Three Choices and the Bitter Harvest of Denial: How Western denial about Islam has fueled Genocide in the Middle East

 

Published on Sep 14, 2014 by Q Society of Australia Inc:

Dr Durie speaks at the Q Society event in Melbourne together with Clare Lopez on the evening of 2 September 2014. His topic “Three Choices and the Bitter Harvest of Denial: How Western denial about Islam has fueled Genocide in the Middle East.”

Not many non-Muslim Australian scholars understand Islam and the underlying motivation of radical Muslims like Dr Durie. Q Society hopes this very timely and in-depth analysis will help many Australians to better respond to the challenges we face.

Make sure to view the Q&A section for valuable advise how to help those still caught up in Islamophilia.

The full videos of the four experts who did the analysis of the Islamic State propaganda release

isis-video-hed-2014-652x330Vlad Tepes, Sep. 12, 2014:

Here are the full videos by Christian Zeitz, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner and David Wood. Those who saw the official release and feel they would like more, may enjoy this more comprehensive set of analysis by these scholars.

 

 

 

 

And of course, the actual video these were all filmed to create:

The Real Islam:

 

Liberal Atheist Comedian RIPS Those Who Say ISIS Not Islamic And Ends Up Defending Christians More Than Christians Do

13768_212635287296_62507427296_3140806_4959418_n_400x400Shoebat, by Ben Barrack:

Don’t look now but far left-wing liberal comedian Bill Maher, who has gone to great lengths to support Barack Obama may have just slapped down the president’s core message in the latter’s recent speech about ISIS. That message was that ISIS does not represent Islam. Maher blew that notion up and just kept going.

Maher is a vile left-wing atheist but he is also extremely critical of Islam. In fact, he insists that Islam is much worse than Christianity, which is where he really wanders off the liberal plantation; that’s something you just don’t do.

There are several things to watch in the video below of his exchange with Charlie Rose on the subject. Rose quickly finds himself confronted with the conundrum of having to acquiesce to a fellow liberal who attacks a paradigm liberals are supposed to be in solidarity with – one that says Islam is a religion of peace. Right out of the gate, Maher essentially challenges Rose to admit he’s religious. Rose’s reaction tells you all you need to know.

It’s worth noting that while Maher insists that “all religions are bad”, he does something that most Christians won’t do. He says the problem is not with ‘radical Islam’ but with Islam itself. Rose just can’t process that coming from a far left liberal. Maher shockingly contrasts Islam with Christianity and ultimately ends up actually defending Christians more than many Christians do. In particular, compare what Maher says below with what Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick did (see this post).

Yes, God does work in mysterious ways.

If you watch for no other reason, do so just to see Rose’s face display the extreme levels of cognitive dissonance going on behind his forehead. Liberals have a script they must follow. Everything must fit in a box just so and when a fellow liberal like Maher blows that up and actually shows more courage than the Christian right on a particular issue, Rose just can’t compute and visibly short circuits:

9/11 and Jihad Terror: A Legacy of Over 13 Centuries—Not 13 Years

ISIL O TWILIGHT ZONE 2014 911
By Andrew Bostom:

I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)

—Islam’s prophet Muhammad, as recorded in the most important collection of Muhammad’s “traditions,” Sahih Bukhari,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220

ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is not Islamic

Barack Obama, September 10, 2014

**

There is just one historically relevant meaning of jihad despite the surfeit of contemporary apologetics. Dr. Tina Magaard—a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in textual analysis—published detailed research findings in 2005 (summarized in 2007) comparing the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard concluded from her hard data-driven analyses:

The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree [emphasis added]. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with.

For example, in her 2007 essay “Fjendebilleder og voldsforestillinger i islamiske grundtekster” [“Images of enemies and conceptions of violence in Islamic core scriptures”], Magaard observed,

There are 36 references in the Koran to expressions derived from the root qa-ta-la, which indicates fighting, killing or being killed. The expressions derived from the root ja-ha-da, which the word jihad stems from, are more ambiguous since they mean “to struggle” or “to make an effort” rather than killing. Yet almost all of the references derived from this root are found in stories that leave no room for doubt regarding the violent nature of this struggle. Only a single ja-ha-da reference (29:6) explicitly presents the struggle as an inner, spiritual phenomenon, not as an outwardly (usually military) phenomenon. But this sole reference does not carry much weight against the more than 50 references to actual armed struggle in the Koran, and even more in the Hadith.

Consistent with Magaard’s textual analysis, the independent study of Australian linguist and renowned Arabic to English translator, Paul Stenhouse, claimed the root of the word jihad appears forty times in the Koran. With four exceptions, Stenhouse maintained, all the other thirty-six usages in the Koran, and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries—the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam—and to ordinary people, meant and means, as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer, E. W. Lane: “He fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.” A concordant modern Muslim definition, relevant to both contemporary jihadism and its shock troop “mujahideen” [holy warriors; see just below], was provided at the “Fourth International Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research,” at Al Azhar University— in 1968, by Muhammad al-Sobki:

[T]he words Al Jihad, Al Mojahadah, or even “striving against enemies” are equivalents and they do not mean especially fighting with the atheists . . . they mean fighting in the general sense.

Data for 2012 from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) were released December 19, 2013. Gary LaFree, START director and professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Maryland, highlighted the report’s most salient finding: the “incredible growth” in jihad terror attacks perpetrated by “al-Qaeda affiliates.” START identified the six most lethal jihad terror groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda, and the death tolls these organizations had inflicted during 2012, as follows: the Taliban (more than 2,500 fatalities), Boko Haram (more than 1,200 fatalities), al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (more than 960 fatalities), Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (more than 950 fatalities), al-Qaeda in Iraq (more than 930 fatalities) and al-Shabaab (more than 700 fatalities). These attacks, as the START report acknowledged, were intrinsic to a broader phenomenon—the emergence of jihad terrorism emanating from the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa, as the predominant form of global terrorism, since the 1990s.

Another macabre tally—updated almost daily—is being kept assiduously in cyberspace: the number of attacks committed by jihad terrorists since the cataclysmic acts of jihad terrorism on September 11, 2001. This grisly compilation is if anything a conservative estimate of jihad-related carnage— murder and severe morbidity—because it doesn’t include combat-related statistics per se, or the death toll increases during the days or months after any given attack (as victims die from their injuries). As of September 11, 2014, this grim count is approaching 24,000.

Read more

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad(Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ” (Prometheus, November, 2008)

You can contact Dr. Bostom at info[@]andrewbostom.org

The Real Islam

Published on Sep 11, 2014 by Ban Koran

Obama and many other apologists for Islam tell us that the Islamic State, ISIS, has nothing to do with Islam. Five experts challenge that statement.
The original video by Islamic State can be seen:
http://grid.pjmedia.com/?cmd=view-sho…

9/12/14 Update:

Vlad Tepes has posted the full videos by Christian Zeitz, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner and David Wood HERE

ISIS Is Not Islamic?

by Daniel Pipes
Sep 10, 2014
Cross-posted from National Review Online, The Corner

In a televised address this evening, President Barack Obama outlined his ideas on how to defeat the Islamic State. Along the way, he declared the organization variously known as ISIS or ISIL to be “not Islamic.”

In making this preposterous claim, Obama joins his two immediate predecessors in pronouncing on what is not Islamic. Bill Clinton called the Taliban treatment of women and children “a terrible perversion of Islam.” George W. Bush deemed that 9/11 and other acts of violence against innocents “violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.”

Word magic permits Obama to turn ISIS into a "not Islamic" organization.

Word magic permits Obama to turn ISIS into a “not Islamic” organization.

Indeed, Obama compounds his predecessors’ errors and goes further: Clinton and Bush merely described certain actions (treatment of women and children, acts of violence against innocents) as un-Islamic, but Obama has dared to declare an entire organization (and quasi-state) to be “not Islamic.”None of the three has any basis for such assertions. To state the obvious: as non-Muslims and politicians, rather than Muslims and scholars, they are in no position to declare what is Islamic and what is not. As Bernard Lewis, a leading American authority of Islam, notes: “it is surely presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam.” (That Obama was born and raised a Muslim has no relevance here, for he left the faith and cannot pronounce on it.)

The only good thing about this idiocy? At least it’s better than the formulation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (known as CAIR) which has the nerve to call ISIS “anti-Islamic.”

In the end, though, neither U.S. presidents nor Islamist apologists fool people. Anyone with eyes and ears realizes that ISIS, like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda before it, is 100 percent Islamic. And most Westerners, as indicated by detailed polling in Europe, do have eyes and ears. Over time, they are increasingly relying on common sense to conclude that ISIS is indeed profoundly Islamic. (September 10, 2014)

Also see:

Muslim Leaders Insist Islamic State Not Islamic

1060by John Rossomando
IPT News
September 10, 2014

More than a dozen American Muslim leaders condemned the Islamic State’s (IS) brutal tactics as contrary to Islam Wednesday during a press conference held at the National Press Club.

But in doing so, several speakers urged the public to ignore the terrorist group’s theological motivations.

Talib Shareef, imam of Masjid Muhammad in Washington, D.C., exhorted the media to refer to IS as the “Anti-Islamic” State because its actions run contrary to the teachings of Mohammed.

“This is not an Islamic State of being; it’s not an Islamic State of mind; and it’s not an Islamic State that the prophet himself created in his first state, where he saw this beautiful peace and equality for all religions – Jews, Christians that were there with him,” Shareef said, noting what Muslims call the Medina Charter.

Another speaker, former Council on American-Islamic Affairs (CAIR) Tampa director Ahmed Bedier, later wrote on Twitter that IS “is not a product of Islam,” and blamed America for its emergence.

Haris Tarin, Washington director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), moderated the event. It included noted Muslim leaders such as Imam Mohamed Magid, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and member of the president’s Homeland Security Advisory Council; Johari Abdul-Malik, an imam at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va.; and Humera Khan, head of the group Mufflehun, which aims to keep young Muslims from radicalizing.

Several representatives of the Obama administration attended, including senior adviser Rand Beers, David Gersten, coordinator for countering violent extremism at the Department of Homeland Security; and Kareem Shora, section chief for the bureau of community engagement at the Department of Homeland Security; and Seamus Hughes of the National Counterterrorism Center.

“Long years of experience have shown us that this problem cannot be solved by law enforcement and security measures alone,” Gersten said. “Local communities are the front line of defense and response, and are essential in identifying recruitment, especially as Syrian-based groups look to target Westerners.”

Gersten noted that local law enforcement and members of the Muslim community should be the first line of defense against those intent on becoming jihadists.

Several speakers reiterated their constant refrain since the 9/11 attacks that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, noting the 2005 fatwa against terrorism issued by the Fiqh Council of North America – an organization that currently includes Jamal Badawi, who has endorsed suicide bombings.

Humera Khan offered condolences to the mothers of beheaded American journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley, saying their murders had nothing to do with Islam. She and Tarin both emphasized that young Muslims need to be taught that the rhetoric used by jihadist recruiters has nothing to do with authentic Islamic teaching.

“Just because someone uses Islamic terminology does not make one a Muslim,” Asma Hanif, executive director and board member of the Baltimore-based Muslimat Al-Nisaat, women’s shelter.

Magid called IS a “cult” that had nothing to do with Islam because it has killed more Muslims than anyone else, demolished mosques and killed Christians in Iraq.

“All of this is against the foundation and teaching of Islam,” Magid said. “It was our Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who said whoever mistreats a Christian or a Jew, or any person of another faith, I am his enemy on the day of judgment.

“The Holy Qur’an says whoever takes one life it as if he has taken the life of all of humanity, and anyone who saved one life; it is though he has saved all of humanity.”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism challenged Magid, citing Surah 9:29 of the Quran, which IS invokes to justify killing Christians. It says: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”

Christians have become subject to the jizyah, or poll tax, since IS seized Raqqa in Syria earlier this year and Mosul in Iraq earlier this summer. Those subject to the jizyahface death if they refuse to pay or convert to Islam. IS similarly cited the Islamic law book known as “Reliance of the Traveler” to justify killing Yazidis and requiring them to convert to its brand of Islam to be spared.

Magid insisted that IS had acted outside of the bounds of Islam, noting that Muslim scholars never mandated killing all non-Muslims in Iraq or Syria during the 1,400 years before IS came into being.

“Muslims had ruled this area. Why didn’t they kill them?” Magid asked about Christians, Jews and Yazidis in the area before IS. “We have stated on our web site when I was president of ISNA [that] any killing of civilians, whether by Hamas, whether by the Jihad, whether by x or y, whether by Jewish, whether by Christians, whether by Hindus, whether by Buddhists, it is unacceptable.”

Ironically, IS makes a similar argument against Muslims who criticize the group. Those are not true Muslims, IS claims.

The strategy of disowning radicals and denying their theological motivation is a losing one, argued James Brandon in an article Tuesday.

“When moderate Muslim groups use takfirism (calling Muslims with other views apostates) to tackle extremism, this dangerous and intrinsically intolerant doctrine is therefore not challenged but is instead reaffirmed,” wrote Brandon, an associate fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR). “A better approach is to accept that Islamist extremists, however distasteful their view of Islam, remain Muslims, however much other Muslims, and non-Muslims, might dislike their version of Islam.”

At Wednesday’s news conference, Magid discussed the need for programs aimed at Muslim youth to counter the jihadist narrative that has led to over 300 American Muslims to fight for IS and other jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq over the past three years. The jihadists’ theological arguments needed to be countered point by point, he said.

“There’s nothing cool about being a jihadist! You’re a loser!” said Johari Abdul-Malik, whose mosque has been home to numerous individuals arrested in connection with jihadist plots. “I want to point out that I am black! We never conflated the actions of the KKK with Christianity.”

But one of Abdul-Malik’s colleagues at Dar al-Hijrah, Shaker Elsayed, endorsed the concept of violent jihad as recently as February 2013. During a talk at a Northern Virginia high school, he preached that Muslim men would be last in line except if it was for “arms for jihad.”

America’s Muslim community provides the first line of defense against terrorists acting in the name of Islam, they said. Abdul-Malik suggested imams are eager to work with the FBI to counter terror.

“We are on the front line because we are the ones who are in the chat rooms and on Facebook talking to them and saying, ‘You know what, brother or sister, I think they just went over the line,’ and the data shows that we are the best defense,” Abdul-Malik said. “I have a message for law enforcement. First, I want to thank you … because myself, and other imams, sometimes we get an agent who comes in our office and says, ‘Do you know something about this person or that person?’

“We tell the truth and have saved the lives of many people.”

Abdul-Malik’s sentiments are not shared by other American Muslim groups.

CAIR, which portrays FBI agents as ruthless schemers out to set up Muslims for trumped-up charges, was noticeably absent from Wednesday’s news conference. Its Minnesota chapter obstructed FBI investigations into al-Shabaab’s recruitment of Somali Muslims in the Twin Cities, and its San Francisco chapter published a postersaying: “Build A Wall of Resistance: Don’t Talk to the FBI.”

Another group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which counts Magid as a member, published an article in 2008 written by Hatim al-Haj, a member of its fatwa committee, saying that working for the FBI was “impermissible” because of the “harm they inflict on Muslims.”

The Nice ISIS Jihadist Next Door

U.S. citizen Abdirahmaan Muhumed of Minneapolis, MN, was recently killed fighting for ISIS.

U.S. citizen Abdirahmaan Muhumed of Minneapolis, MN, was recently killed fighting for ISIS.

By Daniel Greenfield:

Every week another lad or lass from St. Louis, Toronto or Sydney makes the trip through Turkey to the Islamic State. A reporter dispatched by a local paper to talk to the neighbors scribbles down the same recollections about how nice and normal Jihad Joe or Jihad Jane was.

Classmates remember a loud partier or a shy student. Neighbors mention that everything seemed normal until those last few years when he began wearing a robe and she began wearing a burka.

The Somali and Algerian immigrants, the German and American converts, the black burkas and dyed beards, headed into the dying summer to kill Christians and Kurds, Turkmen and Shiites, to behead babies and crucify critics, don’t seem like monsters.

They loved their parents. They posed for jokey snapshots on Facebook. They had dreams of becoming biologists or boxers. Until they began killing people, they seemed just like the rest of us.

And with one difference, they were.

The forensic examinations of their lives rarely reveal anything of significance. The extensive digging into the lives of the Boston bombers told us nothing about why they would plant a bomb near a little boy.

The answer lay in the topic that the media carefully avoided. As with the other Muslim terrorists, the meaning of their motives was in the little black book of their religion which commanded them to kill.

The Jihadist isn’t a serial killer. While there are some converts attracted to Islam for its violence, the Muslim convert usually doesn’t convert for the killing, he kills because he converted. Likewise the nice Muslim Jihadist next door might well be moderate by inclination and immoderate by faith.

As the Koran says, “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah knows, while you know not” (Quran 2:216).

Allah knows you have to kill. Even if you think you shouldn’t.

The nice Jihadists flocking to rape Yazidi girls in Mosul are convinced that Allah knows best and his Caliph knows best. The worst of them are acting on impulse. The best of them are acting on faith.

Faith is irrational. Believers believe without understanding and act without thinking. The holy men of our religions acted on faith. So do the holy men of Islam. It’s what they have faith in that is the problem.

Read more at Front Page

Does Moderate Islamic Ideology Exist?

tawfikNewsmax, By Tawfik Hamid, Sep. 10, 2014:

One of the guiding principles of the Islamic State is that Muslims must fight non-Muslims all over the world and offer them the following choices: Join, pay a humiliating tax called “jijya,” or to be killed. This violent principle was the basic doctrine that justified the Islamic conquests by the early Muslims.

After recent savagery by ISIS and other militant groups around the world, the following question inevitably is raised: Is it possible to be a follower and not adhere to that mandate?

In other words, if a young Muslim became very religious, is there an approved Islamic theological source or interpretation that clearly contradicts such a principle or at least teaches it in a different way, for example, contextualizing it in time and place?
The sad answer is: No.

Typically, there are five sources for Islamic law. These are: the Koran — the Hadith of Prophet Muhammad (such as Sahih Al-Buchakry), the actions of the disciples of Mohamed (Sahaba), the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and the Tafseer or Interpretations of the Koran.

If a young Muslim whether the Islamic State is adhering to doctrine, the following shocking results would arise.

The literal understanding of the Koran 9:29 can easily be used to justify what extremists are doing.  “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humiliated.”

The following Sahih (authentic) Hadith in Al-Buchakry also supports violent ideology.
“Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said No God other than, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

If the same young Sunni Muslim felt uncomfortable with the literal interpretations of such text a search for an answer in the actions of the Sahaba might ensue. Sadly, the Sahaba or Disciples of Muhammad were the ones who used such a principle to justify the Islamic conquests and subjugating non-Muslims to Islam.

The fourth source for Islamic law is the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence namely, Al-Shafeii, Al-Hanbali, Al-Hanafi, and Al- Maleki. These schools, without a single exception, support the principle that Muslims must fight non-Muslims and offer them the dire choices.

The fifth, and final hope for one searching for a different understanding of Koran 9:29 is to find an interpretation (or commentary) that interprets it differently.

A basic research on almost all approved interpretation for the Quran support the same violent understanding. More than leading 25 different approved Koran Interpretations that are usually used by Muslims to understand the Koran unambiguously support the violent understanding of the verse.

Saying that “Islam is the religion of peace” or condemning radicals as being “un-Islamic” without condemning the principle that Muslims must fight non-Muslims to subjugate them to Islam, is not just hypocritical, it is counterproductive as it hides the true cause of the problem and impedes the efforts to solve it.

It also dangerously ignores the seriousness of the problem. Similarly, not calling the “Islamic State” the Islamic State (to avoid using the word Islamic) as suggested by some Islamic scholars is not going to change the painful fact that ISIS is using an approved and unchallenged principle of the Islamic theology. Such scholars need to work on providing peaceful alternatives to the current violent theology instead of asking the world not use the label Islamic State.

There are many moderate Muslims; however, until the leading Islamic scholars provide peaceful theology that clearly contradicts the violent views of the Islamic State, the existence of moderate “Islam” must be questioned.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid is the author of “Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam.” Read more reports from Tawfik Hamid — Click Here Now.

What I Have Learned Since 9-11

twin towers 2By Citizen Warrior:

I was on my way back from a vacation when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. My wife and I were listening to music on a CD and enjoyed our ride home, and knew nothing about it. When we got home, we listened to our messages. The first two were from family members hysterically crying, “We’ve been attacked! America is at war!”

My first thought, of course, was the ever-eloquent, “What the fuck!?!”

We watched the news, and I was baffled. Why would anyone do such a thing? I was about as ignorant about this as someone can be. But I’m a learner. It’s what I like to do. And since that day, I’ve learned a lot.

I learned that this was not an isolated incident. Attacks had become more frequent and more deadly over the years. I just hadn’t noticed.

And I eventually learned that this is not just a problem of generic “terrorism,” but a global movement based on teachings from the Koranand the example of Muhammad. I learned that Islam is a unique religion because it’s a political system and a system of law as well as being what most people would call a religion. Its goal is world domination, it has explicit permission for (and approval of) violence in its holy books, and it is intolerant of non-Muslims. Its laws even include legally-imposed discrimination against non-Muslims (and all women). (Read more about that here.)

I learned that an almost-uninterrupted jihad has been waged against non-Muslims for 1400 years. The attacks are near constant. So far since 9-11, Jihadis have carried out 23,795 deadly attacks. Most of us don’t see it as a war. We see isolated attacks. If you take in the whole global view, however, or listen to the point of view of a Jihadi, or read this, you will see it for what it is: A global war — orthodox Muslims against everybody else.

The majority of the conflicts in the world today consist of Jihadis fighting non-Muslims or Muslims who are considered insufficiently Islamic. If you removed jihad from the world right now, it would be a fairly peaceful place.

I also learned that one of the main reasons democracies have so much trouble dealing with Jihadis is because of an important conflict within democracies. Specifically, most people in the free world believe 1) everyone has a right to worship as they wish, and 2) discrimination of any kind is wrong. These are important foundational principles of liberal democracies around the world.

Why is this a problem? Because the simplest way to deal with Islam would be to discriminate against it. In other words, to openly admit Islam is unique (because of its political aspirations and religious duty to overthrow all other forms of law and government), and stop all concessions to Islam and roll back any concessions already made.

We “can’t do that” because it violates important values of our societies. Or does it necessarily? This dialog needs to happen and solutions need to be created for it. But of course, that can’t happen as long as the majority of people in free countries remain ignorant of the most elementary facets of Islam. And it’s not just ignorance. Many people have a real resistance to hearing anything about it because even talking about it seems to violate the principles of decency and kindness!

So the final thing I’ve learned is that the solution to this problem starts with a grassroots movement: Those who know something about Islam’s dangers to the free world must talk to people who don’t, and successfully educate them. Once enough people are educated, national conversations can happen that could result in new, carefully-crafted policies that retain our democratic freedoms while limiting the destructive and insidious encroachment of orthodox Islam.

If you want to participate in this grassroots movement (and I hope you do), start here: WhatYouCanDoAboutIslam.com.

13 years after 9/11, borders wide open, victims families peddle Islamophobia meme

By Creeping Sharia, September 10, 2014:

Muslim terrorists can, and do, walk across the U.S.-Mexico border and literally sail across the U.S.-Canadian border. Not to mention this Illegals from Terror Hotspots, Ebola-affected Nations Exploiting Open US Border this Texas Rancher Found Urdu Dictionary, Korans Near U.S. Border this Muslim Prayer Rug Found on Border By Security Contractors and this Record Numbers of Illegals from Terror Hot Beds Crossing Texas-Mexico Border. And lest we forget the 58,000 Foreign Students Visa Scofflaws that ICE Can’t Find.

But thirteen years after Muslims attacked America, and have done so since (select any state from the Archive drop down for examples), some 9/11 Families Launch Anti-Islamophobia Campaign For Anniversary Of Tragedy.

o-islamophobia-570

As Muslims just beheaded two Americans who were sympathetic to the Muslim cause, it’s as if 9/11 never happened. They ignore:

Those are just a few samplings from August 2014. We don’t have time or space to list all the stories about Muslims from the U.S. waging jihad overseas or waging jihad against Jews right here in the U.S.

Geert Wilders was speaking to the world when he stated, “Recognize that Islam Is the Problem”. Thirteen years later the deaf, dumb and blind still refuse to face the problem and want to blame the Islamophobia boogeyman.

What’s worse? To be falsely labeled an Islamophobe or to actually be an Islamophile – pandering to and promoting an ideology of hate, misogyny and violence?

Our thoughts?

Better to be wrongly labeled an Islamophobe today than be a dhimmi, or dead, tomorrow.

Never forget, never surrender.

dsc04254

Muslims Sexually Enslaving Children: A Global Phenomenon

FrontPage Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim:

As shocking as the Muslim-run sex ring in Rotherham, England may seem to some—1,400 British children as young as 11 plied with drugs before being passed around and sexually abused in cabs and kabob shops—the fact is that this phenomenon is immensely widespread.  In the United Kingdom alone, it’s the fifth sex abuse ring led by Muslims to be uncovered.

Muslim_Rape_Gang_Girls_England_Rotherham_UKSome years back in Australia, a group of “Lebanese Muslim youths” were responsible for a “series of brutal gang rapes” of “Anglo-Celtic teenage girls.” A few years later in the same country,four Muslim Pakistani brothers raped at least 18 Australian women, some as young as 13.  Even in the United States, a gang of Somalis—Somalia being a Muslim nation where non-Muslims, primarily Christians, are ruthlessly persecuted—was responsible for abducting, buying, selling, raping and torturing young American girls as young as 12.

The question begs itself: If Muslim minorities have no fear of exploiting “infidel” women and children in non-Muslim countries—that is, where Muslims themselves are potentially vulnerable minorities—how are Muslims throughout the Islamic world, where they are dominant, treating their vulnerable, non-Muslim minorities?

The answer is a centuries-long, continents-wide account of nonstop sexual predation.  Boko Haram’s recent abduction and enslavement of nearly 300, mostly Christian, schoolgirls last April in Nigeria is but the tip of the iceberg.

The difference between what happens in Nigeria and what happens in Western nations is based on what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers.”  Wherever Muslims grow in numbers, Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, the sexual abuse of “infidel” children and teenagers—comes along with them.

Thus in the United Kingdom, where Muslims make for a sizeable—and notable—minority, the systematic rape of “subhuman infidels” naturally takes place.  But when caught, Muslim minorities, being under “infidel” authority, cry “Islamophobia” and feign innocence.

In Nigeria, however, which is roughly 50 percent Islamic, such “apologetics” are unnecessary.  After seizing the nearly 300 schoolgirls, the leader of Boko Haram appeared on videotape boasting that “I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah….  There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.”

It’s the same in Pakistan—the nation where many of the United Kingdom’s Muslims, including the majority involved in the Rotherham sex ring, come from.  See this article for a long list of Christian children—as young as 2-years-old—who were targeted by Muslim men for abduction, enslavement, and rape.  In every single case, police do nothing except sometimes side with the Muslim rapists against their “infidel” victims.

For example, last Easter Sunday, four Muslim men gang-raped a 7-year-old Christian girl named Sara, leaving her in “critical condition.”  According to Asia News, “the police, instead of arresting the culprits, helped the local clan to kidnap the girl’s father… to ‘force the family not to report the story, to reach an agreement with the criminals and to avoid a dispute of a religious background.’”

As for systematic child grooming, in 2010, Kiran George, a Christian girl who was “enslaved by a woman, Sama, a dealer of youth to be sold as prostitutes or slaves to wealthy Muslim families,” was doused with gasoline by a police officer involved in the sex ring, set on fire, and burned to death.

And a recent report confirms that “an estimated 700 cases [of abduction, enslavement, and/or rape in Pakistan] per year involve Christian women, 300 Hindu girls”—very large numbers when one considers that Christians and Hindus each make for one percent of the population of Pakistan, which is about 97 percent Muslim.

One can go on and on.  In 2011 a Christian group in Muslim-majority Egypt

exposed a highly organized Muslim ring centered in the Fatah Mosque in Alexandria. The investigation also uncovered a systematic “religious call” plan, where young Muslim males in high school and university are urged to approach Coptic girls in the 9-15 age group and manipulate them through sexual exploitation and blackmail. The plan … aims at sexually compromising Christian girls, defiling them and humiliating them in front of their parents, thereby forcing them to flee their homes, and use conversion to Islam as a “solution” for their problems.

Approximately 550 Coptic Christian girls have been abducted and sexually abused by Muslim men during the last three years—especially under the Muslim Brotherhood’s aegis, when sexual crimeswere particularly widespread.

So what animates this phenomenon of Muslim on non-Muslim rape?  And we must call it Muslimrape since Islam is the common denominator in all these cases from otherwise diverse nations that have little in common except for large numbers of Muslims.

As for the pedophilia aspect, Muhammad—the prophet of Islam whom the Koran exhorts Muslims to emulate in every possible way—was “betrothed” to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, “consummating” their marriage when she was nine-years-old.   Accordingly, Islam’s clerics routinely defend child “marriage”—sometimes even if the girl is still in the cradle—based on the example of the prophet.

As for the subhuman treatment of “infidel” children, this is seen as a right by supremacist Muslims.  Discussing the 2010 rape of a 9-year-old Christian girl, local sources in Pakistan put it well: “It is shameful. Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure.  Abusing them is a right. According to the [Muslim] community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”

“Spoils of war” is quite correct. Here is how the late Majid Khadduri, “internationally recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on Islamic law and jurisprudence,” explained the idea of “spoils” in his War and Peace in the Law of Islam:

The term spoil (ghanima) is applied specifically to property acquired by force from non-Muslims. It includes, however, not only property (movable and immovable) but also persons, whether in the capacity of asra (prisoners of war) or sabi (women and children). … If the slave were a woman, the master was permitted to have sexual connection with her as a concubine.

Nor is this limited to academic talk.  Last year, Jordanian Sheikh Yasir al-‘Ajlawni  said Muslims fighting to topple “infidel” president Bashar Assad in Syria are permitted to “capture and have sex with” all non-Sunni women, including Shia Muslims, Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Yazidis.

Before him, Egyptian Sheikh Ishaq Huwaini lamented how during the heydays of Islam, “You [could] go to the market and buy her [enslaved, infidel concubines for sale]….  In other words, when I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.”

In order to eliminate sexual immorality from among male Muslim youth, Kuwaiti political activist Salwa al-Mutairi suggested the formal reinstitution of sex-slavery—not unlike what was recently exposed in Rotherham.  She said on video that Islam’s greatest authorities from Mecca, the city of Islam, all confirmed the legality of sex-slavery to her.  According to the Kuwaiti woman:

A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter’s body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up—she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave—he just buys her and that’s that….  For example, in the Chechnya war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don’t see any problem in this, no problem at all.

What happened in Rotherham is hardly an aberration.  Rather, it is Islam coming to town, Muslims growing in numbers.   Even Dr. Taj Hargey, a British imam, just confirmed that the majority of theUK’s “imams promote grooming rings.”  He said Muslim men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority” and that the imams preach a doctrine “that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt.”

Change “whites” to “non-Muslims”—this is not about race but religion—and the experiences of those 1,400 children in Rotherham is one with the experiences of countless non-Muslim minorities throughout the Islamic world.

Michael Coren – Islam and terrorism

Published on Sep 4, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

The 4 stages in the denial of Islamic terror:

1) Where we empty our heads.
2) Where we bury our heads.
3) Where we bow our heads.
4) Where we lose our heads.

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/St…

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/St…

A Message to President Obama from a former Muslim

 

Published on Sep 2, 2014 by BROTHERRACHID:

Brother Rachid addresses President Obama about ISIL and Islam; he explains to him how ISIL is imitating the prophet Muhammad in every detail they do. ISIL represents Islam.