A Bridge Too Far

Tabitha Korol’s latest essay concerns a recent event staged by the “Interfaith” movement — which, as Maj. Stephen Coughlin has so assiduously documented, is simply a cover for infiltration and indoctrination by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, in which naïve Christians and Jews become unwitting dupes.

A Bridge Too Far*

by Tabitha Korol

It was brought to my attention that Westmount Temple Emanu-el Beth Shalom in Montreal hosted a Muslim-Awareness Interfaith Shabbat Dinner on January 25, 2019, to pay homage to the six dead and nineteen wounded from a lone attack on a Montreal mosque two years previously. Such well-meaning, but naïve, efforts were hijacked by Muslim apologists to promote their false victimhood status to garner sympathy from others.

One might wonder why there was no outreach from Jews or Muslims for the desecration attack in March 2018 on a synagogue in Thornhill, and no homage paid for the October, 2018 massacre of eleven congregants of the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, inasmuch as Canada and the US are connected in many ways. Neither was there any form of condolence or apology offered when a small Canadian Arab newspaper, Al Saraha, published an antisemitic article that posited why Hitler killed the Jews, stated that the number of six million Jews killed during the Holocaust was severely inflated, and asserted that Jews are to blame for Germany’s economic collapse, sexual license and promiscuity.

Inasmuch as the Jewish-Muslim Interfaith Dinner so closely preceded Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day designated to confront the hatred and crimes against the Jewish people, it begs the question as to why that was not incorporated into the outreach, except that Muslims do not grant victimhood status to others, and they continue to deny the Holocaust as the systematic murder of six million Jews. Our FBI records show that Jews still experience the greatest number, by far, of attacks and assaults, yet nothing was done to honor those victims and awaken the attendees to the dire situation of antisemitism that is once again upon us.

It is pertinent to include herewith a few unpalatable facts. Muslims have killed 669 million people over 1400 years, a number quite astounding, but correct. Those who were not killed — the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others — were forced into captivity and conversion. They became the ancestors of today’s 1.6 billion Muslims, including the masses who are now committing unspeakable crimes in Sweden, Germany, France, England — 29 countries worldwide.

Arab-Islamic attacks on Jews began with the Battle of Khaybar in 628 AD, against Christians with raids into Byzantine lands in 630, and rapidly engulfed the non-Arab people of North Africa, Spain, Persia, and beyond. In 1801, the Barbary pirates attacked American shipping, and in 2000, the USS Cole. The World Trade Center was attacked twice, in 1993 and 2001, followed by group bombings, shootings, stabbings, and property damage — hate crimes. However, in a country the size of America, the imams have informed their jihadis that eventual conquest must be achieved by other means — through civilizational or stealth jihad. Hence, our government now has an inordinate number of Muslims in office. Unashamedly antisemitic and anti-American, they are working to change our laws to be increasingly socialist and then sharia-compliant.

The January gathering at the Canadian temple was labelled an interfaith “dialogue,” a word that means exchange and discussion, yet only the Muslim perspective was presented. There were two Muslim speakers, both practiced in taqiyyah for dealing with Westerners, and not balanced by two Western speakers experienced with this Islamic psychological technique. This was, therefore, a one-sided presentation, a “monologue,” with no attempt at dialogue or mutuality. The rabbis added that discussion was limited to make their guests “comfortable.” They provided a comfort zone for the very people who invariably commit the crimes and unceasingly advocate hate and destruction for Israel.

There were no questions about the Koranic directives to kill the infidel, and nothing about their practice of jihad — how they send their children to ignite precious Israeli land, scorching 9,000 acres of land and the wildlife over a six-month period; to stab citizens on the streets of Israel, Europe and America; to ram cars into groups of pedestrians — or how they pay the families for martyring their own sons in the interest of killing Jewish people. The speakers were permitted to lie and praise their religion without taking responsibility for the crimes they commit. The talk of “bridge building” is never clarified for purpose or destination.

One of the speakers was Egah Lotayef, known to be pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, anti-Zionist — simply put, an antisemite, and one of many McGill professors who signed a petition for BDS against Israel and Israeli academic institutions. He took part in the deceptively named “Freedom Flotilla to Gaza” that circumvented the established route only to create a “situation” for Israel. The little humanitarian aid contained on the flotilla was camouflage for the armed activists who had come in the hope of gaining international sympathy by provoking the IDF into using excessive force. The self-control of the IDF was to disappoint them.

No bridge builder he, this proponent of boycott-divestment-sanctions against Israel. BDS is designed to damage Israel socially, economically, religiously and intellectually, in order to create a Palestinian tie to the land where none exists. He belongs to a terrorist-affiliated group that speaks at such occasions, in an attempt to lure the audiences into accepting the Islamic narrative and convince them that Islam is benign and Israel the oppressor. The group continually accuses Israel of crimes committed by the Palestinians, another psychological war technique known as “transference” or “ projection.” The aim is constant: to turn the world against the Jewish State and to promote her extinction.

The rabbis’ form letter issued to the public said they “disagreed passionately,” but they said nothing! And with what did they disagree? If it was with the speakers’ opinions about Israel and the Jews, they failed the Jewish community. I would be interested in knowing the conclusions drawn when the evening was over, what the attending Jews think they learned from the one-sided engagement. I have attended three such “interfaith meetings,” and have read of others, none of which seemed to be worthy of squandering one’s time. They invariably take place in synagogues and churches that allow the Muslim voice to be heard, but inhibit the congregants from speaking — they sit like the bobblehead dolls, taking everything in. Questions from the audience are usually submitted on slips of paper so that they may be pre-screened, and the probing or unnerving questions are disregarded and never read “due to time constraints.”

Perhaps we might offer the benefit of doubt. Perhaps these rabbis knew nothing of the speakers before honoring their request for the “program” (a word also defined as “manipulate”), but ignorance is also a betrayal of one’s own people, ancestors and progeny. Regardless of intent, their congregation was duped into hearing the fabricated Islamic storyline without dispute or defense. All Jews and Christians alike must be informed of Islam’s ongoing war against the West, to become actively involved in fighting the hatred against Jews, Christians, Israel and America, before we follow the paths of history. It has long been time for an outreach to be done by informed Jews and Christians to their underinformed co-religionists. We did not choose this war, but we have to acknowledge that it exists — and it is here.

*   A bridge too far: that the goal or mission described will not happen, or will wind up being unsuccessful, perhaps with even a disproportionate amount of unwanted consequences.

Previous posts by Tabitha Korol:

2015   Aug   9   A Mythical, Deceptive Tale by Carly Fiorina
2018   Dec   20   Misogyny on 34th Street

17 thoughts on “A Bridge Too Far

  1. It’s a shame that people present these estimates of numbers killed by Muslims over 1400 years as fact. They are often just one person’s guesstimate long after the event with little or no documentation.

    That said, perhaps you have heard of the book Atrocitology by the amateur historian Matthew White which lists the 100 bloodiest episodes in history. According to him WWII tops the list with 55m. The Crusades come in at no. 30 with 3m.

    If a series of wars over 200 years is considered one episode then surely jihad (to which the Crusades were one of Europe’s periodic responses) should also be considered as such. They were both started by a call to war by a religious figure with a specific territorial aim, for the Crusades the recapture of the Holy Land and for Islam the conquest and subjugation of the entire world.

    If we take Bill Warner’s estimate of the number of deaths due to jihad (60m Christians, 80m Hindus and 10m Buddhists ie 150m) and halve it to be on the safe side then Jihad (75m) jumps to no.1

    Unfortunately White does not group jihad as he does the Crusades, though logically he should. The idea appears never to have occurred to him. He would be doing a service to the non-Muslim world if he did recognise the murderous extent of Mohammed’s holy warriors but there is very little chance that he will (I suggested it but he didn’t reply). Apart from anything else, it wouldn’t be a good career move, either professionally or personally, would it?

    • Thanks for the more accurate figures concerning jihad-caused deaths. 150 million is quite enough, thank you.

      A definitive book on jihad is Robert Spencers “History of Jihad”. Aside from just the numbers, Spencer cites the reporting of Muslim historians who recount the many occasions when Muslim kings and commanders set out to specifically kill infidels. It’s not killing out of passion, or for a strategic purpose, or war tactics, but merely to kill infidels.

      • Perhaps, for the sake of clarity, I should add that Bill Warner adds 120m Africans to the total due to the Muslim slave trade:


        I omitted them because I cannot see that the slave trade was done for jihad but only for business.

        I have read parts of Robert Spencer’s book and haven’t seen any attempts at quantifying the deaths. It is the first book I tried to read using Kindle, and it will be the last because I found it doesn’t compare to flipping through the pages of a paper book for getting to particular items quickly, so I may well have missed them.

        • I think you’re correct that Spencer’s book doesn’t quantify the total number of non-Muslim deaths due to jihad.

          Kindle does allow some unique perspectives. I did a search for “number”, which should pop out any attempt at quantification, and no such attempt showed up.

          Note that in Kindle, you can search for words and phrases. You can also make notes and bookmarks and highlights. Then, you can look over all the notes and highlights at once, and go quickly back to the text itself.

          Plus, I have quite enough books collecting dust, so electronic copies allow me to keep a large number of volumes without the physical space. Plus, I can easily look over every book in my library.

          I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.

        • I hesitate to criticise Dr Warner, for whom I have great respect, but at least according to the above link, he omits the millions of white Europeans killed (or allowed to die) by the Ottomans in central Europe, and the Barbary pirates on the periphery.

  2. This comment is from France.
    I read this post by Tabitha Korol with great interest. I agree wholeheartedly with what she says.
    Years ago I was involved with some friends in starting a Christian-Muslim dialogue. We were to have meetings, ceremonies and conferences both in France and in Morocco.
    But before the first event, our Muslim counterparts made demands we couldn’t accept. The whole project collapsed.

    I am glad it did. After that episode, I started to dig a bit more into the history of Islam, I read the Coran, in french and in english, from beginning to end. Over time, I realized how terribly naive and stupid I had been. I had also traveled widely in Muslim/Arab countries and it helped.

    Now, many years later, I see how I had been made a fool and how clever these Muslim imams of our “Dialogue” had been.. I know now for a fact that Islam is not a religion in the sense we, in the West, understand that word. It is something much worse.
    Islam is a deceitful political and military enterprise disguised as a religion to fool naive people. And it had succeeded. Islam only goal is to conquer as many countries as possible, to steal its riches and enslave
    its populations. It uses deceit, ruse or violence according to necessity. This has been going on for 1400 years.
    The problem is that people in the West who comprehend this reality are very few. The majority is gullible, misinformed and is dooming us all.
    Among these unbearably naive people are many European Jews and many Israelis. They should be on the front line of the battle to save our civilisation, but they are blinded by their lefty/socialist beliefs.
    It took me years to understand the true nature of Islam and what a terrible danger it is for our civilisation. I hope more people see the light before it’s too late… Many thanks to Gates of Vienna for keeping the light shining!

    • You’re right. As noted in the article, Stephen Coughlin’s “Catastrophic Failure” has a whole section on the interfaith movement and how it’s stated, written objectives are to inculcate Muslim values. It is a tenet of the Muslim creed that it makes not concession to any other religion, or to change within itself. Sayed Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood theorist, wrote that bridges to other faiths were for the purpose of the other peoples coming to Islam, never for Muslims to take a step.

    • Spot on. When approached in some “cultural” event I say when you become an apostate let me be the first Australian to buy you a beer in an Australian pub.

  3. Thanks for this well-written and fact-filled article that highlights the one-sidedness of these “interfaith dialogues.” From what I’ve seen of these, almost always the emphasis is on the presentation of Muslim beliefs and the requirement for Jews and Christians to accept them unquestioningly.

    On the one hand Islam is portrayed as a religion of peace, with reference to carefully selected scripture—not actions. On the other hand, there is the requirement for Jews and Christians to swallow Islamic teachings whole and ignore the evidence of Islamic-inspired violence around the world, a feat that requires a mind snapped tightly shut. There is little or no chance for probing questions—in fact, I’ve personally been present at one such event when the Christian clergyman lecturing about the peaceful religion of Islam explicitly stated that there would be no questions allowed from the audience.

    What type “dialogue” bans questions?

    Just one note – the mosque shooting took place in Quebec City, not in Montreal.

  4. Can there be any “interfaith dialogue” that is not primarily or consciously pursuing a recipe for KoolAide sharia to share with all persons?

    For instance, there are a few organizations within the Islamic “movement” that are opposed to the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) has supported American laws for American courts — minus any “religious” ingredients. Can we investigate and ponder what the “Muslim Reform Movement” suggests are elements of the political and cultural hegemony of Islamist cultural jihad?

    • It does not matter what muslims call themselves, they are muslims, period, end of story. This ends as it always does where islam is concerned, them or us, as history has demonstrated time and time again, yet folks like you actually believe there can be some sort of middle ground with them. So get over this [deprecated] leftist idea that you can make peace with them, you cannot unless they are under your boot.

      • If there are 4 billion Muslims, or 3 billion or 2.6 billion, they represent a wide cultural base to support the sharia uber alles.
        They are not likely to support any middle ground of negotiation for peaceful terms, based upon their self-governing civilization.

        The gleam of an idea for victory over the human base-commonality of a governing criminal control of social relations is this: Some few practitioners of Islam find an “enlightened” human insight on the dignity of the individual in relation to the “ultimate” dimension — <the individual is always in the milieu of what happens before life or after death.
        When a not-too-unusual group of Muslims can stop nursing on the dogma of jihadi sharia, there is a possible hope for a slightly broader alliance of allies against the authoritarian tyranny of darkness that islamist ideology demands.

        In one sense, practitioners of Islam who are protestants against the darkness of 'theocratic control' may be under the spell of a civilizing view of human life. We may have some allies against the worship-of-death cult.
        We shall need allies from across the world and across the street in order to throw down the fascist ideology of islamism.

  5. I have no interest in any “dialog” with muslims, socialists, or anyone else. I understand their agenda well enough to reject it. They are here to take what the white westerners have made. You either agree or disagree with that. Choose a side and shut up.

    • Muslim dogs (or islamists) seem to need to raid and conquer. Their view of civilization is: reap-the-benefits because we-are-the-chosen-according-to-authority.

      When we disagree with such dogma, we must have a broadly painted vista of many flavors to welcome Arabs, Muslims, Persians, Koreans, Chinese, Chechens, Uighurs, Russians, Germans, Irish, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, Swiss, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Bahais, Buddhists, Albanians, and Australians, etc.

      When some practitioners of Islam wish to live with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, depending upon E Pluribus Unum, then we gain converts to Western enlightenment. We shall need many allies of many backgrounds to overcome the demonically possessed islamists, as was the case with national-socialist fascists and soviet fascists.

Comments are closed.