Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Saudi Arabia Burning

News Update: Santorum has withdrawn from the race, but no endorsement yet.

Two days after Easter, it seemed appropriate to have a little chat about our “friend and ally” Saudi Arabia. We all know that Saudi Arabia is hostile to Christianity. Many of us first realized how hostile during the first Gulf War when the Saudis. ”

The beleaguered protectors of the Holy Sites reached out pleading hands to the United States, crying: “Save us from Saddam Hussein. Save us. Oh, and by the way, when you get here don’t even think of celebrating Christmas.
For decades now, the Saudis have forbidden the building of new Christian churches in Saudi Arabia, and the penalty for a Muslim who converts to Christianity remains death. But that’s simply not enough for the purveyors of the religion of peace. So the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Shaikh, chief cleric of the Saudi kingdom, has issued a fatwa that remedies that deficiency. He has called for the physical destruction of all Christian churches within the confines of the oil-rich, freedom-poor nation.

The fatwa was picked up by Islamist news stations in other parts of Jihadistan, but so far the Saudi king’s state-controlled media have not reported on the latest round of Islamic religious tolerance. Saudi king Abdullah does not want his phony interfaith “dialogue centers” in Europe endangered by the cleric’s move. He may also fear that the current robe-kissing, deep-bowing American president will be defeated in November and replaced by a new commander-in-chief with a backbone. It should also be noted that if the monarch were truly interested in interfaith dialogue he might open a center or two in his own kingdom.

On March 30, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a private meeting with the king, in which the topic was allegedly the miserable state of women in the sand kingdom. It is also rumored that she brought up the fatwa, but that remains unconfirmed. If she did discuss the matter with the king, he must have replied “shut up, foolish woman” since nothing has been heard from State since.

The news concerning the fatwa first came out in the Kuwaiti newspapers. Kuwait’s parliament was kicking around the idea of a ban on new church construction to match Saudi Arabia’s. They invited al-Shaikh to speak on the topic, but the chief Saudi cleric figured it was a dandy time to go that one step farther and propose the destruction of existing churches as well.

The grand mufti speaks officially only for the Saudi Muslim state, and then only after consultation with the king. But al-Shaikh was taking advantage of his position as chief cleric for the home of the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina, a position which gives his words significance outside the Saudi realm. It’s likely no coincidence that he made his decree known in a neighboring Muslim state which was considering banning all Christian churches. Although he has no authority outside Saudi Arabia, this message was addressed to all Muslims. It will have an effect, even in those states where Sunni-Shiite rivalries are vicious. Even mass murderers are know to occasionally rally around a common cause such as destroying Christian places of worship. Take Egypt and Lebanon for starters.

Think of it this way. The Pope is the single most influential Christian in all of Christendom, but his secular authority does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the Vatican, and his religious doctrine cannot be enforced outside the Roman Catholic Church. Still, anything he says is going to be taken note of by his fellow Christians. If the Pope declared that the doctrine of transubstantiation must be enforced throughout the Christian world, Protestants would take little note of it.

But what if the Pope announced an official decree (called a “bull,” something very similar to an Islamic fatwa) requiring the destruction of all mosques in Italy, the home of Roman Catholicism? And what if he did so in an address to the British Parliament? You can let your imagination run wild with that. But two things are sure. The secular authorities would declare the bull to be in violation of civil law, and many Christians would be horrified.

But in theory, at least, it would be an order to Italian Catholics, an encouragement to Catholics elsewhere in the world, and a call to arms even for many Protestants. With or without the support of the majority of Christians, trouble would soon be in the offing among those who are scarcely able to tolerate Islam in their homelands now. Medieval Popes did something very similar. The generic term for it is The Crusades.

In reality, of course, the current Pope is a real man of peace, as opposed to Islam and its major clerics who are advocates of the phony religion of peace. So don’t expect any Papal calls for mosque demolitions. In Saudi Arabia and adjacent lands, religious tolerance is honored more in the breach than in the observance. But at least until this fatwa came along, there was a small pretense that Islam was not out to destroy or reduce Christianity into submission.

And let us remember, that the Arabic word “Islam” does not mean “peace.” It means “submission.” Islamists and weak-kneed non-Muslims would have you believe that the word means “voluntary submission to the will of Allah.” Would that it were true, but the words of the grand mufti prove otherwise.

40 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

another informative post, Hawk. Let's refer to Islam as "the religion of submission"

T-Rav said...

I personally prefer "the religion of death," but that works too.

I really wonder what is being said behind closed doors by the Saudis with regard to the fact that their king has had to meet and talk with a woman on equal terms. Nothing good, I suspect.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Islam is the worst religion in the world. Fortunately is is also dying.

I would love to have Bolton as Secretary of State and Cheney as the Ambassador to the United Nations. Oh and put Santorum as the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Yes, I am evil. ;-)

AndrewPrice said...

Saudi Arabia is indeed a mess and Team Obama are not the people to sort them out.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: That would at least be honest.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I think I might go even one step farther and call it the religion of murder.

If we had a Secretary of State like Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher, I'd probably be enjoying that query. Instead, we have someone who insulted our military with some regularity when she resided in the White House, and is too busy supporting socialist dictatorships in the Western Hemisphere to be bothered with dealing with any of the threats from the Middle East. Instead of her presence alone being a slap in the Saudi's faces, they see it as another sign of American weakness.

A strong woman, with faith in America's people and a belief in American exceptionalism would be a wake-up call for all of Islam. But instead we have Hillary Clinton.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I like that lineup. And to further the challenge, we could call it the Crusader Cabinet.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: This administration can't sort out friend from foe within the confines of the U.S. They're sure as hell not capable of facing down murderous regimes in the Middle East. Every time America protests a church burning or a murder of Christians or Jews for their religious beliefs, then does nothing about it, the Islamists are simply further emboldened.

Joel Farnham said...

Police car shot up in Sandford, Fl. Somehow, I think that it wasn't actually people from Sandford doing the shooting. I think it was outside agitators. The reason is that this whole weekend, nothing happened except that Sanford Police Station was occupied for a few hours.

I believe that there is a coordinated effort to ensnare the Police into rash actions. So far, every thing has been like trying to light a wet match.

rlaWTX said...

I have said before, and I will say again, Islam is the ultimate man-made religion. You get to kill people you don't like for the teensiest of infractions. Your women folk are thoroughly oppressed. You are in fact "king of your castle" in the most violent ways. Your god is angry, harsh, and encouraging of the worst impulses of man.


Joel, I like your line-up! and I hope the match stays wet - sopping even!

T-Rav said...

rla, on that note, whenever anyone tries to tell you that for most of its history, Islam has been a peaceful and tolerant religion (like before the horrible Crusades and all), don't believe a word of it. Almost from the time the Muslims came to control the Holy Land, Christians and Jews were subjected to blatant persecution and general mistreatment as dhimmis. It wasn't constant, but it was very real, and no better then than it is now.

T-Rav said...

And Santorum is dropping out of the race.

StanH said...

Boy, it’s a good thing I didn’t send the Saudi King an Easter basket.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: So far, the Sanford police and the state's attorney have shown admirable restraint. They're not allowing themselves into being baited into any action which will play into the hands of the racial agitators.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: Until Islam becomes exegetic in the manner of Christianity and Judaism, it will continue to be a threat to civilized humanity. Eternal truths are eternal truths, but truths which fit the situation centuries and millennia ago and are not relevant today must be discarded. Islam is still coming out of that cave, prepared to destroy the pagans, Christians, Jews and anybody else whom they considered a threat to their existence. Nothing has changed for the vast majority of Middle East Muslims in the nearly fourteen hundred years which have elapsed since the death of Muhammed.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Absolutely correct.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I'm watching Santorum's speech right now.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: Well at least I think the Muslims don't consider rabbits "unclean." But those decorated eggs can be dangerous. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

I wonder how much the Grand Mufti's fatwa influenced the following actions in Nigeria: Christians Murdered at Easter Services in Nigeria.

LawHawkRFD said...

Soooooo--Is Santorum going to endorse a candidate?

LawHawkRFD said...

Santorum finally said the magic words. "I quit."

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

You mean the Grand Mufti's fatwa emboldened the attack? Sometimes I think it is the other way around.

Joel Farnham said...

I hope Santorum endorse Newt.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: The Boko Horam in Nigeria are plenty vicious on their own, but I'm sure the Mufti's fatwa helped. He only spoke of Christian churches in Saudi Arabia, but also spoke of "Muslim lands" as a hint to those outside the Saudi borders.

T-Rav said...

LawHawk, I don't think he has any plans to endorse in the near future. If he did, he might have dropped a hint or two. And his staff is saying the same thing.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I'm at the "enough, already" point. Newt can't win, and Paul's a joke. The sooner we pick a candidate, the better. The last thing I want to see is Newt's gigantic ego further dividing the Republican Party. They've made their point, they will have an influence at the convention on the platform, they'll pull Romney to the right, and that's all fair. But let's get on with beating Obama (something Santorum did say, though without an endorsement).

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I agree, but I think that if Santorum endorses Newt, that will totally destroy Santorum's future chances. Right now, most Republicans are a little annoyed at how Santorum used up the time for no good purpose, but not enough to completely reject him. He has folded early enough to get partially rehabilitated. I would have preferred him totally obliterated. Still, I don't think he will even get close next silly season.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I can't entirely blame him. However much I may have come to oppose his candidacy, a substantial number of Republicans felt he should be the candidate. But I hope he does so soon. Party unity is always important, but this year it's critical. The fate of America hinges on the defeat of Obama, so we have to mend our fences and get on with the campaign at the earliest possible date.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: That's very likely true. He was divisive, but that's politics and I think it's healthy. But there's a time to heal wounds rather than create new ones, and this is that time.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Newt will only stay in the race until it becomes obvious Santorum's voters go with Romney. I think after the next primary, Newt will go away. The crazy old uncle will stick around.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I hope you'r right. I simply worry that Gingrich is the crazy-old-uncle-in-waiting. Or maybe, March hare apparent.

Patti said...

yes, let the pope recommend the destruction of mosques and let's see the left implode. it will never happen because christians are true peace-lovers.

p.s. no matter what happens, i will. not. submit.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: Unless they can move real fast, I don't think we have to worry much about submitting after the presidential inauguration in 2013. Obama can do all the submitting he wants between now and then, but he won't take America with him.

K said...

What if they gave a religious war and only one side showed up?

LawHawkRFD said...

K: I guess the only thing I can say to that is that I hope it's our side and they lose by default. LOL

Tehachapi Tom said...

HAWK
I WONDER DOES THE POPULATION OF THIS COUNTRY UNDERSTAND THE PERIL WE CURRENTLY FACE.
Every one seems to so willing to give bo a pass.
His quotes from past years are ignored, his current positions are ignored I do not feel we can continue as the greatest nation ever on this earth if we continue to ignore.
Just a thought to consider;
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you… you may know that your society is doomed." … Ayn Rand

God forbid.

K said...

Hawk: You would hope wrong. Someone is fighting a religious war right now, and it isn't us. We divorced our culture from religion and are subsequently, unarmed in that arena. We've been fighting a war for political solutions, they have been fighting for religious solutions.

The practical application of this will be Afghanistan. After spending a few hundred billion bucks not to mention thousands of lives, there will be little effective change when we leave.

= British Empire Fail

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: The problem is always that Americans have felt secure so far away from the problems of the Middle East, Asia and Europe that they don't see the threat as immediate. 9-11 should have changed that, and it did briefly. Now Americans are back to thinking about the danger as being "over there."

LawHawkRFD said...

K: I was attempting to be humorous (it gets harder every day). Not only are they fighting for a religion, but they are fighting for a religion that encourages their own deaths as a quick trip to paradise. That is the most dangerous kind of zealotry, since it's not amenable to correction by occupation the way it was with Germany and Japan. Then add the concept of "fighting to build democracy" instead of "total victory" and you have a recipe for disaster. America was never good at empire, and changing the word "empire" into "peacekeeping and building democracy" doesn't change the futility of the concept when dealing with primitives who espouse a religion which demands submission and celebrates the deaths of its own people in pursuit of that goal.

LawHawkRFD said...

Here's what Obama's genius ambassador to Nigeria had to say about the unquestionably religious-based violence in Nigeria: Religion Not Driving Extremist Violence. Of course the ambassador's name is Johnnie Carson, so he must be joking, right?

Post a Comment