Tariq Ramadan’s Research Center Holds International Conference In Europe For The First Time

Tariq Ramadan p12412-300x169By gmbwatch on March 18, 2015:

Islamist media is reporting on the third Annual International Conference of the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CILE), headed by Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan. According to the IslamOnline report, this is the first time that the conference has been held in Europe:

BRUSSELS – The third Annual International Conference on Islam and Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas was inaugurated in the Belgium capital, Brussels, on Saturday, March 14, presenting an insight on Islam and global ethics.

‘We are paying the price of a certain restrictive conception that says Islam is only Fiqh,’ Dr. Tariq Ramadan, the director of the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CILE) told attendants.

In his speech titled ‘Global Ethics and Applied Ethics’, Dr Ramadan presented an overview of three main sources of Islamic ethics which are law (fiqh), philosophy-theology and Sufism, in a bid to help audience understand how ethical values and principles are produced from within.

Dr. Ramadan also urged Muslims to go deeper in understanding the objectives of Islam, and not just stop at the level of Fiqh.

He was speaking at the inauguration of the third Annual International Conference on Islam & Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas held in Brussels.

Read the rest here.

According to the CLIE website, the following individuals of interest were expected to participate in this year’s conference:

In March 2014, the GMBDW reported on the the 2nd Annual CLIE international conference that was expected to include Wadah Khanfar, with a background in the Muslim Brotherhood and likely Hamas and Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood figure Tawakkul Karman a winner the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CLIE), headed by Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan, was launched in January 2012 and represented a significant coming together of Global Muslim Brotherhood leaders Ramadan and Youssef Qaradawi, noting that the Deputy Director is a close associate of Qaradawi’s at the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS).The new center appears to be the latest in the series of research centers being established by the Qatar Faculty of Islamic Studies (QFIS). The launch ceremony for Center was co-organized by a group that included five U.S. universities, among them Georgetown University, together with representatives of two organizations headed by Youssef Qaradawi and the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance. According to Saudi media, the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance is a U.K. based organization created to improve the Islamic education curriculum and headed by Abdullah Omar Naseef who has held many important positions Saudi Arabia including serving as Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Shura Council, President of King Abdul Aziz University, and most importantly as Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) from 1983-1993. Dr. Naseef also heads the Cairo-based International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, (IICDR), an umbrella group or 86 Islamic organizations, many of which are associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas fundraising, or support for Al Qaeda.

Tariq Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. For his profile, go here.

Will al Shabaab Join Islamic State?

1321364230CSP, by Nicholas Hanlon, March 18, 2015:

The past weeks of debate regarding the relationship of Boko Haram and IS paints a picture of the how Western analysts weigh relationships between Sunni Islamic movements.  Most analysis in the media weighed tactical considerations that proved to be superficial in the end.

The overarching predictor of behavior for the allegiance between Boko Haram and IS was their strict religious interpretation of Islamic Law.  This is why the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy so confidently predicted the acceptance of allegiance from Boko Haram by IS.

The tactical superficialities often discussed included egos among leadership in the groups, Arab racism toward black Africans, and propaganda ploys made in desperation.  All of these lines of inquiry are factors that merit assessment but ultimately they are symptoms.   Good intelligence analysis should not resemble an after action report.  It should predict behavior in order to prevent strategic surprise.

One of the symptoms or tactical superficialities that came into focus just before the alliance was the upgrade in Boko Haram’s media capability.  This led many to speculate that they had help and training from IS for their propaganda division.  The assistance could have as easily come from al Shabaab.  Al Shabaab has long had an impressive media capability but the latest video on their invasion of Mpeketoni in Eastern Kenya seems to be a leap forward none the less.  If the propaganda videos released by each group serve a purpose, it is to teach us about tactics and goals.  Emphasize the goals over the tactics and you will have a better handle on behavior.

It has been the over-emphasis on tactics that have cost us the big picture.  Again, it was strict religious interpretation which trumped racism that U.S. intelligence officials said would prevent an allegiance between Boko Haram and IS.  The Ansaru faction of Boko Haram for example came from the mind of Mokhtar Belmokhtar (of AQIM at the time).  The media picked up on Ansuru’s condemnation of Boko Haram’s horrific tactics.  If one were to be specific, Ansaru’s issue was with Boko Haram’s horrific treatment of it’s own members.  Not infidels generally.  In fact, by Belmokhtar’s design, Ansaru was meant to be a regional actor where Boko Haram was local.  Maaman Nur led Ansaru and connected with al Shabaab between 2009 and 20011.  Nur, like Abubakar Shekau, was a disciple of Muhammed Yousef.  Many of Yousef’s followers joined Al Qaeda after his death.

This is all to say that the things that divide these groups do not deter them from their long term goals.  There are now hints that Al Qaeda linked al Shabaab will be the next to pledge to IS.  We can continue to ask if tactical factors will cause significant divisions.  One of the big question that remains is whether alliances between these groups will strengthen them tactically.

Despite military success of western alliances in Nigeria, Somalia, or the Middle East, these allegiances will strengthen these Sunni Islamist groups.  In one sense, they already have because policy makers have alluded themselves that the different banners under which global jihadists fight are more significant than they seem.  Now, as they move toward one banner with four globally connected Jihadist groups holding territory (Taliban, Boko Haram, IS, al Shabaab) the threat will extrapolate.

Consider the ten thousand fighters from Western Europe living in democratic societies whose beliefs caused them to heed the call to battle once IS declared the Caliphate and gave them and accessible place to live out their belief.  Success is a great propaganda and recruiting tool.  Every new place they can paint the black flag of Jihad on the map, more will rally to their banner.

Also see:

Boko Haram: What It Means to Swear an Oath

2700814599CSP, by Kyle Shideler, March 11, 2015:

In response to the fact that Nigerian terror group Boko Haram has sworn allegiance to Islamic States, analysts have primarily seized on what benefit Boko Haram is expected to get out of it, and whether the Nigerian insurgency needed a “propaganda” boost, at a time when they are facing a coalition of African states seeking to roll back them back.

This focusing solely on the question of benefit seems logical to the average western analyst, but is deeply problematic.

First, what is Boko Haram? An insurgency? A terrorist organization? Boko Haram, in their own words, is a jamaat (group) dedicated to dawa (proselytizing) and jihad (warfare against unbelievers). These words in and of themselves are pregnant with significance.

Consider from the prospective of those whom Boko Haram considers a relevant authority on these matters. Founder Mohammed Yusuf in 2009 reportedly stated that: “All Islamic scholars who undermine Ibn Taymiyyah, Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna and Osama Bin Laden are not authentic Islamic scholars.” Sayyid Qutb, in his seminal work “Milestones” had this to say about Dawa and Jihad:

“The movement uses the methods of preaching and persuasion (Dawa) for reforming ideas and beliefs and it uses physical power and Jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili (pre-Islamic) system.”

As a Dawa and Jihad organization adhering to Qutb’s methodology, Boko Haram from the beginning was oriented towards the eventual seizure of territory upon which to rule while abolishing Nigerian rule.

Having reached a stage (or milestone as Qutb would have called it), where they felt it appropriate, Boko Haram announced in August of 2014 the establishment of an Islamic state over the territory they controlled in Northern Nigeria. At the time many western analysts misunderstood this claim to be one of a “rival” caliphate. Boko Haram reaffirmed its position of ruling territory in January of this year, noting in discussing its seizure of the town of Baga:

“As for it’s importance to us, it’s because of it removes that military presence from the lands of the Islamic state, and hence establish the Shariah of Allah in the region, and attain safety and security in it for Muslims.”

It was during this period that Boko Haram began openly expressing itself with Islamic State imagery, including their version of the black shahada flag, and using nasheeds (acapella singing) popular with IS fighters in their videos.

Finally the Boko Haram’s Shura Council was previously reported to be considering whether or not to swear an oath to “Caliph” AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi. Having finally done so, it has been reported as an “alliance” or a “team up” but the reality is different. An oath to a caliph carries with it significant implications. Regarding the oath, Islamic jurist Ibn Khaldun (d.1406) wrote:

It should be known that the bay’ah (oath of allegiance) is a contract to render obedience. It is as though the person who renders the oath of allegiance made a contract with his amir, to the effect that he surrenders supervision of his own affairs and those of the Muslims to him and that he will not contest his authority in any of (those affairs) and that he will obey him by (executing) all the duties with which he might be charged, whether agreeable or disagreeable.

In practice, because of geographical distance, and because Boko Haram remains capable of operating independently, it’s unlikely that this degree of total control would be applied, particularly if Boko Haram is granted the position of an IS Province), but legally that is what has been sworn.  It’s an oath which is pre-modern in its conception, and attempting to understand it in the context of  a joint venture between two companies, or a nation-state alliance is an error.

As regards Islamic State’s view of the matter, many questioned whether Boko Haram’s oath would be accepted (it appears to have been). This should come has no surprise either, because Islamic State has explicitly told groups like Boko Haram that such an oath is not only welcome, but “obligatory.” The Islamic State noted in its Caliphate Declaration (This is the Promise of Allah) that:

We clarify to the Muslims that with this declaration of khilāfah, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to the khalīfah Ibrāhīm and support him (may Allah preserve him). The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah’s authority and arrival of its troops to their areas. (emphasis added).

This would seem to suggest that the Islamic State is now in the position to offer at least some level (of possibly technical) assistance to Boko Haram, thus representing an “arrival of its troops.” Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has already claimed that Islamic State has been training Boko Haram’s forces, although whether that’s true remains to be seen.

Seeking to understand and analyze jihadist organizations absent the context of the sharia law that dictates their actions and which they hold as legally binding and obligatory,  continues to mislead and confuse.

 

A top Shariah lawyer’s stunning response to the question: ‘Is there such a thing as moderate Islam?’

419gPOS7xaLThe Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, Feb. 26 2015:

We sat down with a leading Shariah lawyer from Iran, Daniel Akbari, to discuss his illuminating new book ”Honor Killing: A Professional’s Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources, in which he seeks to awaken Americans to the generally antithetical nature of Islam to Judeo-Christian society, and specifically Shariah-dictated domestic violence towards women — up to and including so-called honor killings — and how we in the West can prevent such atrocities.

During the extensive interview, which you can skip to here, we had a chance to ask him a series of questions on the nature of Islam, its goals, tactics, how Western Muslims become jihadists, and all manner of other topics.

But it was in response to a question on whether there is such a thing as moderate Islam that Mr. Akbari, a man who studied at the seat of Shia religious learning at the Tehran University School of Law, and specialized in criminal and family law before leaving Iran, gave perhaps his most stunning response of all, stating:

What Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey says is actually perfect and totally Islamic because Islamis Islam. We don’t have such a thing like — “radical Islam extremism” — many things that are said in Islam like beheading, like stoning, like flogging — they are not extremism acts, those are pure Islam.

…The second thing is, this is not “extremism,” this is “fundamentalism.” People who believe in [the] Koran understand it and practice it and take it serious.

About moderate Muslims, we have to…make a distinction between those people who come from Islamic backgrounds, come from [the] Middle East, their names are ‘Mohammed’…they might not believe in [the] Koran at all. They might just be atheists. They just come from that region.

Who are moderate Muslims in reality according to Akbari?

…Moderate Muslims actually are kind of like CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] people — people who are Muslim Brotherhood types…and these people fight for Islam, love it, but they give a peaceful feature, and good-looking [nature] to Islam, to…deceive Americans not to resist the process of Islam.

Sometimes they deceive Americans this way that “We are the same as your neighbor who is from the Middle East.” That neighbor might be an atheist, might be a Buddhist at heart. Just by nature and feature, people might assume [him or her] Islamic.

…Moderate Muslims, as we might know as Muslim Brotherhood, they are the backbone of jihad.

Without them, there…[are] not gonna be any jihadis. They support jihad financially. They recruit here for jihadists — they recruit in this country. They have their own Islamic centers. They go to jail and recruit for ISIS.

So without these moderate Muslims — I’m not talking about just people coming from [the] Middle East — I’m talking about those who fight for Islam, or those who love Islam and pay for jihadists and also support to…try to recruit people, or sympathizers. My point about moderates is kind of different than what Americans might say.

Moderates are not anybody from [the] Middle East with an Islamic name.

My point about moderates are people who have Islamic organizations in an organized way, fight to improve Islam, I call those people moderates. To my eyes, those moderates are no different than ISIS or other jihadists.

During the interview, we also had the opportunity to discuss a series of other topics with Mr. Akbari including:

Follow Ben Weingarten (@bhweingarten) and TheBlazeBooks on Twitter and Facebook.

National Security Expert: U.S. Foreign Policy Leaders ‘Have Lost The Ability To Think’

coughlinDaily Caller, Ginni Thomas, Feb. 22, 2015: (video at Daily Caller)

From his time briefing generals in the Pentagon, Stephen Coughlin — a leading expert on national security and author of the soon-to-be-published book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” — has always feared for our nation’s safety and thinks it’s time for the government to stop lying.

Coughlin is an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and expert on Islamic law and terrorism. He says the “entire world, friend and foe alike, understands, that starting with the Bush administration and accelerating in the Obama administration, that our foreign policy community is absolutely incoherent and completely vulnerable. These people have lost the ability to think.”

He contends that government bureaucrats have become so focused on fighting “narratives” consistent with a post-modern, politically correct worldview, rather than the facts on the ground, that America’s war on terrorism has become a catastrophic failure.

Rather than be tethered to the professional canon requiring a “duty to be competent” and know the enemy, or their oath to support and defend the nation from enemies foreign and domestic, Coughlin argues the military has been persuaded, cajoled and perverted into fighting based on narratives.

“This country is in serious trouble,” he believes. “The people who hate us — and it’s not just radical Islam, it’s the Chinese, it’s the Russians, it’s the Iranians — they know that our leaders don’t know what they’re doing, because they’ve been kicking the tires.”

In this exclusive video interview with The Daily Caller, Coughlin says our allies in the war of terror “watched us change sides” in 2010 and 2011, but “the scariest thing” to him “is that our senior national security leaders seem to have no comprehension that they did.”

As for President Obama’s Summit this week, Coughlin sees the touted euphemism as an example of his point, and declares, “When you are fighting ‘violent extremism,’ you are not defending this country. You are bringing it down.”

His greatest fear is that “we may be put to sleep, like the frog that boils to death, mired in the pollution of our own politically correct narratives that has created a complete inability for us to understand and further the truth, so much so, that we have to treat the truth as propaganda just to be heard.”

Discussing the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, Coughlin says this is a clear example that when you commit to a narrative, you can suppress the truth and undermine our national security. He says Hasan told us “at the Walter Reed and the Pentagon, over 20 times” to military officers that, “I am a Muslim. If you send me to war, I will become a jihadi.”

Coughlin describes the efforts by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to work with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an international organization with 57 Member States (56 countries and the Palestinian Territories) concerning their 10 Year Programme of Action to make defaming Islam a punishable crime.

The UN Human Rights Commission passed UN Resolution 1618, to implement OIC’s 10 year plan. If it becomes law, “it would have the effect of subordinating our first amendment to Islamic slander laws,” Coughlin says. He discusses a meeting then-Secretary Clinton had on July 15, 2011 in Turkey where Clinton promised to use the government’s “best efforts to pass 16/18, and would resort to peer pressure and shaming against Americans who might violate that standard.”

The security expert claims this would result in an “extra-legal means to attack Americans for exercising their free speech rights inside America if they say something that the OIC deems insulting.”

To Coughlin, this is a layered strategy that calls for the dots to be connected by astute citizens. There is Islamic slander law, the OIC’s Ten Year Programme of Action and UN Resolution 16/18. Now, alongside Resolution 16/18 at the UN, is a new supporting effort to redefine “incitement” in international treaties to which the U.S. is a party to achieve their controversial objectives.

Coughlin’s hope is that more citizens should confidently and strongly ask, why is our government lying to us.

The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad: Silencing Truth and Lying as a Strategy

behead_those_who_insult_islamUTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 20, 2015:

This is the third in a 4-part series on The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad

The truth always offends those who do not have it.

In the Sharia (Islamic Law), “Slander” is defined as follows:  “To mention anything concerning a person (Muslim) that he would dislike (Um Dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law, r2.2).”   The Quran, the Hadith, and a consensus of the Muslim scholars all agree that anyone who insults the Prophet and/or Islam must be killed (e.g. Surah 9:12, Hadith – Abu Dawud and al-Nasa’i, from Ibn-‘Abbas).  The punishment for Slander in Islam is death.

Currently, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – the largest international body in the world second only to the UN, made up of all 57 Islamic nations on the planet – is officially calling for “deterrent punishments” (Section VII, para 3) for anyone who offends Islam, and continues to petition the United Nations for such action.  This campaign is called “Islamophobia.”

Islamophobia is the imposition of the Islamic Law of Slander.  To be called an “Islamophobe” is to be threatened.

Islamophobia

Book R of the Um Dat al Salik (Islamic Sacred Law) is entitled “Holding One’s Tongue.”  Section 8 is “Lying” with a sub-section titled “Permissible Lying.”  This alone is telling.  The Sharia quotes the Prophet Mohammad from the authoritative Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim:  “I did not hear (the Prophet) him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things:  war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife.”

The law is clarified further:  “It is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…it is obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory (ibid, r8.2).”  Jihad is obligatory.

The Political Left around the globe, and especially in the United States, also uses lying, deceit, and the destruction of those who speak the truth as weapons for their own ends.

The current “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Summit”  is a tremendous example of the deceit of the Obama administration.  The U.S. CVE program was adopted from our British allies who created this program in tandem with the British Muslim Brotherhood (MAB and MCB).  This ongoing effort identifies “Violent Extremists” as the threat to America.  Yet, our enemy self-identifies themselves as “Muslims” waging “Jihad in the Cause of Allah” in order to impose “Sharia” and establish the “Caliphate” (global Islamic State).  The Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, Pentagon, and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies at the federal level forbid the use of the above-quoted terms.

If you cannot define the enemy, you cannot defeat the enemy.

It is worth noting that the DHS CVE Working Group has Muslim Brothers Imam Mohamed Magid and Arif Alikhan as members, as well as Muslim Sister Dalia Mogahed.  Magid was the VP then President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which is the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement in North America and a financial support arm for Hamas, according to documents entered into evidence at the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas 2008).

Imam Magid continues as the Executive Director of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia, which is one of three primary outreach partners with the FBI (along with MB group MPAC).

Another lie peddled by this administration is that Muslims were an important part of America’s founding, which is utter nonsense and historically untrue.  Two notable occasions where this lie was repeated:  March 6, 2011 at aspeech given by the President’s Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough (now the President’s Chief of Staff) at the Muslim Brotherhood’s ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia where he thanked MB leader Imam Mohamed Magid for leading prayers at the White House Iftar Dinner (the end of Eid – the celebration of the first Islamic military victory over non-Muslim forces, but I digress).  He continued, “A dinner which, as the President  noted at the time, is a tradition that goes all the way back more than two centuries when Thomas Jefferson hosted the first iftar at the White House.”

Thomas Jefferson waged war on the Islamic states (Barbary states).  We built up the U.S. Navy to “meet the menace” of the Islamic jihadis, and Jefferson himself, as the Ambassador to France – along with John Adams in a letter to Congress – explained the Muslims were waging war on America’s ships and citizens because it was acommand from Allah to do so.

In a speech this week, the President said, “Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

One has to ask, what is the purpose of the President of the United States and his senior advisors repeating an easily refutable lie other than to soften the response from Americans to an overt threat from the Islamic Movement, and aid our enemies.

The President, Attorney General, leadership of both political parties, Cabinet Members, and others all parrot the phrase that this war “has nothing to do with Islam.”  Yet, our enemies say Jihad is an obligation Islam commands them to undertake.  Either our government is extremely ignorant, naive or this is an intentional move to deceive the public about a massive threat to our security.

Those who speak the truth about this threat are attacked, not just by the jihadi organizations like ISNA, CAIR, and Islamic Centers across the country (not to mention the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU who overtly defend the jihadis), but by the administration.

The Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) previously had one of the best programs in the nation educating senior military officers on the threat of the Global Islamic Movement until ISNA, CAIR, MPAC and others petitioned the White House, deeming the training “offensive” to Muslims.  This action was initiated after a Muslim, who was not even a part of the course, complained.  The proctor for the JFSC course, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, was publicly chastised by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey who stated, “It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound.”

It would be nice for the General to provide the public with any of the evidence, doctrine or facts taught about the Islamic Movement or Sharia that were not locked down in truth.  He cannot.  I know, because I was one of the instructors at that course.

Together, the Political Left and the Islamic Jihadi Movement are silencing those who speak the truth about a real threat to our Republic.  The very Muslims and Islamic organizations our government is directly working with are ideologically and practically aligned with ISIS, Al Qaeda, and all the other jihadi organizations we claim we are fighting.

We are being lied to by both sides of this unholy marriage.

“Don’t Let the AUMF Fulfill the Islamic State’s End Times Prophecy”

2240479620CSP, by Clare Lopez, Feb. 15, 2015:

If it seems that Islamic State (IS) atrocities are descending to ever-more horrific levels of barbarity, then the message is getting through as intended. As Congress begins to consider the President’s proposed new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), it would be well to understand just how desperately IS has been trying to lure Western ground forces into the land of Al-Sham. The amputations, beheadings, crucifixions, immolations, and sex slavery – perpetrated in meticulous emulation of the Life of Muhammad and obedience to Islamic Law (shariah) – were from the beginning carefully calculated to ‘strike terror into the hearts of the enemy’ (Q 8:12, 8:60), while also eliciting an emotional reaction that would drive the U.S. recklessly to send its military back to the region’s battlefields.

The name of the place matters: it’s not ‘the Levant.’ It’s al-Sham, which means Greater Syria, an historical and geographical term that includes the entire southeastern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Egypt and inland as far as Jordan and Iraq. The Arabic abbreviation for Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) is Da’esh – which, letter for letter, stands for the same words that ISIS does. But more to the point is what IS calls its slick, full-color, English language, online magazine: DABIQ. Dabiq is the name of a town in northern Syria (north of Aleppo) that figures prominently in a Sunni hadith (a saying attributed to Muhammad) that foretells the End Times. According to that hadith, the Day of Judgment for the Muslim believers will not arrive until an army from the West, sometimes called ‘Romans’ or ‘Byzantines’ or ‘Crusaders,’ will land at Dabiq and be met and defeated in battle by the Muslim forces. See Dabiq Issue 3 for the IS strategy in its own words.

Alastair Crooke has an excellent 13 February piece at Huffington Post entitled “Is Jordan Facilitating IS’ Grand Strategy?” in which he explains all this, but then takes it one step further, to consider how the deliberate destabilization of Jordan (triggered by the early 2015 immolation murder of its pilot) could be intended to bring IS that much closer to Israel. I would suggest additionally that potentially regime-threatening chaos in Jordan (home of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the forerunner of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) could open a backdoor route, not just to Israel, but to Sinai (base of operations for IS affiliate Ansar Beit al-Maqdis) and also to Saudi Arabia – which, for all the sophistication of its top-of-the-line arsenal, does not field the most disciplined or motivated military force in the region. Apart from Israel, that distinction would go to IS at the moment, against which Bashar al-Assad’s formidable army, bolstered by significant resources from Iran and Hizballah, has been able to hang onto barely one-third of what used to be called Syria.

And so to the AUMF. It misrepresents the Islamic State, for some odd reason calling it “ISIL,” and seemingly oblivious to developments of the past eight months, appears to have missed the fact that ISIS long time since became IS, and then, in late June 2014, was declared a Caliphate. The question must be asked whether an AUMF against “ISIL” includes the use of military force against the Caliphate, if and when IS expands operations westward into Jordan or southward into Saudi Arabia. Would the explicitly worded AUMF that authorizes U.S. military action only in Iraq and Syria (neither of which actually exists anymore) have to be rejected to consider a new AUMF for operations in those two additional countries? What about IS ‘franchise’ operations in Libya or the Sinai or its reported presence in Yemen?

The problem with the president’s proposed AUMF language is not that it declares war against IS, but that it places such tight limits on what the U.S. response is to be against the Global Jihad Movement. Of course, ever since the 2011-2012 Muslim Brotherhood-supervised language and curriculum purge in the U.S. government, neither the White House nor Pentagon would describe the enemy in such terms, but that’s in fact what we face. And it’s why the Center for Security Policy (CSP) issued the comprehensive Secure Freedom Strategy: A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement and then followed that with a Defeat Jihad Summit that define the enemy as all who fight or support jihad to impose Islamic Law (shariah) and propose a comprehensive all-of-government strategy to defeat that enemy.

The CSP plan does not cringe from confronting the enemy threat doctrine, which is shariah. Rather, the CSP strategy understands that the jihadist enemy’s ultimate objective is not merely to rampage, slaughter, and terrify, but to use such tactics in order to impose and enforce shariah worldwide. That is why IS is so determined to erase nation state borders, drawn a century ago by colonial powers. IS seeks above all to destroy the Westphalian nation state system and replace it with the shariah rule of an ever-expanding Caliphate. Savage attacks against police and military in Canada; a chocolate shop in Sydney, Australia; an irreverent newspaper in Paris; police in Copenhagen; and Jews everywhere, from Brussels to Paris to Copenhagen and Jerusalem are not random, Mr. President. This is the strategy of Islamic terror, of jihad.

An AUMF that does not forthrightly identify the enemy as the Global Jihad Movement and all who support it has no chance of defeating IS or any Islamic terror group. A national security strategy that is more concerned with climate change than jihad is absurd and useless. And a commander-in-chief who cannot or will not lead America in defense of liberty must be challenged – by Congress as it meets to consider a new AUMF and by We, The People, whose liberty is every bit as much in peril as that of the citizens’ of Copenhagen, Denmark tonight.

Sharia Court in Texas: What Could Go Wrong?

By Patrick Poole:

Yesterday I was interviewed by the Glenn Beck Show on Blaze TV following up from Glenn’s interview on Monday with two of the imams responsible for the sharia court that they’re opening up in Dallas, Texas.

A sharia court in Texas? What could possibly go wrong? Well, I can think of a few things…

In this segment of Glenn’s interview with the imams, Taher El-Badawi claims that cutting off heads is not just something they do in Islam, but it’s practiced everywhere, including the US (!!!), and that cutting off hands for theft in America would be economical:

 

Taher : We are ready for any point to discuss with, but the main point here, the reason we are here to discuss this issue what kind of cases Islamic tribunal handle, and you start with the sharia. Why the people afraid from sharia? I’m sorry to say it, one point related to this, cut head is not just in sharia law, just in Islamic law. It’s everywhere. Who said that just in Islamic law? That’s even another sharia, in Jewish sharia, in Christian sharia, in American here, we cut we cut head for some reason.

So, I’m asking you an easy question, if anyone kill another, he should get killed by law, by Islamic law, by government. He should get killed. What is wrong with that? If a thief jump, I’m sorry, to your house, scare your wife, scare your children, scare your neighbor, and they did that with our stores, this is the law, the law to cut his hand because if he feels my hands were cut because of that, he will think about this 100 times. He will never do it. If he do that one time, he will never do it again.

Look how many millions of dollars American here or other states or other states outside spend to keep the criminal in jail, a lot of millions of dollars. We can save that, just let him go, and that’s it, because he did something wrong in the whole community and this kill the whole community. Why not?

OK, then…

One of the other important issues covered my interview was about the imam’s claims that the court will only handle “family issues, includes manners, behavior characters, including marriage divorces, including inheritance law…”.

Contrary to sharia apologists, these courts are not just about whether you pray five times a day or which foot you enter a bathroom with. It is precisely where U.S. family law conflicts with Islamic law that is one of the greatest concerns some have with the establishment of sharia courts in the US.

In 2013, the BBC program Panorama went undercover in sharia courts operating in the UK and found systematic discrimination against women in these courts and regularly telling women suffering from domestic violence not to go to police against UK public policy.

You can view the full Panorama program here:

 

When Glenn asked whether divorces by U.S. courts would be recognized, the imam admitted that women would also need to get an Islamic divorce, and that her US court divorce would not be recognized if she traveled to Islamic countries (the imam specifically mentions US ally, Jordan). So US civil law, even by their own admission, isn’t recognized by Islamic law, here or abroad.

And what about the testimony of women in Islamic court? The imams tried to brush it off that it only related to financial transactions, but you only need to go to the IslamQA website where they defend the principle that the testimony of women isn’t the same as that of men.

As I noted in my own interview, a 2011 survey of Middle East countries by UNICEF found only in Tunisia and Oman (one could also add here Israel) is the testimony of women fully admitted in all judicial proceedings. In most Middle Eastern countries, a woman’s testimony is regularly limited in family and financial matters. This is hardly a secret.

I recall the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Barack Obama’s favorite US Islamic group, used to publish a ruling on their website by one of the top Islamic jurists in the US expressly forbidding Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men, saying “It is better to a slave, bondsman than get married to a non-Muslim.”

After the ruling was pointed out by sharia critics, ISNA removed it from its website, but it still can be found at Web Archive.

fiqh

Among the more laughable claims the imams made in their interview is that you need an Islamic state led by a caliph to implement penal “hudud” punishments (meaning therefore that no one is actually implementing Islamic law anymore), and that Saudi Arabia is not governed by Islamic law.

One only need look at the implementation of sharia in Islamic-majority countries around the world, and enshrining sharia as the ultimate source of their law codes in their respective constitutions, to see they have no problem implementing sharia in the absence of a recognized caliph or an Islamic state.

And Saudi Arabia isn’t governed by Islamic law? Really? [insert laugh track]

In my interview I noted that you can walk into practically any mosque or Islamic bookstore and pick up books like Mohamed S. El-Awa’s “Punishment in Islamic Law,” which is published by American Trust Publications, the publishing arm of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which owns and operates hundreds of mosques around the country. In El-Awa’s book, you find helpful advice on: “How the hand should be cut off (Makan al-Qati’),” “Stoning as punishment (al-Rajm),” “Flogging (al-Jald),” and “The Death Penalty (al-Ta’zir bil-Qatl).”

The same is true for another manual of Islamic law from the Shafi’i school of jurisprudence published in America – translated in English and approved by many global Islamic authorities – called “Reliance of the Traveller (sic).” Book O is dedicated to “Jihad,” and they don’t mean “internal struggle.” Again, these are books marketed directly to American Muslims.

And let’s not forget the imam last July, as reported by Reuters, who tried to cut off the hand of one of the mosque attendees accused of stealing. But this wasn’t Cairo, Tehran or Riyadh. This happened in Philadelphia. Did this imam misunderstand Islam?

Read more at PJ Media

Blood on the Hands of Christian Leaders

coexistUTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 5, 2015:

Across the globe today, Christians are increasingly being forced underground, barbarically tortured and killed by the tens of thousands – 100,000 per year according to a Vatican report – by Muslims who claim they are waging Jihad in the name of Allah in order to impose Sharia (Islamic Law).  The words and deeds of a large number of Christian leaders, especially in America, reveal an ignorance of the true teachings of Islam and an unwillingness to boldly lead the disciples of Jesus forward in a way that follows what Jesus taught.

When Jesus said “Love thy enemy” he meant it – including the barbaric Muslim hordes crossing continents beheading children, raping women, and crucifying innocent people of many nationalities and faiths.  However, this command comes with the logical and reasonable imperative that you KNOW your enemies, and respond accordingly.  This is the same Jesus, after all, who admonishes his disciples to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.  It appears that far too many leaders of the flock of Jesus’ disciples are stuck on the “gentle as doves” part and may be forgetting the “wise as serpents.”

As has been detailed on many occasions at UTT, Islamic doctrine is clear, and there is unanimous consensus by Muslim scholars from the very beginning of Islam with regards to the definition of “Jihad” and it obligation to be waged until the entire world is under Islamic rule (Sharia/Islamic Law).  Elementary and Junior/Senior high school Islamic text books across the globe teach what Al Qaeda, ISIS, and all the jihadi organizations say Islam commands.  The most popular 7th grade text book in Islamic schools in America (What Islam is All About, written by Muslim Brother Yahiya Emerick) states jihad is one of the three “duties” of Muslims and “The word jihad is most often associated with the act of physically confronting evil and wrong-doing…If anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically will go to Paradise(p164).”  It further states “There is no separation of Masjid and state for the object of the Islamic state is the establishment of the Deen of Allah (Sharia)…The basis of the legal and political system is the Sharia of Allah (p381).”

Al Azhar University, the most prominent and oldest school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world, has always taught the purpose of Islam is to wage jihad until the world is under Islamic rule.  There is no authoritative Islamic text on the planet that states otherwise.  That is the starting point for this discussion.

The Sharia (Islamic Law) also has unanimous consensus of Islamic scholars that lying to non-Muslims is obligatory in the pursuit of obligatory goals.  Jihad is obligatory and 100% of all Islamic Law only defines jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

In Islam, Mohammed is considered the “insan al kamil” or “the perfect man.”  Mohammed himself said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat.”  Then Mohammed waged war against non-Muslims.

Christians were commanded by Jesus to love God and their neighbors (Mark 12:30-31).  No such proclamation exists in Islam.  Islamic teachings state the only reasons Muslims “build bridges” with non-Muslims is to bring them to Islam.  While Christians are called to bring the gospel to all people, they must do so with the knowledge and understanding of Islam so they can be “wise as serpents.”  Today, Christian leaders are befriending Muslims naively and in ignorance of Islam, and the enemy is having their way with the Christian community because of it.

When the leadership of the global Muslim community published “A Common Word” it was a part of an intentionally  campaign to deceive and fabricate common ground between the teachings of Islam and Christianity that do not exist.  Christian leaders who use this “common ground” as a base from which to open discussions with Muslim leaders do so at their own peril, the peril of their flocks, and at the peril of their faith.

Most frequently, Christian leaders meet Muslim leaders around the person of Jesus and the belief that we all worship the same God.

6a00d8341bffb053ef0133f40783fe970b-450wiIslam teaches “Allah has no son nor father and Allah has no partners.” (Sura 112/Sura 19:35-36)  Islam further teaches:  (1) at the end of days Jesus will return and break all crosses and cast all Christians into hell for not converting to Islam; and (2) all Jews must be holocausted so that Muslims can enter paradise.  These are universal teachings from Bukhari, the most authoritative Hadith scholar in Islam, and has unanimous consensus from Islamic scholars.  [Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656; Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657]

For instance, Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425 states “Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig (Jews) and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government).”

The same God who calls the Jews his “chosen” people cannot be the same God who calls for them to be holocausted so that all Muslims go to paradise, nor can the God who calls Jesus his “son” and the savior of the world have him return at the end of time to cast all Christians to hell for not believing he was just a prophet and not converting to Islam.  Logic and reason do not allow these to exist simultaneously.

The teaching in Islam is that no original Jewish or Christian texts exists, so all Torahs and Bibles are fraudulent.  According to Islam, the Jewish and Christian scholars omitted, changed, and distorted the portions of the Old and New Testament which identified Mohammed as the final prophet of Allah, and that all prophets from Adam to Jesus are Muslim prophets.

Entering into “Interfaith dialogue” with Muslims and not understanding this is to walk into the lair of the wolves believing they are lambs.  Since all of the interfaith dialogue in the U.S. is organized by Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations – Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – this further highlights the folly of American Christian leaders who enter blindly into these relationships.

Across American colleges and universities Christian leaders are increasingly supporting Muslim Student Association (MSA) interfaith events, which may be the reason anti-Semitism is growing on college campuses here.  As a reminder, the MSA was the first national Islamic organization in America and was created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood in 1963.  There are over 630 MSA chapters in all 50 states.  Their purpose is to recruit jihadis and support jihad.

The effect of these outreach programs has proven disastrous, to say the least.

jesus (1)Best selling author and internationally aclaimed Christian pastor Rick Warren speaks at Hamas fundraising events for groups like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) – which Muslim Brotherhood historical documents state is the “nucleus” for the Islamic/Jihadi Movement in America and the Department of Justice identified as a fundraising source for the terrorist group Hamas in documents proferred in the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008).  When Mr. Warren invoked the name of “Isa” – the Muslim prophet Jesus  – at President Obama’s first inaugural prayer, thus equating the biblical Jesus to the Islamic prophet Jesus, he not only blasphemed the name of Jesus, he was acting as an agent of a designated terrorist organization to spread their disinformation.

Josh McDowell, another well-known Christian author and speaker produced a video entitled “Sharia Love” in which he praised Arab Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan for being “nice” because they acted nice when they spoke to him.  He neglects the reality that Dearborn has one of the highest concentration of jihadis in America.  While there are individuals who self-identify themselves as “Muslim” yet do not adhere to Sharia, it is not realistic and is condescending to assume the “vast majority” of muslims do not follow the very thing to which they say they subscribe – Sharia.  This type of touchy-feeling Christianity which disconnects itself from reason and logic has no place among the disciples of Jesus.

Recently, I had an exchange with a leading Christian leader and author who flatly denied Islam teaches the things that have been detailed above, and followed it with “My best friends are Muslims.”

This may explain why this “Christian leader” is pro-Palestinian and ignorant of true Islamic doctrine.  What is also noteworthy is that a large number of Christian leaders respond to the truth about Islam by immediately stating “there is violence in the Bible too” or they brush it off and stating we must just come together around the person of Jesus.  While Jesus can do anything and heal anyone, one must go into these relationships with Muslims from a knowledge of what Islam is and who Jesus is to them.

Islam understands language the way Sharia defines it.  Peace is the condition that exists when the entire world is under Islamic rule.  Justice is the justice obtained under Sharia.  And the Jesus of the Quran is not the Jesus of scripture.

In a recent trip to Arizona, my presentation was met with strong public outcry from known Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations.  Standing with them were many of the prominent Christian leaders in Arizona.

Across America we see numerous assaults on America’s Christians while Christian leaders, to a great extent, stand silent.  The Veteran’s Administration being ordered by the White House to cover all symbols of Christian faith in all of their offices is just one example.

In his seminal work, Strength to Love, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. admonishes Christians to be tough minded, incisive thinkers, and discerning in their approach to evil.  “This prevalent tendency toward soft mindedness is found in man’s unbelievable gullibility…Soft mindedness often invades religion…Soft-minded persons have revised the Beatitudes to read, “Blessed are the pure in ignorance:  for they shall see God.”

It is time for the flock to demand their pastors, priests and rabbis speak the truth about Islam no matter what the cost.  We must do so in love, but we must also understand that love is not the mushy feeling in our bellies, but a decision and an attitude to take the actions of love.  Sometimes that means defending your home from the invader who seeks to steal, kill, and destroy.

Muslim Brothers Can’t Bring Themselves to Criticize Islamic State

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Feb. 5, 2015:

Its a convenient notion that the barbaric decision to burn Jordanian pilot LT. Moaz al-Kasasbeh alive is a step too far even for the Sharia enforcers of the Islamic State, and that as a result we can expect a wave of rejection across the Arab world which might arise to shake off the Islamic State like a dog shaking off fleas.

Islamic LawUnfortunately, contrary to the belief of President Obama, the ideology of Islamic State isn’t bankrupt, but is based on the Islamic law. The execution itself was based on two concepts. The first, that because al-Kasabeh had conducted bombing missions against the Islamic State, by burning him and burying him in rubble they were essentially meting out a punishment equivalent to being bombed. This concept that retaliation should be equivalent to the offense is called qisas. It is the same reason a Saudi court ruled a man’s back should be broken after the man paralyzed someone. It’s based off the quranic citation Sura 16:126, “And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient – it is better for those who are patient.”

Secondly, Islamic State cited medieval Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah, whose works on takfir (declaring as an apostate one who violates Islamic law, rather than only those who affirm their own apostasy) are heavily cited by many modern jihadists. Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb utilized Ibn Taymiyyah in establishing the Brotherhood’s practice of applying the concept of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance) to modern Arab regimes thus justifying them as targets of a legitimate jihad.

It’s thus no surprise that while many were up in arms about ISIS’ decision, Muslim Brotherhood cleric Abdul Majeed Al-Zindani, tweeted a defense of ISIS, and their citation of Ibn Taymiyyah, saying that those who reject Ibn Taymiyyah, reject the Quran (H/T to@iaskmaie on Twitter for finding and translating the tweet which few if any have picked up on.) Al-Zindani is an influential leader of the Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood’s Al-Islah Party. Al Zindani is also a specially designated global terrorist by the U.S. Treasury  Department due to his role in the Union of the Good, which supports Hamas, and his influence on Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.

Nor is Al-Zindani alone. The watchdog group MEMRI recently published a Jordanian media video where Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood leader, Sheikh Hamza Mansour  patently refused to identify the Islamic State as a terrorist group, despite pressure from the interviewer:

Interviewer: Is ISIS a terrorist organization?

Hamza Mansour: There are terrorists of every sort – Sunnis, Shiites, Muslims, Christians, Jews…

Interviewer: The Islamic State organization, sir – do you consider it to be terrorist?

Hamza Mansour: There is no definition of terrorism today. Anybody who says a couple of words is automatically considered a terrorist. We condemn terrorism in all its shapes and sizes.

Interviewer: And ISIS?

Hamza Mansour: Let me tell you….

Interviewer: I’m asking a clear question. I insist on getting an answer. This is a yes/no question.

Hamza Mansour: I condemn terrorism in all forms. Are you giving me the third degree?

While it’s certainly true that there is outrage around the globe, the underpinnings of Islamic State, through Al Qaeda, to the Muslim Brotherhood, to Shariah law itself, remain in place, and they will continue to be influential to those attracted to the cause of establishing the Caliphate and instituting Islamic law. Underestimating that appeal or focusing solely on the brutal reality of the Islamic State instead of the intellectual and ideological framework built by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (which has itself issued a call to jihad against Egypt), is a recipe for continued failure in defeating not just ISIS but the Global Jihad Movement more generally.

Voluntary’ Sharia Tribunal in Texas: This Is How It Starts

Islamic Tribunal Website

Islamic Tribunal Website

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.

Video: Steve Coughlin Counterterror Training Education and Analysis

622022286
Center for Security Policy, September 13, 2012

Over more than a decade following 9/11, MAJ Stephen Coughlin was one of the US government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe.

Through knowledge of published Islamic law, MAJ Coughlin had a demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen.

He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

 

Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law:

 

Part 3: Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law:

 

Part 6: The Boston Attack and “Individual Jihad” –  summary of key points

President and GOP Ignore Elephant in the Room

O noUTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 22, 2015:

In his speech Tuesday night, President Obama said, “My first duty as Commander in Chief is to defend America.”  So we have him on record as understanding his primary role as our President.

After watching the State of the Union address Tuesday evening, one has to wonder if the President is completely disconnected from reality, grossly and totally incompetent, or simply doing the bidding of our enemies.

As has been detailed on numerous occasions, evidence has been proffered by the U.S. Department of Justice as to the nature of the jihadist threat to America, which identifies the leading Islamic organizations as a part of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas Movement here.  Yet, the President continues to grant senior MB/Hamas leaders to the highest levels of our government and claim their ideology has nothing to do with true Islam.

As was detailed in Tuesday night’s UTT blog article , the ideology Al Qaeda teaches is also taught in nearly all of the Islamic schools in the world beginning at the first grade level, which may lead some people to believe it is “true Islam.”

Since all of the jihadi groups across the globe uniformly explain the reasons for what they do in the exact same way using the same authoritative texts in Islam, that might lead one to believe they are following true Islam.

Since there is no published Islamic doctrine contrary to what Al Qaeda teaches, rational and reasonable human beings would come to the conclusion (rightfully so) that Islam is what Islam says it is in it’s authoritative doctrinal texts of Islamic Law (Sharia).

Yet, it is still unclear to our President.

This leaves us with only a few options:   The President is either aware or unaware of these facts.  If he is unaware, he is either disconnected from the reality of these facts, or he is incapable of understanding and absorbing the facts.  In either case, he is unfit for office.

If he is aware of these facts and continues to act as he is acting, he is committing treason and should be dealt with to the full extent of our Constitution.

In his speech Tuesday, the President referred to what happened in Afghanistan as a “democratic transition.”  For mental health professionals, this is a red flag.  In the event the President is unaware, Afghanistan is an “Islamic Republic” whose constitution (written by the United States) mandates Sharia (Islamic Law) as the law of the land.  Which part of a “democracy” is this?  As Walid Phares often says, the only thing this logically shares with a “democracy” is that in Islamic countries they have a vote – once.  One vote, one time.  From that point forward, its an Islamic Republic ruled by Sharia (Islamic Law).

The President also noted, “In Iraq and Syria, our military leadership is stopping ISIL’s advance.”  This is the same ISIL formed out of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda forces this President provided material support to when he called them the “rebel forces” fighting in Libya and Syria.  That, by the way, is a violation of U.S. federal code for which we put people in jail.

The President identified the threat we face as the “bankrupt ideology of violent extremism.”  This is interesting because our enemy has never identified themselves as “violent extremists.”  They identify themselves as “Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah in order to impose Islamic Law and establish the Islamic State (caliphate).”

The term “violent extremism” was created by DHS because they intentionally did not want to identify Islam as the problem.

The GOP response to the President’s State of the Union address was equally shocking in its absence of addressing the real and imminent threat from the global Islamic Movement, which has a massive network here in the United States.

Senator Joni Ernst, spent less than a minute on the threat of the global jihad which she described as “terrorism and the threats posed by al-Qaida, ISIL and those radicalized by them.”

The Emperor’s clothes look great.

After vowing to veto any new sanctions against Iran in the last portion of the State of the Union address, the President spoke of “American values” as the reason “why we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims, the vast majority of whom share our commitment to peace.”

This is true only if the vast majority of Muslim reject what Islam teaches, because their definition of “peace” is not the same as ours.

Is it reasonable to assume the “vast majority” of Muslims reject the core teachings of Islam?  Is it the kind of assumption we should make when American security is at stake?

Is Violence a Core Teaching in Islam?

jihad-300x180UTT, 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.

Jihadis Strike in Paris – US Response Demonstrates Continued Cluelessness

Hebdo-300x170UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 8, 2015:

In another offensive against the West, two Muslim jihadis killed twelve (12) people in Paris yesterday at the offices of the satirical media outlet Charlie Hebdo.  American Leaders responded by calling the attacks anything but Islamic jihad (or even terrorism).

Authorities identified the men as Said and Cherif Kouachi (brothers), both French, and Hamyd Mourad, 18, whose nationality has not yet been made public.  At the time of this posting, U.S. Counterterrorism officials are saying that one of the three has been killed by French security services, and French officials  are reporting Hamyd Mourad has surrendered, but neither of those have been confirmed.

Shouting “allah u abkbar” the jihadis were dressed in tactical gear and armed with AK-47’s.  They moved through the offices of the media outlet Charlie Hebdo and killed the editor and several of the leading cartoonists at the publication which humorously criticized everything under the sun – including Islam.  The difference, however, is that the Islamic Law of Slander – cloaked by the term “Islamophobia” – mandates capital punishment for anyone who says anything about the prophet or Islam “which a Muslim would dislike.”  Paris is learning what it is to face the penalty of violating Sharia’s Slander law in Islam.

Strikingly, the day before the attack in Paris, Turkish President Erdogan called on the European Union to “crack down” on Islamophobia, which is jihadi speak for “Silence all who slander Islam, or else.”

[This, by the way, is also one of the many points where the political Left shares common ground with jihadis – trying to silence all “offensive” language (read:  “language that is truthful and counters our agenda”).  In both cases the objective is the destruction of individual liberty and power to the  State.]

In September of 2012 at the United Nations, President Obama stated – for all the world to hear – “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.”   Comments like these provide a green light for the Islamic jihadis to go forward and kill in the name of Islam for those who slander the prophet Mohammed.

The response from America’s leaders to the Paris attack has been to call them anything but jihad or even terrorism, and outlandishly claim these attacks have “nothing to do with Islam.”

On CNN, Chris Cuomo asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest “Do you see this as an act of terrorism?”.

Earnest’s response is telling.  “I think, based on what we know right now, it does seem like that is what we’re confronting here,” he replied. “And this is an act of violence that we certainly do condemn. And, you know, if based on this investigation it turns out to be an act of terrorism then we would condemn that in the strongest possible terms, too.”  What is the confusion here that in the moment the Obama administration cannot call this obvious jihadi attack in Paris Jihad or Terrorism?

Hillary Clinton previously stated we must “empathize” with our jihadi enemies, respect their point of view, and not “leave anyone on the sidelines.”  Secretary of State John Kerry called the attack “extremism” while key Democrat strategist and leader Howard Dean said Wednesday that the men who perpetrated the attacks in Paris are “about as Muslim as I am.”  He further stated he has read the Quran and it doesn’t support this kind of behavior.  It is clear Mr. Dean is either lying about reading the Quran or has significant reading comprehension issues.

Which brings us back to the crux of the issue – America’s leadership does not actually know the teachings of Islam because they continue to rely on Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/Al Qaeda operatives in advisory roles inside our government to tell them what it is instead of doing their due diligence as professionals.  Besides being completely unprofessional and negligent, this approach to our enemy has left many Americans dead in places like Boston, Fort Hood, Little Rock, and elsewhere because of our leaders willful ignorance.  We put doctors and lawyers in jail for that.

The representative for the President, Press Secretary John Earnest, made it very clear that the ignorance of our enemy is complete.

“The other thing we have tried to do is to work with the leaders in the Muslim community, both here in the United States and around the world to try to counter those violent messages.  We’ve seen ISIL distort the name of a peaceful religion, distort the tenants of an otherwise peaceful religion, to try to inspire people to carry out acts of violence.  That’s why its incredibly important that we see leaders in the Muslim community stand up and speak out about the true teachings of Islam are.”

I am curious which part of “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war” (Quran 9:5) our leaders do not understand.  I guess the President’s Islamic advisors have not made it to the point of sharing this core Islamic teaching with the Administration, FBI, CIA, DHS, Pentagon or others.

Mr. Earnest has clearly demonstrated the entire U.S. decision-making process and the leaders participating in it are completely and utterly unprofessional OR are knowingly aiding and abetting the enemy and concealing the true nature of their intentions.

100% of Islamic doctrine from first grade text books to Al Azhar University in Egypt – the oldest and most authoritative school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world – state that Islam is a “complete way of life” governed by Sharia (Islamic Law).  100% of all published Islamic Law in every century and in every language states the purpose of Islam is to wage jihad until the world is subordinated to the Sharia and a global Islamic state (Caliphate) is established.  100% of all published Islamic Law (Sharia) only defines “Jihad” as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

The problem is that Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and all the other jihadi groups are getting their “version” of Islam correct.  Here is the challenge:  you can go to any mosque book store in the world or even amazon.com and purchase authoritative Islamic Law written by recognized Muslim authorities written for Muslim audiences (important that the book is not written for a non-Muslim audience) which all state what has been stated above about Islam.  There is no such thing as a book of Islamic Law that says otherwise.  Those of you who are wanting to scream “racist/bigot/islamophobe” right now, please produce the name of one such book of Islamic Law that instructs the Muslim community to “love” non-Muslims and to “peacefully exist with them” where all groups of people have equal rights under the law.  You won’t find it because it doesn’t exist.