Baby Killed When Suspected Terrorist Slams Car into Jerusalem Crowd

Police and rescue personnel at the scene where several people were injured when a car crashed into the Jerusalem light rail station on October 22, 2014. (Photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90) Read more: Baby killed as car rams crowd in Jerusalem terror attack

Police and rescue personnel at the scene where several people were injured when a car crashed into the Jerusalem light rail station on October 22, 2014. (Photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Read more: Baby killed as car rams crowd in Jerusalem terror attack

by IPT News  •  Oct 22, 2014

A car driven by a suspected Hamas member crashed into a crowd at a light-rail station in Jerusalem Wednesday, killing a three month-old girl and injuring eight others.

Israeli officials confirmed that the suspect, Abdelrahman al-Shaludi, is a former Palestinian prisoner from Silwan who may be a Hamas member. Security camera footage apparently recorded the car as it drove onto the platform of the rail station and struck innocent Israeli civilians.

Click here to watch the video on YouTube.

Al-Shaludi was shot and killed by police as he tried to run away.

Hours later, dozens of masked Palestinians clashed with police forces in Silwan and Issawiya, setting tires ablaze and reportedly injuring a police officer following a fire bomb attack.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of inciting violence that encouraged the suspected terrorist attack, the Jerusalem Post reports.

“This is how Abbas’ partners in government [Hamas] act. This is the same Abbas who, only a few days ago, incited toward a terrorist attack in Jerusalem,” he said.

This comes amid increased Palestinian attacks in Jerusalem, including rock throwing and Molotov cocktails.

A Hamas spokesperson said that if the incident at the rail station was a terrorist attack, it was justified.

al Qaeda, al Shabaab, and ISIS: Recruiting and Taking Ground

1284084732

By Nicholas Hanlon:

The recent interplay between al Shabaab and the African Union military mission in Somalia offers new data on the role of ground troops, the holding of territory, and Islamist recruiting.   After conventional ground forces deprived the al Qaeda linked group of its last stronghold in Baraawe, al Shabaab retaliated with a failed assassination attempt on the Somali president in Baraawe.  To a more tragic effect, they succeeded in killing thirteen innocent civilians in Mogadishu with a car bomb yesterday.  The loss of Baraawe was a big loss for al Shabaab.  They once enjoyed control of two major port cities where they could earn money in exports and bring in weapons and new recruits unchecked.

It is important to keep in mind that as far back as 2007, the FBI was mobilizing to counter al Shabaab’s successful recruiting of Americans among the Somali refugee community.  In 2010, fourteen people were indicted for trying to support al Shabaab.  Individuals among them came from California, Alabama, and Minnesota.  One of the attackers at Westgate Mall in Kenya last year was believed to be from Kansas City, Missouri.

It also helps to keep in mind that al Shabaab was started by lieutenants of Osama Bin Laden.  Now, ISIS internet recruiting strategies are being compared to Al Qaeda’s as next-generation in technical innovation.   Why? The giant terrorist recruiting boon has long since begun.  That fact overshadows the differences between the groups and highlights their overarching unity of purpose.

Harken back to when the pillar of our now president’s foreign policy debate was that Gitmo caused terrorist recruiting.  If only we could close down Gitmo, we could stem terrorist recruiting world wide.  Another re-hashing of counter recruiting strategy also emerges.  Namely, did invading Iraq serve the cause of terrorist recruitment on a grand scale?  Would another boots on the ground campaign amplify recruiting once again in Syria?

Consider the basic elements at work: 1. Globalized social media with a propaganda capability 2. Freedom and ease of individual travel  3. Porous borders and poorly governed territory

Now apply those elements to each case regarding Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and al Shabaab in Somalia.  These categories clearly do not represent the complexity or all of the scenarios involved in the current threat matrix but do serve for an acceptable base line comparison.

In Afghanistan al Qaeda has good propaganda instincts but it is first generation stuff and there is physical distance between terrorist strongholds and a communications infrastructure.  Freedom and ease of individual travel is made difficult by remoteness and lack of transportation infrastructure.  The low level of governance, however, falls in the plus column.

In Iraq and Syria, ISIS is not only the benefactor of al Qaeda and former al Qaeda, they have more travel infrastructure and communications infrastructure.  It is much easier for Americans and Europeans to travel in and out, gain battle experience, and receive training before they return home.  Add to their globalized propaganda capability a free microphone from HBO’s Vice.  Their ability to take territory and govern speaks for itself.  But here is the twist.  Upon return, their media capability extrapolates as it already had been doing among the Somali jihadists.

Al Shabaab in Somalia had success early on with recruiting and importing foreign fighters due to the absence of an opposing force on the ground and control of vital seaports.  The freedom of individual travel beget effective globalized social media even without great communications infrastructure.   The FBI remains deeply concerned about those who have joined the jihad in Somalia carrying out attacks in the U.S. after returning.

What does all of this say to the debate about putting boots on the ground?  Does military intervention not play right in to Islamist strategy?  To be fair, let us quickly paraphrase the Iraq invasion strategy.  The idea was that it is better to fight terrorists with voluntary soldiers on foreign soil than to leave them unchecked and able to mobilize over seas to then launch attacks on U.S. soil.

It may sound simplistic but the ground force operations in Iraq and Afghanistan gave us an intelligence capability and a special forces capability we would have never had otherwise.  Without it, we would have never gotten Bin Laden and a lot of other bad guys.  That capability is no where near what it was since before the Iraq withdrawal.   Further, the U.S. had the un-articulated strategic advantage of new strike capabilities in a theater where we needed more geo-strategic leverage.  That’s gone too.

For the sake of argument, however, let’s say that the Iraq invasion did bring more terrorists out of the woodwork then would have ever otherwise confronted the U.S. unprovoked.   As Sam Harris has recently highlighted, the same ideas animate the overarching actions of all three groups; al Qaeda, al Shabaab, and ISIS.  It is a strategy for global dominance.  In Somalia, early al Shabaab had an ideological enemy, the Siad Barre military regime, long before U.S. foreign policy provided the foil.   His rise had to do with the Soviets whose foreign policy also provided the foil for Bin Laden’s early propaganda successes.

It will  help Islamist propaganda generally when they can use a Western or secular foreign policy or ideology as a foil.  Letting them determine when and where to fight is to concede that jihadists will name the tune that the West will dance to.  As the list of no-good options grows, there is healthy debate and a lot of good reasons why we should not invade  Iraq for a third time.  But a recruiting coup is not one of them.  The factors listed above can account for a robust propaganda and recruiting capability for ISIS, al Shabaab, and al Qaeda.  Further, thanks to social media, the viral effect is in effect.  That ship has sailed and Western leaders are in more dissarray than ever as to what to do about it.

Baraawe reminds us that taking territory away from Islamist terrorist groups can deprive them of money, weapons, and new recruits in the short term.  Iraq teaches us that if we don’t hold the ground taken from Islamist groups, they will take it back.  Neither case address the blood lust or sense of righteousness for their cause in the long run.  Yet their ideas can draw fighters to their banner with or without a U.S. presence on the ground.  A counter ideology capability for the West will not likely emerge in the American political climate.

Fort Hood shooter sends letter to Pope Francis espousing ‘jihad’

Fort Hood Shooting_AnguFox News, by Catherine Herridge:

EXCLUSIVE: Convicted Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan has written to Pope Francis espousing “jihad,” in his latest correspondence aligning himself with radical Islam.

Despite efforts by the Defense Department to label the 2009 massacre as “workplace violence,” Hasan has described himself several times, and again in the new letter, using the acronym “SoA,” or “Soldier of Allah.”

Hasan directed his attorney John Galligan to mail the undated, six-page, hand-written letter to the pope. A copy of the letter – titled, “A Warning To Pope Francis, Members Of The Vatican, And Other Religious Leaders Around the World” – was provided by the attorney to Fox News.

Hasan appears to make multiple references to the Koran in the letter, and includes a bulleted list of guidelines for “believers.”

In one subsection titled “Jihad,” Hasan praises “The willingness to fight for All-Mighty Allah,” describing it as a test that elevates the “mujahadeen” who “are encouraged to inspire the believers.” He states that “fighters … have a greater rank in the eyes of Allah than believers who don’t fight.”

There is no reference in the letter to the Fort Hood massacre for which Hasan was convicted on 13 counts of premeditated murder, and 31 counts of attempted murder, but no terrorism charges. Hasan currently is on death row at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.

In late August — as part of ongoing reporting on homegrown terrorism, “Fox Files: The Enemy Within,” which included a special investigation into Fort Hood — Fox News obtained a separate Hasan letter where he pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Asked to comment on the latest letter, Hasan’s attorney said it “underscores how much of his life, actions and mental thought process are driven by religious zeal. And it also reinforces my belief that the military judge committed reversible error by prohibiting Major Hasan from both testifying and arguing how his religious beliefs” motivated his actions during the shooting.

Neal Sher, an attorney representing the Fort Hood families and their relatives, also said Hasan is “thoroughly dedicated to jihad.” The lawsuit against the Defense Department and Justice Department now involves 150 individuals.

“His jihadist leanings and willingness to commit jihad were known for years before the 2009 atrocity,” Sher said. “And ever since then, he has made it abundantly clear he believes in jihad and has attempted to justify the slaughter that took place at Fort Hood.”

During the trial, Sher said Hasan attempted to testify and offer a “defense-of-others plea, in other words, he killed Americans at Fort Hood in defense of his brothers, al Qaeda and now ISIS. Yet again, it demonstrates he wasn’t shying away from [the shooting], he was proud of it.”

Sher likened the approach to “putting [the administration's] head in the sand. They do not want to acknowledge a terrorist attack took place on their watch on American soil. And layered over that is a good dose of political correctness.”

Fox News has a standing request to interview Hasan.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Islamic State Member Warns of NYC Attack In Exclusive Interview – The Canadian Jihadist

 

Vice News, September 25, 2014 

Foreign fighters from all over the world have left their home countries to join the ranks of the Islamic State, and the militant group’s lightning advance across Iraq and Syria this summer has helped to boost recruitment. VICE founder Shane Smith spoke with a man thought to be 21-year-old Somali-Canadian Abu Usamah Somali, who has been in Iraq since July and is reportedly fighting with the Islamic State.

Read Now: A Chat with the Canadian ISIS Member Who Burned His Passport on YouTube

Defensive or offensive Jihad: History, exegesis vs. contemporary propagation

ShowImage (8)Jerusalem Post, Feb. 13, 2014, By David Bukay: (h/t Bill Warner)

Part one: the religious aspect.

The issue at stake is the deep gap between the horrific acts of terrorism coming from the World Jihad groups, and, at the same time, the propagation emanating from Islamists, Muslims and Westerners; firstly, that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, hijacked by extremists; secondly, that there is only one Jihād, the spiritual, that means to worship Allah; and thirdly that the Muslims are ordered to fight their enemies only defensively.

The stunned Free World witnesses atrocious acts of terror, such as slaughters and beheadings, yet is simultaneously being told that this is only a retaliation towards the Western colonialism and neo-imperialism, or, that these groups are outliers, a small minority; that the threats of demolishing modernity and bringing it back to the 7th century are only because World Jihad wished to defend its land, its lives and its honor against Western aggression.

Hence, the question that arises here is whether Jihād is defensive or offensive? The answer to this will become apparent through analyzing Islamic sources and Muslim exegetes in comparison to contemporary Islamists propagators of the West.

The Arab-Islamic terrorist organization’s strategy against the Free World is comprised of two parallel but coordinated arms: Jihād – a holy war against the infidels, and Da`wah – the persuasive methods used to convince people to join Islam. Both arms are intended to achieve the same objectives, yet both are used at the same time by different activists and are aimed against different targets. However, between both, Da`wah is more dangerous to the Free World. Jihād appears 41 times in 18 Suwar (plural of Sûrah) in the Qur’ān, mostly coupled with fi-Sabīlillah (in the way of Allah; for the sake of Allah), which transforms it into a religious sanction. Da’wah is the Islamic concept of missionary activity, aimed at persuading all human beings to believe in Allâh. Da`wah is the moderate and graceful opening address used to approach non-believers and convince them to submit to Islam, and if it fails, it is the duty of Jihād to achieve the Islamic goals.

According to a Muslim exegete, there are seven major features of the superiority of Arab-Muslims over others, based on the Qur’ān. Firstly, they are the best Ummah ever brought forth to men, bidding good (Ma’rûf) and forbidding evil (Munkar). Secondly, the Muslims are the last of all nations in history and the first on the day of resurrection. Thirdly, their Scriptures are in their breasts (they know it by heart). Furthermore, they take their own alms, yet are rewarded as if they give them away. In addition to this, they have the privilege of intercession (Shafā’ah), which is a pillar of the superiority of the Islamic community over all other communities. Moreover, they answer and are answered, which means that they are distinguished from other communities in their obedience to Allah, as well as in having invocation answered by Allah. Lastly, they will wage war on the people of error and the Anti-Christ.

As the Muslims see it, Islam is for everyone within the human race and should be expanded as a leading religion, until all human beings proclaim that “there is no God but Allâh and Muhammad is his messenger.”Jihād is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam, and its merits are described copiously in many well-respected Islamic religious works. It is called “the neglected duty” or “the forgotten obligation,” and regarded as the sixth pillar of Islam. Professor Bernard Lewis finds that an “overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists… understood the obligation of Jihād in a military sense.”

All four Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence and most of Islamic exegetes agree that the aims of Jihad are to remove the infidel’s oppression and injustice, to eliminate the barriers to the spread of Allah’s truth, and, to establish Islamic justice universally. There are four different ways in which the believer may fulfill his obligations: a) by his heart; b) by his tongue; c) by his hands; d) by the sword. This demonstrates the close connection between Jihād and Da’wah, as well as the fact that they are aimed at establishing Allah’s rule on earth, until either the non-believers embrace Islam (as a result of Da’wah), or submit to Islamic rule and agree to pay the tax poll, the Jizyah; or be killed in the battleground (as a result of Jihad war).

From the Islamic viewpoint, all wars in Islam are religious; the concept of “secular war” does not exist; and Jihād is the only just war known. So, even according to Islamic Jurisdiction, one can wage the most aggressive war using atrocious evil deeds and still see it as a defensive war. The Muslim legal theory states that Islam cannot exist in conjunction with idolatry. This is Shirk, meaning association of other gods and idols with Allah. According to a Hadīth related to Muhammad, he declared: “I am ordered to fight polytheists until they say there is no God but Allah.” Muslims are under the Qur’ān Commandments’ obligation to slay the idolaters. Hence, terrorizing Islamic enemies is Allah’s commandment.

There are four Qur’ān “sword verses” relating to different types of people against whom the believers are obliged to fight: a) Sûrah 9 (verse 5): Fighting the Idolaters; b) Sûrah 9 (verse 29): Fighting the People of the Book, Ahl al-Kitāb; c) Sûrah 9 (verse 73): Fighting the Hypocrites and the infidels; and d) Surah 47 (verse 4): Fighting the Enemies of Islam whoever they are and whenever they can be found. Of these, Sûrah 9 (verse 5) is considered to be the most important. Most Islamic exegetes claim that this verse abrogates 114 or 124 other non-militant verses from Mecca.

The Shahīd is one who is killed and has achieved martyrdom in the battle of Jihād. Islamic exegetes claim that the Shahīd is granted seven glorious gifts: a) He is forgiven at the first drop of his blood; b) He is dressed in the clothes of Imām and sees his status in paradise; c) He is protected from the punishment of the grave; d) He will be safe from the great fear of the Day of Judgment; e) A crown of glory will be placed on his head; f) He will intercede on behalf of 70 members of his family; g) He will be married to 72 Houris. Islamic exegetes take the Qur’ān statements that the Shuhadā’ are alive living beside Allah and enjoying all his grace.

According to Majid Khadduri, Muslims view peace as a tactical means for achieving their strategic objective, by defeating the enemy. Peace constitutes a temporary break in the ongoing war against the enemy, until Islam controls the whole world. They might come to terms with the enemy, provided that they resume the Jihād after the expiration of the treaty. Defeated Muslims maintained that their battle with the enemy would resume, however long they had to wait for the second round. By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but war-like.

Khadduri states that Muhammad has set the classic example by concluding the Khudaybiyah Treaty, in 628 with the Meccans: a peace treaty with the enemy is a valid instrument. That is, if it serves Muslim interests. Muhammad and his successors always reserved their right to repudiate any treaty or arrangement which they considered as harmful to Islam. Muslim authorities might have come to terms with the enemy, provided it was only for a temporary period. In practice, however, Jihād underwent certain changes in its meaning to suit the changing circumstances of life. This change, did not imply an abandonment of the Jihād duty; it only meant the entry of the obligation into a period of suspension – it assumed a dormant status, from which the leader may revive it at any time he deems necessary.

Also see:

Was General Greene a Victim of ‘Workplace Violence’ Too?

pic_giant_080914_mccarthyNational Review Online, By Andrew C. McCarthy, AUGUST 9, 2014:

Major General Harold Greene, who was murdered by a jihadist in Afghanistan Tuesday, is the highest-ranking American officer since the Vietnam War, 44 years ago, to be killed in combat. Or at least one hopes that he will be accorded the full honors of a soldier killed in combat. With the Obama administration and its compliant Pentagon brass, you can never be sure.

The two-star general was killed, and 15 fellow allied soldiers wounded, not on the battlefield but in the seemingly secure confines of a military base — in this instance, a training school outside Kabul. The shooting spree was carried out not by honorable combatants wearing an enemy uniform but by a stealth terrorist dressed as a member of the allied force whose treachery enabled him to kill and maim.

That makes it eerily similar, although considerably less bloody, than the Fort Hood massacre. In that 2009 attack, 13 American soldiers were murdered, and dozens wounded. The assassin was Nidal Hasan, who was formally a commissioned U.S. Army officer, but in reality a stealth terrorist — the “Soldier of Allah” described on the business cards he carried inside his soldier-of-America camouflage.

At the moment they were killed and wounded, the Americans in Fort Hood were being processed for imminent deployment to Afghanistan. They were headed to fight in the same war in which General Greene was killed by our jihadist enemies — the same “Muslim brothers” Hasan admitted mass-murdering our troops to protect.

Hasan, who screamed “Allahu Akbar!” as he mowed our troops down, acted while in communication with, and under the influence of, Anwar al-Awlaki, a notorious al-Qaeda operative. By 2009, Awlaki was known to have held furtive meetings with two of the principal suicide-hijackers in the days before the 9/11 attacks. He was adept at recruiting and inciting anti-American jihadists, like Hasan. Indeed, he is believed to have inspired other anti-American terror attacks and attempts.

That is why the commander-in-chief, relying on the law of war, authorized Awlaki’s killing by a drone strike in Yemen. Yet the same commander-in-chief and his Pentagon yes-men have adamantly refused to categorize the Fort Hood shootings as related to war and armed combat.

Twice as many Americans were killed at Fort Hood in 2009 while preparing to fight the enemy than at the World Trade Center in 1993 while working at their jobs. The WTC bombing is appropriately remembered as a jihadist attack and was prosecuted under terrorism charges — I was the prosecutor of the cell convicted of “conspiracy to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States.” Yet, the Obama administration has categorized the Fort Hood massacre at a military installation as mere “workplace violence.” It was prosecuted as simple homicide, not terrorism. Our killed and wounded have been denied purple-heart medals, the honor due to combat casualties of the jihad.

The “workplace violence” tripe is based on the fiction that Hasan was a “lone wolf.” In part, this is a cover-up of fatally reckless government incompetence. Hassan’s military superiors knew he was an Islamic supremacist. The ostensible U.S. Army psychiatrist was quite open about it, even incorporating jihadist ideology into his academic lectures. More to the point, the army was alerted by the FBI and its Joint Terrorism Task Force about Hasan’s contacts with Awlaki. Still, the brass took no preventive action. Instead, they dismissed Hasan’s terrorist contacts as “professional research”; promoted Hasan from captain to major and, ultimately, to lieutenant colonel; and left American soldiers at risk even though the phenomenon of deadly jihadist infiltration — what the military calls “green-on-blue attacks” of the type that killed General Greene — was well known.

But there is much more to this most self-destructive side of willful blindness. Initial reporting from the Associated Press regarding General Greene’s murder elaborated that, while credit for “insider attacks” is sometimes claimed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, other “green on blue” killings

are attributed to personal disputes or resentment by Afghans who have soured on the continued international presence in their country more than a dozen years after the fall of the Taliban’s ultra-conservative Islamic regime. Foreign aid workers, contractors, journalists and other civilians in Afghanistan are increasingly becoming targets of violence as the U.S.-led military coalition continues a withdrawal to be complete by the end of the year [emphasis added].

Now, why would Afghans be “resentful” about the presence of American forces whose mission, for the last decade, has increasingly shifted from promoting American national security to making a better life for Afghans? Why would not only soldiers but civilian contractors and foreign-aid workers — all there to build Afghan democracy and civil society — be “targets of violence”?

The answer is a simple one, albeit one we mulishly refuse to confront.

Under the scripturally based Islamic-supremacist ideology endorsed by some of the world’s most influential Muslim scholars, an infidel force that enters Islamic land for the purpose of installing non-Muslim institutions, precepts, and law must be violently opposed and driven out. That such a Western force has humanitarian motivations, that it seeks to spread liberty not seize territory, is irrelevant. Our sharia-driven enemies have very different notions about what “humanitarian” means; and our idea of liberty — the antithesis of sharia totalitarianism — is not a blessing but a form of blasphemy.

Idealizing liberty as a desire inscribed on every human heart, we act as if it can win on its own. It can’t. Those who have it have to defend it; those who want it have to fight for it. Its committed enemies have to be defeated for it to have a chance.

If Nidal Hasan is a “lone wolf,” then there are millions of them. He is a jihadist operative of this ideological movement, just like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, the terror masters in Tehran, the World Trade Center bombers, and the infiltrator who murdered General Greene.

This ideological movement and the global jihad it fuels cannot be wished away by pretending Nidal Hasan was a “lone wolf”; that terror attacks are “workplace violence”; that a transcontinental terror network can be miniaturized into “core al-Qaeda” and various local franchises with parochial agendas unconnected to the anti-American ideology of Islamic conquest; that the war is happening only in Afghanistan; that the Taliban, Hamas, and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations — just political parties that happen to have their own military brigades for those occasional times when a stump speech won’t do; or that an American president can “bring an end” to war by withdrawing forces while the enemy is still plotting against our citizens, besieging our troops, and now murdering our generals.

The global jihad is not nearly done with us, even if the president thinks he can make it go away by claiming, repeatedly and delusionally, to have “decimated” it. It is a battle that can end only when one side’s will is broken. There is no middle way with it: You win or you lose. Right now, we are losing.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, was released by Encounter Books on June 3.

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