“First Steps in Defeating Islamic Terror: Understanding the Arab and Muslim World”

Published on Feb 19, 2015 by emetonline

EMET was proud to host Dr. Mordechai Kedar on why Islamic terrorists are targeting the free world, and what we need to know about the Muslim and Arab world to win the war on terror.

From ISIS’s beheadings, to the tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, including the Charlie Hebdo shootings leaving 13 innocent dead, and the slaughter of four Jews at a Kosher supermarket for the mere fact that they were Jewish, the Western world has been left shocked by an enemy it does not know how to defeat. The Islamic State’s campaign of genocide and crimes against humanity has taken on a new level of horror with the recent murder of Jordanian pilot, Moaz al-Kassasbeh, who was burned alive by the radical Islamic terror group. The U.S.’s greatest ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel, was subject to Hamas’ launch of 4,000 rockets into many of its major cities, and the State has to fight terrorists, including those from Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and Hezbollah, on a daily basis to protect its citizens.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. He served for twenty-five years in IDF Military Intelligence, where he specialized in Islamic groups, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic press and mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena. The Los Angeles TimesEdmund Sanders described him as “one of the few Arabic-speaking Israeli pundits seen on Arabic satellite channels defending Israel”

***

3620388745_e201000530_z

“WE ARE DEALING WITH AN IDEOLOGY” By Andrew Harrod, (philosproject.org)

Israeli scholar Mordechai Kedar’s Feb. 12 presentation for the Endowment for Middle East Truth gave indispensable insight into the Islamic sources of jihadist movements now threatening the world. During his briefing entitled “First Steps in Defeating Islamic Terror,” Kedar warned that one must recognize the nature of a threat if one ever hopes to defeat it.

“There is no radical Islam,” Kedar said definitively. “There is no moderate Islam. There is Islam.” Each of Islam’s three canonical sources includes “whatever you want to justify, [from] zero violence to 100 percent violence.”

Like Jews and Christians, every Muslim “has his own reality of religious doctrine” and “can argue that opposing viewpoints have hijacked Islam.” Many Muslims uphold Islam’s positive ideas and are “as peaceful as can be.” Other Muslims go the opposite way. Kedar pointed out that environment plays a significant role, since a Muslim who grows up in a free society like the United States will most likely “tailor his Islamic garment” with benign texts, while a Muslim who grows up in war-torn Libya will probably seek out Islam’s more martial aspects.

The problem is that it only takes a few bad seeds. If just one out of every 10,000 Muslims in the worldwide community of 1.5 billion joined ISIS or a similar group, these 150,000 Muslims could “devastate the whole world.” After all, 9/11 and this January’s Paris massacres took place at the hands of just a few jihadists.

The audience watched segments of an ISIS propaganda video showing mass beheadings of captives in places like Europe, Malaysia and the Middle East. This type of video strikes terror in the hearts of Iraqi soldiers and other Middle Easterners longing for peace and order. An English-speaking jihadist pictured in the video warned that Americans deployed to the region could be the next beheading victims; he also called out “to Obama, the dog of Rome.” Kedar explained that a medieval Muslim leader, following the 1453 Ottoman subjugation of the “cats” of Constantinople, had declared that the “dogs of Rome” were Islam’s next target.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928, can be thought of as the grandmother of organizations like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Nigeria’s Boko Haram. The Muslim Brotherhood’s logo, whose depiction of crossed swords and Quran leaves no doubt about its Islamic agenda, features the Arabic word “prepare,” which occurs only once in the Quran, in verse 8:60’s command to “prepare … whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war, by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah.” The Muslim Brotherhood and similar organizations represent Sunni terror, while Hezbollah is the Shiite terror counterpart with a state sponsor in Iran’s Islamic Republic, possibly nuclear-armed in the future.

One audience member referenced Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s internationally noted New Year’s Day address that called for Islamic reform, but Kedar was unimpressed. “I highly respect this man,” he said, but added that Sisi is no different from past dictators like Anwar Sadat (subsequently assassinated), Hosni Mubarak, or Hafez Assad. “Every ruler who sees himself as a target of those radical Muslims has made similar appeals for religious reform,” Kedar said, “yet the last people on earth to change anything are political Muslims who would not consider Sisi legitimate” after that president overthrew Muslim Brotherhood rule.

Willful blindness was a running theme in Kedar’s briefing. He warned that “political correctness will kill America after it already killed Europe,” where the human landscape is morphing after decades of Muslim immigration and non-assimilation.

Kedar ominously concluded his presentation by saying that “the Atlantic is not wide enough to protect this country from a global jihadist ideology.” He pointed to the book 40 Hadith on Jihad, which has a chapter titled “War is a Deception.” While current policies often prevent American authorities from asking about religion during criminal investigations, combatting Islamic threats demands, first and foremost, “intelligence, intelligence and intelligence.” Sun Tzu’s dictum of knowing the enemy remains valid in today’s conflicts, religious or not.

Jihadism Denial Déjà Vu All Over Again

The Center for Strategic and International Studies presented The CSIS-Schieffer Series Dialogues: Countering Violent Extremism in mid February, 2015

The Center for Strategic and International Studies presented The CSIS-Schieffer Series Dialogues: Countering Violent Extremism in mid February, 2015

Religious Freedom Coalition, Feb 23rd, 2015, by Andrew Harrod, PhD.

Journalist Bob Schieffer set an uncertain tone in his moderator’s introduction to the panel, stating that “we’ll talk about what we call” violence from groups like Al Qaeda (AQ) or the Islamic State (IS).  Zarate similarly expressed uncertainties in the face of a “Scylla and Charybdis” dilemma.  An “ideological underpinning” and “Islamic component” motivated these groups, causing the Bush administration to articulate in 2006 a “battle of arms and a battle of ideas.”  Yet “not offending” Muslims with a “war on Islam” declaration formed a countervailing consideration.  Zarate thereby paraphrased Bush having made arguments decreasingly convincing over time that “this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.” Former George W. Bush administration counterterrorism official Juan C. Zarate felt a “little bit like Groundhog’s Day” at a February 19 Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) panel on “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE).  Zarate’s frustration with having yet again to consider proper definition of the ideology motivating Islamist groups worldwide indicated the ongoing strategic confusion among high level policy makers confronting global jihad.

Zarate’s quandaries persist even as a “threat is growing more dangerous and more diverse” around the world and “seems to be morphing more quickly than our strategy is adapting.”  In particular, the “mythology and narrative of the caliphate” of IS will grow with its longevity.  He foresaw a “generational struggle” over jihadist movements among Muslim communities globally.  Only the “nature of this movement,” meanwhile, had “forced” a fundamentally disinterested Barack Obama administration to confront a jihadist threat and its ideology.

Daily Beast journalist Nancy Youssef paralleled Zarate’s cautious grappling with Islamic threats while echoing common rationales for deemphasizing religious doctrine.  She worried that “too much of a focus on” Islamic ideology could help incite a civilization clash between Islam and the wider world, an argument that often falsely inflates external influences upon independently-driven Muslims.  She likewise speculated about political grievances and religious doctrine forming multiple motivations for jihadist violence, an argument frequently invoked to deny this violence’s theological basis.

Like Zarate, Youssef emphasized long term dangers.  American policymakers in the Middle East and other Muslim regions repeatedly make a “premature call to victory” in what is a “very, very fragile” situation.  “We are so eager to say that things are done and that we can walk away,” she stated.  Policymakers after the September 11, 2001, AQ attacks focused on individual “big fish” terrorists, but such threats arise from many “little fish” at a grassroots level in Muslim societies.

Obama administration Special Representative to Muslim Communities Farah Pandith continued the panel’s ideological indecisiveness while addressing a threat that has grown “greater for a lot of different reasons.”  She laughably asserted that Obama has recognized jihadism’s “violent” and “non-violent ideology” while accurately arguing that “you can’t defend the homeland if you cannot be clear and precise.”  Ideological ignorance, for example, left American policymakers “totally off-guard” when global Muslim outrage greeted the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoons.  She called instead for an ideological warfare “drumbeat every day…in your face” while noting that countries like Saudi Arabia are “building an ecosystem for this ideology to thrive,” something “you have to able to poison.”

Yet the unveiled and stylish Pandith warned against making Muslims into a “specific threat group” amidst unfounded, politically correct praise for the Islamic faith of her fathers in the India where she was born.  She waxed about how Islam in America “came here at the time of the slaves” in the colonial era without mentioning that their bondage began with Muslim slavers in Africa selling captives to European slave traders.  Relying apparently on the research of an American Muslim introduced by Pandith at Department of State headquarters in Foggy Bottom, she falsely asserted that every American president “has spoken about” Islam “with dignity consistently.”  This overlooks negative appraisals of Islam by Thomas Jefferson, John and John Quincy Adams, and other Founding Fathers as well as Theodore Roosevelt (see pages 196-197 of his 1916 book Fear God and Take Your Own Part).

Not surprisingly, Pandith was vague on anti-jihadist ideological warfare.  She dismissed an audience question about pertinent administration strategies with the rhetorical question “do we have a general who is in charge of ideas?”  She herself emphasized a “clear line between church and state” and thus “never, ever, quoted the Quran” in her discussions worldwide with “really diverse” Muslim communities.  She rejected considering one Islamic sect superior to another, yet somehow theologically judged that jihadist “bad guys” have an “interpretation of religion…based on a faulty premise.”

This reporter suggested to Pandith an analogy between combating political Islam and an American post-World War II occupation policy to remove from Japanese governance a Shinto faith that had inspired fanatical aggression and atrocities.  “I don’t know how we do that,” she merely responded concerning present jihadist threats.  While referencing “metrics” and “norms” in various American human rights reports, she gave no indication how such data could inform a wider analysis of how to defeat inimical Islamic doctrines.  How could George Kennan and others have won the Cold War merely with human rights reports and no anti-Communism conceptual strategy?

Pandith’s refusal to discuss Islamic doctrine contrasts with her taking office in September 2009 while swearing on a Quran before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Pandith then discussed arriving in Boston from Srinagar, Kashmir, as an immigrant infant with her mother on July 4, 1969 and growing up with “no contradiction between being a Muslim and being an American.”  Yet a Kashmiri Muslim reporter criticized her taking an oath “on holy Quran” while “displaying her well waxed legs and cleavage” and being perhaps “witnessed by tens of thousands” on television.

The reporter elaborated why Pandith, whose “knee length floral skirt, V neck blouse and black stilettos” were “very modest by Western standards,” might not be the best authority on Islam.  She showed an “utter disregard for Quranic injunction” and hadith teachings that only a woman’s “face and palms” be visible.  In the “Muslim world…even moderates might have squirmed in their seats at this unsightly scene” of a “bare headed and bare legged” woman swearing on a Quran.  “Taking oath on something one does not believe,” criticized the reporter, “is not merely hypocritical but insulting” and “betrays seriousness of purpose” by Pandith.  This “spoke volumes about US administrations disregard for Islamic culture and its sanctity.  How can such people reach out to Muslims”?

From the opposite end of the spectrum, Islam critic Hugh Fitzgerald concurred that Pandith’s “understanding of Islam is clearly deficient” and “essentially benign, in her ignorance.”  She “came to this country as a baby,” meaning that “[h]er experience of…societies suffused with Islam…is apparently non-existent.”  Fitzgerald rejected Pandith’s “smiling nonsense from a pretty charmer,” a “cultural” or “Muslim-for-identification-and-careerist-purposes-only,” as a “guide to nothing and nowhere.”

Much the same is applicable to the CSIS panel and the accompanying White House CVE summit.  While the panelists consistently indicated that Islam had some relation to various interrelated harmful political developments around the world, the speakers never seemed to name or define expressly these threats.  Perceptive observers would note, for example, that the panelists never mentioned Islam-specific terms such as “sharia,” “Islamism,” or “jihad,” as the non-ideological CVE paradigm would indicate.  The panel remained at a superficial level, never probing deeper doctrinal and strategic issues, akin to the public relationship with the Quran of Pandith, the Obama administration’s vaunted representative to Muslims.  Over 14 years after 9/11, as jihadism continues to endanger the free world’s interests, such ignorance, for whatever reason and however willful, must end.

Media Hoax: 20 Muslims Holding Hands Become 1,000-Strong ‘Ring of Peace’ at Oslo Synagogue

oslo-ring-of-peace-afp-640x480

Update 2/23/15: Oslo Synagogue “Muslim Peace Ring” Organizer: Jews Were Behind 9/11, Mumbai Terror Attack by Patrick Poole at PJ Media

Breitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, Feb. 22, 2015:

The weekend’s feel-good story about a Muslim “ring of peace” formed to “protect” Jews at an Oslo synagogue turned out to be a complete fabrication by the mainstream media, according to an eyewitness report, local officials, and attendees’ photos.

According to a local eyewitness, only about 20 or so Muslims formed the “ring of peace” around the Oslo synagogue. In fact, pictures from multiple angles show that there wasn’t enough people to form a ring, so the locals instead formed a horizontal line in front of the synagogue.

A local news outlet explained how the media got to its “1,300 Muslims” number. “According to police, there were 1300 persons present in the event. Very many of them ethnic Norwegians,” read a translated report from Osloby.no.

Demonstrators also reportedly chanted, “No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia,” conflating criticism of Islam and hatred of Jews.

Photos pulled off of social media appear to corroborate the narrative that only twenty or so people formed the “peace ring.”

Multiple news outlets, including wire services for hundreds of news sites, ran with the false narrative that 1,000 or more people–sometimes all of them Muslim–formed the ring of peace outside of the Oslo synagogue.

The AP incorrectly reported, “More than 1,000 people have formed a ‘ring of peace’ outside Oslo’s main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims.”

AFP reports almost identically, “More than 1,000 people formed a ‘ring of peace’ Saturday outside Oslo’s main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims. The newswire agency has no excuse for the false report, as it had a photographer taking shots of the “ring” at the scene–and one shows a man who appears to be at the end of the line of hand-holders, with his left hand in his pocket.

The far-left Think Progress site published a story titled, “More Than A Thousand Muslims Form Human Shield Around Norewegian Synagogue After Copenhagen Attacks.”

Even Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported, “More than 1,000 Muslims formed a human shield around an Oslo synagogue on February 21, offering symbolic protection for the city’s Jewish community and condemning an attack on a synagogue in neighboring Denmark the previous weekend.”

In even worse news, it appears as if the organizer of the Muslim “peace ring” is a virulent anti-Semite, 9/11 truther, a gay-basher, and an Israel-hater.

Ali Chishti, who organized the event, said bluntly in 2008, “I hate Jews and how they operate,” reports Daniel Greenfield. Chishti added in his conspiracy-laden rant about the Jewish people, “It is a fact that during the attacks on the Twin Towers [World Trade Center] 1600 Jews were absent from work. OK, OK, what’s even more suspicious, is how unusually many Jews there were present in Mumbai on the day that Pakistani terrorists struck. How come?”

At a March, 2008 meeting in Oslo promoting his 9/11 conspiracy theory that the Jews were responsible for the World Trade Center attacks, Chishti read his speech titled, “Therefore I Hate Jews And Gays,” Haaretz reports.

As it turns out, as many as 40 times more Northern European Muslims attended the funeral of a Copenhagen Muslim terrorist than those who decided to form the non-existent “ring of peace” around an Oslo synagogue.

Read more

Also see:

NYT Profiles ‘Counter Extremists’ Who Are Actually Extremists

Facebook/Imam Mohamed Hag Magid

Facebook/Imam Mohamed Hag Magid

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 21, 2015:

A New York Times piece on Thursday prominently featured two imams with a long history of radicalism as profiles in courage who lead the movement to “counter violent extremism.”

In a piece titled “U.S. Muslims Take On ISIS’ Recruiting Machine,” The New York Times author Laurie Goodstein writes:

“Imam Mohamed Magid tries to stay in regular contact with the teenager who came to him a few months ago, at his family’s urging, to discuss how he was being wooed by online recruiters working for the Islamic State, the extremist group in Syria and Iraq.

But the imam, a scholar bursting with charm and authority, has struggled to compete. Though he has successfully intervened in the cases of five other young men, persuading them to abandon plans to fight overseas, the Islamic State’s recruiting efforts have become even more disturbing, he said, and nonstop.

The problem with profiling the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) imam as a counterweight to the Islamic State, quite simply, is that Magid himself has deep ties to radicalism.

In 2002, federal officials raided ADAMS in an initiative called “Operation Green Quest,” where the mosque was suspected of supporting terrorist operations. Federal documents revealed that officials believed ADAMS was “suspected of providing support to terrorists, money laundering, and tax evasion.”

Magid is also the former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was established by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist terror group that goes by the motto “Allah is our objective, the Koran is the constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our way, death for the sake of Allah is our wish.” In the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, a federal judge found that “the [U.S.] government has produced ample evidence to establish” the association of ISNA “with Hamas,” the Palestinian terror group that rules the Gaza Strip.

Suhaib Webb, the imam of the Islamic Society of Boston, was also profiled as a trusted leader in the counter-extremism movement.

The New York Times piece reads:

“ISIS says: ‘Come here. We’ve got ripped warriors,’” said Imam Suhaib Webb, a popular Muslim leader who moved from Boston to the Washington area last month. “It’s a very simplistic response, but it’s somewhat effective.”

He said that in more than 15 years as an imam, he had encountered only five Muslims considering whether they should join violent militant groups, and that none of them had actually left the United States to fight. “They were all males,” said Imam Webb, and “they all had daddy issues.” He added, “They were not really drawn to this on theological grounds.”

Just two days before the September 11, 2001, attacks against America, Suhaib Webb infamously attended a fundraiser to solicit donations for the defense fund of a man who killed two police officers. It gets worse, though. Webb spoke at the fundraiser alongside al-Qaeda mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki. The al-Qaeda cleric would eventually meet the business-end of a U.S. Hellfire missile in 2011 while he was conducting terror operations in Yemen.

FBI documents found that Webb and Awlaki were closely associated through the Muslim American Society, which many believe to be an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

Webb also served as imam of the sister organization of the mosque attended by Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Before coming to Boston, Webb was the imam of the Islamic Society of Oklahoma City, which was home to Alton Nolen, the man who beheaded an innocent Oklahoma woman in September.

Twelve of Webb’s Islamic Society of Boston members “have either been killed, imprisoned, or declared fugitives due to their involvement in terrorist activity,” according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance.

“The fact that The New York Times chooses men like Magid and Webb to highlight as the best that ‘countering violent extremism’ has to offer shows how bankrupt the concept is. With their ties to Muslim Brotherhood organizations, Magid and Webb know more about radicalizing youth than they do de-radicalizing,” Kyle Shideler, director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy, told Breitbart News.

Also see:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Obama Must Confront the Threat of Radical Islam

An ISIS member waves an ISIS flag in Raqqa, Syria on June 29, 2014.

An ISIS member waves an ISIS flag in Raqqa, Syria on June 29, 2014.

ISIS is recruiting young Muslims from around the globe to Jihad, and the White House apparently doesn’t understand why

Time, By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Feb. 20, 2015:

How can the Obama Administration miss the obvious? Part of the answer lies in the groups “partnering” with, or advising, the White House on these issues. Groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council or the Islamic Society of North America insist that there should be no more focus at the Summit on radical Islam than on any other violent movements, even as radical Islamic movements continue to expand their influence in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Nigeria, and elsewhere.

Amplifying a poor choice of Muslim outreach partners, however, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have argued in recent days that economic grievances, a lack of opportunities, and countries with “bad governance” are to blame for the success of groups such as ISIS in recruiting Muslims to their cause. Yet, if this were true, why do so many young Muslims who live in societies with excellent governance—Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, the United States—either join ISIS or engage in Jihadist violence in their own countries? Why do young Muslims with promising professional futures embark on the path of Jihad?

Neither the Summit partners nor the U.S. Administration can effectively answer these questions.

Both Denmark and the Netherlands have “good governance.” Denmark and the Netherlands not only offer free health insurance but also free housing to Muslim refugees, along with high-quality education for their children. This should produce an outpouring of gratitude by young Muslims towards the host society, and no Jihadists.

Yet there are dozens of Jihadists hailing from the Netherlands and a recent attack in Copenhagen was committed by a man who was raised in Denmark and had effectively enjoyed years of Danish hospitality.

The question is not limited to Europe. Minnesota, for instance, is hardly a state with “bad governance.” Minnesota offers ample opportunity for immigrants willing to work hard. Yet more than a dozen young men from the Twin Cities area have joined the Jihadist movement in recent years.

How can Barack Obama or John Kerry explain this? Based on President Obama’s public statements and John Kerry’s analysis in The Wall Street Journal, they cannot.

It is worth remembering Aafia Siddiqui, the M.I.T.-educated neuroscientist who could have enjoyed a prestigious and lucrative career in the bio-tech industry but instead chose to embrace radical Islam, eventually becoming known as “Lady Al-Qaida.”

Or think of the three Khan siblings who recently sought to leave Chicago in order to go live in Syria under the rule of ISIS. The Khan sister, intelligent and studious, had planned to become a physician. The siblings were intercepted before they could fly out of the country, and prosecutors argue they wanted to join armed Jihad. Defense attorneys have a different explanation, stating the siblings desperately wanted to live under a society ruled by Shariah law—under the rule of Allah’s laws, without necessarily wanting to commit acts of violence.

It is this motivation—the sincere desire to live under Islamic religious laws, and the concomitant willingness to use violence to defend the land of Islam and expand it—that has led thousands of Western Muslims, many of them young and intelligent—and not the oft-described “losers”—to leave a comfortable professional and economic future in the West in order to join ISIS under gritty circumstances.

In its general strategy, the U.S. Administration confounds two things. It is true that in “failed states” criminal networks, cartels, and terrorist groups can operate with impunity. Strengthening central governments will reduce safe havens for terror networks. Secretary Kerry’s argument in The Wall Street Journal is different, however, namely: If we improve governance in countries with “bad governance,” then fewer young people will become “violent extremists.” That’s a different argument and not a plausible one. In fact, it’s a really unpersuasive argument. Muslims leave bright, promising futures to join ISIS out of a sense of sincere religious devotion, the wish to live under the laws of Allah instead of the laws of men.

In reading Kerry’s piece, I am glad that in the late 1940s the U.S. had people such as George Kennan employed in its service to see the Communist threat clearly and describe it clearly. But where is today’s Kennan in this administration? Who in the U.S. government is willing to describe the threat of radical Islam without fear of causing offense to several aggressive Islamic lobby groups?

American policymakers do not yet understand Islamism or what persuades young Muslims to join Jihad: sincere religious devotion based on the core texts of Islam, in particular early Islam’s politicized and aggressive period in Medina (compared to Islam’s spiritual and ascetic period in Mecca).

How does one tackle misguided religious devotion of young Muslims? The answer lies in reforming Islam profoundly—not radical Islam, but mainstream Islam; its willingness to merge Mosque and State, religion, and politics; and its insistence that its elaborate system of Shariah law supersedes civil laws created by human legislators. In such a reform project lies the hope for countering Islamism. No traditional Islamic lobbying group committed to defending the reputation of Islam will recommend such a policy to the U.S. government. Yet until American policymakers grapple with the need for such reform, the real problem within Islam will remain unresolved.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the founder of the AHA Foundation and the author of Infidel, Nomad, and the forthcoming Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation, to be published next spring.

Islam’s Dangerous Degrees of Devotion

Cartoon for 3/23/06American Thinker, By Carol Brown, Feb. 20, 2015:

The obsession to convince us that most Muslims are moderate and that Islam is a religion of peace brings to mind Shakespeare’s “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Is there any other religion that draws such an incessant chorus of voices proclaiming the religion to be peaceful?

No.

It is only the case with Islam that we hear the ceaseless lie because it is the only religion that warrants explanation on a daily basis. If the explanation reflected the truth, we might actually win this war that has been waged against us – a war that has been raging to a greater or lesser degree for 1400 years.

The fact is, Islam is a political doctrine of war. In the West, it is also a religion of caveats.

The caveats

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, Muslims generally fall into one of two categories.  There is the ever-elusive “moderate” Muslim, though it’s not clear what that means.

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, moderate Muslims follow a peaceful religion and are presumed to be like any other group of reasonable, law-abiding, freedom-loving folk.

But there is ample evidence to show that moderate Muslims might also represent jihad lite. “Moderate” may describe the kind of Muslims the Obama administration is importing from places like Syria who have had “minor” associations with terrorists. Or perhaps they are American Muslims who believe that drawing a parody of Mohammed should be a criminal offense, with some saying the person should receive the death penalty.

In any case, if there’s a moderate version of a religion, there must be a pious orthodox version. Which brings us to the other category for Muslims: extremists. They are the ones who commit heinous acts of violence by, presumably, misrepresenting Islam. Although that’s a bit confusing because people can’t represent an extreme form of something while simultaneously not representing that something in any way, shape, or form.

So increasingly, the uninformed or intentionally misleading tell us that Islam has nothing to do with these “extremists.” Apparently it’s a gigantic coincidence that these savages keep shouting “Allahu Akbar” while quoting the Quran chapter and verse as they kidnap, rape, behead, burn, execute, and destroy every living thing in their path.

Are we to believe these barbarians have come across an imposter version of the Quran that is different from the real Quran – the one that preaches nothing but love for humankind?

By removing the words Islam/Islamic from descriptions of Islamic terror, all that remains is a vague, generic, and incomplete description of the truth: “Extremist.”

The key word that truly informs is left out: Islam/Islamic.

This verbal manipulation occurs repeatedly. It is embraced and peddled by regular folks, the media, far too many in the GOP, just about everyone on the left, and of course the Obama administration. A recent example among an ever-growing list was Obama’s summit to “fight violent extremism around the world” – as if we are witnessing a strange phenomenon of random worldwide violence perpetrated by random demographic groups targeting random people.

But back to the caveats.

If moderates represent the true nature of Islam and extremists have nothing to do with Islam, that leaves only moderates. In which case, why would those who follow Islamic teachings need an extra descriptor (“moderate”) at all? They wouldn’t. They would just be Muslims – the people who follow a religion called Islam.

So, good. We’ve found some common ground. We can toss out these needless caveats because Islam is Islam is Islam. And Islam by any standard is extreme at its core.

Now, how to awaken the brainwashed masses to this growing problem (understatement) that threatens all of civilization?

The uninformed or intentionally misleading

The uninformed or intentionally misleading willingly spew opinions as facts. The most common refrain we hear is that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Working in tandem with the daily dishing of lies is the distraction method. This is when “not all Muslims are terrorists” is pulled out of the proverbial closet.

Complicating this disgraceful situation is the fact that the uninformed or intentionally misleading are rarely challenged when they spread this garbage around.

So when someone says that Islam is peaceful and that terrorists do not represent Islam, they need to be called out every single time and asked:

  • Upon what do you base your assertion?
  • Have you read the Quran? If so, do you understand the meaning of Chapter 2, Verse 106: Abrogation, or what the word taqiyya means?
  • Why do you assume all religions are created equal? Do you think all ideas the same; that none are better than others?
  • Are you afraid to speak the truth because you fear retaliation against you and/or your family and/or your employer?

The truth

First of all, Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political ideology. The ultimate goal is world domination. If that sounds crazy or extreme, I didn’t make it up. It’s written in the Quran and it is central to Islam’s history of conquest over the past 1400 years. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here among a long list of examples.)

Second, while it is often said that not all Muslims are terrorists, the discourse tends to stop there or gets re-routed away from the central point. But it shouldn’t. Because here’s the deal: Some Muslims are terrorists. And given the size of the population of Muslims on the planet, “some” is quite a lot.

But what of the rest of the population of Muslims?

While most do not commit outright acts of terror, many of them support terror. And they do so in a variety of ways, including financial support, political activism, and brainwashing their children. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here among numerous examples.)

Then there are those who are not terrorists and who don’t overtly support terror, but who have attitudes that support it or feel ambiguous toward it, including those who support Sharia law – an oppressive and draconian legal system based on Islamic supremacy.

When you do the math, as Ben Shapiro did, you wind up with quite a few Muslims – millions and millions of them – with a vision for civilization that is at odds with Western values. Shapiro’s analysis of a Pew Research poll revealed that more than half of the total Muslim population on earth hold radical views. Additional polls and analyses point to similar conclusions.

We can speak the truth. Or we can allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the Islamic invasion that is well underway. So far the West is doing the latter. Which makes it all the more urgent that every single one of us step forward to the front lines of this battle. Speak the truth at every opportunity and educate others. Because the propaganda machine runs 24/7.

And it is powerful and effective.

Earlier this month a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus participants revealed that 53% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats had a positive view of Islam as a peaceful religion. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say most, if not all, of those who make up these numbers are uninformed.

They need to learn the truth.

Who will tell them?

That would be us.

The Problem of Islam

islamic doctrineAn Inquiry Into Islam, by Zackery Martel:

The existence of Islamic doctrine presents the non-Muslims of the world with a problem. On the one hand, being a Muslim — at least in theory — means believing in the written Islamic doctrines (the words written in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira), which advocate relentless striving to bring all the world under the rule of Islamic law (and authorizes the use of force to do so), teaches that women are worth less than men, and teaches non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures,” among many other equally unsavory teachings.

On the other hand, many people who call themselves Muslims don’t abide by most of those teachings. They either don’t know about the teachings, or they have decided not to follow them. This group may, in fact, be the majority of Muslims.

But the existence of even a majority of Muslims who ignore the written doctrine doesn’t prevent Islam from being a problem to non-Muslims. Enough Muslims believe that the Islamic doctrines are valid and strive mightily — even to the point of death — to put those doctrines into practice. And many of them are actively trying to reach the more ambivalent Muslims of the world and convince them that because they don’t follow the teachings, they are hypocrites, which is a very bad thing according to Islamic doctrine. So bad, in fact, the penalty for it is death.

A study in Britain found this surprising fact: The children of Muslim immigrants are more likely than their parents to be “radical” (to believe Islamic doctrines should be followed diligently). Recruiters talk to young teenage Muslim boys and tell them that their parents are hypocrites. They are told to read the Koran for themselves and then look at their parents and ask, “Do they actually follow the teachings, or just give it lip service?” And what teenager isn’t happy to deride their parents for being hypocrites? But it pushes them toward fundamentalism.

Another aspect of our problem is the indiscriminate acceptance of Muslim immigrants into free countries, and then a lack of pressure by the host country to integrate them into the larger society, which creates the conditions for what Daniel Pipes called “semi-autonomous sectors” to develop. Others have called them (somewhat — but only somewhat — mistakenly) “no-go zones.” These are areas where Muslims concentrate, and as their numbers increase in that area, the more devout among them start exerting pressure on the rest of the Muslims to conform to Islamic standards. And of course, the Muslims-in-name-only cannot successfully argue against these Islamic standards because it’s all written down in clear and forceful language in the books they supposedly believe are sacred. So they conform. The women cover up. The men attend the mosque (or they are harassed), dress differently, grow a beard, etc. The non-Muslims in the area are also harassed until they move away, making room for more Muslims to move to the area.

This is all in accordance with Islamic teachings and the example of Muhammad: If a group of Muslims can, they should enforce Islamic standards (they are Allah’s standards, after all, and should be the standards for all people), and when Muslims gain political power, they should impinge these standards on everyone, including non-Muslims.

This manifests itself in a different way by shutting down free speech by force. When the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists made fun of Islam, for example, 12 of them were murdered for it. When Theo Van Gogh made a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women, he was shot to death. Salman Rushdie wrote a novel critical of Islam and the devout Islamic ruler of Iran ordered his assassination. So far, he has avoided being murdered. The examples go on and on.

Muhammad himself did the same thing. And it says in the Koran (91 times) that a Muslim should follow Muhammad’s example in all things. People during Muhammad’s lifetime were assassinated with Muhammad’s approval or request for the “crime” of criticizing Islam or Muhammad.

To some degree, the method has worked: Islamic standards have been imposed on non-Muslims. The Islamic standard referred to above says nobody can make fun of Islam or Muhammad. By rioting and killing, devoted followers of Islamic doctrine are instituting this Islamic rule worldwide on everyone. After the 2006 “cartoon riots,” very few newspapers in the world had the courage to re-publish the cartoons. Almost everyone was cowed into silence. In other words, free speech was shut down on that subject. There was even a book published about the whole event, and the book didn’t even show the cartoons! It wasn’t quite as bad after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, but many major newspapers refused to re-publish the cartoons.

Another problem with Islam is that the penalty for leaving the religion is death. Freedom of religion is not an option with Islam. The death penalty is actually enforced in some Muslim countries, and a reasonable argument could be made that it is enforced in some non-Muslim countries too, if we count Muslim parents killing their daughters for going out with a non-Muslim boy or in other ways acting non-Muslim. These are called “honor killings” and they are carried out because the parents are following the written Islamic teachings.

In other words, many of the regular, mainstream teachings of Islam are major human rights violations when they are put into practice. We can’t ignore this problem, but we can’t really “solve” it either. What can be done when a billion and a half people claim allegiance to an ideology that is incompatible with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and human rights, especially for women? Going to war with all of them would be ridiculous. Not doing anything at all would be equally ridiculous. But what can be done?

That’s the problem of Islam.

So far, we have only one strong conclusion: The solution will begin with learning what Islam really teaches and dealing with an accurate understanding of the written doctrine, rather than trying to make each other believe things that aren’t true. Whatever solutions non-Muslims come up with should at least be based on reality and not on wishful thinking. That much seems clear. Learn some ideas about what might be done here.

Obama defends Islam at all cost

isis-obama-shhhhhhAmerican Thinker, by Carol Brown, Feb. 18, 2015:

How President Obama responds to events around him appears to be dictated by a highly specific set of rules, all of which fall within under broad umbrella of disdain for America. In this way, every word he speaks (and those he refuses to say) and every action he takes (as well as those he avoids) unfolds in a predictable, if not also menacing manner.

  • Demonize the wealthy. (Unless the wealthy person is a Democratic Party supporter.)
  • Blame white people and the United States for bad things that have happened, are happening, and may happen to black people. (Unless a black person is the victim of jihad, in which case Obama will not use the event to stoke racial hatred. Protecting Islam trumps the chip on his shoulder regarding black victimhood.)
  • Defend Islam while never defending any other religion. Toward that end, denigration of Christians and/or Jews is permitted.

It seems like a long time ago that Colleen Hufford was the victim of a savage jihadist attack when a devout Muslim sliced off her head. But it was just a few months ago. And if you recall, after the attack Obama had no comment. None.

At least not about Colleen Hufford. Or jihad. He did, however, have a comment that was so important the message was hand-delivered and read aloud to members of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City where Obama expressed his sympathy for what a rough month the Muslim community had following the attack while offering thanks to all of them.

Beyond that, Obama remained silent on the matter, deferring to the FBI.

Of course he did not follow that script after Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson. Oh no. Obama, Eric Holder, and all the rest weighed in immediately and kept weighing for what seemed like forever.

Standard operating procedure for the Obama administration – something we saw on full display when earlier this month Jen Psaki would not say that the terror attack that killed four Jews at a kosher market in France was an act of anti-Semitism. Instead, the administration claimed the entire affair was random and deferred to French authorities to determine the pesky details of motive and truth.

Once again, just as the administration deferred to the FBI after Hufford was slain, they deferred to some other party – in this case the French authorities. And this may well sound official to those who lack critical thinking. It may even come across as sound, wise, appropriate, and even presidential.

But of course it’s all hogwash. The knee jerk over-reaction to certain things, the under-reaction to other things, and the distraction techniques they employ are all by design.

And the design was crystal clear when, earlier this month, as part of Obama’s desperate drive to absolve Islam of any responsibility for the murderous brutality that is unfolding around the world, he had the audacity to say that the media overstates the threat of terrorism. He accused the media of exploiting terrorism because “if it bleeds, it leads.”

He spoke as if referring to ambulance chasing coverage by a tabloid magazine. It was appalling to realize this man-child was talking about coverage of genocide. Of institutionalized kidnapping, rape, torture, and all manner of barbarity under the banner of the religion he seems to love so very dearly.

Depraved does not even begin to describe Obama’s words.

When reality does not fit his script, there is no depth to which he will not sink. We have seen this play out over and over again. His determination to turn the public eye away from the awful truth before us is relentless.

It is sick. And it feels sick to be exposed to it, to him, and the abject evil he seems to embody.

This sickness has been playing out for years, though with two years left to his presidency, Obama seems to be pulling out all the stops as he utilizes a variety of ways to defend Islam. Including when he does and does not jump to conclusions.

As Daniel Greenfield recently wrote in Front Page Magazine: “When Muslims kill Americans, then Obama is all about not jumping to conclusions.”

Greenfield noted that after the Boston Marathon bombing Obama stated: “We still do not know who did this or why and people shouldn’t jump to conclusions before they have all the facts.” And after the Fort Hood massacre, Obama stated: “We don’t know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” And yet, when three individuals who were Muslim were recently shot in North Carolina in a crime that local police have not identified as a hate crime, Obama stated: “No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship.”

Then, last week, ISIS beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya. And just as Obama refused to acknowledge that four Jews who were murdered in the kosher market in Paris were targeted because they were Jews, Obama refused to identify the faith of the victims in Libya, as if they were targeted because they were Egyptian. The full statement put out by the White House reads:

The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists. We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens. ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity. This wanton killing of innocents is just the most recent of the many vicious acts perpetrated by ISIL-affiliated terrorists against the people of the region, including the murders of dozens of Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai, which only further galvanizes the international community to unite against ISIL.

This heinous act once again underscores the urgent need for a political resolution to the conflict in Libya, the continuation of which only benefits terrorist groups, including ISIL. We call on all Libyans to strongly reject this and all acts of terrorism and to unite in the face of this shared and growing threat. We continue to strongly support the efforts of the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General Bernardino Leon to facilitate formation of a national unity government and help foster a political solution in Libya.

“Twenty-one Egyptian citizens.” Never mind that the video ISIS made of the barbaric murders identified the victims by their faith. Per a report at Reuters:

A caption on the five-minute video read: “The people of the cross, followers of the hostile Egyptian church.” Before the killings, one of the militants stood with a knife in his hand and said: “Safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for.”

(“Crusaders.” Where have I heard that reference in the recent past?)

Obama’s omission of the victims’ religion was not the only glaring confirmation of the nature of the man-child in the oval office. His statement that ISIS “is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity” was also telling since ISIS is absolutely constrained by (and motivated by) faith: the Islamic faith.

Once again, Obama used words (those said and those not said) to suggest that the daily jihadist bloodbath is some mysterious, amorphous, inexplicable horror. And in this way, he defends Islam by not implicating it in any of the hell on earth we are bearing witness to.
Think about it. Have you ever heard Obama criticize Islam? I never have.

Col. Ralph Peters had a pointed comment on this very thing recently when he said: “Look at the facts. The only religion this president is willing to come out and defend is Islam.”

It’s so patently obvious. And yet the media scarcely raises the issue.

Meanwhile, when Chris Matthews interviewed State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf Monday, she went on record saying that we can’t win the war by killing ISIS.

Why not? And what, pray tell does she suggest? She suggests that we try to figure out the root cause for why people join ISIS.

OK. That shouldn’t be too hard. Except we’re dealing with the Obama administration, so of course the glaring truth will be avoided at all cost. And so the hypothesis for the root cause is: poverty, lack of jobs, and lack of opportunity.

I have an idea. How about we tell the truth? How about if we say what the root cause is? How about if we point to the Quran and read some relevant excerpts so everyone can connect the dots? And how about if, in addition to identifying the root cause, we also kill as many terrorists as we possibly can?

Every time there is a terror attack, every time the violent teachings of the Quran play out on the world stage, every time the media engages in malpractice by not doing their research and informing the public, and every time the president of the United States defends Islam, the entire world is that much more at risk – each and every one of our lives is put in increased danger.

Whoever would have imagined that the President of the United States would be facilitating terror? And whoever would have imagined that such a person would be elected not once. But twice.

None of this may be news to most readers. But it will likely be news to some. Please help others understand.

May the victims of jihad rest in peace and may their deaths not be in vain.

Infidel Lives Matter

infidellivesmatter
Faith Freedom, By Eric Allen Bell, FEBRUARY 16, 2015:

About 1,400 years ago a mentally ill illiterate desert dweller, a Jew-hater suffering from auditory hallucinations, dictated a best seller entitled “The Holy Quran”. Out of this book came a tyrannical political system and a fanatical religious ideology called Islam. The word Islam means “submission”. The Quran also produced a brutal legal system called the Sharia. Since the author of the Quran, a blood thirsty rapist, pedophile and slave owner named Muhammad, first began his homicidal mission – to force the unbeliever to submit to Islam – approximately 270,000,000 people have been killed in his name.

Today, the leader of the most powerful country in the world, Barack Hussein Obama, has declared Islam to be a religion of peace and told the United Nations that, “The future has no place for those who would slander the prophet of Islam”. We are in big trouble. The leader of the free world is more concerned with protecting the feelings of the followers of Muhammad than protecting the lives of his majority Infidel incumbents. Somehow in all that channel changing chatter, the voices are mostly absent which say that Infidel Lives Matter.

As the public education system in America slowly celebrates Islam more and more, while white washing it’s horrific history, we raise a generation who have forgotten that Infidel Lives Matter.

Every Islamic hell hole on the on the globe today is the result of brutal Quranic conquest. History has forgotten that those who are now forced to submit to Islam in those nations, used to be Infidels. They were allowed to speak up and object to the sadistic teachings of Muhammad, until enough of them had forgotten that Infidel Lives Matter.

Remember, the word “Islam” literally means “submission” and its stated mission is to force the entire world to submit to Islam. Remember that today Islam is the fast growing religion in the world, although a careful read of the Islamic scriptures makes it self-evident that Islam is really more of a political system, with some religious overtones. Remember and don’t forget that you are free to say whatever you want about Muhammad, in print in pictures and in film and you do not have to submit. Remember when they twist your words, tarnish your reputation, call you names and threaten your life that Infidel Lives Matter.

Over its 1,400 year bloody history, after the followers of Muhammad attack a land for Islam, they build victory mosques. Since the Twin Towers were hit by devout Muhammad maniacs on 9/11 – new mosque construction in America has nearly doubled! The writing is on the wall for all who have the courage to see. This rapidly growing phase in the cultural expansion of Islamic Law in America is made possible by the silent voices – the voices that should be shouting from the mountain top that Infidel Lives Matter, but instead would rather not know what a mosque even is.

Since 9/11 there have been approximately 25,000 acts of brutal Islamic terrorism. That means on average several per day, taking the lives of roughly 2,000,000 people. And after each act of Islamic brutality, political leaders and media talking heads immediately change the narrative, to warn us about an imaginary wave of “Islamophobia” rather than to just come out say that Infidel Lives Matter and we have finally had enough. No. Like the wife who cannot leave the wife beater, we make excuses “He didn’t mean it” and “He wasn’t really being himself” and “He is trying to change” and “Well, maybe I deserved it”. But the fact is that Infidels do not deserve the bullying of Islam but a bully will not back down until he is defeated – and this bully will not be defeated until enough of us come to realize that Infidel Lives Matter.

The Islamic President of Turkey said that “The mosques are our barracks”. Turkey is a country with more journalists behind bars than nearly any other, while enjoying the reputation of being the most moderate Muslim country in the world. What is meant by that quote, about the mosques being barracks? And what is a mosque exactly?

A mosque is place where the Sharia is taught. Sharia is brutal and sadistic and runs counter to human rights. A mosque is a place where sedition and treason are taught, and this runs counter to the preservation of American values, ideals and our very survival. A mosque is a place where superstition is taught, and this runs counter to reason and rational thinking. A mosque is a place where Islam, meaning “submission” is taught. And submission runs counter to Liberty. Liberty means that you own you. Liberty is one of the founding principles upon which the free world stands. Islam and Liberty cannot coexist. It’s a zero sum game where only one can win – and we can only win when we remember that Infidel Lives Matter.

Islam is anti-human rights, anti-reason, anti-liberty and anti-free speech. Islam is the most intolerant belief system in the world! Nothing is more xenophobic than Islam. Islam is the biggest hate group in history and it target is the Infidel. And we as Infidels must destroy Islam and destroy it absolutely if we are going to leave a free world to our children and grandchildren. We must end Sharia in our time. And we must take control of the media narrative until the message becomes abundantly clear that Infidel Lives Matter.

Islamic blasphemy laws dictate that no one, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, be permitted to criticize the pedophile prophet Muhammad. And recently we have seen yet another wave of brutal attacks, by devout followers of Islam, against those would simply draw a picture of his image. Islam is the ultimate tyrannical system – its body count unmatched by any other. And the history of Germany in the thirties and forties has shown us what happens, when we take too long to finally respond appropriately to tyranny. Islam and freedom cannot coexist. Islam has to go because the cruel must not dominate the civilized world and because Infidels Lives Matter.

I started writing this article after taking in the news of the latest shootings in Denmark, aimed at a conference on free speech and blasphemy laws. And in that same afternoon, as I put the finishing touches on this, a news story just broke out that the Islamic State just executed dozens of Christians, beheading them, following the commandments of the Quran.

Islam teaches that no government is legitimate unless it submits to Islam. And Islam is what is taught in mosques. Mosques teach sedition and treason. Therefore, the logical, reasonable and appropriate action for law enforcement is to raid all mosques in America. Arrest the Islamic Clerics and interrogate them. Determine if they are teaching what Islam preaches, with regard to forcing the world to submit to Islamic Law (Sharia). Tolerance of those who seek to destroy our way of life will be the death of us. A radical enemy requires a radical response. And we can tap into that radical quality in ourselves, the one which demands personal freedom, only when we know in our hearts and we believe that Infidel Lives Matter.

Infidels, which are those people who do not submit to Islam, are being tortured, raped and killed, all over the world, at an unbelievable pace. There Infidel heads on stakes and blood flowing in the streets, as churches and synagogues are burned to the ground, atheists executed and homosexuals hanged.

But if you were raised by a Baby Boomer or a Gen Xer in America, there is a good chance you were raised to be ashamed of being an American. And you very likely believe that we deserve what the terrorists are doing to us. And if you continue to hold this belief, you will eventually lose your freedom. Don’t let anyone take your sense of self-worth away. If you are an Infidel then you are someone who has not yet been forced to submit to Islam. And if you want to retain this freedom then it is crucial you know it and see it and say it and believe it that Infidel Lives Matter.

The supporters of Liberty have made the world a better place. In the past 30 years, poverty, starvation and illiteracy have dropped dramatically as the result of political and economic systems which value personal freedom. Islam is the enemy of personal freedom. Wherever Islam thrives, the world becomes a living hell.

The time has come to draw a line in the sand. The time is now for people of courage and conviction to rise up and say “enough”. We must stop tolerating that which is intolerable. We must stop trying to coexist with that which seeks to destroy us. The tyrannical teachings and fanatical followers of Muhammad are a plague upon this world. And the only hope for destroying this plague are the Infidels. Infidels are the hope for humanity. And so now, more than ever, Infidel Lives Matter.

Infidels of the world, it’s time to heed the call. The Information super highway is our battlefront. Get onto to Twitter. Get on to Facebook. Spread articles which tell the dirty secrets about Muhammad. Post videos which expose the radical truth about moderate Islam. Share offensive picture memes of Muhammad. Use social media to spread information around the world. You can do it and you must do it because freedom is paid for in installments, by each generation. Spread the truth about Islam far and spread it wide and spread it like Napalm. The enemy of Islamic brutality is Information. Become a soldier of the Information Age and carpet bomb the internet with information. Don’t just think about this. Do it. Because Infidel Lives Matter.

Eric Allen Bell is a writer, filmmaker and Media Adviser living in Los Angeles, California. While making a documentary about the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in Murfreesboro, TN he attempted to expose “Islamophobia”. Once he stated that Islam was the biggest threat to human rights in the world today, he was banned from the writing Daily Kos and MichaelMoore.com, after LoonWatch.com created a petition to silence him. His article, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam” has been widely circulated and has caused several Liberals to rethink how they look at the Religion of Peace

***

CJR: I’m getting a lot of new followers probably due to the alarming recent world events. If you are new to the counterjihad and need simple common sense explanations of what the hell is going on I recommend Citizen Warrior. They write lots of persuasive and informative articles you can share with your clueless friends. For seasoned veterans, the RSS feeds in the right hand sidebar of  the CJR home page will keep you informed of all the headlines…especially my counterjihad list twitter feed. For background information on the Islamic Threat Doctrine see the menu. This is my library…my distress beacon to the world!

Scarborough Panel: ISIS Is Very Muslim

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

Truth Revolt, by Jeff Dunetz, Feb. 16, 2016:

While President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry insist that terrorist groups such as ISIS have nothing to do with Islam, Graeme Wood of The Atlantic investigated the group and its philosophy and found that, indeed, the groups is deeply connected to the faith. It may be a 7th century fundamentalist version of Islam, he concluded, but Islam is at the terrorist group’s center.

On Monday morning Mr. Wood joined Joe Scarborough and Richard Haass from the Council on Foreign Relations to discuss ISIS’ connection to Islam.

Scarborough: Graeme, everybody is thinking — and I guess the biggest thing your article [“What ISIS Reallly Wants”] revealed is we all like to sit here and go, oh, they just get these sociopaths from across the world who are attracted to just killing and they just want to kill, and the killing is the end game. No, the killing is not the end game. You sum it up here well. “The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It’s a religious groups with carefully considered beliefs, among them is that it is a key agent for the coming apocalypse.” They don’t want just land. They don’t have a long-term strategy. They are religious fanatics but they are planning out the final days.”

Wood:  Yeah that’s exactly right. Often it’s said that ISIS is an organization that uses religious means for secular ends. I think it might be the other way around. That it’s an organization that has religious ends and it uses secular means to achieve the ends. But finally what it’s looking for is an apocalyptic solution.

Scarborough: I picked this up in The New York Times. I thought it was interesting read that here … The New York Times pointed out, Richard Haass, that the executioner who was speaking in fluent English actually used words out of the Koran that were text talking about the coming apocalypse, the final battle between East and West.

Haass: That’s what’s different about this group I mean, it’s part organization, it’s part network, it’s part movement. But unlike some other terrorist groups who seem to get up in the morning trying simply to destroy for revenge for history, these people have a, quote, unquote, positive agenda, which means that they’re much more dangerous and they’re likely to [have] — much greater endurance.

Scarborough: Explain because a lot of people spit out their coffee. When you say positive agenda, what do you mean by that?

Haass: They actually have things, as misguided as we think it is, they have a political agenda. Here we are in the 21st century. They might want to go back to the 7th century. They have this vision of society; when they speak of the caliphate, they’re not geographically confined. It’s throughout the region. So when I say “positive” it’s not in a positive sense that I approve it, obviously.

Scarborough: I’m cleaning it up for you Monday morning.

Haass: What it means is that these people are more than destroyers. As misguided as they are, they are in their own blinded ways trying to build something.

Scarborough: And again, what your article, Graeme, pointed out was that westerners, who say “Oh they’re petty thieves and robbers and assaulters from across the planet,” don’t understand and will say, “This isn’t Islam, this is as far from Islam as possible.” You say this actually is as stripped down and pure Islam as it gets. One very crude way to put it is this would be the ultra-fundamentalist Christians who believe every single word of the Bible has to be interpreted in the exact ways which could also lead to some violence. But here, they actually believe that they’re going towards end days, and that’s this agenda that Richard is talking about.

Graeme: You can see that actually in the video that came out yesterday. As you mentioned, the quote directly from some Hadiths some of the holy texts of Islam, that they mentioned the second coming of Jesus Christ, for example. They say when Jesus is coming back and they quote and say he will break the Cross, he will kill the swine, and he’ll abolish the jizyah, the tax levied on Christians in the Islamic State. This is very specific use of text. It’s not people speaking without any knowledge of Islam but a view of what Islam looks like. It’s a view that very few Muslims share.

There was more to this discussion which is included on the video above.

***

Do read Graeme Wood’s article at the Atlantic: What ISIS Really Wants

The Morning After

by Mark Steyn
February 15, 2015

Filmmaker Finn Nørgaard: He went to a debate on freedom of expression, and Islam's contribution to the debate was to kill him.

Filmmaker Finn Nørgaard: He went to a debate on freedom of expression, and Islam’s contribution to the debate was to kill him.

The dead of Valentine’s Day in Copenhagen have now been named:

Dan Uzan was a 37-year-old Jew – sorry, I mean “member of the random community” – and he died outside the synagogue serving as a “security guard” for a Bat Mitzvah.

That’s part of the problem – long before anybody starts killing the security guards. In Europe in the 21st century, a young girl’s Bat Mitzvah can only take place behind a security perimeter. What a sewer the EU elites have made of their Eutopia. The state church – the Church of Denmark – does not require security guards, nor elsewhere on the Continent do Catholic churches. But Jewish religious and social life in Copenhagen and across Europe is now possible only behind a barrier of security. Laura Rosen Cohen has a useful round-up of those foot-of-page-17 news stories that chart, remorselessly, the social disintegration of Denmark – from the security perimeter, to the advice to Jews not to wear identifying marks of their faith when they leave the house, to the exclusion of Jewish children from public schools.

As to the “randomness” of the attack, there are only a few thousand Jews remaining in Denmark, and therefore not a lot of Bat Mitzvahs. I am disinclined to believe the killer just got lucky. As with the attack on the free-speech event, he knew exactly where he was going.

As Laura says, “What starts with Jews never ends with Jews.” Many Europeans dislike Jews, and many others are indifferent to their fate. But it helps to keep a sense of self-interest about these things: The man who killed that Jew wants to kill you, too.

The first victim yesterday was Finn Nørgaard, a 55-year-old film maker attending the conference on “Art, Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression”. Mr Nørgaard directed the 2004 documentary Boomerang Boy, produced the 2008 film Lê Lê, and occasionally appeared in front of the camera, too. It will be interesting to see whether the self-pampering A-listers of the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Scientists will managee to squeeze in a mention of him at this month’s Oscars during the teary montage of deceased artists. A decade ago the Academy couldn’t find room, amidst George Clooney et al congratulating themselves on their “courage” for making the umpteenth dreary film on McCarthyism, to namecheck Theo van Gogh, who was pumped full of bullets, semi-decapitated and had a gloating note from his killer pinned through his chest by a dagger – all because he made a film. Messrs van Gogh and Nørgaard weren’t blacklisted, they weren’t reduced to working under a pseudonym or (horrors!) in television. They died for their art. George Clooney was happy enough to latch on to the #JeSuisCharlie shtick at the Golden Globes. If he means it, he’ll ensure poor Finn Nørgaard gets a nod in among the orgy of backslapping at the end of this month.

Mr Nørgaard’s film Lê Lê is the tale of four siblings who fled Vietnam and wound up running one of the most successful restaurant businesses in Scandinavia. One assumes that’s the sort of thing David Cameron had in mind when he issued the following response to the slaughter in Copenhagen:

Denmark and Britain are both successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracies and we must never allow those values to be damaged by acts of violence like this.

That’s the usual Cameronian bollocks. As recently as the late Eighties, over 90 per cent of Danes were (albeit highly residual) members of the Church of Denmark, so it wasn’t that “multi-faith”. In reality, for almost their entire history, both Denmark and Britain were mostly ethnically homogeneous societies that admitted small numbers of immigrants who generally assimiliated and sometimes, as in Lê Lê, distinguished themselves. And then, a generation or so back, the Cameronian elites in Britain and on the Continent committed themselves to a process of mass, transformative immigration on a scale unknown to any society in human history outside of conquest. “Multiculturalism” is a Trojan horse Europe gave itself in an act of moral vanity, and waiting inside was Islam.

Mr Cameron now insists that the lesson of yesterday’s attack is that “we must never allow” what he dignifies as his “values” to be “damaged” by such “acts of violence”. His counterpart in Copenhagen, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the tasty Danish pastry he and Obama spent Mandela’s funeral doing selfies with, professed herself mystified by the slaughter:

We don’t know the motive for the attacks but we know that there are forces that want to harm Denmark, that want to crush our freedom of expression, our belief in liberty.

Hmm. “Forces that want to harm Denmark”, huh? Any chance of pinning it down a little? It’s not much of a “freedom of expression” or a “belief in liberty” that can’t even talk honestly about its enemies, is it?

I would like to ask Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt what’s their happy ending here? What’s their roadmap for fewer “acts of violence” in the years ahead? Or are they riding on a wing and a prayer that they can manage the situation and hold it down to what cynical British civil servants used to call during the Irish “Troubles” “an acceptable level of violence”? In Pakistan and Nigeria, the citizenry are expected to live with the reality that every so often Boko Haram will kick open the door of the schoolhouse and kidnap your daughters for sex-slavery or the Taliban will gun down your kids and behead their teacher in front of the class. And it’s all entirely “random”, as President Obama would say, so you just have to put up with it once in a while, and it’s tough if it’s your kid, but that’s just the way it is. If we’re being honest here, isn’t that all Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt are offering their citizens? Spasms of violence as a routine feature of life, but don’t worry, we’ll do our best to contain it – and you can help mitigate it by not going to “controversial” art events, or synagogues, or gay bars, or…

I said above that waiting inside multiculturalism’s Trojan horse was Islam. Not “Islamism”, or “radical Islam”, or “extremist Islam”, or “violent extremism” or “extremist radicalism” or “radicalist violentism” or anything else: just Islam. As I wrote yesterday:

This is usually the point at which we’re expected to do the not-all-Muslims-want-to-shoot-you-dead shtick. And that’s true. But Islam itself has no feeling whatsoever for the spirit of free speech.

The more Islamic a society gets, the less free speech it has – the less intellectual inquiry, artistic achievement, contrarian spirit. Most western Muslims are not willing themselves to open fire on synagogues or Lars Vilks, but they help maintain the shriveled definition of acceptable expression that helps license the fanatics of Copenhagen and Paris. Muslims in Europe, North America and Australia will pay lip service to “free speech”, and then promptly re-define it as excluding speech that “blasphemes” or “insults” their faith – which is to say them. Which is to say the great vulgar, brawling, free-for-all of free societies does not apply to them. So, when, say, France’s Muslim population reaches 20 per cent, you will need to have the support of three-quarters of the remaining 80 per cent to maintain even a bare popular majority in favor of free speech.

Is that likely? Or will there be more and more non-Muslims like the wretched quisling Welsh bishop, the Right Reverend Gregory Cameron, frantically arguing that if you hadn’t been so “offensive” you wouldn’t have caught their eye? Islam and free speech are, as His Miserable Grace implicitly recognizes, incompatible. And ultimately, therefore, you have to choose between liberty and mass Muslim immigration.

The reaction of David Cameron and Helle Thorning-Schmidt suggests they have made their choice. I think, somewhere deep down, they know it’s a recipe for slow societal suicide. And I wonder if, even deeper down, they also know that it won’t be that slow.

~For my immediate reaction to the attack on the Lars Vilks event, see here.

~For my immediate reaction to the attack on the synagogue, see here.

Hating Valentine’s

10942667_868958896488865_4732619675833776081_nFrontpage, By Jamie Glazov On February 13, 2015:

[Editor’s note: This article is reprinted from our Valentine’s issue of Feb. 15, 2014. It has been updated and edited to fit this year’s Day of Love.]

This Saturday, February 14, is Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another. If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this day, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the places you should be spending  your time. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to outdo jihadists and “progressives” when it comes to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on which the contemporary romance between the radical Left and Islamic fanaticism is formed.

The train is never late: every year that Valentine’s comes around, the Muslim world erupts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing everything in their power to suffocate the festivity that comes with the celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is literally outlawed in Islamist states.

This year, for example, Islamic religious leaders and officials in Malaysia have warned Muslims against celebrating Valentine’s Day. In Saudi Arabia, the morality police have, as always, outlawed the sale of all Valentine’s Day items, forcing shopkeepers to remove any red items, because the day is considered a Christian holiday.

Malaysia and Saudi Arabia are carrying the torch for the Indonesian Ulema Council in Dumai, Riau, and for the Education, Youth and Sport Agency in Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara, both of which issued a dire warning last year to people against celebrating Valentine’s Day, stating that the Day of Love “is against Islam.” This is because, as the Indonesian Ulema Council 2011 judgment explained, Valentine’s Day takes young people into a “dark world.”

Malaysia’s State mufti chief assistant Mat Jais Kamos always keeps his mind focused on that dark world and so, last year a few days before Valentine’s Day, he ordered young people to stay clear of celebrating the Day of Love: “The celebration emphasizes the relationship between two individuals rather than the love between family members or married couples,” he affirmed, and department officials backed up his command by distributing leaflets to remind Muslims of the 2006 ban on Valentine’s Day issued by the state fatwa council.

In Islamic Uzbekistan, several universities always make sure that students actually sign contracts promising not to celebrate Valentine’s.

In Pakistan on Valentine’s Day in 2013, supporters of Jamat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s main religious party, took to the streets in Peshawar to vehemently denounce the Day of Love. Demonizing it as “un-Islamic,” the Muslim protestors shouted that the day has “spread immodesty in the world.” Shahzad Ahmed, the local leader of the student wing of Jamat-e-Islami, declared that the organization will not “allow” any Valentine’s Day functions, warning that if Pakistani law enforcement did not prevent Pakistanis from holding such functions, that the Jamat-e-Islami would stop them “in our own way.” Khalid Waqas Chamkani, a leader in Jamat-e-Islami, calls Valentine’s a “shameful day.”

These Islamist forces in Pakistan cannot, of course, completely succeed in preventing couples from showing love to each other on this special day, and so many Pakistanis still cryptically celebrate Valentine’s Day and exchange presents in secret.

All these Islamic outcries against Valentine’s Day reflect myriad other efforts to suffocate the day of love throughout the Muslim War. For instance, in Aceh province in Indonesia every year, Muslim clerics issue stern warnings to Muslims against observing Valentine’s Day. Tgk Feisal, general secretary of the Aceh Ulema Association (HUDA), stated three years ago that “It is haram for Muslims to observe Valentine’s Day because it does not accord with Islamic Sharia.” He added that the government must watch out for youths participating in Valentine’s Day activities in Aceh. One can only imagine what happens to the guilty parties.

As mentioned, the Saudis consistently punish the slightest hint of celebrating Valentine’s Day. The Kingdom and its religious police always officially issue a stern warning that anyone caught even thinking about Valentine’s Day will suffer some of the most painful penalties of Sharia Law. This is typical of the Saudis of course. As Daniel Pipes has reported, the Saudi regime takes a firm stand against Valentine’s every year, and the Saudi religious police monitor stores selling roses and other gifts. They arrest women for wearing red on that day. Every year the Saudis announce that, starting the week of Valentine’s and until a certain day in the future, it is illegal for a merchant to sell any item that is red, or that in any way hints of being connected to Valentine’s Day. AsClaude Cartaginese has reported, any merchant in Saudi Arabia found selling such items as red roses, red clothing of any kind (especially dresses), toys, heart-shaped products, candy, greeting cards or any items wrapped in red, has to destroy them or face the wrath of Saudi justice.

Christian overseas workers living in Saudi Arabia from the Philippines and other countries always take extra precautions, heeding the Saudis’ warning to them specifically to avoid greeting anyone with the words “Happy Valentine’s Day” or exchanging any gift that reeks of romance. A spokesman for a Philippine workers group has commented:

“We are urging fellow Filipinos in the Middle East, especially lovers, just to celebrate their Valentine’s Day secretly and with utmost care.”

The Iranian despots, meanwhile, consistently try to make sure that the Saudis don’t outdo them in annihilating Valentine’s Day. Iran’s “morality” police consistently order shops to remove heart-and-flower decorations and images of couples embracing on this day — and anytime around this day.

Typical of this whole pathology in the Islamic world was a development witnessed back on February 10, 2006, when activists of the radical Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of the Community) went on a rampage in Srinagar, the main city of the Indian portion of Kashmir. Some two dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops, burning Valentine’s Day cards and posters showing couples together.

In the West, meanwhile, leftist feminists are not to be outdone by their jihadi allies in reviling — and trying to exterminate — Valentine’s Day. Throughout all Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for instance, you will find the demonization of this day, since, as the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a manifestation of how capitalist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and oppress women and push them into spheres of powerlessness.

As an individual who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this war against Valentine’s Day up close and personal. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.

So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and jihadis? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the radical Left and Islam together into its feast of hate?

The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.

The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed,female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.

The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.

The famous twentieth-century novels of dystopia, Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, George Orwell’s 1984, and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, all powerfully depict totalitarian society’s assault on the realm of personal love in its violent attempt to dehumanize human beings and completely subject them to its rule. In Zamyatin’s We, the earliest of the three novels, the despotic regime keeps human beings in line by giving them license for regulated sexual promiscuity, while private love is illegal. The hero breaks the rules with a woman who seduces him — not only into forbidden love but also into a counterrevolutionary struggle. In the end, the totality forces the hero, like the rest of the world’s population, to undergo the Great Operation, which annihilates the part of the brain that gives life to passion and imagination, and therefore spawns the potential for love. In Orwell’s 1984, the main character ends up being tortured and broken at the Ministry of Truth for having engaged in the outlawed behavior of unregulated love. In Huxley’s Brave New World, promiscuity is encouraged — everyone has sex with everyone else under regime rules, but no one is allowed to make a deep and independent private connection.

Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that thus overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers, therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia) stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.

This is exactly why, forty years ago, as Peter Collier and David Horowitz demonstrate in Destructive Generation, the Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also waged war on private love within its own ranks. Bill Ayers, one of the leading terrorists in the group, argued in a speech defending the campaign: “Any notion that people can have responsibility for one person, that they can have that ‘out’ — we have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective; we have to destroy all ‘outs,’ to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.”

Thus, the Weather Underground destroyed any signs of monogamy within its ranks and forced couples, some of whom had been together for years, to admit their “political error” and split apart. Like their icon Margaret Mead, they fought the notions of romantic love, jealousy, and other “oppressive” manifestations of one-on-one intimacy and commitment. This was followed by forced group sex and “national orgies,” whose main objective was to crush the spirit of individualism. This constituted an eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was encouraged (while private love was forbidden) in We, 1984, and Brave New World.

It becomes completely understandable, therefore, why leftist believers were so inspired by the tyrannies in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam and many other countries. As sociologist Paul Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the leftist’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens. The Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form of totalitarian puritanism.

This is precisely why leftist feminists today do not condemn the forced veiling of women in the Islamic world; because they support everything that forced veiling engenders. It should be no surprise, therefore, that Naomi Wolf finds the burqa “sexy.” And it should be no surprise that Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, found a solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women: the rapists must not be punished, but Norwegian women must veil themselves.

Valentine’s Day is a “shameful day” for the Muslim world and for the radical Left. It is shameful because private love is considered obscene, since it threatens the highest of values: the need for a totalitarian order to attract the complete and undivided attention, allegiance and veneration of every citizen. Love serves as the most lethal threat to the tyrants seeking to build Sharia and a classless utopia on earth, and so these tyrants yearn for the annihilation of every ingredient in man that smacks of anything that it means to be human.

And so perhaps it is precisely on this Valentine’s Day that we are reminded of the hope that we can realistically have in our battle with the ugly and pernicious unholy alliance that seeks to destroy our civilization.

On this day, we are reminded that we have a weapon, the most powerful arsenal on the face of the earth, in front of which despots and terrorists quiver and shake, and sprint from in horror into the shadows of darkness, desperately avoiding its piercing light.

That arsenal is love.

And no Maoist Red Guard or Saudi fascist cop ever stamped it out — no matter how much they beat and tortured their victims. And no al-Qaeda jihadist in Pakistan or Feminazi on any American campus will ever succeed in suffocating it, no matter how ferociously they lust to disinfect man of who and what he is.

Love will prevail.

Happy Valentine’s Day.

To get the whole story on Islam’s and the Left’s war on private love, see Ann-Marie Murrell’s interview with Jamie Glazov about his book United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.

Diana West at Center for Security Policy Defeat Jihad Summit

Diana West comments on Muslim Immigration:

 

Notes from a Defeat Jihad Summit

By Diana West, Feb. 13, 2015:

Earlier this week, I participated in the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit.

I find that the several hours of speeches and discussion have distilled into some salient recollections and comments.

1) There remains a chasm between American “messaging” and that of some of our European friends who were invited to speak, including the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, who contributed a taped message, and Lars Hedegaard, who addressed the conference via Skype from Denmark.

American participants in the main demand, even a little truculently, that we now, finally, break the bonds of “political correctness” and speak frankly about “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” “ideas of ISIS,” etc.

Wilders, whose Party for Freedom is No. 1 in the Dutch polls, and Dispatch International editor Hedegaard both speak, and have always spoken about “Islam” — pure and very simple.

Indeed, Wilders has encapsulated everything you need to know about Islam and the West thus: “The more Islam there is in a society, the less freedom there is.”

Not “Islamism.”

This difference is more than semantic.

The primary mechanism of control that Islam exerts over people is Islamic slander law, Islamic blasphemy law. This is the institutional means by which Islam protects itself against criticism, even objective facts about Islam that might be construed critically. The penalty is death. Not for nothing did Yusef Qaradawi state that Islam wouldn’t even exist without the death penalty for “apostasy.” We have seen innumerable instances, particularly since the 1989 publication of Salman Rushdie’sSatanic Verses, where Muslims have executed, or tried to execute this death sentence even against non-Muslims, from Europe to Japan, in efforts to extend the rule of Islam.

When American lawmakers, generals and security experts omit “Islam” from their debates and war councils, focusing instead on what they have dubbed “radical Islam,” “Islamism” and the like, they are succombing to this same control mechanism. They are protecting Islam. They are themselves sheltering Islam against the cold light of analysis. By extension, they are also preventing their own Western societies from devising means of defense against Islamization. They are accepting and carrying out what is probably the most important Islamic law.

There is concrete danger in this. Unless we can come to an understanding that it is the teachings of Islam — not the teachings of some peculiar strain called “Islamism,” or of an organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS — that directly undermine our constitutional liberties, we cannnot protect our way of life from these teachings, whose popularity grows with the increasing Islamic demographic. This is what the advanced Islamization of Europe shows us. A nominally sensible US immigration policy would immediately halt Islamic immigration to prevent a sharia-demographic from gaining more critical mass in the USA, democratically.

Then again, we don’t have a national border, much less a sensible immigration policy. That means many of these questions are moot.

2) Still, it bears noting: The Left has responded to the current cycle of Islamic jihad — a recurring blight on civilization, as Andrew Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad amply documents — by inventing a foe called “violent extremism.” The Right, scoffing at this euphemism, “pinpoints” the threat of “radical Islamism.”

What is the difference? Ultimately, I see none. Both terms protect Islam. Warning against the dangers of “radical Islam” implies that there exists some “normal Islam” that is completely compatible, perhaps even interchangeable, with Christianity and Judaism. Indeed, this ongoing effort to normalize Islam is equally as dangerous as the institutional efforts that long ago “normalized” Communism. This officially began when FDR “normalized” relations with the wholly abnormal Soviet regime in 1933, a morally odious event whose horrific repercussions are treated at length in American Betrayal.

Just as it required endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” Communism, so, too, does it require endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” or “moderate” Islam. According to all of Islam’s authoritative texts, according to the example of Islam’s prophet, this “moderate” creed does not Islamically exist.

To turn the notion around, as Lars recently reminded me, when the brave and splendid ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan was asked several years ago to distinguish between “Islam” vs. “Islamism” at a Copenhagen conference, she brought the airy theory back to earth by asking: Based on your definition of Islamism, was Mohammed a Muslim or an “Islamist”?

3) This brings me to The Best Line of the summit, which was spoken by Lars Hedegaard: “Islamism is Islam and Islam is Islamism.”

4) The Spirit of ’76 Award goes to retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons who inquired of guest speaker and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich whether there was any movement in the Congress to censure Obama or initiate impeachment hearings. The consensus on this burning, patriotic question is, no, expediently speaking, there is not nor will there be such a movement. As per the entire US elite’s corruption and complicity in Soviet crime outlined in American Betrayal, it seems we have arrived at the point where Obama’s political judge and jury — our elected representatives in the Congress — is surely complicit in his crimes against the Constitution, as well as with his identity fraud on the American people.

5) The Most Profound New Thought of the summit came from brave and splendid ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish (who, bonus, I met for the first time here).

Nonie conveyed her understanding, having grown up in Egypt the privileged daughter of an Egyptian shahid (martyr), that terrorism, the threat of terrorism is a feature of Islamic life at all levels: inside the family, in the public square, and everywhere in between. I’m paraphrasing, but what came through her talk was the idea that Muslim “moderates” in Islamic society (which I am taking to mean human beings who do not have the seeds of violence within them) have come to take Islamic terrorism/violence/coercion as a given. This means that they have come to accept such terrorism/violence/coercion as normal. Her great fear is that Americans, too, are coming to accept such Islamic violence as normal — that we, in a sense, are taking on the role of such Muslim moderates. This is, if it can be imagined, an even darker iteration of dhimmitude.

6) Speaking of ex-Muslims, I made a comment about the role of the apostate in the great ideological battles of our time. Today, it is the ex-Muslims who offer special insight into totalitarianism of the Islamic kind. Many of my American colleagues, however, still prefer to lean on guidance from Muslim “moderates” — despite the fact, referenced above, that Islam’s own sacred texts, including the example of Islam’s prophet, support no such “moderation.” As they wish, they may await, or even themselves lead an Islamic reformation, but this in no way protects free speech or preserves public safety in our country now — especially when there are indicators that an alarming level of support for curbing and even criminalizing free speech about Islam exists among American Muslims — punitive measures, again, that find support in Islam’s texts.

In the 20th-century-battle against totalitarian Communism, anti-Communists did not embrace “moderate Communists.” Rather, they embraced ex-Communists who understood the totalitarian teachings and practices of Communism in Moscow’s gangster-quest for global dominance — a “caliphate” a la Lenin & Marx. It was mainly the Left and Center  — the anti-anti-Communist Left and Center — that made common cause with “moderate Communists,” i.e., Social Democrats, Communist apologists, also Soviet agents among others, engendering meaningless treaties, defeats and loss. Even more pernicious, though, was the resulting “postmodern” rot across the political spectrum, which tells me, as I argue in American Betrayal, that the West lost the “struggle of ideas” in the “Cold War.”

This spectral shift is interesting in and of itself. I see its patterns repeat in the past decade of military disaster in which it was US military strategy to ignore the teachings of Islam and instead lean on perceived Muslim moderates, or just bank on a hoped-for emergence of Muslim moderation, in the Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrible defeats ensued.

As former FBI special agent John Guandolo pointed out at the summit, we’ve tried this type of thing for 15 years and it doesn’t work.

Nor does it make sense — logically, doctrinally, strategically. But then neither does seizing on  “radical Islamism” and other terms of art that exclude and thus protect Islam.

The Moral of this summit: You can’t protect Islam and defeat jihad at the same time.

Islam: Banned for Blasphemy?

By Raymond Ibrahim, Feb. 12, 2015:

Soon after Muslim gunmen killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo offices, which published satirical  caricatures of Muslim prophet Muhammad, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—the “collective voice of the Muslim world” and second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations—is again renewing calls for the United Nations to criminalize “blasphemy” against Islam, or what it more ecumenically calls, the “defamation of religions.”

Yet the OIC seems to miss one grand irony: if international laws would ban cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the entire religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively and unequivocally defame other religions, including by name.

To understand this, consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary-definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC cynically maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam (even as Muslim governments ban churches, destroy crucifixes, and burn Bibles). Disingenuous or not, the OIC’s wording suggests that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—beginning with the Koran itself— which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Koran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Koran 5:72 says “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Koran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may God’s curse be upon them!”

Considering that the word “infidel” (kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western cartoon appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God’s curse be upon them”? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Koran defames Christians and Christianity.

Indeed, it is precisely because of this that some Russian districts are banning key Islamic scriptures—including Sahih Bukhari, which is seen as second in authority after the Koran itself. According to Apastovsk district RT prosecutors, Sahih Bukhari has been targeted because it promotes “exclusivity of one of the world’s religions,” namely Islam, or, in the words of Ruslan Galliev,  senior assistant to the prosecutor of Tatarstan, it promotes “a militant Islam” which “arouses ethnic, religious enmity.”

Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.”  Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.

What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in Mecca’s Ka’ba—are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islamic teaching defames the Christian Cross.

Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and copulating with the Virgin Mary.

What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s “favorite” wife, Aisha—the “Mother of Believers”—as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Nor is such defamation of Christianity limited to Islam’s core scriptures; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity. “Islam Web,” which is owned by the government of Qatar, even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.  (The Qatari website also issued a fatwa in 2006 permitting burning people alive—only to take it down after the Islamic State used the fatwa’s same arguments to legitimize burning a Jordanian captive pilot.)

The grandest irony of all is that the “defamation” that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like cartoons and movies, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Koran 9:29).

It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films.