The Victory of Names

politicalIslamLogo-horizontal-150dpi-885x208Political Islam, by Bill Warner, May 29, 2015:

We have won a national skirmish. The Christian Democrats of the Czech Republic have made a statement rejecting political Islam as being incompatible with Western (Kafir) civilizational values. (See below)

The big lie that Islam introduces itself with is: Islam is a religion and we have come to your country to practice it.. The truth is that Islam is a complete civilization that does not hold one principle in common with the Kafirs. And it is the purpose of Islam to replace our civilization with Sharia..

To defeat political Islam, we must have the right naming. Names shape the argument. For instance, once you accept the name of “undocumented worker” instead of “illegal alien” you will never win the argument. The Left and Islam are brilliant at naming. We will never defeat the religion of Islam, but we can defeat a political ideology. The Christian Democrats have taken the first step towards victory by calling Islam by the right name, political Islam. .

Note: this naming in the Czech Republic is not an accident. I have been active in this country and my books on the Sharia and the Sira have been translated into the Czech language.

————————————–

muslim-star-crescentPrague Post, May 24, 2015

Christian Democrats says Europe should not allow ‘manifestations of hatred toward its fundamental values’ Zlín, South Moravia, May 24 (CTK) — The Czech junior government Christian Democrats (KDU-CSL) stood up against political Islam at their congress this weekend, saying it includes elements incompatible with democracy, it ensues from a resolution the congress passed today.

“The KDU-CSL makes difference between Islam as a religion and political Islam as an ideology including some elements that are incompatible with democracy and human rights,” the resolution says. “The European non-Muslim majority must conduct a permanent dialogue with the Muslim minority, based on emphasizing European values,” the resolution says and adds that within the dialogue, too, a clear difference must be made between Islam as a religion and political Islam as a state ideology.

According to the KDU-CSL, Europe must not tolerate manifestations of hatred toward its fundamental values. “Self-confident Europe must require that in Muslim countries, too, the freedom of religion be respected as is respected by us, Europeans,” the KDU-CSL’s resolution says.

The resolution was read at the congress by MEP Pavel Svoboda (KDU-CSL ).
He said many migrants have established themselves smoothly in Europe, have families and are full-fledged members of the European community. “Unfortunately, religious habits tend to be mixed together with the approach to the ideas of the state and law,” Svoboda said, adding that the CzechRepublic has not been faced with this problem so far. The West has been turning a blind eye to the problem for a long time, Svoboda said.

“For many Muslims, our view of democracy and human rights is sinful because it contradicts the Sharia law. Since the mainstream parties in Europe failed to deal with the problem, it was unfortunately taken up by the extreme right with all the infamous stuff attached to it, which is swelling nationalism and populism,” Svoboda said.

“It is necessary to say a clear no to populism and hatred, and yes to the protection of culture, democracy and fundamental human freedoms. Multinational Europe – yes, challenging of the basic European civilization — no,” Svoboda said.

The delegates to the KDU-CSL congress today rejected the European Commission’s plan to introduce quotas for the distribution of the refugees flowing to Europe.

The decision making on the number of accepted refugees should remain in power of individual EU countries, the delegates agreed. Simultaneously, they called for aid to be provided to the refugees.
“We have to distinguish between various migrants,” KDU-CSL deputy head Ondrej Benešík told the congress, referring to economically-motivated migrants from Africa and the war refugees coming from the Middle East.

As for the former group, it is the business of the people-traffickers, who smuggle the migrants to Europe across the Mediterranean, that should be suppressed above all, Benesik said.
The KDU-CSL congress also condemned the persecution of Christians in the world, mainly in the Middle East and in North Korea. Up to 100,000 Christians die as a result of persecution annually in the world. The number of the persecuted reaches tens of millions, said Svoboda.

Islamic Jizya: Fact and Fiction

Jizya (1)Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, May 29, 2015:

 The Return of Jizya

Muslim demands for non-Muslim “infidels” to pay jizya on pain of death are growing, even as the West fluctuates between having no clue what jizya is and thinking that jizya is an example of “tolerance” in Islam.

In the video where the Islamic State slaughters some 30 Christian Ethiopians in Libya last April, the spokesman repeatedly pointed out that payment of jizya (which the impoverished Ethiopian migrant workers could not render, nor the 21 Copts before them) is the only way for Christians around the world to safeguard their lives:

But whoever refuses [to pay jizya] will see nothing from us but the edge of a spear. The men will be killed and the children will be enslaved, and their wealth will be taken as booty. This is the judgment of Allah and His Messenger.

When the Islamic State invaded ancient Christian regions around the Ninevah Plain last June,  it again declared: “We offer them [Assyrian Christians] three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract—involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword.”

The Islamic State—which most Western politicians ludicrously insist “has nothing to do with Islam”—is not alone in calling for jizya from Christian “infidels.”  In 2002, Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman, discussing the Muslim prophet’s prediction that Islam will eventually conquer Rome, said, “We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians . . . will yet pay us the jizya, in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam.”

And in a video recently posted, Sheik ‘Issam Amira appears giving a sermon in Al Aqsa Mosque where he laments that too many Muslims think jihad is only for defense against aggressors, when in fact Muslims are also obligated to wage offensive jihad against non-Muslims:

When you face your pagan enemy, call them—either to Islam, jizya, or seek Allah’s help and fight them.  Even if they do not fight [or initiate hostilities], fight them!… Fight them!  When?  When they fight you?  No, when they refuse to convert to Islam or refuse to pay jizya….  Whether they like it or not, we will subjugate them to Allah’s authority.

In short, if the Islamic State is enforcing jizya on “infidels,” demands for its return are on the increase all around the Muslim world.  Put differently, if Abu Shadi, an Egyptian Salfi leader, once declared that Egypt’s Christians “must either convert to Islam, pay jizya, or prepare for war,” Dr. Amani Tawfiq, a female professor at Egypt’s Mansoura University, once said that “If Egypt wants to slowly but surely get out of its economic situation and address poverty in the country, the jizya has to be imposed on the Copts.”

The Doctrine and History of Jizya

So what exactly is jizya?

The word jizya appears in Koran 9:29, in an injunction that should be familiar by now: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (emphasis added).”

In the hadith, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, regularly calls on Muslims to demand jizya of non-Muslims:  “If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

The second “righteous caliph,” Omar al-Khattab, reportedly said that any conquered “infidel” who refuses to convert to Islam “must pay the jizya out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.”

This theme of non-Muslim degradation appears regularly in the commentaries of Islam’s authorities.  According to the Medieval Islamic Civilization Encyclopedia, Muslim “jurists came to view certain repressive and humiliating aspects of dhimma as de rigueur. Dhimmis [subjugated non-Muslim Christians and Jews] were required to pay the jizya publicly, in broad daylight, with hands turned palm upward, and to receive a smart smack on the forehead or the nape of the neck from the collection officer.”

Some of Islam’s jurists mandated a number of other humiliating rituals at the time of jizya payment, including that the presiding Muslim official slap, choke, and in some cases pull the beard of the paying dhimmi, who might even be required to approach the official on all fours, in bestial fashion.

The root meaning of the Arabic word “jizya” is simply to “repay” or “recompense,” basically to “compensate” for something.  According to the Hans Wehr Dictionary, the standard Arabic-English dictionary, jizya is something that “takes the place” of something else, or “serves instead.”

Simply put, conquered non-Muslims were to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors, with money. Instead of taking their lives, they took their money.  As one medieval jurist succinctly put it, “their lives and their possessions are only protected by reason of payment of jizya.”

Past and increasingly present, Muslims profited immensely by exacting jizya from conquered peoples.

For instance, Amr bin al-As, the companion of Muhammad who conquered Christian Egypt in the early 640s, tortured and killed any Christian Copt who tried to conceal his wealth. When a Copt inquired of him, “How much jizya are we to pay?” the Islamic hero replied, “If you give me all that you own—from the ground to the ceiling—I will not tell you how much you owe. Instead, you [the Christian Copts] are our treasure chest, so that, if we are in need, you will be in need, and if things are easy for us, they will be easy for you.”

Yet even that was not enough. Caliph Uthman later chided Amr bin al-As because another governor of Egypt had managed to increase the caliphate’s treasury double what Amr had. In the words of Uthman, the “milk camels [Egypt’s Christians, that is] . . . yielded more milk.”  Years later, yet another caliph, Suliman Abdul Malik, wrote to the governor of Egypt advising him “to milk the camel until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood.”

Little wonder Egypt went from being almost entirely Christian in the seventh century to today having a mere 10%—and steadily dwindling, thanks to ongoing persecution—Christian minority.

Related to the idea of institutionalized jizya is the notion that non-Muslims are fair game to plunder whenever possible.  The jizya entry in the Encyclopaedia of Islam states that “with or without doctrinal justification, arbitrary demands [for money] appeared at times.” Even that medieval traveler, Marco Polo, whose chronicles appear impartial, made an interesting observation concerning the Muslims in Tauris (modern day Iraq) in the thirteenth century:

According to their doctrine [Islam], whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians [during the course of a plunder-driven raid], are considered as martyrs….  These principles are common to all Saracens [Muslims].

All this is echoed in recent times by the words of  Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini, spoken a few years ago, concerning what the Muslim world should do to overcome its economic problems:

If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or if possible twice or three times, then many people on earth would become Muslims. And if anyone prevents our dawa [invitation to conversion] or stands in our way, then we must kill or take them as hostage and confiscate their wealth, women and children. Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid [holy warrior] who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children. This can be a profitable business if you multiply each head by 300 or 400 dirham. This can be like financial shelter whereby a jihadist, in time of financial need, can always sell one of these heads.

So it was for well over a millennium: Muslim rulers and mobs extorted money from “infidels” under their sway as a legitimate way to profit.

Much of this financial fleecing came to an end thanks to direct European intervention. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, one Muslim region after another abolished the jizya and gave non-Muslims unprecedented rights—originally to appease Western powers, later in emulation of Western governance. The Ottoman Empire’s Hatt-i Humayun decree of 1856 abolished the jizya in many Ottoman-ruled territories. Elsewhere in the Muslim world, the jizya was gradually abolished wherever Western powers were present.

Today, however, as Muslims reclaim their Islamic heritage—often to the approval and encouragement of a West, now under the spell of “multiculturalism”—jizya, whether institutionalized as under the Islamic State, or as a rationale to plunder infidels, is back.

Even in the West, in 2013, a UK Muslim preacher who was receiving more than 25,000 pounds annually in welfare benefits referred to British taxpayers as “slaves,” and explained:  “We take the jizya, which is our haq [Arabic for “right”], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [infidel], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money—you work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [“Allah is Great”]. We take the money.”

Academic Lies about Jizya

Yet if Muslims—from Islamic State jihadis to Egyptian university professors—know the truth about jizya, the West is today oblivious, thanks to its leading authorities on Islam: Western academics and other “experts” and talking heads.

Consider the following excerpt from John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and a widely acknowledged go-to source for anything Islamic:

In many ways, local populations [Christians, Jews, and others] found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia. Religious communities were free to practice their faith to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service. Thus, they were called the “protected ones” (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy (emphasis added) …

Despite the almost gushing tone related to Muslim rule, the idea that jizya was extracted in order to buy “Muslim protection from outside aggression” is an outright lie.  Equally false is Esposito’s assertion that jizya was paid to “exempt them [non-Muslims] from military service”—as if conquering Muslims would even want or allow their conquered “infidel” subjects to fight alongside them in the name of jihad (holy war against infidels) without first converting to Islam.

Yet these two myths—that jizya was for “Muslim protection from outside aggression” and exemption from military service—are now widely accepted.  In “Nothing ‘Islamic’ About ISIS, Part Two: What the ‘Jizya’ Really Means,” one Hesham A. Hassaballa recycles these fabrications on BeliefNet by quoting Sohaib Sultan, Princeton University’s Muslim chaplain, who concludes: “Thus, jizyah is no more and no less than an exemption tax in lieu of military service and in compensation for the ‘covenant of protection’ (dhimmah) accorded to such citizens by the Islamic state.”

In reality and as demonstrated above via the words of a variety of authoritative Muslims, past and present,  jizya was, and is indeed, protection money—though protection, not from outsiders, as Esposito and others claim, but from surrounding Muslims themselves.  Whether it is the first caliphate from over a millennium ago or whether it is the newest caliphate, the Islamic State, Muslim overlords continue to deem the lives of their “infidel” subjects forfeit unless they purchase it, ransom it with money.  Put differently, the subjugated infidel is a beast to be milked “until it gives no more milk and until it milks blood,” to quote the memorable words of an early caliph.

There is nothing humane, reasonable, or admirable about demands for jizya from conquered non-Muslim minorities, as the academics claim. Jizya is simply extortion money. Its purpose has always been to provide non-Muslims with protection from Muslims: pay up, or else convert to Islam, or else die.

And it is commanded in both the Koran and Hadith, the twin pillars of Islam.  In short, jizya is yet another ugly fact of Islam—add to offensive jihad, imperialism, misogyny, slavery, etc.—one that, distort as they may, the academics cannot whitewash away, even as the world stands idly by watching its resumption in the twenty-first century.

Note: Most quotations not hyperlinked are sourced from Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.  Full references can be found there.

What You Should Know About the Recent Wave of Islamist Terrorist Attacks

150521_terrorismtargets_v2-1250x650

Daily Signal, by David Inserra, May 28, 2015:

On the evening of May 3, two men armed with rifles attacked the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Texas. While both shooters were killed before they could get inside the exhibit, this attack is the 68th Islamist terrorist plot or attack against the U.S. since 9/11.

The incident has raised significant questions about the way terrorists are being recruited in the United States and what America can do to stop them.

These two infographics tell the story about a spike in Islamist terror activity and their top targets.

150521_terrorismplots_v2

SHOCK VIDEO: Widespread Support for Sharia and Blasphemy Laws…in Minneapolis

252_large (1)PJ Media, By Patrick Poole On May 28, 2015:

Going back to 2007, I’ve reported on the growing problem of terror recruitment in the Twin Cities, particularly in the Somali community there.

In December 2007 I reported here at PJ Media on a well-attended terror fundraiser held in a prominent hotel in downtown Minneapolis that Homeland Security was warned about, but did nothing to prevent. Note that this was nearly a year before anyone else in the media was even paying attention to the recruitment of Somalis by foreign terrorist organizations.

Fast-forward to July 2009, and the media only then began reporting that the same meeting I had covered a year and a half before was the tipping point for terror recruitment in the Twin Cities. By that time, nearly two dozen young men had already been recruited and were fighting with Al-Shabaab in Somalia.

I have continued to report on that continued terror recruitment, including suicide bombers recruited from the streets of Minneapolis, and the extremist statements made by prominent Islamic leaders in the community.

More recently, I reported here on the failed jihadist deradicalization program set up by the chief federal judge of the District of Minnesota.

And in my article earlier this week on the rapidly escalating number of terror arrests in the U.S., I noted that many of the terror suspects nabbed by law enforcement this year for attempting to travel overseas to join ISIS have come out of Minneapolis.

Now comes documentary producer Ami Horowitz, who went to Minneapolis and conducted interviews with members of the Somali community there, finding widespread support for Islamic law over American law, as well as blasphemy laws limiting the First Amendment to punish depictions of Muhammad.

Back in November 2013, I appeared in an episode of The Blaze TV’s “For The Record” news magazine program talking about how court documents in many of these terror cases reveal the systematic recruitment inside the largest mosque in Minnesota, Masjid Abubakar As-Saddique.

In the following clip from that episode, “Minnesota Martyrs,” Abdirizak Bihi — whose nephew was recruited and killed fighting with Al-Shabaab, and I talk about the dozens of terror recruits tied to that mosque:

The problem of terror recruitment and promotion of widespread extremist ideologies in the Somali community is not an abstract concept for me, as my own hometown of Columbus, Ohio, has also seen a series of terror arrests over the years. Columbus has the second largest Somali population of any city in the country behind Minneapolis.

In November 2007, Columbus resident Nuradin Abdi pled guilty to his role in an Al-Qaeda terror cell in my city. According to court documents, Abdi and his associates discussed attacking an area shopping mall on “Black Friday,” the busiest shopping day of the year. Sentenced to 10 years in prison, Abdi was released in 2012 and deported back to Somalia.

Then in September 2010, I reported here on Dahir Gurey, another Columbus resident, who was killed in a firefight in Mogadishu fighting as a senior commander for Al-Shabaab. I noted that local authorities had been made aware of Gurey’s fundraising and recruiting for Al-Shabaab but declined to do anything about it because of his close ties to Islamic religious leaders who were favored by local political figures. Gurey was later featured in an Al-Shabaab propaganda recruitment video on three American recruits to the terror group called “The Path to Paradise.” Yet as I noted, the local media, namely the Columbus Dispatch, continued to downplay the terror recruitment problem in our city.

And just last month I reported on the case of Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, again from the Columbus area, who had traveled to Syria to fight with the Islamic State and had returned to conduct terror attacks in the homeland — the first known case of an ISIS terror recruit returning home with plans to engage in terror domestically. His brother was reportedly killed fighting with ISIS last June. Upon Mohamud’s return to Columbus last year, he began conducting weapons training classes at a local gun range with other prospective recruits, theWall Street Journal reported.

The widespread support for Islamic law highlighted in Horowitz’s video above shows the ideological breeding ground that these recruits are eventually drawn from.

With terror arrests this year alone approaching all-time highs and the growing acceptance of the worldview that radicalizes these individuals, it seems clear that the terror recruitment problem in Minneapolis, Columbus, and many other cities around the country will continue for the foreseeable future.

***

From Cultural Jihad:

COMMENT: The Somalis constitute a sizable ethnic group in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.   Some estimates are that 1 out of every 3 people with Somali ancestry in the U.S. live in Minnesota – a 2010 survey estimated the Somali community to be at 85,700 in the United States.  The largest growth influx  occurred as a result of refugee program efforts in response to the Somali civil war escalation in the 1990s.

The Minneapolis area has been experiencing a number of incidents involving ISIS recruitment.  A February 2015 NPR article notes:

In the discussions at the White House this week, one city has focused minds: Minneapolis-St Paul. It had been ground zero for terrorist recruiters in the past, and is fast becoming the center of ISIS’ recruitment effort in the United States.

See this post from the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog regarding April 2015 terror arrests in the area along with information on the US government contractors involved in the refugee resettlement program.

Assassin’s Veto: Our Muhammad Ad Spurs D.C. Metro Transit Authority to Ban All ‘Issue’ Ads

Screen-Shot-2015-05-26-at-9.57.21-AMPJ Media, By Robert Spencer On May 29, 2015:

The winner is clear, and to the winner be the laurels. There is one man only that all people — regardless of race, creed, color, political perspective, nationality, and whatever else — must respect: Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has moved to prevent our American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) ads, which feature a cartoon of Muhammad, from being featured on city buses. With this, Muhammad’s ascendancy is complete: he is the man of the hour.

On CNN, Chris Cuomo demonstrated the fealty we all owe to the messenger of Islam in a Thursday morning interview with my colleague, AFDI President Pamela Geller (I am vice president of AFDI). Cuomo repeatedly referred to “the prophet Muhammad.” As far as I know, Cuomo is not a Muslim and does not believe that Muhammad is a prophet. Also, CNN is not an Islamic organization, yet CNN’s chyron read: “PROPHET MOHAMMED ADS SUBMITTED TO BUSES, TRAINS.”

Cuomo and CNN are not the only ones offering this respect to Muhammad alone. Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, and Sean Hannity are not Muslims, yet during their coverage of the jihad attack on our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas — Hannity and Kelly did defend our right to freedom of speech — they all referred to “the prophet Muhammad.”

How often do you hear the media refer to “the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?” Muhammad is the man whom all must respect, whether they actually accept that he is a prophet or not.

Now, the taxpayer-funded Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has shown us what that respect is all about. To avoid losing a First Amendment lawsuit over our ad featuring the winning Muhammed cartoon from Garland along with the caption “SUPPORT FREE SPEECH,” the MTA has chosen to no longer accept all “issue-related” ads.

The cartoon is not obscene or profane. It simply lampoons Muslims’ attempt to intimidate the West into submitting to Sharia blasphemy laws. The cartoon depicts Muhammad shouting: “You can’t draw me!” and the cartoonist responding, “That’s why I draw you.”

The MTA’s decision was motivated — solely — by fear. It was motivated by the kind of respect that Bob Dylan described in his film Masked and Anonymous: “I got a lot of respect for a gun.” The D.C. MTA recognizes that if they run ads featuring a Muhammad cartoon on their buses, the buses could be — and probably would be — targeted by murderous Islamic jihadists. Realizing that, they have two choices: a) protect the buses and their passengers, and in doing so protect freedom of speech as the cornerstone of a free society, or; b) refuse to run the ads, thereby signaling to murderous jihadists that being a murderous jihadist is a successful position in a growth industry.

The MTA has shown that its respect for Muhammad can be obtained at the point of a gun. This action ensures that other Islamic jihadists will be encouraged to press American non-Muslims to show more respect for Muhammad and Islam. They will press for that respect in exactly the same way they have before: with threats of more violence. The MTA, with the eager support of the mainstream media, has canonized the assassin’s veto and assured that the veto will be exercised more than ever.

Cuomo rambled on CNN about wanting to avoid causing offense. This never crossed his colleagues’ minds when they hailed “Piss Christ” as a monument to freedom of expression. Christianity has not earned their respect because Christians have not attempted to gain that respect at gunpoint.

Whatever we may actually think about him, Muhammad is now “the prophet Muhammad” for all of us. Like Orwell’s equally absent and lethal Big Brother, we had better love him — or else.

All this sums up the order of the day: now we must do the bidding of whoever declares that he will kill us unless we do his bidding. CNN is fine with that. O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Greta van Susteren, and others putatively on the right are fine with that.

Fittingly, in this superficial and secular age, the most superficial and secular of all are carefully referring to Muhammad as “the prophet.” Their homage to the man who proclaimed “I have been made victorious through terror” is a notable emblem of their submission to the cult of violence that overshadows this era.

***

Also see:

Here Are al-Qaeda’s Guidelines for Which ‘Blasphemers’ to Assassinate

aqiswarningPJ Media, By Bridget Johnson On May 28, 2015:

Two weeks after the latest murder of a blogger for professing disbelief in the Islamic prophet or simply promoting a secular society, al-Qaeda’s new chapter in southeast Asia has issued an update about who will be targeted next.

The bloggers hacked to death in brazen, public attacks thus far have all been in Bangladesh — one of the three victims in less than three months was an American citizen — but the English-language posting of the terrorists’ target list suggests that forthcoming attacks may not be limited in scope.

Ansar al-Islam Bangladesh considers itself a “brother” of al-Qaeda, as Ayman al-Zawahiri has united South Asia jihadist groups under al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent. The chapter was announced last September after what al-Zawahiri said was two years of set-up work with regional Islamist leaders, with a consultative council already operating for a year before the official announcement.

Their newest warning posted online vows to target:

  • “Those who are insulting our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Allah (S) and our religion Islam. We have no problem with the atheists bloggers, atheism or with other religions or belief but we will not tolerate insulting out Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). We are targeting those who are insulting our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the name of atheism.”
  • “People who are not allowing to follow the rulings of shariah. He/She might be a teacher of a University, College or School. He/She might be a leader of a certain area or locality or a political party. He/She might be a Judge, Advocate, Engineer or Doctor etc.”
  • “Those who are presenting Islam wrongly in His/Her writings or talks and trying to keep Muslims far from the real teaching of Islam which is one of the main agendas of crusaders in the Muslim nations all over the world. He/She might be a well known writer. He/She might be a poet or free thinker or so called intellectuals. He/She might be an editor of a newspaper of magazine. He/She might be a actor, journalist, producer, director or actor etc.”
  • “Those who are opposing, lowing and presenting wrongly the rulings of shariah by his/her talks or writings using media or any other means of publications.”
  • “Those who are trying to destroy Muslim social values by introducing and spreading the nudity and zina [sex outside of marriage] among the Muslim youths.”
  • “Those who are tying to remove the shariah rulings from the existing Islamic systems, values, cultures and economics.”
  • “Those who are trying to stop the establishment of Islamic rulings (Shariah).”

The al-Qaeda chapter claims it won’t target any people just for not being Muslim, but declared open season on “those who are trying to insult our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Allah (S) and our religion by any means such as writings, talks or physical works.”

Ananta Bijoy Das, a science writer whose numerous books included one on evolution, was hacked to death by four men wielding machetes and cleavers May 12 as he went to work in the city of Sylhet.

AQIS issued a statement afterward announcing they were “delighted” to be responsible for “one Islamophobic atheist blogger sent to hell.” They accused Das of “taunts” to Islam.

Das knew his life was in danger, and tried to get a visa to go to Sweden for a press-freedom event. Swedish officials denied the request last month, afraid that the writer wouldn’t return to Bangladesh.

In February, Bangladeshi-American secularist blogger Avijit Roy was hacked to death on a Dhaka street. “The target was an American citizen.. 2 in 1. #America recently martyred 2 of our brothers in #Khurasan & #Shaam. #Revenge+#Punishment,” Ansar al-Islam Bangladesh tweeted afterward.

Roy was a dual U.S.-Bangladesh citizen who lived in Georgia and was in Bangladesh for a month. His wife, Rafida Ahmed Bonna, was with him at the time of the attack and was severely wounded, with one of her fingers severed by the pair of machete-wielding attackers.

His blog in the 90 percent Muslim country, mukto-mona.com, translates to “free thinking” and featured atheist, humanist and nationalist writers. He was also an author whose books included The Philosophy of Disbelief and The Virus of Faith — further stoking outrage of Islamists.

Das contributed to mukto-mona.com.

After Roy’s murder, secular blogger Washiqur Rahman wasn’t going to take it from the Islamists. He posted a Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoon and used the hashtag #IamAvijit. Rahman was hacked to death at the end of March.

Two suspects out of three attackers were seized at the scene of the crime: students at an Islamic school who said they were acting on orders to kill Rahman.

Al-Qaeda issued a video at the beginning of this month saying AQIS was behind those assassinations and more, including the February 2013 murder of secularist Bangladeshi blogger Rajib Haider.

“Praise be to Allah, these assassinations are part of a series of operations initiated by the different branches of al-Qaeda on the orders of our respected leader Sheikh Ayman al Zawahiri (may Allah protect him),” AQIS leader Asim Umar said. “It is equally part of our commitment to fulfill the oath of Sheikh Osama [bin Laden] (may Allah have mercy on him).”

The assassination campaign, Umar stressed, is teaching “a lesson to blasphemers in France, Denmark, Pakistan and now in Bangladesh.”

Though not specifically mentioned by the al-Qaeda directive, the message was released two days before Friday’s “Draw Muhammad” event outside of a Phoenix mosque.

Iraq Fiasco: Jihad Denial, “Surge” Mythology, & Abandonment of Iraq’s Non-Muslim Minorities. Discussion With Sam Sorbo

bolgerAndrew Bostom, May 28, 2015:

We are now in the middle of a full-blown Jihad, that is to say we have against us the fiercest prejudices of a people in a primeval state of civilization.—Gertrude Bell, Baghdad, Iraq, September 5, 1920

Sam Sorbo was kind enough to allow me to address, in brief, some of the crucial, if willfully ignored matters which have created the Iraq morass, rooted in denial of Islam’s Sharia-based doctrine of “international” (and domestic) relations”: jihad.

During our interview (embedded below) earlier today (Thursday 5/28/15), we touched upon the following:

  • General Daniel P. Bolger’s “Why We Lost—A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars,” is a sobering read. Bolger went from a 1 to 3 star General in Iraq, and then Afghanistan, and once commanded 20,000 troops in Baghdad. He served 8-years in these war zones, between 2005 to 2013. Bolger characterized (on 256) the much ballyhooed 2007 Iraq “surge,” at its tactical conclusion, thusly: “The casualty and hostile attack rates went down in the fall of 2007, never again to rise to their previous heights, at least during the remaining years of the American campaign.But the fighting never stopped either. It lingered, a third of the previous rate, but that was no comfort to those who fell, killed or wounded, or to their families. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, unrepentant Sunni rejectionists, surly Sadrists [Shiite followers of Muqtada al-Sadr], and Iranian handlers all kept their pieces on the board. As long as the occupiers remained, there would be attacks. As long as Iraq was Iraq, violence remained part of the picture.” Gen. Bolger elaborated on these sentiments in a November 2014 op-ed, while exploding the standard mythical trope about how the alleged “decisively victorious” troop surge—with irony, repeatedly dubbed “fragile and reversible” by its putative architect, General Petraeus—was “squandered” by the Obama Administration’s policies. …
  • When President George W. Bush announced the “surge,” during 2007, he maintained the overall objectives for this great expenditure of precious U.S. blood and treasure were to establish a “…unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror.” Any rational post-mortem indicates none of those goals were achieved, from either an Iraqi or U.S. perspective, even in the near term, let alone chronically.
  • Born of sheer willful ignorance about living Islamic doctrine, and history, this deficient mindset begot a corollary dangerous absurdity: embrace of the General David Petraeus “COIN” theory, a see no jihad, see no Islam military strategy designed, perversely, to somehow “defeat” the ancient-cum-modern forces of global Islamic jihadism.
  • The current predicament of Iraq’s Yazidis, and Christians, past as prologue, also illustrates, starkly, mainstream conservative ignorance and dishonesty about Islam, and the creed’s timeless sine qua non institution, jihad. Post-surge Iraq — the paragon of Petraeus’ counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine “triumph” — rapidly deteriorated, well-before the emergence of thetraditionalist Islamic Caliphate movement IS/IL, per se, into a hotbed of anti-Christian, and anti-Yazidi, Islamic brutality.
  • Pew survey results reported in 2013 have confirmed the abject failure of the U.S. midwifed Iraqi and Afghan “democracies” to fulfill the utopian aspirations of the (Bernard) Lewis doctrine. The negative prognostications, epitomized by my colleague Diana West’s evocative description “Making the world safe for Sharia,” have instead, been realized. Specifically, the Pew data indicated 91% of Iraqi Muslims and 99% of Afghan Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies.Hurriyya, the Arabic term for “freedom,” but meaning “perfect slavery to Allah and his Sharia”—Islamic religious totalitarianism—has triumphed over the diametrically opposed Western, Judeo-Christian conception of individual liberty, founded upon the bedrock freedoms of conscience and expression.
  • We have a moral obligation to oppose Sharia which is antithetical to the core beliefs for which hundreds of thousands of brave Americans have died, including, between 2001 and the end of 2014, over 6800 in Iraq, and Afghanistan. There has never been a Sharia state in history that has not discriminated (often violently) against the non-Muslims (and Muslim women) under its suzerainty. Moreover, such states have invariably taught (starting with Muslim children) the aggressive jihad ideology which leads to predatory jihad “razzias” on neighboring “infidels”—even when certain of those “infidels” happened to consider themselves Muslims, let alone if those infidels were clearly non-Muslims. That is the ultimate danger and geopolitical absurdity of a policy that ignores or whitewashes basic Islamic doctrine and history, while however inadvertently, making or re-making these societies “safe for Sharia.”

Also see:

How to beat ISIS in Iraq despite Obama’s feckless foreign policy

2540868340CSP, by Fred Fleitz, May 29, 2015:

There have been a lot of compelling arguments made since the disastrous fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi to ISIS last weekend that it is time for the President Obama to adopt a coherent strategy to defeat ISIS that includes sending ground troops to fight alongside the Iraqi army.

Kimberly and Fred Kagan, the smartest people I know on this issue, said in a Washington Post article last week that President Obama has no Iraq strategy and called on him to send “a few thousand additional combat troops, backed by helicopters, armored vehicles and forward air controllers able to embed with Iraqi units at the battalion level, as well as additional Special Forces troops able to move about the countryside.”

While I mostly agree with the Kagans, they are not acknowledging two realities about President Obama’s approach to ISIS and the crisis in Iraq and Syria.

First, Mr. Obama does have an Iraq strategy. It is to do as little as possible about this crisis for the rest of his presidency so he can hand this mess to a future president.

He only reluctantly agreed to send military advisers to Iraq and approve airstrikes because he was forced to by ISIS atrocities. This has been followed by constant spin by Obama officials exaggerating the effectiveness of the president’s Iraq policy and dismissing ISIS gains.

The most recent example was when President Obama said this week “I don’t think we’re losing” after he was asked about the fall of Ramadi during an interview with The Atlantic.

Even worse was Mr. Obama’s ludicrous statement on Memorial Day that “Today is the first Memorial Day in 14 years that the United States is not engaged in a major ground war,” a claim that is technically true because the 3,000 military advisers he sent to Iraq are restricted to bases and the attacks that the United States is staging in Iraq and Syria are being conducted by the U.S. Air Force and special forces.

Second, the president also is trying run out the clock in Syria but the results may be far more dire. Due to major gains on the ground by ISIS and the Al Nusra Front (an Al Qaeda affiliate) over the last few months, the Assad regime is in danger of collapse. Limited U.S. airstrikes and the current effort to arm and train a small number of moderate Syrian rebels to fight ISIS will be too little and too late to affect the Syria situation.

If Assad falls, the bloodletting in Syria and the conversion of Syria into an ISIS-controlled terrorist state will have huge repercussions for regional and global security.

So what can be done about Iraq, Syria and ISIS given the restrictions that President Obama has placed on U.S. forces?

Concerning Iraq, I believe there are several things the U.S. can do to reverse ISIS gains that President Obama might agree to such as directly arming the Iraqi Kurds, stepping up the training and arming of the Iraqi army, and arming Sunni militias.

Airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq should be significantly increased. (Why didn’t we bomb the ISIS “victory parade” in Ramadi this week?) The U.S. should also send more special forces and military advisers.

Although President Obama probably will continue to refuse to allow U.S. troops to engage ISIS in combat (other than an occasional special forces raid), he might agree to allow U.S. military advisers leave their bases and accompany Iraqi forces into the field. This could allow them to shore up the morale of Iraqi soldiers and better coordinate airstrikes.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed such changes last week, calling on Mr. Obama to allow U.S. troops to operate behind the lines in Iraq and support Iraqi security forces. He would let U.S. troops serve as forward air controllers and spotters. Gates also believes U.S. military trainers should be embedded down to the battalion level in Iraqi security forces and also work with Sunni tribes in Anbar Province and with the Iraqi Kurds.

Continuing tensions between the Shiite government in Baghdad and Iraqi Sunnis is a major obstacle to defeating ISIS. Many Sunnis are supporting ISIS because they are more afraid of the Shiite government and Iranian-trained Shiite militias. This fear grew when Shiite militias engaged in mass looting after they took the Shiite city of Tikrit from ISIS at the end of March. The perception that the government did not do enough to defend Ramadi may further fuel Iraqi Sunni estrangement with Baghdad.

The U.S. must pressure the Baghdad government to resolve these tensions and bring Iraqi Sunnis into the fight against ISIS. This must include demanding an end to the government’s reliance on Iranian military support since Iran’s presence in Iran is driving up support for ISIS by Iraqi Sunnis. The Obama administration also must stop using Iran as a proxy to fight ISIS in Iraq.

The Obama administration must do more to target ISIS by expanding counterterrorism efforts and airstrikes against it everywhere it is operating, including in Libya. The U.S. should work to step up efforts with our European allies to stop the flow of foreign fighters to Iraq and Syria. ISIS funding sources should be targeted, including by bombing oil facilities it has captured. There also must be a robust effort to counter ISIS propaganda on the Internet.

These measures could help reverse ISIS gains in Iraq. However, they will not defeat ISIS because it will still be based in Syria and will continue to expand its control of that country. Only a large international force can defeat ISIS in Syria and restore order. Since there is no chance this will happen, I believe ISIS and the al-Nusra Front will eventually seize control of Syria and oust Assad.

We need to recognize that Syria is lost and prepare for the coming catastrophe when Assad falls. There will be a huge number of refugees trying to escape a new ISIS government. There is a strong prospect of widespread atrocities, including beheadings, against supporters of the Assad regime and Christians. An ISIS victory could also lead to an influx of foreigners traveling to Syria to join it and the country becoming a terrorist safe haven that could profoundly alter regional and global security.

The United States needs to begin an international dialogue on the coming collapse of Syria, ways to prevent this, and contingency plans for a collapse. Creating humanitarian safe zones needs to be considered, although finding states to send troops to defend them will be difficult.

ISIS captured Ramadi despite being vastly outnumbered by the Iraqi army because of poor leadership, poor morale, lack of weapons and ineffective U.S. airstrikes. Although I do not see a viable way to defeat ISIS in Syria, the steps outlined above could reverse ISIS gains in Iraq despite President Obama’s feckless foreign policy.

I concede that much of what I am proposing is a holding action until a new American president is in office who is prepared to lead. Many will argue that since President Obama doesn’t want to win in Iraq, we should pull our troops out. I believe this would be a mistake because ceding Iraq to ISIS would have profound and long-lasting implications for global security that we would have to confront down the road.

Also see:

Remember that 2011 presidential finding authorizing covert arming of Libyan rebels?

obama-hillary-holding-hands-wh-photoMedia Missing The Benghazi Timeline When Reviewing and Reporting on Hillary Clinton Emails – Also Missing “Gang of Eight” When Discussing Mike Rogers

The Last Refuge, by Sundance, May 29, 2015:

Everyone is missing the late February 2011 Presidential Finding Memo, <– INSERT FLASHY “READ ME” SIGN HERE, signed by President Obama which authorized the covert CIA/State Department operation.

[…]  The Libyan uprising began on February 10th of 2011, and we also know that sometime around the end of February 2011 President Obama signed a presidential directive authorizing the State Dept and CIA to begin a covert operation to arm the Libyan “rebels”.

Everyone is also missing as a result of that directive the Intelligence Gang of Eight, which included Mike Rogers, was informed of the CIA/State Dept. goal.

The White House appears to have followed “The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980” in informing the congressional “Gang of Eight” of Zero Footprint.

The Gang of Eight in 2011 would have included: Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss.

All of these people were fully aware of the (Feb 2011) Presidential Directive, and fully aware of the joint CIA/State Department mission which stemmed from it.

clinton emailsFox News, one of the few organizations digging into the substance of the Benghazi/Clinton emails, via Catherine Herridge runs this article yesterday:    “Emails show Clinton’s interest in arming Libyan rebels despite prohibitions“.

Recently released emails detail then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s interest in arming Libyan opposition groups using private security contractors before the fall of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011 – though at the time, the opposition was not formally recognized by the U.S. or United Nations, which prohibited arming without following strict guidelines and oversight.

The issue remains so sensitive that the emails recently released by the State Department redacted a key line on the matter. But the unredacted version of the same email, released to the congressional Benghazi Select Committee and first posted by The New York Times last Thursday, showed Clinton appearing to endorse the idea of using private contractors to her then-deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan.

“FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Clinton wrote to Sullivan on April 8, 2011, attaching an intelligence report from Hillary’s adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The opposition was known as the Transitional National Council, or TNC.

Another email released by the State Department shows that five days earlier, on April 3, 2011, Bill Clinton said he would not rule out arming the Libyan opposition. The story was circulated by Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s principal personal adviser at the State Department, to “H.” While it’s not clear who “H” is, based on the message traffic it is likely Hillary Clinton or possibly adviser Huma Abedin.

Later that same year, a Sept. 10, 2011 email with a subject line “Rogers” said, “Apparently wants to see you to talk Libya/weapons.”

At the time, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee was Mike Rogers, who abruptly announced he would not seek re-election in the spring of 2014. Rogers did not immediately respond to questions seeking comment. Fox News also filed its own Freedom of Information Act request for the documents in October 2012.

Obviously Secretary Hillary Clinton has emails in April 2011 outlining using contractors to facilitate the Presidential Directive, and deliver weapons to the “Libyan Rebels”.  The directive was authorized in February 2011, by President Obama – IT WAS REPORTED IN REUTERS A MONTH LATER !

Why doesn’t Catherine Herridge know this?

We know this 2011 Libyan covert operation came to be known as “Operation Zero Footprint“, and fell under the military command authority of NATO not (important to repeat), NOT, the U.S. Military.

We know by the time operation “Zero Footprint” began, AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham was removed from OPSEC oversight in the Libyan campaign and NATO commander Admiral James G. Stavridis was in charge.

We know Operation Zero Footprint was the covert transfer of weapons from the U.S to the Libyan “rebels”. We also know the operation avoided the concerns with congressional funding, and the subsequent potential for public scrutiny, through financing by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

We also know that officials within the government of Qatar served as the intermediaries for the actual transfer of the weapons, thereby removing the footprint of the U.S. intervention.

We know the entire operation was coordinated and controlled by the State Department and CIA. We also know (from the Senate Foreign Relations Benghazi hearings) that “Zero Footprint” was unknown to the 2011 Pentagon and/or DoD commanders who would have been tasked with any military response to the 9/11/12 attack – namely AFRICOM General Carter Ham.

listen_up_words_horizontal__clear_bkrd__4-14-08_mayv_kyjxIf we could make a singular request it would be that THE BENGHAZI BRIEF be referenced for source citations by anyone reviewing Hillary Clinton emails around the time of the Libya decision making.

We are not looking for credit and don’t care how the information is presented. The Brief itself can be thought of as merely a reference tool to deliver over 500 internal historical MSM citations needed for both context and verification of Libyan issues.

Like This One <- March 2011

***

Also see:

MIT Hillel Rabbi and Head Chaplain Defend Colleague With Terror Fundraising Past

Screencap/Americans for Peace and Tolerance

Screencap/Americans for Peace and Tolerance

Breitbart, by  ILYA FEOKTISTOV & CHARLES JACOBS, May 28, 2015:

On May 11th, we released a mini-documentary on Breitbart.com chronicling how Suheil Laher, MIT’s Muslim Chaplain for sixteen years, raised money for Al Qaeda affiliates around the world, incited Boston Muslims against Jews and Christians, and called on all Muslims to join in a violent Jihad against non-Muslims. Despite these serious charges, two religious leaders at MIT, a Jew and a Christian, are defending Laher.

MIT’s Head Chaplain Robert Randolph wrote a defense of Laher to MIT President Rafael Reif on May 20th. MIT has been sending this letter to people who have written to President Reif with concerns about Laher.

In his letter, Randolph claims that our investigation of Laher “is a mash up of speculation, innuendo and poorly researched details about Suheil’s work with the Muslim community.” He writes: “The video speaks to fears shared by many, but does not describe the man I have known and worked with.” Randolph repeats this line of ad hominem argument throughout the letter, but he fails to address or refute a single factual assertion that we have made in our reports on Laher.

Likewise, MIT Hillel Rabbi Gavriel Goldfeder called Suheil Laher an “upstander” on MIT Hillel’s official Facebook page and insisted that, “my experience of him is nothing like what is presented in this ‘expose.’” He then accused us of “lashon ha’ra,” or slanderous talk that is considered a sin against G-d, for making the film. Like his boss, Chaplain Randolph, Goldfeder fails to address a single statement of fact in our investigation of Laher, choosing instead to attack us as sinners in religious terms.

One of the reasons Goldfeder and Randolph are unwilling to address the facts that prove Laher was involved in jihadist fundraising is because these facts are simple and incontrovertible:

  1. The Justice Department has described Boston-based Islamic charity Care International as a front that raised funds and recruited for jihadist causes in Boston.
  2. Laher is listed as Care International’s president in official Care International filings with the Massachusetts Secretary of State that were signed under penalty of perjury by Laher himself.
  3. Laher’s own sermons posted by him on his own website are full of hatred toward Jews and Christians, as well as of incitement to violent Jihad.

Randolph and Goldfeder’s ad hominem attacks on our motivations and quality of research are belied by the fact that we are not the only, or even the first, people to report on Laher’s jihadist past. In a 2006 article in Worcester’s 150 year-old Telegram and Gazette, staff journalist Kevin Keenan wrote that “Mr. Laher wrote and distributed material advocating the global jihad in Care International’s name.” In a 2008 Der Spiegel article, “The Most Dangerous Woman in the World,” Juliane von Mittelstaedt described how MIT-student-turned-Al Qaeda-operative Aafia Siddiqui got radicalized at MIT:

She met several committed Islamists through the Muslim student group at MIT. One was Suheil Laher, the group’s imam, an open advocate of Islamization and jihad before Sept. 11. For a short time, Laher was also the head of the Islamic charity Care International.

Writing in Vogue Magazine in 2005, and later in her 2012 book, Wanted Women, award winning investigative journalist Deborah Scroggins specifically focused on MIT’s Muslim student group as the incubator for Aafia Siddiqui’s radicalization:

As I pieced her story together from interviews, court documents, and published reports, I came to believe that if Aafia was drawn into the world of terrorism, it may have been through the contacts and friendships she made in the early 1990s working for MIT’s Muslim Student Association. … At MIT, several of the MSA’s most active members had fallen under the spell of Abdullah Azzam, a Muslim Brother who was Osama bin Laden’s mentor. … In the eighties, he had established the al-Kifah (“The Struggle”) Refugee Services Center [Care International’s original name]. It would become the nucleus of the al-Qaeda organization. At least two contemporaries of Aafia’s at MIT’s MSA, Suheil Laher and Mohamad Akra, were al-Kifah volunteers. Aafia soon took up the cause too.

Our research was meticulously cited with all this evidence, yet this didn’t matter to Chaplain Randolph and Rabbi Goldfeder. Our guess that they didn’t even look at the facts as cited. In his letter, Chaplain Randolph claimed that, despite all the reporting to the contrary over the past decade, “at no time has the community described [to me] efforts to radicalize our campus.” Rabbi Goldfeder refused to meet with us when we reached out to him and offered to go over our claims and the evidence for them in person.

This is bizarre behavior– a Hillel rabbi is speaking out in support of an anti-Semitic Islamic extremist who raised money for Al Qaeda causes. Rabbi Goldfeder’s response to us reveals another reason why he and Chaplain Randolph are unwilling to address the ample and wide-ranging evidence in this case. Their judgement of whether Suheil Laher fundraised for Al Qaeda causes and/or is a jihadist is not informed by a rational analysis of the facts at hand, but rather by deeply emotional dynamics: It is hard to admit to yourself that you’ve been deceived. Moreover, Goldfeder and Randolph seem to be driven by a politically correct knee-jerk impulse to side with someone perceived as a member of a vulnerable minority.

These are by now familiar moral failures to those who observe the leftist ideology prevalent on contemporary campuses. They form the basis of the liberal abandonment of oppressed Christian minorities, women, gays, and secularists in the Muslim world, all of whom are victimized by Islamists.

Our investigative video highlights the aftermath of a terrorist attack on a Russian school by a Chechen terrorist outfit funded and lionized by Laher’s Care International. The jihadists took all the children in the school hostage, held them without food or water for three days in a hot school gymnasium, and surrounded the kids with homemade bombs. They then set off the bombs and shot the surviving children in the back as they ran for their lives. Over 300 people were killed, more than half of them elementary school kids.

It takes a special type of callousness to watch the graphic scenes of an Islamic terrorist attack on a school full of schoolchildren, and then defend the man who help fund and promote the terror group that carried out that attack. But because they seem to be true believers in today’s morally-inverted campus orthodoxy, Chaplain Randolph and Rabbi Goldfeder also truly believe that they are doing the right thing; that it’s the jihadist who needs the Rabbi and the Chaplain on his side, not the jihadist’s victims.

Randolph and Goldfeder bring shame on MIT by defending Suheil Laher. It is even more shameful that so far there has been no public response to the revelations about Laher by the MIT administration. There is something clearly awry with MIT’s “Religious Life” division headed by Chaplain Randolph when even the non-Muslim officials in charge look the other way and insist that all is well. When MIT Police Officer Sean Collier was murdered by the Islamic extremists who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing, Suheil Laher was still in place as the Muslim chaplain. It is clear from the support he’s getting that his legacy still remains on campus. MIT President Rafael Reif must investigate MIT’s Religious Life division and clean house.

Ilya Feoktistov is Research Director and Charles Jacobs is President of Americans for Peace and Tolerance.

Carly Fiorina Takes Andrea Mitchell To Foreign Policy School

Truth Revolt, by Caleb Howe, May 28, 2015:

Earlier this week, Carly Fiorina appeared on MSNBC for an interview with Andrea Mitchell that covered several topics. One moment, however, stood out above the rest. It is a master class on how to answer foreign policy questions, and how to differentiate yourself from know-nothing Democrats.

Mitchell asked Fiorina what she would do about ISIS. Her answer is more than informed and a stark contrast to the weak sauce offered not only by the former Secretary of State, but also by Republican opponents like Jeb Bush:

I would do very specific things. First, instead of having a Camp David conference to talk our Arab allies into a bad deal with Iran, I would have had a Camp David conference to talk with our Arab allies about how we can support them to fight ISIS. Let me give you very specific examples. The Kurds have been asking us to arm them for three years, we still have not. The Jordanians have been asking us to provide them with bombs and materiel. We know King Abdullah of Jordan, I’ve known him for many years. He took the appropriate leadership steps when a Jordanian pilot was burned alive. He was here in this country asking us for bombs and materiel, we haven’t provided him with any of them; he’s now looking to China for that. The Egyptian president, a very brave and pious Muslim, who has said there is a cancer in the heart of Islam, has asked us to share intelligence. We are not. The Turks have asked us to help them topple Bashar al-Assad, we are not. There are a whole set of things that we’ve been asked to do by our allies who know this is their fight, and we’re not doing any of them. So I would hold a summit and talk with them about that.

Fiorina points out that Hillary and the President were claiming victory in Iraq and wonders who would call it victory now. “No one is declaring victory in Iraq now. What happened?”

We know exactly what happened. And so, apparently, does Carly Fiorina.

Also see:

Foreign Terrorist Fighters Pose Domestic Risk, Finance Jihad

ftfCSP, by Olivia McCoy, May 27, 2015:

Relatives of a Foreign Terrorist Fighter (FTF) reportedly transferred up to $15.47 million USD to finance the Islamic State. Australian national, Khaled Sharrouf traveled to Syria to fight on behalf of the Islamic State. According to a report by the United Nations Security Council, the sister and brother-in-law of Khaled Sharrouf owned a money transfer business. This business was used to send money to countries surrounding Syria. The report is unclear which countries were sent the money and whose money was being transferred.

The Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, says that there will be a no tolerance policy for jihadists trying to return to Australia or individuals financing the Islamic State.

However, this isn’t the first case of the Islamic State being financed by private donors. The Islamic State generates a portion of its funding from private donors in the Gulf. These private donors, stemming from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, have provided funds to pay for the salaries of over 100,000 Islamic State jihadists.

The UN estimates that there are over 25,000 FTFs that have joined al-Qaeda-linked terror organizations, principally the Islamic State. Roughly 22,00 of those FTF’s are operating out of Syria or Iraq. FTFs themselves can be a source of financing for terror groups. Often times FTFs travel to Syria on behalf of Islamic State, bringing all of their money with them and donating it to the Caliphate upon arrival.

According to the UN Report, dated May 19th, 2015, in the past three years the numbers of FTFs have drastically risen. Since the middle of 2014 to March of 2015 there was a 71 percent increase in foreign fighters. This year alone, there have been 40 individuals in the U.S. involved in international related-terror cases.

In March of 2015, Keonna Thomas of Philadelphia was arrested because of plans to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State and provide financial and material aid. She had been in contact with an Islamic State fighter in Syria who recruited her. The FBI arrested her just days before she was scheduled to depart.

FTFs are a major threat because in addition to helping further the terror group’s agenda abroad they also pose a risk domestically. Prior to departing for the Middle East to join the Islamic State, individuals are often in contact with representatives or handlers that they would meet prior to joining. This is hazardous because the handlers may instead tell FTFs to stay in their domestic countries and provide instructions on waging jihad domestically. The leader of the Islamic State himself called for domestic action in a speech released on May 14th:

“And we call upon every Muslim in every place to perform hijrah to the Islamic State or fight in his land wherever that may be.”

Countries with direct flights to locations such as Turkey should strengthen security checks against individuals coming through customs, as should countries that serve as  transit points, such as Spain and Morocco. Stopping FTFs is important because it not only prevents the Islamic State’s force from growing but also cuts off a key source of funding.

Also see:

Jindal’s Message To Rand Paul Was Incompetently Delivered, But He Was Correct In His Assessment

Rand Paul2The Hayride, by MacAoidh, May 28, 2015:

It brings me no pleasure to make the assertion in the headline, because I like much of what Paul says about domestic policy and he’s correct in his view that the George W. Bush vision of the Middle East as a collection of millions of would-be Americans was dangerously naive. There is some truth in Paul’s assessment that the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world, who couldn’t love Hillary Clinton’s plan to bomb Muammar Qaddafi out of existence enough while finding just the right bunch of Syrian jihadist rebels to slather with weapons, were wrong.

There are points to be made in those arguments. The GOP needs to present a different view of what an engaged foreign policy looks like from that of McCain and Graham – who perfectly represent The Stupid Party in all its glory. For example, sending in troops to rout ISIS out of Iraq and Syria and then coming home, even if the aftermath results in turning the areas retaken from them over to local warlords, is a perfectly acceptable use of American troops. It’s time to start thinking along those lines.

But had Paul articulated that and gone no further, he might have made a case for himself as a potential president. That isn’t what he said, though.

What Paul said was that the neocons and the hawks created ISIS.

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is blaming his own party for the rise of the Islamic State group.

The freshman senator from Kentucky said Wednesday that the GOP’s foreign policy hawks “created these people.” That assertion led potential 2016 rival Bobby Jindal, Louisiana’s governor, to say Paul was unqualified to be president.

The Islamic State group, commonly referred to as ISIS, has seized one-third of Iraq and Syria and in recent days made gains in central Iraq.

“ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately,” Paul said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He continued: “They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved – they loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. They just wanted more of it.”

There is a great deal wrong with such a statement, and when Jindal attacked it as “taking the most liberal Democrat position” on the question of jihadist Islam in the Middle East he’s correct. He just violated the Louisiana constitution in saying so on his official Louisiana government letterhead and with his official, rather than proto-campaign, staff issuing the release.

First of all, ISIS and Al Qaeda spring from the same ideological source, but they are not the same. In fact, they are rivals. And it’s Al Qaeda who’s all over Libya; ISIS has a presence there but they’re not running anything. And it wasn’t ISIS who massacred our people in Benghazi, it was Al Qaeda.

Second of all, ISIS is what became of the former Al Qaeda in Iraq. That group, which was kicked out of Al Qaeda because of the way it treated Sunni Muslims in that country, was also kicked out of the Sunni areas of Iraq during the surge in 2007 and 2008. The surge – which was an idea brought forth from George W. Bush and his neocons (along with our military on the ground) and supported by the McCains and Grahams of the world – created an opening for the Sunni Awakening, in which the regular people in Anbar Province who were being abused by AQI (in a similar manner to the way ISIS abuses people living in areas they control now) rose up against them and, in concert with the American military presence there, drove AQI out of Anbar.

AQI was thus forced into exile in Syria, where they ultimately wrested territory away from the Assad regime as part of the civil war there.

The flow of weapons to AQI as a result of what the U.S. government did after the fall of Libya helped it grow into ISIS. But it is naive in the extreme to believe that ISIS couldn’t have gotten its hands on weaponry any other way. ISIS was supported from the beginning by oil sheikhs in the Arab gulf states and in Saudi Arabia; they could easily have bought weapons elsewhere. Understand that most of ISIS’ army is made up of “technicals” – pickup trucks with machine guns mounted on them – and infantry with small arms. What heavy weaponry they have they looted from vanquished enemies. Machine guns and small arms are readily available on the world market.

Even if you agree that U.S. government policy aided the rise of ISIS, which is a tenuous case but one with valid arguments to support it, it’s not John McCain and Lindsey Graham who set that policy. It was the Obama administration who set it, not Republicans. It was Obama who pulled American troops out of Iraq and allowed the Shiite Maliki government to persecute Sunnis, thus creating a power vacuum ISIS could re-fill in Anbar. It was the Obama administration which started the war in Libya which led to Qaddafi’s stockpiles being transferred to Syrian rebels ultimately aligning with ISIS. It was the Obama administration which refused to directly arm the Kurds who could have routed ISIS before they took Mosul. It was the Obama administration who decided not to engage in a robust campaign of airstrikes to keep ISIS out of Ramadi and Tikrit. McCain and Graham and the other GOP hawks might have supported some of those early mistakes but the inaction creating the power vacuum ISIS has grown to fill is owned by Obama, not the party Paul belongs to.

And we should also back this analysis out to 30,000 feet and recognize, as PJ Media’s Roger L. Simon does, that events in places like Iraq and Syria do not depend on decisions made in Washington. ISIS exists because there are lots of jihadist Muslims in the world who want a caliphate and are willing to kill and die to create one as a vehicle for Islamic world supremacy as laid out in the Quran and the hadith. There is nothing we can do about that; it is a reality which has persisted for 1400 years and it will not go away. Rand Paul, like his father, refuses to recognize that this evil predates America and will threaten us regardless of what foreign aid we give or don’t give and what military actions we take or don’t take.

To understand the history of ISIS and to say it was created by the Bushies and/or John McCain and Lindsey Graham is to lie. Paul has a perfectly legitimate argument in saying that Bush was wrong to engage us in Iraq, and that McCain is wrong in wanting to bomb and invade a country like Libya where we had established normal relations with Qaddafi. He went far further, and irresponsibly so. And in doing that, he demonstrated that he’s either fundamentally ignorant of how the world works or he’s not moored to the truth.

Or both.

That means Paul can’t say he’d be any different or any better than what we currently have in the White House where foreign policy is concerned, or that he’s a fundamental improvement over Hillary Clinton.

And Jindal was correct in saying Paul isn’t qualified to make American foreign policy as a result of his statements. He simply should have said so on his campaign letterhead rather than that of his current elected position.

MICHAEL YOUSSEF TALKS STRAIGHT ON ISLAM

Supplicating_Pilgrim_at_Masjid_Al_Haram._Mecca_Saudi_ArabiaPhilos Project, by Andrew Harrod, May 27, 2015:

Arab-American pastor Michael Youssef writes that “militant Islamists demand conformity to an ancient and merciless code of laws” that stems from the “original and authentic Islam of the seventh century.” Youssef’s compelling new book Jesus, Jihad, and Peace: What Bible Prophecy Says about World Events Today expounds on that claim, offering a fascinating analysis from an Egyptian native about Islam’s essential character and its relationship to the free world.

Not everyone will agree with Youssef’s analysis. Those who see militant Islam as a perversion of the faith will be troubled by Youssef’s claim that Islamic Republic of Iran’s founder Ayatollah Khomeini “was not expressing a distorted view of Islam.” Youssef cites global supremacy as a “basic Islamic doctrine,” and sees Khomeini’s statements as perfectly aligned with Koranic teachings. According to Youssef, “Genuine biblical Christianity does not impose itself, but Islam, by contrast, is a religion of law, submission and punishment with a history … of massacres, enslavement, torture and brutality far exceeding the crimes of the Crusaders.”

Some apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace, suggesting that the word “Islam” comes from the Arabic salaam. But Youssef contends that “anyone with even the most elementary knowledge of the Arabic language knows that Islam comes from aslama, or ‘total submission.’”  Efforts to rebrand jihad as warm and fuzzy (like a recent attempt by the Council on American-Islamic Relations) “appear more intended to confuse than educate.” The idea of jihad as an inner struggle is actually “relatively uncommon” among Muslims, Youssef says.

What many do not know – although this idea is well understood by those who take the Koran seriously – is that Islam’s central religious text leaves no room for moderation. While God blesses Jews and Christians (and Sabeans) in Koran 2:62, Youssef points out that “Muslim scholars generally interpret this verse as a blessing on the Christians and Jews who lived before Muhammad and his complete revelation.” Muslim orthodoxy additionally maintains that “any nonliteral interpretation of the Koran is a compromise with Western godlessness.”

Youssef correlates Islam’s harshness with that faith’s “unknowable deity,” or Allah in Arabic. In Islam, God is an “entirely separate form of being – remote, aloof and distant,” while the “Christian assertion that we are created in God’s image is blasphemy.” The Muslim view of Allah is intertwined with the Arab view of leadership in which rulers must be absolute monarchs or dictators. Youssef points out that because Muslims see Allah as an unyielding and vengeful god, “they tend to interact with others in a judgmental, unforgiving way.”

Youssef sees Islam as a threat to both Muslims and non-Muslims. “Almost since its inception, Islam has been at war with itself,” Youssef wrote, adding that Shiites and Sunnis “have battled and killed one another in order to prove themselves to be the purest, most zealous, most dogmatic Muslims of all.” Meanwhile, the existence of Israel on land that Muslims believe once belonged to the House of Islam strikes at the heart of Islamic ideology. “Muslims will not rest until the Jews either accept the Islamic religion or leave Palestine.”

Youssef speaks about a “growing trend in Muslim countries … toward Islamic fundamentalist ideology, regardless of which branch of Islam is advocated.” Under Egyptian dictators Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak since 1973, for example, Islamic governments became more radical in an attempt to appease the extremists. Yet jihadists still assassinated Sadat in 1981 and a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated uprising deposed Mubarak in 2011. “Appeasing extremists never earns their gratitude — only their contempt,” Youssef remarks.

Outside of Muslim-majority societies, “‘Islamophobia’ is merely a label that radical Muslims use to silence and intimidate … a form of jihad.” With such tactics, “universities are becoming willing accomplices in squelching free speech, oppressing women and girls in the Islamic world and advancing … a ‘stealth jihad’ agenda for America.” “Islamically correct” views also dominate media organizations like the New York Times. “America, following in the footsteps of Europe, has made a seemingly suicidal decision not to defend its culture from being infiltrated and undermined by Islamists,” he says.

“Islamic extremists see Christianity as the most potent ideological threat they face — far more potent than other religions, communism or atheism,” Youssef writes, adding that Christianity blocks the advancement of Islam on virtually all geographic, historical and ideological fronts. Radical Muslims view Christians and other non-Muslims as infidels who are faithless and treacherous.

But Youssef is careful to note that most Muslims are not radical. In 2013, in Youssef’s native Egypt, “Muslims threw off the yoke of political Islamism and provided a historic proof that there are truly moderate Muslims and that extremists are probably no more than 20 percent or so of the Muslim world.” But a May 2014 Pew poll showing 13 percent support for Al-Qaeda across 11 Muslim countries approximated 208 million Muslims, a not-so-small number that Youssef says worried him. He also wonders why Muslim moderates who “interpret the Koran according to their own conscience often do not speak out against the excesses of the fundamentalists who do not hesitate to respond with force and cruelty.”

Notwithstanding Islam’s “false worldview,” Youssef says that he has “genuine affectation and appreciation for Muslim people,” among which he has “many dear friends and acquaintances.” “My heart aches for the Muslim,” he writes, adding that the “Christian concept of salvation for sinners is completely unknown in Islam.” On this earth, Muslims can never know if they have done enough to earn Allah’s favor. “Islam is surrender without any guarantee of peace.”

Ultimately Youssef recognizes that this struggle is not just a material one — it’s ideological. “No matter how many terrorists you kill, there are always more lining up to take their place in the name of entrenched Islamic doctrines,” he concludes, emphasizing the need for a war of ideas. “Though the War on Terror is critically important in restraining the jihadist onslaught, war alone is not the answer. We must also fight for the hearts and minds of those who would do us harm.”

Video: Jamie Glazov on “Media’s Willful Blindness about Islam”

Counter Jihad Coalition, by Jamie Glazov, May 27, 2015:

In the video below, Frontpage Magazine editor Jamie Glazov rocks the Eagle Forum of California State Conference, 2015.

He tackled The Media’s Willful Blindness about Islam, Regaining Integrity in the News and Entertainment Media, The Left’s Unholy Alliance With Islam, and much more: