Inside the National Cathedral ‘prayer service’ |
Featured Commentary

Inside the National Cathedral ‘prayer service’

I am giving special thanks this year for the hard work of patriots who toil without recompense to expose the many vectors of Islamic subversion currently eroding the already hollowed-out institutions of Western society.

To this end, I will tell a story about a story. It concerns the first Muslim prayer service ever held at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. This weirdly “invitation-only” service, which took place on Nov. 14, gathered representatives of Muslim groups with proven links to Hamas and to Hamas’ parent group, the Muslim Brotherhood.

I am able to tell you about the contents of the service thanks to the incredible international counter-jihad movement. First, the blog Vlad Tepes captured the streaming footage of the 80-minute Muslim service. Next, Arabic translator Rita Malik assessed the English and Arabic service for Gates of Vienna and provided a summary that was posted there.

Enter Islamic expert Andrew Bostom, author of several indispensable books on Islamic jihad, anti-Semitism and Islamic totalitarianism, who analyzed several of the Quranic verses used in the service by consulting some of the essential Quranic commentaries that Muslims use to understand their religious book. Bostom posted his findings at his blog,

What exactly did the Muslims preach from their mock-up mosque inside the cathedral? Previously I mentioned some Quranic verses denigrating Jews and Christians that are typically part of Islamic prayer sessions. One of these, Quran 1:7, was indeed in the main sermon by South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool.

More shocking, however, was the inclusion of Quran 3:26-27. Addressing Allah, this verse sequence begins: “Possessor of the kingdom, You give the kingdom to whom You will, and You take the kingdom from whom You will, and You endure with honour whom You will, and You humiliate whom You will.”

At his blog, Bostom explains that these lines, as explicated by authoritative Quranic commentaries, contain an inherent threat of jihad conquest. Bostom shows that classical scholars such as Ibn Kathir (1300-1373) and Al-Suyuti (1445-1505) are in accord on the historical context in which these verses were, as Muslims believe, “revealed” by Allah.

Ibn Kathir relates them to a time when Allah was said to have prepared to allow Muslims “to reach the eastern and western parts of the world and (give) dominance to his religion (Islam) and law (Sharia) over all other religions and laws.” Similarly, Al-Suyuti pegs them to a promise to Muslims conveyed by Muhammad of “sovereignty over Persia and Byzantium” — in other words, sovereignty over Zoroastrians (Persia) and Christians (Byzantium). It is difficult not to notice that these same ancient lands overlap or abut the current ISIS battlefield.

For a 20th-century gloss, Bostom cites the noted Quranic commentary by Maulana Muhammad Shafi (1897-1976), a prolific Islamic scholar and former grand mufti of India. Of these same verses, Shafi writes: “In these verses, Muslims have been taught and prompted to make a particular prayer which, in a subtle way, gives an indication that they are going to overpower disbelievers.”

Overpower disbelievers?

Episcopalians can call this “ecumenism,” but it sure sounds like jihad to me. Now, at least, we all know it.

Diana West’s latest book, “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character,” is now available in paperback from St. Martin’s Press.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.