Politically Correct Jihad

Illustration by Bosch Fawstin http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Illustration by Bosch Fawstin http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Political Islam, by Bill Warner, Nov. 15, 2015:

Only a day after the November 13 jihad attacks in Paris we see the usual politically correct responses. Ironically Obama and Kerry had pronounced Islamic State “contained” and its “days are numbered” earlier in the day.

Merkel of Germany says that the proper response to jihad is tolerance and European values.

The politicians do not use the word jihad, but terror and terror networks.

The left of center press says that the rhetoric of the right causes terror and that poor Muslims will suffer from being associated with terror. They should be worried about being associated with jihad.

The professors still teach Islam without jihad. The press will not offend Muslims. Police do not study the doctrine of jihad. Politicians cry out for more Muslim refugees.
We are losing a civilizational war because of political correctness. To win we must start using the language of Islam. We must start conversations that about the ideology and doctrine of political Islam.


If there is a positive side to the rise of ISIS, it is that the West has had its head jerked from the sand and has been made to witness a bottomless, bloodthirsty evil: crucifixions, beheadings, enslavement of women, live burial of children, mass executions. Even John Kerry, a man not known for grasping (or admitting) the truth about jihad, acknowledges that this brutality “underscores the degree to which [ISIS] is so far beyond the pale with respect to any standard by which we judge even terrorist groups.” But as one analyst writes, this violence is not “whimsical, crazed fanaticism, but a very deliberate, considered strategy” – one that seems to derive in part from a book called The Management of Savagery.

In the spring of 2004 a strategist who called himself Abu Bakr Naji published online The Management of Savagery: The Most Critical Stage Through Which the Ummah Will Pass (later translated from the Arabic by William McCants, a fellow at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center). The book – what theWashington Post calls the Mein Kampf of jihad – aimed to provide a strategy for al-Qaeda and other jihadists. “The ideal of this movement,” wrote Lawrence Wright in The New Yorker, “as its theorists saw it, was the establishment of a caliphate that would lead to the purification of the Muslim world.”

Naji believed that a civil war within Islam would lead to that Sunni caliphate, so he recommended a merciless campaign of violence in Muslim lands to polarize the population, expose the inability of the state to maintain control, attract followers, and create a spreading network of “regions of savagery.”

“The management of savagery” refers to controlling the chaos that results from that breakdown of order. The requirements for the administration of savagery are:

  • Establishing internal security
  • Providing food and medical treatment
  • Securing the borders against the invasion of enemies
  • Establishing Sharia law
  • Establishing a fighting society at all levels and among all individuals.

The manifesto proposes that the jihadists exhaust an overstretched America through a patient war of attrition and a manipulation of the media to dismantle the superpower’s “aura of invincibility.” It demands that the enemy be made to “pay the price” for any and all attacks carried out against the jihadists, even if the retribution takes years, in order to instill in the enemy “a sense of hopelessness that will cause him to seek reconciliation.” No mercy must be shown: “Our enemies will not be merciful to us if they seize us. Thus, it behooves us to make them think one thousand times before attacking us.”

Shocking violence is a key element of that strategy. “The beheadings and the violence practiced by [the Islamic State] are not whimsical, crazed fanaticism, but a very deliberate, considered strategy,” writesBritish analyst Alastair Crooke. “The seemingly random violence has a precise purpose: It’s [sic] aim is to strike huge fear; to break the psychology of a people.” For example, Naji recommends that in instances in which hostage demands are not met, “the hostages should be liquidated in a terrifying manner, which will send fear into the hearts of the enemy and his supporters.”

Naji believed that “we need to massacre” others as Muslims did after the death of Muhammad. “We must make this battle very violent,” the book says. “If we are not violent in our jihad and if softness seizes us, that will be a major factor in the loss of the element of strength.”

But the violence isn’t intended merely to terrify, but to “drag the masses into battle.” Naji’s strategy requires polarizing the Muslim world and convincing any moderates who had hoped for U.S. protection that it is futile.

Paradoxically, this violence is actually a part of Allah’s mercy to all mankind. Putting apostates and infidels to the sword is merciful compared to the wrath that Allah himself would rain down:

Some may be surprised when we say that the religious practice of jihad despite the blood, corpses, and limbs which encompass it and the killing and fighting which its practice entails is among the most blessed acts of worship for the servants… Jihad is the most merciful of the methods for all created things and the most sparing of the spilling of blood.

Among those who are hostile to this mercy are “infidels among the Jews and the Christians and others who accused Islam of severity and mercilessness in all of its religious practices,” as well as “those who say that Islam is a religion of mercy and peace and that jihad is immoderate and excessive and that it has nothing to do with Islam!” Clearly Abu Bakr Naji is one of the many misunderstanders of Islam who didn’t get the memo about its peaceful nature.

In Naji’s conclusion, he stresses that “our battle is a battle of tawhid [the oneness of Allah] against unbelief and faith against polytheism. It is not an economic, political, or social battle.” [Emphasis added] The recent documentary feature released by ISIS called Flames of War, used as a recruiting tool for Muslim brethren in the West, confirms their religious aim and motivation. In addition to missing the memo about Islam meaning peace, apparently Naji also neglected to read all the memos from Western apologists about Islamic terrorism being spawned by poverty and Western oppression and exploitation.

Unfortunately, it seems that President Obama and Secretary Kerry, who continue to insist that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, never got Abu Bakr Naji’s memo either – the one entitled The Management of Savagery.



Thus, we need to massacre (others) and (to take) actions like those that were undertaken against the Banu Qurayza and their like. But if God should give us power and we take control and justice spreads, how tender the people of faith will be at that time and they will say to the people: “Go, for you are free.”

The Management of Savagery – Think Defence, by David Hume Footsoldier, March 16, 2015:

Also see:

The Indonesian Jihad on Christian Churches

Gatestone Institute, by Raymond Ibrahim, November 11, 2015:

  • “We will not stop hunting Christians and burning churches. Christians are Allah’s enemies!” – Islamic leaders, Aceh region.
  • In other parts of Indonesia, where Islamic law, or Sharia, is not enforced, churches, even fully registered ones, are also under attack
  • On Dec. 25, 2012, with all required paperwork in place, when the congregation assembled on empty land to celebrate Christmas, hundreds of Muslims threw rocks, rotten eggs, and bags filled with excrement at the Christians. Police stood by and watched.
  • For Indonesia, the country once hailed as the face of “moderate Islam,” the “extremist” behavior one would expect of ISIS has apparently become the norm.

In compliance with Islamic demands, Indonesian authorities in the Aceh region have started to tear down Christian churches. Their move comes after Muslim mobs rampaged and attacked churches. At least one person was killed; thousands of Christians were displaced.

On Friday, October 9, after being fired up during mosque sermons, hundreds of Muslims marched to the local authority’s office and demanded that all unregistered churches in Aceh be closed. Imams issued text messages spurring Muslims from other areas to rise up against churches and call for their demolition.

On Monday, October 12, authorities facilitated a meeting with Islamic leaders and agreed to demolish 10 unregistered churches over the course of two weeks.

Apparently this was not fast enough to meet Muslim demands for immediate action. On the following day, a mob of approximately 700 Muslims, some armed with axes and machetes, torched a local church, even though it was not on the list of churches agreed upon for demolition.

church burning

The Muslim mob then moved on to a second church, an act that led to violent clashes. One person, believed to be a Christian, died after being shot in the head. Several were injured, as Christians tried to defend their church against the armed mob.

Approximately 8,000 Christians were displaced; many fled to bordering provinces. Their fears were justified: Islamic leaders continued issuing messages and text messages saying, “We will not stop hunting Christians and burning churches. Christians are Allah’s enemies!”

Instead of punishing those who incited violence and took the law into their own hands by torching and attacking churches, local authorities demolished three churches (a Catholic mission station and two Protestant churches) on October 19. In the coming days, seven more churches are set to be demolished; in the coming months and years, dozens more.

Authorities had originally requested of church leaders to demolish their own churches. “How can we do that?” asked Paima Berutu, one of the church leaders: “It is impossible [for us to take it down] … Some of us watched [the demolition] from afar, man and women. It was painful.”

The situation in Aceh remains tense: “Every church member is guarding his own church right now,” said another pastor

As for the displaced Christians, many remain destitute, waiting for “desperately needed clean water, food, clothes, baby food, blankets, and medicines.” As Muslim militants were reportedly guarding the border with an order to kill any Christians crossing the line, reaching the Christians is difficult.

Many Muslims and some media try to justify this destruction by pointing out that the churches were in the wrong for not being registered. In reality, however, thanks to Indonesia’s 2006 Joint Decree on Houses of Worship, it is effectively impossible to obtain a church permit. The decree made it illegal for churches to acquire permits unless they can get “signatures from 60 local households of a different faith,” presumably Muslims, as well as “a written recommendation from the regency or municipal religious affairs office” — that is, from the local sheikh and council of Muslim elders: the same people most likely to incite Muslims against Christians and churches during mosque gatherings. Christian activists say there are many mosques that are unregistered and built without permits, but the authorities ignore those infractions.

Others try to justify these recent attacks on churches by pointing out that they took place in Aceh, the only region in Indonesia where Islamic law, or Sharia, is officially authorized, and where, since 2006, more than 1,000 churches have been shut.

Yet in other parts of Indonesia, where Islamic law is not enforced, even fully registered churches are under attack. These include the Philadelphia Protestant Church in Bekasi — nearly 1,500 miles south of Sharia-compliant Aceh. Even though it had the necessary paperwork, it too was illegally shut down in response to violent Muslim protests. On December 25, 2012, when the congregation assembled on empty land to celebrate Christmas, hundreds of Muslims, including women and children, threw rotten eggs, rocks, and plastic bags filled with urine and feces at the Christians. Police stood by and watched.

A church spokesman stated, “We are constantly having to change our location because our existence appears to be unwanted, and we have to hide so that we are not intimidated by intolerant groups. … We had hoped for help from the police, but after many attacks on members of the congregation [including when they privately meet for worship at each other’s homes], we see that the police are also involved in this.

Bogor is another area where Islamic law is supposedly not enforced. Yet the ongoing saga of the GKI Yasmin Church there illustrates how Islamic law takes precedence over Indonesian law. In 2008, when local Muslims began complaining about the existence of the church, even though it was fully registered, the authorities obligingly closed it. In December 2010, the Indonesian Supreme Court ordered the church to be reopened, but the mayor of Bogor, refusing to comply, kept it sealed off.

Since then, the congregation has been holding Sunday services at the homes of members, and occasionally on the street, to the usual jeers and attacks by Muslim mobs. On Sunday, September 27, the church held its 100th open-air service.

The Indonesian jihad is taking place in varying degrees all throughout the East Asian nation and is not limited to Sharia-compliant zones such as Aceh. For the country once hailed as the face of “moderate Islam,” the “extremist” behavior one would expect of the Islamic State (ISIS) — hating, attacking, and demolishing churches — has apparently become the norm.

Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War in Christians (published by Regnery in cooperation with Gatestone Institute, April 2013).

Follow Raymond Ibrahim on Twitter and Facebook

Also see:

When Students Cheer Jihad

we_are_all_hamasFrontpage, by David Horowitz, Nov. 10, 2015:

Reprinted from the Washington Times

Editor’s note: The following op-ed marking the launch of the Freedom Center’s new Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign appeared November 5, 2015 in the Washington Times. Click here to view the campaign’s list of the Ten Top American Universities Most Friendly to Terrorists. 

Calling things by their right names is a prerequisite for seeing them as they really are. Last spring I spoke at more than half a dozen universities, including Ohio State and Stony Brook, where I was confronted by mobs of students cheering Hamas, a terrorist organization whose declared goal is the extermination of the Jews. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. On virtually every major university campus in America organizations exist whose leadership is dedicated to spreading the propaganda lies of Hamas designed to weaken and delegitimize the Israeli state, and promoting Hamas campaigns like Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) whose goal is its destruction.

The two leading organizations in this terrorist proxy campaign are the Muslim Students Association (MSA), which poses as a cultural group but is really a recruiting tool for its founding group, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which was also created by a Brotherhood operative and takes an even more aggressive pro-terrorist role on campus defending Hamas rocket attacks on Israel and advancing its propaganda wars.

There are many ways to criticize Israeli policy, both reasonably and unreasonably. But what distinguishes these two groups is the relentless adherence of their members to the propaganda lines — and lies — of the terrorist organization Hamas, and their unwavering defense of Hamas’ aggressive wars against Israel and the Jews. A prominent slogan of SJP and MSA, chanted at ritual campus protests, is “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free.” The river is the Jordan, the eastern boundary of Israel, the sea is the Mediterranean, its western boundary. These groups are committed to the destruction of the Jewish state — an act of genocide.

It is true that some chapters of the Muslim Students Association, which is a sponsor of the Israel-hate fests called “Israeli Apartheid Week,” do not participate in these political activities. But name one of them who has dissociated itself from their hateful agendas.

Even more telling is an infamous panel of four maps which is a standard feature of the “apartheid walls” (another Hamas propaganda lie — the security fence is designed to keep terrorists out, not ethnic groups) that are centerpieces of their protests. The first map shows a green state called Palestine with the date 1947. There was no state called Palestine (indeed there was no people calling themselves Palestinians) in 1947. The next three maps with expanding patches of white purport to show the infiltration and occupation of the non-existent Palestinian state by the colonialist Jews. These lies are easily checked. There is no occupation by Israel of Arab land. Israel was created the same way Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria were created — on land that belonged to the Turks for 400 years previously.

The fidelity of the Muslim Students Association and Students for Justice in Palestine to Hamas’ genocidal agendas is no mystery since both were created by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood. The mystery is why American universities like Brandeis, UCLA and scores of other schools are funding operations of a terrorist organization to conduct Jew-hating propaganda on American campuses. Any other group that preached hatred of ethnic groups or supported barbaric terrorists who slaughter men, women and children as part of a demented mission to cleanse the earth of infidels would face campus sanctions, disciplinary action, and be charged with conduct code violations. But these two groups, hiding behind the rhetoric of diversity and the cloak of political correctness, are instead lauded by university administrators, granted university offices, departmental funding for their hate-fests and a stage for their terrorist-supporting propaganda.

To expose this travesty and raise these questions the David Horowitz Freedom Center has launched a campaign (www.stopthejihadoncampus.org) on American campuses. The campaign has issued a report on “The 10 Colleges Most Friendly to Terrorists.” These include San Francisco State whose students scrawled “My Heroes Have Always Killed Colonizers” across the concrete stage at an anti-Israel rally. They include UCLA, where student government officers attempted to bar candidates for student government from accepting trips to Israel sponsored by pro-Israel organizations. They include Harvard University whose Dining Services administrators made a unilateral decision to ban products from the Israeli company SodaStream; and Rutgers University, whose Students for Justice in Palestine chapter displayed signs calling for a new Intifada (terrorist attack) against Israel at a recruitment drive.

It is a mistake to assume that these hate groups will be satisfied with mere rhetoric. Numerous leaders of the Muslim Students Association have gone on to high-level positions in al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The most notorious of these was Anwar al-Awlaki, the head of al Qaeda in Yemen, who inspired the Fort Hood massacre and who before that was president of the Muslim Students Association at Colorado State. A recent student leader of the General Union of Palestinian Students at San Francisco State University spoke openly on social media about his desire to stab Israeli soldiers and leave school to join the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist group waging war against Israel. His postings led the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the FBI to place him under investigation. How many other student leaders are out there who are less forthcoming about their desires?

Also see:

America’s Strategic Choices: Challenges Abound

SecDef Ash recently said that we are going to retool our fight against ISIS. I talk about this on my segment as a member of a panel discussion, “America’s Strategic Choices: Challenges Abound,” presented by The Council for Emerging National Security Affairs and the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University on October 28, 2015.

Website mentioned in video: http://www.correlatesofwar.org/

View the entire panel:

The Knife Intifada…Coming to a City Near You

Israeli soldiers stands by the body of a Palestinian man at the scene of a stabbing attack near the West Bank Jewish settlement of Adam, north of Jerusalem, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2015. Israeli police said the man stabbed a female Israeli soldier before he was shot and killed. (AP Photo/Majdi Mohammed)

Israeli soldiers stands by the body of a Palestinian man at the scene of a stabbing attack near the West Bank Jewish settlement of Adam, north of Jerusalem, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2015. Israeli police said the man stabbed a female Israeli soldier before he was shot and killed. (AP Photo/Majdi Mohammed)

Conservative Review, Daniel Horowitz | November 9th, 2015:

Over the past few decades, Israel has served as the harbinger for everything the Islamic jihad has wrought on western civilization.  The suicide bombings began there and have now become widespread throughout the world.  Now Israel is suffering from the most devastating form of terror – the ubiquitous threat of spontaneous stabbing attacks from Muslims living among them.

Well, it didn’t take long for the knife intifada to come to America, too.

Last Wednesday, 18-year-old Faisal Mohammad, in a scene eerily similar to what is happening in Israel on a daily basis, went on a stabbing rampage against his classmates at University of California Merced.  Thanks to the heroic interference from Byron Price, a construction worker on scene, only four people were injured and nobody was killed.  Mohammed was eventually shot dead by campus police after arriving to the scene. But a manifesto written by Mohammad, discovered by the coroner after his death, showed that he intended to “kill a lot of people.” The manifesto also contained references to Allah.

In Israel today, many of the attacks are not emanating from “Palestinian” Arabs living in Judea and Samaria but from the 1.5 million Israeli Arabs who have citizenship and work among them.

Every time one of these attacks occur, the first reaction from most observers – to the extent they even recognize Jihad as the root cause – is to suspect ISIS of being involved.  In reality, what we are now facing in this country, much like Israelis are confronted with in their neighborhoods, is a widespread freelance Jihad that is even more dangerous than the targeted command-and-control attacks of the past that were the hallmark of Al Qaeda.

In Israel today, many of the attacks are not emanating from “Palestinian” Arabs living in Judea and Samaria but from the 1.5 million Israeli Arabs who have citizenship and work among them.  The success of the global cyber jihad is lighting all of the fuses around the world in a way that presents the West with a greater existential threat than isolated “9-11 style” attacks.

Consider the following finding from a recent counterterrorism report put out by the House Committee on Homeland Security:

There have been more U.S.-based jihadist terror cases in 2015 than in any full year since 9/11. The number of U.S. terrorist cases involving homegrown Islamist extremists has gone from 38 in July 2010 to 127 today—more than a three-fold increase in just five years.

You wouldn’t know it from the media coverage or the silence from most elected officials, but we have suffered from a number of homegrown terror attacks this year.  These attacks are not directed by Al Qaeda or ISIS, they are inspired by their change in focus to fard ‘ayn – the individual duty to carry out Sharia law.

At its core, this is the problem with the mass immigration from the Middle East and Obama’s imminent plan to bring in thousands of more Islamic refugees from Somalia and Syria – a plan that has, thus far, gone unchallenged by Congress.  It’s not just a threat of admitting a handful of professionally trained terrorists.  It’s the certainty of bringing in a large percentage of those who believe in Sharia law and will inevitably subvert our culture and be lured into global Jihad.  We are witnessing the suicide of a nation with our immigration policies and the willful disregard of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood here at home.  What is especially tragic is that we are not learning the vivid lessons of Europe and Israel.

With this clear and present danger staring us in the face, we don’t need a political leadership with a particular degree of sentience to realize the problem.  We need those with the courage and common sense to put aside the political correctness and spare this country – the “Great Satan” (as the Jihadists endearingly call the U.S.) – from becoming as endangered as the “Little Satan.”

Daniel Horowitz is a Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.

Jihad on a Tray

by Mark Steyn
Steyn on the World
November 9, 2015

Like I was saying only a couple of days ago, it’s all Islam, all the time…

~A decade ago today, suicide bombers blew up my favorite hotel in Amman. (I wrote about one aspect of that slaughter here.) On this tenth anniversary, a Jordanian police offer has killed four people, including one South African and two American instructors.

Since Obama pressed his reset button with Islam in that Cairo speech six years ago, he’s handed half of Iraq and Syria over to the Islamic State, the other half of Iraq to Iran, and Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood and thence to military dictatorship, and turned the Libyan seacoast into the fast-track immigration check-in for the European Union, and Yemen into a failed state awash in state-of-the-art American weaponry. Up next, Jordan?

~Are you German? As you wander the streets of your glittering prosperous metropolis, do you find yourself pining for the good old days of highly communicable disease? The exotic frisson of scabies? The gossamer brush of tuberculosis? The glow of hemorrhagic fever? Well, don’t worry – thanks to Mutti Merkel, they’re back!

~Last week the Great Australian Wag Tim Blair dusted off an old line of mine from a decade back. Matter of fact, you can find it in America Alone (personally autographed copies of which are exclusively available, etc, etc):

Not long after September 11th I said, just as an aside, that these days whenever something goofy turns up on the news chances are it involves some fellow called Mohammed. It was a throwaway line but, if you want to compile chapter and verse, you can add to the list every week.

A plane flies into the World Trade Center? Mohammed Atta.

A sniper starts killing gas-station customers around Washington, DC? John Allen Muhammed.

A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri.

A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet.

A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed.

A British subject self-detonates in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif.

A terrorist cell bombs the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed.

A gang rapist preys on the women of Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.

A Canadian terror cell is arrested for plotting to bomb Ottawa and behead the Prime Minister? Mohammed Dirie, Amin Mohamed Durrani and Yasim Abdi Mohamed.

Could this freakish appellatory coincidence possibly be a clue to what’s driving all the above unpleasantness? Oh, perish the thought. Those last three Mohammeds represented a “broad strata” of Canadian society, according to Mike McDonnel, Assistant Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a man who must have aced Sensitivity Training class. To the casual observer, the broad strata would seem to be a very singular stratum: in their first appearance in court, all 12 men arrested in that Ontario plot requested the Koran. But to the highest levels of law enforcement they’re a tribute to the boundless diversity of a vibrant multicultural society.

Likewise, for one of the more recent Mohammeds in the news, Faisal Mohammad:

Campus stabber’s manifesto included ‘praise for Allah,’ plan for beheading

But whoa, don’t go jumping to any conclusions. Just like in Toronto, this kid is a broad strata, in this case all by himself:

Asked if the manifesto made any references to Allah, [Merced County Sheriff] Warnke said there were, but dismissed any suggestion that Mohammad was motivated by religion.

“His belief was through the Muslim faith, but there’s nothing to indicate anything other than that,” Warnke said. “It’d be like a Christian referring to the Lord Jesus.”

Yeah, it’s exactly like that.

The bad news is that law enforcement officials who see their principal duty as propagandists will get you killed. The good news is there’s no point in anyone beheading Sheriff Warnke, because he’s got nothing up there.

There's a new sheriff in town: He looks like John Wayne in Rooster Cognburn, but he talks like a Diversity and Trangender Studies sophomore at Berkeley...

There’s a new sheriff in town: He looks like John Wayne in Rooster Cognburn, but he talks like a Diversity and Trangender Studies sophomore at Berkeley…

~Your Monday Mohammed: Speaking of which, if you’re flying Ethiopian Airlines, place your tray in the upright position and then bring it down on the head of the Jew:

“He hit me over the head with a metal tray and shouted ‘Allah akbar’ (God is greater) and ‘I will slaughter the Jew.’ Only after a few seconds, just before I was about to lose consciousness, did I manage to call out and a flight attendant who saw what was happening summoned her colleagues,” Arik said.

While the crew struggled to control the attacker, Arik says only one other passenger, a Lebanese man, attempted to help to stop the attack.

The good Samaritan and cabin crew were eventually able to restrain the violent passenger and guarded the injured victim near the back of the plane for the remainder of the flight.

The attacker, identified as Sudanese national Ahmed Mohamed, reportedly spent the last moments of the trip attempting to convince his fellow passengers to help lynch the Jewish flyer, repeatedly shouting, “Let’s finish him off.”

Sheriff Warnke is mystified as to the motive.

Report: UC Merced stabber was on terror watch list, had Islamic State flag


If the information in this report is true, then Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke was deliberately lying when he told the media that this attack had nothing to do with Faisal Mohammad’s Islamic faith. What is the motive of these people? When it comes to Islamic jihad attacks, virtually all public officials downplay the Islamic aspect, obfuscate the motive, and often lie outright, all to protect Islam. What has made Islam sacrosanct so that no matter how high the stack of bodies gets, no matter how many atrocities are committed in its name and in accord with its teachings, the one thing we must not do at all costs is identify the root cause properly?


“Were Law Enforcement Leaders and UC Chancellor Aware of Threat by Terrorsits [sic]/Extremists to Attack UC Merced?,” by Matthew Gonzales, Merced TV News, November 7, 2015 (thanks to Joe):

…From the information I have gathered, the suspect was indeed not only on the FBI’s terrorist watch list but he was also on a national watch list and had been one of the topics of discussion at a recent FBI briefing to Merced County law enforcement leaders. According to recently obtained information, about 6 months ago the FBI held a terrorist/extremist briefing with Merced County law enforcement leaders. At this meeting several suspected terrorist with ISIS links were said to be here in Merced County. Names and photos were presented including one of Faisal Mohammad. Based on the FBI’s own analysis and a number of people on the terrorist watch list that are in the area they projected an attack at the UC Merced campus. Though they were not absolutely certain of the attack on the UC they did feel that there was enough information for them to be here if it did.

According to my sources the UC Chancellor was also briefed on the potential threats.

A witness who wishes to remain anonymous stated that they had seen what appeared to be a picture of an ISIS flag which was pulled out of the suspect’s pocket. Two of my law enforcement sources have verified that this is in fact true and that the UC Chancellor along with the FBI and DHS have instructed our local media and our local law enforcement leaders to feed the current narrative that FM was a disgruntled student instead of what he actually was… an extremist Muslim bent on attacking American students in the name of ISIS. And their reasoning for not informing Merced County residents or our out-of-town students and their parents about these potential threats to their lives? According to all three law enforcement sources the information was withheld because it would be bad for business. Protecting four innocent people’s lives and the truth was bad for business….

The last thing one of my law enforcement sources said before she hung-up was, “ISIS is here, Matt, and this is no longer a safe community. This info needs to be made public to the people of Merced County to be aware of the d anger signs.” I think she’s right because we have the right to know to be able to protect ourselves and our families from this impending danger.

Knife Jihad at UC Merced: Faisal Mohammad identified as Muslim who went on ‘smiling’ stabbing spree at California University


Atlas Shrugs, by Pamela Geller, Nov. 5, 2015:

The knife jihad comes to America — like the knife attacks on Jews in Israel, and on hundreds of Chinese commuters by Chinese Muslims (Uighurs), secular bloggers and writers in Bangladesh, yesterday’s knife attack on tourists in Morocco. It is a new wave of terror.


What’s Obama going to do — call for “knife control”? Import millions more of these devout savages?

The jihadi, dressed in all black, of course,  was shot and killed by campus police after stabbing several victims. He was identified Thursday as Faisal Mohammad of Santa Clara, California, a freshman majoring in computer science and engineering.

Two victims had to be airlifted to nearby hospitals, and two others were treated on campus.

“Freshman Faisal Mohammad identified as man who went on ‘smiling’ stabbing spree that injured four at California college,” Daily Mail, November 5, 2015

Student from Santa Clara, 18, went on the rampage at UC Merced
The attack happened shortly before 8am PT at the Sacramento campus
He shot dead by police before 9.30am, officials confirmed
Four people stabbed were two students, a staff member and a vendor
Campus officials had earlier reported that five students had been stabbed
His roommate said he was anti-social and didn’t talk to anyone

A student who stabbed four people inside a classroom at the University of California, Merced, before he was killed by police has been identified.

Faisal Mohammad, a freshman from Santa Clara who majored in computer science and engineering, was shot dead by officers after his violent rampage on Wednesday morning.

The FBI are now trying to figure out the motives of the 18-year-old, who was living in an on-campus dorm, the Merced Sun Star reported.

Read more

Also see:

Iraqi Ayatollah: ‘Abducting Women’ and ‘Destroying Churches’ Is ‘Real Islam’

ga (2)

Offensive Jihad: the insurmountable obstacle between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, Oct. 15, 2015:

During a recent televised interview with Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi, the leading Shia cleric of Iraq made clear why Islam and the rest of the world can never peacefully coexist.

First he spent some time discussing “defensive jihad,” saying that all capable Muslims are obligated to fight for the “liberation” of “occupied” territory, for instance, Israel (see here for a list of European countries also deemed “occupied” in the eyes of Islam).

He then explained “offensive jihad,” Islam’s primary bloodline, which forged what we now call the “Muslim world” over the centuries.

According to the ayatollah, when they can—when circumstance permits it, when they are strong enough—Muslims are obligated to go on the offensive and conquer non-Muslims (a fact to be kept in mind as millions of Muslim “refugees” flood the West).

The Muslim cleric repeatedly yelled at the secularized host who kept interrupting him and protesting that Islam cannot teach such intolerance.  At one point, he burst out: “I am the scholar of Islam [al-faqih].  You are just a journalist.  Listen to me!”

Expounded Al-Baghdadi:

If they are people of the book [Jews and Christians] we demand of them the jizya—and if they refuse, then we fight them.  That is if he is Christian. He has three choices: either convert to Islam, or, if he refuses and wishes to remain Christian, then pay the jizya [and live according to dhimmi rules].

But if they still refuse—then we fight them, and we abduct their women, and destroy their churches—this is Islam!… Come on, learn what Islam is, are you even a Muslim?!

As for the polytheists [Hindus, Buddhists, etc.] we allow them to choose between Islam and war!  This is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi, but the opinion of all five schools of jurisprudence [four Sunni and one Shia].

Towards the end of the interview, because the clean-shaven, suit-and-tie-wearing host kept protesting that this cannot be Islam, the ayatollah burst out, pointing at him with contempt and saying, “Who are you? You’re going to tell me what to believe?  This is the word of Allah!”

Indeed.  Not only is it the word of Islam’s deity, but it is the fundamental, insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Al-Baghdadi—and the countless other Muslim clerics, Sunni and Shia, that hold these views—are not “radicals.”  For offensive jihad is no less codified than, say, Islam’s Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.”

Islam has yet to “completely be made over.”

Renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) explained jihad as follows:

In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Here it’s worth noting that even the most offensive jihad is seen as an “altruistic” endeavor, not unlike the “white man’s burden” of the 19th century.   After all, the ancient argument that “we must reform your ways, with our ways, for your own good” has been one of the most cited justifications for offensive jihad since the 7th century.

Indeed, soon after the death of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (634), when his jihadis burst out of the Arabian peninsula, a soon-to-be conquered Persian commander asked the invading Muslims what they wanted. They reportedly replied as follows:

Allah has sent us and brought us here so that we may free those who desire from servitude to earthly rulers and make them servants of Allah, that we may change their poverty into wealth and free them from the tyranny and chaos of [false] religions and bring them to the justice of Islam. He has sent us to bring his religion to all his creatures and call them to Islam. Whoever accepts it from us will be safe, and we shall leave him alone; but whoever refuses, we shall fight until we fulfill the promise of Allah.

Fourteen hundred years later, in March 2009, Saudi legal expert Basem Alem publicly echoed this view:

As a member of the true religion [Islam], I have a greater right to invade [others] in order to impose a certain way of life [according to Sharia], which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of offensive jihad. When we wage jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.

Even al-Qaeda partially justified its jihad against America for being “a nation that exploits women like consumer products”; for not rejecting the “immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury.”

If the “white man’s burden” was/is to “civilize” Muslims, by bringing them “democracy,” “human rights,” and “secularism,” the “Muslim man’s burden”—captured by Allah’s word to Muslims, “Jihad is ordained for you, though you dislike it” (Koran 2:216)—has long been to “civilize” Westerners by bringing them under the umbrella of Sharia.

This positive interpretation of jihad ensures that, no matter how violent and ostensibly unjust a jihad is, it will always be vindicated in Muslim eyes: the ugly means will be justified by the “altruistic” ends.

Finally, as Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi pointed out, the need for Muslims to wage offensive jihad “is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi… This is the word of Allah!”

Nor is it the “opinion” of ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr, al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, or any of the other countless past and present jihadis.  No, jihad to conquer and bring Sharia to non-Muslims is the command of Allah.

‘Homeland’ Speech Tells it Like it Is About ISIS

Truth Revolt, by Mark Tapson, Oct. 7, 2015:

In last Sunday’s opening episode of Season 5 of Showtime’s terrorism show Homeland, CIA agent Peter Quinn delivers a speech that stands out as uncommon sense on a show that has largely wallowed in moral equivalence between the West and Islamic terrorism.

Quinn (played by Rupert Friend) is introduced to a room of important people as an agent on the ground in Syria for two years, including Al-Raqqah, the de facto capitol of the Islamic State. When asked if our side’s strategy is working, Quinn asks, “What strategy?” No one is able to answer him, and Quinn points out that therein lies the problem. ISIS has a strategy which includes beheadings, crucifixions, and the revival of slavery, and it all derives from “their f*cking book, the only book they ever read.”

“They’re there for one reason and one reason only,” he continues, “to die for the Caliphate and usher in a world without infidels. That’s their strategy and it’s been that way since the 7th century.”

Asked what he would do, Quinn suggests 200,000 soldiers on the ground and an equal number of doctors and teachers. Told that that is not feasible and asked for another solution, Quinn says, “Hit reset — pound Raqqah into a parking lot.”

How very Islamophobic of him.


al-banna3IKHWANINFO, by Valentina Colombo , Sep. 27, 2015: (h/t Creeping Sharia)

Hasan al-Banna in the Letter of teachings, which is still one of the key documents in the Muslim Brotherhood curriculum, explained the meaning of jihad in the following way: “By jihad, I mean that imperative duty until the day of Resurrection which is reflected in the following saying of the Messenger of Allah – praise and benediction of Allah upon Him: “Whoever dies without carrying out a military expedition, or wishing to do so, dies a pre-Islamic death.” Its lowest degree is the heart’s abhorrence of evil, and its highest degree is fighting in the path of Allah. Between these two degrees are other forms of jihad: jihad with the tongue, pen, hand, and speaking a word of truth to the unjust authority. The call can survive only with jihad. The more lofty and far reaching is the call, the greater is the jihad in its path. The price required to support it is immense, but the reward given to its upholders is more generous: ‘And strive in the Way of Allah as you ought to.’ By this you know the meaning of your slogan ‘Jihad is our path’.”

Jihad by court is another form of “intermediate” jihad and is a modern and aggressive form of jihad through legal means. It is the Westernised and pseudo-democratic form of the Islamic institution called hisba which is derived from the Qur’anic order upon every Muslims of “commanding good and forbidding wrong”: “Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors” (Qur’an 3: 110).

Jihad by court is one of the favourite means of the organizations and individuals ideologically linked with the Muslim Brotherhood in the West and sometimes is connected with the accusation of islamophobia. The strategy is clear: any journalist, writer, intellectual, academic, activist or any newspaper, organisation, association criticising or exposing an MB individual or organisation is very likely to be sued for defamation. The Legal Project, based in the USA, has given a very useful definition of this tactic: “Such lawsuits are often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, but undertaken as a means to bankrupt, distract, intimidate, and demoralize defendants. Plaintiffs seek less to prevail in the courtroom than to wear down researchers and analysts. Even when the latter win cases, they pay heavily in time, money, and spirit. As counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson comments, “Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics.” Islamists clearly hope, Douglas Farah notes, that researchers will “get tired of the cost and the hassle [of lawsuits] and simply shut up.”

This has been going on for years in Europe and the US. In some countries there are Western lawyers representing generations of leaders of political Islam from Yusuf Qaradawi to Rached al-Ghannouchi, from Tariq Ramadan to the UOIF, from the global Muslim Brotherhood to national organisations.

Only a few recent examples. On September 4, the Police Tribunal in Lille found Soufiane Zitouni guilty of non-public defamation and non-public insult toward the Lycée Averroès in Lille, linked with UOIF and his president Amar Lasfar, for an email he had sent colleagues accusing the school’s leadership of being a “hypocritical vipers’ nest.” The court assessed that Zitouni did not substantiate his claim and thus found him guilty. In a press communiqué, Averroes high school welcomed the court’s decision against Zitouni’s guilty verdict: “The Lille Court sentenced Soufiane Zitouni and found him guilty of defamation and insults against the Lycée Averroès.” It further stated that “this decision comes after a report from the Ministry of National Education which demonstrated no violation of the Republic’s values.” In the same press release the Lycée “mistakenly” wrote that Zitouni was condemned for public defamation instead of “non-public defamation”.

The court judgement has been an apparent victory for the Lycée, that however did not dare to sue Zitouni for his articles on Liberation where he exposed the methods and the contents of classes in the high school. A few days later, Mohamed Louizi, another prominent critic of the MB in France, announced on his Facebook page that he was being sued for public defamation by the President of the Association Lycée Averroès, Amar Lasfar for a series of critical articles he published last Spring on his Mediapart blog. If found guilty, he could be liable for a fine of up to 12,000 Euros.

On July 29, 2015, the Italian newspaper Il Giornale launched a call to financially support its journalist Magdi Cristiano Allam after an Italian court ordered him to pay more than 8,000 Euros because he linked the Italian Union of Islamic Organisations in Italy (UCOII) with the MB and Hamas during a TV program in 2006. Although I do not agree with his political choices and his harsh stand against Islam, Magdi Cristiano Allam was condemned to death by Hamas and has been living under the protection of the Italian Ministry of Interior since 2003 as a result. During the program, he accused the Muslim Brotherhood of being at the origin of his death sentence.

Allam has been one of the staunchest accusers of the MB network in Italy and has been for years the target of the jihad by court, led by the Italian lawyer Luca Bauccio who counts among his clients Rached Ghannouchi, Tariq Ramadan, Yusuf Qaradawi, Youssef Nada and all Italian leaders of political Islam.

Another example is the lawsuit that was initiated by the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France and the Great Mosque of Paris against “Charlie Hebdo” for republishing the Danish cartoons about Muhammad is one of the most famous examples of this kind of jihad. In March 2008, the Paris Court of Appeals rejected all the accusations as, the cartoons, “which clearly refer only to a part not to the whole Muslim community, cannot be considered neither an outrage nor a personal and direct attack against a group of people because of their religious faith and do not go beyond the limits of freedom of expression.” However, the deadly attack against Charlie Hebdo on January 2015 confirms that jihad by court can turn out to be the green light to more radical organisations that decide to use less democratic means.

The French Court acted in a responsible and sensible way, but what happened to “Charlie Hebdo,” and keeps on happening to many writers and journalists should lead us to conclude that: first, the attacks of “jihad by court” do not come from all Muslims, they come from so-called “Islamic communities and organizations”, that usually are simple non-profit associations which do not represent anybody but themselves, and from individuals and organizations who protect themselves by attacking the others in the name of freedom and defamation.

In Europe and the US there is a long list of people who have been victims of jihad by court: from Daniel Pipes to Fiammetta Venner, from Mohammed Sifaoui to Magdi Cristiano Allam, from Soufiane Zitouni to Heiko Heinisch, from Souad Sbai to Mohamed Louizi. Most of them perfectly know political Islam, its actors and strategies. Some of them have also been in the past active members of political Islam. However, Western judges have not realised yet that anti-defamation laws have been exploited by political Islam in the West to silence the other, that political Islam is not Islam and does not represent the majority of Muslims living in Europe.

Last but not least, Western judges and law makers should realise that jihad by court is one of the new strategies to implement not only Hasan al-Banna’s Letter of teachings, but also the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood represented by the following Qur’anic verse: ““And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged” (Surat al-Anfal, 60).

Jihad by court is the non-violent, but aggressive way to “terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

Differing Views from Catholic Clergy on the Threat from Jihad and Shariah

Pope Francis and Turkey’s Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Pope Francis and Turkey’s Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher W. Holton:

With the visit of Pope Francis to the United States, some attention has been paid to his views on Jihad in general and the September 11 attacks in particular.

On a visit to the September 11 memorial at Ground Zero, the pope made a statement that we find offensive and born of ignorance.

From USA Today:

In a remark some relatives of 9/11 victims may disagree with, the pope attributed “the wrongful and senseless loss of innocent lives” at Ground Zero to “the inability to find solutions which respect the common good.”

To what solutions could Pope Francis possibly be referring?

What “solutions which respect the common good” would have convinced Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta that violent Jihad was wrong?

Al Qaeda and all Jihadist groups have as their goal the imposition of Shariah through violent Jihad. We can only assume that the pope is unaware of this. We must also assume that he is unaware that mainstream Islamic doctrine also calls for the imposition of Shariah worldwide.

Which Catholics and other Christians should be sacrificed to live under Shariah for the “common good?”

This was not the first time Pope Francis made statements that demonstrate an ignorance of Islamic doctrine.

In his The Joy of the Gospel, the pope stated:

Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.

No one can study Islamic doctrine based on the Islamic trilogy–the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah–and come away believing that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.”

It should be noted that when it comes to commentary on Islam, Pope Francis is merely stating his opinion; this is not a statement that has the authority of the Catholic church behind it since it applies to the interpretation of another religion.

But all one has to do to see the folly in the pope’s assertion here is to review the too numerous to count examples of Islamic religious leaders and Shariah scholars admonishing their followers to violent Jihad.

We could fill volumes with examples of violent exhortations in the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah. We could go into depth here about the principle of abrogation in the Quran. But rather than do that, we would like to point out that there are other members of the Catholic clergy and community who are more informed on Islam, Shariah and Jihad and they have put their thoughts in writing. In some cases, these good men are much closer to the tip of the spear in the clash of civilizations:

  1. Nigerian cardinal criticizes role of sharia, says Muslim leaders must ‘rein in their mad dogs’

Nigeria of course has been wracked for several years now by horrible violence committed by Boko Haram, which has recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Cardinal Onaiyekan has seen thousands of Christians in his country slaughtered at the hands of Jihadists and he knows that Boko Haram’s stated goal is the imposition of Shariah.

2. It’s Time to Take the Islamic State Seriously

Rev. James V. Schall, S.J. expresses a very different view from that of Pope Francis on the issue of the Islamic State and the role of Islam in violence.

3. Making Islam “As Banal as Catholicism”

Robert Royal, editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C., also expresses a far different view of Islamic terrorism than the one expressed by Pope Francis.

Why have these three men, two American and one Nigerian, two men of the cloth and one a prominent lay Catholic, one black and two white, reached such a different conclusion than that of Pope Francis?

To those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine over the past 15 years, the clear answer is that they have studied the Quran, the Hadith, the Sirah and Shariah. Pope Francis clearly has not. Francis is not alone in that state of being; few if any world leaders in the non-Islamic world have studied Islamic doctrine.

But those who have know what it contains and it isn’t all about peace, the “opposition to every form of violence” and “solutions for the common good.”

Islamic Attack on Chattanooga: Why It Happened and What to Do


Published on Aug 29, 2015 by Tin Ship Productions

Islamic Attack on Chattanooga: Why It Happened and What to Do.

01:06 Prayer
01:52 The Pledge of Allegiance
02:19 Introduction by Mark West
07:54 Official Islam
09:52 Objective study of Islam
16:31 Jihad
19:40 Dualism
21:17 Conclusions
23:13 Losing Civilizational War
34:30 Winning Civilizational War
40:44 Voices for the Voiceless
48:53 The Law of Islamic Saturation
50:36 Tears of Jihad
55:12 Questions and Answers

Inside Jihad


Frontpage, by Danusha V. Goska, August 24, 2015:

Here’s my four-sentence review of Dr. Tawfik Hamid’s new book Inside Jihad: How Radical Islam Works; Why It Should Terrify Us; How to Defeat It. Buy this book. Read this book. Refer to this book. Share this book.

I’ve read and reviewed counter-jihad classics by bestselling experts including Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bernard Lewis, Andrew Bostom, Wafa Sultan, Brigitte Gabriel, Mosab Hassan Yousef, and Phyllis Chesler. I think highly of each. This is how good Inside Jihad is. If someone said to me, “I want to read just one book about jihad.” I’d give that reader Dr. Hamid’s book.

Inside Jihad is brief. Hamid’s style is direct and fast-paced. He says what he needs to say without sensationalism, emotionality, literary ambition, or apologies. He pulls no punches.

Tawfik Hamid was born and raised in Egypt, the most populous Middle Eastern country. He was raised Muslim. Hamid’s mother was a teacher; his father, a surgeon and a private atheist who taught him to respect Christians and Jews. The family observed the Ramadan fast but had little other religious observance. Arabic is his first language and he has studied the Koran in the original Arabic. From 1979-82, he was a member of Jamaa Islamiya, a terrorist group. He met Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaeda.

Hamid grew up under Gamal Abdel Nasser’s pan-Arab socialism. Nasser wanted to modernize Egypt. He suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood, executed one of its leaders, Sayyid Qutb, and curtailed travel to and from Saudi Arabia, fearing Wahhabi influence.

The 1973 Oil Embargo sparked a revival of Islam. Muslims concluded that Allah rewarded Saudi Arabia for the Saudis’ strict religious observance. Allah’s reward was the Saudi ability to humble the United States.

Islamization in Egypt “started mildly enough.” Hamid warns the reader to pay careful attention to slow Islamization. He says that the same methods that were used in Egypt are now being used in the West. “The more we surrender” he warns “the more Islamists will demand.”

The camel’s nose under the tent was something few could object to: individual prayer. Previously, if an employee interrupted his workday to perform one of Islam’s mandated five daily prayers, it was perceived as bizarre. Now it was admirable.

Another straw in the wind: the hijab. In school photos taken before the 1970s, many Egyptian girls are without hijab. After America’s humbling in the oil shock, more and more girls began to wear hijab. Men stopped wearing gold wedding bands; gold was deemed “un Islamic” for men. More toxic Islamizations, including Jew-hatred, followed. Imams preached that Jews are monkeys and pigs and that they poisoned Mohammed.

Islamization on campus also began in an innocuous way: Islamists used the moments before class began to talk about Islam. One day, the Christian professor of one class said that it was time for discussion of Islam to stop and the academic hour to begin. The Islamists called the professor an infidel and broke his arm. “The Christian students were terrified,” Hamid reports.

“I remember the first time I looked at a Christian with disdain,” Hamid reminisces. He was reading a required textbook. The book told him that Mohammed said, “I have been instructed by Allah to declare war and fight all mankind until they say ‘No God except Allah and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah.'” Hamid, who had previously had Christian friends, turned to a Christian student and said, “If we applied Islam correctly, we should be doing this to you.”

Jamaa Islamiya actively recruited medical students like Hamid. It took six months for Hamid to become “sufficiently indoctrinated.”

Hamid details several lures that recruiters used to bring young people into their movement:

  • fear of hell,
  • a demonization of critical thinking,
  • a sense of superiority over non-Muslims,
  • suppression of any emotional life outside of Islamism,
  • suppression of sexual expression,
  • a promise of sex for jihadis,
  • and upholding of Mohammed as the perfect example, beyond criticism.

Author Don Richardson estimates that one in eight verses in the Koran mentions Hell. By contrast, the Old Testament mentions Hell once in every 774 verses, and it is never described as graphically as it is described in the Koran. Hamid quotes Islamists using many Koranic passages that vividly describe Hell to terrorize potential members: “garments of fire shall be cut out for them … burning water will be poured over their heads causing all that is within their bodies as well as the skins to melt away … they shall be held by iron grips; and every time they try in their anguish to come out of it, they shall be returned and told ‘Taste suffering through fire to the full!'” Infidels in Hell will eat thorns and drink scalding water as if they were “female camels raging with thirst and disease.” Their intestines will be cut to pieces.

Another method used to Islamize recruits was “al-fikr kufr” – “one becomes an infidel by thinking critically.”

Recruiters flattered recruits, telling them that they were superior to non-Muslims. “Take not Jews and Christians for friends,” they quoted from Koran 5:51. Jews are monkeys and pigs: Koran 5:60. Those who worship Jesus are infidels: Koran 5:17. Do not offer the greeting “As-salamu alaykum,” or “peace be with you,” to Christians or Jews; whenever you meet Christians or Jews in a road, force them to its narrowest alley: Sahih Muslim. Muslims who did not carry out jihad were also inferior.

Terror recruits’ emotional outlets were cut off. They were forbidden from creating or consuming music, dance, or visual art. They were discouraged from having sex, but lured with promises of great sex in paradise. The houris – dark-eyed virgins – are graphically described in Muslim literature as very soft, without complaint, and easily satisfied. Houris regain their virginity immediately after sex. Men are promised organs that never go limp. Mohammed, recruits were assured, could have sex with eleven women in an hour.

Finally, the example of Mohammed himself was not to be questioned. Mohammed married a six-year-old. He raped war captives, in one case immediately after decapitating the captive’s brother and father and after she had witnessed her mother being carried off also to be raped. Mohammed approved of the dismemberment of Um Kerfa, a poetess who criticized him. Mohammed is the “perfect example, worthy of emulation.” Muslims today must unquestioningly approve these behaviors.

Hamid’s fellow extremists were aware that Muslim countries were no longer in the cultural forefront. Islam had spread as far as Spain and India in only the first century after Mohammed’s death. Terror recruits believed that early Islam’s success was caused by strict adherence to Islamic doctrine. They believed that their strict observance could bring back Islam’s early dominance.

Some wonder how women could be recruited into a movement that keeps them in an inferior position in relation to men. Hamid clarifies: Muslimahs were told that they would be superior – to infidel women.

Hamid expounds uncompromisingly on the power and importance of hijab. He insists that when prominent Westerners such as Nancy Pelosi and Laura Bush travel to Muslim countries and wear hijab, they are making a grave error. Hijab is not “a neutral, or merely traditional, fashion statement.” Hijab’s purpose “is not modesty or to encourage observers to focus on a Muslim woman’s personality.” Hijab exists to proclaim “deep Islamic doctrinal connections to slavery and discrimination. Western women who cover themselves are unwittingly endorsing an inhumane system.” Hijab’s purpose, Hamid argues persuasively, is to create a society where superior free Muslimahs are visually distinct from inferior infidel slave women.

Islamists “despise women who did not wear hijab. We considered them vain … we believed they would burn in Hell.” Further, “the hijab serves to differentiate between slave girls and women who are considered free … it creates a feeling of superiority among the women who wear it.” The Koran promises that women who wear hijab will not be “molested.” Women without hijab are slaves and can be raped without guilt.

Australia’s foremost Muslim cleric restated this Islamist position in 2006. In Sydney, fourteen Muslim men gang-raped non-Muslim women. Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali said that it was the victims’ fault. “If you take out uncovered meat” and cats eat it, the cats are not to blame. Women possess “igraa,” “the weapon of enticement.”

Hamid emphasizes that hijab is both vanguard and emblem of Islamic supremacy. During their 1953 meeting, the first thing Sayyid Qutb asked Nasser to do was to force women to wear hijab. A YouTube video documents this conversation. In the video, Nasser is speaking to a large assembly. When he repeats Qutb’s demand, the crowd laughs. One wag shouts out, “Let him wear it!” Nasser points out that Qutb’s own daughter does not wear hijab. The crowd laughs even more, and bursts into applause. This video is at least fifty years old. It is a reminder that fifty years ago, countries like Egypt and Iran were modernizing. Women, in cities at least, could be seen in public in miniskirts and without hijab.

Hamid reports that the Muslim Brotherhood does not announce its end goal openly. “They pose as peacemakers … The Muslim Brotherhood will accept circumstances that offend their beliefs – temporarily – if doing so will advance their goals.” They will – temporarily – permit western dress for women and alcohol consumption. This is all part of taqiyya. The Muslim Brotherhood has a four stage plan: at first, merely preach. Then, move on to participation in public life. Next, consolidate power “while faking legitimacy.” Finally, enforce sharia.

A few turning points turned Hamid away from Islamism, for example, when a fellow terror recruit described his plot to bury alive an Egyptian police officer.

Hamid had been studying the Bible so that he could better debate Christians. Jesus’ words haunted him. “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” He asked himself, what profit to Islam if it subjugated the entire world but lost its soul? “Exposure to the Bible was crucial in helping me question the violent aspects of Salafist teaching.”

His medical studies also gave him pause. “I wondered if the divine DNA molecule was violent. Did it attempt to conquer the rest of the cell? Did it try to force other cellular components to behave like itself? It did not. Rather, it worked harmoniously within an organism to create and sustain life.”

The clincher for Hamid was “the existence of alternative forms of Islamic teaching.” Hamid met Muslims called “Quranics,” who reject the hadiths. The Quranics “stood against killing apostates, against stoning women for adultery, against killing gays. They viewed the Islamic Conquests as immoral and senseless.” The Quranics “allowed me to think critically.” “If this alternative sect had not been available, it would have been much more difficult for me to resist jihadism.”

Read more