The Muslims Are Coming!

gb-450x239By :

This Friday marks the Chicago, Seattle, and Los Angeles premiere of a documentary called The Muslims Are Coming!, which features a band of Muslim comedians touring middle America “to explore the issue of Islamophobia!” The exclamation mark is there to let you know that the show is going to be great fun! And all just in time for the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks (as they say in comedy, timing is everything).

As the film’s website explains, this project arose in a context in which “Islam has been duly tarnished by the mainstream media.” Actually, it has been duly tarnished by the barbarism of Islamic fundamentalists, and duly defended and whitewashed by the mainstream media. “We are so many years out of 9/11,” the website continues, “and Muslim fear-mongering hasn’t dissipated.” Yes, 9/11 was so long ago and yet the Islamophobia inexplicably never ends! When are we Americans going to get over it and realize we have nothing to fear from Muslims?

As FrontPage Magazine has pointed out many times, “Islamophobia” is a Muslim Brotherhood construct to paint legitimate concern about the demonstrable threat of fundamentalist Islam as bigotry and “Muslim fear-mongering.” That threat didn’t end on 9/11 – it is a continuing danger not just on our own soil but worldwide, as the most cursory look at history and current events will show. It is offensive and dishonest to claim that the media are to blame for Islam’s bad reputation and that 9/11 is in the distant past. The day that the victims of 9/11 stop living in American hearts will be a day of shame and surrender for this country.

The movie description on the website goes on to say that “the idea that Islam is somehow antithetical to American culture just won’t go away.” I wonder why that is. Could it be because the foremost clerical authorities on Islam keep openly declaring that the faith is antithetical to Western values? Could it be because the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated mission is the elimination of Western civilization? Could it be because sharia law is unquestionably incompatible with our constitutional rights and freedoms?

The description continues: “If all you’ve ever heard about Islam”

is that it’s a dangerous religion, that women cover themselves, and that those shifty eyed Muslims have evil ulterior motives, this movie wants to give you a new stereotype. Yeah, this movie is going to convince you that Muslims are just a bunch of hilarious people.  By the end of this movie, you’re gonna love the pants out of Muslims.

That is just pathetic.

Read more at Front Page

 

Bikers Ride to D.C.

1239807_573315069398010_2013190991_n-450x347By :

A counter-protest group of bikers is coming from all over the USA to honor the victims of 9/11, as well as our armed forces, who went on to defend America after that attack. The group will rally in Washington, DC on September 11, 2013 to counter-protest another rally held by the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC).

“2 Million Bikers to DC,” as its now called on Facebook, has become a near overnight sensation. There are now state chapters in each of the fifty states and over 35,000 likes on Facebook

The group is the brainchild of Belinda Bee, a biker from the D.C.-area. She said a fellow rider named “Top Fuel” Bill Williamson had started a local biker group counter-protesting AMPAC, and that she took it over once the movement went national.

While the group didn’t respond to FrontPage Magazine in time for publication, Bee did make her first public comments to Blog Talk Radio host Barry Secrest on Wednesday August 28, 2013.

Bee told Secrest that AMPAC is not a moderate group but rather one which supports terrorists.

“They are not moderate Muslims, they are, we consider ‘the Brotherhood’ [Muslim Brotherhood].”

The leader of AMPAC, Radi Alum, said in an interview with FrontPage Magazine that his group and their 9/11 rally have both become lightning rods unnecessarily because of a series of misstatements about them in the media.

“If they understood what we are doing, they would join us. Unfortunately, some media outlets have lied by saying there is a ‘Million Muslim March.’ There is no such march. That idea has been dead since last February. We are the Million American March Against Fear, and most of our coalition is non-Muslim. The media outlets that spread the lie will be held morally and legally responsible for any damages that may occur as a result of their lies. We are consulting with lawyers and will be putting certain media outlets on notice in the near future.”

2 Million Bikers to DC has also complained about media coverage it has received. The group has complained repeatedly on its Facebook page about a series of misrepresentations of them in the media. One especially scurrilous attack came last week from the far-left website, Veterans Today Network (VTN). VTN suggested that Bill Williamson was a part of a group called Bikers for 9/11 Truth. This turned out to be a scurrilous report with no basis in fact (the group Bikers for 9/11 Truth doesn’t exist), with Williamson even being forced to issue a press release denying the report.

Read more at Front Page

 

Understanding Iran’s Threat to Rape One of Obama’s Daughters Over Syria

iranA former Iranian official has threatened the rape and murder of one of Obama’s daughters if the U.S. attacks Syria. This Islamic threat is simply following traditional Islamic rules of Jihad against the infidel. It is safe to assume, however, that MSNBC, CNN and the NY Times will not any time soon explore why this former Iranian official has made such a pronouncement — and shed light on the aspects of Islamic theology that inspire and sanction owning slaves and raping “kafir” females. Frontpage has therefore decided to rerun Jamie Glazov’s interview with Bill Warner, “Islam, Slavery and Rape,” from our Nov. 23, 2007 edition, which deals directly with this issue. 

*

Islam, Slavery and Rape 

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com. CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors. The Center’s latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome back to Frontpage Magazine. This is the second part in our two-part series with you on the Center’s most recent book. In the first part we discussed Islam and its doctrine on the submission of women. In this second and final part we will discuss the matter of slavery. Welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: It is a pleasure to work with Frontpage.

FP: So tell us in general where Islam stands on slavery.

Warner: Islam’s stand on slavery is based on its political principles of submission and duality. The principle of submission could not be clearer. By definition a slave is the most submissive of all people. You become a slave only when you have no more choices. A slave has completely submitted to a master.

The principle of duality is shown by the fact that Islam does not enslave Muslims, only kafirs (non-Muslims). Since only kafirs are enslaved, it assures that more of the world submits to Islam.

Islamic slavery is based on the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). All three texts say that slavery is permitted, ethical, desirable and a virtue. There is not one single negative word about slavery.

Slavery is seen as a process that brings kafirs to Islam. It is a virtue to free slaves, but Mohammed only freed slaves who submitted to Islam. If the kafir slave does not submit, then their children will. So given enough time, slaves convert to Islam. That is one of the reasons that Islam sees slavery as a positive.

Of course, there is another reason that Islam sees slavery as being so “good” and that is the money. Mohammed and the other jihadists made a fortune out of enslaving kafirs. Mohammed used the money for more jihad. So slavery financed the spread of Islam and jihad from the beginning.

FP: What were the ingredients of Mohammed’s own life in terms of slavery?

Warner: Mohammed is the perfect pattern for all humanity and his life was saturated in slavery. When his mother died, it was a freed slave who nursed him. His first wife owned slaves. One of his first converts was a slave. His closest friend, Abu Bakr, traded one of his black kafir slaves for a Muslim who was enslaved by a kafir.

But all of this was small change compared to his envolvement with slavery once he turned to jihad. In his first major battle at Badr, he stood by and prayed as his henchmen beat and tortured captured slaves to get information about the enemy kafirs.

Slaves made Mohammed’s pulpit. Slaves mended his cloths, cooked his food, and did every thing that a slave does for the master. He gave away slaves as gifts and received them as gifts. He went to war to kill the males so that the remaining people would surrender to be sold as slaves. Mohammed sold slaves on both the retail and wholesale markets.

He offered captured slaves their freedom if they would first agree that he was the prophet of Allah. A kafir slave then became a slave of Allah, because all Muslims are slaves of Allah. For a slave, the religion of Mohammed started and ended with slavery.

FP: Can you talk a bit about Islam and sexual slavery?

Warner: All morality in Islam is patterned after the example of Mohammed. Everything that he did and said defines what is permitted or “good”. Mohammed repeatedly sanctioned forced sex (rape) with kafir females after they were captured. The Hadith clearly reports that he got first choice of the women. In one case, he repeatedly demanded one particular woman for himself and swapped two other kafir slave women for his choice. So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error.

Read more at Front Page

 

Fort Hood Trial: Don’t Say the “T” Word

fort_hood_trial-450x337By Deborah Weiss:

(excerpt)

An independent commission conducted an investigation of the Fort Hood shootings. DoD released its report in January 2010.  It found that the Pentagon was unprepared to defend itself against internal threats.  DoD and other government agencies have characterized the massacre as “workplace violence” and omitted any mention of Islamist ideology or terrorist behavior.

The leaders of the investigation stated that their concern was “actions and effects, not necessarily motives”.  And, Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey proclaimed that “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

The FBI determined that because Hasan had no co-conspirators, further investigation was unnecessary.

In his public address and at the eulogy, President Obama also refused to acknowledge the role of Islamic terrorism in the massacre.

Yet motive is what distinguishes one type of homicide from another.  A homicide victim is equally dead regardless of motive.  But our legal system and moral code mandate that intent be taken into account when determining what, if any punishment should be accorded.

The omission of the terrorist motives in the Fort Hood massacre is resulting in the denial of purple hearts for the fallen soldiers, and a denial of medical benefits and financial compensation for the survivors.

Though the UCMJ does not have terrorism in its code as a possible charge, the military court could have waived jurisdiction, allowing Hasan to be prosecuted in Federal Court where a charge of domestic terrorism would have been in order.

Even if Hasan was not criminally charged with terrorism, the government could make a political determination that this was a terrorist act, allowing the victims to be properly compensated.  DoD officials claimed that Hasan could have argued he couldn’t get a fair trial due to accusations of criminal liability.

However, Hasan has already admitted criminal guilt.  Therefore, it is more likely that the government’s characterization of the massacre as workplace violence was made in line with its pattern of denial regarding Islamist ideology.

This Administration has rewritten all national security training material to delete all reference to Islamic terrorism and has launched an aggressive campaign of interfaith dialogue and  “peer pressure and shaming” to stifle all debate on the issue of Islamism.

The Administration has also formed close alliances with Islamist organizations in a quest to silence all speech critical of Islam, in a manner tantamount to blasphemy codes.

Free speech constitutes a human right and is critical to maintaining the cause of freedom.  It is especially important to allow open debate on the nature of national security threats and their motivational ideology.

Denying the threat of Islamic radicalism has consequences.  Resulting policies hamper America’s ability to defeat those that wish us harm.  Whether the Benghazi attacks, the Fort Hood massacre or other Islamic terrorist attacks, most Americans realize that purging the language does not eradicate threats.

This awareness does not apply to the Administration, however, where the folly continues.

Read it all at Front Page

This article was commissioned by The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum.

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the Washington Times.  She is a contributing author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” (Palgrave MacMillan, 2011).  A partial listing of her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org.

 

 

Related articles

Erdogan Takes Revenge

130606_FOR_Erdogan.jpg.CROP_.original-original-450x307 (1)By :

Now that most protests have come to an end and the rest of the world is focusing on Egypt rather than Turkey, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has decided that the time is ripe for some good, old-fashioned revenge. Turkish style.

As I reported earlier for FrontPage Magazine, it started early in July, when a few journalists were publicly harrangued for their coverage of the protests in Gezi Park. One of them was even publicly called a “traitor“ by the mayor of Ankara, a member of the prime minister’s party, the AK Parti (Justice and Development Party).

In the following weeks, as many as 22 journalists and columnists have been fired since the start of the famous protests in Istanbul and other major Turkish cities. Thirty-seven others had to accept a “forced leave of absence,” meaning that they had to pretend to enjoy some precious off-time, while they, in fact, were desperate to get back to work.

One of the fired columnists is Yavuz Baydar from the daily Sabah. His first mistake was, as Sabah’s ombudsman, publishing letters from readers that criticized the government’s stance on the protests. After that he went even further by writing a column related to the protests and media-government relations. The editorial board refused to publish his piece, however.

At that moment, Baydar decided to take a leave of absence. Instead of keeping silent about the stranglehold in which the government holds the media, he decided to speak out. In a column for the New York Times, he explained that media moguls are undermining the “basic principles of democracy” in Turkey.  He added that media “bosses fear losing lucrative business deals with the government.”

After having written the opinion piece for the New York Times, Baydar once again tried to get a similar critical column published in Sabah. Instead, he was fired.

Many other journalists have have gone through the same ordeal in the last few weeks. And they are the lucky ones. According to Reporters Without Borders’ (RWB) World Press Freedom Index, the situation has gotten so out of hand that Turkey is now “the world’s biggest prison for journalists.” Yes, the country beats Afghanistan, North Korea, China, Iraq and Iran in that regard. Of course more journalists may be killed in some of those countries, but with regards to locking them up, Turkey leads them all.

Apparently, Erdogan is quite happy with that remarkable record. Instead of backing down, his government is arresting even more people. Not only journalists, but whomever has the audacity to criticize the AKP. For instance, nine more Twitter- users and protesters, living in five different cities, were recently detained.

Read more at Front Page

 

Brotherhood Torture Chambers (Finally) Exposed

trt-450x299By :

Some time ago, Fox News published a report titled “Egyptian mosque turned into house of torture for Christians after Muslim Brotherhood protest.”   The report opens by explaining how

Islamic hard-liners stormed a mosque in suburban Cairo, turning it into [a] torture chamber for Christians who had been demonstrating against the ruling Muslim Brotherhood in the latest case of violent persecution that experts fear will only get worse.  Such stories have become increasingly common as tensions between Egypt’s Muslims and Copts mount, but in the latest case, mosque officials corroborated much of the account and even filed a police report. Demonstrators, some of whom were Muslim, say they were taken from the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in suburban Cairo to a nearby mosque on Friday and tortured for hours by hard-line militia members.

While it is good that Fox News reported on the Brotherhood’s “torture chambers,” its report is also a reminder of how much the American public is often kept in the dark concerning what happens to Christians in Muslim countries—indeed, about what happens in the Muslim world in general.

The fact is, months earlier, numerous reports, not to mention pictures and videos, circulated in the Arabic media about the Muslim Brotherhood’s “torture chambers.”

On January 6—nearly three months before the Fox News report appeared, I wrote the following words in a FrontPage Magazine article, concerning how several Muslim Brotherhood affiliated clerics had

issued fatwas, or Islamic decrees, that all such protesters [against Morsi] are to be fought and killed, regardless of whether they are fellow Muslims, leading to the violent attacks and killings during the uprisings against Morsi, including the “Muslim Brotherhood’s Torture Rooms.”

I linked the phrase “Muslim Brotherhood’s Torture Rooms” back to a December report published by the Arabic-language newspaper Al Masry Al Youm, titled (in translation) “Inside the Brotherhood’s Torture Rooms.”  The report explained in detail the “torture strategy” the Brotherhood was using against protesters (scroll down beneath the Arabic text to see graphic images of some of those tortured). Coptic Solidarity translated and summarized the report as follows:

A recent Al Masry Al Youm report, titled “Inside the Brotherhood Torture Rooms at Itihadiya [one of the presidential palaces]” written during last week’s protests indicates how Egyptian police appear paralyzed before the Muslim Brotherhood’s violence and how the attacks on Mina Philip—who was stripped naked and violently beat—were part of a planned and organized attack by the Brotherhood.  Reporters spent 3 hours inside the Muslim Brotherhood “torture chambers” next to the Itihadiya Palace.  “We were able to enter after an introduction was made by a Brotherhood channel.”  According to the report, the main room has about 15 Muslim Brotherhood well-built men, along with policemen and 3 Brotherhood men in suits; the men in suits decide who gets to be in the room at all times. The process starts with the capture of a protestor opposed to President Morsi or one [who] is suspected of being a demonstrator.  The Brotherhood members start beating the person up as a group all over his body then they drag him to a nearby chamber where they take off his shirt and take his wallet, money and phone.  They later start interrogating him while beating him up and accusing him of receiving funds from opposition members.  They sometimes call their channel to film the “capture of thugs.”  Later, he is taken to the main room where he is beaten up again and his clothes are torn.  His ID is given to a Brotherhood lawyer who takes down his information.  Later, the lawyer would give the person’s ID to the police officer on the scene.

Thus, while Fox News should be commended for its report, that these “torture chambers”—reports of which flooded the Egyptian media— were finally exposed to the American mainstream three months later is a reminder of how woefully in the dark most Americans are when it comes to the truth about the Islamic world.

Read more at Front page

My Name is Bosch and I’m a Recovered Muslim

bosch1By Bosch Fawstin:

Author’s note: This was originally published in Dec. 2011 in Front Page Magazine and it was the most popular piece I’ve written until this piece of mine. I’m a cartoonist, so the only essays I write are ones that I cannot express in any other way but words, and here- in light of the latest Jihad attack in London, and the latest “Islam vs “Islamism”” debate going on- is what I think is my most comprehensive piece on Islam, Muslims & Jihad.

My name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.

Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.

The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.

In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.

Read more at Front Page

 

Gaubatz: Stop putting the word ‘Radical’ in front of Islam

imagescapqspavby Shoebat Foundation:

Conservatives Must Stop Using the Terms ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’
Dave Gaubatz

During my counter-terrorism work I have the great opportunity to speak with Americans who understand Islam and are trying to educate others about the dangers Islam and Sharia create for our beautiful country. There are organizations such as ACT For America and FrontPage Magazine that are doing outstanding work. There are Americans who belong to no organization and they are doing outstanding work. I respect all who are educating Americans.

There is one major error many organizations and well intended people make when discussing Islamic issues. There is hardly a day goes by that I don’t speak with someone who uses the terms ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’. Using these terms causes great harm to our country and the movement by conservatives to show the dangers of Islam. I ask many of the people who use these terms if they believe the Islamic ideology itself is dangerous. Most agree that Islam and Sharia are very dangerous and America’s number one security threat. At the same time some of these people commonly use ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’ in their writings and lectures to the American public. If you truly believe the Islamic ideology is dangerous and harmful to our country and children, you must at once cease from using these terms.

Is it a good thing to be afflicted with Islamophobia? Get the new book from Walid Shoebat, The Case FOR ISLAMOPHOBIA: Jihad by the Word; America’s Final Warning.

Let me explain why. If you say ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’ then you are saying that in reality Islam is peaceful, a good religion, and has its place in American society. You are saying that Islam has been ‘hijacked’ by a few ‘Radical Muslims’ and the Radical Muslims’ are misinterpreting the Islamic ideology that was founded by Prophet Mohammed. Most of us know that the pure and simple Islam is dangerous and we want no part of it to be in America, and we don’t want our children to be led by liberal politicians, journalists, and naive Americans to believe Islam is a good thing for our country. Islam is not good for our country. Islam has been violent and dangerous for over 1400 years and it will always be dangerous. The people you refer to as ‘Radical Muslims’ are not radical. They are simply carrying out the ‘true Islamic ideology as Prophet Mohammed wanted it to be carried out. These people are ‘Pure Muslims’. They are Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbolla, and the numerous other Islamic acronyms. The leaders of such organizations as MSA, ISNA, MANA, and CAIR are Muslim Brotherhood organizations who are practicing the true form of Islam. They are not ‘Radical’, they are ‘Pure Muslims’. These organizations want all Muslims to think and behave as they do. They want all Muslims to practice ‘Pure Islam’.

Many well intended Americans also use the term ‘Moderate Muslims’. In reality a ‘Moderate Muslim’ does not uphold the violent aspects of Sharia law. In accordance to the Islamic ideology these people are Apostates of Islam. You can’t separate one aspect of Sharia from another and be a ‘Pure Muslim’. Even Islamic leaders say exactly what I described above. If you were to attend lectures at Dar Al Hijra Mosque in Fairfax, Va., you would be informed by the Islamic leaders that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. One is actually adhering to all aspects of Sharia law and therefor a ‘Pure Muslim’ or they aren’t and are Apostates of Islam. In accordance with Sharia law the penalty for Apostasy is death.

To sum it up: Immediately stop using the terms ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’. Stop legitimizing the Islamic ideology. ‘Radical Muslims and Radical Islam’ are terms brought into America by terrorist loving countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE to name a few.

Dave Gaubatz spent 20 years as an active duty USAF (Special Agent/OSI), 3.5 years as a civilian 1811 Federal Agent, trained by the U.S. State Department in Arabic, and was the first U.S. Federal Agent to enter Iraq in 2003. He is also a counterterrorism counterintelligence officer. He is co-author of the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America

Algeria in Jihadi Flames

algeria-1_2454515b-450x334By

Emboldened by America’s projection of weakness abroad, Islamists apparently linked to al-Qaeda reportedly continue to hold about 40 foreign hostages including seven Americans seized Wednesday at a natural gas field in Algeria.

At press time, conflicting media reports had been emerging from the region. Some claimed that the hostages have been freed; others, that several hostages have been killed.

The mass kidnapping at a BP (formerly British Petroleum) gas site near the Libyan border, which may very well have been accomplished with U.S.-supplied weapons left over from the ouster of the late Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, seems to be a spillover from a failed French drive to remove Islamist militants from nearby Mali.

According to the Wall Street Journal, France’s target in Mali was Algeria-based Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, which has “claimed responsibility for the Algeria kidnappings, calling it retaliation.”

The northern portion of Mali is important to the Islamofascists because it is one of their recently acquired strongholds that serves as a showcase for the reimposition of Shariah law in the region. It is a beachhead for Islamist world revolution.

Al-Qaeda forces, working with Qaddafi’s former mercenaries, previously took over northern Mali, an area about the size of Texas. Africa, writes FrontPage Magazine’s Daniel Greenfield, is now “to Islamic Colonialism in the 21st Century what it was to European Colonialism in the 19th Century.”

The kidnapping episode also undercuts President Obama’s spurious claim that al-Qaeda is somehow on the run and virtually irrelevant thanks to his policies. During the past election cycle Obama bragged over and over that “al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead.” That path now seems to be long and winding.

Each passing day it becomes increasingly clear that the Obama administration, which spends much of its time apologizing for past U.S. policies, isn’t serious about combating Islamism. The fact that the administration itself is a hotbed of Islamist activity, according to various investigative reports, no doubt has something to do with it.

Read more at Front Page

 

Related articles

‘Defamation of Religion’ Rule Applies to Islam Only

Deborah Weiss

Deborah Weiss

by: Ryan Mauro

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is an expert on the defamation of religions U.N. resolutions set forth by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.  She is a frequent contributor to FrontPage Magazine and The Washington Times, and is co-author of the book, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace.” A partial listing of her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org

The following is RadicalIslam.org National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with Deborah Weiss:

Ryan Mauro: What is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and what is its end goal?

Deborah Weiss: The OIC is the largest Islamic organization in the world, claiming to represent 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide.  It’s comprised of 56 UN Member States plus the Palestinian Authority.  They tend to vote together as a block in the UN and are arguably the most powerful voting block in the UN as a whole.  They are certainly the most powerful voting bloc in the UN’s Human Rights Council.

Though the OIC holds itself out as a “moderate” organization, it is clear from its own documents and its concepts that it is anything but moderate.  Its long term goal is the worldwide implementation of Sharia law and the supremacy of an Islamic State.

In its immediate activities, it is working to solidify the relationships among Muslim majority countries, to unify the Muslim voice, to support the so-called “Palestinian struggle” and to restrict all speech that is critical of anything related to Muslims or Islam including Islamic terrorism and Islamic persecution of religious minorities.

Mauro:  Tell us about the OIC’s concept of “Combating Defamation of Religions” and its impact.

Deborah Weiss:  “Combating Defamation of Religions” is a concept which gives an idea or religion, in this case Islam, protection from criticism, as opposed to what we have in the American legal system which only gives defamation protections to people.

Additionally, the OIC’s definition of defamation includes anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims, even if it’s true and even if it’s opinion.  In fact, it goes even further and condemns any free expression that would violate Islamic blasphemy laws even when, and perhaps especially when, expressed by non-Muslims.  So it’s the OIC’s attempt to pressure non-Muslims to comply with Islamic blasphemy codes.  Its target is the West and failure to comply with its demands is deemed “Islamophobic” even when no actual bigotry or prejudice is present.

The impact of putting the concept of combating defamation of religions into effect has numerous consequences and implications.

First, though it’s called “combating defamation of religions,” the OIC interprets and applies it to Islam only without any reciprocity for other religions.  In fact, the concept of protecting Islam from “defamation” is used in many OIC countries to persecute religious minorities.  The concept gives credence to Islamic blasphemy laws, which not only operate to suppress freedom of religion, but also violate human rights.  For example, in Pakistan, Ahmadiyya Muslims believe in a prophet after Mohammad. They generally have a peaceful, egalitarian interpretation of Islam.  Yet, they are considered heretics, and it is not only illegal for them to practice their faith, but it is criminal.  Merely sending out a wedding invitation with an accurate quote from the Koran can land an Ahmadiyya Muslim in jail.

Last, but not least, the implementation of the concept of combating defamation of religions has serious consequences for freedom of speech.  This is the main concern from a Western, and specifically American perspective.  The OIC as well as other Islamist organizations continue to work hard to stifle free speech.  They are constantly placing pressure on Western governments and societies to refrain from saying or dong anything that violates Islamic blasphemy codes, even though they don’t word it this way.

For example, the OIC encourages “hate-speech” laws in Europe that make it illegal to speak negatively about Islam.  And in America, though the government has thus far declined to make such speech illegal, it is enacting policies that discourage such speech even when it’s critical in protecting US national security.

Though not necessarily a direct result of the OIC’s UN resolutions, the implementation of the concept of combating defamation of religions has resulted in America’s recent cleansing of all national security training material for the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the National Counterterrorism Training Center.  National security and intelligence professionals will still learn about terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, but will be deprived of teachings regarding the underlying[Islamist] ideology, disconnecting the motivation from the terrorist behavior.  This ties one hand behind America’s back in fighting the War on Terror and is very dangerous.

Read more at Radical Islam

Also see “Making Islamic sense of free speech” by Harris Zafar, National Spokesperson for Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA, which was published in the Washington Post recently. Can you spot the taqiyya?