Ted

By Ben Barrack

Has Rick Warren renounced Christianity by
affirming a Document signed by Islamists?

When 138 Muslim clerics signed a document entitled, “A Common Word between Us and You,” it
was portrayed as an attempt to unite Muslims and Christians. The document, however, asserted that the
Islamic God known as “Allah” and the Christian God known as “Yawheh” are one in the same, that
Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

Ted Shoebat, son of a former Muslim terrorist who was once a Muslim Brotherhood activist
and PLO member, sees the act of signing the document, “Loving God and Neighbor Together,” as
one that necessarily includes a renouncing of Christianity. “The push for Chrisitans to beg for Islamic
acceptance and to express tolerance by declaring Allah as one with the Christian God,” Shoebat
says, “leaves us to wonder as to why Muslims are not the ones apologizing for past atrocities and
accepting Jesus Christ.”

In a video – link below – it’s pointed out that there is a verse in the Qur’an itself which explains the
intent of the use of the phrase, “a Common Word.” It says the following in Sura 3:64:

“O people of the Book (Christians)! Come to a common word between us and you, that we worship
none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords
besides Allah.”

There are two very fundamental differences between the Islamic and Christian Gods. Muslims believe
that their God is without a Son and denies the Trinity. Christians believe the opposite. Any common
word between the two must reconcile those things. For Christians to believe that Muslims worship the
same God, Muslims must accept the Holy Trinity and Jesus.

Interestingly, one of the signatures on “A Common Word” is none other thatn Ground Zero mosque
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, whose NYC mosque was going to be called the Cordoba House. This carried
historical significance because Cordoba, Spain is where Muslims transformed a Church into a Mosque
hundreds of years ago. In the case of Cordoba, the Ground Zero mosque was named after a conquest. In
the case of “A Common Word,” the signatories follow their own Qur’an’s instructions on how to pursue
forced conversions while using stealth.

By Lisa Daftari

Published February 22, 2012

| FoxNews.com

A trial court in Iran has issued its final verdict, ordering a Christian pastor to be put to death for leaving Islam and converting to Christianity, according to sources close to the pastor and his legal team.

Supporters fear Youcef Nadarkhani, a 34-year-old father of two who was arrested over two years ago on charges of apostasy, may now be executed at any time without prior warning, as death sentences in Iran may be carried out immediately or dragged out for years.

It is unclear whether Nadarkhani can appeal the execution order.

“The world needs to stand up and say that a man cannot be put to death because of his faith,” said Jordan Sekulow, executive director of The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

“This one case is not just about one execution. We have been able to expose the system instead of just letting one man disappear, like so many other Christians have in the past.”

It is also feared that Nadarkhani will be executed in retaliation as Iran endures crippling sanctions and international pressure in response to its nuclear agenda and rogue rhetoric. The number of executions in Iran has increased significantly in the last month.

“This is defiance,” Sekulow said. “They want to say they will carry out what they say they will do.”

The order to execute Nadarkhani came only days after lawmakers in Congress supported a resolution sponsored by Pennsylvania Rep. Joseph Pitts denouncing the apostasy charge and calling for his immediate release.

“Iran has become more isolated because of their drive for nuclear weapons, and the fundamentalist government has stepped up persecution of religious minorities to deflect criticism,” Pitts, a Republican, told FoxNews.com. “The persecuted are their own citizens, whose only crime is practicing their faith.”

The ACLJ has been a major driving force in keeping Nadarkhani’s case in the international spotlight. Many other advocacy groups and human rights organizations also have mounted global campaigns and petitions against the Iranian government, and experts credit Nadarkhani’s international support for keeping him alive.

The ACLJ recently launched a Twitter campaign to publicize Nadarkhani’s case, asking participants to dedicate a daily tweet to “Tweet for Youcef,” stating the number of days he has been imprisoned (currently 863) and ending the tweet with “ViaOfficialACLJ,” sending readers back to the organization’s website where they could learn more about his case.

Tweets have reached 157 countries and over 400,000 people.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 89 members of Congress, along with the European Union, France, Great Britain, Mexico and Germany, have condemned Iran for arresting Nadarkhani and have called for his quick release.

Nadarkhani was arrested in October 2009 and was tried and found guilty of apostasy by a lower court in Gilan, a province in Rasht. He was then given verbal notification of an impending death-by-hanging sentence.

His lawyers appealed the decision under the premise that Nadarkhani was never a Muslim at the age of majority, and the case was sent to Iran’s Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court’s decision of execution, provided it could be proven that he had been a practicing Muslim from the age of adulthood, 15 in Islamic law, to age 19, which was when he converted.

The lower court then ruled that Nadarkhani had not practiced Islam during his adult life but still upheld the apostasy charge because he was born into a Muslim family.

The court then gave Nadarkhani the opportunity to recant, as the law requires a man to be given three chances to recant his beliefs and return to Islam.

His first option was to convert back to Islam. When he refused, he was asked to declare Muhammad a prophet, and still he declined.

Iran’s judiciary had delayed in issuing a final verdict, fearing the decision would have far-reaching political implications.

Sources say Nadarkhani has been advised by family members, lawyers and members of his church to remain silent throughout his ordeal, out of fear that authorities may use his statements against him, a strategy commonly employed by the regime.

Why Muslims and Liberals Unite

Many have pondered why the Left has been so much in agreement with the Islamists when it comes to the issue of Christianity and its place in public life. Many have pointed out that the Islamic faith and Leftist thought are so foreign, that it is a marvel as to why it is so easy for them to work together. It must be understood, that the reasons for this alliance is no enigma, but is actually too obvious to figure out: the Left and the Islamist are in agreement not because they are ignorant of their differences, but because they are connected by a common goal and ideology. We find in the Left a utopian vision in which all men will live in a collectivist society where the ‘have-nots’ take from the rich ‘haves.’ Similarly, in the Islamic utopia, called the Ummah or Muslim community, Jewish communities and Christian nations are demanded to be taxed with Jizya by the Muslim-have-nots. In the West Bank today, Hamas has already been establishing Sharia, and Hassam El Masalmeh, who heads the Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem, few years ago made known that there will be a “prohibition of church bells; and restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches.” We find in analogous spirit in what took place in Russia after it was taken by the Leninists, in which church property was seized “for the benefit of the community” and was “to be distributed in equal shares.” The private ownership of land was to be “abolished forever.” (1)

We find today that this is the same antagonistic spirit which proscribes Christians from being outspoken about his God and his faith. This leftist antagonism is similar in its demand for prohibitions to the Islamist who espouses the edicts of Sharia. The Leftists use the words of our Founders to justify their call for prohibition, and their inquisition, against the faithful. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” is a common quotation they use from the First Amendments to our US Constitution calling for the end of religious talk in public. Yet a perusal of the amendment affirms that the state shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise; or abridging the freedom of speech”. This would mean that for one to reject a honorable soldier from making a speech on the importance of God in his life, would be foreign to the ideas of America and its founders.

Such was the case of General William Boykin, who was amongst the first members of the Delta Force, and an honorable hero in numerous missions, in which he endured efficiently with the utmost of valiancy. The general was planned to give a speech at West Point but CAIR, or Council of American Islamic Relations, had pressured with success that the General be prevented from speaking. “We welcome Mr. Boykin’s withdrawal from this event and hope that the speaker who replaces him will offer cadets a spiritual message that promotes tolerance and mutual understanding,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad in a statement. 

Tolerance should not be made a focal point at the cost of freedom; as soon as a people place diversity above liberty, then the society shall become tolerant toward everything and everybody, even the greatest lovers of tyranny, and the greatest enemy of liberty shall be accepted. But, in such a utopian vision, Christianity is the greatest of foes; for it is a faith which upholds the individual over the collective. It was for this reason why God scattered the dreamers of Babel, and held that man was created in the image of God–and thus each human being is special. It is the enemies of Christianity which uphold the idea that all men must be held tightly in a community. It was Rousseau, a beloved idealist of the Left, who held enmity toward Christ since it was He who wished his church not to be apart of a state. “It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom,” says Rousseau, “which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples.” It was for this reason that Rousseau saw in Christianity “nothing more contrary to the social spirit”, while at the same time he affirmed that “Mahomet [Muhammad] held very sane views, and linked his political system well together;” (2) we thus find here that the alliance between the enemies of the church go back farther than what most think, and that this war between light and darkness has been occurring since time immemorial.

The rejection of General William Boykin to speak at West Point is an indication of this war between good and evil which has been occurring so conspicuously in front of our eyes. It is also significant to point out that the groups which had caused the contention against the general were Muslims and progressives united together. It is why CAIR (Muslim) joined VoteVets.org along with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (progressives) in protesting Boykin’s speech.

It is no coincidence that both leftists and Islamists have united together in this inquisition against general Boykin simply for the reason of his Christian faith, and his fearlessness in speaking of the Almighty; it is actually a shame that only a remnant like him are left in this country. The words of Christ speak volumes, when observing a moment such as this, when he proclaimed that “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12: 25-26)

The side of the left and the Islamist have one common goal, and that is the obliteration of Christianity. And why should these two sides fight against each other, when they are such a perfect match, and their enemy, Christianity, poses such a threat?

For more, read For God or For Tyranny by Theodore Shoebat

(1) See THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF LAND SOCIALIZATION, Decree of the Central Executive Committee, February 19, 1918.
(2) Quotes founded in Theodore Shoebat, For God or For Tyranny, sect. 1, ch. 2, p. 38, ch. 4, pp. 53, 54

By Ted Shoebat

Pope Benedict XVI recently issued a condemnation of the Muslim terrorist group Boko Haram, which caused the deaths of at least 35 people in Nigeria, simply because of their Christian faith. Those of the Church, and others of the free world, have shone a spotlight on the persecution of Christians countless times, but it is also necessary to understand the origins of such hatred and religious bigotry.

Islam is not an ‘Abrahamic religion,’ as many have said; it is a faith with roots in pagan views on human life, which affirms that mortal blood, when shed, cleanses the sins of the sacrificed. The Christian faith teaches that man can only attain forgiveness and salvation through the blood of Christ; those of the Islamic faith hold that salvation may be attained by the five pillars of Islam, which are:

1. The acceptance of Allah as the only god, and Muhammad as his prophet,
2.Prayer
3.Fasting
4.Zakat (giving money to Islamic causes)
5.The Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca)

However, superior to all of these pillars, is Jihad, the struggle with those who are enemies of Allah and
his cult; to die in this violent cause brings to the Muslim certain salvation.

Christianity is viewed as the enemy because at its essence, it is a way to salvation that requires Muslims
to reject Jihad. Christ began the most monumental movement against human sacrifice when He died on
the cross. “But now in Christ Jesus,” says Saint Paul, “ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by
the blood of Christ.” (Ephesians 2:13)

The Christian faith is what served to rid the entire world of those cults which sought salvation through
the shedding of human blood. Yet, the Islamic god, Allah, takes pleasure in the sight of bloodshed, and
the more violence caused by his worshippers, the more he delights in them.

When Christians, and the other peoples of Persia, were subject to extortion and commanded to:

“Embrace Islam so that you may be safe. If not, make a covenant with me and pay the Jizyah tax.”

Khalid bin al-Walid, a companion of Muhammad, made a vow to Allah that if he was granted victory,
he would form a canal running with the blood of the slain around the Persian villages. It took the
Muslims a day and a half to behead all of the captives, and the blood was so much, and so coagulated,
that the warriors of Muhammad had to fill it with water in order to get their canal of gore to flow. [1] Scenes from Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto are brought to mind when reading about such religious rites.

Human sacrifice, either of oneself or others, is an anathema to Christianity. Thus, the teachings of the
Nazarene are the greatest enemy to Islam; it is the only faith which teaches that perfect blood, that
of the Son of God, is the only sacrifice which forgives the sins of mankind. Islam teaches that Judas
Iscariot was crucified in place of Jesus, whom they believe to have been a revolutionist promoting a
revolutionary social gospel; and it as well charges that the true Christ is not who Christians think He
is, and in doing such, has made Christianity its most distinguished enemy by belittling the faith.

Christianity is the most followed faith on earth, and as such it is a major threat to the Islamic religion, as well
as the latter’s unholy grail – an Islamist utopia, in which the Muslims will have the complete power,
throughout the earth, to “destroy the cross and to slash the throats of those who believe in the cross.”
[2]

The Christians of Nigeria are not victims of an Islamic sect or fanatical group but followers of the
purest form of Islam; it is beyond important for the church to recognize this fact. “And have no
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,” says Saint Paul, “but rather reprove [them].”
(Ephesians 5:11)

[1] At-Tabari,Vol XI, The Challenge to the Empires, In Series: The History of at-Tabari, (Ta’rikh al-
rasul wa’l-muluk), Translated by K.Y. Blankenship, SUNY series in Near Eastern Studies, Bibliotheca
Persica, State University of New York Press, Albany New York, 1993, pp. 44-45

[2] This was stated by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, read from the article: Iraq’s al-Qaida threatens
to ‘destroy the cross’, By AP AND JPOST STAFF.