Former Jihadism Insider Tells All

Dr. Tawfik Hamid

Dr. Tawfik Hamid

Religious Freedom Coalition, by Andrew Harrod, PhD, Feb. 8, 2016:

Inside Jihad:  How Radical Islam Works, Why It Should Terrify Us, How to Defeat It, the autobiographical book by former Egyptian would-be jihadist Tawfik Hamid, has recently appeared in a revised 2015 edition.  This critically important, tremendously insightful insider analysis of Islam, its various threats, and reform possibilities is no less relevant now than the first edition seven years ago.

“A literal interpretation of the Quran, along with mainstream teachings of Islam today, can easily be used to justify” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) explains Hamid in detail.  Around the world “Denialists,” as he terms them, “typically and stubbornly promote the view that Islam is a peaceful religion,” but “violent injunctions of Sharia are not bizarre, extremist or anachronistic Islamic interpretations.”  “Excusing ISIS as being ‘un-Islamic’ is absurd.”

Hamid justifies his judgments with the experience of an individual born 1961 into a highly-educated “secular Muslim family in Cairo,” Egypt, who turned to religion as a medical student.  His uniquely interesting autobiography documents how the son of a privately atheist doctor participated in the Egyptian Islamist group Jamaa Islamiya (JI) from 1979-1982 before a spiritual transformation turned the younger Hamid away from violence.  In JI he was “prepared to train with jihadists in Afghanistan—to fight and kill the Russian invaders in the name of Allah.”

“Medical students are often more attracted to religion because they see the power of God in nature on a regular basis,” writes Hamid while noting that his life story is no exception.  “Westerners are often astonished to observe highly accomplished Muslim doctors in the terrorist ranks,” he notes while citing the example of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian surgeon currently leading al-Qaeda.  “Dr. Ayman,” as he was known through his involvement in various Islamist groups to Hamid and his colleagues, “came from a wealthy, well-known and well-educated family and was a top postgraduate student.”  Zawahiri exemplifies for Hamid that, among Islamist leaders, “many if not most emerged from the upper socioeconomic classes,” contrary to “naïve and unrealistic” socioeconomic explanations for jihad such as poverty.

Hamid testifies from personal experience that “[i]t is entirely accurate to refer to Islamic terror as ‘Islamic terror,’” even though for the Arabic jihad a “non-violent interpretation is often advanced by Muslims to avoid criticism of Islam.”  Yet the “dominant sense in Islamic books is violent.  It is misleading and dishonest to claim that the nonviolent understanding is in any way typical today.”   “If you ask a Muslim child in the Arab world to define jihad, in most cases the answer would be ‘war against the infidels.’”

A “large percentage of Muslims today” also practice what Hamid terms “passive terrorism,” a “broad category of enabling behaviors and beliefs, both conscious and unconscious, which serve to exacerbate jihadism.”  Such “support for terror often takes the form of taqiyya,” Islamic doctrinally-justified deception.  “One of the tactics Islamists use to deceive the West is to present the same religious information to non-Muslims in one way and to Muslims in another.”

For Islamic fundamentalists or Salafists (salaf in Arabic means “ancestor”) this deception includes the Islamic doctrine ofabrogation, in which chronologically later Quranic verses annul earlier verses. “Abrogation allows Salafists to deceive non-Muslims into believing Islam is a religion of peace,” Hamid writes.  “To non-Muslims, Salafists present the peaceful verses.  To their own flock, they present the violent verses and teach that they abrogate the peaceful ones.

Beyond religious warfare, Hamid warns that “Islamists will use democracy to end democracy.”  Proliferating “Islamist organizations” are a “frequent source of mystification to Westerners, but for all intents and purposes the strategic goal of each organization is the same; they differ primarily in tactical focus.”  Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has shown through the years that it seeks “to infiltrate politics at the grassroots level” in an “insidious strategy that inhibits outsiders from suspecting the brotherhood’s creeping tyranny.

Against such illiberalism a reformed Hamid in Egypt “began to preach a peaceful understanding of Islam” after his abandonment of JI.  He joined “a very small sect of Islam that followed only the Quran” and rejected the hadith or biographical accounts of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and other traditional Islamic canons.  “Tolerating different views was an important creed of the Quranics” and in their rejection of violent Islamic doctrines such as corporal punishment they considered historic Islamic imperial expansions “as immoral and senseless.”

Hamid’s unorthodox understandings of Islam have not gone without opposition, as he learned when he gave a sermon at an Egyptian mosque.  After prayers at the mosque, a mob of violent Muslims confronted him and an accompanying friend; punches to the latter and a shower of stones left the pair running.  Today Hamid worries that “passive terrorists often behave actively by suppressing moderate voices” by “ostracizing the moderate Muslim and his family or by using harsh language, physical threats and even violence.”

Hamid claims that “Islamic writings can be interpreted in a manner that encourages peace and tolerance.”  Yet he doubts the doctrinal authenticity of secular- and mystical- (Sufi) oriented Muslims.  “It pains me to state it, but both Sufi and secular Islam are weak in their theological foundations” and “lack recourse to the doctrinal bedrock in Islam that Salafists enjoy.”

Nonetheless, the Quranic Hamid remains undeterred.  Many “violent tenets in Islam are not sourced in the Quran but in secondary writings” that “are not the Word of God,” he writes.  For the violent Quran verses themselves, his specific hermeneutic “neither cancels nor abrogates them but limits their scope to the historical period within which they were revealed.”

Hamid’s “Relativity of the Quran” justifies a “peaceful version of the faith, one that lives in harmony with other faiths in civilized societies.”  Quran 39:55 means that “Muslims are permitted by Allah to follow the verses that better suit their point in history.”  “I am a Muslim, and I consider much in Islam to be beautiful and worthwhile,” he writes as he struggles to redeem Islam from its orthodox absolutes.

Andrew E. Harrod is a researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project, an organization combating the misuse of human rights law against Western societies. He can be followed on twitter at @AEHarrod.

What Happens When a Muslim Dies?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 9, 2016:

Why are so many Muslims motivated to fight and die as martyrs/shaheeds in Islam?

According to Islamic doctrine, when a Muslim dies for any reason – car crash, heart attack, old age – his body is washed, shrouded, prayed over, and buried in accordance with Sharia (Islamic Law).  Specific details of how the body is washed, who is to wash, specific prayers to be prayed, and how the grave is dug is all a part of the Sharia covering this topic.

Once the deceased is placed in the grave, his soul separates from the body and lingers above it.  Here is a description from What Islam is All About, the most popular text used in Islamic junior high schools in America:

“When you die, your soul is taken from your body by the Angel of Death.  If you were a good person, it is gently drawn out from  your flesh.  If you were bad, however, then your soul is ripped violently from it….

“If you were a believer in Allah, and followed the teachings of your Prophet…your environment will then be softly lighted.  Your resting place in the spiritual dimension will be made roomy and comfortable and you will sleep and dream gently until the Day of Judgment.

“But if you were a bad person, who didn’t believe in Allah, or a hypocrite, then the angels will become horrifying to you.  They will strike you and cause your soul’s resting place to squeeze in upon you until you feel suffocated.  Then you will be tormented and in agony until the Day of Judgment.”

But how does a Muslim know whether he followed the teachings of Islam or not throughout his life? Islam teaches that every Muslim has two beings called “Jinns” which record all of their good and bad deeds throughout life.  If the bad deeds outweigh the good deeds, he goes to hell on the Day of Judgment.  If the good deeds outweigh the bad deeds, he goes to paradise.  But there is no way to know until the Day of Judgment where he is going.

There is only one exception.

The martyr or shaheed – the one who dies in battle in Allah’s cause (Jihad) – immediately goes to the highest level of paradise the moment his first drop of blood hits the ground, and he receives the promise of sensual pleasures.  The shaheed avoids all punishments of the grave and is sure of his reward in paradise. The shaheed does not feel the pain of death.

Jihad (6)

“It is unlawful to wash the body of a martyr or perform funeral prayer over him. A martyr means someone who died in battle with non-Muslims.  It is recommended that war gear be removed from the body, and it is best to bury the martyr in the rest of his bloodstained clothes since it is the effect of worship.” [Um dat al Salik, 14th Century Islamic Sacred Law, certified by Al Azhar as authoritative Sunni Islamic Law]

To die as a shaheed against non-Muslims is the highest form of worship in Islam.

The Koran promises shaheeds go to the highest level of paradise above all other Muslims:

“Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons.  Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home. Unto all in Faith Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” [Koran 4:95]

“Those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah (jihad) and are then slain or die, on them will Allah bestow verily a goodly Provision; truly Allah is he who bestows the best Provision.” [Koran 22:58]

This is why in Islamic schools across the world, and in America, 7th graders are taught:  “If anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically will go to Paradise.  A Shaheed, or Martyr, is described this way by Allah, ‘Don’t think that those who were killed in Allah’s Cause are dead.  No, they are alive, finding their bounty in the presence of their Lord.’ (Koran 3:169)” [What Islam is All About, pg 164]

In Islam “The Cause of Allah” is Jihad.

It is clear to all Muslims, which is why it is taught to Muslim children in mosques and Islamic schools across America, that to die fighting non-Muslims is the highest form of worship in Islam and the only way to guarantee paradise when a Muslim dies.

ISIS: The Latest Phase of the Jihad

Hoover Institution’s Strategika, by Raymond Ibrahim, Feb. 5, 2016:

The best way to understand the Islamic State (ISIS) is to see it as the next phase of al-Qaeda. All Sunni Islamic jihadi groups—Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban, al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda, even Hamas—share the same motivations based on a literal and orthodox reading of Islamic history and doctrine: resurrecting a caliphate (which existed in various forms from 632 to 1924) that implements and spreads the totality of sharia, or Islamic law.

ggAccordingly, ISIS’s notorious atrocities—beheading, crucifixion, sexual enslavement, and destruction of non-Sunni places of worship—are being committed by other jihadi groups (e.g., Boko Haram and al-Shabaab, both of which pledged allegiance to ISIS) and even by some Muslim governments (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and individual Muslims around the world.

Conversely, although al-Qaeda (AQ) adheres to the same sharia that ISIS implements, it has long waged a propaganda war against the West. AQ portrays all terrorist attacks on the West, including 9/11, as mere payback for the West’s unjust polices against Muslims, including support for Israel and Arab dictators.[1]

To maintain this “grievance” narrative, AQ knows that the innately supremacist and violent aspects of sharia—for example ISIS’ destruction of churches and subjugation of “infidel” Christian minorities—need to be curtailed or hidden from the Western world.  Otherwise AQ’s efforts of portraying jihadis as “freedom fighters” resisting an oppressive West risk being undermined.[2]

Regardless, AQ’s strategy of turning Western opinion appears to have borne fruit in one pivotal area: canceling longtime Western support for secular Arab dictators. In the context of the “Arab Spring,” the Obama administration turned its back on America’s Egyptian ally of 30 years, Hosni Mubarak; helped ISIS-affiliated jihadis overthrow Libya’s Gaddafi (even though he was complying with Washington); and continues supporting ISIS-affiliated “moderates”[3] to overthrow Syria’s Assad. Idealists in both government and media forgot a primary reason the U.S. had formerly supported secular Arab dictators: they single-mindedly opposed the jihadis.

The result has been a new and emboldened phase of the jihad, a.k.a., ISIS. Born and entrenched in precisely those nations that U.S. leadership brought “freedom and democracy” to—Iraq, Syria, and Libya—ISIS (or al-Qaeda 2.0) is now indifferent to Western opinion. By widely broadcasting its savage triumphalism in the name of Islam, ISIS forfeits the “grievance card” but plays the “strength” card, thus inspiring millions of Muslims. According to the Pew Research Center, in 11 countries alone, at least 63 million and as many as 287 million Muslims support ISIS.[4]

Yet even ISIS works in stages. When criticized by Muslims for killing fellow Muslims and not attacking Israel—the supreme enemy—ISIS responded by saying it was following the pattern of the historic caliphate founded in 632.[5] Then, Caliph Abu Bakr beheaded and crucified tens of thousands of Muslims for apostatizing. Only after the rebel tribes were brought back into the fold of Islam were they set loose to conquer European/Christian territories during history’s early Muslim conquests (634–750). Indeed, it is believed that ISIS’ caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took this name to signify his focus, that is, terrorizing all “hypocrites” and “apostates” until they unify under the caliphate’s banner.

It still remains to be seen whether ISIS’ strategy—inspiring Muslims but losing Western opinion—will succeed. According to polls, “Islamophobia” is on the rise in the West, especially after the rise of ISIS, prompting several politicians to speak more candidly about the catalysts for terrorist violence.

The Obama administration’s weak responses feed into AQ’s narrative that Islamic terrorism at least in part reflects Islamic grievance; and it refuses to connect the actions of any jihadi organization—whether ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, et al—to Islamic teaching.

Time will tell whether the next administration will remain willfully ignorant of the nature of its jihadi enemy—which is fatal in war according to Sun Tzu’s ancient dictum, “know your enemy”—or whether reality will trump political correctness.

[1] See “An Analysis of Al-Qa’ida’s Worldview: Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation?” Also, The Al Qaeda Reader, which separates the organization’s communiqués into two groups: “Propaganda” messages to the West portraying jihadi terrorists as mere freedom fighters, and “Theology” messages to fellow Muslims, preaching the same Islam of ISIS.

[2] See “Al-Qaeda: Defender of Christians?” for a more elaborate explanation of this theme.

[3] For the Syrian Free Army’s role: “Largest Massacre of Christians in Syria Ignored.”

[4]Pew poll: Between 63 million and 287 million ISIS supporters in just 11 countries.”

[5]New Islamic Caliphate Declares Jihad on … Muslims.”

President Obama’s Speech at Islamic Center of Baltimore: A Fact Check

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by Clare Lopez, Feb.5, 2016:

Perhaps it’s because he was making faces in Qur’an class instead of paying attention to his teacher. Or maybe he just has a selective memory about what he was taught as a young Muslim student in Indonesia.

Whatever the reason, President Barack Obama got a lot of things factually wrong in his 3 February 2016 speech at the Islamic Center of Baltimore. Things that are basic to doctrinal Islam are not only knowable because they are readily available in English but, it might be argued, obligatory that an American commander-in-chief should know in fulfillment of his oath to defend the Constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic.”

First, Mr. President, a mosque is not simply the Muslim version of a church, synagogue or temple. Because of the example of Muhammad, who is called the perfect man in the Qur’an (believed by Muslims to be the exact words of Allah), we know that mosques are established not only as places of prayer and worship, but also as centers for indoctrination, the dispensing of shariah justice, the stockpiling of weapons, and the launching of jihad. If in doubt about any of this, please check with the French police, who recently have been conducting raids on mosques and Islamic Centers in the wake of horrific jihadist attacks in Paris.

The president must have missed more than one lesson on Arabic grammar, too. When he claims that “the word itself, Islam, comes from salam—peace,” he is mistaken. While the words “Islam” and “salam” share the same three root letters—s, l, m—they are, in fact, very different words with completely different meanings. While “salam” indeed means “peace” in Arabic, “Islam” means “submission.” Submission to what? To Allah and Islamic Law. A “Muslim” is a person who submits. Surely the president knows this. Or maybe the White House Arabic language translator needs to be replaced.

Unfortunately, in pursuit of that submission, Islamic doctrine obligates Muslim conquest of the Dar al-Harb (places not yet subjugated to shariah). We know this not only from the example of Muhammad’s own life as taught to Muslim students from the 1st grade, but also from the Qur’an and hadiths. For example, Qur’an verse 9:29 says: “Fight those who believe not… until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” The Qur’an is quite clear in verse 3:85 as well: ‘Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him…’ Islamic Law defines jihad quite simply: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

This is not cherry-picking Qur’anic verses. This is Islamic doctrine as uniformly presented in the Qur’an, hadiths, biography of Muhammad, and Islamic Law. It is the agreed consensus of all authoritative Islamic scholars throughout the centuries. We may wish that more Muslim scholars would teach the prohibition of terror (jihad). But of course, they cannot teach what is contrary to Islamic doctrine. For the Qur’an itself commands Muslims to “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power… to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy.” (Q 8:60)

And when the President purports to quote the Qur’an about killing an innocent, he either willfully or out of ignorance is misquoting Islamic scripture. In fact, Qur’an verse 5:32cites from a Jewish commentary on the Talmud: “On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people…” This is the definition of killing without right in Islam. The takeaway here is that a Muslim may not kill except those who themselves have killed without right or perpetrated “mischief in the land”—which may include failing to accept Islam. What the President and others too often leave out is the next verse, Q 5:33, which lays out the punishments for those who disobey 5:32. They are: “death, crucifixion, amputation of the hand and foot on opposite sides or exile from the land.” The President might be asked why he left those out, when they are precisely the punishments the Islamic State (IS) is applying to those under its control in faithful obedience to what they believe is the word of Allah. This isn’t an IS version or interpretation of the Qur’an. It is what the Qur’an actually says.

These are just a few of the things the President might have said, were his intention to be accurate about the enemy we fight. He might have added that we are not actually fighting terrorism: we are fighting to defend the Constitution from attack by forces of jihad seeking to impose shariah. This does not mean we must be at war with all Muslims. But all those who fight or support the Global Jihad Movement are on the wrong side of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the way of life Americans treasure because, unlike Islamic doctrine, they enshrine principles of individual liberty, equality before man-made law, government by consent of the governed, and the right to freedoms of belief and speech.

Those, Mr. President, are the “first things” principles we Americans are willing to fight and die for. American Muslims who accept and defend them are patriots, too—but unfortunately, these are not principles to be found anywhere in the authoritative Islamic canon—and Americans need to know that.

Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

From AQ to ISIS: The New Deadlier Face of Jihad

isis 5

Dr. Sebastian Gorka gave this excellent lecture to a Marine Corps audience in March 2015.

Sharia as the Jihad’s Point of Coordination

arabwaveFrontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 4, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin has a really important paper out and you should read it all, but I just want to highlight one area.

The three entities (the ummah, dawah and jihadi) do not have to act along formal chains of command to interoperate successfully. This is because they each execute according to their own functional orientation to Islam that reconciles through a common understanding of Islamic law.

And further

To appreciate the strategy, it should be visualized along the lines of the starfish rather than the spider: Cut an appendage from a starfish, and the severed part can grow into a fully functional starfish. Cut off a spider’s head, and all appendages become useless. In terms of command relationships, we in the West tend to think like spiders. While the Soviet Union was a spider; the Islamic Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and ISIS are starfish.

These are very important points that need to be understood to grasp the larger scope of the struggle. Finally…

To say the threat arises out of Islam is to say that it emanates from shariah. Hence, the arrow in the diagram reflects the recognition that the three lines of operation emanate from Islam through a common understanding of shariah. For this reason, shariah also provides a common reference point based on Islamic legal concepts recognized as settled. This doctrinal framework is commonly understood and easily communicated in the Islamic world. For this observation to be valid, one does not have to prove that the underlying Islamic law reflects “true Islam,” or even that most Muslims agree with it.

As I’ve said, read the whole thing, but this needs to be kept in mind, particularly when arguing with the “ISIS is not real Islam” or “Hamas is not real Islam” school of deniers.

‘There is No God and Karl Marx is His Prophet’: The Links Between Communism, Islam, and Slavery

Screen-Shot-2016-01-28-at-8.21.37-PM-640x480Breitbart, by Andrew G. Bostom, Jan. 29, 2016″

The following is the text of a speech delivered Friday, January 29, 2016 at The Education Policy Conference, St. Louis, MO.

Sociologist Jules Monnerot’s 1949 book, Sociology of Communism, made very explicit connections between Islamic and 20th-century Communist totalitarianism. The title of his first chapter, dubbed Communism as “The Twentieth-Century Islam.” Monnerot elucidates these two primary shared characteristics of Islam and Communism: “conversion”—followed by subversion—from within, and the fusion of “religion” and state. He argued, “Communism takes the field both as a secular religion and as a universal State; it is therefore… comparable to Islam…,” while each also “…work[s] outside the[ir] imperial frontiers to undermine the social structure of neighboring States.”

Indeed, a humorist contemporary of Monnerot had cogently highlighted the striking similarities between Islam and Communism, referring to the Communist creed with this aphorism: “There is no G-d, and Karl Marx is his prophet.”

Sadly, in our present stultifying era, which increasingly demands only a hagiographic view of Islam, even such witty, illuminating aphorisms may become verboten. Witness President Obama’s stern warning during his Tuesday, September 25, 2012, speech to the UN General Assembly, when he proclaimed: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The late Islamologist Maxime Rodinson warned in 1974 of a broad academic campaign—which has clearly infected policymakers across the politico-ideological spectrum“to sanctify Islam and the contemporary ideologies of the Muslim world.” A pervasive phenomenon, Rodinson ruefully described the profundity of its deleterious consequences:  “Understanding [of Islam] has given way to apologetics pure and simple.”

An ex-Communist himself, Maxime Rodinson (d. 2004), reaffirmed the essential validity of Monnerot’s 1949 comparison between Islam and Communism. During a September 28, 2001, interview with Le Figaro, Rodinson acknowledged that, while still a Communist, he had taken umbrage with Monnerot’s assessment. But having long since renounced the Communist Party, Rodinson (circa September, 2001) conceded that there were “striking similarities” between Communism and Islam, noting that like Communism, traditional Islam promulgated “an ideology that claims to explain everything, drawing on a vision of the world that is fiercely paranoid [and] conspiratorial.”

Well, the only Marxist intellectual of any ilk that I fully appreciate—Groucho—once observed, “Beside a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside a dog, it is too dark to read.”

Today I will penetrate the fog of Islamic apologetics and cast light on subject matter relegated to silent darkness.

Our host Donna Hearne made a plaintive appeal that I redress the bowdlerization of Islamic slavery in secondary school textbooks, juxtaposed to their unsparing discussions of slavery as practiced by Western Europeans, and Americans. For example I discovered this thoroughly uninformative, mere 28 words dedicated to an alleged characterization of slavery, across space and time, in Islamdom, from the textbook, “World History – Patterns of Interaction,” 2007, Chapter 10, “The Muslim World, 600-1250 A.D.”:

The lowest class was composed of slaves. Many slaves were prisoners of war, and all were non-Muslims. Slaves most frequently performed household work or fought in the military.

Is it any wonder such indoctrination begets disorientation, if not outright disbelief, when nearly 8 centuries after 1250 A.D., these students are confronted by present day ugly manifestations of the uninterrupted historical continuum of Islamic slavery—vividly illustrated by the Islamic State’s practice of jihad sexual slavery in Iraq and Syria, or, in far removed Mauritania, mass, ongoing chattel slavery of blacks by the ruling Arabo-Berber Muslim minority?

A Reuters story about an ISIS “fatwa”, a religious edict, regarding female sex slaves was published online December 29, 2015. The fatwa in question is part of a cache of documents captured during a May, 2015 raid on a leading ISIS official in Syria. These materials are now being made public, rather piecemeal. Dated January 29, 2015, the ruling firstpresents a straightforward rationale for jihad enslavement, entirely consistent with the classical Islamic jurisprudence of jihad war: “one of the inevitable consequences of the jihad of establishment [of the Caliphate] is that women and children will become captives of Muslims.” 

A Muslim “owner” (8 mentions), non-Muslim female “captive” (13 mentions) master-slave relationship is made unabashedly clear in the fatwa. The fatwa’s hollow invocation to “show compassion towards her,” i.e. the female sex slave and serial rape victim, such as refraining from anal intercourse, is itself consistent with a prohibition in Koran 2:223, which otherwise states that women are “tilth” to be “plowed” as men please. Regardless, testimonies of freed Yazidi and Christian ISIS sex slaves reveal the horrific reality of such captivity.

*****

CONCLUSION

 ISIS’s practice of jihad sex slavery, persistent large scale chattel slavery in Mauritania, and even the mass acts of sexual assault just committed New Year’s Eve by Muslim males in Cologne, Germany, and elsewhere across Western Europe, all fit squarely within a normative doctrinal, and historical Islamic context, patterned after the behaviors of Muhammad, and the nascent Muslim community. Thus defiant Cologne imam Sami Abu-Yusuf insisted “the events of New Year’s Eve were the girls own fault, because they were half naked and wearing perfume.” Ominously, the good imam Yusuf’s words mirror attitudes captured by 2008 polling data from 9000 Western European Muslims, 65% of whom acknowledged, “The rules of the Koran are more important to me than the laws of [my country].”

Those who aspire to our political leadership, in particular, must be compelled to shed their cultural relativist blinders and consider Islam as the conquering, totalitarian political ideology, with religious trappings, it has remained for almost 14 centuries.

Read more

Islamism Responsible for More U.S. Murders than ‘Right-Wing’ Extremism

2275MEF, by Johanna Markind
Independent Journal Review
January 14, 2016

Originally published under the title “Islamist Violence Is Responsible for More Murders in the U.S. than ‘Right Wing Extremism’.”

Every murder is a tragedy, for the victims, their families, and their friends, and that remains true no matter who killed them or why.

That being said, the current administration has persistently worked to focus attention away from Islamist violence and toward right-wing violence and gun control. President Obama’s announced executive action plan regardingfirearms is the latest salvo in the effort, which has been picked up by media and think tanks friendly to the administration.

After the Charleston church attack, the president quoted Martin Luther King, saying we must be concerned with “the philosophy that produced the murderers.” After the Colorado Planned Parenthood attack, Obama warned not to “demonize” the victim organization. After the Boston marathon bombing, he warned people against rushing to judgment “about the motivations of these individuals” (in other words, not to demonize the perpetrators) or “entire groups of people.” His administration labeled the 2009 Fort Hood attack “workplace violence.” With few exceptions, the president attributes ideological motives to non-Islamist mass casualty attacks, and non-ideological motives to Islamist attacks.

Obama has focused attention away from Islamist violence and toward right-wing violence and gun control.

Last June, the New America Foundation (NAF) – whose president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, formerly held a policy position in the administration – released a study purportedly showing “right-wing” extremism had killed more Americans than “jihadist attacks” i.e., Islamist violence, since 9/11. The study, andmedia coverage of it, implied popular concern about Islamist violence was overblown, because “the main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists.”

The study misleadingly implied that the threat of Muslim violence is less severe than other threats. Preliminarily, the list ignores other types of terrorism.

The list of “right wing” murders mixes several different ideologies, including various types of racism, such as white supremacist, neo-Nazi, anti-black, and anti-Semitic (30), plus anti-government (15), anti-abortion (4), and anti-homosexual (2) beliefs. Three murders had both racist and anti-government motivations; the above numbers double-count them.

By contrast, the list of “jihadist” murders reflects a single ideology, that of radical Islam or Islamism. It may be incomplete. For example, on February 5, 2013, Yusuf Ibrahim beheaded two Copts in New Jersey. In October 2002, Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo killed ten people. There are indications these murders were motivated by Islamism.

Even excluding the twelve Ibrahim and Muhammad-Malvo killings, at least 45 murders since 9/11 were motivated by Islamism, making it the ideology responsible for more deaths than any other in the US.

Furthermore, if we take as expansive a view of Muslim violence as NAF took of “right-wing” violence, we should include victims of the barbaric practice of “honor killings” – killing someone, usually a woman, who allegedly brought shame on her family. Some have Islamist overtones. For example, in July 2002, Alim Hassan killed his wife, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law, reportedly because the wife refused to convert from Hinduism to Islam. Since 9/11, there have been at least twelve honor killings in the US. A May 2015 report funded by and submitted to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) estimated that there are 23-27 honor killings in the US each year.

The NAF study implies that law enforcement should devote more resources to right-wing extremism than Islamism.

Adding known honor-killing victims to NAF’s list, Muslim violence has accounted for at least 57 deaths since 9/11. Of course, if we add in the2,977 fatalities from 9/11, that number would be 3,034.

The NAF study and related coverage implied law enforcement should devote more resources to “right-wing” extremism than Islamist violence. That seems consistent with administration policy. For instance, recent DOJ grants to study domestic radicalization required recipients to study several types of extremism, given that the “majority of studies… focused on al-Qaida and other Islamic-inspired violent extremists at the detriment to… other violent extremist ideologies.”

It is probably true that more government resources could be devoted to preventing “right-wing attacks,” and the public should be mindful of the dangers. It is certainly true that preventing Islamist attacks deserves the lion’s share of government resources.

That is apparent from NAF’s own data. Its list of “Terror Plots” since 9/11 notes over 150 Islamist plots. It lists but a single “right-wing” plot; presumably the list is incomplete, if only because NAF’s list of “right-wing” fatalities identified several other incidents. The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies 56 incidents of “right-wing” terrorism between April 1, 2009 and February 1, 2015. Approximately 92 of the Islamist incidents identified by NAF occurred during the same time period. Fortunately, most were foiled, or the casualties would be much higher. NAF also identifies 499 total “extremists,” of whom 182 are “nonjihadist” and 317 – or 75% more – are Islamist.

It’s also worth noting that the US Muslim population is roughly 1/100 that of its white population(which perpetrated most “right-wing” violence). Per capita, the incidence of ideological violence within the Muslim community is much greater.

Recognizing a problem is critical to solving it, and prioritizing correctly is critical to triaging effectively. Gun violence, and the ideologies lumped together as “right-wing,” are serious concerns, but they are not the most dangerous ideology confronting America today. Islamist violence is. To echo Dr. King, at some point, we must be concerned with the philosophy that produces Islamist murderers.

Johanna Markind is associate counselor at the Middle East Forum

Bill Warner: The Four Jihads

jihad11Political Islam, by Bill Warner, Jan. 11, 2016:

Whenever there is Islamic violence the media uses the word “terror” not jihad. The problem is that the jihad of murder is only one of the four jihads and it is the least of jihads. The jihad of murder will kill people, but the jihad of money, speech and writing brings us closer to Sharia. Sharia annihilates a civilization.

Civilizational jihad is found in the content of our new textbooks which praise Islam as the greatest of civilizations. These new textbooks are filled with half truths, which cannot be challenged. The jihad of textbooks will destroy the thinking of a generation.

The jihad of money has invaded our universities which reject critical thought about Islam in exchange for donations from the Saudis. The Islamisation of universities is far worse than murder.

Another jihad that is killing us is found in religious dialogues. The idea sounds wonderful, but the ignorant Jews and Christians just smile and nod their heads as they agree that Islam is so wonderful. Debate is absent by consent. And another nail is driven into the coffin of our civilization.

The jihad of murder is the very least of our problems.

Also see:

How Does Sharia Define “Jihad”?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan.12, 2016:

Since 9/11, Presidents, Members of Congress, the media, and many others have publicly stated that individuals who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam are acting as “criminals” or “thugs” but certainly are not doing what Islam teaches because “no religion would teach that.”

In fact, Islam divides the entire world into two parts:  the Dar al Islam (the “house” of Islam where sharia is the law of the land) and the Dar al Harb (the “house of war” – the entire rest of the planet).  According to Islamic sources, the purpose of Islam is to eliminate the dar al harb until the entire world is the dar al Islam under sharia law.  Then you have “peace.”

The vehicle to do this is called “jihad.”

Because sharia is a totalitarian system of law, we must look at how sharia defines “jihad.”

jihad1-300x196

The Umdat al Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) is a 14th century book of Islamic law that is relevant today because the leading Muslim Brotherhood entity in the United States, the Islamic Society of North America, tells Muslims this book should be in every Muslim home in America.  Additionally, Al Azhar University, the oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic jurisprudence on the planet has a certification in the Reliance of the Traveller stating it approves what is contained inside it.

There, jihad is defined as follows:  “to war against non-Muslims…signifying warfare to establish Islam” and is “obligatory for every Muslim.”  There is no other definition for jihad.

The 12th century Distinguished Jurist’s Primer states:  “war…is obligatory on men who are free, have attained puberty, who find the means for going to war, are of sound health, and are neither ill nor suffer from a chronic disease…the jurists agreed, with respect to the people who are to be fought, that they are all of the polytheists, because of the words of the Exalted, ‘And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.”

The Al-Hidayah: A Classic Manual of Hanafi Law defines jihad as follows:  “Jihad is a communal obligation…Jihad is determined till the Day of Judgment…’Then shall ye fight, or they shall submit (Qur’an 48:16)’ When the Muslims commence battle, and they have surrounded a city or a fort, they are to invite the inhabitants to accept Islam…If they respond positively, they are to refrain from fighting them, due to the attainment of the purpose. If they refuse, they are to invite them to the payment of jizyah, and this is what the Prophet ordered the commanders of the armies to do for it is one of the consequences
upon the conclusion of battle…if they reject the invitation, they are to seek the help of Allah and engage them in combat.”

From the most widely used text in Islamic schools in America, What Islam is All About, we see American Muslim school children are taught this:  “The word jihad is most often associated with the act of physically confronting evil and wrong-doing…if anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically go to Paradise.  A Shaheed or Martyr, is described this way by Allah, ‘Don’t think that those who were killed in Allah’s Cause are dead. No they are alive, finding their bounty in the presence of their Lord…the Law of the Land is the Sharia of
Allah…the duty of the Muslim citizen is to be loyal to the Islamic State.”

kid jihadi

It is worth noting that all authoritative Islamic law only defines jihad as warfare against non-Muslims until they either convert to Islam or – in the case of those who had a holy book at the time of Mohammad (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians) – submit to sharia, pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), and “feel themselves subdued.”

There is no other “version” of Islam which contradicts this.

It is interesting to note that nearly fifteen (15) years after 9/11, Western leaders continue see jihad being committed right in front of their faces, and still continue to say that it does not represent “true Islam.”  Yet, at Islamic schools across the globe, first grade Muslim children are taught that non-Muslims must convert to Islam, submit to sharia, or be killed for the sake of Allah.

Where on the planet does authoritative sharia teach Muslims that jihad is spiritual yoga to better oneself?  It does not teach this anywhere.  However, Muslim “advisors” do tell American officials this definition exists even though it is not taught to the Muslim community.

So the next time you see a Muslim kill or attempt to kill someone and they proclaim it is a command from Allah, you will realize that person is not a “radical” or a “violent extremist” – that person is a Jihadi.

Philly cop shooting CAIR and Jihad Denial

Reuters/Getty

Reuters/Getty

CAIR Tells Americans That Muslim Shooter Isn’t Muslim

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 9, 2016:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a jihadi-tied Muslim advocacy group, is trying to persuade Americans that Islam was not implicated Thursday when a devout Muslim man attempted to execute a Philadelphia police officer for violating the Koran’s rules.

Edward Archer, 30, attempted to execute a police officer on Thursday on behalf of the Islamic State jihad group. After being arrested, he said in testimony relayed by the Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross, that that the Philadelphia police department is enforcing laws that are not compliant with Islam.

“He believes the police defend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Koran,” Ross said.

Yet the Hamas-related CAIR has declared that Mr. Archer, an Islamic convert who investigators believe had traveled to Saudi Arabia and Egypt in recent years, was not a practicing Muslim. Archer was wearing Islamic attire when he attempted to execute a uniformed officer in cold blood.

But he is not a Muslim, declared Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, along with CAIR’s representatives.

federal judge concluded in 2009 that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with Hamas.” Since then, FBI leaders have sharply reduced any connection to the group, which has also been and has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates.

CAIR-Philadelphia’s executive director, Jacob Bender, the group’s first Jewish chapter leader (and a noted radical anti-Israel activist), has led the effort to excuse Islam from the criminal act.

“At this hour, it does not appear that he was an observant or mosque-going Muslim,” Bender told Reuters on Friday. “I’ve called numerous imams and mosques to try to see if the name rings a bell with anyone. So far it hasn’t,” he said.

Bender, like many Islamic extremists, blames the Jewish state of Israel for many of the problems in the Islamic world. In a letter to the New York Times, Bender has blamed Israel for “the growth of terrorism and Islamist extremism” worldwide. Israel’s “oppression of the Palestinians” incites innocent Muslims to become jihadi suicide bombers, according to Bender.

Bender, a filmmaker, directed Out of Cordoba, an anti-Israel, Islamic supremacist documentary that was financed thanks to Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood money. The Alwaleed bin Talal Foundation, headed by a Saudi billionaire, was the top donor to his film. His film was heavily distributed by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a group that was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Like CAIR, ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial – the largest terror-financing case in American history.

When Bender was appointed CAIR-Philly’s executive director, Jewish groups warned that he would be used to advance their agenda. “CAIR is far off the radar screen of the Jewish community,” said Ethan Felson of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, in an interview with the Jewish Daily Forward concerning Bender’s appointment. “The Jewish community looked at their record and said, ‘We won’t work with this group.’”

“Unfortunately, there are Jews who are anti-Jewish and anti-Israel,” added Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League.

The Maryland Outreach manager of CAIR also weighed in on the shooting, rejecting Archer’s claim to Islam.

“Islam is a religion that encourages Muslims to coexist with their interfaith counterparts,” said Zainab Chaudry of CAIR-Maryland. “These kind of acts. They do not reflect the teachings of Islam.”

Moreover, CAIR was founded in the very city where the Islamic State attacker attempted on Thursday to assassinate the police officer.

In 1993, the FBI wiretapped an Islamic extremist meeting in Philadelphia that was hosted by the Palestine Committee (PALCOM), a Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas backing outfit whose membership included current CAIR executive director Nihad Awad. During the Philadelphia meeting, PALCOM members were instructed to refer to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in coded language, so as not to tip off authorities to their terror-financing activities. Awad, a Hamas supporter, would later be chosen to head CAIR, and remains its top official today.

***

Judge Jeanine to Philly Mayor: ‘Stop Mouthing Off When You Don’t Know the Facts’

Jihad Comes to Philadelphia

Below: Dr. Sebastian Gorka (5:30 in the video) “There is no such thing as lone wolf terrorism The connective tissue between all of these attacks whether it is Fort Hood or the Boston bombings or this is of course the ideology of jihad”

Rep. King: Police should monitor entire Muslim community

Also see:

JIHAD IN ISLAM

isis (6)Liberty GB, by IQ al Rassooli, Jan. 3, 2016:

Muslims and their apologists often inform a mostly Quran-ignorant world that jihad in Islam is a spiritual struggle. Is this true?

The word jihad in the Arabic language has its root in jahada which does mean struggle / endeavour / strive.

Unfortunately, those Muslims and their apologists who explain it in spiritual terms are deliberately deceiving and with malice aforethought misleading the public about its actual meaning based upon the Arabic language of Muhammad’s Quran and Hadiths (traditions about Muhammad by his companions).

In innumerable verses in the Quran and Hadiths jihad means only one thing, “physical warfare in the cause of Allah”; in Arabic it is “jihad fi sabil^Allah” and not once is it attributed to spiritual struggle.

Most human beings, whether followers of Muhammad or not, do not know that Muhammad unilaterally declared total and eternal war, 1400 years ago, against all unsuspecting human beings who do not believe in his version of Islam, with the Fighting Verse:

Al Tauba 9:5 – “But when the forbidden months are past then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.”

By the way, this verse was allegedly ‘revealed’ to Muhammad when he made himself the leader of the first organised crime syndicate in human history, a state of affairs continued by his followers for the last 1400 years as we watch how ISIS, Boko Haram, al Shabab, etc. are carrying on Muhammad’s perverted traditions.

Contrary to all the falsified assertions by politically correct, treasonous Western leaders, aided and abetted by Muhammadan Muslims who have every reason to hide the truth, jihad is not a spiritual struggle for excellence but a continuous war against all so-called unbelievers / kuffar / infidels until all of humanity is either converted to Muhammadan Islam, is subjugated to Sharia or exterminated.

In fact, among Muslim scholars, jihad constitutes the unwritten sixth pillar of Muhammadan Islam.

The Quran and the Hadiths are crystal clear in affirming this. The Quran and Hadiths contain hundreds of verses attesting to and asserting this dogma.

Again I repeat for effect, not once in the Quran can anyone find the word jihad mentioned by itself and meaning spiritual struggle.

All the derivatives of the word jihad in Muhammad’s Quran and Hadiths represent acts of war and aggression to spread the belief in Allah and in Muhammad as the messenger of Allah until all other belief systems are eradicated from the face of this Earth.

Ladies and gentlemen, to be able to indoctrinate any human being, to so prepare him to willingly die for a belief, thus becoming a martyr (shaheed) who will be rewarded with eternal sensual and carnal pleasures in the afterlife – in Muhammad’s whorehouse version of paradise – should be considered among the most diabolical weapons of war ever conceived.

In such a war, very little mercy could be shown to the enemy until it is totally subdued, converted or exterminated.

This ideological weapon has been used throughout Islamic history against infidels / kuffar as well as against other ‘unbelieving’ sects of Islam.

In all of the Quranic verses – as well as in the Hadiths – jihad is invariably associated with physical warfare and fighting and not a spiritual striving for a higher morality and or discovery of self.

******

In the tradition of Muhammadan Islam, the world is divided into two major parts:

1. Dar al-Salam (‘Territory of Peace’) – territories completely under the control of Muslims (Mu’mineen / believers), made up of two components, (a) Dar al-Islam, territories with a majority of Muslim peoples, and (b) Dar al-Sulh, territories with a non-Muslim majority occupied and under the ‘protection’ of the Muslims.

2. Dar al-Harb (‘Territory of War’) – all territories in the world that are not under the control of Muhammadans are considered to be in the hands of the alleged kuffar / infidels / unbelievers, and consequently are fair game for attack, despoliation, rape, enslavement and subjugation to Islamic Sharia.

In reality, there is no secular war in Muhammadan Islam because from the very beginning of the Muhammadan Islamic polity, war and aggression were the means by which Muhammad and his followers built up their empire.

Jihad became a perpetual holy duty of warring against all infidels / kuffar; that is, a continuous war of aggression against all those who do not believe as they do in “Allah and his messenger, Muhammad”.

From the very beginning, these wars were never in defence of Islam and / or Muslims but to gain territory, economic wealth, slaves and booty, to rape and plunder. Converting the conquered peoples to Islam was not yet on the agenda of Muhammad’s followers but eventually became a very important by-product of the Islamic wars of aggression.

It is a cruel irony – if not actually divine justice – that among the largest victims of jihad terror were, and continue to be the different sects of Islam. Each side of the conflict between two or more of the warring Muslim factions or sects accuses its opponents of kufr / unbelief, turning them into ‘enemies of Allah’ and hence subject to ‘divinely’ sanctioned destruction.

In this manner and according to the Quran their holy book, since they are all Muslims killing other Muslims, none will ever be received in paradise but will assuredly end up in Allah’s hell.

******

For those who doubt any of the above, the following few sample verses from Muhammad’s Quran and Hadiths should easily and conclusively sober them up:

Al Baqara 2.216 – “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.”

Al Tauba 9:29 – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle (Muhammad) nor acknowledge the religion of truth (Islam) [even if they are] of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) until they pay the Jizya (onerous tax for not being a Muslim) with willing submission and feel themselves humiliated.”

Muhammad 47:4 – “Therefore when ye meet the unbelievers / infidels/ kuffar chop off  their necks … .”

The very verse that ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram and many a believing Muslim agrees to and tries to fulfil.

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.50, narrated by Anas bin Malik – “The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause (qital fi sabil Allah) is better than the world and whatever is in it.'”

Sahih Muslim Hadith 4631 & 4626 Abu Huraira – “I heard Muhammad say: ‘I love that I should be killed in Allah’s Cause (jihad); then I should be brought back to life and be killed again in Allah’s Cause.'”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.73, Narrated by Abdullah bin Abi Aufa – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.'”

Anyone addressing this sordid subject who tells the audience that jihad is spiritual should be hounded from office and put in a mental asylum.

There are hundreds more similar verses in the Quran and the Hadiths for those who have the appetite for blood and gore.

IQ al Rassooli
kafir and proud!

Also see:

http://www.al-rassooli.com/blog/

Muslim Immigration is Exactly What ISIS Wants

isis_esu6io

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Dec. 25, 2015:

To understand ISIS, you have to understand the difference between terrorists and Islamic terrorists.

Ordinary terrorists have two goals; to compel the enemy to meet their political demands and to rally their supporters to consolidate their class, race or national identity group behind them.

Islamic terrorists are not interested in the “political demands” part. They will occasionally accept concessions and even offer Hudnas, temporary truces, but no permanent separate peace can be achieved with them. It’s why Israel’s peace process with terrorists has gone on failing for decades. It’s why the attempt by Gaddafi to achieve peace with the LIFG ended in a civil war and his death. It’s why Obama’s attempts to negotiate with the “moderate Taliban” failed miserably.

Al Qaeda and ISIS are not “negative” protest movements formed in response to our foreign policy. That’s a foolish self-centered idea held by foolish self-centered Westerners. Al Qaeda and ISIS are “positive” movements that seek to achieve larger religious goals entirely apart from us. Islamic terrorists are not responding to us. They are responding to the Koran and to over a thousand years of history.

Osama bin Laden did not carry out 9/11 to inflict harm on Americans. That was a secondary goal. His primary goal was to rally Muslims to build a Caliphate by encouraging them to attack America.

The ritualistic “Why do they hate us” browbeating favored by the chattering classes is nonsense. Al Qaeda hated us because we were not Muslims. But it was only using us as the hated “other” to consolidate a collective Muslim identity. We are to Islamists what the Jews were to Hitler; a useful scapegoat whose otherness can be used to manufacture a contrasting pure Aryan or Islamic identity.

No dialogue is possible with an ideology whose virtue is premised on seeing you as utterly evil.

You can negotiate with terrorists, though you shouldn’t. But Islamic terrorists rarely even bother to negotiate. Their core focus is on rallying local Muslims and the Ummah behind them. They don’t recognize national borders so any hope for a permanent peace behind recognized borders is wishful thinking. Islam is a transnational movement. Islamic terrorism is a race between terror groups around the world to carve out their own Islamic states and then use them as a springboard to a Caliphate.

ISIS is the end stage of Islamic terrorism. Its leader is a Caliph with all Muslims obliged to submit to him. The Islamic State is not just in Syria and Iraq. It is everywhere that a Muslim outpost swears allegiance to the Caliph. On its own maps the Islamic State encompasses parts of Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Russia. The more local Islamic terror groups pledge allegiance to ISIS, the bigger it becomes.

ISIS doesn’t plan to defeat America through acts of terrorism. The plan for defeating America, like every other country, Muslim or non-Muslim, is to build a domestic Muslim terror movement that will be able to hold territory and swear allegiance to the Islamic State.

The idea of an American Emirate may seem silly but consider Molenbeek, the neighborhood in Brussels known as the Jihadi capital of Europe, deemed a no-go zone by local authorities, right in the capital of the European Union.  You can take a taxi from NATO HQ to a Muslim micro-state linked to most of the major recent Islamic terror attacks in Europe including the latest ISIS attack in Paris.

Molenbeek provides ISIS recruits for its war and a gateway for ISIS attacks in Europe. The media is filled with articles about what ISIS wants, but there is no question that Molenbeek is what ISIS wants.

And it’s only Muslim immigration to Europe that makes an ISIS base like Molenbeek possible.

ISIS has short term and long term needs. In the short term, ISIS needs as many recruits as possible. And it is in the West where traditional Muslim ties of kinship and community are so frayed that the transnationalism of heading out to fight for a Caliphate in someone else’s country is most deeply appealing. ISIS aggressively seeks to recruit Muslims in the West because they have the skills, money and naiveté to be useful to the Islamic State. But in the long term, ISIS needs more Muslim immigration to the West to create a steady supply of recruits, collaborators and eventually Western emirates.

If ISIS is serious about making a bid for Italy, it needs a large Muslim population on the ground. It doesn’t even matter if this population comes from refugees fleeing ISIS. The children of these refugees will still be Sunni Muslims in a foreign land where Algerian, Somali, Syrian and Pakistani Muslims discover that they have more in common than they do with the natives. It is this accidental Western multiculturalism that erases tribal Muslim rivalries and makes the ambition of a single Muslim Caliphate appear plausible.

ISIS does not plan to defeat America with terror plots. But those plots will eventually accumulate into an organized domestic terror organization. An Islamic State in America based around a majority Muslim town or neighborhood with its own leader pledging allegiance to the Caliph of the Islamic State.

An American Molenbeek; and there are already plenty of candidates for that horrifying honor.

Any Muslim plans for expanding into the West depend on Muslim immigration. Whether it’s ISIS or its Muslim Brotherhood ancestor, or any of the other Islamist organizations and networks, they all require manpower. Some of that manpower will be provided by high Muslim birth rates, but it won’t be nearly enough, not for a country the size of America, without a large annual flow of Muslim migrants.

We are told that halting Muslim immigration would only encourage Muslim terrorism. But our open door to Muslim immigration certainly hasn’t stopped terrorism. Instead it has increased it by providing reinforcements to the terrorists. If we can’t stop Muslim terrorism with the population we have now, how are we going to manage it if the Islamic population continues doubling and even tripling?

Even if we defeat ISIS tomorrow, Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups descended from the Muslim Brotherhood will continue pursuing the same goals. And they will rely on the Muslim population in the United States to provide them with money, supplies, cover and an infrastructure for terrorism.

ISIS can’t defeat us with terror attacks. The only hope for an enduring Islamic victory over America is through the rise of domestic groups that pledge allegiance to the Caliphate. ISIS can’t invade America. It has to be invited in. That’s what our immigration policy does.

Trump isn’t a threat to national security. Muslim immigration is.

Islamic terrorists can’t defeat us no matter how many planes they fly into buildings. But they can and will defeat us if they continue landing planes at JFK and disembarking thousands and tens of thousands of settlers who will serve as a base population for their war against America.

Muslim immigration is the Islamic State’s only hope for victory over America.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid Advocates Criminalizing Radical Islamist Teaching In U.S.

REUTERS/Paul Hackett

REUTERS/Paul Hackett

Breitbart, by Dan Riehl, Dec. 15, 2015:

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a physician and former radical Islamist, says we must deny terrorists any semblance of a Caliphate overseas and also criminalize the teaching of radical forms of Islam that result in violence if we are to genuinely win the so called war on terror in our time.

When asked on Breitbart News Daily by host Stephen K. Bannon what he most wanted to hear from candidates at tonight’s Republican debate, Hamid, also author of “Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam,” said he wanted to know:

[W]hat will be different in (their) approach to the phenomenon of radical Islam because we have been trying traditional military warfare “for years” and the outcome was simply we failed to contain al Qaeda and ISIS and the radical groups and now they are controlling much bigger areas in the world. So, what will be different … to allow us to end this disease of radical Islam?

Secondly, Hamid said he wanted to know if a candidate is going to consider those who “teach the ideology of hatred that breeds and creates terrorism as supporters of terror?” Hamid says that the war on terror must extend to all “countries and organizations that teach the ideology that clearly contributes to the creation of terrorism, hatred and barbarism.”

Hamid also said that defeating Jihadists geographically and denying them any type of formal Caliphate is “the most critical step to defeat the radical psychologically is to dismantle their Caliphate.” He believes that that geographical defeat denying them a Caliphate, along with effective messaging empowered by the Internet age, can effectively win the war on terror, ultimately, by turning people away from Islam in its more radical forms.

In terms of the domestic was against terrorism, Hamid said he wants to know if candidates are going to consider the teaching of radical Islam a crime,”or will they just do nothing, as we have seen till this moment?” Hamid believes religious teaching that leads to violence should be criminalized, including within certain U.S.-based mosques and Muslim centers of education that teach a radical form of Islam resulting in terrorism.

Hamid also discussed elements of his recent book yesterday on Breitbart News Daily.

Hamid discusses his conversion to radical Islam as a medical student and his occasional meetings with al Qaeda leader-to-be, Ayman al-Zawahiri, when he was still a promising doctor.

During the interview with host Stephen K. Bannon, Hamid also explains he abandonded radical Islam after he was recruited to kidnap an Egyptian police officer and bury him alive beside a mosque. Hamid says his “human conscience” rejected the idea and told him “something was wrong here,” as far as the interpretation of Islam he had come to embrace.

Today’s entire interview can be heard below.

***

On ‘Hannity,’ Tawfik Hamid discusses the mind of a jihadist

The Third Jihad

p_5-bsplineCitizen Warrior, Dec. 13, 2015:

Partly because of a new and indiscriminate tolerance, and partly because of a huge influx of jizya,Orthodox Islam has gained the confidence to begin its “third jihad.” The term refers to the murder of non-Muslims around the world (for the crime of being non-Muslims), but includes much more than that. There are many ways to wage jihad, and nearly every Muslim can play a part.

For example, orthodox Muslims have deliberately emigrated into foreign lands in order to fulfill Allah’s command to make the whole world submit to Islamic law. In those new countries, they are organizing and building up their political power. Orthodox Muslims are recruiting new Muslims into their ranks every day. Some have gained vast wealth and are using it to build mosques and madrassas all over the world. Orthodox Muslims have infiltrated the political machinery in Western nations, they’ve successfully manipulatedmovies and the press and disabled and silenced resistance against them, and of course, they are also killing non-Muslims around the world. This is the third jihad.

Jihad means “struggle,” but a particular kind of struggle. Jihad means to struggle to make Islam dominant over all other religions and governments. This is one of the religious duties of all devout Muslims, and according to Mohammad, it is the most important obligation a Muslim must fulfill.

The first jihad started with Mohammad. His armies conquered all of Arabia. In the hundred years after his death, his armies conquered most of the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. The first jihad lasted from 622 AD until 750 AD. Read more about that here.

The second major jihad started in 1071 AD. Islamic armies toppled Constantinople and spread into Europe, India, and further into Africa. The second jihad began to decline when the Muslim army was stopped on September 11th, 1683 at the gates of Vienna, Austria. Read more about the second jihad here.

The Islamic push to dominate — all other cultures, all other religions, and all other governments — has never stopped. But we are referring to large waves of success for the Islamic expansion; periods where vast new territories were brought under the control of Sharia law.

Now we are in the third jihad, the third great wave.

Non-Muslims in the past have fought back, of course (otherwise the whole world would already be ruled by Islam). Some successfully resisted subjugation.

But many countries and cultures took too long to recognize the threat or organized their resistance too slowly, and they were swallowed up by Islam’s relentless aggression. So we have 57 countries today who are Islamic enough to be members of the OIC.

Orthodox Muslims are waging jihad in subtler and more clever ways (waging jihad by gaining concessions, for example), in addition to simple violent aggression and intimidation, but non-Muslims around the world are beginning to notice the pattern and are rousing themselves to defend their cultures, their religions, their governments, and their lives.

I hope you join us in stopping the third jihad. We need you to help others recognize the threat. We need your participation in organizing an effective resistance. And we need to move quickly. Here’s how to get started.