Schrödinger’s Jihad

xin_232090611100060958585

Sultan Knish, by Daniel Greenfield, May 13, 2015:

The great paradox of the War on Terror is that we are fighting an enemy that doesn’t exist. We are told incessantly that there is no such thing as a Muslim terrorist.

There may be a tiny minority of violent extremists, but they are only a tiny minority of no importance whatsoever. And yet we’ve been at war with this same infinitesimally tiny minority for decades.

This tiny minority has killed thousands of Americans. It has the support of entire governments in tiny countries like Pakistan (182 million), Iran (77 million) and Syria (22 million). We are told that this tiny minority is no way representative of the world’s billion Muslims, and yet it’s hard to find a Muslim country that doesn’t support or harbor a terrorist group.

We were told that the problems was their governments, but the Arab Spring showed us that democratic elections lead to governments that are even more supportive of tiny minority of extremists who are somehow taking over entire countries.

Everything we’ve been told is obviously a lie. And the best evidence comes from the liars themselves.

The media is howling that a bunch of cartoonists in Texas were irresponsible for sketching Islam’s dead warlord because they should have known that Muslim terrorists would come to kill them for it. But if the media is right and Islam is a religion of peace, then why should they have anticipated a terrorist attack?

And if Islam isn’t a religion of peace, then the media has been irresponsibly lying to us and the cartoonists have been risking their lives to warn us of that lie.

The talking heads on the television insist that the cartoon contest was irresponsible because there were bound to be “some crazies” who would “take the bait”. But if Islam is no more violent than any other religion, shouldn’t it be just as statistically likely that some Christian or Jewish crazies would attack one of the art exhibits, plays or musicals ridiculing and blaspheming against their religions?

Weren’t museums and galleries exhibiting “works of art” like Piss Christ or Shekhina provoking and baiting those Jewish and Christian crazies? And since there are more Christians than Muslims in America, isn’t it statistically far more likely that there should have been far more Christian terror attacks targeting blasphemous exhibits?

We can only conclude that there is a much higher proportion of “crazies” among Muslims than among Christians. How much higher? 78 percent of Americans identify as Christians. 0.6 percent claim to be Muslims. Only 0.3 percent appear to be Sunnis, who are responsible for ISIS and Al Qaeda attacks.

There is indeed a tiny minority of extremists in America. It’s known as Islam.

What keeps the lie alive is another paradox. Call it Schrödinger’s Jihad. The more famous Schrödinger’s Cat is a paradox in which a cat in a sealed box with poison that has a 50 percent chance of being released is in an indeterminate state. It is neither dead nor alive until someone opens the box.

In Schrödinger’s Jihad, the Muslim terrorist is in an indeterminate state until some Western observer opens the box, collapses his wave function and radicalizes him. The two Muslim Jihadists were in an indeterminate state until Pamela Geller and Bosch Fawstin and the other “provocateurs” suddenly turned them into terrorists in a matter of days or weeks. It didn’t matter that Elton Simpson, one of the Garland terrorists, had already been dragged into court for trying to link up with Jihadists in Africa.

Every Muslim is and isn’t a terrorist. He is both a peaceful spiritual person who is eager to embrace our way of life and a violent killer who can be set off by the slightest offense. Like the cat in the box that is neither dead nor alive, he is both violent and peaceful, moderate and extremist, a solid citizen and a terrorist. He does not choose which of these to be or to become; we decide what he will be.

The Jihadist paradox is that the Muslim terrorist is always defined by what we do, not by what he does.

magnumphotographers5Islamic terrorism does not exist independently of the Western observer. It is not a Jihad with deep historical and theological roots within Islam, but a reaction to our interactions with Muslims.

Obama insists that talking about Islamic terrorism ‘summons’ them into being. By admitting the existence of Islamic terrorists, we ‘radicalize’ Muslims. Even the words ‘Islamic terrorism’ creates Islamic terrorists who otherwise wouldn’t exist.

The real threat is not from the terrorists, it’s from the truth.

When we tell the truth, people die. The truth turns Muslims into terrorists while the lies soothe them back into non-existence. Underneath all the academic terminology is the dream logic of wishful thinking. If we believe that Islam is a religion of peace, it will be a peaceful religion, and if we accept the reality that it’s violent, then it will become violent. Islam does not define itself. We define it however we want. Our entire counterterrorism policy is based around the perverse ostrich belief that Islamic terrorism is a problem that we create by recognizing its existence. If we ignore it, it will go away.

The lies about Islam are sustained by a deep conviction among liberals that the “Other” minorities are not real people with real beliefs and cultures, but victims in a game of power played out in the West. Islamic terrorism, like gay marriage or Global Warming, is just another step in the progressive pilgrim’s progress. It’s a problem that we caused and need to atone for in our cosmic karmic journey.

Westerners are privileged observers who have power while those minorities they observe do not. The duel between the Western left and right is taking place outside the box to determine what will be in the box once it’s forced open, while the oppressed minorities are in a state of indeterminacy in the box.

The Schrödinger’s Jihad paradox has many other adjoining boxes. Some are filled with dictators and criminals. If the progressive observer can open the box and find the root cause, out comes a good person; if the right opens the box, then out will march the terrorists, drug dealers and warlords.

The other side of the rhetoric about oppression and colonization, of punching up and punching down is the conviction that those at the bottom do not have free will or agency. If the mugger chooses to mug, rather than being driven to it by poverty, if Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union gleefully chose conquest instead of being forced to it by Western imperialism, and if the Muslim terrorist is not a helpless victim, but an abuser, then the moral imperative of the left’s worldview collapses in a heap.

If Muslims are real people who are at least as capable of imperialism, racism, slavery and destroying the planet as any Westerner, and who have been doing all of these things a lot longer, then leftists would have to accept that they are tearing down the most progressive civilization on the planet on behalf of ridiculously reactionary civilizations. Not only would they no longer be the privileged observers in control of the future, but they would have to see themselves as destroyers of what is left of the future.

The left refuses to blame Islam or Muslims because that would mean admitting that they are people.

Schrödinger’s Jihad is a child’s toy box for overgrown children who view Muslims as social justice dolls and terrorist action figures instead of people as flawed and complicated as they are. The left refuses to take Islamic theology seriously because it is incapable of understanding different points of view.

It approaches Islam as a race, rather than a religion, because it refuses to delve into what its beliefs are. Instead it chooses to see Muslims as blank slates to be filled with its ideology, as indeterminate patterns that can be reshaped into whatever they want them to be. It does not want to know what it says in the Koran, because that ruins its wonderful fantasy of Muslims as an oppressed race, rather than a creed.

dest18Lies that are based on what we want to be true are the hardest to disprove. A lie that is tied into identity cannot be touched without destroying the entire identity of an individual or a movement.

The lies about Islam run into the heart of what the left is. To the left, everything is indeterminate and everything can be reshaped. Existence flows from power and power is pitted against progress. By destroying that which exists, they can bring their dreams to life. The dream is stronger than reality.

The left doesn’t really believe that Muslim terrorists exist except when we bring them to life. The real animating force behind Al Qaeda was George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. The true power behind ISIS is Pamela Geller or the Pentagon. The Westerner opens the box and the Muslim terrorist comes out. When Western civilization as we know it is destroyed, then the left believes Muslim terrorism will end. Kill the observer and the cat never existed. Destroy the dreamer and the nightmare dies with him.

The truth is more dangerous than the terrorists. Terrorists can kill the body, but truth can kill the dream.

The Failed Tactic of Flattering Islam Won’t Go Away

Palestinian_militant_with_rifle-450x338Frontpage, May 11, 2015 by Bruce Thornton:

The recent attack in Texas against a “draw Mohammed” event ended up with two dead jihadis and widespread criticism of event organizer Pamela Geller for “inciting” or “provoking” the assault on our First Amendment right to free speech. The hypocrisies and ignorance behind such criticism have been amply documented, including by some on the left. But there’s another argument against actions and events like Geller’s that needs dismantling. This is the received wisdom that we should avoid criticizing Islamic doctrine or Mohammed because it will alienate moderate Muslims who otherwise would help us against the so-called “extremist” jihadists.

Geraldo Rivera on Fox News invoked this rationale in his hysterical attack on Geller for “spewing her hatred and making us all look like the intolerant jerks they are saying we are in the Middle East and elsewhere.” In other words, most Muslims dislike the jihadis, who have “hijacked” and “distorted” their faith, and want to support our efforts against them. But they are put off by our “insults” of Mohammed and our “intolerance” of the wonderful “religion of peace,” all of which serve to “recruit” new jihadists. Even Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham skirted this notion, advising against making any image of Mohammed, and thus in effect ratifying the legitimacy of the shari’a law against any representation of Mohammed, good or bad.

Consistent with this notion that flattery and respect can change Muslim behavior, many in the foreign policy establishment, including conservatives, have for decades counseled flattering “outreach” to Muslims as a tactic in winning the “hearts and minds” of the supposed large majority of Muslims angry at the jihadists’ “distortions” of their faith. Even before 9/11, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, called Islam “a faith that honors consultation, cherishes peace, and has as one of its fundamental principles the inherent equality of all who embrace it.” Even after 9/11 confirmed Islam’s traditional theologized violence and intolerance, George Bush claimed in his first address after 9/11 that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” In 2005, administration officials encouraged this tactic of false flattery as a way “to support the courageous Muslims who are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends.”

Of course Obama, who has serially groveled before Muslims and praised Islam, has continued this sorry practice. After his administration blamed the Benghazi murders on an obscure Internet video, he lectured that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” The 2 gunmen in Garland Texas obviously agreed.  His quondam Secretary of State and now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is on record extolling Islam’s “deepest yearning of all––to live in peace.” How is that going in Nigeria, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan? Worse of all, training materials used by our military and security services have excised any mention of jihad, which Western infidels have redefined as “a quest to find one’s faith in an external fight for justice,” as the New York Times put it in 2008. So Obama identifies the 13 slaughtered at Fort Hood to the traditional jihadist cry of “Allahu Akbar” as victims of “workplace violence.” Never mind the Koranic command to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush”––exactly what various jihadi outfits are doing today across the Middle East, and tried to do in Garland Texas.

Two decades of such flattery and admiration have failed to prevent nearly 26,000 violent jihadist attacks since 9/11, for they are based on Western bad ideas rather than on an accurate understanding of Islamic doctrine and the Muslim mentality. Behind our delusions is the peculiarly arrogant assumption that traditionalist Muslims––by which I mean those who take seriously the doctrines and precepts of their faith has practiced for 14 centuries––do not have their own motives and aims, but can only react to our bad behavior. Besotted by our own materialist superstitions and failure to take religion seriously, we reduce jihadist behavior to material and psychological causes: wounded self-esteem, resentment of “colonial” and “imperial” crimes, disrespect of Islam, or the lack of jobs, political freedom, or even sexual access to women.

Thus despite consistent polling data showing widespread Muslim support of illiberal shari’a law and its draconian penalties like death for blasphemy, we won’t accept that millions of Muslims actually believe what the Koran, Hadith, and 14 centuries of jurisprudence teach about the superiority of Islam and their right to use violence in order to bring the whole world under the sway of the superior social, economic, and political order that shari’a represents. In the guise of “respecting” Muslims, then, we patronize them as little more than children who can only “act out” violently in the face of injustice instead of “using their words.” Having reduced our own faith to holidays and comforting slogans, we simply can’t believe that Islam endorses violence and cruelty in the name of Allah, or that otherwise loving and kind people, as bin Laden was said to have been by all who knew him, can at the same time slaughter and brutalize innocents in pursuit of spiritual aims. No, either they are “crazy” or “evil,” or they are traumatized by our bad behavior.

This dubious pop-psychological assumption is usually accompanied by a catalogue of the historical crimes against Muslims perpetrated by the West, from the Crusades to the wars against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. These depredations, so the story goes, also fuel anger and resentment, and help to incentivize otherwise peaceful Muslims into turning jihadist. But this narrative is belied by the facts of history. For what history tells us is that the record of Muslim conquest, occupation, colonizing, slaving, raiding, and killing of Christians far surpasses the alleged crimes of the West against Islam. We recently marked the centenary of the Ottoman genocide against the Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, a crime being duplicated today by ISIS in northern Iraq. Recently our historically challenged president whined about the Crusades and the Inquisition, with nary a word about the centuries of Muslim invasion, occupation, colonization, and brutal suppression in Christian Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, and Greece.

Or what about the 1066 pogrom in Granada, the alleged paradise of “pan-confessional humanism,” as an ignorant Wall Street Journal editorial claimed a few years back. Those tolerant, humanist Muslims slaughtered 5000 Jews, equaling the toll of dead during the whole existence of the Inquisition. But can anyone name one Muslim religious leader in the Middle East who has publicly and consistently apologized in Obama fashion for these 14 centuries of slaughter? Who has justified our defensive wars in the region as an understandable reaction to that history? Who has chastised Muslims for destroying and desecrating churches, and blamed them for inviting violent reactions? Muslim Turkey won’t even own up to its copiously documented slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians. If anyone has a historical grievance that justifies payback, it is Christians and Jews.

Finally, if Western insults and crimes against Muslims are really the reason jihadists want to kill us, why do they let Russia off the hook? No Christian power has killed more Muslims or occupied more Muslim lands than has Russia, from the siege of Izmail in 1790, when 40,000 Muslim men, women, and children were slaughtered, to the invasion of Afghanistan, which killed a million, to the brutal wars against Muslim Chechnyans, which killed at least 100,000. Or how about the 10 million Muslim Uighurs oppressed by China and forbidden to fully practice their faith?  Is Russia or China the “Great Satan”? Are they the constant targets of jihadist attack and thundering denunciations by the mullahs of Iran? Are “moderate” Muslims “alienated” by their behavior and rushing to join the jihad against them?

The obvious answer is no, for the simple reason that Russia and China are contemptuous of such juvenile psychological blackmail, pursue their national interests without regard for criticism by the “Muslim community,” and respond with brutal force to violent attacks. Meanwhile the U.S. has rescued millions of Muslims in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan from brutal dictators, ethnic cleansing, and psychotic autocrats, yet is deemed “Islamophobic” because we exercise our Constitutional rights in our own country. Worse yet, we grovel and apologize and demonize those like Pamela Geller who practice their right to free expression at a private function, and we vainly believe despite all evidence that if we just act nice to Muslims and join them in demonizing their critics, they’ll ignore their spiritual beliefs, the traditions of their faith, and the model of Mohammed and his credo to “fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah.”

To paraphrase Cicero and Orwell, there are some things so stupid that only rich, arrogant Westerners will believe them. If we let this president continue to predicate his dealings with Iran on this same delusional belief in the power of flattering engagement and “mutual respect,” we will soon find out the high cost of this stupidity.

Cartoonists are Controversial and Murderers are Moderate

garland1-450x330Frontpage, May 5, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield:

Controversial, intolerant and provocative. Mainstream media outlets broke out these three words to describe the “Draw the Prophet” contest, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and Pamela Geller.

While the police were still checking cars for explosives and attendees waited to be released, CNN called AFDI, rather than the terrorists who attacked a cartoon contest, “intolerant.” Time dubbed the group “controversial.” The Washington Post called the contest, “provocative.”

Many media outlets relied on the expert opinion of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a multi-million dollar mail order scam disguised as a civil rights group, which had listed AFDI as a hate group. Also listed as hate groups were a number of single author blogs, including mine, a brand of gun oil and a bar sign.

The bar sign, which hangs outside a bar seven miles outside Pittsburgh, appears to be made out of metal and plastic. It is reportedly unaware that it is a hate group and has made no plans to take over America.

The SPLC’s inability to conduct even the most elementary fact checking did not stop news networks from inviting its talking head on to suggest that AFDI got “the response that they — in a sense — they are seeking.” Neither CNN nor MSNBC were impolitic enough to mention that no AFDI supporter had used its materials to plan a killing spree, while at least one of SPLC’s supporters had done just that.

But being “controversial” and “provocative” has nothing to do with who is doing the shooting. It’s a media signal that the target shouldn’t be sympathized with. The Family Research Council, which was shot up by a killer using the SPLC’s hate map, is invariably dubbed “intolerant.” The SPLC, which targeted it, is however a “respected civil rights group” which provides maps to respected civil rights gunmen.

A contest in which Bosch Fawstin, an ex-Muslim, drew a cartoon of a genocidal warlord is “controversial” and “provocative,” while the MSA, which has invited Sheikh Khalid Yasin, who has inspired a number of terrorists, including apparently one of the Mohammed contest attackers, is a legitimate organization that is only criticized by controversial, intolerant and provocative Islamophobes.

Khalid Yasin has held such controversial and provocative views as claiming that the US created AIDS, that gays should be stoned to death and that women should be beaten. But the mosques and MSAs that he has appeared at have not been described as controversial, intolerant and provocative for inviting him.

Elton Simpson, the first gunman, attended the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix. The mosque was listed as being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood’s North American Islamic Trust front group.

The Muslim Brotherhood holds such controversial and provocative views as “waging Jihad” against American infidels, “raising a Jihadi generation that pursues death” and “destroying the Western civilization from within.” Despite these extremely provocative and intolerant views, the Muslim Brotherhood is usually described by the media as a “moderate” group.

The Brotherhood’s American arm believes in launching a “Grand Jihad” to Islamize America. Its final phase calls for “Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation” in the United State.

Some might say this is a slightly more controversial activity than drawing cartoons of a dead warlord.

The Islamic Community Center of Phoenix featured an appearance by Lauren Booth, a convert to Islam employed by Iran, who has been photographed with the leader of Hamas, and holds such controversial and provocative views, as the Boston Marathon bombing being faked and attacks on Jews being justified as “a frustrated backlash.

Some might say Booth’s views are controversial, provocative and intolerant. And that the gunman’s mosque was intolerant for inviting her. But don’t expect the media to call out terrorist intolerance.

Booth came as part of a fundraising effort for the Muslim Legal Fund of America, which funded the defense for Islamic Jihad boss Sami al-Arian and aided some of the terrorists involved in the provocative and controversial Fort Dix terror plot to “kill as many soldiers as possible.”

If the two Mohammed cartoon gunmen had survived, the Muslim Legal Fund of America might be having Lauren Booth spout Jewish conspiracies to fundraise on their behalf.

But if you believe the media, cartoonists are more controversial than killers. A former Muslim sketching a cartoon of Mohammed is bigoted, but justifying attacks on Jews is moderate. Plotting to overthrow the United States and replace it with an Islamic theocracy is right up the alley of your local civil rights group, but a cartoon contest threatens the nation and all of creation by bringing down the wrath of men who spent their time at moderate and Muslim organizations which only occasionally support terrorism.

Cartoons can be provocative, but the only people inspired to kill over them, are killers. No one took a shot at Gary “Punching Up” Trudeau, despite decades of mocking conservatives. None of the assorted arts projects that involve defiling and mocking the sacred symbols of Christianity and Judaism resulted in gunmen in body armor trying to storm a cartoon competition. And yet it keeps happening with Islam.

Satire exposes sociopaths and sociopathic ideologies. And it’s the very attack on the “controversial” and “provocative” contest that shows why exposing them is so important.

Elton Simpson had already been on the radar of the FBI. He should have been in jail, but Judge Mary H. Murguia, a Clinton appointee who has been bandied about as a possible Obama Supreme Court nominee, chose to believe a claim by his public defender that when he was taped talking about Jihad, it might have meant “an internal struggle to maintain faith,” instead of killing non-Muslims.

Simpson had said that Allah loves those who fight non-Muslims, that Jihadists go to paradise and stated, “I’m tellin’ you man. We gonna make it to the battlefield… it’s time to roll.”

But that was just too ambiguous for Judge Murguia, who wrote, “It is true that the Defendant had expressed sympathy and admiration for individuals who “fight” non-Muslims as well as his belief in the establishment of Shariah law, all over the world including in Somalia. What precisely was meant by “fighting” whenever he discussed it, however, was not clear.”

“Neither was what the Defendant meant when he stated he wanted to get to the ‘battlefield’ in Somalia,” she added.

If nothing else, events like these help clarify the question of just what “fighting” non-Muslims involves, and whether it’s an internal struggle to maintain faith or an external struggle waged with assault rifles.

Satire helps expose the idiocy and absurdity of our betters, whether it’s Gary Trudeau or Judge Murguia. Every act of Islamic terror discredits them and their dishonest worldview even further. And they know it.

We cannot fight Islamic terrorism until we deal with it and we cannot deal with it as long as we are burdened by a political establishment that frantically censors any mention of its existence or its agenda.

The two gunmen did not attack the cartoon event simply because they were offended, but because they believed that their religion gave them a mandate to impose Islamic law on Americans. Until we deal with this supremacist reality, any effort to fight Islamic terrorists will be futile and will ultimately fail.

The Mohammed cartoons are so vital because they expose the theocracy at the heart of Islamic terrorism. When Muslim terrorists attack cartoonists, they’re not fighting our foreign policy; they are killing and dying to impose the foreign policy of the Muslim Brotherhood and its numerous daughter groups, such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and ISIS, on us.

The controversial and provocative cartoonists go into battle with pencils in their hands. The terrorists come with body armor and assault rifles. This clash is what real political dissent looks like.

The cartoonists believe in the controversial, intolerant and provocative idea that America should not be a theocracy. But the only people who should be provoked by that provocative idea are the Jihadists who want to impose a theocracy on America and the useful idiots lying and denying on their behalf.

The Media and Jihad

Published on Apr 26, 2015 by Political Islam

Every time that there is a major jihad attack, the media responds in the same way. There is now a routine that the authorities tell us:
Islam is the religion of peace

***

Minneapolisairport1

Muslim driver tries to run down cops at Minneapolis Airport by Pamela Geller

The horror — and the media continues to whitewash these vicious savage acts. The Islamic State has called for Muslims in the U.S. to use their car to attack non-Muslims, especially military personnel and police. But “Stanek said they believe the incident was isolated and does not appear to have any ties to homeland security.” The politically correct fools continue in their denial.

“Suspect Injured Following Officer-Involved Shooting At MSP,” by Susan-Elizabeth Littlefield, CBS Minnesota, April 26, 2015:

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — One man was hospitalized Saturday night after an officer-involved shooting at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

After the shots were fired, police blocked off a portion of Terminal 1 for several hours to investigate.

According to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, which was called in to help with the investigation, airport police were responding to a report of suspicious persons in the terminal’s car rental ramp around 9:30 p.m.

As the officers were walking on the second level of the parking ramp, a vehicle deliberately drove at them. A press release states that police shot at the vehicle. The driver was taken to a nearby hospital. His condition is not known. Authorities identified the suspect Sunday as 36-year-old Abdulkadir Sheikh Mahmoud. Once he’s out of the hospital, he’ll be facing aggravated assault charges.

Sheriff Rich Stanek said officers were interacting with a vehicle when a second vehicle intentionally drove at officers who were on foot. The suspect in the vehicle, identified as Mahmoud, attempted to run over the officers and he was shot. Authorities said the suspect drove at officers without notice or provocation.

The release also states that an officer was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Stanek said they believe the incident was isolated and does not appear to have any ties to homeland security.

Shutdown of Anti-Jihadist Network Sun News a Big Loss for Canada and the World

SNN-640x480Breitbart, by Fred Fleitz, March 12, 2015:

Canada’s conservative Sun News Network went dark last month after a four-year run, the victim of a hate campaign by the Canadian and American left which mocked the network as “Fox News north.”

The left despised Sun News for many reasons. It was proudly anti-PC and contrarian. The network was pro-Israel, pro-oil, supported fracking, and questioned global warming. It also was pro-gun rights, pro-life and ran many stories about the persecution of Christians. Sun News reveled in running videos of communist protesters at Canadian May Day demonstrations and far-left environmentalists protesting oil pipelines. Its criticism of the Obama administration was harsh, but more intellectual than many conservative American journalists.

Sun News was best known for its extensive coverage of the threat from radical Islam. Given several violent Islamist plots in Canada over the last 10 years, Sun News treated this as a serious security threat to the country. It went where the country’s mainstream journalists refused to go, devoting hundreds of hours of programming to Islamist radicalization of Canadian youth, violence by Islamists against women and gays, honor killings, and the refusal of Canadian officials and mainstream media to conform the Islamist threat.

For example, below is an outstanding interview by Sun News anchor Ezra Levant on radicalization in Canadian mosques which includes clips of sermons by mainstream Canadian imams.

 

Here’s another example where Michael Coren discusses shariah law which he describes as “hideous” and “a lie.” Corren also explains how slavery is acceptable under shariah.

 

For a small news outlet, Sun News attracted a huge amount of sneering criticism from the liberal elites and its media rivals who condemned the network as Islamophobic, divisive, racist, hateful, and propagandistic. Many on the left contended it failed to win viewers because Canadians are more moderate and civil than Americans and thus refused to support a Canadian network that resembled Fox News. A member of the parliament suggested in 2012 that the network did not engage in journalism. Canadian journalist Antonia Zerbisias wrote last month that the death of Sun News was “a victory for intellect.”

Other Canadian journalists went further. Omar Mouallem wrote “everyone at Sun News deserved to be fired” and condemned a Sun News report, “Islam’s war on the world,” as hate speech. Denise Balkissoon tweeted that “Sun News was not ‘centre right,’ or ‘provocative.’ It was histrionic garbage, with a dash of daily racism.”

As harsh as this criticism was, it is worth noting that Sun News was attacked as hateful and extreme even before it went on the air by a campaign launched from the United States by the advocacy group Avaaz.

Such attacks reflect a country where conservative voices struggle to be heard. There are lots of conservatives in Canada, certainly enough to support a conservative news channel, but this was not possible because the liberal elites control the country’s government cable bureaucracy. Sun News failed because its opponents campaigned to keep it out of Canada’s “must carry” cable package. This denied it the funds it needed to survive. The network also never reached more than 40 percent of households and was relegated to the cable “attic” by being assigned high channel numbers.

Sun News went off the air because it told politically incorrect truths about Canadian domestic matters and international issues. But its major sin was providing a kind of aggressive and cerebral analysis of the global jihad movement that could not be found anywhere else in the Canadian or American media. Unlike Canadian TV networks CBC and CTV, Sun News put Charlie Hebdo cartoons critical of Islam on the air. It refused to be bullied by Islamist apologist groups that constantly try to portray any negative coverage of Islam as bigotry.

The demise of the Sun News Network is a setback for the conservative cause and the fight against radical Islam. Fortunately, former Sun News staffers are trying to continue the fight.

Ezra Levant has started The Rebel, an online news outlet which he hopes will continue the work of Sun News. He also founded a website called CanadianJihad.ca which is devoted to exposing radical Muslim leaders preaching violence across Canada.

Although the demise of Sun News is a setback for free speech in Canada, since its reporters are on the right side of history, they likely will succeed in getting their message to the Canadian public through other mediums.

Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, is Senior Vice President for Policy and Programs for the Center for Security Policy. Follow him on Twitter @fredfleitz.

 

Published on Feb 16, 2015 by Rebel Media

WATCH You’ve Been Warned: The Dark Future of Europe, by an Expert on Muslim Radicalisation

Jihad-French-Army-640x480Breitbart, by OLIVER LANE, 8 Mar 2015:

George Igler, the director of the Discourse Institute, a think-tank which monitors the suppression of freedom of speech and offers support and protection to those who are persecuted for voicing controversial opinions in Europe was interviewed by American television network CBN for a new feature series called Warnings. Focussing on the expert analysis of world leading thinkers on subjects posing challenges to the Christian West, Igler was asked to speak on the topics that, in the words of CBN senior reporter Dale Hurd: “you should be hearing from the “mainstream media” but aren’t because of its bowing and bondage to political correctness and, in some cases, cultural Marxism.

“These will be, in many cases, dark visions of the future, because Europe, if it doesn’t wake up, faces a dark future”.

Speaking on the duplicity of the European political class, Igler said the spectre of resurgent Fascism and the “far right” had been used as a smoke screen to distract people, remarking: “it’s not thanks to Philip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang [A Belgian political party that would oblige migrants to adopt local customs and culture] that the Jewish population of Antwerp is currently under guard from Belgian paratroopers, it’s the fact that Belgium has a huge Muslim population. Brussels has a 26-percent Muslim population.

“There are a lot of particularly left wing political analysts who made a lot of money in a anti-radicalisation industry saying the real thing to fear was the growth of the far-right”.

Igler later speaks of literalistic interpretations of the Koran which are becoming more common in Britain, and dominate the thinking of the Islamic State: “If you believe in the five words in Chapter (2:191) that Idolatry is worse than carnage… then you are not an equal and relevant part of Western society, you are in fact a colonist. You are someone who has exactly the same opinions and intentions towards 21st century Europe, that Europeans had towards the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries.

“This is a reality that we are forced to live with. Somewhere, at some decision making process it has been decided up on high that my continent, and the rights and freedoms that uniquely evolved here over 3,000 years are somehow at the stage in which Islam should be allowed to moderate”.

Watch Warnings

 

Also see:

National Security Expert: U.S. Foreign Policy Leaders ‘Have Lost The Ability To Think’

coughlinDaily Caller, Ginni Thomas, Feb. 22, 2015: (video at Daily Caller)

From his time briefing generals in the Pentagon, Stephen Coughlin — a leading expert on national security and author of the soon-to-be-published book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” — has always feared for our nation’s safety and thinks it’s time for the government to stop lying.

Coughlin is an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and expert on Islamic law and terrorism. He says the “entire world, friend and foe alike, understands, that starting with the Bush administration and accelerating in the Obama administration, that our foreign policy community is absolutely incoherent and completely vulnerable. These people have lost the ability to think.”

He contends that government bureaucrats have become so focused on fighting “narratives” consistent with a post-modern, politically correct worldview, rather than the facts on the ground, that America’s war on terrorism has become a catastrophic failure.

Rather than be tethered to the professional canon requiring a “duty to be competent” and know the enemy, or their oath to support and defend the nation from enemies foreign and domestic, Coughlin argues the military has been persuaded, cajoled and perverted into fighting based on narratives.

“This country is in serious trouble,” he believes. “The people who hate us — and it’s not just radical Islam, it’s the Chinese, it’s the Russians, it’s the Iranians — they know that our leaders don’t know what they’re doing, because they’ve been kicking the tires.”

In this exclusive video interview with The Daily Caller, Coughlin says our allies in the war of terror “watched us change sides” in 2010 and 2011, but “the scariest thing” to him “is that our senior national security leaders seem to have no comprehension that they did.”

As for President Obama’s Summit this week, Coughlin sees the touted euphemism as an example of his point, and declares, “When you are fighting ‘violent extremism,’ you are not defending this country. You are bringing it down.”

His greatest fear is that “we may be put to sleep, like the frog that boils to death, mired in the pollution of our own politically correct narratives that has created a complete inability for us to understand and further the truth, so much so, that we have to treat the truth as propaganda just to be heard.”

Discussing the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, Coughlin says this is a clear example that when you commit to a narrative, you can suppress the truth and undermine our national security. He says Hasan told us “at the Walter Reed and the Pentagon, over 20 times” to military officers that, “I am a Muslim. If you send me to war, I will become a jihadi.”

Coughlin describes the efforts by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to work with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an international organization with 57 Member States (56 countries and the Palestinian Territories) concerning their 10 Year Programme of Action to make defaming Islam a punishable crime.

The UN Human Rights Commission passed UN Resolution 1618, to implement OIC’s 10 year plan. If it becomes law, “it would have the effect of subordinating our first amendment to Islamic slander laws,” Coughlin says. He discusses a meeting then-Secretary Clinton had on July 15, 2011 in Turkey where Clinton promised to use the government’s “best efforts to pass 16/18, and would resort to peer pressure and shaming against Americans who might violate that standard.”

The security expert claims this would result in an “extra-legal means to attack Americans for exercising their free speech rights inside America if they say something that the OIC deems insulting.”

To Coughlin, this is a layered strategy that calls for the dots to be connected by astute citizens. There is Islamic slander law, the OIC’s Ten Year Programme of Action and UN Resolution 16/18. Now, alongside Resolution 16/18 at the UN, is a new supporting effort to redefine “incitement” in international treaties to which the U.S. is a party to achieve their controversial objectives.

Coughlin’s hope is that more citizens should confidently and strongly ask, why is our government lying to us.

One Million Child Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.?

Mr-450x299Frontpage,  by Arnold Ahlert, Feb. 9, 2015:

In a gut-wrenching development, it may turn out that last year’s report detailing a decade-and-a-half of sexual exploitation inflicted on at least 1,400 children from Rotherham, England—and the PC-driven effort to cover it up–may represent the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The city’s Labor MP Sarah Champion believes as many as one million children may have been victimized, describing it as a “national disaster” that requires the establishment of a task force to deal with the “horror.”

Champion picks up the story following the release of a report, titled “The Independent Inquiry Into Child Exploitation in Rotherham, 1997-2013.” “The day after the first report broke the victims started coming to me,” she told the Daily Mirror. “They couldn’t go to the police, they couldn’t go to the (Rotherham Borough) Council. So who do you go to?”

“For the first three weeks I generally thought I was losing my mind. I nearly lost my mind because of the level of depravity and horror,” she continued. “Listening to what these, now women, had gone through and how they were just left discarded, to flounder on their own. It was utterly mind-blowing and then the problem I had was that I was getting new cases coming to me, ones that hadn’t been reported which they wanted me to report. But I didn’t know who I could trust in the police to report it.”

“There was this parallel universe going on and it is mind-blowing,” she added, revealing that an average of 10 victims per week are seeking her help. Furthermore, it seems her concerns about the police were well-founded: a month after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began its investigation, 14 officers were suspended.

Last week a subsequent inspection report written by former Victims’ Commissioner Louise Casey was released, following allegations two councillors and a police officer had engaged in sex with minors. It hammered the Council for being “in denial” and failing to protect children because of “misplaced political correctness.” Minutes after the report’s findings were published, the entire Labor Cabinet of Rotherham Council, along with leader Paul Lakin, resigned. Five senior Whitehall officials, including a children’s services specialist, will assume control of the authority.

Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles announced new elections aimed at replacing the council’s “wholly dysfunctional” political leadership. “It is because the council is so seriously failing the people of Rotherham, and particularly some of the most vulnerable in that borough, that I am proposing to take this truly exceptional step,” he explained. “My aim will be to return these responsibilities to local democratic control as rapidly as possible.”

Cases contained in Casey’s report are highly disturbing. One concerns an alleged rape with a broken bottle, and girls being ordered to kiss the feet of a perpetrator at gunpoint. A mind-numbing 61 pregnancies were attributed to rapes. “Children were sexually exploited by men who came largely from the ­Pakistani heritage ­community,” the report stated. “Not enough was done to acknowledge this, to stop it happening, to protect children, to support victims and to apprehend perpetrators.” Inspectors further noted that council members bullied victims, with a witness insisting the council viewed those victims as “little slags.”

The police weren’t any better, refusing to believe accusations made by young girls on numerous occasions. “They were threatened with wasting police time, they were told they had consented to sex and, on occasion, they were arrested at the scene of a crime, rather than the perpetrators,” the report reveals.

Adding insult to injury, whistleblowers who raised concerns lost their jobs. “I stepped forward on behalf of young people – it cost me my job and my career,” one ex-staff member revealed.

A local police officer aptly illuminated the reasons for the coverup. “They were running scared of the race issue… there is no doubt that in Rotherham, this has been a problem with Pakistani men for years and years,” the officer explained. “People were scared of being called racist.”

Following the second report’s release, the National Crime Agency said it was looking into what were described as “potentially criminal matters.”

Last Wednesday an independent inquiry into the Rotherham scandal, along with the Westminster VIP pedophile ring that allegedly consisted of high-ranking members of Britain’s establishment abusing young boys in the 1970s and 1980s, was initiated. UK Home Secretary Theresa May appointed New Zealand High Court judge Lowell Goddard to lead the investigation that may last until 2018. In addition to investigating the two scandals, Goddard’s inquiry will also determine whether other public bodies, including government entities, charitable organizations, the Church and the BBC, also failed to step up and protect children.

The probe was initially set up last July to deal with the Westminster case, but failed to move forward due to a series of scandals that included the disappearance of a 40-page dossier on suspected establishment pedophiles compiled in 1983, raising suspicions of a government cover-up. May reached overseas for her investigator because the inquiry lost its first two chairs due to questions about their possible links with establishment figures.

Goddard promised the latest effort would put survivors “at the forefront and the whole center” of her inquiry. She will travel to the UK to meet Secretary May and discuss the investigation’s scope. The National Crime Agency told the Daily Mail Goddard’s probe would not slow down their own investigation.

A victim of the Rotherham scandal was overjoyed at the latest turn of events. “Finally somebody has listened to us,” said a mother whose daughter had been sexually exploited for five years—beginning at age 11. “Thank god my children will be safe now.”

Perhaps. “There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now, Champion warned. “Girls in the process of being groomed.” She explained her calculations “If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary,” she said.

Not really. It’s a very ordinary and predictable reflex born of decades of infatuation with political correctness and multiculturalism. Better to allow children as young as 11 to be systematically abused in Rotherham for more than 16 years, chiefly by men of Pakistani descent, than be labeled a bigot, racist or Islamophobe. Better to fire whistleblowers and better to bully the victims and/or dismiss them as low-lifes who deserve it.

This expanding investigation is now about far more than sexual abuse. The character of the entire UK is on trial. Soon the world will know whether their surrender to multiculturalism and political correctness is completely abject—and irreversible.

Also see:

Denying the real motivation for Islamist terrorism

Illustrations on the violent implications of the Koran by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

Illustrations on the violent implications of the Koran by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

– – Sunday, February 8, 2015:

Islamists are winning their war to silence critical commentary in the West about Islam. So says Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which originally published the now-infamous images of Muhammad, in his recent book, “The Tyranny of Silence.”

Whether motivated by a cowardly nature or by an obsequious desire to be nice, much of the media and the Obama administration now adhere to a common vocabulary when discussing violence motivated by Islamist theology. There is simply no reference to the theological motivations so relevant to the perpetrators of religiously inspired terror.

We are told that The Islamic State is not Islamic (rather a terrorist “jayvee team”), the Taliban is not an Islamist terrorist group (rather an “insurgency”), the Charlie Hebdo massacres were not coordinated by radical Islamists (rather “individual terrorists”), the Fort Hood murders were not acts of terror (rather “workplace violence”), the terrorist attack on our embassy in Libya was not instigated by imams preaching Islamic blasphemy laws (rather by our own exercise of free speech) and so on.

In fact, the U.S. government has purged the worlds “Islam” and “jihad,” and any language deemed “Islamophobic,” from counterterrorism training manuals, thereby neutering the ability of U.S. law enforcement to identify the motivational factors behind Islamist terrorism.

However, the ad nauseam repetition that “Islam is a religion of peace” every time a terror attack is carried out in the name of Islam no longer has any traction. Even some who, in the past, felt impelled to employ fatuous statements about the lack of Islam’s responsibility for Islamist terrorism seem recently to have constrained themselves. For instance, at a recent panel discussing the “Causes of Radicalization” at the National Press Club, Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution commented that he no longer feels comfortable employing this phrase. Muslims must admit that for many, terrorist violence has become Islam, he said, adding, “ISIS has emerged out of a particular context.”

No matter how much the White House wants to deny it, the Islamic State group version of Islam is very real for its crucified and decapitated victims. Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam is very much a reality for the homosexual teenagers publicly hung for defiling Wahhabi Islam. Boko Haram’s version of Islam is very real for the children slaughtered while attending schools deemed too westernized for the group’s convictions. And the Taliban’s version of Islam is very real for the women put to death for being raped or walking without a male escort, both violations of the Pushtun traditional social code of honor as encapsulated by Shariah law. These violent versions of Islam, prevalent in the Muslim world to varying degrees, must be studied, debated and taken very seriously, especially within our counterterrorism apparatus.

Nevertheless, the administration is persistent in its efforts to obscure the theological motivations of self-described Islamist terrorists. Washington’s latest use of this obfuscating tactic is its declaration that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization. Rather, the Taliban is an insurgency, a mere rebellion against an authority. Yet one can be a terrorist group and be engaged in acts of insurgency at the same time — the two are not mutually exclusive.

In contrast to the White House’s misleading rhetoric, both the Treasury and the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center list the Afghani Taliban as a global terrorist group, and the State Department designated the Pakistani Taliban a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The White House’s semantics appear calculated to lessen the blow as President Obama hands over Afghanistan to the Taliban, the very terrorist group that too much American blood and treasure have been spent attempting to defeat. We’re supposed to buy into Mr. Obama’s “end of conflict” narrative, except anyone sensible would acknowledge that as long as the Taliban exists, there will be violence and conflict in the region. That is because the Taliban is a terrorist group that kills innocent civilians for both religious and political purposes, and does so on a consistent basis.

The United States has effectively adopted the same policy as Qatar-funded Al-Jazeera English, which has banned the use of the terms “terrorist,” “militant” and “Islamist,” and describes terrorist attacks in the context of a geopolitical dimension rather than as having been generated by religious motivations.

Those who seek to rationalize the violence of Islamist terrorists have shifted the blame away from a literal reading of the Koran to discriminatory social polices of European societies, lack of economic opportunity, and political exclusion of Arab citizens in EU countries. Commentators on “the radicalization process” have created a sociological construct that proceeds through a pseudo-scientific progressive series of stages before a believer becomes an actor. Some apologists for these “disaffected youth,” such as John Esposito of Georgetown University, suggest that among the causative factors are the West’s support of dictators in the Mideast, American policies in the region, and, of course, perceived U.S. support for Israeli “occupation” of “Palestinian territories.”

Other more “objective” observers prefer to employ less polemical, rational reasons for the horrific acts of Islamist terror: a sense of victimhood, feelings of disenfranchisement, a search for identity, peer pressure and a deep desire for belonging. Linked with this narrative is the recently proffered concept that many of these perpetrators are only superficially conversant with Islamic theological concepts.

While such factors can contribute to the likelihood of recruitment, proffering them as the sole motivational factors in radicalization, while ignoring the theological justifications of their recruiters, is nothing more than a cop-out designed to spread a disingenuous narrative while stigmatizing the counterterrorism community for addressing the real, immediate and unique threat of Islamist terrorism.

Brooke Goldstein is a New York City-based human rights attorney, and the founder and director of the Lawfare Project. She is the author of “Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech” (Center for Security Policy, 2011).

Islamic Ideology: Identifying the Enemy

Shariah-4-UKBreitbart, by  ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS, Feb. 3, 2015:

While America continues to face an expanding national security threat, President Obama has great difficulty in identifying the enemy that has been at war with the United States for over 35 years.

Using terms such as “violent extremism” and “workplace violence” does an enormous injustice to our military forces, as well as to all law enforcement agencies that must be prepared to confront the Islamic jihadis on a daily basis.  For example, the Obama administration directed all of our training manuals, that accurately portrayed the Islamic threat, to be purged by removing anything that didn’t portray Islam as a religion of peace.

Probably, the worst six words President George W. Bush ever uttered were “Islam is a religion of peace.”  He most likely was urged to make such a statement by his Muslim Brotherhood advisors who had already penetrated our government agencies during the Clinton administration.  Regrettably, those words are repeated by a number of Western leaders under the guise of political correctness and should be discarded.  Furthermore, the Obama administration’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood must cease.  They must be removed from all government agencies and those front groups, e.g., CAIR and ISNA, shut down.

The leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, has been at war with the United States since the November 1979 takeover of our Tehran U.S. embassy.  Since then, Iran has directed numerous “acts of war” against us, either using proxies (Hezbollah), or their own forces – acts of war that every administration, Republican and Democrat, has failed to find the political courage to respond.  Consequently, the surge of Islamic Fundamentalism, as espoused by the Ayatollah Khomeini’s evil regime, has continued to expand.

Iran has encouraged Islamic supremacists, both Shi’ite and Sunni, to take ever bolder action– as evidenced by the atrocities being committed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria today, the recent Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris, Canada, and Australia as well as the incessant HAMAS and Hezbollah attacks against Israel.  While President Obama tries to make the case that these atrocities are not part of the Islamic religion, Chapter 2 verse 106 (on abrogation) of the Quran makes it very clear that the later, violent verses take precedence over the early, less violent verses.

The most dramatic action by the Islamic supremacists was the 9/11 hi-jacker terrorist attack, which was the most serious attack on the United States since the 7 December, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.  It resulted in the loss of almost 3,000 innocent American lives who were doing nothing more than going to work.  It should never be forgotten that this attack could not have been successfully carried out without the material and training support of the evil Iranian regime that succeeded its founder Ayatollah Khomeini.

To understand the threat we face today, we must be clear in the terms we use.  It is not violent extremism or even radical Islam: it is Islam itself, which has remained unchanged for over 1,300 years.  The former Turkish Prime Minister and current President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated it best when he declared “Islam is Islam.  There are no modifiers,” e.g., Islamic Extremism.

Clearly, any thinking individual understands that Islam is a totalitarian ideology that is bent on world domination under one religion and ruled by the draconian Shariah.  It is totally incompatible with the Western world’s concept of freedom and democracy, and our Constitution.  Furthermore, until it is understood that Islam is a political movement (similar to communism) masquerading as a religion, we will not be successful in combating the enemy.

As the Dutch politician Geert Wilders stated, the more Islam penetrates your society, the less freedom you have.  Therefore, our current unregulated Muslim immigration and asylum policies make no sense.  They must be revised along with effective measures to secure our open borders.

The real question is, can Islam be reformed to co-exist peacefully in the 21st century?  The problem is how to modify Shariah, which has not been done in over 1,300 years.  Clearly, it would have to be done cautiously, and by Sunni clerics as well as Shi’a.  Recently, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, in a New Year’s Day speech to the leading Sunni clerics, challenged them to reform Islam.  The atrocities being committed in the cause of advancing Islam are, in his view, giving Islam a bad image.  More importantly, such an initiative would be consistent with Egyptians reclaiming their rich heritage by thinking of themselves first as being Egyptians.

We should encourage President al-Sisi to follow up his challenge to the leading Sunni clerics by proposing that they form an Islamic Forum of leading Sunni clerics to address the reformation of Islam for the 21st century.  Unless such an effort is made, the alternative will be a consistent state of war (Dar al-Harb) against the infidels as mandated in the Quran.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Surrender: BBC Arabic and Al Jazeera English want to ban the word “terrorist” from reporting

Slide111-300x180By Allen West, Jan. 28, 2015

Is anyone still talking about Charlie Hebdo? I wondered how long the response would last. We saw world leaders come together – well, one was missing — to denounce the violence and stand for free speech.

Everyone was saying this would be the turning point and perhaps finally there would be global and widespread condemnation of militant Islamic jihadism.

Well, the only sustained response has come from the Islamic terrorists themselves– from the Philippines, to Yemen, to Kabul, and just recently in Tripoli. And all you have to do is listen to the words of Turkish President Erdogan, who blamed the cartoonists and the violent protests from across the Islamic world — because you’re not allowed to “mock” Muhammad. And if you didn’t know, that’s one of the traditions of Muhammad, since he killed those who mocked him.

So here we are, what — two, three weeks later after the horrific massacre in Paris? And what is the response from Western media?

Surrender.

As reported by the UK Telegraph, a senior executive at the BBC said “the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris should be not be described as “terrorists” by the BBC as the term is too “loaded.”

“Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic, the largest of the BBC’s non-English language news services, said the term “terrorist” was seen as “value-laden” and should not be used to describe the actions of the men who killed 12 people in the attack on the French satirical magazine.”

“We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist,” Mr Kafala told The Independent.“What we try to do is to say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine’. That’s enough, we know what that means and what it is.” He added: “Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can’t. It is very difficult to.”

The BBC is not alone. The Washington Times reports that “Al Jazeera English executive Carlos van Meek banned his news employees from using words like “terrorist,” “Islamist” and “jihad,” explaining that it’s important to realize that some might take offense — that one person’s idea of terrorism is simply another person’s fight for freedom.”

Yes, one person’s savage beheading of a civilian, is just…well, a savage beheading – but it’s ok, because it’s in the fight for freedom.

It just never ceases to amaze me how the Islamapologists will just break their necks to play nice and not offend the enemy. They’ll come up with the most inane excuses to basically say there’s no reason to refer to the enemy in the manner in which they refer to themselves.

Not only are Islamic terrorists killing us, they’re making us too scared to even call them who they are — the ultimate in forced censorship. How could this happen?

Think of the battles Western civilization has fought against Islamic jihadism. Charles Martel in 732 at the Battle of Tours. The Venetian fleet in 1571 at Lepanto. The Germanic and Polish Knights at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. Or how about a young America which crushed the Barbary pirates of North Africa in the early 1800s? When did we become so cowardly — and folks, that is exactly what this is. Oh, excuse me, not all of us — when did the leadership in the West become so doggone skittish?

“Of the Paris case, Mr Kafala said: “We avoid the word terrorists. It’s a terrorist attack, anti-terrorist police are deployed on the streets of Paris. Clearly all the officials and commentators are using the word so obviously we broadcast that.” Mr Kufala’s stance is in line with the BBC’s editorial guidelines on reporting “terrorism” which state: “[The BBC] does not ban the use of the word. “However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the perpetrators.”

You gotta be kidding me. It appears the Patriots football team isn’t the only place you’ll find deflated balls.

Folks, if I were the Islamic terrorists, I’d press the attack as well. Weakness is so enticing and has a sweet aroma for those who sense fear. Can any of you imagine Sir Winston Churchill going on the air during the Battle of Britain and imploring the Brits not to speak ill of the Nazis?

“The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorist group’ can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality. “It may be better to talk about an apparent act of terror or terrorism than label individuals or a group.” When reporting an attack, the BBC guidelines say it should use words, which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper” or “militant.”

In other words, try to find anything to call the enemy something palatable — not to the enemy, but for us. This goes beyond PC, it is abject dismissal and reflects a cowardly reticence to confront the “boogeyman.”

Some say we don’t need to define the enemy. Then how do you defeat them when you refuse to acknowledge the ideology that fuels them and is the core of their belief system? When Western media outlets run away in fear and report in a fearful manner, we will never see the enemy for who they are – because the media reports are in effect censored.

What this means is that the Islamic jihadists are winning the propaganda and information war.

You want an example of how insidiously pandering we appear? Read this closing statement: “A BBC spokesman said: “There is no BBC ban on the word ‘terrorist’, as can be seen from our reporting of the terrorist attack in Paris, though we prefer a more precise description if possible – the Head of BBC Arabic was simply reflecting BBC editorial guidelines and making a general point about the nuances of broadcasting internationally.”

There is no nuance when someone is being beheaded — and there should be no nuance in reporting such savage and barbaric behavior.

The Imaginary Islamic Radical

iraqstill-450x281Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 28, 2015

The debate over Islamic terrorism has shifted so far from reality that it has now become an argument between the administration, which insists that there is nothing Islamic about ISIS, and critics who contend that a minority of Islamic extremists are the ones causing all the problems.

But what makes an Islamic radical, extremist? Where is the line between ordinary Muslim practice and its extremist dark side?

It can’t be beheading people in public.

Saudi Arabia just did that and was praised for its progressiveness by the UN Secretary General, had flags flown at half-staff in the honor of its deceased tyrant in the UK and that same tyrant was honored by Obama, in preference to such minor events as the Paris Unity March and the Auschwitz commemoration.

It can’t be terrorism either. Not when the US funds the PLO and three successive administrations invested massive amounts of political capital into turning the terrorist group into a state. While the US and the EU fund the Palestinian Authority’s homicidal kleptocracy; its media urges stabbing Jews.

Clearly that’s not Islamic extremism either. At least it’s not too extreme for Obama.

If blowing up civilians in Allah’s name isn’t extreme, what do our radicals have to do to get really radical?

Sex slavery? The Saudis only abolished it in 1962; officially. Unofficially it continues. Every few years a Saudi bigwig gets busted for it abroad. The third in line for the Saudi throne was the son of a “slave girl”.

Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? The “moderate” Islamists we backed in Syria, Libya and Egypt have been busy doing it with the weapons and support that we gave them. So that can’t be extreme either.

If terrorism, ethnic cleansing, sex slavery and beheading are just the behavior of moderate Muslims, what does a Jihadist have to do to be officially extreme? What is it that makes ISIS extreme?

Our government’s definition of moderate often hinges on a willingness to negotiate regardless of the results. The moderate Taliban were the ones willing to talk us. They just weren’t willing to make a deal. Iran’s new government is moderate because it engages in aimless negotiations while pushing its nuclear program forward and issuing violent threats, instead of just pushing and threatening without the negotiations. Nothing has come of the negotiations, but the very willingness to negotiate is moderate.

The Saudis would talk to us all day long while they continued sponsoring terrorists and setting up terror mosques in the West. That made them moderates. Qatar keeps talking to us while arming terrorists and propping up the Muslim Brotherhood. So they too are moderate. The Muslim Brotherhood talked to us even while its thugs burned churches, tortured protesters and worked with terrorist groups in the Sinai.

A radical terrorist will kill you. A moderate terrorist will talk to you and then kill someone else. And you’ll ignore it because the conversation is a sign that they’re willing to pretend to be reasonable.

From a Muslim perspective, ISIS is radical because it declared a Caliphate and is casual about declaring other Muslims infidels. That’s a serious issue for Muslims and when we distinguish between radicals and moderates based not on their treatment of people, but their treatment of Muslims, we define radicalism from the perspective of Islamic supremacism, rather than our own American values.

The position that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate and Al Qaeda is extreme because the Brotherhood kills Christians and Jews while Al Qaeda kills Muslims is Islamic Supremacism. The idea of the moderate Muslim places the lives of Muslims over those of every other human being on earth.

Our Countering Violent Extremism program emphasizes the centrality of Islamic legal authority as the best means of fighting Islamic terrorists. Our ideological warfare slams terrorists for not accepting the proper Islamic chain of command. Our solution to Islamic terrorism is a call for Sharia submission.

That’s not an American position. It’s an Islamic position and it puts us in the strange position of arguing Islamic legalism with Islamic terrorists. Our politicians, generals and cops insist that the Islamic terrorists we’re dealing with know nothing about Islam because that is what their Saudi liaisons told them to say.

It’s as if we were fighting Marxist terrorist groups by reproving them for not accepting the authority of the USSR or the Fourth International. It’s not only stupid of us to nitpick another ideology’s fine points, especially when our leaders don’t know what they’re talking about, but our path to victory involves uniting our enemies behind one central theocracy. That’s even worse than arming and training them, which we’re also doing (but only for the moderate genocidal terrorists, not the extremists).

Secretary of State Kerry insists that ISIS are nihilists and anarchists. Nihilism is the exact opposite of the highly structured Islamic system of the Caliphate. It might be a more accurate description of Kerry. But the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood successfully sold the Western security establishment on the idea that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism was by denying any Islamic links to its actions.

This was like an arsonist convincing the fire department that the best way to fight fires was to pretend that they happened randomly on their own through spontaneous combustion.

Victory through denial demands that we pretend that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. It’s a wholly irrational position, but the alternative of a tiny minority of extremists is nearly as irrational.

If ISIS is extreme and Islam is moderate, what did ISIS do that Mohammed did not?

The answers usually have a whole lot to do with the internal structures of Islam and very little to do with such pragmatic things as not raping women or not killing non-Muslims.

Early on we decided to take sides between Islamic tyrants and Islamic terrorists, deeming the former moderate and the latter extremists. But the tyrants were backing their own terrorists. And when it came to human rights and their view of us, there wasn’t all that much of a difference between the two.

It made sense for us to put down Islamic terrorists because they often represented a more direct threat, but allowing the Islamic tyrants to convince us that they and the terrorists followed two different brands of Islam and that the only solution to Islamic terrorism lay in their theocracy was foolish of us.

We can’t win the War on Terror through their theocracy. That way lies a real Caliphate.

Our problem is not the Islamic radical, but the inherent radicalism of Islam. Islam is a radical religion. It radicalizes those who follow it. Every atrocity we associate with Islamic radicals is already in Islam. The Koran is not the solution to Islamic radicalism, it is the cause.

Our enemy is not radicalism, but a hostile civilization bearing grudges and ambitions.

We aren’t fighting nihilists or radicals. We are at war with the inheritors of an old empire seeking to reestablish its supremacy not only in the hinterlands of the east, but in the megalopolises of the west.

***

Published on Jan 23, 2015 by Associated Press

Violent extremists may cite Islam as a justification, but the West should be careful about calling them Islamic radicals, Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience of opinion leaders Friday at the World Economic Forum. (Jan. 23)

***

A little dark humor is called for…

Refusing to Name the Enemy in the War on Terror

Published on May 22, 2012 by American Freedom Law Center

SNL skit parodies the Obama administration and mainstream media’s failure to identify radical Islam as the enemy in the War on Terror.

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.