The Caliphate Means Constant War on Us on a Scale Not Yet Seen

al-baghdadi

Liberty GB, By Enza Ferreri

While the British government is making its own citizens pay for the jihadis allowed to return to the UK from Syria and Iraq, both in terms of money – through the £1.1 billion cash injection for defence announced yesterday, £800 million of which will fund an extra investment in intelligence and surveillance to deal with the threat of terrorism – and in terms of intrusion and greater state power – through emergency laws to monitor phone and internet records “to stop terrorists” –, people hear of the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East without the media – with few exceptions – providing any explanation of its real significance.

In Islam, only a caliphate has the authority to declare offensive war on infidel countries. That’s why Osama bin Laden was so keen on it and called for Muslims to “establish the righteous caliphate of our ummah”, after Abdulhamid II’s Ottoman caliphate was abolished by the Turkish Republic of Kemal Ataturk in his secularisation (short-lived) attempts in 1924.

And that’s why jihadis always explain their acts of terrorism in terms of defensive war, as a response to the infidel’s armies occupying Muslim lands, for example.

Egyptian-American scholar of Islam and Middle East history Raymond Ibrahim over 3 years ago explained the caliphate concept and predicted the re-establishment of a caliphate. If, as in science, accurate predictions confirm the validity of the theory from which they derive, we must take his words very seriously:

The very existence of a caliphate would usher a state of constant hostility: Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate is obligated to wage jihad, at least annually, to bring the ‘disbelieving’ world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia law. Most of what is today called the ‘Muslim world’ – from Morocco to Pakistan – was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate begun in Arabia in 632.

A caliphate represents a permanent, ideological enemy, not a temporal enemy that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions – economic or otherwise. Short of agreeing either to convert to Islam or live as second-class citizens, or ‘dhimmis’ – who, among other indignities, must practice their religions quietly; pay a higher tax ['jizyah']; give way to Muslims on the street; wear clothing that distinguishes them from Muslims, the start of the yellow star of David required for the Jews by the Nazis during World War II; have their testimony be worth half of a Muslim’s; and never retaliate against Muslim abuses – the jihad continues.

A caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish – before people realize what it represents and try to prevent it. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

Another US expert on Islam, Robert Spencer, has recently written:

And now it [the caliphate] is here, although it is by no means clear, of course, that The Islamic State will be viable or long-lasting. If it is, however, the world could soon be engulfed in a much larger conflict with Islamic jihadists even than it has been since 9/11. For in Islamic law, only the caliph is authorized – and indeed, has the responsibility – to declare offensive jihad against non-Muslim states. In his absence, all jihad must be defensive only, which is why Islamic jihadists retail laundry lists of grievances when explaining and justifying their actions: without these grievances and a caliph, they have to cast all their actions as responses to Infidel atrocities. With a caliph, however, that obligation will be gone. And the bloodshed in that event could make the world situation since 9/11, with its 20,000 jihad attacks worldwide, seem like a harmless bit of ‘interfaith dialogue.’

Offensive jihad to force all the world to submit to Islamic law is a duty for the ummah (the worldwide Muslim community), and no amount of media whitewashing can change that. The source to consult is not The New York Times but the Quran, e.g. this from 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 Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Islamist Threat on the Rise

AQIM CLAIMS KIDNAPPING OF ITALIANS IN COMMUNIQU…by PETER BROOKES:

Since the national conversation of late has been riveted on terrorism spurred on by the controversy swirling around the Taliban prisoner swap, it’s a good time to take stock of the state of Islamist militancy.

Bottom line? The threat is getting worse.

For instance, for the year 2013, the State Department estimated that terrorist attacks jumped more than 40 percent globally while RAND’s Seth Jones asserted in The Wall Street Journal that the number of jihadists worldwide hovered around 100,000.

Those figures from last year are jaw-dropping – but from the looks of it, the situation isn’t getting any better this year.

Let’s start with Syria. What began as part of the peaceful “Arab Spring” movement against the dictator in Damascus, Bashar Assad, a few years ago has morphed into a violent “Islamist Spring” campaign that has set the country aflame.

The three-plus year civil war has emerged as an magnet for Islamist extremists from across the globe bent on joining the latest militant jihad.

Indeed, there may be some 12,000 foreign fighters from 80 countries in Syria, some of whom have joined up with al Qaeda-associated groups like the al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, according to Bloomberg.

In addition to the bloodshed that has taken the lives of more than 150,000 people so far and displaced millions more, these foreign fighters are being schooled in the terrorist “dark arts” on the Syrian battlefield.

But it’d be a mistake to think the threat is simply “over there.”

The director of National Intelligence has told Congress that al Qaeda terror groups in Syria have built camps to train “recruits” to return to their native lands and conduct attacks.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Prisoner exchange – “How do they see it?”

4096367384

Center for Security Policy:

The media is abuzz with analyses regarding the release of American serviceman Bowe Bergdahl. Is it a victory for America, a victory for the Taliban, or something in between?  Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin lays out the theological context and strategic basis for prisoner capture and exchange in Islamic history.

 

According to Coughlin, the Taliban sees prisoner exchange as “normal activity in an ongoing jihad against an enemy.” This holds true in the precedent of Islamic law, as well as current events, such as the bounty of $900,000 offered by a Saudi royal in 2011 for any captured Israeli soldier.

Bill Warner: There are four types of jihad

Here is another excellent short lesson from Bill Warner. This one covers the different ways jihad is waged. It’s much more than by the sword!

 

To expand on this subject I will re-post here an excellent article from Islam Watch that I posted last year. It is still getting a lot of views:

Jihad – The Four Forms and the West

By Jon MC, Nov. 3, 2013:

In the west we often interpret “jihad” as “waging war in the name of Allah” or “Islamic holy war”. This is not without justification, but it also annoys and upsets many Muslims who see jihad as a “supreme effort” to lead a “godly personal and social life”.

Thus Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub states that “The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between Islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living).”

Again, Pakistani scholar and professor Fazlur Rahman Malik has used the term to describe the struggle to establish “a just moral-social order“.

Whilst these definitions seem utterly innocuous, it has to be remembered that in the eyes of Islam – and thus its scholars – “righteous living” and “a just moral-social order” can only be found when living in a society ordered by Shari’ah Law (or, for the really picky, a given interpretation thereof) thus for non-Muslims perhaps these definitions are not quite so harmless as they might at first appear.

Whilst many Muslim apologists would like us to believe that Jihad has only non-violent connotations, it is worth noting that from the word “Jihad” (root = jhd) we get words such as “Mujahid” and “Mujahideen” meaning (in practice at least) [Muslim] “fighter/soldier” (or “jihadi”) and “band of fighters/soldiers” (“jihadists”) respectively, which rather belies the “peaceful only” interpretation of jihad.

Furthermore Muslim jurists explained that there are four kinds of jihad fi sabili Allahi (“jihad in the way of Allah”):

  • Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combating “evil” (i.e. un-Islamic) desires and the devil in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. In other words this is the “internal” jihad.

  • Jihad by the tongue/pen (jihad bil lisan/qallam) is concerned with spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue or writing and the verbal (or written) defence of Islam.

  • Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong in Islamic terms with action, e.g. protest, demanding “special consideration” etc. Some Muslim writers see “hand-jihad” as subsuming sword-jihad (below{1}).

  • Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saifrefers to qital fi sabili Allahi ([armed] fighting in the way of Allah, or holy war), this is the most common usage by Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims and the most ancient. For example, Sahih Bukhari (the pre-eminent Hadith collection of Sunni Islam) has ~200 references to jihad and 98% (~196) of them refer to it in the sense of armed warfare against non-Muslims{2}.

Thus whilst jihad is not only warfare, it most certainly encompasses warfare, as history and the Islamic sources comprehensively demonstrate and it is even reasonable to say that jihad is mostly about warfare, since the majority of references to it in both hadith and Koran refer to sword-jihad.

Indeed, within classical Islamic jurisprudence jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Sharia law, and consists of wars against non-Muslims, apostates, rebels, dissenters renouncing the authority of Islam (i.e. heretics) and (curiously) highway robbers. Thus all war carried out by Muslims is (or should be) jihad{3}.

It is also worth noting that the primary aim of sword-jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but the expansion of the Islamic state (Koran 13:41) and its defence, as is well attested in history (e.g. the Eastern Christian, now part of the Islamic, world). This fact belies the “defence only” interpretation also used by some apologists.

That jihad is not primarily intended to convert needs a little further explanation. Whenever Islam conquered territory it generally allowed its subjugated peoples three choices:

  1. To convert.

  2. To accept the third-class status of dhimmi.

  3. To face a merciless war of annihilation.

Strictly, the second choice is only available to “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) and, according to some authorities, Zoroastrians and Sabians (these two terms may be synonyms); but where a war of annihilation was not readily practicable it was extended to other peoples (e.g. the Hindus and Buddhists of the Indian sub-continent whose numbers were too vast to be readily annihilated by the Muslim conquistadors).

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

From the point of the non-Muslim it is relevant to note that of the four forms of jihad, three are aimed at non-Muslims.

An amplification and (partial) exemplification of these forms follows:

  • Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) and/or jihad by the pen (jihad bil qallam). This might sound like simple proslytisation, but there is more involved in that (in essence) Islam recognises any method including lying or dissimulation (see the doctrines of Taqiyya/Muda’rat, Kitman, Tawriya and also Tayseer) to “spread Islam” either in terms of actually winning converts, or gaining acceptance for Islam within a host society, or disguising elements of Islam (hence the oft repeated statement that “Islam is a religion of peace” despite much evidence to the contrary from both its texts and its actions). It would also include attempting to silence criticism of Islam by labelling critics as “racists”, “fascists” or “Islamophobes” or any verbal/written means to promote/defend Islam and/or silence opposition and critics.

  • Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad). It is important to realise that “what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong” must be understood from the point of view of Shariah Law systems, which define “right and wrong” by law (thus what is actually defined is “lawful” or ‘halal’ and “unlawful” or ‘haram’ which stands in place of the morality of right and wrong). Shariah Law systems often define “injustice” as anything that interferes with or prevents Muslims living their lives in a fully Sharia-compliant manner and the instruments of that “injustice” it labels as “oppression”.

    Thus hand-jihad would include demands for time off work for prayer; special (Muslim-only) washing facilities; Muslim or Muslim-women-only sessions in swimming baths, libraries and other Public facilities; that women doctors be continually available to treat Muslim women throughout the Healthcare system; that Halal food be supplied by default in public institutions; that Muslims be permitted not to handle “haram” things such as pork or alcohol in shops/businesses when all other employees would be required so to do; that ‘Sharia Courts’ (in the U.K. they are officially called “Muslim arbitration Tribunals”) be set up for Muslims; that the Police show special care and consideration when entering Muslims’ houses. Please note that the above are all things which have been demanded by UK Muslims and acquiesced to by UK governments, councils and, in the case of “special treatment of Muslim homes”, the Police Authorities (ACPO guidelines). That criticism of Islam be forbidden (see “vilification of religion” – U.N. resolution, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference or Cooperation and it’s successor document ’16/18 “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief”’ which led to the on-going – as of 2013 “Istanbul process”), or at least heavily curtailed legally. It would also include staging (violent) protests against anything giving “offence” to Muslims – from Remembrance Day and returning troops to anything derogatory about Mohammed, the Koran, or Islam in general; e.g. books, cartoons, plays, films etc. Another aspect of this is “lawfare”- legal warfare. In America this primarily takes the form where someone who makes “defamatory” comments about Islam (etc.) is sued in the Courts by Muslim advocacy groups. This always has the effect of tying them up in legal matters and may also bankrupt them. Thus the threat of lawfare adds to the pressure to silence criticism. In Europe, things may be even worse: in several European Countries the State has taken over the job of “lawfare”against its own majority population. In these cases the criticism of Islam brings, not a civil law-suit, but criminal persecution prosecution by the state – even if what is said is true. Examples include Geert Wilders (Holland), Lars Hedegaard (Denmark){4}, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (Austria) to name but three three high-profile cases. And convictions have followed, thus proving that the truth and fact are no defence, a position perfectly consonant with Islamic Sharia (see conditions set in the “Pact of Umar” and “The reliance of the Traveller”) which regards as “defamation” anything that brings shame on Islam/Mohammed and Muslims etc. (hence the violent reactions of Muslims to truthful but embarrassing (shaming = defaming) critique.

A further element to this could involve something as simple as the building of large mosques, preferably on high-ground so that the building (or its minaret) symbolically “dominates” the surrounding landscape thus making sure that people have to “look up to Islam”. If this last sounds ridiculous, remember that in many Muslim Countries the Christian Church (etc.) many not be higher than, nor built within a given radius of, a Mosque. Thus in Islamic Countries the relative heights of Church (or temple etc.) and Mosque are used to show the dominance of Islam.

It is worth pointing out that both the two types of Jihad referred to above are at least as effective at spreading Islam as is warfare/terrorism.

Some Western commentators refer to these forms of Jihad as “stealth Jihad”, an apt description since both lead to the gradual acceptance of elements of Shariah Law as normative within a host society, generally without any fuss (or even awareness) on the part of the larger community, amongst whom it is passed off as “religious tolerance”, see examples above.

The Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups refer to this as “civilisation jihad” because they see it as a means to adapt and ultimately convert non-Muslim civilisations to and into Muslim ones, they would also see this as a process of “civilising” the non-Muslims of course. As their own documents put it: “[civilisation jihad is] a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their own hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Thus we can see that the aims of hand-jihad are wide-ranging, indeed globally encompassing.

There is much more at Islam Watch

See also this article: “The Janus face of Islam” which reveals the chronological development of Jihad doctrine within Islam.

Bostom With Steve Malzberg Discussing Apostasy & Boko Haram Jihadism

 

MPAC’s Dissimulation About Sharia-Mandated Punishment For ‘Apostasy’

PJ Media, By Andrew Bostom:

As I have discussed elsewhere, the circumstances of Sudanese Christian Meriam Ibrahim’s arrest and “conviction” for “apostasy” are eerily reminiscent of those almost 200 years earlier surrounding Moroccan Jewess Sol Hachuel’s brutally unjust plight, and ultimate martyrdom. These shared dynamics, which negate basic freedom of conscience, provide stark evidence of the Sharia’s depressing persistence as a force of religious oppression—regnant, unreformed, and unrepentant—into our era. For example, dismissing the international outcry over Meriam Ibrahim’s Sharia-compliant, if Western human rights repugnant, “conviction,” Sudan’s Minister of Information, Ahmed Bilal Osman, replied with candor and defiance:

It’s not only Sudan. In Saudi Arabia, in all the Muslim countries, it is not allowed at all for a Muslim to change his religion.

Ahmet Akgündüz, Full Professor of Islamic Law at Dumlupinar University, Turkey, has written extensively about the Sharia, including his most recent work on the subject, a 733 pp. tome, Islamic Public Law (2011). Akgündüz’s frank, authoritative discussion of the Sharia-mandated punishment for apostasy in Islamic Public Law, validates Sudan Minister of Information Bilal Osman’s candid observation, the actual treatment of Meriam Ibrahim’s case, and over 13 centuries of similar applications of the Sharia, vis-à-vis Muslim apostates, since the advent of Islam.

All fiqh [Sharia-based jurisprudence] clearly testify that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate’s execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the great Companions of the Prophet, their Followers, the leaders among the mujtahids [most learned Islamic theologians] and, following them, the experts on Sharia in every century are available on record. All these together will assure one that, from the time of the Prophet to the present day, one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative and that there is no room whatsoever to suggest that the punishment of the apostate is perhaps not execution.

Some [Islamic] law schools allow imprisonment instead of death for apostate women. The schools vary on the question if an apostate may be allowed or encouraged to repent as well as on the status of the apostate’s property after death or banishment. But they agree that the marriage of an apostate is void. Under Islamic law, an apostate may be given up to three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again. If he does not the apostate is killed without reservations. There are differences among the four schools in the various details on how to deal with the various aspects of imposing the punishments with respect to the material property and holdings of the apostate and regarding the status and rights of the family of the apostate. A distinction is also made between a murtad fitri, an apostate who was born of Muslim parents, and a murtad milli, an apostate who had initially converted to Islam. Some additional punishments and considerations are mentioned: a divorce is automatic if either spouse apostatizes; an underage apostate is imprisoned until he reaches the age of majority and then he is killed, and the recommended execution is beheading with a sword.

The Ottoman state did not accept abolishing capital punishment for apostatesApostasy is punishable by death today in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Mauritania…Other punishments prescribed by Islamic law [at present] include the annulment of marriage with a Muslim spouse, the removal of children, and the loss of all property and inheritance rights.

Notwithstanding this irrefragable, ugly living doctrinal and historical legacy, the U.S. cultural jihadist Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), issued a press release claiming,

The way Hudud [or “hadd, “i.e., mandatory Sharia prohibitions and punishments, such as apostasy, punished by death] is being implemented today does not adhere to the goals of sharia in its spirit and intention.

Recalling European Muslim Sharia supremacist Tariq Ramadan’s clumsy ploy when he invoked a “moratorium” on the hudud [hadd] punishment of stoning adulterers to death—not demanding such punishments be abrogated forever—MPAC opined that “Muslim-majority countries” should “implement a moratorium on so-called Hudud cases,” such as Meriam Ibrahim’s sentencing to death for “apostasy.”

MPAC’s disingenuous claim about lack of “adherence” to the Sharia, combined with its failure—ala Tariq Ramadan—to insist that hadd prohibitions and punishments be permanently eliminated—is consistent with a Sharia supremacist agenda. Indeed MPAC founding member Fathi Osman denounced Western societies who dared express concern, “about any movement or state which may commit itself to Islam and Islamic law.” These sentiments of MPAC’s Osman mirror Tariq Ramadan’s ultimate, guiding IslamicWeltanschauung:

anyone who opposes the Sharia, which is based on clear texts, deviates from the religion and is no longer a Muslim.

Blueprint for Jihadists

Jihad and QuranCitizen Warrior:

If you excerpted the parts of Islamic texts on jihad, you would get a short how-to book. That is what follows. The article below might be called, How To Wage Jihad in a Nutshell, Updated For The 21st Century, taken from the pages of Islam’s texts.

In the texts, it is clear that if you’re a believer, it is your duty to spend your time and money getting the whole world to follow Islamic law, no matter how long it takes and even if you have other things you’d rather be doing. It is your duty. Allah expects it of you, and there are serious consequences in the afterlife if you don’t. For those who choose to accept Allah’s mission, here are the instructions:

1. As a formality, always invite infidels to convert to Islam before you do anything else. They just might choose conversion rather than hostilities, and if they do, you’ve saved yourself a lot of time and money.

2. Probably they won’t take you up on your offer, so if you already have your own Islamic state, find a way to provoke a hostile response from an infidel country. Keep provoking until you get a hostile response. Don’t start outright war. Just provoke.

3. When you get a hostile response, use it as an excuse to escalate hostilities with that country. But make sure you call it “defending Islam.” Never think of it (or portray it as) an aggressive war, either to your own people or to the infidels. Only do this when you are sure you will not be wiped out by the enemy’s aggressive response.

4. When you aren’t in a position to defeat the infidel country militarily, make peace treaties with it, without actually intending to keep the treaties. Use a treaty as a way to prevent the country from attacking you while you gain enough strength to defeat it later. Pour any extra money you have into building up the power of your Islamic state and military prowess.

5. Use deception against the infidels. Lie to them. Pretend to be their friend, but never actually allow yourself any friendly feeling toward an infidel. Portray yourself in such a way that prevents them from trying to suppress you while you gain strength. Always remember, every Muslim in the world, wherever he is, is your brother. Every infidel is your enemy.

6. Do whatever you can to increase the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims. For example, have lots of children. Try your best to convert infidels peacefully to your religion. Men can marry up to four wives. Try to marry widows and convert infidel women to Islam and marry them. Gain a Muslim numerical advantage.

7. Undermine the infidels in any way you can without weakening your position. This is your most important activity when not actually in battle. In modern days, this might mean using the press to your advantage, trying to capitalize on any division you might perceive within the infidel country, immigrating to the country and trying to undermine their laws and pressing for Islamic concessions, strongly suppressing any criticism of Islam, giving money to organizations that will lobby for Muslim rights and organizations that will use the laws to put legal pressure on anyone who might slow down your jihad from within, using the internet to your advantage, infiltrating and invading into every place you can use to your advantage, taking full advantage of any freedoms and rights available in that country to eventually use them to undermine those freedoms and rights (by establishing Sharia law) once you gain the reins of power. All of this is jihad. Jihad is not only fighting on the battlefield and killing. Jihad is total war.

8. Make jihad your overarching mission in life, but keep it a secret from the infidels, because revealing it would weaken Islam. In fact, try to convince the infidels that you only want peace. Devote your life to jihad, and use all the time and money you can spare to forward the cause. Nothing is more important than jihad. It is the supreme act of religious devotion, it proves your faith, and it is Allah’s favorite act of worship, and that’s why the only way a man can guarantee himself a place in heaven is if he dies while fighting in jihad.

9. If you cannot fight on the battlefield, fight in anyway you can, including giving money, or giving support to jihad of whatever kind. In modern days, it might include going on web sites that criticize Islam to make comments that persuade the infidels it’s not true, or at least confuse them enough they won’t be motivated to do anything about it, going into the streets and protesting loudly whenever anyone criticizes Islam, even for something minor like a cartoon, etc.

10. Find any infidel allies, even unwitting ones, and use them to advance the cause of Allah. Later, when the country has become an Islamic state, you can hang the infidels who helped you if you like. But for now, use them. For a modern example, if there is a prevailing notion in infidel lands that all belief systems must be respected, then use that to try to get Islamic propaganda into infidel schools, on their public television programs, etc.

11. Do not try to convert people to Islam by force. Your goal is to convertgovernments to Islamic law. Once a government becomes an Islamic state, if the population converts to Islam, fine. If not, then the new Islamic government will make a lot of money on the “infidelity tax” (thejizya — a tax on dhimmis, the subjugated non-Muslims). This is a good source of revenue you can then use to fund further Islamic expansion. The goal is universal Sharia law rather than trying to force every person to be a Muslim. 

There it is. That’s the blueprint in a nutshell. That’s what it says very clearly in the Islamic texts, along with repeated warnings that if you don’t believe, and if you don’t put your faith into action, you’re going to burn for eternity.

So now, what should infidels like you and me do about this? What good does it do to know the game plan of the devoted Muslims following strict Islamic teachings?

First of all, now that you know about it, you can help thwart their plans, in many different ways and in many different places. There is no need to list every possible action you could take (although here’s a start). The number of possible actions are almost infinite and new opportunities will arise constantly. The knowledge of the game plan lends itself to innumerable possible ways to thwart it.

The important thing is to know what is being planned, and that they are deliberately hiding their intentions — that’s part of the plan.

The most important thing you can do about the jihad threat is inform your fellow infidels. That’s one of the hardest things to do, and it is also something the jihad warriors are trying to make even harder with their cries of Islamophobia, hate-speech, and racism. But it needs to be done, and you need to be one of the ones doing it. There aren’t many of us right now, and we’re in a race against time. Jihadists are recruiting new warriors every day. It is crucial that each of us who are “in on the game” alert those who aren’t. And the sooner the better.

When all of us are in on the game, it will be very difficult for the jihadists to fulfill their goals. Until that time, it is relatively easy for them.

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

Also see The Counter Jihad Report’s menu item, “Islamic Texts”. Especially the page “Jihadist Ideology: The Core Texts”

Robert Spencer Defines the War Against Jihad

976_largeby Andrew E. Harrod:

“America is at war; and has been since at least September 11, 2001, but no one is really sure who with,” Robert Spencer writes in his recently released Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth about the War We’re In. Thankfully, Spencer’s important book makes a significant contribution in clarifying this catastrophic confusion.

That “Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion” no different from…other faiths” in multicultural ecumenism, Spencer observes, forms a Western policy “cornerstone” and “cherished dogma of today’s political correct elites.” Yet President George W. Bush’s claim before Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, that al-Qaida terrorists “practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism” does not “become any truer for being oft repeated.”

“[U]unlike other modern faiths, Islam is a political religion” whose “comprehensiveness is often a matter for boasting among Islamic apologists” in comparison to “Christianity’s vague set of moral precepts,” Spencer writes. Such detail includes a “denial of basic rights…integral” to Islamic law despite attempted Muslim portrayals of sharia as “so amorphous as to defy characterization.” Islam’s death penalty for apostasy, for example, gives it something in common with cults, making leaving in one piece difficult.

Sharia interpretations “more compatible with Western pluralism and liberal democracy…have never gained any significant traction among Muslims.” However undesirable, centuries-old Islamic orthodoxy invariably and unsurprisingly has controlling legal authority.

“Jihad” in particular, “behind all the obfuscation and denial, is in fact primarily an Islamic doctrine of warfare,” drawn from the Qur’an’s “open-ended license to wage war against and plunder non-Muslims.” Despite various references to righteousness (e. g. Sura 5:8), the “Qur’an doesn’t teach that all are equal in dignity.” Rather, Islamic conversion can mean rejecting “nation and people as infidel” in favor of a “new loyalty instead to the supranational Islamic umma.”

Spencer offers plenty of examples, including Fort Hood terrorist Major Nidal Hasanhad a “broad tradition within Islamic teaching” justifying his killings with “numerous proponents.” Although “not the only understanding of Islam…even the larger number of Muslims who do not adhere to it have failed to work in any effective way to rein it in.” Accordingly, “Al Qaeda and other groups like it make recruits among peaceful Muslims” as “exponents of true and authentic Islam.” Unfortunately, faith fundamentals in Islam do not necessarily favor freedom over sectarian force.

Indeed, Muslim groups have no programs demonstrating “how the true Islam eschews violence against and hatred of unbelievers,” Spencer criticizes. Similarly, “over twelve years” after 9/11, no “sincere and effective effort within mosques to expose and report those who hold to the beliefs that led to those attacks” has developed. Groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “are ready with the condemnations after arrests and explosions, but why wait passively?” Muslim communities must “demonstrate (not just enunciate) their opposition to jihad terror Islamic supremacism,” Spencer demands. Any silent Muslim majority in an oft-proclaimed “religion of peace” must preemptively speak out, both for its own credibility’s sake and for the wider community’s security.

A “Jihad against Talking about Jihad” by Muslim groups and others, meanwhile, brands as an “irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam” any “resistance to jihad” in attempts at “demoralization and marginalization.” Objective discussion of Islam’s less savory aspects has become the “third rail of American public discourse.” Here “tuxedoed barbarians” like the writer Reza Aslan, an Islamic Republic of Iran apologist, play a role, along with leading officials like President Barack Obama, who pledged in his June 4, 2009, Cairo address “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” Obama “didn’t explain where in the Constitution he had found this awesome new responsibility,” Spencer says.

Read more at IPT

Boko Haram release chilling videos of missing Nigerian schoolgirls

article-2626019-1DC554E900000578-747_964x541

  • Some of the schoolgirls captured by extremist group Boko Haram on April 14 have been paraded on video
  • More than 200 girls were abducted by the Islamist militants from a village in the north-east of Nigeria
  • Boko Harum leader has said that he will release the captured girls in return for militant prisoners being freed
  • The Nigerian government has reportedly rejected this offer and has two army divisions hunting for the seized girls
  • Governor of state where they were seized – Borno – claims to know where they are
  • Kashim Shettima said he’d received reports of sightings of the girls and had passed this information to the military
  • Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, calls for negotiations with the terrorist group, which he says is ‘merciless’

 

By Ted Thornhill, Jack Doyle and Jason Groves:

Some of the schoolgirls kidnapped by Islamic militant group Boko Haram have been paraded on video.

The terror group said many of them had been converted to Islam while being held and all those on the footage are wearing headscarfs.

The group’s leader said that it will release them in exchange for militant prisoners being freed.

The Nigerian government has reportedly rejected this offer and has two army divisions hunting for the seized girls.

Some girls on the 17-minute-long video, which was obtained by news agency AFP, spoke to camera, and looked extremely nervous.

The girls recite Islamic prayers during the clip as they sit in a group in a wooded area.

After the girls appear the Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau, wearing military fatigues and holding an AK-47, addresses the camera. He appears confident and at one point laughs.

‘All I am saying is that if you want us to release the girls that we have kidnapped, those who have not accepted Islam will be treated as the Prophet (Mohammed) treated infidels and they will stay with us,’ he said, according to a translation of his words originally spoken in a Nigerian language.

‘We will not release them while you detain our brothers,’ he said, before naming a series of cities in Nigeria. It was not clear whether he was in the same location as the girls.

The video came through channels that have provided previous messages from Shekau, who speaks in the video in the Hausa language of northern Nigeria.

The video, which shows around 130 of the girls, was aired after the governor of the Nigerian state from where they were kidnapped said that he knew where some of them are being held.

Kashim Shettima, the Governor of Borno, said that he’d received reports of sightings of the girls and had passed on this information to the military.

Extremist group Boko Haram seized 276 girls who were taking exams at a school in Borno’s north-eastern village of Chibok on April 14. Some managed to escape, but around 200 remain missing.

Mr Shettima told the BBC: ‘We’ve got reports of them being sighted in some locations – which we have conveyed to the relevant military authorities, for them to cross-check, verify and get additional information on the accurate location of the daughters.’

His comments came as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, called for negotiations with the terrorist group over the fate of the missing girls.

The Archbishop, who has acted as a hostage negotiator in Nigeria on behalf of the Church in the past, said the girls were at ‘colossal’ risk.

‘They are in the hands of a very disparate group which is extremely irrational and difficult to deal with – and utterly merciless,’ he told BBC Radio Four’s The World This Weekend programme.

Read more at Daily Mail

Chibok Affair: The Emerging And Uncomfortable Facts

”The girls that have been kidnapped are being raped up to 15 times a day by their captors and that those amongst them that have refused to convert to Islam are having their throats cut ”

By Fani-Kayode:

Now that the operational leadership and visible face of Boko Haram, in the person of the filth called Mr.  Abubakar Shekau (aka Darul Tawheed), has finally admitted that they were responsible for the abduction of hundreds of our school girls and that they intend to ‘’sell them in the market  like slaves’’, it is pertinent and necessary for us to consider some  of the emerging, though uncomfortable, facts.

This will enable us to understand the nature of who and what we are dealing with and allow us to consider what the appropriate response ought to be if we really want to solve the problem. Permit me to share the following facts that have been brought to my attention:

1.  That the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has told us that 90 per cent of the girls that were abducted from their school at Chibok were Christians.

2. That President Goodluck Jonathan himself alluded to this during his last media chat when he said that ‘’the majority’’ of girls that were abducted were Christians.

3. That the majority of the girls that either ‘’escaped’’ or were released by their abductors were Muslims.

4. That the Governor of Borno State refused to accept the counsel and abide by the directives of WAEC that the exams should not take place in Chibok due to the precarious security situation and instead he insisted that the exams should take place there and that he would guarantee the security of the children.

5. That the Christian Association of Nigeria has formally accused the Governor of Borno State of ‘’conspiracy and collusion’’ and they have urged him to tell us exactly where the girls are and what he knows about the whole incident.

6. That the girls that have been kidnapped are being raped up to 15 times a day by their captors and that those amongst them that have refused to convert to Islam are having their throats cut (read the testimony of one of the girls that ‘’escaped’’ on page 8 of the Vanguard Newspaper, 5th April, 2014).

7.  That  there was not a single adult in the school grounds watching over the 278 girls that entire night apart from one security man and that there was no electricity, no generator, no principal, no matron, no house master and no house mistress in the grounds with them.

8. That the children were all alone in their dormitories that night in the blistering heat and deepest darkness before the Haramites arrived to burn their school and carried them away into captivity.

9. That the soldiers that were guarding the school in Chibok were redeployed a  few hours  before Boko Haram launched their attack and abducted the children.

10. That up till now pictures of the abducted girls have not been produced or released by the school authorities or the state government.

11. That this was a predominantly christian School and that Chibok is a predominantly Christian community.

In my view, these facts are relevant and instructive. When one considers them, the picture of what really happened at Chibok on that tragic night, what the real intentions of the abductors and their secret sponsors were and what is really going on now is getting clearer by the day.

Ordinarily, whether the children are Christians, Muslims, pagans or atheists really should not matter because, regardless of their faith, we want them all back and we must fight for them all to be returned to their homes and loved ones.

Read more at Vanguard

Fani-Kayode is a former Minister of Aviation.

Boko Haram and the return of the Nigerian slave trade

747c913f8ff754bfb2ebce61e3adf517_viewBy Geoffrey Clarfield:

Last week the Nigerian Islamic militants, Boko Haram, struck again in a small town in northern Nigeria near the Cameroonian border, killing 300 people. This is part of a series of escalating attacks such as the one they carried out last August, as the men of Konduga, a small northern Nigerian riverine Muslim community, were attending their Friday prayers. As they prayed, a group of armed Boko Haram terrorists attacked the mosque and killed 44 worshippers. The next day, as is their custom, Boko Haram released a video where they vilified and taunted the United States and Israel.

And then, just a few weeks ago, Boko Haram kidnapped 276 schoolgirls and boasted on the Internet that they were going to sell them into slavery, something that has suddenly shocked the world, for few have fully realized that this means that we are witnessing the return of the Nigerian slave trade.

Given the extreme violence and the high death toll of Islamic uprisings in places like Syria and Iraq, the Western public has become accustomed to hearing about an ebb and flow of religiously inspired massacres, but it is the proud slaving propensities of Boko Haram that are a shock to the news reading public and, the fact that they openly boast about it. There is more to this story than meets the eye.

Western readers have difficulty understanding who Boko Haram are, where they come from and what they mean in the context of Nigerian history, for Nigeria is really two distinct countries, a Muslim north and a non Muslim south. These two distinct cultural and religious entities were artificially fused by the British empire in the late 19th and early 20th century in what historians now call the “scramble for Africa,” a period of about forty years when England, France, Portugal, Belgium and Germany occupied almost all of North and Sub Saharan Africa. Most of the members of Boko Haram hail from the northern Islamic states of what later became the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

What we now call Nigeria is the result of English merchants, and later imperial civil servants contracting treaties with a host of African chiefs and then linking them into a colonial framework which set the stage for the large African independence movements that emerged after WWII, motivated by western educated African elites who had witnessed a world war where the supposedly racially “superior” Europeans fought to the death with the help of hundreds of thousands of African and Asian troups. Indeed, it was the French General De Gaulle who once said that without the assistance of the African soldiers of French West and Central Africa, they would not have prospered in their fight against the German Nazis.

When the British established their administrative and military control over Nigeria in the early 20th century, they froze a historical dynamic that had been ongoing for over a thousand years, that is the slow conversion to Islam of the sahelian dwelling northern tribes of Nigeria, such as the Hausa and Kanuri peoples who lived under a range of feuding emirs or local sultans and who then, as sincere believers in Islam, adopted a Jihad which included systematic enslavement and sale of captives from the more southern non Muslim tribes, such as the Yoruba, Ibo and many others who lived nearer to the Atlantic ocean.

This indigenous African slave trade which supplied northerners with an abundance of concubines, cheap domestic help and farm based slave labor, was then incorporated into the more widely known transatlantic slave trade where “up country” West Africans raided and sold slaves to “down country” West Africans, who in turn sold them in growing numbers to Europeans who took them across the Atlantic to the United States and to countries like Brazil, where legalized forms of slavery survived into the 1880s. The northern Nigerian slave trade never stopped, even when the British made it illegal and long before historians brought to our attention the full horror of the transatlantic slave trade that has so dramatically changed the demography of the new world, both north and south and, our perceptions of American and South American history.

Read more at The Times of Israel

 

 

Boko Haram Kidnaps 3 More Women in War Against West

Nigerian protest

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

BY RYAN MAURO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Clarion Project

Bill Maher: ‘Islam Is The Problem’

maherDaily Caller, By Jamie Weinstein:

Bill Maher went after Islam Friday night on his HBO show “Real Time.”

With the Nigerian Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapping hundreds of teenage girls to sell into slavery, the Sultan of Brunei establishing the repressive Sharia law in his country and Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree being rescinded by Brandeis University, Bill Maher pointed his finger at Islam as a major problem in the world today.

“Islam is the problem, correct. All religions are the problem, but especially this one,” the ardent atheist Maher told some of his liberal guests who were offended by his attacks on the faith.

Earlier in the discussion of Islam, conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza argued that “there’s a civil war in the mind of the liberal.”

“On the one hand you’re a defender of individual rights and minorities and if this were the Catholic Church, you’d be all on it,” he explained. “But on the other hand you’re committed to multiculturalism and Islam is a victim and we don’t want to make the Muslims feel bad. And so these two impulses have got to be brokered, one against the other. And that’s why there is a protection of Islam. The problem isn’t the Muslims. The problem is all the multiculturalists on campus who protect and defend them.”

CAIR Spokesman Whitewashes Islamic terrorism, Compares Boko Haram to Mere Criminals

BedierCSP, By Kyle Shideler:

At a Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) press conference held in order to “condemn Boko Haram” Ahmed Bedier, President of “United Voices” and a long time CAIR member, took the opportunity to condemn not Boko Haram, but the Nigerian government and Americans concerned about the threat of Islamic terrorism, and to minimize the kidnapping and threat of forced sexual slavery for hundreds of young women as the “failure to apprehend a bunch of criminals.” (Starts approximately 13:11)

 

Boko Haram (Western Education is a Sin), and whose real name is  Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad (People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad) is a State Department designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with ties to Al Qaeda.

Bedier proceeded to compare the outrage over the kidnappings, which has gone viral on the internet under the hashtag #Bringbackourgirls, to outrage over the response to Hurricane Katrina. Bedier continued, “we are tired of people coming on television and asking ‘well where does this ideology come from, this ideology comes from no where.”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has noted that Bedier has a long history of minimizing and understating Islamic terrorism, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Hamas, and Hezbollah. Bedier was a strong supporter of Florida professor, and now convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizer, Sami Al-Arian.  Bedier told a local Tampa TV station news program that prior to 1995 (when PIJ was formally designated a terrorist organization) there was “nothing immoral about it.”

The issue of the State Department’s reported unwillingness, under then Secretary Hillary Clinton, to designate Boko Haram as a terror group has been a topic of fierce criticism of late.

CAIR itself was an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial, for its role as part of the “Palestine Committee” of the North American Muslim Brotherhood, which was responsible for funneling money, through the Holy Land Foundation, to Hamas. Efforts by the supposed “Civil Rights” organization to remove itself from that list failed. In his memorandum on the case, Judge Jorge Solis noted:

Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas. While the Court recognizes that the evidence produced by the Government largely predates the HLF designation date, the evidence is nonetheless sufficient to show the association of these entities with HLF, IAP, and Hamas.

So I guess it’s no surprise why Ahmed Bedier would like people to stop talking about the ideology that encourages foreign terrorist organizations like Boko Haram.

Kyle Shideler is the Director of the Counterterrorism Education and Analysis Project (CEAP) at the Center for Security Policy. Kyle works to inject serious research and analysis on the subject of Islamic terrorism and Shariah law into the beltway policy discussion, by challenging false assumptions and providing fully documented resources, primary research and influential talking points to policymakers, journalists, and foreign relations professionals. Kyle has previously served as a Director of Research and Communications, Senior Researcher, and Public Information Officer for several organizations in the field of Middle East and terrorism policy since 2006. He is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace,” and has written for numerous publications as well as briefed legislative aides, intelligence and law enforcement officials, and the general public on the threat posed by Islamist influence and penetration operations.

Boko Haram and the History of Child Rape in Jihad

boko-haram-ReutersBreitbart, by PHYLLIS CHESLER:

On April 14, 2014, Boko Haram, (whose name either means “Western education is forbidden” or “a colonialist fraud being perpetrated against us”), captured three hundred Christian and Muslim Nigerian schoolgirls to become their sex and domestic slaves. The Muslim fundamentalists swooped down upon them as they were learning in a “forbidden” government secular school. Some girls managed to escape. Two hundred and seventy six girls are still missing.

The world media calls this a “kidnapping” in Nigeria. It is not a “kidnapping.” It is the face of Jihad, the way of Jihad. Boko Haram are not holding these girls for ransom, they are not willing to return them for money. They already view the girls as their God-given booty, and as sale-able property.

The girls are between the ages of twelve and fifteen. The Christian girls will be raped, converted to Islam, and then, like the Muslims girls, “married” to one of their captors. Some will be trafficked into the sex trade, which is pandemic throughout Africa and the Muslim Middle East. Sharia law allows men to purchase the sexual favors of a female child or a young woman for one hour, a week, or a month. Private and public brothels exist as well.

Please understand: Boko Haram are the Nigerian Taliban. Like their Pakistani and Afghan counterparts, they oppose education for girls and would rather marry and impregnate them instead–for Allah’s sake.

This behavior is absolutely par for the course in Islamic history. Anyone who is surprised or shocked by this latest outrage in Nigeria simply does not know the facts.

Boko Haram’s behavior is typical of any armed Muslim force beginning in Mohammed’s time. The Prophet’s warriors went on raids and systematically massacred the Jewish tribes in Arabia. The men who refused to convert were beheaded–and then the Prophet divided the women, children, houses, and chattels among the Muslims. The women were forcibly converted and kept as “wives” or slaves.

Thereafter, Muslim warriors in search of power, land, and gold, did much the same thing.

Contrary to the politically correct intelligentsia, who focus only on Western sins, Islam also has a long and ongoing history of imperialism, colonialism, conversion by the sword, sex slavery, (of both boys and girls), polygamy, sex trafficking, and the brutal subordination and cyclical massacres of religious minorities.

Westerners either do not know this, do not want to know this, don’t care all that much, or misunderstand this.

Some, including journalists, still believe that Boko Haram and other such groups are crying out against injustice and poverty, against government corruption and ineptitude–all of which exist.

But that is not Boko Haram’s major concern. They want to assert an Islamic state in Nigeria, similar to that which exists in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and now, Brunei. These Muslim extremists, both Sunni and Shiia, want Sharia law to dominate public and private life. This means that the state will have the power to stone people to death for adultery and apostasy, to amputate for theft, to lash and jail for “blasphemy,” to tax and hold hostage, jail, murder, or exile infidels.

Oh, yes–male polygamy will be legal, marriage will be forced, women will be veiled, normatively beaten and raped without recourse, honor killed for the slightest perceived disobedience. Women are breeders and housekeepers–an education would ruin them.

Nevertheless, for the first time, the world is mobilized, we have a “teachable moment.” Petitions have been signed, tweets tweeted, articles written, offers of military support tendered. I have remained silent because I have not liked how many in the media have jumped on this latest example of barbarism to plead their own special cause.

The capture of girls is horrifying but, they say, let’s remember that Boko Haram and other groups like them have also persecuted religious minorities in the Muslim and Arab world; let’s not forget that there are so many moderate Muslims who believe in women’s rights and the Western enterprise; let’s remember that this is just one more face of Jihad against the West, etc. All true–but this all takes the focus away from the way in which historical Islam views and treats women.

In 1971, hundreds of thousands of women were raped during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Pakistani Muslim soldiers publicly and repeatedly gang-raped and tortured Muslim (future Bangladeshi) women. These women became known as “Birangona,” or “brave women.” At the time, many killed themselves or, if pregnant, their families killed them in honor killings. Forty years later, those who survived are still traumatized and shamed by what was done to them. Many were humiliated by their relatives, rejected by their husbands.

At the time, the West paid no attention.

From 1992 on, Islamic paramilitary troops enslaved young Muslim girls in Algeria both sexually and domestically; they just grabbed them off the streets. If they tried to escape, they would be shot dead; the same was true when they became pregnant. Their names are lost in history.

At the time, the West paid no attention.

And then there was 2004, in Sudan, a long and ugly war, in which ethnic Arab Muslims engaged in what I call “gender cleansing” when they publicly and repeatedly gang-raped mainly Black African Muslim, Christian, and animist women. I was approached for advice and suggested setting up Women’s Talking Tents where the raped girls and women could come and speak their pain, see they were not alone, learn that it was not their fault.

And Western governments did nothing.

I wonder what will happen to those poor Nigerian girls who survive this ordeal? Will they be rescued and embraced? Will they be able to one day see themselves as war heroes, not victims? Will they all ever be found?

Mainly, will the world finally take a strong stand against such militant and barbaric Islamic groups who not only rape and imprison Muslim girls and women but who also slaughter both Muslim civilians and “infidels” indiscriminately?

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, and the author of fifteen books including the classic Women and Madness, Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, and The New Anti-Semitism. Her latest book, An American Bride in Kabul, just won the National Jewish Book Award for 2013. She is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum and can be reached through her website: www.phyllis-chesler.com