored such an outcome just as much if it had not happened on America’s watch or had (like Rwanda) been something that we could have pretended to watch as disinterested or—even worse—uninterested spectators.

The habit of viewing Iraq as a crisis that only began in 2003—a lazy habit that is conditioned by the needs of the impending 2008 election—is an obstacle to understanding. Everybody has their own favorite alternative scenario of how things might have evolved differently or better. In some weak moments, I can picture taking the alternative advice from the European Union and the United Nations in 2003—let’s just see how Iraq develops if left alone as a private fiefdom of the Saddam Hussein dynasty—and only then deciding that things have deteriorated to the point where an international intervention is necessitated. That would have been much less upsetting and demanding than the direct assumption of responsibility, and could have been triggered by the more familiar images of unbearable suffering and carnage, and could have summoned the Darfur-like emotions of guilt and shame, but it would perforce have been begun very much later—and perhaps too late altogether.

Iraq was in our future. The specter, not just of a failed state, but of a failed society, was already before us in what we saw from the consequences of sanctions and the consequences of aggressive Sunni fascism at the center of the state. Nobody has ever even tried to make a case for doing nothing about Iraq: Even those who foresaw sectarian strife were going by a road map that was already valid and had been traveled before. Thus it seems to me quite futile to be arguing about whether to blame the Iraqis—or indeed whether to blame the coalition. Until recently, no Iraqi was allowed to have any opinion about the future of his or her country. How long did we imagine that such a status quo would have remained “stable”? Charles Krauthammer might be wrong about his specific historical comparisons, but he is quite right to lay stress on the point that—absent a complete evacuation of Iraq and the region—there was a rendezvous in Mesopotamia that could not have been averted. A general refusal to confront this fact is actively revealed by the use of the passive voice.

The Madness of King George

The Madness of King George
By Jacob Laksin | February 7, 2007

If putting one’s foot in one’s mouth were a lucrative enterprise, George Soros would be worth far more than his current $8.5 billion. While bashing the Iraq war for the benefit of reporters at this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the Hungarian-born Soros, a Holocaust survivor, unburdened himself of the view that the Nazis were once more in charge. Only now they were running the United States. “America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany,” Soros explained. “We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process.” Lest there be doubts that Soros was actually likening his adoptive country to the Third Reich and the Bush administration to the Nazi nomenklatura, a Soros spokesman, Michael Vachon, moved quickly to dispel them. “There is nothing unpatriotic about demanding accountability from the president,” he said of Soros’s appeal for de-Nazification. “Those responsible for taking
America into this needless war should do us all a favor and retire from public office.” In other words: guilty as charged.

This is not, to be sure, the first time that Soros has revealed himself as a dispenser of Godwin’s Law. In The Age of Fallibility — a bluster-heavy rant against America, its “feel-good society,” and its economic “market fundamentalism” published last summer — Soros posed the rhetorical question: “Is it valid to compare the Bush administration to the Nazi and communist regimes?” Soros ruled unhesitatingly in the affirmative. Sure, he allowed, the
U.S. was a “functioning democracy” while “Nazi Germany and the
Soviet Union were totalitarian dictatorships.” But concerned citizens must look past this “glaring contrast,” he urged, “because then we can discern some surprising similarities.”

And which similarities might those be? First, there was the “unbridled pursuit of self-interest and self-indulgence” and a societal “revulsion” to both, a connective tissue that, in Soros’s judgment, made the
United States the modern offspring of Nazi Germany’s forerunner in the

Republic. In
Germany, this revulsion manifested itself in the Nazi rule. In the
US there was the comparably troubling “rise of religious fundamentalism.” Second, Soros wrote, “the Bush administration and the Nazi and Communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear.” As if to underscore his historical illiteracy on this point, Soros explained that the “9/11 attacks had their counterpart in the Reichstag fire in
Germany and the
Kirov murder in the
Soviet Union.” (In view of its inability to prevent even minor policy debates from leaking into the media, can it really be the case that the Bush administration declared a one-party state and purged political opponents by the thousands without arousing suspicion?)

There was more along these lines. Citing yet another supposed similarity, Soros wrote that “in Nazi Germany, the
Soviet Union and present-day
America, political life came to be dominated by a movement that originated outside the parliamentary system and seized state power.” Thus, according to Soros, the German Nazis and the Russian Communists find their logical match in the “conservative movement” within the Republican Party. Not least, there were “similarities in propaganda methods.” Here, however, Soros maintained that the
United States was actually more pernicious than its Nazi and Soviet analogues. His reasoning was that “the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines.” (At least this would explain why the Bush purges remain unknown.)

To point out the flaws of these comparisons would be to invest them with unearned seriousness. In any case, Soros made it clear that even he thought them unlikely to convince the lay reader. Conceding that his equation of the
United States with Nazism and Communism won him few supporters — outside, that is, the left-wing blogosphere, which found his Nazi analogies entirely on point — Soros lamented: “Why does the general public not react in the same way?”

A better question might be: Where does George Soros, of all people, summon the nerve to smear his political opponents as Nazis? If anyone ought to be wary of a critical examination of the Nazi era, it is Soros. Though one finds only vague and sporadic mention of it in his books, all written with the conceit that a worldly power-broker is speaking inconvenient truths to power, the billionaire activist has his own uncomfortable ties to the Nazi genocide.  

To examine these, one has to go back to 1944. In the aftermath of the German invasion of
Hungary in March of that year, Soros’s father Tivadar conceived of a plan to safeguard his Jewish family from the occupiers. All were given false names with young Soros, then 14, becoming the suitably gentile sounding Sandor Kiss and posing as the godson of an official in the Hungarian ministry of agriculture. Throughout 1944, as the Nazi Final Solution to Hungarian Jewry took its murderous course — within months half of Hungary’s prewar Jewish population had been killed or shipped to their slaughter at Auschwitz — Soros traversed the country in the company of repossession officials, looking on as they confiscated property whose owners had been freshly deported to the death camps. At times, Soros reportedly served notices of eviction to deportees.

On one level, it’s difficult to blame Soros for doing what he needed to survive. Yet there has always been something unseemly about the unfeeling manner with which Soros has recalled that chapter of his life. As flagged by Martin Peretz in the New Republic, when asked in a 1998 interview on “60 Minutes” whether he was traumatized by the experience of dispossessing his coreligionists, Soros gave an arresting answer: “Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t … you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.” In his mania for demonizing America‘s political leadership, Soros seems to have forgotten that there is at least one prominent figure implicated in the real — as opposed to imagined — crimes of the Nazi era. And it’s not President Bush. 

Casting further suspicion on the legitimacy of Soros’s Nazi analogies are his strained ties to the Jewish state. While addressing a fund-raising conference for Israel in 2003, Soros claimed that the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe could be partially attributed to the “policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration.” The Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman, no stranger to overreaction, nonetheless echoed the sentiments of many in the Jewish community when he pronounced Soros’s comments “absolutely obscene.”  

This would be an equally fair description of Soros’s views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he sees as a “vicious circle of escalating violence,” a familiar bromide that posits a false moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinian rejectionists unabashedly seeking her destruction. More recently, Soros has floated plans to fund a “progressive” alternative to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, apparently on the grounds that the lobbying organization is too supportive of Israel. Details are still vague, but early reports indicate that it will be on the model of the Israel Policy Forum, the liberal advocacy organization that has never let the lack of a credible Palestinian negotiating partner temper its enthusiasm for negotiations (read: Israeli concessions). The IPF’s director, David Elcott, is among the names linked to Soros’s project. 

All this may seem of parochial interest. Why should anyone concern themselves with a blowhard financier whose politics are as extreme as his wealth? One reason is that Soros has in recent years committed much of that wealth to charting the course of the Democratic Party. In the 2004 election cycle, Soros’s spent more than $23 million on a campaign to defeat President Bush. Even as that effort foundered at the polls, the political landscape is now dotted with Soros-funded political action committees like America Coming Together,, and the Center for American Progress, all vying to steer the Democrats leftward. Scratch a left-wing interest group and you’ll likely find Soros cash.  

With the 2008 presidential election getting into high gear, another issue has come to the fore. Last month Soros announced that he was throwing his substantial clout behind the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic star from Illinois who has cast himself as a pragmatist unwilling to play the game of political division. Yet there are few public figures more divisive than George Soros. In the interest of his moderate image, Obama should decline Soros’s support. Better still, he might ask Soros to apologize for slandering the country that has given him every opportunity to prosper. Spurn the self-styled prophet of the Democratic Party? Admittedly, it’s a lot to ask. Call it the audacity of hope.

Muslims converting to Christianity by the thousands in France

Muslims converting to Christianity by the thousands in France

In the face of ostracism and death threats — in accord with Muhammad’s command to kill those who leave Islam. “Muslims converts face ostracism in France,” from ZeeNews, with thanks to Morgaan Sinclair:

Muslims are converting to Christianity in their thousands in France but face exclusion from their families and even death threats.Most Muslims hide their conversion and Protestant ministers do their utmost to protect new converts. It is estimated that every year in the world some six million Muslims convert to Christianity.

The Muezzin call to prayer. But here in France it is no longer reaching all Muslim ears.

Around 15,000 Muslims each year are converting to Christianity – around 10,000 to Catholicism and 5,000 to Protestantism….

Many Muslims in France hide their conversion but the trend is continuing. World wide around six million Muslims a year convert to Christianity.