Vanderbilt Professor Under Attack for Criticizing Islam

carol-228x350Frontpage, January 23, 2015 by Mark Tapson:

Last week, in response to the Paris massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Carol M. Swain, an openly conservative professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, wrote an op-ed for The Tennessean titled, “Charlie Hebdo attacks prove critics were right about Islam.” Naturally, any critique of Islam from our leftist-dominated campuses is going to be met with frothing outrage, and Professor Swain’s article was no exception.

“What would it take to make us admit we were wrong about Islam?” the professor began. “What horrendous attack would finally convince us that Islam is not like other religions in the United States, that it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration?” Good questions, and ones that those of us whose eyes have long been opened to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism have been asking ever since September 11, 2001, if not before.

But the fact that such questions were being put forth by a major university professor, even a conservative one (with a very impressive résumé, no less), was notable. Swain pulled no punches:

More and more members of the PC crowd now acknowledge that Islam has absolutely nothing in common with Christianity, nor is it a worthy part of the brotherhood of man I long felt was characteristic of the Abrahamic religions. A younger, more naive version of myself once believed in a world where the people of the Book could and would get along because they all claimed Abraham as their father. No more!

Those were strong, clear sentiments about Islam that one doesn’t often – or ever – hear from American academics. She concluded with a statement that dared to challenge the West’s false idol of multiculturalism: “It becomes clearer every day that Islam is not just another religion to be accorded the respect given to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Baha’i and other world religions.” The attack on Charlie Hebdo, she wrote, “once again illustrates that Islam is a dangerous set of beliefs totally incompatible with Western beliefs concerning freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.”

Swain’s solutions included “remov[ing] the foxes from the henhouses,” “institut[ing] serious monitoring of Islamic organizations,” and expecting Muslim immigrants to assimilate culturally. “If we are to be safe,” she wrote, “then we must have ground rules that protect the people from those who disdain the freedoms that most of the world covets.”

Among those who took umbrage at this blunt op-ed and complained to theVanderbilt Hustler, the school paper, were: an international student from Pakistan who felt mortified by the piece; an agnostic junior who condemned Swain as xenophobic, hateful, and intolerant; a sophomore who accused Swain of “logical leaps” and “casual bigotry”; a graduate who warned against “fear of the Other”; another who purported to “debunk” Swain’s claims about Islam; and a Muslim undergrad who declared the op-ed to be hate speech and wondered, “How could such an educated, informed woman, a professor at Vanderbilt in charge of educating our youth, publish such ignorance?”

That same student, Farishtay Yamin, happens to be the publicity chair for Vanderbilt’s branch of the Muslim Students Association. She organized a student protest of Swain, saying, with no apparent trace of irony, “What I’m really trying to show [Swain] is that she can’t continue to say these kinds of things on a campus that’s so liberal and diverse and tolerant.” So much for the campus being liberal and diverse and tolerant.

The Muslim Students Association, the Muslim Brotherhood’s oldest offshoot in America, issued a statement, offering Professor Swain “kindness and respect” and forgiveness, pointing out that “she has allowed the acts of people who have distorted Islam to shape her views on an entire community of 1.6 billion people who practice peacefully.” Vanderbilt’s MSA invited her and others to attend their Islamic Awareness Month event called “Terrorism: Who Is to Blame” on Feb. 8. “Please join us for the event so that misconceptions can be cleared,” they urged helpfully.

The Vanderbilt Hustler editorial team responded by defending Swain’s right to free speech but denouncing her “brand of conservatism” as “disgusting and disappointing.” She has “undoubtedly abused her position” by “perpetuating a myth that seeks to shut down debate and discourage the legitimacy of the place that Muslim individuals hold in American society… In fact, many feel that Swain’s actions have created an environment that feels unsafe to some of her students.”

It’s ironic that Islam has created unsafe environments all over the world for Jews, Christians, women, gays, cartoonists, and even Muslims themselves, but the Vanderbilt Hustler editors blame Professor Swain for creating an unsafe campus environment for pointing that out (the Dean of Students even felt it necessary to reassure Muslim students that they are still safe on campus). Ironic, too, that – in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo assault – the editors claim that it is Swain who is seeking to shut down debate about Islam.

Last Sunday Professor Swain released a statement acknowledging that her op-ed “could have been written with a milder tone.” But given a chance to clarify her position in an interview, Swain did not back down. She told the Vanderbilt Hustler that, “What we don’t want in the United States is a repeat of what has happened in Europe… It would be beneficial,” she said, “if more Muslims would stand up and condemn jihadic violence against Christians, Jews, homosexuals and others.”

Asked how she reconciles the First Amendment with her “obligation as a professor to maintain a safe and civil environment” for “students who might feel threatened by your speech,” Swain replied,

I feel no special obligation to engage in politically correct speech. I think it is unfortunate that hate speech has become whatever makes a non-Christian uncomfortable… Any student who is threatened by a discussion of ideas cannot fully benefit from a liberal arts education… If a student takes one of my courses, then he or she has entered a political correctness free zone tolerant of divergent views.

Bravo. Thanks to the mental straitjacket of political correctness, no one who took exception to Professor Swain’s op-ed seems capable of grasping – or willing to grasp – the distinction between the ideology of Islam and its adherents. Criticism of the former is not the same as bigotry toward the latter. We must not allow the conversation about the world’s undeniable Islam problem always to be derailed by kneejerk accusations of mythical Islamophobia and intolerance. Unfortunately, freeing university students from that mental straitjacket will require an army of Professor Swains.

***

Follow Prof. Carol Swain on twitter @carolmswain 

Visit her website at http://bethepeopletv.com/

and facebook -  https://www.facebook.com/profcarolmswain

Also see:

ISLAM IN EUROPE NOW A NO-GO SUBJECT

WhiteHouse.gov

WhiteHouse.gov

The American Spectator, By Aaron Goldstein, Jan. 28, 2015

A few days after the terrorist attacks in Paris on the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Cacher grocery store, terrorism expert Steve Emerson appeared on the Fox News Channel’sJustice with Judge Jeanine hosted by Jeanine Pirro to discuss Islamic extremism in Europe. During his appearance, Emerson spoke about Muslim “no-go zones” throughout Europe where countries like France, Germany, Sweden, and Britain have ceded sovereignty and non-Muslims are not permitted to enter. Emerson also stated that Birmingham, Britain’s second largest city, is “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

All hell would break loose and Emerson would issue an apology for his comments whileFNC issued several apologies after repeating Emerson’s statements. Despite the apology, the mayor of Paris has declared she will sue Fox News. In a snarky piece written in the Atlanticby David A. Graham titled “Why the Muslim ‘No-Go-Zone’ Myth Won’t Die?” Graham writes:

Have you heard about the areas of Europe, or perhaps even of the United States, that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims can’t even enter? Don’t get too worried if you haven’t: They don’t exist.

Needless to say the Left hasn’t been this happy since Barack Obama’s first election victory. Speaking of President Obama, his British BFF David Cameron referred to Emerson as “a complete idiot.” Cameron is one to talk. This is the same man who once characterized Israel’s blockade of Gaza as “a prison camp.” Never mind that Egypt was also participating in this blockade as well. Apparently, Cameron also thinks the Hamas-run government bears no responsibility for the sorry state of affairs in Gaza either.

Criticize Steve Emerson all you want. Emerson may have been wrong in this instance, but he did warn the world months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, “Al Qaeda is … planning new attacks on the US…. [It has] learned, for example, how to destroy large buildings.” No, Steve Emerson is not a complete idiot. Far from it. In exposing threats from Islamic extremists, Emerson has subjected himself to numerous death threats by jihadists and, for the past two decades, has taken extraordinary protective measures in his day-to-day living. I can attest to the heavy security measures deployed when I went to see him speak at a Brookline synagogue more than a decade ago. Emerson’s bravery cannot be called into question, which is more than what I can say for David Cameron.

Besides, if David Cameron considers Steve Emerson to be a complete idiot for talking about the existence of Muslim no-go zones then why, as Robert Spencer has noted, have the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic also used the term “no-go zone”?

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republicreported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Actually, the New York Times used the term “no go zone” as recently as September 2014 in anarticle discussing European anti-Semitism.

Yet FNC apologized and it wasn’t alone in issuing apologies. CNN’s Anderson Cooper also issued an apology for using the term “no-go zones” on the air as well. Will  the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic be issuing apologies next? If so, will Cameron also call them complete idiots?

It may be wrong to say that large parts of Europe are under Muslim control where law enforcement and non-Muslims at large are forbidden from traversing. But only a complete idiot would deny there isn’t a desire among a critical mass of Muslims to impose Sharia law or, at the very minimum, behave in a violent manner towards non-Muslims.

In 2011, the group Islam4UK led by Ahmed Choudary began putting up posters around the UK bearing an ominous warning:

YOU ARE ENTERING A SHARIAH CONTROLLED ZONE

ISLAMIC RULES ENFORCED

The sign also indicated that in these zones alcohol, gambling, drugs, smoking, porn, prostitution, music and concerts were forbidden. At the time Choudary stated, “We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.”

If the name Ahmed Choudary sounds familiar, it should. Following the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Choudary penned an op-ed in USA Today praising the attacks:

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

Choudary was interviewed last November on 60 Minutes Overtime as was his colleague Abu Ramaysah. Take a look what Ramaysah told correspondent Clarissa Ward:

Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe. I want to the see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see Sharia law in Europe. And I want to see it in America as well. I believe our patrols are a means to an end.

In view of Choudary and Ramaysah’s aims and objectives in conjunction with Choudary’s praise of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he and those who wish to impose Sharia law in Britain and elsewhere in Europe must be taken every bit as seriously as the people who perpetrated theCharlie Hebdo attacks.

It is true that these posters Choudary disseminated were not legally sanctioned and Scotland Yard worked with local councils to take them down. Nevertheless, this hasn’t prevented self-appointed Muslim Patrols from trying to enforce Sharia law on the streets of London. Similar patrols have also surfaced in Germany.

In October 2013, an American student from Florida named Francesco Houyne was severely beaten and had a beer bottle smashed into his face by one of these London patrols for drinking alcohol. Two months later, a Muslim Patrol threatened a couple holding hands in public telling them, “Let go of each other’s hands. This is a Muslim area!” and then blocked their car when they tried to get away. On both occasions the people responsible for the incidents were arrested and charged.

It would be difficult for British authorities to overlook violent incidents which take place in public. However, when things take place behind closed doors in Muslim majority neighborhoods, the authorities have looked the other way. as was the case in the Rotherham child sex scandal in which 1,400 girls were sexually abused over a 16-year period by a group of predominantly Muslim men of Pakistani origin (or “Asian” origin, as the Brits like to say). Police and the local council were aware of the abuse, but did nothing out of fear of being called racist. Indeed, a researcher who alerted authorities to the abuse back in 2001 was sent on an “ethnicity and diversity” sensitivity course and admonished for making reference to their “Asian” heritage. As far as British police and public officials were concerned, the sexual abuse of girls by Muslim men was, well, a no-go zone.

This problem isn’t confined to Britain. Consider what Pakistani-born Canadian Muslim journalist Natasha Fatah wrote in December 2010 following a trip to Malmo, Sweden, with her husband:

Malmo was supposed to be a symbol of Sweden’s multiculturalism. But it is in danger of turning into an Islamist ghetto, with a hard core of those who favour an Islamic state.

Fatah went on to write that synagogues have been vandalized and Jews have been publicly accosted on the streets, but that local authorities have done little to stop the problem and as a result Jews are leaving Sweden. So here is a Muslim who recognizes the danger of turning Sweden into an Islamic state. Would David Cameron call her a complete idiot too?

So where does this leave the term “no-go zone”? The term was coined by Daniel Pipes back in 2006. But by 2013, following visits to Muslim neighborhoods throughout Europe, Pipesreassessed his view:

I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No warlords dominate; sharia is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.

So how does Pipes think these enclaves should now be described? He suggests “semi-autonomous sectors.” Honestly, it doesn’t matter what term Pipes uses to describe Muslims who seek to impose Sharia on the rest of the population. Islamists and their left-wing apologists in the media believe Islam is beyond criticism. They want Islam to be a no-go subject.

3 terror attacks in 48 hours: Hey Islamapologists, what’s your excuse this time?

japanese_hostage-300x180By Allen West, Jan. 26, 2015

Over the past 48 hours, there have been three more terror attacks worldwide, but I doubt you’ve even heard about them:

1.In the Philippines, one person was killed and 48 injured when a car bomb exploded, which local authorities believe the al-Qaida-backed Abu Sayyaf group was behind – and of course we reported here how the Obama administration decided to end U.S. support against Islamic jihadism there.

2.The Taliban conducted a truck bomb attack at a gas station in Kabul near the military airfield there. Officials think it might have been a premature suicide attack; thankfully only two civilians were wounded.

3. ISIS executed a Japanese hostage by beheading and is still holding another under threat of execution, demanding an exchange for a female Islamic suicide bomber being held in Jordan.

Now mind you, this was just in the last 48 hours.

What gets me is how fast those “Islamapologists” in the West continue to push the narrative of the “hijacking of a peaceful religion” by a few radicals. Well, it seems to be more than a few, and what if this narrative is totally wrong? What if this “hijacked” narrative is just something being contrived in the West to advance a state of denial — such as we saw last week in President Obama’s State of the Union address and in his previous statements of “Let me be clear, ISIS is not Islamic” – even though the first the letter in ISIS stands for Islamic.

First of all, I suggest we stop using the phrase “radical Islam.” The proper classification should be “militant Islam” — that is if you’ve read the Koran, the hadiths, and the suras. If you understand the respective phases of Islam’s development and expansion and how it relates to world history — not progressive socialist or Islamist revisionist history — “hijacked a religion?” I don’t think so. As matter of fact, I said this back in 2009 on a panel in New York City moderated by Jeb Babbin, which included Andrew McCarthy and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Meyers. You can watch it here.

 

History does not agree with the “hijacked” reference — and that subject has been covered most recently by the Israeli paper, Haaretz.

As written by Salman Masalha, “One of the fundamental problems with Islam is the view that its doctrines – exactly as written, exactly as they were developed and forged in the Arabian desert in the 7th century – “are good for all times and all places.”

“The religious ideology that all Islamic scholars of all Islamic sects uphold rests on the Koranic text and the canonical traditions attributed to the Prophet Mohammed. According to Islam, the world is divided into two: the camp of the faithful, comprised of those who believe in the religion of Islam, and the camp of the infidels, which comprises the rest of the world, including Christians and Jews.”

“The infidels are divided into three categories: people of the book – the Jews and Christians … those who have a sort of book – the Zoroastrians … and those with no book – those who worship idols or the stars,” the Shi’ite scholar Al-Tusi wrote in the 10th century. And Islam’s attitude toward unbelievers nowadays is made very clear in the words of religious arbiter Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, the former grand mufti of Saudi Arabia: “The Koran, the laws of the prophet and the general agreement among Muslims all teach us that Muslims have an obligation to be the enemies of the infidels – the Jews, the Christians and the rest of the idol worshippers.”

In the West we must stop finding any means possible to dismiss what Islamic doctrine and text commands. There is a reason why the flag of Saudi Arabia has a koranic verse and the sword of Muhammad. I don’t recall Jesus Christ carrying a sword, do you?

Once Muhammad departed from Mecca (first Mecca phase) and ended up in Medina he took a turn towards violence. The corresponding verses in the Koran reflect that and history does as well. Muhammad led some 20-25 raids — combat operations — the first being circa 622 AD with the Nakhla raid. The abrogated verses of the Koran results in the latter verses – the more violent once — superseding the previous “peaceful” verses — but they are all words and revelations from Allah.

This leads to the duplicitous and hypocritical nature of Islam — it means whatever it wants to mean, a religious buffet. And that’s why I say “radical Islam” is not the correct definition. There’s nothing radical about their text — as they see it. However, after the first Mecca phase to the present, Islam has been militant in its designs — proselytization and expansion has not been done by a peaceful means, but rather from the end of a sword.

So why this widespread sense of denial?

Mr. Masalha explains, “As Islamist terror appeared on the world stage over the past few decades, many Muslims cried out, claiming that such terror besmirched Islam and didn’t represent it. The terrorists have kidnapped Islam, they said. But the question that begs to be asked is, who kidnapped whom? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that the Islamic texts are the ones that kidnapped the terrorists, not the reverse?”

“When reports emerged after a recent conference of Islamic scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University that one religious arbiter had implied that members of ISIS were heretics, Al-Azhar was forced to issue a denial. Muslim religious scholars find themselves at a disadvantage compared to those who wave the banner of militant Islam – for reading the publications of these fundamentalist organizations shows that they derive their strength and inspiration from the very same foundational texts of Islam itself.”

But hey, I know that no matter how many facts I present, the Islamapologists will brand me as the Islamophobe. However, what about taking the militant Islamists at their word?

“These Islamists aren’t ashamed to proclaim their worldview in public. From their perspective, Islam is “an aggressive religion, a religion of war, a religion of jihad, a religion of beheadings and bloodshed,” as Hussein bin Mohammed wrote in an article published on an Islamist website under the title “The beheading issue.” “It’s neither beheading unbelievers nor terror that besmirch Islam,” he argued, but rather “all those who want Islam to be in the image of Mandela or Gandhi, without bloodshed and beheadings.” The provocative writer then added, “That isn’t the religion of Mohammed, who was sent out with his sword until Judgment Day; Mohammed, of whom the only chapter in the Koran that bears his name is called the war chapter. … All those who try to paint Islam as a religion of peace, doves and love … are doing so under the influence of the West’s false views and its evil ideas, which are being exported to the Islamic nation in order to weaken it.”

Nope, I’ll take the enemy at their word, and for what they believe. I will not be a member of the dismissive “coexist” crowd who do so only in fear of having to face this historic evil. So henceforth, I will be keeping track of everyone who comes out and supplies the false narrative that, “Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by radicals.”

Islam must have a reformation that brings it into the 21st century — leaving behind the savage and barbaric violence of the text from the 7th and 8th century. Until that happens, well, nothing else matters — as Mr. Masalha states, “only a root canal of Islam’s ideas can move the Arab and Muslim world toward modernity.”

But more importantly, some in the West urgently require another medical procedure to remove their heads from a certain lower part of their anatomy.

Daniel Greenfield: “Moderate Islam is our new religion”

Daniel Greenfield’s famous, classical chronicle on how Leftist politicians invented “moderate Islam” to make voters accept the import of Muslim voters for the Left. Statistics backing Greenfield’s point here.

Via Dispatch International:

I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.
Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.

An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderate Islam.

Even if they have to make it up.

Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.

Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.

If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.

Flash back to Obama in his tan suit wearily saying that he has no strategy for ISIS. The original plan was to capture Osama alive, give him a civilian trial, cut a deal with the moderate Taliban and announce the end of the War on Terror before the midterm elections.

So much for that.

Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don’t represent the majority of Muslims.

slander-prophet-islam-mohammad-barack-hussein-obama-muslimNeither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping. The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.

Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.

They aren’t Muslims. They have no faith in Allah or the Koran. Instead they have faith in the goodness of an Islam that exists without resort to scriptures, theology or deity. This may seem strange to actual believers, but after all their own poor tattered scraps of Christianity or Judaism don’t bother paying too much attention to deities or scriptures except when it comes to cherry-picking quotes about tolerance.

Is it any wonder that they treat Islam the same way?

The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals of loosely Christian and Jewish persuasion who have invented and believe in a moderate Islam that doesn’t exist outside of their own heads. This secular Islam, which values all life, is dedicated to social justice and universal tolerance, is a counterpart of their own bastardized religions. And they are too afraid to wake up and realize that it doesn’t exist.

When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.

Their moderate Islam is light on the details, beyond standing for social justice, fighting Global Warming and supporting gay rights, because it is really multiculturalism wearing a fake beard. When a Western leader claims that the latest batch of Islamic terrorists don’t speak for Islam, he isn’t defending Muslims, he’s defending multiculturalism. He assumes that Muslims believe in multiculturalism because he does.

Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.

Dissuading a believer in moderate Muslims from his invented faith by citing the long trail of corpses or the hateful Hadiths that call for mass murder is futile because these are not the roots of his religion. He doesn’t know what a Hadith is nor does he care. As a social justice man in good standing, he attributes the violent track record of Islam to European colonialism and oppression.

10409654_540202849458314_5604537804951454046_nHe has never read the Koran. He has read a thousand articles about how Muslims are oppressed at the airport, in Gaza, in Burma and in Bugs Bunny cartoons. They are his new noble savages and he will not hear a word against them. Having colonized their identities in his imagination (despite the marked up copy of Edward Said’s Orientalism that he keeps by his bedside) he treats them as reflections of his ego.

When you say that moderate Muslims don’t exist, you are calling him a bad person. When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism and he will call you a racist, regardless of the fact that Islam is as much of a race as Communism, Nazism or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club were races.

The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.

And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.

The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until they find him, they have to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.

Will we ever learn? Obama White House can’t admit Paris attacks ‘Islamic terrorism’

hn_terrorist2_010715Fox News, by Steven Emerson, Jan. 7, 2015:

They shouted in Arabic  “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is Greatest) and “We are avenging the Prophet Mohammed” as they sprayed their victims with hundreds of bullets from their semi-automatic weapons.

Their “victims” were the top editorial cartoonists of the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine, who had dared to practice their right of free speech.  Their offense?  Publishing cartoons deemed “offensive” by Muslim leaders around the world. The perpetrators? Islamic terrorists.

Yet in the immediate hours after the murders in Paris, the response from western leaders was scurrilously predictable in their refusal to describe the attack as an “Islamic terrorist attack.”

Indeed, the responses from our own president, French President Hollande and British Prime Minster David Cameron all spouted the same empty pabulum in asserting that the Paris attack had nothing to do with Islam or any religion for that matter. But the hollow comments coming from our own leaders are steeped in the stench of appeasement and cowardice.

The first comments came from Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, who refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, but made sure to add the now typical non-sequitor  which now routinely follows Islamic terrorist attacks,  that “Islam is a religion of peace” and therefore nobody should associate  the “extremists” in Paris with Islam.

Then President Obama issued his own statement, but in keeping with his administration’s 6 year old prohibition on using the term “Islamic terrorism,” he simply referred to the attack as “terrorism” — a vanilla term conspicuously devoid of any descriptive term explaining the motivation behind the attack. Thus, to the proverbial Martian it literally could have been eco-terrorism, white supremacist terrorism, or narco-terrorism.  (But admittedly, calling this an act of “terrorism” was a step up from the classification of Major Nidal Hassan’s similar massacre at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.”)

Then in live comments delivered later, both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry gave blustery defenses of the U.S. determination to protect the right of free speech and vowed that neither the French nor anyone in the West would be cowed into silence by terrorism.

Secretary Kerry said as follows:

“Today, tomorrow, in Paris, in France, or across the world, the freedom of expression that this magazine, no matter what your feelings were about it, the freedom of expression that it represented is not able to be killed by this kind of act of terror.” Nice words of bravado.

I hate to disabuse our secretary of state, but indeed  “freedom of expression” has indeed already been killed by acts of Islamic terrorism.

Notwithstanding the secretary’s nice words of bravado today, the views in 2012 of the Obama administration on the very same French magazine were markedly differently “We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,” said Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. “We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.”

The president himself, before the United Nations, revealed his own appeasement of Islamic terrorists and hoodlums when he declared in September 2012:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Where was his moral insistence that we would never give into terrorists who would employ violence to intimidate us in suppressing our right to free speech?

Just imagine if, amidst the recent North Korean campaign to intimidate Sony into not showing its film that offended North Korea, the president had stated, “The future must not belong to those who slander Kim Jong-un.”

The issue we face is not, as Islamist groups falsely claim in the United States — ironically the very ones invited to the White House, Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and State Department — that using the term Islamic terrorism connotes a generalization that all Muslims are terrorists any more than using the term “Hispanic drug cartels” means that all Hispanics are druggies or that the term “Italian mafia” means that all Italians are mobsters or that the term “German Nazis” mean that all Germans were Nazis.

The term Islamic terrorism means just that: terrorist attacks with an Islamic motivation — whether they attempts to silence critics of Islam, impose Sharia, punish Western “crusaders,” commit genocide of non-Muslims, establish Islamic supremacy (or Caliphate), or destroy any non Muslim peoples (e.g. the Jews and Christians) that are “occupying Muslim lands.”

And so in refusing to use the term Islamic terrorism, the administration and their multiculturalist western leaders go along with the patently false charade that Islamic terrorism simply does not exist.

This has profound national security implications not only for non-Muslims, but for Muslim victims of Islamic terrorism. If you cannot name your enemy, how can you expect to defeat him?

In buying into the notion that uttering the term “radical Islam” is somehow racist, the real scandal here is that our administration and other Western leaders in general are in fact taking a page out of the playbook written by Muslim Brotherhood front groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Those groups, in turn, are ideological derivatives in the West of the Muslim Brotherhood which itself the parent of all Islamic Sunni terrorist groups—from Al Shabab to ISIS to Al Qaeada to Hamas. And in the West, those Muslim Brotherhood front groups have managed to perpetuate one of the biggest and most dangerous national security frauds of the past 30 years: that use of the term Islamic terrorism is tantamount to a racist generalization that all Muslims are terrorist.  And that any criticism of Islam means you are an Islamophobe.

Four weeks ago, the United Arab Emirates, a distinctly observant Muslim country, had the courage to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and 83 other Islamist groups including CAIR in the U.S. as Islamic terrorist groups.

And our reaction? To our everlasting shame, the Obama administration came to the defense of CAIR, which has been described as a front for Hamas by the FBI and was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist money laundering trial in U.S. history that resulted in the closure of the Holy Land Foundation and the conviction of its leaders for laundering money to Hamas.

Phrasing the problem of “violent extremism,” as the Obama administration has done repeatedly, of being a problem exclusively of only Al Qaeda and now ISIS, is intellectually spurious and truly dangerous to our national security.

Most recently, in describing ISIS, the Obama administration has categorically defined the group as having “nothing to do with Islam.”

It’s time for our leaders to stop this nonsense.  Islamic terrorism and extremism are brutal realities that have killed tens of thousands of people, mostly Muslims.

Islamic extremism cannot be confined to groups we don’t like. Islamic extremism is now a movement, just like fascism and communism; it spans a spectrum from Hamas to Al Shabab to the Muslim Brotherhood. And to ignore the common denominator in the motivation behind 75% of the world’s annual terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists is a sure guarantee that Wednesday’s attacks will be repeated over and over again.

Will we ever learn?

Steven Emerson is executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorismand the executive producer of a new documentary about the Muslim Brotherhood in America “Jihad in America: the Grand Deception.” 

Acquittal of the Guilty

ISISflag2-300x213Jihad Watch, by Michael Devolin, Dec. 28, 2014:

With every lone wolf terror attack these days there’s always the sequent announcement, either from the press or the local police spokesperson, suggesting that the terrorist was suffering from mental illness. It had nothing to do with the religion of Islam and jihad but everything to do with the perpetrator’s drug addiction, or a stormy marriage, or the fact that he was a new convert and misinterpreted Islam, or…well, you get the picture. And we, as we go about our busy day, accept their compendious overviews probably because, as Neil J. Kressel reminds us, “…most of our insight into why individuals become fundamentalist terrorists is not based on firm research.”

And Heaven forbid someone should come right out and say that the terrorist is a Muslim impelled by the Quran’s prescribed hatred of the infidel and encouraged by his fellow religious to commit terrorist acts. It couldn’t be that Islam, the religion of peace, could produce such vile and contrary personages. During a recent sermon in the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Sheik Omar Abu Sara shouted, “Oh, Allah, hasten the day of the [slaughter] of the Jews!” To which his audience responded with a healthy “Amen!” And I mention Jews because Jews, as everyone knows, are Islam’s favourite infidels. It’s written in the Quran.

Jocelyn Belanger, a psychology professor at L’Universite du Quebec a Montreal, was recently quoted in Canada’s National Post as saying that “I think the evidence is very clear about mental health and terrorism: there’s actually no link.” He adds, “We know that people who have mental illness are stigmatized in our society. And now to, on top of that, say that they may be radicals or future terrorists, imagine the label we’re putting on those people.” I’m so glad Professor Belanger pointed this out, because our Western media had me almost convinced that the mentally ill are attracted to Islam. But now it’s clear to me: Islam makes people crazy. “A crooked tree casts a crooked shadow.”

It’s now the custom of Western journalists to forgive Islam the heinous crimes zealous Muslims are committing every day around the world. Such a grand exculpation has become the convenient denouement to the inscrutable problem of terrorist violence. They’d rather blame the mentally ill because such blame is much easier to apply to humanity than to approach the insurmountable reality that such a widespread and ancient religion as Islam is the primary source of the plague of Islamist terrorism. It’s much easier (and safer) to leave the Muslim world undisturbed in their antiquated belief that certain Jews are the descendants of swine and monkeys, for example, than it is to confront their 1.6 billion and flat out tell them that such a belief incites homicidal behaviour in a vast number of their fellow religious in Gaza.

The fact that the religion of Islam is ancient and it followers so many should in no way become a means of removing the guilt both deserve for having become the sole and spectacular example of religious intolerance and terrorism in the contemporary world. Numbers can never justify the means. Not during antiquity and surely not now. And to stay an unbiased condemnation of these egregious transgressions will not only elicit the same religious intolerance and terrorism in Canada and the United States, but it will also cast us in an unfavourable historical light. Our children and our children’s children will surely wonder at what will have been our ghastly imprudence.

Johannes J. G. Jansen writes, “Western writers who give accounts of Islam to a Western public do not stress those elements in Islam that would be offensive or nonsense in the eyes of their Western readers. They rather see it as their duty to present Islam in as acceptable a light as possible to the West. They state the case of Islam with as much coherence as possible and construct the most feasible explanation for various Islamic aspirations. In general, they take on the role of a counsel for the defense.” Hence, the true face of Islam is not being fairly articulated by Western writers, most often journalists and political hacks, who have obscured veridical Islam — the Islam that exists — and given us instead an ersatz Islam — the Islam promised and imagined by its apologists.

Jihadists are now acquitted of their atrocious deeds, as ludicrous as that may sound to the sane of this world, some even repatriated back into their country of origin. Not only damned are those who conceive of such injudicious concepts as the idea that terrorists could ever be integrated risk-free into our society, but more damned are those of us whose silent compromise becomes a sign of consent to such foolish clemencies.

Michael Devolin has been a member of JDL Canada since the 1980s, and has served as the personal bodyguard to Meir Weinstein, National Director of JDL Canada, at several high-profile trials, including the Jim Keegstra hate crimes trial and the Imra Finta war crimes trial.

Also see:

LEFTIST JIHADI DENIALISM GROWS IN WAKE OF NEW TERROR ATTACKS

sydney-siege-police-AFPBreitbart, by THOMAS ROSEDec. 18,  2014:

In reacting to Tuesday’s bloodcurdling terrorist murders of at least 132 school children by Taliban terrorists, once again President Obama could not bring himself to mention the Taliban perpetrators by name.
Rather than waking up to the mounting existential threat of Jihadist terror, much of what presents itself as leadership in today’s Western world seems to be falling ever deeper into denial. Terror plot after foiled terror plot; successful terror attack after successful terror attack; nothing seems to arrest or even slow the descent into cultural suicide.
Even before Monday’s deadly jihadist attack on patrons at a Sydney coffee shop was over, ‘polite’ Australian society raced to show solidarity not with the victims of the terrorist attack, but rather with the Muslim community from which the jihadist murderer came. By the time the standoff had ended, tens of thousands of Australians had embraced the #illridewithyou social media campaign. A prominent Australian academic received great accolades for characterizing the social media campaign as “a blue print for how we should deal with terrorism.”
On the very day of last October’s terrorist attack against Canada’s parliament, the head of the Toronto Police Service reached out to reassure not the leaders of any of the communities targeted by Islamist terrorists in Canada, but rather Canada’s Muslim community. “We as a service are aware,” the statement read, “ that your Mosques may be vulnerable to a backlash.” Justin Trudeau, the flamboyant leader of Canada’s left-wing Liberal Party, has made himself into a media and cultural darling by attending Islamic conferences conspicuously attired in Muslim garb.  proclaimed that the man who murdered the soldier guarding Canada’s fallen soldiers while shouting “Allah Akbar” was in fact not even a Muslim.
The practice of pretending not to notice things that scream for our attention— things like suicide bombings, the targeted murders of innocent school children, beheadings, honor killings, subjugation of women, and the transformation of community mosques into Jihadist command posts– has been practiced to the point of perfection. The time was long ago reached where free peoples find themselves facing the most basic of all social tests. Do we value our way of life to take steps–any steps– necessary to defend it, or don’t we?
Canadian columnist Mark Steyn has been warning for more than a decade that it is the unprecedented affluence and physical security experienced by Western society since the end of World War II itself that has generated the very conditions that will soon put us all to the ultimate test.
Our multicultural embrace has transformed Western society into a vacuous nullity that stands for nothing and believes in nothing except our own cultural and moral inferiority. When the values and symbols of Western culture are denuded of all meaning, as modern multiculturalism has done with remarkable success, is it any wonder that those looking for something positive to affirm look someplace other than Western civilization? Those who continue to maintain the pretense that all cultures are equally worthy of respect bear ever increasing guilt for legitimizing the medieval death cult that glorifies the murder of innocent Muslim children inside Muslim schools, enslaves women, beheads hostages, burns churches, crucifies Christians and murders all who oppose them. ‘War’ has been the word used throughout human history to describe the response against hostile forces plotting the destruction of one’s society.
 
Yet, we can’t bring ourselves to admit what our enemies can’t stop admitting. The terrorists can’t stop talking about the Islam that motivates while our leaders can’t stop pretending that there are no such admissions. While we circle the wagons to deny the Islam of our enemies, our enemies won’t shut up about their Islam. For them, Islam is not a religion in the Western sense. It is an all encompassing human experience. Wouldn’t it be easier if we acknowledged what they acknowledge?
Our enemies understand perfectly well why they are chopping off our heads. They know why they gun us down and send suicide bombers against us. They know that, unless we change, we will soon lose our freedom, our civilization and our world.
How is it that we refuse to identify our attackers when our attackers have no problem identifying themselves? Islamic State, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram— none of them hide their goals or objectives and go to great lengths to broadcast their claims of credit for their murderous exploits. As so often in the past, President Obama labelled the Canadian terrorist attacks “senseless violence”.
Islamist terrorism is many awful, depraved, and evil things, but one thing it is not is senseless. Jihadist-inspired attacks are direct assaults against the very essence of Western society. It is the ideology of Islamist Jihad that must be targeted directly. Therefore, they are anything but “senseless.”
Do we as free people cherish our freedom enough to protect it, or don’t we? Are we willing to defend and protect our own daughters from the decades of systemic rape, forced prostitution and unspeakable abuse suffered by at least 1,400 young white girls at the hands of Muslim gangs in Rotherham, England without anyone in any position of authority saying or doing a thing about it for fear of being labelled Islamophobic? Are we too more fearful of being labelled racists than we are committed to protecting our own daughters from violent sexual abuse?
When called upon to do, will we even be able to summon the base primal skills of survival that for so many generations our culture has been trying breed out of our species? Whether we continue to pretend not to notice what threatens us will determine whether we remain free Americans, Canadians, or Australians.
***
Also see:

Robert Spencer on Man Haron Monis’s taking of hostages in Sydney, Australia

Published on Dec 15, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

Robert Spencer, Faith Goldy and Jerry Agar discuss the hostage taking by Man Haron Monis at a Lindt chocolate shop in Sydney, Australia on Dec 15-16, 2014.

‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome: Sydney Hostage-Taker Is Yet Another Case

5969244-3x2-340x227PJ Media, By Patrick Poole On December 15, 2014:

With the hostage situation resolved — hopefully with no innocent lives lost (reports just coming in – UPDATE: Reports say that one hostage as well as the gunman are dead) — and the release of the name of the hostage taker, Iranian-born Islamic cleric Man Monis aka Shiekh Haron, this seems to be yet another case of what I termed here at PJ Media several weeks ago as “Known Wolf Syndrome.”

In that article, following two separate terror attacks in Canada in which the suspects were already well-known to authorities, I noted that in the U.S., too, in many of the domestic terrorism cases the culprits had already been identified to law enforcement as problems. In the present case, not only was the suspect well-known, but he was out on bail on murder charges related to the stabbing and setting on fire of his ex-wife, with whom he was in a heated custody dispute.

Monis came to Australia in 1996 from Iran and his immigration status was that of political refugee. He has since had other well-known run-ins with law enforcement. In 2009, he sent a series of hate messages, which he deemed as “flowers of advice,” to the families of Australian military members who had been killed in action. He likened their deaths to the deaths of Hitler’s soldiers, as well as to families of Australian victims of international terrorism attacks. He was given 300 hours of community service.

In another case, Monis was charged with 50 counts of sexual assault, where it was claimed that he lured victims in and assaulted them claiming it was a “spiritual healing technique.”

We’ll undoubtedly learn more in the days to come about the intentions and motives of the suspect in the case. The evidence at hand clearly indicates that Monis was another example of the two-faced Islamic cleric. In this case, Monis claimed that he was “an Australian who wanted a safe future for our country” (HT: Stewart Bell) while simultaneously — and openly — hating the very country that gave him refuge.

Yet again, we have a case in the West in which a domestic terrorist was well-known to law enforcement authorities and yet action sufficient to prevent the tragedy at hand was never taken despite the opportunity to do so (in this instance, he was out on bail).

Nonetheless, this will be yet another case where so-called terrorism “experts” will be trotted out by the media and political officials to claim that Monis was a case of “lone wolf syndrome.” Or that his actions were entirely unpredictable, and the government will need more money for terrorism programs that won’t work, and for outreach to the very extremists who continue to murder, rape, and maim innocents. And the “voxsplaining” has begun, distancing the suspect from any known extremist group.

We’ve already seen the Islamic grievance machine rolled out and signs of “backlashphobia” are already beginning to appear. Leaders of the Australian Muslim community, including the “Grand Mufti” of Australia, are denouncing “acts of violence.” Yet these same leaders, including the Grand Mufti, were openly attacking the government just a few months ago when stronger anti-terrorism laws were being considered. The previous Grand Mufti came under firefor his comments saying that women not dressed Islamically were “uncovered meat,” hinting their complicity in any sexual assault.

As I pointed out in my previous article, this situation was entirely preventable. Any deaths are on the hands of authorities who, like their counterparts throughout the West, are unable or unwilling to take the necessary action to protect the public for fear of political correctness.

“Freedom of Speech, Go to Hell”

20141105_theresamaybritL

“Extremism” is what novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand would call an anti-concept intended to suppress discussion of fundamental principles in order to prevent conflict or open dissension. It is an essentially meaningless term that stands for what she called “blank-outs.” It is anti-mind, an act of deliberate evasion of facts, of reality.

by EDWARD CLINE:

We’ve all seen in the newspapers and on blog sites those cardboard signs carried by maddened, sweaty, screaming Muslims in London and elsewhere on which is scrawled, Freedom of Speech Go to Hell. But now that same sign is being brandished by a political milquetoast, Theresa May, Britain’s Home Secretary. John Bingham’s report in The Telegraph of October 31st, “Sharia law or gay marriage critics would be branded ‘extremists’ under Tory plans, atheists and Christians warn,” is disturbing, to say the least.

Anyone who criticizes Sharia law or gay marriage could be branded an “extremist” under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat terrorism, an alliance of leading atheists and Christians fear. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission…..

But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”. He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.

This particular milquetoast – let us dub her Mother Theresa – is proposing out-and-out, blanket censorship which she would enforce with the heavy hand of the police, the courts, and the slimy accusations of informants and those whose “feelings” have been hurt. “I want” figures prominently in her speech. She delivered her speech, in contrast to the chanting and ranting of Muslims who also inform us that Sharia will dominate Britain (and the West), at a Conservative/Tory Party conference in typical wallflower style, from a printed text at the podium (well, at least she didn’t use a teleprompter), with less charisma than Barbara “Let’s go walkies!” Woodhouse giving advice on how to train one’s dogs. Here she condemned “extremists” of all breeds as possibly infected with rabies and she let it be known that they should all “sit” and “heel” and “stay” in their own speech lest they be served with the blackjack of an “Extremism Disruption Order” (EDO) and isolated in a kennel.

Surely the coiner of that awkward, euphemistic nomenclature for “preemptive censorship” could have come up with something a little less depersonalized and antiseptic. Like “Taser”? The purpose of such political tasers, wielded by police or the courts, would be “to prevent conflict, protect life and resolve disputes with personal safety equipment that makes communities safe….” And surely that description is copasetic with Mother Theresa’s agenda of preventing conflicts and resolving disputes, especially if the conflicts concern Muslims, gays, trannies, and other odd bodkins.

I’ll bet not many Britons ever expected to be accosted, manhandled, cuffed, and tossed into a cell by an aggressive milquetoast with a little help from the bully boys for having indulged in their freedom of speech, or for what they might have said. But, there you are. If you’re on her “no barking” list of “extremists,” you’d better confine yourself to whining, whimpering, or pouting. You may be seen, but not heard.

A court, however, could not forbid an “extremist” to speak or broadcast or even “tweet” on Twitter unless his name was on a Vatican-like Index of Prohibited Books. Let us call it instead Index Librorum Prohibitorum Novissimarum Orator, or the Index of Prohibited Extremist Speakers. One must first be a known and red-flagged “extremist” speaker to earn a place on that list.

That’s quite a job for a government practiced in police-state surveillance as Britain’s already is. It even monitors what trash is put in wheelie bins. We have the NSA. Britain has Mother Theresa and her minions. They’re fighting the “war on terror” by promising “extremists” a night in the box. They will be watched, monitored, and even “disrupted.” I think there was a science fiction TV series that featured “disrupter” ray guns. How appropriate a choice of words.

After congratulating herself on fighting crime and dousing the fires of “extremism” with the current tools at hand, Mother Theresa went on:

But we must continue to do more. Soon, we will make Prevent a statutory duty for all public sector organizations. I want to see new banning orders for extremist groups that fall short of the existing laws relating to terrorism. I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay just within the law but still spread poisonous hatred. So both policies – Banning Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders – will be in the next Conservative manifesto.

Emma West was put through the judicial wringer for expressing her anger about what was happening to Britain. Paul Weston was arrested for quoting Churchill in public, the quotations expressing Churchill’s estimate of Muslims and Islam. Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Geert Wilders were banned from Britain because they’re famous (or notorious) for their anti-Islamic “hate speech.”

So, what is “extremism”?

For one thing, it’s the “extreme” dhimmitude displayed by Mother Theresa throughout her speech. Several times she stated emphatically that ISIS, the al Nusra Front, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, like-minded groups in Libya, Al Shabaab in East Africa, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan all have nothing to do with Islam. Just as the salute, Sieg Heil!, has nothing whatsoever to do with Nazism, Allahu Akbar! has nothing to do with flying planes into skyscrapers or the mass executions of non-Muslims and rival Muslims.

Or so Mother Theresa would have you believe. This is a species of denial bordering on psychosis. For example:

This hateful ideology has nothing to do with Islam itself. And it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain and around the world….

Well, no, they don’t reject it. They’re merely the “silent majority” who have no opinion about what their “violent” brethren do in the way of acting out the violent verses in the Koran (about 164 of them, at last count; see Answering Islam’s extensive list of them here). Or they don’t dare frown upon “violent” Islam lest they be subject to violence themselves. After all, it’s all in their “good book,” the Koran, and who are they to question its contents? Those non-participatory, “silent” Muslims have a ho-hum attitude about Islamic terrorism: “Oh, well, there’s another train blown up, more filthy infidels killed in a shopping mall. What’s the latest soccer score?” Some 80% of London Muslims don’t mind the violence one iota.

Mother Theresa conspicuously identifies that what she claims isn’t Islam is also a “hateful” ideology, which proves that some synapses are crackling in her brain. But then a politically correct circuit breaker kicks in, and the current stops flowing. What has nothing to do with Islam is, at the same time, a “radical ideology” or an “extremist” ideology. Can she answer the question: If it is “radical” or “extremist,” what ideology is it a “radical” or “extremist” version of? Has it an identity? What is the thing? Does it have a name? If she saw a half-assembled table, would she object to its completion because she could forecast that at one point it would become an “extremist” table and not a carburetor?

Of course she knows what it is and what it will be. But because the subject is Islam, denying Islam’s essential identity helps her (and fellow dhimmi David Cameron) “prevent” the ruffling of Muslim feathers. Muslim values are now British values.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Ottawa Police Services Reach Out to Islamist Groups After Attack

canada-shooting-wreath-ap

by IPT News  •  Oct 28, 2014

Just after last week’s terrorist attacks in Ottawa, the city’s police chief Charles Bordeleau reached out to various Muslim leaders and organizations with questionable ties to radical organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, according to a report produced by the Canadian website Point De Bascule.

Sikhander Hashmi, the imam at the Kanata Muslim Association (KMA), acknowledged that Bordeleau contacted him to reassure the Muslim community in case of “backlash” from the terrorist attack. This perceived “backlash” remains to be seen. More significantly, the Ottawa Police Service overlooks connections between Hahsmi’s organization and the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure in Ottawa. That includes money it transferred to the Hamas-linked IRFAN-Canada in 2010, according to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

IRFAN-Canada lost its charity status in 2011 following a CRA audit that exposed the organization as an “integral part” in Hamas’ international fundraising infrastructure. The donations in question were sent between 2005 and 2009. Canadian authorities designated IRFAN-Canada as a terrorist organization earlier this year after determining the charity served as a front for Hamas, transferring close to $15 million to the terrorist organization.

The KMA also transferred money to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), an organization linked to the Pakistani Jammat-e-Islami.

Moreover, Chief Bordeleau previously met with other controversial Muslim leaders in Ottawa. In January 2013, he met with Jalil Marhnouj, vice president of the Assunnah Muslims Association and other leaders affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood network in Canada. The Assunnah Muslims Association transferred $29,880 to IRFAN.

Despite the Canadian government’s acknowledged link between the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) and Hamas, the Ottawa Police Service maintains an extensive relationship with the controversial group. The NCCM, formerly known as CAIR-CAN, has trained Ottawa Police officers since February 2002, according to a Senate Committee testimony provided by a former Ottawa police chief. The NCCM is a recognized affiliate of CAIR, which has been identified by the FBI as part of a Hamas-support network in the United States.

Click here for the full Point De Bascule.

FREE FIRE ZONE- A PACK OF LONE WOLVES

By Jim Hanson:

How many lone wolf attacks will it take to get the media, liberals and our fearless leaders in DC to admit they are connected and they are all committed by Islamist extremists. That’s right they are Muslims, buy their own shouted declarations. This doesn’t mean all Muslims are to blame, but it is long past time to admit that something about Islam is causing many of its followers to slaughter innocents. And it is also time for us to stop pretending this isn’t so.

The second in my series for the Center for Security Policy.

Canada’s Jihad Denial

michael-zehaf-bibeauBy Robert Spencer:

Canada has experienced two murderous jihad terror attacks in the last three days, not long after the Islamic State called for such attacks – but the denial and obfuscation are as thick as ever.

On Monday, Ahmad Rouleau, a convert to Islam, hit two Canadian soldiers with his car, murdering Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Then he led police on a high-speed chase, during which he called 911 and explained that he was doing it all “in the name of Allah.” The chase, and Rouleau’s jihad, ended when he flipped his car and then, brandishing a knife, charged police, who shot him dead. One of Rouleau’s close friends said: “It was a terrorist attack and Martin died like he wanted to. That’s what happened….He did this because he wanted to reach paradise and assure paradise for his family. He wanted to be a martyr….The caliphate called all the Muslims on earth to fight. He listened to what they had to say and he did his part here.”

Then on Wednesday, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who has been widely reported to be a recent convert to Islam but whose father is a veteran of the jihad in Libya and who has been a Muslim for at least three years, went on a shooting rampage in Ottawa, murdering military reservist Corporal Nathan Cirillo and engaging in a gun battle inside Canada’s Parliament building. Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said that there was “no evidence at this stage” that Zehaf-Bibeau had connections to any jihad groups, but CNN reported that “according to a U.S. counterterrorism source, Zehaf-Bibeau was connected to Hasibullah Yusufzai through social media. Yusufzai is wanted by Canadian authorities for traveling overseas to fight alongside Islamist fighters in Syria.” And “other radicalized people connected to Zehaf-Bibeau are still believed to be living in Canada, two U.S. law enforcement officials said.”

So Zehaf-Bibeau had connections to at least one jihadist who went to Syria to wage jihad, and Rouleau listened to what the Islamic State was saying, and “did his part” in Canada. What was the Islamic State saying? Late in September, the Islamic State’s spokesman, Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, urged Muslims to murder non-Muslims in the West. “Rely upon Allah,” he thundered, “and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling.” He also addressed Western non-Muslims: “You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms. You will pay the price when this crusade of yours collapses, and thereafter we will strike you in your homeland, and you will never be able to harm anyone afterwards.”

Al-Adnani told Muslims to murder non-Muslims with any weapon at hand, or anything that could be used as a weapon: “If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.” Zehaf-Bibeau found a bullet. Rouleau found a car.

Yet despite the indications that Rouleau and Zehaf-Bibeau were heeding the Islamic State’s call to wage jihad at home by any means possible, the mainstream media was ready before the blood had dried to swing into the usual denial and obfuscation about the motives and goals of their attacks. Before Zehaf-Bibeau’s identity was known, CBC’s Doug Stoffel tweeted: “Amid the speculation in the #OttawaShooting in #Canada, it’s important to remember #ISIS hasn’t shown interest in attacks abroad.” Once Zehaf-Bibeau was identified as the shooter and was known to be a Muslim, ABC News one-upped Stoffel’s flagrantly counter-factual statement with the claim that “authorities in Canada are trying to understand what motivated a gunman to kill a soldier in the country’s capital Wednesday.”

In reality, what motivated him was blazingly obvious, but it was the one thing most Western government officials and all of the mainstream media have determined to ignore, and so the search was one for some other remotely plausible motive that could be sold to a public that is increasingly suspicious of what the government and media elites are telling them. Toronto’s Globe and Mail quoted a friend of Zehaf-Bibeau saying, “I think he must have been mentally ill,” although the only evidence for this that the paper presented was that “his friend frequently talked about the presence of Shaytan in the world – an Arabic term for devils and demons” – in other words, that Zehaf-Bibeau spoke frequently of what are standard beliefs of mainstream Islam.

Read more at Frontpage

*********

Michael Coren – Liberal denial over Islamic terror attacks in Canada

Published on Oct 24, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

**********

Ezra Levant – Liberal whitewashing of Islamic terrorism in Canada

Obama Terrorism Advisor’s Book Confuses and Distorts

By Raymond Ibrahim:

Reading CDR Youssef Aboul-Enein’s book, Militant Islamist IdeologyUnderstanding the Global Threat, published by the Naval Institute Press (2010), one can see why U.S. leadership is far from “understanding the global threat”; why the Obama administration is supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood; and why so many U.S. politicians rose up in condemnation when one obscure pastor threatened to burn a Koran.

book2According to the jacket cover, Aboul-Enein is “a top adviser at the Joint foIntelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism” and “has advised at the highest levels of the defense department and intelligence community.”

What advice does he give?

He holds that, whereas “militant Islamists” (e.g., al-Qaeda) are the enemy, “non-militant Islamists” (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood), are not: “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary. They represent an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. They must not be confused with Islamists.”

This theme, sometimes expressed in convoluted language—at one point we are urged to appreciate the “nuanced” differences “between Militant Islamists and between Militant Islamists and Islamists”—permeates the book.

Of course, what all Islamists want is a system inherently hostile to the West, culminating in a Sharia-enforcing Caliphate; the only difference is that the nonmilitant Islamists are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion are more effective than outright violence. Simply put, both groups want the same thing, and differ only in methodology.

Whereas most of the book is meant to portray nonviolent Islamists in a nonthreatening light, sometimes Aboul-Enein contradicts himself, for instance by correctly observing that “the United States must be under no illusions that the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood includes limiting the rights of women” and other anti-Western aspects.

How to explain these discrepancies? Is the Brotherhood a problem for the U.S. or not?

The book’s foreword by Admiral James Stavridis clarifies by stating that the book is a “culmination of Commander Aboul-Enein’s essays, lectures, and myriad answers to questions.” In fact, Militant Islamist Ideology reads like a hodgepodge of ideas cobbled together, and the author’s contradictions are likely products of different approaches to different audiences over time.

His position on appeasing the Muslim world—a fixed feature of the current administration’s policies—is clear. Aboul-Enein recommends that, if ever an American soldier desecrates a Koran, U.S. leadership must relieve the soldier of duty, offer “unconditional apologies,” and emulate the words of Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond: “I come before you [Muslims] seeking your forgiveness, in the most humble manner I look in your eyes today, and say please forgive me and my soldiers,” followed by abjectly kissing a new Koran and “ceremoniously” presenting it to Muslims.

Likewise, after rightfully admonishing readers not to rely on skewed or biased accounts of Islam, he presents Islamic apologist extraordinaire Karen Armstrong—whose whitewashed writings on Islam border on fiction—as the best source on the life of Muhammad.

Then there are Aboul-Enein’s flat out wrong assertions and distortions, examples of which this review closes with:

  • He asserts that “militant Islamists dismiss ijmaa [consensus] and qiyas [analogical reasoning].” In fact, none other than al-Qaeda constantly invokes ijmaa (for instance, the consensus that jihad becomes a personal duty when infidels invade the Islamic world) and justifies suicide attacks precisely through qiyas.
  • He insists that the Arabic word for “terrorist” is nowhere in the Koran—without bothering to point out that Koran 8:60 commands believers “to terrorize the enemy,” also known as non-Muslim “infidels.”
  • He writes, “when Muslims are a persecuted minority Jihad becomes a fard kifaya (an optional obligation), in which the imam authorizes annual expeditions into Dar el Harb (the Abode of War), lands considered not under Muslim dominance.” This is wrong on several levels: a fard kifaya is not an “optional obligation”—an oxymoron if ever there was one—but rather a “communal obligation”; moreover, he is describing Offensive Jihad, which is designed to subjugate non-Muslims and is obligatory to wage whenever Muslims are capable—not “when Muslims are a persecuted minority.”