"They'll know we are Christians by our love ...."

Our deacon's homily this past weekend included his observation that the Christmas manger scene is an inclusive image, in that God became man not only for the believers, but for all humanity. No one is excluded from the gift of the Incarnation of Christ.

As reflected by the old campfire song, we Christians are similarly called by our faith to show love to all humanity, not only to other Christians. For Catholics, we serve others "not because they're Catholic, but because we're Catholic".  This is reflected by countless Catholic and other Christian ministries such as AIDS care and prevention efforts in Africa, Catholic schools and hospitals around the world, the ministry of The Little Sisters of the Poor, the example of St. Mother Teresa in Calcutta, and indeed the work of Catholic Charities for Syrian and Iraqi refugees.

This call to charity for "the other" has historically been reflected in American culture at large, so much so that the USA is often called the most generous nation on Earth.

Yesterday, I heard a radio report regarding Syed Farook, one of the infamous San Bernardino terrorists.  In that report, an imam at Farook's mosque told how Farook had been a good person to him, helping the imam with his car.

A nice story, but a question came to mind: are Muslims called to serve non-Muslims? Does Islam instruct the believer to charity for non-believers as we Christians are?  I honestly don't know the answer, but a quick few seconds on Google left me with the impression that they are not. It doesn't appear to be sinful to give charity to non-believers, but there does not appear to be a call to do so. Statements I found include:

Muslims should seek first and foremost to give their charity to Muslim brothers who are in need, and there are plenty of them.

Giving charity to poor Muslims is preferable and more befitting, because spending on them helps them to obey Allaah, and it helps them in both their worldly and spiritual affairs.

and, pertinent to the events of San Bernadino:

If the party or gathering is connected to some religious event of the non-Muslims, such as Christmas parties, then also it will be impermissible for one to participate. The reason behind this is that, by taking part in their religious functions and gatherings, one will be indirectly approving of their disbelief (kufr) and their religion... 

I hope that this is inaccurate, and that indeed Islam calls its adherents to charity for all. But I am ignorant in this regard, and perhaps someone can correct my impression. And I do not mean for this to be a "we're better than them" piece; that's not the intent.

If this is an accurate sense, however, I fear that the best we can hope for from faithful Muslims in our communities is grudging acceptance of the fact of our existence. Tolerance of our beliefs, much less of a right to exercise our beliefs, almost sounds like a stretch.  And this means that assimilation of more Muslims from other countries into our culture will not happen -- rather, we and our culture will have to change.

Reverse engineering the narrative of Ahmed's clock

Obviously, it's a clock

Instead of saying much myself about what appears to be a very clever passive-aggressive hoax designed to bring sympathy to North Texas Muslims in general and fame and hard cash to the Mohamed family central to the whole thing in particular, I'm just going to put up a series of links that highlight anomalies in the Ahmed narrative either not or under reported elsewhere.

Gina Cassini has put the two main elements together, that the clock was not an invention but rather a reassembly of old clock parts in an aluminum pencil case, a setup that - odd for a clock - concealed the digital clock face. In other words, a jumble of electronic parts in a closed box: of course, "It's a clock".

The other element was the early reaching out for legal aid.

CNN reveals that Ahmed has already scored close to $10,000 out of a goal of $100,000 from his ordeal. If Ahmed makes his goal, a scholarship to MIT will be moot.

Running a story on Sarah Palin, extensive pictures at the British Daily Mail reveal the pre-designed-in Muslim angle to the affair.

Here's a YouTube video of Bill Maher's show including, among others, North Texas billionaire Mark Cuban

Taken together, the entire collection of facts of the case suggest a brilliant passive-aggressive ploy which sucked in as its accelerant everyone from local publisher Wick Allison's lily-white empire to the President of the United States.

Credit in this affair should be extended to both the local high school and police department, who simply did their jobs as detailed and didn't backpedal or otherwise allow themselves to be Ahmed like the rest of the media. Even the the Islamic Association of North Texas, which operates the Mohamed family mosque, put out a statement saying

"We're not pointing a finger at the school district or the police department," Hamideh said. "Under the current climate that exists in this country, you can't really blame them because when they see something like that, they have to react."

So Keith, you now ask, where should I be placing my future wagers?

I'd say

100% that the liberals double down and dig in on this

50%/50% whether or not the Mohamed's try to squeeze some lawsuit money out of the affair

Pretty sure that anything substantial in the way of the offers (Facebook, Twitter, MIT, etc.) will quietly fade away with the news cycle.

100% that we now have a new verb: to be/have been Ahmed.

UPDATE (as they say): 

50%/50% whether the family really wants any more close inspection of Ahmed's clock, or of any other facts of the case for that matter:

Officer James McLellan said Thursday the family is free now to recover the clock that was seized as evidence, but the family has not kept appointments for meetings to do so.
 :
Irving Independent School District Communications Director Lesley Weaver said there is more information, but it cannot be released without a privacy waiver from the family. “All they have to do is sign a release form and we’ll be able to give a different perspective of what happened that day in the classroom and the hours following,” she said.
:
Mohamed family members declined to discuss a privacy waiver. They were still considering possible legal representation over the incident and national television interview requests Thursday.

  
UPDATE 2:

More of the Mohamed Family's Zany Sense of Humor: "Twin Towers Transportation Corp."

Incidentally, I pulled this last link from the site of Rod "#IStandWithAhmed" Dreher, founder of the Benedict Option, my prime candidate for sockpuppet Benny, founder of the now abandoned fake Catholic, pro-Benedict Option newsletter The Benedict Post, and all around beloved Moses who will lead us all into the Benedict Option land of Safe Spaces, but not until the Easter Bunny appears to him in a dream wearing a hijab and pointing the way.

Better commentary on the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Since I often have offered the opinions of William Donohue as my own on a wide range of topics, I've been planning to post for some time with regard to how much I disagreed with his press release two weeks ago in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Donohue mentions how important it is to be "unequivocal", then he coughs this up:

Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

This is pure victim-blaming, and the only explanation I'll offer cannot be an excuse for a man as bright as Donohue. He had waged battles against Charlie Hebdo and other publications which insulted religion in the past and he seems to have felt a certain justice had been served by their murders. This is not unlike the phenomenon of Jodi Arias supporters who go too far in their empathy for someone suffering at the hands of a sex-abusing reprobate. But Arias didn't get a restraining order against Travis Alexander, she murdered him. If a sensible man educates himself on what we know about the type of person Alexander was, he wouldn't want him near any of his female friends or relatives. But he was murdered; it's not about him anymore. It's about a crime which is worse.

What troubles me even more is that this characterization of an anger which is supposedly righteous and yet leads to murder misses out entirely on the nature of Islamic jihad and the threat it poses. The men who perpetrated this violence were soldiers. If there was a miraculous religious conversion at Charlie Hebdo two months ago and everyone repented and disbanded the paper, is it sensible to think that these jihadists would not have perpetrated any terrorist attack ever? They would have just waited until another target was acquired; that's what soldiers do. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing — jihadists didn't need an insult to their religion to target a foot race. Is it insulting to Muhammad to watch a soccer game? Should kids who watch a soccer game be publicly executed? Some Islamists think that's a wonderful idea, obviously, and so in a country without any "satirical" magazines that's as good a target as any for the jihad. And we could list more.

So once again, I think that William Donohue has done a very poor job of picking the bad guy here, and I'm wondering if it might be a good time for good old Bill to take a senior advisory role at the Catholic League. You don't have to hang a Je suis Charlie sign around your neck to get your priorities straight in a response. A better Catholic response was offered yesterday by George Weigel who wisely waited a few weeks before pointing out the vulnerabilities of Europe's secularism which are epitomized by Charlie Hebdo. Excerpt:

If all that Europe can say in condemning the despicable murders of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists and editors is “We are all Charlie Hebdo,” then what Europe is saying is, in effect, “We are all nihilists.” And how, pray, is nihilism—nothingness raised to a first principle, skepticism taken to the last extreme—supposed to defeat conviction, however warped that conviction is? If all that Europe can say to murderous jihadism is “Why can’t we all just get along?” its fecklessness will make it an even softer target for the kind of lethal fanaticism that recently turned Paris into a war zone.

There’s another aspect to this tangled and bloody business that’s worth noting, and that is the high price that Europe, and France in particular, is paying for culturally engrained (and sometimes legally enforced) political correctness. Virtually proscribing public discussion of the threat to European civility and order posed by Islamist maniacs has made dealing with that threat far more difficult: for citizens, for the security services, and for the public authorities. In the years since 9/11, the French public square has been dominated by the jihadists and the xenophobes; and in that volatile social environment, something very bad was going to happen. Now that it has, perhaps steps can be taken to bring the adults—and the real issues—back into the discussion.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that William Donohue is one of the "adults" on this topic any more than those infected with nihilism and/or political correctness. One of the secondary effects of the murders is to send the popularity of Charlie Hebdo soaring and selling more copies than ever before. So if the true purpose of these jihadists was to silence those who attach their religion, they are miserable failures. But if their purpose is to "[C]ast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve... (Qur'an 8:12)" then they are a success. Yes, many Muslims have already voiced this opinion; the them what these jihadists did in the name of Islam was fully justified.

David Harsanyi on why Ted Cruz was right

Here's the best-written article I've found to sum up how I feel about persecuted Christians in the middle-east, the State of Israel and Ted Cruz getting booed a week ago. Here's the meat of it, but it's worth reading the whole thing:

But when it comes worldly matters, here’s what I think I know: There’s only one country in the Middle East that doesn’t persecute – or allow the persecution of – Christians. And, in today’s world, that makes them an ally of the oppressed.

As Cruz points out:

Those who hate Jews hate Christians. If those in this room will not recognize that, then my heart weeps. If you hate the Jewish people, you are not reflecting the teachings of Christ. And the very same people who persecute and murder Christians right now, who crucify Christians, who behead children, are the very same people who target Jews for their faith, for the same reason.”

No, Israel’s not going to drop commandos in to rescue the Coptic or send an airlift for the Assyrians– any more than the United States can or would. (Though, sometimes, I wonder why.) But in the Middle East, secularism is far less dangerous to Christians than theocracy. Assad, then, might be a better option than ISIS, but Israel is better option than any of them. Because, generally speaking, Israel shares the same enemies, the same broader geopolitical aims and the same moral outlook. Which, today, makes it the only nation to ally with Christians in the Middle East.*

The best testament to how Jews feel about Middle Eastern Christians can be seen in how they treat them. According to a 2013 Israeli census, the Christian population in Israel has been growing over the years. The only stable Christian population in the Middle East. There are 158,000 Christians in Israel (many of them Arab, and some of them Russians who were offered asylum through The Law of Return). And on average, they were better educated than Jews, and just as prosperous. The Israeli government has actively attempted to better integrate Christian Arabs, who are politically dissimilar from many Muslim Israeli Arabs. It must be working to some extent. According to Time magazine, there’s been a big increase in Arab Christians enlisting in the Israeli army, “doubling the number of each of the preceding three years.” Israel should do more to make it happen.

What threatens the Christian population in Israel? It’s what threatens them everywhere. According to the census takers, “there were fears that Muslim intimidation in cities in northern Israel, where many of them live, are causing large numbers to consider emigrating to the West.”

The reason I like this article so much is it addresses the usual canards thrown around about the views of people like me who support Israel. Harsanyi shoots down the idea that we think Israel can do no wrong or that we prefer secular over religious in general for some insidious reason. I'll take peaceful secular governments over murderous Muslim ones any day, thank you. As far as I can see, the countries being considered aren't Catholic and the call to prayer in these countries does not contain words from The Purpose-Driven Life translated into Arabic.

I don't claim to know why or if Cruz should have said everything he said to that specific audience. But I agree with it in substance. The elephant in the middle of the room remains the question of why do people hate Israel so much. I think there is an answer to this and you may want to go read it here if you wish, with one warning. If you didn't like what David Harsanyi and I have written you will possibly be very angry at what Aryeh Spero writes there.

Chechen Muslims Responsible For Boston Marathon Bombings

"Chechnya is the Muslim area of the Caucasus that has been waging jihad against the Russians since the 19th century." So, the usual suspects. Hat tip to JihadWatch.

From CSB-DC:

WATERTOWN, Mass. (CBSDC/AP) — Police are locking down some neighborhoods in Boston and its western suburbs and all public transportation service has been shut down as authorities search for the remaining suspect in the marathon bombings.

The surviving bombing suspect has been identified as Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, of Cambridge, Mass.

Authorities urged residents in Watertown, Newton, Waltham, Belmont, Cambridge and the Allston-Brighton neighborhoods of Boston to stay indoors.

The announcement Friday morning comes hours after the killing one suspect, known as the man in the black hat from marathon surveillance footage. The man in the white hat is on the loose and police are calling him a “terrorist” who came here “to kill.”

Both bombing suspects are from a Russian region near Chechnya, a source tells the Associated Press. The men have lived in the United States for at least one year.

President Barack Obama has been briefed on the overnight developments at the White House.

A massive manhunt remains underway for the man police believe is the “white hat” suspect in the Boston Marathon Bombing and the other suspect is dead following a wild turn of events that began late Thursday.

“We believe this to be a terrorist,” said Boston Police Commissioner Ed David. “We believe this to be a man who’s come here to kill people. We need to get him in custody.”

The Middlesex district attorney said the two men are suspected of killing a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer on campus late Thursday, then stealing a car at gunpoint and later releasing its driver unharmed. Hours earlier, police had released photos of the marathon bombing suspects and asked for the public’s help finding them. A new photo of the suspect on the loose was released later showing him in a grey hoodie sweatshirt. It was taken at a 7-Eleven in Cambridge, just across the river from Boston.

The first images were released hours after President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama attended an interfaith service at a Roman Catholic cathedral in Boston to remember the bombing victims.

Authorities say the suspects threw explosives from the car as police followed it into Watertown. The suspects and police exchanged gunfire, and one of the suspects was critically injured and later died at a hospital while the other escaped....

Hitler's shampoo

This comes by way of Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer's excellent site. I guess in Turkey they think there was really nothing offensive about Adolf Hitler.



Spencer comments:

The popularity of Hitler in Turkey and Egypt indicates the pervasiveness of Islamic antisemitism and its affinity for mass-murder and genocide. This is yet another indication of the rapid de-secularization and re-Islamization of Turkey. "Turkish TV Ad Features Hitler to Sell Shampoo," from Spiegel, March 26.

Der Spiegel gives us the translation from the Turkish:

The 12-second commercial shows black-and-white footage of Hitler delivering an impassioned speech, dubbed with a high-pitched voice screaming the following words in clipped Turkish:

"Why are you using woman's shampoo if you're not wearing a woman's dress? Now there's the hundred percent men's shampoo Biomen. A real man uses Biomen."

So in Islamic countries Hitler is seen as a macho man, a real man. Not a mass murderer. Of course, we've known that the radical Muslims liked Hitler for awhile now.

Really interesting take on Obama's reluctance to release long form Birth Certificate

Here's a good Am Thinker article about Trump and his strategic request as a non-birther for President Obama to release his birth certificate. The main thrust of the piece is to show how bad the media looks in their soft handling of Obama's shady background. To me, the last three paragraphs are the most cogent and interesting:

This has important implications for the country. Questions about Obama's family and his relationship to Islam, for example, and hence his world view, remain subjects of speculation. Former CIA officer Larry Johnson, for example, believes that the full birth record from the State of Hawaii was probably amended in 1968 to show Obama was adopted by his step father, the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro, that he became formally known for a time as "Barry Soetoro," and may even have his religion listed as Muslim. This would completely change what Obama has said about his past and represent a public fraud of a very significant magnitude.

At the very least the full record might help explain Obama's strange discomfort with exercising American power against radical Muslim regimes in Libya and elsewhere, where he has farmed out the defense of American interests to the United Nations, and his insistence on "dialogue" with rogue Muslim regimes in Syria and Iran. All of this while touting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Al Qaeda associated Muslim opposition groups in Libya as democracy craving freedom fighters.

Some of the missing details of Obama's life are doubtlessly trivial. Obama probably has benign explanations for not providing more information about them. Even Trump admits that the evidence strongly suggests Obama was born in Hawaii and is an American citizen. But that Obama has not yet released this information, and that the media refuses to criticize him for not doing so, is a testament not to the insanity of the "birthers," but to Obama's penchant for secrecy, and the dangerous amount of latitude the media has been willing to cede him.

Muslim Dances On Altar In Roman Catholic Cathedral

Via Pam G.



I'll probably be busy all day blogging about all the public apologies from Imams around the world who decry this detestable hate crime.

As someone wrote in the comments on Youtube, "Lucky for him, Christianity is truly a religion of peace."

Are you outraged yet?

Heads Versus Books

From Larry Elder via Robert Spencer. The beginning gives you the basic gist:

What happens when an Australian Muslim cleric calls for the beheading of a Dutch politician?

Not much.

What happens when an American pastor no one ever heard of threatens to burn a Koran?

It ignites an international outcry.

Well honestly, what media outlet wants to report a "dog bites man" story? A Muslim threatening to behead someone is just that.

Maybe it has to do with absorption. Those Dutch people can absorb the loss of a politician like Geert Wilders, but the Muslims cannot absorb the loss of a few books which the Saudi government gives away for free.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh

Awhile ago I was in the doctor's office and found myself reading the letters to the editor in the May 31, 2010 issue of Time magazine. Several were from Muslims commenting on the bombing attempt by the Islamic terrorist Faisal Shahzad. I jotted a few of them down verbatim and have read them several times over the last several months.

I was going to blog on them earlier, but I decided at the time to merely continue to think about what they wrote for a bit longer. The reason I have done this is because I want to better understand the thought patterns of Muslims and not just jump on everything they say as anyone slightly critical of Islam is currently being accused of. The people who sent these in seem like decent enough folks, and I'll assume they are. My main point here is not to argue against what they wrote. It takes some effort to write letters to the editor, so I can safely suggest that these succinct messages are thoughtful responses to Time's reporting of the attempted terrorist bombing in NYC 2 weeks earlier.

Here is the first letter:

"The worst thing that came from Shazad's botched bombing is that it further damaged the reputation of Muslims in the U.S." - Reem Bakkar, New York City, responding to "Broadway Bomber" May 17.

Here is the second letter:

"Although the events in Times Square were certainly frightening, the political backlash against the Pakistanis and Muslims was even more so. As a Pakistani American, I implore my fellow citizens to practice tolerance toward this culturally rich, peaceful community whose members have overwhelmingly turned their backs on the terrorism and violence that have plagued their native region. Don't make us pay for the mistakes of others." - Zoya Mehmoud, Alexandria, VA

Even now reading these again I don't want to pass any judgment on the words or the speakers of the words. I just want to try a thought experiment. Imagine a Catholic talking about the clergy abuse scandal with the same language, and then substitute the word "Catholics" for "Muslims". To be clear about what I mean, I'll write them out for you:

The worst thing that came from the Catholic clergy sex scandal is that it further damaged the reputation of Catholics in the U.S.

Although the Catholic clergy abuse scandal was certainly atrocious, the backlash against the Catholics was even more so. As a Catholic American, I implore my fellow citizens to practice tolerance toward this culturally rich, peaceful community whose members have overwhelmingly turned their backs on the abuse that have plagued their parishes. Don't make us pay for the mistakes of others.

If a Catholic said those things, would he be accused of not assuming the correct attitude about the atrocities? Would he be accused of downplaying the gravity of the perpetrators' actions? or of ignoring a systemic problem within his "faith community"? Would he be scolded for not prefacing these remarks with a long acknowledgment of the problem and for being glib and insensitive to the plight of the victims?

These are merely questions that I ask, and I leave others to answer them. Please leave your thoughts and answers in the comment boxes below, if you have any.