Is Jihad Un-Islamic?

gh22-450x240Frontpage, by Fjordman:

Excerpt -

In Denmark in 2005, Tina Magaard – a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in textual analysis – published detailed research findings comparing the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard concluded from her data-driven analyses that

“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. 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.”

Magaard further observed that “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.

Andrew G. Bostom’s copiously documented book The Legacy of Jihad describes the doctrinal rationale for Islam’s sacralized Jihad violence, and its historical manifestations, from the seventh-century advent of the Muslim creed through the present. Consistent with Magaard’s textual analysis, Bostom cites the independent study of the renowned Arabic-to-English translator Paul Stenhouse, who maintained that the root of the word Jihad appears forty times in the Koran. With just four exceptions, 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 mean, as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer E. W. Lane: “He fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.” Muhammad himself according to traditional Islamic sources waged a series of bloody Jihad campaigns to subdue the Jews, Christians and pagans of Arabia.

The concept of Jihad is unique to Islam. It is a key component that makes Islam uniquely aggressive and dangerous among all of the world’s major religions.

It is, technically speaking, true that there may be non-violent aspects to Jihad as well, for instance propaganda. However, this is true of all wars. The primary meaning of Jihad is violent, and has been so consistently for fourteen centuries. The ultimate goal of Islam and of Jihad is the global supremacy of Islam and of Islamic law, or sharia — in other words, world supremacy. It is very hard to get much more aggressive than that. Until that goal has been reached, every non-Muslim man, woman and child on this planet is a potential target for Jihad violence. Sometimes, Jihadists will even target Muslims who are not Islamic enough for their taste.

One Jewish survivor of the Second World War was asked what he learned from the Holocaust. His reply was that when somebody tells you they want to kill you, you should believe them. That is wise advice, and not just for Jews. The fighters of the Islamic State have public declared to the Western world that “we will drown all of you in blood.” I tend to take them at their word, and so should you.

I am a man of books and letters myself. I rely on rational arguments, as far as that goes. However, I am also not a pacifist. Genghis Khan would not have been impressed by the force of your arguments, only by the force of your arms. The same thing applies to Islamic Jihadists. They are not interested in “dialogue,” unless this means submission to Islam and Islamic rule. Until you accept that, they will respect only the strength of your arms. They cannot be reasoned with, and it is suicidal to try.

Jihad Comes To Europe

by Guy Millière:

Belgian security services have estimated that the number of European jihadists in Syria may be over 4000.

European leaders have directed their nastiest comments against the Jewish state, none of them has asked why Palestinian organizations in Gaza put their stockpiles of weapons in hospitals, homes, schools and mosques, or their command and control centers at the bottom of large apartment buildings or underneath hospitals. None of them has even said that Hamas is a terrorist organization despite its genocidal charter.

The majority of them are wedded to the idea of redistribution. Their policies are anti-growth, do not afford people any economic opportunity, and are what caused these economic crises in Europe in the first place. The United States seems to be following these thoroughly failed policies as well.

“Europe could not stay the same with a different population in it.” — Christopher Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe.

A few months before murdering four people at a Jewish Museum in Brussels on May 24th, a French Muslim named Medhi Nemmouche had been released from prison and had already joined the Islamic State (at the time, called ISIS).

Nemmouche had left the Museum unmolested and was identified only by images from surveillance cameras. He was arrested two days later in Marseille during an anti-drug check, where it was discovered that he was about to take a boat to Algeria. He had with him his weapons and a black flag of the Islamic State.

The French police knew exactly who he was. Despite everything, he had not been placed under close surveillance.

Nemmouche will be tried in Belgium, where he faces a sentence of life imprisonment — but life imprisonment in Belgium and France means a maximum of twenty-two years. He will not spend twenty-two years in prison. He will likely earn an early release for good behavior. Almost all prisoners in Belgium and France are released for good behavior. That he is a repeat offender and has been convicted seven times for robbery and assault will not be held against him: in Belgium or France, recidivism is theoretically considered an aggravating circumstance but is almost never taken into account in the judgments issued by courts.

In prison, he will join the company of people who share his ideas, and he will be able to join jihadi networks.

In Belgian and French prisons, a large majority of the inmates are Muslims, many of whom are radical; and jihadi networks are ubiquitous.

When he leaves prison, he will most likely join the Islamic State again, if he wants, and if the Islamic State still exists.

Nemmouche’s path resembles that of another French Muslim, Mohamed Merah, who killed three French soldiers and four Jews in the Southwest of France in March, 2012. Merah, like Nemmouche, had also served several sentences in prison and had joined Islamic organizations, although in Afghanistan, not Syria. He, too, came back ready to kill, and he killed.

The French police also knew who Mohamed Merah was. And he was also not placed under close surveillance.

The main difference between Merah and Nemmouche is that Merah chose to die in a police shootout. Because of the way he died, Merah became a hero for many young European Muslims.

At the time of the Merah case, against all evidence, the French government had put forward the “lone wolf” theory and officially dismissed the idea of jihad, although there were arrests in Islamist circles.

When Nemmouche was arrested, the French Interior Minister used more courageous words: he spoke of “jihadi networks” and of “problems” in the French prison system. He added that 700 French youths were in training camps in Syria, and could come back at any moment. The Belgian authorities used similar words.

These mentions of jihad and “problems” in the prisons were steps in the right direction. The problem is that there will almost certainly be no further steps.

Gilles de Kerchove, the EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator, recently said that there are, in fact, more than 700 French Muslims presently waging jihad in Syria. Available data show that there are also many Belgian Muslims, and many Muslims going to Syria from the rest of Europe. Belgian security services have estimated that the number of European jihadists in Syria may be over 4,000. Entire European fighting units seems to have been created.

The leaders of the French and Belgian do not have any real ways of implementing and managing better security or keeping track of suspects — even those likely to take action. These leaders do not even try to restore order in prisons. Government leaders currently preside over financially battered countries, mired in sclerosis, stagnation, wretchedly controlled immigration, and the perverse effects of redistributive social welfare systems that only multiply the poor and destroy jobs — the side effects of multiculturalism. They have neither the will nor the resources to cope with all the costs that would be involved.

They know that if they tried to do something, they would soon be faced with riots in the (mostly Muslim) “no-go zones” scattered throughout the outskirts of most cities.

They know that they would have to hire thousands of police and to consider using the army.

French politicians fear mass riots in the violence-prone suburban “no go zones” that surround major cities. In this photo, a car burns in Sèvres, France, during the 2005 riots. (Source: WikiMedia Commons)

They know that they would soon face extremely reluctant and extremely hostile judges: judges in Belgium and France are permanent and irremovable civil servants, and the majority of them are wedded to economic ideas based on the redistribution of wealth. Their policies are anti-growth, do not afford people any economic opportunity, and are what created these crises in Europe in the first place. The United States seems to be following these thoroughly failed policies as well. The main union of magistrates in France, “Syndicat de la magistrature”, is close to a neo-communist organization, “le Front de Gauche”.

The governments’ leaders know that they would have to confront “anti-racist” organizations fully dedicated to the fight against “Islamophobia”: powerful and well financed Islamic lobbies, imams in key mosques, and most journalists in the mainstream media.

The governments’ leaders also know that they would have to run the risk of losing elections. In the major cities of Belgium and France, the Muslim vote has an increasing weight. Brussels, the city where Medhi Nemmouche murdered, is now 30% Muslim. Roubaix, the city where he was born, is 60% Muslim. The number of cities where the Muslim population is a majority continues to rise.

The governments’ leaders know that what is happening in France and Belgium can be found to varying degrees in all European countries, and that the problem that overwhelms them is really a European problem.

Government leaders in all major European countries know that hundreds of well-trained European jihadists are in Syria and that some of them will return. They do not ignore that some are already back in Europe and that attacks are likely. They do not ignore that if European jihadists are in the hundreds, those who support jihadism in Europe are probably in the tens of thousands. In recent demonstrations in support of the “Palestinian cause” all over Europe, flags of Hamas, Hizbullah and the Islamic State were abundant, and slogans explicit.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Mr. Cameron, It’s Called Shariah

woman-straining-carrying-book-of-sharia-lawCSP, by Frank Gaffney:

British Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday warned that his country needs new counter-terrorism tools to confront a threat currently assessed as “severe.”

Mr. Cameron described “the root cause of this threat” as “a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism that believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in a mediaeval state.”

But then, the Prime Minister showed why Britain faces this threat.  He added, “We should be clear that this has nothing to do with Islam.”

In fact, the “poisonous ideology” is known as shariah.  And, while many Muslims don’t follow it, the authorities of Islam do.

Unless and until we stop blinding ourselves to this reality and protect Western freedoms and values against shariah, we are doomed.

Also see:

What is Shariah and What Are It’s Sources?

Key Tenets of Shariah

CIA expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror

President Obama appears to bow to Saudi King Abdullah, on April 1, 2009, in London

President Obama appears to bow to Saudi King Abdullah, on April 1, 2009, in London

By GARTH KANT:

WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, one that practically accuses the president of treason.

A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.

Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?

As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.

She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”

Why would Obama order the killing of bin Laden?

Because the president “couldn’t delay any longer,” once the opportunity was presented, Lopez told WND.

There were “no more excuses” available to avoid it and he “thought it might look good,” she mused.

The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.

Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez’s insights are backed by an impressive array of credentials.

She spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. Lopez currently manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

In a previous interview with WND, Lopez described the stunning extent of infiltration of the administration and other branches of the federal government by the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

She said the infiltration began under former President Bill Clinton but really took hold under the Obama administration, which, she said, “includes various levels of understanding and misunderstanding of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“Some in the administration genuinely appear to believe the Muslim Brotherhood can act as a foil or counterweight to al-Qaida, although with what’s going on in Syria, it’s hard to understand how they would still think that,” she observed.

Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, “consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading,” adding, they “take pains to assure the world they don’t think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?”

“In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror,” she said. “Even though President George W. Bush was obviously confused and mistaken when he called Islam a ‘religion of peace’ the day after 9/11, he wasn’t deliberately exonerating the perpetrators. Surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood agents of influence, he simply didn’t understand.”

Much more at WND

The Islamic Terror Orchestra

377919105 (1)Center For Security Policy, By Nonie Darwish:

It has been 13 years since 9/11 and the West is still reluctant to link the non-ending parade of jihad groups with Islam. The West is also in denial about the similarities all radical Islamic groups share. It is important for the West to realize that there is a natural division of labor between the different terror groups. Some groups specialize in terror against non-Muslims and Western governments while others specialize in terrorizing Arab governments that refused to follow Sharia. But the truly sophisticated groups are those who reside in the West, calling themselves ‘moderate’ while at the same time defending and controlling the direction of Islamist goals through advocacy, diplomacy, negotiation and PR.

All of the above types of Islamist groups work together in perfect harmony like an orchestra that sings to the tune of “Allahu Akbar.” And when Islamic terrorism and beheadings anger the world and turn public opinion against Islam, that orchestra starts playing a different tune to confuse and prevent the world from uncovering their coordinated handy work. While one group proudly takes credit for the terror, another publicly denounces it. But most groups, while enjoying the power and attention the terrorists have bestowed on them, stand by with a look of victimhood saying: “I am a victim too because you condemn me and my peaceful religion when I did not do anything. That is not Islam and you are an Islamophobe.”

Not only is there division of labor amongst Islamist groups, but these groups also often change roles, tactics and appearances — after birthing other more radical terror groups to do the dirty work of terror. Because the West and some Arab governments refuse to deal with terror organizations, these organizations play a game of presenting a face of rehabilitation and moderation, while delegating the terror and assassinations to newer groups. Old guard terror groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and Fatah were able to change color and they assumed a new, but only cosmetic, appearance of moderation, but not before birthing the more violent Al-Qaeda and Hamas.

The West was told the MB and Fatah were now the moderate and humanitarian face of Islam that could be counted on and that could run Islamic government. Islam will present itself as working with the rest of the world only for the sake of establishing the Kalifate. The West has been only too happy to welcome the new face of the old terror groups to the camp of moderation. But the new face of evil after the MB became Al-Qaeda.

When the MB won the Egyptian elections, Islamists believed the Kalifate could be achieved through elections, avoiding the usual violent jihad. But when Egyptians realized they had made a mistake by electing the MB and 35,000,000 Egyptians revolted against Islamist rule, the dreams of a Kalifate through peaceful elections were defeated. The only solution for Muslims to achieve their Kalifate is the old fashioned way of 7th century Islam: pure violence, savagery and terror; thus the rise of the newest Islamist terror group, ISIS, while the MB takes a back seat.

When Al-Qaeda’s reputation tanked after 9/11, even inside the Middle East, the terror jihadists were forced into working under a new name — same goals, but with a more ferocious appetite for terror and torture. After the defeat of the budding Islamist State through elections in Egypt in 2013, the restrained beast of public beheadings hidden in the Islamic genie bottle finally exploded for the world to see in the form of ISIS; an organization that declared itself as the true long-awaited Islamic State. Force became the only choice. Coincidentally, this follows the example of Mohammed who tried to peacefully Islamize Mecca for 13 years but failed and could only Islamize Arabia by force, terror and the sword when he became a warrior in Medina.

ISIS rushed to declare itself as the Islamic State even before finishing the job of conquering all of Iraq and Syria. It was flaunting its savagery to the world in the hope of giving the message to reluctant Arab countries that they will be next. The plan is very similar to what Mohammed and his followers did in the 7th century: conquer Arabia quickly by force so they could move to more important goals of taking over the outside world, now the West and Israel. By doing that they are confirming to Muslims around the world that terror works and that their prophet Mohammed was correct when he said: “I have been victorious through terror.”

Bottom line: What legitimate Islamic organizations must adhere to is obeying Islamic commandments to conquer the world for Islam, defeat and humiliate non-Muslim nations and establish the Kalifate — to be ruled by sharia. That is the plan. It is not the opinion of the writer of this article, but it is the basic objective of Islamic law books, scriptures and preaching, which explicitly define jihad as a war with non-Muslims to establish the religion of Islam. To facilitate this mission, Islamic law freed Muslims from any restrictions on their behavior; they can wage offensive wars, kill, terrorize, behead, lie, deceive, humiliate, slander, use corporal punishment on women and children, and sacrifice the well being of the family, all for the purpose of the empowerment of Islam.

But instead of properly facing the 21 Century Islamic challenge, the West has chosen denial. Obama is being criticized for resorting to golf in a time of trouble, but that is perhaps his only outlet when he feels paralyzed, because what he believed and advocated Islam to be and what it is turned out to be polar opposites.

Also, instead of facing the incompetence and many obvious weaknesses of Islamic terror groups, the West has chosen to appease an enemy that only respects power. Thus, the Obama administration decided to be more concerned with appearances and saying instead of doing the right thing. For example, Obama likes to correct Americans on the proper pronunciation of Arabic names and expressions such as Pakistan and ISIL instead of ISIS, etc. But when the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria was declared the West was too embarrassed to call it what it called itself, the Islamic State, and found the English abbreviation ISIS more appropriate than the Arabic name that linked the new terrorist state to Islam.

I was recently asked by visitors from Egypt, “What is ISIS?” My answer was, it is the preferred name the US administration and media use to refer to the newly declared Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Their response was, “Why? In Arabic they call themselves ‘The Islamic State?’” I told them it is a long story, but the West does not want to offend Muslims who believe that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, tyranny and hatred.

Obama insists on presenting himself as more of an expert on Islam than the founders of ISIS when he stated, “ISIL speaks for no religion.” It is not appropriate for the US government or media to define what is or what is not Islam to Muslims who are reading from their books statements that command them to kill infidels. All we should do is take them for their word.

Both the US government and media have decided, long before Obama, that it would be the wise thing to do to keep US citizens uninformed about the true goals of Islam. The goal of this policy was partially to convince Islamic terror groups to leave the West alone and perhaps in the long run Islam will reform on its own one day. But unfortunately history was not on the side of this theory. Appeasement did not work for Coptic Christians in Egypt nor for Zoroastrians in Persia when in the 7th century the two ancient civilizations fell to the Arab Islamic invasion in the same year. Both Egypt and Persia tried to appease but failed to win hearts and minds of the Muslim invaders who used the most barbaric forms of terror and tyranny to Islamize and Arabize both civilizations. Both Egypt and Persia never saw their glory days again and today they are incapable of ruling themselves without the usual Sharia-enforced oppression and tyranny.

What everyone misses here is the right of the American people to know the full truth about their new enemy directly and honestly from their politicians and media. By caring about the feelings of Muslims more than American citizens’ right to the truth, and without naming Islam by name, the US government and media will usher America into a dark phase marking the beginning of tyranny and the end of liberty.

 

 

JAMES FOLEY AND THE MESSAGE ISIS SENT

By Leonard O. Benton:

Sun Tzu The Art of War.

18.  All warfare is based on deception.

22.  If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

III Attack by Stratagem 18.Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself; you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

 _______________

We know ourselves. But history has proven effectively that we do not know our enemy. We keep making the same mistakes and not learning from them. This is why the Middle East is in turmoil and will remain so until we actually learn to understand.

When James Foley was on his knees, he became the symbol for every American. From the way he was dressed, to his lack of hair, to the way he was killed was all a deliberate act of contempt against America and a demonstration of not only how ISIS sees us, but how they intend to treat us.

The murder of James Foley was a declaration of unlimited warfare.

The color orange is a modern day version of saffron, which to Islam is the color of non-believers clothing. Islamic men are warned never to wear saffron-colored clothing for this reason. We of the West chose orange for prison jump suits. We chose it for the ability to readily see and therefore making it difficult for a prisoner to hide; two messages in one.

Did you see? Did you understand? James was dressed in the colors of the unbeliever. If you did not understand that, you failed to understand your enemy.

He was on his knees to represent the subjugation of the non-believers by the Faithful.

His head was shaved. We might see this as a psychological, identification, or health reason. In Islam, a shaven head is only permissible by the faithful at very specific times. Otherwise, a shaven head is to humiliate and subjugate. Again, we see Islam standing over a humiliated America.

He was shaved.  A beard is an item of beauty in Islam. It lends credibility, it gives honor, it attests to wisdom and faithfulness. If you could ask a SOF operator why they had a beard, part of the reason was the mere fact that having one gave them more credibility.

By not allowing a beard, they again stated that James was less than they, was without wisdom, was unjust and worthy only of death as they see all in the West who do not wear beards. A beard was the gift of Allah to Adam. Denying the right to a beard denies the right to Allah.

One would have to know what to look for to see that the declarations had been cast before the first cut was made. This is not a simple matter and it is not something that is going to go away.

 

"America, can you hear me now?"

“America, can you hear me now?”


His executioner was dressed in black, but several other objects were readily apparent. He was wearing a shoulder holster, which is typical of Western Forces. U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan who carried pistols while on base popularized this style of holster. The executioner is wearing Western style desert boots and his accent is from England.

If you think any of this is coincidence you do not know your enemy. Those three characteristics tell us that this man is a member of the Western society or wants to appear that way. He says he is among us and will walk beside us and we will never know he is there.

The act of execution itself is another message. In Islam, it is still permissible to execute criminals by beheading. However, this is usually completed with a sword. To use a small knife is to show contempt to your captive. Foley was not worth more than a knife because he was less than an animal.

James Foley was not executed — he was slaughtered like a farm animal and was given just as much dignity. His killer would have no concern over the suffering of a goat dispatched this way and showed us he had no concern over a fellow human being because a goat deserves no remorse in how it’s killed.

The knife was in the left hand. The left hand is unclean in Islam and thus, again they degrade their victim by stating he was unclean and therefore worth nothing. Killed with no more regard than that of a farm animal, but using the left hand to send the clear message that Foley was unclean. It was to state that this death was so pointless that it has no meaning.

The placement of the body and the head is also symbolic. The holiest site in Islam is Mecca. Observing the shadows cast on his face in the video and the likelihood it happened in the morning, James was facing Mecca being judged. But his body was laid perpendicular to Mecca and his head faced left. Again, this shows contempt for those without faith.

In that one short video showcasing the brutal death of an innocent man, the Islamic State sent a plethora of contemptuous messages. Everything symbolized, implied and carried-out in that video was there for a very specific reason. It was as carefully choreographed as any Hollywood production or Broadway play.

It was a message designed to whip up a frenzy of emotion and retribution. It was also designed to show the power of ISIS in their conquest of Syria and Northern Iraq. Why use someone with a readily identifiable British accent? They wanted to show that ISIS accepts anyone to high positions of responsibility to the cause regardless of their native-born country.

Read more at The Havoc Journal

Nothing to Do with Islam, Part 2

image_update_imgBy Bruce Thornton:

To read Part I, click here.

In his comments on the jihad being waged by the Islamic State in northern Iraq (ISIL), President Obama recycled yet again the shopworn false knowledge about Islam that continues to compromise our response to Muslim violence: “So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day.”

Over at the New York Post, a columnist rightly took the president to task by saying, “You can’t divorce the Islamic State from religion.” Unfortunately, the column is full of numerous misstatements that perpetuate the illusion that there is some peaceful, tolerant version of Islam that has been distorted and twisted by “extremists” or “fundamentalists.”

According to the writer, adherents of any faith can misread sacred texts literally in order to justify violence: “The problem isn’t just literalist interpretations of the Koran: The New Testament, the Jewish Torah and many other religious books contain explicit calls for disproportionate punishments and killing of nonbelievers.” Forget the false assumption that we are supposed to read all sacred texts allegorically rather than literally. I’d like to see the verses from the New Testament that explicitly instruct Christians to kill non-believers rather than try to convert them. On the contrary, Jesus preached, “Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5.38), and “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5.43).

Concerning other interactions with non-believers, Jesus instructed his disciples, “And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town” (Matthew 10.14).  Because there are no explicit commands to kill non-believers in the New Testament, over the ages Christians who have justified violence with scripture have had to engage in tortuous interpretations and misreadings that over time have not been able to gain traction among all the faithful. That’s why despite widespread persecution across the world today, there is no major Christian terrorist movement.

Compare, in contrast, the Koran’s explicit calls to violence against non-believers, such as Koran 4.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan.” This is consistent with the famous command in 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah.” If someone wants to argue that “fight” is intended metaphorically in these verses, and has been “twisted” by a “literal” reading to serve some fringe interpretation, consider 4.74: “Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of Allah––whether he is slain or gets victory––Soon shall we give him a reward.” Obviously in this verse and numerous others “fight” means physical battle in which people are “slain.” Contrary to Christian scripture, in traditional Islamic doctrine non-believers who are invited to convert and refuse the call are not left alone, but killed or, if they are Jews or Christians, sometimes allowed to live in humiliating submission under a treaty that Muslims can break at any time for any reason.

As for the Torah, the list of verses allegedly commanding death for non-believers that crop up on anti-Biblical and atheist websites has nothing to do with gentiles. A favorite is Deuteronomy 17, which commands death for those who “transgressing his covenant” have “gone and served other gods and worshipped them.” But this is clearly a reference not to gentiles, but to Hebrews who have betrayed the covenant between God and the Jewish people by violating the first Commandment. So too with numerous other verses produced to prove that the Hebrew God ordered the Hebrews to kill gentiles. On the contrary, all these verses describe capital punishment for crimes committed by Jews, such as apostasy, witchcraft, adultery, fornication, and the like. Nowhere is there a verse commanding, like Koran 9.29, wholesale warfare against all gentiles who refuse to become Jews.

As for the orders given to Hebrew kings in the Old Testament to destroy another town or tribe, these are specific to that particular time, place, and people, and reflect the brutal warfare universal at that time. They are history, not theology. We may find such draconian punishments or collective violence distasteful, but they certainly do not comprise the sort of theology of violence against all non-believers that is found throughout the Koran and Islamic doctrine.

Read more at Front Page

ISIS: Guided by the Koran

antiisiswien-6Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, August 24, 2014:

Two weeks ago we posted about the march in Vienna in support of persecuted Christians in the Middle East. Below is a subtitled video of a speech given by Christian Zeitz on that occasion, concerning the Koranic basis for the actions of ISIS and the nature of Islamic law. In addition to his translation of the video, Rembrandt Clancy has provided us with an explanatory introduction.

Introduction
by Rembrandt Clancy

Below is a video of a demonstration against the “Islamic State” which took place in Vienna on 10 August 2014. The speaker is Christian Zeitz, Scientific Director of the Institute for Applied Political Economy in Austria. According to Internet portal unzensuriert.at, where he has published guest commentaries, Mr. Zeitz studies the theory of democracy, monetary theory, Islamology and the sociology of religion.

Mr. Zeitz raises two subjects in the video for which it is perhaps worthwhile to provide some background: the Ridda wars and the Austrian Islam Act of 1912.

The Ridda Wars

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the current IS leader and self-proclaimed Caliph, takes his name from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, who according to tradition was an early friend of Mohammed’s. Upon the prophet’s death in 632, Abu Bakr became the prophet’s “rightly-guided” successor and the first Caliph. It was he who sponsored the Ridda or Apostasy Wars until his death in 634. The aim of the wars was to re-establish Muslim hegemony over Bedouin tribes on the Arabian Peninsula after they had fallen away from the faith. Raymond Ibrahim describes these first jihads this way:

Many Arab tribes were still willing to remain Muslim, but had second thoughts about paying zakat money to the first caliph, Abu Bakr. That was enough to declare jihad on them as apostates; tens of thousands of Arabs were burned, beheaded, dismembered, or crucified, according to Islamic history.

Indeed, Qaradawi himself, while discussing the importance of killing any Muslim who apostatizes from Islam on a live Al Jazeera program, correctly declared that “If the penalty for apostasy was ignored, there would not be an Islam today; Islam would have ended on the death of the prophet.”

The Austrian Islam Act of 1912

Christian Zeitz also refers briefly to the Islam Act (Islamgesetz) of 1912 (English, French and German versions), which the Emperor Franz Joseph (1830-1916) promulgated for the purpose of integrating Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Habsburg Monarchy. In a recent articlefor Gates of Vienna Mr. Zeitz details the background to the Act and outlines what is at stake:

Austria will soon have to decide whether it wants to establish in orderly fashion the primacy of the secular state versus the aspirations for an Islamic divine state, or intends to allow a further embedding of radical variants of Islam.

The Gatestone Institute has an article “Austria: Muslim Brotherhood’s New European Headquarters” (4 June 2014) which analyses why Austria’s Islam Act of 1912 provides attractive, external legal conditions for the Muslim Brotherhood that do not exist in any other European country.

Video Credits

Henrik Ræder Clausen did the technical work on the original footage. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff supplied the German transcript, without which this project could not have gone ahead. She was also responsible for taking the video footage of the demonstration. Translation and subtitling are by Rembrandt Clancy.

 

Video Transcript

 

 

Clare Lopez: The Islamic State is Following the Example of Muhammad

844173151Center for Security Policy:

The Center’s Clare Lopez debates Mike Ghouse on Sean Hannity’s radio show on the Islamic State (IS), Islam, doctrinal basis for IS atrocities.

Beheading as Symbolic Warfare

bn-450x251by Dawn Perlmutter:

The videotaped beheading of American journalist James Foley on Tuesday August 19th has shocked the American public even though there has been thousands of beheadings by Islamist jihadists around the world. Last week at the Annual International Association for Identification (Crime Scene) Conference I presented a three hour lecture titled Beheading Epidemic and it was not nearly enough time to cover the forensic and investigation aspects of this widespread global phenomenon.

The videotaped murder of James Foley demonstrates the evolution of beheading as a jihadist tactic made popular by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor group of the Islamic State Army. The similarities and differences are significant. James Foley’s execution involved the classic Al Qaeda forensic signature. Similar to the dozens of Iraqi and foreign hostages that were beheaded by Al Qaeda in Iraq, James Foley had his hands cuffed behind his back, was kneeling in front of his captor and was dressed in the orange clothing symbolic of the type worn by detainees in U.S. prisons and Guantanamo Bay.

Al-Zarqawi’s videotaped ritual beheadings typically included a reading of offenses, confession, judgment, last words, execution, and a verbal statement of demands. The executioner was dressed in military type uniform consisting of black clothing, including ski mask covering his face and prominently displaying the murder weapon, his knife. The ritual pattern typically began with a statement from the executioner reciting the reason for the death sentence, which alluded to current political events, usually teeming with religious language justifying the violence, praise for Allah and often containing future threats. The victim then had the opportunity for last words; sometimes he confessed to being a spy or whatever the group had coerced him into confessing, or pleaded with the audience to acquiesce to the kidnappers’ demands and secure his release. At that point the head was cut off with a small knife by the leader, held in the air and then placed on the victim’s back.

Differences in the ISIS beheading video of James Foley include the high production value, outdoor scenic space and slick editing. Instead of an interior space decorated with terrorist group banners, it is a stark outdoor scene with just blue sky and desert as background placing all focus on the two men and the message to America. Instead of a flag hanging on the wall behind several terrorists, the ISIS black flag emblem is flying in the top left corner occasionally displaying the al-furqan media emblem underneath. Instead of nasheeds playing in the background, the quiet emphasizes both Foley’s scripted speech and the Jihadists threat to kill more Americans. Significantly the sound of screaming, the image of blood gushing out of the wound and the praising of Allah has been edited out. The only bloody graphic is a quick screen shot of the head placed on the center of the back of Foley’s body, proof of death and the classic Islamist Jihadist forensic signature. The impact of the film immediately cutting to and ending with the image of Steven Sotloff, another American journalist dressed in the same orange jumpsuit, the obvious next victim if President Obama does not meet their demands, is exceedingly powerful.

The most significant difference in the James Foley beheading video is the absence of religious language, particularly praising Allah during the execution. There should be no doubt that Allah was praised while cutting Foleys throat and that detail of the murder was deliberately edited out. Praising Allah ritualizes the murder and justifies the violence in the name of Islam. It is extremely atypical that the executioner and other participants during beheadings would not shout the phrase Allahu Akbar. The editing demonstrates that the focus of this propaganda video was political. The message to the American public was that Foleys death was not the result of Islamist ideology but that his death was the consequence of America getting involved in the war against ISIS. This message will most likely resonate with many Americans and illustrates the media savvy of ISIS.

Other than the ritual execution the most disturbing aspect of the murder is that the terrorist is speaking with a British accent. This high production beheading video served several purposes. One was to pressure the American public to stay out of Iraq and Syria and it also functions as a recruitment video for more Westerners to join ISIS. The British jihadist earned his stripes by murdering Foley and he will become a rock star among other radicalized Westerners.

Read more at Front Page

Voice of James Foley’s Executioner:

Published on Aug 20, 2014 by Pamela Geller

 

Also see:

New Bill Warner video: Jihad vs Crusades

Published on Aug 20, 2014 by Bill Warner

Whenever you’re dealing with an apologist for Islam, or even a Muslim, and you bring up jihad, almost immediately, they kickback to you: “But what about those terrible crusades? Why they’re the moral justification for jihad and we’re just as bad as they are. So let’s not talk about jihad, okay? Let’s talk about the Crusades.”

Well, what I would like to talk about here, are facts. I created a database of 548 battles that Islam fought: jihad battles against classical civilization. This isn’t even all the battles. It doesn’t include battles Africa, India, Afghanistan and other locations. It’s primarily at data base of the battles against the classical civilization of Rome and Greece.

548 battles are a lot; too many to comprehend. So I created a dynamic battle map with displays of the Mediterranean in 20 year increments. On the display, a white dot designates a battle during the twenty-year period, a new battle. Every time the screen changes to the next 20 year period, the previous white dots turn red and a new set of current battles  are shown with white dots so you can see the unfolding history. This may seem a little confusing, but when you see it you’ll know exactly what I mean.

As the dynamic display starts, Islam bursts out of the Arabian Peninsula and immediately starts attacking the Middle East. Notice that it is not long before there are battles across the Mediterranean and attacks in southern France, and Spain.

Notice something else: when most people think of Islam, they think of Arabs; and of desert. Yet here we see that Islam is projecting power throughout the Mediterranean. Notice how the little islands of the Mediterranean are getting hammered. The navy of Islam would attack coastal towns, kill, rob, rape, and then take slaves. As this entire battle map unfolds, slaves are taken. Over a million slaves were taken from of Europe into the Islamic world. It’s something you don’t think about, but it’s absolutely true.

There were over 200 battles fought in Spain alone. We also see, however, on the east coast, in Turkey, that Islamic forces attempt to break into Europe. What happens in Spain during this ongoing fight that lasted for 400 years is that the Christians push back the Moslems. But what happens in the East is that Constantinople falls and now then eastern Europe gets hammered. The jihad comes to Eastern Europe. It’s pushed out of Spain, but northern Africa becomes completely Islamic, and the Middle East is completely Islamic.

This is all jihad, relentless jihad. And why is it so relentless?

Well, Mohammed was relentless in his jihad, and these people are good students of Islam. And so it’s jihad against the Kafir, endlessly.

It was traditional that when a new Sultan came to power, he would immediately attempt to launch new wars because he would be noted in Islamic history as to how well he fought against the Kafir.

So that’s what the jihad looked like over that time period: 548 battles. But remember, when you bring up jihad, people want to bring up the Crusades. So I also prepared a dynamic battle map of all the offensive raids of the crusaders. Let’s watch it and make a comparison.

As it begins, the Crusades enter Turkey and the Middle East; battles ensue. But there are far fewer than you might think. And in short order, the map concludes. The last battles are fought and the Crusades are over.

Now we can talk about some facts! Yes, there were Crusades. But notice that they ended centuries ago, and jihad is still being practiced today. Jihad has been with us for 1400 years. There is no comparison between jihad and the Crusades; certainly not a moral comparison. And when you’re looking at the Crusades, remember, in one sense the Crusades were defensive wars. Why? As we saw in the first jihad map, it was Islam that came out of Arabia and conquered the Middle East, a Christian Middle East. The crusaders were trying to free their Christian brothers and sisters from jihad. So there’s no moral comparison all. The motivation of the crusaders was to free Christians; the purpose of jihad was, and still is, to enslave the Kafir.

So, the next time you hear somebody talk about “those dreadful Crusades”, respond to the facts of the matter. Speak up and tell that person, “You don’t really know the facts!”

HOLTON: The Enemy Knows We’re In A World War, But We Don’t

IS

We’re in World War IV (the Cold War was World War III) and we are so terrified by the brutal reality of it that we refuse to accept it. It makes no different to the Jihadists of the Islamic State. They’re at war with us and they are on every continent. That’s pretty much the definition of a World War.

Will America’s leaders wake up?

By Christopher Holton:

With the emergence over the past 18 months of the Islamic State (IS), the West, led by the U.S., now finds itself in a world war, whether we want to believe it or not.

The Islamic State is not simply an Iraqi problem or a Syrian problem. IS has metastasized into a worldwide organization with 20,000 recruits from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, the U.S., Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Spain, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Germany. Even worse, Jihadists from Boko Haram in Nigeria, Abu Sayyef in the Philippines, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Northwest Africa and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula from Yemen have all pledged allegiance to IS.

There can no longer be any doubt that the global Islamic insurgency that some have been warning about for some time, amounts to a world war. Nevertheless, policymakers here in the U.S. continue to ignore or deny this reality.

Over the period of a generation, the West has allowed itself to be thoroughly infiltrated by a savage and barbaric belief system. This is evidenced by the global base of recruitment that the Islamic State has been able to take advantage of and the numerous public displays of support for IS in the West.

In Germany, IS supporters actually attacked Kurdish Yazidis living there, mimicking the action by their fellow savages in northwestern Iraq where IS is committing genocide ,while most of the world looks on and does little or nothing to stop it.  We can only hope that German authorities are taking action to crack down on this activity, because if it isn’t stopped in the most forceful manner, it WILL get worse and worse to the point that stopping it will amount to full-blown counterinsurgency operations within their own borders.

In The Netherlands in July, pro-IS demonstrators marched with the black flag of the Islamic State, chanting “Death to Jews.” It’s 1936 all over again in Europe. Authorities are just sitting back passively as savages express their intention to target Jews.

In Austria, a fan club of sorts for IS has sprung up, complete with a Facebook page. Note that in the article about this group the author points out that he can’t find any evidence that the mosque associated with the group actually exists. This actually shows an ignorance of mosque organization. Many mosques operate in peoples’ homes and businesses in the West, with no overt, formal displays or organization.

It certainly doesn’t help that, when Westerners choose to exercise free expression with anti-IS protests, authorities have stifled them. While public safety is certainly paramount, isn’t it an ominous sign when Jihadist activity in the West prompts the government to stifle legitimate, peaceful demonstrations? That’s exactly what happened in The Netherlands this month,when a Dutch anti-IS rally was canceled as “too provocative.”

This should prompt Dutch authorities to think twice.  Mustn’t there be a critical public safety threat from Jihadists if those who disagree with them can’t even hold a protest? And if that is the case, shouldn’t the Dutch intelligence and law enforcement agencies be working to disrupt and take down those Jihadists?

The Islamic State isn’t just garnering support in Europe. IS is also getting jihadi recruits there as well. It is estimated that some 3,000 Western European Muslims have traveled to the Middle East to join the Islamic State’s Jihad—including young girls from The Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria. Perhaps the best known case involved a 14-year old girl from Spainthat was recruited to IS.

Part of the recruitment of Western females has been done on Social Media, including Facebook and usually involves Muslim women doing the recruiting. This is a sure sign that Jihadist doctrine has thoroughly embedded itself in the Islamic community in Europe. Again, a savage, barbaric belief system has mushroomed over the past generation right under the noses of western Europeans who are supposed to know the importance of freedom.

Not all of the recruitment in the West is happening on the internet and social media. Recently, IS supporters were seen openly recruiting on the streets of central London, handing out literature promoting the Caliphate.

Think about the implications of this for a moment. Here we have a case in which people are openly promoting and recruiting for a terrorist organization on the streets of a Western democracy that they have sworn to conquer and authorities appear to be taking no action whatsoever to stop it. We are through the looking glass.

Read more at The Hayride

Also see:

James Foley’s Sister Kelly: ‘Don’t Watch Video of my Brother’s Beheading’ #ISISMediaBlackout

Twitter users urged not to watch or share video of US journalist James Foley's beheading by 'British jihadist' in Syria(Nicole Tung/Free James Foley)

Twitter users urged not to watch or share video of US journalist James Foley’s beheading by ‘British jihadist’ in Syria(Nicole Tung/Free James Foley)

By Tabatha Kinder:

As the world reacts with horror to the graphic video apparently depicting the beheading of US photojournalist, James Foley by an Islamic State (IS) jihadist with a British accent, Twitter users are calling for a media backlash against the propaganda released by the militants.

The hashtag #ISISMediaBlackout began trending shortly after the video was released by IS on YouTube on Tuesday night, as Twitter users urged others not to share the video or any other graphicimages released by the terrorist organisation.

The trend appears to have originated with a woman using the Twitter handle @LibyaLiberty. She wrote: “Amputate their reach. Pour water on their flame.

From here on out, I won’t share any photo or video of violence intentionally recorded & released by ISIS for propaganda. #ISISMediaBlackout”

Isis

Twitter @LibyaLiberty

The video of Foley’s purported killing was removed from YouTube shortly after it was put online.Graphic still images from the video have also been removed from Twitter, but the video continues to circulate on other websites.

Foley’s sister Kelly has also implored people on Twitter not to watch or share the video of her brother’s apparent beheading.

Many believe that sharing the images of Foley’s gruesome killing on social media plays into the hands of the Jihadist group, whose large social media presence has been a key tool in recruiting new members and in disseminating their islamist ideology to the world.

Wajahat Ali, an al-Jazeera America journalist, said: “Don’t share ISIS’s beheading video of journalist #jamesfoley. That’s what they want – don’t give them the satisfaction.”

Isis

Twitter @WajahatAli

Others say images like this result in mass desensitisation to violence, which leads to a global acceptance of violence.

An Iraqi Twitter user named Sajad Jiyad wrote: “In Iraq our children became desensitised to images of killings because it’s always shown, don’t let that happen elsewhere.”

Read more at International Business Times

A Timely Reminder: Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

This entire presentation is well worth watching. Bill Warner’s famous animated map of 1200 years of Islamic conquest in 70 seconds begins at about 11 min. into the video.

Published on Aug 31, 2012 by Tin Ship Productions

Why Is the Islamic State Behaving This Way?

390510-456a0a56-fa56-11e3-9463-539ac6ca705b-450x314By Robert Spencer:

The Islamic State is turning into a huge public relations problem for groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies. For years they have insisted that Islam is a religion of peace that has nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorism committed with alarming regularity in its name, and that the people responsible for linking Islam with terrorism were not Islamic jihad terrorists, but “Islamophobic” opponents of jihad terror. But then comes along a group calling itself The Islamic State, committing unimaginable atrocities and presenting each one as an authentic embodiment of Islamic texts and teachings, and the deception campaign at which CAIR officials have labored so assiduously for so many years, and with such great success, is in danger of crashing around their uneasy necks.

Take, for example, the recent revelation that, according to the UN News Centre, “some 1,500 Yazidi and Christian persons may have been forced into sexual slavery.” A similar kidnapping by Islamic jihadists in Nigeria recently horrified the world, but much overlooked was the fact that such behavior is sanctioned by the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general, as does this passage. “Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6).

These passages have not gone unnoticed. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:

Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

Read more at Front Page

Also see: