Posted on 11/07/2011 4:48:49 AM PST by SJackson
For a religion that is perpetually “misunderstood,” the consistency of Islam is remarkable. Consider how ostensibly diverse issues—complaints of “human rights” abuses at an American university and murder in an Egyptian classroom—are interconnected.
First, the American story. According to Fox News:
The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University of America [CUA] violated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers. The investigation alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”
Behind the complaint is John F. Banzhaf III, a George Washington University professor whose website boasts that his “enemies” call him a “Legal-Terrorist” and “the Osama bin Laden of Torts.” He asserts that Muslim students are “particularly offended” because they have to “meditate” at the school’s chapels and cathedral, where they pray while “having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus.”
Of course, as a private Christian institution, even Banzhaf admits “that it is technically not illegal for Catholic University to refuse to provide rooms devoid of religious icons.” Still, according to this so-called “Legal-Terrorist,” that CUA refuses to compromise its Catholic image “suggests they are acting improperly and probably with malice.”
The reader is left to decide who really is acting “with malice”: a private institution operating under private—in this case, Christian—principles, or reportedly “offended” Muslims who are free to attend non-Christian institutions?
Banzhaf further tried to denigrate CUA by boasting of how neighboring Georgetown University, a nominally “Christian” university, “provides its Muslim students with a separate prayer room and even a Muslim chaplain”—as if it is not well known that Georgetown’s Arab and Islam departments receive much largesse by way of donations from the radical Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia (who, incidentally, refuse to permit churches on Saudi ground).
As Newt Gingrich observed regarding this affair: “Are you [Muslims] prepared to sponsor a Christian missionary in Mecca? Because if you’re not prepared to sponsor religious liberty in Saudi Arabia, don’t come and nag us with some hypocritical baloney.”
Notable, too, why Muslim students are seeking to create Islamic havens (or enclaves) in universities: as one of them put it, “Arab [code for “Muslim”] and American students have a difficult time befriending each other because people naturally gravitate towards others with similar backgrounds and interests.” In fact, this is a product of Islam’s own doctrine of wala’ wa bara’, which commands Muslims to be loyal to one another, while completely disassociating themselves from non-Muslims.
Now, consider Muslim behavior toward Christian symbols, specifically the crucifix, where Muslims are the majority and thus in charge—where might not only makes right, but often exposes true sentiments.
Days ago it was revealed that a Christian student in Egypt was strangled and beaten to death by his Muslim teacher and fellow students—simply for refusing to obey the teacher’s orders to cover up his cross. When the headmaster was informed of the attack in progress, he ignored it and “continued to sip his tea.” And, as usual, Egyptian media covered it up, insisting the “conflict” was “non-sectarian” (worse, it was straightforward “Christian persecution”).
In the words of prominent Egyptian columnist Farida El-Shobashy, writing in the independent newspaper Masry Youm: “I was shaken to the bones when I read the news that a teacher forced a student to take off the crucifix he wore, and when the Christian student stood firm for his rights, the teacher quarreled with him, joined by some of the students; he was beastly assaulted until his last breath left him.”
Indeed, the Maspero massacre, where the Egyptian military killed dozens of demonstrating Christians—including by running them over with armored-vehicles—began with hostility for Christian symbols: Muslims insisted a Coptic church be stripped of its dome and cross, so it would not resemble a church; as one Muslim elder put it, “the Cross provokes us and our children.” When Christians refused, Muslims destroyed the church. This is what Christians were protesting when the Egyptian military mowed them down to cries of “Allahu Akbar.”
These two stories—one in Washington, D.C., the other Egypt—demonstrate remarkable consistency; only methods differ, according to circumstances. Where Islam is weak, “terrorist-lawyers” and Islamist organizations like CAIR complain about “human rights” abuses against Muslims; where Islam is dominant, Muslims take matters into their own hands, violating the human rights of others.
Yet if the methods differ, the motivation is one: the victory of Islam over all else; or, in the words of the Quran (8:39)—“Make war on them [“infidels”] until idolatry shall cease and Allah’s religion [Islam] shall reign supreme.”
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/04/does-the-crucifix-%e2%80%98provoke%e2%80%99-muslims/
Everything seems to provoke Muslims - even each other.
Good article, thanks for posting.
Yes, the same way it provokes vampires.
EVERYTHING provokes Muslims. Call me when something DOESN’T provoke them.
Muslims at a Christian school??? Don’t they risk being killed by their fellow Muslims? I’m beginning to wonder if the KKK is more tolerant than Islam.
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Jesus:
Psa 118:22 The stone [which] the builders refused is become the head [stone] of the corner.
Isa 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence...
How offensive He is was predicted.
We aint seen nothin yet.
The CROSS is the most provocative symbol in all history. It is a symbol of salvation and judgement. Notice how many Churches are afraid to display it. Interesting how it provokes anger.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
No more than any sign that there are lliving, breathing infidels in the world.
This whole thing appears to me to be a case of a radical atheist anti-Christian “law professor” using as few as ONE complaint or remark to try to stir up trouble.
CU should simply fire him and move on.
Has anybody noticed that TLC is starting a series about poor persecuted Muslims here in the U.S.? Apparently we are not deferential enough to them and hostile enough to Christianity.
The Cross stands in the way of the revolution.
Liberals/Progressives/Communists or whatever one calls them, are offended by The Cross because it stands in direct contradiction to the lies, thievery and murder of
socialist change.
IMHO
Nobody seems to care what provokes me, why should I give a good Got Dam what provokes Muslims.
If Muslims do not like the way America is , let them go back to the toilet they came from.
Any religion that grows like topsy among jailed prisoners—— is probably not a religion I would adhere to.
Any religion that stones women to death for being raped-—is probably not a religion I would adhere to
Any religion that marry’s off 9 yr. old girls-————
is probably not a religion I would adhere to
Any religion that tolerates—no not tolerates but encourages suicide bombers—
is probably not a religion I would adhere to
Any Religion that wish’s me enslaved or killed if I do not belong to it—
is probably not a religion I would adhere to
Any religion that encourages it’s men to kill their daughter for getting laid.———
is probably not a religion I would adhere to
Need I go on? I am sure most sane Americans get the message.
Satan provokes Muslims.
He uses many tools.
It seems worthwhile to repost my remarks from another thread on the topic:
Islam defines itself in terms of a crabbed sort of monotheism in which God’s absolute transcendence is forcefully asserted as a kind of prison — Allah cannot reveal himself, only his will — but operationally denied by making Allah in the image of an oriental despot. The Gospel, and perhaps, even more than the Gospel, the image of Christ on the Cross, are offensive to Muslims because they are an absolute denial of the Mohammed’s conception of the divine as arbitrary tyrant. The kenotic racially selfless, yet personal, God, not imprisoned in His transcendence, but able to communicate Himself to His creatures, and doing so by assuming our nature, “taking the form of a servant”, dying for our sake, is not merely denied by Muslims, as it is by Jews, or indeed any non-Christians (possibly excluding those Hindus who regard Christ as an avatar of the divine), but is rebuke to their very conception of the divine.
“.. the same way it provokes vampires”.
Imagine what a splashing of Holy Water could do?!!!
Who else is provoked by the Crucifix other than vampires and muslims? Could it be.....SATAN??? (in my best church lady voice...)
The Crescent provokes ME! Can I go behead a Muslim now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.