A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION OF THE RECEPTION OF REFUGEES

There are numerous admonitions to love the alien, stranger, or foreigner:

·       “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:33-34)

·       “And I [Moses] charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s.’” (Deuteronomy 1:16-17)

·       “He [God] executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:18-19)

These teachings were even reiterated by Jesus (Matthew 25:41-43). However, justice had to be administered justly, according to the Law God gave to Moses:

·       If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” (Exodus 12:48-49; Numbers 9:14)

The “one law” of this nation is based upon the Constitution. Yes, we are to love our neighbor, but what if the refugees insist on living under their own law – the sharia – and then strive to impose it on the rest of the nation, as Islam seeks to do. This is something that would not have been tolerated in ancient Israel. Perhaps, it shouldn’t be here.

Ibn Khaldun, a 15th century Tunisian historian, has spoken for the majority of the Islamic world by writing:

·       In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

This teaching is derived straight from the Holy Koran:

·       “Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion (Islam) reigns supreme, (Koran Surah 8:37)

·       “When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners [like Jesus] to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way’.” (Koran 4:5)

·       “…kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (Koran 2:191) and “murder them and treat them harshly” (Koran 9:123), and “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers” (Koran 8:12, cp. 8:60).

Do most Muslims believe this way? Evidently! Surveys have demonstrated that the majority of Muslims seek a worldwide Caliphate, which will place everyone under Islamic dominion.

It is clear that true Muslims do not respect our Constitution and the laws it embodies. They believe that they can only live under sharia. Why then do they come here? They might truly be oppressed, but they also believe in the Koran’s teachings about immigration Jihad:

·       Koran Surah 4:100-01: He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah [Jihad], finds in the earth Many a refuge, wide and spacious: Should he die as a refugee from home for Allah and His Messenger, His reward becomes due and sure with Allah. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

Believing Muslims regard all “unbelievers” as “open enemies.” Therefore, they will not be grateful for the shelter and hospitality that they are now receiving in the West. Instead, they will conjure up all forms of distortions to convince themselves that we are evil.

They also deceptively use “friendship” in order to advance the Islamic agenda. Meanwhile, a believing Muslim is not allowed to truly befriend the non-Muslim:

·       Koran 3:27 Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah unless it is done [deceptively] to guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully.

·       Koran 5:54 O ye who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other.

How do Muslims interpret these verses? This comes from the following fatwa which quotes the Koran in support:

·       “Undoubtedly the Muslim is obliged to hate the enemies of Allaah and to disavow them, because this is the way of the Messengers and their followers. Allaah says:

o   [60:4] “Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’”

·       “Based on this, it is not permissible for a Muslim to feel any love in his heart towards the enemies of Allaah who are in fact his enemies too. Allaah says”:

o   [60:1] “O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth”

·       “But if a Muslim treats them with kindness and gentleness in the hope that they will become Muslim and will believe, there is nothing wrong with that, because it comes under the heading of opening their hearts to Islam. But if he despairs of them becoming Muslim, then he should treat them accordingly.”

Consequently, in view of Islamic deception, there are no reliable means to vet Muslim immigrants.

What does it mean to treat the non-Muslim “accordingly?” The many Koranic teachings on Jihad tell us:

·       Koran 2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran)

·       2:216 - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

·       3:151 - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions [like Jesus] with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

·       4:89 - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

·       8:12 - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

·       9:5 - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

These are not verses about self-defense, but about worldwide conquest. What about the “peaceful” Koranic verses. As any Islamic scholar knows, those verses were uttered before Muhammad had an army. In his earlier years, the only way to win converts was through preaching a message of peace and acceptance. However, these verses have been replaced (the doctrine of “abrogation”) by later verses, according to the Koran:

·       2.106  “If we abrogate any verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar.” [also 13.39]

In view of the threat and reality of Islam, are Christians mandated to be concerned? God is concerned. He cares deeply about justice and the protection of the innocent, so much so that He instituted a criminal justice system in the hearts of humanity:

·       Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. (Romans 13:1-5)

What does it mean for us to “be in subjection?” For one thing, we must uphold justice and the protection of the innocent. For this reason, we do not empty the prisons because people argue that “God is love.” This would not be an act of love towards the innocent, but an act of hatred.

Because we “love our neighbor as ourself,” we are required to seek their protection and welfare. We, therefore, do not want to see released criminals hunting them down or turning them into sex-slaves. This would not serve their welfare.

Therefore, to love requires us to judge. (Of course, we must first judge ourselves, as Jesus had taught us – Matthew 7:1-5). It is to make critical decisions about who we incarcerate, who we release, and who we allow into our house and our country.

FAVORING CHRISTIAN REFUGEES AND THE SEEKER-SENSITIVE CHURCH

At the G20 summit, President Obama stated:  

• “When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

However, Pam Geller countered:

• But it is Obama who is shameful. He’s the one who has applied a religious test to migrants. He has refused Christians seeking refuge from jihad genocide. He has refused to meet with Middle Eastern Christian leaders. They are the true victims of the jihadi wars.

• “Discrimination: 2,098 Syrian Muslim Refugees Allowed Into America, Only 53 Christians,” (John Nolte, Breitbart News, November 17, 2015)

Geller adds that only 53 Christian Syrian refugees have been allowed in since 2011. In light of this, it is Obama who is showing favoritism. Meanwhile, it is the Christians who are suffering the worst victimization.

• Syrian Christians have been singled out for the worst kind of persecution under ISIS, including mass beheadings that do not discriminate against innocent women and even small children.

Geller adds that:       

• Fleeing persecution at the hands of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other jihadist groups, Syrian Christians generally avoid U.N. refugee camps because they are targeted there too.

• Most refugees considered for resettlement in the U.S. are referred by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

While Obama claims that showing preference for Christians is “not who we are,” this is what we have always been. The US has always discriminated in terms of who we accept into the country.

Meanwhile, Geller adds that:

• The F.B.I. has already admitted that it cannot adequately vet these refuges, and ISIS has promised to use the Syrian refugee process as a means to infiltrate the West with terrorists. Early reports indicate that two of the gunmen that hit Paris Friday snuck in through the refugee program.

It is therefore entirely irresponsible to bring in Muslim refugees who, in light of both religion and history, will practice Jihad on their adoptive country. According to the Koran, immigration is also a means of Jihad for the Muslim:

• He who emigrates (from his home) in the Cause of Allah [Jihad], will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by. And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allah and His Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then surely incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies. (Koran 4:100-101) 

Meanwhile, Obama fails to acknowledge that Christian refugees will not cut off heads or bring down buildings or try to impose their ways on our nation. Instead, it is the Christians who are likely to make the most positive adjustment and contributions to the US. And so why shouldn’t this be a consideration!

Meanwhile, there are other possible humanitarian responses to the Muslim refugees. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said:

·       "It's absurd — just think about it, when the Germans say they will spend billions on providing for the new arrivals instead of giving the money to the countries around the crisis zone, where they [migrants] should be stopped in the first place. It would be better for everyone. They wouldn't come here. It would cost less. And our approach couldn't be called into question morally either."

However, in September, France's Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve attacked the idea of preferring Christian refugees:

·       "I really don't understand this distinction," Cazeneuve said. "I condemn it, and I think it's dreadful. A whole series of minorities are being persecuted in the situation in Syria.”

How many more Paris attacks will be necessary for these multicultural zealots to rethink their position! Even now, they admit that they have lost control of the situation.

However, it is not them alone who need to do some re-thinking. Seeker-sensitive churches, springing up in metropolitan areas, also think it illegitimate to favor Christian refugees. Often, they will not even single out Christian refugees for prayer.

However, loving their brethren is to take preference over all other expressions of Christian love (Galatians 6:10). Even Jesus showed favoritism, identifying so closely with His Brethren that when they suffered, He too suffered:

·        “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” (Matthew 25:40)

For Jesus, the way to love the world and to draw them to the light was to demonstrate the light of our love for our brethren:

·       "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)

·       "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23)

The best way to love the world is to start by loving our own. Although such a conclusion is politically distasteful to younger Christians, it will not be so if we would only think about it for a bit. The best way to love our children is to love our spouse, which would create a loving family environment. Likewise, the best way to love our community is to love our children, thereby raising responsible and loving neighbors.

This doesn’t mean that we do not love our neighbor’s children. However, to put their welfare above that of our own children will create bitterness and, eventually, brokenness. Such “love” will also be seen as hypocritical. To care for my neighbor’s wife as I do my own can only bring forth bad results.

To bring in dangerous Muslim refugees who will murder, according to their religion and for the sake of imposing their Caliphate, will also engender bitterness and dissolution.

To ignore these very apparent realities will bring great disrepute on the church. Instead, we are to provide light and leadership and not a pathetic pandering to the prevailing culture.

In light of this, giving must be performed with great discretion and wisdom. It must be conducted in a way that doesn’t endanger the innocent. Bringing in tens of thousands of Muslims into the USA is a sure prescription for violence, and it is antithetical to Christian love. Instead, our hearts must go out first of all to the Christian refugees - the ones who will make a positive adjustment to the West - without forgetting charity to others.

The Dream of a Worldwide Caliphate

One devout Muslim confided that the dream of every true Muslim is to have a worldwide Caliphate. However, this Muslim dream is a nightmare for all others. It means a degrading subjugation to the laws of Islam and death or imprisonment to those who won’t submit.

Achieving the Caliphate will require violence. Although Muslims would be glad to realize their dream through non-violent means, violence is a regarded as a necessary price, as a recent Al Jazeera poll found – 81% of Muslims polled approved of ISIS. This means that they largely approve of ISIS’ tactics - forced conversions, beheading, kidnappings, and sex slavery.

How is this possible? How is it that people who are pursuing a concept of righteousness could justify such horrors to achieve their worldwide Caliphate?

Before I was a Christian, I was “seeking.” I was given a Hebrew Bible and began with the Book of Joshua. Mesmerized, I read how my people, the Israelites, were defeating everyone by the hand of God. I was elevated, dignified, and thrilled by what I was reading. It felt like I was triumphing, that I was king and that I was finally bestowed with my due glory. However, this glory was short-lived. I finished the Book of Joshua and proceeded to the Book of Judges, expecting that my glory would only be intensified.

It wasn’t! Instead, the Jews rebelled against their God and suffered greatly – death, humiliation, and starvation. I was crushed and fled to the Hebrew Prophets, expecting that they would tell me what I wanted to hear – the greatness of my people. However, they charged them with the very opposite things:

• Isaiah 1:2-4 I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me; The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master's crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not consider.…They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him.

• Jeremiah 1:15-16 For behold, I am calling all the families of the kingdoms of the north," says the LORD; "They shall come and each one set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its walls all around, and against all the cities of Judah. I will utter My judgments against them concerning all their wickedness, because they have forsaken Me, burned incense to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands.

• Ezekiel 2:3-5 And He said to me: "Son of man, I am sending you to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day. For they are impudent and stubborn children. I am sending you to them, and you shall say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD.' As for them, whether they hear or whether they refuse--for they are a rebellious house--yet they will know that a prophet has been among them.

Their condemnations of Israel seemed endless but not my patience. I had enough of the Bible. It failed to feed my ego. End of story!

I wish the Muslims had something in their Koran comparable with the Book of Judges or the Hebrew Prophets – something to tame their dream of world conquest and domination. Even more, I wish that they would meditate on the words of Jesus:

• An argument started among them [Jesus’ Disciples] as to which of them might be the greatest. But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great." (Luke 9:46-48; NASB)

We all yearn for greatness, but I had a perverted understanding of what true greatness looked like. For me, greatness was a matter of power and conquest. However, for Jesus, it is a matter of humility – being least – and seeking the welfare of others.

Instead, the Koran reads:

• “Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion [Islam] reigns supreme, (Surah 8:37)

• “When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners [like Jesus] to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way’.” (Surah 4:5)

• “…kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (Koran 2:191) and “murder them and treat them harshly” (Koran 9:123), and “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers” (Surah 8:12, cp. 8:60).

These are present obligations. To be a faithful Muslim is to be faithful to the revelation of the Prophet Muhammad. The Apostle Paul reminds us that we too are at war, but not the kind of war generally envisioned:

• Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:11-12; NIV)

While we do resort to armor, our armor is spiritual and mental. Our enemies are primarily spiritual forces who have taken captive the people of the world through deceptive philosophies and religions. The Charleston SC shooter had been taken captive by a philosophy of racism and a white earthly kingdom. Muslims have been taken captive by their own dream of an earthly kingdom. May we provide the light:

• And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:24-26)

Generalizations: Nazis, Muslims, and Nicholas Kristof

Generalizations are the currency of scholarly debate and decision-making. For instance, one study, attempting to measure the impact of pornography on rape, observed:

• Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates.

While there has been an array of anecdotal evidence that the rapist first used porn before raping, generalizations based on this kind of study are quite germane. Another study found that:

• A preschooler living with one biological parent and one step-parent was forty times more likely to be sexually abused than one living with two natural parents.

From this study and others like it, we can generalize that preschoolers are safer with two biological parents.

To claim that there is something the matter with making generalizations is to silence debate and inquiry. Even more fundamentally, such a proscription starves and blinds the mind. However, this is just the thing that multi-cultural (religious pluralistic) dogma is doing. It claims that, since we lack any absolute standards, we cannot judge other cultures, religions, or ideologies.

Others assert that we cannot make generalizations about the people who ascribe to a given ideology. However, while it is true that every Nazi might have believed differently in some respects, it would be wrong-headed to conclude that we should not speak about Nazis in general. Why:

1. The majority still shared many beliefs.
2. The evils of Nazism were almost universally experienced in every nation Nazis entered.
3. Even though they only represented a minority of the German people, their violent tactics were able to commandeer the entire nation.
4. To refuse to make generalizations about Nazi Germany would have defused, de-motivated, and de-focused the Allied effort to stop this horrible evil.

We need generalizations, but we must use them wisely. However, columnist Nicholas Kristof argues against the use of such generalizations. In essence, he claims that all religions are basically without behavioral distinctives, and therefore, we cannot make such generalizations about them:

• Beware of generalizations about any faith because they sometimes amount to the religious equivalent of racial profiling. Hinduism contained both Gandhi and the fanatic who assassinated him. The Dalai Lama today is an extraordinary humanitarian, but the fifth Dalai Lama in 1660 ordered children massacred “like eggs smashed against rocks.” Christianity encompassed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and also the 13th century papal legate who in France ordered the massacre of 20,000 Cathar men, women and children for heresy, reportedly saying: Kill them all; God will know his own.

There were also Nazis who performed heroic and noble acts, but does this mean that we cannot make any generalizations about Nazism? However, Kristof claims that:

• The caricature of Islam as a violent and intolerant religion is horrendously incomplete.

Should we also apply such a conclusion to Nazism because there were good people fighting under the Nazi flag? Instead clarity requires us to distinguish between “Nazis” and “Nazism,” and to examine the overall thrust of Nazism.

Likewise, we need to recognize that there are good and peaceable Muslims like the small-minority Sufis. However, they do not reflect the ideology and overall trust of Islam as German individuals, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, did not reflect the Nazi ideology.

How then should we make generalizations about Nazism? By focusing on their ideology, interpretation of this ideology, and impact! What can we safely say about Islam? For one thing, it is a religion of world domination under Shariah Law and the Islamic Caliphate. Ibn Khaldun, the 15th century Tunisian historian, wrote:

• In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Here’s some of the Koranic basis for this teaching:

• “Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion (Islam) reigns supreme, (Koran 8:37)

• “When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners [like Jesus] to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way’.” (Koran 4:5)

• “…kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (Koran 2:191) and “murder them and treat them harshly” (Koran 9:123), and “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers” (Koran 8:12, cp. 8:60).

Kristof and others admit that there are many violent verses in the Koran but claim that these are little different from the Bible. Therefore, we shouldn’t denigrate the Koran and the Sayings of Mohammad because of the many violent admonitions in the Koran and Hadiths.

However, it doesn’t seem matter how many times the secularists, like Kristof, are told that the violent verses of the Hebrew Scriptures do not apply to us today, they refuse to drop their equation likening Koran to the Bible. But what does the average Muslim believe about the violent teachings of their holy books? Recent surveys provide the answer:

• Polling data released (April 24, 2007) in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007—1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians—reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed-almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict application of Sharia law in every Islamic country.”

This "strict application of Sharia law" is not only utterly incompatible with Western liberties and protections; it rejects them! Sharia subjugates everyone, regardless of religion, to Islamic law. Forget about equality or freedom of religion!

And how about the Muslims the USA had liberated from Sadam Hussein and the Taliban? Would they also seek to subjugate their liberators?

•  The Pew Research Forum report, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” released April 30, 2013, confirms the broad appeal of the totalitarian Sharia, across Islamdom. Specifically, 91% of Iraqi Muslims and 99% of Afghan Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies, after both nations were liberated at the expense of much priceless U.S. blood, and great U.S. treasure.

In the face of such findings, Kristof responds:

• Let’s not feed Islamophobic bigotry by highlighting only the horrors while neglecting the diversity of a religion with 1.6 billion adherents — including many who are champions of tolerance, modernity and human rights. The great divide is not between faiths, but one between intolerant zealots of any tradition and the large numbers of decent, peaceful believers likewise found in each tradition.

Truly, there is diversity within the Islamic community. However, the “moderates” seem to be irrelevant in the face of the great and violence-prone Islamic masses. The proof of this is ubiquitous. Everywhere, in Islamic nations, non-Muslims live in subjection and fear. If there was but Islamic country where non-Muslims live as equals beside Muslims, we might have cause for hope. If there could be found in any nation a sizable Islamic community that is willing to adopt Western values, allowing non-Muslims to live as equals, or where Muslims are not attempting to institute and impose Shariah laws, we might have hope.

However, these findings tell us that Muslims interpret their holy writings in just the way these writings seem to speak – as commands to bring the world under Islam, and, if necessary, with the most extreme forms of violence.

We cannot blind our eyes to these generalizations. One European recently admitted to me:

• Well, we now know that we have a big problem, but what can we do? Everyone is still too comfortable. We can still live with the occasional outbursts of violence and intimidation.

Comfort can kill! However, Kristof and the secularists are still in denial mode.