Why is ISIS Minting It’s Own Currency?

0 (2)CSP, By Kyle Shideler, Nov.14, 2014:

The media was fascinated this week by reports that the Islamic State (ISIS) is moving to produce its own currency, which is intended to be produced in gold, silver and copper denominations. Vox.com did an “explainer”on the subject, and CNN brought on former U.S. Treasury official Jimmy Gurelé to discuss the move. Gurelé noted:

“The difficulty, of course, with that kind of money is you can’t just put that money in shoe boxes and place it under your mattress. It has to enter into the financial system at some point in time. So I think the Treasury needs to be focusing on banks — banks in Qatar for example, and in Kuwait — that may be the recipients and handling money for ISIS.”

Which is true, if ISIS viewed itself as either a traditional terrorist organization looking to employ violence for political change, or if it was an insurgency attempting to establish a modern, western style nation-state. But they aren’t, and analyzing their behavior from these perspectives is ultimately a waste of time.

The primarily motivator for ISIS behavior is strict adherence to and imposition of shariah law, and in particular to the law as it was practiced by the Salaf Al-Salih, the original companions of the Mohammed. Given this, a reversion to a precious metal standard makes complete sense for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that many other shariah requirements involve payments which are calculated in traditional Caliphate coinage- the gold Dinar and the silver Dirham- or by the traditional measurement by weight-the daniq. These requirements include the imposition of Jizya (tribute) and kharaj (land) taxes upon non-believers, calculations for Zakat (annual tithe) etc.

For example, the medieval Shafi’ jurist Abu al-Hasan Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Habib al-Mawardi in his “The Ordinances of Government” one of the most respected works on the Caliphate and how it is to be organized notes that, “The tribute [Jizya] and the land tax [Kharaj] are two God-sanctioned payments that must be made to Muslims by the unbelievers,” although no one set amount is agreed upon by shariah jurists, either medieval or modern. Al-Mawardi writes:

Abu Hanifa (founder of the Hanafi School of jurisprudence) classifies those liable to it (the jizya) into three groups: the rich, who pay forty-eight dirhams; the average, who pay twenty-four dirhams; and the poor, who are charged twelve dirhams. In this way he sets an upper and lower limit to it, allowing no room for discretion by those in authority, while Malik (founder of the Maliki school) leaves the matter entirely up to them. Al-Shafi’i sets the minimum at one dinar, nothing less than which may be taken.

When ISIS took control of Raqqa, the group set about instituting the jizya in just such a manner as described by Al-Mawardi. According to the UK Telegraph:

Christians are obligated to pay Jizya tax on every adult male to the value of four golden dinars for the wealthy, half of that for middle-income citizens and half of that for the poor,” their decree said. “They must not hide their status, and can pay in two installments per year.” Four dinars would amount to just over half an ounce of gold, worth £435 at current prices.

And while it is tempting to view the Islamic State as engaged in some kind of brutal “renaissance faire”, playing at living life in the manner of medieval Muslims, they are certainly not alone in their desire to institute the jizya. For example, during the reign of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, prior to its overthrow, reports were made that Muslim Brotherhood members were extracting the Jizya in some areas. The Washington Times reported at the time:

According to Fr. Yunis Shawqi, who spoke yesterday to Dostor reporters in Dalga, all Copts in the village, “without exception,” are being forced to pay the tax. “[The] value of the tribute and method of payment differ from one place to another in the village, so that, some are being expected to pay 200 Egyptian pounds per day, others 500 Egyptian pounds per day,” Mr. Shawqi said, according to the translator. In some cases, families not able to pay have been attacked. As many as 40 Christian families have now fled Dalga, Mr. Ibrahim reported.

Hamas has also threatened to establish the Jizya if it should succeed in establishing a Palestinian state, and protection rackets demanding the jizya from Christians under threat of violence are well known throughout the Middle East.

In addition to the jizya, the desire to return to a traditional, shariah compliant, currency system based on gold and silver is also far more pervasive then one might otherwise assume.

For example, the former prime minister of Malaysia Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been aleading advocate for the Islamic world to return to the gold dinar and silver dirham system. In addition to Malaysia, Iran , and Indonesia have hinted at accepting a return to such a currency standard, and firms focused on providing gold dinars are in place in South Africa, The United Kingdom, Pakistan, and the United States. The dinar movement is only one aspect of a far wider effort to establish shariah compliant finance, a topic about which our sister blog Shariah Finance Watch, covers in far greater detail.

The point of drilling down on this relatively minor point regarding the Islamic State’s currency, is that ISIS behaves in matters both large and small in a manner widely understood to be consistent with shariah law, and efforts to establish the shariah take place both violently, as ISIS has done, as well as non-violently, while the end objective remains the same.

The Ideology Problem in Timbuktu Is Not al-Qaeda’s Making — It Is Classical Islam

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy:

Andrew’s post describing the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Mali is essential, if excruciating, reading. Beyond the monstrously cruel but all too usual punishments being imposed, I’m struck by two things, which really show how willful blindness leads inexorably to spring fever: The Guardian attributes the atrocious penalties to the “menace of al-Qaida”; it also notes, however, that the “ban [on music] comes in the context of a horrifically literal and gratuitous application of Sharia law in all aspects of daily life.”

Much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, al Qaeda did not make up sharia law. Islam did. And in the West, it is a key tenet of due process that law is imposed literally — ambiguous laws violate the principle that people of ordinary intelligence must be on fair notice of what is prohibited. There’s nothing “gratuitous” about applying as it is written.

16044762We can keep our heads tucked snug in the sand, or we can recognize the source of the problem. As I detail in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the literalist construction of sharia that al Qaeda’s local franchise is enforcing in Mali is “literal” because it comes from Islamic scripture, not from some purportedly “extremist” fabrication of Islam. Moreover, while it seems only militant jihadists proudly urge this construction in practice, it is enthusiastically endorsed in principle by two of the most influential institutions in the Islamic Middle East: al Azhar University and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Don’t just take my word for it. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law is not some al Qaeda pamphlet. It is a renowned explication of sharia’s reliance (1)provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think-tank begun in the early eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”) — and from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West (“We certify,” the famed scholars wrote, that the “translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community…. There is no objection to printing it and circulating it…. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.” There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.).

#more#

Reliance is also endorsed by Islamic authorities in Jordan (leading influences on a largely Palestinian population that may well overthrow the pro-Western monarchy) and Syria (leading influences on the “rebels” on whose side interventionists — including both presidential candidates — would have us jump to abet the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing campaign to oust the minority Alawite Assad regime).

Here, as I summarize in Spring Fever – quoted verbatim and supported by citations — is what Reliance has to say about the arts:

It is forbidden to make pictures of “animate life,” for doing so “imitates the creative act of Allah Most High”; “Whoever makes a picture, Allah shall torture him with it on the Day of Judgment until he can breathe life into it, and he will never be able to.” (Reliance w50.0 & ff.)

“Musical instruments of all types are unlawful.” Singing is generally prohibited (for “song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage), and “[o]n the Day of Resurrection Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” However, if unaccompanied by musical instruments, song and poetry drawn from Islamic scripture and encouraging obedience to Allah are permissible. Ironically, although music is generally forbidden, dancing is permissible “unless it is languid, like the movements of the effeminate.” (Reliance r40.0 &ff.)

Those sharia provisions are complemented by these — again, endorsed by al-Azhar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and our “moderate” “allies” in the region:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

[Note: These latter prohibitions against denying or reviling any aspect of Islam, Allah or the prophet are the basis for imposing death for blasphemy. The call to kill apostates for such offenses obviously applies with equal or greater force to non-Muslims, who are pervasively treated worse than Muslims by sharia (see, e.g., Sura 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which had been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the book [i.e., Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [the poll tax imposed on non-believers for the privilege of living in the Islamic state] and feel themselves subdued.”)]

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity” –zakat can only be given to Muslims and is designed strictly to fortify the Muslim community, not benefit the less fortunate generally); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster…. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1-17.)

Non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various adhesive conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliancep50.0 & ff; p.74.0& ff.)

The penalty for fornication is to be stoned to death, unless one is without the “capacity to remain chaste,” in which case the penalty is “being scourged one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81 km./50mi. for one year.” (Relianceo12.0 & ff.)

The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.)

A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. – Marriage.)

A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliancep42.0 & ff.)

A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliance m13.2-3.)

A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Relianceo14.0.)

The penalty for drinking alcohol is “to be scourged forty stripes.” (Reliance o16.3; p.14.2.)

The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliancep7.0 & ff.)

The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Relianceo24.7.)

If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet … said, “Men are already destroyed when they obey women.” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”)

This is not al Qaeda doctrine. This is sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. It is not the construction of Islam that many Muslims in the West wish to live under. But it is the mainstream supremacist Islam of the Middle East, which Islamic leaders — including those who come to the West to preach it — would not dream of discrediting, even if they are not as enthusiastic as al Qaeda where imposing it is concerned.

The State Department and the leading foreign policy voices of both major American political parties say sharia is perfectly compatible with “democracy” and the Western conception of human rights — of liberty and equality. Sure it is. And then you wonder why the Obama administration opens a consulate in Benghazi, one of the most perilous places in the world for Americans, refuses to safeguard it despite multiple pleas for beefed up security, and then fraudulently claims a pluperfectly predictable atrocity was caused by a video no one ever saw. If you’re going to live in a dreamworld, better get used to nightmare consequences.

The West’s Dangerous Enchantment with Islam: Muslim Women Thrown “Under the Bus”

Gatestone Institute, by Uzay Bulut, Nov. 9, 2014:

There are no women’s rights in Islam; there are no women’s rights in most Muslim countries. And there is no freedom of expression in these countries; people have become virtually voiceless.

To make a positive change in Muslim countries, we need to be able to speak openly, without putting one’s life at risk, and tell the (too-often criminalized) truth about what Islamic teachings and traditions actually contain.

If one is called “racist” or “Islamophobe,” the answer is that these are the accusations bullies always use to silence those who disagree with them. The real Islamophobes are those who degrade, abuse and kill their fellow Muslims.

If oppression of women is rooted in the culture, shouldn’t one be asking, ‘what makes a culture that misogynous?’

There is a situation even more frightening. It now seems to be difficult to speak openly about fundamentalist Islam even in Western countries. The worst thing any Western progressive or feminist can do is to stay silent.

The loudest voices in the West now seem to come from many progressives who say that criticizing of Islam is racist, intolerant, bigoted and Islamophobic. Injustices, they claim, take place all around the world, not just among Muslims or in Muslim countries. The criticism, they go on, comes from wrong interpretations of Islamic teachings. They say that Islam respects women, and that there are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad people in all religions.

In just seven years, however, between 2002 and 2009, the rate of murdered women in Turkey has increased by 1400 percent.[1]

There are also more than 181,000 child brides in Turkey.[2]

When those figures are provided by state authorities, they are based on factual statistics. But when they are expressed in a critical manner by Canan Arin, a lawyer and women rights activist, they are, apparently, a “crime.”

Canan Arin, 72, is a feminist lawyer who has dedicated her life to women’s rights struggles in Turkey.[3]

The Antalya Bar Association, in December 2011, invited her to its newly founded Women’s Rights Enforcement Centre to give training to the lawyers on violence against women. There, she delivered a speech about early and forced marriages, and gave two examples — one from the 7th century, the other from the 20th century — to clarify her point.

The first example concerned Muhammad, the founder of Islam, who married a girl of seven. The second was about Abdullah Gul, then-President of the Turkish Republic, who became engaged to his wife when she was 14 and married her when she was 15, in 1980.

Although both of those examples are supposedly based on the truth, speaking the truth in Turkey now seems to constitute a crime. A year later, therefore, a warrant was issued for Arin’s arrest, and on December 12, 2012, she was brought to court for “insulting religious values adopted by a part of the society” (Turkish Penal Code Article- 216/3) and for “insulting the President” (Turkish Penal Code- Article 299/1).

On May 30, 2013, the court declared its final decision, which was the adjournment of the trial. According to the ruling, if Arin commits a similar crime in three years and receives a punishment for it, her case will be reopened.

“If I do not open my mouth for three years, and do not engage in [discussions of similar] subject matters, this trial will be ignored. Their ruling is like running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. But this trial should have never been opened in the first place,” Arin said to the Turkish newspaper, Hurriyet.

It is bewildering that any prosecutor actually considers child marriage a “value.” According to the Turkish Statistical Institute, in 2012 alone, the rate of parental consent for legal marriage under the age of 18 increased by 94.2%. This increase is not taking place in a country ruled by Islamic sharia law, but in Turkey, the only so-called “secular” Muslim country.

There are no women’s rights in Islam; there are no women rights in most Muslim countries. And as there is no freedom of expression in these countries, people have become virtually voiceless.

Yet many people, especially the so-called progressives, seem to find limitless excuses for fundamentalist Islamic atrocities against women. These include beheadings, stonings, domestic violence, honor killings, female genital mutilation, official legal inequality, home confinement, child marriages, and Saudi Arabia’s prohibition against women driving, to name a few.

Statements that come up with “multicultural” excuses to provide cover for the practices of fundamentalist Islam, however, never have, and never will, help to liberate women who suffer under Islamic misogyny, gender apartheid and jihad.

To make a positive change in Muslim countries, we need to be able to speak openly and tell the (too-often criminalized) truth about what Islamic teachings and traditions actually contain. Yet in Muslim countries, it is impossible speak openly about what is in these Islamic teachings and traditions, without putting one’s life at risk.

There is a situation even more frightening. It now seems to be difficult to speak openly about fundamentalist Islam even in Western countries, in part thanks to the dangerous enchantment of Western progressives and feminists who romanticize Islamism.

Women in the Muslim world desperately need the voice of Western progressives and feminists. But when it comes to finding excuses to neutralize critical questions about Islamic violence, Western progressives seem endlessly creative. Known by an increasing number of women as “Excuses for Abuses,” these include:

Criticizing Islam is racist and reveals “intolerance,” “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

For the record, Islam is not a race. Moreover, if you discuss the violent and misogynous teachings of Islam, it does not mean that you hate or are intolerant of Muslims, just of violence and misogyny.

It does mean that you care about Muslim women; that you do not want them to be forced to find four male “witnesses” to “prove” they have been raped, or to be punished by Islamic courts as adulterers if their rapists do not confess. It means you believe that their testimony in court, or their inheritance, should be valued as highly as a man’s; that you do not want them to be the victim of honor killings or child marriages at the hands of their Muslim family members, and that you do not want their husbands to be able beat them with impunity.

It also means that you want children to grow up to be honest, informed, compassionate adults, filled with love for life and fellow human beings, and who can speak up for rights and liberties that can never be taken for granted — all gained as a result of centuries-long wars, struggles and social movements.

It means you do not want to see children blowing themselves up on a bus, or people buying or selling women, or killing their sisters for not wearing the hijab. And finally, it means that you do not want children getting married at the age of seven, especially to men they have never met, or to be hypocrites who have to say, “Islam is a religion of peace” to defend themselves every time another Muslim commits a crime justified by proclaiming Islamic beliefs.

“Injustices against women take place all around the world, not just against Muslims or in Muslim countries.”

If the oppression of women is rooted in the culture, shouldn’t one be asking, ‘what makes a culture that misogynous?’

What is progressivism if its objectives do not include helping emancipate women from Islamic oppression, such as honor killings, child marriages, stonings, flogging and punishing rape victims (while releasing rapists) — all of which are employed in the Muslim world, in line with Islamic teachings, allegedly to “protect” and “respect” women and to keep them “pure,” but more probably to keep women in their place?

“What you are seeing is not the real Islam; Islam has been hijacked.”

The problem with this view is that Islam actually does teach that a woman is worth less than a man. Many teachings in Islam are misogynous — from wearing veils; requiring four male witness to prove rape; issues of inheritance; court testimony; rules of marriage; rules of divorce and remarriage; a man’s “right” to marry up to four women and then beat them, and so on.

If Western progressives and feminists care at all about their Muslim sisters, they need to protest against the actual roots of this injustice: these Islamic teachings.

Many progressives, however, seem not even to want to learn about them, let alone speak out against them. Perhaps they fear that if they knew more, they might actually have to speak out. Or perhaps they remain silent from indifference or inertia. But if all they really care about in the West is their (understandable) ability to get abortions and equal pay for equal work, they have badly failed to grasp the consequences of a theocracy on everyone, not only on women.

If they wished to inform themselves, they might read just the verses of the Quran relating to women and glance at the hadith sunnah literature — all easily found on the internet. Then — if they sincerely wished to raise future generations with humanitarian values, equal justice under law, and a respect for human rights — they might educate others about those teachings, while basing their opinions on knowledge, not on wishful thinking.

“If you accommodate Islamic misogyny,” says the writer Pat Condell, “you legitimize it and you invite it into your own life and into the lives of your children … because it’s coming your way. You also help to ensure that the woman in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, who gets beaten every day, will continue to be beaten and treated as a piece of property, as will her daughters and granddaughters all the way down the line.”

“It is not about Islam. Crimes were committed and are being committed in all places throughout history.”

The world is no paradise, but in the West, if economic, political or social causes of injustices are freely discussed, why should religious, or Islamic, causes be exempt from discussion?

In many Muslim countries, where only Islam — but not the people — has the right to survive, such discussion is impossible without extreme risk. Even in Turkey, considered one of the most “liberal” of Muslim countries, if you dare to discuss or criticize the teachings of Islam, you can be killed, arrested, attacked, exposed to social and psychological lynching campaigns, brought to court and given a prison sentence.

Do progressives not oppose supremacy and oppression? Why then do they turn a blind eye to Islamic supremacy and oppression?

In Gaza, for instance, for whom Western progressives claim to have so much sympathy, women are systematically murdered in honor killings, and the Hamas government does not protect them. Appeals court judge Ziad Thabet, told Al-Monitor that “during his time in the judiciary, he had noticed that honor killing defendants were usually given light sentences. Three years in prison was the harshest…. Life sentences or execution were never a consideration.”

Al Jazeera also reported that “the number of so-called ‘honor killings’ in Palestine doubled in 2013 from the previous year. … For the past three years, the number of women killed has increased each year.”

Can Western feminists not stand up even against a terrorist group, Hamas, on behalf of Gazan women, who cannot speak up for themselves for fear of reprisals? Or would this not be as pleasurable as condemning Israel, the only Middle Eastern country where Muslim women do have equal rights? Or can these progressives only parrot propaganda, such as, “Palestinian women are exposed to honor killings by angry Palestinian men due to the Israeli occupation”?

“Not all Muslims are the same. There are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad people in all religions.”

First of all, thank you very much for this genius discovery. But how can it help reduce the Islamic violence around the world?

Of course it is true that there are many good Muslims, whose values do not follow Islamic teachings verbatim, but also include humanitarian values. They do not wage war on other religions or try to bring them under submission to Islam. In the eyes of jihadis or Islamists, however, who live by the harshest interpretation of most doctrinaire Islamic teachings, such a quality makes them “bad Muslims.”

“All religions are essentially the same.”

Well, not quite. Biblical values are far more benign than Islamic ones, and generally descriptive rather than proscriptive. Furthermore, the most violent of them were long ago abandoned.

No religion, for instance, other than Islam, has ever commanded that those who insult or leave it should be put to death. (See Surahs 6:93, 33:57, 33:61)

On September 24 after being found guilty of “heresy” and “insulting prophet Jonah,” Mohsen Amir Aslani, 37, an Iranian psychologist, was hanged in a prison near the city of Karaj west of Tehran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency. Aslani, it seems, had given religious classes where he provided his own interpretations of the Quran. In one of his classes, he apparently told his audience that Jonah could not have emerged from the whale’s belly; it was this statement that led to his charge of insulting the prophet Jonah, the Iran Wire websitereported.

Left: Canan Arin, a feminist lawyer arrested in Turkey for “insulting religious values adopted by a part of the society” and “insulting the President,” after she mentioned that the Muslim prophet Muhammad married a 7-year-old girl and the President of Turkey married his wife when she was 15 years old. Right: Mohsen Amir Aslani, an Iranian psychologist who was hanged in Iran for the crimes of “heresy” and “insulting prophet Jonah,” after he said that the biblical prophet Jonah could not have emerged from a whale’s belly.

How much time will pass until Islam is reformed or reinterpreted? How many people will be killed, attacked or enslaved until that happens? How many Muslims have the free will or courage to speak out? Will Islamists even ever allow them to, without threatening retaliation? Are the Islamists so uncertain that what they are preaching can stand on its merits — as the Quran instructs, “without compulsion” — that they cannot even tolerate even a single comment about one of their prophets?

What Western progressives and feminists are doing for the sake of political correctness — or a well intentioned, if misguided, “multiculturalism” — does nothing to help Muslim women. On the contrary, “political correctness,” silence, or making excuses for atrocities caused by Islam, can only add to the suffering of women in the Muslim world.

If progressives truly want to protect Muslims, they cannot achieve this goal by “protecting” Islam from criticism.

If one is called “racist” or “Islamophobe,” the answer is that these are accusations bullies always use to silence people who disagree with them. The real Islamophobes are those who degrade, abuse and kill their fellow Muslims.

The worst thing any Western progressive or feminist can do in the face of the suffering caused by Islamic teachings, is to stay silent.

Uzay Bulut is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.


[1] According to the Turkish Ministry of Justice, 2009.

[2] According to the data of the Turkish Statistical Institute in 2012.

[3] Arin co-founded the Purple Roof-Women’s Shelter Foundation, the Association for the Support of Women Candidates and the Women’s Rights Enforcement Centre of the Istanbul Bar Association. Between 1994 and 1997, she acted as an expert on violence against women for the Gender Equality Commission of the Council of Europe.

Amendment banning ‘foreign law’ in Alabama courts passes; will be added to Alabama Constitution

alac2al.com, By Greg Garrison:

Amendment One, an amendment to the state constitution that prohibits foreign law being used to decide cases in Alabama courts, has passed easily and will be added to the Alabama Constitution.
Eric Johnston, the Birmingham attorney who drafted the amendment, felt vindicated after it was described as an attack on Muslims.
“I put in about three years of work on it,” Johnston said, after AP and Politico declared that the amendment passed. The amendment passed by a wide margin of about 72 percent to 28 percent with 96 percent of precincts counted.
Johnston drafted the amendment for State Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, who sponsored it. Johnston said it had a wider application than banning Sharia law, the Muslim code of law and morality. “We were just trying to do something legal, not political,” Johnston said.
A legislative committee now will decide where the amendment fits in the Constitution and how it will be numbered, under which article, in the published code, Johnston said.

Johnston said it does not undermine the religious rights of Muslims or anyone else, but does prevent lawyers from arguing from Sharia law in an Alabama custody case, for example.
“Your constitutional rights are not affected by it,” Johnston said. “We’ve got a religious freedom amendment in Alabama. All it says is pay attention to the religious freedom amendment. Women’s rights are compromised by Sharia rights if a lawyer in a custody case says, ‘Islam requires you to do this.’ It’s a help to judges. It doesn’t create any new laws.”
Some argued that the amendment could possibly interfere with foreign marriages and adoptions.
“It does not affect those rights at all,” Johnston said. “If you get married outside the country, that marriage is going to be recognized. If you go to Russia and adopt a child, that adoption is going to be recognized. That was a red herring to scare people away. Those people who said that are ridiculous. They were totally wrong.”

Johnston was not surprised it became a political controversy.
“You put in a lot of hard work, a lot of time explaining it to everybody, then everybody takes shots at it,” Johnston said.
“I’ve been working on religious freedom issues for 30 years,” Johnston said. “My approach is to protect people’s rights and liberties. That’s what this is. I did it because I thought it was the right thing. There’s no change in law, it’s a reminder to the judges that we need to stick to Alabama’s laws and public policy.”

Also see:

“Obama Will Witness His Own Country Run by the Sharia.”

British Islamist Abu Ramaysah

British Islamist Abu Ramaysah

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield:

We’re going to need a lot more Muslim immigrants before that happens.

60 Minutes decided to run a piece on a moderate Muslim who has a beautiful vision for co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims.

 

“I understand that many people are unaware of the Sharia and the blessings it can bring,” he said. “The Sharia is not there to subjugate non-Muslims, it’s there to liberate them.”

It is.

Islamic law is there to liberate non-Muslims from their civil rights, women from being able to leave the house and everyone else from being able to freely practice their religion.

“So I do believe one day that America and Europe will one day be under the Sharia,” Rumaysah continued. “And I think that is a blessing. However, I would also say that in the short-term, the Americans and the British, they need to be very wary.”

Until they get properly liberated and/or beheaded. After that it’s smooth sailing.

“We’re going to see the Khilafah expand into Jordan, into Saudi Arabia, onto the shores of Europe. And one day Obama, he will witness his own country be run by the Sharia.”

And what’s that going to involve?

 “Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe,” Rumaysah told 60 Minutes correspondent Clarissa Ward. “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.”

And if civilized societies don’t do something about them, those patrols will be our end.

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