The Façade in CAIR’s Paris Attacks Condemnation

cair-terror-shadowIPT News
November 16, 2015

Leaders at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemn Friday’s coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris that left an estimated 130 people dead. They really, really condemn it.

But if the discussion turns to the terrorists’ religious motivations, they’ll condemn that, too. Beginning with social media posts and a news conference with leaders of other Muslim organizations Saturday, CAIR is waging a campaign to stifle any reference to the Islamist ideology that drove the Islamic State attack on Paris.

If defeating ISIS requires a war of ideas among Muslims to determine how literally to apply the Quran, CAIR wants no part.

“Let’s not legitimize ISIS and help them in their propaganda by calling them the Islamic State,” CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad told reporters.” They’re not Islamic. They’re not state. They’re anti-Islamic. Let’s not call them jihadis. They have nothing to do with jihad. Jihad is a legitimate self-defense in Islam. Let’s not give them this legitimizing title. They are brutal killers. They have no legitimacy.

“And I urge media, politicians, analysts to be very careful with the choice of their words. ISIS is appealing to the marginalized, disenfranchised and alienated young people in the Middle East and in the West. Let’s not help ISIS recruit more disenfranchised and alienated young people.”

It’s an argument directly contradicted by ISIS itself and one being mocked both by Islamic radicals and by secular advocates of religious freedom.

In a statement claiming credit for Friday’s slaughter re-posted at the Long War Journal, ISIS described the attacks as “a blessed battle whose causes of success were enabled by Allah” to strike “the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe — Paris.”

“This group of believers were youth who divorced the worldly life and advanced towards their enemy hoping to be killed for Allah’s sake, doing so in support of His religion,” the ISIS statement said. “…The targets included the Bataclan theatre for exhibitions, where hundreds of pagans gathered for a concert of prostitution and vice.”

CAIR, meanwhile, created a Twitter hashtag, “TerrorismHasNoReligion,” and sent the director of its Florida chapters, Hassan Shibly, onto the radio, where he essentially blamed the victims. It isn’t religion that drove the attacks, he said. Rather, it is the consequence of “failing foreign policy” by Western nations including France and the United States.

1266In a four-minute segment, Shibly made seven references to foreign policy, describing it as “bad” and “horrific.” Fix the foreign policy, he said, and the terrorism will end. The problem is, “We cannot have a real conversation about terrorism these days.”

Terrorists, he told host Dean Obeidallah, “are not motivated by religion. They’re motivated by politics, by fighting for power and their own political agenda and they use religion to galvanize support. But ultimately, it isn’t about the religion. An absence of religion but still with the same political issues, you would still have the same problems. So it’s about politics, not religion.”

This is an argument wholly divorced from any facts about the Paris attacks or about ISIS’s ideology. We have cited numerous examples in which Islamist terrorists clearly describe their actions as religiously-inspired. And now, ISIS and its supporters provide fresh examples contradicting CAIR’s very premise.

In a sickly sarcastic essay, “Sorry Paris,” Salafi-jihadist ideologue Hussain bin Mahmud ridicules “our respectable and venerable ‘scholars’ who opened their mouth faster than the speed of light to condemn those criminal events.”

Mahmud’s beefs are about a perceived Western disrespect for Islam:

Sorry Paris, we have forgotten your enmity towards our religion, your insults towards our Lord and His messenger peace be upon him, your efforts to change our cultures in our countries, and suppressing Islam from the hearts of the young people in the East and the West.. Sorry Paris.

On the other side of the spectrum, Iraqi-born secularist Faisal Saeed Al Mutar likens arguments like CAIR’s to a Monty Python sketch depicting an Islamist terrorist arguing with an apologist:

“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to do it.”

“No you didn’t.”

“Wait, what? Yes we did…”

“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”

“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”

Read the entire script here.

In its statement claiming credit for the Paris attacks, ISIS refers to its grievances with the “crusader” nations, but makes a point of emphasizing religion. Those countries “will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign, as long as they dare to curse our Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and as long as they boast about their war against Islam in France and their strikes against Muslims in the lands of the Caliphate with their jets, which were of no avail to them in the filthy streets and alleys of Paris.”

It starts with a Surah in which Allah “cast terror into their hearts so they destroyed their houses by their own hands and the hands of the believers.”

Never mind that, CAIR says. It insists religion should not be part of the conversation.

But despite the protestations, acknowledging the words and ideals that fuel terrorists in no way indicts the belief of the world’s billion Muslims or the ideals of any broad spectrum of American Muslims. That is a false argument intended to shut down the debate before it starts.

During his interview, Shibly and Obeidallah mocked the argument that terrorists hate us for our culture, for our freedom. As the ISIS statement shows, it views Paris as “the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe.”

According to Shibly, that really means they hate French and American foreign policy.

“There’s hundreds of other countries in the world that have the freedoms we have but that don’t have the problems we have,” he said. “We do need to start asking ourselves how is our failed foreign policy leading to the troubles that we are seeing today while recognizing that the actions of terrorists is never justifiable.”

In a speech last July, British Prime Minister David Cameron rejected the notion that discussions about Islamic theology fueling terrorism be avoided.

It doesn’t work, Cameron said, in part “because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims. The fact is from Woolwich to Tunisia, from Ottawa to Bali, these murderers all spout the same twisted narrative, one that claims to be based on a particular faith.”

Minimizing debate is counter-productive, he added, because there are voices advocating reform who challenge “the fusing of religion and politics, the voices that want to challenge the scriptural basis which extremists claim to be acting on…the voices that are crucial in providing an alternative worldview that could stop a teenager’s slide along the spectrum of extremism.”

These voices lack the profile and money the terrorists have at their disposal.

Perhaps Shibly and his colleagues at CAIR are targeting the wrong audience. Rather than tell non-Muslims to ignore the statements issued by Islamist terrorists, CAIR might provide a better public service by loudly and clearly speaking to the terrorists themselves. If the terrorists are wrong theologically, who better than the most visible Muslim advocacy group in the country to set them straight?

Instead, CAIR has chosen the same template over and over again. Like “Fight Club,” the first rule of radical Islam is you do not talk about radical Islam.



Breitbart, by Ian Hanchett, Nov. 14, 2015:

Columnist and author Mark Steyn argued that a “large pool of people” who “provide a comfort zone within which this virus incubates” and that Western leaders are going to have to ask themselves “is it really a good idea to admit millions and millions of people to European countries?” on Saturday’s “Fox & Friends” on the Fox News Channel.

Steyn said, “nobody wants to say they were right about this, but I wrote a book almost ten years ago, and people said it was a alarmist. I’ve been listening to you guys all morning, and it’s striking to me, every interview you’ve had, Tucker has said, at one point, well, is it — some variation of is it really a good idea to admit millions and of millions of people to European countries? And people then start to tap dance around that issue, but when you get to it, that’s at the heart of it. That there is a large pool of people who, they don’t want to kill people, they don’t want bomb people, they don’t want to blow people up, but they provide a comfort zone within which this virus incubates. And at some point, if Mr. Hollande, and Mr. Cameron, and all these people talking about our values this morning are serious about that, they will have to do as Tucker did and ask themselves that question, and come up with an answer to it.”

When asked if the president realized “we have different values from the people who did this,” Steyn answered, “No, he doesn’t, and he wants to preserve that myth. If you look at the two big French attacks this year, for example, this attack was on people who just going to concerts, just going to restaurants, just going to soccer games, people find that well, easy to say, well you shouldn’t be blown up if you just go to a restaurant, or you just go to a soccer game. But when you get to the free speech thing, when you get to Charlie Hebdo in January, the majority of Muslims, in France, and in other western European nations, do not accept the concept of free speech. Free speech is not a universal value. It arises from a very narrow, particular tradition on this planet, and when you country becomes ten percent, 15 percent, 20 percent Muslim, there’s less and less of market for a free speech. So, despite what Obama, and Cameron, and Mr. Hollande say, that value of free speech will die, because there will be people who do not share that value.”

Steyn added that the war against terror can’t be fought on an “intelligence basis. I mean, we’ve been talking about whether you can vet people before — as they come in. A lot of these people, for example the Boston Marathon bomber, the guy who did the stabbings in Colorado just last week, they come in, and they’re perfectly normal little kids, and then they get radicalized as they live in Western societies. A quarter million people entered one German state, Bavaria, in September and October, a quarter million people. The German police estimate that it takes 60 people working on just tracking one known person on these watch lists. So, you cannot solve it by intelligence. You have to actually talk about things like a moratorium on Muslim immigration, and waging the battle ideologically. You have to be prepared — you have to, not just talk about our values, as Cameron did. You have to identify what those values are, and be prepared to defend and advance them in the world. Don’t just say that they’re universal. Because the guy in Yemen, and the goat herd, the Pashtun goat herd, and the fellow who thinks that his daughter got raped, so she deserves to die, these people don’t think they’re universal values. And Obama is useless if that’s all that he’s got to say about it.”

He added, “I think it has to be a two prong thing. I mean, this is a domestic battle, as much as an overseas war. In that these are people who nominally are citizens of Western nations, yet feel no allegiance to those nations. I mean, we pretend, we talk about the fellow in Colorado for example. The ABC News headline was a Santa Clara teenager had perpetrated the attacks. So, we present these people as normal residents of Santa Clara, of the United States, of France, Canada, Australia, but they bare, they — in the end, their sense of identity is not French, or Canadian, or Australian, or American. It’s with a pan-national identity, that actually doesn’t think in terms of nation-states. It’s bigger than that. The caliphate isn’t interested in the borders of France, or Belgium, or Germany. it’s actually making the very concept of national identity irrelevant, and replacing it with something bigger.”

David Cameron’s Latest Counter-Extremism Initiative Has A Mosque-Sized Hole In It


Eye on Islam, by Ben, Oct. 19, 2015:

Today the government released the latest in their recent attempts to outline a cohesive strategy on dealing with the jihadist threat – ahem, sorry, “extremism in all its forms”.

The full outline of the strategy, which can be read here, contains many useful and important initiatives which will help to keep the wolf from the door just a little bit longer, but as usual, it is full of massive problems.

The first, once again, is its obsession with placing “right-wing extremists” up on the same pedestal with Islamic jihadis, as if they were at least a roughly equivalent threat. That’s not to say that such people shouldn’t be combatted where they exist, but the extent of the threat they pose is massively exaggerated – especially when compared to ISIS – and the scariest things the report can come up with are individual attacks against Muslims by loners with no connections to anyone, and a “neo-Nazi” group that holds racist rock concerts. It also cites now-discredited statistics on anti-Muslim hate crimes from Tell MAMA to make the threat of “Islamophobia” seem worse than it actually is.

This isn’t just annoying – it also shows how ineffective these new strategies are likely to be, since they work on the assumption that all “extremism” requires the same solutions, and that all ideologies can be dealt with in the same way. There is no logical reason to believe this is the case.

The other HUGE omission, given that despite the false equivalences, the majority of the document does in fact dwell on Islamic extremism specifically, is that it contains pages and pages of material about how to stop online jihadi recruitment, and not even one sentence on dealing with extremism INSIDE BRITISH MOSQUES.

Mosques are only mentioned twice in the entire strategy document: Once on page 9, in a sentence about how Muslims have the freedom to build them in this country, and again on the following page, in a paragraph explaining how mosques are sometimes attacked by “right-wing extremists”. That’s it. There is also an oblique reference on page 28 to plans to “help faith institutions to establish strong governance.” This scheme, however, will apply to “places of worship of all faiths”.

Because the UK’s 100 or so Sikh temples just need “stronger governance” so urgently.

Why is this omission so critical? Because it flies in the face of mountains of evidence that mosques are a major radicalisation ground, given that they are the place where mainstream Islamic doctrines – which include many things the British government defines as extremist – are taught to the faithful.

The first exposure many British people will have had to the hate preaching and extreme sermons occurring in British mosques was probably in Channel 4’s Undercover Mosque documentary in 2007. The same year, an investigation by The Times revealed that books calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain indoors and forbidding interfaith marriage were being sold inside some of Britain’s leading mosques. The report claimed that such hardline material was found at a quarter of the 100 mosques visited during the investigation.

According to the Evening Standard, the An-Noor mosque in Acton has had numerous links to terror and extremism over the years, including a wanted terror suspect who used it as a shelter to evade the police, and the attendance of Abu Hamza’s son, Uthman Mustafa Kamal, who was preaching at the mosque, offering prayers for “holy warriors” to “destroy their enemies”.

And relating specifically to the newest threat of Islamic State, TheGuardian reported last month that networks of ISIS operatives are already recruiting inside mosques in the UK, with one imam even resigning from his mosque after witnessing extremist preaching first hand. In August, it was claimed that a teenage “jihadi bride” who groomed three of her school friends to join her in Syria to fight for Islamic State was radicalised at a women’s charity based at one of Britain’s biggest mosques, the East London Mosque in Whitechapel.

In light of all this and much more, the fact that the government’s “anti-extremism strategy” says absolutely nothing about monitoring mosques more closely, or forcing mosque leaders to implement transparent programmes in their institutions to teach against the jihadist ideology, is nothing short of scandalous.

One final point: A government press release that came out yesterday, announcing the imminent release of the new strategy, cites the work of the Quilliam Foundation, suggesting once again a collaboration between David Cameron and the organisation founded by Maajid Nawaz. By all accounts, Nawaz seems to think that he has been involved in advising Cameron on this new strategy. Why would this self-professed “moderate reformer” not advise the Prime Minister to do more to tackle Islamic extremism inside the very bastions of Islamic preaching?

If Nawaz was indeed involved in this initiative, it’s a question with no comforting answers.

Also see:

David Cameron is coming around–ALMOST

80188334_80188329Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton, Oct. 1, 2015:

Over the past couple of days Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom has stood in sharp contrast to President Barack Obama of the United States in terms of both his messaging with regard to Islamic jihad and his country’s stance against global jihad.

But that doesn’t mean he “gets it,” at least not yet anyway.

It’s easy to look strong when you’re compared to Barack Obama, especially when it comes to fighting against jihad.

This week at the UN, not exactly the den of strength, Cameron appeared to confront Obama on his messaging on terrorism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron challenged President Obama with some blunt talk on Islamist extremism Tuesday during a gathering of world leaders at the United Nations to develop an international strategy for defeating the Islamic State and other terrorist groups.

Well aware that Mr. Obama shuns the term “Islamist extremists,” the Conservative British prime minister reacted strongly at the meeting when the president, who chaired the session, advised the assembled foreign leaders to avoid profiling Muslims because “violent extremism is not unique to any one faith.”

“Barack, you said it and you’re right — every religion has its extremists,” Mr. Cameron said. “But we have to be frank that the biggest problem we have today is the Islamist extremist violence that has given birth to ISIL, to al-Shabab, to al-Nusra, al Qaeda and so many other groups.”

The thin-skinned Obama does not take kindly to being confronted with disagreement so we can probably count on some form of retaliation from the Obama administration for this perceived slight–something ranging from a breaking of protocol down the road to leaked criticism of Cameron with the lapdog media in the US.

While we welcome Cameron’s admonishment of Obama, we must point out that his messaging still leaves a great deal to be desired and has since he became Prime Minister.

As regular readers of TTB no doubt know, we are not at all fond of making up names for our enemies. Just as “violent extremist” is a meaningless term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Left in America, the term “Islamist extremist” is inadequate to say the least. We draw attention to our previous essay on the subject:

It is true that you can’t defeat an enemy you don’t identify.

These calls are invariably followed up by naming the enemy. Only the names assigned to our enemies seem to always be wrong. A few of the wrong names:

• Radical Islam

• Islamic extremism

• Radical Islamic extremism

• Islamist extremism

• Radical Islamist extremism

The problem with all these names is that they are names that we in the West have made up to describe our enemies. They don’t use any of them. No member of the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Lashkar e Taiba, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab or Abu Sayyef ever refers to himself as “radical” or “extremist.” No where in their communications will you see the modifiers “radical” or “extremist.”

They don’t subscribe to radical Islam or Islamist extremism.

Read the entire posting here:

In addition to confronting President Obama on the issue of jihad, Cameron also announced this week that the UK would be sending British troops into Somalia to support efforts to battle Al Shabaab. This announcement has been overshadowed by other news this week, but it represents a step toward confronting the threat of global jihad head on. Now, if only Cameron would do the same in the British Isles themselves…

Also see:

‘For the Record’: How U.S. Leaders Fail to Understand, ‘It’s About the Ideology’ 

Will Britain Pass the Choudary Test?

Gatestone Institute, by Douglas Murray, August 12, 2015:

  • The long-term consequences of allowing Choudary to be free constitute a terrible mistake: the main impact of Choudary on the wider public has been colossally to exacerbate suspicions of Muslims as a whole.
  • Broadcasters have for years introduced him as a “sheikh” or a “cleric,” without often casting doubt on his qualifications to such titles, or noting the comparative paucity of his following.
  • It is perfectly possible that Anjem Choudary will slip between the UK’s terrorism laws once again. Or perhaps now it is he that has slipped up, and the most visible chink in the UK’s counter-extremism policy has finally resolved itself.

If there was a single flaw in the British Prime Minister’s recent speech on countering extremism in the UK, it might be encapsulated in the name “Anjem Choudary.” His speech went into terrific detail on the significance of tacking radicalism through the education system, the Charity Commission, the broadcasting license authority and numerous other means. But it failed the Choudary test.

That test is: What do you do about a British-born man who is qualified to work but appears never to have done so, and who instead spends his time taking his “dole” money and using it to fund a lifestyle devoted solely to preaching against the state?


Anjem Choudary (center).

The problem is not quite as straightforward as some commentators make out. The fact that Choudary is British-born and a British citizen makes it legally impossible for Britain to withdraw his citizenship or otherwise render him “stateless.” He has a young family who cannot be allowed to starve on the streets, even if he could. These are admittedly late liberalism problems, but they are problems nonetheless.

On the other hand, what the state has allowed from Choudary in recent years looks more like a late Weimar problem. Choudary is not merely a blowhard pseudo-cleric with perhaps never more than a hundred followers at any one time — although this is certainly the part of his persona that has garnered most attention. Indeed, his attention-seeking is perhaps the only first-rate skill he has. For instance, there was the time he claimed he was planning a “March for Sharia” through the centre of London, culminating at the gates of Buckingham Palace with a demand that the Queen submit to Islam. Having garnered the publicity he desired, Choudary cancelled his march not because there was a fairly measly counter-demo (of which this author was a part) but because his “March for Sharia” would have been unlikely to gather more than a few dozen attendees, and would most likely have descended into a “stroll inviting ridicule,” at best.

The reason Choudary is more than just an attention-seeker is that over many years he has been involved with innumerable people who have shown themselves to be more than blowhards. They have attempted to bring serious sectarian conflict — as well as murder — to the streets of Britain. A number of Choudary’s associates, for instance, were imprisoned a few years back for attempting a Mumbai-style attack on London landmarks, including the London Stock Exchange. Other of his associates have been to prison for incitement and countless terrorist-recruitment offenses; and since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, a number of his followers have gone to Syria and Iraq to join and fight with ISIS.

Choudary himself is a trained lawyer and has a sufficiently adept mind to know on just which side of the law to keep his remarks. The last Labour government’s creation of a new offense of “glorifying terror” ought to have caught Choudary within it, but it appeared not to have done. He has remained a frustratingly free man.

That said, there are other possible explanations for this. One theory — not beyond the realm of possibility — is that Choudary has been, to some extent (knowingly or unknowingly), used as a “fly-trap” by the police or intelligence services. He is well known enough to have anyone seriously interested in the most radical forms of Islamic extremism come to him. And despite the paranoia of his group, thinking that they are being infiltrated (described not least by the former radical Morten Storm in his excellent memoir, “Agent Storm”), it is possible that this is what has been going on all along. It would mean that there was some agreement to allow Choudary to get away with what he does because it is better for such extremism to have an observable and open meeting-point than to be more clandestine.

There are certainly many defences of such a policy — if such a policy there has been. In the short term, it might have stopped several significant attacks. But the long-term consequences of allowing Choudary to be free constitute a terrible mistake: the main impact of Choudary on the wider public has been colossally to exacerbate suspicions of Muslims as a whole. Broadcasters have for years introduced him as a “sheikh” or a “cleric,” without often casting doubt on his qualifications to such titles, or noting the comparative paucity of his following. The police failure to stop one Choudary demonstration in particular (and indeed to protect his followers) also led to the creation of the English Defence League — an extraordinary negative double-whammy for one person to achieve.

But last week Anjem Choudary was arrested, detained and charged with terror offenses relating to attempts to persuade Muslims in Britain to join ISIS; he now finally faces trial. So far, there has been a muted response in the British media. Part of that is the simple and rightful caution due to reporting restrictions of an upcoming trial. But part of it may also be an “I’ll believe it when I see it” cynicism. It is worth recalling that just last year Choudary was arrested and detained for terror offenses, only to walk free before the bunting was even half up. There are unlikely to be any premature celebrations this time. Perhaps reporters and commentators also have in mind the murky dropping of all terrorism charges before the opening of the trial of former Guantanamo inmate Moazzem Begg last autumn.

It is perfectly possible that Anjem Choudary will slip between the UK’s terrorism laws once again. Or perhaps now it is he that has slipped up, and the most visible chink in the UK’s counter-extremism policy has finally resolved itself.

Open Letter to the Archbishop of Westminster

Gatestone, by Denis MacEoin, July 30, 2015:

  • With Islam, how it is possible to dialogue with a faith that denies the divinity of Christ, regards the Bible as corrupt, believes that all Christians are the inferiors of Muslims and are destined to hell fire? What is there to talk about if both sides are to be honest about their beliefs?
  • When members of ISIS murder apostates, it is hard to condemn them, as that is what the Prophet did. When they take slave girls as war booty, that is what the Prophet did. Waging jihad is an injunction in many chapters of the Qur’an.
  • I do not know what copy of the Qur’an Pope Francis has been shown, but it is clearly very different to any copy in my possession, whether the original Arabic or a translation.
  • When hate preachers in British mosques convey a violent or intolerant message to their congregants, they do so by quoting the Qur’an as the Word of God, thereby sanctioning acts of jihad. To ignore this is to hamper us in our efforts to bring Muslims into peaceful relations with the West, with all non-Muslims and especially with one another.
  • What was striking was that, instead of successive generations of Muslims becoming better integrated into British society, the younger they are, the more radical they become. Apparently the majority of Muslims do not feel particularly progressive.
  • Only 34% of British Muslims believe the Holocaust happened. 62% of Muslims here do not support freedom of speech. Only 7% of Muslims in the UK consider themselves as British first. CSP Poll this year reported that 38% of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. Figures such these are indicative of a wider level of acceptance of extreme ideas than your comments and those of many politicians suggest.

On June 19, when Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, spoke at the 2015 Global Security Forum in Bratislava, one section (under the heading ‘Clarity’) drew widespread attention from the media and politicians, and from some the religious realm.

In that passage, Cameron spoke about the threat posed by the Islamic State (IS, ISIS, ISIL, or, in Arabic, Da’ish). “In ISIL,” he started, “we have one of the biggest threats our world has faced.” He went on to express concern about the way in which young British Muslims were being drawn into the ISIS web through the internet or within their communities:

The cause is ideological. It is an Islamist extremist ideology — one that says the West is bad and democracy is wrong that women are inferior, that homosexuality is evil. It says religious doctrine trumps the rule of law and Caliphate trumpsnation state and it justifies violence in asserting itself and achieving its aims.The question is: how do people arrive at this worldview?

How does someone who has had all the advantages of a British or a European schooling, a loving family, the freedom and equality that allow them to be who they want to be turn to a tyrannical, murderous, evil regime?

There are, of course, many reasons – and to tackle them we have to be clear about them. I am clear that one of the reasons is that there are people who hold some of these views who don’t go as far as advocating violence, but who do buy into some of these prejudices giving the extreme Islamist narrative weight and telling fellow Muslims, “you are part of this”.

This paves the way for young people to turn simmering prejudice into murderous intent. To go from listening to firebrand preachers online to boarding a plane to Istanbul and travelling onward to join the jihadis. We’ve always had angry young men and women buying into supposedly revolutionary causes. This one is evil; it is contradictory; it is futile – but it is particularly potent today.

I think part of the reason it’s so potent is that it has been given this credence.

So if you’re a troubled boy who is angry at the world, or a girl looking for an identity, for something to believe in and there’s something that is quietly condoned online, or perhaps even in parts of your local community, then it’s less of a leap to go from a British teenager to an ISIL fighter or an ISIL wife, than it would be for someone who hasn’t been exposed to these things.

For what may be the first time, a head of state dared to make a connection between ordinary Muslims and extremism, by arguing that fundamentalist views might be quietly condoned online, or perhaps even in parts of a local Muslim community.

A report written in 2007 by this author for the British think tank Policy Exchange, titled “The Hijacking of British Islam,” exposed the existence of hate literature in mosques across the UK. As soon as it was published, all hell broke loose, and everything possible was done to pretend that our evidence had been somehow faked. Many British writers and journalists such as Douglas Murray, Samuel Westrop and myself have tried over the years to draw attention to the realities of Islamic ideology and practice in schools, shari’a courts, and in politics, but we were severally rebuffed.

But now, over one thousand young British men and women have travelled to Syria and Iraq to support the Islamic State, and it is becoming clear to everyone that something is amiss — not with British society, values or aspirations, but in parts of our two million strong Muslim community. Innes Bowen’s study of the UK Muslim population, “Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent: Inside British Islam,” shows in some detail just where these radical influences may come from.

Inevitably, Cameron’s references to the Muslim community brought condemnation from the usual suspects (and one unusual one). Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of a Muslim think tank, the Ramadhan Foundation, found the remarks “deeply offensive.” The Muslim Council of Britain found Cameron’s statement “wrong and counter-productive.” In a radio interview, Muslim Labour MP Yasmin Qureshi argued that, “To make the comparison he has done the way he has done, it is not only unhelpful but actually wrong.” Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who sits in the House of Lords, described the speech as “misguided” and “demoralizing.”

That Muslim leaders might respond this way was not surprising. Muslims in the UK, with several notable exceptions such as Haras Rafiq and Majid Nawaz, have been in denial for decades, and show few signs of facing up to the dangers facing them any time soon.

The unusual rebuke came, not from a Muslim, but from Britain’s most important Catholic prelate, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster. Speaking on LBC Radio on the day of Cameron’s speech, the Archbishop spoke unfavourably about the Prime Minister’s remarks on Muslims. His remarks bear quoting almost in full here:

The interviewer started by saying that “he [Cameron] seems to be laying this squarely at the door of the Muslim community. Too many people in the UK are sliding into violent extremism. He’s warned that British Muslims risk quietly condoning ISIS. Do you think that’s fair?”

To this, Nichols answered:

No. I think the community is a very diverse community. I was at a Muslim meeting last Saturday week. It was a Shi’a Muslim meeting. It was looking at dialogue and how people live together. And then they were absolute in their condemnation of ISIS. So there are many voices, Muslim voices in this country, that condemn ISIS and condemn it absolutely. We don’t hear those [voices] in the public media very often, but they’re there. It is an enormous challenge to Islam in this country, and I know many of the Muslim leaders are deeply, deeply concerned about this. I would say for most of them and the families they represent, they feel a bit helpless in terms of the access to the Internet and to that whole seduction and manipulation that goes on. I think they need help with that.


On the face of it, the Archbishop’s remarks are worthy of respect, since he is active in interfaith work and considers it to be his mission, like that of the current Pope Francis, to work for peace and conciliation. But interfaith work can often be marred by an underlying refusal to come clean about beliefs that contradict those of others.

With Islam, I have to ask how it is possible to dialogue with a faith that denies the divinity of Christ, denies that he was crucified or resurrected, denies the Trinity, denies Mary as the mother of God, denies the belief in original sin and salvation through Christ, regards the Bible as corrupt, believes that all Christians are the inferiors of Muslims and are destined to hell fire? What is there to talk about if both sides are to be honest about their beliefs?

Even if a majority of Muslims may be concerned about extremism in their midst, there are reasons to think that David Cameron’s view is close to the mark: that some Muslims unwittingly or wittingly condone what goes on because much of it is in keeping with the Qur’an, the hadith [traditions], the Shari’a law books, and Islamic practice from the time of Muhammad.

Read the open letter

Denis MacEoin was born in Belfast, where he learned at first hand the dangers of religious strife

UK PM Cameron Delivers Landmark Speech on Islamism

Islamist-extremism-Dave-HPClarion Project, by Elliot Friedman, July 20, 2015:

UK Prime Minister David Cameron gave a landmark speech yesterday on Islamist extremism, naming, for the first time, the root cause behind international terrorism.

He told the audience at a school in Birmingham, “This is what we face – a radical ideology – that is not just subversive, but can seem exciting; one that has often sucked people in from non-violence to violence; one that is overpowering moderate voices within the debate and one which can gain traction because of issues of identity and failures of integration.”

This is the first time a Western leader has names Islamist extremism specifically as the problem and terrorism merely as a symptom of the ideology.

He said, “No-one becomes a terrorist from a standing start. It starts with a process of radicalization. When you look in detail at the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offenses, it is clear that many of them were first influenced by what some would call non-violent extremists.”

These include groups like the Egypian Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 by Nazi sympathizer Hassan al-Banna, Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Pakistani-based Jamaat e-Islami, all of which peddle a softIslamism which shares the goals of groups like the Islamci State (ISIS) but differ in methodology.

In the USA, Muslim Brotherhood front groups including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) all play the part of non-violent extremist groups.

All of these organizations condemn the Islamic State, but as Cameron noted, so does Al-Qaeda. “We can’t let the bar sink to that level,” he stated. “Condemning a mass-murdering, child-raping organization cannot be enough to prove you’re challenging the extremists.”

He attacked the false narrative that grievances are the root cause of Islamist extremism, correctly noting that “it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.”

Although he acknowledged that British and Western foreign policy isn’t perfect and that poverty in Muslim communities is an issue, he correctly highlighted that “We could deal with all these issues – and some people in our country and elsewhere would still be drawn to Islamist extremism.”

The Prime Minister stated, “We must be clear. The root cause of the threat we face is the extremist ideology itself.”

Cameron also addressed the problem of integration of Muslim in the UK, which fuels Islamist extremism. “We have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds,” he said.

This is particularly acute in some Muslim communities like Tower Hamlets, where disgraced ex-mayor Lutfur Rahman operated, in the Prime Minister’s words, with “political corruption on an epic scale, with voters intimidated and a court adjudicating on accusations of ‘undue spiritual influence’ for the first time since the 19th century.”

But the Prime Minister broadened the scope of the government’s counter-extremism strategy to tackle all the interrelated issues that form a part and parcel of the Islamist ideology. He highlighted the pervasive anti-Semitism which runs through the Islamist ideology and called out people who only partially oppose Islamism.

He spoke about sharia law courts in the UK, the role of non-violent hate preachers like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, female genital mutilation, the Trojan Horse scandal (where Islamists conspired to take over British schools) and the child sex-abuse scandal in Rotherham (in which over 1,600 girls were systematically raped over a 10-year period by Pakistani grooming gangs).

He also called out the recalcitrance of authorities who have been slow to act to curb extremism due to fears of being called racist.

Cameron bluntly said, “This has got to stop.”

Critically, he said, “Simply denying any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists doesn’t work, because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims. The fact is from Woolwich to Tunisia, from Ottawa to Bali, these murderers all spout the same twisted narrative, one that claims to be based on a particular faith. Now it is an exercise in futility to deny that.”

Importantly, he said that Islam is not the issue, rather, this extremist ideology which identifies itself as the only legitimate arbiter of Islam is the issue.

“Our new approach is about isolating the extremists from everyone else, so that all our Muslim communities can be free from the poison of Islamist extremism,” he stated.

Clarion Project has covered all of these issues in the past and long stressed the interconnected nature of the ideology, terrorisim, anti-Semitism, abuse of women and children and the like. We also advocate the same solution proposed by Cameron, who said, “We’re now going to actively encourage the reforming and moderate Muslim voices.”

Clarion has conducted many interviews with Muslim (and non-Muslim) human rights activists who are fighting for reform in Muslim communities.

We have also covered the work of womens rights activists who are fighting for equal rights in Muslim communities worldwide. Our latest film, Honor Diaries, focussed on women’s rights activists from communities where honor violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation are rampant.

We also catalogue progressive Muslim organizations whose work has a positive impact fighting for human rights and against the Islamist ideology.

Indeed, one of these groups, the Quilliam Foundation, was influential in the writing of the Prime Minister’s speech and has been at the forefront of the struggle against Islamism in the UK.

Co-Founder of Quilliam Maajid Nawaz, himself formerly a member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, said of the speech, “The Prime Minister made a giant leap for UK counter-extremism.”

The speech is the precursor to the unveiling of the British government’s Counter-Extremism Policy in the autumn.

The implementation of the policies outlined in the speech can only advance the cause of human rights. Indeed, the speech represents a milestone in the fight against Islamist extremism.

Read the full text of the speech.

Also see:

Liars and Lunatics

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 28, 2015:

In the wake of the jihadi attacks last week in France, Kuwait, and Tunisia, the reality of the Islamic threat is as clear as it could possibly be, yet our enemies continue to use the same tactics and the leadership in the West regurgitates the obvious lies fed to them.  Western leaders continue to delude themselves and their nations about the darkness sweeping over the planet leaving bodies, human decency, liberty, and reasonable thought in its wake.

After the two jihadis were killed a few weeks ago in Garland, Texas, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organization where they were trained/radicalized – the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix – claimed neither the two shooters, nor the man who trained them were bad guys when he knew them.  The Phoenix media gave them all a pass, as have many of the religious leaders in Arizona.  The Boston Marathon bombers and the man FBI agents shot to death in Boston a few weeks ago, as well as quite a number of other jihadis (“terrorists” if you wish) have all been trained and supported by the ISB (Islamic Society of Boston) which was  founded by Al Qaeda financier Alamoudi, and is an MB/Hamas organization.  Yet, the FBI is still outreaching to the ISB for “help.”  The leaders of the ISB claim they reject violence, and media, government, and law enforcement officials believe them because they said it.

The mother of the jihadi in Grenoble, France said on French radio, “My sister-in-law said ‘put on the TV’. And then she began to cry. My heart stopped…We have a normal family life. He goes to work, he comes back. We are normal Muslims.  We do Ramadan. We have three children and a normal family. Who do I call who can give me more information because I don’t understand.”

Any police officer with more than ten minutes of experience can watch any of these folks on TV and tell you they are lying.  Where is the hungry media asking the tough questions?  Where are the law enforcement organizations turning these places inside and out using facts already in evidence to get search and arrest warrants?  Where are national leaders in Europe, Canada, and the United States calling for the boot to once again come down on the Islamic Movement before its power becomes so great, we will lose nations and millions of people fighting it?

cameron chamberlain

David Cameron, the leader of the United Kingdom, in response to the killing of dozens of Britons in Tunisia said the UK and others must do all they can to combat the threat.  This “means dealing with the threat, at source, whether that is ISIL in Syria and Iraq or whether it is other extremist groups around the world.  And we also have to deal, perhaps more important than anything, is with this poisonous radical narrative that is turning so many young minds, and we have to combat it with everything we have.  The people who do these things, they sometimes claim they do it in the name of Islam.  They don’t.  Islam is a religion of peace.  They do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology that we have to confront with everything we have.”

Where is that peaceful “other” version of Islam taught Mr. Cameron?  Not in any of the Islamic schools in the UK.  They teach jihad is a permanent command on the Muslim world until Sharia is the law of the land.  How do you combat this Mr. Cameron?  I propose Britain begin with electing leaders who speak the truth.

It appears there is no amount of reason, evidence, facts or world events that is going to break Mr. Cameron from the narrative handed to him by the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadis in the UK, like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain.  Mr. Cameron appears to be fully surrendered to the bidding of the enemies of the West and, like Neville Chamberlain, is willing to bring Britain to the brink of destruction without even a whisper of courage to do otherwise.

The problem is there does not appear to be a Winston Churchill anywhere in England.

Is there a Charles Martel, Jan Sobieski, or Winston Churchill anywhere in the West?

Also see:

On Easter, UK’s Cameron Speaks Up for Persecuted Christians, Obama Tells Christians to be Less Hateful

cameron obamaBy Raymond Ibrahim, April 8, 2015:

In a world where Western leaders and politicians regularly distance themselves from their Christian heritage, preferring to tout “multiculturalism,” United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron’s Easter message is refreshing.

Among other things, Cameron (see video below) made it a point to say “that we should feel proud to say, ‘This is a Christian country.’ Yes, we’re a nation that embraces, welcomes and accepts all faiths and none, but we are still a Christian country.”

In this context, the Islamic Umma – where non-Muslims are not “welcomed” or “accepted” — comes to mind: whereas the West, thanks to its Christian heritage, developed in a way as to be open and tolerant of others, the Islamic world has and likely will not.

We have a duty to speak out about the persecution of Christians around the world too.  It is truly shocking that in 2015 there are still Christians being threatened, tortured, even killed because of their faith.  From Egypt to Nigeria, Libya to North Korea.  Across the Middle East Christians have been hounded out of their homes, forced to flee from village to village; many of them forced to renounce their faith or brutally murdered.  To all those brave Christians in Iraq and Syria who practice their faith or shelter others, we will say, “We stand with you.”In fact, Cameron also urged his fellow citizens to speak out about the persecution of Christians:

Meanwhile, U.S. President Obama—who is on record saying “we are no longer a Christian nation” and, unlike Cameron, never notes the Islamic identity of murderers or the Christian identity of their victims and ignored a recent UN session on Christian persecution—had this to say at the Easter Prayer Breakfast:  “On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love.  And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.”

This is in keeping with his earlier statements calling on Americans in general Christians in particular to be nonjudgmental of Islamic terrorism.

In other words, those Christians who are critical and speak up against injustices, in this case, Muslim persecution of Christians, need to shut up and be doormats that allow anything and everything.  Such is “tolerance.”  Christians are being persecuted?  That’s okay, turn the other cheek, seems to be the American president’s message at a time when Christians, as Cameron noted, are being slaughtered all throughout the Islamic world.

Do #BlackLivesMatter When They’re Christian, Mr President?

“148 young students in Kenya have just been killed, slaughtered, their bodies on the floor by Muslim fanatics who asked the students in that university, ‘are you Christian or are you Muslim?’ And they let the Muslims go, and they slaughtered the Christians. Now, this is a guy who’s happy to draw general lessons when a black youth gets killed in Ferguson, Missouri. That apparently has wide application for black people all over America, but 148 black corpses has no general application. Well, Mr. President, #blacklivesmatter when they’re Christian too. And the biggest story of our time is the extinction of some of the oldest Christian communities on the planet at hands of Islam, remorselessly. You dishonor those Kenyan students in death by not identifying them as Christians as you dishonored the Egyptians only a couple weeks earlier” Steyn stated.

STEYN: I don’t think in any sense he is a Christian, Sean. I think he’s a social justice warrior who, like a lot of people from the cultural left, regards religion as the opiate of the rubes, to modify Marx. But I think in Obama’s case, it’s compounded by the fact that he does have this profound respect for Islam that leads him actually to invert the situation that’s going on in the world today so that the Christians are the problem and the Muslims who are beheading the Christians and shooting the Christians and cutting the throats of the Christians are somehow the victim group that we all need to be more sensitive to.

Also see:

British PM Pulls MB Report

IPT, by John Rossomando  •  Mar 16, 2015

British Prime Minister David Cameron pulled a report Monday which was widely expected to recommend against labeling the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

The review, led by Britain’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir John Jenkins, also is expected to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the United Kingdom should be more open and remain under review. No concrete policy recommendations are expected; however, it is expected to name a network of linked organizations alleged to be involved in extremist activities.

This network reportedly included a complex web of at least 60 organizations, think tanks, TV channels and charities with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. The British government decided in December that it would release only a summary of the full report.

Cameron requested the report in April, reportedly at the instigation of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).


The anticipated recommendations could place Britain at odds with Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which classified the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization last year. The UAE included the U.K.-based Cordoba Foundation, headed by Muslim Brotherhood leader Anas al-Tikriti, and the Muslim Association of Britain(MAB) on its list of terrorist organizations.

Al-Tikriti previously served as MAB’s spokesman and has a track record of supporting Hamas. He also supported Islamist terrorists in their fight against U.S. and U.K. troops following Saddam Hussein’s fall.

British ministers worry that being too tough on the Brotherhood could annoy Qatar, which recently signed an intelligence agreement with the U.K.

Disputes over the Muslim Brotherhood’s terror connections delayed the report’s scheduled release, but the Financial Times suggests that the report is unlikely to see the light of day prior to Britain’s May 7 elections.

“I would like to update the House [the UK parliament] that a report into the main findings of the Muslim Brotherhood Review will be published alongside the Government’s new counter-extremism strategy,” Cameron told the MPs in a writtenstatement.

Cameron’s decision to pull the report even surprised his Liberal Democratic coalition partners. They reportedly agreed to its publication on Friday.

The Muslim Brotherhood hopes to use the report as political cover in its fight against the Egyptian government’s crackdown.

“If the British government claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organization, the crackdown on MB members in Egypt could be eased,” MB lawyer Mohammed al-Damatti told the Cairo Post.


Postponed; UK Media Gets In Wrong About The Brotherhood And Terrorism

By gmbwatch on March 16, 2015:

The Financial Times in the UK is reporting that UK Prime Minister has intervened to postpone the publication of an investigation he ordered into the Muslim Brotherhood. According to a Financial Times report:

March 16, 2015 David Cameron has made an eleventh-hour intervention to postpone the publication of a controversial report into the Muslim Brotherhood in an attempt to avert a potential row with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The long-awaited report was due to be published on Monday afternoon but Mr Cameron’s move now means it is unlikely to be released before the UK general election on May 7, if at all. It was expected to conclude that the Muslim Brotherhood should not be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, although its activities in Britain should be more transparent and kept under review.

The Brotherhood has been banned by Saudi Arabia and the UAE; some ministers say the two Gulf countries pressured Mr Cameron into setting up the investigation in the first place.”

The Brotherhood has been banned by Saudi Arabia and the UAE; some ministers say the two Gulf countries pressured Mr Cameron into setting up the investigation in the first place.Just hours before its scheduled publication, Mr Cameron pulled the report, saying it should instead be released alongside the coalition government’s new counter-extremism strategy. Some officials in the Foreign Office had expressed concern the report could undermine Britain’s relations with key Gulf allies.

Downing Street said publication would happen “as soon as possible” but gave no guarantee this would take place before the House of Commons is dissolved at the end of this month. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Conservative foreign secretary, said the delay was “bound to raise eyebrows”, adding: “It’s not a very impressive example of how to handle a sensitive subject.”

Read the rest here.

Although the Financial Times and other UK media are reporting that the the UK investigation will not designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, the GMBDW is forced to conclude that any failure to so designate the Muslim Brotherhood represents a political decision and not a decision based on the available evidence. The Financial Times report did cite a comment by the GMBDW editor on the importance of the UK to the European Muslim Brotherhood, part of a broader set of comments also reported in The Independent today, but neither paper included his comments on the relationship between the Brotherhood and terrorism and the GMBW has extensively documented that global Brotherhood networks are enmeshed with terrorism at a number of different levels. While the GMBDW awaits the publication of the UK report before drawing any final conclusions, we are deeply skeptical that any of the above evidence below, for example, was taken into account.

To begin with, the Global Muslim Brotherhood has long been engaged in rhetorical tactics relating to terrorism that serve in various ways to legitimize the phenomenon. In 2008, we published an analysis titled “Muslim Brotherhood Positions On Terrorism- Denial, Deception, Defense, And Obstruction” that examined these tactics in detail. As recently as April 2013, we reported on an article published by an individual tied to the Canadian Muslim Brotherhood that neatly illustrates each of these four tactics. However, the Global Muslim Brotherhood support for terrorism goes far beyond rhetorical tactics. It is clear that the whole of the global Brotherhood acts in support of Hamas which is not surprising given that Hamas is intimately related to the Brotherhood and the Hamas charter says that it is “one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine.” This support takes many forms including both political support as well as financial support as demonstrated for example by the Union of Good (UOG), a worldwide coalition of charities headed by global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi that has provided financial support to both the Hamas  “social” infrastructure, as well as its terrorist activities.

Yet the relationship of the Global Muslim Brotherhood with terrorism extends beyond support for Palestinian terrorism despite the common notion that there is a “firewall” between the Global Muslim Brotherhood and groups such as Al Qaeda. For example, global Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi has had a long standing relationship with Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Umayr al-Nu’aymi (Nu’aymi) who was designated by the US Treasury in December 2013 for providing financial support to al-Qa’ida, Asbat al-Ansar, al-Qa’ida in Iraq, and al-Shabaab. Al-Nu’aymi also heads the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign (GAAC), an international Islamist umbrella group which is comprised of Islamist scholars tied to the Global Muslim Brotherhood as well as Salafi-Jihadi scholars including individuals designated as terrorists by the US. We have reported that Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood leader and Qaradawi associate Rachid Ghannouchi had spoken at a December 2011 GACC meeting along with Dr. Walid Musa’id al-Tabatibai (aka Walid al-Tabtabai), a well-known Kuwaiti parliamentarian and Salafi leader who authored a letter praising Osama Bin Laden. In June 2013, we reported that a  conference on Syria was held in Cairo that included Youssef Qaradawi as well as more than 70 religious organizations from across the Arab world and that was jointly organized by various Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood groups in the Middle East and Europe together with the GACC. Also attending the Cairo conference was Salah Sultan, close to Qaradawi and last reported as the subject of an Egyptian arrest warrant as part of the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.

For background on the UK investigation, go here.


The American Spectator, By Aaron Goldstein, Jan. 28, 2015

A few days after the terrorist attacks in Paris on the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Cacher grocery store, terrorism expert Steve Emerson appeared on the Fox News Channel’sJustice with Judge Jeanine hosted by Jeanine Pirro to discuss Islamic extremism in Europe. During his appearance, Emerson spoke about Muslim “no-go zones” throughout Europe where countries like France, Germany, Sweden, and Britain have ceded sovereignty and non-Muslims are not permitted to enter. Emerson also stated that Birmingham, Britain’s second largest city, is “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

All hell would break loose and Emerson would issue an apology for his comments whileFNC issued several apologies after repeating Emerson’s statements. Despite the apology, the mayor of Paris has declared she will sue Fox News. In a snarky piece written in the Atlanticby David A. Graham titled “Why the Muslim ‘No-Go-Zone’ Myth Won’t Die?” Graham writes:

Have you heard about the areas of Europe, or perhaps even of the United States, that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims can’t even enter? Don’t get too worried if you haven’t: They don’t exist.

Needless to say the Left hasn’t been this happy since Barack Obama’s first election victory. Speaking of President Obama, his British BFF David Cameron referred to Emerson as “a complete idiot.” Cameron is one to talk. This is the same man who once characterized Israel’s blockade of Gaza as “a prison camp.” Never mind that Egypt was also participating in this blockade as well. Apparently, Cameron also thinks the Hamas-run government bears no responsibility for the sorry state of affairs in Gaza either.

Criticize Steve Emerson all you want. Emerson may have been wrong in this instance, but he did warn the world months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, “Al Qaeda is … planning new attacks on the US…. [It has] learned, for example, how to destroy large buildings.” No, Steve Emerson is not a complete idiot. Far from it. In exposing threats from Islamic extremists, Emerson has subjected himself to numerous death threats by jihadists and, for the past two decades, has taken extraordinary protective measures in his day-to-day living. I can attest to the heavy security measures deployed when I went to see him speak at a Brookline synagogue more than a decade ago. Emerson’s bravery cannot be called into question, which is more than what I can say for David Cameron.

Besides, if David Cameron considers Steve Emerson to be a complete idiot for talking about the existence of Muslim no-go zones then why, as Robert Spencer has noted, have the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic also used the term “no-go zone”?

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republicreported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Actually, the New York Times used the term “no go zone” as recently as September 2014 in anarticle discussing European anti-Semitism.

Yet FNC apologized and it wasn’t alone in issuing apologies. CNN’s Anderson Cooper also issued an apology for using the term “no-go zones” on the air as well. Will  the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic be issuing apologies next? If so, will Cameron also call them complete idiots?

It may be wrong to say that large parts of Europe are under Muslim control where law enforcement and non-Muslims at large are forbidden from traversing. But only a complete idiot would deny there isn’t a desire among a critical mass of Muslims to impose Sharia law or, at the very minimum, behave in a violent manner towards non-Muslims.

In 2011, the group Islam4UK led by Ahmed Choudary began putting up posters around the UK bearing an ominous warning:



The sign also indicated that in these zones alcohol, gambling, drugs, smoking, porn, prostitution, music and concerts were forbidden. At the time Choudary stated, “We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.”

If the name Ahmed Choudary sounds familiar, it should. Following the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Choudary penned an op-ed in USA Today praising the attacks:

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

Choudary was interviewed last November on 60 Minutes Overtime as was his colleague Abu Ramaysah. Take a look what Ramaysah told correspondent Clarissa Ward:

Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe. I want to the see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see Sharia law in Europe. And I want to see it in America as well. I believe our patrols are a means to an end.

In view of Choudary and Ramaysah’s aims and objectives in conjunction with Choudary’s praise of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he and those who wish to impose Sharia law in Britain and elsewhere in Europe must be taken every bit as seriously as the people who perpetrated theCharlie Hebdo attacks.

It is true that these posters Choudary disseminated were not legally sanctioned and Scotland Yard worked with local councils to take them down. Nevertheless, this hasn’t prevented self-appointed Muslim Patrols from trying to enforce Sharia law on the streets of London. Similar patrols have also surfaced in Germany.

In October 2013, an American student from Florida named Francesco Houyne was severely beaten and had a beer bottle smashed into his face by one of these London patrols for drinking alcohol. Two months later, a Muslim Patrol threatened a couple holding hands in public telling them, “Let go of each other’s hands. This is a Muslim area!” and then blocked their car when they tried to get away. On both occasions the people responsible for the incidents were arrested and charged.

It would be difficult for British authorities to overlook violent incidents which take place in public. However, when things take place behind closed doors in Muslim majority neighborhoods, the authorities have looked the other way. as was the case in the Rotherham child sex scandal in which 1,400 girls were sexually abused over a 16-year period by a group of predominantly Muslim men of Pakistani origin (or “Asian” origin, as the Brits like to say). Police and the local council were aware of the abuse, but did nothing out of fear of being called racist. Indeed, a researcher who alerted authorities to the abuse back in 2001 was sent on an “ethnicity and diversity” sensitivity course and admonished for making reference to their “Asian” heritage. As far as British police and public officials were concerned, the sexual abuse of girls by Muslim men was, well, a no-go zone.

This problem isn’t confined to Britain. Consider what Pakistani-born Canadian Muslim journalist Natasha Fatah wrote in December 2010 following a trip to Malmo, Sweden, with her husband:

Malmo was supposed to be a symbol of Sweden’s multiculturalism. But it is in danger of turning into an Islamist ghetto, with a hard core of those who favour an Islamic state.

Fatah went on to write that synagogues have been vandalized and Jews have been publicly accosted on the streets, but that local authorities have done little to stop the problem and as a result Jews are leaving Sweden. So here is a Muslim who recognizes the danger of turning Sweden into an Islamic state. Would David Cameron call her a complete idiot too?

So where does this leave the term “no-go zone”? The term was coined by Daniel Pipes back in 2006. But by 2013, following visits to Muslim neighborhoods throughout Europe, Pipesreassessed his view:

I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No warlords dominate; sharia is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.

So how does Pipes think these enclaves should now be described? He suggests “semi-autonomous sectors.” Honestly, it doesn’t matter what term Pipes uses to describe Muslims who seek to impose Sharia on the rest of the population. Islamists and their left-wing apologists in the media believe Islam is beyond criticism. They want Islam to be a no-go subject.

UK Gov’t Minister Warns Mosques About Hate Preaching

_80356881_80356880IPT, by John Rossomando  •  Jan 21, 2015

A letter from a top British government official calling on United Kingdom mosques to root out “men of hate” is generating push-back from the Muslim Council of Britain.

The letter from Communities Secretary Eric Pickles was co-signed by Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon, a member of the House of Lords and sent to 1,100 imams and other Islamic religious leaders.

It called on the imams to dissuade young Muslims from following extremists, urging them to emphasize the threat the extremists pose to British freedoms.

“We must show them the multitude of statements of condemnation from British Muslims; show them these men of hate have no place in our mosques or any place of worship, and that they do not speak for Muslims in Britain or anywhere else,” the letter said.

The letter offended some Muslim leaders. The Muslim Council of Britain responded with its own letter saying it resented the “idea that Muslims and Islam are inherently apart from British society.” The letter from MCB Secretary General Shuja Shafi also disputed the notion “that extremism takes place at mosques, and that Muslims have not done enough to challenge the terrorism that took place in our name. We also reject suggestions that Muslims must go out of their way to prove their loyalty to this country of ours.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron called the letter’s tone “reasonable, sensible and moderate.”

Security services estimate that at least 500 British citizens are fighting for the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. One of them, known as “Jihadi John,” is believed responsible for beheading American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and well as Britons Alan Henning and David Haines.

To combat such trends, Pickles and Ahmad suggested the need for the imams to “demonstrate the true nature of British Islam today” and to show that the extremists do not represent Islam.

“You have a precious opportunity and an important responsibility in explaining and demonstrating how Islam can be part of British identity,” they wrote.

It was accepted more eagerly by other British Muslims.

“If non-Muslims intervene in the Islamic reform debate, they get told: ‘stay out of it’ … It’s a lose/lose scenario for the poor folks. But there is *no* way to undermine both Islamism & fundamentalism if Muslims don’t join everyone else in challenging them,” Maajid Nawaz wrote on Twitter Monday.

Nawaz is the co-founder and chairman of the anti-extremist think tank Quilliam Foundation.

“If we keep shirking, sidestepping [and] obfuscating on the reform debate,” Nawaz added, “it appears o others that we’re happy with the status quo, which is *clearly* very bad.”

Too afraid to face facts? UK and France deny existence of Muslim no-go zones, by Angela Graham-West on January 18, 2015

As USA Today reports, “On Monday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, will give a speech in London addressing what has been a disputed claim that Muslim immigrants have created “no-go zones” in Europe where non-Muslims are not welcome.”

This claim is being denied by the governments of England and France and declared to be ludicrous at best and amusing in the worst-case scenario. In fact, when hearing of a similar claim by terror analyst Steve Emerson on Fox News, British Prime Minister David Cameron responded: “When I heard this frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fools Day. This guy is clearly a complete idiot.”

David Cameron may “choke on his porridge,” bacon, become disoriented about the time of year, or resort to name-calling, but I commend Governor Jindal for pressing on.

There is a problem and “porridge choking” won’t solve the problem that a disturbing number of European youth are becoming either radicalized or disenfranchised enough to consider fighting against their own country and their own way of life.

The prevailing method of ignoring the problem, or any problem that doesn’t conform to a specified manner of thinking, and shutting down dissent by name-calling has never and will never work.

France was not so vehement in their denial of the existence of these “no-go” zones. Rather they referred to the areas as 751 “sensitive urban zones” where you might find disadvantaged youths who appear to be unhappy with their position in society.

The French claim these areas have low home ownership rates, low income and low education levels. I’ve traveled extensively through Europe and many of my relatives and friends are residents of these types of areas in Germany, France and England.

USA Today says “former State Department official John Bolton’s Gatestone Foundation states “the “no-go” areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.”

So what happens when immigrants refuse to assimilate into their host society and instead set up parallel societies that reflect their own culture, mores and values of their native countries? Well, you get the problem we’re witnessing in Europe.

Also see:


Terrorism expert Steve Emerson has come under fire for daring to warn about the continuing Islamist radicalization of Birmingham and the greater United Kingdom.

Emerson has spent a lifetime warning about the threats to the West posed by Islamic radicals. His organization, The Investigative Project On Terrorism, has been relied heavily upon by law enforcement and federal officials in helping to catch those who seek to do us harm.

British PM David Cameron has gone as far as to call Emerson a “complete idiot” for his remarks during a Fox News appearance, in which he stated that Birmingham had become“totally Muslim.”  “When I heard this, frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fools day,” said Cameron.

Emerson has apologized for his remarks, saying that he made an “inexcusable error” in overstating particular claims such as that religious police beat “anyone who doesn’t dress” in Islamic garb.

However, while many in the mainstream media are forbidden from reporting on such issues, for fear of being labeled an “Islamophobe” or “racist,” Breitbart London has reported extensively on the continuing Islamic radicalization of Birmingham.

Birmingham, where 22 percent of its population follows Islam, represents almost five times higher than the 4.8 percent national average. Additionally, a 2011 census found that Birmingham had more Muslims enrolled in schools than Christians.

In April, Breitbart London reported that a whopping twenty-five institutions across Birmingham were subject to a “Trojan Horse” plot in which jihadists attempted to install Islamic radicals as the school’s head teachers.

A report released in June by the U.K. Education office (Ofsted) found that five state schools in Birmingham had attempted to impose an Islamic, “narrow faith-based ideology.” Ofsted found that Islamic schools countrywide were promoting stoning, lashing, and loving “death more than life.”

In July, a counterterrorism official uncovered a “sustained and coordinated agenda to impose upon children in a number of Birmingham schools the segregationist attitudes and practices of a hardline and politicised strain of Sunni Islam,” reported the Guardian.

While Cameron has been “choking on his porridge,” Birmingham and the entire U.K. has continued its slide towards radicalization. On Cameron’s watch, those who have carried out the barbaric act of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) have never been prosecuted; Islamic radicals are free to stay, while freedom fighters are denied entry; and the proliferation of Sharia courts and push for full Sharia law continues.

Additionally, throughout the United Kingdom and the whole of Europe, there exist hundreds of self-ruling Sharia enclaves where the “writ of the state, the sovereignty of the nation does not apply,” Breitbart’s Sebastian Gorka told Fox News on Saturday.




Islamic State Video Calls Western Jihadists To Attack At Home

Capture (1)by John Rossomando :

A new Islamic State video released titled “Message of the Mujahid” Friday calls on Western jihadists unable to travel to territory controlled by the terrorist group to conduct attacks at home. The message also offers a pointed rebuke of British Prime Minister David Cameron and the U.S.-led bombing campaign.

“A message to all of the brothers who cannot do Hijrah, I advise you to respond to the call of the sheik, the mujahid (Holy Warrior) Mohammed al-Adnani, to cause terror in the hearts of the kuffar (unbelievers),” the unidentified Islamic State spokesman said. “You are living in the West, you can cause terror in the hearts of the kuffar, right in the center of the kuffar in the center of all that shirk (polytheism), you can cause terror right from within.

“So unlike us, you can cause real damage right within the heart of Dar al-Kuffar (Land of Unbelief), so rise up my brothers. Rise up!”

He starts out the video mocking Cameron and the Western leaders for thinking they can defeat the Islamic State with bombs dropped from the air, chiding them that if they were “real men” they would send ground troops to fight them.

“You know that in the hearts of your men, they’re cowards,” the spokesman says. “So America, you think you are a superpower, when in fact if you were a superpower, you wouldn’t need these 40 nations to come and fight us.

“Know that all power belongs to Allah, and Allah is with [the pious Muslims], so you could send your planes above us, but know that Allah is above your planes,” he continued. “You are fighting people who love death more than you love life.”

The message warns that the West and their Muslim allies can send all of their men, reserves an backups, and the Islamic State will send them back one-by-one in coffins.

In a special message to British Muslims, saying that the caliphate has been re-established and calls on them to leave the land of the unbelievers and come to the Islamic State.

“If now is not the time to do Hijrah then when is the time,” the spokesman asks. “Why are you still in Dar al-Kuffar? What does Dar al-Kuffar have to offer you? We have the Islamic State here, and we are fighting jihad.”

He tells them that the “despicable” West has nothing to offer them.

This reaffirms the Islamic State’s desperate desire to inspire attacks against Western targets and hopes to turn Muslims against their home countries.

Also see: