by Pamela Geller, Breitbart, January 28, 2015:
Breitbart Texas confirmed Tuesday that “an Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law” is indeed operating in Texas. But not to worry: an attorney for the tribunal assures us that participation is “voluntary,” and one of the Sharia judges, Dr. Taher El-badawi, says it’s devoted only to “non-binding dispute resolution.”
This is how it starts. This is how it started in the United Kingdom. When Sharia courts were instituted there, Muslim and non-Muslim officials alike all assured the British public and the world that they would be voluntary, restricted to matters involving non-criminal matters, and subject to the British courts. Any areas in which British law and Sharia law conflicted would be referred not to the Sharia courts, but to the British courts.
That is not how it worked out. The Telegraph reported in August 2011 that “there are growing concerns” that the Sharia courts “are creating a parallel legal system — and one that is developing completely unchecked.” The Independent stated in April 2012 “some Sharia law bodies have been misrepresented by the media as being transparent, voluntary and operating in accordance with human rights and equality legislation. This is not the case. Many Sharia law bodies rule on a range of disputes from domestic violence to child residence all of which should be dealt with by UK courts of law.” Instead, “they operate within a misogynist and patriarchal framework which is incompatible with UK legislation.”
And in July 2013, the BBC (of all places) announced a video expose of the Sharia courts:
A BBC Panorama Documentary goes undercover in one of the 85 sharia courts operating as a parallel legal system in the UK, uncovering the extensive abuse of women, refusal to grant divorces, charging of the woman but not the man for divorce proceedings, and even the taking away of the woman’s children, and rulings contrary to British law.
Now this is coming to Texas. Sharia judge El-badawi said this about the Islamic divorces his tribunal would be dealing with: “While participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He readily owned up to how sexist the process is: “The husband can request the divorce directly from the tribunal. The wife must go to an Imam who will request the divorce for her.”
Even worse, the UK’s Telegraph reported this about the Sharia courts in its August 2011 report:
After being beaten repeatedly by her husband — who had also threatened to kill her — Jameela turned to her local Sharia council in a desperate bid for a way out of her marriage…In an airless room in the bowels of the mosque, Jameela is asked to explain why she wants a divorce. She replies that her husband spends most of his time with his second wife — Islamic law allows men to have up to four wives — but complains he is abusive whenever he returns to her home.
Her request for a divorce was denied. “For the sake of the children, you must keep up the facade of cordial relations,” the Sharia judge told her. “The worst thing that can happen to a child is to see the father and mother quarreling.”
The Telegraph article adds ominously: “While a husband is not required to go through official channels to gain a divorce — being able to achieve this merely by uttering the word ‘talaq’ — Islamic law requires that the wife must persuade the judges to grant her a dissolution.” El-badawi sounds as if he is planning to set up the same system in Texas.
Will the Texas Sharia court also turns a blind eye to spousal abuse, like the British Sharia court that heard Jameela’s case, in accord with this Qur’anic directive? “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.” (Qur’an 4:34)
You think that couldn’t happen in Texas? When asked what he would do when Islamic law conflicted with American law, El-badawi said: “We follow Sharia law.”
The dehumanization and diminishment of women is universal in the Muslim world. Muslim women can’t go against what their husbands and Sharia judges decide, no matter how many times the Sharia courts insist that they’re “voluntary.” Above all, they can’t go against what Islam says.
These Sharia courts are vicious, misogynistic, and brutal. The host countries have no clue what goes on in these “tribunals.” They should be banned in Western nations. Instead, they’re coming to Texas – and probably soon to your state as well.
Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.
Frontpage, January 23, 2015 by
Last week, in response to the Paris massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Carol M. Swain, an openly conservative professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, wrote an op-ed for The Tennessean titled, “Charlie Hebdo attacks prove critics were right about Islam.” Naturally, any critique of Islam from our leftist-dominated campuses is going to be met with frothing outrage, and Professor Swain’s article was no exception.
“What would it take to make us admit we were wrong about Islam?” the professor began. “What horrendous attack would finally convince us that Islam is not like other religions in the United States, that it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration?” Good questions, and ones that those of us whose eyes have long been opened to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism have been asking ever since September 11, 2001, if not before.
But the fact that such questions were being put forth by a major university professor, even a conservative one (with a very impressive résumé, no less), was notable. Swain pulled no punches:
More and more members of the PC crowd now acknowledge that Islam has absolutely nothing in common with Christianity, nor is it a worthy part of the brotherhood of man I long felt was characteristic of the Abrahamic religions. A younger, more naive version of myself once believed in a world where the people of the Book could and would get along because they all claimed Abraham as their father. No more!
Those were strong, clear sentiments about Islam that one doesn’t often – or ever – hear from American academics. She concluded with a statement that dared to challenge the West’s false idol of multiculturalism: “It becomes clearer every day that Islam is not just another religion to be accorded the respect given to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Baha’i and other world religions.” The attack on Charlie Hebdo, she wrote, “once again illustrates that Islam is a dangerous set of beliefs totally incompatible with Western beliefs concerning freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.”
Swain’s solutions included “remov[ing] the foxes from the henhouses,” “institut[ing] serious monitoring of Islamic organizations,” and expecting Muslim immigrants to assimilate culturally. “If we are to be safe,” she wrote, “then we must have ground rules that protect the people from those who disdain the freedoms that most of the world covets.”
Among those who took umbrage at this blunt op-ed and complained to theVanderbilt Hustler, the school paper, were: an international student from Pakistan who felt mortified by the piece; an agnostic junior who condemned Swain as xenophobic, hateful, and intolerant; a sophomore who accused Swain of “logical leaps” and “casual bigotry”; a graduate who warned against “fear of the Other”; another who purported to “debunk” Swain’s claims about Islam; and a Muslim undergrad who declared the op-ed to be hate speech and wondered, “How could such an educated, informed woman, a professor at Vanderbilt in charge of educating our youth, publish such ignorance?”
That same student, Farishtay Yamin, happens to be the publicity chair for Vanderbilt’s branch of the Muslim Students Association. She organized a student protest of Swain, saying, with no apparent trace of irony, “What I’m really trying to show [Swain] is that she can’t continue to say these kinds of things on a campus that’s so liberal and diverse and tolerant.” So much for the campus being liberal and diverse and tolerant.
The Muslim Students Association, the Muslim Brotherhood’s oldest offshoot in America, issued a statement, offering Professor Swain “kindness and respect” and forgiveness, pointing out that “she has allowed the acts of people who have distorted Islam to shape her views on an entire community of 1.6 billion people who practice peacefully.” Vanderbilt’s MSA invited her and others to attend their Islamic Awareness Month event called “Terrorism: Who Is to Blame” on Feb. 8. “Please join us for the event so that misconceptions can be cleared,” they urged helpfully.
The Vanderbilt Hustler editorial team responded by defending Swain’s right to free speech but denouncing her “brand of conservatism” as “disgusting and disappointing.” She has “undoubtedly abused her position” by “perpetuating a myth that seeks to shut down debate and discourage the legitimacy of the place that Muslim individuals hold in American society… In fact, many feel that Swain’s actions have created an environment that feels unsafe to some of her students.”
It’s ironic that Islam has created unsafe environments all over the world for Jews, Christians, women, gays, cartoonists, and even Muslims themselves, but the Vanderbilt Hustler editors blame Professor Swain for creating an unsafe campus environment for pointing that out (the Dean of Students even felt it necessary to reassure Muslim students that they are still safe on campus). Ironic, too, that – in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo assault – the editors claim that it is Swain who is seeking to shut down debate about Islam.
Last Sunday Professor Swain released a statement acknowledging that her op-ed “could have been written with a milder tone.” But given a chance to clarify her position in an interview, Swain did not back down. She told the Vanderbilt Hustler that, “What we don’t want in the United States is a repeat of what has happened in Europe… It would be beneficial,” she said, “if more Muslims would stand up and condemn jihadic violence against Christians, Jews, homosexuals and others.”
Asked how she reconciles the First Amendment with her “obligation as a professor to maintain a safe and civil environment” for “students who might feel threatened by your speech,” Swain replied,
I feel no special obligation to engage in politically correct speech. I think it is unfortunate that hate speech has become whatever makes a non-Christian uncomfortable… Any student who is threatened by a discussion of ideas cannot fully benefit from a liberal arts education… If a student takes one of my courses, then he or she has entered a political correctness free zone tolerant of divergent views.
Bravo. Thanks to the mental straitjacket of political correctness, no one who took exception to Professor Swain’s op-ed seems capable of grasping – or willing to grasp – the distinction between the ideology of Islam and its adherents. Criticism of the former is not the same as bigotry toward the latter. We must not allow the conversation about the world’s undeniable Islam problem always to be derailed by kneejerk accusations of mythical Islamophobia and intolerance. Unfortunately, freeing university students from that mental straitjacket will require an army of Professor Swains.
Follow Prof. Carol Swain on twitter @
Visit her website at http://bethepeopletv.com/
and facebook - https://www.facebook.com/profcarolmswain
- SWAIN: My side of the story (vanderbilthustler.com)
VANDY PROF: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS MEANS ‘WE CAN NO LONGER HAVE ANY SERIOUS CONVERSATIONS’ (breitbart.com) with Laura Ingrham interview audio
‘Liberal,’ ‘Tolerant’ Vanderbilt Muslims Seek To Bully Black Professor Into Silence (dailycaller.com) VIDEO Ginni Thomas interview
By Allen West, Jan. 26, 2015
Over the past 48 hours, there have been three more terror attacks worldwide, but I doubt you’ve even heard about them:
1.In the Philippines, one person was killed and 48 injured when a car bomb exploded, which local authorities believe the al-Qaida-backed Abu Sayyaf group was behind – and of course we reported here how the Obama administration decided to end U.S. support against Islamic jihadism there.
2.The Taliban conducted a truck bomb attack at a gas station in Kabul near the military airfield there. Officials think it might have been a premature suicide attack; thankfully only two civilians were wounded.
3. ISIS executed a Japanese hostage by beheading and is still holding another under threat of execution, demanding an exchange for a female Islamic suicide bomber being held in Jordan.
Now mind you, this was just in the last 48 hours.
What gets me is how fast those “Islamapologists” in the West continue to push the narrative of the “hijacking of a peaceful religion” by a few radicals. Well, it seems to be more than a few, and what if this narrative is totally wrong? What if this “hijacked” narrative is just something being contrived in the West to advance a state of denial — such as we saw last week in President Obama’s State of the Union address and in his previous statements of “Let me be clear, ISIS is not Islamic” – even though the first the letter in ISIS stands for Islamic.
First of all, I suggest we stop using the phrase “radical Islam.” The proper classification should be “militant Islam” — that is if you’ve read the Koran, the hadiths, and the suras. If you understand the respective phases of Islam’s development and expansion and how it relates to world history — not progressive socialist or Islamist revisionist history — “hijacked a religion?” I don’t think so. As matter of fact, I said this back in 2009 on a panel in New York City moderated by Jeb Babbin, which included Andrew McCarthy and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Meyers. You can watch it here.
History does not agree with the “hijacked” reference — and that subject has been covered most recently by the Israeli paper, Haaretz.
As written by Salman Masalha, “One of the fundamental problems with Islam is the view that its doctrines – exactly as written, exactly as they were developed and forged in the Arabian desert in the 7th century – “are good for all times and all places.”
“The religious ideology that all Islamic scholars of all Islamic sects uphold rests on the Koranic text and the canonical traditions attributed to the Prophet Mohammed. According to Islam, the world is divided into two: the camp of the faithful, comprised of those who believe in the religion of Islam, and the camp of the infidels, which comprises the rest of the world, including Christians and Jews.”
“The infidels are divided into three categories: people of the book – the Jews and Christians … those who have a sort of book – the Zoroastrians … and those with no book – those who worship idols or the stars,” the Shi’ite scholar Al-Tusi wrote in the 10th century. And Islam’s attitude toward unbelievers nowadays is made very clear in the words of religious arbiter Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, the former grand mufti of Saudi Arabia: “The Koran, the laws of the prophet and the general agreement among Muslims all teach us that Muslims have an obligation to be the enemies of the infidels – the Jews, the Christians and the rest of the idol worshippers.”
In the West we must stop finding any means possible to dismiss what Islamic doctrine and text commands. There is a reason why the flag of Saudi Arabia has a koranic verse and the sword of Muhammad. I don’t recall Jesus Christ carrying a sword, do you?
Once Muhammad departed from Mecca (first Mecca phase) and ended up in Medina he took a turn towards violence. The corresponding verses in the Koran reflect that and history does as well. Muhammad led some 20-25 raids — combat operations — the first being circa 622 AD with the Nakhla raid. The abrogated verses of the Koran results in the latter verses – the more violent once — superseding the previous “peaceful” verses — but they are all words and revelations from Allah.
This leads to the duplicitous and hypocritical nature of Islam — it means whatever it wants to mean, a religious buffet. And that’s why I say “radical Islam” is not the correct definition. There’s nothing radical about their text — as they see it. However, after the first Mecca phase to the present, Islam has been militant in its designs — proselytization and expansion has not been done by a peaceful means, but rather from the end of a sword.
So why this widespread sense of denial?
Mr. Masalha explains, “As Islamist terror appeared on the world stage over the past few decades, many Muslims cried out, claiming that such terror besmirched Islam and didn’t represent it. The terrorists have kidnapped Islam, they said. But the question that begs to be asked is, who kidnapped whom? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that the Islamic texts are the ones that kidnapped the terrorists, not the reverse?”
“When reports emerged after a recent conference of Islamic scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University that one religious arbiter had implied that members of ISIS were heretics, Al-Azhar was forced to issue a denial. Muslim religious scholars find themselves at a disadvantage compared to those who wave the banner of militant Islam – for reading the publications of these fundamentalist organizations shows that they derive their strength and inspiration from the very same foundational texts of Islam itself.”
But hey, I know that no matter how many facts I present, the Islamapologists will brand me as the Islamophobe. However, what about taking the militant Islamists at their word?
“These Islamists aren’t ashamed to proclaim their worldview in public. From their perspective, Islam is “an aggressive religion, a religion of war, a religion of jihad, a religion of beheadings and bloodshed,” as Hussein bin Mohammed wrote in an article published on an Islamist website under the title “The beheading issue.” “It’s neither beheading unbelievers nor terror that besmirch Islam,” he argued, but rather “all those who want Islam to be in the image of Mandela or Gandhi, without bloodshed and beheadings.” The provocative writer then added, “That isn’t the religion of Mohammed, who was sent out with his sword until Judgment Day; Mohammed, of whom the only chapter in the Koran that bears his name is called the war chapter. … All those who try to paint Islam as a religion of peace, doves and love … are doing so under the influence of the West’s false views and its evil ideas, which are being exported to the Islamic nation in order to weaken it.”
Nope, I’ll take the enemy at their word, and for what they believe. I will not be a member of the dismissive “coexist” crowd who do so only in fear of having to face this historic evil. So henceforth, I will be keeping track of everyone who comes out and supplies the false narrative that, “Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by radicals.”
Islam must have a reformation that brings it into the 21st century — leaving behind the savage and barbaric violence of the text from the 7th and 8th century. Until that happens, well, nothing else matters — as Mr. Masalha states, “only a root canal of Islam’s ideas can move the Arab and Muslim world toward modernity.”
But more importantly, some in the West urgently require another medical procedure to remove their heads from a certain lower part of their anatomy.
Nonie Darwish is the author of The Devil We Don’t Know; The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East and President of FormerMuslimsUnited.org.
- Islam’s Self-Destructive Seed by Nonie Darwish
Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Jan. 6, 2015
One of the foundational principles of the Bush Doctrine was and is the oft-repeated dictum, “You are either with us or against us.” Little did President Bush know that the American Muslim community was…against us.
George Bush believed that the moderates in the Muslim world would denounce and destroy the devout (that is, the “radicals”). He was expecting a war within Islam that never actually took place. Imagine Bush’s dismay when he discovered that no one was behind him, like John Belushi in Animal House when he goes running out the front door shouting, “Who’s with me?!?,” only to discover that he is utterly alone.
The faked hate narrative that Muslim groups and leaders use is now the default talking point any time that jihad — or patriotism, for that matter — is being discussed. If Muslims spent as much time instituting programs in mosques and Islamic centers against jihad recruitment and the jihadic doctrine as they do fighting the myth of “Islamophobia,” the world would be a vastly safer place.
A Muslim-dominated group, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), alleges that Muslims have become targets of “violent threats” because of American Sniper. Nobody believes it. They are demanding that American Sniper director Clint Eastwood and actor Bradley Cooper denounce the alleged hateful language directed at Muslims because of the film.
This it is what they do: victim jihad. When one part of the Muslim world kills, the other half cries victimhood. Whack and whine. It is a distraction to get people to stop talking jihad and instead address their demands.
Apparently, the ADC is claiming that a couple of tweets offended their sensibilities. They want action! More like submission. It’s called free speech, brutes.
Why don’t Muslim groups demand that leaders of the Muslim world, imams, Al Azhar university, et al denounce the hateful, racist, anti-semitic, misogynist, anti-kuffar language in the Qur’an that is responsible for all of these Muslim wars across the world?
The idea that the film “glorifies war and sanitizes [Chris] Kyle,” as the ADC claims, is laughable. The only war talk or war movie that the left enjoys is a war in which the US loses or stands down. The left demands that we hang our heads in shame if we triumph. Which is why American Sniper is such an invigorating breath of fresh air.
As for “sanitizing Kyle,” let’s get real. It is the enemedia and the elites that sanitize jihad and Islam. And they do it every day, in every news story. Hollywood doesn’t just sanitize jihad and Islam; they avoid them at all costs. It is the gravest threat to freedom, and Hollywood pretends that it doesn’t exist.
As my colleague Daniel F. points out:
Now it’s American Muslims who are complaining about ‘violent threats,” allegedly incited by the hit movie American Sniper. And this time the media is trumpeting this story. Two rules of history converge here:
1) When Muslims in an a non-Muslim country reach a certain critical mass, they seek to dominate the surrounding community – and then move on from there. cf. Britain, Germany, Sweden and France, inter alia.
2) Free speech is unknown in the Muslim world, actually it’s anathema. So it starts with trying to shut us up and stopping us from casting Islam in a negative light. And does it work? For one thing, you can be certain the entertainment industry is now poring over their scripts and deleting “offending” sections. Other “projects” will simply bite the dust. Of course, Obama didn’t need cajoling. As soon as he took office he banned certain phrases from the government’s lexicon that might reflect poorly on the Muslim religion. Makes you wonder what that man is all about, doesn’t it?
For the record, I saw the film back in December when it was first given a very limited release — just two theaters in New York City. I loved it. I tweeted that it was the best film in decades. It’s hardly a rah-rah cheerleading film. It is a film about a deeply good and decent man, a true American patriot.
The record breaking box-office numbers show how out of touch the elites are with the American people. And that is even more true of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Pamela’s temporary site:
Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.
By Justin O. Smith
The world is being torched and destroyed by Islam __ the Mother of all totalitarianisms __ and its Koran, the precursor to Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ and “Judenrein”. No matter the terms “moderate” or “extremist”, wherever one looks today, from Niger and the recent burning of seven Christian churches, the Yemeni government’s collapse, seventeen murders in Paris and Christian genocides in Iraq and Syria, Islam is found at the heartless center of these atrocities, as its leaders have stubbornly refused to modify, humanize and reform Islam and reconcile Islam with the modern, civilized world. And the world must not allow Islam to persist.
From their own lips, the world hears Islamic religious leaders and Muslim adherents to Islam confess their desire to commit heinous acts against America, Israel and the West in the name of Allah, because the Koran demands it. We hear them utter Islamic prayers and scream “Allahu Akbar” as they commit their murders. So, there’s an obvious problem within Islam that awaits rectifying.
My April 8, 2010 article (see April 8. NEWCOPY – FOX NEWS), for ‘The Reader’, illuminated a large Islamic threat to the U.S. from the Pakistani cleric Mubarak Ali Gilani and his Jaamat al-Fuqra groups based in New York, which have been responsible for ten assassinations and seventeen bombings in America, along with 100 Hamas and Hezbollah terror cells. Leo Hohmann at WND and the Clarion Project recently duplicated this information on January 20, 2015, using the same FBI files I referenced; however, in addition, they verified the locations of 22 paramilitary camps, from California to Tennessee, and they also suggested this number is closer to thirty-five.
In a recent recruiting video captured from Gilani’s “Soldiers of Allah”, Gilani states: “We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are in America.”
A British terrorist supporter, imam Anjem Choudary and “Muslims Against the Crusades” began work in 2011 to turn twelve British cities, including London (“Londonstan”), into Islamic states. They advocate and plan for autonomous areas controlled by Sharia law, outside British jurisprudence; eighty-five Sharia courts now exist there.
Choudary defended the murderous ‘Charlie Hebdo’ terrorists. He also recently stated that the West can change their laws or there will be a “bloodbath”.
And so, why do the leaders of the United States and the European Union insist on bringing hundreds of thousands more Muslims into our nations, when the greater percentage of them seek our destruction and the end of our liberty? Just look at the Boston Bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers and Adnan Shukrijumah. But of course, Islam’s diseased ideology has infected many native born Muslims too, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, the Kouaci brothers and Anjem Choudary.
Europe and the U.S are properly alarmed by thousands of disenchanted Muslims, holding E.U. and U.S. passports, who have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Combine this with open borders policies and an expanding cesspool of irrational, angry Islamofascists stretching from North Africa to Pakistan, and these Muslims pose a deadly threat to the civilized world.
The Egyptian government, Egypt’s President Sisi and the Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development Studies have warned the Obama administration repeatedly that the Muslim Brotherhood is exerting an inordinate influence on the U.S. government. They warn that the Muslim Brotherhood sponsors Hamas and that the MB is an international terrorist organization operating in sixty nations, “based on restoring the religious empire” (Islamic Caliphate).
On January 8th, the head of Britain’s MI5 Security Service, Director General Andrew Parker gave a speech at MI5 headquarters in London. He warned that Al Qaeda in Syria was preparing to inflict mass casualties in the West, possibly attacking public transportation and “iconic targets”. Part of his assessment stems from the appearance of Pakistani Al Qaeda in Syria.
While ninety-percent of Muslims will probably never be actual terrorists, well over 50% of the Muslim world has engaged in violent protests, mob violence and some act of war against the West, Israel and even its own people, since the Six Day War. Most Muslims also remain silent, but many cheer, about their brethren’s horrific terrorist attacks, such as 9/11 and, more recently, ‘Charlie Hebdo’.
Staying true to form after murdering more than 10,000 civilians last year (Reuters), the Islamofascists of Boko Haram murdered 2000 more innocent civilians, mostly Christians, in the Nigerian town of Baga, during the first week of January 2015. And we hold rallies, while the enemy continues on its murderous rampages, without a peep of protest squeaking out from any of the so-called “moderate” Muslims.
Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan represents a regime that has provided material support to Hamas. He states that the term “moderate Islam” is “very ugly _ it is an offense and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam … “.
No politician has ever moved Islam to reform. A few have tried to create a new Islamic order, such as Sayyid Ali Muhammed (1819-50) and his Babi movement attempted. A decade ago, Pakistani President Musharaff and King Abdullah of Jordan called for “enlightened moderation”, however, the current Islamic trend is the systematic reversal of any gains made towards reform, like Ataturk’s philosophy in Turkey, and turning the “Arab Spring” into a campaign for the Islamic State and the return of the Caliphate.
On January 1, 2015, Egypt’s Pres, Abdel al-Sisi challenged religious leaders at Cairo’s Al Azhar University to start a “religious revolution”, because the Muslim community “is being … destroyed and is going to hell”. He continued: “It is inconceivable that the wrong ideas that we sacralize should make the entire [Muslim community] a source of concern … and destruction for the whole world”.
The Islamic component of terrorism must be confronted with extreme prejudice and deadly force by Europe and the United States, since millions of Muslims, who aren’t “extremists”, tacitly support Islam’s intolerance and terrorism. Without any reform forthcoming and the Islamic world beyond the force of reason, America must take the terrorists at their word and send these Islamofascists to hell, in a bloodbath of their own choosing, generation after generation, until they are all dead or they no longer seek to spread Islam by the sword and go forth to make war no more.
Religious Freedom Coalition, By Andrew E. Harrod, PhD, Jan. 24, 2015
The “cancer of Christian persecution is metastasizing” in an “epidemic” that is “spreading at an unprecedented rate in modern times,” stated Open Doors USA president David Curry at a January 7 briefing in Washington, DC’s National Press Club. Curry’s presentation before an audience of about 30 of Open Doors’ 2015 World Watch List (WWL) depressingly reviewed ongoing Christian martyrdom, often at the hands of Marxists and Muslims.
The WWL, an Open Doors press release noted, is a unique annual survey of the persecuted church worldwide, praised by Curry as the most dependable study of its kind. Open Doors research is “meticulous,” concurred at the briefing religious freedom scholarNina Shea from the Hudson Institute. The WWL “ranks the top 50 countries where it is most dangerous and difficult to be a Christian,” the press release explained. An accompanying map displayed at the briefing and available online with the report showed these countries coded by color according to persecution severity.
“Approximately 100 million Christians are persecuted worldwide, making them one of the most persecuted religious groups in the world,” the press release observed. “This year, the threshold was higher for a country to make the list, indicating that worldwide levels of persecution have increased.” Curry noted that the number of Christians dying for their faith has more than doubled since last year’s WWL. “While the year 2014 will go down in history for having the highest level of global persecution of Christians in the modern era,” the press release elaborated, “current conditions suggest the worst is yet to come.”
North Korea, with an estimated 70,000 Christians imprisoned according to the press release, headed the list for the 13th consecutive year and appeared blood red (“Extreme Persecution”) on the map. No other regime is so “militantly atheistic” as North Korea’s “Stalinist brand,” Shea observed, where the regime suppresses any competition to what Curry described as a “cult worship.” North Korea exemplifies in Shea’s words how “remnant Communist” countries like China (list place 29, colored green for “Moderate Persecution”) are one significant source of Christian persecution. Another threat came from “nationalist regimes,” Shea noted, such as the “Hindu fundamentalism” cited by the press release in India.
Shea’s third “Islamist” category,” however, was the largest threat in the WWL. “Islamic extremism is the main source of persecution in 40 of the 50 countries,” the press release noted, including India, where both Islam and Hinduism endangered Christianity from various quarters. “This relatively small but virulent strain of ideology,” Curry assessed, “has made the Middle East the most perilous region of the world for Christians.” “More than 70 percent of Christians have fled Iraq since 2003,” the press release calculated, “and more than 700,000 Christians have left Syria since the civil war began in 2011.” Bright red accordingly marked majority-Muslim countries in the Middle East and beyond on the WWL map, including Afghanistan and Iraq, two lands where the United States attempted with much blood and treasure to create stable, free societies.
For Shea, “intensifying persecution” of Christians in Muslim countries makes the word “so inadequate” that Shea prefers “religious cleansing” to describe a campaign of “total Islamization” eliminating non-Muslims. Under the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a “completion of religious cleansing” of Christians as well as Yazidis has occurred in western Iraq, Shea stated. Absent effective remedies, a “2,000 year-old church will be completely gone,” part of an “attack on the entire Christian presence in the region.”
Iraqi Christians have fled to Iraq’s northern Kurdistan region, where Kurds have “put out a welcome mat” and demonstrated that not all Muslims are hostile. Unlike half a million Muslims who have fled ISIS there as well, though, the Christians lack regional allies and often avoid United Nations camps where international aid deliveries and refugee registration occur. Accordingly, Iraqi Christians are suffering a “humanitarian crisis so dire” that it is an “existential threat,” Shea warned.
Referencing Sudan and Iran’s Islamic republics, Shea worried about “extremist influences being mainstreamed” in society and government beyond jihadist groups like ISIS. The Iraqi government in the past, for example, marginalized Christians, who were therefore “dealt out of the deck” in the distribution of American aid. Governments in Muslim countries likewise often turn a “blind eye and deaf ear” to persecution of Christians by private actors.
In particular, Saudi Arabia, a “towering figure within Islam” with oil resources, regional Gulf predominance, and control over Islam’s holy sites, has been “very counterproductive” by “spreading an ideology of hatred.” Thus Saudi textbooks demonize non-Muslims and advocate “violent jihad” in Islam’s name. As a result, “Saudi Arabia did create its own monster” in ISIS, a group Saudi Arabia has now attacked with air strikes, Shea observed.
Shea identified five “red flags” that characterize the “crime against humanity” of “religious cleansing,” elements taken together that are “greater than the sum of their parts.” “Forcible conversion,” for example, presented Christians with Islamic law’s traditional trinity of choosing between death, conversion to Islam, or acceptance of “medieval dictates” in a “second-class citizenship.” Nigeria’s Boko Haram “ruthlessly…applied” these alternatives during door to door searches of villages. Laws also punished blasphemy and apostasy in Muslim countries such as Pakistan, whose “strictest black letter law” in this matter gave a “license to kill” to Muslim vigilantes. Targeted assassination of Christian leaders, abductions, and targeted attacks on churches completed Shea’s list.
Like Curry, though, Shea assured that “prominent Muslim voices” and the “majority of Muslims” oppose religious persecution. Shea asserted that Middle Eastern Christians “have long coexisted with the Muslim majority” in the region. By contrast, Shea described as “extremists” the perpetrators of the Paris Charlie Hebdo jihad attacks on the very day of her remarks.
Yet the widespread, often state-based Muslim persecution of Christians noted by Shea and the WWL seemed to belie Shea’s confidence and suggest problems larger than a radical minority. Various Middle Eastern Christians, meanwhile, have consistently contradicted Shea in discussions with this reporter (see here, here, and here). In their experience, faith-based Islamic repression of Christians has marked the region since its eighth century Arab-Muslim conquest.
Queried about Muslim religious tolerance advocates, Shea cited interfaith activist Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal from Jordan and Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. The latter, Shea noted, has “not encouraged any kind of eradication of Christianity” in his country and has “condemned the attacks on the churches.” Shea, however, professed ignorance when this reporter mentioned past criticism of Sistani as a “false moderate.” Sistani, for example, has supported sharia in Iraq, has advocated executing homosexuals, and has expressed anti-Semitic, anti-Christian sentiments against these non-Muslims and their “impurity.”
Similarly asked about moderate Muslims, Curry responded that “I don’t have any names off the top of my head.” “We have not yet seen a major movement of moderate Muslims to condemn the teachings and ideologies” of groups like ISIS, Curry stated, his professions of a “relatively small” Islamic extremism notwithstanding. Moderate Muslims “themselves will become a target” of jihadists by advocating for Christians and other persecution victims.
Shea bemoaned Christian persecution as an “ignored human rights crisis” in America among policymakers while “even our religious leaders are far too quiet” on the matter. “The world still does not get it,” Curry concurred, and called the WWL a “wakeup call” for Christians to notice a “genocide going on.” No country on the WWL has improved in recent years, Curry stated in an interview, “it’s only gotten worse.”
Shea criticized that secularized American leaders struggle to comprehend a “strong religious belief” in an “extremist version of Islam.” Voice of America reporter Jerome Socolovsky, previously criticized for obligingly benign views on Islam, similarly seemed to exhibit at the event such incomprehension. Socolovsky asked Shea whether American domestic respect for Islam, shown by opposition to mosque vandalism or interfaith events like the National Cathedral’s Muslim prayer service, could influence Muslims worldwide. Shea countered that “there is no comparison” between Muslims protected by American law and often brutal Christian persecution abroad. “Gestures” like those at the National Cathedral would also not “make a difference whatsoever” among ISIS jihadists and others.
The Nigerian Damaris Atsen gave personal witness at the briefing to the trials and tribulations of modern persecuted Christian faith. Boko Haram terrorists in March 2010 seized her husband riding home from work and stomped him to death by the road, leaving Atsen widowed with four children, “gifts from the Lord.” Romans 8:35 (“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”) “always encourages me” that the “spirit of the Lord is there” during her times of mourning, she said. “I have to forgive,” she added while discussing her husband’s murderers. “If I do not forgive, the Lord will not forgive me.” “Pray for Nigeria,” she concluded.
We need a great deal more honesty about the religion, as the “no-go zone” debate reveals.
National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 24, 2015
Footballs are deflating, the president is detached from reality, the Saudi king is deceased, and the sharia state next door, Yemen, is descending into bloody chaos. With mere anarchy loosed upon the world, it would be easy to miss the fact that, in England this week, Bobby Jindal gave as important and compelling a speech as has been delivered in years about America — our leadership role on the world stage, our preservation as a beacon of liberty.
In the birthplace of the Magna Carta, it has nonetheless become legally risky to speak with candor (even when quoting Churchill). Yet Louisiana’s Republican governor became that rarest of modern Anglo or American statesmen. Bobby Jindal told the truth about Islam, specifically about its large radical subset that attacks the West by violent jihad from without and sharia-supremacist subversion from within.
With Western Europe still reeling from the jihadist mass-murders in Paris at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Kacher Jewish market, Governor Jindal outlined a bold, Reaganesque vision of American foreign policy guided by three imperatives — freedom, security, and truth. It is on the last one, truth, that our capacity to ensure freedom and security hinges. “You cannot remedy a problem,” Jindal explained, “if you will not name it and define it.”
And so he did: Our immediate security problem today “is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.” That is, the challenge is not limited to violent jihadists who commit barbaric atrocities. Jindal elaborated: “In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.”
The campaign to implement and spread sharia is antithetical to Western liberty. Freedom, Jindal said, means “the ability to conduct commerce both inside and outside your borders; it means the right to speak freely, to publish any cartoons you want. It means the right to worship freely. It means the right to self-determination.” By contrast, “radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency, nor are they willing to accommodate them in any way and anywhere.” Moreover, the version of sharia law to which they adhere
is not just different than our law, it’s not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is antithetical to valuing all of human life equally. It is the very definition of oppression. We must stop pretending otherwise.
It cannot credibly be denied that this is so, as I have documented — using not only notorious examples of how sharia is applied in countries like Saudi Arabia (where it is the law of the land), but also Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual certified as accurate by prominent Islamic scholars, including at both al-AzharUniversity (the seat of Sunni jurisprudence since the tenth century) and at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (an influential Muslim Brotherhood think tank).
Still, Governor Jindal has been pilloried since his courageous speech by tendentious critics across the spectrum, from the usual Islamist grievance chorus to Fox News commentators and British prime minister David Cameron.
Why? Because he dared notice what ought to be an inarguable fact: The non-assimilationist Muslim campaign has resulted in the rise throughout Western Europe of what Jindal described as “unofficial” “so-called” “no-go zones.”
Jindal was clearly right about this. His timing, however, was wrong: He had the misfortune to dilate on “no-go zones” at the same time that Steven Emerson, the usually astute terrorism analyst, made a no-go gaffe. Steve erroneously claimed that the entire British city of Birmingham is “totally Muslim” and has become a “no-go zone” where “non-Muslims simply don’t go in.”
Emerson has since apologized profusely. The damage, however, was done. Fox News is evidently so embarrassed at having been the forum for his faux pas (and at having been threatened with legal action by the city of Paris, which was the main target of Steve’s commentary), that the network is over-correcting. This helps stoke the Islamist meme that no-go zones are a hysterical figment of the “Islamophobic” imagination.
That is absurd, but follows naturally from two things: a common misunderstanding about sharia, and a misrepresentation that describing the incontestable fact thatsharia is being applied de facto in Europe is the same as falsely claiming that sharia is now the de jure writ of Europe.
Dreamy Islamophiles like Mr. Cameron and many of his like-minded progressives in bipartisan Beltway circles have a sputtering snit anytime a commentator associates Islam with anything other than “peace.” Consequently, the doctrine of Islam (which actually means submission) remains taboo and poorly understood in the West. One major misconception is that Islamists (i.e., Islamic supremacists or Muslims who want sharia implemented) demand that all non-Muslims convert to Islam. A no-go zone is thus incorrectly assumed by many to be a place that Muslims forbid non-Muslims to enter.
In reality, sharia explicitly invites the presence of non-Muslims provided that they submit to the authority of Islamic rule. Indeed historically, as I related in The Grand Jihad, my book about the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist ideology, because sharia calls on these submissive non-Muslims (dhimmis) to pay a poll tax (jizya), their continued presence was of economic importance in lands conquered by Islamic rulers.
It is therefore easy for Islamists and their apologists to knock down their strawman depiction of no-go zones as places where non-Muslims are not allowed. That is not what no-go zones are — neither as they exist in fact nor as they are contemplated by sharia. The point of imposing sharia — the reason it is the necessary precondition for building an Islamic society — is to make Islam the dominant social system, not the exclusive faith. The idea is that once sharia’s systematic discrimination against non-Muslims is in place, non-Muslims will see the good sense of becoming Muslims. Over time, every one will convert “without coercion.” The game is to set up an extortionate incentive for conversion while maintaining the smiley-face assurance that no one is being forced to convert at the point of a sword.
So radical Muslims will be welcoming to any ordinary non-Muslims who are willing to defer to their mores. What they are hostile to are officials of the host state: police, firefighters, building inspectors, emergency medical personnel, and anything associated with the armed forces. That is because the presence of those forces symbolizes the authority — the non-submission — of the state.
Notice, however, that no sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.
There is a reason that Governor Jindal qualified his invocation of the term no-go zones, modifying it with “so-called” and noting that the term is used “unofficially.” His speech was about reality, particularly where it stressed the need for truthfulness in forming policy. If our premise is reality, it is not no-go zones that are imaginary; it is the suggestion that no-go zones do not exist simply because non-Muslim entry is not literally prohibited by law. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern painstakingly demonstrates, “Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.” It has been amply acknowledged not only in press reports and academicanalyses but by governments that must deal with them.
Have a look, for example, at the French government’s official listing of 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibiles — “sensitive urban zones.” France’s “ZUS” designation is significant. As the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes recounted in a column at NRO this week, when he coined the term “no-go zone” in 2006 it was intended as “a non-euphemistic equivalent” of ZUS. If that is how the term “no-go zone” is understood — as an enclave deferential to Islamic sensibilities rather than exclusionary of non-Muslims — the contention that no-go zones do not exist is plainly frivolous. This is so even if, as Pipes maintains, the term “no-go zone” itself was an overstatement. The term “semi-autonomous sectors,” he says, would more accurately convey the historical anomaly the West has created: “a majority population [that] accepts the customs and even the criminality or a poorer and weaker community,” and in a manner that involves far more than control over physical territory.
Nevertheless, the problem with all this semantic nattering is its intimation that we can only infer the existence of no-go zones, and of the Islamist subversion they signal, by drawing inferences from what we see happening on the ground.
Nonsense. The world’s most influential Islamic supremacists have told us in no uncertain terms that they see Muslim immigration in the West as part of a conquest strategy.
As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, the strategy is often referred to as “voluntary apartheid.” One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood icon who is probably the world’s most revered sharia jurist. Sheikh Qaradawi, who vows that Islam will conquer America and Europe, and who has beencrystal clear on the incompatibility of sharia and Western democracy, elaborates:
Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.
Translation: To establish Islamic domination in the West, we do not need to resort to terrorism or to force non-Muslims to convert; we need merely a recognized right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict, as they do in fundamental ways.
This is precisely why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — the bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) — warned in a 2010 report on“Islamophobia” that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” (Here, at p. 30.) It is why Recep TayyipErdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate “is a crime against humanity.”
At Oxford, Bobby Jindal bluntly asserted that the ideology of our enemy, radical Islam,
holds the view that it is wrong to expect assimilation, that assimilation is colonialist, assimilation is backward, and assimilation is in fact evidence of cultural bigotry and insensitivity. They think it is wrong to expect that people who chose to immigrate to your country should be expected to endorse and abide by your laws. They think it is unenlightened, discriminatory, and even racist to expect immigrants to endorse and assimilate into the culture in their new country. This is complete rubbish.
That is the truth. The United States will not get national-security policy right, nor reestablish our credentials as leader of the free world, until we accept that truth. Accept it and resolve, as Governor Jindal has resolved, to tell it boldly.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.
Political Islam, by Bill Warner:
I would like to speak with you today about the Muslim as a Dhimmi. (Dhimmis are Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims (defined by Muslims as Kafirs) living in Islamic countries as second-class subjects with virtually no rights as citizens.) I’ve given several talks in which I try to show people that it is the Sharia and the status of “Dhimmi” (D-H-I-M-M-I) that is the root cause of the disappearance of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism in Islamic countries. And usually what I do is this: I go through something called the Dhimma, which was a “treaty granted by . . . Muhammad to the Jewish and Christian populations whom he had subjected,” which included other “peoples vanquished by the Muslims and considered to be protected by their treaty of surrender,” [See The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam From Jihad to Dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or, page 472] i.e., horrible rules that the conquered Kafirs were coerced into obeying. But in order to really drive the point home I would like to pretend that the Moslems have signed a Dhimmi Treaty with our culture, with our civilization, and let’s see what it feels like to put the shoe on the other foot. What would it be like if the Muslim were a Dhimmi in America today?
Every one of the following examples I’m going to give you were the conditions under which Christians in Islamic countries were subjugated. To start off with: Muslims are forbidden to build new mosques. Muslims are prohibited from issuing their call to prayer any louder than can be heard from the sidewalk of the mosque. (This is a corollary of the prohibition of Christians’ freedom to ring church bells loud enough to be heard by their congregation.) A minaret shall not be higher than 15 feet. Muslims cannot build houses greater in height than the height of houses owned by Christians. Muslims are forbidden from attaining any position of authority over Christians. Muslims shall not vote nor will they be recognized as citizens in any Kafir nation. Muslims are prohibited from serving in the military, police force nor hold any government position. Muslims shall not testify in Kafir courts nor will they be permitted to sue any Kafir. Muslims shall not give shelter in their mosque or homes to any jihadi. Muslims shall not teach Islam to any Kafir. Muslims shall not manifest Islam publicly and they shall not attempt to convert any Kafir and they will not prevent any Mohammedan from leaving the religion of Islam if they so wish. Muslims shall not own or carry any weapons. Muslims shall not drive cars, although they will be able to operate mopeds and ride bicycles. Muslims shall not display their books in the marketplace and Muslims will pay the Islamic tax (Jizya) of 50% of their income. Once a year they will shave their heads and kneel before the Kafir to present the Jizya. Any act of disobedience by an individual Muslim could result in collective punishment and nullify the Dhimma and cause the Kafirs to riot, murder and burn down the homes and mosques of the Muslims.
Now as you hear these rules, and it should be absolutely clear that if these laws were enacted and enforced in America Muslims would leave or they would apostatize and convert, which is exactly what Christians did in Turkey, the Balkans, North Africa and the Middle East. The same thing happened to the Buddhists and the Hindus when they were forcibly subjected to rules just like these and so, after a while, in utter desperation, they converted. It may have taken centuries, but they converted or escaped from the totalitarian Islamic countries. Now that you’ve seen how the Dhimma treats the Muslim as a Dhimmi, you can see that no Muslim would ever volunteer to immigrate to a Kafir country and allow themselves to be subjected to the same treatment to which Islamic countries subjected Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.
The enforcement of the Dhimma is a good example of the dualism of Islamic supremacist countries. In other words a Weltanschauung of “us versus them” or the Muslim over the Kafir.
Utterly lacking in Islamic culture is The Golden Rule: “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
This exercise of the Muslim as a Dhimmi is a juxtaposition of Dualism and The Golden Rule in reverse (i.e., we will now do unto you, what you have done unto us for centuries).
If you would like to learn more about life as a Christian, Jew or Hindu living in an Islamic totalitarian country I recommend two more fascinating books, in addition to the book cited in the footnote: The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam and Understanding Dhimmitude: Twenty-one Lectures and Talks on the Position of Non-Muslims in Islamic Societies, both by Bat Ye’or.
American Thinker, by Gene Schwimmer, Jan. 21, 2015:
Rarely is a speech widely praised before it is even delivered. But such was the case for the speech Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal delivered to the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think-tank, on January 18. In that speech, Jindal spoke forthrightly about the rising menace of “Islamic extremism.”
And the critics, as the saying goes, went wild. Larry Kudlow’s article, “Jindal’s Brilliant Take on Radical Islam,” exemplifies the reaction of conservative pundits to Jindal’s speech. In his article, Kudlow specifically praises this quote (emphasis mine):
Muslim leaders must make clear that anyone who commits acts of terror in the name of Islam is in fact not practicing Islam at all. If they refuse to say this, then they are condoning these acts of barbarism. There is no middle ground.
I admire Bobby Jindal (and, for that matter, Larry Kudlow), but, with all due respect to the governor, amid a speech that otherwise is indeed brilliant, a “brilliant take on radical Islam” is lacking. What is brilliant about calling on respectful, law-abiding Muslims to say that “anyone who commits acts of terror in the name of Islam is in fact not practicing Islam at all”? On the contrary, this writer struggles to remember an aftermath of an incident such as the recent Paris attacks, when Muslims have not hastened to declare that the perpetrators were “not practicing Islam.”
More distressing is that Jindal, in fact, violates his own dictum, when he first says…
When a country or a movement is behaving badly on the international stage, we must not pretend otherwise.
You cannot remedy a problem if you will not name it and define it.
… and then, in the very next sentence, says (emphasis mine)…
One of the most prominent examples in our day is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.
Yes, Governor Jindal, “[w]hen a country or a movement is behaving badly on the international stage, we must not pretend otherwise.”
Now, what about when a country or a movement or a religion is behaving badly?
What if, in fact, we are not fighting “radical Islam”? What if we are fighting orthodox Islam?
Has Bobby Jindal read the Koran?
On a personal level, I have a Torah, Christian Bible, and Koran, all of which I read from time to time. Given the times we live in, there is no excuse for anyone occupying or aspiring to national office not to read the Koran and perhaps a bit of Islamic history and explanations of Islam, such as the works of Bernard Lewis (and for contemporary geopolitical issues, at least for conservatives, I highly recommend Efraim Karsh). And finally, there is Robert R. Reilly’s The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis, which I would recommend as essential reading for anyone who wants to understand how we got to where we are today vis-à-vis the rise of jihadism and why it is proving so intractable.
At the very least, one could avoid errors, such as this one by Larry Kudlow:
[W]hat Bobby Jindal is saying is very similar to what Egyptian president al-Sisi said earlier in the year to a group of Muslim imams.
Said al-Sisi, “It’s inconceivable that the thinking we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.”
He then asks, “How is it possible that 1.6 billion Muslims should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants…? … [I]f this is not changed, “it may eventually lead to the religion’s self destruction.”
First, in fairness to Muslims, “1.6 billion Muslims” do not want to “kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants.” But it is equally fair to note that a mere 1 percent of 1.6 billion Muslims is a recruitment pool of 16 million potential jihadists.
As for Sisi’s question, “How is it possible that 1.6 billion Muslims should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants…?,” I’ll let the ultimate Islamic authority, Muhammad, answer that one:
I have been ordered to fight with the people [sometimes translated as “all men”] till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah.
And then there is Muhammad’s famous command, uttered as he lay on his deathbed: “Let there not be two religions in Arabia.” And there is this:
The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews. The Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: ‘Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him;’ but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
A search of the internet yields a wealth of apologetics, such as this, claiming that, despite their apparent plain meaning, none of the above are calls to violence or intolerance of non-Muslims. But that is hardly the point when the plain-meaning interpretations seem also to be the most commonly accepted ones, including by Muslim authorities:
Asked … whether he would “visit Israel with a Palestinian visa,” [Egypt’s minister of religious endowments] said: “This is premature. Let’s wait until it happens. However, we hope that the words of the Prophet Muhammad will be fulfilled: Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews[.]
And so on. Therein lies the difference – a major and very important difference – between what Jindal said and what Sisi said. What Sisi said, pace Jindal, is that such Muslims are practicing Islam, with numerous Koranic and hadithic quotes to back them up. So anyone expecting a moderate Muslim to talk an ISIS jihadist out of beheading an infidel by reciting an alternate, and, often (if one takes the trouble to read some of them), byzantine interpretation of this or that Islamic text will be sorely disappointed.
Or to put it even more bluntly: does the Roman Catholic governor of Louisiana propose to tell the Muslim Egyptian minister of religious endowments that the latter “is not practicing Islam”?
Good luck with that.
Jindal is absolutely right when he says, “Islam has a problem,” but saying that much and no more falls short of the goal. Sisi, to his great credit, takes the baton and, unlike Jindal, courageously places the blame – and in front of an audience of religious authorities, no less – precisely where he – and you, and I, and all civilized people – know it belongs (emphases mine):
I am referring here to the religious clerics. … It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. …
That thinking … that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world.
All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective. I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution.
You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world … is waiting for your next move because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed … and it is being lost by our own hands.
“That Sisi would criticize the Muslim world and Islamic texts and thinking,” writes Raymond Ibrahim, “in ways his Western counterparts [including Bobby Jindal] could never [do] … is unprecedented.”
Unprecedented? Yes. But something Sisi’s “Western counterparts could never” do? On the contrary, this writer considers it something every “Western counterpart” could, and should, have said long ago. Perhaps, now that a Muslim leader has broken the ice, Western leaders, including the next U.S. president (I have no illusions about Obama), will speak up.
In the meantime, we should all wish Sisi good luck and Godspeed. The task he has set for himself and the Muslim Egyptian clerisy – to directly confront, reinterpret, and if necessary (if I read Sisi correctly) contradict the specific text of the Koran and haditha, not to mention making the religious revolution Sisi calls for the mainstream of Islamic thinking, is enormous.
Let us hope it is not also Sisyphean.
UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 20, 2015:
If the recent events of the past 14 years have not brought clarity to understanding that the core teachings of Islam is the sole reason the West is facing the warfare we are from so many different directions, then you may be incapable of reasonable and rational thought.
Since two Muslims killed a dozen people at the media outlet Charlie Hebdo in France, Muslims all over the world are holding massive protests…for the victims? No. They are protesting their “outrage” over the cartoons. In a sane society, a group of identifiable people who barbarically brutalize decent society would not be able to globally complain about how cartoons effect their feelings. But they are not ignored for the exact opposite reason intellectually dishonest leaders in Europe and America tell us we should embrace, appease, and empathize with the Islamic world.
They threaten us violence while our leaders tell us to embrace the Muslim community because, as they say, “Islam is a religion of peace.”
Truer words have never been spoken, if you understand that “Peace” in Islam (per Sharia/Islamic Law) occurs when the entire globe is under the rule of Islam and Islamic Law.
As massive crowds of Muslims across the globe call for more violence and killings (read “justice” for those who “slander” the prophet), our leaders tell us we should stop offending the Muslim by publishing cartoons or speaking truth about Islam. Color me reactionary, but I find sawing the heads off of 5 year old children and putting them on spikes for all the world to see just a bit more offensive. Yet I do not see any massive demonstrations around the world against that or for the children who are victims.
It is time for rational and reasonable people to stop giving quarter to those who are psychotically disconnected from reality – i.e. those who believe Islam “doesn’t stand for this (violence).”
* Nearly every Islamic School on the planet, beginning in the first grade, teaches Jihad is a permanent obligation on the Islamic community until the world is under Islamic rule (under Sharia).
* Islamic legal scholars are (and always have been) unanimous in their understanding on the definition of “jihad”; the obligation of jihad; the requirement to establish a global Islamic state (Caliphate) under Sharia (Islamic Law); and that Muslims may never take Jews or Christians as their friends. There is no such thing as a “version” of Islam that teaches something other than that.
* Sharia mandates jihad when the Islamic community has the strength and material ability to wage it. Historically, over the last 1400 years, the Muslim community has waged jihad when they had the strength to do so. In Islam, Mohammed is the “insan al kamil” or the “perfect man.” Mohammed commanded Muslims to “fight and slay the unbelievers” until they (1) convert to Islam, (2) submit to Islam, pay the jizya (non-Muslim poll tax), and “feel themselves subdued,” or (3) be killed. Mohammed waged war on the non-Muslims until they submitted, converted or were killed.
* All published Sharia (Islamic Law) defines “slander” as those who say anything about the prophet or Islam “which a Muslim would dislike.” This is a capital crime in Islam. The truth of the comment is not a part of the discussion in Islamic Law – only that a Muslim “dislikes” it.
The jihadis who took innocent lives in France at Charlie Hebdo, did so in accordance with, not against, Islamic Law.
100% of the Islamic jihadis we face on the battlefield, have committed acts of jihad in Europe or America, or those jihadis we have arrested before they did what they were trying to do all say words to the effect of: “We are jihadis fighting jihad in the cause of Allah in order to impose Sharia and establish the Islamic State.”
All Islamic doctrine backs this statement up – unequivocally.
The jihadis – or “terrorists” – are in complete agreement as to why they are doing what they are doing across the globe. All Islamic jurisprudence supports them and never hasn’t supported them. We are witnessing millions of Muslims protest over cartoons but not over the victims at Charlie Hebdo or Fort Hood or London or Madrid or Mumbai or Boston or anywhere else in the world.
To make this as clear as possible, Al Qaeda has never misquoted Islamic Law in furtherance of what they are doing. Never.
If you had a dinner guest who didn’t follow your rules, was rude and inappropriate with your wife and daughter, and threatened you while eating a dinner you prepared in your house, you would ask him to leave.
The West may want to consider this option for a Muslim population which continues to threaten our lives in bolder and bolder fashion, while demonstrating absolutely no respect for human life, decency, liberty, or reasoned thought.
The death rattle of a dhimmi society.
WND, By Tom Tancredo On 01/09/2015:
So, here we are again, being told that we can’t blame Islam for the murderous acts that have cost thousands of lives since 9/11 and millions of lives since the 14th century! Well, then let me ask a simple question: If Islam did not exist, how many of these events would have occurred?
It is IDIOTIC to keep pushing this canard of the left that “Islam is not to blame.” The horrific events this week in France tell us what we should already know– that we cannot delay any longer a forthright reckoning and confrontation with Islamic radicalism.
That will sound like common sense to most citizens, but to our political elites, it is a lesson they want desperately to avoid and evade.
The head of British counterintelligence on Friday warned of terrorist plans for widespread violent attacks across Europe, and there is no reason to believe the United States will be bypassed. It’s long past time to get serious about combating Islamic radicalism – not in Iraq or Syria or Yemen, but in or own streets, schools, mosques, pulpits and prisons.
The enemy is not “terror,” it is not shoe bombs or hijacked airplanes or suicide bombers. The enemy is radical Islam, which has declared war on all non-Muslim societies, faiths and religions.
Our leaders’ unwillingness to name the enemy has led to not only wasted billions in Iraq and elsewhere but loss of tens of thousands of lives. If even leftist comedian Bill Maher can call out fellow liberals for failing to face up to this truth, why are so many Christian leaders silent?
It is becoming clearer every day that the cost of continuing this foolishness will be intolerable in the loss of lives and the loss of freedom. It must end, and it must end now. We must declare that we are at war with radical Islam and begin taking concrete steps based on that truth.
As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The war with radical Islamism is a fact, and it’s time we stopped listening to – and voting for – those who deny that fact.
It is true that not all Muslims are radical Islamists, but that is not an excuse for turning a blind eye to the truth that all jihadists are professed, practicing Muslims. That the jihadists do not represent all Muslims is irrelevant: jihadists are inspired by radical Islam, not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Buddha and not Scientology. Pretending otherwise is not an excess of political correctness, it is an excess of human stupidity and evidence of sheer mental incompetence – an incompetence that is as deadly as it is cowardly.
We have spent tens of billions hunting down and killing terrorist leaders with drones and other tools of high-tech warfare, while accepting and permitting the growth of the cancer of Shariah law in our own communities. That lunacy must end.
Yes, this is a new kind of war. Let’s be honest about that, and let’s also be honest that fighting a murderous religion will have many distasteful aspects, as all wars do. The firebombing of Dresden was not a pretty sight. In the Second World War, not all members of the Nazi Party or the German Army wanted to send all Jews to Auschwitz, but we did not administer a questionnaire to German soldiers to determine each individual’s culpability before engaging them in battle.
It’s time to recognize that preventing the planned mass murder of millions of non-Muslims in the name of Allah is a challenge that is not in the same ballpark as profiling and arresting a lone serial killer or gang of meth dealers. This new kind of war is a test of our desire to survive the growing jihadist assault, and necessarily, it is also test of our ability to survive as a constitutional republic.
Instead of thinking of this war as a series of encounters with armed militants in faraway deserts and free-fire zones, we need to see it first and foremost as a war of ideas. The heart of radical Islam’s messianic agenda is Shariah law. That’s why the war is already half lost in Europe, where Shariah law has already been quietly accepted as legitimate within the thousands of Muslim enclaves from London to Budapest, from Paris to Stockholm.
Here is the brute reality our politicians are avoiding. When any democratic nation accepts the right of avowed Muslims to live under Shariah law, interpreted and applied by mullahs and imams reading the Quran, they have accepted the first, foundational principle of the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate, and they are watering the seeds of civilization’s destruction.
There are two concrete steps we need to take immediately. They are controversial, but they also are necessary.
First, we must stop all immigration of Muslims into the United States – yes, ALL Muslims – and then deport those already here who adhere to Shariah law. I know the “not all Muslims are terrorists” retort would be screamed from the roof tops, and indeed, I know many who are good citizens. The problem is that once large communities of Muslims spring up in the West, they provide breeding grounds for “homegrown terrorists” and safe havens for the same.
Shariah can be practiced in Muslim countries, but it is incompatible with the rule of law in any Western democracy.
The second thing that must be done immediately is to seal our borders against all illegal entry. Does anyone doubt that Islamist jihadists will use our open borders to infiltrate our communities?
Let’s start there. Those two steps are only a beginning, but they will serve to define the problem and point us in the right direction.