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

 

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

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

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

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

Germany’s “Sharia Police”

by Soeren Kern:

According to Burkhard Freier, the director of domestic intelligence for North Rhine-Westphalia, German Salafists are increasingly inclined to use violence to achieve their aims, and many have travelled to Iraq or Syria to obtain combat training.

“The intention of these people is to provoke and intimidate and force their ideology upon others. We will not permit this.” — Wuppertal Mayor Peter Jung.

“In Germany, German law is determinative, not Sharia law.” — Christian Democratic Union (CDU) politician Volker Kauder.

Salafist ideology posits that Sharia law is superior to all secular laws because it emanates from Allah, the only legitimate lawgiver, and thus is legally binding for all of humanity. According to the Salafist worldview, democracy is an effort to elevate the will of human beings above the will of Allah.

Muslim radicals have begun enforcing Islamic Sharia law on the streets of Wuppertal, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, the state with the largest Muslim population in Germany.

In what government officials say is a blatant challenge to the rule of law and the democratic order in Germany, groups of young bearded Islamists — some wearing orange traffic safety vests emblazoned with the words “Sharia Police” — have declared parts of downtown Wuppertal to be a “Sharia Controlled Zone.”

The self-appointed guardians of public morals have been distributing yellow leaflets that explain the Islamist code of conduct in the city’s Sharia zones. They have urged both Muslim and non-Muslim passersby to listen to Salafist sermons and to refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, listening to music, pornography or prostitution.

A seven-minute propaganda video in German, entitled “Sharia Police: Coming Soon to Your City,” shows a group of men led by a German convert to Islam, Sven Lau, roaming the streets of Wuppertal at night and pressing wayward youth to embrace radical Islam. In some instances, the men physically attempted to prevent young people from entering bars, casinos and discotheques; those who resisted were pursued and intimidated.

Sven Lau chats on the street with locals in Wuppertal, in “Sharia Police: Coming Soon to Your City”.

After local residents alerted German authorities, police stepped up their presence in downtown Wuppertal and also established a telephone hotline to enable citizens to report any possible criminal activity.

Local authorities, however, appear uncertain about how to proceed.

Wuppertal Police Chief Birgitta Radermacher said the “pseudo police” represent a threat to the rule of law and that only police appointed and employed by the state have the legitimate right to act as police in Germany. Sheadded:

“The monopoly of power lies exclusively with the State. Behavior that intimidates, threatens or provokes will not be tolerated. These ‘Sharia Police’ are not legitimate. Call 110 [police] when you meet these people.”

Wuppertal Mayor Peter Jung said he hoped the police would take a hard line against the Islamists. “The intention of these people is to provoke and intimidate and force their ideology upon others,” Jung said. “We will not permit this.”

More than a dozen Islamists between the ages of 19 and 30 are now being investigated on charges of illegal assembly. But the men have not been arrested and police say they have no legal authority to confiscate the orange vests, even though impersonating a police officer is a crime. Wuppertal’s Public Prosecutor, Wolf-Tilman Baumert, says it remains unclear whether the men have done anything illegal. “The mere explaining of religious rules is not a crime,” he said.

The vigilantes are followers of Salafism, a radically anti-Western ideology that openly seeks to replace democracy in Germany (and the rest of the world) with an Islamic government based on Sharia law.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Muslims Sexually Enslaving Children: A Global Phenomenon

FrontPage Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic Supremacism and Rape

67497087_vxpc19itNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy:

As recounted in Ian Tuttle’s bracing reports (here and here) about rapes committed by Muslims in Rotherdam, England, this is a longstanding European scandal the cover-up of which brings shame – more shame – to the Western media. In my 2010 book The Grand Jihad, on the Islamist-supremacist threat to the West, I described rape by Muslim immigrants as “the unspoken epidemic of Western Europe.” The book goes on to discuss the unmentionable Islamic doctrinal and cultural underpinnings of the epidemic:

As a violent jihadist tactic, [rape] has long been an infamous weapon in the Sudanese Islamist regime’s genocidal arsenal, used first against Christians and animists in the south in the early Nineties and, more recently, in western Sudan against the Muslims of Darfur, whom Islamists judge to be insufficiently Islamic.  Now, with the tide of immigration, jihad by rape has been imported to Europe, where indignation by the politically correct press is predictably reserved not for the perpetrators but for the few journalists willing to report on it.

Consistent with [top Muslim Brotherhood sharia jurist] Sheikh [Yusuf] Qaradawi’s aforementioned view that the rape victim is to blame for her plight if she has failed to adhere to fundamentalist protocols for women’s attire, Shahid Mehdi, a top Islamic cleric in Denmark, has explained that women who fail to don a headscarfare asking to be raped (an admonition also given voice by SheikFaiz Mohammed, a prominent Lebanese cleric, during a lecture he delivered in Australia) (See Sharon Lapkin, “Western Muslims’ Racist Rape Spree”, FrontPageMag.com, Dec. 29, 2005). Not surprisingly given such encouragement, Fjordman painstakingly documents that it has become a commonplace for young Muslim men to participate in sexual assaults and absolve themselves from culpability. (See here, here and here.) As a psychologist working in the prison system, the incomparable Theodore Dalrymple witnessed the six-fold spike in Britain’s Muslim inmate population between 1990 and 2005.  He bluntly notes that “thanks to their cultural inheritance, [the Muslims’] abuse of women is systematic rather than unsystematic as it is with” white and black inmates. (See Theodore Dalrymple, “Our prisons are fertile ground for cultivating suickde bombers”, The Times of London, July 30, 2005.) Robert Spencer elaborates [in “The Rape Jihad”, FrontPageMag.com, Sept. 24, 2004]:

The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates:  “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.”  Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors.  The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls:  “Forbidden to you are . . . married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).

As atrocious as rape is on its own, the Sudanese experience demonstrates that it is even more harrowing as a component in a broader intimidation campaign.  Writing in Frontpage Magazine, the former Australian army officer Sharon Lapkin has recounted (article linked above, my italics in excerpt):

Retired Australian detective Tim Priest warned in 2004 that the Lebanese gangs, which emerged in Sydney in the 1990s—when the police were asleep—had morphed out of control. “The Lebanese groups,” he said, “were ruthless, extremely violent, and they intimidated not only innocent witnesses, but even the police that attempted to arrest them.”  Priest describes how in 2001, in a Muslim dominated area of Sydney two policemen stopped a car containing three well-known Middle Eastern men to search for stolen property. As the police carried out their search they were physically threatened and the three men claimed they were going to track them down, kill them and then rape their girlfriends. . . .  As the Sydney police called for backup the three men used their mobile phones to call their associates, and within minutes, 20 Middle Eastern men arrived on the scene. They punched and pushed the police and damaged state vehicles. The police retreated and the gang followed them to the police station where they intimidated staff, damaged property and held the police station hostage.  Eventually the gang left, the police licked their wounds, and not one of them took action against the Middle Eastern men. Priest claims, “In the minds of the local population, the police are cowards and the message was, ‘Lebanese [Muslim gangs] rule the streets.’”

The situation, Lapkin learned, was the same in Malmo, Sweden’s third largest city, where police concede that they are no longer in control.  Muslim immigrant gangs rule the streets.  To make their dominion emphatic, even ambulance personnel are routinely attacked and abused.  They won’t go into many neighborhoods without police protection, and the police, in turn, will not enter without additional back-up.

Islamists are taking the measure of the West and finding it to be a shallow, self-loathing husk.  When Muslims riot over mere cartoons, the intelligentsia’s first impulse is to condemn the publisher.  After an Islamist terrorist’s brutal murder of Theo van Gogh, who directed Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s screenplay “Submission,” about the treatment of women in Islam, the first impulse of the Netherlands was to encourage Ms. Hirsi Ali to leave the country.  In Birmingham, a conservative group called the “English Defense League” has demonstrated in opposition to what it is careful to call militant Islam, stressing that it has no quarrel with Islam or with Muslims who do not wish to change British law or life.  Predictably, Muslim groups reacted violently, exhorted by imams at the Birmingham Central Mosque to show the umma’s“solidarity.”  The first impulse of the British media?  To side with the rampaging Muslims, whom they portrayed as heroic “anti-fascists”—fighting side-by-side with their socialist allies, to challenge the “anti-Islamic” activists of the right-wing.” (See hereand here.)

These are but a surface scratch of the mosaic that gives Sheikh Qaradawi such confidence that Islam will “conquer” Europe—that Islam is this minute conquering Europe—and that it will eventually bring America to heel as well.

*************

“From Pakistan to the Streets of Oxford – Understanding the Ideological Foundation of Sexual Abuse in Islam”

 

Also see:

Why the Arab World Is Lost in an Emotional Nakba, and How We Keep It There

A Palestinian protester aims sparks from a flare toward Israeli security forces during clashes near the Israeli checkpoint in Hebron on Feb. 25, 2013. (Hazem Bader/AFP/Getty Images)

A Palestinian protester aims sparks from a flare toward Israeli security forces during clashes near the Israeli checkpoint in Hebron on Feb. 25, 2013. (Hazem Bader/AFP/Getty Images)

But the problem goes far beyond Israel and her neighbors. As anyone paying attention knows, the Salafi-Jihadis, who have “hijacked” Islam the world over, embody this self-same honor-shame mentality in its harshest form: the existential drama of humiliate or be humiliated, rule or be ruled, exterminate or be exterminated. Dar al Islam must conquer dar al Harb; independent infidels (harbismust be spectacularly brought low, their women raped; Islam must dominate the world … or vanish. The language of Shia and Sunni Jihadis alike reverberates with the sounds of honor, plunder, dominion, shame, humiliation, misogyny, rage, vengeance, conspiracy, and paranoid fear of implosion.

By Richard Landes:

Anthropologists and legal historians have long identified certain tribal cultures—warrior, nomadic—with a specific set of honor codes whose violation brings debilitating shame. The individual who fails to take revenge on the killer of a clansman brings shame upon himself (makes him a woman) and weakens his clan, inviting more open aggression. In World War II, the United States sought the help of anthropologists like Ruth Benedict to explain the play of honor and shame in driving Japanese military behavior, resulting in both intelligence victories in the Pacific Theater and her book The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Taking her lead, the great classicist E.R. Dodds analyzed the millennium-long shift in Greek culture from a “shame” culture to a “guilt” culture in his Greeks and the Irrational, where he contrasted a world in which fame and reputation, rather than conscience and fear of divine retribution, drive men to act.

But even before literary critic Edward Saïd heaped scornon “honor-shame” analysis in Orientalism (1978), anthropologists had backed off an approach that seemed to make inherently invidious comparisons between primitive cultures and a morally superior West. The reception of Saïd’s work strengthened this cultural relativism: Concerns for honor and shame drive everyone, and the simplistic antinomy “shame-guilt cultures” must be ultimately “racist.” It became, well, shameful in academic circles to mention honor/shame and especially in the context of comparisons between the Arab world and the West. Even in intelligence services, whose job is to think like the enemy, refusing to resort to honor/shame dynamics became standard procedure.

Any generous person should have a healthy discomfort with “othering,” drawing sharp lines between two peoples. We muddy the boundaries to be minimally polite: Honor-killings, for example, are thus seen as a form of domestic violence, which is also pervasive in the West. And indeed, honor/shame concerns are universal: Only saints and sociopaths don’t care what others think, and no group coheres without an honor code.

But even if these practices exist everywhere, we should still be able to acknowledge that in some cultures the dominant voices openly promote honor/shame values and in a way that militates against liberal society and progress. Arab political culture, to take one example—despite some liberal voices, despite noble dissidents—tends to favor ascendancy through aggression, the politics of the strong horse,” and the application of “Hama rules”—which all combine to produce a Middle East caught between prison and anarchy, between Sisi’s Egypt and al-Assad’s Syria. Our inability, however well-meaning, to discuss the role of honor-shame dynamics in the making of this political culture poses a dilemma: By keeping silent, we not only operate in denial, but we may actually strengthen these brutal values and weaken the very ones we treasure.

Few conflicts offer a better place to explore these matters than the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Read more at Tablet

The Conditions Of Omar

caliph-omar-conditions-ofCitizen Warrior:

Greg Hamilton came up with another brilliant idea (to see more of his ideas, subscribe to Malsi-Tung). Hamilton lives in a very Muslim area in Britain and he rides the train a lot. He wanted a way to educate his fellow non-Muslims about Islam without endangering his life. His solution is ingenious: To simply wear a button that says, “Enjoy the conditions of Omar.” It is such an innocent message, and somewhat ambiguous. Certainly nothing to get riled up about, even for a Muslim.

 
Of course, most people won’t know what it means. But most people can Google it, and the curious will. What they’ll find is eye-opening.
 
Ideally, they will find the web site Hamilton has created. If enough counterjihad sites link to it, like I am about to do, his site will rise to the top spot on a Google search for “conditions of Omar.” His site is here. And this is what it says:Dear Reader,

The Pact of Omar was a treaty drawn up between Muhammad’s successor Caliph Omar and the conquered Christians and Jews in his domain. The Pact was based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people. It set out the rules Christians and Jews had to abide by in order to be protected from further jihad attacks. This pact formed the basis of the Conditions of Omar.

Verse 9:29 of the Koran sets out the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. It says,

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

In Islamic parlance “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews — they have a book (other religions at the time didn’t have a book). Under conquest they had a third choice other than conversion to Islam or death; this was to live under Sharia as inferior people suffering various humiliations, one of which was the jizyah, a tax levied only on non-Muslims. The non-Muslims are known as dhimmis (pronounced dimmees).

The relationship that the Conditions set up has the following characteristics:

  • Jihad violence is held off (like a dragon on a chain) as long as the dhimmis do not breach the Conditions
  • If the Conditions are breached (even by one dhimmi) the jihad violence is resumed against any or all of the dhimmi community
  • Dhimmis therefore lived in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear. Each dhimmi and the dhimmi community as a whole faced a perpetual concern lest anyone breached the Conditions and brought about catastrophe
Other than paying the non-Muslim poll tax or jizyah what conditions had to be kept?Dhimmis were forbidden from:

  • Criticizing or mocking Islam or Muhammad. Only praise for Islam and Muhammad was allowed
  • Criticizing the Conditions of Omar: the very conditions of subjugation under which they lived
  • Testifying against a Muslim in court
  • Studying Islam – thus keeping them ignorant of its teachings
  • Cursing a Muslim
  • Raising a hand against a Muslim, even in self-defense, on pain of having it amputated
  • Displaying their religious symbols

These are only a sample of the Conditions, chosen to highlight why they are relevant today — which I will come to later. There were geographical and historical variants on the Conditions but they all held to the same theme — the humiliation and subjugation of non-Muslims and the maintenance of multiple forms of discrimination against them.

The Conditions also worked in conjunction with each other. For example, if a Muslim accused a Christian of a capital offence, such as trying to convert a Muslim, the Christians’ own testimony was not valid in their defence.

Dhimmis were ‘protected’ as long as they met the Conditions. If a dhimmi community (or any member of it) broke the Conditions it was the duty of the local Muslim community to restart the jihad against them.

The Conditions also worked in conjunction with each other. For example, if a Muslim accused a Christian of a capital offence, such as trying to convert a Muslim, the Christians’ own testimony was not valid in their defence.

Dhimmis were ‘protected’ as long as they met the Conditions. If a dhimmi community (or any member of it) broke the Conditions it was the duty of the local Muslim community to restart the jihad against them.

A key outcome of this scenario is the desire of non-Muslims to avoid confrontations with Muslims and to police one another to prevent deviant individuals destroying the ‘protection’ of the Conditions.

Pakistan is a Muslim country where the Conditions of Omar are operating to some degree today. In March 2013, because one Christian was accused of blasphemy, some 3,000 Muslims attacked the Christian Joseph Colony of Lahore, burning two churches and 160 Christian homes.

In 2009 in Gojra, eight Christians were burned alive, 100 houses looted and 50 homes set ablaze after another blasphemy accusation.

We can see why dhimmis live in a state of perpetual concern for the potential impact of their personal actions on their whole community.

May 5th 2014, Bangladesh, a 3,000 strong Muslim mob attacked Hindu households and a temple after two youths were alleged to have slandered the ‘prophet’ Muhammad on Facebook.

These are just a few examples to show how the Conditions are applied in practise and that they are still active today. Islam as a body of belief has never discarded them and never will because, realistically, it can’t. You can read many more examples of the Conditions in action today if you look up Raymond Ibrahim’s Bulletin of Christian Persecution online. His book, “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christianity” is also very informative.

You might like to believe that the application of Islamic law or Sharia is receding. It isn’t. Over the last 60 years Sharia worldwide has been extending and intensifying. See here.

And that brings us to the here and now.

Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries have brought Sharia with them. The Conditions of Omar are simply a subset of Sharia which sets out how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims under conquest.

You might well say that what Muslims do to Hindus or Christians or other non-Muslims in Bangladesh or Pakistan is none of our business. That is called the death of conscience.

You might well say that we have not been conquered. That is only partly true. A process of conquest is underway.

The Conditions of Omar are being established today right under our noses. They may not be coming about because we are under occupation but they are being established as norms of behaviour. Sometimes we are imposing the Conditions on ourselves as a gesture of goodwill or to prevent discrimination; sometimes we are imposing them due to fear of jihad terrorism or angry rioting; sometimes they are established by default.

One of the subtle ways we are surrendering to the Conditions is by policing what non-Muslims can say about Islam and Muslims. See thisexample.

Anyone living among Muslims today knows that being openly critical of Islam or Muhammad is risky. Plenty of examples have set the precedent: in 2004 Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a film critical of Islamic attitudes to women; in 1989 Salman Rushdie was forced into hiding after writing The Satanic Verses, his Japanese translator was murdered; in 2004 the Danish cartoons episode erupted in which 162 people around the world were killed during protests, again demonstrating how some Muslims will kill people totally unrelated to the ‘offence’.

These are a small selection but they point to two clear principles: (1) the author of something considered critical of Islam is liable to be killed; (2) anyone can be killed in revenge against the non-Muslim world. Both of these conform to rules set out in the Conditions.

As a result of such actions and threats most publications refused to print the cartoons. Public figures came to the defence of a religion they knew nothing about. Those seeking to rock the boat further by printing the cartoons became the targets of condemnation rather than the Muslims threatening violence.

Again, this conforms to the Conditions and the behaviour of dhimmi populations who feel vulnerable and threatened. The dhimmi populations turn to self-policing in order to prevent deviant individuals triggering violence from Muslims. This strategy buys into the idea that its entirely up to non-Muslims to refrain from behaviour which upsets Muslims — a dhimmi outlook.

The principle has become established that non-Muslims should not confront Muslims about their behaviour or their beliefs. Only praise of Islam is allowed. This is submission – especially in view of the fact that Islamic beliefs call for the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.

Read more at Citizen Warrior

Imam made a Mockery of Pope Francis at Vatican Ceremony

20140617_VatikanImame1402954514108Family Security Matters, by ALAN KORNMAN:

On June 8, 2014 at a ‘Peace Gathering’ in Vatican City, prayers from a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish cleric that were meant to draw different faiths together, got horribly derailed by the truth.

The Palestinian Imam, in Arabic, who called for “victory over the nation of unbelievers” knowingly made a mockery of the Pope’s attempt at interfaith dialogue and reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians.  The Imam quoted the last Ayat of Surah Baqara which calls for Islam to reign supreme over all the non-Muslims.

This Palestinian Imam did us all a huge favor by spelling out in clear Arabic what the definition of Peace is for the followers of Islam.  When Islam is victorious over the non-Muslims, then and only then, will there be Peace between the Christian, Muslim, and Jews on earth.  That my friends is a call for domination and submission not equality and tolerance.

 

The Vatican Response 

On June 10th, Jesuit, “Fr.” Bernd Hagenkord, SJ, editor at the German-speaking offices of Vatican Radio, says the claim that the Muslim cleric ended his prayer with a quote from the Koran or with a petition against infidels is “nonsense” (source here )

On June 12th, Vatican Radio acknowledges the Palestinian Imam recited the controversial Qur’an passage but said it doesn’t matter, one has to understand how Muslims pray. 

Conclusion 

Hamed Abdel-Samad who originally exposed what the Palestinian Imam said in Arabic explains what happened this way.

“Pope Francis had invited two political leaders in a prayer of “prayer for peace” in the Vatican gardens, 8 June 2014…by using the usual ploy when Palestinian say they want peace when they speak English, and war when speaking in Arabic. The Imam did not produce the text in English that he knew would be refused. The Imam expressed to the world who speaks Arabic he was not about peace with Israel, but to ask that Allah gives victory to the Palestinians. 

Palestinian Arabs have benefited from the international forum that offered them the Pope to advance peace, and they have deceived, betrayed, and planted him in Arabic, a knife in the back.” 

I am sorry to have to tell you this, but there is no separation of religion and politics in Islam.  This fact was validated less than a week ago when Sunni Islamic terrorists ran their successful offensive Jihad taking over Iraq and replacing it with the Black Flag of Islamic Jihad and strict Shariah Islamiyya (Islamic Law).

The only thing separating the Palestinian Imam truth teller in this story and the violent Jihadis are tactics.  This Palestinian Imam may not be carrying an AK-47 at the moment but he is advancing the Civilization Jihad against the non-Muslims.

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional coordinator of The United West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His email is: alan@theunitedwest.org

*************

Gates of Vienna Reveals Cover Up of Imam’s Prayer at Vatican, by Jerry Gordan:

Our colleagues at Gates of Vienna posted a translation of a Muslim Imam prayer  captured on video at the Vatican on June 8, 2014 that exposed the real message, “Make us Victorious Over the Tribe of Unbelievers“.  The Vatican edited a video of  the Imam’s prayer to exclude a crtical portion of  the Sura upon which his personal prayer was based. Essentially,  he went off message. Instead of conveying the taqiyyah of peace and tolerance, the Imam opted for praying to his God Allah for supremacism over his unbelieving Vatican hosts. The irony was that in the process of the cover up  the Vatican committed the religiously sanctioned act under Islamic doctrine of Kitman, not telling the whole truth by omission thereby excluding the full context. The oh so politically correct Vatican under Pope Francis simply air brushed the Imam’s prayer so as to avoid controversy. However, in the end through diligence, translation and exegesis, the cover up was revealed. Many thanks to Baron Bodissey, Vladtepes.blog and  Dr. Andrew Bostom for revealing the missing context of the Imam’s personal prayer with its anti-Christian and anti-Semitic context by two recognized Islamic commentators .

Here’s the story:

As we have reported extensively over the past week, a Muslim imam who was invited to participate in the “prayer for peace” event at the Vatican on June 8 went off-script and asked Allah to help him gain victory over the unbelievers. The Vatican at first denied that any such thing had happened, and an edited video of the event was released that supported their denial — the end of Sura 2 Verse 286 that the imam quoted from the Koran had been judiciously removed from the publicized version.

Below is the full video of the imam’s part of the Vatican ceremony, as provided by an Arabic TV channel. Many thanks to ritamalik for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the editing, subtitling, and general project management.

The translator notes that the personal prayer with which the imam concluded was not the controversial part of the ceremony, since his choice of prayer was generally unexceptional. His quotation of the last verse (286) of Sura 2 of the Quran, however, is what made his words controversial.

Read more with transcript of the video

 

Tens of thousands demand Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia be turned into a mosque

1299668013-z9ura808IPT, by John Rossomando

Tens of thousands of Turkish Islamists held a triumphalist gathering outside Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia museum on Saturday. Originally built as a cathedral in 537 by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian, it was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans following the fall of Constantinople in 1453.The former religious site was re-opened as a museum in 1935. The Islamists who prayed at the site on Saturday did so with the hope that it would be converted back into a mosque by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The protest also coincided with the anniversary of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople on May 29, 1453, an event for which Erdogan has encouraged the celebration.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish republic, converted the massive structure into a museum in 1935.

For Turkey’s Islamists, Hagia Sophia serves as a symbol of Islam’s triumph over Christianity.

“Ayasofya is a symbol for the Islamic world and the symbol of Istanbul’s conquest. Without it, the conquest is incomplete, we have failed to honor Sultan Mehmet’s trust,”Reuters quoted Salih Turan, head of the Anatolia Youth Association, as saying. The association claims it has collected 15 million signatures asking for Hagia Sophia to reopen as a mosque.

Details of the conquest and Hagia Sophia’s conversion from being a church into a mosque stand in stark contrast to the picture of Islam that Islamists want to portray – that of a tolerant and ethical faith. Islamic law might forbid the slaughter of innocent non-combatants during times of war, but that was not what happened in Hagia Sophia the day Constantinople fell.

The late Sir Steven Runicman, widely regarded as one of the greatest scholars of Byzantine history, noted that Ottoman soldiers under Sultan Mehmet’s command entered the cathedral and indiscriminately slaughtered men, women, children and the elderly. Mehmet’s personal imam then climbed into the pulpit to proclaim the shahada, transforming Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

Sheik Abdullah Basfar, the imam of the Ka’aba in Mecca, who led Saturday’s prayer gathering outside Hagia Sophia, has a history of extremist rhetoric. In a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), he notably stated in September 2005 that funding the Palestinian jihad against Israel was a religious “duty” of all Muslims.

Erdogan’s government, however, says no plans currently exist to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

The world’s 350 million Eastern Orthodox Christians still look to Hagia Sophia as one of the most sacred places in their faith – a reminder of the Christian Byzantine Empire that stood for over 1,000 years.

Hagia Sophia’s place in the Orthodox consciousness was such that a group of American Greek Orthodox Christians similarly and unsuccessfully tried to hold services there in 2010. Talk about converting Hagia Sophia into a mosque has provoked strong condemnation from the Greek government, which issued a statement in November 2013, saying talk about “converting Byzantine Christian churches into mosques [is] offending the religious feeling of millions of Christians.”

The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I, the world’s most senior Orthodox bishop, similarly condemned the effort, saying it should remain a museum or be reopened as a church.

Transforming Hagia Sophia back into a mosque would necessitate the whitewashing of priceless treasures of Byzantine iconography.

Turning Hagia Sophia into a mosque reinforces the narrative that Muslims seek to subordinate other religions to Islam, and it reinforces the idea of a clash of civilizations.

“It would strengthen the mutual suspicion and polarization between the West and the Muslim world,” Sahin Alpay, professor of political science at Bahcesehir University,told Reuters. “All hell breaking loose is a high price to pay.”

Pope’s Visit Coincides With Campaign Against Christian School

by Khaled Abu Toameh:

“It is a Christian school and if you want to put on a hijab, go to a Muslim school.” — Razan, east Jerusalem.

Some Christian families said they considered bringing the issue to the attention of the Pope and his entourage but were afraid to do so for fear of retribution.

It remains to be seen whether the Pope or the Vatican will do anything to help the school’s administration in the face of the campaign of intimidation and threats.

Pope Francis was probably unaware that during his visit to Bethlehem earlier this week, a Christian school in east Jerusalem was being attacked by Palestinian families for allegedly banning their daughters from wearing the hijab, the veil that covers the head of Muslim women.

The families claimed that the administration of Rosary Sisters’ School had prevented their daughters from attending a graduation ceremony because they were wearing the hijab.

The school decided several years ago that it would not allow Muslim girls to attend graduation ceremonies while wearing the hijab. The decision has triggered a war of words between supporters and opponents of the ban and highlighted tensions between Christians and Muslims.

On May 22, the families, in an unprecedented move, staged a demonstration against the Rosary Sisters’ School, accusing its directors of “racism” and “intolerance”.

The demonstration is seen as a sign of long-simmering tensions between Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem and the West Bank, especially Bethlehem.

Palestinians often avoid any public discussion of tensions between Muslims and Christians due to the sensitive nature of the issue. The Palestinian Authority, for its part, went to great pains to show the Pope and the rest of the world that Muslims and Christians live in harmony and mutual respect.

During Pope Francis’s visit, Palestinian Authority leaders and spokesmen blamed Israel for the plight and exodus of Palestinian Christians. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told the Pope during their meeting in Bethlehem on May 25 that Israeli actions have driven “many Christians and Muslims to emigrate.”

Of course the Palestinian Authority did not tell Pope Francis anything about the smear campaign that was being waged by Muslims against the Rosary Sisters’ School in east Jerusalem.

At the demonstration outside the girls’ school in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina, protesters shouted slogans against the administration and carried placards that read, “No To Racism,” “Hijab Is A Personal Freedom” and “Enough To Racism.”

Some of the protesters pointed out that the hijab had “triumphed in France and Europe” while it was being banned by a school in east Jerusalem.

It was the first time that Muslims had demonstrated against a Christian institution in the city. The families of the 17 girls who did not attend the graduation ceremony were joined by dozens of Palestinian Muslims who joined the campaign against the Christian school.

 

Three of the hijab-wearing students pictured at a demonstration against Rosary Sisters’ School.

Um Mohamed, the mother of one of the girls who were reportedly banned from attending the graduation ceremony, said she and other parents had reservations about their daughters being forced to appear in public without the hijab.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Boko Haram Kidnaps 3 More Women in War Against West

Nigerian protest

Boko Haram’s leader Abubakar Shekau:”This is a war against Christians and democracy and their constitution.”

BY RYAN MAURO:

As the international manhunt for the 276 girls kidnapped by the Boko Haram terrorist group continues, the group has abducted three more women, the two daughters and a wife of a retired police officer.

The abduction happened as the terrorists hindered the manhunt by blowing up a second bridge and engaging in violence that forced 3,000 people in the town of Liman Kara near the Cameroon border to flee. The Nigerian government believes that Boko Haram is possibly planning an attack on a market.

Nigeria has been the center of global attention since Boko Haram, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, kidnapped nearly 300 girls at a boarding school during the night of April 14. About 50 were able to escape. One escapee said she ran away when she was sent to get water and was shot at as she fled. Another girl described hiding in bushes for a day after jumping from a vehicle transporting the victims. Eleven more schoolgirls were taken on May 4.

According to Amnesty International, the Nigerian government received intelligence four hours ahead of time about an impending attack in the area after locals saw armed men riding motorcycles to the location. The Nigerian military denies the allegation.

“There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell. He commands me to sell. I will sell women,”  said Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau in a video taking credit for the kidnappings.

Shekau justified his group’s actions based on his interpretation of Islamic law, or Sharia.

“I am going to marry out any woman who is 12 years old, and if she is younger, I will marry her out at the age of nine, just like how my mother, Aisha, the daughter of Abubakar, was married out to Prophet Mohammad at the age of nine,” Shekau said according to an English translation of his speech.

“Slavery is allowed in my religion, and I shall capture people and make them slaves,’ he declared.

Read more at Clarion Project

Muhammad and the Birth of Islamic Supremacism: The War With The Jews 622-628 A.D.

Today’s jihadists consistently refer to the Qur’an, hadith, sira, commentaries on the Qur’an (tafsir), the shari’a (Islamic law) and the military success of the first 1000 years of Islamic history to support the idea that Islam will eventually triumph over the infidel.  They believe in the long view of history.  September 11, 1683, is a pivotal date in Islamic history.  Osama bin Laden referred to it soon after the attacks on America on 9-11.  On September 11, 1683, Ottoman Muslim forces were repulsed from taking over Vienna, Austria.  The attack on the World Trade Center was a Muslim jihadist way of saying, “We’re back.”  To repeat: today’s jihadists are motivated because of Allah’s revelations and his messenger’s words and actions.  

MuhammadFront Page, by  on November 21, 2012

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is David Hayden, the author of the new book, Muhammad and the Birth of Islamic Supremacism: The War With the Jews 622-628 A.D.  

FP: David Hayden, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s begin with what motivated you to write this book.

Hayden: I’ve always had a keen interest in history, but my knowledge of Muslim history was quite deficient until the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and the failed attack on the White House on Sept. 11, 2001.  I wanted to understand the ideas and motivations of the attackers.  Powerful ideas had to support such a brazen attack on civilian populations.  All of the suicide attackers were Muslims.  What was it in their belief system that persuaded them that such heinous acts were the moral thing to do?  To answer such questions I began a search to learn everything I could about Islam.  I read well over 100 books about Islam including 14 biographies of Muhammad, the Qur’an, numerous hadith (especially Bukhari, Muslim, and Dawud), several tafsir (commentaries on the Qur’an), Muslim and non-Muslim historians and commentators, and countless articles from both print and online sources.   

FP: So what did you learn and what is your book primarily about?

Hayden: The research led me to focus on Allah’s revelations and Muhammad as the messenger and enforcer of those revelations.  Without both the revelations and the messenger the idea of Islamic supremacism would not exist.  A detailed study of the Qur’an, hadith (collected sayings and actions of Muhammad, and sira (early biographies of Muhamad) led me to this conclusion. I focused on Muhammad’s contentious relationship with the Jews of Medina and the Hejaz region of Arabia because this relationship brings into focus the birth of the idea of Islamic supremacism. 

FP: What is different about your book from other books on the subject?

Hayden: I have not encountered another source which has covered Muhammad’s war with the Jews with the same thorough depth and breadth as I have.  The book is filled with the voices of Allah, Muhammad and his companions, commentators on the Qur’an, poets, warrior/jihadists, Muslim and non-Muslim historians and commentators.  A variety of points of view are presented throughout the book as well as my interpretation of these differing views.

FP: Tell us about your research. What are some of the sources you drew most heavily from?

Hayden: As stated above, I relied heavily on the Qur’anthe hadith (especially Bukhari, Muslim, and Dawud; the three most respected collectors of the hadith); and the biographies of Muhammad (especially Ibn Ishaq, Martin Lings, Muhammad Husayn Haykal, al-Mubarakpuri,  Ibn Sa’d, Maulana Muhammad Ali,  Maxime Rodinson, W. Montgomery Watt, Robert Spencer, Karen Armstrong, Sir John Glubb,  M.J. Kister, and Gordon Darnell Newby).  

FP: Crystallize for us the foundations of Islam.

Hayden: Islam’s foundations begin with Allah’s revelations to his messenger.  According to Orthodox Islam the Qur’an has always existed and can never be changed.  Islamic law, the Sharia, has to conform with the Qur’an and the Sunna (the hadith and sira, both of which must conform to the Qur’an).  Support for the idea of Islamic supremacism can be found in all three of these documents.  Pious Muslims involved in violent jihad base their beliefs and behavior on these documents.   

FP: Share with us how you recovered the historical truth of Mohammad’s war on the Jews and how it marked his rise to power.

Hayden: I tried to find the historical truth of Muhammad’s war with the Jews through persistent research of the sources.  In each of the major points of contention during the 622-628 years, Allah through revelations and Muhammad through his words and actions tend to place the blame on the hypocrites, poets, pagans and infidels in general, but the Jews primarily received the brunt of Muslim attacks on its enemies.

Jewish poets, Asma Marwan, Abu Afak, and Ka’b Ibn al-Ashraf, criticized Muhammad for causing the battle of Badr by his failed attempt to raid a wealth-laden caravan returning from Syria; Muhammad had them assassinated. The Jewish Banu Qaynuqa tribe was accused of treachery and mockery of Muhammad; he had them exiled and their wealth confiscated after they surrendered.  The Jewish Banu Nadir tribe was accused of plotting to kill Muhammad (with flimsy evidence); Muhammad commanded them to leave “his country.”  They refused but surrendered after their castles were besieged by the Muslims.  They, too, were exiled and their wealth confiscated.  The Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe tried to remain neutral during the Battle of the Ditch between the Muslims and the Meccan-Jewish-Ghatafan confederation, but reluctantly agreed to help due to the persistent urging of a Banu Nadir leader.  But the sources show no evidence that they actually aided those who were trying to defeat the Muslims. After a Muslim victory, Muhammad had the adult males of the Qurayza Jews beheaded and their women and children enslaved, plus all of their land and wealth were confiscated.

A year later, Muhammad attacked the Jewish settlements at Khaybar, defeated them, confiscated their land and wealth, and effectively began the system of dhimmitude with the Jews who remained to work the land for the new owners.  In each of these episodes, the Jews were always the “treacherous” ones according to the Muslims who told the story. At no time, however, did a Jewish tribe attack the Muslims; the reverse was true in every case. Some Jews were reportedly involved in helping defeat Muhammad, but no evidence could be found that a Jewish tribe, as a collective group, ever attacked the Muslims.

The pattern goes like this:  the treacherous Jews are accused of some misdeed which has little factual support; the Jews are given a chance to accept Allah and his messenger; the Jews refuse and are attacked by the Muslims who further accuse the Jews of starting a war; after several weeks of trying to defend their property and lives the Jews surrender; the Muslims either exile the surviving tribe, or in the case of the Qurayza Jews, behead the males and enslave the women and children and confiscate all their land and wealth.

In every case the Muslims view the Jews as the aggressors and Muhammad and his companions as victims of such aggression.

Supporting this Muslim point of view is the Qur’an.  Numerous verses are sharply critical of the Jews, including Allah’s talk of terrorizing them himself and leading the charge in battle such as at Badr.  Muhammad had to be quite smug knowing that Allah supported his efforts to take on the Jews.  Likewise, the hadith and sira provide evidence for the aggressive behavior of Muhammad in each of these cases. Islamic supremacism for the sake of Allah permeates the early Islamic literature.  A belief in this supremacy undergirds Muhammad’s rise to power. 

FP: So, what motivated the jihadists for the 9-11 attack?

Hayden: The 9-11 jihadists believe in the idea of Islamic supremacism.  They are quite serious and sincere about their faith.  In their hearts and minds, they believe they are truly following in the footsteps of Muhammad, the perfect man, who simply carried out the commands of Allah through revelation.

Today’s jihadists consistently refer to the Qur’an, hadith, sira, commentaries on the Qur’an (tafsir), the shari’a (Islamic law) and the military success of the first 1000 years of Islamic history to support the idea that Islam will eventually triumph over the infidel.  They believe in the long view of history.  September 11, 1683, is a pivotal date in Islamic history.  Osama bin Laden referred to it soon after the attacks on America on 9-11.  On September 11, 1683, Ottoman Muslim forces were repulsed from taking over Vienna, Austria.  The attack on the World Trade Center was a Muslim jihadist way of saying, “We’re back.”  To repeat: today’s jihadists are motivated because of Allah’s revelations and his messenger’s words and actions.    

FP: Why does our mainstream media and higher literary culture never speak a word on the things your book talks about? What are the consequences of this denial and ignorance in our culture?

Hayden: Both the mainstream media and higher literary culture in the United States seem to have a penchant for believing Islam is a religion of peace. While it is probably true that a good percentage of Muslims in America are law-abiding and peaceful, my research has led me to understand that the Qur’an,  hadith, sira, tafsir, and 1400 years of Islamic history can be interpreted to support the idea of Islamic supremacism and violent jihad as core Islamic beliefs.

So why do the mainstream media and literary elites tend to ignore this interpretation and focus on the peaceful side of Islam?  Fear is one explanation.  The jihadists’ use of terror against the West has succeeded in silencing many in the media who might otherwise try to report the truth honestly.  Journalists, professors, and politicians tend to bend over backwards not to criticize the basic tenets of Islam which present the religion in a bad light.  Some of Allah’s revelations reveal the Muslim belief in the divine use of terror.  After the Muslim victory over the Quraysh (Meccans) at the Battle of Badr, Allah revealed this verse:

“When the Lord inspired the angels [saying to them], ‘I am with you; so make those who believe stand firm.  I will throw FEAR into the hearts of those who disbelieve.  Then [you angels] smite their necks and smite of them each finger’” (Qur’an 8: 12).

In another verse dealing with a battle against the Qaynuqa Jews of Medina, Allah said: “So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse [create terror in] those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson” (Qur’an 8: 57).

Allah also revealed how he cast terror into the hearts of the Qurayza Jews:

“And those of the Book who aided them–Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners” (Qur’an 33: 27).

As terror worked against the Jews in the 7th century, so has it worked with our mainstream media, politicians, and cultural elites.

Some liberals and progressives tend to not have fear of Islamic terror; they actually support the goals of jihad.  In an exchange with an editor of a progressive book publishing company, I was told that the thesis of my book was “strange.”  He went on to make this revealing statement:

“We now believe that all cultures in spite of their differences have ‘human dignity.’  There is no war of Muslims against Jews now. What we have is the last gasps of a dying Euro/America which seems determined to kill as many people of the world as it can while it still has any breath remaining.  The era of Euro/American hegemony is passing but it is not going out peacefully. There is no rationale for our current wars other than pure viciousness.  Jews are Europeans.  That’s what makes them enemies.”

He says America/Israel are the causes of the world’s problems; Islamic jihadists are simply fighting to make social justice a reality.  The left’s romance with social justice makes them bedfellows with the jihadists.  Both of them are totalitarian, against free market capitalism, and anti-liberty in their stated goals.  It is easy to understand why “they never speak a word” about the contents of my book.  But eventually, they too may well be in the crosshairs of the supremacists.

Our culture cannot afford to remain ignorant of Islamic supremacism. The jihadists have declared America enemy #1 for Islam.  Knowledge precedes understanding.

FP: What are your main conclusions and what is your advice and warning for the West and its leaders?

Hayden: My research of Muhammad’s relationship with the Jews of the Hejaz has convinced me that modern-day jihadists have a better understanding of Muhammad than do those who see his schtick as a man of peace.  Muslim supremacists do, however, believe in peace, but they say true peace will not reign until after Islam has become supreme and Allah’s law, the sharia, is accepted all over the world.  In the meantime, jihadists have the green light to create violent mayhem both in the lands of the disbelievers and against the disbelievers in Islamic lands.  They use terror or a tactic to intimidate the infidel; that includes all non-Muslims and those in the Islamic fold they consider to be heretics.  This presents an existential problem for peaceful Muslims.  As perceived enemies of Islam and Muhammad, they too are in the crosshairs of the jihadists who recognize them as apostates from the true faith.  Our political and military leaders, plus the wonks who implement U.S. foreign policy, need to drop all the political correctness and take an Islamo-Realist approach.  In order to do that, they have to understand the nature of Islam starting with the birth of Islamic supremacism which began with Allah’s revelations and Muhammad’s role as messenger/enforcer of them.

FP: David Hayden, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

David Hayden is a retired English teacher from Memorial High School in Evansville , Indiana. As an avid student of history, he began an inquiry into why Muslim jihadists killed so many innocent people on Sept. 11, 2001. The answers to this question led him to write a history of the birth of Islamic supremacism. Hayden has a Master of Arts degree in history from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. Inquiries to the author should be sent to: birdbrainproductions@ ymail.com

 

 

Islam’s Religious War with Everyone

islam1-450x320by :

Few divides are as impossible to bridge as those of religion. You either believe or you don’t.

When it comes to Islam, non-Muslims are expected to take its goodwill on faith. If you believe your eyes and ears, Islam and violence go together like peanut butter and jelly. But if you believe Muslims and their spin doctors with academic degrees, Muslims are the victims of other religions.

If Muslims fighting Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are the victims of non-Muslims, what are we to make of Muslims fighting other Muslims in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq? Religious civil wars make it hard to believe that Muslims are the victims of other religions instead of the authors of their own violence.

Religions have a long history of not getting along with one another, but there is only one religion that has never gotten along with any other religion, is engaging in a religious war with every religion that exists, with atheists who have no religion, and even with its own co-religionists.

Is all this violence someone else’s fault? Or is it Islam’s fault?

Muslim hostility to Christians and Jews is not a phenomenon that began with the modern State of Israel or American foreign policy.

Muslims have warred with Christians and Jews as minorities and persecuted them as majorities. Academic apologists claim that Muslim hostility toward Christians derived from an ongoing conflict, but at no time during the history of Islam until the twentieth century did the Jews have a functioning state.

Israel has conveniently become the focus and explanation for Muslim hostility toward Jews, but that fails to explain over a thousand years of Muslim hatred and persecution … long before Herzl or the IDF.

Why did Muslims persecute and kill Jews long before Zionism was even a word? For the same reason that they killed Christians.

Islam hated Judaism and Christianity from the start. The Koran urges Muslims not to befriend Jews or Christians (Koran 5:51) speaks of “enmity and hatred” with Christians (Koran 5:15) and the Jews (Koran 5:65) who are also to be cursed. The Jews are accused of “creating disorder” (Koran 5:65) and Christians are accused of worshiping their priests (Koran 9:31). The Jews and Christians believe in evil things (Koran 4:52) and Allah’s curse will be upon them (Koran 9:30).

Muslims don’t hate and kill Jews because of Israel. They hate Israel because it is Jewish.

September 11 was part of an ongoing war against Christians dating back over a thousand years.

The real reason why a Muslim carries out a terrorist attack in New York or Boston is the same reason why a church gets burned in Egypt or bombed in Syria. It’s the same reason why teenage British girls get raped and why the Christian population of the Middle East has shrunk from a quarter to a tenth.

Everything else is just Muslim war propaganda that only fools and appeasers take at face value.

The Koran’s scriptural hatred encouraged Muslim warlords to spread Islam through the mass murder, enslavement and rape of Jews and Christians. The legacy of hatred began with the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians from what is today Saudi Arabia and the persecution of Middle Eastern Christians and Jews continues into the modern era.

It is this old hatred that is behind the terrorism against Israeli Jews and Egyptian Christians. It is not a new hatred, but an old one.

The religious basis for everything from Hamas’ war against Israel to Al Qaeda’s war on America derives from these and other verses in the Koran, from teachings in the Hadiths and later rulings of Islamic law.

Terrorism against Christians and Jews cannot be detached from Islam because it is Islam.

When Muslims chant the old genocidal battle cry, “Khybar khaybar ya yahood”, at Oxford or Toulouse University or when University of California Professor Hatem Bazian recites the Hadith that states, “The Day of Judgment will never happen until you fight the Jews”; the fiction that this is a new conflict dating back to 1948 unravels.

Read more at Front Page

THE EFFECTS OF MASS MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

UK-Muslim-Prayer-ReutersBy Pamela Geller:

It was reported Monday that “almost 10 per cent of children under five years old in England and Wales come from a Muslim family, according to 2011 UK Government census information.”

The report continued, “Of the 3.5 million children aged less than five, 320,000 were listed as Muslim. By comparison, Christians make up 43 per cent of those aged under five.”

What is the problem with that? The enemedia would tell you that anyone who thinks this is something to be concerned about is a racist. But this is not really a question of race at all; it’s a question of assimilation. Hindus, Buddhists, South Asians, Africans–all kinds of people have come to the U.K. and the U.S. and had little trouble adapting to their new country. But Muslims are the first group to come as immigrants to the West determined to replace Western government and social structures with Islamic ones. Millions of Muslims come to Western countries with a ready-made model of society and government (sharia) which they believe to be superior to what we have here, and they work to institute it.

What happens to a country when its imports a colonizer force or hostile invader? In Dr. Peter Hammond’s book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, he explains that as Muslim populations grow, so do demands for special accommodation to Sharia. When Muslims number less than two percent of the population, as they do in the U.S. now, they’re generally peaceful and tolerant. As the Muslim population grows, however, so do the demands (as we’re seeing now): for halal meat, Sharia courts, and more.

As the Muslim population grows, so does violent intimidation and lawlessness–an example being the Sharia-ruled areas all over Europe, where the governing authorities have essentially lost control. After Muslim populations reach 20%, we see rioting, jihad militias, church burnings, and worse–and once it reaches 40%, there are massacres and frequent jihad terror attacks, as we have seen in recent years in Bosnia, Chad, and Lebanon.

Read more at Breitbart

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of Atlas Shrugs and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

Pamela Geller On The Islamization of America in 2013

islam-america-afpBy Pamela Geller:

Since I wrote my book Stop the Islamization of America and established the Stop Islamization of America initiative of my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), we have seen increasing accommodation and submission to Islam in the United States. This past year was a particularly good year for Islamic supremacists, who are working furiously in this country to impose Sharia (Islamic law) — and in particular, the blasphemy laws under the Sharia.

The Islamic supremacist approach is stealthier here in the States than it is in Europe, where we see no-go zones, mass car burnings, etc., because Europe currently has a much bigger Muslim population than the U.S. does. More on Muslim immigration here.

That kind of aggression is in our future, for nothing is being done to prevent its coming here. The few of us who dare to speak against Sharia and jihad are blacklisted from the mainstream media’s major newspaper and broadcast outlets. Trimmers (those who soften the message about Islam or speak of “Islamism,” an artificial word making a distinction without a difference) and Islamic apologists are dusted off and trotted out to make some inane comment whenever the mainstream media cannot avoid covering a jihad news story (such as the Boston Marathon jihad bombing). But the effective true voices against Islamization, such as myself, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, and Ibn Warraq are rarely seen these days.

It’s never been as bad as it is now, and we have never been proven so right as we were in 2013. In the U.S., in a survey released at the end of 2012, almost half of the Muslims in America said that they thought parodies of Muhammad should be subject to criminal prosecution. One in eight thought that insulting Islam should be a death penalty offense. Forty percent said that they shouldn’t have to obey U.S. laws, but should be subject only to Islamic law.

These findings should have come as no surprise; they weren’t much different from those of a May 2013 survey of Muslims worldwide. The survey showed that the harshest Sharia punishments enjoy broad support among Muslims the world over: “72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies.” 85% of Muslims in Pakistan, 81% in Afghanistan, and 70% in Egypt supported the most brutal aspects of Sharia, such as amputating the hands of thieves. 86% of Muslims in Pakistan, 84% in Afghanistan, and 80% in Egypt supported stoning for adultery. 75% in Pakistan, 79% in Afghanistan, and 88% in Egypt favored executing those who leave Islam. “91% of Iraqi Muslims and 99% of Afghan Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies.”

And in America, wherever Islamic law and American law conflict, it is increasingly American law that gives way.

Read more at Breitbart

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of AtlasShrugs.com [new website at pamelageller.com] and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

 

‘Merry Christmas’ from the Religion of ‘Peace’

By Paul Wilkinson:

There is an ongoing ruthless de-Christianisation of British society by the elitists advocating multiculturalism and hell-bent on destroying their own culture, identity and heritage, while desperately not wanting to ‘offend’ anybody else’s feelings or beliefs. However this aggressive ‘secularism’ is not just an attack on Christianity, but an assault on the Judeo-Christian values that makes our society what it is.

Multiculturalists have been stripping the nation of a spiritual soul and suppressing Christianity, the religion of the majority. This leaves a vacuum that actively encourages other religions to flourish, which would be fine in and of itself, but the predator of Islam needs no invitation to mount an attack. The only followers of a non-Christian faith intent on eliminating Christmas in their adopted country are Muslims.

According to the 2011 census, ‘officially’ 59% of people in England and Wales identify themselves as being Christian, 25.1% stated no religion, 4.8% are Muslim and the remaining 11.1% account for all other religions and categories combined. Multiculturalists may repeat the “all cultures are equal mantra,” but this ideology turns British culture on its head because it implies that 4.8% of the population in the UK that follow Islam are ‘equal’ with the 95.2% non-Muslim population and the host culture that Islam despises!

This theory is a misnomer because multiculturalism and Islam cannot be promoted together. Islam by its very nature is supremacist, rejects anything that is not Islamic and is fundamentally against multiculturalism. Yet this irrational self-loathing and suicidal political correctness that no one asked for has been forced upon us.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky