The Ideology Problem in Timbuktu Is Not al-Qaeda’s Making — It Is Classical Islam

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy:

Andrew’s post describing the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Mali is essential, if excruciating, reading. Beyond the monstrously cruel but all too usual punishments being imposed, I’m struck by two things, which really show how willful blindness leads inexorably to spring fever: The Guardian attributes the atrocious penalties to the “menace of al-Qaida”; it also notes, however, that the “ban [on music] comes in the context of a horrifically literal and gratuitous application of Sharia law in all aspects of daily life.”

Much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, al Qaeda did not make up sharia law. Islam did. And in the West, it is a key tenet of due process that law is imposed literally — ambiguous laws violate the principle that people of ordinary intelligence must be on fair notice of what is prohibited. There’s nothing “gratuitous” about applying as it is written.

16044762We can keep our heads tucked snug in the sand, or we can recognize the source of the problem. As I detail in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the literalist construction of sharia that al Qaeda’s local franchise is enforcing in Mali is “literal” because it comes from Islamic scripture, not from some purportedly “extremist” fabrication of Islam. Moreover, while it seems only militant jihadists proudly urge this construction in practice, it is enthusiastically endorsed in principle by two of the most influential institutions in the Islamic Middle East: al Azhar University and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Don’t just take my word for it. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law is not some al Qaeda pamphlet. It is a renowned explication of sharia’s reliance (1)provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think-tank begun in the early eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”) — and from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West (“We certify,” the famed scholars wrote, that the “translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community…. There is no objection to printing it and circulating it…. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.” There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.).

#more#

Reliance is also endorsed by Islamic authorities in Jordan (leading influences on a largely Palestinian population that may well overthrow the pro-Western monarchy) and Syria (leading influences on the “rebels” on whose side interventionists — including both presidential candidates — would have us jump to abet the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing campaign to oust the minority Alawite Assad regime).

Here, as I summarize in Spring Fever – quoted verbatim and supported by citations — is what Reliance has to say about the arts:

It is forbidden to make pictures of “animate life,” for doing so “imitates the creative act of Allah Most High”; “Whoever makes a picture, Allah shall torture him with it on the Day of Judgment until he can breathe life into it, and he will never be able to.” (Reliance w50.0 & ff.)

“Musical instruments of all types are unlawful.” Singing is generally prohibited (for “song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage), and “[o]n the Day of Resurrection Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” However, if unaccompanied by musical instruments, song and poetry drawn from Islamic scripture and encouraging obedience to Allah are permissible. Ironically, although music is generally forbidden, dancing is permissible “unless it is languid, like the movements of the effeminate.” (Reliance r40.0 &ff.)

Those sharia provisions are complemented by these — again, endorsed by al-Azhar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and our “moderate” “allies” in the region:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

[Note: These latter prohibitions against denying or reviling any aspect of Islam, Allah or the prophet are the basis for imposing death for blasphemy. The call to kill apostates for such offenses obviously applies with equal or greater force to non-Muslims, who are pervasively treated worse than Muslims by sharia (see, e.g., Sura 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which had been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the book [i.e., Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [the poll tax imposed on non-believers for the privilege of living in the Islamic state] and feel themselves subdued.”)]

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity” –zakat can only be given to Muslims and is designed strictly to fortify the Muslim community, not benefit the less fortunate generally); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster…. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1-17.)

Non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various adhesive conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliancep50.0 & ff; p.74.0& ff.)

The penalty for fornication is to be stoned to death, unless one is without the “capacity to remain chaste,” in which case the penalty is “being scourged one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81 km./50mi. for one year.” (Relianceo12.0 & ff.)

The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.)

A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. – Marriage.)

A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliancep42.0 & ff.)

A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliance m13.2-3.)

A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Relianceo14.0.)

The penalty for drinking alcohol is “to be scourged forty stripes.” (Reliance o16.3; p.14.2.)

The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliancep7.0 & ff.)

The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Relianceo24.7.)

If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet … said, “Men are already destroyed when they obey women.” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”)

This is not al Qaeda doctrine. This is sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. It is not the construction of Islam that many Muslims in the West wish to live under. But it is the mainstream supremacist Islam of the Middle East, which Islamic leaders — including those who come to the West to preach it — would not dream of discrediting, even if they are not as enthusiastic as al Qaeda where imposing it is concerned.

The State Department and the leading foreign policy voices of both major American political parties say sharia is perfectly compatible with “democracy” and the Western conception of human rights — of liberty and equality. Sure it is. And then you wonder why the Obama administration opens a consulate in Benghazi, one of the most perilous places in the world for Americans, refuses to safeguard it despite multiple pleas for beefed up security, and then fraudulently claims a pluperfectly predictable atrocity was caused by a video no one ever saw. If you’re going to live in a dreamworld, better get used to nightmare consequences.

“Obama Will Witness His Own Country Run by the Sharia.”

British Islamist Abu Ramaysah

British Islamist Abu Ramaysah

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield:

We’re going to need a lot more Muslim immigrants before that happens.

60 Minutes decided to run a piece on a moderate Muslim who has a beautiful vision for co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims.

 

“I understand that many people are unaware of the Sharia and the blessings it can bring,” he said. “The Sharia is not there to subjugate non-Muslims, it’s there to liberate them.”

It is.

Islamic law is there to liberate non-Muslims from their civil rights, women from being able to leave the house and everyone else from being able to freely practice their religion.

“So I do believe one day that America and Europe will one day be under the Sharia,” Rumaysah continued. “And I think that is a blessing. However, I would also say that in the short-term, the Americans and the British, they need to be very wary.”

Until they get properly liberated and/or beheaded. After that it’s smooth sailing.

“We’re going to see the Khilafah expand into Jordan, into Saudi Arabia, onto the shores of Europe. And one day Obama, he will witness his own country be run by the Sharia.”

And what’s that going to involve?

 “Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe,” Rumaysah told 60 Minutes correspondent Clarissa Ward. “I want to the see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see sharia law in Europe, and I want to see it in America, as well. I believe our patrols are a means to an end.”

And if civilized societies don’t do something about them, those patrols will be our end.

Most Arab states share Isis’s ideology. They’re trying to have it both ways

'Most Arab states – including several members of the military coalition against it – share Isis’s approach to compulsion in religion.' Photograph: Adam Butler/AP

‘Most Arab states – including several members of the military coalition against it – share Isis’s approach to compulsion in religion.’ Photograph: Adam Butler/AP

By Brian Whitaker:

Compulsion in religion is the ideological foundation stone of Isis and Islamist movements in general. Believing they have superior knowledge of God’s wishes for mankind, such groups feel entitled – even required – to act on his behalf and punish those who fail to comply with the divine will. In doing so, of course, they do not claim to be seeking power for themselves but merely trying to make the world more holy.

Bombing Isis and banning Islamist movements may suppress such movements for a while but it does nothing to address the ideological problem. Unless the question of compulsion in religion is tackled head-on, and in a serious way, they will resurface later or similar groups will emerge to replace them.

Although freedom of belief is a widely accepted principle internationally, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is still far from becoming established in the Arab countries. This is true of both governments and society.

As far as many of the Arab public are concerned, discriminating against members of the “wrong” faith, or those who hold unorthodox views, is not only acceptable, but the right thing to do. For Arab governments, enforcing religious rules and allying themselves with God helps to make up for their lack of electoral legitimacy.

This causes a particular problem in combating the ideology of groups such as Isis because most Arab states – including several members of the military coalition against it – share Isis’s approach to compulsion in religion. Isis may be more brutal in practice but, basically, they are on the same ground – asserting the superiority of Islam and the legitimacy of religious discrimination.

Isis’s readiness to execute people for their beliefs has parallels in six Arab countries – Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the UAE and Yemen – where apostasy is a crime and in theory the death penalty can apply. Curiously, though, they seem reluctant to enforce it. No recent executions for apostasy have been reported in any of them and in Saudi Arabia there have been none for well over 20 years, according to the US state department.

On the rare occasions when an execution for apostasy becomes a possibility, these countries usually resort to avoidance mechanisms.

In 1996, for example, the authorities in Kuwait were confronted with their first apostasy case since independence when Hussein Ali Qambar, a Shia Muslim, converted to evangelical Christianity and adopted “Robert” as his first name. Qambar had separated from his wife and his conversion came to light during a court case about custody of their children. In accordance with Islamic custom, efforts were made to persuade him to recant – but to no avail. Islamists then began agitating and filing lawsuits seeking to have him condemned for apostasy.

Read more at The Guardian

U.S. Hamas Targets Americans – FBI Silent

obama-300x187UTT, by John Guandolo, Oct. 21, 2014:

Hamas in the United States – doing business as CAIR – has again targeted Americans by publishing a list of “Islamophobes” and promoting it within the Islamic community and beyond.  UTT Founder John Guandolo is on this list.

This is a public call for the people on the list to be killed for the crime of “Slander” in Islam.

As UTT has previously reported, Sharia (Islamic Law) defines “Slander” as follows:  “Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person person he would dislike…’Do not slander one another’ (Koran 49:12)…(Slander) is to mention of your brother that which he would dislike…The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim.  He does not betray him, lie to him, or hang back from coming to his aid.” [Umdat al Salik, The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, r2.0-2.6)

Slander is a capital crime under Islamic Law.

Many of you may be aware of writers, artists, politicians, and others who have been killed or attempts made on their lives for “Slandering” Islam.  Theo van Gogh was killed for making a film.  Dutch Parlimentarian Geert Wilders has a permanent security detail to protect him from Muslims for speaking about the threat from jihad in the Netherlands, including his production of the movie “Fitna.”

Here in America, businesses, politicians, pastors, and our leaders have fallen prey to this intimidation from Islam by self-silencing a truthful debate about real threats from within the Islamic community. The threat of being called an “Islamophobe” is a threat of future violence.

The largest international body in the world second only to the UN, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), has officially defined “Islamophobia” as “Slander” under Islamic Law.  The OIC is made up of all 57 Islamic states in the world (56 plus Palestine which they consider a state).  The OIC is now pushing for deterrent punishments for “Islamophobia” at the international level.

To be officially labeled an “Islamophobe” by the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas entities, like CAIR, is to be publicly accused of “Slander” under Sharia.  CAIR is openly calling the individuals on their “Islamophobia” site “Slanderers of Islam.”

This is an overt threat to every person on CAIR’s list.

Emails to the FBI reporting this have, as of today, gone unanswered.  FBIHQ is probably in a meeting with ISNA, MPAC, CAIR, and ICNA to plan out next year’s FBI training curriculum to ensure the Bureau doesn’t offend anyone in the Muslim community.

Also see:

Total Strategic Incoherence

kerry-300x173UTT, By John Guandolo, Oct. 15, 2014:

Enough Americans have a solid understanding of the threats our nation currently faces that the perspective of history is unnecessary for us to recognize – in the moment – that our leadership is catastrophically unprofessional in their national security duties, and we have now achieved a level of strategic incoherence never before seen in recorded history.

America’s enemies are telling us exactly who they are and want they intend to do.  In many cases, they are putting it right in our faces. Yet our leaders at the federal level continue to ignore the clearly articulated plans of those who wish to destroy us in exchange for unmitigated fantasy that we can convince others to like us, as well as those inside our government who are intentionally sabotaging this nation in an effort to destroy it.  The latter will not be addressed here as it has been detailed in previous UTT articles.

Across continents, Islamic armies are butchering non-Muslims and Muslims who will not comply with the Sharia or whom are guilty of crimes under Sharia. These groups call themselves Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, Al Shabaab, and a variety of others all of whom state their objective is to impose Sharia globally under the Islamic State or Caliphate. This is the same stated objective of the Muslim Brotherhood, Tabligi Jamaat, Jamaat e Islami, and every Muslim nation on earth at the Head of State and King level via the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Ten Year Plan. This also happens to be the same stated objective of every jihadi arrested in Europe, the United States, and everywhere else on the planet. It is also a fact that 100% of all published Sharia (Islamic Law) mandates jihad until the entire world is ruled by Sharia under the Caliphate, and all (100%) published Islamic Law only defines “jihad” as “warfare” against non-Muslims.

The Islamic enemy is completely unified in their stated objectives, yet the entire U.S. Government leadership from the President, to his National Security Advisor, to the heads of the CIA, FBI, DHS, and Military, and the Cabinet Secretaries all march in unison stating none of this has to do with Islam. From this grotesque lack of intellectual and factual honesty comes strategic blunders that leave a person speechless.

The President states ISIS is “not Islamic” yet continues to support the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, Al Qaeda forces and others in places like Syria and Libya.  Secretary of State Kerry stated before Congress recently that “(ISIS is) the enemy of Islam. That’s what they are.  There’s nothing in Islam that condones or suggests people should go out and rape women and sell off young girls or give them as gifts to jihadists and, you know, cut people’s heads off.”  Apparently, neither has read Islamic Law which explicitly calls for these things.  As a matter of fact, beheadings and crucifixion are part of the Hadud Laws which are specifically articulated in the Quran.

The President and his Chief of Staff (former Deputy National Security Advisor), FBI Director, Director of Central Intelligence, Secretary of Homeland Security, and others continue to look to Muslim Brotherhood leaders in America to give them their info on Islam and Sharia, as well as allowing these jihadis to write doctrine for domestic counterterrorism strategy and foreign policy – which is why our leaders are clueless. This cluelessness allows our enemies to extract the very outcome they are gunning for – complete strategic incoherence.  When the FBI fails in these duties, state and local law enforcement officials are left out to dry.

The catastrophic strategic results speak for themselves:

* The U.S. Department of State wrote the Constitutions for Iraq and Afghanistan which created Islamic Republics (not democracies) under Sharia law – thus fulfilling Al Qaeda’s objectives for the region.  Despite crushing our enemies on the field of battle, the U.S. lost these wars.  Today, Americans and those who gave their blood and bodies for this cause watch as the gains made are being washed away by a different flavor of the same enemy.

* The U.S. government takes sides with “moderate” Islamic groups without understanding the strategic implications, and our government ends up supporting Al Qaeda and/or Muslim Brotherhood entities with arms and money in Libya, Syria, and Egypt.

* The U.S. Government via the President and Secretary of State negotiate with hostile nations/entities like the Taliban, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others thinking we can cajole them into seeing the issues our way. All the while we are completely ignorant that their guiding principles are enshrined in Sharia, a body of law they believe must be obeyed above all other laws and systems. Therefore, we are always on the losing side of these discussions.

* Those on the front lines of this war go into harms way unclear about the threat, the enemy threat doctrine (Sharia), and how to dialogue with the enemy until they gain practical experience on the ground. Since primary Muslim Brotherhood organizations like ISNA, CAIR, MAS, and others have been given access to military units and our war colleges by the Pentagon and commanding generals, our military is not only being kept from a factual understanding of the enemy, they are the target of information operations by our enemy to specifically keep them from knowing the enemy.

* When senior generals do speak out, it is to silence the factual basis for identifying and understanding the enemy. It is the reason our leaders obliged our military to dangerously absurd rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and why senior Pentagon officials ordered the soldiers at Guantanamo Bay guarding the jihadists to carry Qurans for prisoners wearing white gloves and treating the Quran like a“delicate piece of art.” This nonsense has no place in a war, but is the intentional result of our leadership failures to get a clear understanding of what this nation is facing.

* The U.S. military continues to train foreign personnel in Islamic countries yet cannot understand why these same “friends” would kill our troops in acts of jihad (martyrdom).

* There is no understanding of the implications of the US v Holy Land Foundation trial (Dallas, 2008), the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history – inside our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Therefore, senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders and organizations continue to support jihadi operations, recruit and “radicalize” jihadis, and influence and conduct counterintelligence operations inside our national security apparatus.  They do this almost completely unimpeded.

*Our counterintelligence programs do not blend well with the counterterrorism programs in either the CIA or FBI and, therefore, we do not see – strategically – the meshing of foreign intelligence services, their political representatives here, and the jihadi operations. Saudi Arabia is an excellent example of this. The Saudi government was complicit in 9/11, as was the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. and members of Saudi intelligence. Saudi Arabia supports terrorism more than any other nation on the planet beside Iran – yet they continue to be given a free pass by the U.S. government.

* U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country partner with Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas entities to train their employees, as well as FBI and DHS employees, despite facts already in evidence (US v HLF).

* Since 2012 when the FBI Director, DHS Secretary, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey shut down all training inside the government about the Muslim Brotherhood, the HLF trial, Islamic Law (Sharia), the strategic threat from the global Islamic Movement and related topics, the impact on international operations and investigations has been severe. The FBI’s latest threat matrix does not even include Islamic terrorism as a major threat to the United States. This defies rational thought. These days Chairman Dempsey publicly states his concern for ISIS, but fails to recognize it is his own policy of silencing the facts and truth inside the Pentagon that has led to a strategic collapse of fundamental war fighting mantras like “know thy enemy.”  The question he must be asked when he makes statements that Islam does not support what Al Qaeda and ISIS are doing is: “What Islamic Law have you read General?”

* Congressmen Gerry Connolly, Keith Ellison, Andre Carson John Conyers and Senators like Richard Durbin and others have given public support, using their official office, and, in some cases, raised money for MB/Hamas in the U.S. doing business as “CAIR.”  Yet, this behavior, which is against U.S. law, is left unchallenged by the Department of Justice.

There are those who have argued that it is difficult and nearly impossible to speak truth inside the system today, and that is true.  However, the Oath of Office obliges all in positions of authority to give their fidelity to the Constitution, not to their jobs or their promotions.

But this strategic incoherence is certainly not left only the Islamic threat.

The Iranians are forging ahead with their nuclear program openly stating they will destroy Israel when capable.

The Chinese and the Iranians have been conducting joint Naval exercises while the Chinese intelligence service is eating our lunch by penetrating U.S. government systems on a regular basis and conducting economic warfare against us at unprecedented levels.

The Chinese and the Russians have taunted the U.S. on a number occasions with provacative actions including a Russian bomber flying over Guam during the President’s State of the Union Speech last year.  The Chinese popped one of their subs up in the middle of a U.S. Naval exercise recently just to show us they can. Our strategic response – nothing.

In fact, our military and civilian leaders publicly state our greatest threat is “global warming.”

Message to our enemies – we are weak and will not respond to aggressive action.

The historical result of such weakness and appeasement has always been grave violence to the nation demonstrating such weakness.

Our allies do not trust us and our enemies do not fear us. We are extremely vulnerable.

And this is not the worst of it. The utter catastrophic failure by our leaders to have a working knowledge of our enemies and their doctrine has resulted in the deaths of Americans abroad and at home. Equally devastating is the loss of the security of communities across this nation which will – because of the failure of our leaders – have to deal with the jihadis on the streets of America in coming months in ways most people find unimaginable.  This is a threat that can be mitigated now, and needs to be.  Every day we wait is another level of security we are losing.

The way in which the government is dealing with the threat from Ebola – while ISIS calls for it to be used as a strategic weapon against us – gives us a glimpse into the lack of leadership, basic intellectual acumen, and the vacuum of common sense in those men and women charged with defending our nation at the top.

There is no other outcome than the defeat of America when the entire American leadership structure on both sides of the political aisle fails to identify the enemy and make  complete victory our national objective.

Anything less will  leave the world without the lamp on the hill shining the light of liberty.

 

Honor the 9/11 Dead: Defeat the Enemy & Punish Those Supporting Them

WTC-and-Pentagon-on-9-11By John Guandolo at Understanding the Threat, September 11, 2014:

It is 13 years after September 11, 2001.

How are we honoring those slain on that day? How are we honoring those in uniform who have given the last full measure of devotion for a cause they believed is truly right and just?

In preparation for his speech Wednesday night (9/10/14), America’s President sought council from the King of Saudi Arabia – the largest financial sponsor of the global jihad.

At the leadership level of our federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies, “catastrophically ignorant” is the only appropriate way to describe their status with regards to our enemy.  And yet our leaders shut down meaningful, fact/evidence based training on this enemy in compliance with the requests of their Muslim Brotherhood masters.

Nearly every major Islamic organization in the United States has been identified in U.S. federal terrorism trials as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement with the stated goal of destroying America from within via Civilization Jihad.  Yet, our President, National Security Council, State Department, FBI, DHS, Pentagon, and others, ONLY rely on Islamic advisors who are leaders of known MB organizations or affiliated with the MB Movement.

Around the world the Islamic armies are overthrowing nations, brutally murdering non-Muslims (over 100,000 Christians per year in the last few years) by beheading them, crucifying them, burying them alive, and the like – all of which comports to Sharia (Islamic Law).  Yet our leaders say this war has “nothing to do with Islam.”

Because of cowardly and criminally negligent leadership on both sides of the political aisle in America, in our Universities, in our churches, and across our media, the enemy has been given wide latitude to push their jihadi movement forward with great force and success.

We wouldn’t want to offend them after all.

On Wednesday (9/10/14), demonstrating the light of hope for rational thought is still alive, Vice President Dick Cheney called (19:06) for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and noted they are the root of the global jihad.  At the same time this administration materially supports the MB and Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria against the sitting governments.  All of us would be in jail for such actions.

This behavior, in no way honors the 9/11 dead or our troops who have died in battle.  It is time we rectify this.  It is time to engage and defeat the enemy and punish those who support them.

It is time to recognize the fact that the enemy leading the MB Movement in America wearing suits and spending time with our leaders in cities like Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York, Nashville, Denver, Charlotte, Miami, Dallas, Detroit, and others, is the same enemy  cutting off children’s heads and putting them on pikes in Syria and Iraq.  It is the same enemy our troops fought and are fighting in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, North/Central/East Africa, and elsewhere.  This is the global Islamic Movement with one unified goal – the establishment of a global Islamic state (caliphate) under which Sharia (Islamic Law) is the law of the land.

Our Constitutional Republic stands on the principle that God gave us our liberty and no man nor any government may take that liberty from us.  That is the ideal found in our Declaration.  Our Constitution is the first great attempt to make that ideal a reality.  Since its inception, our nation has been the most prosperous, generous, and virtuous in the history of mankind.  Not perfect, but our system requires the drive towards liberty and away from tyranny.

The Islamic Movement seeks to impose Sharia, which necessarily enslaves people and strips them of their God-given liberty.  Women are property under Islamic Law.  Apostates and homosexuals must be killed if they do not repent and change their ways under Islamic Law.  Non-muslims must convert, be killed, or submit to Sharia and pay the non-muslim poll tax under Islamic Law.  100% of all published Islamic law agree on these matters.

This enemy only understands one thing – strength and power.  We must exert our strength and power and ensure the enemy knows we will not surrender anymore ground, and we will retake the ground lost thus far.

It is time for the think tanks across this nation to stop mincing words about this Islamic enemy by creating fictitious meaningless phrases which do anything but identify the enemy.  We must recognize that at the nation-state level (hint: Organization of Islamic Cooperation), there is a global war being waged by an Islamic enemy, and we appear to be the only ones unaware.

It is time to shut down the thousands of MB front groups and Islamic Centers in America – which the MB itself says are places from which the jihad will be launched.  All of the MB leaders should be treated like the jihadis (“terrorists”) they are.

Saudi Arabia should be handled like the terrorist state it is.  Men like former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar, who funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,  should be treated as a “terrorist,” as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the U.S. government knows are currently funding the global jihad.

Men like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, one of the richest men in the world and a leading funder of the global jihad, and who sits on the board of Time Warner  and News Corp, should be handled like any other terrorist, not like an executive of a media giant.

George Soros has created thousands of organizations which work daily to undermine our Constitutional Republic.  Included in these are many organizations, like the New America Foundation, which directly support and work with the Islamic Movement.  Mr. Soros, his enterprise, and at least one of his sons all work to support our enemies and destroy this nation, and all should spend the rest of their days behind bars for it.

Leaders of DHS, FBI, CIA, State Department, and other branches of the government, as well as elected officials who:  continue to appoint Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, and Al Qaeda individuals to positions of authority inside our bureaucracy; give quarter to our enemies; apologize for and defend their actions; attend functions to raise money for the jihadis; and aid and abet them in any way, should meet the fate of a traitor because they have and are violating the law – not to mention violating their Oath of Office to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies.”

When men like Denis McDonough, the President’s former Deputy National Security Advisor, publicly laud leaders of MB organizations and funders of Hamas like Imam Mohamed Magid of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), allow him to have input on U.S. foreign policy and domestic counterterrorism strategies, and give him a security clearance and access to sensitive U.S. systems, Mr. McDonough should go to jail, not get promoted.

When the FBI Director collaborates with leaders of Hamas (dba “CAIR”), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and other jihadis, and then testifies before Congress that he did not know the place where the Boston Marathon bombers were radicalized was founded by an Al Qaeda operative – and Americans are dead – well…we put doctors and lawyers in jail for criminal negligence like this.

When elected officials and law enforcement leaders raise money for Hamas in America, they should be prosecuted for a variety of charges, including material support for terrorism.  They are breaking the law and should pay the price for directly supporting our enemies.

The President himself has violated his oath of office and federal law, abused his powers of the office he holds, and has exposed America and its people to grave dangers on a number of levels.  At no time in history has such a gross disregard for the Constitution been so evident, yet the American people so silent.

It is time for those who give aid and comfort, propaganda, material support, and financial reward to our enemies to pay a price.  And it should be a harsh price.

If we are to honor the great and heroic sacrifices of all of the men and women who gave their lives on 9/1/01 and since, it is time for America to shed its weak and traitorous leadership and begin to retake our place in the world as the strong, principled leader we are and were meant to be.

If Americans would like to experience on U.S. streets what we are witnessing in Syria, Iraq, Niger, Mali, Pakistan, and elsewhere around the world, then let us continue on the road we are on of capitulation and defeat.

If we want to stand on the wall and defend Western civilization, the actions advocated here are much less severe than we will have to engage in when the enemy makes itself prominently known in our hometowns.

John Guandolo bio

Mr. Cameron, It’s Called Shariah

woman-straining-carrying-book-of-sharia-lawCSP, by Frank Gaffney:

British Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday warned that his country needs new counter-terrorism tools to confront a threat currently assessed as “severe.”

Mr. Cameron described “the root cause of this threat” as “a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism that believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in a mediaeval state.”

But then, the Prime Minister showed why Britain faces this threat.  He added, “We should be clear that this has nothing to do with Islam.”

In fact, the “poisonous ideology” is known as shariah.  And, while many Muslims don’t follow it, the authorities of Islam do.

Unless and until we stop blinding ourselves to this reality and protect Western freedoms and values against shariah, we are doomed.

Also see:

What is Shariah and What Are It’s Sources?

Key Tenets of Shariah

Security Expert: Our Southern Border Is A War Zone

cl

Center For Security Policy:

In Part 2 of The Daily Caller’s video interview with Clare Lopez, a senior official with the Center for Security Policy, she explains how the collapse of America’s southern border was a planned, willful refusal to maintain national sovereignty. Citing a January budget request from the Department of Homeland Security requesting funding based on the expectation of new flows of some 65,000 immigrants including children, Lopez thinks Americans, especially at the border, are threatened.

She discusses how narco-traffickers are flowing through, organized in columns at night in military formations guarded by sentinels and scouts, and armed with advanced weaponry. To her, the southern border is a war zone. As these undocumented immigrants are dispersed by air or bus throughout America, the threat widens, she reports.

To Lopez, President Obama is “consciously trying to diminish America’s leadership in the world.” She discusses the “great purge” that occurred early in the Obama administration where there was a comprehensive removal of training materials from departments and agencies who were engaged in ferreting out jihadi threats from radical Islamic terrorists. This purge, Lopez says in this video interview, “crippled and neutralized American national security interests.”

Discussing lessons learned from the Iraq war, Lopez says, “the U.S. never understood the “fundamental incompatibility between Islamic law and liberal western democracy, and in particular, the U.S. Constitution.” She continues, “Islamic law and Islam’s doctrine mandates inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, between men and women.” She ends by stating, “As long as a people remain enthralled to Islamic law, there cannot be genuine, true liberal Western style democracy.”

To view Part 1, Clare Lopez on Benghazi, click here.

Media Confused as Boko Haram Claims to Join the Islamic State

boko-haram_3016074bCenter For Security Policy, By Kyle Shideler:

In a video released over the weekend, AbuBakr Shekaku, head of the Nigerian jihadist group known as Boko Haram, appears to have declared allegiance to the Islamic State, proclaiming lands currently under Boko Haram control in the province of Borno part of the “Caliphate.”

Despite this, much of the Western media seemed confused about the nature of a Caliphate and what it means. From the AFP report:

In a July video, Shekau voiced support for the leader of the Islamic State and the Levant (Isil) militants Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who in late June declared himself “the caliph” and “leader of Muslims everywhere”. But there was no indication from Shekau in the latest video that he was associating himself with Baghdadi, whose Sunni Muslim fighters have taken over parts of Iraq and Syria. As such, it was not clear if Shekau was declaring himself to be a part of Baghdadi’s call or if he was referring to a separate Nigerian caliphate.

The position of Caliph is one with purported dominion over the entire “ummah” the total collective of the Muslim faithful.There can only be one legitimate Caliph, and one Caliphate, as Shekaku is no doubt aware. Given that the  laudatory language Boko Haram has in the past offered towards the IS Caliphate, the most likely conclusion would be that Boko Haram either has joined, or intends to join the Islamic State of Al-Baghdadi. It would be incongruous for Shekaku to praise IS, and then negate its primary achievement by denying it legitimacy by claiming he was the true Caliph.

It’s worth noting that while this confusion over whether or not Boko Haram was declaring for the IS Caliphate or declaring its own Caliphate was echoed in all the western reporting which followed from the AFP report, the same confusion is not at all present in an OnIslam.net report, which draws from the same AFP wire.  The OnIslam.net report also ignores the extraneous historical detail of the Sokoto caliphate, a 19th century Nigerian Islamic state which laid claim to the Caliphate title. This is a classic example of how the disinclination to study Islamic law on matters leads to injecting unnecessary complexity into the analysis of events.

If it is the case that Boko Haram has acknowledged the territory it controls as part of the IS Caliphate, this is a major development for the Islamic State. The claim of authority by its “Caliph” Al-Baghdadi has largely been rejected by other Jihadist groups, with only minor exceptions. Yet being recognized as receiving the bay’at (oath) of notable scholars and jihadi emirs who hold actual territory is central to Al Baghdadi’s claim of legitimacy. Of course whether either group is capable of meeting the perceived obligation of such an oath, sharing and exchanging resources, personnel etc, is an entirely other matter.

Also see:

UK’s Anjem Choudary Justifies Beheading of James Foley

UK Islamist cleric Anjem Choudary (center)

UK Islamist cleric Anjem Choudary (center)

By Ryan Mauro:

Anjem Choudary, an Islamist cleric in Britain, spoke to the Clarion Project and said reports linking him to Abdel Majed Abdel Bary, the British rapper identified as the Islamic State terrorist who beheaded American journalist James Foley. However, he justified the atrocity and endorsed the caliphate declared by the Islamic State.

Choudary denied ever meeting Bary or his father, an Al-Qaeda member involved in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa who was extradited to the U.S. in 2012 from Britain. Choudary said his group did protest the elder Bary’s prolonged detention in the United Kingdom since 1998.

He also rejected press reports that his organization radicalized Bary. Choudary said no one in his group ever mentioned meeting Bary and that he’s confident someone would have discussed it if they had.

Choudary told the Clarion Project that the beheading of Foley by the Islamic State is permissible under sharia (Islamic) law.

“Muslims who abide by the sharia and follow the jurisprudence do not make a distinction between civilians and army,” he said.

Read more at Clarion Project

ISIS: Guided by the Koran

antiisiswien-6Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, August 24, 2014:

Two weeks ago we posted about the march in Vienna in support of persecuted Christians in the Middle East. Below is a subtitled video of a speech given by Christian Zeitz on that occasion, concerning the Koranic basis for the actions of ISIS and the nature of Islamic law. In addition to his translation of the video, Rembrandt Clancy has provided us with an explanatory introduction.

Introduction
by Rembrandt Clancy

Below is a video of a demonstration against the “Islamic State” which took place in Vienna on 10 August 2014. The speaker is Christian Zeitz, Scientific Director of the Institute for Applied Political Economy in Austria. According to Internet portal unzensuriert.at, where he has published guest commentaries, Mr. Zeitz studies the theory of democracy, monetary theory, Islamology and the sociology of religion.

Mr. Zeitz raises two subjects in the video for which it is perhaps worthwhile to provide some background: the Ridda wars and the Austrian Islam Act of 1912.

The Ridda Wars

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the current IS leader and self-proclaimed Caliph, takes his name from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, who according to tradition was an early friend of Mohammed’s. Upon the prophet’s death in 632, Abu Bakr became the prophet’s “rightly-guided” successor and the first Caliph. It was he who sponsored the Ridda or Apostasy Wars until his death in 634. The aim of the wars was to re-establish Muslim hegemony over Bedouin tribes on the Arabian Peninsula after they had fallen away from the faith. Raymond Ibrahim describes these first jihads this way:

Many Arab tribes were still willing to remain Muslim, but had second thoughts about paying zakat money to the first caliph, Abu Bakr. That was enough to declare jihad on them as apostates; tens of thousands of Arabs were burned, beheaded, dismembered, or crucified, according to Islamic history.

Indeed, Qaradawi himself, while discussing the importance of killing any Muslim who apostatizes from Islam on a live Al Jazeera program, correctly declared that “If the penalty for apostasy was ignored, there would not be an Islam today; Islam would have ended on the death of the prophet.”

The Austrian Islam Act of 1912

Christian Zeitz also refers briefly to the Islam Act (Islamgesetz) of 1912 (English, French and German versions), which the Emperor Franz Joseph (1830-1916) promulgated for the purpose of integrating Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Habsburg Monarchy. In a recent articlefor Gates of Vienna Mr. Zeitz details the background to the Act and outlines what is at stake:

Austria will soon have to decide whether it wants to establish in orderly fashion the primacy of the secular state versus the aspirations for an Islamic divine state, or intends to allow a further embedding of radical variants of Islam.

The Gatestone Institute has an article “Austria: Muslim Brotherhood’s New European Headquarters” (4 June 2014) which analyses why Austria’s Islam Act of 1912 provides attractive, external legal conditions for the Muslim Brotherhood that do not exist in any other European country.

Video Credits

Henrik Ræder Clausen did the technical work on the original footage. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff supplied the German transcript, without which this project could not have gone ahead. She was also responsible for taking the video footage of the demonstration. Translation and subtitling are by Rembrandt Clancy.

 

Video Transcript

 

 

Why Is the Islamic State Behaving This Way?

390510-456a0a56-fa56-11e3-9463-539ac6ca705b-450x314By Robert Spencer:

The Islamic State is turning into a huge public relations problem for groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies. For years they have insisted that Islam is a religion of peace that has nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorism committed with alarming regularity in its name, and that the people responsible for linking Islam with terrorism were not Islamic jihad terrorists, but “Islamophobic” opponents of jihad terror. But then comes along a group calling itself The Islamic State, committing unimaginable atrocities and presenting each one as an authentic embodiment of Islamic texts and teachings, and the deception campaign at which CAIR officials have labored so assiduously for so many years, and with such great success, is in danger of crashing around their uneasy necks.

Take, for example, the recent revelation that, according to the UN News Centre, “some 1,500 Yazidi and Christian persons may have been forced into sexual slavery.” A similar kidnapping by Islamic jihadists in Nigeria recently horrified the world, but much overlooked was the fact that such behavior is sanctioned by the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general, as does this passage. “Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6).

These passages have not gone unnoticed. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:

Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Don’t Call It A Caliphate, Yet: ISIS May Run Afoul of Islamic Law

802499242CSP, By Kyle Shideler:

The news over the weekend that the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) had declared as Caliph of the universal Muslim Ummah its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has shaken the Middle East (and the wider Muslim world).

In classic ISIS form, the jihadist insurgent army issued a communiqué, in multiple languages, including English, to explain their decision to make the announcement that Al-Baghdadi was now Caliph Ibrahim, and ISIS was now simply, “The Islamic State.”

According to the communiqué, Al-Baghdadi was invested with the position of Caliph through the oath of loyalty sworn to him by ISIS’s people of authority (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd). The communiqué notes:

…the Islamic State – represented by ahlul-hall-wal-‘aqd (its people of authority), consisting of its senior figures, leaders, and the shura council – resolved to announce the establishment of the Islamic khilafah, the appointment of a khalifah for the Muslims, and the pledge of allegiance to the shaykh (sheikh), the mujahid, the scholar who practices what he preaches, the worshipper, the leader, the warrior, the reviver, descendent from the family of the Prophet, the slave of Allah, Ibrahim Ibn ‘Awwad Ibn Ibrahim Ibn ‘Ali Ibn Muhammad al-Badri al-Hashimi al-Husayni al-Qurashi by lineage, as-Samurra’i by birth and upbringing, al-Baghdadi by residence and scholarship. And he has accepted the bayat (pledge of allegiance). Thus, he is the imam and khalifah for the Muslims everywhere.

Compare to Minhaj al-talibin written by Imam Nawawi, a shafi’i jurist of the 13th century, as cited in the Reliance of the Traveller (Book O. Justice, O.25.4):

The Caliphate may be legally effected by an oath of fealty, which, according to the soundest positions, is the oath of those with discretionary power to enact or dissolve a pact (ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd) of the scholars, leaders and notables able to attend.

Other legal options for investiture as a Caliph would be appointment as a successor by the previous Caliph, or to seize the position of Caliph by force of arms, but both would seem to require a pre-existing caliph from whom to take power.

So the question of whether, under Islamic law as understood, Al-Baghdadi may be legitimately recognized as Caliph rests on whether or not the ISIS “people of authority” meet the legitimate definition for that position.

While there is a range of opinion of exactly what constitutes the “ahl al-hall wa al-‘aqd,” for this purpose, the commentary on Minhaj al-talibin included in Reliance notes that while the ruling is expected to be made by all people of authority able to attend, there is no such thing as a “quorum” and the presence or lack of any particular number of individuals is irrelevant.

A commentary by Muhammed Shirbini Khatib explains,

“…if the discretionary power to enact or dissolve a pact exists in a single individual, who is obeyed, his oath of fealty is sufficient.”

It’s unclear whether ISIS has at its disposal such a worthy dignitary. The quality of scholars supporting ISIS has always been a problem for the otherwise meteoric rise of the group once referred to as Al Qaeda in Iraq. While eminent Jihadi scholar Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi wasonce a major supporter of founder Al-Zarqawi, the most notable scholars, including al-Maqdisi, sided against ISIS, in its dispute with Al Qaeda emir Ayman Al Zawahiri. If the “people of authority” are deemed to be those scholars most esteemed within the jihadi world, then ISIS’s appointment of a Caliphate lacks authenticity and legal backing. And that does not even consider the wider world of Shariah authorities, whether operating from within the Muslim Brotherhood’s orbit such as Yusuf Al Qaradawi’s International Union of Muslim Scholars (which has formally denounced the declaration), or in traditional venues like Al-Azhar University.

Despite a dearth of scholarship, ISIS can count on the fact that nothing succeeds like success. Two things are necessary for ISIS to win it’s gambit in declaring the Caliphate reestablished. The first is that it must continue to win. Continued territorial expansion fulfills its argument that ISIS is the implementer of the Shariah law over the largest and most historically relevant real estate.

Second, ISIS must succeed in winning the oath of loyalty of key elements of the global jihad. While ISIS has succeeded in gaining popular support among online jihadi communities, individual young mujahids are of no real consequence, except in as much as they serve as recruits to further conquest. What ISIS needs, ideologically, is the support of the emirs of major jihadi groups or the support of prominent scholars. So far this has not happened, although individual members have supported the call. Victory on the battlefield may lead to such oaths, as other jihadi groups look to take advantage of the boost in recruiting and fundraising that ISIS is receiving.

Still, it would be strategically useful to avoid unwittingly consecrating Al-Baghdadi’s claim to the position of Caliph while that issue remains open to (possibly bloody) debate in jihadist circles. ISIS is exceedingly conscious of media and particularly western media, and carefully formulates its message in terms most likely to terrorize, and appeal to media coverage (the logic of distributing both mass executions and crucifixion videos, and a jihad fighters holding cats Twitter account for example). They respond quickly to exploit opportunities that seem to affirm their caliphate status, as when ISIS supporters began to retweet a statement by DHS senior advisor Mohammed Elibiary that the Caliphate was “inevitable,” following ISIS’ success in Iraq. ISIS has capitalized on media coverage about their exploits, and claim in their communiqué that even the west recognizes their new status,

“They [referring to those Muslim groups with whom ISIS disputes] never recognized the Islamic State to begin with, although America, Britain and France acknowledge its existence.”

Given that ISIS is looking for legitimacy where it can find it, let’s not present ISIS’ declaration of Caliphate as a fait accompli. Instead to the degree the facts permit it, it would be advantageous to continue to point out that even within the legal context of shariah, ISIS is on shaky ground, that they are a relative newcomer, that in the grand scheme of the Islamic world they hold limited territory, and that they do not have the respect of key scholars or jihadi emirs. At the same time, we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that these things may not change, especially if ISIS continues its winning streak. But for the meantime, ISIS is not a Caliphate… yet.

Originally appeared at Breitbart.com 

Stealth Jihad Meets PC America

tyby William Kilpatrick:

My new book Insecurity is a comedy about political correctness run amok in the government and the military. But, as recent events show, there is a decidedly unfunny side to the world that political correctness is helping to create.

Up until recently, the colloquialism “heads will roll” referred to a threat to fire employees. Nowadays, however, that phrase is more likely to evoke its original literal meaning—as in the beheadings that have become a common feature of the daily news cycle. The streets of Mosul in Iraq are reportedly lined with the severed heads of police and soldiers—victims of the ISIS jihadists. A photo circulating on the web shows one of the recently released Taliban leaders in the days before his capture posing with his trophy collection of five lopped-off heads. Those who thought that decapitation went out with the French Revolution have come in for a rude awakening.

It’s disturbing to realize that such things can happen in this day and age, but we in America tend to console ourselves with the reassuring thought that, thank God, it can’t happen here. Or can it? Why shouldn’t it happen here? Or, to put it another way, “Who’s going to stop ‘em?”

The most obvious answer to that question—the one that will jump most readily to mind—is the Army. And certainly, the U.S. Army is more than a match for any invading force of Middle Eastern jihadists. But, although our army can repel armed jihad, it’s not very well-equipped to resist the other kind—namely, stealth jihad. And if the conquest of America ever comes—as Islamists say it will—it will come about through stealth jihad.

What is stealth jihad? It’s the incremental spread of Islamic law in a society by means of activism, propaganda and lawfare, and by the gradual co-option of schools, courts, and media. It’s the long march through the institutions that the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci recommended to European communists. Leftists have already co-opted many of society’s institutions. What’s to prevent jihadists from doing the same?

Stealth jihad is much more difficult to detect and resist than the armed variety. It’s not the type of aggression the Army is trained to deal with. And, in fact, the Army has proven itself on several occasions to be an enabler of stealth jihad. Take the case of Major Stephen Coughlin. He was the Army’s top expert on Islamic law until he made the mistake of pointing out that Islamic law obliges Muslims to wage jihad. The Army didn’t cotton on to that idea and Coughlin was dismissed from his Pentagon job as an intelligence contractor. The official attitude was nicely captured by an admiral who, upon hearing Coughlin’s assessment, replied that he would first “have to check with my imam on that.”

You can see why the military has to contract out for its intelligence. Why would a high ranking officer have to consult his imam? Well, for reasons of political correctness, of course. It would be offensive not to bring the imam into the loop. For similar reasons, General Petraeus used to visit provincial leaders in Afghanistan dressed up as Lawrence of Arabia, and for similar reasons a manual for U.S. troops in the region directed them to avoid “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” or “anything related to Islam.”

Read more at Front Page

Islam: Is Integration Working? Part II of III

Gatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, June 18, 2014:

Some motives of the members of the British Law Society might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

What seems unpardonable is that our Western governments and institutions, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are reinforcing these abuses.

Pressure to incorporate Shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

Another apparent obstacle to integration seems to be the simple act, within circumscribed communities, of questioning. Questioning — as well as free speech and free thought — often seems to appear disrespectful and discouraged. A new effort to criminalize free speech internationally has in the past few years been promoted by, of all countries, the United States — led by then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton in three closed-door conferences between 2010 and 2012. Clinton not only dusted off — but co-sponsored and actively promoted — the all-but-dead Pakistani resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolution 16/18, misleadingly named “Defamation of Religion.” The resolution is, bluntly, an attempt legally to internationalize Islam’s repressive “blasphemy laws.” Anyone who might wish to question or discuss Islam can be accused of “blasphemy” and possibly sentenced to death. Since the beginning of Islam, anyone who might take steps to leave Islam can be accused of “apostasy,” and sentenced to death. As Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi said at the end of January 2013, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment [death], Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

What seems unpardonable is that it is our Western governments and institutions that are reinforcing these abuses.

 

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L), Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (2nd L), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (3rd L) and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton (4th L) participate in the OIC conference on “Building on the Consensus” in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011. (State Department photo)

Moreover, in March 2014, the British Law Society set out guidelines for solicitors (roughly, U.S. lawyers) to help draw up “Shari’a compliant” wills, in defiance of the fact that Islamic rules on inheritance are deeply discriminatory. Muslim women will not be given an equal share of an inheritance. Non-Muslims, illegitimate children, divorced spouses, people who have not had Muslim marriages, and anyone outside the kinship-based set of recognized heirs, may not inherit. The ruling tells solicitors (and from them, the courts) to make exclusions from an 1837 law, which allows gifts to pass to the offspring of an heir who has died. This has been done to provide Muslims with separate laws that do not apply to other British citizens. These separate laws also relegate British law to an inferior position in such matters. The ruling has been done knowingly and for poorly thought-out motives by people who should know better. Some motives might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, giving them rights that others do not have, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

If this ruling is followed by others affecting marriage, divorce, the custody of children and much else, Britain will become a two-tier society in which Muslim men may marry four wives, keep concubines or, for the Shi’a, contract temporary (mut’a) marriages, while non-Muslim polygamists will be sent to jail. Needless to say, protests are already underway.

Pressure to incorporate shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

In the U.S., in 2011, President Obama appointed Professor Azizah al-Hibri to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Hibri, a professor at Richmond University, has a record of involvement in matters concerning the rights of Muslim women and human rights in Islam. But she is on record as saying that Islamic Law “is deeper and better than Western codes of law,” that the Qur’an inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.

Hibri has also argued that Islam is fully compatible with women’s rights, human rights, and democracy, something many in the West would strongly contest. Moreover, to appoint an Islamist to a post as commissioner on a body dedicated to religious freedom, a body that spends much of its time protesting the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim countries seems at the very least indecent. The very idea of religious freedom does not exist in the Qur’an, the hadith literature, or in any book of Islamic law. It is not enough to cite the famous line from the Qur’an 2:256, “la ikraha fi’l-din” [there is no compulsion in religion]. It has to be modified by the laws that enforce belief by threatening death to apostates, or by the conditions imposed on Jews, Christians, Hindus, pagans and other non-Muslims. They are given a choice to convert, die, or live as dhimmis: lower-class, “tolerated” persons, who pay a tribute, or tax, called a jizya, or “reward,” for not being killed. The Qur’an itself is explicit: “Fight those who believe not in Allah… [even] people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).