Islamic State Atrocities the Product of ‘Grievances’?

Barack ObamaFrontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, September 17, 2014:

While many have rightfully criticized U.S. President Obama’s recent assertion that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” some of his other equally curious but more subtle comments pronounced in the same speech have been largely ignored.

Consider the president’s invocation of the “grievances” meme to explain the Islamic State’s success: “At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL—which calls itself the Islamic State.”

Obama’s logic, of course, is fortified by an entire apparatus of professional apologists who make the same claim.  Thus Georgetown professor John Esposito—whose apologetics sometimes morph into boldfaced lies—also recently declared that “The “primary drivers [for the Islamic State’s violence] are to be found elsewhere,” that is, not in Islam but in a “long list of grievances.”

In other words and once again, it’s apparently somehow “our fault” that Islamic State Muslims are behaving savagely—crucifying, beheading, enslaving, and massacring people only on the basis that they are “infidels”:  thus when IS herds and slaughters “infidel” men (citing the example of the prophet)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did; when IS captures “infidel” women and children, and sells them on the sex-slave market (citing Islamic teachings)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did; when IS bombs churches, breaks their crosses, and tells Christians to convert or die (citing Islamic scriptures)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did.

Although the “grievance” meme flies in the face of logic, it became especially popular after the 9/11 al-Qaeda strikes on America. The mainstream media, following the Islamist propaganda network Al Jazeera’s lead, uncritically picked up and disseminated Osama bin Laden’s videotapes to the West where he claimed that al-Qaeda’s terror campaign was motivated by grievances against the West—grievances that ranged from U.S. support for Israel to failure for the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Agreement concerning climate change.

Of course, that was all rubbish, and I have written more times than I care to remember about how in their internal Arabic-language communiques to fellow Muslims that never get translated to English, Osama, al-Qaeda, and virtually every Islamist organization make it a point to insist that jihad is an Islamic obligation that has nothing to do with grievances.

Consider Osama’s own words in an internal letter to fellow Saudis:

Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?

Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)

Conversion, submission, or the sword is, of course, the mission of the Islamic State—not alleviating “grievances.”  Yet it’s worse than that; for unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, from day one of its existence, has made it very clear—in Osama’s words, “with power and determination, with one voice”—that its massacres, enslavements, crucifixions, and beheadings of “infidels” are all based on Islamic law or Sharia—not silly “grievances” against the West. Unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State is confident enough to avoid the grievances/taqiyya game and forthrightly asserts its hostility for humans based on their religious identity.

Yet by slipping the word “grievances” to explain the Islamic State’s Sharia-based savageries, Obama apparently hopes America has been thoroughly conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to automatically associate Islamic world violence with “grievances.”

What Obama fails to understand—or fails to mention—is that, yes, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and countless angry Muslims around the world are indeed often prompted to acts of violence by “grievances.”  But as fully explained here, these “grievances” are not predicated on any universal standards of equality or justice, only a supremacist worldview.

Clare Lopez: “Jihad Resurgent: Islamic Challenge, Western Response”.

 

Published on Sep 16, 2014 by Q Society of Australia Inc

Clare Lopez at the Q Society event in Sydney on the evening of 5 September 2014.

Bostom on Hannity: Ottoman Caliphate Atrocities, 1915-19, An Order of Magnitude Greater Than Those of IS/IL

By Andrew Bostom:

Last night, my brief sound bite during a Sean Hannity panel alluded to the timeless Koranic injunction to wage jihad war against Jews and Christians, specifically, Koran 9:29, for the purpose of forcibly imposing a Sharia-based Islamic order upon them. This reference was followed by a graphic, modern historical manifestation of this eternal Islamic “imperative”: the 1915-19 jihad genocide of the Armenian, Assyro-Chaldean, and Syrian Orthodox Christian communities of Anatolia, and northern “Mesopotamia,” i.e., modern Iraq, by the last Caliphate—the Ottoman Caliphate.

Notwithstanding the recent horrific spate of atrocities committed against the Christian communities of northern Iraq by the Islamic State (IS/IL) jihadists, the Ottoman jihad ravages were equally barbaric, depraved, and far more extensive. Occurring, primarily between 1915-16 (although continuing through at least 1918), some one million Armenian, and 250,000 Assyro-Chaldean and Syrian Orthodox Christians were brutally slaughtered, or starved to death during forced deportations through desert wastelands. The identical gruesome means used by IS/IL to humiliate and massacre its hapless Christian victims, were employed on a scale that was an order of magnitude greater by the Ottoman Muslim Turks, often abetted by local Muslim collaborators (the latter being another phenomenon which also happened during the IS/IL jihad campaign against Iraq’s Christians).

Tragically 2/3 of Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia—hardly a “fringe minority of extremists”—support the eternal Islamic “ideal” to re-create a Caliphate. Regardless, the wrenching illustrations included below  should make plain to all decent, sober-minded persons why any “Caliphate movement” must be confronted, and crushed.

Read more

Also from the September 12, 2014 studio discussion titled “Underestimating the threat of radical Islam to America” -

 

 

IPT’s John Rossomando on NewsmaxTV Mid-Point discussing the Islamic State

 

by John Rossomando
Interview on NewsmaxTV
September 12, 2014

Host- Ed Berliner: It remains unthinkable to most of us, young people, some from tough conditions, but also those who would seem to have everything they need to succeed. In one moment they are teenagers, young people, smiling faces, getting into the kind of trouble maybe kids have been stuck in for generations. The next minute they are holding rifles, flashing missing teeth smiles and wearing robes of subjugation promising they will kill Americans because they are the enemy of those who kill for little reason. Not merely why this happens, but what can we do to ferret out these misguided souls before they carry out their brainwashed ideals. Let’s welcome to Mid-point senior analyst and investigative journalist with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. He can be read at such diverse places as The Daily Caller and Red Alert Politics, John Rossomando joins us. John, thank you so much for being here.

John Rossomando: Thank you for having me. I was listening to your intro and one of the things I would like to start out pointing out is what the Islamic State sells is the concept of being able to live in a perfect utopian Islamic society. They have a lot of common say with the Communists and their view of creating a new world, a new humanity. If you watch the videos that the Islamic State slickly produces to try to seduce jihadists as I do, you’ll see them constantly say, ‘Leave the land of the unbeliever, leave behind your un-Islamic society and come join us.’ Be part of this brave new world. So I think that Ms. Conley likely was seduced by that promise. A lot of converts, whether they’re converts to Islam, Catholicism, different religions, they want the more pure form of religion. So it’s likely Ms. Conley thought that she was going to become part of a pure form of Islam unlike what the Islamic State describes as a tainted or apostate form of Islam.

Berliner: John, let’s talk frankly here when it comes down to these individuals leaving to join ISIS and other groups. What we’re talking about here is a generation that has the ability to know more about anything than any of us ever did as far as the Internet is concerned and the ability to look, see videos, to read, to learn. This can be a very educated generation if you will. It’s not like the old days, well when I say old days, it could be even 10 years ago when people didn’t know what’s going on around them. They can see the reality of the situation, they can look at the videos of terrorists, they can look at the butchered videos left behind by these terrorists, executed people, beheaded Americans. And this comes as a real simple question that most people watching this show would likely then ask. How can anybody of any age be so stupid as to decide that this is where they want to spend their life when they have the ability to see everything in front of them, to know exactly what they’re getting involved in?

Rossomando: I think that you have, it’s idealism. IS says that they want to create a new society and that America, the West, they’re killing Muslims. So it becomes a very appealing thing to gain revenge against the West, drumming their other Muslims and so forth. So I think that you have idealism in every generation. One hundred years ago people were running off joining the Communist Revolution in Russia. I think it’s the same sort of strain of revolutionary fervor that you have in certain idealistic sectors of society.

Berliner: It’s fair to say though when you were looking at things like Communism or Socialism you were looking at people who were looking to live a different way, for people to be more equal in what they did. That certainly was the thought about Communism at that time. Here we though have wanton killers. We have so much evidence that all these people want to do, and I speak about ISIS when I say these people, or any terrorist groups, Hamas if you will, all they want to do is kill as wantonly as possible. So isn’t it just a little bit different? This is a frightening revolutionizing if you will of American youth or anybody. This is scarier than anything we’ve ever faced, is it not?

Rossomando: It’s terrifying. But you have to look at the fact that these people are trying to sell the idea that they want to create a pure form of Islam, a pure Islamic society. This is the stuff that pervades their propaganda that you find if you go Twitter, Facebook and social media. And they rationalize the killing, the violence, as revenge for the sins or the atrocities of the West, because they constantly come out with pictures of maimed children, of Muslims who have been killed by American drones to gain sympathy. And then you have radical extreme preachers such as Anjem Choudary in Britain who have an Internet presence who spread this hate, spread this vile. It’s something that the American Muslim community needs to take seriously instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet and say it’s nothing to do with Islam.

Berliner: Then how do we ferret these people out? I understand that this is a very difficult question. We’re talking about psychology that we could probably spend hours on here. But the general people who are watching right now – everybody. How do we find them? How do we see them? How do we mark them? How do we know that somebody is on the verge, or has the possibility of turning to this side here – turning to the dark side if you will and becoming a killer?

Rossomando: I think that you have to pay close attention to social media. This is something that especially the Muslim community needs to take seriously and look for signs of extremist, revolutionary sort of ideas being espoused by members of their community.

Berliner: Do we often many times though just brush those off and say oh that’s no big deal, it’s just a kid going through something, or it’s just a phase. Isn’t that really where we are at?

Rossomando: We do. Just look at Maj. Nidal Hasan. His imam in the Washington, D.C. area said that he never saw anything about him. Maybe he saw some signs about Maj. Hasan becoming an extremist and decided to do nothing. So I think that the American Muslim community needs to wake up and stop trying to pretend that this isn’t a problem.

Berliner: We have a few minutes left, and I want to hit exactly on where you are right there. There have been reports from a number of communities, certainly in Minnesota, Colorado and others where they find, and this is something people can check out, we’re not just throwing this out here, that there are terrorist connections to certain Muslim groups and certain factions, and even certain mosques if you will in certain cities in America. It’s not everyone, but there are those out there that have these connections. In your view of what’s gone on here, and in your opinion, are there more than we believe? Should we be very suspect? And this is a tough thing to say over and over again, but should we continue to be much more suspect of what comes into our communities in these versions of mosques and under the guise of peace?

Rossomando: Absolutely. Take the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va. where two of the hijackers went to Friday prayers, where Anwar Awlaki was the imam. They have an imam there now named Shaker Elsayed who appeared at a Northern Virginia high school talking about Muslim men being first for arms for jihad. We got a book from there talking about embracing arms for re-establishing the Caliphate. And you bring up Minnesota. Just two weeks ago, Al-Shabaab released a recruiting video calling on Muslims living in Minnesota to join up. And then on top of it you have groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations that do everything they can to deter the FBI from following leads and potentially stopping plots. And you also have some imams who issue fatwas saying that cooperating with the FBI is not permissible under Islamic law because they harm Muslims.

Berliner: I’ve got about 30 seconds left then. Would your suggestion then that Muslims here in America need to take more of a forward role here in making sure that they tell people this is not all of us; this is a certain faction, and we are the ones who are also going to help make sure that this country is not hurt and these people are subjugating our religion?

Rossomando: Absolutely. They need to do more than just condemn. They need to develop a counter-narrative to counter the jihadist propaganda that talks about how you interpret the Quran or how you talk about Islam. And so far they have not done so. All they have done is accuse people who raise objections of being Islamophobes, of being bigots. What we need to see is a more proactive, public, an aggressive counter-jihadist message from them. Unless they can, they don’t have any credibility.

Berliner: All right John we’re all out of time but thank you so much for your time and your comments. John Rossomando. Stay with us. Mid-Point continues.

Emerson on Fox with Judge Pirro on How the US is Manipulating the Truth on Radical Islam

by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
September 13, 2014

Judge Jeanine: And with me now the founder of the Investigative Project, Steve Emerson. All right Steve, ISIS claims to have beheaded this British hostage. Your reaction tonight.

Emerson: Look, ISIS is very adept at manipulating the entire world. This is a recruitment video. It’s going to recruit a lot more jihadis from the West. There’s a reason why they’re videotaping it. There’s a reason why they’re using British or foreign jihadis to do the executions. There’s a reason why these videos recruit thousands more Western jihadis who go through Turkey, our ‘ally,’ that John Kerry just praised; an ally that refuses to allow the US to use its military bases, an ally that won’t shut down the black oil market that ISIS now gains $1.5 million a day in black oil market sales. So the reality is that our allies that the administration praises – Turkey and Qatar – are sabotaging our campaign against ISIS while the President has basically angered good allies lie Egypt, which really could be participating in a very meaningful way because it is significantly and ideologically against the Muslim Brotherhood which [ISIS] has in its origins..”

Judge Jeanine: Steve I’m still amazed. Thirty-five million Egyptians hit the streets, grandmothers, kids, everybody saying, ‘We don’t want the Muslim Brotherhood, we don’t want sharia law. We may be Muslims, 80% of us, but we do not want this extremism.’ But let me move along here. You just said a few minutes ago that that video might be an incentive for other people to join. We know that Ali Muhammad Brown, 29 – and you know I talked about this a few weeks ago – charged in the murders of four men. He says that he and two other people killed to avenge the US actions in the Middle East. Is this homegrown radical Islamic terrorism?

Emerson: Absolutely. I think that most people have no clue about what happened. Here was a man, Ali Muhammad Brown, who killed four people, the last one being a 19-year-old man in New Jersey, Brendan Tevlin. He was charged, [in New Jersey]; three previous murders were committed in Washington State. He [Brown] was arrested in July in New Jersey. In his confession to the New Jersey prosecutors, state prosecutors, he openly stated that his motivation for killing them was his, quote, his belief that the United States was evil because what they were doing to Muslims in the Middle East, that they were carrying out massacres of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and therefore it was his duty to punish Americans and to kill them. This was a direct confession admitting that he was carrying out a jihad. He should have been prosecuted for terrorism. No charges of terrorism were brought against him. The FBI was denied, was told to stand down, not get involved. No federal prosecutors were involved. This is the Obama administration basically denying the opportunity, denying the obligation to prosecutors the opportunity to bring federal terrorism charges because they don’t want to basically disturb the notion that there’s radical Islam in the United States.

Judge Jeanine: I’ve got to tell you something Steve. As a local DA, as an elected DA, I got to tell you the Feds jump in whenever they can. The fact that they didn’t tells me that this is huge, that they did not want to touch the terrorism piece. You’re absolutely right. But let me, let’s talk about. Now there’s an attempted attack on a US embassy in Uganda thwarted by police; another terrorist group now, al Shabaab. What about them? Do we have to worry about them now?

Emerson: We have to worry about all of these groups. And that’s the problem. All of these Islamic terrorist groups – al Shabaab, Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda still, al Qaeda in Yemen – all of these groups have a common denominator. They’re all radical Islamic groups. Yes, they’re located in different areas. Some of them have regional grievances. But they have a common denominator – they believe in the sharia, they believe in the imposition of Islamic hegemony, and they believe in the hatred of the West and the hatred of the infidels. The bottom line here is the administration has compartmentalized all of these groups into different entities not believing that they’re connected. And so we have different strategies. In the press conferences delivered yesterday and today by press spokespeople for the State Department, they talked about Hamas as if it was a political entity. They talked about Turkey, a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled country, as if it was an ally of the United States when it sabotages the US. They [had previously] talked about Egypt as if it was an enemy because it’s against the Muslim Brotherhood.

Judge Jeanine: Crazy. Steve Emerson, thanks so much.

Foreign Fighters and the Religious Foundation of Jihad

ISISSSSSSBlind Eagle, Brian Fairchild / July 23, 2014:

Over the past three years, the Syrian civil war has attracted over 12,000 young radicalized Muslims who left their homes and rushed to join the jihad.  In early July 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) created a new Caliphate that is expected to attract many thousands more, a situation described by the US Attorney General as a “global crisis”.

Many of the foreign fighters, most in their early to mid-20s, hail from Western countries such as Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK.  American officials estimate that over 100 American Muslims have joined them.  This fact begs the question:  why did these young Muslims leave their homes to travel abroad and join the jihad?  An accurate and unbiased answer to this question is crucial if the US is to have an effective counter-terrorism policy.

The answer, at the most fundamental strategic level, is that the ranks of foreign fighters are filled by Muslims who accept a Salafi interpretation of Islam and join the jihad because of their religious beliefs.  Salafism is an ancient ultraconservative form of Sunni Islam which demands that Muslims live by an unquestioning literal acceptance of Allah’s commands in the Qur’an (Sharia law), and they wage jihad because numerous Qur’anic verses command them to do so.

The United States government, however, rejects this basic strategic fact.  At a speaking engagement in mid-August 2009,John Brennan, then counter terrorism advisor to the president and current CIA director, emphasized President Obama’s rejection of any religious dimension:

  • Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against “jihadists.” Describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, “jihad,” meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”

The president was so adamant in his position, that, in 2010, he ordered the removal of all religious terms such as “jihad” and “Islamic extremism” from the US National Security Strategy assessment, effectively stopping the government from any inquiries involving a connection between Islam and terrorism.  In explanation, the administration states that admitting to a connection between Islam and terrorism would bestow legitimacy on the terrorists, insult Islam, and alienate Muslims, so it unilaterally decided to remove Islam from the equation and to henceforth refer to Islamist terrorists as simply “violent extremists”.

The facts, however, contradict the administration’s position.  On July 22, 2014, in a follow-up report to the 9/11 Commission investigation, the commissioners noted that:

  • “A senior national security official told us that the forces of Islamist extremism in the Middle East are stronger than in the last decade…Officials are also deeply concerned at the region’s seemingly endless supply of disaffected young people vulnerable to being recruited as suicide bombers.”

The majority of the world’s Muslims understand the religious extremism of the terrorists all too well given that they are their predominant target.  A 2013 Pew Research poll reveals that “across 11 Muslim publics surveyed…, a median of 67% say they are somewhat or very concerned about Islamic extremism. In five countries – Pakistan, Jordan, Tunisia, Turkey and Indonesia – Muslim worries about extremism have increased in the past year”.[1]

The president of Egypt also understands and accepts the connection between terrorism and Islam.  On January 31, 2014, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, called for changes within Islam that amount to an Islamic Reformation saying:

  • Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, pointing to the need for anew vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam—rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.”

The administration’s own key Muslim partners, too, have explicitly admitted just how permeated Islam is by the extremist interpretation.  The following two examples are especially significant because they come from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which considers itself to be the leader of the Sunni Muslim world due to the fact that it is the Protector of the Two Holy Cities –Mecca and Medina, where Islam was revealed to the prophet and flourished:

  • Far from trying to hide the religious foundation of Islamist terrorism, on May 16, 2009,  Saudi Arabia’s Assistant Minister of the Interior told Ambassador Richard Holbrooke that al Qaeda hijacked Islam, stating “Terrorists stole the most valuable things we have…They took our faith and our children and used them to attack us”.  Moreover, he expressed no hesitation telling Holbrooke how far Islamist penetration had succeeded in the Kingdom, stating that in 2003 the Saudis discovered Islamist radicals in “90 percent” of the mosques.
  • On May 24, 2009, Ambassador Holbrooke was given a counter-terrorism briefing by the Saudi Ministry of the Interior that revealed the ancient Islamic roots of Salafi ideology and how it spread:

“The counterterrorism briefing began with history and geography:  Briefer Captain Bandar Al-Subaie said the Takfiriideology behind extremist groups dated back to the earliest days of Islam, and had figured in the killings of two early Caliphs.  Its tenets were reflected in the beliefs of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and had spread from there to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then to the Arabian Peninsula where it had been taken up by modern day terrorists including Al-Qaeda (AQ).”

Moreover, an analysis of ISIS’ recent actions and proclamations provides more than enough proof to show that it is not just a gang of sectarian “violent extremists”, but a radical Islamist religious movement.

  • Note:  The following analysis includes numerous citations to Qur’anic verses.  Except for black highlighting, none of the citations have been altered in any way; they are all copied verbatim exactly as they appear in The Noble Qur’an:  English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, published by the King Fahd Complex of the Saudi Arabian Government.  Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the word of God verbally revealed to Muhammad, in Arabic, through the angel Gabriel.  All of the verses in the Qur’an (which constitute Sharia law) are considered direct commands in God’s voice.     

 According to the US administration, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the new Islamic State are no more than “violent extremists” perpetrating regional sectarian violence.  As such, their communications are considered to be simply hate speech or exhortations to violence and of no real intelligence value.

The reality, however, is quite to the contrary.  On July 5, 2014, al-Baghdadi made his debut appearance in a video at the Great Mosque of al-Nouri in Mosul, Iraq.  Wearing Islamic garb and sporting a long beard, he made a speech that was carefully crafted specifically to establish his religious legitimacy to rule all Muslims as the leader of the new Caliphate.

Al-Baghdadi’s speech occurred during the Muslim month of Ramadan, and he opened by stating that “Ramadan is a month to wage jihad”, noting that the Prophet Muhammad made armies and fought the “polytheists” during this month.  This reference sent a particularly potent message to Muslims, especially to radicalized Salafis, who understood its implications.

The Prophet Muhammad led Islam’s two most important battles during Ramadan – the very first battle – the Battle of Badr, and the Battle of Mecca.  In Islamic history, Muhammad, against all odds, was victorious at the desert oasis of Badr as a result of Allah’s divine intervention.  At the Battle of Mecca, he deployed an Army of 10,000 and the city fell virtually without resistance.  The victory at Mecca consolidated Muhammad’s power and caused the surrounding tribes to join him.  The few remaining opposing tribes were quickly subdued.

The parallels to al-Baghdadi are unmistakable.  Al-Baghdadi’s total force is estimated to be around 10,000.  He emerged out of the desert and, against all odds, defeated the Iraqi military with many Iraqi units running from his advance.  He consolidated his power in the new Islamic State, and the surrounding tribes have joined him.  He is currently pursuing the remaining opposition.  He also claimed that the success he and his mujahideen have achieved was only possible because they “have been bestowed upon by Allah to achieve victory” – divine intervention.

After referencing Ramadan, al-Baghdadi quoted the Qur’an – Chapter 51, Verse 56, “I (Allah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship me (alone)”[2], which reminded all Muslims that they were created to submit to and follow the commands of Allah.  Having established this basic tenet of Islam, he followed by saying that Allah commanded them to fight against his enemies and then paraphrased Allah’s command to “Wage jihad using your wealth and yourself for the sake of Allah”, which appears in the Qur’an Chapter 9, Verse 41:

  • “March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), and strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah.  This is better for you, if you but knew.”[3]

To reinforce this point, he immediately quoted two additional jihad commands – “I have ordered you to fight even though you do not like it”, which paraphrases Qur’an Chapter 2, Verse 216:

  • Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you.  Allah knows but you do not know.”[4]

As well as, “And fight them so there is no discord and this religion is for all people to adopt in their life for Allah”, which paraphrases Chapter 2, Verse 193:

  • And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone)…”[5]

Having amply established each Muslim’s duty to wage jihad, he then told his audience what the jihad is for – to establish Allah’s religion on earth through the creation of a Caliphate ruled by Sharia law, after which he announced the creation of the new Caliphate with himself elected as its Imam.

This speech is nothing but religious.  It methodically used Qur’anic references to make the Sharia case to all Muslims that al-Baghdadi’s jihad, his recent victories, and the establishment of the new Caliphate are all Islamically legal and sanctioned by Allah.  It was devoid of any other content.

ISIS’ strict adherence to Sharia law is not only confined to the new Imam’s speeches, however.  On July 21, 2014, ISIS gave Christians in Mosul an ultimatum:  to convert to Islam, submit to Islam and pay the Jizya (a tax for Muslim protection), or die.

These threats were described in the media and by government officials as another example of the group’s intolerance and mindless “sectarian” violence, but with no other significance.  This superficial assessment, however, misses the larger point.  The threats are an integral part of Sharia as commanded by Allah in Qur’an Chapter 9, Verse 29:

  • Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger Muhammad, (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”[6]

Even the most barbaric of ISIS crimes adhere to Sharia.  In late May 2014, news reports surfaced that ISIS had crucified a number of its opponents, which is commanded in Chapter 5, Verse 33:

  • “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.  That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.”[7]

In mid-June 2014, reports surfaced of ISIS beheadings, which is commanded in Chapter 47, Verse 4:

  • “So, when you meet (in fight – Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them…”[8]

Understanding the religious foundation of ISIS and all other Salafi-jihadi organizations is not just an academic exercise.  The definition of an enemy dictates how national resources are used to combat it.  As the facts above reveal, ISIS is not a regional, sectarian organization seeking a place for Sunnis in Iraq’s political structure.  Nor is it just a band of thugs committing violence for violence’s sake.  It is a radical religious movement that transcends borders.  In the minds of its leaders and followers it is fighting a holy war justified by Allah’s commands in the Qur’an (Sharia law).  It is not driven by regional political ambition, but by religious zeal.  The young radical Muslims that flock to it share the same religious beliefs and zealotry.

Brian Fairchild bio.

“Our Present Is Your Future”

Gates of Vienna:

Below is the prepared text of the speech given in Chanhassen, Minnesota tonight by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, at an event sponsored by SW Metro Tea Party Patriots and ACT! for America, Minneapolis Chapter.

esw-churchLadies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me here to Chanhassen. It’s the first time I’ve been to Minnesota, and I must say it’s a pleasure to be here. The closest I came to this part of the country was when I lived in Chicago, but that was many years ago.

I have always admired the Tea Party Movement, contrary to most of my fellow Austrians, who are uneducated when it comes to the historical significance of the original Boston Tea Party. What I admire most is that you are nourished by the very American belief that the government does not have the answers, that reform comes from below, that people are wiser than their leaders.

I bring you greetings from Austria. I’d like to be able to report some happy news, but there is little good news to be had in my country. Austria, like most of the rest of Western Europe, is being Islamized at an accelerating pace, even as our freedom of speech is more and more often suppressed. The two processes are connected with each other: in order to prevent any real public understanding of what Islamization means, and to inhibit any popular discontent, the ability to tell the truth is vigorously squashed.

Those of you who know me are aware that I will NOT cease telling the truth about Islam. For almost ten years I have made it my business to inform my fellow Austrians about the nature of Islam, as revealed in the Koran and the sayings of Mohammed. I refuse to cease my activities merely because dhimmi government bureaucrats consider such truths to be “hate speech”. In the past I have been prosecuted and convicted for explaining Islam in a factual manner, and I may well be prosecuted again. But I shall continue regardless.

Similar conditions exist in other European countries. Austria is not even the worst-off — Britain and Sweden are vying with each other to see who can be the most repressive. In both countries you are likely to be prosecuted for saying anything that reflects badly on Islam. And, just as in Austria, the truth is no defense.

As an example, consider what happened to my good friend Paul Weston, a Counterjihad activist and the leader of the LibertyGB party in Britain. Last April, as a part of his election campaign for the European Parliament, Paul stood on the steps of the Winchester Guildhall and quoted from a book written in 1899 called The River War. He recited the following words:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

Someone in earshot heard his words, took offense, and called the police. Paul was eventually arrested, taken to the police station, and charged with “incitement of racial hatred”, which is a “racially aggravated crime under Section 4 of the Public Order Act.” The charges were later dropped, but what happened to him served as a warning to others who might consider doing something similar.

All of this is bad enough — to be arrested for reading from an old book that makes politically incorrect observations about Islam. But that book happens to have been written by a man named WINSTON CHURCHILL.

Such is the sad state of affairs in Modern Multicultural Britain: an English citizen can now be arrested for giving a public reading from a book by the greatest British prime minister who ever lived.

I could cite more examples from all over Western Europe, but if I did I would exceed my allotted time and keep all of us up long past our bedtime. Someone is arrested almost every day in Europe for “hate speech”, and the offending words almost always concern Islam.

There is currently a demand by the Islamic Faith Community in Austria for an “anti-Islamism law”, which is actually a ruse to obtain new favorable provisions for Muslims. The drive for this law is being backed by Turkey. The same law is also being demanded in Germany by the Turkish community. The final result, if they are successful, will be that Muslims in both countries will gain further special privileges and be protected from criticism.

Truth is the first victim when our freedoms are threatened. Seraphina Verhofstadt was asked in a TV interview why she still displays the Israeli flag after being beaten up, and whether it would not be wiser to remove it. She answered: “If I do that, I will also lose my freedom of speech.”

I have been asked frequently after my conviction whether it would not be wiser just to stop talking about Islam “in this way”. My answer is: “If I do that, more people will lose their freedom of speech.”

First we lose truth, then we lose freedoms, and finally we lose life itself.

As I have said previously, “There is no free speech in Austria and in Europe. That’s just an illusion; that’s just what the politicians are telling you. If you wanted a definition of European free speech, I would say, ‘Well, you have the right to say anything as long as it’s within what the government tells you to think.’”

Our politicians, similar to yours here in the United States are members of the Global Ministry of Truth, with its policy that Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists. They are forcing truth upon us, preventing us from seeking truth and knowledge.

The engine driving the assault on civil liberties in Europe is the presence of millions of Muslims. It’s not just that the Islamic population is large enough in most major cities to pose the risk of mob violence when roused. Muslims also tend to vote as a bloc, and mostly for the socialist parties, so that the ruling establishment falls all over itself to cater to Islamic needs in order to retain its hold on power. Muslims require that there be no public criticism of Islam, so all such speech is in the process of being outlawed. Related issues, such as mass immigration from the Third World, may also trigger the same penalties under the same laws.

Within its borders Europe now has an Islamic population equivalent to that of Saudi Arabia. Due to their aggressive behavior and their group solidarity, Muslims wield an influence far beyond what their numbers would suggest. Muslim demands tend to be enacted as public policy, and what they dislike tends to be outlawed. Halal food is served to everyone at public schools, and gender segregation is instituted at public swimming pools. Muslims are granted special exemptions from dress codes, the right to pray in rooms specially set aside for them, and the right to blast the call to prayer at ungodly hours from the minarets of their mosques.

Not surprisingly, anti-Semitism has risen to a level not seen in Europe since the fall of the Third Reich. And, needless to say, the new Jew-hatred largely originates with European Muslims — the “New Swedes”, the “New Germans”, and the “New Austrians”.

Yes, there are anti-Semitic native Europeans. But they are few in number, and their political parties are generally considered a joke in most countries. The two most significant Jew-hating parties are Jobbik in Hungary and Golden Dawn in Greece. The former arose in a former East Bloc country where pre-war attitudes were preserved by communism like a fly in amber. The latter developed out of the despair and chaos of economic ruin in the most destitute country in Europe — much as the National Socialists did in Germany during the Great Depression.

People outside of Europe, especially talking heads on television, tend to lump the anti-jihad parties in with Golden Dawn and Jobbik as “right-wing extremists”. But this is a false grouping: such parties are quite different. The anti-jihad parties support Israel, promote civil liberties, and generally espouse a classical liberal philosophy. Examples include the PVV in the Netherlands, the Danish People’s Party, the Sweden Democrats, the Austrian Freedom Party, and the Lega Nord in Italy. What they all have in common is their opposition to Islamization and mass immigration.

The rising anti-Semitism in Europe is Islamic anti-Semitism, which, as chronicled by my good friend Dr. Andrew Bostom, is as old as Islam itself. It is sanctioned — even mandated — by the Koran and the sayings of Mohammed. There is no Muslim community in Europe, not even the most “mainstream”, that is not rife with Jew-hatred.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The recent formation of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq has drawn the world’s attention to the true nature of Islam. Images of the horrors unleashed by ISIS have spread all over the world via YouTube and social media. Our cowardly political leaders repeatedly deny that there is any justification in Islam for these acts. They keep telling us: “ISIS does not represent the true Islam”.

Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The Islamic State has returned to the core instructions recorded in the Koran, which Muslims consider to be the word of Allah. This IS the real Islam.

And this is the pernicious ideology that was deliberately imported into Europe along with millions of Muslim immigrants from North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Subcontinent. The process began forty years ago, and has been chronicled by Bat Ye’or in her ground-breaking book Eurabia. The first Oil Crisis in 1973 induced European governments to strike a Faustian bargain with Arab countries: in return for a guaranteed flow of oil at a relatively stable price, they were required to support the Palestinian cause, and also allow mass immigration from OPEC countries into Europe.

Four decades later, the results are as I have described. Our political leaders may well regret the decisions their predecessors made back then, but it is now far too late to reverse course. Not only is Muslim anger a potential threat to the civil order, but those in power depend on Muslim votes to keep them there. All they can do is double down on their failed policies, allowing more immigration, granting more concessions to Islam, and paying out billions and billions of additional euros in welfare and other subsidies.

Ladies and gentlemen, this will not end well.

Read more

9/11 and Jihad Terror: A Legacy of Over 13 Centuries—Not 13 Years

ISIL O TWILIGHT ZONE 2014 911
By Andrew Bostom:

I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)

—Islam’s prophet Muhammad, as recorded in the most important collection of Muhammad’s “traditions,” Sahih Bukhari,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220

ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is not Islamic

Barack Obama, September 10, 2014

**

There is just one historically relevant meaning of jihad despite the surfeit of contemporary apologetics. Dr. Tina Magaard—a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in textual analysis—published detailed research findings in 2005 (summarized in 2007) comparing the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard concluded from her hard data-driven analyses:

The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree [emphasis added]. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with.

For example, in her 2007 essay “Fjendebilleder og voldsforestillinger i islamiske grundtekster” [“Images of enemies and conceptions of violence in Islamic core scriptures”], Magaard observed,

There are 36 references in the Koran to expressions derived from the root qa-ta-la, which indicates fighting, killing or being killed. The expressions derived from the root ja-ha-da, which the word jihad stems from, are more ambiguous since they mean “to struggle” or “to make an effort” rather than killing. Yet almost all of the references derived from this root are found in stories that leave no room for doubt regarding the violent nature of this struggle. Only a single ja-ha-da reference (29:6) explicitly presents the struggle as an inner, spiritual phenomenon, not as an outwardly (usually military) phenomenon. But this sole reference does not carry much weight against the more than 50 references to actual armed struggle in the Koran, and even more in the Hadith.

Consistent with Magaard’s textual analysis, the independent study of Australian linguist and renowned Arabic to English translator, Paul Stenhouse, claimed the root of the word jihad appears forty times in the Koran. With four exceptions, Stenhouse maintained, all the other thirty-six usages in the Koran, and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries—the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam—and to ordinary people, meant and means, as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer, E. W. Lane: “He fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.” A concordant modern Muslim definition, relevant to both contemporary jihadism and its shock troop “mujahideen” [holy warriors; see just below], was provided at the “Fourth International Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research,” at Al Azhar University— in 1968, by Muhammad al-Sobki:

[T]he words Al Jihad, Al Mojahadah, or even “striving against enemies” are equivalents and they do not mean especially fighting with the atheists . . . they mean fighting in the general sense.

Data for 2012 from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) were released December 19, 2013. Gary LaFree, START director and professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Maryland, highlighted the report’s most salient finding: the “incredible growth” in jihad terror attacks perpetrated by “al-Qaeda affiliates.” START identified the six most lethal jihad terror groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda, and the death tolls these organizations had inflicted during 2012, as follows: the Taliban (more than 2,500 fatalities), Boko Haram (more than 1,200 fatalities), al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (more than 960 fatalities), Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (more than 950 fatalities), al-Qaeda in Iraq (more than 930 fatalities) and al-Shabaab (more than 700 fatalities). These attacks, as the START report acknowledged, were intrinsic to a broader phenomenon—the emergence of jihad terrorism emanating from the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa, as the predominant form of global terrorism, since the 1990s.

Another macabre tally—updated almost daily—is being kept assiduously in cyberspace: the number of attacks committed by jihad terrorists since the cataclysmic acts of jihad terrorism on September 11, 2001. This grisly compilation is if anything a conservative estimate of jihad-related carnage— murder and severe morbidity—because it doesn’t include combat-related statistics per se, or the death toll increases during the days or months after any given attack (as victims die from their injuries). As of September 11, 2014, this grim count is approaching 24,000.

Read more

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad(Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ” (Prometheus, November, 2008)

You can contact Dr. Bostom at info[@]andrewbostom.org

ISIS Is Not Islamic?

by Daniel Pipes
Sep 10, 2014
Cross-posted from National Review Online, The Corner

In a televised address this evening, President Barack Obama outlined his ideas on how to defeat the Islamic State. Along the way, he declared the organization variously known as ISIS or ISIL to be “not Islamic.”

In making this preposterous claim, Obama joins his two immediate predecessors in pronouncing on what is not Islamic. Bill Clinton called the Taliban treatment of women and children “a terrible perversion of Islam.” George W. Bush deemed that 9/11 and other acts of violence against innocents “violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.”

Word magic permits Obama to turn ISIS into a "not Islamic" organization.

Word magic permits Obama to turn ISIS into a “not Islamic” organization.

Indeed, Obama compounds his predecessors’ errors and goes further: Clinton and Bush merely described certain actions (treatment of women and children, acts of violence against innocents) as un-Islamic, but Obama has dared to declare an entire organization (and quasi-state) to be “not Islamic.”None of the three has any basis for such assertions. To state the obvious: as non-Muslims and politicians, rather than Muslims and scholars, they are in no position to declare what is Islamic and what is not. As Bernard Lewis, a leading American authority of Islam, notes: “it is surely presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam.” (That Obama was born and raised a Muslim has no relevance here, for he left the faith and cannot pronounce on it.)

The only good thing about this idiocy? At least it’s better than the formulation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (known as CAIR) which has the nerve to call ISIS “anti-Islamic.”

In the end, though, neither U.S. presidents nor Islamist apologists fool people. Anyone with eyes and ears realizes that ISIS, like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda before it, is 100 percent Islamic. And most Westerners, as indicated by detailed polling in Europe, do have eyes and ears. Over time, they are increasingly relying on common sense to conclude that ISIS is indeed profoundly Islamic. (September 10, 2014)

Also see:

9/11 and Forgiveness

Lyrics (strong language)

 

Frontpage, by Joe Herring:

On a certain day in the very recent past, before the sun had melted the morning into afternoon, I had been told three times that forgiveness was the order of the day for this upcoming 13th anniversary of 9/11.  Once was by the carnival barker/news anchor on the television.  I heard it for the second time by a teenager in a television commercial, urging his fellow citizens to commit “acts of service” as a means of remembrance.  Lastly, a sign on the marquis outside a church I drove past read, “Remember, but Forgive.”

It has always been a difficult concept for a hothead like me to grasp, this forgiveness thing. I know Jesus would, but I’m no Jesus.  To me, forgiveness is something bestowed on those who erred unintentionally, or through a lapse in judgment, not for those who acted out of a malicious intent to harm or kill.  I can’t fathom forgiving the rapist of a child or the savage murderer of the innocent and helpless.  It is a good thing that I am not all-powerful, because I would make for a terribly vengeful god.

It was a beautiful day on which I wrote this. The sky was crystalline blue; the air was clear, with a whisper of the coolness of approaching fall.  In fact, it was a near-carbon copy of the weather from thirteen years earlier.  I remember watching the warplanes buzzing over my city like angry hornets on that day, to and fro, with armaments hanging menacingly from their wings.  Only later would I discover that they were performing an over-watch operation, guarding the airspace above the military base south of town, where President George W. Bush had just landed in Air Force One.

I come from a military family and am a veteran myself.  I understand the nature of conflict, and the reasons to avoid it, if possible.  I also realize that conflict is often unavoidable, and at times even preferable to maintaining the status quo.

After the brutal assault we suffered on 9/11/01, we could have maintained our usual pattern of treating terrorism as a police matter and launched an international investigation.  Or we could have followed the fetid and worn advice of the appeasers (who tell us everything is our fault) and simply offered money or a new aid program to assuage the perpetrators of this attack.  Instead, we chose war, and properly so.

Now that the 13th anniversary is here, I don’t feel the catharsis the media tells me I should have experienced by now.  I must be a barbaric freak – some war-loving monkey with a cylindrical brain that recycles the same hatred over and over again, tumbling it like compost until it steams.  I’m supposed to forgive, and even, according to some commentators from the left, forget that 9/11 happened.  To “get over ourselves,” as the “enlightened” opine.

It finally occurred to me, though, why I couldn’t get right with this whole “forgiveness” theme.  It struck me why I bristled at the suggestion by President Obama that we declare 9/11 a “day of service,” casting about for volunteer opportunities as a way of honoring our dead.  The unrest in my heart was not courtesy of 9/11 itself; it was the tainting of the victory America deserved and earned after 9/11 that spawned my ill ease.

In times past, our remembrances have been predicated on victory, whole and entire.  Such victories are the necessary resolutions of violent conflict.  No one celebrates a stalemate, much less a loss.  WWII was solid.  We won.  Polio was solid.  We beat that, too.  In the Civil War, we lamented the terrible price our countrymen paid, but we celebrated the ultimate supremacy of our Union, and built ever higher on that hard-won foundation.

The War on Terror, like Vietnam, has emerged muddled and unclear, seemingly by design. It is precisely this feeling that the left seeks to engender in us: a sense of haplessness – to have us view our defense as a burden of care that we can’t wait to lay down.

I don’t want to lay down that burden.  I’m not looking for closure.  I want to fight.  I want to ratchet up the retribution until the very ground our enemy stands upon screams its submission, and the air itself cracks with the blast of our righteous vengeance.  Our blood-earned victory has been stolen — and I want it back.

I want those who preach the politics of defeat and appeasement to find themselves shunned at every turn by those of us who still believe that America fights when America is right – and that to accept anything short of victory is to dishonor the sacrifice of the dead and wounded.

War is an ugly and repulsive thing, but it is not as ugly and repulsive as the coward who would lick the hand of his master and thank him for beating him less today than the day before.  America has changed the world in unprecedented ways.  We have shown the common souls of this earth that they are possessed of an inherent worth, granted by a force mightier than any government, and not subject to the whims and designs of men.

Despite our successes, or perhaps because of them, the brutish of the world are fighting back.  Never forget: the default position of humanity has always been brutal oppression and savage war.  America and the ideals of its founding have done more to change that than anything else, save Christianity.

The left wishes us to accept less than winning.  We aren’t any better than all the other nations of the earth, they tell us.  Well, I think that those on the left are right: they aren’t any better than all the other nations, but the rest of us are, and we intend to raise a standard to which the righteous and patriotic may aspire.  I say fight on, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The “parade marshal” of the American left, Barack Obama, marches proudly toward an alternative vision of our nation, leading those who fail to recognize that our strength is built upon action, not apology – goodness in the deed, not merely the intention.

We have earned our victory.  We deserve it as a nation and as a people, and I intend to mark the anniversary of 9/11 with martial pride and a hearty thump of the chest.  Let 9/11 be a day of service for those inclined to servitude.  For me, it will always be a reminder that our safety is only as sure as our strength.  To God the glory; to the rest of us, Semper Fidelis!

Does Moderate Islamic Ideology Exist?

tawfikNewsmax, By Tawfik Hamid, Sep. 10, 2014:

One of the guiding principles of the Islamic State is that Muslims must fight non-Muslims all over the world and offer them the following choices: Join, pay a humiliating tax called “jijya,” or to be killed. This violent principle was the basic doctrine that justified the Islamic conquests by the early Muslims.

After recent savagery by ISIS and other militant groups around the world, the following question inevitably is raised: Is it possible to be a follower and not adhere to that mandate?

In other words, if a young Muslim became very religious, is there an approved Islamic theological source or interpretation that clearly contradicts such a principle or at least teaches it in a different way, for example, contextualizing it in time and place?
The sad answer is: No.

Typically, there are five sources for Islamic law. These are: the Koran — the Hadith of Prophet Muhammad (such as Sahih Al-Buchakry), the actions of the disciples of Mohamed (Sahaba), the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and the Tafseer or Interpretations of the Koran.

If a young Muslim whether the Islamic State is adhering to doctrine, the following shocking results would arise.

The literal understanding of the Koran 9:29 can easily be used to justify what extremists are doing.  “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humiliated.”

The following Sahih (authentic) Hadith in Al-Buchakry also supports violent ideology.
“Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said No God other than, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

If the same young Sunni Muslim felt uncomfortable with the literal interpretations of such text a search for an answer in the actions of the Sahaba might ensue. Sadly, the Sahaba or Disciples of Muhammad were the ones who used such a principle to justify the Islamic conquests and subjugating non-Muslims to Islam.

The fourth source for Islamic law is the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence namely, Al-Shafeii, Al-Hanbali, Al-Hanafi, and Al- Maleki. These schools, without a single exception, support the principle that Muslims must fight non-Muslims and offer them the dire choices.

The fifth, and final hope for one searching for a different understanding of Koran 9:29 is to find an interpretation (or commentary) that interprets it differently.

A basic research on almost all approved interpretation for the Quran support the same violent understanding. More than leading 25 different approved Koran Interpretations that are usually used by Muslims to understand the Koran unambiguously support the violent understanding of the verse.

Saying that “Islam is the religion of peace” or condemning radicals as being “un-Islamic” without condemning the principle that Muslims must fight non-Muslims to subjugate them to Islam, is not just hypocritical, it is counterproductive as it hides the true cause of the problem and impedes the efforts to solve it.

It also dangerously ignores the seriousness of the problem. Similarly, not calling the “Islamic State” the Islamic State (to avoid using the word Islamic) as suggested by some Islamic scholars is not going to change the painful fact that ISIS is using an approved and unchallenged principle of the Islamic theology. Such scholars need to work on providing peaceful alternatives to the current violent theology instead of asking the world not use the label Islamic State.

There are many moderate Muslims; however, until the leading Islamic scholars provide peaceful theology that clearly contradicts the violent views of the Islamic State, the existence of moderate “Islam” must be questioned.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid is the author of “Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam.” Read more reports from Tawfik Hamid — Click Here Now.

What I Have Learned Since 9-11

twin towers 2By Citizen Warrior:

I was on my way back from a vacation when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. My wife and I were listening to music on a CD and enjoyed our ride home, and knew nothing about it. When we got home, we listened to our messages. The first two were from family members hysterically crying, “We’ve been attacked! America is at war!”

My first thought, of course, was the ever-eloquent, “What the fuck!?!”

We watched the news, and I was baffled. Why would anyone do such a thing? I was about as ignorant about this as someone can be. But I’m a learner. It’s what I like to do. And since that day, I’ve learned a lot.

I learned that this was not an isolated incident. Attacks had become more frequent and more deadly over the years. I just hadn’t noticed.

And I eventually learned that this is not just a problem of generic “terrorism,” but a global movement based on teachings from the Koranand the example of Muhammad. I learned that Islam is a unique religion because it’s a political system and a system of law as well as being what most people would call a religion. Its goal is world domination, it has explicit permission for (and approval of) violence in its holy books, and it is intolerant of non-Muslims. Its laws even include legally-imposed discrimination against non-Muslims (and all women). (Read more about that here.)

I learned that an almost-uninterrupted jihad has been waged against non-Muslims for 1400 years. The attacks are near constant. So far since 9-11, Jihadis have carried out 23,795 deadly attacks. Most of us don’t see it as a war. We see isolated attacks. If you take in the whole global view, however, or listen to the point of view of a Jihadi, or read this, you will see it for what it is: A global war — orthodox Muslims against everybody else.

The majority of the conflicts in the world today consist of Jihadis fighting non-Muslims or Muslims who are considered insufficiently Islamic. If you removed jihad from the world right now, it would be a fairly peaceful place.

I also learned that one of the main reasons democracies have so much trouble dealing with Jihadis is because of an important conflict within democracies. Specifically, most people in the free world believe 1) everyone has a right to worship as they wish, and 2) discrimination of any kind is wrong. These are important foundational principles of liberal democracies around the world.

Why is this a problem? Because the simplest way to deal with Islam would be to discriminate against it. In other words, to openly admit Islam is unique (because of its political aspirations and religious duty to overthrow all other forms of law and government), and stop all concessions to Islam and roll back any concessions already made.

We “can’t do that” because it violates important values of our societies. Or does it necessarily? This dialog needs to happen and solutions need to be created for it. But of course, that can’t happen as long as the majority of people in free countries remain ignorant of the most elementary facets of Islam. And it’s not just ignorance. Many people have a real resistance to hearing anything about it because even talking about it seems to violate the principles of decency and kindness!

So the final thing I’ve learned is that the solution to this problem starts with a grassroots movement: Those who know something about Islam’s dangers to the free world must talk to people who don’t, and successfully educate them. Once enough people are educated, national conversations can happen that could result in new, carefully-crafted policies that retain our democratic freedoms while limiting the destructive and insidious encroachment of orthodox Islam.

If you want to participate in this grassroots movement (and I hope you do), start here: WhatYouCanDoAboutIslam.com.

13 years after 9/11, borders wide open, victims families peddle Islamophobia meme

By Creeping Sharia, September 10, 2014:

Muslim terrorists can, and do, walk across the U.S.-Mexico border and literally sail across the U.S.-Canadian border. Not to mention this Illegals from Terror Hotspots, Ebola-affected Nations Exploiting Open US Border this Texas Rancher Found Urdu Dictionary, Korans Near U.S. Border this Muslim Prayer Rug Found on Border By Security Contractors and this Record Numbers of Illegals from Terror Hot Beds Crossing Texas-Mexico Border. And lest we forget the 58,000 Foreign Students Visa Scofflaws that ICE Can’t Find.

But thirteen years after Muslims attacked America, and have done so since (select any state from the Archive drop down for examples), some 9/11 Families Launch Anti-Islamophobia Campaign For Anniversary Of Tragedy.

o-islamophobia-570

As Muslims just beheaded two Americans who were sympathetic to the Muslim cause, it’s as if 9/11 never happened. They ignore:

Those are just a few samplings from August 2014. We don’t have time or space to list all the stories about Muslims from the U.S. waging jihad overseas or waging jihad against Jews right here in the U.S.

Geert Wilders was speaking to the world when he stated, “Recognize that Islam Is the Problem”. Thirteen years later the deaf, dumb and blind still refuse to face the problem and want to blame the Islamophobia boogeyman.

What’s worse? To be falsely labeled an Islamophobe or to actually be an Islamophile – pandering to and promoting an ideology of hate, misogyny and violence?

Our thoughts?

Better to be wrongly labeled an Islamophobe today than be a dhimmi, or dead, tomorrow.

Never forget, never surrender.

dsc04254

Group of Christian Leaders Rally Against U.S. Action on ISIS

Islamic State militants assassinate Iraqis

Islamic State militants assassinate Iraqis

Some of the organizations have a history of willful blindness to the Islamist ideology and have allied with American Islamists with extremist histories.

By Ryan Mauro:

A group of 53 Christian leaders and activists are urging the Obama Administration not to militarily strike the ISIS terrorist group in Iraq and Syria in a published letter. Several of the organizations represented have a history of willful blindness to the Islamist ideology and have allied with American Islamists with extremist histories.

The letter was published by the Catholic Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns. One of the group’s stated objectives is:

“Identifying and eliminating the root causes of violence and conflict with a focus on…U.S. aggression and national security policy (e.g. war on terrorism and war in Iraq and Afghanistan). The nexus of violence and poverty is clear.”

The worldview of this Christian group is that Islamic extremism is a response to American imperialism. In other words, its America’s fault and the Islamist terrorists are victims, even if their methods are deplorable.

This perspective is fundamentally in error and naïve. ISIS calls itself the Islamic State because that’s what it is fighting for. According to its own words, it is fighting for a caliphate and sharia governance (i.e, an Islamic State). There is no logical way to connect opposition to American foreign policy with this agenda.

In a blunt interview with NBC News, an American from North Carolina who tried to join ISIS and was arrested said, “My reason for the support of ISIS is because they’ve proven time and time again to put Islamic law as the priority and the establishment of an Islamic state as the goal,” Don Morgan said.

By characterizing American military action as “aggression” and ISIS as victims, the organization is assuming the worst of American intentions and the best of ISIS’, even going so far as to ignore ISIS’ own words and actions.

The Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns views Islamic terrorism as an outburst against inequality and poverty. Studies have repeatedly debunked this. The latest was a Queen Mary University of London study that concluded that there is no connection between Islamic terrorism and poverty, lack of education or unemployment.

Read more at Clarion Project

The Awful Truth: The World is at War

jihadshahadaworldBy James Lewis:

American Thinker and other commentary sites have been covering the Jihad War in great detail. But a coherent overview only came together for me after visiting the Long War Journal’s Threat Matrix, sponsored by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy.

The Threat Matrix helps us to see worldwide jihadist violence.

In just the last two weeks we see jihadist warfare in:

  1. Nigeria (Boko Haram)
  2. Iraq and Syria (ISIS, Assad and Hezb’ollah)
  3. Gaza (Hamas)
  4. Sinai Desert (Ansar Jerusalem against Egypt)
  5. Afghanistan (Taliban)
  6. India (Al Qaida)
  7. Pakistan (Waziristan terrorists)
  8. Iraq (Iranian-sponsored terrorist group, “League of the Righteous”)
  9. Libya (Libya Dawn Coalition and others)
  10. Somalia (Al Shabaab)
  11. Syria again (Al Nusrah, AQ affiliate)
  12. Iran (International Shi’ite terror sponsor, using Hezb’ollah and Quds Brigade).
  13. Qatar and Saudi Arabia (Sunni terror-sponsors, including Hamas)
  14. Turkey appears to be a major sponsor of ISIS,. It is run by an Islamofascist regime.

These groups operate in the Gulf region, in Asian countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in North Africa. We could add the Uyghurs in China and the Chechens in Russia.

We could easily add Europe, the United States, Israel and Russia as targets of Islamist terror strikes, including 9/11 in Manhattan, the British Underground bombing, the Madrid train bombing, massive car burnings in Paris, the Beslan and Moscow Theater attacks, in the UK, the massive Pakistani child rape scandal just uncovered in Rotherham.

Europe now has 44 million Muslims, providing fertile ground for terrorist recruitment.

Whether Obama likes it or not, the Jihad War is now worldwide. I have not even touched on South America or countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

This is a worldwide war.

The West has been in utter denial since 1993, the year of the massive Twin Towers truck bomb attack in Manhattan. Even 9/11/01 didn’t wake up our political and media elites.

Twenty years of massive denial of plain facts can only be explained by huge corruption and influence-buying in the West since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, which gave OPEC price-setting power in the international oil market. We know about massive oil-driven corruption from multiple sources, most prominently the 1994 Wall Street Journal expose of Saddam Hussein’s Oil for Food Scandal. Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepin and Kofi Annan were directly implicated in that billion-dollar scandal. Other European politicians were bought off by Muammar Gadaffi, including Tony Blair (after he left the Prime Ministership, as far as we know).

The historian Bat Ye’or has described the beginnings of Muslim oil-money corruption in Europe in her book, Eurabia. Europeans in denial are finally beginning to realize the lethal dangers of Islamist infiltration and sabotage. Britain’s David Cameron and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders are speaking out in public.

The major causes of the new world war can be found in oil-fueled hate propaganda sponsored by Gulf Arabs and Iran. Western media are engaged in a massive cover-up of massive agitation-propaganda, but the Israeli website MEMRI.org does an excellent job of translating Arabic, Urdu, and Persian political propaganda into English.

Ironically, the Saudis are now running scared of ISIS and Al Qaeda.  Iran and Saudi Arabia may well be consumed by their own hate campaigns against Israel, Europe and the United States. They have lost control of the wars they started thirty years ago. Muammar Gadhafi was overthrown. Even Iran is threatened by the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Read more at American Thinker