Articles, Blog, News




Rev. 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Rev. 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Rev. 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

Rev. 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Rev. 22:6 ¶ And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

Rev. 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.




QUESTION:   I know when we get to Heaven we will have our glorified bodies. But will the tribulation saints have their glorified bodies also or will they still be in the flesh? I remember reading the Bible and it said when they got sick they will have to touch the leaves to recover. So does that mean only the church will have glorified bodies or will we all have glorified bodies?

ANSWER:    Revelation 22:2 says the leaves of the tree of life will be used for the healing of the nations. Tribulation saints who have died will receive resurrection bodies at the time of the 2nd Coming (Rev. 20:4) and will never need healing. Believers who survive the Great Tribulation will enter the Kingdom in their natural bodies which will still be subject to disease. They’re the ones who will use the leaves of the tree of life.



QUESTION:   Recently I’ve been asked for biblical references as to why I believe that the bema seat judgment will take place during the Tribulation (or Daniel’s 70th Week). Obviously, I believe that the Rapture will happen before those seven years start. And, although I can find the references that say that there will be a judgment for believers, I haven’t been able to nail down ones indicating the timing. Could you point me in the right direction?

ANSWER:   The Bema Seat judgment is when believers will be rewarded for the things we did during our life on Earth. There’s no Scripture that reveals the actual time of this event. But I believe a careful reading of 1 Cor. 3:1-0-15 and 2 Cor. 5:10 will lead one to the conclusion that it takes place in Heaven after the Rapture. I also believe the Bible teaches us that the Rapture of the Church will take place before Daniel’s 70th Week begins. Therefore I think it’s safe to assume the Bema Seat judgment will take place near the time when Daniel’s 70th Week begins to unfold on Earth. Whether it will happen before, or just after the 70th Week begins, I can’t say.



QUESTION:   Thank you for always being there for all of us! I’m so glad that we have you. When we go in the Rapture and are at the Bema Seat judgment, are we going to be going over the what we did good and what we did bad things? Are we going to be in a bad way for maybe some things we could have done better? Are our lives going to be sifted through like the White Throne judgments? I asked this because of what some kids were told at youth group that really frightened them.

ANSWER:    2 Cor. 5:10 says we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. This can not be a reference to sin because Jesus has already been judged for all the sins of our life and all of them have been forgiven (Colossians 2:13-15). Otherwise we wouldn’t even be there.

Earlier Paul had said in effect that the definitions of good and bad have to do with our “good works” and are based on our motive, not on the outcome. I believe things done in the Lord’s name with the intent of expressing our gratitude to Him will be like gold, silver, and precious gems and considered to be good.

But things done in our own name with the intent of glorifying ourselves will be like wood, hay, and stubble and are bad. The good things will be rewarded and the bad things will be discarded, being of no value in the Kingdom. But even if we have nothing good to our credit we’ll still be saved (1 Cor. 3:11-15).

Then Paul said we shouldn’t judge anything before hand, because it’s impossible for us to discern a person’s motive, even when it’s our own. The Lord will bring all this to light and then we’ll each receive the praise that’s legitimately due to us. (1 Cor. 4:5) So this judgment is not about salvation or discipline, it’s about rewards. Therefore we have nothing to fear.





News Clips Obtained From Many Sources – Including


Rapture Ready News


Main News Channels

Other Christian Sites ​​15/02/2018






























The Russian tank fired on US special operations troops in the same location as an attack last week, wherein 500 pro-regime forces fired on a US and SDF headquarters. The US responded to that attack on February 7 with a furious barrage of air and artillery strikes and reported killing 100 pro-regime forces, but sources told Bloomberg on Saturday that as many as 200 or 300 Russian mercenaries were killed in the attack.

by Geoffrey Grider

A US jet operating in Syria destroyed a Russian-made T-72 battle tank near Al Tabiyeh, Syria on Saturday, a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed to Business Insider.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This past weekend, as we have been reporting to you, Israel inflicted a series a devastating airstrikes on Iranian positions deep within Syria. But news coming over the wire this morning shows the events of the past few days are eminently more complex than originally thought. At the same time Israel was destroying Iranian military strongholds, the United States sent two F-22 Raptors to wipe out a nest of Russian mercenaries that had fired upon US coalition forces. Isn’t it so great to now have a president that actually sides with Israel and backs them up, instead of a president who stabbed Israel in the back every chance he got while empowering their enemies? Truly President Trump was placed in this position by God for such a time as this. 

“The tank had been maneuvering with coordinated indirect fire on a defensive position occupied by Syrian Democratic Forces and Coalition advisors,” US Marine Corps Major Adrian J.T. Rankine-Galloway said, adding that the SDF’s “position was within effective range of the hostile weapons systems.”

The US has been training, equipping and backing the SDF rebels in Syria’s civil war for years as Russia has provided similar assistance to pro-regime forces in close proximity.

Fox News’ Lucas Tomlinson first reported the news of the tank’s destruction and said that it had fired on US special operations troops in the same location as an attack last week, wherein 500 pro-regime forces fired on a US and SDF headquarters.

The US responded to that attack on February 7 with a furious barrage of air and artillery strikes and reported killing 100 pro-regime forces, but sources told Bloomberg on Saturday that as many as 200 or 300 Russian mercenaries were killed in the attack.

U.S. forces killed scores of Russian mercenaries in Syria last week in what may be the deadliest clash between citizens of the former foes since the Cold War, according to one U.S. official and three Russians familiar with the matter.

More than 200 contract soldiers, mostly Russians fighting on behalf of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, died in a failed attack on a base held by U.S. and mainly Kurdish forces in the oil-rich Deir Ezzor region, two of the Russians said. The U.S. official put the death toll at about 100, with 200 to 300 injured.

The Russian assault may have been a rogue operation, underscoring the complexity of a conflict that started as a domestic crackdown only to morph into a proxy war involving Islamic extremists, stateless Kurds and regional powers Iran, Turkey and now Israel. Russia’s military said it had nothing to do with the attack and the U.S. accepted the claim. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called the whole thing “perplexing,” but provided no further details.

President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, declined to comment on reports of Russian casualties, saying the Kremlin only tracks data on the country’s armed forces. Putin talked with U.S. President Donald Trump by phone Monday, but the military action in Syria wasn’t discussed, he said. source




By Yaakov Lapin/

A day after Israeli, Syrian, and Iranian forces were involved in a major military confrontation—that left an Israeli F-16 shot down, along with an Iranian drone, and multiple Syrian air defenses destroyed—the dust has begun to settle and the bigger picture is emerging.

The escalation is the latest in an epic struggle building between Iran, which is trying to turn Syria into a forward Iranian military base, and Israel, which is determined to prevent this from happening at all costs.  Iran is now trying to set new ‘rules of the game,’ and limit Israeli defensive operations in Syria.

For years, according to international media reports, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) has conducted a massive number of low-profile military operations, targeting Iranian installations in Syria, as well as Iran’s smuggling of missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon, via Syria.  

Israel’s campaign has generally taken place away from the media spotlight.  Israeli defense planners call this campaign the ‘War Between Wars.’

An alliance of state and non-state actors

To make sense of this picture, it is important to recognize that Israel is not fighting against traditional enemy states, but rather, against a regional axis comprised of state and non-state actors.

The head of this axis is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The members of Iran’s coalition include the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad, Lebanese Hezbollah, and other Shi’ite militias, deployed across the Middle East, including in Iraq and Yemen.

This radical coalition controls most of Syria today, largely thanks to an alliance with Russia, which acts as the air force of the Iranian axis.

Russia has its own interests in intervening in Syria, and has tried to douse the flames of war between the Iranian axis and Israel, since a wider war could undo Russia’s efforts to keep Assad in power.  But Russia’s influence has proven to be limited, while Iran is determined to spread its hegemony.

Iran has invested heavily in helping the Assad regime defeat Sunni rebels, in what is currently the world’s bloodiest conflict.  With more than half a million casualties in Syria, the Shi’ite axis has emerged victorious over the Sunnis.  Tehran now seeks the next phase of its strategy: turning Syria into an Iranian province.

Israel’s red lines

It seems likely that Iran seeks to send military divisions and brigades into Syria, establish air and naval bases, and flood Syria with more armed proxies and weapons.  In this scenario, Iran’s goal would be to create a large armed force under its full command, which it can use to threaten Israel.

Israel has no intention of letting this happen.  The Jewish State has drawn clear red lines, and enforced them with military actions.  These red lines ban the entrance of Iranian military forces and weapons into Syria.  The red lines also place a ban on the production and transfer of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Brig.-Gen. Amnon Ein Dar, the head of the Training and Doctrine Division in the IAF, provided a clue about the extent of this struggle, when he told Ynet on Sunday that Israel has conducted “thousands of operations” in Syria in the past year alone.

Enforcing these red lines requires advanced military capabilities, and coordination across the Israeli defense establishment, with the air force, navy, and intelligence units all working in concert.

Iran’s victory in Syria

Now, with the Iranian-led axis approaching a victory against Sunni rebels in the Syrian war, Iranians are losing patience with Israel’s campaign to stop their takeover of Syria.  Iranian officials have recently warned that Israel will no longer be able to operate freely over Syrian airspace.  Israel has shrugged these statements off.

Last week, according to media reports, Israel struck a major weapons production center near Damascus, likely used by Hezbollah and Iran.  By sending the drone into Israeli airspace, the Iranians decided that the time had come to respond.  Iran wanted to get its drone deep into Israeli airspace to prove that it can extract a price for IAF operations.

Hezbollah on standby

Until now, Hezbollah, deployed across Lebanon and Syria, has stayed out of this fight.  But if Iran decides to again challenge Israel directly, it could order Hezbollah, armed with 130,000 projectiles, to join the action.  Such an escalation could snowball into a dangerous regional conflict.

This is a scenario that no side seems interested in at the moment.  While Iran wants to threaten Israel from Syria and Lebanon, the Islamic Republic also wishes to buy enough time—likely eight to ten years—to try and develop nuclear weapons.  

Iran therefore has an interest in warding off a full-blown conflict that would threaten Iran’s Syrian and Lebanese projects before it can break out to a nuclear bomb.

been working on an ability to strike several thousand targets in just 24 hours.  If the situation escalates, Israel can use this level of unprecedented firepower to place the Assad regime in existential danger—the very regime that the Iranians have worked so hard to save.  

This same level of firepower, guided by high-level intelligence, can similarly be directed against the rest of the Iranian axis.

Who won the battle?

Iran’s drone was shot down within 90 seconds over Israeli airspace, likely disappointing the Iranians, who wanted to send it deep into Israel. And while Syria downed an Israeli F-16, the IDF is investigating to determine what appears to be an unusual sequence of events that led to the jet becoming vulnerable to enemy fire.

Israel had the final word on Saturday, because it inflicted a heavy price on the Iranian axis.  The operators of the Iranian drone were likely killed in their caravan, though this cannot be confirmed.  Up to half of Syria’s air defenses and four Iranian military sites were destroyed.  

The number of casualties suffered by Syria or Iranian Quds forces remains unknown.  While celebrating the downing of the Israeli F16 as a major military accomplishment, Iran and Syria are attempting to downplay the scope of damage that they sustained.

The destruction of significant Syrian air defense systems is a painful blow, and a message regarding what might come next in the event of another escalation.

The Israeli strikes hinted at an ability to do far more significant damage, should Iran decide to escalate further.  Iran has no assurances that its own territory would remain immune to Israeli firepower in the event of a future conflict.  The stakes of this struggle remain very high.  Iran will have to decide if it will again try to challenge Israel’s freedom to operate over Syrian airspace.

The situation remains explosive.  Israel does not seek war, but the signals coming out of Jerusalem indicate that it has no intention of backing down from its red lines.

Originally published at – reposted with permission.




By PNW Staff

Religious liberty faces a new threat, this time from anti-conversion laws. Simply talking to someone about your faith is seen to be worthy of lengthy prison terms in several countries both in Asia and South America.

Now awaiting approval by President Evo Morales, Bolivia’s new penal code contains an article 88.1 that criminalizes, with the same stroke of the pen, both recruitment for armed conflicts and religious organizations. 

The text of the law reads, “Whoever recruits, transports, deprives of freedom or hosts people with the aim of recruiting them to take part in armed conflicts or religious or worship organizations will be penalized with 7 to 12 years of imprisonment.” 

In recent days, Evangelical Christians in Bolivia have organized marches to protest the new penal code which places them in a perilous position for the practice of their faith. On Tuesday January 16th, a peaceful march was held in Cochabamba and on January 21st, evangelical churches across Bolivia observed special days of prayer and fasting as they continued to petition the legislature to amend the new laws enacted against religious freedom.

In October of 2017, Nepal began enforcement of a similar law designed to restrict Christian worship and evangelism. The new penal code was voted in by the Nepalese Parliament in August and then signed by President Bidhya Devi Bhandari in October. 

The text of the law itself warns that “No one should involve in or encourage conversion of religion” and that “No one should convert a person from one religion to another religion or profess their own religion and belief with similar intention by using or not using any means of attraction and by disturbing religion or belief of any ethnic groups or community from that being practiced since ancient times.” 

The penalty is set at 5 years of prison plus a $500 (50,000 rupees) fine and for foreigners, they must be deported within 7 days of completing their prison sentence.

The new criminal code in Nepal also bars “hurting religious sentiment” which is a variation on the blasphemy laws that have been used throughout the Islamic world to restrict religious freedom. To speak of one’s own belief in Jesus can, by these new standards, be interpreted as “hurting religious sentiment.” 

By an act of parliament in this case, all interfaith dialog is criminalized as well as the publishing of Christian materials in any form, lest it injure the sentiments of Hindus.

Saudi Arabia, as an example of a strict Islamic state, regulates Christian conversions in a different way. Virtually 100% of the Saudi population is Muslim and conversion away from Islam is considered apostasy, punishable by death. But criminalizing the act of evangelism itself, as is being done in Bolivia and Nepal, is another tactic altogether.

While the Indian constitution contains nominal protections for religious freedom, when the law is enforced, the past century has seen a string of Indian states pass state laws against evangelism. These laws are known, with no small irony, as “Freedom of Religion Bills”. 

The states of Orissa (1967), Madhya Pradesh (1968) and Arunachal Pradesh (1978) were the first, but in the year 2000 the state of Chhattisgarh and in 2003 Gujarat also passed anti-conversion laws.

Russia, too, has cracked down on evangelism by Christian denominations not affiliated with the State, but has stopped short of comprehensive anti-conversion laws. Apart from state laws within India, Nepal and Bolivia are the first countries, but not likely to be the last, to enact such egregious restrictions on both freedom of expression and religious liberty.




By Denis Maceoin/Gates Testone Institute

For many complex reasons, Europe is in an advanced state of decline. 

In recent years, several important studies of this condition have appeared, advancing a variety of reasons for it: Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, James Kirchik’s The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, as well as Christopher Caldwell’s ground-breaking 2010 study, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West. Soeren Kern at Gatestone Institute has also been detailing the steady impact of immigration from Muslim regions on countries such as Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

It is clear that something serious is happening on the continent in which I live.

The threat is not restricted to Europe, but has a global dimension. Michael J. Abramowitz, President of Freedom House, writes in his introduction to the organization’s 2018 report:

A quarter-century ago, at the end of the Cold War, it appeared that totalitarianism had at last been vanquished and liberal democracy had won the great ideological battle of the 20th century.

Today, it is democracy that finds itself battered and weakened. For the 12th consecutive year, according to Freedom in the World, countries that suffered democratic setbacks outnumbered those that registered gains. States that a decade ago seemed like promising success stories—Turkey and Hungary, for example—are sliding into authoritarian rule.

For Douglas Murray, immigration and the problems it is throwing up are the key topic. He is uncompromising in his negative response to the social change that has been brought about by the excessive and barely controlled immigration of people who, for the most part, do not share the most basic values of the countries in which they now live.

Certainly, Europe’s current state of decline owes much to the widely recognized fact that Muslims are the first newcomers to Europe who, over several generations, are resistant to integrating into the societies of which they now form a part. 

This rejection of Europe’s humanitarian, Judeo-Christian values applies, not just to the successive waves of refugees and economic migrants who have washed up on the shores of Greece, Italy and Spain since the start of the Syrian civil war, but to generations of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK, North Africans in France, and Turkish “guest workers” in Germany.

A former Muslim extremist, Ed Husain, writes in his book, The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, what I Saw Inside and why I Left:

The result of 25 years of multiculturalism has not been multicultural communities. It has been mono-cultural communities…. Islamic communities are segregated. Many Muslims want to live apart from mainstream British society; official government policy has helped them do so. I grew up without any white friends. My school was almost entirely Muslim. 

I had almost no direct experience of ‘British life’ or ‘British institutions’. So it was easy for the extremists to say to me: ‘You see? You’re not part of British society. You never will be. You can only be part of an Islamic society.’ The first part of what they said was true. I wasn’t part of British society: nothing in my life overlapped with it.

In July 2015, arguing for an anti-extremism bill in parliament, Britain’s prime minister at the time, David Cameron, admitted:

“For all our successes as a multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, we have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds.”

Countless polls and investigations reveal that refusal to integrate is no figment of the supposedly “Islamophobic” political “right”. A 2006 poll carried out by ICM Research on behalf of the Sunday Telegraph, for example, presented worrying findings: 40% of British Muslims polled said they backed introducing shari’a law in parts of Britain, and only 41% opposed it, leaving another 20% unclear. 

Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP involved with the official task force set up after the July 2005 attacks, said the findings were “alarming”. Since then, similar findings have shown that the younger generation of Muslims is more conservative, even radical, than their parents or grandparents:

Commenting on a major 2016 ICM poll of Muslim opinion, Trevor Phillips, who had been Britain’s foremost advocate of multiculturalism, said that, with respect to the Muslim community, he had made a 180° turn:

“for a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.”

Another major 2016 review on social equality carried out on behalf of the British government by Dame Louise Casey, found Muslims the least well integrated community. In summarizing her work for the National Secular Society, Benjamin Jones wrote:

“Despite decades of failures, it is worth noting that problems integrating Muslim minorities are hardly rare around the world, and this is not a problem unique to the United Kingdom. That brings us to the final unsayable thing – well known to most British people but unmentionable to officials and politicians: Islam is a special case.”

Polls carried out in other countries across Europe showed similar or worse results.

Those are only one half of a more complicated and disturbing picture. While Muslims find it hard to abandon the prejudices, doctrines, and outright hatreds (for Jews, for example) that they have imported from their home countries—or developed as young men and women while living in European states where they were born and raised—vast numbers of non-Muslims, including politicians, church leaders, civil servants, policemen and women, and many well-meaning people bend over backwards to accommodate them and the demands they make on their host societies.

It would take a book to summarize all the episodes in which Western officialdom, notably in Europe, has abandoned its own historical values in order to protect Islam and radical Muslims from criticism and rebuke. 

We are not speaking of the proper interventions of the police, courts, and social agencies to safeguard ordinary Muslims from physical attacks, vituperative insults, assaults on mosques, or basic denials of the rights they are entitled to enjoy as citizens of Western countries – much as we expect them to protect Jews, ethnic minorities, or vulnerable women from similar expressions of physical and verbal bigotry. 

Providing such support for the victims of prejudice should be applauded as an essential expression of post-Enlightenment liberal democratic values. Legislating and acting against outright discrimination is, perhaps, best exemplified in the way post-World War II German governments have criminalized anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Ironically, what anti-Semitism there is today in Germany comes increasingly from Muslims.

According to Manfred Gerstenfeld:

Jens Spahn, a board member of Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democrat Union (CDU), and a possible successor to Merkel, remarked that the immigration from Muslim countries is the reason for the recent demonstrations [about immigrants] in Germany.

Stephan Harbarth, deputy chairman of the CDU/ CSU faction in the Bundestag—the German parliament—said, “We have to strongly confront the antisemitism of migrants with an Arab background and those from African countries.”

The CDU interior minister of the federal state of Hessen, Peter Beuth, remarked, “We have to avoid an immigration of antisemitism.” He said this after a study on behalf of the state’s security service concluded that antisemitism among Muslims “both quantitatively and qualitatively has at least as high relevance as the traditional antisemitism of the extreme right.”

Despite this moral response, European countries, including Germany, have shown genuine weakness when face-to-face with radical Islamic ideology, hate preachers, and basic Muslim values regarding women, non-Muslims, LGBT people, and obedience to Western laws.

Before looking at some of the reasons, motivations, and outcomes of this deeply pervasive weakness, here are a handful of examples of pusillanimity from the UK alone.

Last October, it was reported that Queen’s Counsel Max Hill, who acts as the British government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, argued that British fighters for Islamic State, who had returned or planned to return to the UK, should not be prosecuted but reintegrated into society on the grounds that they had acted “naively”. This lenience extended to hate preachers who had given sermons and lectures exhorting Muslims to take direct action that has in the past led to actual terrorist attacks.

Before that, Prime Minister David Cameron and then Home Secretary Theresa May had “proposed measures including banning orders, extremism disruption orders and closure orders, which would allow premises used by extremists to be shut, and make it easier to restrict the activities of individuals and organisations.”

In 2015, May had proposed a counter-extremism strategy which said laws would be introduced to “ban extremist organisations that promote hatred and draw people into extremism” and “restrict the harmful activities of the most dangerous extremist individuals”. 

Mrs May also vowed to use the law to “restrict access to premises which are repeatedly used to support extremism”. Yet Max Hill QC, the man in charge of British terrorist legislation wants none of that. And May’s counter-terrorism measures, proposed again since she became Prime Minister, remain unlegislated.

The same month (October 2017) that Hill undertook the rehabilitation of jihadists and hate preachers, it was reported that the British Home Office (formerly run by Theresa May, now by Amber Rudd MP) was “looking at a new strategy to reintegrate extremists that could even see them propelled to the top of council house waiting lists if needed”.

Extremists who had nowhere suitable to live could be put in social housing by the local council and could have their rent paid if necessary, according to reports.

They could also be given priority on waiting lists and helped into education and training or found a job with public bodies or charities.

This proposal would include returnees from the Islamic State in Syria, and overall would include some 20,000 individuals known to the security services. Around 850 British subjects have gone to Syria to fight or support fighters, and 350 of them have come back home, with only a tiny handful so far prosecuted.

This approach, giving social services, is based on the belief—oft-refuted—that Muslim extremists (both Muslims-by-birth and converts) have suffered from deprivation. 

It also greatly rests on the naïve assumption that rewarding them with benefits—for which genuinely deprived citizens generally need to wait in line—will turn them into grateful patriots, prepared to stand for the national anthem and hold hands with Christians and Jews. 

We now therefore use double standards: one for Muslims and one for the rest of our population. On January 16, 2018, in England, Daniel Grundy, was jailed for six months on a charge of bigamy. However, Muslim men in polygamous marriages are rewarded by the state:

Husbands living in a “harem” with multiple wives have been cleared to claim state benefits for all their different partners.

A Muslim man with four spouses – which is permitted under Islamic law – could receive £10,000 a year in income support alone.

He could also be entitled to more generous housing and council tax benefit, to reflect the fact his household needs a bigger property.

Ministers have decided that, even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, polygamous marriages can be recognised formally by the state – provided they took place overseas, in countries where they are legal.

Actually, British Muslim men do not even have to go abroad to find wives. At least one Muslim dating site run from the UK offers contact with Muslim women who are eager to enter into polygamous marriages. It has not been closed down. The British government has shown itself incapable of enforcing its own laws when it comes to its Muslim citizens or new immigrants.

In a similar vein are official attitudes to a common Muslim practice of female genital mutilation, which has been illegal in the UK since 1985. Politico reported last year:

“Medical staff working in England’s National Health Service recorded close to 5,500 cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) in 2016, but no one has been successfully prosecuted since the practice was banned over 30 years ago.”

Meanwhile, the practice is rising. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are too frightened of seeming racist or “Islamophobic” to apply the law.

Max Hill’s notion that departing fighters have been naïve is itself a staggering misconception on the part of a man educated at Newcastle’s prestigious Royal Grammar School and Oxford University. No one heading for Syria will have been blithely unaware of the multitude of videos broadcast by the mainstream media and all the social media, showing the beheading of hostages, the executions of homosexuals, the lashing of women, the heads spiked on fences, the use of children to shoot victims or cut their throats, and all the other excesses committed by the terrorist group.

Rather than stand up to our enemies, both external and internal, are we now so afraid of being called “Islamophobes” that we will sacrifice even our own cultural, political, and religious strengths and aspirations? 

Recent Posts