Published on Oct 13, 2014 by JihadWatchVideo
If one is looking for reasons why Washington has become so caustic, divisive and bitter, look no further than retiring Attorney General Eric Holder. If reportsfirst published by the Los Angeles Times are correct, the always controversial Holder, aged 63, will soon announce a new and permanent ban on so-called ‘religious profiling’ designed to better protect those suspected of jihadist or Islamist activities from federal surveillance.
At the very moment the American state, local and federal law enforcement are trying to get a handle on a spate of Islamist-inspired beheadings and the discovery that Islamic State terror cells are active in at least three major US cities (LA, Boston, and Minneapolis), the US attorney general seems prepared to make it even harder for US law enforcement to crack down against jihadist recruiters and terrorist plots.
Despite the rise of the Islamic State’s terrorist army that proudly boasts of its US citizen-fighters, as well as growing evidence that domestic jihadist extremism is far more prevalent inside the United States than previously thought, the always controversial Holder appears undeterred in his quest to ban federal agents from trying to prevent domestic Islamist terrorism by investigating hubs of suspected jihadist activities. If the ban on ‘religious profiling’ is enforced, federal agents will no longer be able to conduct surveillance inside even the most radical of US mosques, where nearly all recent US based jihadists have been recruited, trained and dispatched.
The LA Times even reports that Holder’s ban will no longer even include “an exemption for national security investigations.” Without pre-existing, admissible evidence that ongoing criminal activity is occurring, federal agents will no longer be permitted to conduct any undercover surveillance in any clearly identified Islamic institution. If enacted, such a policy would represent the starkest reversal yet to bi-partisan post 9/11 changes that permitted law enforcement agencies like the FBI greater ability to monitor suspected Islamist outfits, including mosques.
The FBI claims that those standards have enabled them to disrupt or scuttle at least 42 planned Islamist attacks against the US homeland adopted since 2001.
How extending greater legal protections to those suspected of jihadist plots against US citizens will help protect law abiding citizens from those plots remains to be seen. The connections between Islamic State operatives, recent domestic terrorist acts, and several radical US mosques are undeniable. The recent Muslim convert in Oklahoma who murdered and decapitated a 54-year-old grandmother was radicalized in a mosque run by the very same people who run a Boston mosque that served as headquarters for ISIS’s US social media campaign.
Terrorism authority Steve Emerson told IBD this could be just the tip of the ISIS-ice berg. “There are tens of thousands of others like him lurking in the United States who haven’t done this but are jihadists just waiting to do it,” Emerson, who runs the New York-basedInvestigative Project for Terrorism, says the Islamic State is actually pre-selecting new US based recruits based upon their state willingness to conduct suicide/terrorist operations against innocents inside the US.
Of course, since Attorney General Holder had previously ordered the Justice Department and the FBI to scrub all its training manuals and support documentation to insure words like “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism” do not appear, it is difficult to predict how such directives will even be adequately conveyed to US law enforcement personnel.
Had such prohibitions against even considering the religious beliefs or associations of suspected jihadist elements been in effect, many recent Federal indictments of terrorists could never have been obtained, since nearly ever single one of them contained evidence demonstrating their connections with and radicalizations inside US mosques. Nearly every single defendant so indicted has confessed that their motivations were religiously based upon their interpretation of Islam and its commands to attack non-believers.
The same Eric Holder now considering increased protections for those suspected of jihadist activities authorized domestic illegal surveillance actions, including wiretapping, against reporters at the Associated Press and sought to prosecute Fox News’ James Rosen under, of all things, the Espionage Act.
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, “You know the famous American saying that all politics is local? Well, for militant Islamists, all politics is global, because their ultimate goal is to dominate the world.” If Holder has his way and can prohibit US law enforcement from investigating domestic militants Islamists in places where militants Islamists plot and plan, American jihadists will be able to pursue that ultimate goal of global dominance with greater freedom and security than ever before.
Spectator, By Scott McKay:
Let’s see if we can all agree on a few points:
1. Whether our leaders wish to accept it or not, it is a fact that throughout America’s history, including current times, there have been and are people who do not subscribe to our way of life and wish to destroy us. Such people have been adherents to any number of noxious ideologies. In the past, they’ve been secessionists, anarchists, Bolsheviks, Nazis, black separatists, among other things.
2. Today, the most prominent and worrisome group is Islamists — more precisely, Muslim adherents to the doctrine of Sharia.
3. Sharia — a system of law that includes a definition of jihad as a program of violent subjugation and/or conversion of the infidel—is properly described as a hostile doctrine. That it derives from a major religious text does not change the fact that it represents a threat to the American way of life. The incompatibility of Sharia and pluralistic, democratic Western culture based on individual rights easily merits its own column; for a good summary,click here.
4. Yet Sharia is being preached in mosques across America. Those mosques are not just houses of worship; they are cultural and political centers, and they are vehicles for organization of communities. Let’s be clear: some mosques are upstanding assets to their communities. But let’s be equally clear: others are not. The Islamic Society of Boston, which spawned the Tsarnaev brothers who bombed the Boston marathon, is an example of the latter. Though numbers are difficult to come by, it is believed that many American mosques and Islamic organizations receive foreign funding from Sharia states such as Saudi Arabia. These can only be prudently viewed as centers of foreign, and at least potentially hostile, influence.
5. We have history to draw upon here: The Roosevelt administration came down hard on theGerman-American Bund, an effort to organize Americans of German descent into a foreign influence operation, and ultimately put it out of business. This action seems to have been accepted as advancing a legitimate government interest, since virtually no one looks upon the treatment of the German-American Bund as a black mark on our national escutcheon.
6. In contrast, nothing whatsoever has been done to rein in Sharia mosques. To the contrary, there is even evidence that Sharia adherents are proselytizing their brand of Islam in our prisons on a wide scale. The security implications of this are staggering.
7. This prison outreach appears to have had an role in radicalizing Alton Nolen, who beheaded a woman at a food processing plant in Moore, Oklahoma, last week. Nolen was converted to Islam while serving prison time, and he attended a mosque in Oklahoma City with connections to jihad. Yet the case is being processed—as were terror attacks at Ft. Hood and the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas—as workplace violence.
8. This problem didn’t originate with the Obama administration, but it has certainly become far, far worse since he was inaugurated president and his attorney general Eric Holder took office. Moreover, it appears to be getting worse. Just days after Nolen’s savage attack, which coincided with another incident in which a woman was threatened with beheading in Oklahoma City, the Justice Department announced it would no longer allow religious profiling in law enforcement — even in cases where national security is involved.
9. We are therefore less safe from lone-wolf jihadists than we have ever been, at a time when we are actively bombing the most high-profile jihadist organization on earth and giving them a real-time rationale for inciting jihadist attacks — and beheadings in particular — against us.
10. It is untenable and dangerous to have a government that abdicates its proper duty to keep the public safe from enemies foreign and domestic. We are increasingly playing with fire.
Breitbart, by BEN SHAPIRO:
Over the weekend, the FBI announced that it would treat Islamist Alton Nolan’s alleged beheading of Colleen Hufford, 54, as a case of workplace violence. That despite the fact that Nolan’s Facebook page contains a picture of Nolan giving the ISIS salute, multiple pictures of Osama Bin Laden, a screenshot of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, and a quote reading, “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smile ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.”
This, of course, is not the first time the federal government has labeled Islamic terrorism “workplace violence.” The Fort Hood shootings by avowed Islamist Nidal Hassan were classified thus by the federal government, as well. In fact, the Obama administration has repeatedly treated “lone wolf” Islamic terror inside the United States as though it were non-terrorist crime – unlike the Bush administration, which, for example, correctly labeled as terrorism Hesham Mohamed Hadayet’s attack on the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002 and the Beltway snipers’ multiple murders in that same year.
The Obama administration takes great pains never to label Islamic terror as such inside the United States; instead, we are told, we should focus disproportionately on the threat of right-wing groups like the Tea Party.
Meanwhile, Islamists inside the United States kill and maim and torture.
Here are seven other recent cases of lone wolf Islamic attacks inside the United States in recent years:
Yusuf Ibrahim. In April, 28-year-old Yusuf Ibrahim was indicted for two 2013 beheadings. He allegedly shot 25-year-old Hanny Tawadros and 27-year-old Amgad Konds, then cut off their heads and hands. The two were Egyptian Coptic Christian expatriates.
Faleh Hassan Almaleki. Almaleki killed his daughter, Noor Almaleki, 20, in a parking lot in Phoenix in 2009 after she became “too Westernized” and refused an arranged marriage. He also used his car to assault the mother of Noor’s boyfriend. Ahmed Rehab of the Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the “domestic violence incident.”
Yaser Said. In 2008, Said allegedly murdered his two daughters after they began dating non-Muslims. He allegedly shot daughters Amina, 18, and Sarah, 17, on January 1, 2008 multiple times after luring them back home to visit their grandmother’s grave. Said is still at large.
Muzzammil Hassan. In 2009, Hassan cut his wife’s head off because she filed for divorce against him. He stabbed his wife, Aasiya, some 40 times and then proceeded to decapitate her. Ironically, Hassan founded Bridge TV in 2004, a station dedicated to fighting “the negative stereotype of Muslims post-9/11.”
Mohammed Taheri-azar: In 2006, Taheri-azar drove his car into a crowd at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in an attempt to kill Americans in supposed revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A letter he left for police read: “I live with the holy Koran as my constitution for right and wrong and definition of injustice… I’ve read all 114 chapters about 20 times since June of 2003 when I started reading the Koran. The U.S. government is responsible for the deaths and torture of countless followers of Allah, my brothers and sisters. My attack on Americans at UNC-CH March 3, was in retaliation for similar attacks orchestrated by the U.S. government on my fellow followers of Allah in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic territories.”
Naveed Afzal Haq. Haq attacked the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle in 2006 with a gun, killing a woman and wounding five. According to the Seattle police, Haq said “he wanted the United States to leave Iraq, that his people were being mistreated and that the United States was harming his people. And he pointedly blamed the Jewish people for all of these problems. He stated he didn’t care if he lived.” Those who worked with Haq said he self-identified as a “Muslim-American… angry at Israel.”
Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Muhammad shot and killed an Army soldier at a Little Rock recruiting station in 2010. The feds didn’t charge him with terrorism; instead, state authorities charged him with murder. As the Los Angeles Times reports, after converting to Islam in Tennessee at age 20, he moved to Yemen, was arrested there, and then came back to the United States to attack the recruiting station. According to police, Mohammed stated he was “mad at the U.S. military because of what they had done to Muslims in the past,” and he wanted to “kill as many people in the Army as he could.” According to the perpetrator’s father, the feds didn’t charge Muhammad with terrorism because doing so would have shone a spotlight on their own incompetence: “They should have done their job and this never would have happened. I think that somebody in the federal government and the FBI should be charged with negligence. Negligent homicide.”
Undoubtedly, there are other cases. And the power of worldwide communication means that terror groups across the Middle East are actively recruiting inside the United States. What we saw in Oklahoma may be just the beginning – or rather, the continuation – of a trend, especially if the feds refuse to treat Islamic terrorism for what it is.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
by Mark Durie
September 26, 2014
The past few weeks have been hard ones for Australians, not least for Australian Muslims. Various alleged plots by Islamic State supporters to slaughter Australians has Islam in the news. Even as I write, five out of ten of the “most popular” articles onThe Australian‘s website are about Islamic jihad and national security.
What are ordinary Australians to make of conspiracy theories aired by Muslims on the ABC’s Q&A program, implying that recent police raids were staged as a cynical act to manipulate public opinion? Are Muslims being unfairly victimised by all these security measures?
How are we to evaluate Senator Jacqui Lambie’s claim that sharia law “obviously involves terrorism”? Or the Prime Minister’s decision to mobilise Australian troops against the Islamic State?
What about the Islamic State’s grandiose claim that “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.” Or [Prime Minister Tony] Abbott’s declaration that the balance between freedom and security needs to be adjusted in favour of greater security and less freedom?
Earlier this month, an 18-year-old Melbourne man, Numan Haider, was shot dead by police after he stabbed two officers outside a suburban police station. At the time of writing, news was breaking that authorities believed he intended to behead a police officer and post the photos online.
Prison officers in Goulburn jail have struggled to contain the worst riot in ten years, during which rampaging prisoners were heard to be crying “Allahu Akbar.”
A Christian woman who works in a church close by an Islamic centre has asked her employer to install security measures to protect her and others at the church. Someone else, a convert from Islam to Christianity, reports that his personal sense of being under threat has risen, because he feels that people he knew from his earlier life as a radical Muslim are more likely to be activated to violence after the successes of the Islamic State and their global call to arms. Are such responses reasonable? Or are they Islamophobic?
Many young Muslims have been using the hashtag #NotInMyName on social media. Many are insisting that IS does not speak for them: as Anne Aly put it “This isn’t in my name, this isn’t what Islam is about, I am against it and they don’t have my allegiance, they don’t have my support.” How then can we know the truth about Islam?
What is a Christian response to all this? How can we find our way through these crises: does protecting national security mean we risk losing some part of our soul?
A truly Christian response to the multi-faceted challenge of “Muslims behaving badly” must embrace both truth and love in equal measure.
Truth will acknowledge that the Islamic State ideologues do claim to speak for Islam, and that they justify their actions from the Koran and Muhammad’s example. Truth will acknowledge that IS has recruited tens of thousands of Muslims to fight for their cause, but apparently not a single Christian, Jew or Buddhist. As Brother Rachid, a Moroccan convert to Christianity put it in a widely distributed letter to President Obama “ISIL’s 10,000 members are all Muslims. None of them are from any other religion. They come from different countries and have one common denominator: Islam.”
Truth will recognise that the self-declared “caliph” of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic studies: he is not ignorant of Islam. It will also acknowledge that the very idea of a caliphate – a supra-national Islamic state – is a religious ideal widely shared by many Muslims. However this ideal bodes ill for any non-Muslims who fall under its power.
Truth will accept that there is a price to pay for increased security. Since 9/11 we wait in queues at airports because of the actions of jihadis. As the level of threat increases, it is inevitable that our need for increased security measures will only grow.
Truth will also acknowledge that many Muslims vehemently reject the methods and goals of the Islamic state, and that the #NotInMyName hashtag campaign is genuine and heartfelt. But this begs the question: “What is the real Islam?”
Love on the other hand, will reject stereotyping Muslims or denigrating them with labels of hatred and suspicion. Love will reach out a hand of friendship. It will show grace instead of fear, kindness instead of rejection or indifference. Love demands that we emphatically reject speech which dehumanises Muslims or pins labels on them. It will honour those Muslims who reject the Islamic State’s ideology. Love will find new friends even on the blackest of days.
It can be tempting at times such as this to chose between love and truth. Love without truth can be gullible, opening the door to many threats. I am reminded of a Persian fable. A Fox met a Heron and said “My, what lovely feathers you have, dear Heron. May I have one?” The Heron obliged. The next day they met again. Day after day the Fox’s question was repeated, and day after the day the Heron’s response was the same. One day they met for the last time. The Heron had been plucked bare, so the Fox said “Heron, you look delicious. Now I will eat you. And he did.”
Love without boundaries, at the cost of truth, can wreak incredible havoc on innocent lives. In the end, such love is false, and will prove profoundly unloving. Genuine love does not fear the truth. True love will not deny or obscure the damaging effect of sharia law upon Christians living in Islamic societies, or the atrocities being perpetrated in the name of Islam against Christians and others by the “caliphate”. It will be mindful of the words in Proverbs 24:11-12: “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering towards slaughter. If you say ‘But we knew nothing about this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it.”
On the other hand, truth without love can become merciless, excluding and cruel. Love counts the cost of aggressive argument and rejects rhetoric. It takes pains to understand the other; it seeks to see the world through another’s eyes and to hear words through another’s ears. Love nurtures life-giving relationships. It reaches out to enmity and answers it with grace. It does not jump to conclusions, but is patient and careful. It delights to partner with and nurture truth and does not fear it.
Professor Peter Leahy, former Army Chief and leading defence strategist has warned Australians that we face a war that is “likely to last for the rest of the century”. If he is right, then the troubles we are facing now as a nation are only the beginning, and dealing with the potential horrors ahead will stretch our humanity to its limits.
As Christians we are called to be salt and light in the world. If this means anything, it means staying true to Jesus’ two great statements “the truth shall set you free” and “love your enemies, and do good to those who hate you”. This is no time for circling the wagons and cowering behind them in fear.
This is a time for Australians to reach out to our Muslim neighbours, to show and receive grace. In the present difficulties many Muslims will agree with Melbourne lawyer Shabnum Cassim who stated that “the everyday Muslim just wants to get on with their day.” As a nation the fact that we need to respond realistically to genuine threats to our peace, and seek a true understanding of the religious beliefs that generate these threats, should not deflect us from the everyday task of getting on with our lives together, graciously, inclusively and generously.
Mark Durie is the pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Founder of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. His book The Third Choice explains the implications for Christians of living under Islamic rule.
Blind Eagle, by Brian Fairchild, Sep. 18, 2014:
The most important strategic counter terrorist challenge to the United States today is to defeat the ideology of the international jihad movement. The organizations and individuals that spread this virulent ideology constitute a giant international production line that creates more Salafi-jihadis than the United States can kill or capture. On September 16, 2014, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who recently stepped down as the nation’s senior military intelligence officer, stated this fact when he responded to a question during a speech at Fort Benning, Georgia:
- “What this audience wants (to hear) is, ‘kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out, get the t-shirt, go down to Ranger Joe’s [a local military clothing store],…we can kill all day long, but until we understand why there are [such large] numbers of [fundamentalist] believers globally, [groups like the Islamic State] will not be defeated”.
The rabid ideology of the international jihad movement is comprised of two elements: a Salafi religious belief, melded with the revolutionary Islamist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Much has been written about the Muslim Brotherhood and its infrastructure globally and in the United States, so this report will focus on Salafism.
Within Islam, Salafism is considered a legitimate Islamic orientation. It traces its roots to the 13th Century Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) and his students ibn al-Qayyim, and ibn Kathir, as well as to the 18th Century Islamic scholar Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab who revived the writings of ibn Taymiyya in the area that would become the Salafi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Salafism is an ultraconservative form of Sunni Islam. It is not a creation of al Qaeda or any Islamist terrorist organization. Quite the opposite is true. Al Qaeda and all Sunni Islamist terrorist organizations emerged from a Salafi religious foundation. Salafism is practiced by a minority of Muslims, but that minority numbers over a hundred million.
Salafis proclaim that it is impossible for any man to understand the mind of God, so they regard any interpretation of the Qur’an as illegitimate, and they label any Muslim who dares to question Allah’s commands as an apostate. They regard the four schools of Sunni Islam as illegal innovations, and insist that the only sources of Islamic authority are a literal acceptance of Allah’s commands in the Qur’an, and a strict literal acceptance and emulation of the life experiences of the Prophet Muhammad. They call themselves “Salafis” to commemorate the first three generations of Muslims, described in Arabic as “as-Salaf as-Salih” – the “pious predecessors”, who practiced Islam only according to these two sources. As explained by al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in the following linked video, the key concept in Salafism is the Islamic doctrine of Tawheed that, according to Zawahiri: “must be the ruling authority in every system, constitution and law”; it demands that man be ruled by Sharia law alone because all man-made laws, political ideologies, and government systems are an affront to God.
In intelligence analysis, analysts are required to use primary sources and rigid tradecraft to support their findings and forecasts. The Qur’an is a primary source, and this report will base its findings on an inspection and understanding of it.
The first point of importance is to understand what the Qur’an represents. People say “the Qur’an says this, or the Qur’an says that”, but this is incorrect, the Qur’an says nothing. Allah is the speaker, and the Qur’an is just the medium to report his commands. The Qur’an is not comprised of stories about Allah, or stories recounting the life of Muhammad, or stories of any kind. Rather, Islam regards the Qur’an as a compilation of over 6,000 verses revealed directly by Allah to the prophet Muhammad through the archangel Gabriel, in Arabic, over a 23 year period. Muslims believe that the verses in the Qur’an are in Allah’s active voice – it is not a summation, description, or interpretation by man of what Allah said, it is Allah’s direct word as revealed to Muhammad.
Herein lies the Muslim dilemma. Because all the jihad verses in the Qur’an come directly from God with no interpretation or intercession by man, jihadis use them to justify their violent campaigns, while non-jihadis cannot question them without being labeled as apostates who must be killed. Much is made of the fact that jihadis kill other Muslims, but the jihadis state that they are killing apostates as commanded by Allah in revealed verses such as Chapter 4, verse 89 below (4:89).
When it comes to jihad, or killing apostates, Allah is very specific. There is no interpretation needed, and he never qualifies any of his commands by putting a time limit or geographical limitation on them. In Allah’s revealed verses below you will recognize many of the atrocities committed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), from Islamic supremacism, killing other Muslims, waging jihad, beheadings, crucifixions, taking and ransoming prisoners, and waging jihad against Christians and Jews. All are commanded by Allah as the following verses concretely demonstrate.
Note: None of the Qur’anic citations below have been altered in any way; they are all copied verbatim exactly as they appear in The Noble Qur’an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, published by the King Fahd Complex of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is distributed free around the world. Despite the fact that Salafis believe that nobody can understand the mind of God, the Saudi publisher ironically inserted comments in parentheses within the verses to ensure that Muslims clearly understand what Allah meant when he revealed them to Muhammad. Again, in order to understand the power of these verses, Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the word of God verbally revealed to Muhammad, in Arabic, through the angel Gabriel. All of the verses in the Qur’an (which, in aggregate, constitute Sharia law) are considered direct commands in God’s voice. To ensure that Muslims understand exactly what God meant when he commanded Muslims to “fight in the way of Allah”, the Saudi publishers included the following extensive footnote which leaves nothing to the imagination. The footnote appears on page 39 in reference to Qur’an Chapter 2, verse 190. It is copied verbatim, including incorrect spelling and grammar:
- (V: 2:190) Al-Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established. Allah’s Word is made superior, (His Word being La ilaha illaliah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.
Jihad Chapters and Verses:
- 8:39 – And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
- 8:60 – And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.
- 47:4 – So, when you meet (in fight – Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus (you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam and are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire or at least come under your protection), but if it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you), But (He lets you fight) in order to test some of you with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.
- 4:89 – They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.
- 5:33 – The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hand and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.
- 9:14 – Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people.
- 9:29 – Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
The majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are not Salafis and do not live their lives according to a strict adherence to Sharia law and Allah’s commands to wage jihad. It is precisely this fact, however, that Salafi-jihadis cite to justify their jihad to bring all Muslims and everyone else in the world to “true Islam”, and as the above verses demonstrate, the fact that Allah has commanded them to do so is irrefutable. As a result, it is grossly incorrect to say that Salafi-jihadis are not Islamic. According to the above jihad verses, it is evident that they are quite literally practicing Islam as Allah commanded.
Government recognition of the Islamic religious foundation of jihad is essential for two specific national security reasons. The Muslim dilemma can never be successfully addressed until this fact is acknowledged, and official recognition of the religious nature of jihad would provide American counter-terrorism officers with an investigative direction. This is especially vital at present to stem the flow of American foreign fighters to the Islamic State. At present, official policy states that Islamic terrorists have nothing to do with Islam, but are simply “violent extremists”. But, where does a counter-terrorism officer go to investigate violent extremists? The answer is, nowhere.
Current American policy ties the hands of counter-terrorism officers and relegates them to investigating already developed plots where individual “violent extremists” are in the process of carrying out a violent act. This effectively rules out all proactive investigations that would prevent such plots.
If the religious aspects of jihad were acknowledged, however, counter terrorism officers would have numerous options. They could identify and neutralize Salafi-jihadi mosques as well as Salafi-jihadi imams and Salafi guest speakers from abroad. They could investigate Salafi organizations that raise funds and distribute Islamist training material and manifestos, and they could identify and counter Muslim Brotherhood organizations and the training programs they employ to instill Salafi beliefs in the next generation of young Muslims.
The game-changing rise of the Islamic State and the phenomenal flood of radicalized foreign fighters flowing to the new “caliphate” make political correctness and willful ignorance of the Islamic religious foundation of the jihad a recipe for national disaster.
While many have rightfully criticized U.S. President Obama’s recent assertion that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” some of his other equally curious but more subtle comments pronounced in the same speech have been largely ignored.
Consider the president’s invocation of the “grievances” meme to explain the Islamic State’s success: “At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL—which calls itself the Islamic State.”
Obama’s logic, of course, is fortified by an entire apparatus of professional apologists who make the same claim. Thus Georgetown professor John Esposito—whose apologetics sometimes morph into boldfaced lies—also recently declared that “The “primary drivers [for the Islamic State’s violence] are to be found elsewhere,” that is, not in Islam but in a “long list of grievances.”
In other words and once again, it’s apparently somehow “our fault” that Islamic State Muslims are behaving savagely—crucifying, beheading, enslaving, and massacring people only on the basis that they are “infidels”: thus when IS herds and slaughters “infidel” men (citing the example of the prophet)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did; when IS captures “infidel” women and children, and sells them on the sex-slave market (citing Islamic teachings)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did; when IS bombs churches, breaks their crosses, and tells Christians to convert or die (citing Islamic scriptures)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did.
Although the “grievance” meme flies in the face of logic, it became especially popular after the 9/11 al-Qaeda strikes on America. The mainstream media, following the Islamist propaganda network Al Jazeera’s lead, uncritically picked up and disseminated Osama bin Laden’s videotapes to the West where he claimed that al-Qaeda’s terror campaign was motivated by grievances against the West—grievances that ranged from U.S. support for Israel to failure for the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Agreement concerning climate change.
Of course, that was all rubbish, and I have written more times than I care to remember about how in their internal Arabic-language communiques to fellow Muslims that never get translated to English, Osama, al-Qaeda, and virtually every Islamist organization make it a point to insist that jihad is an Islamic obligation that has nothing to do with grievances.
Consider Osama’s own words in an internal letter to fellow Saudis:
Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?
Yes. There are only three choices in Islam:  either willing submission [conversion];  or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam;  or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)
Conversion, submission, or the sword is, of course, the mission of the Islamic State—not alleviating “grievances.” Yet it’s worse than that; for unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, from day one of its existence, has made it very clear—in Osama’s words, “with power and determination, with one voice”—that its massacres, enslavements, crucifixions, and beheadings of “infidels” are all based on Islamic law or Sharia—not silly “grievances” against the West. Unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State is confident enough to avoid the grievances/taqiyya game and forthrightly asserts its hostility for humans based on their religious identity.
Yet by slipping the word “grievances” to explain the Islamic State’s Sharia-based savageries, Obama apparently hopes America has been thoroughly conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to automatically associate Islamic world violence with “grievances.”
What Obama fails to understand—or fails to mention—is that, yes, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and countless angry Muslims around the world are indeed often prompted to acts of violence by “grievances.” But as fully explained here, these “grievances” are not predicated on any universal standards of equality or justice, only a supremacist worldview.
Frontpage, By Robert Spencer:
As the Islamic State beheads a third hostage and the world recoils in horror and reassures itself that all this has nothing to do with Islam, it is useful to remember that jihad activity continues in the United States – although hardly anyone notices amid the rush to dissociate Islam from the mounting violence committed in its name and in accord with its literal teachings.
Take, for example, a Muslim from Seattle, Ali Muhammad Brown. KING 5 News reported that Brown is “currently in jail on $5 million bail for the alleged murder of a college student in late June.” He has “already been charged with gunning down two men at 29th and King Street in Seattle’s Leschi neighborhood on June 1.” And he is “now the prime suspect in a fourth homicide.”
The report noted laconically in its fifth paragraph, without elaboration, that “multiple sources with knowledge of the investigation say Brown told police he carried out the murders because he was on a jihad to kill Americans.” NJ.com added, also deep in its story on Brown’s murders: “Prosecutors say Brown is a devout Muslim who had become angered by U.S. military intervention in the Islamic world, which he referred to as ‘evil.”
That report also noted: “Ali Muhammad Brown said he considered it his mission to murder 19-year-old Brendan Tevlin as an act of ‘vengeance’ for innocent lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran. ‘All these lives are taken every single day by America, by this government. So a life for a life.’” This is a reference to the Qur’an: “We ordained therein for them: ‘Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal’” (5:45).
New York radio host Todd Pettengill, host of WPLJ’s “The Todd Show,” said that Brown’s murder of Tevlin was evidence that “domestic terrorism is already here.” Pettengill declared: “It was in fact an act of jihad, perpetrated by a fellow American who sympathized more with those who want to annihilate us than with his own country and its people.”
Pettengill is right. Domestic terrorism is indeed already here. And it was here before Ali Muhammad Brown went on his killing spree. Another Muslim from Seattle, Musab Mohamed Masmari, was sentenced on July 31 to ten years in prison for pouring gasoline onto a stairway in a famous gay nightclub, Neighbours, and setting the stairway on fire last New Year’s Eve, when the club was crowded. If the fire had not been put out – the carnage would have been great.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Todd Greenberg said: “One of Masmari’s close associates was interviewed by investigators and reported that Masmari confided in him that he ‘burned a gay club’ and that he did it because ‘what these people are doing is wrong.’” In another report from February, we learn that an informant told the FBI before this attack that Masmari could be planning “terrorist activity,” and that he had “opined that homosexuals should be exterminated.”
This incident should have been the impetus for a national discussion of violent Sharia enforcement in the U.S., and an examination of what could be done to stop Sharia vigilantism. Instead, the mainstream media largely ignored the obvious motive; in this report, it is discussed as “homophobia,” with no hint that this was one of the first incidents of violent Sharia enforcement in the U.S.
There are many more recent domestic terrorism cases as well. In mid-June, a Tampa Muslim named Sami Osmakac was convicted of plotting to bomb a Tampa bar and then blow himself up in a jihad-martyrdom suicide attack in another crowded area of the city. Osmakac said of non-Muslims: “We will go after every one of them, their kindergartens, their shopping centers, their nightclubs, their police stations, their courthouses and everything until we have an Islamic state the whole world.” Shades of “slay them wherever you find them” (cf. Qur’an 2:191; 4:89; 9:5).
Then there was Ahmed Abassi, who, according to the New York Post, wanted to derail a New York-to-Toronto Amtrak train. He also discussed with another jihad terrorist “a plot to release bacteria in the air or water to kill up to 100,000 people.” He was also, according to Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara, plotting to “commit acts of terror and develop a network of terrorists here” in the U.S.
Abassi could have gotten fifty years in prison, but he “avoided terrorism charges by pleading guilty in Manhattan federal court to lying on his visa application and to immigration officials when asked why he flew to the United States in 2013.” Consequently, he could soon be a free man. What could possibly go wrong?
And let’s not forget Mufid Elfgeeh, a Muslim businessman from Rochester, New York. AP reported on June 2 that Mufid Elfgeeh “bought two handguns and the silencers as part of a plan to kill members of the U.S. armed forces returning from war as well as Shiite Muslims in western New York.”
AP, as anxious as Barack Obama or David Cameron to absolve Islam of responsibility for the evils done in its name, explained that Elfgeeh (like Ali Muhammad Brown) was plotting to kill troops “as vengeance for American actions overseas.” So why did he want to kill Shi’ites as well? As vengeance for Iran being a bitter enemy of his bitter enemy, the U.S.? Obviously Elfgeeh is a Sunni Islamic jihadist who wants to kill members of groups that he considers to be enemies of Islam. But AP will never tell you that.
The war is not just in Iraq and Syria (and Nigeria, and Thailand, and the Philippines, and Afghanistan, and Israel, and Egypt, and on and on). It is in the United States already. That war is the Islamic jihad against the West and the free world. There will be many more men like Ali Muhammad Brown and Musab Mohamed Masmari in the United States in the coming years. Actions like theirs will one day, not too long from now, be a more or less daily occurrence in the United States. But no need to be concerned: just remember, when things get really hot, that all this has nothing to do with Islam.
By Andrew Bostom:
Last night, my brief sound bite during a Sean Hannity panel alluded to the timeless Koranic injunction to wage jihad war against Jews and Christians, specifically, Koran 9:29, for the purpose of forcibly imposing a Sharia-based Islamic order upon them. This reference was followed by a graphic, modern historical manifestation of this eternal Islamic “imperative”: the 1915-19 jihad genocide of the Armenian, Assyro-Chaldean, and Syrian Orthodox Christian communities of Anatolia, and northern “Mesopotamia,” i.e., modern Iraq, by the last Caliphate—the Ottoman Caliphate.
Notwithstanding the recent horrific spate of atrocities committed against the Christian communities of northern Iraq by the Islamic State (IS/IL) jihadists, the Ottoman jihad ravages were equally barbaric, depraved, and far more extensive. Occurring, primarily between 1915-16 (although continuing through at least 1918), some one million Armenian, and 250,000 Assyro-Chaldean and Syrian Orthodox Christians were brutally slaughtered, or starved to death during forced deportations through desert wastelands. The identical gruesome means used by IS/IL to humiliate and massacre its hapless Christian victims, were employed on a scale that was an order of magnitude greater by the Ottoman Muslim Turks, often abetted by local Muslim collaborators (the latter being another phenomenon which also happened during the IS/IL jihad campaign against Iraq’s Christians).
Tragically 2/3 of Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia—hardly a “fringe minority of extremists”—support the eternal Islamic “ideal” to re-create a Caliphate. Regardless, the wrenching illustrations included below should make plain to all decent, sober-minded persons why any “Caliphate movement” must be confronted, and crushed.
Also from the September 12, 2014 studio discussion titled “Underestimating the threat of radical Islam to America” -
by John Rossomando
Interview on NewsmaxTV
September 12, 2014
Host- Ed Berliner: It remains unthinkable to most of us, young people, some from tough conditions, but also those who would seem to have everything they need to succeed. In one moment they are teenagers, young people, smiling faces, getting into the kind of trouble maybe kids have been stuck in for generations. The next minute they are holding rifles, flashing missing teeth smiles and wearing robes of subjugation promising they will kill Americans because they are the enemy of those who kill for little reason. Not merely why this happens, but what can we do to ferret out these misguided souls before they carry out their brainwashed ideals. Let’s welcome to Mid-point senior analyst and investigative journalist with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. He can be read at such diverse places as The Daily Caller and Red Alert Politics, John Rossomando joins us. John, thank you so much for being here.
John Rossomando: Thank you for having me. I was listening to your intro and one of the things I would like to start out pointing out is what the Islamic State sells is the concept of being able to live in a perfect utopian Islamic society. They have a lot of common say with the Communists and their view of creating a new world, a new humanity. If you watch the videos that the Islamic State slickly produces to try to seduce jihadists as I do, you’ll see them constantly say, ‘Leave the land of the unbeliever, leave behind your un-Islamic society and come join us.’ Be part of this brave new world. So I think that Ms. Conley likely was seduced by that promise. A lot of converts, whether they’re converts to Islam, Catholicism, different religions, they want the more pure form of religion. So it’s likely Ms. Conley thought that she was going to become part of a pure form of Islam unlike what the Islamic State describes as a tainted or apostate form of Islam.
Berliner: John, let’s talk frankly here when it comes down to these individuals leaving to join ISIS and other groups. What we’re talking about here is a generation that has the ability to know more about anything than any of us ever did as far as the Internet is concerned and the ability to look, see videos, to read, to learn. This can be a very educated generation if you will. It’s not like the old days, well when I say old days, it could be even 10 years ago when people didn’t know what’s going on around them. They can see the reality of the situation, they can look at the videos of terrorists, they can look at the butchered videos left behind by these terrorists, executed people, beheaded Americans. And this comes as a real simple question that most people watching this show would likely then ask. How can anybody of any age be so stupid as to decide that this is where they want to spend their life when they have the ability to see everything in front of them, to know exactly what they’re getting involved in?
Rossomando: I think that you have, it’s idealism. IS says that they want to create a new society and that America, the West, they’re killing Muslims. So it becomes a very appealing thing to gain revenge against the West, drumming their other Muslims and so forth. So I think that you have idealism in every generation. One hundred years ago people were running off joining the Communist Revolution in Russia. I think it’s the same sort of strain of revolutionary fervor that you have in certain idealistic sectors of society.
Berliner: It’s fair to say though when you were looking at things like Communism or Socialism you were looking at people who were looking to live a different way, for people to be more equal in what they did. That certainly was the thought about Communism at that time. Here we though have wanton killers. We have so much evidence that all these people want to do, and I speak about ISIS when I say these people, or any terrorist groups, Hamas if you will, all they want to do is kill as wantonly as possible. So isn’t it just a little bit different? This is a frightening revolutionizing if you will of American youth or anybody. This is scarier than anything we’ve ever faced, is it not?
Rossomando: It’s terrifying. But you have to look at the fact that these people are trying to sell the idea that they want to create a pure form of Islam, a pure Islamic society. This is the stuff that pervades their propaganda that you find if you go Twitter, Facebook and social media. And they rationalize the killing, the violence, as revenge for the sins or the atrocities of the West, because they constantly come out with pictures of maimed children, of Muslims who have been killed by American drones to gain sympathy. And then you have radical extreme preachers such as Anjem Choudary in Britain who have an Internet presence who spread this hate, spread this vile. It’s something that the American Muslim community needs to take seriously instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet and say it’s nothing to do with Islam.
Berliner: Then how do we ferret these people out? I understand that this is a very difficult question. We’re talking about psychology that we could probably spend hours on here. But the general people who are watching right now – everybody. How do we find them? How do we see them? How do we mark them? How do we know that somebody is on the verge, or has the possibility of turning to this side here – turning to the dark side if you will and becoming a killer?
Rossomando: I think that you have to pay close attention to social media. This is something that especially the Muslim community needs to take seriously and look for signs of extremist, revolutionary sort of ideas being espoused by members of their community.
Berliner: Do we often many times though just brush those off and say oh that’s no big deal, it’s just a kid going through something, or it’s just a phase. Isn’t that really where we are at?
Rossomando: We do. Just look at Maj. Nidal Hasan. His imam in the Washington, D.C. area said that he never saw anything about him. Maybe he saw some signs about Maj. Hasan becoming an extremist and decided to do nothing. So I think that the American Muslim community needs to wake up and stop trying to pretend that this isn’t a problem.
Berliner: We have a few minutes left, and I want to hit exactly on where you are right there. There have been reports from a number of communities, certainly in Minnesota, Colorado and others where they find, and this is something people can check out, we’re not just throwing this out here, that there are terrorist connections to certain Muslim groups and certain factions, and even certain mosques if you will in certain cities in America. It’s not everyone, but there are those out there that have these connections. In your view of what’s gone on here, and in your opinion, are there more than we believe? Should we be very suspect? And this is a tough thing to say over and over again, but should we continue to be much more suspect of what comes into our communities in these versions of mosques and under the guise of peace?
Rossomando: Absolutely. Take the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va. where two of the hijackers went to Friday prayers, where Anwar Awlaki was the imam. They have an imam there now named Shaker Elsayed who appeared at a Northern Virginia high school talking about Muslim men being first for arms for jihad. We got a book from there talking about embracing arms for re-establishing the Caliphate. And you bring up Minnesota. Just two weeks ago, Al-Shabaab released a recruiting video calling on Muslims living in Minnesota to join up. And then on top of it you have groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations that do everything they can to deter the FBI from following leads and potentially stopping plots. And you also have some imams who issue fatwas saying that cooperating with the FBI is not permissible under Islamic law because they harm Muslims.
Berliner: I’ve got about 30 seconds left then. Would your suggestion then that Muslims here in America need to take more of a forward role here in making sure that they tell people this is not all of us; this is a certain faction, and we are the ones who are also going to help make sure that this country is not hurt and these people are subjugating our religion?
Rossomando: Absolutely. They need to do more than just condemn. They need to develop a counter-narrative to counter the jihadist propaganda that talks about how you interpret the Quran or how you talk about Islam. And so far they have not done so. All they have done is accuse people who raise objections of being Islamophobes, of being bigots. What we need to see is a more proactive, public, an aggressive counter-jihadist message from them. Unless they can, they don’t have any credibility.
Berliner: All right John we’re all out of time but thank you so much for your time and your comments. John Rossomando. Stay with us. Mid-Point continues.
Blind Eagle, Brian Fairchild / July 23, 2014:
Over the past three years, the Syrian civil war has attracted over 12,000 young radicalized Muslims who left their homes and rushed to join the jihad. In early July 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) created a new Caliphate that is expected to attract many thousands more, a situation described by the US Attorney General as a “global crisis”.
Many of the foreign fighters, most in their early to mid-20s, hail from Western countries such as Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK. American officials estimate that over 100 American Muslims have joined them. This fact begs the question: why did these young Muslims leave their homes to travel abroad and join the jihad? An accurate and unbiased answer to this question is crucial if the US is to have an effective counter-terrorism policy.
The answer, at the most fundamental strategic level, is that the ranks of foreign fighters are filled by Muslims who accept a Salafi interpretation of Islam and join the jihad because of their religious beliefs. Salafism is an ancient ultraconservative form of Sunni Islam which demands that Muslims live by an unquestioning literal acceptance of Allah’s commands in the Qur’an (Sharia law), and they wage jihad because numerous Qur’anic verses command them to do so.
The United States government, however, rejects this basic strategic fact. At a speaking engagement in mid-August 2009,John Brennan, then counter terrorism advisor to the president and current CIA director, emphasized President Obama’s rejection of any religious dimension:
- “Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against “jihadists.” Describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, “jihad,” meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”
The president was so adamant in his position, that, in 2010, he ordered the removal of all religious terms such as “jihad” and “Islamic extremism” from the US National Security Strategy assessment, effectively stopping the government from any inquiries involving a connection between Islam and terrorism. In explanation, the administration states that admitting to a connection between Islam and terrorism would bestow legitimacy on the terrorists, insult Islam, and alienate Muslims, so it unilaterally decided to remove Islam from the equation and to henceforth refer to Islamist terrorists as simply “violent extremists”.
The facts, however, contradict the administration’s position. On July 22, 2014, in a follow-up report to the 9/11 Commission investigation, the commissioners noted that:
- “A senior national security official told us that the forces of Islamist extremism in the Middle East are stronger than in the last decade…Officials are also deeply concerned at the region’s seemingly endless supply of disaffected young people vulnerable to being recruited as suicide bombers.”
The majority of the world’s Muslims understand the religious extremism of the terrorists all too well given that they are their predominant target. A 2013 Pew Research poll reveals that “across 11 Muslim publics surveyed…, a median of 67% say they are somewhat or very concerned about Islamic extremism. In five countries – Pakistan, Jordan, Tunisia, Turkey and Indonesia – Muslim worries about extremism have increased in the past year”.
The president of Egypt also understands and accepts the connection between terrorism and Islam. On January 31, 2014, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, called for changes within Islam that amount to an Islamic Reformation saying:
- “Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, pointing to the need for anew vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam—rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.”
The administration’s own key Muslim partners, too, have explicitly admitted just how permeated Islam is by the extremist interpretation. The following two examples are especially significant because they come from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which considers itself to be the leader of the Sunni Muslim world due to the fact that it is the Protector of the Two Holy Cities –Mecca and Medina, where Islam was revealed to the prophet and flourished:
- Far from trying to hide the religious foundation of Islamist terrorism, on May 16, 2009, Saudi Arabia’s Assistant Minister of the Interior told Ambassador Richard Holbrooke that al Qaeda hijacked Islam, stating “Terrorists stole the most valuable things we have…They took our faith and our children and used them to attack us”. Moreover, he expressed no hesitation telling Holbrooke how far Islamist penetration had succeeded in the Kingdom, stating that in 2003 the Saudis discovered Islamist radicals in “90 percent” of the mosques.
- On May 24, 2009, Ambassador Holbrooke was given a counter-terrorism briefing by the Saudi Ministry of the Interior that revealed the ancient Islamic roots of Salafi ideology and how it spread:
“The counterterrorism briefing began with history and geography: Briefer Captain Bandar Al-Subaie said the Takfiriideology behind extremist groups dated back to the earliest days of Islam, and had figured in the killings of two early Caliphs. Its tenets were reflected in the beliefs of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and had spread from there to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then to the Arabian Peninsula where it had been taken up by modern day terrorists including Al-Qaeda (AQ).”
Moreover, an analysis of ISIS’ recent actions and proclamations provides more than enough proof to show that it is not just a gang of sectarian “violent extremists”, but a radical Islamist religious movement.
- Note: The following analysis includes numerous citations to Qur’anic verses. Except for black highlighting, none of the citations have been altered in any way; they are all copied verbatim exactly as they appear in The Noble Qur’an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, published by the King Fahd Complex of the Saudi Arabian Government. Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the word of God verbally revealed to Muhammad, in Arabic, through the angel Gabriel. All of the verses in the Qur’an (which constitute Sharia law) are considered direct commands in God’s voice.
According to the US administration, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the new Islamic State are no more than “violent extremists” perpetrating regional sectarian violence. As such, their communications are considered to be simply hate speech or exhortations to violence and of no real intelligence value.
The reality, however, is quite to the contrary. On July 5, 2014, al-Baghdadi made his debut appearance in a video at the Great Mosque of al-Nouri in Mosul, Iraq. Wearing Islamic garb and sporting a long beard, he made a speech that was carefully crafted specifically to establish his religious legitimacy to rule all Muslims as the leader of the new Caliphate.
Al-Baghdadi’s speech occurred during the Muslim month of Ramadan, and he opened by stating that “Ramadan is a month to wage jihad”, noting that the Prophet Muhammad made armies and fought the “polytheists” during this month. This reference sent a particularly potent message to Muslims, especially to radicalized Salafis, who understood its implications.
The Prophet Muhammad led Islam’s two most important battles during Ramadan – the very first battle – the Battle of Badr, and the Battle of Mecca. In Islamic history, Muhammad, against all odds, was victorious at the desert oasis of Badr as a result of Allah’s divine intervention. At the Battle of Mecca, he deployed an Army of 10,000 and the city fell virtually without resistance. The victory at Mecca consolidated Muhammad’s power and caused the surrounding tribes to join him. The few remaining opposing tribes were quickly subdued.
The parallels to al-Baghdadi are unmistakable. Al-Baghdadi’s total force is estimated to be around 10,000. He emerged out of the desert and, against all odds, defeated the Iraqi military with many Iraqi units running from his advance. He consolidated his power in the new Islamic State, and the surrounding tribes have joined him. He is currently pursuing the remaining opposition. He also claimed that the success he and his mujahideen have achieved was only possible because they “have been bestowed upon by Allah to achieve victory” – divine intervention.
After referencing Ramadan, al-Baghdadi quoted the Qur’an – Chapter 51, Verse 56, “I (Allah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship me (alone)”, which reminded all Muslims that they were created to submit to and follow the commands of Allah. Having established this basic tenet of Islam, he followed by saying that Allah commanded them to fight against his enemies and then paraphrased Allah’s command to “Wage jihad using your wealth and yourself for the sake of Allah”, which appears in the Qur’an Chapter 9, Verse 41:
- “March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), and strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah. This is better for you, if you but knew.”
To reinforce this point, he immediately quoted two additional jihad commands – “I have ordered you to fight even though you do not like it”, which paraphrases Qur’an Chapter 2, Verse 216:
- “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.”
As well as, “And fight them so there is no discord and this religion is for all people to adopt in their life for Allah”, which paraphrases Chapter 2, Verse 193:
- “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone)…”
Having amply established each Muslim’s duty to wage jihad, he then told his audience what the jihad is for – to establish Allah’s religion on earth through the creation of a Caliphate ruled by Sharia law, after which he announced the creation of the new Caliphate with himself elected as its Imam.
This speech is nothing but religious. It methodically used Qur’anic references to make the Sharia case to all Muslims that al-Baghdadi’s jihad, his recent victories, and the establishment of the new Caliphate are all Islamically legal and sanctioned by Allah. It was devoid of any other content.
ISIS’ strict adherence to Sharia law is not only confined to the new Imam’s speeches, however. On July 21, 2014, ISIS gave Christians in Mosul an ultimatum: to convert to Islam, submit to Islam and pay the Jizya (a tax for Muslim protection), or die.
These threats were described in the media and by government officials as another example of the group’s intolerance and mindless “sectarian” violence, but with no other significance. This superficial assessment, however, misses the larger point. The threats are an integral part of Sharia as commanded by Allah in Qur’an Chapter 9, Verse 29:
- “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger Muhammad, (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Even the most barbaric of ISIS crimes adhere to Sharia. In late May 2014, news reports surfaced that ISIS had crucified a number of its opponents, which is commanded in Chapter 5, Verse 33:
- “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
In mid-June 2014, reports surfaced of ISIS beheadings, which is commanded in Chapter 47, Verse 4:
- “So, when you meet (in fight – Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them…”
Understanding the religious foundation of ISIS and all other Salafi-jihadi organizations is not just an academic exercise. The definition of an enemy dictates how national resources are used to combat it. As the facts above reveal, ISIS is not a regional, sectarian organization seeking a place for Sunnis in Iraq’s political structure. Nor is it just a band of thugs committing violence for violence’s sake. It is a radical religious movement that transcends borders. In the minds of its leaders and followers it is fighting a holy war justified by Allah’s commands in the Qur’an (Sharia law). It is not driven by regional political ambition, but by religious zeal. The young radical Muslims that flock to it share the same religious beliefs and zealotry.
Brian Fairchild bio.
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.
You can contact Dr. Bostom at info[@]andrewbostom.org
Newsmax, 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.
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.