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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sweden goes insane

Leading the suicidal “progressive” war on free speech.

Sharia for Dummies

20140510_ShariaIsmIsHereCoverFINAL600x464by EDWARD CLINE:

No, that’s not the actual title. Sharia-ism is Here: The Battle to Control Women and Everyone Else might have been called that but doubtless Joy Brighton, the author, would have encountered brand or trademark infringement problems with the publisher of the popular and successful For Dummies series, John Wiley & Sons. I also suspect that Wiley & Sons would have been horrified by the idea of publishing such an “Islamophobic” book anyway. It has published Islam for Dummies and The Koran for Dummies, both of which, to judge by their Amazon descriptions, are treacly, inoffensive, sanitized guides to a highly “misunderstood” and “misperceived” religion-cum-ideology.

Brighton’s opus is a generously illustrated and annotated book intended as a “show n’ tell book for national security, civil right and women’s right activists and lobbyists in America.” It is meant to be read by, and serve as, a handy reference guide for anyone who is aware of the peril posed by Islam as it is practiced around the world, in the West, and especially in the U.S., but who really hasn’t digested the scale of the threat or any of its details. And it isn’t just about Islam’s crusade to control women. It truly is about Islam’s designs on everyone.

Before citing the book’s plenitude of virtues, however, there is one issue I must raise. Page 131, for example, under the heading, “Conversion to Islam or Sharia-ism in America? How do we help youth understand the difference?” highlights the conversion percentages of Americans to Islam. At the bottom of the page is an “Insight Box,” which reads:

How many of these American Converts have been converted to Islam the religion? How many are knowingly or unknowingly slowly being converted to Sharia-ism, the political movement of Radical Islam? How do we help young potential converts understand the difference and draw the line between Islam and Sharia-ism?

One point of disagreement between Sharia-ism is Here: The Battle to Control Women and me is that I do not draw a line between Islam and what Brighton calls “Sharia-ism.” Brighton writes in her Introduction:

You are holding in your hands a chronicle of the surprising inroads that Shariah, the guiding principles of Radical Islam, has made in America during the critical years of 2008-2013.

Radical Islam, also known as Political or Sharia Islam, has expanded onto every continent, and with it Sharia-ism, the political movement of Radical Islam, whose goal of totalitarian control of every nation and people is incompatible with Western values of individual liberties and inalienable rights. Sharia-ism is about politics, not religion.

Sharia-ism is about total control, not simply destruction or terrorism. (p. 6)

Both of Brighton’s terms, Sharia-ism and Radical Islam, violate Ockham’s Razor of economy of concepts by arbitrarily divorcing Islam and Sharia. The dichotomy is fallacious and inadvertently grants Islam an unsought-after epistemological and ideological victory. Brighton is not the only authority to commit this error. Seen as a virulent ideology, Islam and Sharia are one and the same. They are inherently complementary and co-dependent. I do not think Islam, “moderate” or otherwise, is a benign belief system, because it is fundamentally political, nihilist, and totalitarian in means and ends. Sharia is Islam, and Islam is nothing without Sharia. Without the primitive, anti-conceptual, rote-learned code of Sharia, Islam is little better, and perhaps even worse, than your random whacky California cult, or Scientology, Wiccanism, or Pyramid-Worship.

Further, were it not an ideology, why have its proponents, spokesmen, and activists focused so much on its political status? Catholics, Protestants, Jews and members of other creeds are not waging campaigns to force government, businesses, and other social organizations to accommodate their beliefs and practices. The promulgators of Islam, however, such as CAIR and the various Muslim organizations in this country, seek accommodations to Islam in virtually every sphere of American life, from demanding foot baths in various venues (schools, office buildings, airports), removing “offensive” crucifixes and other non-Islamic religious icons from classrooms, insisting on halal restaurant menus, to praying en masse on public streets, to inveigling their way into government jobs and appointments.

By way of contrast, I am not aware of a movement in the Catholic Church to compel, by statute, non-Catholics to genuflect when passing a Catholic church on the street, or else pay a fine.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Bill Maher: ‘Islam Is The Problem’

maherDaily Caller, By Jamie Weinstein:

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

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

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

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

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

The ‘Brave German Woman’ and Europe’s Islam Question

CBN-Heidi-Mund-700-Club-450x280by :

Several are the important lessons learned from last year’s “Brave German Woman” incident.

Context: On November 10, 2013, a Muslim imam was invited to give the Islamic call to prayer inside the Memorial Church of the Reformation in the city of Speyer, Germany—a church dedicated to honoring Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.

“When the brave German woman, whose real name is Heidi Mund, heard about the event, she prayed,” reports CBN News.  Not sure what she would do upon arrival, she grabbed her German flag emblazoned with the words “Jesus Christ is Lord” and headed for the concert:

“Until the imam started with his shouting [“Allahu Akbar!”], I did not really know what to do. I was just prepared for what God wants me to do,” she told CBN News.

Then the Muslim call to prayer began, and Heidi said she felt something rising up inside her.

“I would call it a holy anger,” she recounted. “And then I rose with my flag and I was calling and proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord over Germany”…

And she repeated the words of Martin Luther in 1521 after he refused to recant his faith in scripture alone: “Here I stand. I can do no other” and “Save the church of Martin Luther!”

Video shows another concert-goer trying to calm her by saying, “This is a concert for peace.”

Mund can be heard responding in German, “No it’s not! Allahu Akbar is what Muslims scream while murdering people! Don’t be fooled! Don’t be fooled! This is a lie!”

She was thrown out of the church.

“They should have thrown the imam out and not me because I am a believer in Jesus Christ, but he serves another god. This Allah is not the same god. And this is not the truth.”

“This ‘allahu akbar,’ they use it when they kill people,” she argued. “This is, for me, worship to an idol, to their god. And when a Muslim calls ‘allahu akbar’ in a church, that means this church is not a church anymore, it’s a mosque.”

For more details on this story, check out CBN News’ various interviews and videos of and with Mund.

Now for some lessons concerning the significance of this anecdote:

Mund’s observations about the phrase “Allahu Akbar” are spot-on.  Islam’s war cry, signifying the superiority of Muhammad’s religion over all things, thetakbir (“Allahu Akbar”), is habitually proclaimed in violent contexts, specifically attacking and slaughtering non-Muslims, whether beheading “infidels” or bombing churches.

Muhammad himself used to cry it aloud prior to attacking non-Muslim tribes that refused to submit to his authority and religion.

Accordingly, Mund’s outrage at hearing an Islamic imam hollering out Islamic supremacist slogans is justified.   Proclaimed in a church, “Allahu Akbar”—which in translation literally means “Allah is greater [than X]”—means “Allahu is greater than the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and Father of Christ.”

And assuming the imam proclaimed Islam’s credo or shehada as is standard in the Muslim call to prayer (that “there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”) that too is tantamount to declaring that the biblical God is false, and the message (or Koran) delivered by Muhammad—which includes a denunciation of Christ’s divinity, death, and resurrection—is true (see for examples Koran 4:157, 4:171, 5:17, 5:116, 9:30-31, 19:35).

This is precisely what the vandal who earlier painted in Arabic the phrase “Allahu Akbar” across the door of another German church likely had in mind.

Yet despite all this, despite the fact that only two or three generations ago, almost every Christian would have been incensed to hear a Muslim shouting Islamic slogans that by nature contradict Christianity inside a church, Mund was chastised by fellow Christians for her stand and kicked out.

Read more at Front Page

Banned in the British Library

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
April 8, 2014

Prominent counter-jihadis like Geert Wilders, Michael Savage, and Robert Spencer have the distinction of being banned from entry into the United Kingdom – and, now, Her Majesty’s Government, in its wisdom, has also banned two websites connected to me. It’s not quite the same, admittedly, and I am working to get this ban removed, but I also wear it as a perverse badge of honor given that government’s shameful record vis-à-vis Islamism.

Say you’re in the British Library, the national depository library and a government institution, roughly equivalent to the Library of Congress in the United States or the Bibliothèque nationale in France. Say you want to read what David Brog writes about declining Evangelical support for Israel in the latest Middle East Quarterly. You type in MEForum.org and get the following result:

Or perhaps you wish to learn why I distinguish between Islam and Islamism, or why I worry about Islamist aggression in Britain, so you type in DanielPipes.org only to find this:

The distinction between the two sites particularly charms me. The British Library categorizes MEForum.org as “Religion, Intolerance” and DanielPipes.org as “Religion, Adult Sites, Intolerance, Blogs.” (It’s probably titles like “Arabian Sex Tourism” that won me the X-rating.) Oddly, both sites are blocked for the same reason: “Intolerance.”

Should you, however, be in the British Library and wish to develop hatred toward Jews, no problem! Here are some antisemitic sites, all accessed in the past few days:

  • Exposing the Holocaust Hoax Archive: the name tells it all
  • Gilad Atzmon: the personal website of a toxically antisemitic Jew
  • Jew Knowledge: contains learned inquiries into Jewish control of Hollywood, Jewish connections to 9/11, and the like
  • Muslim Public Affairs Committee, UK: an antisemitic jihadi group
  • The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: the “warrant for genocide” is available in multiple versions

Then, if you need firing up to go murder people on jihad, the British Library makes rich pickings available to you:

  • Al Muntada: runs some of the worst hate preachers in Europe and stands accused in Nigeria of funding Boko Haram
  • Anjem Choudary: possibly the most extreme of British Islamists, he praised the perpetrators of the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks
  • FiSyria: promotes the Sunni jihad against the Assad regime in Syria
  • Friends of Al-Aqsa: a pro-Hamas British group
  • Hizb ut-Tahrir: an international movement seeking to replace existing countries with a global caliphate
  • Islamic Education and Research Academy: a Qatari-funded Salafi group that includes a number of openly pro-terror operatives. Its trustees openly incite hatred against Jews, women, et al.
  • Muslimah’s Renaissance: an anti-Semitic, anti-Shia group
  • Al-Qassam: the military wing of Hamas, widely categorized as a terrorist organization
  • Palestinian Forum of Britain: a Hamas front
  • Palestine Return Centre: another Hamas front
  • Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: deemed a terrorist group by both the European Union and the U.S. government

And then, perhaps the worst of all:

  • Tawhed: al-Qaeda’s Arabic-language ideological website which promotes writings by Osama Bin Laden and Ayman az-Zawahiri

There could be a technical explanation for this bizarre situation. The British Library issued a press release in December 2013, “Web filtering on the British Library’s WiFi service,” explaining that

in our public areas where there are regular visits by school children, we filter certain online content, such as pornography and gambling websites. We have recently introduced a new WiFi service. It’s early days in the implementation of this service and we are aware that the new filter has been blocking certain sites erroneously. We are actively working to resolve this issue.

Might this be the problem? I have written the library and requested that it unblock the sites. Now, let’s see if the censorship was “erroneous” or intentional.

(In contrast, the British Library has not yet excluded me from the UK union catalog of books; so, the same organization that bans my website permits my books. That makes as much sense as the rest of the British government’s policies.)

Apr. 9, 2014 update: For updates, see “No Longer Banned in the British Library!

Islamists Put America On Trial While Shutting Down Free Speech

lawfare projectBreitbart, by :

Human Rights attorney and the director of the Lawfare Project, Brooke Goldstein, asserts that anyone who is brave enough to speak openly about terrorism and its connection to Islam may find themselves on the “receiving end of a frivolous and malicious lawsuit designed to silence and punish them.”

Goldstein claims over the last 15 years, Islamic groups like the Arab league and the OIC attempt to punish any type of speech they consider offensive to Islam. Moreover, she told Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon and the host of Breitbart News Sunday  that such groups pair lawsuits with acts of violence and are becoming more aggressive about invoking fatwas, as they did to the Danish cartoonist. Goldstein, also pointed out that  violence and fatwas ensued across the Muslim world when the state department decided to blame a so called anti-Islam YouTube film for the attack on Benghazi.

The human rights and free speech advocate posits that the lawsuits and violence precipitates an inherent self censorship. Altogether these three free speech denying modalities comprise a phenomenon which Goldstein calls “Islamist Lawfare, which is the use of the law as a weapon of war to silence and punish free speech about these issues of public dissonance.”

Bannon asked Goldstein if she thought there was an over-hyping by the Conservative Right of Islamist overreach in America, or is there a real problem as in the UK, where Sharia Law is now becoming codified into English Common law. Goldstein replied that “I wish it was just hype. But what we can measure now, because this has been a strategy that has been pursued, is the effects of the lawfare.”

Goldstein cited one example where Islamist lawfare was carried out and resulted in a major act of terror on American soil. She referred to a community center and mosque called the Islamic Society of Boston, that in 2005 was being investigated for receiving Saudi funding and was breeding Wasabi Islamic radicalism. The mosque turned around and sued at least 17 media defendants tying up the courts in a two year process stymieing police and discouraging further investigations.

The mosque was able to continue its teachings and sponsorship of radical ideology. Unfortunately, several years later, the mosque  produced the two Tsarnaev brothers, responsible for the bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013, which killed three people including an eight year old boy and wounded many others.

Goldstein expressed her outrage that we have a policy in the government now where the words Islam and Jihad are being redacted from counter terrorism training manuals. She further points out that we have FBI officials and counter intelligence experts “that have been fired because they are Islamaphobic. We have Fort Hood which is reclassified as work place violence, not Islamist terrorism.”

Goldstein concludes that we have an uber PCness  in America that brands people, even if it’s a Muslim criticizing his own religion, as being an Islamaphobe.

***********

Recommended reading:

UK: Child Sex Slavery, Multiculturalism and Islam

by Soeren Kern:

“[T]he agencies responsible for child-protection have almost entirely failed in their job to protect vulnerable children. From a fear of being called ‘racist,’ police forces across the country have buried the evidence…. Political correctness would be used to make sure that people did not speak about this phenomenon.” — from Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery

“[A] 2010 document by the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board stated that, ‘great care will be taken in drafting…this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity. It is imperative that discussions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.'” — from Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery

British authorities enforcing political correctness have allowed Muslim paedophile gangs to sexually abuse children with impunity for more than two decades, according to a comprehensive new study that examines the harrowing epidemic of child grooming in towns and cities across Britain.

The meticulously documented report, entitled, “Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery,” shows how officials in England and Wales were aware of rampant child grooming—the process by which sexual predators befriend and build trust with children in order to prepare them for abuse—by Muslim gangs since at least 1988.

Rather than taking steps to protect British children, however, police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media deliberately downplayed the severity of the crimes perpetrated by the grooming gangs in order to avoid being accused of “Islamophobia” or racism.

The conspiracy of silence was not broken until November 2010, when it was leaked that police in Derbyshire had carried out an undercover investigation—dubbed Operation Retriever—and arrested 13 members of a Muslim gang for grooming up to 100 underage girls for sex.

 

Seven members of a child sex grooming gang in Oxford who were found guilty in 2013 (clockwise from top left): Kamar Jamil, Akhtar Dogar, Anjum Dogar, Assad Hussain, Mohammed Karrar, Bassam Karrar, and Zeeshan Ahmed.
They were sentenced to a combined 95 years in prison for raping, torturing and trafficking British girls as young as 11.

Shortly thereafter, the Times of London published the results of a groundbreaking investigation into the sexual exploitation and internal trafficking of girls in the Midlands and the north of England. In January 2011, the newspaper reported that in 17 court cases since 1997 in which groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls, 53 of the 56 men found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, and just three were white.

In September 2012, the Times published another exposé that revealed the hidden truth about the sale and extensive use of British children for sex. The article showed that organized groups of Muslim men were able to groom, pimp and traffic girls across the country with virtual impunity. Although offenders were identified to police, they were not prosecuted. A child welfare expert interviewed by the newspaper said the government’s reluctance to tackle such street grooming networks represented “the biggest child protection scandal of our time.”

********

But this is “just the tip of the iceberg,” according to a document published by the House of Commons, which estimates that at least 20,000 British children are at risk of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs.

Meanwhile, prosecutions are few and far between. The report calculates that for every man convicted of such crimes, there are between two to ten other men who were directly implicated, but for whom there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. “If this is true,” the authors write, “it means that with this crime there are very many perpetrators getting away with it.”

Finally, the authors of the report examine the links between Islamic culture and doctrine and the crime of child grooming. They note:

“There is not one case where it was non-Muslim men grooming Muslim girls, and that despite the fact that 95% of the men in Britain are not Muslims…There is no evidence at all that non-Muslim men are grooming Muslim children, but ample evidence that Muslim men are directing their grooming at non-Muslim schoolgirls.”

At the same time, “the notion that Islam could be the basis for this criminality is always ruled out of the question, with no investigation of Islamic theology, the history of Islam, or the rulings of Sharia law.”

The authors then provide a thorough examination of Islamic sacred texts (pp. 222-268) and conclude, among other observations:

1) “The laws in various Islamic states show that they think that Aisha [who was married to Mohammad at the age of six] was under 10 when Mohammed had sex with her. And to Muslims, Mohammed is regarded as the perfect man; it is part of their religion that they should emulate his behavior.”

2) “Muslim men are taught in mosques that women are second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority.”

3) “The Koran makes a distinction between legal wives and slaves, and instructs Muslim men that they can have sex with either their wives or their slaves.”

4) “Not only are Muslim men permitted legally and morally to rape their slaves, but they are also forgiven if they turn a slave girl into a prostitute.”

5) “There are also features of Islam which are supremacist and which look with contempt at non-Muslims.”

6) “The Hadiths also permit Muslims to rape women who are captured after a battle (whereupon they become the property of Muslims, that is, they become slaves).”

At the same time, British judges are increasingly using Islamic Sharia law to justify light sentences for Muslims who rape underage girls:

“As late as May 2013, the media were reporting that a Muslim man in Nottingham who had ‘raped’ an underage girl, was spared a prison term after the judge heard that the naïve 18-year-old attended an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Rashid told psychologists he had no idea that having sex with a willing 13-year-old was against the law; besides, his education had taught him to believe that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground.'”

The report is emphatic in blaming the doctrine of multiculturalism for Britain’s lack of resolve in confronting the grooming gangs:

“Multiculturalism is a fundamentally incoherent doctrine, invented to conceal the serious conflicts which have arisen when peoples from vastly different cultures, with different values, are forced to live together.”

“Political correctness and the doctrine of multiculturalism meant that the professionals whose job it was to help the vulnerable were consciously commanding that these diverse cultural values could not be discussed.”

“Multiculturalism came about in order to deny that there is any significance to cultures having different values and to conceal that there will be conflict when these incompatible values come together. Political correctness is the means by which such denial is enforced.”

“Those who propound and defend multiculturalism say that people from different cultural backgrounds have different values, and that we must all accept these values as being of equal validity. But when it comes to examining what those different values are, multiculturalists suddenly lose interest in the details of these differences and lose interest in the consequences that follow from these different values. Yet we have seen, that even those Muslims who are classified as liberal or moderate have views which would be considered extreme if those views were espoused by a non-Muslim in Britain. Are we really surprised that conflicts and problems arise when communities with different values are living side-by-side? These conflicts are just concealed by the advocates of multiculturalism. Proponents of multiculturalism dare not examine the views of Islamic fundamentalists, that (significant) minority of Muslims in Britain who want Sharia law.”

“Multiculturalists think that Muslims will embrace multiculturalism; yet Islam was established 1,300 years ago to destroy multiculturalism.”

“Islamic society is a totalitarian society, all other values are to be subordinated to Islamic values. But if anyone in Britain dares to criticize Islam, they will be denounced and told they live in a multicultural society, and must accept these totalitarian values.”

The report concludes: “Every decade, the Muslim population of Britain almost doubles in size, so there is every reason to believe that without some massive changes in our society, the activities of these gangs will grow and grow.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

 

Appeal to Ninth Circuit Filed after Federal Court in Seattle Upholds Censorship of Anti-Terrorism Advertisement

censoredThe American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed its opening brief on Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appealing a lower federal court ruling that denied AFLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  AFLC’s motion requested that the court order the King County, Washington, transit authority to display an anti-terrorism bus advertisement that it had refused to display.

The proposed advertisement, which was submitted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and its executive directors, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, included pictures, names, and a similar message from an earlier anti-terrorism advertisement sponsored by the U.S. State Department, which was accepted for display on King County buses.  The State Department advertisement depicted the “Faces of Global Terrorism” in an effort to “stop a terrorist” and “save lives.”  In addition, the advertisement offered an “up to $25 million reward” for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.

Moreover, in the State Department advertisement, thirty out of the thirty-two listed terrorists had Muslim names or are wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.  After complaints from a Washington State politician and two Muslim-American advocacy groups that claimed the list of wanted global terrorists appeared to include only Muslim terrorists, the federal government terminated its “Faces of Global Terrorism” advertisement campaign.

In response to the government’s decision to remove its advertisement, AFDI created its own, similar advertisement to replace it.  Despite originally accepting the government’s advertisement, King County rejected AFDI’s ad, claiming that it was offensive to Muslims.

On January 27, 2014, David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, presented oral argument before Federal Judge Richard A. Jones, sitting in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. [See video of oral argument here.]  Yerushalmi argued that King County’s refusal to run the advertisement was an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech and therefore the court should order the agency to display the advertisement immediately.

Nevertheless, Judge Jones ruled that King County’s decision to reject the advertisement was “reasonable,” specifically noting that displaying pictures of Muslim and Arab terrorists and labeling them jihadis is offensive to Muslims.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will reverse this decision.  The trial court sacrificed Free Speech for political correctness.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented: “Simply put, the government’s position is inconsistent with reality – namely, sharia-adherent jihadists pose a significant threat to our national security.  This case is a classic articulation of political correctness as a form of tyranny, which violates our fundamental right to freedom speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Also see:

GOVERNMENT BANS CALLING TERRORISTS ‘JIHADIS’ (wnd.com)

Islam and David Cameron

cameronBy Paul Austin Murphy:

In a sense, David Cameron’s position on Islam is to be expected. As British Prime Minister, he is of course too busy to study Islam in detail. And even before becoming PM (in 2010), my guess is that he would have spent almost zero time studying Islam. Sure, he would have read about Islam, Islamic terrorism, and Islamism in the news. Nonetheless, I doubt that he gave such things much thought when out of power. He would have been far too busy planning his rise to power and, in a auxiliary manner, thinking about tax issues, the NHS, the structure of the Tory Party, competing with the Labour Party and whatnot.

It is of course true that Cameron should have studied Islam independently from the Conservative Muslim Forum, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi (the unelected Minister for Faith and Communities) and his advisers (i.e., the higher civil servants). After all, he was 35 years old when 9/11 occurred and 39 when 7/7 occurred in the city of London. He will now also know about the massive Muslim grooming of young non-Muslim girls in the UK. He knows about the 85 or more sharia courts in his country, the weekly political activism of Islamists on the streets of the UK, the 15 foiled Islamic terrorist attacks between only 2005 and 2008, etc. He also knows about the the Taliban, the Islamic civil wars in Iraq and Syria. He may even know about the Islamist slaughter of over one and a half million Sudanese Christians and black animists in the 1990s and 2000s.

In fact David Cameron is even on record as having criticized what he then called “Islamists”. That was in 2005. The “neoconservative” writer, Douglas Murray, at around about the same time, also suggested that things should be done to slow down the Islamization of Europe. What happened to him? The Conservative Party ostracized him. In addition, a Conservative Party MP by the name of Michael Gove wrote a book, in 2006, called Celsius 7/7. This book is about Islamism and the threat of Islamic terrorism in Europe. Michael Gove has been almost silent on these issues ever since. You may have heard of him: he’s now the Sectary of State for Education; working under David Cameron.

More relevantly, Cameron might have even read the Koran. However, what’s likely to have happened is that he has been fed various nice and innocuous extracts from that book by advisers and Tory Muslims (as well as by non-Tory Muslim individuals and Islamic groups). However, I doubt that he voluntarily picked it and read it before 2010. In mention this because Tony Blair, infamously, once claimed that he reads the Koran every night.

Since David Cameron became Prime Minister, he might have spent a few hours maximum independently studying Islam. But he most certainly won’t have chosen his own works to study. What will have happened, again, is that his civil servants, or perhaps certain Muslims within the party, will have supplied him with some Islam-friendly literature. He would have read all that and taken most of it at face value quite simply because he literally hasn’t got the time to study Islam in detail — let alone be critical. Besides which, Cameron will acquire the information he needs in order to be a successful politician. And being a critic of Islam, he may well think, will never pay him political dividends.

If the “Islam issue” were as pressing for him as debates about tax, the NHS, competition with the Labour Party, sustaining his own rule within the Tory Party, etc.; then he would indeed have studied it in detail. However, although the Islam issue is pressing for the UK and indeed for the world as a whole, it’s not pressing issue for David Cameron himself. Not in the least. In fact, from what he’s said recently, and indeed from what he’s recently done (e.g., making London the “Islamic finance capital of the world”), I would say that ingratiating himself with Islam and the Muslim community-of-votes (large parts of which tend to vote in blocks) has been (fairly) pressing for him.

Also see:

‘Merry Christmas’ from the Religion of ‘Peace’

By Paul Wilkinson:

There is an ongoing ruthless de-Christianisation of British society by the elitists advocating multiculturalism and hell-bent on destroying their own culture, identity and heritage, while desperately not wanting to ‘offend’ anybody else’s feelings or beliefs. However this aggressive ‘secularism’ is not just an attack on Christianity, but an assault on the Judeo-Christian values that makes our society what it is.

Multiculturalists have been stripping the nation of a spiritual soul and suppressing Christianity, the religion of the majority. This leaves a vacuum that actively encourages other religions to flourish, which would be fine in and of itself, but the predator of Islam needs no invitation to mount an attack. The only followers of a non-Christian faith intent on eliminating Christmas in their adopted country are Muslims.

According to the 2011 census, ‘officially’ 59% of people in England and Wales identify themselves as being Christian, 25.1% stated no religion, 4.8% are Muslim and the remaining 11.1% account for all other religions and categories combined. Multiculturalists may repeat the “all cultures are equal mantra,” but this ideology turns British culture on its head because it implies that 4.8% of the population in the UK that follow Islam are ‘equal’ with the 95.2% non-Muslim population and the host culture that Islam despises!

This theory is a misnomer because multiculturalism and Islam cannot be promoted together. Islam by its very nature is supremacist, rejects anything that is not Islamic and is fundamentally against multiculturalism. Yet this irrational self-loathing and suicidal political correctness that no one asked for has been forced upon us.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

 

Wilders to Pope Francis: Contrasts Papal Ecumenism, With Jew/Infidel-Hatred of Current Sunni Pope Al-Tayeb

Ahmad Al-Tayeb, Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent

Ahmad Al-Tayeb, Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent

by Andrew Bostom:

In a blog yesterday (12/5/13), I analyzed recent statements and actions by the two most recent Catholic Popes, Benedict XVI, and his successor, the current Pope, Francis. I further contrasted their ecumenical words and deeds with the overt, canonical Jew-hatred espoused by their Sunni Muslim  counterparts, Al Azhar University Grand Imam Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi (d. March, 2010), and his successor, the current Grand Imam of Al Azhar University, Ahmad al-Tayeb. My conclusions are reproduced, below:

Former Pope Benedict XVI, and current Pope Francis have openly expressed their ecumenism toward Jews and Judaism, while acknowledging Christianity’s indebtedness to Jewish ethical values. This ecumenical message has been coupled to frank, mea culpa-based contrition for the tragic legacy of Christian antisemitism. The disparity between their attitudes and their two contemporary Sunni Muslim equivalents, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi and Ahmad Al-Tayeb—the latter having emphatically and triumphantly re-asserted the modern relevance of canonical Islam’s conspiratorial Jew-hatred—could not be more striking.

Both Tantawi’s and his successor Ahmad Al-Tayeb’s career trajectories to the pinnacle of Sunni Islamic religious education, despite their own public endorsements of virulent, if “sacralized” Islamic Jew-hatred, reflect the profound moral pathology at the very heart and soul of mainstream, institutional Islam.

Now, in a welcome follow-up to my discussion, Geert Wilders has boldly ventured where no Western leader has gone heretofore: openly contrasting Papal ecumenism with the virulent Jew-hatred publicly spewed by Sunni Islam’s Vatican and its Papal equivalents.  Reproduced below is Wilders’ Open letter to his Holiness Pope Francis posted at The Gates of Vienna:

Your Holiness,

In your recent exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (Paragraphs 247-248) you draw the world’s attention to the indebtedness of Christianity to the Jews and their faith. The exhortation also contains a sharp condemnation of the terrible persecutions which the Jews have endured from Christians in the past.

Your words are words which might inspire many.

Unfortunately, they are in sharp contrast to the expressions of hatred which were voiced last October by the spiritual leader of Sunni Islam, Ahmad Al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar Institute in Cairo.

During an interview, aired on Egyptian television on October 25, Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayeb reaffirmed the relevance of Koranic verse 5:82, which states that of all people the Christians are closest to the Muslims, while the Jews are strongest in enmity towards them. This verse has inspired centuries of Islamic hatred of Jews.

Al-Tayeb’s invocation of Koranic Jew-hatred is in line with fourteen centuries of Islamic teaching. Grand Imam Al-Tayeb’s predecessor at Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, even wrote a book, entitled The Children of Israel in the Koran and the Sunna, in defense of Jew-hatred based on Koranic teachings.

The current suffering of Christians from Islamic persecution in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, and so many other countries, clearly indicates what Christians have to endure from the followers of the Koran. What atheists and Jews, who are considered the worst enemies, have to endure from Islam is even worse.

In your exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (paragraphs 252-253) you state that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”Reality does not confirm this statement.The Koran is full of bellicose and hate-mongering verses against non-Muslims. Your Holiness will be able to find them if he reads the Koran, but I will name just a few:

2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, […] Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s.”

4:89: “If they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, […]: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land.”

 8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

 9:5: “When the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.”

 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah.”

 9:30: “The Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them.”

9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the God-fearing.”

47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.”

I hope that the Holy Father will help us defend the West’s Judeo-Christian and humanistic civilization, to which even atheists and agnostics owe their freedom and democracy.

Nothing will be gained by a refusal to face reality.

We must speak the truth about Islam — the largest threat to mankind in this present age.

Very respectfully,
Geert Wilders

Member of the Dutch Parliament
Leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV)

See also:

Diane Feinstein says the unsayable

2169852162

Center For Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

Yesterday was a red letter day – or perhaps it should be called an Islamic green letter one – for U.S. intelligence.  For the first time I can recall, the top legislator on a congressional oversight committee has actually made clear what motivates our enemies in what used to be called euphemistically the “War on Terror,” and that Team Obama now dubs even more opaquely as the effort to “counter violent extremism.”

This breakthrough came in the course of a joint appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” by the chairpersons of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), respectively. The media seized on the ostensibly big news out of their remarks: bipartisan agreement that the United States is at greater risk of terrorist attack today than two years ago.

But important, ominous and accurate as that assessment is, it wasn’t the most important point made by these two respected lawmakers. Instead, it was Sen. Feinstein’s observation in response to a question about what causes the “hatred” that makes our situation more perilous:

“There is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist jihadist Islamic community, and that is that the West is responsible for everything that goes wrong and that the only thing that’s going to solve this is Islamic shariah law.”

What makes this incontrovertible statement so noteworthy?  It is the fact that the intelligence community is not allowed to say what Sen. Feinstein did.  Under Obama administration guidelines, for intelligence officers – and for that matter, law enforcement, Homeland Security and military personnel – to talk about Islamic jihadism and shariah as the motivation for terrorism can be a career-ending offense.

For example, on May 10, 2012, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, used a press conference to denounce a highly decorated and up-and-coming Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, for teaching an elective course at the Joint Forces Staff College using an approved curriculum.  According to Gen. Dempsey, what prompted this extraordinary action was that a student – who it turns out had not actually been enrolled in Col. Dooley’s class – “was concerned that the course was objectionable and that it was counter to our values…our appreciation for religious freedom and cultural awareness. And the young man who brought it to my attention was absolutely right. It’s totally objectionable.”

At the core of what was so “totally objectionable” is the fact that students were exposed to information that made plain the gravity of the threat of which Sen. Feinstein warned: the supremacist, totalitarian Islamic doctrine of shariah and the jihad or holy war it obliges adherents to perform.  Col. Dooley’s promising career was cut short and the files of his institution and that of the rest of the national security community have been purged of all such information deemed by unidentified subject matters experts engaged for the purpose to be “counter to our values.”

Sen. Feinstein’s forthright declaration is particularly gratifying as I had an opportunity to discuss the danger posed by shariah with her in the course of testimony I provided the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2013 at the invitation of her colleague, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  In the course of making the case for keeping the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay open, I observed:

“We have been obliged to go to war because it was thrust upon us. And, if we are to prevail in this conflict, we must understand the nature of the enemies with whom we are at war. They are shariah-adherent jihadists who believe, in accordance with that doctrine, that it is God’s will that they destroy our way of life and subjugate us to theirs.”

At the time, Sen. Feinstein strongly disagreed with my view that shariah’s dictates make it impossible safely to release its adherents from Gitmo or, alternatively, to incarcerate them instead in this country – where they might exploit rights foolishly conferred upon them to secure their freedom and wage jihad here.  I hope that the clarity she expressed Sunday about the inexorable nature of the shariah doctrine and the supremacist hatred it impels will cause the senior senator from California both to insist that such insights are once again inculcated in those responsible for our security and to reconsider her support for closing Guantanamo Bay.

 

The Ongoing Erasure of Europe

20130721_IslamInEurope_LARGEby EDWARD CLINE:

In “The Regulator’s Cucumber Syndrome” I discussed how the EU is obsessed with controlling the European’s material existence. In this column the subject is how the EU is planning to control his spiritual existence.

The Gates of Vienna published a startling, translated column by German attorney Michael Schneider about an Organization of Islamic Conferences-approved (OIC) “framework” sponsored by the European Parliament, “which seems likely to be implemented across the EU. The proposed law would devise a draconian new form of politically correct ‘tolerance’ and impose it on European citizens and institutions by establishing bureaucratic bodies with the authority to enforce it.”

The irony in the title of the proposed legislation was obviously lost on its authors, “A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” for it is nothing but a blueprint for imposing across-the-board “intolerance.”

Schneider opens his essay with:

Anyone who speaks and writes about the abrogation of freedom in Europe is accused of being a pathological conspiracy theorist. So it is advisable to be a little more specific, and name names.

The abrogation of freedom in Europe is not occurring naturally, but according to the planning of educated elites, who have been trained to replace civic freedoms – especially those of expression, of the press and of the airwaves – with ideological coercion, and thus smash civil society into microscopic shards, like valuable, defenseless porcelain.

Schneider writes that one of the chief culprits behind this legislation is a Professor Rüdiger Wolfrum, professor emeritus and one of the directors of the Max Planck Institute on foreign public law and international law in Heidelberg.

This honorable person is also in a dubious think tank, “The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation” about which one may find relevant information on the homepage of the president of “The European Jewish Congress” (EJC), Viacheslav Moshe Kantor. Among other things are those documents which describe the political intentions of the think tank.

The subject document closes with a reference to that think tank:

This text was prepared – under the aegis of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation – by a Group of Experts composed of Yoram Dinstein (Chair), Ugo Genesio, Rein Mȕllerson, Daniel Thȕrer and Rȕdiger Wolfrum.

The Three Expert Horsemen of the European Apocalypse? Surely. Throughout his essay, Schneider repeatedly refers to Wolfrum as “Wolfrum in Sheep’s Clothing.” And when you read the European Framework (in English) yourself, you will see that his sardonic contempt for the man is fully justified.

Of particular interest are paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) under Section 1: Definitions:

(a) “Group” means: a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linquisitc links, gender identity or sexual orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar nature.

(c) “Hate crimes” means: any criminal act however defined, whether committed against persons or property, where the victims or targets are selected because of their real or perceived connection with – or support or membership of – a group as defined in paragraph (a).

(d) “Tolerance” means: respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group as defined in paragraph (a). The definition is without prejudice to the principle of coexistence of diverse groups within a single society.

Muslims, of course, would not be expected to abide by these rules. They can behead a British soldier in broad daylight in London and cite chapter and verse from the Koran, attack Jews in Malmo, rape as many Norwegian women as they like, and invade an auditorium and shout down any speaker who criticizes Islam, yet one may not take umbrage at their “religious affiliation” or ethnicity  without risking the charge of having committed a “hate crime” and being “intolerant.”

Muslims, however, can froth at the mouth in hatred and commit atrocious crimes, yet not be charged with “hate crimes.” They can publicly demonstrate carrying signs that read “Freedom of Speech Go to Hell,” “Islam Will Dominate,” and “Behead Those Who Insult Islam” with impunity, yet anyone who appeared in public carrying a sign that read “Sharia Go to Hell” or “Islam is Barbarism” would soon be handcuffed by the police and led away to be charged with a “hate crime” and with “inciting violence.”

Muslims are permitted to hate and express their intolerance. You, the non-Muslim, are not. “Respect, tolerate, and accept” the conundrum.

Schneider parses prominent sections of the European Framework law and explicates their meanings vis-à-vis EU-Speak. For example:

The basic consideration[s] of the document as read are attractive and allow no suspicion to arise – that is if you do not know what EU political-speak means – for instance, “human diversity” standing for the systematic destruction of the autochthonic population and its traditional canon of values. Whereas respect for human dignity is based on recognition of human diversity and the inherent right of every person to be different, etc. [Emphasis in bold is Schneider's]

All possible groups are supposed to be protected by this concept of tolerance – just not the majority population. With this policy, minorities are purposefully advanced at the cost of majority cohesion. This splits the society, thereby controlling it better and leading to the final goal. This becomes visible in the typical, EU-wide concept of the protected minority, which is inherently aimed at splitting the society – divide et impera:

In short – and because the chief beneficiary of this legislation will be Muslims – this means that the Muslim minority will be raised in status to that of the dominant Western culture. By effectively divorcing Muslims from secular Western society, and giving them a special, protected status, all the Dark Age practices inherent in Islam, including Sharia law, will be bestowed the same legal and moral status as the culture of the majority of non-Muslim Westerners.

However, the secular majority, in the name of “diversity,” may not impose its values and ethics on the Muslim “minority”  (that would be viewed as “oppression”), but the Muslim “minority” may chip away at the values and ethics of the majority in the name of “tolerance,” until they disappear like the Titanic and slip beneath the waves of history.

The goals of Islamic “cultural” jihad have been iterated repeatedly, among which are the dissolution of Western civilization. The Muslim Brotherhood‘s strategy is clearly stated in an American court document that outlines how Islam will conquer the U.S. (and presumably Canada). That strategy can be seen at work in Europe, as well.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

Read more: Family Security Matters 

Defending Islam: The Height of Leftist Hypocrisy

By: Amber Pawlik

Ever since 9-11, Islam has been a topic of debate in many circles.  President George Bush announced that Islam is a “religion of peace.”  Leftists, though, in particular have convinced us that to criticize Islam is to be “intolerant.”  This has created a culture unwilling to call Islam for what it is.  Here is a list of common debate arguments in defense of Islam, usually given by leftists, and quick rebuttals to them, proving otherwise.

 

You are a racist if you condemn Islam.  

As soon as you go to criticize Islam, the first response you always get hit with is “you are a racist.”  This is not true.  Islam is an ideology not a race.  You can criticize Islam in the same way that you can criticize communism, liberalism, feminism, etc.   

In fact, the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.  Every Muslim I have ever met is bright and hard working.  It is unfortunate that Muslims are under the spell of Islam, which prevents them from making the kind of scientific and technological progress they clearly could otherwise make.

 

Christianity can be just as violent as Islam.  

When you point out the verses in the Koran which call for the murder of Christians and Jews, etc., or point out that Muslims are killing people in the name of Allah, the instant response you get is, “Christianity has violent passages too, and people have killed other people in the name of Christianity too.”  

All I have to say is:  and?  If people are using Christianity as a reason to kill innocent people, guess what:  they are wrong too.  You can’t excuse one evil by pointing to another evil.   

Besides that, there are no Christian nations right now that are responsible for killing 3000 Americans or 200 Spaniards.  It is the Islamic nations and organizations that are.   

 

It’s the wrong interpretation of Islam that is the problem.  

Leftists insist that the Koran isn’t bad; it is the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran.  I’m not sure how anyone can fail to correctly interpret statements like, 

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, Surah4:89, Nobel Koran) but I guess that’s just me.

When leftists say it is the “wrong interpretation” of Islam that is wrong, really what they mean is “why can’t Muslims just ignore the bad parts of the Koran?”  Leftists don’t understand the psyche of the person who takes things literally.  To them, things are just suggestions not commandments – even the law, as evidenced by the San Francisco mess.  

It’s not the wrong interpretation of the Koran that produces terrorists; it is an exact interpretation of the Koran that produces terrorists.

 

Most Muslims are nice people.  

The more emotional appeal is that most Muslims are nice, hard working people and criticizing Islam is to criticize these nice people.  Of course most Muslims are nice people.  The problem is in the leadership, i.e. people who are responsible for taking the Koran seriously and literally, not the naïve followers.   

It is not limited to leadership in the Middle East either. Representative Peter T. King said publicly while promoting his book Vale of Tears that he estimates 80-85% of the Muslim leadership in America supports “Islamic fundamentalism.”   

Islam is not benign.  To ignore this, being politically-correct, is to ignore a very large, deadly pink elephant in the room. 

 

Islam has produced scientific achievements.  

Lots of people insist that Muslim culture has produced various scientific achievements. The biggest “Muslim” achievement that they point to is that they supposedly discovered Algebra.  This isn’t true.  It wasn’t Muslims or even Arabs that invented Algebra:  it was the Iranians. The Iranians have had a very enlightened culture – one that radical Muslims have waged a war against, in an effort to Islamicize them (which you will never hear leftists condemn).   The Iranians also had their own religion, Zoroastrian, which was as opposite as you can get from Islam.    

Something else Islam defenders might point to as proof that Islam can produce scientific progress is a man named Razi, who they say was Muslim.  Razi made several findings in medicine.  But Razi, again, was not Arab or Muslim but Iranian.  In fact, he was so hostile to Islam that he wrote several books denouncing faith and upholding reason, and became a heretic.  Razi, an enlightened Iranian, was to the Muslim world what Galileo or Copernicus was to ours.  After treating these men of scientific achievement as heretics forced to live like gypsies, claiming them as proof that Islam can produce scientific achievement is a bit much.   

There is my short list of common arguments regarding Islam.  This brings me to what I believe is the biggest issue of our time and one of the largest hypocrisies. 

Leftists try to claim they are enlightened, sophisticated people, supporting the mind not faith – therefore denounce religion, especially Christianity.  Yet it is these very leftists that are most sympathetic to Islam: one of the most faith-based and anti-enlightened religions that has ever existed.   

Despite their theatrics, announcing they are intellectual, leftists are not enlightened or intellectual.  Genuine enlightenment came when men discovered reason and reality.  It started with one man:  Aristotle.  Accepting that reality was firm and external to man and that men can use reason to understand and explore it allowed for an explosion of scientific progress, technology, and civilization, as we know it.   

Read more at Faith Freedom