THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Washington Post has reported--drop a ready tear — that there will be no
Iftar Dinner this year in the White House:
For the first time in nearly two decades, Ramadan has
come and gone without the White House recognizing it with an iftar or
Eid celebration, as had taken place each year under the Clinton, Bush
and Obama administrations.
And the article by Amy Wang attempts to suggest that the “tradition”
of the Iftar Dinner goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson who, as is
well known, was asked by a visiting Muslim envoy of the Bey of Tunis,
one Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, to postpone the dinner to which Jefferson
had invited him, along with others, until after sundown, which
Jefferson, as a matter of courtesy, did.
The Post continues:
Jefferson’s decision to change the time of the meal to
accommodate Mellimelli’s [the envoy from the Bey of Tunis] observance of
Ramadan has been seized on by both sides in the 21st-century debate
over Islam more than 200 years later. Historians have cited the meal as
the first time an iftar took place in the White House — and it has been
referenced in recent White House celebrations of Ramadan as an
embodiment of the Founding Father’s respect for religious freedom.
Meanwhile, critics on the far right have taken issue with the
characterization of Jefferson’s Dec. 9, 1805, dinner as an iftar.
Notice how in the Post article it is “historians” (disinterested,
authoritative, not to be doubted) who cite that 1805 meal as the first
Iftar dinner in the White House, while those who deny that the meal was
an “Iftar dinner” are described as being on the “far right,” apparently
for no other reason than that very denial.
What actually happened is clear for those without an insensate need
to make Islam, as Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed it was, “always
part of America’s story.” And you can be as left-wing as all get out,
and still recognize that Jefferson was not putting on an Iftar dinner. A
little history will help: Mellimelli came to Washington as the envoy
of the Bey of Tunis. The Americans had blockaded the port of Tunis, in
order to force the Bey to halt his attacks on American shipping.
Mellimelli was sent to make an agreement that would end the blockade.
Invited by Jefferson to a dinner at the White House set for 3:30
(dinners were earlier in those pre-Edison days of our existence), he
requested that it be held after sundown, in accordance with his Muslim
practice, and Jefferson, a courteous man, obliged him. There is no hint
that the dinner had changed in any way; no one then called it, or
thought of it, as an “Iftar dinner.” Mellimelli himself did not describe
it as an “Iftar dinner.” There is no record of it being anything other
than the exact same dinner, the same menu, with wine (no removal of
alcohol as would be necessary were it a real Iftar dinner), the only
change being that of the three-hour delay until sunset. Nothing
Jefferson said or did at the time, or in his later writings, indicates
that he thought of that delayed dinner as an “Iftar dinner”; nor did he
think he was in any way honoring Islam.
In fact, Jefferson had a very dim view of Islam, which came out of
his experience in dealing with the Barbary Pirates, that is, the North
African Muslims (in Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli), who attacked
Christian shipping and seized ships and Christian sailors, and then
demanded ransom. The sums were not trivial; the American Republic found
itself spending 20% of its national budget on such payments. These
continued until Jefferson became President, stopped the practice of
paying such tribute, and instead made war on the Barbary Pirates. And
that worked.
In 1786, years before he became president, Jefferson, along with John
Adams, met with the Tripolitanian envoy Sidi Haji Abdrahaman in London.
Perhaps by then Jefferson had read the Qur’an he had purchased in 1765
out of curiosity (no one knows how much of that Qur’an Jefferson may
have read, or when, though some Muslim apologists have baselessly
claimed he must have bought his Qur’an out of sympathetic interest in
Islam.) If he did read it, it would have helped him to understand the
motivations of the North African Muslims. Certainly by the time he
became President in 1801, he was determined not to negotiate with the
Barbary Pirates, but to implacably oppose with force these Muslims whom,
he knew from his encounter with Abdrahaman in London, were permanently
hostile to all non-Muslims.
In London, Jefferson and Adams had queried the Tripolitanian
ambassador “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon
nations who had done them no injury” for the Americans had done nothing
to deserve being attacked, and the ambassador replied, as Jefferson
reported:
“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which
had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and
duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman
who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”
And later, Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay and to
Congress at greater length, with a nearly identical quote from the
ambassador:
“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded
on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all
nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that
it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could
be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and
that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to
Paradise.”
These reports do not sound as if they came from someone who thought
well of Islam. The more dealings Jefferson had with the representatives
of the Barbary states, and the more he learned from them directly of the
tenets of the faith, the more he began to understand the aggressive
nature of Islam, the centrality of Jihad, the inculcation of permanent
hostility toward non-Muslims, and the heavenly reward for Jihadis slain
in battle.
The Iftar dinner “tradition” begins not with Jefferson in 1805, and
that three-hour delay in a meal that was otherwise unchanged, but with
our latter-day interfaith outreach presidents — Clinton, Bush, Obama —
each of whom, in his own way, has managed to ignore or misinterpret the
texts and teachings of Islam.
That “tradition” of Iftar dinners in the White House is less than 20
years old, as compared with the other “tradition,” ten times as long,
that is, the 200 years of Iftar-less presidencies. That short-lived
“tradition” has been ended, for now, by an administration that, for all
of its self-inflicted wounds and woes in other areas, continues to
exhibit a better sense of what Islam, foreign and domestic, is all
about, than its predecessors, and has no desire to obliquely honor it.
The interfaith outreach farce that the Iftar Dinner at the White
house embodies, honoring Islam — while, all over the world, every day
brings fresh news of Muslim atrocities against non-Muslims, more than
30,000 such attacks since 9/11/2001 alone, not to mention attacks as
well against other Muslims deemed either of the wrong sect, or
insufficient in the fervor of their faith — now comes to an end, if only
for four years. That is certainly what Jefferson (and John Adams, and
that most profound presidential student of Islam, John Quincy Adams), if
not The Washington Post, would have wanted.
And since John Quincy Adams has been mentioned, why doesn’t The Washington Post
take it upon itself to share with its readers what that most scholarly
of our presidents wrote about Islam. It does not date. And it might
prove most instructive.
_________________________________________________________
IFTAR DINNER AT TRUMP TOWER, NEW YORK CITY ON THE STREET, WITH LINDA SARSOUR MAKING PROTEST STATEMENT ABOUT PERCEIVED, ALLEGED "HATRED & ISLAMOPHOBIA"
Trump's Travel Ban Makes A Comeback As The Supreme Court Reinstates Executive Order
HISTORIC: Supreme Court Saves America,
Reinstates Trump Travel Ban
Supreme Court Reinstates Travel Ban;
9th Circus (Circuit Court) Overturned Again
Published on Jun 26, 2017
The
Supreme Court has reinstated Donald Trump’s travel ban that has been
heavily criticized by the public and of course, the mainstream media.
The ban is a temporary measure that will halt travel from six countries
in and around the middle east including Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen,
Syria, and Iran. It is being reported as a minor victory by the
aforementioned MSM because there is a caveat to the ban being allowed.
If a person has a sick or injured relative in the United States, then
they may have a bona fide reason for being able to skip past the travel
ban. Other than that, the ban is on. Before the Supreme Court’s
ruling, it was struck down by a temporary injunction coming from Federal
Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii then Theodore Chuang of Maryland and was
upheld by the 4th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Much of the
opposition to the travel ban is politically motivated. Maybe even
personal. Derrick Watson is a native Hawaiian who attended Harvard Law
School with Barack Obama. He was appointed by Obama as well. 48 hours
before Watson issued the injunction which halted Trump’s travel ban,
Barack Obama just happened to take a trip to Hawaii. Could be a
coincidence or it could be fishy as when Bill Clinton intercepted
Loretta Lynch as soon as she landed in Phoenix Arizona while she was the
Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s investigation
into Hillary alongside the FBI. And the 9th Circuit Court of appeals
has a history of decisions based on liberal activism and 80% of them get
overturned.
The travel ban is up for formal talks in the court
in September of 2017 but for now, it is back in place thanks to the
majority conservative Supreme Court. Neil Gorsuch is the first Supreme
Court appointee by Donald Trump and may not be his last since Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are now elderly. Also, conservative
justice Anthony Kennedy may retire soon. This situation could mean that
Trump has the opportunity to appoint in total, 4 new conservative
justices which would tip the scales of balance 7-2 in favor of
conservatives which would help shape the direction of the country into
the foreseeable future.
Travel Ban Now Enforceable, Not A Muslim Ban
Published on Jun 27, 2017
Trumps
Travel Ban has been heavily criticized by the left who claims that its a
muslim ban. However the entire Supreme Court Ruled in favor of Trumps
Travel Ban proving that it is constitutional and doesn't discriminate
against Muslims. It's interesting to note that the 6 countries on the
travel ban aren't even the countries with the highest populations of
Muslims which aren't included on the ban.
