“Is there an unprecedented spiritual revival taking place in the Islamic world?”
I was recently asked this question during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. The answer, remarkably, is a resounding “Yes.”
Amidst the darkness of Radical and Apocalyptic Islam and the war, terrorism, widespread poverty, illiteracy, alcohol and drug abuse and other pathologies they produce, millions of Muslims have, in fact, been leaving Islam and turning to faith in Jesus Christ.
This is a dramatic and encouraging trend, one I’ve been writing about on this blog (see here, here, here and here), and one that deserves more far more attention and detailed reporting.
Here are excerpts: Best-selling author Joel Rosenberg recently spoke to CBN News about the incredible revival in the Muslim world. He cites a 19-page peer-reviewed study detailing the unprecedented wave of Muslims who are coming to Christ.
“From 1960 to 2010, the number of Muslims that have converted to faith in Jesus Christ has grown from fewer than 200,000 to some 10 million people” Rosenberg said, citing the study.
Rosenberg says the increase of Muslims converts to Christ could correlate to the turmoil in the Middle East.
“A lot as happened in the last fifty years in the Middle East. There’s a lot of revolutions, war, turmoil, poverty, and what I think is happening, especially in the last 10-15 years, is many Muslims are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that ISIS, or Iran’s leadership, or Assad are the type of people that represent Islam.”
Many Muslims are finding their questions answered through dreams and visions about Christ.
“God is moving very powerfully using dreams and visions Muslims are having of the Man in white, of Jesus Himself,” Rosenberg says.
But even though God is revealing Himself to Muslims through dreams and visions, Christians are still fundamental to fulfilling the Great Commission in the Muslim world.
“In a world of 1.6 billion Muslims, we have a long way to go. So if we are going to fulfill the Great Commission and reach every nation with the Gospel, we are going to have to pick up our game and be much more faithful,” Rosenberg says….“This is a moment to be praying for them, that God would open their eyes.”
Few Westerners have paid much attention until now, but the Islamic State has put the people and leaders of Turkey — and particularly Istanbul, which for centuries served as the seat of the Islamic kingdom or “Caliphate” — in its crosshairs.
Ironically, Erdogan (pronounced “AIR-do-wan”) is an increasingly dangerous and authoritarian Islamist himself, and a rising threat to the West, as I noted in a column last month. He is cracking down on journalists who criticize him. He’s building close ties with the terrorist leaders of Iran. He provides safe haven for Hamas terror leaders. He has also been allowing foreign fighters to cross through Turkey for years to join ISIS and other jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq and, for the most part, turning a blind eye to their presence.
These are some of reasons Turkey plays a key role in my new novel series, including a terrorist bombing in the heart of Istanbul in The Third Target.
But as a member of NATO, a long-time ally of the U.S., and a cooperating partner in the European Union economy, Erdogan isn’t nearly Radical enough for the leaders of ISIS. Nor does Erdogan share the fanatic End Times theology driving the leaders of ISIS.
What’s more, Turkey has diplomatic ties with the State of Israel, and has actually been working on improving those ties in recent months. Notably, yesterday’s savage terror attacks at Istanbul’s main international airport came on the same day that Turkey and Israel announced the normalization of diplomatic relations after six yearsof strains.
In recent months, therefore, ISIS is believed to have been responsible for planning a series of terrorist attacks in Istanbul and other parts of Turkey, though some (fortunately) have been foiled. Last October, 128 people were killed in suicide bombings in Istanbul. Turkish officials said they believed ISIS was responsible.
So far, however, ISIS has not formally claimed responsibility.
Meanwhile, the death toll keeps climbing. As of 5pm local time on Wednesday, there were 41 confirmed deaths, as well as at least 239 people wounded. Also dead are the three terrorists involved in the operation, two of whom detonated suicide bombing vests after opening fire with automatic weapons.
Please pray for Turkey.
Pray for the Lord to comfort & heal all those injured in & traumatized by the attacks.
Pray for the Lord to comfort the families and friends of all those who were killed.
Pray for Turkish authorities to get serious in defeating ISIS and protecting their people — and foreign guests, businesspeople, tourists, etc — rather than allowing ISIS fighters to transit the country with a free hand.
Pray for the Church in Turkey to be bold, loving, compassionate servants to the Turkish people.
Pray for the Gospel to be proclaimed to every person in Turkey that they may find the hope, peace, healing, comfort, forgiveness and eternal life only available through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
On Sunday, I made the following assertion during an interview on the Fox News Channel:
“There’s no question that the vast majority of Muslims — 1.6 billion Muslims in the world — are not violent. They’re not dangerous. They’re not a threat. But all the polling shows that between 7% and 10%, roughly, of the Islamic world does believe in suicide bombings, does support the Islamic State’s violence, does support al Qaeda. So this is a problem because in a world of 1.6 billion Muslims, that’s upwards of 160 million people who could be recruited and drawn into violence in the United States or around the world.”
A number of you have asked for the data behind such an assertion. So let me explain the sources I’ve used over the years to develop a rough estimate of the number of Muslims that could reasonably be considered “Radicals.” Let’s start with data from 2007. Then we’ll look at more recent data gathered between 2013 and 2015.
How Many Radicals Are There? (Gallup Data From 2007)
In 2008, authors John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed published a book titled, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think. Esposito was a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University and founding director of the school’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Mogahed, herself was a devout Muslim, and was executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. (I cited their work in a non-fiction book I wrote in 2009, Inside The Revolution, about trends in the Islamic world.)
As Esposito and Mogahed stated in their introduction, “This book is the product of a mammoth, multiyear Gallup research study. Between 2001 and 2007, Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hour-long, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 nations that are predominantly Muslim or have substantial Muslim populations. . . . In totality, we surveyed a sample representing more than 90 percent of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, making this the largest, most comprehensive study of contemporary Muslims ever done.”
What these two scholars discovered was fascinating, and sobering.
First, the good news. After asking scores of different questions to test attitudes and intentions, the Gallup poll revealed that upwards of 93 percent of Muslims worldwide in 2007 fit Esposito and Mogahed’s definition of a “moderate”—that is, peaceable, nonviolent, and traditionally religious but unlikely to pose a threat to Western security interests. In Egypt, for example, 94 percent of Muslims said they would like to have a constitution that would guarantee “allowing all citizens to express their opinion on the political, social, and economic issues of the day.” In Iran, 93 percent said they wanted such personal and political freedom, as did 90 percent of Muslims in Indonesia, the world’s largest Islamic country. In Turkey, 93 percent of Muslims believed women should have the right to vote, as do 89 percent of Muslims in Iran and 90 percent in Bangladesh. Nine in ten Muslims in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey, and Lebanon believed that women should have the same legal rights as men. All very good news, indeed.
Now the bad news. While the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide were moderates in 2007, about 7 percent at the time would have been classified as Radicals. That is, they were supportive of anti-American and anti-Western terrorism, believed it is fully justified, and thus were sympathetic of and potentially helpful to violent Islamic extremists. This constituted the pool from which current Radical jihadists are recruiting future jihadists, and thus they pose a serious threat to Western security interests.
“According to the Gallup poll, 7 percent of [Muslim] respondents think that the 9/11 attacks were ‘completely’ justified and view the United States unfavorably,” Esposito and Mogahed concluded. “By focusing on the 7 percent, whom we’ll call ‘the politically radicalized,’ we are not saying that all in this group commit acts of violence. However, those with extremist views are a potential source for recruitment or support for terrorist groups. . . . They are also more likely to view other civilian attacks as justifiable.”
At first glance, 7 percent may seem like a relatively small number. But the implications of such results are staggering. Seven percent of 1.3 billion Muslims equals 91 million people. It may comfort people to know that the vast majority of the world’s Muslims are peaceful people. But how comforting is it to know that 91 million Muslims are “politically radicalized”? After all, were these 91 million people to form their own country—the Islamic Republic of Radicalstan, say—they would represent the twelfth largest country on the planet, having twice the population of Spain, nearly three times the population of Canada, almost ten times the population of Sweden, and more than twelve times the population of Israel.
Extensive polling also found that the Radicals were not necessarily more religious than moderate Muslims; nor did they necessarily attend mosque more frequently or read the Qur’an more often. They were simply differently religious. That is, they were fully devoted to a radicalized interpretation of the Qur’an, such as the theologies taught by the Ayatollah Khomeini, Sayyid Qutb, and Osama bin Laden.
Moreover, these Radicals did not tend to be poor, uneducated, unsophisticated people living in some hovel somewhere, though there are certainly Radicals who come from impoverished backgrounds. According to the Gallup poll data, the typical profile of a Radical in 2007 was young, male, smart, college-educated, financially well-off, technologically literate, highly mobile, deeply determined, and thus incredibly dangerous. According to the study:
49 percent of political Radicals are between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine.
62 percent are male, while 37 percent are female.
67 percent have secondary education or higher.
65 percent say they have average or above-average income.
As I noted in Inside The Revolution, not all scholars agreed in 2007 with the Gallup data that only 7 percent of Muslims were Radicals. Other research suggested the 7 percent figure may have actually been too low. According to a 2007 Pew Research Center poll, 28 percent of Egyptian Muslims said they believed suicide bombings against civilian targets were sometimes or often justified; 17 percent of Turkish Muslims agreed, along with 10 percent of Indonesian Muslims, 14 percent of Pakistani Muslims, 29 percent of Jordanian Muslims, and 46 percent of Nigerian Muslims. (See Andrew Kohut, “Muslims in America: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream,” Pew Research Center, May 22, 2007, http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf, accessed June 24, 2008.)
How Many Radicals Are There? (Current Polling Data From Pew Research)
Where are we now, nearly a decade after the sweeping Gallup study?
Second, looking closely at more recent data in recent years, I’m less comfortable saying only 7% of the Muslim world would be considered Radicals and now believe the figure is more likely between 7% and 10%. This still shows the vast majority of Muslims are not a threat to us. But, of course, 10% of 1.6 billion is a staggeringly large number of people from which the Radicals can recruit.
Indonesia (256 million people, 87% of whom are Muslims) — 4%
Palestinians — 6%
Turkey (80 million people, 99% Muslim) — 8%
Pakistan (200 million people, 96% Muslim) — 9%
Malaysia (30 million people, 61% Muslim) — 11%
Nigeria (181 million, 50% are Muslims) — 14%
While this Pew study did not look at every Muslim country, the data are helpful. They corroborate the premise that the vast majority of Muslims do not support ISIS. However, they also reveal that overall, roughly 7% to 10% of Muslims do, in fact, have a favorable view of the violent — even genocidal — theology, strategy and tactics of the Islamic State. In some specific countries, support for ISIS is even higher than the median.
The key finding was that after all the violence inflicted on the world since the mid-1990s — and perhaps especially after all the Muslims that have been killed by al Qaeda in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere, Muslim support for the al Qaeda terror movement has been dropping.
“In our 2013 poll, a median of only 13% among Muslims across the 11-countries surveyed had a favorable view of al Qaeda,” reported the Pew Research team.
“The highest support was in the Palestinian territories, where 35% of Muslims had a favorable view of al Qaeda. But elsewhere, less than a quarter of Muslims held a positive opinion of the extremist organization. Support was lowest in Lebanon, where only 1% of Muslims had a favorable impression of al Qaeda.”
“Support for al Qaeda among Muslims plummeted most dramatically in Nigeria, by 40 percentage points, during the 2010 to 2013 time period, probably as a result of increased terrorist activity by al Qaeda-linked Boko Haram,” notes Pew.
“In Jordan, [support for al Qaeda] fell by 21 points among Muslims during the same time period.”
Note: while Pew finds that an average of 13% of Muslims worldwide supported al Qaeda in 2013, it seems likely that three years later that percentage has continued to drop and may be closer to 10% or 11% today.
In Indonesia — again, the world’s largest Islamic country — Muslim support for suicide bombings against civilians dropped from 15% to 9%.
In Pakistan, support for suicide bombings dropped from 41% to just 3%.
In Lebanon, support for suicide bombings dropped from 74% to 29%.
In Jordan, support for suicide bombings dropped from 57% to 15%.
In Nigeria, support for suicide bombings dropped from 34% to 19%.
“For the most part, support for suicide bombing is not correlated with devoutness,” observed the Pew researchers. “Generally, Muslims who say they pray five times per day are no more likely to support targeting civilians to protect Islam than those who pray less often. The only exception is the Palestinian territories, where 66% of Muslims who pray five times per day say suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified versus 49% of those who pray less than five times per day.”
Conclusion
The bottom line is that is right and fair and accurate to say that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent, not dangerous and do not pose a threat to the national security of the United States or our allies.
But the data are also clear that roughly 7% to 10% of the world’s Muslim population do hold Radical theological, eschatological, ideological and political beliefs that cause them to support the murderous vision, strategies and tactics of the Islamic State, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. This represents upwards of 160 million people. Not all will become suicide bombers or join violent jihadist movements. But this is the pool from which the followers of Radical Islam are recruiting.
It is, therefore, critically important that American and other world leaders closely study the theology and eschatology that is motivating this minority of the Muslim world to support the killing of civilians.
If we refuse to properly study and define our enemies, we will never be able to defeat them. And if our leaders continue to misunderstand the nature and threat of the evil we face, they will continue to be blindsided by future attacks.
Let me close with two questions:
Why do upwards of 1-in-10 Muslims hold a theological interpretation of the Qur’an and hadiths that lead some of them to murderous violence and others to outright genocide?
How do we mobilize the 90% of Muslims who hold moderate theological views to challenge the Radicals?
(Jerusalem, Israel) — If you read nothing else from this column, please read and remember these four critical points:
While it’s absolutely true that the vast majority of Muslims are not a threat to us, it’s also true that the vast majority of terrorists in our time are motivated by, driven by, even consumed by a radical, violent, murderous and bloodthirsty interpretation of Islam. That may not be politically correct to say, but that’s the truth.
If American leaders are not studying the theology and even the eschatology of Islam — and the civil war going inside Islam between the Radicals (jihadists) and the Reformers (moderates) and their vastly differing interpretations of Muslim history and Islamic scriptures — they’re not going to understand what drives our enemies to kill us.
To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blind-sided by it.
Neither President Obama, nor the two presumptive presidential nominees — Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump — have demonstrated that they have truly studied and understand the theology and eschatology that is driving our enemies. Until they do, and until they develop and are committed to executing sound national security strategies consistent with the actual threat of Radical Islam, they will continue to put Americans and our allies in grave danger.
President Obama, however, adamantly refuses to call Mateen a follower of Radical Islam and dismisses the term as a “political distraction” that serves no practical purpose.
“For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase ‘Radical Islam,'” noted the President in a June 14th statement to the media. “That’s the key, they tell us. We can’t beat ISIL unless we call them Radical Islamists. What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer, is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”
Is the President right to directly and consistently reject the term “Radical Islam”? Yesterday, I was interviewed on the Fox News Channel about the President’s comments. I’ve posted the transcript of the interview below. To watch the video, please click here.
FOX NEWS ANCHOR SHANNON BREAM: Let’s take a closer look now at the fight against ISIS, particularly the threat here at home in the wake of Orlando. We’re joined now by Joel Rosenberg, political advisor and New York Times best-seller. His latest book is out now is The First Hostage. Joel is joining us live from overseas. Thank you, Joel, for being with us today.
ROSENBERG: Good to be with you, Shannon, thank you.
BREAM: All right, I want to go first to the President, one of his statement’s this week where he talked about using the terminology of “radical Islam,” he sort of mocked those who have called for him to do that, saying it’s not going to solve the problem. But in your estimation, and knowing what you know about that region and your deep experience and studies there, does it make a difference or not?
ROSENBERG: It does. There’s no question that the vast majority of Muslims — 1.6 billion Muslims in the world — are not violent. They’re not dangerous. They’re not a threat. But all the polling shows that between 7% and 10%, roughly, of the Islamic world does believe in suicide bombings, does support the Islamic State’s violence, does support al Qaeda. So this is a problem because in a world of 1.6 billion Muslims, that’s upwards of 160 million people who could be recruited and drawn into violence in the United States or around the world.
BREAM: And how important is it to use the correct language, to use the correct terminology? Because the President often says that we have to be careful about our statements so that the world does not think that we are at war with the Muslim faith, with those who are Muslims. You mentioned more than a billion people that we’re talking about. But doesn’t that make the language we use even that much more important?
ROSENBERG: Sure it does. Absolutely. But look at people like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. He went to the “Harvard” of Sunni Islam — al Azhar University — a few years ago, and he challenged the clerics and the leaders of Sunni Islam that they’ve got to get their house in order, that there is, essentially, a civil war going on inside Islam. Yes, the vast majority of Muslims do not interpret the Qur’an as encouraging violence against unbelievers. But there are verses in the text [that encourage violence], and el-Sisi challenged the theological leadership of Sunni Islam to fight and explain what the differences are. Jordan’s King Abdullah has also made that case and has gotten more than 500 Muslim clerics to sign onto a statement explaining the difference between this sort of radicalized, violent Islam that is in the text but many Muslims don’t agree with it, and what more moderate Muslims think. This is an important argument. And I would say that if American leaders are not studying the theology and even the eschatology of Islam, they’re not going to understand what motivates the “lone wolf,” or the movements like the Islamic State.
BREAM: What could we be doing better in the United States? What could our leadership be doing, on both sides of the aisle, to better combat this? Because there’s been a big conversation, obviously, about whether or not the Orlando gunman was directed by or inspired or motivated by [Radical Islam]. The end result is the same. We’ve seen dozens of innocent people who are dead.
ROSENBERG: Well, this is the most dangerous part of saying this is just “violent extremism.” That’s what the President is saying. Well, it’s certainly violent extremism, but what is it that motivates a young man, 29 years old — Omar Mateen — to be a killer of 49 people in a club? That’s not just being a violent person. He believed he was being driven by a version of Islam. That’s what he believed. It doesn’t matter what President Obama believes about Islam. It matters what the individual believes. So we’ve got to study what it is — the narrative, as well as the theology — that’s drawing Americans but also people all over the world into murderous, sometimes even genocidal, levels of violence. If you ignore that, you are ignoring the heart of the problem, which is the motive.
BREAM: Joel Rosenberg, we thank you for visiting with us today, and I hear your new book is going to be out the first of next year, or early next year, so we’ll look forward to that as well. Thank you, Joel.
Leaders of ISIS have now officially claimed responsibility for the murders in Orlando. Given that just days ago they called for acts of terrorism inside the U.S. and across Europe, is it possible that more lone wolf attacks — or larger attacks — are coming soon? Federal authorities are trying to answer this question and so many others. Here’s some of what we know so far.
UPDATE: President Obama spoke to reporters this afternoon and confirmed this “this was an act of terror” and an “act of hate” which he called a “horrific massacre.” However, he refused to suggest the possibility that this was an act of Radical Islam. Nor did he mention or comment on reports that the suspect had pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State. For the moment, the President is right not to speculate. He should wait for all the facts to come in. The question is whether he will point to the threat of Radical Islam if that is, in fact, where the facts lead.
(Washington, D.C.) — A senior Member of the House Intelligence Committed says there is evidence that the terrorist responsible for the mass shooting in Orlando pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State prior to acting.
We still need to cautious about what we learn in these early hours. It may take time to sift out precise information from rumors. But this is what an elected official and the media is reporting at this hour, so I’m passing it along to you.
Omar Mateen “made a pledge of allegiance to ISIS,” California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said on CNN, reports the New York Post.
“The fact that this shooting took place during Ramadan and that ISIS leadership in Raqqa has been urging attacks during this time, that the target was an LGBT nightclub during (LGBT) Pride (month) and, if accurate, that according to local law enforcement the shooter declared his allegiance to ISIS, indicates an ISIS-inspired act of terrorism,” Schiff said.
“Whether this attack was also ISIS-directed, remains to be determined,” said Schiff. “I’m confident that we will know much more in the coming hours and days.”
Meanwhile, US Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) cited intelligence sources to say that there “appears to be” a link to Islamic radicalism and ISIS, the Post also reported.
“I asked the FBI if there was any connection to Islamic radicalism. There appears to be,” Nelson said. “But they are naturally cautious and waiting throughout to see if if this is, facts emerge.”
“At this point, this is an incident, as I can see it, we can certainly classify as a domestic terror incident,” Jerry Demings of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office said.
The worst mass shooting incident in American history — 50 dead, 53 wounded— took place in Orlando, Florida this morning, and federal authorities are already describing it as a “terror incident.”
The question is whether the ghastly attack on an LGBT nightclub was an act of domestic terror, or one motivated by Radical Islam.
Federal authorities say the shooter — Omar Saddiqui Mateen, 29, of Port St. Lucie (who was shot and killed by police on the scene) — was a U.S. citizen, born to parents from Afghanistan. One news report indicated that twice in recent years the FBI has investigated Mateen but found no reason to prosecute.
Let’s give law enforcement time to properly investigate this act of evil before we draw conclusions about Mateen’s motives.
But it should be noted that the horrific attack comes days after a spokesman for the Islamic State called for lone wolf terror attacks in the U.S. and Europe.
I categorically condemn this act of unjustified terrorism against the LGBT community. All American citizens, residents and visitors — all, regardless of who they are and what they believe — have the right to life. Indeed, I hope all Christians will condemn this act and that we’ll all be praying for the families and friends of those killed, and praying for full recoveries for those wounded.
Let us also all be praying for our national leaders that they would be clear-eyed and resolute in fighting terrorism of all kinds and all motivations, including that driven by Radical Islam and Apocalyptic Islam.
Whatever Mateen’s background, associations and motives turn out to be, I believe ISIS, al Qaeda and other terror groups are Hell-bent on unleashing more and larger terrorist attacks inside the American homeland. May our leaders fully and truly understand the nature of the evil we are facing lest they be blindsided by it.
(Washington, D.C.) — During my brief time here in the nation’s capital, in addition to working on my next novel, I’ve been meeting with Members of the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and other Middle East experts. We’ve been discussing the latest trends in Radical Islam and Apocalyptic Islam and how to confront these challenges in the years ahead.
On Thursday, I was interviewed by a political reporter about the presidential race and which presumptive nominee truly gets the magnitude of the threats we face in the epicenter and is effectively prepared to keep Americans and our allies safe. Here are excerpts from that interview:
Joel Rosenberg, a New York Times best-selling and award-winning author who focuses on radical Islam, said presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt and flawed Democratic candidate in history — but the Middle East expert isn’t too excited about presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump either.
“We’re in a strange moment where Hillary Clinton has the most foreign policy experience, but her judgment on the key foreign policy issues — especially radical Islam — is horrible,” Rosenberg, who is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, told Breitbart News during an exclusive interview on Thursday. “She’s the most corrupt and deeply flawed Democratic candidate that has emerged in history and it’s not clear that we have a candidate at the moment who is able to play against her weaknesses on the issue of foreign policy….
He spoke to Breitbart News about the threat of radical Islam following the terrorist attack in Tel Aviv in which four people were killed.
“This is a pretty serious breach of Israeli security,” he said of the attack, noting it’s the first attack in three months in which civilians were killed. He also referenced a terrorist attack in Jordan earlier in the week, noting that he had previously met with King Abdullah II of Jordan. “We’re in this together.”
“We are allies in a real war, a hot war, against radical Islam,” Rosenberg added.
“We know that we are not in danger from all Muslims,” he said. “This is about a radical, violent subset, which is probably ten percent or less of the entire Islamic world according to a lot of survey data….”
“What’s stunning is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama absolutely refuse to define the threat to Americans and our allies as radical Islam. The president, of course, for seven and a half years absolutely refused to use the term radical Islam,” Rosenberg criticized, saying one must fully understand the threat posed in order to not be blindsided.
Although Rosenberg believes Clinton is an extremely flawed candidate for President of the United States, he isn’t supporting presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump either because he’s “deeply uncomfortable” with Trump’s rhetoric with regard to his proposed Muslim ban, in which Trump suggested stopping Muslim immigration into the United States until an improved vetting system was in place.
“Donald Trump will use the term ‘radical Islamic threat,’” he explained. “What gives me real caution about Trump is … first of all, he refuses to commit to ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran.”
“To give them nuclear energy, ballistic missiles and a pathway to nuclear weapons is insane and Donald Trump won’t commit to scrapping that insane nuclear deal that President Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry negotiated. That raises serious questions about whether Trump understands the threat or whether he’s just picked up the rhetoric of radical Islam,” He questioned.
He also criticized the billionaire saying, “Trump has said we’re going to go kill women and children who are wives and children of terrorists. This plays directly into the hands of terrorists.”
Although Rosenberg is critical of Trump’s rhetoric and his proposal to pause Muslim immigration, he says he doesn’t believe Syrian and Iraqi refugees should come into the United States.
“I do not support opening the floodgates to allowing Syrian and Iraqi refugees to flood into the United States. We do not have an ability to vet tens of thousands of refugees that are coming from countries where ISIS and other radical groups are completely infiltrated,” he stated. “Hillary Clinton’s proposal to bring 65,000 more Syrian refugees into the country is incredibly dangerous and we absolutely should not do that.”
He said Trump’s mistakes come “when he says sweeping statements,” which are made “through inexperience and flawed instincts.”
“What we need to be saying is that the vast majority of Muslims are not a threat and we need to focus on radical Islam,” Rosenberg said.
[NOTE: These are my own personal views as an American citizen. They don’t represent in any way the views of The Joshua Fund, which is a non-political, non-partisan organization.]
(Washington, D.C.) — My heart is heavy this morning as I grieve for those Israelis and Jordanians affected by two terrorist attacks this week — one just north of Amman on Monday that killed five Jordanian intelligence officers, and the other in the heart of Tel Aviv yesterday, a mass shooting event by two Palestinians that left four Israelis dead and sixteen wounded.
These attacks are bitter reminders of the clear and present danger posed to America and our allies by the forces of Radical Islam. They’re also a reminder of the critical importance of understanding the politics, ideology and theology driving our enemies to murder Jews, Muslims and Christians.
We cannot defeat an enemy we refuse to define. Yet so many Western leaders — and some who seek to lead the Western alliance — have repeatedly demonstrated that they don’t truly understand what motivates our enemy and thus risk being blind-sided by future attacks.
What makes these attacks all the more tragic is that terrorism in Israel has actually been declining steadily in recent months, and most of these have been isolated knife attacks, not shootings. In fact, until Wednesday, not a single Israeli civilian had been killed by a terrorist in three months.
Meanwhile, under the impressive leadership of King Abdullah II, Jordan remains one of the safest and most secure countries in the Arab world, despite the implosion of Syria to their north, the ISIS surge across Iraq to their east, and a massive influx of refugees that has increased Jordan’s population by some 30% in recent years.
As I noted in a recent Jerusalem Post column, “Jordanian commandos, General Intelligence Directorate operatives and elite police units are taking down an ISIS or related cell inside Jordan every week. As a result of excellent intelligence and security work, Jordan hasn’t had a major terrorist attack inside its borders since 2005, certainly nothing like the recent jihadist attacks in Brussels, Paris, Istanbul, San Bernardino and elsewhere.”
In light of these events, I ask Christians around the world to please pray faithfully for those who were wounded and traumatized, that in His great love and mercy the Lord would grant them quick and full physical, emotional and spiritual recoveries.
Please pray, too, for the families and friends of those killed, that the Lord would grant them His divine comfort and “a peace that passes all understanding,” of which the Apostle Paul writes in Philippians 4:7.
At the same time, please pray for Prime Minister Netanyahu and King Abdullah II and their security services as they work to bring to justice to those responsible, comfort those who are grieving, and stay on the offensive against those who seek to rob, kill and destroy.
For more on these developing stories:
“The Jordanian government said a terrorist attack against the office of the national intelligence agency Monday killed five employees, including three intelligence officers, in a rare assault on a crucial U.S. ally in the Middle East,” reported the Wall Street Journal. “The attack occurred at the office of the General Intelligence Directorate in the Baqa’a Palestinian refugee camp north of the capital Amman, the official Petra News Agency quoted government spokesman Mohammed Momani as saying.”
“Four people have been killed and 16 people have been wounded in a terror attack at the Sarona Market in Tel Aviv in a terror attack,” reported Ynet News. “Two alleged terrorists have been neutralized at the scene. One of the terrorists have died, the other is being treated in the hospital in critical condition.”
(Jerusalem, Israel) — If you read nothing else from this column, please read and remember these four critical points:
(Washington, D.C.) — During my brief time here in the nation’s capital, in addition to working on my next novel, I’ve been meeting with Members of the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and other Middle East experts. We’ve been discussing the latest trends in Radical Islam and Apocalyptic Islam and how to confront these challenges in the years ahead.
You must be logged in to post a comment.