Mullar Omar Bio Draws Subtle Distinctions with “Caliph” AbuBakr

2422558701CSP, by Kyle Shideler, April, 6, 2015:

The Taliban has published a new biography of Mullah Omar (link is to Taliban-controlled shahamat-english.com) which paints a hagiographic picture of the Taliban leader’s history and upbringing (H/T LongWarJournal).

The biography covers Mullah Mohammad Umar ‘Mujahid’ childhood, his Islamic studies up to the age of eighteen, before pointing out that his studies were “interrupted” by the invasion of Afghanistan, and going into detail on his history of jihad against the Russians.

While not expressly doing so, the biography establishes a number of key distinctions between Omar and his rival Amir al mu’minin (Leader of the Faithful) “Caliph” AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi, with whom it is currently in a struggle with over legitimacy regarding leadership of the Global Jihad Movement. While Mullah Omar has never formally been put forward as a candidate, both Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders have used the Leader of the Faithful title to refer to Mullah Omar, a title typically applied to a sitting caliph. Omar has been given the title since 1996, during a Taliban demonstration where he was filmed holding aloft the supposed relic of the Prophet Mohammed’s cloak.

These distinctions between Mullah Omar and Baghdadi are notable, and likely intentional, as Al Qaeda and the Taliban compete with Islamic State for jihadist legitimacy and preeminence.

Beginning from childhood the comparisons are immediately clear. While Islamic State’s Baghdadi claims a, certainly apocryphal, lineage going back to the Quraysh tribe of the Prophet, Omar’s biography highlights a tribal connection to  Mīrwais Khān Hotak (who led Afghanistan’s rebellion against the Safavid Persian dynasty), an elite but by no means as storied a parentage.

While Al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic Studies from a prominent Baghdad University, Mullah Omar’s formal Islamic studies were halted by the Soviet invasion. The biography goes into great detail regarding alleged “heroics” of Mullah Omar in fighting the Soviets from as early 1978. While it goes unstated, the Taliban is indicating that its leader was fighting jihad while the Islamic State’s “Caliph” was still a toddler. While much about Baghdadi’s history is not clear, It does not appear that he was a jihadist commander of any significant stature prior to his detention in Camp Bucca, Iraq.

The biography also defends Mullah Omar’s Islamic orthodox as a member of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence:

Ideologically, Mullah Mohammad Umar ‘Mujahid’ belongs to the main ‘Ahl-i-Sunna wal Jamma’a’ (the believers in Quran, traditions of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, and the consensus of Muslim Umma). He is the imitator of Hanafi school of thought. He is severely opposed to all heresy or heterodox opinions. He never likes sectional, ideological and factional differences among the Muslims.

Reference to factionalism may be an intended backhand to Islamic State, which is known for attacking other jihadist groups with whom they have disagreements.  As a whole, that the Taliban feels the need to defend Omar’s Islamic orthodox is a reflection on the success of Islamic State propagandists who have described Mullah Omar as Deobandi ( a sect popularized in India and Pakistan, which includes both Wahhabist and, reportedly Sufi elements) which the Islamic State considers heterodox.

Much of the rest of the biography focuses on personal traits ascribed to Mullah Omar, with the intent of depicting him as a particularly pious and overly humble individual, describing him as being reduced to tears at being named Leader of the Faithful, and naturally contrasts with the cult of personality Islamic State propaganda generates around the person of Al-Baghdadi as sitting Caliph. The biography also details the system of governance, and the commissions and deputies through which Mullah Omar purports to govern, intended to dismiss criticism by Islamic State supporters that Mullah Omar has not be seen in public.

The biography highlights both the age and experience gap between Al Qaeda and Islamic State supporters. Generally, Islamic State supporters are younger, and more familiar with the history of jihad against the United States beginning with Osama Bin Laden, through Zarqawi and now Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. Islamic State attempts to highlight their control of territory as unprecedented and their establishment of Shariah over parts of Iraq and Syria as equally unprecedented. The Taliban on the other hand, represent the “wise old men” of jihad with a substantive history of establishing and running an Islamic emirate in spite of fierce opposition from the West.

That said, while it’s possible that this report may shore up support among Taliban and Al Qaeda loyalists, it’s unlikely to put a dent in the enthusiasm generated by the Islamic State’s Caliphate declaration.

Also see:

Commencing jihad: ISIS posts photos of military ‘graduation’

The Twitter photos show a "graduating class" of ISIS fighters.

The Twitter photos show a “graduating class” of ISIS fighters.

Fox News, by  Malia Zimmerman, March 30, 2015:

The black-clad graduates listened intently as speakers inspired them to change the world, but instead of caps and gowns, they wore masks and fatigues, and in place of diplomas, they clutched AK-47s.

Photos posted online by the Islamic State in Syria in the last few days showed the terror group’s latest “graduating class,” which included dozens of foreign fighters who came to Syria to join the Islamic caliphate. The graduation pictures capped 18 months of training in ideology and weaponry at a university in Deir Az-Zour, in northern Syria, and grads are now ready to advance to killing in the cause of radical Islam. Experts say ISIS has reasons for attaching the formal trappings of commencement exercises to the training of its fighters.

“There are two messages being sent by ISIS besides the obvious shock factor: First, their caliphate is an actual functioning and legitimate state. Second, this is long-term struggle,” said Ryan Mauro, national security analyst and adjunct professor of Homeland Security for the Clarion Project. “This is a way of saying that ISIS has succeeded (in creating a state) where Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists have failed.”

By promoting their special force in a series of propaganda photos, experts said ISIS is sending a message to potential recruits that it has created a professional, deadly and well-equipped force ready to protect its expanding Caliphate.

“The graduation photos send a message by ISIS that it has a military capacity ready to defend the Islamic Caliphate – a ‘government’ that has not lost control and will be able to defend its ‘territory,’ said Jasmine Opperman, the African-based analyst for the Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium.

ISIS brigades have been on the attack for just over a year, advancing and expanding areas of control at an alarming rate, but as ISIS’s fighters prepare to defend their newly acquired territories, they also are changing tactics.

In the past, ISIS training programs were conducted near the Turkish border areas that serve as a main entry point for ISIS western fighters.

However, with ISIS creating pockets of control, training camps are being held in Libya and on the border areas between Tunisia and Algeria, Opperman said.

The skills required to advance their cause are changing. ISIS is creating what it calls “The Intractable Army,” with soldiers who can rappel from buildings, fight in cities and aim its rocket launchers with precision.

“In the battlefield of the immediate future, urban warfare will require more specialized skills such as the use of snipers,” Opperman said.

Foreign fighters are not the only graduates. ISIS is now training assassins as young as 8 years old, putting them through a formal “cubs” program, as well as launching their own three year medical school of sorts.

Analysts say ISIS wants to project an image of nationalistic military training.

Analysts say ISIS wants to project an image of nationalistic military training.

“One of the purposes of these photos is to show that they didn’t just seize territory; they transformed it into an attractive caliphate that is a viable alternative to other civilizations,” Mauro said. “ISIS and other Islamist groups are at odds over the legitimacy of al-Baghdadi’s caliphate, but they are in agreement that this is a ‘civilizational jihad’ against other systems influenced by the West.”

ISIS graduations feature their own celebrities of sorts. In a March 15 ceremony, Abu Waheeb, the leader of ISIS terrorist group in Iraq, who gained notoriety after executing Syrian Shiite truck drivers in Iraq in 2013, made an appearance where he rallied his troops.

The Islamic State Caliphate is Pure Islam

141011-isis-syria-mn-815_0551bbaed807741ac85d8a7fcfe593f1.nbcnews-fp-1040-600NER, by Jerry Gordon with Bill Bennett of Morning America and Dr. Michael Welner (April 2015)

In the March New English Review (NER) we wrote about the failure of the Countering Violent Extremism Summit of President Obama.

On Wednesday, February 18, 2014 at a White House Summit, President Obama presented his views on countering “violent extremism.” He suggested that Islamic terrorists misappropriate Islamic doctrine, exploit disaffected youths in communities across the US and globally throughout the Ummah – the community of Muslim believers. He suggested that youths prone to radicalization outside the US may be victimized by poverty, without job opportunities and oppressed by corrupt regimes. Countering violent extremism he suggests is a multi-pronged approach involving economic programs, political reform and community involvement to halt radicalization. His focus in the US was on creating community partnerships and pilot projects in several American cities, endeavoring to integrate Muslims in America, preserving and protecting their civil rights under our constitution against untoward surveillance. The President gathered Muslim and other religious clerics from the US and abroad, community leaders, law enforcement, homeland security officials, and high tech entrepreneurs seeking means of stopping radicalization of youths. These youths are attracted by the “successes” of the Islamic State blasted around the world via the internet, tens of thousands of tweets, high production videos and on-line webzines in a number of languages including English.

Nowhere in his remarks did the President explain what the Islamic doctrine is that has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters, Americans among them, to be recruited to the cause of this self-styled Caliphate, the Islamic State (IS). What he has called ISIL, the Islam State in the Levant (ISIL) is a reference to the broad geographic area that stretches from the eastern Mediterranean coast to the Persian Gulf. Those “successes” include videos of the savagery perpetrated against the hated Kuffars, meaning infidels, including Christians, Jews, ancient religious minorities and apostate Muslims. Those videos show barbaric beheadings, burnings, crucifixions, mass shootings and enslavement. The President mentioned recent incidents in Paris, Copenhagen, Ottawa and Sydney of attacks on victims without naming the victims; leftists, free thinkers, Christians and Jews. Neither did he identify the perpetrators.

Just prior to the mid-February White House Summit, The Atlantic Magazine published an article by Graeme Wood, What ISIS Really Wants which stated:

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.

Russian historian at Connecticut Central State University, Professor Jay Bergman, wrote, “I read it. Superb. The [President] should read it. But of course…he won’t.”

According to Wood, IS bases all of its power and authority on a strict adherence to a Salafi literal interpretation of Islam and Sharia law, with almost a total focus on the doctrine of Tawhid. Tawhid calls for strict adherence to the laws of Allah as revealed by the Prophet Mohammed. Further, that all man-made laws and systems must be rejected. IS considers any Muslim who doesn’t adhere to the doctrine of Tawhid an infidel, including “core Al Qaeda” and other Salafists who object to IS public displays of savagery.

We concluded:

Countering violent extremism as propounded by President Obama evaded his responsibility to identify the radical Islamic doctrine of IS. He engaged in the delusion that by campaigning for community organization, jobs and faith based programs we might prevent radicalization of Muslim youths. Instead he should listen to the wise counsel of former DIA chief, Army Gen. Michael Flynn, who in media interviews and testimony before the House Armed Services Committee called for a global war against IS. Flynn suggested the first cornerstone of a strategy to “degrade” and “defeat” IS is to define the ideology behind radical Islamic extremism. The fact that liberal publications like The Atlantic have exposed the barbarity of strict adherence to Tawhid in Islam clearly communicates that destroying IS through the exercise of American and allied military power should be the first order of business.

The President’s “violent extremism” Conference in Washington demonstrated that soft power is trumped by raw Islamic Jihad every time. That is embodied in failure to recognize the Qur’anic doctrine behind the rise of IS.  To paraphrase a State Department anti-ISIS message, “Think Again, Turn Away” from Taqiyya – lying for Allah.

On March 16th, 2015, Forensic Psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner, Chairman of The Forensic Panel, was interviewed on Bill Bennett’s Morning America program about what attracts Western and other foreign Muslims, to join the barbaric cause of the Islamic State. Welner provided insights as to what attracts Islamic State recruits that raise serious questions about the social media messaging initiatives of the Obama Administration. Dr. Welner explains the root of ISIS’s appeal and why people continue to join its cause.

In the face of the rise of the Islamic State and its ability to attract Muslims to Syria and Iraq from all over the world, syndicated radio host Bill Bennett welcomed Michael Welner, M.D. back to his program to discuss the apparent popularity of ISIS. Dr. Welner, known to NER readers, as one of America’s most highly-regarded forensic psychiatrists. He is routinely consulted on the most complex forensic cases across the United States, such as the ongoing New York trial of the accused kidnapper of young Etan Patz.  He is known to our readers for his work on the Omar Khadr Guantanamo case and in pioneering research an evidence-based standard of the worst of crimes, the Depravity Standard.

In response to Bennett’s invitation, Dr. Welner confronted the apparent paradox of ISIS recruitment successes in the face of its disturbing beheadings. As he explained to Bennett, Dr. Welner noted that non-Muslims do not appreciate the significance of the Caliphate declared by ISIS leader al-Baghdadi. ISIS is attracting followers of a utopian and unadulterated Islam abandoned over 1000 years ago, of a faith of strict dogmatic adherence to the Qu’ran. These Caliphate ideals prompt an obligation among the devout to serve the Caliphate in whatever capacity needed, and involve a plan of nation building based on the idealized Muslim society on land the Caliphate controls. Beheadings (and enslavement and immolation) are prescribed by the Qu’ran for cleansing those Muslims deemed to be apostate. Followers allow for these methods as necessary measures in the building of a messianic ideal, reminiscent of the “cleansing” of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. ISIS exploits these punitive options to inspire fear of the consequences of resistance among its local opponents. At the same time, ISIS inspires quiet among Muslims generally because to contest its methods would be to contest the Qu’ran. This psychological control, explains Dr. Welner, is an adaptation of political correctness, Muslim style.

The Western media and ruling classes muddle through by looking away from how ISIS is laying waste to all religions in the Arab world. That is consistent with the intelligentsia’s uselessness in genocide historically, Dr. Welner lays out an approach for how America should confront the ISIS threat militarily and in its public information in a segment Bennett termed “masterful.” Readers of the NER will be familiar with how American exceptionalism is key to the solution from our interview with Dr. Welner in the aftermath of the (Oklahoma Beheading NER interview).

The National Review On-line rated the Bennett-Welner discussion the best of the Week of March 16 to 20, 2015 on this topic. Clare Lopez, former CIA Operations officer and Senior Fellow at the Washington, DC-based Center for Security Policy commented:

Great interview with Dr. Michael Welner….he understands appeal of IS better than the entire USG put together right now. I must say it was fascinating to listen to someone from completely outside the political realm nail it like that. Meanwhile all the so-called counterterrorism ‘experts,’ and Islam ‘experts’ are so far off base we know the bad guys are laughing at us all.

Against this background, here is an edited version of the Bennett-Welner interview. (text)

Listen to the Bill Bennett Morning in America interview with Dr. Michael Welner, Chairman of the Forensic Panel:

Official in Turkey’s Ruling Party Refers to President Erdogan as ‘Caliph’

Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, right, received Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, left, after passing between two columns of 16 troops, each dressed in the warrior regalia of past Turkic states, bearing period armour and toting weapons ranging from swords to lancers. Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images

Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, right, received Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, left, after passing between two columns of 16 troops, each dressed in the warrior regalia of past Turkic states, bearing period armour and toting weapons ranging from swords to lancers.
Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images

CSP, by Aaron Kliegman, March 19, 2015:

An official in Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) caused controversy this week by tweeting that the country should “get ready for the caliphate” and referred to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as “caliph.”

Fuat Özgür Çalapkulu, the man who wrote the tweet on March 17, is the head of the AKP in the southeastern province of Siirt. He was responding to Erdogan’s opponents who object to the Turkish leader’s plan to change Turkey’s government from a parliamentary system to a presidential system. Erdogan would be the leader, thus giving him more power.

Erdogan’s main criticism came from Selahattin Demirtaş, pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) Co-Chair, who said his party “will never let you [Erdogan] be president” in such a proposed system of government. Çalapkulu was mainly countering this statement with his tweet and also referred to past comments by Erdogan opponents that the leader could not even be a village headman (muhtar).

Çalapkulu backed off his words, however, after receiving harsh reactions because of them. On March 19, he changed his Twitter account to private so that only confirmed followers can see his comments and released a written statement saying he had a different meaning for the term caliph.

Part of his statement reads, “I use this word to refer to a leader who has command of all the problems, institutions and administration of his country; a leader who is the independent and powerful voice of the world’s downtrodden; the protector of the oppressed; a good, successful, pioneering and visionary leader.”

It is possible that Çalapkulu did not mean to use the title caliph with its full religious connotations or was being facetious, but the tweet is worth noting given Turkey’s increasing Islamic identity and pivot away from the West under Erdogan’s rule.

More importantly, the AKP official is not the first person to refer to Erdogan as a caliph, in jest or not. Some of Erdogan’s followers have called him this title before and essentially pledged allegiance to him like many have been doing recently to Abu Baker al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

Furthermore, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam and spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, has said that Istanbul, Turkey is the capital of the coming caliphate and has suggested that Erdogan is blessed by Allah and could be the one to lead the Islamic world order.

Çalapkulu may have been joking or using caliph in a non-literal way, but in its full context the AKP official’s tweet is part of a larger narrative where Turkey is becoming more Islamic and identified, at least by some, as a central part of a future caliphate. In fact, Erdogan and the AKP have actually perpetuated this image and a neo-Ottoman atmosphere. Erdogan’s religious-based policies and centralization of power are helping in this endeavor.

***

Speaking of images, have you seen Erdogan’s “White Palace”?

Blueprint for Islamic caliphate by 2020

WND, by Pamela Geller, March 15, 2015:

Back in 2005, Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein published al-Qaida’s manifesto. In his book, he outlined al-Qaida’s seven-point plan over a 20-year period: “An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps.” Ten years later, we can see how al-Qaida and other Islamic jihad groups have followed this plan to the letter – with remarkable success, thanks to the weakness, fecklessness and willful ignorance of Western leaders.

Journalist Yassin Musharbash wrote about Hussein and his book in the German publication Der Spiegel on Aug. 12, 2005, in an article entitled, “The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants.” Musharbash wrote, “[W]hat this small, slim man has to report is nothing less than the world’s most dangerous terrorist network’s plan of action: al-Qaida’s strategy for the next two decades. It is both frightening and absurd, a lunatic plan conceived by fanatics who live in their own world.”

Der Spiegel appears to be laughing at the plan in this article. But read it now – 10 years on. Who’s laughing now? From Sept. 11 to “the awakening,” the focus on Syria, the overthrow of secular Arab regimes, the declaration of the Caliphate – it’s all there. The article declares it “unworkable” at the time – as well as “both frightening and absurd, a lunatic plan.”

Musharbash wrote: “And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: The idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality.”

Has anyone contacted Yassin Musharbash, read that passage to him, and asked him what he thinks of the Islamic State’s declaration of the caliphate, and of the tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the world who take that declaration seriously enough to travel to Iraq and Syria to live and wage jihad in the caliphate?

It’s the delusionists who can’t reconcile reality. Virtually everything has happened as opponents of jihad have predicted for years. My decade-long warnings at my website, Atlas Shrugs (PamelaGeller.com), and in my books and articles were met with scorn, derision and defamation. But I was right. The Islamic jihadists have achieved what they set out to do. The Islamic State is an al-Qaida spinoff.

Hussein’s book was not the work of a fantasist. Musharbash noted that “he has not only spent time in prison with al-Zarqawi, but has also managed make contact with many of the network’s leaders. Based on correspondence with these sources, he has now brought out a book detailing the organization’s master plan.”

Hussein himself explained: “I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.” The first of the seven steps to the caliphate was “the awakening” – Musharbash explained that “this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the U.S. into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby ‘awakening’ Muslims. ‘The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful,’ writes Hussein.”

Sept. 11 was to wake up the world to Islam. Did it not do just that? Didn’t the Ground Zero Mosque imam Faisal Abdul Rauf say as much in 2010 when the vicious fight over that mosque was underway? “9/11,” he declared, “was a watershed, was a major milestone, and a major catalytic force in, in catalyzing the attention toward the issue of Islam, its presence in the West, and it brought into much greater prominence our work and the importance of our work.”

After that was to come “Opening Eyes,” a phase that was to last until 2006, during which “al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement.” This was to be followed by “Arising and Standing Up” from 2007 to 2010, during which, according to Hussein, “There will be a focus on Syria.”

During the fourth phase, from 2010 to 2013, “Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments.” Right on schedule, Mubarak was toppled in Egypt, Gadhafi in Libya and Ben Ali in Tunisia, with Assad facing an ongoing civil war in Syria. Then during the fifth phase, an “Islamic state, or caliphate,” would actually be declared. Musharbash wrote: “The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared.”

Here we are. All this has unfolded just as they said: the awakening of the ummah is illustrated by the Western Muslims flocking to wage jihad in the Middle East. And the focus on Syria is also exactly as predicted. It’s amazing.

So what is to follow? Musharbash wrote: “Hussein believes that from 2016 onward there will be a period of ‘total confrontation.’As soon as the caliphate has been declared the ‘Islamic army’ it will instigate the ‘fight between the believers and the non-believers’ which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.”

After that, the “final stage is described as ‘definitive victory.’ Hussein writes that in the terrorists’ eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the ‘one-and-a-half billion Muslims,’ the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.”

Read Musharbash’s entire piece. It’s chilling. It also coincides with the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal, according to a captured internal document written in the early 1990s, of “eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over other religions.” According to a U.S. government memorandum, “shortly after Hamas was founded in 1987, as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood … the International Muslim Brotherhood ordered the Muslim Brotherhood chapters throughout the world to create Palestine Committees, whose job it was to support Hamas with ‘media, money and men.’” To accomplish this, the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which the foremost Muslim group in the U.S., the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, later joined. Since then, CAIR has worked to undermine every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented.

Al-Qaida and the Brotherhood sketched out a plan that was neither absurd nor crazy, and the jihadists have followed it precisely. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, with their influence now reaching into the White House. All this vividly illustrates that those of us who have been sounding the alarm about Islamic jihad all these years have been absolutely right. Ignore us at your own peril.

Media wishing to interview Pamela Geller, please contact media@wnd.com.

Also see:

The ISIS Penal Code: Shariah Justice and the Quest for Religious Legitimacy

AFP PHOTO / HO / AL-FURQAN MEDIA

AFP PHOTO / HO / AL-FURQAN MEDIA

Breitbart, by DR. PHYLLIS CHESLER,  March 9, 2015:

The global allure of a self-designated Caliphate, especially one that insists that its every barbaric action is Qur’an-based and Sharia-true, should not be underestimated.

In October 2014, ISIS released the fourth issue of Dabiq, its online English- and multi-language newsletter. ISIS described a “successful consolidation of the judiciary,” and the formation of “sharia courts” that render decisions in a speedy and non-corrupt manner. ISIS has implemented a “radical interpretation of sharia law, killing men accused of blasphemy or homosexuality. The group has also carried out amputations and lashings for reasons as trivial as smoking or improper dressing.”

ISIS has taken over the education system in horrendous ways: one must memorize the Qur’an, there is to be no teaching of science, history, civics, physical education, and geography. Basic mathematics is allowed. ISIS has also established military training on children, imposed early curfews and full-face and body niqab on women, including those who work at hospitals.

While Westerners may find this as horrifying as ISIS’s systematic and taped destruction of ancient, precious pre-Islamic sculptures and artifacts, according to Jonathan Spyer and Jawad al-Tamimi in Middle East Forum, ISIS has, nevertheless, been carefully justifying their every atrocity as based on the Qur’an and Sharia law. For example, in terms of crucifixions, ISIS invoked Qur’an 5:33 (Those “who wage war on God and His Messenger” may be crucified).

Apostates may also be crucified—and ISIS bases this on a hadith (similar to Qur’an 5:33). Christians are required to pay a special tax “jizya,” “may not publicly wear crosses, pray in the presence of Muslims, or repair or renovate places of worship.”

Spyer and al-Tamimi point out that ISIS “already considers itself a state (dawla), not a mere group or organization (jamaat, or tanzim).” Therefore, like Saudi Arabia or Iran, it can lawfully cross-amputate for theft, stone adulterers to death, drop homosexuals from rooftops (and stone them if they are still alive), crucify or behead Christians and apostates, etc.

In October of 2014, 126 Islamic scholars and Muslim leaders from 38 countries signed an Open Letter to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi claiming that ISIS was violating Islamic Law. There was more than one signatory from the same country. For example, there were no fewer than 13 signatories from North America, mainly from the United States. Interestingly, many of the names belong to known Islamists, Muslim Brotherhood supporters and “fronts,” or anti-Zionists. For example, signatories include Nihad Awad (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Azhar Aziz (Islamic Society of North America), and Berkeley’s Hatem Baziem (American Muslims for Palestine).

While I am no Qur’anic scholar, much of what these signatories claim cannot be true. Or, rather, what they claim is the right interpretation of the Qur’an has not been followed by Muslim leaders historically—just as it is not being followed now by ISIS. For example, in their own Executive Summary, the signatories claim that “it is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent;” “forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers;” “forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture;’ “It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture;” “The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus;” “It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert;” “It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights;” “It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights;” “It is forbidden in Islam to torture people;” “It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.”

Undaunted, in December 2014, ISIS released a formal penal code in which they spelled out “a set of fixed punishments.” This document’s release was followed by a spate of violent executions in which “a woman accused of adultery [was] stoned to death, 17 men crucified, and two men accused of homosexual acts thrown off a building.”

According to the translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), here are some of the acts and their punishments:

  • Blasphemy against Allah, Blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed, Blasphemy against Islam—all merit Death as does Sodomy, Adultery,  Murder, Apostasy, and Spying for Unbelievers.
  • Theft merits cutting off the hand;
  • Drinking alcohol merits 80 lashes;
  • Slandering merits 80 lashes;
  • Terrorizing People merits Exile.

Issue #7 of ISIS’s glossy online newsletter, Dabiq, was released in February. It is more than 80 pages long and is titled: “From Hypocrisy to Apostasy. The Extinction of the Grayzone.” ISIS means the “gray zone” in which Christian “Crusaders” and Jews, as well as Muslim hypocrites and apostates of all religions, are put on notice.

“Islam is the Religion of the Sword Not Pacificism” is the title of one chapter. This issue also displays many photos of ISIS’s atrocities and the Qur’anic justification for them. It blesses Bin Laden, boasts of the Islamic attacks against Europeans and Americans, prays that “Allah take revenge for the Muslims and the mujahidin, and rain fire and destruction upon the kuffar and murtaddin, wherever they are.”

Dabiq justifies ISIS’s ongoing persecution and murder of Coptic Christians as an act of revenge because Coptic Christians allegedly tortured and murdered Muslim women. This issue also deals with how ISIS is “clamping down on sexual deviance” and describes how the West has been “plunged into a downward spiral of sexual deviance and immorality.” It boasts of the murder of Theo Von Gogh and lauds the captured convert to Islam, John Cantlie who praises his captors and denounces “our deceitful governments.” He is quoted as saying: “Despite being a prisoner I’ve been shown respect and kindness, which I haven’t seen from my own [British] government.”

ISIS is a totalitarian cult led by barbarian psychopaths and extremist misogynists who seek to cover their criminality and self-perceived marginality with a cloak of religious respectability. They will continue on their path unless the “good people” of the world decide to stop them by any means possible and by any means necessary.

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article which argued that the Islamic State caliphate “appears to be fraying from within, as dissent, defections, and setbacks on the battlefield sap the group’s strength and erode its aura of invisibility.”

According to Lina Khatib, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, ISIS has failed because it has not been able to “unify people of different origins under the caliphate.” Many foreigners are people from “the margins of society” and many have come to “live in the Islamic State. They didn’t come to fight.” Finally, the Islamic “revolution” is not only crucifying Christians and forcing them and Yazidis into sex slavery, be-heading foreign aid workers and journalists—it has also begun to turn on its own.

One wonders whether Lina Khatib and the Washington Post are right.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar Set Sights on Cuba’s Muslims

The island of Cuba, located just south of Florida.

The island of Cuba, located just south of Florida.

Why 4,000 Muslims on a Caribbean island mean so much the world’s leading purveyors of Islamic extremism and terrorism

By Ryan Mauro:

The Islamist governments of Turkey and Saudi Arabia see a growing Muslim community in Cuba and are acting quickly to ideologically lead it. The Saudis and Turks have separately asked for permission to build a mosque there. President Erdogan wants it to reflect the Ottoman Empire, the last Islamic caliphate that was abolished in 1924.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey are competing over who will build the mosque in Havana for the estimated 4,000 Muslims in Cuba. The Saudis originally expressed interest, but now the elected Islamist government of Turkey is bidding for it. Turkish President Erdogan says his country hopes to build elsewhere in Cuba if its application is rejected.

Saudi Arabia remains an extremist state and continues to promote Wahhabism, a very radical interpretation of Islam. The Saudis spendan estimated $3 billion a year promoting Wahhabism. It is a national security threat to have the Saudis shaping the Cuban-Muslim community only 90 miles away from Florida.

Turkey is no better. President Erdogan’s government is rolling back democratic freedoms, hosts a Hamas terrorist network and is a stalwart supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a scandal in Turkey over his intelligence service’s cover-up of its arming of Al-Qaeda in Syria.

The Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs says the envisioned mosque in Havana will be modeled after an Ottoman mosque in Istanbul. Its insistence that it builds the mosque without any other country’s involvement shows that this project isn’t about serving Cuban Muslims. It’s about indoctrinating the growing Cuban-Muslim community into following Turkish Islamism.

Turkey is also involved in Cuba through a terrorism-linked entity named the Humanitarian Relief Foundation. This group, based in Istanbul, is closely involved with Erdogan and his Islamist party. Over the summer, it registered people to be human shields for Hamas. The group is also linked to the scandal over Turkish intelligence’s arming of Al-Qaeda.

The IHH website says in an article all the way back in August 2012 that it is “sponsoring masjid [mosque] construction in Cuba.” IHH said hopes to “address the shortcoming of books on Islam in Spanish soon” and fly Cuban Muslims to Turkey for Islamic studies. The article says IHH delivered humanitarian aid and met with the Turkish and Saudi ambassadors there.

It’s worth reflecting on the importance of that article. The Cuban Muslim community is in need of texts to help it learn about Islam. The group that is stepping in to decide what those texts will be is openly radical and linked to the Hamas terrorist group, as well as the increasingly anti-Western government of Turkey.

The Islamist Turkish government is spreading its neo-Ottoman ideology by building mosques around the world, much as Saudi Arabia has done with Wahhabism. There are currently 18 large mosques being constructed by Turkey in the U.S., the Palestinian Territories, Somalia, the U.K., the Philippines, Russia and Central Asia.

Turkey is building the largest mosque in the Balkans in Albania. Erdogan does not hide that this was part of his neo-Ottoman project,declaring in an October 2013 speech, “Do not forget that Kosovo is Turkey and Turkey is Kosovo.”

Turkey is even constructing a 15-acre $100 million mega-mosque in Maryland that was endorsed by then-Governor O’Malley, who appears likely to run for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. The project is reported to “become [one of] the largest and most striking examples of Islamic architecture in the Western hemisphere.”

Erdogan’s government is also reaching out to Native American tribes. Turkey’s lobbyists in Washington, D.C. spent over $1 million in 2010 alone to pay for congressmen and Native American tribesmen to visit Turkey, according to Islamist-Watch, which broke the story. The director of the organization says Turkey’s strategy could cause “the Islamist ideology to spread like wildfire throughout Native American tribes.”

In addition, Erdogan is building the world’s biggest mosque in Turkey and a shipping canal rivaling the importance of the Panama Canal and Suez Canal. He is competing with Egypt by building a rival university that will “replace” Al-Azhar University as the leading Islamic authority. The overall agenda is one of aspiring domination where the Muslim world falls into the neo-Ottoman Islamist fold.

Read more at Clarion Project

Boko Haram Shura Council Considers Loyalty to Islamic State as Media Hypes Report on IS-Boko Haram Differences

Boko-Haram-.-kill-Agric-students-in-Gujba-Yobe-stateCSP, by Kyle Shideler, Feb. 23, 2015:

A statement by a U.S. intelligence officer discussing the differences between Boko Haram and Islamic State, and stressing that the two groups, ” caliphates are completely separate” and that they would find it difficult to cooperate due to Arab racism received plenty of traction in reporting last week:

“The Arab world is incredibly racist,” explained a U.S. intelligence official. “They don’t see black Africans as equivalent to them.”

ISIS may show “affinity” with Boko Haram, said the official, “but they stop short of allegiance.” Moreover, said the official, while Boko Haram has in the past year released videos to show “affiliation” with groups like ISIS, there’s no evidence of either group sending members to fight with the other. And while Boko Haram has praised ISIS, and shown the ISIS flag in videos, ISIS has not reciprocated.

Now, however, comes a new report by the private intelligence firm SITE, which notes that according to jihadist media sources, Boko Haram, whose actual name is Jama’at Ahl al-Sunnah Lil Dawa Wal Jihad (Group for the Propagation of the Sunnah and Jihad), will have its Shura council discuss swearing allegiance to the Islamic State’s “caliph” Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi.

It’s just another example of the ironic timing of an analysis which seems to misunderstand the nature of the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement generally. The Islamic State, in its position as a declared Caliphate, does not need to offer allegiance to Boko Haram. Rather it is incumbent upon Boko Haram, as a group waging jihad, to swear its allegiance to the Caliph. As IS wrote in its original declaration of the Caliphate, “This is The Promise of Allah“:

We clarify to the Muslims that with this declaration of khilāfah, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to the khalīfah Ibrāhīm and support him (may Allah preserve him). The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah’s authority and arrival of its troops to their areas. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy upon him) said, as reported by ‘Abdūs Ibn Mālik al-‘Attār, “It is not permissible for anyone who believes in Allah to sleep without considering as his leader whoever conquers them by the sword until he becomes khalīfah and is called Amīrul-Mu’minīn (the leader of the believers), whether this leader is righteous or sinful.”

There was never a question of the Islamic State accepting Boko Haram. Islamic State ALREADY claims authority over Boko Haram, since it’s leader AbuBakr AlBaghdadi was declared literally “leader of all the believers,” meaning the entire Ummah, and thus all Muslims everywhere, regardless of the color of their skin.

While Islamic State may include many individuals who are racist in their behavior, by giving non-Arab jihadists the worst positions for instance,  the question of allegiance is entirely dependent on whether Boko Haram acknowledges the Caliphate claim, and chooses to accept Islamic State’s authority.

That Boko Haram has expressed some attraction to Islamic State and its messaging (using their flag, anthems and so on) suggested that there was a desire to do so, but ultimately the question is a legal one. Does Boko Haram’s Shura council recognize the legal claim of AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi or not? It is this question that the Shura council will convene to answer, and which will decide whether or not Islamic State adds another province to its roster.

Also see:

The Betrayal Papers – Part I of V – Under Obama: The U.S. Captured by the Muslim Brotherhood

pres sealThe Betrayal Papers will trace the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama administration’s foreign and domestic policies.  The five-part series will present a picture of a conspiracy that is manipulating the American government to the benefit of a totalitarian, genocidal movement that seeks to establish a global Islamic State.

  • The Muslim Brotherhood is an international political, financial, terrorist and movement whose goal is to establish a global Islamic State (Caliphate).
  • They have and continue to exert tremendous influence of the American government’s foreign and domestic policies under President Barack Hussein Obama.
  • The violence in the Middle East and across North Africa is a direct consequence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s effective control over American foreign policy in the region.
  • They operate through various “civic” front groups, as well as through American institutions who take their money as operational funding (Georgetown University, Brookings Institution).

In America, we have a weak and struggling economy, growing public and private debt, and millions are un- and underemployed.  While a weaponized IRS targets Tea Party groups and other voices of liberty, and military veterans are labeled as “domestic terrorists” by the Department of Homeland Security, the federal government refuses to secure the southern border.  Educational policy now includes the teaching of Arabic and visits to mosques for schoolchildren.

Internationally, America is in retreat.  The Middle East is in ashes, and in the midst of an ongoing genocide replete with daily horrors, the likes which have not been seen for centuries.  Former allies have been abandoned and are embittered.  Under the present leadership in the White House and State Department, Israel is considered the aggressor and Hamas the oppressed.

In sum, the world is at its most volatile point since the outbreak of World War II.

If you think that this is a result of something other than an “incompetent,” “stupid,” or “clueless” President, words regularly used by those who sense something is wrong but, can’t quite bring themselves to own up to the ugly truth, you’re not alone.

Millions of Americans are realizing that the Obama administration is not merely “misguided.”  It is actually and consciously anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and broadly anti-Western.  Yet , the American public does not yet fully appreciate why and how the administration always finds itself square against everything this country is based on – religious freedom, capitalism, and justice under law.

This series of articles will explain the force and mechanics behind Obama’s anti-American global agenda: the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon: The Root of Today’s Islamic Evil

Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood (aka, the Society of Muslim Brothers, or Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon in Arabic) is an international movement (some would argue an international conspiracy) that seeks to establish a worldwide Islamic State (or Caliphate).  When it was created in the late 1920s, the Brotherhood was a contemporary of the Nazi Party of Germany.  Indeed, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, Amin al-Husseini, is considered by some as the man who catalyzed the Holocaust; for it was only after Husseini visited Hitler in Berlin in 1941 that the systematic extermination of Jews and other minorities began with industrial efficiency.

husseni-hitlerAfter the war, despite the insistence by many wartime leaders (Churchill included) that he be brought to justice, Husseini escaped to the Middle East.  He lived there until his death in the 1970s, serving as a mentor to a young Yasser Arafat.  Husseini and the Nazi Party are the connection points between the Holocaust and today’s Middle Eastern genocide.

The Allies conscious failure to arrest and prosecute Husseini haunts us today.

A Terror Hedge against Stalin and Soviet Russia

At the beginning of the Cold War, working with former Nazis, the American CIA began to court the Muslim Brotherhood as an ally against Soviet Russia.  This calculus may have made sense when facing down Josef Stalin, a totalitarian tyrant hell-bent on world domination, but it has proved a costly strategy in the long run.

In the years and decades that followed World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved into a modern day Nazi International, not unlike the old Comintern (Communist International).  It has a vast network of financial and business interests across the world; it has agents, supporters, and apologists within western governments; and it has a support network of “civic” organizations in the West.

These all serve as a cover for its darker and insatiably violent ambitions.

For despite all their intrigue and political gamesmanship, the Muslim Brotherhood is not strictly a political movement, nor a financial cabal.  It’s also the mothership of virtually all Islamic terrorist groups operating in the world today, including Al Qaeda,

ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and many more.  Such groups, all children of the Muslim Brotherhood’s fanatical Islamic ideology, are today ethnically cleansing countries such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria of all traces of Christianity.  No less than the President of Egypt, Muslim Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a devout Muslim, has said as much.

Considering how the Muslim Brotherhood and their terrorist pawns treat fellow Muslims in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq, butchering them by the bushel including women and children, it should come as no surprise that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have declared the them a “terrorist” organization.

It should also come as no surprise that the United Arab Emirates has designated Muslim Brotherhood front groups operating in the United States “terrorist” entities.  In November, the UAE effectively declared that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim-American Society (MAS) were no different than Al Qaeda.  Why?  It’s because they share a common origin in the Muslim Brotherhood.  One could add to this list of domestic terrorist collaborators and enablers the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

A New HQ in America

Equally alarmingly, all-American institutions such as Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution have accepted so much money from the Muslim Brotherhood government in Qatar, that their political positions are virtually indistinguishable from the Muslim Brotherhood’s domestic front groups!

Yet, the United States government does not see these organizations and their employees as the enemy, as apologists for the worst kinds of barbarity.  In fact, the highest profile people from these organizations advise the Obama administration, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the National Security Council.  In January, the Department of State actually welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood to a meeting, and shortly thereafter Egypt exploded in jihadi violence.  This is no magical coincidence.

To the detriment of our safety and well-being, the domestic Muslim Brotherhood front groups help dictate counterterrorism policies.  It is their influence which leads to the farcical idea, recently expressed by Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, that the Crusades have something to do with ISIS and the mass murder of innocents in the Middle East today.

These front groups shape our foreign policy, which since the Arab Spring and continuing to this day is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood.

So-called “moderate Muslims” employed at these front groups have made the country of Qatar, a totalitarian sharia-based society, and an “ATM for terrorists,” the closest ally of the United States under Obama’s Presidency.  With enthusiasm from Obama and Eric Holder, they have us emptying Guantanamo Bay of the most vicious killers and sending them to Qatar, with only the vaguest of security assurances.

The remaining four articles will explore the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on American policy, both foreign and domestic (including in Common Core, Obama’s position on illegal immigration and amnesty, and the hostility of the administration toward police officers).  The exposé will also detail the operatives in the government who work to advance the Muslim Brotherhood’s ambitions for a worldwide Caliphate.  And it will put into context the mysterious influence that George Soros and Valerie Jarrett have over Barack Hussein Obama, his administration, and the policies that affect every American.

The Betrayal Papers is a collaborative effort by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, which includes: Andrea Shea King, Dr. Ashraf Ramelah, Benjamin Smith, Brent Parrish, Charles Ortel, Chris Nethery, Denise Simon, Dick Manasseri, Gary Kubiak, Gates of Vienna, IQ al Rassooli, Jeff Bayard, Leslie Burt, Marcus Kohan, Mary Fanning, General Paul E. Vallely, Regina Thomson, Scott Smith, Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, Colonel Thomas Snodgrass, Trever Loudon, Wallace Bruschweiler, and William Palumbo.

What Bobby Jindal Gets about Islam — and Most People Still Don’t

pic_giant_012415_SM_Muslims-France

We need a great deal more honesty about the religion, as the “no-go zone” debate reveals.

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 24, 2015

Footballs are deflating, the president is detached from reality, the Saudi king is deceased, and the sharia state next door, Yemen, is descending into bloody chaos. With mere anarchy loosed upon the world, it would be easy to miss the fact that, in England this week, Bobby Jindal gave as important and compelling a speech as has been delivered in years about America — our leadership role on the world stage, our preservation as a beacon of liberty.

In the birthplace of the Magna Carta, it has nonetheless become legally risky to speak with candor (even when quoting Churchill). Yet Louisiana’s Republican governor became that rarest of modern Anglo or American statesmen. Bobby Jindal told the truth about Islam, specifically about its large radical subset that attacks the West by violent jihad from without and sharia-supremacist subversion from within.

With Western Europe still reeling from the jihadist mass-murders in Paris at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Kacher Jewish market, Governor Jindal outlined a bold, Reaganesque vision of American foreign policy guided by three imperatives — freedom, security, and truth. It is on the last one, truth, that our capacity to ensure freedom and security hinges. “You cannot remedy a problem,” Jindal explained, “if you will not name it and define it.”

And so he did: Our immediate security problem today “is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.” That is, the challenge is not limited to violent jihadists who commit barbaric atrocities. Jindal elaborated: “In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.”

The campaign to implement and spread sharia is antithetical to Western liberty. Freedom, Jindal said, means “the ability to conduct commerce both inside and outside your borders; it means the right to speak freely, to publish any cartoons you want. It means the right to worship freely. It means the right to self-determination.” By contrast, “radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency, nor are they willing to accommodate them in any way and anywhere.” Moreover, the version of sharia law to which they adhere

is not just different than our law, it’s not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is antithetical to valuing all of human life equally. It is the very definition of oppression. We must stop pretending otherwise.

It cannot credibly be denied that this is so, as I have documented — using not only notorious examples of how sharia is applied in countries like Saudi Arabia (where it is the law of the land), but also Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual certified as accurate by prominent Islamic scholars, including at both al-AzharUniversity (the seat of Sunni jurisprudence since the tenth century) and at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (an influential Muslim Brotherhood think tank).

Still, Governor Jindal has been pilloried since his courageous speech by tendentious critics across the spectrum, from the usual Islamist grievance chorus to Fox News commentators and British prime minister David Cameron.

Why? Because he dared notice what ought to be an inarguable fact: The non-assimilationist Muslim campaign has resulted in the rise throughout Western Europe of what Jindal described as “unofficial” “so-called” “no-go zones.”

Jindal was clearly right about this. His timing, however, was wrong: He had the misfortune to dilate on “no-go zones” at the same time that Steven Emerson, the usually astute terrorism analyst, made a no-go gaffe. Steve erroneously claimed that the entire British city of Birmingham is “totally Muslim” and has become a “no-go zone” where “non-Muslims simply don’t go in.”

Emerson has since apologized profusely. The damage, however, was done. Fox News is evidently so embarrassed at having been the forum for his faux pas (and at having been threatened with legal action by the city of Paris, which was the main target of Steve’s commentary), that the network is over-correcting. This helps stoke the Islamist meme that no-go zones are a hysterical figment of the “Islamophobic” imagination.

That is absurd, but follows naturally from two things: a common misunderstanding about sharia, and a misrepresentation that describing the incontestable fact thatsharia is being applied de facto in Europe is the same as falsely claiming that sharia is now the de jure writ of Europe.

Dreamy Islamophiles like Mr. Cameron and many of his like-minded progressives in bipartisan Beltway circles have a sputtering snit anytime a commentator associates Islam with anything other than “peace.” Consequently, the doctrine of Islam (which actually means submission) remains taboo and poorly understood in the West. One major misconception is that Islamists (i.e., Islamic supremacists or Muslims who want sharia implemented) demand that all non-Muslims convert to Islam. A no-go zone is thus incorrectly assumed by many to be a place that Muslims forbid non-Muslims to enter.

In reality, sharia explicitly invites the presence of non-Muslims provided that they submit to the authority of Islamic rule. Indeed historically, as I related in The Grand Jihad, my book about the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist ideology, because sharia calls on these submissive non-Muslims (dhimmis) to pay a poll tax (jizya), their continued presence was of economic importance in lands conquered by Islamic rulers.

It is therefore easy for Islamists and their apologists to knock down their strawman depiction of no-go zones as places where non-Muslims are not allowed. That is not what no-go zones are — neither as they exist in fact nor as they are contemplated by sharia. The point of imposing sharia — the reason it is the necessary precondition for building an Islamic society — is to make Islam the dominant social system, not the exclusive faith. The idea is that once sharia’s systematic discrimination against non-Muslims is in place, non-Muslims will see the good sense of becoming Muslims. Over time, every one will convert “without coercion.” The game is to set up an extortionate incentive for conversion while maintaining the smiley-face assurance that no one is being forced to convert at the point of a sword.

So radical Muslims will be welcoming to any ordinary non-Muslims who are willing to defer to their mores. What they are hostile to are officials of the host state: police, firefighters, building inspectors, emergency medical personnel, and anything associated with the armed forces. That is because the presence of those forces symbolizes the authority — the non-submission — of the state.

Notice, however, that no sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.

There is a reason that Governor Jindal qualified his invocation of the term no-go zones, modifying it with “so-called” and noting that the term is used “unofficially.” His speech was about reality, particularly where it stressed the need for truthfulness in forming policy. If our premise is reality, it is not no-go zones that are imaginary; it is the suggestion that no-go zones do not exist simply because non-Muslim entry is not literally prohibited by law. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern painstakingly demonstrates, “Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.” It has been amply acknowledged not only in press reports and academicanalyses but by governments that must deal with them.

Have a look, for example, at the French government’s official listing of 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibiles­ — “sensitive urban zones.” France’s “ZUS” designation is significant. As the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes recounted in a column at NRO this week, when he coined the term “no-go zone” in 2006 it was intended as “a non-euphemistic equivalent” of ZUS. If that is how the term “no-go zone” is understood — as an enclave deferential to Islamic sensibilities rather than exclusionary of non-Muslims — the contention that no-go zones do not exist is plainly frivolous. This is so even if, as Pipes maintains, the term “no-go zone” itself was an overstatement. The term “semi-autonomous sectors,” he says, would more accurately convey the historical anomaly the West has created: “a majority population [that] accepts the customs and even the criminality or a poorer and weaker community,” and in a manner that involves far more than control over physical territory.

Nevertheless, the problem with all this semantic nattering is its intimation that we can only infer the existence of no-go zones, and of the Islamist subversion they signal, by drawing inferences from what we see happening on the ground.

Nonsense. The world’s most influential Islamic supremacists have told us in no uncertain terms that they see Muslim immigration in the West as part of a conquest strategy.

As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, the strategy is often referred to as “voluntary apartheid.” One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood icon who is probably the world’s most revered sharia jurist. Sheikh Qaradawi, who vows that Islam will conquer America and Europe, and who has beencrystal clear on the incompatibility of sharia and Western democracy, elaborates:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

Translation: To establish Islamic domination in the West, we do not need to resort to terrorism or to force non-Muslims to convert; we need merely a recognized right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict, as they do in fundamental ways.

This is precisely why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — the bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) — warned in a 2010 report on“Islamophobia” that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” (Here, at p. 30.) It is why Recep TayyipErdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate “is a crime against humanity.”

At Oxford, Bobby Jindal bluntly asserted that the ideology of our enemy, radical Islam,

holds the view that it is wrong to expect assimilation, that assimilation is colonialist, assimilation is backward, and assimilation is in fact evidence of cultural bigotry and insensitivity. They think it is wrong to expect that people who chose to immigrate to your country should be expected to endorse and abide by your laws. They think it is unenlightened, discriminatory, and even racist to expect immigrants to endorse and assimilate into the culture in their new country. This is complete rubbish.

That is the truth. The United States will not get national-security policy right, nor reestablish our credentials as leader of the free world, until we accept that truth. Accept it and resolve, as Governor Jindal has resolved, to tell it boldly.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Is Sisi Islam’s Long-Awaited Reformer?

In view of the news that Sisi sets conditions to reconcile with Muslim Brotherhood the following assessment of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s views on reform of Islam deserves close scrutiny. Andrew Bostom has been sounding the alarm on this all along.

by Daniel Pipes
The National Review
January 19, 2015

908In a widely praised January 1 speech at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi addressed the country’s religious leadership, saying the time had come to reform Islam. He’s won Western plaudits for this, including a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, but I have reservations about the speech.

To begin with, no matter how fine Sisi’s ideas, no politician – and especially no strongman – has moved modern Islam. Atatürk’s reforms in Turkey are systematically being reversed. A decade ago, King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan gave similarly fine speeches on “the true voice of Islam” and “enlightened moderation” that immediately disappeared from view. Yes, Sisi’s comments are stronger, but he is not a religious authority and, in all likelihood, they too will disappear without a trace.

As for content: Sisi praised the faith of Islam and focused on what he calls fikr, literally meaning thoughtbut in this context meaning wrong ideas. He complained that wrong ideas, which he did not specify, have become sacralized and that the religious leadership dares not criticize them. But Sisi did criticize, and in a colloquial Arabic highly unusual for discussing such topics: “It is inconceivable that the wrong ideas which we sacralize should make the entire umma [Muslim community] a source of concern, danger, killing, and destruction for the whole world. This is not possible.”

Nonetheless, that is precisely what has occurred: “We have reached the point that Muslims have antagonized the entire world. Is it conceivable that 1.6 billion [Muslims] want to kill the rest of the world’s population of 7 billion, so that Muslims prosper? This is not possible.” Sisi continued, to faint applause from the religious dignitaries assembled before him, to call on them to bring about a “religious revolution.” Barring that, the Muslim community “is being torn apart, destroyed, and is going to hell.”

Kudos to Sisi for tough talk on this problem; his candor stands in sharp contrast to the mumbo-jumbo emanating from his Western counterparts who uphold the pretense that the current wave of violence has nothing to do with Islam. (Of many flamboyantly erroneous remarks, my favorite is from Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, who responded to the Charlie Hebdo massacre with, “I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They’re about as Muslim as I am.”)

But Sisi gave no specifics regarding the revolution he seeks; what might he have in mind? Contrary to what his admirers say, I believe he champions a subtle version of Islamism, defined the full application of Islamic law (Shari’a) in the public sphere.

Several indications point to Sisi having been an Islamist. He was a practicing Muslim who apparently has memorized the Koran. The Financial Times found that his wife wore thehijab (headscarf) and one of his daughters theniqab (the covering that reveals only eyes and hands). The Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi, appointed Sisi his defense minister precisely because he saw the then-general as an ally.

While a student in Pennsylvania in 2005-06, Sisi wrote a paper advocating democracy adapted to Islam, one that “may bear little resemblance” to its Western prototype but “will have its own shape or form coupled with stronger religious ties.” His version of democracy did not separate mosque and state but was established “upon Islamic beliefs,” meaning that government agencies must “take Islamic beliefs into consideration when carrying out their duties.” In other words, Shari’a trumps popular will.

Also in that paper, Sisi partially aligned himself with Salafis, those long-bearded and burqa’ed Islamists aspiring to live as Muhammad did. He described the early caliphate not merely as “the ideal form of government” but also “the goal for any new form of government” and he hoped for the revival of “the earliest form” of the caliphate.

It’s certainly possible that Sisi’s views of Islam, like many Egyptians’, have evolved, especially since his break with Morsi two years ago. Indeed, rumors have him affiliated with the radically anti-Islamist Quranist movement, whose leader, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, he cited in his student paper. But Mansour suspects Sisi is “playing with words” and waits to see if Sisi is serious about reform.

Indeed, until we know more about Sisi’s personal views and see what he does next, I understand his speech not as a stance against all of Islamism but only against its specifically violent form, the kind that is ravaging Nigeria, Somalia, Syria-Iraq, and Pakistan, the kind that has placed such cities as Boston, Ottawa, Sydney, and Paris under siege. Like other cooler heads, Sisi promotes Shari’a through evolution and popular support, rather than through revolution and brutality. Non violence, to be sure, is an improvement over violence. But it’s hardly the reform of Islam that non-Muslims hope to see – especially when one recalls that working through the system is more likely to succeed.

True reform requires scholars of Islam, not strongmen, and a repudiation of implementing Shari’a in the public sphere. For both these reasons, Sisi is not likely to be that reformer.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

“Tiger Team” to unveil strategy for defeating Global Jihad Movement

3215722920Recommends Approach Reagan Used to Destroy Last Totalitarian Ideology Threat

Press release from Center for Security Policy:

(Washington, DC): Murderous attacks by Islamic supremacists in recent weeks in France, Nigeria, Australia and Canada have made obvious a fact long ignored by too many Western governments and elites:  The Free World is under assault by Islamic supremacists.

The perpetrators of this assault may have different organizational affiliations, alternative state-sponsors, divergent sectarian views about Islam or even be acting individually.  But they have two things in common:  They seek to impose their ideology or doctrine, shariah, on the whole world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. And they intend to create an alternative form of governance, often called a Caliphate to rule in accordance with shariah.

Consequently, the United States and the rest of the Free World urgently needs to identify this Global Jihad Movement as our enemy and to bring to bear an effective, counter-ideological strategy for defeating this political, supremacist shariah doctrine.

The Center for Security Policy, which prides itself on being the “Special Forces in the War of Ideas,” has sponsored in recent months an informal “tiger team” modeled after an actual special operations A-Team drawing upon individuals with unique and necessary skill sets for the mission at hand: Adapting the strategy that defeated the last totalitarian ideology that sought our destruction: Soviet communism.

WHO:

Participating Members of the Secure Freedom Strategy “Tiger Team”:

  • Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.), former senior Special Operator and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
  • Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and father of the Navy Red Cell counterterrorist unit.
  • Kevin Freeman, Chartered Financial Analyst and best-selling author of Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Attacked the U.S. Stock Market and Why it Can Happen Again
  • Clare Lopez, Senior Vice President Center for Security Policy for Research and Analysis and former Operations Officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service
  • Dr. J. Michael Waller, expert on information warfare and influence operations
  • David Yerushalmi, Esq., co-founder and partner, American Freedom Law Center, and expert on shariah
  • Fred Fleitz, career intelligence professional who served under William J. Casey at the Central Intelligence Agency
  • Moderator:  Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting) under President Reagan

WHERE:

National Press Club
Zenger Room
529 14th St NW, 13th Floor
Washington, D.C.

WHEN:

Friday, January 16, 2015, 12:00-1:30 pm  Luncheon will be served.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., who formerly acted as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under President Reagan and now is president of the Center for Security Policy said of this effort:
President Obama recently justified his abandonment of decades of U.S. policy towards the despotic regime in Cuba on the grounds that, if it hadn’t worked, it needed to be changed.  It is beyond dispute that the policy he and his predecessors have pursued towards the Global Jihad Movement, its ideological wellspring – shariah, and its sponsors and enablers is not working.  In this case, we actually must make a change.
President Reagan’s successful counter-ideological strategy, formalized in his National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 75, is one that has worked in the past.  In the professional judgment of some of America’s finest national security professionals, as adapted in the Secure Freedom Strategy, the NSDD 75 approach can work now as well, if employed decisively against today’s totalitarian ideology and its adherents.

The War On Israel and the Middle East

Frontpage:

Below are the video and transcript to the panel discussion “The War on Israel and the Middle East,” which took place at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 20th Anniversary Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 13th-16th at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida. 

Daniel Pipes: I’d like to make three geostrategic points in my few minutes, and I apologize in advance for having to leave, but the plane schedule is as it is. The first point is that — and this has been said before, I’d like to reiterate it — that Iran is a far greater threat than ISIS, and we are making an extraordinary mistake in joining with the Iranians against ISIS. Need one point out that ISIS has perhaps $5 million a day in oil revenue and 15,000 troops and, granted, a dynamism, but that Iran is a powerful state of 75 million people, an oil revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, and an army of hundreds of thousands and, of course, a terror network and is building up their weapons? I would predict to you, ladies and gentleman, that ISIS, which appeared so suddenly, will disappear suddenly as well because it has so many enemies, it is so overextended, it is trying to do so much at the same time that it is going to collapse before very long and it is going to disappear as a state whereas Iran is going to be a longer lasting entity.

Let me also predict that the real importance of ISIS, Islamic state, ISIL, Daesh, call it what you will, lies not in this sizeable state that now exists between Bagdad and Turkey but rather in the resurrection of the idea of the caliphate. The last executive caliph with power was in the 940s — 940s, not 1940s — a long, long time ago. Yes, the institution of the caliphate continued until 1924, but it was meaningless. It was just a title. The actual caliphate, executive caliphate, disappeared over a millennium ago and then suddenly, this man who calls himself Caliphate Ibrahim resurrected it on June 29, 2014, and this has sent a frisson of excitement through the Muslim world, and this has created the notion of a feasible caliphate once again after having been gone for a millennium, and this is important. I can well imagine other groups taking up this same standard and demanding that they be accepted as the caliphate. I can further imagine that states such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and even Iran in its own Shiite way taking up the claim of caliphate and so this turns Islamist politics into an even more radical direction than it has been in the past and therefore is a very negative development, but that is an idea, and the notion that the U.S. government should be working with Iran against ISIS is madness, just simple madness.

Iran is the ultimate enemy, which is my second point. Iran is of course the ultimate enemy today. The acquisition by Iranian leadership of nuclear weapons will not only change the Middle East but will change the world. Other tyrants have had nuclear weapons — think of Stalin and Mao — but there’s something different about this group of tyrants in that they’re thinking about the end of days. They’re apocalyptically minded. They have ideas that, were they to deploy nuclear weapons, they would bring forward the days of the Mahdi, the Dajjal, and the other sequence events leading to the day of resurrection, so they are even more dangerous. Now, I could have a nice seminar extending for hours on whether they actually would deploy nuclear weapons or not, but I don’t want to find out, and I suspect you don’t either. It is absolutely imperative that they be stopped from doing that and that would not be easy because the Iranian leadership, like the North Korean leadership, is absolutely determined to get nuclear weapons and will pay whatever price is necessary. In North Korea it was mass starvation. In Iran, it will be economic deprivation and other problems, but they’re going to go ahead and while computer viruses and targeted assassinations and bombings, which have been taking place, will certainly slow things down, they cannot stop it. The only way to stop it is through use of force against the Iranian nuclear installations.

So, that I think is all pretty clear, but I’m going to go beyond that and say that when the happy day comes that the Islamic Revolution of Iran is overthrown — and that is a prospect that is real; we saw one run up toward it in June 2009 and it was suppressed, but it wasn’t eliminated and there will be further attempts — and it is certain that one of these days, the Islamic Republic will collapse. When that happens, I suggest to you, the Iranian people who are sick of this ideological state will become quite friendly. Posts show that the overwhelming majority of Iranians hate their government and hate the Islam that their government is purveying. I think that Iranians will be good friends when that day comes.

In contrast, I think our great problem in the Middle East will be Turkey. Turkey, which is also a very substantial state of some 80 million people and which is in an important strategic location, has a real economy, an educated population. Turkey has approached Islamism – well, the Turkish leadership has approached Islamism — in a far more intelligent way than the Iranians. I call Khomeini, “Islamism 1.0,” and Erdogan, “Islamism 2.0.” Khomeini used revolution and violence and so forth and his successor rules despotically, but Erdogan, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the dominant figure of Turkish politics, is a far more clever figure who has won I think nine elections in 13 years of various sorts, parliamentary, referendum, residential, has tripled the size of the economy and is a figure of enormous importance and popularity in the country. He has a very strong base. This is a not a despotism. Now, granted, over time, he’s becoming increasingly authoritarian, autocratic, unpleasant, decisive, but he has won his place democratically, and he will last and his regime will last much longer than Khomeini’s, and I believe as one looks at 10-20 years in the future, it will be Turkey, not Iran, that will be our great problem and that we should be preparing for that today.

Read more with Ken Timmerman, Daniel Greenfield and Caroline Glick

ISIS RELEASES PARENTING GUIDE: TELL JIHADI BEDTIME STORIES ‘WHILE THEY ARE BABIES’

ISIS-children-apBreitbart, by Frances Martel, Jan. 1, 2015:

Hot off the heels of releasing a guide on how to properly handle sex slaves, the Islamic State (ISIS) has begun distributing a handbook titled Sister’s Role in Jihad, designed to teach women how to properly indoctrinate their children to fully commit to the cause of jihadist terrorism.

The guide, discovered and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), instructs jihadist mothers to start young, lest the child grow older and less susceptible to a full commitment to the Islamic State. The guide specifically calls for teaching children the importance of waging jihad “while they are babies” because anything older than infancy “may be too late,” as the Daily Mail reports: “Don’t wait until they are seven to start, for it may be too late by then!” The Mail highlights specifically that the guide tells mothers, “Don’t underestimate the lasting effect of what those little ears and eyes take in during the first few years of life!”

The guide also encourages mothers to teach children how to play with toy guns and to introduce them to sports like darts that can help improve aim.

“Fun does not mean music and dancing, as is portrayed by Western children’s TV.” The latter, it comments, “mostly teaches shamelessness, anarchy, and random violence.” Israeli newspaper Haaretz notes also that the guide discourages “fun” in the Western sense. While jihadi indoctrination should be fun, “fun does not mean music and dancing, as is portrayed by Western children’s TV.” Music and dancing, they claim, “mostly [teach] shamelessness, anarchy, and random violence.”

The guide does impose one restriction on mothers: children should be clear on “who their target is” when allowed near real guns, and they should be taught with toy guns not to shoot anyone friendly to the cause.

In releasing the English-language translation of the guidebook, Steven Stalinsky, executive director of MEMRI, explained that the handbook’s intent is not only to help mothers raise children, but to use the guide itself as a propaganda tool to warn enemies that the children of jihadists will be entirely committed to killing Westerners. “It is important for the West to understand that all these groups want the world to know that this indoctrination is taking place,” he explained. “No matter what happens in Iraq and Syria in the near future, the next generation – the children of Baghdadi and grandchildren of bin Laden – have already been brainwashed to hate the West and to strive for jihad and martyrdom.”

Also see:

Nicolai Sennels: Why We Fight Islam

This enemy is different than anything we have encountered before: You can not intimidate an enemy who loves death more than life.

I was recently asked: Why fight Islam? The short answer is because Islam fights us and since it knows no borders and it knows no mercy, it will keep fighting us until we are defeated or we – hopefully – stop them forever.

The goal in Islam is world domination and a central part of every Muslim’s religious practise is to spread his faith with all possible means until it covers the Earth completely. Ever since the 6th century where Islam’s founder and self-proclaimed prophet, Mohammed (who maybe never existed), set out to conquer neighbouring towns, killing, maiming, raping and enslaving scores, Islam has spread its suppressing and destructive doctrine as far as it could. Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist countries and cultures have been crushed by relentless waves of jihadis (Arabic: mujahideens), leaving up to 270 million non-Muslims dead, mostly killed in exceedingly barbaric ways. The recent Islamic takeover of areas in Africa, the Middle East and Western cities that until recently were not under sharia, is not a new phenomena. It is just another phase of a 1,400 year old war against non-Muslims, with the aim of consolidating Muslim power over non-Muslims, and Islamic rule over democracy and human rights. With millions of Muslims fleeing to the West from their self-created atrocities, Islam is about to spread to countries that has been almost Muslim-free. Citizens of Eastern Europe and Baltic States who think that West Europe can handle the problem without their help are naive and lack solidarity: it is time for the democratic world to stand together. Since the nature of Islam is to eventually spread everywhere, nobody is safe anyway.

What do they want?
The final goal of Islam is a worldwide Caliphate ruled by Sharia. The world that Islam’s followers dream of is a planet ordered after the wishes of Allah and his prophet. In such a world there is no Free Speech since the slightest criticism of the system is to be punished by death. There is not even Freedom of Thought, since everybody has to believe in Allah and Mohammed as his prophet, pray five times a day, eat halal, and kill family members and others flinching from the Islamic rules. According to Sharia, women are effectively the property of their male family members and men are allowed to have four wives and beat them all. Jews and Christians will be spared death if they pay a protection tax, jizya, and accept the status as dhimmis, second class citizens whom Muslims are allowed to abuse and rape on a whim. People not believing in the Old Testament – Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others – will have the choice between being killed or converting to Islam (which constitutes psychological rape and forces one to live a strict Muslim life, including killing other non-Muslims).

A society where science and research must be aligned with the world view of a crazed pedophile living in the 6th century (Mohammed married and started fondeling Aisha when she was six and had intercourse with her when she was nine) will of course not be able to establish a functioning stable economy, political system or the comforts of modern medicine, technology and infrastructure.

When it comes to human freedom and rights, the Soviet Union was a utopia compared to any Islamic caliphate, which can best be compared to the joy- and loveless, totalitarian worlds of anger depicted by J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of The Rings and in George Lucas’ Star Wars. Should our civilization collapse under Islamic aggression – aided by our own political correctness, cowardice, laziness  – the only known place with intelligent life in this universe will be a dark and destroyed planet drifting through space, populated by billions of mostly inbred humans living in total misery, enslaved by the freedom-hating, death-loving, brutal, mind-numbing sharia. What tragedy could be worse than that?

Read more