First Islamic State Celebrates Anniversary

ayatollahalikhamen_2162837b

Frontpage, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Feb. 11, 2016:

The first Islamic State since World War II celebrates its anniversary this week. And it isn’t the one you might think.

ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is the late-comer to the world of Islamic-inspired murder and mayhem. The regime that invented the genre will celebrate its 37th anniversary on Feb. 11. It’s official name: the Islamic Republic of Iran.

You can’t really call a regime a Republic when it has a Supreme Leader whose wishes trump every single elected official, institution, and law in the country.

So let’s call the Iranian regime by the title it has earned: the Islamic State of Iran.

Everything that you see ISIS doing in Iraq, Syria and now Libya, the Islamic State of Iran has been doing for 37 years to its own people.

Chopping off hands in application of the Sharia law punishment for thievery? The Islamic State of Iran began that practice at the outset of the Revolution in 1979. Same goes for gouging out eyes, ripping out tongues, and dismemberment using jeeps attached to the arms and legs of the condemned person.

Stoning women for allegations of adultery? Check. Just watch the Stoning of Soraya M if you would like to get a feel for the gristly details.

The Islamic State of Iran leaders and their apologists would have you believe that women in Iran are more “free” than in neighboring countries, such as Saudi Arabia. In Iran, after all, they go to co-ed universities, work, and drive cars.

What the Islamic State of Iran’s apologists would prefer you not see is that its Sharia-law constitution officially relegates women to second-class citizenship status, so they can be married off at the age of nine, sold into “temporary marriage” (sigheh) by clerical pimps, and need a married relative’s approval to leave the country.

If it was good enough for Mohammad and his wives, it’s good enough for Iranians living in their Islamic State.

How about terror? The Islamic State of Iran began its existence washed in the blood of terrorist atrocities, starting with the execution of 3,000 members of the Shah’s officer’s corps.

It set up “revolutionary courts” that hunted down enemies of the regime and murdered them in public. When that wasn’t enough, it rounded up Baha’is, Jews, and Christians, and sent troops to massacre Kurds, ethnic Arabs, and Balouchis.

The Director of National Intelligence, Lt. Gen. James Clapper, told Congress on Tuesday that ISIS leaders “seek to strike the U.S. homeland.” (Like Obama, for some reason Clapper refers to them as ISIL, an abbreviation that uses the old Colonial term for Syria, the Levant.)

What slouches! The Islamic State of Iran began its very existence with an attack on America, by taking our embassy and diplomats in Tehran hostage on Nov. 4, 1979. It went on to blow up our embassy and U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983, and more recently, to kill U.S. soldiers using IEDs equipped with explosively-formed-penetrators (EFPs) in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Today, the Islamic State of Iran boasts that America as we know it “will cease to exist” because of its actions. I believe that is a pretty clear reference to a well-known plan in Iran to build an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) nuclear device, to take out our national power grid.

Terror in Europe? The Islamic State of Iran has carried out dozens of terrorist acts over the past 37 years in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and elsewhere. It has bombed trains, metro stations, and shopping centers, and sent out professional hit teams to gun down more than 200 dissidents living overseas.

Just like ISIS, early on the Islamic State of Iran decreed that its goal was a worldwide war of jihad, and set up jihadi groups in Lebanon, Kuwait, Bahrain, and elsewhere. It even went to Argentina in 1992 to blow up the Israeli embassy, and struck there again in 1994 to hit the AMIA Jewish community center.

And its reign of torture and mayhem continue. Just last year – Year Three in the reign of the latest “pro-Western” “moderate” President, Hassan Rouhani – Iran once again became the execution capital of the world, according to the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed.

One private group estimated that Iran had executed 1084 people in 2015, the highest number in more than 25 years and the highest per capita execution rate in the world.

For every person put to death these days by the Islamic State of Iran, a dozen more get thrown into secret prisons, where they are brutally tortured, sexually abused, and often murdered. Those who live to tell their stories will bear the scars forever.

Like Stalin in his time, the Islamic State of Iran even extends its reign of terror to the children its own supporters, just to make sure they toe the line. Just look at this chronology of the 2009 post-election protests from the Foundation for Democracy of Iran.

This week, supporters of jailed Iranian cleric Seyed Hossein Kazemini Borujerdi wrote to three Republican members of Congress who are trying to visit Iran to monitor the upcoming sham “elections,” begging them to visit the jailed cleric and bring him medical supplies.

Borujerdi was arrested in 2006 along with dozens of family members and thousands of his supporters. While most of the others have since been released, he has been held without bond on the orders of a Special Court of the Clergy. “His crime: advocating the separating of religion and state and defending democracy and freedom,” his supporters wrote.

It’s time for Congress to pay as much attention to the murderers inside Iran who are killing and torturing their fellow citizens as it does to the genocidal aspirations of the Iranian regime. Why? Because murder starts at home.

Ronald Reagan understood this. Every time he visited with President Gorbachev, he brought a list of Soviet refusniks and other political prisoners that he handed to the Soviet leader.

While Secretary of State John Kerry boasts of having negotiated a “prisoner exchange” with the Islamic State of Iran that set four Americans free, has he ever raised his voice as Reagan did in all of his meetings with his Iranian counterpart?

True, the Islamic State of Iran will be watching. And they will target those who dare to stand up to them and to call them out for the murder and mayhem they spread at home and abroad.

But that is no reason to stand down. On the contrary, that is all the more reason to fight harder and to call the murderers by name.

Also see:

 

EXCLUSIVE – Geert Wilders: Stopping Islamic Immigration Is a Matter of Survival

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by Geert Wilders, Feb. 9, 2016:

In April last year, the renowned nonpartisan Pew Research Center released a report on the future growth of world religions. The content was shocking. The report states that, if current trends continue, Islam will almost equal Christianity by 2050. While the world’s population is expected to rise by 35 per cent until the middle of this century, Islam will grow with a staggering 73 per cent.

The consequences of future Islamic growth are frightening. Islam is not a religion like Christianity, but rather a totalitarian political ideology. Its goal is primarily political. Islam wants to make the whole world submit. It aims to establish a worldwide Islamic state and bring everyone, including “infidels,” such as Christians, Jews, atheists, and others, under Sharia law. This is the barbaric Islamic law which deprives non-Muslims of all rights, treats women as inferior beings, condemns apostates and critics of Islam to death, and condones terror. More Islam equals more violence, more intolerance, more terrorism.

With the growth of Islam, the world will become a less safe place. And so will America. According to Pew, the United States will see its number of Christians decline from more than three-quarters of the population today to two-thirds in 2050, while Islam will more than double in size and replace Judaism as America’s largest non-Christian faith. The consequences of the Islamic presence in America have already been visible in several murderous attacks, such last December’s San Bernardino shooting, but also the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, and several other acts of terrorism. If Islam doubles in size, the threat of terrorism will only grow.

In the past, the totalitarian ideologies of Nazism and Communism have both been defeated by the common efforts of America and Europe. Without America, Europe would have been lost. But without Europe, America would have been isolated. If Europe had fallen to either Nazism or Communism, there is no doubt that America would have become the next victim. The Transatlantic alliance between Americans and Europeans has been the key to the survival of our common Western civilization. This alliance is in danger today, because the more Islamic Europe becomes, the less reliable it will be as an ally of America.

Though the predicted future rise of Islam in the US is worrying, the situation in Europe is far worse. The Pew figures show that Islam has already gained a significant foothold on the European continent and is growing rapidly. Europe’s Islamic population, boosted by higher birth rates and immigration, will nearly double, from 43 million people in 2010 to 71 million people in 2050. In the Netherlands, Muhammad is currently already the second most popular name among newborn boys nationwide and even the most popular name in our three largest cities, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague. This is also the case in the Belgian capital Brussels, the Norwegian capital Oslo, and the British capital London. As a matter of fact even in the whole of Great-Britain, Muhammad has become the most popular name for newborn boys.

The Islamization of Europe will profoundly influence European politics. Winning the Islamic vote will become the goal of ever more European politicians. As a result, Europe’s policies will become even less friendly towards Israel and the United States than they already are. The Atlantic alliance is in danger.

The Islamic vote has already decided at least one major European election: the 2012 French presidential elections. These were won by the Socialist Francois Hollande over the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy by only 1.1 million votes. Since an estimated 2 million Islamic votes participated, of which 93 per cent – 1.7 million votes – went to Hollande and only 7 per cent to Sarkozy, it was the Islamic vote which gained Francois Hollande the Elysée Palace.

According to Pew, the growth of Islam in Europe is caused by several factors, including the young age of the Islamic population. However, more than half the growth can be attributed to immigration. In other words, stopping all immigration from Islamic countries would reduce the growth of Islam in Europe, but also in America, by more than half. The easiest way to limit the growth of Islam in the West is to stop Islamic immigration.

Islam is an existential threat to our Western freedoms and our Judeo-Christian civilization. It also threatens the Atlantic partnership between America and Western Europe. It is our duty to limit this threat. It is our mission as patriots to protect our nations. The first measure we must take to stop Islam, reduce the risk of terrorism and save our civilization, is to stop all immigration from Islamic countries. It is a matter of survival.

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, is the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) and the author of “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me,” published by Regnery.

Taking a break

digeyestrain1.jpgI’ve been suffering from migraines, dry eyes and back pain, all related to spending so much time on the computer, so I have to take a break. The back pain is getting better with physical therapy and I’m looking into getting some reading glasses that are anti-reflective and filter out blue light. I’ll be back soon!

 

US Criminalizing Free Speech?

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, January 5, 2016:

  • Is this House Resolution a prelude? Has Attorney General Lynch seen the potential for someone lifting her “mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”? And what is “anti-Muslim rhetoric” exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of “hate speech” against Muslims?
  • Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%.
  • Why this lopsided, discriminatory House Resolution in favor of a religious group that statistically needs it the least?
  • Are the Attorney General and the eighty-two House Democrats out to destroy the First Amendment and introduce censorship? A House Resolution could be reintroduced later as binding legislation.

Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569) “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States”.

The Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrat Donald S. Beyer (Virginia) on December 17, 2015 — a mere 15 days after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook gunned down 14 innocent Americans and wounded 23 in an ISIS-inspired terror attack at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.

The House Resolution states, “the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim,” and the House of Representatives “expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

What victims? Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%. The fewest, 8.6% of anti-religious hate crimes, were directed against Christians (Protestants and Catholics).

The Resolution goes on to denounce “…in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim.”

The House Resolution singles out Muslims in the United States as an especially vulnerable religious group that needs special protection to the extent that the Resolution “urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes.”

The reason for the introduction of this House Resolution at this point in time makes more sense if seen in conjunction with statements made by Attorney General Loretta Lynch on December 3, at a dinner celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Muslim Advocates — an organization that, according to its own website, has “powerful connections in Congress and the White House” and ensures that, “the concerns of American Muslims are heard by leaders at the highest levels of government.” Muslim Advocates goes on to say, “As a watchdog of justice, we use the courts to bring to task those who threaten the rights of American Muslims.”

At the dinner, Attorney General Lynch stated that she is concerned about an

“incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric… The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. Now obviously, this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric — or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much — when we see that we will take action.”

Is this House Resolution a prelude to the Attorney General taking that action? Has she seen the potential for someone lifting her “mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”? And what is “anti-Muslim rhetoric” exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of what is considered hate speech against Muslims?

Are the Attorney General and the eighty-two House Democrats out to destroy the First Amendment and introduce censorship?

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (left) said on December 3, “[W]hen we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric… when we see that we will take action.”

A House Resolution could be reintroduced later as binding legislation. Americans should be deeply concerned about this. The part of the House Resolution that should most concern Americans is the urging of “local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes.”

What is a hate crime in this context? The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those — intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. However, as this resolution includes “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in its title, Americans should worry that it is those that the House Resolution is really alluding to, when it urges law enforcement authorities to prevent and prosecute hate crimes.

Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime?

Notably, no similar House Resolution has appeared condemning the much higher percentage of hate crimes against Jews — over three times as many as against Muslims. As long as the House is going down the road of condemning hate crimes, why does it not even mention once the much more widespread hate crimes that American Jews are experiencing? Why does it not mention the hate crimes against Christians, which after all are only 7.5% percent fewer than those against Muslims? Why this lopsided, discriminatory House Resolution in favor of a religious group that statistically needs it the least?

The House Resolution is unsettlingly similar to the UN Human Rights Commission’s Resolution 16/18, which is an attempt to establish Islamic “blasphemy laws,” making criticism of religion a criminal offense. The UNHRC Resolution would apply internationally (non-binding as of yet, except, presumably, for the countries that want it to be binding), and infractions would be punishable by law. In some Islamic countries, at the moment, the punishment is death — a sentence often handed down in trials that use questionable jurisprudence. Last year alone, a Saudi court sentenced a blogger, Raif Badawi to 1,000 lashes (“lashed very severely,” the court order read) and ten years in jail. Outside of any courts, in 2015 alone, in Bangladesh, four secular bloggers on four separate occasions were hacked to death by people who apparently did not agree with what they said.

The UNHRC Resolution, originally known as “Defamation of Islam,” was changed in later versions — it would seem for broader marketability — to “Defamation of Religions.”

Long sought by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, UNHRC Resolution 16/18 was co-sponsored by the United States, along with Pakistan. During a series of closed-door meetings over at least three years, it was spearheaded by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“At the invitation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” begins the document of the US Mission in Geneva, “representatives of 26 governments and four international organizations met in Washington, D.C. on December 12-14, 2011 to discuss the implementation of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18 on ‘Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.'”

UNHRC Resolution 16/18, also known as the “Istanbul Process” (where the original meeting on the topic took place), is an Orwellian document that claims to protect freedom of religion, while attempting to criminalize internationally anything that might be considered “incitement to violence.” The late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat used to tell his people, “I don’t have to tell you what to do. You know what to do.” Each word could be in Pat the Bunny. Would Arafat’s statement be considered incitement to violence?

UNHRC Resolution 16/18 was passed on March 24, 2011, without a vote.

According to the journalist Abigail Esman, writing in Forbes:

Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence… [T]his latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval – despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

In answer to a reproof — from the U.S Department of State, no less — Esman wrote, “By agreeing to criminalize ‘incitement to violence’ and to use all means at its disposal to prevent and to punish such actions, the US has – however unwittingly – enabled the OIC to use the measure against us – and other members of the free world.”

Many extremist Muslims, however, seem to have no problem criticizing other religions, as well as other Muslims. Some “criticize” Christians, as we have witnessed, by slitting their throats, or by burning or drowning them alive. Many extremist Muslims also seem to have no problem criticizing Jews – starting with calling them descendants of apes and pigs (Surah 5. Al-Maida, Ayah 60). Some Muslims write that all Jews should be killed:

the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

One therefore cannot help wondering — and one should wonder – to what extent H.Res. 569 is the “nose of the camel under the tent.”

As of now, H.Res. 569 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Americans had better hope that the House Committee will see it for what it is: An attempt to destroy the First Amendment, shield Islam from criticism, and bring “Death to Free Speech.”

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

The Danger of Partial No-go Zones to Europe

by Daniel Pipes
Washington Times
December 29, 2015

Partial no-go zones in majority-Muslim areas are a part of the urban landscape from the Mediterranean to the Baltic, with the French government alone counting 751 of them. This shirking of responsibility foreshadows catastrophe and calls for immediate reversal.

I call the bad parts of Europe’s cities partial no-go zones because ordinary people in ordinary clothing at ordinary times can enter and leave them without trouble. But they are no-go zones in the sense that representatives of the state – police especially but also firefighters, meter-readers, ambulance attendants, and social workers – can only enter with massed power for temporary periods of time. If they disobey this basic rule (as I learned first-hand in Marseille), they are likely to be swarmed, insulted, threatened, and even attacked.

 

Illustration on European “no-go” Muslim-dominated zones by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times.

This situation needs not exist. Host societies can say no to the poor, crime-ridden, violent, and rebellious areas emerging in their midst. But, if governments need not abdicate control, why do they do so? Because of a fervent, slightly desperate hope to avoid confrontation. Multicultural policies offer the illusion of sidestepping anything that might be construed as “racist” or “Islamophobic.”

This abandonment is no minor aberration but a decision with grave consequences – consequences far deeper than, say, not controlling a crime-ridden American city like East St. Louis. That’s because Muslim quasi-no-go zones fit into a far larger political context, with dual Western and Islamic dimensions.

If the deadly triad of imperialism, fascism, and racism represent all that the West has to offer, no wonder immigrants to Europe, including Islamists, are treated as superior beings due supine deference. They exploit this by acting badly – drug dealers ruling the roost, a gang raping 1,400 children over a period of 16 years, and promoting violent ideologies – with near-impunity because, after all, the Europeans have only themselves to blame.

tyranny of guiltWestern: Avoiding confrontation reflects a deep-seated ambivalence about the value of one’s own civilization and even self-hatred of the white race. The French intellectual Pascal Bruckner noted in his 2006 book La tyrannie de la pénitence (English: The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism) that leftist thinking “can be reduced to mechanical denunciations of the West, emphasizing the latter’s hypocrisy, violence, and abomination.” Europeans preen as “the sick man of the planet” whose greed and false notions of superiority causes every problem in the non-Western world: “The white man has sown grief and ruin wherever he has gone.”

Muslim: Partial no-go zones also result from an Islamic drive for exclusion and domination. Mecca and Medina constitute the official, sovereign, and eternal Muslim-only zones. For nearly fourteen centuries, these two Arabian cities have been formally off-limits to kafirs, who trespass at their peril; a lively literature of non-Muslims who penetrated their holy precincts and lived to tell the tale goes back centuries and continues still today.

Other Islamic no-go zones also exist. Before losing power in 1887, the Muslim rulers of Harar, Somalia, for centuries insisted (in the words of a British officer) on the “the exclusion of all travellers not of the Moslem faith.” In like spirit, women in hijabs scream at non-Muslim visitors to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to make them feel unwelcome and so stay away. In the West, lawful Muslim-only enclaves represent one drive for Muslim autonomy and sovereignty; the Muslims of America organization, with its 15 or so no-go compounds bristling with arms and hostility on private property dotted around the United States, represents another.

 

A sign prohibiting non-Muslims from entering Mecca.

Unlike places like East St. Louis, Muslim-majority partial no-go zones have a deeply political and highly ambitious quality to them. Indeed, it is not far-fetched to foresee them turning into Muslim autonomous zones applying Islamic law and challenging the authorities. The mix of feeble European governments and a strong Islamic drive for power points to future unrest, crises, breakdown, and even civil war.

Some believe it is already too late to avoid this fate. I disagree, but if catastrophe is to be avoided, the job to dismantle all partial no-go zones must be started soon and executed with a swift determination based on a renewed sense of self-worth. Two universal principles should guide European governments: attaining a monopoly of force and applying the same code of law to all citizens.

Domestic peace in Europe and perhaps other regions, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, demands nothing less.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2015 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Dec. 29, 2015 addendum: This analysis builds on my first-hand reporting published as “Muslim ‘No-go Zones’ in Europe?” in the Daily Caller on Dec. 2, 2015.

The Muslim Reform Movement Plays Fantasy Islam

rf (1)

Fantasy Islam: A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Muslim strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a personal version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.

Frontpage, by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby, Dec. 10, 2015:

In December 2015, a small group of “Muslim reformers” met in Washington DC to discuss the reform of Islam.  They stated they were “Muslims who live in the 21st century” who were “in a battle for the soul of Islam.”  They proclaimed that they stood for “a respectful, merciful and inclusive interpretation of Islam.”  They called their meeting the Summit of Western Muslim Voices of Reform and named themselves the Muslim Reform Movement.  On December 4, 2015, fourteen “founding authors” from this movement signed the Declaration for Muslim Reform, laying out their beliefs.

At the conclusion of the event, two participants posted a signed copy of this Declaration on the door of the Islamic Center of Washington DC (a la Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle church in 1517).  The document was quickly removed, and so far there has been little, if any, support for this reform movement from the greater Muslim-American community.

Here is the reason for that lack of support: the Preamble and Declaration are only two pages in length.  But in those two pages these “founding authors” fundamentally rejected the commands of Allah in the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad in an effort to create their own Fantasy Islam that is more compatible with Western, Judeo-Christian values.  Let’s examine some parts of that Declaration for Muslim Reform.

We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence…

So starts out the second paragraph of the Preamble.   But the commands of Allah in the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad are rife with violence.

The Koran commands Muslims specifically to kill non-Muslims (9:5), specifically to fight against Jews and Christians (9:29), and generally to fight against and be violent toward non-Muslims (e.g., 2:216, 4:74, 5:33, 8:12, 8:39, 8:57, 9:14, 9:73, 9:111, 9:123, 48:29, and 66:9).

Muhammad was proud that he had been made victorious through terror and fear (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 2977; and Sunan An-Nasa’i, No. 432).  He even said, “My livelihood is under the shade of my spear” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book 56, Chapter 88).  “Under the shade of my spear” means war plunder.

Muhammad is the standard of conduct for Muslims.  Muhammad supervised the beheading of 600-900 captured Jewish males, including non-combatants, and over the years ordered individuals killed for criticizing Islam.  Muhammad even ordered poets to be killed.  The following is a portion of a letter written shortly after the Muslim conquest of Mecca in 630 AD.  It was sent to a non-Muslim poet who used to satirize Muhammad, from the poet’s brother:

Allah’s Messenger killed some men in Makkah who used to satirize and harm him, and the poets who survived fled in all directions for their lives.  So, if you want to save your skin, hasten to Allah’s Messenger.  He never kills those who come to him repenting.  If you refuse to do as I say, it is up to you to try to save your skin by any means.

The Sealed Nectar, p. 521

Violence and Islam go hand-in-hand.

We reject bigotry, oppression and violence against all people based on any prejudice, including… sexual orientation…

We find this in A3 of the Declaration.  But Muhammad cursed lesbians and gays (Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 5886) and said that whoever is caught in a homosexual act should be killed (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 2, p. 402).

We…consider all people equal…

This is found in B2 of the Declaration.  Muhammad felt differently.  He said that Jews and Christians were worth only half of a Muslim (Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 2644).  He said that women were deficient in intelligence and religion (Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 304), and that it took the freeing of two female slaves to equal the virtue of freeing one male slave (Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, No. 1547).  The Koran forbids Muslim women from marrying a non-Muslim (2:221), but a Muslim man can marry Jewish and Christian women (5:5).  And the Koran states that Jews and Christians are among the worst of people (98:6), while Muslims are the best of people (98:7).

We support equal rights for women, including equal rights to inheritance, witness…

This is found in B3 of the Declaration.  But this statement is a specific rejection of two verses in the Koran.  4:12 states that a woman only inherits one half of what a man would get, and this means that if there is more than one wife, all the wives will have to share that one-half portion.  2:282 states that in property matters it takes the testimony of two women to equal that of one man.  Are these verses not the words of Allah?

Sharia is manmade.

This is an amazing claim made in C1 of the Declaration.  In reality, Sharia Law is Islamic Sacred Law based on the commands of Allah found in the Koran and on the teachings and example of Muhammad, who spoke for Allah.  Does the word blasphemy come to mind?

Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam.

This is another amazing claim, found in C2 of the Declaration.  After all, in the Koran Allah states that Islam was perfected during the time of Muhammad (5:3).  How then can something that is perfect be criticized?  And there are many verses that specifically prohibit criticism of Islam, Allah, or Muhammad (e.g. 4:59, 4:115, 9:63, 33:36, 33:57, and 59:7).

Muhammad did not like criticism.  For example, he personally ordered the killing of certain individuals who had criticized him or Islam (‘Amsa’ Bint Marwan, Abu ‘Afak, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, and Abu Rafi’).  And he gave retroactive approval to the separate killings by Muslims of three individuals who had earlier criticized him or Islam.

Apostasy is not a crime.

This statement is in C3 of the Declaration.  These reformers are rejecting 4:89 of the Koran which commands the killing of those who leave Islam.  They are also rejecting specific statements from their prophet Muhammad, who stated that death was the penalty for those who left Islam (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Nos. 3017 and 6878; and Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas, 36.18.15, in which Muhammad specified death by beheading for apostasy).

Conclusion

In an effort to “reform” Islam, a small band of aspiring Muslim reformers met in the capital of a non-Muslim country, proclaimed themselves to be “founding authors” (why not go all the way and say Founding Fathers?), created a document that rejected Muhammad’s Islam in favor of Western, Judeo-Christian values, and then followed the example of an earlier non-Muslim who wanted to “reform” his own non-Muslim religion.

If folks are serious about religious reform, one thinks they would like to maintain some connection to their own religious traditions as a basis for that reform.  But the Muslim Reform Movement has apparently decided otherwise and seems more interested in establishing a connection with the non-Muslim Western world as the basis for their reform.  Such is the luxury of playing Fantasy Islam.  And this is the reason why there seems to be little, if any, support coming from the greater Muslim-American community for this small group of aspiring reformers.  It is only attention from the non-Muslim world that will sustain the Muslim Reform Movement.

Video: Comedy then – reality now?

CluelessCultural Jihad, Dec. 8, 2015:

From several years ago by the ‘Half-Hour, News Hour,’ a skit on trying to figure out what some  London “terrorists” had in common.  With recent headlines this may not be as much a parody as originally intended …

Belgian Breeding Ground Fuels New Terror Wave

belgiumby Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
November 23, 2015

Time was, thoughts of Belgium led to thoughts of rich, dark chocolate, of Old Master painters and delicate, handmade lace.

Now it brings a different image: of Islamic jihad and men armed with Kalashnikovs, and of secret meetings of Muslim youth plotting a new attack against the West. The country is in lockdown today, facing what authorities believe is an “imminent attack.” On Sunday, police raided 19 homes in and around Brussels, and made 16 arrests. Brussels continues to be the focus of their action.

There is good reason for this. The Nov. 13 massacres in Paris, we’ve since learned, were planned in the Brussels district of Molenbeek, sometimes called “little Morocco” for its large Moroccan immigrant population. The attack on Charlie Hebdo also was planned there, along with the foiled attack on a Thalys high-speed train between Brussels and Amsterdam. Mehdi Nemmouche, who killed four people at the Brussels Jewish Museum in May 2014, spent time there.

But it isn’t only Molenbeek, and it isn’t only recently. Belgium has been a hotbed of radical Islam for more than a decade, breeding organizations like Sharia4Belgium – one of the most influential “Sharia4” groups globally – and the now-defunct Arab European League (AEL). The goal of the AEL, founded by the Lebanese-Belgian Dyab Abou Jahjah in 2001, was to form a “sharocracy” in which sharia and democracy ruled together across the West. The organization was based in Antwerp, where Jahjah and his friends also celebrated the attacks of 9/11 with laughter. “We couldn’t hold our joy,” he recalled later in his autobiography.

Other signs of radicalism, also connected to Jahjah, soon followed; in 2002, Jahjah helped orchestrate riots in Borgenhout, outside of Antwerp. And in 2004, after establishing a Dutch arm of the AEL, he declared, “I consider every death of an American, British, and Dutch soldier a victory.”

Jahjah was hardly alone. By 2006, Belgian journalist Hind Fraihi, herself a Muslim, discovered that books teaching Muslims to fight infidels were being freely distributed by radical imams who preached jihad in local mosques. Other books she found in Belgium included Guide For Muslims, a Dutch publication that encourages Muslims to throw homosexuals from tall buildings and to beat their wives. A Washington Post profile of Fraihi cited other books she found, including some that “advised readers to learn to communicate in symbols and secret code, and offered tips on how to do that.”

But the largest influence on Belgian Muslims, and the source of much of their extremism, was the creation of Sharia4Belgium in 2010. Thanks to that group, Belgium boasts the largest number of Muslims per capita who have joined the Islamic State and its jihad. According to the Wall Street Journal and others, “dozens” of Sharia4Belgium members have made the pilgrimage to Syria, and dozens more have been detained before they could make the trip. Three of them, all women, were arrested in May 2014, around the time of the Jewish Museum shooting. They were part of a larger group of 40 Belgians planning to join the jihad, and most of them had Sharia4Belgium ties.

This should not have been surprising. By 2012, Belgium’s security service director Alain Winants determined that “radical Islam forms the greatest threat” to the country. Salafism, he told Belgian daily de Morgen, is gaining followers who have built up a parallel community with its own values, its own banks, justice system, and educational program.

Sharia4Belgium’s founder, Fouad Belkacem, was tried and convicted in September 2014 for supporting terrorism, along with dozens of other Sharia4Belgium members, some of whom are still on the Syrian battlefields. But by then it was too late. The group, with its active Dutch- and French-speaking recruiters in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and – most of all – the Internet, had already infiltrated the minds of untold numbers of other Belgian youth.

And still, no one seems to be watching.

This is due in part to limits of Belgium’s intelligence facilities. While German intelligence, for instance, is currently stretched to its limits trying to track potential terrorists, Der Spiegel reports that Belgium’s threat has long since exceeded the its own intelligence capabilities.

Indeed, according to Dutch NOS TV, “the central counterterrorism unit of the [Belgian] police department has only one employee tracking radical [Islamic] activity on the Internet. And she only works part time.” The result, notes Der Spiegel, is that “many Muslims who have become radicalized or received military training and may even have been traumatized are returning home from Syria without anyone checking on them whatsoever.”

Moreover, Belgium’s disorganized police system – with six authorities for 19 districts in Brussels alone – coupled with a chaotic government and the European capital’s convenient location at the midway point between Amsterdam and Paris –combine to help French and Dutch Islamists take refuge there. Two of the Paris attackers, the French-born Bilal Hafdi and Brahim Abdelslam, were among them.

As recently as last month, an exploratory committee determined that Belgian police had failed to notice, let alone monitor, a “jihad camp” set up by Kurdish PKK members and Sharia4Belgium in the Ardennes.

But the truth is, the country’s “capabilities” are only part of the problem: political timidity and correctness carry a good share of the blame. Suspicious behaviors are too often overlooked for fear of being called “racist,” Alain Winants told de Morgen in 2012. That viewpoint has since been echoed in Belgian editorials since the Paris attacks, with journalist Luckas Vander Taelen noting that Molenbeek’s mayor had once called a journalist “Islamophobic” for reporting on the radical Islamic books being distributed there. “There are no problems here,” the mayor insisted at the time.

Since the Nov. 13 attacks, however, Belgium has rounded up dozens of jihadists, with nine raids leading to nine arrests on Thursday preceding Sunday’s additional raids. The speed with which these terrorists were located suggests that authorities were aware of them prior to the events in Paris. So why weren’t they captured earlier? Was it a matter of incompetence? Or a kind of narcissistic concern over image, a fear, as Winants suggests, of being seen as “racist?”

Hopefully, Belgium has now learned its lesson. The fight against terrorism is not a popularity contest. It’s a contest we fight for our lives.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

The Right Way to Honor Veterans

veteransdayThe sacredness of Veterans Day — and our obligations to the heroes.

Frontpage, by Bruce Thornton, N0v. 11, 2015:

These days our men and women in uniform are usually treated with kindness and respect. Nobody begrudges someone in uniform getting to board a flight first, or getting comped a first-class seat. Even those on the left who think that people in military service are misguided dupes of evil militarists no longer indulge the open scorn and calumny prevalent in the Vietnam War era, when a uniform was a target for spittle and charges of “baby-killer,” when in 1971 John Kerry appeared before the Senate and accused U.S. troops of rape, torture, and mutilation. Yet under the surface of progressives’ seeming respect and sympathy there still lurks a subtle contempt for the virtues and values that make our warriors worthy of our gratitude and admiration.

American leftists have long indulged a stealth pacifism that naturally conditions their attitudes toward the military. After all, the U.S. is the source of global disorder caused by its corporate hegemons, who use the military to protect their access to the global resources and markets they plunder for profit. Better to appease an enemy than to unleash these capitalist legions. Remember the “no blood for oil” slogans during the protests against the Iraq War in 2003? Or the exaggerated coverage given to civilian casualties or the occasional brutality typical of every war ever fought? Or the national media attention given to anti-war protestors like Cindy Sheehan, while the numerous heroes who won Silver Stars and Navy Crosses were usually ignored?

But such martial heroism does not fit the leftist narrative. To the left, the U.S. is a neo-imperialist aggressor responsible for global disorder, and Republicans are trigger-happy cowboys drunk on John Wayne westerns. Our military forces are in reality part of the “military-industrial complex,” a corrupt alliance of arms manufacturers––the “merchants of death,” as progressive John Dewey called them nearly a century ago––and the politicians who funnel taxpayer money to them at the expense of social welfare programs and schools. The ever-shrewd Osama bin Laden exploited this leftist bromide in his 2003 letter to American soldiers, who were “spilling [their] blood to swell the bank accounts of the White House gang and their fellow arms dealers and the proprietors of great companies.”

During the 60s and 70s, these left-wing beliefs turned our veterans into the mercenary enforcers of this brutal oppression, excepting, of course, the minorities and hippies drafted against their will into this unjust war. But those attitudes didn’t sit well with the majority of the American people, who traditionally have admired and supported our military. After the election of Ronald Reagan repudiated that left-wing slander of U.S. soldiers as brutal mercenaries of rapacious capitalists, progressives had to become more careful with their rhetoric, and devise more subtle ways to display their contempt.

Today, the liberal media show their “respect” for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan by highlighting their suffering and that of their families much more often than their bravery and martial achievements. During the Iraq War, every day saw another heart-rending story about a dead or wounded soldier and the suffering of his family. Front-page photos of coffins returning to the U.S. and profiles of PTSD victims were common, less so the exploits of heroes like Navy Cross winner Sergeant Marco Martinez, who in 2004 took command after the squad leader was wounded, charged a building where enemy fire was originating, and killed four of the enemy.

For the liberal media, it was ideologically preferable to highlight casualties and weeping families. That coverage dovetailed nicely with the Democrats’ narrative that the “unjust” war was started because of a “lie” about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs, and that those soldiers were dying just to secure access to the world’s 5th largest oil reserves and give lucrative contracts to companies like Halliburton. Now the soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq were not the mercenary villains of the Vietnam era, but the pitiful dupes of an “illegal war,” whose quaint but delusional ideals of duty and honor had been exploited by capitalist fatcats. Soldiers were to be pitied, not scorned or insulted.

But as Christopher Lasch wrote, this sort of condescending pity is “the human face of contempt.” It turns our warriors into another class of victims that progressives can use to attack “heartless” conservatives for their exploitation of misguided idealists who aren’t as intellectually sophisticated as the progressive pundits and professors who know what corporate skullduggery is really going on under the patriotic rhetoric of military service and sacrifice.

Such pity is not a sign of respect for veterans. Of course, we should devote resources and give recognition to the price many of our soldiers have paid in our nation’s wars. But most combat veterans accept that cost as the eternal, non-negotiable reality of war. Of course they want the benefits they have earned with their blood, sweat, and tears, but most do not want to be pitied or looked down upon as hapless victims or the “collateral damage” of some political cabal’s greed.

Genuine respect for our veterans celebrates the virtues of warriors: duty, bravery, self-sacrifice, and loyalty to their comrades, or more accurately their brothers, for as Shakespeare memorably has Henry V say on the eve of Agincourt, “he that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.” We should acknowledge that while for us civilians war is only a horrible catastrophe, for the warrior it is more than just death and suffering: it is an arena for displaying the highest of human virtues, and “the stimulator of glorious individual achievements,” as combat veteran Winston Churchill said to the astonished pacifist and World War I hero Siegfried Sassoon.

Finally, we should honor our warriors today because war is an eternal constant of human history, but political freedom is not, and is always one generation away from disappearing. This means freedom must continually be defended with violence inflicted on its enemies. And most wars, even those fought today with high-tech weaponry, require flesh and blood men and women willing to put themselves into mortal danger and risk their lives to defend the freedom we take for granted every day. So this Veterans Day, let’s not pity our soldiers as victims, but celebrate and honor their commitment to the warrior’s code of honor, duty, and loyalty, one of the most noble set of ideals that humans have ever devised, one that can bring out the worst in people, but more importantly brings out the best that they can be.

ISIS Sinai Leader ID’d As Potential ‘Mastermind’ of Russian Airliner Terror Attack

Abu-Osama-al-Masri-SM-640x480

Does anyone remember how Morsi allowed jihadists to gather in the Sinai?

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Nov. 9, 2015:

Abu Osama Al Masri (also referred to as Sheikh Osama al Masri), has been identified by intelligence sources as the likely mastermind behind the attack on a Russian airliner that crashed in the Sinai Peninsula in late October, killing all 224 passengers on board.

al-Masri is an Egyptian cleric who graduated from Egypt’s infamous Al Azhar University, a known hotbed for jihadi theology. It is the same place from where U.S. President Barack Obama gave his famous Cairo speech in 2009, shortly after being elected president.

In recent months, al-Masri – whose jihadi outfit used to be known as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM), before switching allegiance to ISIS – has often called for fellow terror sympathizers to attack members of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government.

On Sunday, British officials told the Sunday Times that the 42-year-old ISIS cleric is a “person of interest” in the suspected attack, adding that British forces may be utilized in a “kill or capture” mission targeting al-Masri.

In a statement following the suspected attack, al-Masri said the alleged bombing was a “blessing of our gathering under a single banner and leader,” in reference to the fact that the suspected attack also occurred on the one-year anniversary of the group pledging to follow ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“We are the ones who downed it by the grace of Allah, and we are not compelled to announce the method that brought it down,” al-Masri said defiantly, following the Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg jet crashing in the desert.

al-Masri’s jihadi group, which in the past had strong ties to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, has rebranded itself as an ISIS affiliate. Throughout this process, the Sinai Province (of the Islamic State) has continued its insurgent effort primarily focused on Egypt’s military and police.

Before joining the caliphatist ISIS, ABM had more immediate regional goals, such as plotting attacks against Egypt and Israel, strengthening its alliances with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, and smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip. Sinai Province has completed its objectives with some success, killing dozens over the past year alone and injuring hundreds more.

“Poison their food… Surveil them at home and in the street… destroy their homes with explosives if you can,” al-Masri said in a past message discussing Egyptian judges, a calling that was similar to countless more messages demanding the massacre of innocents.

ABM has been listed as a terrorist group by the United States and many other western nations. In November, 2014, the U.S. State Department added the Sinai Province as another alias of al-Masri’s terror organization.

In its initial terror designation of the Sinai-based organization, the U.S. State Department described the Islamic militant group as one that “shares some aspects” of Al Qaeda ideology and “generally maintains a local focus.”

Also see:

The Fantasy Islam of Reza Aslan

ra_1

Frontpage, by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby, Oct. 27, 2015:

Fantasy Islam: A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Muslim strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a personal version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.

As I have mentioned before, “Fantasy Islam” is a popular game among many non-Muslims and so-called “moderate” or “reformist” Muslims.  Reza Aslan appears to be such a Muslim.

Reza Aslan was born in Iran.  In 1979, at the age of seven, he and his family fled the Iranian Revolution and came to the United States.  At the age of 15 he converted to evangelical Christianity, but later returned to Islam.  His website states that he is “an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions.”  He is currently a Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside.

In 2005 Aslan wrote a book titled No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. The updated edition came out in 2011.  This article addresses that updated edition.

It should be noted that in his book Aslan listed The Life of Muhammad and the multi-volume work The History of al-Tabari, as among the books he “consulted.”  These are classical works by Muslim scholars and major sources for information about Muhammad and Islam.  Aslan even specifically mentions them as among those that have “catalogued” the story of Islam (p. xxiv).  Unfortunately, although Aslan claims that he “consulted” them, we will see that he apparently overlooked conflicting information in these works in favor of playing Fantasy Islam.

Death Penalty for Apostasy is “Un-Quranic”

On p. 121 Aslan stated that the death penalty for apostasy was “un-Quranic,” and he stated that nowhere in the Koran “is any earthly punishment prescribed for apostasy.”

The only problem for Aslan is that in 4:89 of the Koran Allah commands Muslims to take hold of those apostates who have left Islam and “kill them wherever you find them.”  So the death penalty for apostasy from Islam is in the Koran.

In addition, Muhammad said that death was the penalty for a Muslim who left Islam (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Nos. 6878 and 6923; and Sahih Muslim, No. 1676).  And Muhammad even specified the nature of that death:

If someone changes his religion – then strike off his head!

Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas, 36.18.15, in a section titled “Judgement on Abandonment of Islam.”

No Foundation in the Koran for Stoning

On p. 71 Aslan wrote about the “misogynistic tendencies” of Umar, the second Caliph, and how Umar

instituted a series of severe penal ordinances aimed primarily at women.  Chief among these was the stoning to death of adulterers, a punishment which has absolutely no foundation whatsoever in the Quran but which Umar justified by claiming it had originally been part of the Revelation and had somehow been left out of the authorized text.  Of course, Umar never explained how it was possible for a verse such as this “accidentally” to have been left out of the Divine Revelation of God[.]

It is a common play in Fantasy Islam to claim that stoning is not a part of Islam because it is not in the Koran, so let’s take a look at this claim.

In the first place, it is correct to state that the Koran says nothing about stoning.  The original punishment for adultery in the Koran (4:15) focused on women and confining them to their houses until they died; but there was a key provision at the end of this verse: “or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.”

Muhammad later received a “revelation” from Allah explaining that “other way”:

‘Ubada b. As-Samit reported: Allah’s Messenger (SAW) saying: Receive (teaching) from me, receive (teaching) from me.  Allah has ordained a way for those (women).  When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female (they should receive) one hundred lashes and banishment for one year.  And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.

Sahih Muslim, No. 1690

So now, instead of confinement, the punishment for adultery would be lashing and stoning.  The punishment of lashing was codified in 24:2 of the Koran.  Muhammad considered stoning as the appropriate penalty for adultery up to his death.  He ordered many an adulterer to be stoned, as did his successors.

Umar did make the claim that the Verse of Stoning had been left out when the Koran was compiled (e.g.Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 6830).  But when the Koran was being compiled Umar had tried to get it included.  However, the standard for including a “revelation” as a verse was that it had to be certified by two witnesses, and there appeared to be only one witness: Umar.

But in reality there was a second witness, Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha:

It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow.  When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 1944

Even though on p. 70 Aslan had written that “nearly one sixth of all ‘reliable’ hadith can be traced back to Muhammad’s wife Aisha,” the idea of using her as a witness apparently came up against 2:282 of the Koran.  This verse requires the testimony of two women in order to equal that of one man in property matters.  So even though both Umar and Aisha claimed there had been a stoning verse “revealed,” we would still only have at best one and one-half witnesses, therefore falling short of the two witnesses required to include a verse in the Koran.  It would appear that this is why there is no Verse of Stoning in the Koran.  Nevertheless, it is still a part of Islam:

Now the punishment of adultery has been fixed, which is stoning to death.  That punishment also remained in force during the times of the Rightly-Guided caliphs (successors of the Messenger of Allah) and that remained the unanimous opinion of all the jurists and scholars afterwards…The law that prescribes stoning the adultery [sic] to death is supported by authentic hadeeths, and their narrators are numerous, and hence, scholars grade those hadeeths as mutawatir [frequently reported].  A Muslim has, therefore, no choice except to acknowledge and accept it.

Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 3, p. 665

Read more

The Foundation of America Cannot Be Compromised

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Oct. 21, 2015:

America has so strayed from its bedrock foundation, that simple discussions and policies seem complicated by the emotions of the day, people’s perspective, and a host of ideas swirling about our social and political world today.

Yet when we look at the world through the lens of our founding principles, we come to the quick realization that “compromise” cannot be reached with those who seek to implement rules, systems, and laws which undermine these founding principles.  These people are called enemies and must be defeated.

Screen-Shot-2015-10-21-at-11

Because our schools have done such a poor job of teaching what was common knowledge among young children a hundred years ago, many of our citizens have little grasp of the basic unyielding principles that ensure our liberty and, therefore, our prosperity.

In today’s America:  Presidential candidate Mrs. Clinton has to answer questions about the killing of the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya; jihadi armies are moving across the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere; the President of the United States and his State Department are negotiating with the number one state sponsor of terrorism on the planet – Iran; U.S. leadership has surrendered Syria and the greater Middle East to Russia, and therefore Iran and China; U.S. Islamic organizations are intimately involved in National Security matters despite the fact they are Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood front groups; America stands over $20 trillion in debt; an avowed Socialist is running for President (unconstitutional); this Administration continues to abuse the power of the Executive branch while Congress still talks of “compromise” and “coming together”; and on it goes.

There are over 1.2 million abortions in America every year which are granted “legal” status by a Supreme Court ruling, and not by the Legislative branch of the federal government.  Businesses and individuals who stand firm against homosexual marriages in their private and public lives are finding the weight of the federal government coming down on them.

All of these issues seem divergent and unrelated, yet they represent the predictable outcome of a nation which strays far from its founding.  Our Ideals are found in the Declaration of Independence which states:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

The foundation out of which our nation was born has a standard – The Law of Nature and the Law of God.

The right to defend oneself, the argument against homosexuality, the right to liberty, and many other self-evident truths all exist in the Law of Nature.  There is no slavery in nature.  The places we find homosexuality in nature are aberrations not the rule.  Defending yourself is the rule in nature – try to approach new born puppies, bears, or some other animal and see how the mother defends her own.

The Law of God naturally confirms what we see in nature, but where the Law of Nature in not clear, we look to the Law of God – the Bible.  Not only do we see where incest, rape, and other foul acts are unlawful, we see how governments are to be established ensuring sovereignty and authority are not shared.  God’s sovereignty is God’s.  Man’s is man’s.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

When America’s founders designed a nation like no other in human history, they did so by declaring self-evident truths – all human beings are created equally by God born with unalienable rights.  Unalienable rights come from God and, therefore, cannot be taken away by the government, a majority vote, or any other maneuver of the people.  The Declaration does not list all of the unalienable rights God gives us, but those can be found elsewhere including in the Bill of Rights.

FIRST, God gives us the right to life.  Because this right comes from God, no government, nor any man can remove this right because it is a right that belongs to the sovereignty of God alone.  When we allow millions of the most innocent in our society who have objectively done no wrong to be killed, we are surrendering a God-given right to the government it neither has the authority nor capacity to hold.

Secondly, the founders declared we are all born free as children of God (Liberty).  The founders understood liberty is our birthright, and they also knew the weight of the Ideal of the Declaration would make it impossible for slavery to continue.  In the end, slavery was abolished in America, yet it continues in many nations across the globe today.

Finally, the third unalienable right mentioned in the Declaration is the right to property (“happiness”).  Of this right William Blackstone, whose legal writings were considered the final authority in American courts for over 150 years after the ratification of the Constitution, stated: “So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property that it will not authorize the least violation of it – no, not even for the general good of the whole community.” (Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, p. 139).

Yet, today we see the government taking people’s private property to create bike paths, townhouse complexes, or some other “need of the community.”

We as Americans enter into a social compact to surrender our right to self-government to form a government whose sole duty is to protect our unalienable rights – the rights God gave us.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Out of this framework came an American government rooted in Natural Law and the Bible.  From this place, our laws come.  Any laws contrary to Natural Law or the Bible are not valid laws.

From a society based in the rule of law and understanding it owes its life and liberty to God, comes prosperity.  It is no accident America is the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

Screen-Shot-2015-10-21-at-11.39.10-PM-300x223

To pull the great foundational block of the Law of Nature and Nature’s God out from under America, is to destroy America and all that it is.  The natural outcome will be the kind of tyranny and despotism about which our Founding Fathers cautioned us.

For the younger generation, the result is Panem.  No cell phones, no video games, more rules, no freedom, and no joy.

The federal government in America at the political and bureaucratic level has failed to rule within its authority and has usurped God’s sovereignty as defined in our founding document.

There is no compromising with socialists, jihadists, communists, or marxists.  These are systems which enslave mankind and nullify the very principles upon which America was founded.

Our strategy must be one which is consistent with ensuring victory of future generations:  We win, they lose.

It is now up to the States and the people to stop the abuse of power of the federal level.

Also see:

Turkey Is on the Path to Rogue Dictatorship

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
October 26, 2015

Should President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s AK Party not win a majority of seats in the Nov. 1 vote, the mainstream media hold that his power will diminish. The headline of a much-circulated Reutersanalysis sums up this view: “Erdoğan seen with little choice but to share power after Turkish vote.”Agence France-Presse predicts that winning less than half the seats “would again force [the AKP] to share power or call yet another election.” Almost identically, Middle East Online sees this situation forcing the AKP “to share power or organise yet another election.” And so on, almost invariably including the words “share power.”

The Supreme Election Board (Yüksek Seçim Kurulu) oversees voting in Turkey; will it be forced to rig the election on Nov. 1?

The Supreme Election Board (Yüksek Seçim Kurulu) oversees voting in Turkey; will it be forced to rig the election on Nov. 1?

But what if Erdoğan chooses not to share power? He then has two options. If the results are close, election fraud is a distinct possibility; reports suggest sophisticated software (think Volkswagen) to skew the results.

If the results are not close, Erdoğan can sideline the parliament, the prime minister, the other ministers, and the whole damn government. This sidelining option, which the press ignores as a possibility, follows directly from Erdoğan’s past actions. Since he left the prime ministry in August 2014 to become Turkey’s president, he has diminished his old office, depriving it of nearly all authority. He turned it over to a professorial foreign-policy theorist with no political base, Ahmet Davutoğlu, and controls him so tightly that Davutoğlu cannot even decide on his own aides(who also double as Erdoğan’s informants).

At the same time, Erdoğan built himself a 1,005-room presidential palace housing a staff of 2,700 which constitutes a bureaucracy that potentially can take over the other ministries of state, leaving a seemingly unchanged government in place that behinds the scenes follows orders from the palace.

Erdogan and Davutoglu

Erdoğan will surely sideline parliament as well; not by turning it into a grotesque North Korea-style rubber-stamp assembly but into an Egypt- or Iran-style body consumed with secondary matters (school examinations, new highways) while paying close heed to wishes of the Big Boss.

Then, to complete his takeover, he will deploy his many tools of influence to control the judiciary, the media, corporations, the academy, and the arts. He will also shut down private dissent, especially on social media, as suggested by the many lawsuits he and his cronies have initiated against ordinary citizens who dare criticize him.

At this point, the Hugo Chávez/Vladimir Putin of Turkey, the one who compared democracy to a trolley (“You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off”) will truly have arrived at his destination. As a reward, he may even declare himself the caliph of all Muslims.

Chavez abd Putin

Returning to the present: The number of AKP seats in parliament hardly matters because Erdoğan will do what it takes, legally or illegally, to become the new sultan. He will not have to “share power,” but will seize more power by hook (sidelining parliament) or crook (electoral fraud). Foreign capitals need to prepare for the unpleasant likelihood of a rogue dictatorship in Turkey.


Oct. 26, 2015 update: Kadri Gürsel explores various possibilities should the AKP not win a majority of the votes, including Erdoğan forcing a third round of voting. But he does not raise the sidelining of parliament as one of the president’s choices.

Also see:

Hacker who allegedly passed U.S. military data to ISIS arrested in Malaysia

(CNN) Authorities have arrested a Malaysia-based hacker who they accuse of stealing personal information of U.S. military members and giving it to ISIS.

Ardit Ferizi, a Kosovo citizen, was detained in Malaysia on a provisional U.S. arrest warrant alleging he provided material support to ISIS and committed computer hacking and identity theft, the U.S. Justice Department said.

According to a criminal complaint, Ferizi hacked into the computer system of a company in the United States and stole personally identifiable information of more than 1,000 U.S. service members and federal employees. Then, he allegedly gave that information to several ISIS figures, including a prominent propagandist for the group, the complaint says.

Ardit Ferizi

Ardit Ferizi

U.S. Assistant Attorney General John Carlin called the case against Ferizi — which combines cybercrime and terror charges as U.S. authorities aim to step up their crackdown on ISIS — “a first of its kind.”

“This arrest demonstrates our resolve to confront and disrupt ISIL’s efforts to target Americans, in whatever form and wherever they occur,” Carlin said in a statement.

Ties to prominent ISIS propagandist

The criminal complaint alleges there’s probable cause to believe Ferizi hacked into a server and stole names and personally identifiable information of more than 1,300 U.S. military and other government personnel — a list that was later posted online in August by a group calling itself the “Islamic State Hacking Division.”

“We are extracting confidential data,” a message from the group said, according to the complaint, “and passing on your personal information to the soldiers of the khilafah, who soon with the permission of Allah will strike at your necks in your own lands!”

The military members’ data, including home addresses and photos, was allegedly stolen by Feriziand passed on to Junaid Hussein, a British hacker who was active on social media recruiting Westerners to join ISIS, authorities said.

The U.S. military announced in August that it had killed Hussein in an airstrike in Syria. He was a leading member of ISIS’ so-called CyberCaliphate, which has carried out mostly nuisance hacks on military and other government websites in the United States, France and other countries.

After the list’s publication in August, Pentagon officials said they were investigating.

“I take it seriously, because it is clear what they are trying to do,” Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. Army chief of ctaff, said at the time.

Many of the phone numbers and email addresses on the list were not in service when tested by CNN in August. But one person on the list, reached by phone, confirmed he had previously served in the U.S. military. He asked not to be named, but said he had recently been notified by the Pentagon that his name and personal information were on the list. Another, reached by email, confirmed she was a government employee who had been warned by the military about being on the list.

Complaint: Suspect led Kosovo hacking group

According to the complaint, Ferizi is believed to be the leader of a hacking group known as Kosova Hacker’s Security.

Malaysian Police said the 20-year-old alleged hacker had entered the country in August 2014 to pursue computer science and computer forensics studies at a college in Kuala Lumpur.

Malaysian authorities had been monitoring him for a few months after receiving information from the FBI, said Sr. Assistant Commissioner Datuk Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay, head of the counterterrorism division, Special Branch of the Royal Malaysian Police.

Ferizi was arrested September 15 in Kuala Lumpur, the assistant commissioner said. He is under remand under a provisional arrest warrant while U.S. authorities apply for his extradition.