Why do we deal with Islam at Fortress of Faith? The reason is simple, historically every nation or people group that did not resist Islam was eventually subjugated by it. The Christians that were in Asia didn’t fight against it, and as a result most of Asia is now Islamic. The largest Islamic nations are in this part of the world. The largest Islamic nation is Indonesia, followed by Pakistan, and India.

When Islam tried to make its way into the West, the Christians stood up and fought back. The Muslim armies marched across North Africa and into Spain. They marched into France and got as far as Poitiers. They were met just outside Poitiers by Charles Martel and were defeated. This is often called the Battle of Tours, or the Battle of Poitiers. It actually took place about 15 miles outside of Poitiers and 60 miles from Tours.

About 1,000 years later they tried to come into Europe from the east. They were defeated this time at Vienna.

In the 1920s, after the last Caliphate came to an end, they changed their tactics. In Egypt, an organization was formed, we know it today as the Muslim Brotherhood. They devised their current plan, which is to take Europe by infiltration.

For years I have said the Muslim Brotherhood the most dangerous terrorist organization of the face of the earth. It is more dangerous than ISIS, more dangerous than al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist group. They are dangerous because they have given birth to some militant groups, Hamas being one example. However, what is the greatest danger from the MB is their new tactics. Their plan is to infiltrate the West and set up their seditious groups to work among us. They start out as our friends. They grow through immigration and procreation, and when they feel they can get away with it, they begin to agitate so that one day they might dominate.

They are now trying to slip into our legislation by using a new word, “Islamophobia.” They have been working this idea through the United Nations. There is an effort to get this enacted into law in Canada. It is known as M103, which we have been warning about for some time.

Part of the problem with this term “Islamophobia,” is that it really has no official definition. The ambiguity of this term allows it to mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean. If our legislators create laws that use ambiguous terms, it allows layers to interpret what the terms mean.

Where does the idea of Islamophobia come from? They borrowed from the left, where people who were fighting against homosexuality were called homophbes. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. The suggestion is that the person with a phobia has a mental illness. If we don’t have some clarity concerning Islamophobia, if we don’t have a clear definition, it can be used to mean anything.

The bill in Canada, M103, sounds good when you first hear about it. It says it wants to protect against religious discrimination. Canada already has laws that do this. The bill only mentions one religion, and that is Islam. They are trying to paint a picture showing that Islam is being attacked left, right, and center. They want us to believe that Muslims are the constant victims of hate crimes and abuse, and they need a new law to protect Muslims.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in the UN came out with the  “OIC Observatory Reports on Islamophobia” in 2008. The OIC is composed of 56 nations plus Palestine. This is the largest voting block in the UN, and it has a lot of influence. This is why there are so many false resolutions against Israel.

This report is consistent in portraying the OIC’s understanding of the term “Islamophobia.” This understanding sees “Islamophobia” as “a kind of fear, or more precisely an excessive fear against Islam and anything associable with Islam i.e. Muslims, mosques, Islamic center, minarets, the Holy Qur’an, Hijab and so on.” (Source: Ninth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia – May, 2015 – September 2016 (Presented to the 43th Council of Foreign Ministers, Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan, OIC Observatory, OIC 18-19 October, 2016, available on the world wide web at http://www.oic-oci.org/upload/islamophobia/2016/9th_islamophobia_annual_report_en.pdf)

If this is the legal definition of Islamophobia, it would mean anything negative that can be associated with Islam is Islamophobic, and any person or a group that has a problem with anything associated with Islam is Islamophobic .

Any law that uses this definition would be telling us what we can like and not like. This would be policing our thoughts, and our freedom would be gone.

What if a Christian has a debate about the doctrines of Islam which say that Jesus was just a man, a prophet of God, but just a man, and certainly not God the Son, and that God is not God the Father. One of Islam’s most important teachings is that “Allah hath no son.” According to this definition, this would be Islamophobia. This would shut down all debate on doctrinal issues.

The problem with this type of law is that it makes our nations Sharia compliant. In Islamic nations, people are not allowed to question things like this. Islam cannot be challenged or criticized. You don’t question the things of Islam, you simply obey, accept, and do what Islam commands. This is Sharia, it is the law of Islam.

It is one thing for this to be applied to Muslims who are submitted to Islam. It is another thing to apply this kind of law to those who are not Muslims. It forces non-Muslims to comply with Islam.

This law is being pushed in Canada, but we are seeing the same thing here in America. The difference is that our First Amendment gives us freedom of speech, so it is more difficult to get this kind of law passed. We are, however, seeing this in social pressure. Schools are not allowing anything that will challenge Islam, and society in general is forming an attitude that anything that challenges Islam is Islamophobia.

We are seeing it at the city level, and before long we will see it at the state level, and then there will be attempts to get it in at the federal level. It has already crept into international law at the United Nations level.

The term, Islamophobia, is used around the world, and where it seems to have the most strength is in the United Nations. About 15 Years ago, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) began forming a statement that would be approved by the Human Rights Counsel at the UN. Its purpose was to condemn discrimination against Islam. They were playing the victim card, claiming the Muslims were being unfairly discriminated against around the world. This is the picture that Muslims want us to accept.

This statement is called Resolution 16/18. It says that it is a crime to blaspheme the Prophet Muhammad. Islam doesn’t allow anyone to question the Prophet, the Qur’an, our anything about Islam. Critical thinking about Islam’s teachings is not allowed, you just accept it and do what you are told. Those who follow Islam are forced into compliance, remember, Islam means submission and Muslim means the surrendered one.

Resolution 16/18 comes up for a vote every year. They want it to be the standard for international law. The OIC is the largest voting block in the UN, and it has a stranglehold on that body. As a result, this resolution gets passed every year. You can see this stranglehold by the number of resolutions that come out against the nation of Israel, and how few against Islamic nations.

There is only one country in the Middle East that allows freedom of religion, and it is Israel. There are more than one million Muslims living in Israel that have Israeli citizenship. How many Jews are allowed int Muslim countries? The answer is NONE! Israel is not the nation that is guilty of the human rights violations, it is the Muslim countries. This is the opposite of the picture pained by the UN.

The term used to paint this picture is Islamophobia. It is a term that has no proper definition, and is used to mean whatever the user wants it to mean.

For years the United States voted against Resolution 16/18 because we have the First Amendment, which gives people the freedom to speak and share their views openly. This is a principle that the Islamic world doesn’t understand. They can’t allow it in their world because if they do, Islam will be shown for the sham that it is. This is why Muslims want to shut down those who criticize Islam. It is one thing for them to control their own people, but it is quite another for them to try and impose their rules on non-Muslims.

When Hilary Clinton became the Secretary of State, She realized that the language in this resolution did not allow the US to vote for it. She worked to tweak the language so it could be voted for by the US. She chaired a meeting with the OIC in Istanbul. It was called the Istanbul Process. There were three meetings, the first in Turkey. They didn’t quite come to an agreement at this meeting so they had another meeting in Washington DC. They rolled out the red carpet for them. The meetings were closed, the media was not allowed. They had a press conference afterwards, and they pretty much told us that what they were talking about was none of our business.

Again, they did not come to an agreement so they had a third meeting in London. They finally came to an agreement at this third meeting. They changed it from a blasphemy charge to a denigration of religion charge. The resolution now encourages nations to stop speech that is an incitement to discrimination, hostilities, or violence. It then goes on to say not to denigrate religions.

With this new language that US voted to support the resolution. We have been approving it ever since. The original Resolution 16/18 had Islamophobia attached to it.

When the United Nations passes this kind of resolution, it does not make it law for every nation. It does put international pressure on nations to enact laws that uphold the resolution. When a country needs aid from the UN, the first thing the UN looks at is their laws concerning their resolutions. Some of the issues they look at are the nations compliance with UN resolutions on homosexuality, abortion, and now on the defamation of Islam.

Europe has been embracing Resolution 16/18 for quite some time. Many people have been charged with crimes for speaking the truth about Islam. Elisabeth Wolf was charged for saying the Muhammad married a 6 year old girl, and he had sex with her when she was 9 years old. The fact that this is true did not stop them from charging here with defamation of Islam. In the West, this is called pedophilia, and she was charged with a hate crime for calling Muhammad a pedophile.

The facts are clearly laid out in the Qur’an, and Muslims don’t deny the facts. The problem was that she called Him a pedophile, which he was.

We live in a time when they talk about micro-aggressions. Here is how NYU Professor Jonathan Haidt defines micro-aggressions:

What does he mean by this? It means that your choice of words may not be malicious on the surface, but if someone thinks or feels that they are, the words are acts violence to them.

This explains what is happening on our college campuses. They are teaching those who are supposed to be adults and acting like children, that when the hear something that makes them feel bad, they are to run from it. It is as if someone showing up banishing a gun, and you run to get away from it. When a Christian shows up on campus with a Bible, it is like they showed up with an AR-15, loaded and ready to shoot. They act like conservatives and Christians are terrorist about to blow things up. To stop them, they are willing to break and burn things. Who is the real terrorist?

Saying that Muhammad was a pedophile, which is true, it is a micro-aggression, and is considered violence. They want all such speech stopped. This is really what Islamophobia is all about. They are trying to change the environment so we can’t criticize Islam. Even though we are not subject to Islam, they want to force us under Islamic (Sharia) law.

If we value our way of life, we must resist this. If we don’t, we will lose our freedoms and our way of life. We will become virtual slaves to Islam. We cannot allow this to happen here in the West.

Let me remind you of the goal of Muslims when they use this term. Their purpose is to shut up all opposition to their ideology. They want to smear the opposition as if it had an irrational fear and some kind of mental illness just because they criticize Islam. They want to convince the uninformed that those who speak out against Islam are spreading hate. They hope is to intimidate the opposition so it won’t have the courage to continue.

Muslims allege that they are the victims of hate crimes. They want us to believe that they are being mistreated here in the West. If this is so, the data on hate crimes should back it up. Today I want to look at the data found in the hate crime reports in the US and Canada.

The FBI has been keeping statistics on hate crimes for the last 14 years. It is always 2 years behind in its reports, so the last year for which we have data is 2015. If we look at the last 14 years, we find that 77% of hate crimes are against Jews.

Hate crimes can be from insignificant things. One of the hate crimes against Muslims was someone putting bacon on the door handle of a mosque. Hate crimes can be very serious. This past weekend there was a shooting of Christians by a black shooter. It is interesting that when a black person shoots up a predominately white church, it is not covered much in the news. When a white man shoots up a black church, it is headline news.

About 10% of the hate crimes are against Christians. Muslims come in at 13%. The difference between Christians and Muslims is marginal, especially when we remember that the US is a mostly Christian country. From this date we see that if there is a problem in our country concerning religious hate crimes, it is the Jews who are really suffering the most. The data doesn’t tell us who is committing these hate crimes, it only tells us who the recipient is.

Lets take a look at the data in Canada. As you know, Canada wants to make a law saying it is a crime to say anything negative about Islam. They are trying to make Motion M103 a law. The claim is that Muslims are being systematically targeted and that there is an epidemic of hate crimes against Muslims. Here are the numbers.

This data doesn’t go back 14 years like our FBI data, but these are for the data for 2014 and 2015. The numbers are very similar to the US numbers, except they only give the numbers for the Catholics, not all Christians. All other religions are put under “others.”

We see that there were 302 hate crimes against Jews, 178 against Muslims, 63 against Catholics, and around 100 (guessing from the chart) against other religions. The hate crimes against Muslims is only about half those against Jews.

There is another report that is coming out soon that will be looking at this data. We will be following this very closely, and we will see if they give the number of hate crimes against Protestants.

There is an increase of hate crimes against Muslims from 2014 to 2015, and they will probably make a big deal of that. We will see how that goes.

Muslims are trying to make the argument that there is a systemic problem with hate crimes against Muslims in the US and Canada. They want us to believe that Muslims are being attacked on every corner. The facts don’t bear this out.

What we need to learn is, when the term “Islamophobia” is used, the goal is to shut down any criticism of Islam. People are afraid of labels, and will do everything they can to avoid being labeled an Islamophobe.

This is an old tactic. If your arguments aren’t on the side of the facts, then you attack the credibility and character of your opposition. Lawyers are taught that if their client has a weak case, and the evidence favors the other side, they are to attack the one who has collected the evidence. They try to show that there was a bias against their client.

The O.J. Simpson trial is a classic example of this. The evidence didn’t look good for Simpson, so they attacked those who had collected the evidence. They made the police out to be racists, they used the “N” word. they accused them of planting evidence, etc., and they cannot be trusted. They made Simpson the victim.

This is exactly what the use of the term “Islamophobia” is trying to do. We can’t let them win at this game. We must oppose it and exposit for what it is.

Everyone acts like everyone knows what is being talked about when the word is used. We don’t really know what it is about, except that it is used to try and shut up anyone who dares say anything Islam doesn’t like about their ideology.

The ambiguity of this term can make it mean just about anything. They want to put this word, with all of its ambiguity, into the legal code. The efforts in Canada to do so are advancing at an alarming rate through Motion M103.

It is getting to the point that if you say you are against Islamic terrorism, you could be classified as Islamophobic.

Our good friend, Shahram Hadian, was speaking in Saint Cloud, MN, and there were people there to protest. He was speaking at the Granite City Baptist Church. Shahram is a former Muslim from Iran, who is now a Christian preacher. Look at one of the sign that the protesters had:

Do you see what I am talking about when I say the word “Islamophobia” can be used to mean anything you want it to mean? This is the problem with making up terms like this and throwing them out with no clear definition.

What really makes this interesting is that Shahram is the speaker, and he is not white. He is from Iran, and is Middle Eastern. He as the olive skin color that all of us white people are jealous of. We spend hours in the sun or tanning studios trying to get it.

The people holding the sign are white. The person standing in front of the sign with the megaphone is also white, as is just about everyone else in the photo. Sometimes the liberals don’t realize the irony of what they do and say.

I have said many times that I oppose every kind of supremacy, no matter what color is associated with it. God only created one race, and that is the human race. The color of one’s skin matters not to me or to God. The melanin that gives us our skin color does not matter. We all have the melanin that produces skin color.

The idea that our skin color makes us one race or another is a false narrative. It is used to cause divisions, and sadly, some Christians have bought into it. We all think their are different races, but in reality, there is only one race, the human race.

Another thing we must remember is that Islam is not a race. Islam is not just an Arab religion. The Arabs were around long before Islam. Islam was born in Arabia, and the language of Muhammad was Arabic. They try to keep their scriptures and the practice of their religion in Arabic, but only about 15% of the Muslims in the world are Arabs. Eighty-five percent of Muslims don’t speak Arabic. They memorize things in Arabic for their religious rituals, without knowing what they mean.

Islamophobia is a myth. It is a ruse used to stop you and me from criticizing Islam.