Watch What Happens When 3 Muslim Spokesmen Are Asked About Islam’s Death Penalty for Apostasy

A case study in Islamic supremacist deception.

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, March 24, 2015:

A recent episode of the BBC program The Big Questions was anomalous: instead of pumping out more of the usual fog of obfuscation and denial regarding the aspects of Islamic law incompatible with Western standards of human rights and human dignity — as do most BBC shows — it actually featured an honest discussion of Islam’s death penalty for apostasy.

Or it would have, that is, if the Muslim spokesmen on the show had been remotely honest about that penalty. Instead, they offered an instructive case study in how Islamic supremacists deal with uncomfortable aspects of Islam when speaking with infidels.

Despite denials from Muslims in the West, Islam’s death penalty for those who leave the faith is abundantly established.

The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated:

The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.

There is only disagreement over whether the law applies only to men, or to women also — some authorities hold that apostate women should not be killed, but only imprisoned in their houses until death.

The BBC program begins with ex-Muslim Amal Farah of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) and several Muslim spokesmen discussing Islamic law’s death penalty for apostasy. Farah, despite her affiliation with CEMB — which is often more concerned with smearing and demonizing genuine critics of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism than with actually defending apostates from Islam — is the one sane and rational voice in the discussion.

The Muslim spokesmen, by contrast, practice various forms of evasion and deflection, claiming victim status repeatedly. Abdullah al-Andalusi of the ironically named Muslim Debate Initiative is the worst, ascribing Islam’s death penalty for apostasy to “Victorian translations,” claiming that it is only a law in “post-colonial secular states,” and pouting that the BBC is conducting an “Inquisition court.” Note also how he dodges the question of whether or not he condemns the words of UK imam Haitham al-Haddad, who has defended the death penalty for apostasy.

After that, Usama Hasan, author of The Way of the Prophet: A Selection of Hadith, comes across as honest and forthright, but in reality, his obfuscation is just more sophisticated than al-Andalusi’s. He claims that the apostasy law is a product of the early Muslim states, never mentioning what the author of a hadith collection should know and undoubtedly does know: that according to a hadith, Muhammad said:

Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him (Bukhari 9.84.57).

This distinction is important, because if the death penalty for apostasy comes from the early Muslim states, it can be changed, but if it comes from Muhammad, the supreme example of conduct for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21), it can’t.

Finally there is Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, who claims that “we believe in religious freedom. People are free to leave Islam.” Then he is exposed as having branded as a “defamer of the prophet” the professional moderate Maajid Nawaz for tweeting a Muhammad cartoon — a term that carries the death penalty in Pakistan. He backpedals here, while insisting that he was right to “defend” Muhammad.

The yawning absence here is that of a Muslim voice who will simply acknowledge that Islam has a death penalty for apostasy and say that it has to be reconsidered and reformed. There are no such voices. Instead, it’s the same as always: claims of victimization, deflection, blaming of the infidels, claims of hatred for Muslims — the usual responses we have seen thousands of times from Muslims in response to critics of jihad terror.

Obama Peddles Osama’s Propaganda

The Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, March 20, 2015:

Without America there would be no Islamic State.

Indeed, without America there would have been no Cold War. Without the Cold War there would have been no need to arm and train the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Without the Mujahideen there would have been no Al Qaeda. Without Al Qaeda there would have been no Iraq War. And without the Iraq War there would have been no Islamic State. Or as President Barack Obama put it:

ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq which grew out of our invasion which is an example of unintended consequences which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.

Such is the pretzel logic to which one must subscribe if one is to believe the president.

Which is to say that Barack Obama’s argument during a recent interview with VICE News is patently absurd.

(Image Source: VICE News/YouTube screengrab)

(Image Source: VICE News/YouTube screengrab)

But there is something worse than the absurdity of the president’s remarks, his implicit banal Bush-bashing and unwillingness or inability to ever take responsibility for anything – the least of which includes his failure to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq.

President Obama’s argument in the main is that America’s actions in the Middle East create terrorists. But by invoking “blowback,” he is parroting precisely the propaganda that Al Qaeda, Islamic State and other jihadist groups want us to repeat, while ignoring the self-evident truth that their actions come not from without but from within. In so doing, as when he raised the scepter of The Crusades, the president provides a veneer of legitimacy and even moral standing to genocidal Islamic supremacists who seek to destroy Western civilization and create a global caliphate.

The words of Osama bin Laden himself are germane to this argument. Witness what Al Qaeda’s godfather said during a May 1998 interview with ABC’s John Miller:

The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target.

…The wrongs and the crimes committed against the Muslim nation are far greater than can be covered by this interview. America heads the list of aggressors against Muslims.

…They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice.

In a particularly nauseating portion of the interview in which Miller implores bin Laden to “give us the true picture that clarifies your viewpoint” – as opposed to the “distorted picture of Islam, Muslims and of Islamic fighters” presented by “American politicians,” bin Laden continues [emphasis added]:

The leaders in America and in other countries as well have fallen victim to Jewish Zionist blackmail. They have mobilized their people against Islam and against Muslims. These are portrayed in such a manner as to drive people to rally against them. The truth is that the whole Muslim world is the victim of international terrorism, engineered by America at the United Nations. We are a nation whose sacred symbols have been looted and whose wealth and resources have been plundered. It is normal for us to react against the forces that invade our land and occupy it.

Ignored however is the rest of bin Laden’s message [emphasis added]:

…[O]ur call is the call of Islam that was revealed to Mohammed. It is a call to all mankind. We have been entrusted with good cause to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to communicate his message to all nations.

…In our religion, we believe that Allah has created us for the purpose of worshipping him. He is the one who has created us and who has favored us with this religion. Allah has ordered us to make holy wars and to fight to see to it that His word is the highest and the uppermost and that of the unbelievers the lowermost. We believe that this is the call we have to answer regardless of our financial capabilities.

This too answers the claims of the West and of the secular people in the Arab world. They claim that this blessed awakening and the people reverting to Islam are due to economic factors. This is not so. It is rather a grace from Allah, a desire to embrace the religion of Allah.

…I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam. Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion.

This bin Laden interview is crucial because it illustrates the two-sided nature of Al Qaeda’s rhetoric and the rhetoric of jihadists more broadly — appealing on the one hand to the West’s materialism, and on the other to the Middle East’s idealism.

Indeed one of the primary but underappreciated elements of the global jihad is the subtle psychological warfare in which bin Laden engages above by way of the materialist argument.

Understanding the West’s unhealthy sense of guilt and shame, bin Laden portrays jihadists as the oppressed to our oppressor, the victim to our aggressor. Bin Laden knew that repeating such arguments — regardless of their veracity — would have a profound effect on the Western consciousness over time.

Conversely, playing on our moral relativism, multiculturalism and religious tolerance, bin Laden knew that we would fail to internalize his idealist worldview: A worldview formed by the Islamic doctrine that animates jihadists and lays bare their goals, strategies and tactics.

We have accepted the former (materialism) but ignored the latter (idealism), which explains in part why we are losing to the global jihad.

If you disagree with this assertion, consider that we in the West ask “Why do they hate us?” We search in vain for “root causes” of radicalization, and tell ourselves that a group that calls itself Islamic State and follows Muhammad literally perverts Islam or has nothing to do with it at all.

Meanwhile, our enemies self-identify as Islamic jihadists — a jihad compelled by the corpus of Islamic texts – whose end goal is to make the entire world submit to Allah’s rule.

President Obama either out of political correctness, ignorance or a more nefarious impulse damages America’s cause by parroting the victomology that Osama bin Laden knew Western progressives would buy hook, line and sinker.

He gives credence to our enemies’ arguments while implementing an agenda ostensibly to combat them wholly consonant with such a worldview, and thereby wholly ineffectual.

This is the far more consequential and far more dangerous takeaway from the president’s interview than the tired invocation of “Bush’s fault” that Obama’s critics have harped on.

‘A People’s History of Muslims In the United States': Really?

AP

AP

Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, March 17, 2015:

Dr. Susan Berry reported Monday that “among the news items at the radical Zinn Education Project this month is a post highlighting the work of Alison Kysia, author of ‘A People’s History of Muslims in the United States: What School Textbooks and the Media Miss,’ part of the Zinn Education Project If We Knew Our History series.”

The Zinn Education Project is apparently taking a page from the revisionists and cultural despots who for years now have sought to rewrite history and propagate historical fictions via museum exhibits and other historical myth-making techniques in order to destroy our code of values and unprecedented history in defense of human freedom and individual rights.

Berry notes that Kysia lauds the vicious Islamic supremacist Linda Sarsour, a practiced exploiter of the “hate” smear against foes of jihad terror and Islamist supremacism and has never apologized for using the Islamic honor murder of Shaima Alawadi to spread lies about the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims in America. She is also rabidly antisemitic (and, of course, a darling of the Leftist media), and has said that “nothing is creepier than Zionism” and has equated it with “racism.” She is, unsurprisingly, a frequent visitor to the Obama White House and has claimed that the jihad underwear bomber was a CIA agent — part of what she claims is a U.S. war against Islam.

Berry also writes that “Kysia bemoans what she calls ‘the sanitized story of Christopher Columbus’ taught in U.S. history textbooks that she says overlooks the Muslim-led revolt against Columbus’ son Diego on Christmas Day in 1522.”

No doubt Kysia never mentions that Columbus only sailed West from Spain because he was looking for new trade routes to India after the Muslims closed the traditional routes after their conquest of Constantinople in 1453. But she pulls out every leftist club that she and her allies use to beat the West and demonize Judeo-Christian civilization: McCarthyism, Jim Crow, you name it.

650,000 Americans died fighting in the Civil War — but Kysia finds one Muslim soldier to highlight. Is his story even true? It makes no difference to the left and their Islamic supremacist allies. They have to be the victim in order to wage war.

“It’s essential that students know that resistance to colonial domination has always been a part of our history – and Muslims played a role in this resistance from the earliest days,” says Kysia.

This is sharia enforcement: sharia enforcement extends far beyond the obvious attempts to silence critics of jihad and sharia. The scrubbing of the 270 million victims of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations, and enslavements from academic texts has been going on for well over a decade. The demonization and smearing of politicians who dare speak against the most extreme and radical ideology on the face of the earth is virtually automatic at this point, as is the self-enforcing sharia compliance of the mainstream media.

And now we see historical revisionism take on a new life, as history is scrubbed and manufactured Muslim myths are presented as fact.

I have written before about this important but little-noted weapon of the Islamic propaganda machine in the U.S.: the whitewashing of the ghastly Islamist present by creating a fictional glorious Islamic past.

How do Howard Zinn and his spawn come to rewrite history and dictate what is taught to our children? The same way that Bill Ayers, a terrorist bomber, comes to be a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, formerly holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.

We are overwhelmed with this poison — everywhere, at every turn. Look at how Wikipedia describes the Ayers bombing:

The group Ayers headed in Detroit, Michigan became one of the earliest gatherings of what became the Weatherman. Before the June 1969 SDS convention, Ayers became a prominent leader of the group, which arose as a result of a schism in SDS. “During that time his infatuation with street fighting grew and he developed a language of confrontational militancy that became more and more pronounced over the year [1969]”, disaffected former Weatherman member Cathy Wilkerson wrote in 2001. Ayers had previously been a roommate of Terry Robbins, a fellow militant who was killed in 1970 along with Ayers’ girlfriend Oughton and one other member in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, while constructing anti-personnel bombs intended for a non-commissioned officer dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

How glorious it all sounds. My Wikipedia page, by contrast, sounds as if I am one paragraph short of being a serial killer. This is no accident. Wikipedia is just another tool in the arsenal of the enemies of freedom. It’s great if you want to learn all about Marcus Aurelius or Millard Fillmore, but about contemporary defenders of freedom it is not so good. Deeply compromised, in fact.

And as for Zinn’s Muslim “history,” it revolves around Muslims who were supposedly among the first slaves in the Americas. Yet many African slaves were sold by Muslim slave traders to the European slave traders. Why would Muslim slave traffickers sell Muslims to other slavers? Are Muslims just racist as Europeans? Zinn never addresses that. But his fanciful “histories” are the establishment narrative anyway.

By contrast, my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) is targeted for marginalization and demonization. My website, Atlas Shrugs (www.PamelaGeller.com) is banned from military bases. AFDI is banned from elemental inclusion in, for example, Amazon’s 501c3 charity program.

Why? Because we stand for freedom. Because we stand for truths that the mainstream refuses to tell the American people. Because we aren’t afraid to enunciate truths that most are too fearful even to approach. The fact that this gets us banned and vilified everywhere is testimony to how far we have fallen.

Given the overwhelming success of the left’s complete coup on American culture and academia, as well as its near-total control of the media, music and movies, it is only natural that its supremacist partners would exploit their vicious war games.

Rewriting history is what the left does, and it is what Islamic “historians” have done for centuries. The Zinn “history” is just more of the same.

****

It is all part of the plan. See my recently revised page from the menu : Muslim Brotherhood’s Plan for America which details two of the most important documents proving the nature of the threat – “The Project” and “The Memorandum”.

The ISIS Penal Code: Shariah Justice and the Quest for Religious Legitimacy

AFP PHOTO / HO / AL-FURQAN MEDIA

AFP PHOTO / HO / AL-FURQAN MEDIA

Breitbart, by DR. PHYLLIS CHESLER,  March 9, 2015:

The global allure of a self-designated Caliphate, especially one that insists that its every barbaric action is Qur’an-based and Sharia-true, should not be underestimated.

In October 2014, ISIS released the fourth issue of Dabiq, its online English- and multi-language newsletter. ISIS described a “successful consolidation of the judiciary,” and the formation of “sharia courts” that render decisions in a speedy and non-corrupt manner. ISIS has implemented a “radical interpretation of sharia law, killing men accused of blasphemy or homosexuality. The group has also carried out amputations and lashings for reasons as trivial as smoking or improper dressing.”

ISIS has taken over the education system in horrendous ways: one must memorize the Qur’an, there is to be no teaching of science, history, civics, physical education, and geography. Basic mathematics is allowed. ISIS has also established military training on children, imposed early curfews and full-face and body niqab on women, including those who work at hospitals.

While Westerners may find this as horrifying as ISIS’s systematic and taped destruction of ancient, precious pre-Islamic sculptures and artifacts, according to Jonathan Spyer and Jawad al-Tamimi in Middle East Forum, ISIS has, nevertheless, been carefully justifying their every atrocity as based on the Qur’an and Sharia law. For example, in terms of crucifixions, ISIS invoked Qur’an 5:33 (Those “who wage war on God and His Messenger” may be crucified).

Apostates may also be crucified—and ISIS bases this on a hadith (similar to Qur’an 5:33). Christians are required to pay a special tax “jizya,” “may not publicly wear crosses, pray in the presence of Muslims, or repair or renovate places of worship.”

Spyer and al-Tamimi point out that ISIS “already considers itself a state (dawla), not a mere group or organization (jamaat, or tanzim).” Therefore, like Saudi Arabia or Iran, it can lawfully cross-amputate for theft, stone adulterers to death, drop homosexuals from rooftops (and stone them if they are still alive), crucify or behead Christians and apostates, etc.

In October of 2014, 126 Islamic scholars and Muslim leaders from 38 countries signed an Open Letter to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi claiming that ISIS was violating Islamic Law. There was more than one signatory from the same country. For example, there were no fewer than 13 signatories from North America, mainly from the United States. Interestingly, many of the names belong to known Islamists, Muslim Brotherhood supporters and “fronts,” or anti-Zionists. For example, signatories include Nihad Awad (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Azhar Aziz (Islamic Society of North America), and Berkeley’s Hatem Baziem (American Muslims for Palestine).

While I am no Qur’anic scholar, much of what these signatories claim cannot be true. Or, rather, what they claim is the right interpretation of the Qur’an has not been followed by Muslim leaders historically—just as it is not being followed now by ISIS. For example, in their own Executive Summary, the signatories claim that “it is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent;” “forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers;” “forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture;’ “It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture;” “The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus;” “It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert;” “It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights;” “It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights;” “It is forbidden in Islam to torture people;” “It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.”

Undaunted, in December 2014, ISIS released a formal penal code in which they spelled out “a set of fixed punishments.” This document’s release was followed by a spate of violent executions in which “a woman accused of adultery [was] stoned to death, 17 men crucified, and two men accused of homosexual acts thrown off a building.”

According to the translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), here are some of the acts and their punishments:

  • Blasphemy against Allah, Blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed, Blasphemy against Islam—all merit Death as does Sodomy, Adultery,  Murder, Apostasy, and Spying for Unbelievers.
  • Theft merits cutting off the hand;
  • Drinking alcohol merits 80 lashes;
  • Slandering merits 80 lashes;
  • Terrorizing People merits Exile.

Issue #7 of ISIS’s glossy online newsletter, Dabiq, was released in February. It is more than 80 pages long and is titled: “From Hypocrisy to Apostasy. The Extinction of the Grayzone.” ISIS means the “gray zone” in which Christian “Crusaders” and Jews, as well as Muslim hypocrites and apostates of all religions, are put on notice.

“Islam is the Religion of the Sword Not Pacificism” is the title of one chapter. This issue also displays many photos of ISIS’s atrocities and the Qur’anic justification for them. It blesses Bin Laden, boasts of the Islamic attacks against Europeans and Americans, prays that “Allah take revenge for the Muslims and the mujahidin, and rain fire and destruction upon the kuffar and murtaddin, wherever they are.”

Dabiq justifies ISIS’s ongoing persecution and murder of Coptic Christians as an act of revenge because Coptic Christians allegedly tortured and murdered Muslim women. This issue also deals with how ISIS is “clamping down on sexual deviance” and describes how the West has been “plunged into a downward spiral of sexual deviance and immorality.” It boasts of the murder of Theo Von Gogh and lauds the captured convert to Islam, John Cantlie who praises his captors and denounces “our deceitful governments.” He is quoted as saying: “Despite being a prisoner I’ve been shown respect and kindness, which I haven’t seen from my own [British] government.”

ISIS is a totalitarian cult led by barbarian psychopaths and extremist misogynists who seek to cover their criminality and self-perceived marginality with a cloak of religious respectability. They will continue on their path unless the “good people” of the world decide to stop them by any means possible and by any means necessary.

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article which argued that the Islamic State caliphate “appears to be fraying from within, as dissent, defections, and setbacks on the battlefield sap the group’s strength and erode its aura of invisibility.”

According to Lina Khatib, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, ISIS has failed because it has not been able to “unify people of different origins under the caliphate.” Many foreigners are people from “the margins of society” and many have come to “live in the Islamic State. They didn’t come to fight.” Finally, the Islamic “revolution” is not only crucifying Christians and forcing them and Yazidis into sex slavery, be-heading foreign aid workers and journalists—it has also begun to turn on its own.

One wonders whether Lina Khatib and the Washington Post are right.

The bizarre world of ISIS fashion: Terror group is now selling Islamic State-branded goods

Indoctrinated: Young babies have been pictured, miserably wrapped in Islamic State flags and an assortment of ill fitting hats.

Indoctrinated: Young babies have been pictured, miserably wrapped in Islamic State flags and an assortment of ill fitting hats.

  • Jihadists on social media have become obsessed with showing off their latest piece of Jihadi fashion, branded with the ISIS logo.
  • Tacky rings, cheap watches and snoods are popular among ISIS fighters
  • Chilling photo show children wearing military uniforms and ISIS school bags 
  • Even babies are forced to wear uncomfortable looking ISIS babywear 

From babywear to wedding rings, ISIS supporters have been showing off their appalling taste in fashion on social media.

Most ISIS merchandises appear to be cheaply made and poor quality, always adorned with the ISIS badge.

The uninspiring fashion pieces have been seen being worn by fighters, mothers and babies living in ISIS territory in Syria and Iraq.

Naturally nearly all the merchandises are based around the dull colour scheme of black and white.

The uninspiring colours embody the values of the extremist group’s flag, the famous black banner long associated with Islamic State and radical Islam.

Any other colour could be a hint of apostasy, or worse interest in the tight fitting world of Western clothes.

Jihadi mothers in Syria and Iraq obsessively show off their little darlings, decked out in Islamic State’s latest naff fashion pieces.

Young babies have been pictured, miserably wrapped in Islamic State rugs, highlighting the extremist group’s obsession with indoctrinating children from a young age.

Oblivious to their unexplained allegiance to the group, their heads have been covered with an itchy looking hats with the ISIS logo emblazoned on in Arabic.

Other children have been kitted out in ill-fitting military uniforms, struggling to hold onto the rifle which has been thrusted into their arms for the photo.

School children have been photographed, proudly wearing ISIS branded school bags as they walk to school.

One young girl is pictured posing from behind to show off her own ISIS draw string bag. Wearing a thick quilted pink coat, matching gloves and a niqab, the seven old is dwarfed by the heavy bag.

Fashion statement: One jihadi fighter proudly shows off his oversized watch, cheap ring and silver pistol.

Fashion statement: One jihadi fighter proudly shows off his oversized watch, cheap ring and silver pistol.

For the fighters, one of the essential fashion items is the wrist watch, specifically cheap, digit time pieces, easily found in Syria and Iraq.

Casio watches are one of the most popular brand in Syria and Iraq, appealing to many fighters due to their durability and low cost.

In contrast, Senior ISIS figures seem to prefer more expensive tastes in watches. ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was spotted wearing an expensive Omega watch when he declared the creation of the caliphate in July 2014.

Rings are another accessory which many fighters seem to buy the moment they join ISIS.

With weddings happening on regular basis, fighters are always keen to show off their latest tacky assessory, cheaply made from a plastic mould.

Some wealthier fighters have posted pictures of their ridiculous wedding rings, overloaded with nasty cheap stones and coated in imitation silver.

The ring box appears to be of better quality than some of the rings being sold in Islamic State.

Read more with photos

Also see:

The ‘Islamophobia’ Scam Returns

LEISURE USAFrontpage, March 6, 2015 by Robert Spencer:

In recent weeks, the terror group calling itself the Islamic State (aka ISIS and ISIL) has beheaded journalists and social workers, burned a pilot alive, and forced hundreds of captive women into sex slavery – all while citing Islamic texts to justify their actions and appeal for new recruits. A Muslim in the latest Islamic State beheading video cited two Qur’an verses (8:12 and 47:4) to refute “those who say [beheading] is cruel.” In New York Wednesday, a Muslim was found guilty of plotting to bomb the New York subway system. The previous day in London, a woman from Nigeria pleaded for asylum, as she faces certain death if she returns to her homeland: an Islamic court has sentenced her to die for being lesbian.

All this and a great deal more like it – a daily horror show of jihad attacks and plots, boasts of coming catastrophic attacks in the West, declarations of imminent conquest, and more, all carried out by people claiming to represent the truest and purest form of Islam  is why, according to a poll released last summer, only twenty-seven percent of Americans have a favorable view of Muslims. Yet as far as the hard-Left Center for American Progress (CAP) is concerned, people aren’t suspicious of Muslims and Islam because of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, but because of “the efforts of a small cadre of funders and misinformation experts” which were amplified by an echo chamber of the religious right, conservative media, grassroots organizations, and politicians who sought to introduce a fringe perspective on American Muslims into the public discourse.”

This claim appears in the CAP’s new edition of its “Islamophobia” reportFear, Inc. 2.0: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America,” by Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, and Ken Sofer. It might seem to be peculiarly tone-deaf of the CAP to release this report while the Islamic State is horrifying the world and attacks by lone jihadis (and regular threats that more are on the way) are becoming more frequent in the West, but that is most likely why they felt they had to release it now: with reality threatening to break through their fog of disinformation, they have to pour on more dry ice. 

It wasn’t accidental that Hitler’s Reich had an entire Ministry of Propaganda: lying to the public is a major job, as the cleverest of propaganda constructs is always threatened by the simple facts. CAP is trying to compel non-Muslims to disregard what they see every day — Muslims committing violence against non-Muslims and justifying it by referring to Islamic texts — and instead embrace a fictional construct: Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance. This takes a relentless barrage of propaganda, and “Fear, Inc. 2.0” is just the latest in a steady stream from CAP and its allies, which are exponentially wealthier and better-funded than the groups CAP vilifies in this report

“Fear, Inc. 2.0” is filled with assertions that white is black, and that your lying eyes are deceiving you. We’re told that I myself am “the primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent and that violent extremism is inherent within traditional Islam. CAP doesn’t offer any evidence for this being a “myth” – it doesn’t have to, as its Leftist constituency takes that as self-evident. 

But CAP flatters me, as it flatters all of us named in “Fear, Inc. 2.0,” simply by suggesting that we have such persuasive power that we can create a nationwide climate of hate and fear against MuslimsI cannot accept their proffered honor of being the “primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent.” Innumerable others have noted the same reality, including Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

But neither Nyazee nor Ibn Rushd are prominent enough to claim the role of “primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent.” How about the Ayatollah Khomeini, who said: “There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” Better yet, how about Muhammad himself, who is depicted in a hadith saying: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought.” (Bukhari 1.31)

Another “don’t believe your lying eyes” moment in “Fear, Inc. 2.0” occurs when the report charges the David Horowitz Freedom Center with promoting “the myth that Muslim extremists infiltrated an array of political organizations on both the left and the right. How about the White House? In December 2012, while the Muslim Brotherhood was still in power in Egypt, the Egyptian magazine Rose El-Youssef boasted that Brotherhood infiltrators in the Obama Administration had changed American policy “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

It may have been an empty boast, but that would be hard to prove in light of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Similarly, the CAP report claims (quoting Nathan Brown, a George Washington University professor) that the notorious captured internal Muslim Brotherhood document detailing U.S. Muslim groups’ strategy to work toward “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house” was “the daydream of one enthusiast.” Brown doesn’t explain why a copy of this “daydream” turned up in the offices of the Holy Land Foundation (once the largest Islamic charity in the United States, shut down for funding Hamas) years after it was first written, but an even more telling indication that Brown and CAP are the enthusiasts doing the daydreaming when they dismiss this report is the fact that the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim groups work indefatigably to oppose virtually every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented. Stigmatizing defense against the jihad threat as “bigotry” isn’t trying to “sabotage its miserable house”? Pull my other leg.

I hope the next CAP report will focus on how the “Islamophobes” are so devastatingly effective that they have even been able to infiltrate mosques and Islamic schools, so as to convince young Muslims that the Islamic State is authentically Islamic and has a claim on their loyalties: over 20,000 foreign Muslims have now traveled from all over the world to join the Islamic State, indicating either that imams and other Muslim authorities are singularly failing to communicate to all too many young Muslims the true, peaceful Islam that CAP will charge you with “hatred” and “bigotry” for not believing exists, or that the “Islamophobes” have a reach far greater than Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, and Ken Sofer ever imagined even in their worst fever dreams.

I also hope that new CAP report will address motive. Nowhere does “Fear, Inc. 2.0” explain why these fiendish “Islamophobes” would care to devote their lives to spreading hatred and fear of a noble, oppressed minority group. Apparently they want us to believe that it’s for the money, but since CAP’s budget is so very much larger than those of all the “Islamophobic” groups combined, if money is all it’s about then the “Islamophobes” would be well-advised to run up the white flag and pick up a copy of How to Get Rich By Betraying One’s Friends and Principles, by David Brock. So is it racism? Then where are the supposedly well-organized, well-heeled groups of smear and fear merchants who are dedicating their time to vilifying Hindus, or Buddhists, or Mormons, or Hard-Shell Baptists?

The effect, intended or not, of the CAP report and others like it is clear enough. When CAP and its cohorts smear those who speak out against jihad and Islamic supremacism as “bigots” and “hatemongers,” they intimidate others into backtrackingapologizing, and looking the other way when they should instead be pressing the Muslim community to address the jihad problem realistically and back up its pro-forma condemnations of terrorism with honest work against the Islamic teachings that jihadists use to justify terror.

The perfect world for the likes of Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, Ken Sofer and other Islamophobia-mongers would be one in which no one speaks up against jihad violence and Islamic supremacism: they have never, ever seen a counter-jihadist for whom they had any positive words. This would render the U.S. and the West in general mute and hence defenseless before the advancing jihad. As the blood and chaos spreads, will Duss and his cohorts stand up and take a bow?

The ISIS Beheader Is the Victim

article-2732393-20B42B9A00000578-389_306x504-423x350Frontpage, March 3, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield:

After watching Jihadi John saw through so many human necks in the name of Allah, we now know his name and his name is “Victim”.

Sure Mohammed Emwazi, aka Jihadi John, may be a brutal killer, but he was actually a “gentle, kind … beautiful young man” who was “radicalized by Britain.” If the brutal monster was extreme about anything, it was being “extremely kind”.

That’s according to Asim Qureshi of CAGE, one of those groups campaigning against Islamophobia and efforts by the beleaguered British to prevent further kind and gentle beheadings.

Asim is another of those extremely kind Muslim men who might be extremely kind or kind of extreme depending on your perspective.

He was caught on video saying, ”When we see the example of our brothers and sisters fighting in Chechyna, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, then we know where the example lies. When we see Hezbollah defeating the armies of Israel we know what the solution is and where the victory lies.”

“We know that it is incumbent upon all of us to support the jihad of our brothers and sisters in these countries when they are facing the oppression of the west. Allahu akbar!”

CAGE claims that criticism of Boko Haram, currently using little girls as suicide bombers in a quest to wipe out the Christians of Nigeria, is about “demonizing Islam”.

The Boko Haram kidnappers and rapists of Nigerian girls are also doubtlessly “extremely kind” and “gentle”. The gentlest of them all may be Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau who announced on video, “I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah. There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell. He commands me to sell. I will sell women. I sell women.”

CAGE recently participated in an event in which a call to execute apostates was cheered by the audience. We’ll have to assume that those executions will be carried out in a kind and gentle manner.

The Washington Post referred to CAGE as a “British human rights group” and claimed that it “highlights some of the United Kingdom’s crimes against Islam”. Of the ISIS Jihadists, who rape young girls and behead their brothers, the Washington Post asked, “Are they actually victims?”

It speaks of Emwazi being “driven to the machete”. We hear of some men being driven to drink by life’s troubles, but now for the first time we have a man driven to travel thousands of miles away and chop off other people’s heads. You might think they’re the victims, but it turns out that he was driven to do it.

And it’s true.

Britain did indeed drive Mohammed, a wealthy kid who graduated from the University of Westminster, to chop heads. It didn’t however do it by oppressing him with a nice degree at a nice university.

It radicalized him by coddling his violent hatred of non-Muslims. It provided him with the opportunity to attend the Greenwich Islamic Centre, the same mosque as the Muslim beheaders of a British soldier, whose Imam urged students to become terrorists. It radicalized him by treating him like a victim.

The media has allowed Asim and CAGE to drive the narrative of a “kind” and “gentle” beheader turned monster because the authorities suspected him of being exactly what he was. It’s a tempting progressive narrative in which law enforcement is the cause of the very problem it is fighting.

Asim Qureshi claims that counterterrorism radicalizes terrorists. The obvious answer is to stop fighting terrorists and they’ll go away. And if that advice from an Allahu Akbar shouter who finds Hezbollah inspiring doesn’t work, there’s always complete abject surrender. It didn’t work for any of Mohammed’s victims, but there’s always the off chance that this with some proper begging, he’ll come around.

What do the appeasers of the world have to lose except their heads? It’s not as if they’re using them.

The UK allowed, Mohammed, the kind and gentle beheader, to get away with everything he did. He got away with stalking a female classmate and with using a stun gun to commit robberies. He got away with stealing bicycles and with waving a Jihadist flag in public in a country where burning a Koran is a crime. He was extensively involved with Jihadist networks and he still remained a free man.

Is it any wonder that he worked his way up to becoming the Islamic State’s video beheader?

No Muslim country would have tolerated Mohammed’s antics for very long. Not unless he agreeably decided to direct his hatred toward another country. The UK put up with Mohammed. Its agents monitored him and tried to keep him from hurting anyone by joining up with a terrorist group. This was the monstrous act of cruelty that the beheader’s apologists now blame for turning him into a monster.

A Muslim country would have jammed Mohammed into a hole in the ground. Kuwait gave him and his family the boot for mere suspicion of ties to Saddam. The UK gave him the world and asked for nothing in return. That was its mistake. And innocent people have paid the price.

It wasn’t British counterterrorism that radicalized Mohammed; it was the lack of accountability. What are the defining characteristics of the Islamic State?  Order, structure and rules. ISIS is to Europe as the Nazis were to Weimar Germany. Totalitarian systems offer an antidote to extremely permissive ones.

ISIS’ European recruits meld the sociopathic aimless violence of teenagers raised in a society losing its values with the primeval totalitarian brutality of Islam. It’s Clockwork Orange meets the Koran. A permissive society willing to entertain fantasies of Mohammed Emwazi’s victimhood helps create his kind by excusing his kind.

Mohammed Emwazi grew up in a world in which he always had someone else to blame. That much hasn’t changed. Except these days the blame isn’t directed at abstractions like the police, the Jews or shopkeepers who object to being robbed, but the people whose heads he is cutting off.

And even with him off doing what he does worst, the media also does what it does worst. Its job is explaining that Islamic terrorism isn’t the fault of the men doing it, but the men and women it is being done to. Mohammed isn’t the monster. We are for driving him to the machete.

Mohammed won’t stop cutting off heads and the media won’t stop with its beheadsplaining. If an organization like CAGE didn’t exist, the media would have invented it.

It’s not the police that create monsters like Mohammed, it’s the media. Would ISIS really make so many videos of beheading hostages if it didn’t know that the media would rush to publicize every last one of them? Would ISIS have so many recruits, if the media hadn’t spent so much time claiming that Muslims in Europe are the victims of oppression and that bombing terrorists is somehow wrong and immoral?

Would Europe really be so helpless in the face of Islamic terror, if the media didn’t act as the Lord Haw-Haws and Tokyo Roses of the Jihad? If the media had spent WW2 insisting that the Luftwaffe pilots were the real victims who were driven to the bomber, the war would have ended with Hitler driving through London in a touring car. Now the media is doing its best to make up for that unfortunate omission.

And so Jihadi John, that enigmatic monster, has a name now. It’s “Victim”. The men whose lives he ended were forced to recite rambling confessions of crimes, but the media voluntarily recites confessions of crimes against Mohammed and Islam on our behalf every hour on the hour.

Perhaps then the media ought to kindly and gently behead itself.

Also see:

Islamic State Beheader ‘Jihadi John’ Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

jihadi johnPJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Feb. 26, 2015:

A man seen in multiple ISIS propaganda videos speaking with a British accent beheading Western hostages had his identity revealed in the Washington Post this morning, and yet again the suspect is another case of what I have termed “known wolf” syndrome since he was already known to authorities before engaging in acts of terrorism.

The Washington Post reports:

The world knows him as “Jihadi John,” the masked man with a British accent who has beheaded several hostages held by the Islamic State and who taunts audiences in videos circulated widely online.

But his real name, according to friends and others familiar with his case, is Mohammed Emwazi, a Briton from a well-to-do family who grew up in West London and graduated from college with a degree in computer programming. He is believed to have traveled to Syria around 2012 and to have later joined the Islamic State, the group whose barbarity he has come to symbolize.

But the article goes on to reveal that Emwazi had been detained by authorities not once, but twice:

Emwazi and two friends — a German convert to Islam named Omar and another man, Abu Talib — never made it on the trip. Once they landed in Dar es Salaam, in May 2009, they were detained by police and held overnight. It’s unclear whether the reason for the detention was made clear to the three, but they were eventually deported.

Emwazi flew to Amsterdam, where he claimed that an officer from MI5, Britain’s domestic security agency, accused him of trying to reach Somalia, where the militant group al-Shabab operates in the southern part of the country, according to e-mails that he sent to Qureshi and that were provided to The Post.

Emwazi denied the accusation and claimed that MI5 representatives had tried to recruit him […]

In June 2010, however, counterterrorism officials in Britain detained him again — this time fingerprinting him and searching his belongings. When he tried to fly back to Kuwait the next day, he was prevented from doing so.

The BBC added that Emwazi was part of a known network of jihadist sympathizers:

We don’t know when the British or the American security services worked out that the masked man in the killing videos was Londoner Mohammed Emwazi.

But we do know that he was a “person of interest” to MI5 going back to at least 2011 because he features in semi-secret court cases relating to extremism overseas and back in the UK.

Nobody in official security circles is going to comment on what they know and why they know it.

Emwazi has been previously described as a member of a network involving at least 13 men from London – and at least two of them were subjected to house arrest control orders or T-Pims. One absconded. The chances of Emwazi ever returning to the UK are vanishingly small.

So yet again, as we’ve seen in practically every recent terrorism case, the suspect was already known to authorities.

I’ve reported here at PJ Media on the long line of “Known Wolf” terror suspects who committed acts of terror:

  • Earlier this month I reported that Copenhagen shooter was Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, who had been convicted in a stabbing in December, and yet remarkably released by authorities despite being branded as “extremely dangerous.”
  • Also this month I noted that Moussa Coulibaly, who stabbed three police officers outside a synagogue in Nice, France, had just days before been deported from Turkey for attempting to join ISIS.
  • The two Kouachi brothers behind the massacre on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper offices last month in Paris had been long known to law enforcement, with one of them already having been in prison on terror-related charges, and yet they had been removed from the radar by authorities just last summer because they were deemed no longer a threat. They were also on the no-fly lists of both the U.S. and the UK.
  • Man Haron Monis, aka Sheikh Haron, who in December took hostages at a chocolate shop in the heart of the commercial district in downtown Sydney, Australia, was not only known to law enforcement, but was out on bond on two separate cases and had previously been convicted of harassing the widows of Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Authorities had been tipped off via their hotline to extremist statements Haron had been making on his website 48 hours before the attack.
  • I first noticed this “Known Wolf” trend back in October after two separate attacks in Canada by Martin “Ahmad” Rouleau and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, both of whom reportedly had their passports stripped by Canadian authorities because they were deemed “high risk” to travel overseas to join ISIS.

Yesterday, an interview I had with Erick Stakelbeck aired where I discussed the “Known Wolf” terror phenomenon (the first 11 minutes of the program):

 

Needless to say, if the currently growing track record of Western authorities missing these “known wolf” suspects is any indication, the next terror case will undoubtedly be a subject already known to law enforcement and intelligence authorities, but sufficient action not taken to stop their terrorism.

Also see:

ISIS: How al-Baghdadi Hides in Plain Sight

Screen-Shot-2015-02-25-at-8.37.52-PM

From “The Islamic State” e-book

PJ Media, By Bridget Johnson On February 25, 2015:

A recently published e-book titled “The Islamic State” details everything from ice cream money for jihadists to special ops forces in ISIS ranks, talks about how the caliph hides in plain sight, and suggests that after Kobane they can fight under the radar with drive-bys on bikes.

Clocking in at a uniform 100 pages, like other titles in ISIS’ “Black Flags” series, the book is a sequel to 2014′s “The Revived Caliphate” and includes chapters such as how to hold territory and how to train children, aka “lion cubs.”

It stresses that the Islamic State doesn’t and won’t recognize the legitimacy of the United Nations, thus “uses the rifle (i.e. the AK-47) alone, and if it ever negotiates, it does so on its own terms” and advocates “breaking borders… with bulldozers.” Showing pictures of new coins, ISIS says it’s “introducing real Gold and Silver currency to remove the illusionary debt placed on the world by the IMF” under “the Islamic Bank.”

“By giving the Muslims unity and economic independence, and by weakening America considerably, it is growing itself to be the next world superpower only rivaling Israel.”

There are two types of people in Islamic State leadership, the book states: mujahedin who served under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in al-Qaeda in Iraq, and ex-Baathists who served under Saddam Hussein, called the “perfect people” to recruit because of their traditional military expertise. The Baathist officers are lured with a promise of the same pay they received under Saddam and retention of their rank. They credit coalition prisons for providing the networking opportunities between the jihadists and Baathists.

ISIS leader and self-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the book claims, is dressed like a regular mujahid in public, paranoid about carrying a cell phone or using electronic communications, and “always cautiously on the move for security reasons… hiding is comfortably possible compared to Osama bin Laden who had less security, more spies against him and less places to hide.”

“Unlike the medieval times when a king was safe in a guarded castle, leaders today cannot have one central location. Khalifah Ibrahim is always on the move in a convoy of cars, with loyal bodyguards who he knows since the American invasion in the mid 2000s. The secret is not to have too much cars which will give the impression (to local people and even drones) that an important person is in one of the cars. But not to have too less cars either, in case of ambush.”

The book rips off infographics from other news sources showing the size of territory claimed by the Islamic States and the geographic origin distribution of foreign fighters.

It lists the skills that recruits learn in the ISIS training camps, including “assassination techniques” (they claim to create silencers for their guns and “excel” at drive-bys and “sticky bombs”) and “chemical warfare.” They get a graduation ceremony at the end of the course; “if they want to do a martyrdom operation, they are put in a waiting list.” Then come get days off and an allowance. “With this money they can buy more weapons, explosive-martyrdom belts, or even simply food like ice cream from the Souks (shopping centres) when they are free from battle and back in the city.”

In the training camps for children, ISIS claims they’re taught “the art of being an inspiring speaker” along with Arabic, the Quran, judo, and weapons training. It includes the chilling images from an earlier ISIS video of a young Kazakh boy shooting men in the head said to be “Russian spies.”

When it’s time for battle, commanders “will decide a strategy either by making a small model of the building/location they are targeting, or a Google maps print out, or something similar.” The book claims al-Baghdadi does not micromanage his commanders, which gives them “a lot of flexibility and makes the Islamic State harder to defeat” unlike “conventional national armies who have a long chain of command and a common pattern in style of war.”

Despite the Kobane defeat, the book stresses that ISIS “will never waste their energy and resources on targets they know are impossible to get” yet will “calculate if it is better to reattack or retreat instead of seeking petty revenge.”

“But once they are strong enough, they will surround what they need, and pounce on it from all sides until it is theirs (like they are planning for with Baghdad [the capital city of Iraq] for example.)”

Screen-Shot-2015-02-25-at-9.19.19-PM

Image from “The Islamic State” e-book

It faults “a strong Western media campaign” for defeating their “urban warfare tactics” in Kobane with air support (while not expressly admitting defeat), but claims “the Islamic State was winning the battle for the hearts and minds” of “many” Kurdish Muslim youth.

“Kobane gives us an insight and preview of the battles Islamic fighters will have to face in the future. A warzone wherein fighters will have to face constant air bombardment day and night from the enemy in the sky, while they have to slowly advance in small groups and maintain a pipeline of constant weapons and food.” Those techniques include burning tires to release enough black smoke to obscure the location of jihadists, using motorcycles or bicycles for small “hit and run” attacks instead of drawing attention with their pickup convoys, and expanding underground tunnel networks.

The book goes into detail about the governing structure when ISIS takes over a city or “governate,” building Sharia courts, seizing local industries, and assigning a media channel to the area to make propaganda videos. “The Islamic State International Expansionalist Project” touts loyalty statements from established terrorist groups including Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Ansar al-Tawheed in India, “subgroups” of AQAP in Yemen and AQIM in Algeria, and “many sleeper cells who are within [Saudi] Arabia who have secretly pledged to awaken and support the Islamic State when it enters Arabia.” They credit their allure over al-Qaeda to being “not just a guerrilla group.”

They rip off a report from DEBKAfile, the Israeli intelligence website, about the strength and stealth of their elite special forces unit.

“The Islamic State also pretends to be the Iraqi armies SWAT (elite police force) and raids the houses of leaders in the Iraqi government, charging them under the crime of Terrorism,” the book states. “When the leader replies he is not a (Islamic) Terrorist but part of the Iraqi Shi’a government, they then inform him that he has confessed to his guilty crime and that they really are the Islamic State. He is shocked, but then it is too late. He has to dig his own grave, and then they shoot him.”

As almost a spinoff from the recent debate in Washington about winning the war against extremism with more than bullets, the Islamic State book said that they have “learnt that fighting and expelling an enemy is not sufficient to win a war, and that securing a territory, then providing for its people is the most successful way to win a long term war.”

But to keep “a good family life,” it lists the punishments under Sharia law ranging from death for insulting Islam, chopping off hands for stealing, 80 lashes for drinking alcohol, and stoning for adultery if married or have ever been married (80 lashes for the never-married).

They’re trying to lure residents with free utilities and public transportation, three free restaurant meals a day in Raqqa, and money giveaways. They cite one tweet stating that “this is how men are meant to live,” in a place where you can “purchase hand grenades from street vendors” and “most households have fully automatic weapons.”

The book claims that while ISIS has beheaded Western journalists, with the new year the group “changed its position and is being a lot more transparent with journalists.”

As examples they cited the videos of British journalist John Cantlie, a hostage seized in November 2012 who is now forced to do propaganda pieces for ISIS, and German journalist Juergen Todenhoefer, who was allowed in (and out) by ISIS last December.

Their own media structure is so diffuse — from “professionally edited videos” and scores of social media accounts (including coordinated hashtags) to e-books and magazines — because “by not having a website, no one can hack it and claim an online victory.”

“Each province has its own responsibility in creating its own videos and social media accounts to share its successes. By decentralising everything from the core leadership, even if a province fails online or offline, the leadership and overall Khilafah (Caliphate) leadership project is still safe and can grow elsewhere.”

The book notes that social media is its own kind of jihad. “What the Islamic State has done for Islam online: Just do a quick search for the word: ‘Islam’ on youtube: What we see is that even though Muslims have been trying to tell people about Islam for the past 20yrs, there have been more searches for ‘Islamic State’ on youtube in the past 3yrs than there have been for ‘Islam’ since youtube has ever existed.”

Still, out of frustration that Twitter suspends ISIS accounts with increasing frequency, the book features a drawing of a black ISIS bird aiming an RPG at a bloodied blue Twitter logo bird.

MORE: How ISIS Plans to Sack Rome and Inside an ISIS Handbook for Foreigners Running to the Islamic State

Media Hoax: 20 Muslims Holding Hands Become 1,000-Strong ‘Ring of Peace’ at Oslo Synagogue

oslo-ring-of-peace-afp-640x480

Update 2/23/15: Oslo Synagogue “Muslim Peace Ring” Organizer: Jews Were Behind 9/11, Mumbai Terror Attack by Patrick Poole at PJ Media

Breitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, Feb. 22, 2015:

The weekend’s feel-good story about a Muslim “ring of peace” formed to “protect” Jews at an Oslo synagogue turned out to be a complete fabrication by the mainstream media, according to an eyewitness report, local officials, and attendees’ photos.

According to a local eyewitness, only about 20 or so Muslims formed the “ring of peace” around the Oslo synagogue. In fact, pictures from multiple angles show that there wasn’t enough people to form a ring, so the locals instead formed a horizontal line in front of the synagogue.

A local news outlet explained how the media got to its “1,300 Muslims” number. “According to police, there were 1300 persons present in the event. Very many of them ethnic Norwegians,” read a translated report from Osloby.no.

Demonstrators also reportedly chanted, “No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia,” conflating criticism of Islam and hatred of Jews.

Photos pulled off of social media appear to corroborate the narrative that only twenty or so people formed the “peace ring.”

Multiple news outlets, including wire services for hundreds of news sites, ran with the false narrative that 1,000 or more people–sometimes all of them Muslim–formed the ring of peace outside of the Oslo synagogue.

The AP incorrectly reported, “More than 1,000 people have formed a ‘ring of peace’ outside Oslo’s main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims.”

AFP reports almost identically, “More than 1,000 people formed a ‘ring of peace’ Saturday outside Oslo’s main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims. The newswire agency has no excuse for the false report, as it had a photographer taking shots of the “ring” at the scene–and one shows a man who appears to be at the end of the line of hand-holders, with his left hand in his pocket.

The far-left Think Progress site published a story titled, “More Than A Thousand Muslims Form Human Shield Around Norewegian Synagogue After Copenhagen Attacks.”

Even Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported, “More than 1,000 Muslims formed a human shield around an Oslo synagogue on February 21, offering symbolic protection for the city’s Jewish community and condemning an attack on a synagogue in neighboring Denmark the previous weekend.”

In even worse news, it appears as if the organizer of the Muslim “peace ring” is a virulent anti-Semite, 9/11 truther, a gay-basher, and an Israel-hater.

Ali Chishti, who organized the event, said bluntly in 2008, “I hate Jews and how they operate,” reports Daniel Greenfield. Chishti added in his conspiracy-laden rant about the Jewish people, “It is a fact that during the attacks on the Twin Towers [World Trade Center] 1600 Jews were absent from work. OK, OK, what’s even more suspicious, is how unusually many Jews there were present in Mumbai on the day that Pakistani terrorists struck. How come?”

At a March, 2008 meeting in Oslo promoting his 9/11 conspiracy theory that the Jews were responsible for the World Trade Center attacks, Chishti read his speech titled, “Therefore I Hate Jews And Gays,” Haaretz reports.

As it turns out, as many as 40 times more Northern European Muslims attended the funeral of a Copenhagen Muslim terrorist than those who decided to form the non-existent “ring of peace” around an Oslo synagogue.

Read more

Also see:

‘Religion of the Sword': ISIS Magazine Heavy on Crusades Propaganda

REUTERS/Paul Hackett

REUTERS/Paul Hackett

—–> Islamic State’s “Dabiq” magazine Issue 7

Breitbart, by JOHN HAYWARD, 12 Feb 2015:

The new issue of Dabiq, the Islamic State English-language magazine, is officially out. Its headlining story boasts the capture of a Mossad informant, but the magazine serves less to bring news than to reframe the war between the Islamic State and civilization as a revisiting of the Crusades.

This is a hot topic in the West as well, thanks to comments by President Obama comparing the atrocities of the Middle Ages with the Islamic State.

The issue contains a great deal of ranting about the Crusades and modern-day “crusaders,” which sounds quite a bit like the sort of thing American Christians are now treated to at National Prayer Breakfast speeches by their president. It is a spirited attempt to argue that Islam is “The Religion of the Sword,” and anyone who claims otherwise is a “deviant”—a mash note to the former Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt. Triumphant reports of the latest beheadings prominently include immolated Jordanian pilot Mu’ath al-Kaseasbeh and beheaded Japanese captives Haruna Yukawa and Kenji Goto, and a women’s page features an interview with Umm Basir al-Muhajirah, wife of the deceased terrorist who “randomly” shot some “folks” in a kosher supermarket in Paris, as President Obama put it.

It is topped off with a back-page editorial, ostensibly from captive British journalist John Cantlie, who has appeared in a number of ISIS propaganda videos, and who some suspect is a willing supporter of the Islamic State, rather than a hostage.

The “crusader” language is ubiquitous throughout the issue—pictures of Western political leaders and military forces are given captions like “The Crusader David Cameron,” “The Japanese Crusader Kenji Goto Jogo,” and so forth. The foreword begins with a quote from Osama bin Laden in 2001, in which he warned nations such as Japan, Australia, and Germany from joining “yet another Crusade, just like the former Crusades led by Richard the Lionheart, Barbarossa of Germany, and Louis of France. Likewise today, when Bush raised the cross, the crusader countries immediately scrambled.”

Alas, bin Laden’s warnings fell upon deaf ears in Japan in Dabiq’s view, because Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s offer of $200 million in humanitarian relief for war refugees bought him a seat on the “Crusader coalition against the Muslims,” assembled by “‘Nobel Peace Prize’ winner Obama.” This might have been written before Obama took the latest opportunity to make it clear that he hates the Crusades and holds modern-day Christians morally responsible for them (thus depriving them of a seat on the “high horse” from which they like to criticize Islamist violence), so maybe Dabiq will feel bad about going so hard on him.

This is what I meant when I said Obama’s rhetoric is “very close to reciting enemy propaganda.” The similarities go deeper than the superficial use of words. Obama treated the Crusades as an event very relevant to modern Christendom, emphatically rejecting the notion that it is ancient history unworthy of dredging up in a conversation about Islamist atrocities in 2015. ISIS feels the same way, and when they get a taste of Obama nattering about the Crusades, they will present it to their followers as confirmation that even the new crusaders agree with them.

One area where ISIS profoundly disagrees with Obama is his characterization of them as 100 percent non-Islamic, would-be extremist hijackers of a pastoral faith. “Islam is the Religion of the Sword, Not Pacifism,” one Dabiq article declares, helpfully including a picture of a sword, just in case anyone does not get the point. The article is dedicated to denouncing Western politicians and peaceful Muslims (who ISIS regards as apostates and traitors) for pushing the “Religion of Peace” slogan. They are also pretty hot under the collar about those who portray “jihad” as anything other than the violent conquest and murder of infidels and apostates. One picture of such Muslims is captioned, “Deviants Claiming That Islam Equals Peace.” They are quite picky about the proper definition of “Islam” as meaning “submission,” not “peace.” A great deal of Islamic writings are quoted to support these arguments, and runs on for four pages, including dense clusters of small-font footnotes.

There are numerous close-up photos of the hideously burned corpse of Jordanian captive al-Kaseasbeh, in case anyone needs a reminder of how insanely evil ISIS is. The article on his death justifies murdering the “apostate” pilot by immolation, normally proscribed in Islam, by saying air strikes tend to kill ISIS targets by fire. They cite religious rulings that justify burning under “eye for an eye” principles of Islamic justice: “So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.”

This issue of Dabiq also discusses what has become a matter of much concern for the Pentagon: the expansion of ISIS operations into Afghanistan, which they refer to as “Khurasan.” The article discusses the decision of some Taliban to “declare their bay’ah” to the “Khalifah” (i.e. swear allegiance to the Islamic State), sealing the deal by executing a captured Pakistani soldier. A Taliban spokesman is quoted declaring, “In spite of the ongoing crusade, the gathering of those near and far against the Islamic State, and the war waged against it by those both close and distant, we bring the mujahadeen the good news of the Islamic State’s expansion to Khurasan.”

The bulk of the article is essentially devoted to jeering at the Taliban who consider making peace with the U.S.-backed government of Afghanistan as a bunch of “deviant and feeble” lightweights who don’t understand the true meaning of jihad.

***

ISIS Upset with Obama, Kerry, ‘Heretics’ for ‘Slogan’ That Islam Is Religion of Peace

By Bridget Johnson On February 12, 2015:

The new issue of ISIS’ magazine released today takes issue with Western leaders who assert that Islam is a religion of peace.

In the Dabiq magazine article, the writer said the wrongful “slogan” is also being used by “apologetic ‘du’āt’ [beggars] when flirting with the West.”

“They have repeated this slogan so much to the extent that some of them alleged that Islam calls to permanent peace with kufr and the kāfirīn. How far is their claim from the truth, for Allah has revealed Islam to be the religion of the sword, and the evidence for this is so profuse that only a zindīq (heretic) would argue otherwise,” the magazine states.

The article features a photo of two men at a protest holding a sign that says “Islam = Paz,” with the caption, “Deviants claiming that Islam equals peace.”

After a page worth of quotes from the Quran that “revealed the sword against the apostates,” the article asks, “So how can the zanādiqah (heretics) or even those who blindly follow them – Bush, Obama, and Kerry – obstinately claim that ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ meaning pacifism?”

“One of the biggest shubuhāt propagated by the heretics is the linguistic root for the word Islam. They claim it comes from the word salām (peace), when in actuality it comes from words meaning submission and sincerity sharing the same consonant root.”

It quotes more of the Quran, concluding “it is clear then that salām (peace) is not the basis of the word Islam, although it shares the same consonant root (s-l-m) and is one of the outcomes of the religion’s sword, as the sword will continue to be drawn, raised, and swung until ‘Īsā (Jesus – ‘alayhis-salām) kills the Dajjāl (the Antichrist) and abolishes the jizyah. Thereafter, kufr and its tyranny will be destroyed; Islam and its justice will prevail on the entire Earth.”

“…There will always be a party of Muslims fighting parties of kāfirīn until there is no more fitnah and the religion is completely for Allah alone.”

***

ISIS’s English-Language Magazine ‘Dabiq’ Celebrates Attacks in France, Features Interview with Leader of Belgian ISIS Cell

DabiqBy The Tatler On February 12, 2015:

Reprinted with permission from MEMRI.

On February 12, 2015, the Islamic State (ISIS) released the seventh issue of its English-language magazine Dabiq. The 83-page issue celebrates the recent attacks in Paris, justifies the burning of the Jordanian pilot, and calls for Muslims in the West to join ISIS, among other topics discussed. It also includes interviews with Hayat Boumeddiene, the wife of Paris kosher supermarket attacker Amedy Coulibaly, and with Belgian ISIS fighter Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the leader of the Verviers cell that planned major attacks in Belgium.

The following is a review of the main items in the issue:

‘Dabiq’: Japan Responsible For Death Of Japanese Hostages

The issue opens with a foreword that addresses the recent killing of the two Japanese hostages. It asserts that the Japanese government and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are responsible for their deaths because they took sides in the war against ISIS instead of staying out of it, and therefore ISIS punished Japan for its intervention.

 

Burning Of Jordanian Pilot – Retribution

Another article justifies and glorifies the burning of the Jordanian pilot. It states that “the Islamic State resolved to burn him alive as retribution for his crimes against Islam and the Muslims, including his active involvement  in  crusader  airstrikes against Muslim lands.” It adds that, “in burning the crusader pilot alive and burying him  under  a  pile  of  debris,  the  Islamic  State carried  out  a  just  form  of  retaliation  for  his involvement in the crusader bombing campaign.” Referring to Jordan’s execution of two jihadis, Sajida Al-Rishawi and Ziad Al-Karbuli, in retaliation for this act, the article explains that ISIS attempted to secure their release but “Allah had decreed that they would return to him as shuhada [martyrs].”

baljikiInterview With Leader Of Verviers Cell That Planned Major Attacks In Belgium

The issue also features an interview with Abdelhamid Abaaoud, aka Abu Umar Al-Baljiki, the leader of the ISIS cell which had planned attacks in Belgium and was the target of the Belgian authority’s January 15, 2015 raid in Verviers. In the interview Abaaoud tells how he traveled from Syria to Belgium with the intent of carrying out terrorism there, and how he avoided being caught in the raid and managed to return to Syria despite being wanted by security and intelligence apparatuses, and despite the fact that his name and photo had appeared in the media. He also discusses his co-conspirators, Belgian ISIS members Khalid Ben Larbi (aka Abu Zubair Al-Baljiki) and Sufian Amghar (aka Abu Khalid Al-Baljiki), who traveled with him to Belgium and were killed in the shootout with the security forces.[i]

ifriqiPraise For Paris Attacks

The issue deals at length with the January 2015 attacks in Paris. As part of this, it features an interview with Hayat Boumeddiene, the wife of kosher supermarket attacker Amedy Coulibaly (aka Abu Basir Al-Ifriqi), who fled to Syria prior to the attack. Boumeddiene, referred to as Umm Basir Al-Muhajirah, discusses her successful escape to the Islamic State and her late husband’s devotion to ISIS’s ideology. Another piece, titled “The Good Example of Abu Basir Al-Ifriqi,” stresses Coulibaly’s piety and devotion to Islam. The piece includes an interview with one of Coulibaly’s associates, who praises his generosity and the good deeds he did during his life, such as preaching Islam and financially assisting the Kouachi brothers, perpetrators of the Charie Hebdo attack.

The issue’s feature article, titled “The Extinction of the Grayzone,” states that the world is now clearly divided into two camps – the camp of Islam, represented by ISIS, and the camp of unbelief – and Muslims in the West must therefore choose whether to join ISIS or side with its enemies. The article, which is accompanied by photos of Muslim leaders in the West, exhorts the West’s Muslims to renounce “apostate” and “traitor” Muslim leaders and institutions, such as clerics who spoke out against the Paris attacks. It also urges them to attack those who mock Islam’s prophet, and even insinuates that moderate Muslims should be killed. While glorifying various attacks carried out in Europe, such as the Madrid and London bombings, it also stresses that, after the establishment of the Islamic State’s caliphate, Muslims in the West no longer have an excuse to stay in the West. Rather, they must leave their countries and come to the territories controlled by ISIS.

The article also denounces rival groups for not recognizing ISIS’s caliphate and joining it. It especially bashes Al-Qaeda and Syrian rebel groups that refuse to recognize ISIS as the only legitimate authority. The article accuses them of being partisans for their group and of being lax in their faith and ideology, and claims that, by maintaining a neutral position between ISIS and the West, they are actually accomplices of the latter.

An article written by British captive John Cantlie rails against the Western media, and in particular the British and French media, for their campaign against ISIS, and also lashes out at British Prime Minister David Cameron and Western governments for their military attack on the organization, while claiming that the airstrikes actually increases ISIS’s appeal to new recruits.

ISIS Claims To Capture “Mossad Spy”

In an item titled “An Interview with a Mossad Spy” presents the alleged confession of a 19-year-old from Jerusalem who, the magazine claims, was recruited by Israeli intelligence to infiltrate the organization. He speaks of his recruitment and training and tells how he was caught.

Operations In Libya

In this issue ISIS also discusses two recent operations in Libya. First, it claims responsibility for the kidnapping of 21 Egyptian Copts in that country in early January 2015, and explains this was revenge for the kidnapping by Copts of Egyptian women Camilia Shehate and Wafa Constantine in 2010. Second, it celebrates its January 27 attack on the Corinthia hotel in Tripoli, in which nine were killed, including five foreigners, one of them an American.[ii]

Another topic discussed is ISIS’s expansion in the Caucasus, where several jihadi groups have pledged their loyalty to the organization, and in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, which ISIS now refers to as ‘the Khurasan province,’ after some groups there also declared their loyalty to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.[iii]

[i] For more on this item, see MEMRI JTTM report, “Dabiq VII Features Interview With Runaway Belgian ISIS Fighter Abdelhamid Abaaoud,” February 12, 2015.

[iii] For more on this see MEMRI JTTM report Commanders Of Ten Pakistani And Afghan Jihadist Organizations Swear Fealty To ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Hafiz Saeed Khan Chosen As First ISIS Emir For Khorasan Region, January 16, 2015.

Exclusive – ‘Tyranny of Clichés’ Excerpt: The Truth About the Crusades

tyrannyBreitbart, by JONAH GOLDBERG, Feb. 6, 2015:

Ed. Note: This is the second part of a four-part series of exclusive excerpts from Jonah Goldberg’s new book, “THE TYRANNY OF CLICHÉS: HOW LIBERALS CHEAT IN THE WAR OF IDEAS,” with an introduction from the author.

The word “crusader” has been completely captured by the forces political correctness. Whatever their sins, the Crusaders weren’t conquerors or the first invading shock troops of Western imperialism. They were warriors sent to reclaim lands taken by Islamic invaders. The great irony is that both Western progressives and Islamic fundamentalists have unwittingly bought into the same propaganda. — J.G.

—–

The Crusades

The great irony is that the zealot-reformers who want to return to a “pure” Islam have been irredeemably corrupted by Western ideas. Osama bin Laden had the idea that he was fighting the “new crusaders.” When George W. Bush once, inadvertently, used the word “crusade,” jihadists and liberal intellectuals alike erupted with rage. It was either a damning slip of the tongue whereby Bush accidentally admitted his real crusader agenda, or it was a sign of his stunning ignorance about the Crusades. Doesn’t he know what a sensitive issue the Crusades are? Doesn’t he know that the Crusades belong alongside the slaughter of the Indians, slavery, and disco in the long line of Western sins?

After all, it’s been in the papers for a while. In 1999, Muslim leaders demanded that Pope John Paul II apologize for the Crusades. “He has asked forgiveness from the Jews [for the Church’s passivity in the face of the Holocaust], so he should ask forgiveness from the Muslims,” Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, told the New York Times.3Across the country sports teams have been dropping their crusader mas­cots because they’re offensive to . . . someone. Wheaton College changed their seventy-year-old team name from the Crusaders to the Thunder (no word from Thor worshippers yet as to whether they are off ended). Even Campus Crusade for Christ opted to change its name to Cru partly be­cause the word crusade has become too radioactive. “It’s become a fl ash word for a lot of people. It harkens back to other periods of time and has a negative connotation for lots of people across the world, especially in the Middle East,” Steve Sellers, the organization’s vice president told Christianity Today. “In the ’50s, crusade was the evangelistic term in the United States. Over time, different words take on different meanings to diff erent groups.”4

I’ll say. Until fairly recently, historically speaking, Muslims used to brag about being the winners of the Crusades, not the victims of it. That is if they talked about them at all. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineff ectual re­sponse to the jihad–a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living historian of Islam in the English language (and perhaps any language).5 Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The cru­sades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”6

At first the larger Muslim world didn’t much care about the Christian reclamation of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The jihad to repel the cru­saders didn’t start in earnest until the European forces pressed on into the Muslim Holy Lands approaching Mecca and Medina. Even then the Muslim world considered the fight to reclaim Jerusalem a sideshow. The real fight was in the East, where caliphs were rolling up victory after victory in the old Byzantine Empire. In 1291, the Muslims expelled the last of the crusaders, and all remaining Christians and Jews in the Islamic world lived as second-class citizens (though often better than Muslims or Jews might have in many parts of Christendom). By the sixteenth century, Islam’s empire covered all of North Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, and much of southern Europe. Had Islamic forces not been turned back outside the Gates of Vienna, Christianity itself may not have survived. (The battle ended in victory for the Christians on September 12, but it was the day before, marking the apex of Muslim rule, that would stick in the minds of many Muslims for the next 318 years.)

By that point the Crusades period was several centuries in the rear­view mirror, and most Muslims considered them one of their many, if minor, victories.

“In the vast Arabic historiography of the Crusades period,” writes Lewis, “there is frequent reference to these invaders, who are always called ‘Franks’ or ‘infidels.’ The words ‘Crusade’ and ‘crusader’ simply do not occur.” Lewis notes that the word only starts to gain wide currency in the Middle East in the nineteenth century, when Western notions of imperialism seep into the Muslim mind. And that’s the irony. In the nineteenth century Europeans (and Americans) invoked the Crusades to justify their imperialist agenda. When imperialism fell into disrepute in the twentieth century, the Crusades fell with it. But the idea that twelfth-century Muslims–or even eighteenth-century Muslims–saw the Crusades as European imperial aggression is nonsense.7 “In other words,” Madden explains (writing back when bin Laden wasn’t fi sh food), “Muslims in the Middle East–including bin Laden and his creatures– know as little about the real crusades as Americans do. Both view them in the context of the modern, rather than the medieval world. The truth is that the crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression. They were a desperate and largely unsuccessful attempt to defend against a powerful enemy.”8

Lost in much of this discussion is that Christianity is not a Western faith imposed on the Middle East by the West. It was a faith born in the East that spread to the West. The Holy Lands were Christian for centu­ries before Muhammed was even born. The Crusades were launched not as a war of conquest but as a war to save Christians from Muslim perse­cution and conquest. Atrocities in the name of Christ were undoubtedly committed, as were atrocities in the name of Islam. One need not condone all of that. Indeed, one can single out Christianity for its hypocrisy, since the crusaders at times violated their ideals of love, forgiveness, and char­ity, while Islam was under no such restraint.

Regardless, to this day the Crusades myth saturates policy and aca­demic debates as if everyone knows what they were really about. Leading textbooks continue to describe the Crusades as the dawn of Western co­lonialism and imperialism rather than an effort to beat back Eastern colonialism and imperialism. According to the authors of Western Civili­zations: Their History and Their Culture: “the Crusades opened the fi rst chapter in the history of western colonialism. . . . Western colonialism in the Holy Land was only the beginning of a long history of colonialism that has continued until modern times.”9 The often in error but never in doubt New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in 2003 that Bush’s foreign policy had backfired because the “neocons . . . have created new terrorist-breeding swamps full of angry young Arabs who see America the same way Muslims saw Westerners in the Crusades: as Christian expansionist imperialists motivated by piety and greed.”10

It’s a bizarre turn. Robert Frost defined a liberal as someone too broad-minded to take his own side in a fight. In their desperation not to take their own side, today’s anti-imperialists take at face value the fl awed arguments of nineteenth- and twentieth-century imperialists just so they can condemn their own country for its imperialism. And, in their conde­scension, liberal commentators assume the West was always in the position of the aggressor, the hegemon, the empire builder, and that we have noth­ing to offer to the rest of the world but apologies. They lecture the rest of us about the burning need to understand and empathize with the frustra­tion of the Arab street, and for Westerners to see things through their eyes so we don’t breed even more terrorists (see Chapter 23, Understanding).

Meanwhile, the Muslim fanatics we are hectored to understand are recognizable to liberals precisely because they’ve been colonized by the same Western clichés.

Excerpted from THE TYRANNY OF CLICHÉS: HOW LIBERALS CHEAT IN THE WAR OF IDEAS by Jonah Goldberg by arrangement with Sentinel, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc., Copyright © Jonah Goldberg, 2012.

Obama And Islam’s Non-Existent Golden Rule

obama1 (1)NER, by Hugh Fitzgerald, Feb. 6, 2015:

Barack Obama ended his talk at the National Prayer Breakfast with a quote from the Hadtih (Sahih Muslim):

“And, finally, let’s remember that if there is one law that we can all be most certain of that seems to bind people of all faiths, and people who are still finding their way towards faith but have a sense of ethics and morality in them — that one law, that Golden Rule that we should treat one another as we wish to be treated. The Torah says “Love thy neighbor as yourself.” In Islam, there is a Hadith that states: “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” The Holy Bible tells us to “put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” Put on love….”

Quoting this Hadtih — incidentally, this is the first time that Obama has publicly used that word — from the Sahih Muslim is like quoting Quran 5.32 without its modifier 5.33, that vitiates the original verse lifted from the Mishnah, or 2.256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) without understanding what that verse means, for clearly the three possibilities open to non-Muslims under Muslim rule — death, conversion, or life as a dhimmi, with a host of economic, political, and social disabilities that for many proved unendurable.

Ali Sina, the celebrated apostate who was born and raised in Islam, has written extensively, in a debate with Yamin Zakaria, about the non-eexistence of the Golden Rule in Islam. It can be found at his website, http://www.faithfreedom.org. He also wrote, a few years after the original article, a rebuttal to the objections raised by a Muslim defending the faith:

“The Quran is a book of double standards. Indeed there are exhortations to Muslims to be kind to the poor, the traveler, the orphan and the sick. This is to be expected. If you want to start a religion you must preach something good or you”d not find anyone to believe you. You cannot preach only evil. In order to attract followers you must teach things that people like and can easily identify as good. Once they accept you as a prophet, guru or their spiritual guide, then you can do whatever you want and get away with it.

The difference between a true spiritual teacher and a conman is in their consistency. There are several teachings of Muhammad that can be compared to those of Jesus, but the teachings of Jesus are consistent while those of Muhammad are not. Even a criminal can give you good advises, this does not mean this criminal is a good person.

When I was young there was a radio show in Iran called A City within Our City. Every week the producer interviewed a prison inmate on death roll and the criminal would tell the story of his life and what brought him to crime. At the end of the program the producer would ask, whether the criminal had any advice for young people. These criminals often had the best advices. They knew exactly the difference between right and wrong. I recall thinking, if only someone complied the advices of these criminals he could write the best book of guidance. Good words are dime a dozen. If they are not accompanied by good actions they are worthless. In fact the difference between a great man and a conman is in how much their word and deed differ. Demagogy is the domain of all charlatans and they are good at it.

We find similar good exhortations in the teachings of Jim Jones who actually based his religion on “social justice”. He even adopted children from many races to set the example.

The problem with the good teachings of Muhammad is that they are reserved for fellow Muslims. When the hadith says “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself,.” it is talking about the fellow Muslims. The brotherhood in Islam does not extend to everyone. The Quran (9:23) states that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers if they love Infidelity above Islam. In fact there are many verses that tell the Muslims to kill the unbelievers and be harsh to them. A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29): “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”

There are many other verses that show the brotherhood in Islam is not universal. The non believers have no rights and should not be treated in the same way that Muslims are to be treated. The entire Quran is a breach of the Golden Rule. The Quran tells Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), do not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), smite their heads (47:4), etc. Are these verses compatible with the Golden Rule?

Islam is the only doctrine that calls upon its believers to do evil to others for the simple fact that they are not believers.

According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad, it is Muhammad who does it. They believe that what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate evil. This is the definition of good and evil in Islam. This is the ethos of all cults. From Asahara’s “Aum Shinrikyo” to Jim Jones” “People’s Temple”; from Sun Myung Moon’s “Unification Chruch” to David Koresh’s “Davidian Branch”, the recurring theme is that the cult’s interests override the human understanding of right and wrong. In order to advance the interest of the cult, which is regarded as the ultimate good, everything, including lying, and even murder and assassination are permissible. The end is deemed to be so lofty that it justifies the means. This is the same idea of fascism where the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it are enforced.

None of the verse quoted above have anything to do with the Golden Rule.

Verse 13:22 tells the believers to be patient and generous with their money. This is what all cults demand from their followers. The more sacrifice the cultist makes the more he or she can be manipulated. Verse 23:96 asks Muslims to repel evil, whereas the definition of evil for Muhammad was contradicting him. Verse 41:34 is a Meccan verse where Muhammad and his followers were the underdogs and here he preached patience and said repel evil with good so your enemy becomes as friend. Could he have done anything else? These orders changed when Muhammad came to power. In Medina Muhammad banished and massacred entire populations just because he suspected that they may not be friendly to him. 28:54 is a repetition of 23:96 and 42:40 says whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah. However, Muhammad never forgave those who mocked him. As for Muhammad’s unforgiving nature it is enough to recall the fate of Oqba the man who when Muhammad was in Mecca used to mock him and when he was captured in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad ordered his decapitation. He ventured to expostulate, and demand why he should be treated more vigorously than the other captives who were kept for ransom. “˜Because of your enmity to God and to his Prophet,” replied Muhammad. “˜And my little girl!” cried Oqba, in the bitterness of his soul, “˜Who will take care of her?” — “˜Hellfire!” exclaimed the heartless conqueror; and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground. “˜Wretch that he was!” continued Muhammad, “˜and persecutor! Unbeliever in God, in his Prophet, and in his Book! I give thanks unto the Lord that has slain you, and comforted mine eyes thereby.”

How do you reconcile the claim that Muhammad in his farewell sermon said, “Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” With the fact that in his deathbed he said, “No two religions are allowed in Arabia” and ordered the forced conversion, expulsion or ethnic cleansing of the Jews and Christian and the murder of Pagans?

The sura 9, which is the last words of Muhammad, is a manifesto of discrimination and human rights abuses. This sura alone is proof that Islam is against the Golden Rule

The first requisite to feel the pain and suffering of others is to accept that they have feelings like us and they also feel hurt the way we do. If we deny such feelings on others we do not feel any remorse in abusing them. Muhammad claimed all those who disbelieve in Allah are the worst creatures. He even said that all non-believers will end up in hell where they will be tortured for eternity. How then Muslims can treat equally those whom they believe to be worst than beast and that deserve eternal punishment?

There is nothing in the Quran and Hadith that would make us believe that Islam is compatible with the Golden Rule.

———————————————————-

Obama, I suppose, has not had time — nor have his advisers and speech writers, including those who helped write that speech on Islam that Obama gave at Al-Azhar a few years ago — to read a bit more to understand what that line from a hadith that one of his advisers — Ben Rhodes? — means. It does not mean “love his brother” where “brother” stands for “fellow man.” It refers only to fellow Muslims. The Qur’an instructs Muslims not to take Christians and Jews as friends, and to make war on them if they do not convert, or submit, as dhimmis, to Islam. If Obama can quote a Hadith (that’s the first time he’s used that word in public) he can find out  what’s in the Qur’an.

When is Barack Obama going to look into Islam, and stop all this nonsense? He has a duty to instruct. And that begins with the task — possibly a little less watching of basketball games and suchlike on television is called for  of self-instruction.

Obama: Christianity No Different Than the Islamic State

Obama-at-2015-National-Prayer-Breakfast-450x315Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, Feb. 6, 2015:

As the world reacts with shock and horror at the increasingly savage deeds of the Islamic State (IS)—in this case, the recent immolation of a captive—U.S. President Obama’s response has been one of nonjudgmental relativism.

Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 5, Obama counseled Americans to get off their “high horse” and remember that Christians have been equally guilty of such atrocities:

Unless we get on our high horse and think this [beheadings, sex-slavery, crucifixion, roasting humans] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.

There is so much to be said here.  First, the obvious: the wide gulf between violence and hate “justified in the name of Christ” and violence and hate “justified in the name of Muhammad” is that Christ never justified it, while Muhammad continuously did.

This is not just a theoretic point; it is the very reason that Muslims are still committing savage atrocities.  Every evil act IS commits—whether beheading, crucifying, raping, enslaving, or immolating humans—has precedents in the deeds of Muhammad, that most “perfect” and “moral” man, per Koran 33:21 and 68:4 (see “The Islamic State and Islam” for parallels).

Does Obama know something about Christ—who eschewed violence and told people to love and forgive their enemies—that we don’t?  Perhaps he’s clinging to that solitary verse that academics like Philip Jenkins habitually highlight, that Christ—who “spoke to the multitudes in parables and without a parable spoke not” once said, “I come not to bring peace but a sword.” (Matt. 10:34, 13:34).

Jesus was not commanding violence against non-Christians but rather predicting that Christians will be persecuted, including by family members (as, for example, when a Muslim family slaughters their child for “apostatizing” to Christianity as happens frequently).

Conversely, in its fatwa justifying the burning of the Jordanian captive, the Islamic State cites Muhammad putting out the eyes of some with “heated irons” (he also cut their hands and feet off).  The fatwa also cites Khalid bin al-Walid—the heroic “Sword of Allah”—who burned apostates to death, including one man whose head he set on fire to cook his dinner on.

Nor is the Islamic State alone in burning people.  Recently a “mob accused of burning alive a Christian couple in an industrial kiln in Pakistan allegedly wrapped a pregnant mother in cotton so she would catch fire more easily.”

As for the Islamic “authorities,” Al Azhar—the Islamic world’s oldest and most prestigious university which cohosted Obama’s 2009 “New Beginning” speech—still assigns books that justify every barbarity IS commits, including burning people alive.  Moreover, Al Azhar—a religious institution concerned with what is and is not Islamic—has called for the cutting off of the hands and feet of IS members, thereby legitimizing such acts according to Islamic law.

On the other hand, does Obama know of some secret document in the halls of the Vatican that calls for amputating, beheading or immolating enemies of Christ to support his religious relativism?

As for the much maligned Crusades, Obama naturally follows the mainstream academic narrative that anachronistically portrays the crusaders as greedy, white, Christian imperialists who decided to conquer peace-loving Muslims in the Middle East.

Again, familiarity with the true sources and causes behind the Crusades shows that they were a response to the very same atrocities being committed by the Islamic State today.  Consider the words of Pope Urban II, spoken almost a millennium ago, and note how well they perfectly mirror IS behavior:

From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians [i.e., Muslim Turks] … has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country [as slaves], and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion ….  What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent….  On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength…

If the crusaders left their own lands and families to come to the aid of persecuted Christians and to liberate Jerusalem, here is Obama portraying them as no better than the Islamic State—which isn’t surprising considering that, far from helping persecuted Christians, Obama’s policies have significantly worsened their plight.

According to primary historical texts—not the modern day fantasies peddled by the likes of Karen Armstrong, an ex-nun with an axe to grind—Muslim persecution of Christians was indeed a primary impetus for the Crusades.

As for the Inquisition, this too took place in the context of Christendom’s struggle with Islam. (Isn’t it curious that the European nation most associated with the Inquisition, Spain, was also the only nation to be conquered and occupied by Islam for centuries?)  After the Christian reconquest of Spain, Muslims, seen as untrustworthy, were ordered either to convert to Christianity or go back to Africa whence they came.  Countless Muslims feigned conversion by practicing taqiyya and living as moles, always trying to subvert Spain back to Islam.  Hence the extreme measures of the Inquisition—which, either way, find no support in the teachings of Christ.

Conversely, after one of his jihads, Muhammad had a man tortured to death in order to reveal his tribe’s hidden treasure and “married” the same man’s wife hours later.  Unsurprisingly, the woman, Safiya, later confessed that “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” before “marrying” her.

In short, Obama’s claim that there will always be people willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends” is patently false when applied to the Islamic State and like organizations and individuals.

Muhammad himself called for the murder of his enemies; he permitted Muslims to feign friendship to his enemies in order to assassinate them; he incited his followers to conquer and plunder non-believers, promising them a sexual paradise if they were martyred; he kept sex slaves and practiced pedophilia with his “child-bride,” Aisha.

He, the prophet of Islam, did everything the Islamic State is doing.

If Muslims are supposed to follow the sunna, or example, of Muhammad, and if Muhammad engaged in and justified every barbarity being committed by the Islamic State and other Muslims—how, exactly, are they “hijacking” Islam?

Such is the simple logic Obama fails to grasp.  Or else he does grasp it—but hopes most Americans don’t.

Homeland Security Adviser Mohamed Elibiary Goes on Hate-Filled Anti-Christian Rant, Attacks Jindal as ‘Bottom Feeder’

By Patrick Poole:

Obama administration Muslim adviser Mohamed Elibiary is no stranger to regular PJ Media readers.

In September, Elibiary was unceremoniously removed from his fellowship position with the Department of Homeland Security, which he tried to spin as a “resignation,” but letters sent to members of Congress by DHS officials indicated he would not be reappointed.

Undoubtedly, one of the chief reasons for DHS cutting ties with Elibiary was a long string of extremist statements he had been making on Twitter, including talking about the inevitability of the return of an ISIS-style caliphate — tweets that were subsequently used by ISIS supporters for recruiting purposes.

But Elibiary has apparently not learned his lesson, engaging in a hate-filled anti-Christian rant on Twitter yesterday, even going so far to attack Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal as a “bottom feeder”:

M. Elibiary

Nor, as you’ll see below, is this the first time he has indulged in his anti-Christian bigotry.

Before revisiting his Twitter meltdown, perhaps it’s useful to revisit some of Elibiary’s greatest hits:

  • Elibiary admitted that his mentor and long-time friend was none other than Hamas terrorist leader Shukri Abu Baker, who is currently serving a 65-year prison sentence.
  • In 2003, Elibiary was listed as a board member for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas chapter, which was founded by now-convicted Hamas operative Ghassan Elashi. In 2008, federal prosecutors declared in a federal court brief that “from its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
  • In Dec 2004, Elibiary was a featured speaker at a Dallas rally honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini as a “Great Islamic Visionary,” an event the Dallas Morning News called a “disgrace.”
  • Immediately after the Fort Hood massacre in November 2009, Dallas Morning News editor Rod Dreher recounted Elibiary’s strident defense of jihadist ideologue Sayyid Qutb, whom the 9/11 Commission identified as the chief architect of Al-Qaeda’s ideology.
  • In April 2010, he published an op-ed at Fox News pleading with the Obama administration to not kill senior Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
  • In June 2010, he attacked the Supreme Court after they upheld the material support for terrorism statute in an op-ed for the Dallas Morning News.
  • In June 2011, the IRS revoked the 501c3 tax-exempt status of Elibiary’s Freedom and Justice Foundation for failing to file the required IRS Form 990s over a period of several years, documents which would reveal the source of his organization’s funding.
  • In October 2011, I reported exclusively here at PJ Media that Elibiary had downloaded sensitive documents by the Texas Dept. of Public Safety from a secure DHS database, and then unsuccessfully tried to shop them to the media claiming then-Gov. Rick Perry was running an “Islamophobic” operation. Despite multiple claims by top DHS officials that an internal investigation exonerated Elibiary, in Sept 2013 DHS admitted in response to the Judicial Watch FOIA request that no records related to any internal investigation existed, prompting members of Congress to claim DHS was engaged in a cover-up. Texas DPS, having conducted their own investigation, severed their relationship with Elibiary.
  • After 30 million Egyptians took to the streets to remove Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi, leading to his ouster, Elibiary added a Muslim Brotherhood logo to his Twitter avatar in solidarity with the extremist Islamic group.
  • In November 2013, Elibiary took to Twitter to announce that the U.S. was a shariah-compliant Islamic country.

So that provides some context for his hate-filled Twitter rant yesterday.

Read more at PJ Media