The Demonstrations To Drive Islam Out Of Germany Is Spreading And Gaining Momentum

screen-hools-1024x562By Walid Shoebat:

The massive riots on Sunday by Hooligans Against [Muslim] Salafists in Cologne seems to have spread to Dresden were public assembly showed in full force and  plans are on the way for additional massive riots on November 15th planned in Hamburg and at the Brandenburg Gate, the center of the capital of Berlin itself, German media reported.

der-salafistische-prediger-pierre-vogel-6A member of the group who described himself as a devout Bible believing Christian denounced the false portrayal of the group by leftist media as “Nazi” and told Shoebat.com Monday that “this is only the beginning” vowing that this will spread to Dresden and other places across Germany.

Sure enough, in Dresden yesterday, the group took to the streets under the banner “Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West” (Pegida) against what they termed Muslim “religious wars”.

After the incidents in Cologne it is expected that both the police and counter-demonstrators otherwise prepare for the appointment on November 15th in which the police is preparing for a massive deployment of agents in Berlin to confront the coming unrest especially since leftist and Muslim groups in the city have already announced a showdown of retaliation against the right-wing Hooligans. Germany is expected to witness civil unrest and a line in the sand be drawn between left and right.

Hooligans-gegen-Salafisten

While the right to public assembly is settled in German law and banning these demonstrations is quite difficult, leftist politicians hope that the recent violence in Cologne is sufficient to proclaim a ban on the Hooligan’s right to free public assembly.

The messages by the group over the internet regarding the massive event in Cologne says that this was only the beginning, but officials in Berlin are saying that they take the matter very seriously. ”The rule of law must use all means to prevent the militant violence that we have seen in Cologne to repeat itself, ” said CDU Senator Frank Henkel who is calling for a ban on Hooligan demonstrations.

The hooligans against Salafists’ originated on the Internet and at the first big demonstration last Sunday in Cologne quickly came to violent confrontations with the police. Over forty policemen were injured and seventeen arrests were made.

The Facebook page already has 5000 people signed up for the demo in Hamburg and growing.

In Germany  this month a controversy erupted after Muslim Salafists  in bright orange vests started a patrol at the doors of discotheques, cafes and amusement arcades and told people to refrain from drinking alcohol which  sparked new debate on whether Islam should remain in Germany. Muslims with the words Sharia Police written on the back patrolled the city of Wuppertal in October which also caused an outrage amongst Germans and wondered how to react.

017904918_30300

The self-proclaimed guardians of public morals are Salafists who are the fastest growing group of radical Muslims in Germany formed their street police network akin to the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Saudi Arabia. The head of the Wuppertal group is German convert Sven Lau, alias Abu Adam.

017915633_30300Ever since, a debate has raged in Germany. “Sharia is not tolerated on German soil,” Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said, and Justice Minister Heiko Maas warned Germany would not tolerate any form of illegal parallel justice.

The Salafist scene in Germany is rapidly growing, according to Germany’s domestic intelligence chief. Radical Islamists have been adept in recruiting disaffected young Muslim men from families with migrant backgrounds.

Salafism, the most widespread form of Islamist extremism in Germany, calls for a return to the way Muslims lived during the Prophet Mohammed’s era.

And what it seems to be happening in Germany is moving across Europe. (Read our previous report here) Excellent report- must see!

SOURCES

http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/3914350/duitse-hooligans-willen-in-berlijn-demonstreren.html

http://www.stern.de/panorama/hogesa-hooligan-demo-in-dresden-friedlich-hamburg-wehrt-sich-2148479.html

SIX QUESTIONS WITH GEERT WILDERS

Slotdebat_verkiezingen_(final_debate_elections)_2006By Scott McKay:

Geert Wilders is the founder of the Dutch Party for Freedom, the fourth largest in that country’s parliament, and perhaps the Netherlands’ most controversial political figure. Wilders, whose 2008 film Fitna confrontationally opposed the encroachment of Islamic culture into Europe, has become an international figure while being prosecuted for “hate speech.” Calling himself a “right-wing liberal,” Wilders advocates curbing immigration into the Netherlands and other Western countries from Islamic nations, closing radical mosques, denaturalizing violent Muslims, and reducing the power of the European Union, among other things.

In America this week for a one-week tour, Wilders chatted with The American Spectator about Islam, the civilizational conflict, and what must be done to keep the West free.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology aiming for world domination. It wants to establish a worldwide caliphate, ruled by Sharia law — undemocratic, intolerant, barbarian, inhuman.

Terror and violence are just one method which is used in order to achieve this aim. There are other methods, such as conquest by hijra (immigration). Muhammad himself gave this example of hijra when he conquered Medina. This town, which was originally a tolerant and partly Jewish oasis, became Islamic after Muhammad and his followers settled there and took it over.

Western leaders focus solely on terrorism, but fail to see the purpose which terrorism is serving: Islamic word dominance. They should focus on fighting the global imperialist plans of Islam and treat terrorism as one of the means used to achieve this goal.

The Netherlands failed to assimilate Islam. So did the other European nations.

Western Europe is in the grip of cultural relativism. It no longer believes in the superiority of its own Western Judeo-Christian and humanist values. These Western values have brought Europe peace, prosperity, liberty, and democracy. But, unfortunately, European political leaders no longer seem to understand this.

The newcomers were not asked to assimilate. On the contrary, the Europeans told newcomers settling in their nations: you are free to violate our norms and values because your culture is just as good, and perhaps even better, than ours. Muslims were allowed to build enclaves on European soil, where Western values are despised and hated.

The Islamization of Western Europe is a direct result of this. European nations did not assimilate Islam but rather encouraged it to continue to live according to its culture, which is intolerant, inferior, and totally incompatible with Europe’s culture and civilization.

The European nations need to rediscover and reassert their identity. If Europe fails to stand up for its own culture and identity, it, will, indeed, be lost to Islam. Time is running out. Islam is assertive and aggressive. Europe should be assertive in countering Islam. Europe needs to turn the tide of Islamization and start a de-Islamization process.

Here are five things which should be done:

1) Europe should close its borders to all immigration from Islamic countries.

2) It should stimulate voluntary re-emigration;

3) and it should expel all criminals with a dual nationality to the country of their other nationality.

4) It should demand that everyone with a passport from an Islamic country, who wishes to remain living in Western Europe, sign a declaration in which he or she distances himself or herself from Sharia law and the violent commands of the Koran.

5) People who join the jihad have to be expelled, even it they only have our nationality. They can go and live in the Islamic State and no longer belong here.

Read more at The American Spectator

Islamic Burial Rituals Blamed For Spread Of Ebola

Dead-girlInvestors Business Daily, By Paul Sperry: (h/t BNI)

Islam isn’t just at the heart of the terror threat posed by the Islamic State. The religion is also contributing to the other major crisis plaguing the globe: the spread of Ebola.

Washington and its media stenographers won’t tell you this, lest they look intolerant, but Islamic burial rituals are a key reason why health officials can’t contain the spread of the deadly disease in West Africa.

Many of the victims of Ebola in the three hot-spot nations there — Sierra Leone and Guinea, as well as neighboring Liberia — are Muslim. Roughly 73% of Sierra Leone’s and about 85% of Guinea’s people are Muslim. Islam, moreover, is practiced by more than 13% of Liberians.

When Muslims die, family members don’t turn to a funeral home or crematorium to take care of the body. In Islam, death is handled much differently.

Relatives personally wash the corpses of loved ones from head to toe. Often, several family members participate in this posthumous bathing ritual, known as Ghusl.

Before scrubbing the skin with soap and water, family members press down on the abdomen to excrete fluids still in the body. A mixture of camphor and water is used for a final washing. Then, family members dry off the body and shroud it in white linens.

Again, washing the bodies of the dead in this way is considered a collective duty for Muslims, especially in Muslim nations. Failure to do so is believed to leave the deceased “impure” and jeopardizes the faithful’s ascension into Paradise (unless he died in jihad; then no Ghusl is required).

Before the body is buried, Muslims attending the funeral typically pass a common bowl for use in ablution or washing of the face, feet and hands, compounding the risk of infection.

Though these customs are prescribed by Shariah law, they’re extremely dangerous and should be suspended. Mosque leaders must step in to educate village Muslims about the dangers of interacting with corpses.

Ebola victims can be more contagious dead than alive. Their bodies are covered in rashes, blood and other fluids containing the virus.

“Funerals and washing dead bodies in West African countries have led, to a great extent, to spread the disease,” a World Health Organization spokeswoman recently warned.

WHO has issued an advisory to Red Cross and other relief workers in African Muslim nations to “be aware of the family’s cultural practices and religious beliefs. Help the family understand why some practices cannot be done because they place the family or others at risk for exposure.”

Muslim Leaders Sign Letter Against ISIS, But Endorse Sharia

A picture of a the sharia punishment of stoning from the Islamic State's Dabiq magazine (Issue #2)

A picture of a the sharia punishment of stoning from the Islamic State’s Dabiq magazine (Issue #2)

Islamists regularly redefine words like “clear disbelief,” “democracy,” “justice,” “peace” and “terrorism” on their own terms. The use of subjective language like “innocents,” “mistreat,” “defensive” and “rights” leave much room for interpretation.

By Ryan Mauro:

A published letter to the Islamic State (ISIS)  signed by 126 international Muslim leaders and scholars, including top American leaders, is getting major press for rebutting the theological arguments behind the actions of Islamic State. Unfortunately, the same letter endorsed the goal of the Islamic State of rebuilding the caliphate and sharia governance, including its brutal hudud punishments.

Point 16 of the letter states, “Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qu’ran and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law.” The criticism of the Islamic State by the scholars is that the terrorist group is not “following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.”

The Muslim “moderates” who signed the letter not only endorsed the combination of mosque and state; they endorsed the most brutal features of sharia governance as seen in Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

An example of a hudud punishment is the death penalty for apostates (Muslims who leave Islam). The letter does not dispute or oppose that. It says that labeling Muslims as apostates is only permissible when an individual “openly declares disbelief.”

The signatories are not condemning the execution of apostates, only how the Islamic State is deciding who qualifies as an apostate.

Point 7 states that Islam forbids the killing of diplomats, journalists and aid workers, but it comes with a very important exception.

“Journalists—if they are honest and of course are not spies—are emissaries of truth, because their job is to expose the truth to people in general,” it reads.

This is actually an endorsement of targeting journalists that Muslims feel are unfair. Islamists, including Islamic State supporters, often claim that the journalists they kill are propagandists and/or spies, meeting the letter’s standards.

Point 22 of the letter states, “There is agreement (ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah. The Ummah has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE. However, a new caliphate requires consensus from Muslims and not just from those in a small corner of the world.”

A caliphate is a pan-Islamic government based on sharia; virtually all Islamic scholars agree that this objective requires the elimination of Israel. It is also fundamentally (and by definition) expansionist.

Again, the “moderate” signatories endorse the principles of the Islamic State and other jihadists but criticize their implementation.

Read more at Clarion Project

Stealth jihadists use language deceptively. Learn the definitions of Islamic terms here: Islam’s Deceptive Use of Western Terminology

Also see:

 

TEN POINTS ABOUT ISLAMIC JIHAD IN AMERICA

5337518453_e6b02f3a2a_zSpectator, By Scott McKay:

Let’s see if we can all agree on a few points:

1. Whether our leaders wish to accept it or not, it is a fact that throughout America’s history, including current times, there have been and are people who do not subscribe to our way of life and wish to destroy us. Such people have been adherents to any number of noxious ideologies. In the past, they’ve been secessionists, anarchists, Bolsheviks, Nazis, black separatists, among other things.

2. Today, the most prominent and worrisome group is Islamists — more precisely, Muslim adherents to the doctrine of Sharia.

3. Sharia — a system of law that includes a definition of jihad as a program of violent subjugation and/or conversion of the infidel—is properly described as a hostile doctrine. That it derives from a major religious text does not change the fact that it represents a threat to the American way of life. The incompatibility of Sharia and pluralistic, democratic Western culture based on individual rights easily merits its own column; for a good summary,click here.

4. Yet Sharia is being preached in mosques across America. Those mosques are not just houses of worship; they are cultural and political centers, and they are vehicles for organization of communities. Let’s be clear: some mosques are upstanding assets to their communities. But let’s be equally clear: others are not. The Islamic Society of Boston, which spawned the Tsarnaev brothers who bombed the Boston marathon, is an example of the latter. Though numbers are difficult to come by, it is believed that many American mosques and Islamic organizations receive foreign funding from Sharia states such as Saudi Arabia. These can only be prudently viewed as centers of foreign, and at least potentially hostile, influence.

5. We have history to draw upon here: The Roosevelt administration came down hard on theGerman-American Bund, an effort to organize Americans of German descent into a foreign influence operation, and ultimately put it out of business. This action seems to have been accepted as advancing a legitimate government interest, since virtually no one looks upon the treatment of the German-American Bund as a black mark on our national escutcheon.

6. In contrast, nothing whatsoever has been done to rein in Sharia mosques. To the contrary, there is even evidence that Sharia adherents are proselytizing their brand of Islam in our prisons on a wide scale. The security implications of this are staggering.

7. This prison outreach appears to have had an role in radicalizing Alton Nolen, who beheaded a woman at a food processing plant in Moore, Oklahoma, last week. Nolen was converted to Islam while serving prison time, and he attended a mosque in Oklahoma City with connections to jihad. Yet the case is being processed—as were terror attacks at Ft. Hood and the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas—as workplace violence.

8. This problem didn’t originate with the Obama administration, but it has certainly become far, far worse since he was inaugurated president and his attorney general Eric Holder took office. Moreover, it appears to be getting worse. Just days after Nolen’s savage attack, which coincided with another incident in which a woman was threatened with beheading in Oklahoma City, the Justice Department announced it would no longer allow religious profiling in law enforcement — even in cases where national security is involved.

9. We are therefore less safe from lone-wolf jihadists than we have ever been, at a time when we are actively bombing the most high-profile jihadist organization on earth and giving them a real-time rationale for inciting jihadist attacksand beheadings in particular — against us.

10. It is untenable and dangerous to have a government that abdicates its proper duty to keep the public safe from enemies foreign and domestic. We are increasingly playing with fire.

Women in Saudi Arabia – Is There Real Reform?

Andrew Harrod examines Katherine Zoepf’s “Shopgirls” presentation exclusively for the Religious Freedom Coalition.

 

A Women’s Storefront Window on Rights, Religion, and Reform in Saudi Arabia

(Washington, DC) “You cannot assume the same starting point” for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia as Western countries, journalist Katherine Zoepf obviously understated in a September 17 presentation of her research in the doctrinaire Muslim kingdom.  Zoepf’s discussion of the “not just window dressing” reform in the kingdom’s strict “gender segregation” allowing women retail jobs, though, raises important questions about Islamic “extremism” in Saudi Arabia and beyond.

Zoepf’s Washington, DC, Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting (Pulitzer Center) address centered on her December 2013 New Yorkerarticle “Shopgirls.”  Zoepf described therein how Saudi King Abdullah decreed in June 2011 a ban on male lingerie and cosmetic shop workers, leading the way towards other women retail positions.  Though “not…immediately evident,” Zoepf wrote, a “women’s revolution has begun in Saudi Arabia.”

A “male guardian—usually a father or husband” controlling “permission to study, to travel, and to marry” makes Saudi women “effectively…legal minors.”  A Saudi female doctor mentioned by Zoepf at Pulitzer Center, for example, enjoyed travel to places like Paris for medical conferences with her liberal husband’s generous permission, but after his death came under a conservative son’s strictures.  Another woman under the guardianship of her brother was raising her son as a liberal future replacement.

A Saudi female in a Supermarket check-out counter. the sign says “families only” because a male customer may not directly speak to her. A UK Citizen was beaten by religious police this year for speaking to a female clerk at a store.

A Saudi female in a Supermarket check-out counter. the sign says “families only” because a male customer may not directly speak to her. A UK Citizen was beaten by religious police this year for speaking to a female clerk at a store.

A “devout Saudi man avoids even mentioning the names of his wife and daughters in public” and they never met the man’s friends at home in one of the world’s “most patriarchal societies,” Zoepf wrote.  “You wouldn’t imagine that they live in the same homes,” Zoepf at Pulitzer Center said of husbands and wives’ segregated lives.  Separating as adolescents after childhood, male cousins might never see their female cousins’ faces again unless they are among the some 50% of first and second cousins who marry.  The kingdom meanwhile expends “vast resources” creating what Zoepf described at Pulitzer Center as an “entire second set of everything” such as female-only shopping malls and travel agencies.

Saudi women lack a “public identity,” Zoepf argued at Pulitzer Center, as they must wear in public the abaya body and head covering, although the niqab face covering is optional.  Saleswomen, though, often wear niqabs to avoid harassment from conservative customers or the “Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice” religious police (Hai’a or “committee” for short).  In lingerie stores, “Shopgirls” noted, “most customers remain fully covered even while being fitted.”

A public service advertisement with four Saudi girls covered in black abayas shown by Zoepf emphasized this covering.  Three of the girls had red “X”s under their images, as their abayas revealed slight protrusions caused by hair tied with ribbons underneath.  They “will not see heaven, nor will they smell its perfume,” Zoepf translated the advertisement’s Arabic caption.  Only the fourth without any such ornamentation had a green check mark.

An unveiled, stylishly-dressed Saudi woman in the Pulitzer Center  audience indicated Saudi progressivism’s limits.  This law student in America came from Jeddah, described by “Shopgirls” as “Saudi Arabia’s most liberal city.”  Moderating influences, Zoepf explained at Pulitzer Center, came to the port city throughout history in the form of annual pilgrims on hajj to Mecca from outside of Islam’s orthodox heartland.

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

RECOMMENDED READING: Understanding The Islamic Caliphate State

Abu Bakr Al-BaghdadiBy Cultural Jihad:

While apologists in the west are clinging to a theme that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam …” Al-Baghdadi is emulating the Prophet Muhammad – the ultimate Islamic role model.”

Much of the western world is under the impression that ISIS/IS (Islamic State) is preparing  to attack western targets.  A report by  The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI),  Understanding Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi And The Phenomenon Of The Islamic Caliphate State, notes that while global attacks are part of the Islamic State’s long term strategy,  it’s current focus is on  “establishing and consolidating a state”:

The successive atrocities committed by the Islamic State (IS, previously called the Islamic State in Iraq and Al-Sham – ISIS) have diverted the discussion away from an understanding of this organization’s political program, creating the erroneous impression that it is simply a more vicious version of Al-Qaeda. According to this view, this organization presumably intends to attack the West by means of its foreign militants who hold Western passports and could return to Western countries to carry out terror attacks – and hence it is paramount to destroy the IS forthwith. Saudi King ‘Abdallah bin ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz promoted this approach when he said that he was certain that those jihadists “would arrive in Europe within a month and in America within two months”.

This report seeks to clarify the IS’s doctrine based on the organization’s official writings and speeches by its leaders. It will argue that, unlike Al-Qaeda, the IS places priority not on global terrorism, but rather on establishing and consolidating a state, and hence it defers the clash with the West to a much later stage. In this, it is emulating and reenacting the early Islamic model.

hijrahIn The Islamic State – building its infrastructure, we highlighted how witness accounts out of Raqqa, Syria indicate  an effort by the Islamic State to attract foreigners to serve as jihadis and experts in various fields to provide infrastructure support.  These accounts seem to fit the narrative of the MEMRI report:

What supplants the struggle against the West at this stage are the duties of hijra [migration to the Islamic calipahte state] and bay’ah[pledge of allegiance to the Caliph], both of them central components in building the caliphate. In an audio message published immediately after the caliphate was declared, Al-Baghdadi said to Muslims everywhere,  including in the West: “Whoever amongst you can migrate to the Islamic State should migrate. Hijra to Dar Al-Islam is obligatory.” In his first public appearance, his Friday sermon in Mosul,  he referred to the implementation of the shari’a as “a religious obligation,” while avoiding any call to global jihad or to harming the West. Both Al-‘Adnani in the declaration of the caliphate and Al-Baghdadi in his Mosul sermon refer to the caliphate as an “obligation that has been forgotten for generations.” In this, their discourse contrasts sharply, for example, with the discourse of Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Salam Faraj, a major theorist of the Egyptian jihad movement in the 1980s, who termed jihad (rather than the establishment of a caliphate) the forgotten obligation.


The MEMRI report also notes that Al-Qaeda publications such as Inspire constantly call for terror attacks on the west and include advice/instructions on how to proceed as a “lone wolf” or in groups.  In comparison, an issue of  the Islamic State’s English publication Dabiq included,  “A life of jihad is impossible until you pack your belongings and move to the caliphate.” :

The issue also says: “Many readers are probably asking about their obligations towards the Khilafah right now. Therefore the Dabiq team wants to convey the position of the Islamic State leadership on this important matter. The first priority is to perform hijra from wherever you are to the Islamic State, from darul-kufr to darul-Islam. Rush to perform it as Musa (‘alayhis-salam) rushed to his Lord, saying {and I hastened to You, my Lord, that You be pleased} [Taha:84]. Rush to the shade of the Islamic state with your parents, siblings, spouses and children. There are homes here for you and your families. You can be a major contributor towards the liberation of Makkah, Madinah, and al-Quds. Would you not like to reach Judgment Day with these grand deeds in your scales[?] Finally, if you cannot do any of the above for reasons extremely beyond your control, inshallah your intention and belief that the Islamic State is the Khilafah for all Muslims will be sufficient to save you from the warning mentioned in the hadith, ‘Whoever dies without having bound himself by a bay’ah dies a death of jahiliyya.’”

While apologists in the west are clinging to a theme that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, the MEMRI report points out:

In his approach that prioritizes the consolidation of the Islamic State over an all-encompassing battle with Islam’s enemies, Al-Baghdadi is emulating the Prophet Muhammad – the ultimate Islamic role model. The Prophet, while displaying cruelty in battle – cruelty mirrored by the IS – put off battles with his enemies and integrated compromises and tactical agreements in his policy, in order to gather strength prior to renewing action to obtain his ultimate goals. The IS, ruling from its informal capital in Syria’s Al-Raqqa, conducts itself in a similar manner, enforcing the laws of the shari’a while selling oil to Europe via the black market.

In other words, Al-Baghdadi and his Islamic State are attempting to repeat history as described in the Quran.

Despite the emphasis on the Islamic State’s current priority in  establishing and consolidating a state, the MERI report cautions:

It should be emphasized that, although the doctrine of postponing the clash with the West is solidly entrenched, as reflected in the organization’s writings and actions, it cannot be ruled out that certain developments, such as a massive Western attack, could change the organization’s order of priorities and advance the stage of conflict with the West. The Western strategy of nipping the Islamic State in the bud may provoke counterattacks that were not planned by the organization at the outset. This places the West in a bind: inaction endangers the West in the long run, while immediate action may exact a heavy price that Al-Baghdadi did not plan to exact in the present stage.

The full report, Understanding Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi And The Phenomenon Of The Islamic Caliphate State can be read HERE

Foreign Fighters and the Religious Foundation of Jihad

ISISSSSSSBlind Eagle, Brian Fairchild / July 23, 2014:

Over the past three years, the Syrian civil war has attracted over 12,000 young radicalized Muslims who left their homes and rushed to join the jihad.  In early July 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) created a new Caliphate that is expected to attract many thousands more, a situation described by the US Attorney General as a “global crisis”.

Many of the foreign fighters, most in their early to mid-20s, hail from Western countries such as Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK.  American officials estimate that over 100 American Muslims have joined them.  This fact begs the question:  why did these young Muslims leave their homes to travel abroad and join the jihad?  An accurate and unbiased answer to this question is crucial if the US is to have an effective counter-terrorism policy.

The answer, at the most fundamental strategic level, is that the ranks of foreign fighters are filled by Muslims who accept a Salafi interpretation of Islam and join the jihad because of their religious beliefs.  Salafism is an ancient ultraconservative form of Sunni Islam which demands that Muslims live by an unquestioning literal acceptance of Allah’s commands in the Qur’an (Sharia law), and they wage jihad because numerous Qur’anic verses command them to do so.

The United States government, however, rejects this basic strategic fact.  At a speaking engagement in mid-August 2009,John Brennan, then counter terrorism advisor to the president and current CIA director, emphasized President Obama’s rejection of any religious dimension:

  • Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against “jihadists.” Describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, “jihad,” meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”

The president was so adamant in his position, that, in 2010, he ordered the removal of all religious terms such as “jihad” and “Islamic extremism” from the US National Security Strategy assessment, effectively stopping the government from any inquiries involving a connection between Islam and terrorism.  In explanation, the administration states that admitting to a connection between Islam and terrorism would bestow legitimacy on the terrorists, insult Islam, and alienate Muslims, so it unilaterally decided to remove Islam from the equation and to henceforth refer to Islamist terrorists as simply “violent extremists”.

The facts, however, contradict the administration’s position.  On July 22, 2014, in a follow-up report to the 9/11 Commission investigation, the commissioners noted that:

  • “A senior national security official told us that the forces of Islamist extremism in the Middle East are stronger than in the last decade…Officials are also deeply concerned at the region’s seemingly endless supply of disaffected young people vulnerable to being recruited as suicide bombers.”

The majority of the world’s Muslims understand the religious extremism of the terrorists all too well given that they are their predominant target.  A 2013 Pew Research poll reveals that “across 11 Muslim publics surveyed…, a median of 67% say they are somewhat or very concerned about Islamic extremism. In five countries – Pakistan, Jordan, Tunisia, Turkey and Indonesia – Muslim worries about extremism have increased in the past year”.[1]

The president of Egypt also understands and accepts the connection between terrorism and Islam.  On January 31, 2014, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, called for changes within Islam that amount to an Islamic Reformation saying:

  • Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, pointing to the need for anew vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam—rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.”

The administration’s own key Muslim partners, too, have explicitly admitted just how permeated Islam is by the extremist interpretation.  The following two examples are especially significant because they come from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which considers itself to be the leader of the Sunni Muslim world due to the fact that it is the Protector of the Two Holy Cities –Mecca and Medina, where Islam was revealed to the prophet and flourished:

  • Far from trying to hide the religious foundation of Islamist terrorism, on May 16, 2009,  Saudi Arabia’s Assistant Minister of the Interior told Ambassador Richard Holbrooke that al Qaeda hijacked Islam, stating “Terrorists stole the most valuable things we have…They took our faith and our children and used them to attack us”.  Moreover, he expressed no hesitation telling Holbrooke how far Islamist penetration had succeeded in the Kingdom, stating that in 2003 the Saudis discovered Islamist radicals in “90 percent” of the mosques.
  • On May 24, 2009, Ambassador Holbrooke was given a counter-terrorism briefing by the Saudi Ministry of the Interior that revealed the ancient Islamic roots of Salafi ideology and how it spread:

“The counterterrorism briefing began with history and geography:  Briefer Captain Bandar Al-Subaie said the Takfiriideology behind extremist groups dated back to the earliest days of Islam, and had figured in the killings of two early Caliphs.  Its tenets were reflected in the beliefs of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and had spread from there to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then to the Arabian Peninsula where it had been taken up by modern day terrorists including Al-Qaeda (AQ).”

Moreover, an analysis of ISIS’ recent actions and proclamations provides more than enough proof to show that it is not just a gang of sectarian “violent extremists”, but a radical Islamist religious movement.

  • Note:  The following analysis includes numerous citations to Qur’anic verses.  Except for black highlighting, none of the citations have been altered in any way; they are all copied verbatim exactly as they appear in The Noble Qur’an:  English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, published by the King Fahd Complex of the Saudi Arabian Government.  Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the word of God verbally revealed to Muhammad, in Arabic, through the angel Gabriel.  All of the verses in the Qur’an (which constitute Sharia law) are considered direct commands in God’s voice.     

 According to the US administration, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the new Islamic State are no more than “violent extremists” perpetrating regional sectarian violence.  As such, their communications are considered to be simply hate speech or exhortations to violence and of no real intelligence value.

The reality, however, is quite to the contrary.  On July 5, 2014, al-Baghdadi made his debut appearance in a video at the Great Mosque of al-Nouri in Mosul, Iraq.  Wearing Islamic garb and sporting a long beard, he made a speech that was carefully crafted specifically to establish his religious legitimacy to rule all Muslims as the leader of the new Caliphate.

Al-Baghdadi’s speech occurred during the Muslim month of Ramadan, and he opened by stating that “Ramadan is a month to wage jihad”, noting that the Prophet Muhammad made armies and fought the “polytheists” during this month.  This reference sent a particularly potent message to Muslims, especially to radicalized Salafis, who understood its implications.

The Prophet Muhammad led Islam’s two most important battles during Ramadan – the very first battle – the Battle of Badr, and the Battle of Mecca.  In Islamic history, Muhammad, against all odds, was victorious at the desert oasis of Badr as a result of Allah’s divine intervention.  At the Battle of Mecca, he deployed an Army of 10,000 and the city fell virtually without resistance.  The victory at Mecca consolidated Muhammad’s power and caused the surrounding tribes to join him.  The few remaining opposing tribes were quickly subdued.

The parallels to al-Baghdadi are unmistakable.  Al-Baghdadi’s total force is estimated to be around 10,000.  He emerged out of the desert and, against all odds, defeated the Iraqi military with many Iraqi units running from his advance.  He consolidated his power in the new Islamic State, and the surrounding tribes have joined him.  He is currently pursuing the remaining opposition.  He also claimed that the success he and his mujahideen have achieved was only possible because they “have been bestowed upon by Allah to achieve victory” – divine intervention.

After referencing Ramadan, al-Baghdadi quoted the Qur’an – Chapter 51, Verse 56, “I (Allah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship me (alone)”[2], which reminded all Muslims that they were created to submit to and follow the commands of Allah.  Having established this basic tenet of Islam, he followed by saying that Allah commanded them to fight against his enemies and then paraphrased Allah’s command to “Wage jihad using your wealth and yourself for the sake of Allah”, which appears in the Qur’an Chapter 9, Verse 41:

  • “March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), and strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah.  This is better for you, if you but knew.”[3]

To reinforce this point, he immediately quoted two additional jihad commands – “I have ordered you to fight even though you do not like it”, which paraphrases Qur’an Chapter 2, Verse 216:

  • Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you.  Allah knows but you do not know.”[4]

As well as, “And fight them so there is no discord and this religion is for all people to adopt in their life for Allah”, which paraphrases Chapter 2, Verse 193:

  • And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone)…”[5]

Having amply established each Muslim’s duty to wage jihad, he then told his audience what the jihad is for – to establish Allah’s religion on earth through the creation of a Caliphate ruled by Sharia law, after which he announced the creation of the new Caliphate with himself elected as its Imam.

This speech is nothing but religious.  It methodically used Qur’anic references to make the Sharia case to all Muslims that al-Baghdadi’s jihad, his recent victories, and the establishment of the new Caliphate are all Islamically legal and sanctioned by Allah.  It was devoid of any other content.

ISIS’ strict adherence to Sharia law is not only confined to the new Imam’s speeches, however.  On July 21, 2014, ISIS gave Christians in Mosul an ultimatum:  to convert to Islam, submit to Islam and pay the Jizya (a tax for Muslim protection), or die.

These threats were described in the media and by government officials as another example of the group’s intolerance and mindless “sectarian” violence, but with no other significance.  This superficial assessment, however, misses the larger point.  The threats are an integral part of Sharia as commanded by Allah in Qur’an Chapter 9, Verse 29:

  • Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger Muhammad, (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”[6]

Even the most barbaric of ISIS crimes adhere to Sharia.  In late May 2014, news reports surfaced that ISIS had crucified a number of its opponents, which is commanded in Chapter 5, Verse 33:

  • “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.  That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.”[7]

In mid-June 2014, reports surfaced of ISIS beheadings, which is commanded in Chapter 47, Verse 4:

  • “So, when you meet (in fight – Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them…”[8]

Understanding the religious foundation of ISIS and all other Salafi-jihadi organizations is not just an academic exercise.  The definition of an enemy dictates how national resources are used to combat it.  As the facts above reveal, ISIS is not a regional, sectarian organization seeking a place for Sunnis in Iraq’s political structure.  Nor is it just a band of thugs committing violence for violence’s sake.  It is a radical religious movement that transcends borders.  In the minds of its leaders and followers it is fighting a holy war justified by Allah’s commands in the Qur’an (Sharia law).  It is not driven by regional political ambition, but by religious zeal.  The young radical Muslims that flock to it share the same religious beliefs and zealotry.

Brian Fairchild bio.

Germany’s “Sharia Police”

by Soeren Kern:

According to Burkhard Freier, the director of domestic intelligence for North Rhine-Westphalia, German Salafists are increasingly inclined to use violence to achieve their aims, and many have travelled to Iraq or Syria to obtain combat training.

“The intention of these people is to provoke and intimidate and force their ideology upon others. We will not permit this.” — Wuppertal Mayor Peter Jung.

“In Germany, German law is determinative, not Sharia law.” — Christian Democratic Union (CDU) politician Volker Kauder.

Salafist ideology posits that Sharia law is superior to all secular laws because it emanates from Allah, the only legitimate lawgiver, and thus is legally binding for all of humanity. According to the Salafist worldview, democracy is an effort to elevate the will of human beings above the will of Allah.

Muslim radicals have begun enforcing Islamic Sharia law on the streets of Wuppertal, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, the state with the largest Muslim population in Germany.

In what government officials say is a blatant challenge to the rule of law and the democratic order in Germany, groups of young bearded Islamists — some wearing orange traffic safety vests emblazoned with the words “Sharia Police” — have declared parts of downtown Wuppertal to be a “Sharia Controlled Zone.”

The self-appointed guardians of public morals have been distributing yellow leaflets that explain the Islamist code of conduct in the city’s Sharia zones. They have urged both Muslim and non-Muslim passersby to listen to Salafist sermons and to refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, listening to music, pornography or prostitution.

A seven-minute propaganda video in German, entitled “Sharia Police: Coming Soon to Your City,” shows a group of men led by a German convert to Islam, Sven Lau, roaming the streets of Wuppertal at night and pressing wayward youth to embrace radical Islam. In some instances, the men physically attempted to prevent young people from entering bars, casinos and discotheques; those who resisted were pursued and intimidated.

Sven Lau chats on the street with locals in Wuppertal, in “Sharia Police: Coming Soon to Your City”.

After local residents alerted German authorities, police stepped up their presence in downtown Wuppertal and also established a telephone hotline to enable citizens to report any possible criminal activity.

Local authorities, however, appear uncertain about how to proceed.

Wuppertal Police Chief Birgitta Radermacher said the “pseudo police” represent a threat to the rule of law and that only police appointed and employed by the state have the legitimate right to act as police in Germany. Sheadded:

“The monopoly of power lies exclusively with the State. Behavior that intimidates, threatens or provokes will not be tolerated. These ‘Sharia Police’ are not legitimate. Call 110 [police] when you meet these people.”

Wuppertal Mayor Peter Jung said he hoped the police would take a hard line against the Islamists. “The intention of these people is to provoke and intimidate and force their ideology upon others,” Jung said. “We will not permit this.”

More than a dozen Islamists between the ages of 19 and 30 are now being investigated on charges of illegal assembly. But the men have not been arrested and police say they have no legal authority to confiscate the orange vests, even though impersonating a police officer is a crime. Wuppertal’s Public Prosecutor, Wolf-Tilman Baumert, says it remains unclear whether the men have done anything illegal. “The mere explaining of religious rules is not a crime,” he said.

The vigilantes are followers of Salafism, a radically anti-Western ideology that openly seeks to replace democracy in Germany (and the rest of the world) with an Islamic government based on Sharia law.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

DECLARE WAR ON SHARIAH

iraq-machine-guns-held-aloft-afpBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR., Aug. 24.2014:

The National Journal called earlier this week for the United States to “declare war on ISIS.” The magazine is right to argue for a new authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), a legislative vehicle that passes these days for a congressional declaration of war. It is wrong, however, to urge that the existing AUMF, which targets al Qaeda and “associated forces,” be replaced by one that focuses just on the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham/Syria, or ISIS, or the Islamic State in the Levant, or ISIL).

Nearly thirteen years after 9/11, it is past time to recognize that we are at war not with one group of “terrorists” or another. Rather, adherents to a doctrine or ideology they call shariah are at war with us. Shariah is, at its core, about power, not faith. While some small percentage (some estimates suggest ten-percent) of its dictates prescribe the religious practices, the rest of it defines comprehensively how every relationship must be ordered – between individuals, families, neighbors, business associates, all the way up to how the world is governed.

Most importantly, shariah obliges its followers to engage in jihad (or holy war). Don’t be misled by those who argue jihad means “personal struggle.” The Koran makes clear that jihad is “holy war.” And for shariah-adherent Islamists that war has two goals: the triumph of shariah worldwide and the establishment of what is, for want of a better term, a theocratic government to rule the entire planet according to that doctrine.

The jihadists may disagree among themselves about some points of theology (notably, differences that divide Sunnis and Shiites). They may be committed to the use of terrifying violence under all circumstances. Or, as in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, they may believe it is to be used where practicable, but insist on employing not so much non-violent as pre-violent, subversive techniques where terrorism will be counterproductive.

Whatever the banner under which these shariah-adherents wage jihad – for example, the Islamic State, al Qaeda, Taliban, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Ansar al-Shariah or Muslim Brotherhood – all these Islamists are our avowed enemies. That is not because of how we view them. That is because of their own doctrine which is endlessly reinforced in their mosques, via the Internet, through social media and other vehicles.

We can no longer kid ourselves, or otherwise avoid a harsh reality: While perhaps hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world – including it seems the majority of those in America – practice their faith without regard for shariah (they don’t want to live under it themselves and they do not seek to impose it on others), the authorities of Islam regard shariah as the true faith and consider these co-religionists to be apostates.

At the moment, fortunately, only a relatively small number are actively engaged in violent jihad. Many more, though, are doing what shariah demands of those unable or unwilling to wield the sword in holy war: underwriting those who do, through the practice of zakat (Islam’s obligatory contributions to approved charitable causes, one of which is jihad).

Unless and until we understand that shariah-adherent Muslims are inherently dangerous, we will be unable to define our enemy correctly. Unless and until we hold such Muslims accountable, we will not only restrict unduly the focus and effectiveness of our countervailing efforts.

Worse yet, we will actually encourage Muslims – whether states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, organizations or individuals – to associate with, underwrite, or in other ways enable deadly foes of freedom.

Some will respond that an AUMF focused on shariah is a formula for a “clash of civilizations.” The truth is that enemies of civilization – namely, those who adhere to and seek to impose, whether through violence or by stealth, brutally repressive, totalitarian, misogynistic, homophobic, intolerant and anti-constitutional shariah on others – have made no secret of their determination to conquer and destroy us and the rest of the civilized world.

Only by making clear that we are determined to fight back in defense of freedom will we have a chance of protecting our civilization against these enemies. By identifying the political-military-legal ideology of shariah as the defining ideology of those with whom we are at war – much as we did in the past against Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism, and communism – we have a chance of prevailing. And that chance will be greatly enhanced if we bring to bear now, as in the past, not only military but all other instruments of national power.

We will also incentivize Muslims who do not conform to this doctrine to join us in fighting those who accuse them of apostasy, a capital offense under shariah. If they do so, the likelihood of our early success improves still further.

So, by all means, let’s have a new authorization for the use of military force. Or better yet, a proper declaration of war approved by the Congress, authorizing the use of the full array of our economic, political, intelligence, strategic and military means of waging war. But for the sake of our civilization and freedoms, we must ensure that it correctly defines the object of our defensive war: those who adhere to and are trying compel us to submit to shariah.

Saudis Must Stop Exporting Extremism

1534157424 (1)ISIS Atrocities Started With Saudi Support for Salafi Hate

New York Times, By

ALONG with a billion Muslims across the globe, I turn to Mecca in Saudi Arabia every day to say my prayers. But when I visit the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, the resting place of the Prophet Muhammad, I am forced to leave overwhelmed with anguish at the power of extremism running amok in Islam’s birthplace. Non-Muslims are forbidden to enter this part of the kingdom, so there is no international scrutiny of the ideas and practices that affect the 13 million Muslims who visit each year.

Last week, Saudi Arabia donated $100 million to the United Nations to fund a counterterrorism agency. This was a welcome contribution, but last year, Saudi Arabia rejected a rotating seat on the United Nations Security Council. This half-in, half-out posture of the Saudi kingdom is a reflection of its inner paralysis in dealing with Sunni Islamist radicalism: It wants to stop violence, but will not address the Salafism that helps justify it.

Let’s be clear: Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings. For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism across the globe.

Most Sunni Muslims around the world, approximately 90 percent of the Muslim population, are not Salafis. Salafism is seen as too rigid, too literalist, too detached from mainstream Islam. While Shiite and other denominations account for 10 percent of the total, Salafi adherents and other fundamentalists represent 3 percent of the world’s Muslims.

Unlike a majority of Sunnis, Salafis are evangelicals who wish to convert Muslims and others to their “purer” form of Islam — unpolluted, as they see it, by modernity. In this effort, they have been lavishly supported by the Saudi government, which has appointed emissaries to its embassies in Muslim countries who proselytize for Salafism. The kingdom also grants compliant imams V.I.P. access for the annual hajj, and bankrolls ultraconservative Islamic organizations like the Muslim World League and World Assembly of Muslim Youth.

After 9/11, under American pressure, much of this global financial support dried up, but the bastion of Salafism remains strong in the kingdom, enforcing the hard-line application of outdated Shariah punishments long abandoned by a majority of Muslims. Just since Aug. 4, 19 people have been beheaded in Saudi Arabia, nearly half for nonviolent crimes.

M_Id_364974_beheadingWe are rightly outraged at the beheading of James Foley by Islamist militants, and by ISIS’ other atrocities, but we overlook the public executions by beheading permitted by Saudi Arabia. By licensing such barbarity, the kingdom normalizes and indirectly encourages such punishments elsewhere. When the country that does so is the birthplace of Islam, that message resonates.

I lived in Saudi Arabia’s most liberal city, Jidda, in 2005. That year, in an effort to open closed Saudi Salafi minds, King Abdullah supported dialogue with people of other religions. In my mosque, the cleric used his Friday Prayer sermon to prohibit such dialogue on grounds that it put Islam on a par with “false religions.” It was a slippery slope to freedom, democracy and gender equality, he argued — corrupt practices of the infidel West.

This tension between the king and Salafi clerics is at the heart of Saudi Arabia’s inability to reform. The king is a modernizer, but he and his advisers do not wish to disturb the 270-year-old tribal pact between the House of Saud and the founder of Wahhabism (an austere form of Islam close to Salafism). That 1744 desert treaty must now be nullified.

The influence that clerics wield is unrivaled. Even Saudis’ Twitter heroes are religious figures: An extremist cleric like Muhammad al-Arifi, who was banned last year from the European Union for advocating wife-beating and hatred of Jews, commands a following of 9. 4 million. The kingdom is also patrolled by a religious police force that enforces the veil for women, prohibits young lovers from meeting and ensures that shops do not display “indecent” magazine covers. In the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, the religious police beat women with sticks if they stray into male-only areas, or if their dress is considered immodest by Salafi standards. This is not an Islam that the Prophet Muhammad would recognize.

Salafi intolerance has led to the destruction of Islamic heritage in Mecca and Medina. If ISIS is detonating shrines, it learned to do so from the precedent set in 1925 by the House of Saud with the Wahhabi-inspired demolition of 1,400-year-old tombs in the Jannat Al Baqi cemetery in Medina. In the last two years, violent Salafis have carried out similar sectarian vandalism, blowing up shrines from Libya to Pakistan, from Mali to Iraq. Fighters from Hezbollah have even entered Syria to protect holy sites.

Textbooks in Saudi Arabia’s schools and universities teach this brand of Islam. The University of Medina recruits students from around the world, trains them in the bigotry of Salafism and sends them to Muslim communities in places like the Balkans, Africa, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Egypt, where these Saudi-trained hard-liners work to eradicate the local, harmonious forms of Islam.

What is religious extremism but this aim to apply Shariah as state law? This is exactly what ISIS (Islamic State) is attempting do with its caliphate. Unless we challenge this un-Islamic, impractical and flawed concept of trying to govern by a rigid interpretation of Shariah, no amount of work by a United Nations agency can unravel Islamist terrorism.

Saudi Arabia created the monster that is Salafi terrorism. It cannot now outsource the slaying of this beast to the United Nations. It must address the theological and ideological roots of extremism at home, starting in Mecca and Medina. Reforming the home of Islam would be a giant step toward winning against extremism in this global battle of ideas.

WE MUST OBJECT TO THE AIM, NOT JUST THE METHOD

Islamic State (or ISIS or IS) is without doubt a particularly vile Islamist group.  Disavowed by Al-Qaeda for being too extreme, the group emerged in early 2013 and is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Baghdadi recently declared himself leader of a new caliphate which so far covers parts of Iraq and Syria. Islamic State intends to stretch its caliphate much further – including in to parts of Europe.

The atrocities committed by this jihadist group, in pursuit of their Islamic state, have been widely publicised.  Death squads have lined people up to be shot in the back of the head, people (including children) are reported to have been buried alive, beheadings are widespread, and women are being kidnapped and sold in to slavery.  Christians in Iraq have reportedly been ordered to “leave, convert, or die”.

It is the plight of the Yazidi people, a religious minority in Iraq, which has prompted the United States to respond with air strikes against Islamic State.  Around 50,000 people of the Yazidi minority have fled for their lives and many have been hidden away in mountains facing starvation and dehydration, as well as the threat of slaughter by the Islamist militants.

It is right that the US has responded to Islamic State with military strikes, and it is right that this group is condemned across the world for its brutality.  What has not been sufficiently condemned however, or even acknowledged, is the ultimate aim of the Islamist group, or the fact that groups all over the world share this aim – the creation of Islamic states under sharia law.  Until the world is ready to condemn this underlying motivation, confronting IS will merely paper over the cracks.

Across the globe, Islamist groups are fighting the same war: a war against freedom, human rights, and anything that doesn’t fit with their version of Islam.  It is the war being fought by Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram in Africa, by Hamas against Israel, and it is the war being fought by various Islamic groups in the west, whose methods may differ from the terrorists but whose aim is the same; the establishment of sharia law.

In the UK, sharia-advocating groups are widespread and are often entertained by our leaders as “moderates”.  The Muslim Council of Britain endorses sharia, as does the Muslim Brotherhood linked Muslim Association of Britain.  Senior figures in the Islamic Sharia Council (the largest ‘sharia court’ body in the UK) call for stonings and lashings and “jihad against the non-Muslims”.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group which advocates a global Islamic state, can attract a crowd of 10,000 or so to Wembley stadium.  Islamists and jihadists routinely preach (and recruit) on British university campuses (Sharia Watch UK will soon release a report on Islamism in UK universities) and those speakers share the aim of Islamic State – a society governed by sharia law.

Islamism and the quest for sharia law is a global phenomenon.  It is present on every continent and is growing in power by the day.  It is aided by the stubborn refusal of Western leaders to acknowledge the underlying problem, which is the nature of the Islamic state itself.  This is a problem because it is fundamentally at odds with democracy, liberty, and basic civil rights.

To oppose the likes of Islamic State, and what is truly driving them, Western leaders are called upon to do something very powerful – to defend democracy, freedom, and civil liberties, and to do so without apology.

Currently, this looks to be sadly improbable

Vice News: Bulldozing the Border Between Iraq and Syria: The Islamic State (Part 5)

Published on Aug 13, 2014 by VICE News

On August 8, nearly three years after the United States pulled out of Iraq, President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes to commence on Islamic State positions in northern Iraq, as the group’s fighters advanced towards the Kurdish capital of Erbil. For six weeks prior to the strikes the Islamic State made stunning gains within Iraq, effectively dismantling the border with Syria and defeating the Iraqi army with little in the way to stop them.

In the final installment of VICE News’ unprecedented look inside the Islamic State, reporter Medyan Dairieh journeys 200 miles from the the group’s power base in the Syrian city of Raqqa to the border with Iraq. There, after defeating the Iraqi army manning the checkpoint, Islamic State fighters work further to bulldoze the border.

As they clear apart a barrier that divided Iraq and Syria, Islamic State fighters declare an end of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a nearly 100-year-old pact between France and Britain that divided up the Middle East. For now, that area between Iraq and Syria is part of a new territory: the Islamic State.

View parts 1-5 here

or watch:

The Islamic State (Full Length)

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights

 

We can learn a lot about the Islamic world view by knowing what Islam thinks human rights are. Warning: it is not a good world for the Kafir.

By Bill Warner:

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights was a document put together in 1990 after the United Nations had come out with its Universal Human Rights. The Muslims looked at it and said: “We don’t like universal human rights. We will put together an Islamic document about human rights.”

We can learn something very interesting about Islam and about us as Kafirs from this document. It is a 2 to 3 page document that is based on the Sharia. It has some lofty language, which at first seems to be wonderful, until you look at it really closely. For instance, it starts off by saying that all human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah. What? Human beings are those who submit to Allah and that’s our first insight into the true nature of this doctrine. What about those who do not submit to Allah?

It goes ahead to say all men are equal in terms of basic human dignity. Well, not really because in the Sharia, there are Kafirs and believers and Kafirs are not treated equally under the Sharia.

The Cairo Declaration states that the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is forbidden to take away a life except for a Sharia prescribed reason. What might those be? Well there’s the usual ones, such as the penalty for murder. But then there are other reasons to take a life, which I personally don’t like. For instance, it’s allowed to take the life of a Kafir, if it is in jihad. That is wrong and doesn’t really give me a lot of rights. Another reason that you can kill somebody is, buried deep in the back of the Sharia text, is that both parents and grandparents shall not be considered guilty if they kill one of their children. So in other words, honor killings are built into the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.

It states that men and women have the right to marriage and no restrictions stemming from race color or nationality. What are we missing? Yes, religion! Because you see there are many prohibitions on Muslims. A Muslim woman is not supposed to marry a Kafir male, but a Kafir woman can marry an Islamic male, a Muslim male. Why? The children have to be raised as Muslims.

The Cairo Declaration says that a woman is equal to a man in human dignity. Right. But included in the Sharia are prescriptions on how a woman is to be beaten and the appropriate ways to do this. So much for equality.

It say that everyone shall have the right to enjoy their fruits of his scientific, literary, or artistic work. Well, not really. Because you see, any art which portrays Mohammed or Islam in a bad way is strictly forbidden.

Then we have one that sounds great. All individuals are equal before the law. But individuals are not equal under the Sharia. A Kafir cannot testify in a Sharia court against a Muslim. That’s the equality under the Sharia.

The Cairo declaration says that everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely. Try going to Pakistan and say something about Mohammed Muslims don’t like and you’ll see how much right you have to freely express your opinion. You’ll be dead.

The Cairo Declaration ends with a simple statement. All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this declaration are subject to the Sharia. It is a case where the little print takes away everything that the big print promises. Because there aren’t any rights and freedoms inside of the Sharia for the Kafir. Human rights are only for Muslims. Kafirs don’t have any rights because Kafirs are not humans. So much for the declaration of human rights under Islam.