Vanderbilt Professor Under Attack for Criticizing Islam

carol-228x350Frontpage, January 23, 2015 by Mark Tapson:

Last week, in response to the Paris massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Carol M. Swain, an openly conservative professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, wrote an op-ed for The Tennessean titled, “Charlie Hebdo attacks prove critics were right about Islam.” Naturally, any critique of Islam from our leftist-dominated campuses is going to be met with frothing outrage, and Professor Swain’s article was no exception.

“What would it take to make us admit we were wrong about Islam?” the professor began. “What horrendous attack would finally convince us that Islam is not like other religions in the United States, that it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration?” Good questions, and ones that those of us whose eyes have long been opened to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism have been asking ever since September 11, 2001, if not before.

But the fact that such questions were being put forth by a major university professor, even a conservative one (with a very impressive résumé, no less), was notable. Swain pulled no punches:

More and more members of the PC crowd now acknowledge that Islam has absolutely nothing in common with Christianity, nor is it a worthy part of the brotherhood of man I long felt was characteristic of the Abrahamic religions. A younger, more naive version of myself once believed in a world where the people of the Book could and would get along because they all claimed Abraham as their father. No more!

Those were strong, clear sentiments about Islam that one doesn’t often – or ever – hear from American academics. She concluded with a statement that dared to challenge the West’s false idol of multiculturalism: “It becomes clearer every day that Islam is not just another religion to be accorded the respect given to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Baha’i and other world religions.” The attack on Charlie Hebdo, she wrote, “once again illustrates that Islam is a dangerous set of beliefs totally incompatible with Western beliefs concerning freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.”

Swain’s solutions included “remov[ing] the foxes from the henhouses,” “institut[ing] serious monitoring of Islamic organizations,” and expecting Muslim immigrants to assimilate culturally. “If we are to be safe,” she wrote, “then we must have ground rules that protect the people from those who disdain the freedoms that most of the world covets.”

Among those who took umbrage at this blunt op-ed and complained to theVanderbilt Hustler, the school paper, were: an international student from Pakistan who felt mortified by the piece; an agnostic junior who condemned Swain as xenophobic, hateful, and intolerant; a sophomore who accused Swain of “logical leaps” and “casual bigotry”; a graduate who warned against “fear of the Other”; another who purported to “debunk” Swain’s claims about Islam; and a Muslim undergrad who declared the op-ed to be hate speech and wondered, “How could such an educated, informed woman, a professor at Vanderbilt in charge of educating our youth, publish such ignorance?”

That same student, Farishtay Yamin, happens to be the publicity chair for Vanderbilt’s branch of the Muslim Students Association. She organized a student protest of Swain, saying, with no apparent trace of irony, “What I’m really trying to show [Swain] is that she can’t continue to say these kinds of things on a campus that’s so liberal and diverse and tolerant.” So much for the campus being liberal and diverse and tolerant.

The Muslim Students Association, the Muslim Brotherhood’s oldest offshoot in America, issued a statement, offering Professor Swain “kindness and respect” and forgiveness, pointing out that “she has allowed the acts of people who have distorted Islam to shape her views on an entire community of 1.6 billion people who practice peacefully.” Vanderbilt’s MSA invited her and others to attend their Islamic Awareness Month event called “Terrorism: Who Is to Blame” on Feb. 8. “Please join us for the event so that misconceptions can be cleared,” they urged helpfully.

The Vanderbilt Hustler editorial team responded by defending Swain’s right to free speech but denouncing her “brand of conservatism” as “disgusting and disappointing.” She has “undoubtedly abused her position” by “perpetuating a myth that seeks to shut down debate and discourage the legitimacy of the place that Muslim individuals hold in American society… In fact, many feel that Swain’s actions have created an environment that feels unsafe to some of her students.”

It’s ironic that Islam has created unsafe environments all over the world for Jews, Christians, women, gays, cartoonists, and even Muslims themselves, but the Vanderbilt Hustler editors blame Professor Swain for creating an unsafe campus environment for pointing that out (the Dean of Students even felt it necessary to reassure Muslim students that they are still safe on campus). Ironic, too, that – in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo assault – the editors claim that it is Swain who is seeking to shut down debate about Islam.

Last Sunday Professor Swain released a statement acknowledging that her op-ed “could have been written with a milder tone.” But given a chance to clarify her position in an interview, Swain did not back down. She told the Vanderbilt Hustler that, “What we don’t want in the United States is a repeat of what has happened in Europe… It would be beneficial,” she said, “if more Muslims would stand up and condemn jihadic violence against Christians, Jews, homosexuals and others.”

Asked how she reconciles the First Amendment with her “obligation as a professor to maintain a safe and civil environment” for “students who might feel threatened by your speech,” Swain replied,

I feel no special obligation to engage in politically correct speech. I think it is unfortunate that hate speech has become whatever makes a non-Christian uncomfortable… Any student who is threatened by a discussion of ideas cannot fully benefit from a liberal arts education… If a student takes one of my courses, then he or she has entered a political correctness free zone tolerant of divergent views.

Bravo. Thanks to the mental straitjacket of political correctness, no one who took exception to Professor Swain’s op-ed seems capable of grasping – or willing to grasp – the distinction between the ideology of Islam and its adherents. Criticism of the former is not the same as bigotry toward the latter. We must not allow the conversation about the world’s undeniable Islam problem always to be derailed by kneejerk accusations of mythical Islamophobia and intolerance. Unfortunately, freeing university students from that mental straitjacket will require an army of Professor Swains.

***

Follow Prof. Carol Swain on twitter @carolmswain 

Visit her website at http://bethepeopletv.com/

and facebook -  https://www.facebook.com/profcarolmswain

Also see:

3 terror attacks in 48 hours: Hey Islamapologists, what’s your excuse this time?

japanese_hostage-300x180By Allen West, Jan. 26, 2015

Over the past 48 hours, there have been three more terror attacks worldwide, but I doubt you’ve even heard about them:

1.In the Philippines, one person was killed and 48 injured when a car bomb exploded, which local authorities believe the al-Qaida-backed Abu Sayyaf group was behind – and of course we reported here how the Obama administration decided to end U.S. support against Islamic jihadism there.

2.The Taliban conducted a truck bomb attack at a gas station in Kabul near the military airfield there. Officials think it might have been a premature suicide attack; thankfully only two civilians were wounded.

3. ISIS executed a Japanese hostage by beheading and is still holding another under threat of execution, demanding an exchange for a female Islamic suicide bomber being held in Jordan.

Now mind you, this was just in the last 48 hours.

What gets me is how fast those “Islamapologists” in the West continue to push the narrative of the “hijacking of a peaceful religion” by a few radicals. Well, it seems to be more than a few, and what if this narrative is totally wrong? What if this “hijacked” narrative is just something being contrived in the West to advance a state of denial — such as we saw last week in President Obama’s State of the Union address and in his previous statements of “Let me be clear, ISIS is not Islamic” – even though the first the letter in ISIS stands for Islamic.

First of all, I suggest we stop using the phrase “radical Islam.” The proper classification should be “militant Islam” — that is if you’ve read the Koran, the hadiths, and the suras. If you understand the respective phases of Islam’s development and expansion and how it relates to world history — not progressive socialist or Islamist revisionist history — “hijacked a religion?” I don’t think so. As matter of fact, I said this back in 2009 on a panel in New York City moderated by Jeb Babbin, which included Andrew McCarthy and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Meyers. You can watch it here.

 

History does not agree with the “hijacked” reference — and that subject has been covered most recently by the Israeli paper, Haaretz.

As written by Salman Masalha, “One of the fundamental problems with Islam is the view that its doctrines – exactly as written, exactly as they were developed and forged in the Arabian desert in the 7th century – “are good for all times and all places.”

“The religious ideology that all Islamic scholars of all Islamic sects uphold rests on the Koranic text and the canonical traditions attributed to the Prophet Mohammed. According to Islam, the world is divided into two: the camp of the faithful, comprised of those who believe in the religion of Islam, and the camp of the infidels, which comprises the rest of the world, including Christians and Jews.”

“The infidels are divided into three categories: people of the book – the Jews and Christians … those who have a sort of book – the Zoroastrians … and those with no book – those who worship idols or the stars,” the Shi’ite scholar Al-Tusi wrote in the 10th century. And Islam’s attitude toward unbelievers nowadays is made very clear in the words of religious arbiter Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, the former grand mufti of Saudi Arabia: “The Koran, the laws of the prophet and the general agreement among Muslims all teach us that Muslims have an obligation to be the enemies of the infidels – the Jews, the Christians and the rest of the idol worshippers.”

In the West we must stop finding any means possible to dismiss what Islamic doctrine and text commands. There is a reason why the flag of Saudi Arabia has a koranic verse and the sword of Muhammad. I don’t recall Jesus Christ carrying a sword, do you?

Once Muhammad departed from Mecca (first Mecca phase) and ended up in Medina he took a turn towards violence. The corresponding verses in the Koran reflect that and history does as well. Muhammad led some 20-25 raids — combat operations — the first being circa 622 AD with the Nakhla raid. The abrogated verses of the Koran results in the latter verses – the more violent once — superseding the previous “peaceful” verses — but they are all words and revelations from Allah.

This leads to the duplicitous and hypocritical nature of Islam — it means whatever it wants to mean, a religious buffet. And that’s why I say “radical Islam” is not the correct definition. There’s nothing radical about their text — as they see it. However, after the first Mecca phase to the present, Islam has been militant in its designs — proselytization and expansion has not been done by a peaceful means, but rather from the end of a sword.

So why this widespread sense of denial?

Mr. Masalha explains, “As Islamist terror appeared on the world stage over the past few decades, many Muslims cried out, claiming that such terror besmirched Islam and didn’t represent it. The terrorists have kidnapped Islam, they said. But the question that begs to be asked is, who kidnapped whom? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that the Islamic texts are the ones that kidnapped the terrorists, not the reverse?”

“When reports emerged after a recent conference of Islamic scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University that one religious arbiter had implied that members of ISIS were heretics, Al-Azhar was forced to issue a denial. Muslim religious scholars find themselves at a disadvantage compared to those who wave the banner of militant Islam – for reading the publications of these fundamentalist organizations shows that they derive their strength and inspiration from the very same foundational texts of Islam itself.”

But hey, I know that no matter how many facts I present, the Islamapologists will brand me as the Islamophobe. However, what about taking the militant Islamists at their word?

“These Islamists aren’t ashamed to proclaim their worldview in public. From their perspective, Islam is “an aggressive religion, a religion of war, a religion of jihad, a religion of beheadings and bloodshed,” as Hussein bin Mohammed wrote in an article published on an Islamist website under the title “The beheading issue.” “It’s neither beheading unbelievers nor terror that besmirch Islam,” he argued, but rather “all those who want Islam to be in the image of Mandela or Gandhi, without bloodshed and beheadings.” The provocative writer then added, “That isn’t the religion of Mohammed, who was sent out with his sword until Judgment Day; Mohammed, of whom the only chapter in the Koran that bears his name is called the war chapter. … All those who try to paint Islam as a religion of peace, doves and love … are doing so under the influence of the West’s false views and its evil ideas, which are being exported to the Islamic nation in order to weaken it.”

Nope, I’ll take the enemy at their word, and for what they believe. I will not be a member of the dismissive “coexist” crowd who do so only in fear of having to face this historic evil. So henceforth, I will be keeping track of everyone who comes out and supplies the false narrative that, “Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by radicals.”

Islam must have a reformation that brings it into the 21st century — leaving behind the savage and barbaric violence of the text from the 7th and 8th century. Until that happens, well, nothing else matters — as Mr. Masalha states, “only a root canal of Islam’s ideas can move the Arab and Muslim world toward modernity.”

But more importantly, some in the West urgently require another medical procedure to remove their heads from a certain lower part of their anatomy.

Video: Nonie Darwish on Obama and the Koran

Published on Jan 22, 2015 by The Glazov Gang

Has Bobby Jindal Read the Koran?

pic_giant_newsite_011615_jindal_920American Thinker, by Gene Schwimmer, Jan. 21, 2015:

Rarely is a speech widely praised before it is even delivered.  But such was the case for the speech Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal delivered to the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think-tank, on January 18.  In that speech, Jindal spoke forthrightly about the rising menace of “Islamic extremism.”

And the critics, as the saying goes, went wild.  Larry Kudlow’s article, “Jindal’s Brilliant Take on Radical Islam,” exemplifies the reaction of conservative pundits to Jindal’s speech.  In his article, Kudlow specifically praises this quote (emphasis mine):

Muslim leaders must make clear that anyone who commits acts of terror in the name of Islam is in fact not practicing Islam at all.  If they refuse to say this, then they are condoning these acts of barbarism.  There is no middle ground.

I admire Bobby Jindal (and, for that matter, Larry Kudlow), but, with all due respect to the governor, amid a speech that otherwise is indeed brilliant, a “brilliant take on radical Islam” is lacking.  What is brilliant about calling on respectful, law-abiding Muslims to say that “anyone who commits acts of terror in the name of Islam is in fact not practicing Islam at all”?  On the contrary, this writer struggles to remember an aftermath of an incident such as the recent Paris attacks, when Muslims have not hastened to declare that the perpetrators were “not practicing Islam.”

More distressing is that Jindal, in fact, violates his own dictum, when he first says…

When a country or a movement is behaving badly on the international stage, we must not pretend otherwise.

You cannot remedy a problem if you will not name it and define it.

… and then, in the very next sentence, says (emphasis mine)…

One of the most prominent examples in our day is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.

Yes, Governor Jindal, “[w]hen a country or a movement is behaving badly on the international stage, we must not pretend otherwise.”

Now, what about when a country or a movement or a religion is behaving badly?

What if, in fact, we are not fighting “radical Islam”?  What if we are fighting orthodox Islam?

Has Bobby Jindal read the Koran?

On a personal level, I have a Torah, Christian Bible, and Koran, all of which I read from time to time.  Given the times we live in, there is no excuse for anyone occupying or aspiring to national office not to read the Koran and perhaps a bit of Islamic history and explanations of Islam, such as the works of Bernard Lewis (and for contemporary geopolitical issues, at least for conservatives, I highly recommend Efraim Karsh).  And finally, there is Robert R. Reilly’s The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis, which I would recommend as essential reading for anyone who wants to understand how we got to where we are today vis-à-vis the rise of jihadism and why it is proving so intractable.

At the very least, one could avoid errors, such as this one by Larry Kudlow:

[W]hat Bobby Jindal is saying is very similar to what Egyptian president al-Sisi said earlier in the year to a group of Muslim imams.

Said al-Sisi, “It’s inconceivable that the thinking we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.”

[…]

He then asks, “How is it possible that 1.6 billion Muslims should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants…? … [I]f this is not changed, “it may eventually lead to the religion’s self destruction.”

First, in fairness to Muslims, “1.6 billion Muslims” do not want to “kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants.”  But it is equally fair to note that a mere 1 percent of 1.6 billion Muslims is a recruitment pool of 16 million potential jihadists.

As for Sisi’s question, “How is it possible that 1.6 billion Muslims should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants…?,” I’ll let the ultimate Islamic authority, Muhammad, answer that one:

I have been ordered to fight with the people [sometimes translated as “all men”] till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah.

And then there is Muhammad’s famous command, uttered as he lay on his deathbed: “Let there not be two religions in Arabia.”  And there is this:

The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews.  The Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say:  ‘Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him;’ but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

A search of the internet yields a wealth of apologetics, such as this, claiming that, despite their apparent plain meaning, none of the above are calls to violence or intolerance of non-Muslims.  But that is hardly the point when the plain-meaning interpretations seem also to be the most commonly accepted ones, including by Muslim authorities:

Asked … whether he would “visit Israel with a Palestinian visa,” [Egypt’s minister of religious endowments] said: “This is premature.  Let’s wait until it happens.  However, we hope that the words of the Prophet Muhammad will be fulfilled:  Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews[.]

And so on.  Therein lies the difference – a major and very important difference – between what Jindal said and what Sisi said.  What Sisi said, pace Jindal, is that such Muslims are practicing Islam, with numerous Koranic and hadithic quotes to back them up.  So anyone expecting a moderate Muslim to talk an ISIS jihadist out of beheading an infidel by reciting an alternate, and, often (if one takes the trouble to read some of them), byzantine interpretation of this or that Islamic text will be sorely disappointed.

Or to put it even more bluntly: does the Roman Catholic governor of Louisiana propose to tell the Muslim Egyptian minister of religious endowments that the latter “is not practicing Islam”?

Good luck with that.

Jindal is absolutely right when he says, “Islam has a problem,” but saying that much and no more falls short of the goal.  Sisi, to his great credit, takes the baton and, unlike Jindal, courageously places the blame – and in front of an audience of religious authorities, no less – precisely where he – and you, and I, and all civilized people – know it belongs (emphases mine):

I am referring here to the religious clerics. … It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. …

That thinking … that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world.

[…]

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain within this mindset.  You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.  I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution.

You, imams, are responsible before Allah.  The entire world … is waiting for your next move because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed … and it is being lost by our own hands.

“That Sisi would criticize the Muslim world and Islamic texts and thinking,” writes Raymond Ibrahim, “in ways his Western counterparts [including Bobby Jindal] could never [do] … is unprecedented.”

Unprecedented?   Yes.  But something Sisi’s “Western counterparts could never” do?  On the contrary, this writer considers it something every “Western counterpart” could, and should, have said long ago.  Perhaps, now that a Muslim leader has broken the ice, Western leaders, including the next U.S. president (I have no illusions about Obama), will speak up.

In the meantime, we should all wish Sisi good luck and Godspeed.  The task he has set for himself and the Muslim Egyptian clerisy – to directly confront, reinterpret, and if necessary (if I read Sisi correctly) contradict the specific text of the Koran and haditha, not to mention making the religious revolution Sisi calls for the mainstream of Islamic thinking, is enormous.

Let us hope it is not also Sisyphean.

Gene Schwimmer is a New York-licensed real estate broker and the author of The Christian State.  Follow Gene Schwimmer on Twitter.

ICYMI – ‘Rise of Radical Islam’ – Sean Hannity Special – [COMPLETE]

Published on Jan 12, 2015 by Steve Laboe

Sean Hannity hosts this hour long special devoted to the Rise of Radical Islam. Special guests include Andrew Bostom, Jonathan Gilliam, Lt. Gen Tom McInerny, David Webb, Brigitte Gabriel, Ryan Mauro, Lisa Daftari, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Lea Gabrielle, and Zainab Kahn.

“How Can Any Man With Good Sense” Overlook the Koran’s Violence?

alexisdetoq

By Raymond Ibrahim, Jan. 12, 2015:

Bruce Thornton writes another great article today titled “Western Sleepwalkers and the Paris Massacre.” He points out the utter lack of common sense in Western responses to repeated jihadi attacks, which are repeatedly portrayed as aberrations by Western media and leaders.  Towards the end he writes, “Our ancestors for centuries acknowledged the true nature of Islam, a simple fact proven by 1000 years of Muslim aggression.” He then quotes Alexis de Tocqueville, “one of our most brilliant political philosophers,” who wrote the following in 1838:

Jihad, Holy war, is an obligation for all believers. … The state of war is the natural state with regard to infidels … [T]hese doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran … The violent tendencies of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them (emphasis added).

Even Egypt’s Muslim president recently said that the Islamic “corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries” are terrorizing the entire world.

The fact is, centuries before the current excuses used to rationalize away Islamic violence ever even existed — colonialism, Israel, cartoons, “Orientalism” — Islam was behaving violently toward the “infidel.”  Concludes Thornton:

Our leaders today have slipped into delusional dreams, in which people like Tocqueville or Winston Churchill––who in 1897 said, “Civilization is face to face with militant Mohammedanism”––are dismissed as ignorant bigots and racists who lack our superior knowledge and morality. Meanwhile, the bodies of jihadism’s victims continue to pile up, and Iran’s genocidal theocracy closes in on a nuclear weapon. And many in the West continue to sleepwalk through it all.

Radical Islam by Alain Wagner (ICLA)

 Published on Jul 16, 2013 by Pressresistance h/t Vlad Tepes

Keynote speech from Alain Wagner at the beginning of UPJF’s colloquium on radical islam in Paris, 9 June 2013.

Alain Wagner, International Civil Liberties Alliance’s chairman.
ICLA is an international NGO focused on defense of free speech and Human rights.

Definition of the word Radical: belonging to the essence, to the very nature of a thing or a being. Having an absolute total or permanent feature.

Islam consists of three things:

1. The Islamic doctrine, its contents requirements and normative rules.

2. The actions of individuals, organizations and states considering themselves members of the Muslim community.

3. The potential degree of influence of Islamic doctrine on the actions of those influenced by it or claiming to put it into action. This is where the concept of radicalism operates.

***

Radical Islam evokes inevitably a segregative behavior and a potentiality for violence

***

It is impossible to separate radical Islam from Islam because radical Islam derives all of its substance from Islamic doctrine

***

“The red line of radicalism is the Sharia” 

Daniel Greenfield: “Moderate Islam is our new religion”

Daniel Greenfield’s famous, classical chronicle on how Leftist politicians invented “moderate Islam” to make voters accept the import of Muslim voters for the Left. Statistics backing Greenfield’s point here.

Via Dispatch International:

I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.
Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.

An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderate Islam.

Even if they have to make it up.

Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.

Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.

If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.

Flash back to Obama in his tan suit wearily saying that he has no strategy for ISIS. The original plan was to capture Osama alive, give him a civilian trial, cut a deal with the moderate Taliban and announce the end of the War on Terror before the midterm elections.

So much for that.

Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don’t represent the majority of Muslims.

slander-prophet-islam-mohammad-barack-hussein-obama-muslimNeither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping. The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.

Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.

They aren’t Muslims. They have no faith in Allah or the Koran. Instead they have faith in the goodness of an Islam that exists without resort to scriptures, theology or deity. This may seem strange to actual believers, but after all their own poor tattered scraps of Christianity or Judaism don’t bother paying too much attention to deities or scriptures except when it comes to cherry-picking quotes about tolerance.

Is it any wonder that they treat Islam the same way?

The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals of loosely Christian and Jewish persuasion who have invented and believe in a moderate Islam that doesn’t exist outside of their own heads. This secular Islam, which values all life, is dedicated to social justice and universal tolerance, is a counterpart of their own bastardized religions. And they are too afraid to wake up and realize that it doesn’t exist.

When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.

Their moderate Islam is light on the details, beyond standing for social justice, fighting Global Warming and supporting gay rights, because it is really multiculturalism wearing a fake beard. When a Western leader claims that the latest batch of Islamic terrorists don’t speak for Islam, he isn’t defending Muslims, he’s defending multiculturalism. He assumes that Muslims believe in multiculturalism because he does.

Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.

Dissuading a believer in moderate Muslims from his invented faith by citing the long trail of corpses or the hateful Hadiths that call for mass murder is futile because these are not the roots of his religion. He doesn’t know what a Hadith is nor does he care. As a social justice man in good standing, he attributes the violent track record of Islam to European colonialism and oppression.

10409654_540202849458314_5604537804951454046_nHe has never read the Koran. He has read a thousand articles about how Muslims are oppressed at the airport, in Gaza, in Burma and in Bugs Bunny cartoons. They are his new noble savages and he will not hear a word against them. Having colonized their identities in his imagination (despite the marked up copy of Edward Said’s Orientalism that he keeps by his bedside) he treats them as reflections of his ego.

When you say that moderate Muslims don’t exist, you are calling him a bad person. When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism and he will call you a racist, regardless of the fact that Islam is as much of a race as Communism, Nazism or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club were races.

The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.

And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.

The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until they find him, they have to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.

The Significance of Sisi’s Speech

Raymond Ibrahim, Jan. 7, 2015:

On New Year’s Day, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi—the hero of Egypt’s 2013 anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution—made some remarkable comments concerning the need for a “religious revolution.”

Watch the video below or click here to read the excerpt:

 

Sisi made his remarks during a speech celebrating the birth of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad—which was ironically held on January 1, 2015 (a day not acknowledged or celebrated in the Muslim world as it is based on a Christian calendar)—and he was addressing the nation’s top Islamic authorities from among the Awqaf Ministry (religious endowments) and Al Azhar University.

Although Sisi’s words were directed to Islam’s guardians and articulators, they indirectly lead to several important lessons for Western observers.

First, in just a few words, Sisi delivered a dose of truth and hard-hitting reality concerning the Islamic world’s relationship to the rest of the world—a dose of reality very few Western leaders dare think let alone proclaim.

“It’s inconceivable,” he said, “that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.  Impossible!”

What a refreshingly honest statement to come from not only a political leader but a Muslim political leader who has much to lose, not least his life!  Contrast his very true words with the habitual reassurances of the Western establishment that Islamic world violence and intolerance is a product of anything and everything but Islam.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Even after the appearance of the head-chopping, infidel-crucifying Islamic State, politicians like U.S. President Obama and U.K. Prime Minister Cameron insisted that the “caliphate” is not Islamic, despite all the evidence otherwise. Yet here is Sisi, the pious Muslim, saying that the majority of the terrorism plaguing the world today is related to the holy texts of Islam themselves:

That thinking [that is responsible for producing “anxiety, danger, killing and destruction” around the world]—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world.  It’s antagonizing the entire world!

As a Muslim, Sisi will not say that Islam, the “religion,” is responsible for “antagonizing the entire world,” but he certainly goes much further than his Western counterparts when he says that this “thinking” is rooted in an Islamic “corpus of texts and ideas” which have become so “sacralized.”

Recall that here in the West, Islamic terrorists are seen as mere “criminals” and their terrorism as “crimes” without mention of any Islamic text or ideology driving them.

The Egyptian president further invoked the classical Islamic teaching—the “thinking”—that divides the world into two warring halves: the Muslim world (or in Islamic/Arabic parlance, Dar al-Islam) which must forever be in a struggle with the rest of the world (or Dar al-Harb, the “abode of war”) till, in the Koran’s words, “all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39).

“Is it possible,” asked Sisi, “that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live?”

Sisi made another important point that Western leaders and media habitually lie about: after affirming that Islamic “thinking” is “antagonizing the entire world,” he said that “this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

In other words, Islamic terrorism and chaos is not a product of grievance, territorial disputes, colonialism, Israel, offensive cartoons, or anything else the West points to.  It’s a product of their “own hands.”

Again, one must appreciate how refreshing it is for a top political leader in the heart of the Islamic world to make such candid admissions that his Western counterparts dare not even think let alone speak. And bear in mind, Sisi has much to lose as opposed to Western politicians.  Calls by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists that he is an apostate are sure to grow more aggressive now.

The critic may ask, “All well and good, but words aside, what has Sisi actually done to help bring about this “religious revolution”?  In fact, one popular journalist, Ibrahim Eissa, recently said just this on live television in Egypt:

Five months have passed since he [Sisi] became president, after his amazing showing at elections.  Okay: the president has, more than once, indicated the need for a renewal of religious discourse….  But he has not done a single thing, President Sisi, to renew religious discourse.  Nothing at all.

Yet it seems that Sisi has an answer for this, too: it is not his job as president of Egypt to reform the thinking of the Islamic world; rather, that role belongs to the ulema—which is precisely why he addressed them with such candid words.  Indeed, he repeatedly stressed that it is the ulema’s job to lead this “religious revolution.”

Thus, “I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move…. I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.”

Meanwhile, while Sisi was making these groundbreaking if not historic statements, the Western mainstream media, true to form, ignored them and instead offered puerile and redundant headlines, most critical of Sisi, like:

  • “Egypt President Sisi urged to free al-Jazeera reporter” (BBC, Jan 1; to which I respond, “Why, so Al Jazeera can continue lying and misleading the West about Sisi and Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution?”)
  •  “Egyptian gays living in fear under Sisi regime” (USA Today, Jan. 2; to which I respond, “Homosexuals live in fear in all Islamic nations, regardless of Sisi.”)
  •  “George Clooney’s wife Amal risks arrest in Egypt” (Fox News, Jan. 3; to which I respond, “Who cares?  Only her innocence or guilt matter, not her husband’s fame”—which is the only reason Fox News chose the story in the first place.)

Whether concerning the true nature of Islam or the true nature of Sisi, here is the latest example of how unfathomably ignorant all those millions of people who exclusively follow the so-called “mainstream media” must surely be.

Also see:

In light of President Sisi’s comments, we ask for public clarification on the following points:

  • Is it the position of ISNA that the imams of Al Azhar have a responsibility to renounce the “mindset” of jihad, conquest, and, as suggested by President Sisi, genocide of the world’s non-Muslims?
  • Is it the position of ISNA that the time is right for a “religious revolution,” as President Sisi stated?
  • Is it the position of ISNA that jihad is a holy obligation for all Muslims?

Don’t Blame the Charlie Hebdo Mass Murder on ‘Extremism’

pic_giant_010715_SM_Hebdo-Attack-MainNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy:

There are now at least twelve confirmed dead in the terrorist attack carried out by at least three jihadist gunmen against the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo. While it practices equal-opportunity satire, lampooning Islam has proved lethal for the magazine, just as it has for so many others who dare to exercise the bedrock Western liberty of free expression. Charlie Hebdo’s offices were firebombed in 2011 over a caricature of Mohammed that depicted him saying, “100 lashes if you don’t die from laughter.”

The cartoon was obviously referring to sharia, Islam’s legal code and totalitarian framework. Don’t take my word for it. Just flip through Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, the authoritative sharia manual. You will find a number of offenses for which flagellation is the prescribed penalty.

To take just a couple of examples, “the penalty for drinking is to be scourged forty stripes,” although the caliph (the Islamic ruler) is authorized to increase this to 80 stripes — although he must pay an indemnity if death results. . . . Pretty moderate, right? (Reliance, p. 617, sec. o16.3.) For adultery “the penalty consists of being scourged one hundred stripes” — and that’s if the adulterer “is not considered to have the capacity to remain chaste” (e.g., if she “is prepubescent at the time of marital intercourse.” “If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death.” (Reliance, p. 610, sec. o12.2.)

What Charlie Hebdo has satirized is a savage reality. That reality was visited on the magazine again today. As night follows day, progressive governments in Europe and the United States are already straining to pretend that this latest atrocity is the wanton work of “violent extremists,” utterly unrelated to Islam. You are to believe, then, that François Hollande, Barack Obama, David Cameron, and their cohort of non-Muslim Islamophiles are better versed in sharia than the Muslim scholars who’ve dedicated their lives to its study and have endorsed such scholarly works as Reliance.

Let me repeat what I have detailed here before: Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State did not make up sharia law. Islam did. We can keep our heads tucked snug in the sand, or we can recognize the source of the problem.

As I detailed in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the literalist construction of sharia that Islamic supremacists seek to enforce is “literal” precisely because it comes from Islamic scripture, not from some purportedly “extremist” fabrication of Islam. Moreover, this “classical sharia” is enthusiastically endorsedin principle by several of the most influential institutions in the Islamic Middle East, which explains why it is routinely put into practice when Islamists are given — or seize — the opportunity to rule over a territory.

Reliance is not some al-Qaeda or Islamic State pamphlet. It is a renowned explication of sharia’s provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements, including one from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think tank begun in the early Eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”). Perhaps more significantly, there is also an endorsement from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West.

In their endorsement, the al-Azhar scholars wrote:

We certify that the . . . translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community. . . . There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. . . . May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.

There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.

Charlie Hebdo, of course, is in the business of cartoon caricature for satirical purposes. That is a time-honored method of expression, political and otherwise, in the West. That is in stark contrast to how such expression is viewed by Islam. Here, as I summarized in my book Spring Fever – quoted verbatim and supported by citations — is what Reliance has to say about such visual art forms:

It is forbidden to make pictures of “animate life,” for doing so “imitates the creative act of Allah Most High”; “Whoever makes a picture, Allah shall torture him with it on the Day of Judgment until he can breathe life into it, and he will never be able to.” (Reliance w50.0 & ff.)

Nor is visual depiction alone in drawing sharia’s wrath. “Musical instruments of all types are unlawful.” As Reliance elaborates, singing is generally prohibited (for “song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage”), and “on the Day of Resurrection Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” There is an exception, though: If unaccompanied by musical instruments, song and poetry drawn from Islamic scripture and encouraging obedience to Allah are permissible. Ironically, although music is generally forbidden, dancing is permissible “unless it is languid, like the movements of the effeminate.” (Reliance r40.0 &ff.)

Understand, the prohibitions just described apply to artistic expression in general; Islam need not be lampooned for caricatures to run afoul of sharia. With that hostile predisposition in mind, let’s now consider Islam’s draconian treatment of expression that renounces Islam, belittles it or, in the slightest way, casts it in an unfavorable light:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

It is worth pausing to mull these latter prohibitions against denying or reviling any aspect of Islam, Allah, or the prophet. The call to kill apostates for such offensesobviously applies with equal or greater force to non-Muslims, who are pervasively treated far worse than Muslims are by sharia. See, for example, the infamous verse 29 from Sura 9, the Koran’s most bellicose chapter:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which had been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the book [i.e., Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [the poll tax imposed on non-believers for the privilege of living in the Islamic state] and feel themselves subdued.

While insipid Western leaders cannot admonish us often enough that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” the French satirical magazine has offered a different take — one rooted in the cherished Western belief that examination in the light of day, rather than willful blindness, is the path to real understanding. In that tradition, a few other choice aspects of sharia, detailed by Muslim scholars in Reliance, are worth reviewing:

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity”); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster. . . . They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1–17.)

As commanded in the aforementioned Sura 9:29, non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliance p50.0 & ff; p74.0 & ff.)

The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.)

A Muslim woman may marry only a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. — Marriage.)

A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliance p42.0 & ff.)

A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliance m13.2–3.)

A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Reliance o14.0.)

The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliance p7.0 & ff.)

The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Reliance o24.7.)

If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet . . . said, ‘Men are already destroyed when they obey women.’” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”)

This is not “violent extremist” doctrine. This is Islamic doctrine — sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. Millions of Muslims, particularly in the West, do not abide by it and are working heroically — and at great risk to themselves — to marginalize or supersede it. Of course we should admire and help them. That, however, is not a reason to pretend that this doctrine does not exist. It is, furthermore, suicidal to ignore the fact that, because this doctrine is rooted in scripture and endorsed by influential scholars, some Muslims are going to act on it, and many millions more will support them.

This anti-liberty, supremacist, repulsively discriminatory, and sadly mainstream interpretation of Islam must be acknowledged and confronted. In its way, that is what Charlie Hebdo had been attempting to do — while, to their lasting shame, governments in the United States and Europe have been working with Islamist statesto promote sharia blasphemy standards. That needs to end. The future must not belong to those who brutalize free expression in the name of Islam.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Is Islamic State Islamic? Five Experts Speak

 

Sep 11, 2014, by Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam / @PoliticalIslam

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-show-profile-article&id=2087

Saudi religious leader OKs rape of children

150102muslimgirlWND, by F. MICHAEL MALOOF, Jan. 3, 2015:

WASHINGTON – Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh, the kingdom’s top religious authority in the ultra-conservative Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam, has ruled it’s acceptable for men to marry girls so young the West would deem it nothing short of pedophilia and rape.

Despite the Saudi justice ministry’s failed efforts to date to set 15 as a minimum age to marry a girl in the kingdom, Grand Mufti Abdulaziz declared there is nothing prohibiting Muslim men from marrying girls even younger.

As Grand Mufti, Abdulaziz is president of the Supreme Council of Ulema (Islamic scholars) and chairman of the Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing Fatwas, which means he speaks authoritatively in Islamic teachings.

Grand Mufti Abdulzaiz’s more recent ruling on marrying young girls comes following a similar ruling in 2011 by Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of the Saudi’s highest religious council, who issued a fatwa, or religious edict, that there is no minimum age to marry girls, “even if they are in the cradle.”

Fawzan’s fatwa came from a similar edict in the Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari li Ibn Battal, which said the ulema, or Islamic scholars, agreed to permit fathers marry off their small daughters.

“The ulema have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle,” the edict declared. “But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was six when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was nine, that is, when she was deemed capable.”

Fawzan said there is nothing in Islamic, or Shariah law, that sets a minimum age limit on marrying girls, citing Quran 65:4.

“It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Shariah, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit,” Fawzan said. “For laws are Allah’s province, and legislation is his exclusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”

Scholars say the age of marrying young girls and consummating the “marriage” is based on the example set by Muhammad when he married Aisha when she was no more than seven years of age, consummating the marriage when she was nine.

“The grand point of the Saudi fatwa, however, is not that girls as young as nine can be married, based on Muhammad’s example, but rather that there is no age limit whatsoever,” Middle East expert Raymond Ibrahim writes in Middle East Forum. “The only question open to consideration is whether the girl is physically capable of handling her ‘husband.’”

“The lives of countless young girls are devastated because of this teaching,” Ibrahim said.

He cited the case of an 8-year-old girl who died on her “wedding” night when her “husband” raped her. He also referred to a 10-year-old girl who hid from her 80-year-old “husband.”

Grand Mufti Abdulaziz and Fawzan’s fatwas come even as Saudi men have been reportedly purchasing young girls from Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan.

As WND recently reported, rich Saudi Arabian men – some associated with the Saudi royal family – have been purchasing for their sexual pleasure Syrian girls and young women from among the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war conflict to Lebanon and Jordan.

Most of these Saudi men are said to be in their 60s and 70s. When they tire of the girls, they often hand them off to other men.

“They come into Lebanon and Jordan and go to the Syrian refugee camps where the Syrian families there have nothing,” one Lebanese source told WND. “The Saudis then offer $200 for girls aged 9 to 14 years and take them from their families. Because the families are so desperate for money, they give in to the temptation.”

The United States, allied with Saudi Arabia, has been silent on its treatment of young girls..

“Given the influence the United States has over Saudi Arabia, why hasn’t your president confronted the Saudis about this?” one source asked WND. “Sometimes, the girls are returned to their families, but they won’t have a future.”

F. Michael Maloof, senior staff writer for WND/ G2Bulletin, is a former security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He can be contacted at mmaloof@wnd.com.