Video: Sebastian Gorka on defining the Enemy

Published on Jan 31, 2015 by Steven Laboe

Obama Administration Refuses to say “Radical Islam”

Islam: A Diseased Ideology

By Justin O. Smith

rage2The world is being torched and destroyed by Islam __ the Mother of all totalitarianisms __ and its Koran, the precursor to Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ and “Judenrein”. No matter the terms “moderate” or “extremist”, wherever one looks today, from Niger and the recent burning of seven Christian churches, the Yemeni government’s collapse, seventeen murders in Paris and Christian genocides in Iraq and Syria, Islam is found at the heartless center of these atrocities, as its leaders have stubbornly refused to modify, humanize and reform Islam and reconcile Islam with the modern, civilized world. And the world must not allow Islam to persist.

From their own lips, the world hears Islamic religious leaders and Muslim adherents to Islam confess their desire to commit heinous acts against America, Israel and the West in the name of Allah, because the Koran demands it. We hear them utter Islamic prayers and scream “Allahu Akbar” as they commit their murders. So, there’s an obvious problem within Islam that awaits rectifying.

My April 8, 2010 article (see April 8. NEWCOPY – FOX NEWS), for ‘The Reader’, illuminated a large Islamic threat to the U.S. from the Pakistani cleric Mubarak Ali Gilani and his Jaamat al-Fuqra groups based in New York, which have been responsible for ten assassinations and seventeen bombings in America, along with 100 Hamas and Hezbollah terror cells. Leo Hohmann at WND and the Clarion Project recently duplicated this information on January 20, 2015, using the same FBI files I referenced; however, in addition, they verified the locations of 22 paramilitary camps, from California to Tennessee, and they also suggested this number is closer to thirty-five.

In a recent recruiting video captured from Gilani’s “Soldiers of Allah”, Gilani states: “We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are in America.”

A British terrorist supporter, imam Anjem Choudary and “Muslims Against the Crusades” began work in 2011 to turn twelve British cities, including London (“Londonstan”), into Islamic states. They advocate and plan for autonomous areas controlled by Sharia law, outside British jurisprudence; eighty-five Sharia courts now exist there.

Choudary defended the murderous ‘Charlie Hebdo’ terrorists. He also recently stated that the West can change their laws or there will be a “bloodbath”.

And so, why do the leaders of the United States and the European Union insist on bringing hundreds of thousands more Muslims into our nations, when the greater percentage of them seek our destruction and the end of our liberty? Just look at the Boston Bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers and Adnan Shukrijumah. But of course, Islam’s diseased ideology has infected many native born Muslims too, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, the Kouaci brothers and Anjem Choudary.

Europe and the U.S are properly alarmed by thousands of disenchanted Muslims, holding E.U. and U.S. passports, who have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Combine this with open borders policies and an expanding cesspool of irrational, angry Islamofascists stretching from North Africa to Pakistan, and these Muslims pose a deadly threat to the civilized world.

The Egyptian government, Egypt’s President Sisi and the Ibn Khaldoun Center for Development Studies have warned the Obama administration repeatedly that the Muslim Brotherhood is exerting an inordinate influence on the U.S. government. They warn that the Muslim Brotherhood sponsors Hamas and that the MB is an international terrorist organization operating in sixty nations, “based on restoring the religious empire” (Islamic Caliphate).

On January 8th, the head of Britain’s MI5 Security Service, Director General Andrew Parker gave a speech at MI5 headquarters in London. He warned that Al Qaeda in Syria was preparing to inflict mass casualties in the West, possibly attacking public transportation and “iconic targets”. Part of his assessment stems from the appearance of Pakistani Al Qaeda in Syria.

While ninety-percent of Muslims will probably never be actual terrorists, well over 50% of the Muslim world has engaged in violent protests, mob violence and some act of war against the West, Israel and even its own people, since the Six Day War. Most Muslims also remain silent, but many cheer, about their brethren’s horrific terrorist attacks, such as 9/11 and, more recently, ‘Charlie Hebdo’.

Staying true to form after murdering more than 10,000 civilians last year (Reuters), the Islamofascists of Boko Haram murdered 2000 more innocent civilians, mostly Christians, in the Nigerian town of Baga, during the first week of January 2015. And we hold rallies, while the enemy continues on its murderous rampages, without a peep of protest squeaking out from any of the so-called “moderate” Muslims.

Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan represents a regime that has provided material support to Hamas. He states that the term “moderate Islam” is “very ugly _ it is an offense and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam … “.

No politician has ever moved Islam to reform. A few have tried to create a new Islamic order, such as Sayyid Ali Muhammed (1819-50) and his Babi movement attempted. A decade ago, Pakistani President Musharaff and King Abdullah of Jordan called for “enlightened moderation”, however, the current Islamic trend is the systematic reversal of any gains made towards reform, like Ataturk’s philosophy in Turkey, and turning the “Arab Spring” into a campaign for the Islamic State and the return of the Caliphate.

On January 1, 2015, Egypt’s Pres, Abdel al-Sisi challenged religious leaders at Cairo’s Al Azhar University to start a “religious revolution”, because the Muslim community “is being … destroyed and is going to hell”. He continued: “It is inconceivable that the wrong ideas that we sacralize should make the entire [Muslim community] a source of concern … and destruction for the whole world”.

The Islamic component of terrorism must be confronted with extreme prejudice and deadly force by Europe and the United States, since millions of Muslims, who aren’t “extremists”, tacitly support Islam’s intolerance and terrorism. Without any reform forthcoming and the Islamic world beyond the force of reason, America must take the terrorists at their word and send these Islamofascists to hell, in a bloodbath of their own choosing, generation after generation, until they are all dead or they no longer seek to spread Islam by the sword and go forth to make war no more.

A Conversation about Anti-Semitism with Dr. Phyllis Chesler and Dr. Richard Landes

Israel— and the West— are encircled by evil and slander. We cannot afford to appease them, for appeasement only feeds the appetite of these beasts which , tasting blood, always thirst for more. – Phyllis Chesler

 

Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology at City University of New York. She is a best-selling author, a legendary feminist leader, a retired psychotherapist and expert courtroom witness. She has lectured and organized political, legal, religious, and human rights campaigns in the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, and the Far East. Her work has been translated into many European languages and into Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Hebrew.

Dr. Chesler is a co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969), The National Women’s Health Network (1974), and The International Committee for Women of the Wall (1989). She is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at The Middle East Forum, and a fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP).

She is the author of fifteen books, including the landmark feminist classic Women and Madness, as well as many other notable books including With Child: A Diary of Motherhood;Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody; Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman; and Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaism’s Holy Site. After publishing The New Anti-Semitism (2003), she published two more books: The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle For Women’s Freedom(2005) and An American Bride in Kabul (2013), which won a National Jewish Book Award.

book_new_anti_semitism-coverIn December, Gefen Publishing brought out the new edition of Chesler’s 2003 work The New Anti-Semitism, which has been expanded, strengthened, lightly updated, and which has a new Introduction. Gefen is an English-language publisher based in Jerusalem and New Jersey. Gefen will publish a one- or two-volume edition of her Collected Writings (2003 – 2014) on this subject.

Since 9/11, Dr. Chesler has focused on anti-Semitism and the demonization of Israel; the psychology of terrorism; the nature of propaganda; honor-based violence and the rights of women, dissidents, and gays in the Islamic world. Dr. Chesler has published three studies about honor-related violence, including honor killings, and a position paper on why the West should ban the burqa; these studies have all appeared inMiddle East Quarterly. She has testified for Muslim and ex-Muslim women who are seeking asylum or citizenship based on their credible belief that their families will honor kill them.

Dr. Chesler was born in Borough Park, Brooklyn, where she went to Hebrew Schools and joined Hashomer Ha’tzair. She lives in Manhattan and is a very proud mother and grandmother.

Dr. Chesler has been profiled in many encyclopedias, including Feminists Who Have Changed America,Jewish Women in America, and in the latest Encyclopedia Judaica. She invites readers to visit her website, where many of her articles are archived and where readers may contact her: www.phyllis-chesler.com.

“Call it Jihad: ‘Terrorism’ Just Doesn’t Define This Threat”

2423016604CSP, By Clare Lopez, Oct. 28, 2014:

2014’s spate of Islamic terror attacks against Western targets leaves observers grasping for words to describe what’s happening. President Obama doesn’t want to deal with it at all, so after a Muslim convert beheaded a woman in Oklahoma, he thought it appropriate to send the beheader’s mosque (the Islamic Center of Greater Oklahoma City) warm greetings about “shared peace” and “a sense of justice.” (The occasion was the Muslim feast of Eid Ul-Adh, but the timing was awful.) U.S. national security agencies are no help either—under the tutelage of the Muslim Brotherhood, they were purged long ago of any vocabulary useful for dealing with jihad. “Lone wolf” gets a lot of play with the media, but as Michael Ledeen, Andrew McCarthy, and Patrick Poole (here, here, and here) have all pointed out, there’s nothing ‘lone’ about Muslim warriors, self-selected or otherwise, engaging in fard ‘ayn (individual jihad) in obedience to the doctrine of their shared faith.

Nor are these attacks simply “terrorism” in any way that is uniquely descriptive. As Ledeen noted, the Unabomber was a domestic terrorist. The FBI calls the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) terrorist. The Black Liberation Army was accused of murdering more than a dozen police officers in its day. But none of these operates today in obedience to a 1400-year-old ideology that claims a divine commandment to conquer the earth. Nor is any of these other ‘domestic terrorists’ the 21st century embodiment of a force that already has overrun many powerful civilizations, including the Buddhist, Byzantine, Middle East Christian, Hindu, and Persian ones.

It’s time to call this what it is: Jihad.

Jihad is a unique descriptor: it is motivated solely by one ideology—an Islamic one. It encompasses any and all tactics of war, be they the kinetic violence of terrorism, the stealthy influence operations of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian intelligence agencies, or funding, speaking, teaching, and writing. Importantly, the term ‘jihad’ is the one used by its own practitioners—the clerics, scholars, and warriors of Islam. Arguably the most valid qualification of all is that Islamic Law (shariah) defines jihad as “warfare to spread the religion [Islam].” Warfare encompasses many things, though, and not all of them are violent.

Katharine Gorka, President of The Council on Global Security, has an astute new essay entitled “The Flawed Science Behind America’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy” in which she skewers the Obama administration’s misguided policy it calls “Countering Violent Extremism.” She explains how America’s counter-terrorism ‘experts’ have tried haplessly to apply Social Movement Theory to what actually is a totalitarian ideology cloaked loosely in a handful of religious practices. A decade or more of attempting to apply the language of grievance, poverty, and unemployment laid at the door of Western colonialism or secular modernity has achieved little but the neutering of America’s national security defenses. Yet, even this dead-on analysis doesn’t quite get us where we need to be.

Just as Obama’s bland “violent extremism,” deliberately devoid of meaning identifies neither the enemy nor the ideology that animates him, so in its way, ‘terrorism” likewise falls short. For if “terrorist” can and does mean anyone from a nut job like Ted Kaczynsky to assorted tree huggers, neo-Nazi skinheads, as well as Islamic warriors committing atrocities in the name of Allah, then its scope is just too broad to define precisely the paramount threat to global stability in the 21stcentury: jihad.

The magnitude of the jihad threat demands its own category. Neither Kaczynsky nor animal and environmental activists nor neo-Nazis could threaten the very existence of our Republic. Certain 20th century totalitarian ideologies arguably did, though, and that’s why the U.S. marshaled every resource at its disposal to fight them to defeat. Islamic totalitarianism is such an ideology, albeit one that has survived cyclical periods of defeat and resurgence for many centuries. We constrain ourselves both conceptually and legally, however, when the only way to label an act of violence ‘terrorism’ is when it is carried out against civilians for a political purpose and the perpetrator(s) can be tied to a designated terrorist organization, with no consideration for the ideology that so many of them—and others not on such lists—share.

Islamic terror attacks of recent decades typically involved identifiable Islamic terror groups such as al-Qa’eda, Ansar al-Shariah, HAMAS, Hizballah, and the PLO, but were often funded and supported by jihadist nation states such as Iran, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. As Katharine Gorka described in her white paper, though, the Obama administration’s willfully amorphous term, “violent extremism,” ensured that no enemy threat doctrine called ‘jihad’ that unifies these diverse yet similarly-motivated actors and that actually may threaten the Republic, was ever permitted to be articulated—or confronted.

Now, after the overwhelming post-9/11 Western retaliatory offensives, both al-Qa’eda and more recently, the Islamic State, increasingly have called for acts of ‘individual jihad’ (fard ‘ayn, according to Islamic doctrine). Such attacks by Islamic true believers against armed service members, civilians, and law enforcement officers as well as ordinary citizens duly are proliferating across the West, but the U.S. national security establishment grasps for any term—lone wolf, violent extremist, workplace violence—to avoid saying either ‘terrorism’ or ‘jihadist.’ Granted, as Daniel Pipes noted in his 24 October 2014 essay, “Terrorism Defies Definition,” there are legal consequences under the U.S. Legal Code for “formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist.” But as we see, it’s more than that – and it’s why we need to use “jihad” more often and “terrorism” less.

To properly identify individual jihad attacks is to acknowledge that there is an established ideology behind them that derives its inspiration from Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture. To acknowledge that would mean the threat actually is existential, at a minimum in its objective: universal conquest and enforcement of shariah. Until and unless the entire American citizenry, federal bureaucracy, Intelligence Community, law enforcement, and the U.S. military understand that failing to acknowledge, confront, and defeat the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah indeed do endanger the very existence of our Republic as we know it, and mobilize to meet this challenge, the inexorable advance of shariah will continue. As Pipes notes with some understatement, the current “lack of clarity presents a significant public policy challenge.

The term “terrorism” will continue to provide useful applications in security categories and lists. But it is much too inclusive and yet restrictive to offer a precise definition of the Islamic threat. The forces of Islamic jihad and shariah are mounting a whole of civilization assault against liberal, modern, representative, secular civil society. Nation states, sub-national terror organizations, transnational alliances, academics and scholars, media conglomerates, networks of mosques and Islamic Centers, so-called ‘charitable foundations’ and their donors, battlefield fighters, and too many individual Muslims are united in a jihad that is not only violent but insidious, inexorable, and sophisticated. Unless we learn to resist in the same way—a whole of civilization way—that list of subjugated civilizations may yet include one more: ours.

Iranians Thrown in Jail for Video of Dancing to Pharrell’s “Happy”

pharrell-williams-APBreitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL:

Six Iranian citizens have been locked up by Iranian authorities for the crime of dancing. The individuals, who made a video of themselves dancing to Pharrell Williams’ hit song “Happy,” were charged with violating Iran’s code of moral conduct.

The video has gone viral, totaling almost 200,000 hits in just two days on YouTube.

The arrests were carried out by Tehran police Chief Hossein Sajedinia. He said the 6 individuals were arrested because they produced an “obscene video clip that offended the public morals and was released in cyberspace.” He continued, “After a vulgar clip which hurt public chastity was released in cyberspace, police decided to identify those involved in making that clip.”

Police Chief Sajedinia was proud to announce the successful tracking of the ‘criminals’ to the public. “Following a series of intelligence and police operations and after coordinating with the judiciary, all the suspects were identified and arrested,” he said.

All six Iranians have “confessed to their criminal acts,” Sajedinia said.

As of Wednesday afternoon, five of the six Iranians arrested for making the “Happy” video has been released from prison. Reihane Taravati said on Instagram, “Hi I’m back thank you @pharrell and everyone who cared about us love you all so much and missed you so much.” The only remaining imprisoned individual was the person who directed the “Happy” video.

Taravati’s last social media post to promote the video before her imprisonment said, “People of Tehran are happy! Watch and Share Our Happiness! Let the world hear us! we are happy and we deserve to be!”

Pharrell was saddened after hearing ordinary citizens in Iran had been thrown in jail just for making a fan video of his hit song. “It is beyond sad that these kids were arrested for trying to spread happiness,” he said.

The women in the video were seen violating Iran’s state dress code. In Iran, women must don the Hijab, a veil that covers the head. The dress code has been mandated since the 1979 revolution that installed an Islamic government in Iran.

THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE

Muslim pilgrims circle the Kaaba and pray at the Grand mosque during the annual haj pilgrimage in the holy city of Meccaby Vijay Kumar: (re-posting from Aug. 7, 2013)

THE KABAH IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kabah was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca.

On the day of its capture, Mohammed delivered an address at the Kabah in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, “The Message”:

“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others.” —Mohammed

Mohammed’s address at the Kabah overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Koran 3:85

Although the rightful owners of the Kabah are the many religions that shared it before the Islamic military conquest of Mecca, according to Subhani the Kabah today is under the control of a hereditary regime going back to Mohammed: “currently the 12th Imam from the direct descent of the Prophet of Islam is the real protector, its custodian and guardian.”

All Islamic mosques everywhere in the world are required to have a clear visible indication pointing in the direction of Mecca and the Kabah, where the international political and military state of Islam was founded. In most mosques there is a niche in the wall—the mihrab—that points toward the seat of Islamic power. Each mosque, like the Kabah, is governed by an Imam in compliance with the political documents of Islam.

Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam

The Koran is the supreme political document of Islam—its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kabah, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.

The Koran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Koran governs all mosques everywhere in the world.

As a political document, the Koran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters.

Central to the Koran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Koran 5:51

“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” —Koran 9:5

All mosque leaders must be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.

The Koran as a political document also forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Koran and Islamic Sharia law.

The Hadith (reported sayings and acts of Mohammed) and the Sira (the official biographies of Mohammed) are the other political documents that, along with the Koran, constitute the basis for Islam’s Sharia law.

“There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” —Syed Qutb

Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah…until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” —Koran 9:29

Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.

Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:

“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh

Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state. Sharia regards church and state as one inseparable entity governing every aspect of individual and social life, both spiritual and secular. That is why all Islamic nations are theocracies.

In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all manmade laws.

Other political and military documents of Islam include treaties of Mohammed, which are held in reverence by Islam as models of conduct in relations between nations.

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah.” —Koran 33:21

“War is deceit.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira

In one treaty proposal, to Jaifer and Abd, Mohammed wrote:

“If you two accept Islam, your country will, as usual, remain with you. But if you refuse or object, it is a perishable thing.” —Mohammed

In another, to the Chiefs of Aqaba, he wrote:

“It is better for you either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jizya and consent to remain obedient to Allah . . . If you do not accept these terms . . . I shall have to wage war (to bring peace and security).” —Mohammed

These same patterns and political mandates have been used over and over by Muslims since 610 A.D. to invade and conquer many civilizations and nations throughout the world, and to eradicate human rights and freedoms in those lands. Iran once was called Persia and was Zorastrian. Egypt was Christian. What was once a Hindu civilization was conquered and made into Pakistan, which is now part of the Axis of Jihad, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was Buddhist for thousands of years. Now its chief exports are heroin and Islamic terrorism.

“When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.” —Koran 17:16

In every instance where Islam has conquered and “destroyed utterly” a nation or civilization, the key to the conquest was the establishment of mosques, which are political and military command and control centers for Islam, and which all point toward the seat of Islamic power: the Kabah.

Mosques and the Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”

The majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the holocaust.

The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution, but were going about their daily lives trying to survive. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.

Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.

There are post-Nazi democracies. There are post-Communist democracies. There are no post-Islamic democracies. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.

Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:

“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas

All Islamic mosques have Islamic leaders (rulers) who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading Literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.

Read more at Political Islam

Ayatollahs Celebrate 35 Years of Terror

Convicted-men-publicly-hanged-450x269by :

I was born after the Islamic Revolution of Iran, at the beginning of the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war and lived most of my life in the post-revolutionary era under the Ayatollah and Shiite Islamic Sharia law. I remember many people that underestimated the power of the Islamist movement, of Ayatollah and Imam Ruhollah Khomeini and his followers. Yet, here we are at the 35th anniversary of the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with a much stronger, centralized regime that has been successful at promoting its ideology across the region, creating proxies such as Hezbollah, funding other Islamist movements, and thwarting America’s (and its allies’) security interests, as well as the U.S.’s foreign policy, geopolitical, geostrategic and geo-economic objectives in the region.

The Ayatollah, Mullahs, and Iranian leaders are celebrating the 35th anniversary of the establishment of Islamic Republic of Iran by Ayatollah and Imam Ruhollah Khomeini and his extremist followers.

It is also worth noting that due to the Carter administration’s foreign policies, the United States stood by and watched one of our (and Israel’s) staunchest allies in the Middle East be controlled by Shiite Islamic Ayatollahs and clerics; Iran was turned into one of the U.S.’s most robust and determined geopolitical, geostrategic, and geo-economic enemies.

This considerably shifted the balance of power in the Middle East, as the Islamic Republic built a firmer alliance with Russia and China, to counter American and Israeli foreign policy objectives in the region.

Ceremonies began in Iran on Saturday, marking the 35th anniversary of the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which deposed pro-US Muhammad Reza Shah and brought in the Islamic Republic.

The beginning of the 10 days of celebration, called the 10-Day Dawn (Fajr) festivities across Iran, marks the day when the late founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, arrived back home from exile on February 1, 1979, after having spent more than 14 years away, mostly in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf, with some time in Turkey and France.

These 10 days will culminate in one of largest nationwide rallies on February 11th, to celebrate the anniversary of the triumph of the Islamic Revolution.

After overthrowing the secular and pro-Western state, the Ayatollahs instituted a new social order based primarily on Islamist thoughts, Shari’a law, and Shiite ideals like the introduction of Jurisprudent Leadership (Vilayat-e Faqih) and giving divine power to the Supreme Leader (Vali)—whose legitimacy lies in his piety and his supposedly unmatched knowledge of Islam.

Article 57 was added to the constitution to emphasize this shift: “The powers of government in the Islamic Republic are vested in the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive powers, functioning under the supervision of the absolute religious leader and the Leadership of the Ummah, in accordance with the forthcoming articles of this Constitution…”

This gave the Supreme leader the absolute power to veto, enact, or suspend any law that was deemed to be un-Islamic based on his interpretations. All articles of the constitutions became subject to approval of Islamic laws. This created an artificial façade of democracy. For example, while the constitution gives rights to writers, journalists, and bloggers to write freely, everything should still comply with Islamic and Shiite laws.

Read more at Front Page

Amir Taheri Still Flush with Spring Fever

egypt_hand_grenade_thumbnail_10-9-11-2-85x85

Rose-tinted revisionism: Islamic supremacism was not imposed on Egyptians; it was chosen by Egyptians.

By Andrew C. McCarthy:

My great respect for Amir Taheri notwithstanding, his hopes for democratic transformation of the Middle East cause him, yet again, to misinterpret the most recent developments in Egypt.

There, the initial draft of a new constitution is about to be published, the product of a committee overseen by the military, which has run Egypt’s government since Mohamed Morsi’s ouster. The new constitution will reportedly preserve sharia (Islam’s societal framework) as the country’s main source of law. It will also codify the “special status” of the armed forces as protectors of the state vested with supreme power in matters of national defense, foreign relations, and economic affairs — possibly including, the Washington Post reports, the discretion to try civilians (such as Muslim Brotherhood operatives) in military courts.

In a recent New York Post column, Taheri argues that the new constitution will thus be an insidious pact between the generals and the “Salafists” — Muslim supremacists who, like their Brotherhood political rivals, are determined to create a caliphate beholden to Islam’s repressive principles. It will betray hopes for real democracy that are shared, Taheri insists, by the vast majority of Egyptians.

Adopting the conveniently pliable passive voice, Taheri writes (the italics are mine):

The coup that returned the military to power after a year-long interval was presented as an attempt to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from imposing an Islamist dictatorship with a constitutional facade. Highlighted were two articles in the Morsi constitution that identified the Islamic sharia as the source of legislation in Egypt and gave Al-Azhar, the official seminary, a virtual veto on certain issues.

The crowds that for weeks filled Tahrir Square called on the army to intervene to save the nation from a burgeoning sharia-based dictatorship. Well, when the new draft constitution — written by a 50-man committee appointed by the military — is published, the Tahrir Square crowds are likely to be disappointed. The two controversial articles will still be there, albeit under different numbers and with slight changes in terminology.

This is rose-tinted revisionism. Yes, the coup “was presented” by democracy romantics as a rejection of Islamic totalitarianism. But that did not make it one. Egypt is a big, complex country, and there was no single rationale for Morsi’s ouster, which was supported by some important Salafist factions — groups that could not be more opposed to Western liberalism. The impetus for removing Morsi that came closest to a societal consensus was not the desire for real democracy; it was — as our colleague David Goldman has observed — that Egypt is an economic basket-case that Morsi and the Brothers were steering toward failed-state status.

Read more at PJ Media

THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE

Muslim pilgrims circle the Kaaba and pray at the Grand mosque during the annual haj pilgrimage in the holy city of Meccaby Vijay Kumar

THE KABAH IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kabah was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca.

On the day of its capture, Mohammed delivered an address at the Kabah in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, “The Message”:

“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others.” —Mohammed

Mohammed’s address at the Kabah overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Koran 3:85

Although the rightful owners of the Kabah are the many religions that shared it before the Islamic military conquest of Mecca, according to Subhani the Kabah today is under the control of a hereditary regime going back to Mohammed: “currently the 12th Imam from the direct descent of the Prophet of Islam is the real protector, its custodian and guardian.”

All Islamic mosques everywhere in the world are required to have a clear visible indication pointing in the direction of Mecca and the Kabah, where the international political and military state of Islam was founded. In most mosques there is a niche in the wall—the mihrab—that points toward the seat of Islamic power. Each mosque, like the Kabah, is governed by an Imam in compliance with the political documents of Islam.

Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam

The Koran is the supreme political document of Islam—its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kabah, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.

The Koran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Koran governs all mosques everywhere in the world.

As a political document, the Koran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters.

Central to the Koran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

 

“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Koran 5:51

“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” —Koran 9:5

All mosque leaders must be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.

The Koran as a political document also forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Koran and Islamic Sharia law.

The Hadith (reported sayings and acts of Mohammed) and the Sira (the official biographies of Mohammed) are the other political documents that, along with the Koran, constitute the basis for Islam’s Sharia law.

“There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” —Syed Qutb

Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah…until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” —Koran 9:29

Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.

Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:

“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh

Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state. Sharia regards church and state as one inseparable entity governing every aspect of individual and social life, both spiritual and secular. That is why all Islamic nations are theocracies.

In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all manmade laws.

Other political and military documents of Islam include treaties of Mohammed, which are held in reverence by Islam as models of conduct in relations between nations.

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah.” —Koran 33:21

“War is deceit.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira

In one treaty proposal, to Jaifer and Abd, Mohammed wrote:

“If you two accept Islam, your country will, as usual, remain with you. But if you refuse or object, it is a perishable thing.” —Mohammed

In another, to the Chiefs of Aqaba, he wrote:

“It is better for you either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jizya and consent to remain obedient to Allah . . . If you do not accept these terms . . . I shall have to wage war (to bring peace and security).” —Mohammed

These same patterns and political mandates have been used over and over by Muslims since 610 A.D. to invade and conquer many civilizations and nations throughout the world, and to eradicate human rights and freedoms in those lands. Iran once was called Persia and was Zorastrian. Egypt was Christian. What was once a Hindu civilization was conquered and made into Pakistan, which is now part of the Axis of Jihad, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was Buddhist for thousands of years. Now its chief exports are heroin and Islamic terrorism.

“When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.” —Koran 17:16

In every instance where Islam has conquered and “destroyed utterly” a nation or civilization, the key to the conquest was the establishment of mosques, which are political and military command and control centers for Islam, and which all point toward the seat of Islamic power: the Kabah.

Mosques and the Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”

The majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the holocaust.

The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution, but were going about their daily lives trying to survive. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.

Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.

There are post-Nazi democracies. There are post-Communist democracies. There are no post-Islamic democracies. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.

Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:

“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas

All Islamic mosques have Islamic leaders (rulers) who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading Literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.

Read more at Political Islam

 

Article In Leading Bangladeshi Daily Traces The Roots Of ‘Islamic Totalitarianism’

14934

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Only One Power Determines The Course Of History: The Power Of Ideas”; “One Needs To Identify The Enemy As The Vicious Ideology Of Islamic Totalitarianism… That Needs To Be Defeated By A Stronger, Freedom-Embracing Ideology”

MEMRI, March 10, 2013:

In the Islamic nation of Bangladesh, the secular government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has initiated a series of measures against Islamic fundamentalist groups and terrorist organizations in recent years. One of her government’s key initiatives has been the establishment of an International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). The tribunal has tried several Bangladeshi leaders for collaborating with the Pakistan Army in committing crimes against humanity during the 1971 war, which resulted in the secession of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh.

The country’s secular forces are aligned with the government, while the right-wing forces are led by the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) of former Prime Minister Begum Khalida Zia. Leaders from the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami have been indicted by the tribunal for crimes such as rape and murder during the 1971 liberation war.

In early 2013, as the tribune convicted several leaders, violent protests were organized by the rival groups in the capital Dhaka, leading to the killings of dozens of civilians and policemen. Among the top people convicted of various war crimes and sentenced to death and life imprisonment are Jamaat-e-Islami leaders Abul Kalam Azad, Abdul Quader Mollah, and Delwar Hossain Sayedee.

Supporters of BNP and members of the Jamaat’s students wing Islami Chhatra Shibir have organized protests against the government, while liberal forces in the country are led by Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League, which came to power following elections in 2008. During several rounds of protests by both sides, tens of thousands of Bangladeshis have turned out in Shahbag Square of Dhaka, as well as in various small towns. The protests are also seen as a struggle between liberal and fundamentalist forces in the country.

In a recent article, a Bangladeshi daily traced the roots of what it called “Islamic totalitarianism” in Bangladesh. The article, “The Rise Of Islamic Totalitarianism,” was written by Shahrazad Jafer and published by Daily Ittefaq, a leading newspaper. The following are excerpts:[1]

“A Power Is Rising Slowly In Bangladesh; It Violates Our Liberty… The Adversary Is Not A Man But An Ideology [Of Islamic Totalitarianism]”; 11th Century Theologian Al-Ghazali Advocated “Unquestioning Faith… Faith Became The Absolute Authority, The Final Arbiter; Reason Was Abandoned”

“A power is rising slowly in Bangladesh; it violates our liberty and life. It violates our very existence. The adversary is not a man but an ideology; the man is but a mere tool. To defeat it, one needs to understand its history, identity, and goal. With razor-sharp clarity, one needs to know its adversary and to know that the only defense against it is secularism.

“Rebirth of Faith: Al‑Ghazali

“The Islamic Golden Age from 8th to 12th century was once the pinnacle of science, philosophy, and art. The people of Baghdad were studying and debating the works of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. They were fascinated by the teachings of Aristotle on logic and attempted to combine both logic and faith.

“[Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad] Al-Ghazali [1058-1111], a Muslim philosopher, was distressed by the conflict between Islam (submission to faith) and the Golden Age (reason and science). He sought solitude in the desert in search of an answer to this dilemma. He returned with a simple answer: unquestioning faith. Consequently, faith became the absolute authority, the final arbiter. Reason was abandoned and criticism [became] impossible since we could not question an infallible god.

“This was the rebirth of faith into the Muslim society and the end of the age of Enlightenment. Al-Ghazali became known as the man who saved Islam and was given the unique title of ‘Hujjat-Al-Islam’ – The Proof of Islam.”

Read more at MEMRI

Brotherhood Infiltrating, Shutting Down Egypt’s Independent Media

Egypt's "Veto" newspaper

Egypt’s “Veto” newspaper

Independent newspapers in Egypt are increasingly reporting attempts by the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate and sabotage their publications and hamper their operations.
Since the Muslim Brotherhood came to power with the election of President Mohammed Morsi in February, attacks on the independent press as well as attempts to control the press have been reported daily.

The strategy appears to be working.

Hassan Badih, acting director-general of the daily independent newspaper Al-Doustour, released a statement announcing that the chairman of the newspaper’s board, Rida Edward, had decided to shut the newspaper down.

He explained the reason for the closure was result of the Brotherhood’s “infiltrating” the ranks of the newspaper’s staff, undermining its editorial policy and funding protests against it.

Badih said that a number of newly hired journalists were in reality members of the Brotherhood whose aim was to pressure him to sell or to drive his opposition newspaper out of business. In an interview with the newspaper As-Safir, Badih said that the journalists in question had recently joined the newspaper’s staff, falsely claiming to oppose the Brotherhood’s policies.

After some time, they began encouraging their co-workers to organize sit-ins and go on strike. At the same time, Brotherhood-affiliated businessmen attempted to purchase the newspaper.

Read more at RadicalIslam.org

Andrew Bostom Interview on Mainstream Islamic Jihadism, Antisemitism, and Totalitarianism

Author, Islam, Middle East, and Sharia Law expert Andrew G. Bostom, M.D. joins Host, Lee Lazerson for a very candid discussion on Islam, Sharia Law, Jihad and his conviction that Islamic “Extremism” is more in the mainstream than people want to believe. Dr. Bostom is author of The Legacy of Jihad, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, and Sharia versus Freedom – The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism. To Life, L’Chaim airs Tuesday’s at 8pm ET/PT on Jewish Life Television – JLTV. (The interview was originally conducted in the Fall of 2012.)

imagesCA1GLHSOlegacy of Islamic jihadlarge1

Will Egypt become a totalitarian state?

by Robert R. Reilly

People Do Vote For Tyranny

Demonstrations during the Iranian revolution, 1979

Demonstrations during the Iranian revolution, 1979

by Clare Lopez:  As the world watches and waits for the Egyptian people to vote in a nationwide referendum to be held December 15 on a new constitution drafted largely by the Muslim Brotherhood, it would be well to consider another constitutional referendum from 33 years ago when another people who’d just been through a revolution went to the polls and cast their votes firmly in favor of tyranny.On October 24, 1979, after a tumultuous year of revolution, the Iranian people turned out by the millions and voted overwhelmingly (over 98%) to approve a new constitution that subjugated the country to the rule of Islamic Law under the leadership of a single man – the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – an Islamic cleric with unlimited power.

The vote was no snap response, as the full text of the new Iranian constitution had been published for the electorate’s consideration more than four months earlier (from June, 1979). More than 15 million Iranian voters willingly chose to subordinate themselves, their children and their country to an Islamic theocratic dictatorship, whose provisions were spelled out to them and accepted by them in an explicitly worded constitutional document that described the totalitarian system of Velayat-e Faqih (Rule of the Jurisprudent) and dedicated the nation to jihad.

Further, the preamble to the constitution made clear that the Iranian revolution was not intended to stop at the country’s borders but rather would strive for the formation of a “single world community” (ummah) in accordance with the “universal values of Islam,” thus committing Iran and its military forces to open-ended aggression and warfare (which followed soon enough).

While the draft Egyptian constitution contains no such institution as a Supreme Leader or Velayat-e Faqih, it does state in Article 2 that “Principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation,” thus ensuring that genuine liberal democracy (in which the people and their representatives craft laws free of theological constraints) will have no chance in the new Egypt.

The Iranian people overwhelmingly supported Khomeini during the Iranian revolution in 1979.

The Iranian people overwhelmingly supported Khomeini during the Iranian revolution in 1979.

Also, as both Andrew McCarthy (here) and Barry Rubin (here) point out, the new constitution makes clear that implementation of sharia will be far stricter under the Muslim Brotherhood than it ever was under Mubarak: Article 219 defines the “principles of Islamic Sharia” to be bound by “sources accepted in Sunni doctrines and by the larger community,” which means the four classical schools of Sunni jurisprudence and the Islamic institution of scholarly consensus (ijma). The Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafi’i schools hold that the principles of Islamic Law were fixed many centuries ago and have remained immutable ever since.

So, despite a cursory nod in the direction of individual “rights and freedoms” (Article 81), the very next words of the Egyptian draft document, stipulating that such rights and freedoms “shall be practiced in a manner not conflicting with the principles pertaining to State and society included in Part I of this Constitution,” make clear that means Egyptians get whatever “human rights” are allowed under sharia (see below).

Just like the 1990 Cairo Declaration of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which exempted all Muslim countries from compliance with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and declared that under Islam, human rights means sharia and only sharia.

Further, much as Article 96 of the Iranian constitution designated the Guardian Council (comprised of 12 jurist experts in Islamic Law) to determine the “compatibility of the legislation passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly with the laws of Islam,” so too does Egypt’s new constitution designate al-Azhar’s “Senior Scholars … to be consulted in matters pertaining to Islamic law.”
Thus, a non-elected assembly of Islamic jurists will be granted the authority to approve or disapprove any legislation the Egyptian parliament passes, with judgment to be based solely on Islamic laws set down in the 10th century.

Those laws assign the death penalty for adultery, apostasy from Islam, homosexuality and, in some cases, for blasphemy or slander (criticism) against Islam. They establish legal inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims and between men and women. And lest any think these laws apply only to Egyptians or only to Muslims, sharia also mandates jihad against non-believers for the express purpose of imposing sharia globally.

In addition, as Yousef al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s senior jurist, decades of accumulated Brotherhood ideology, and the campaign speeches of Ikhwan stalwarts like Khairat al-Shater or Mohammed Morsi himself all attest, mainstream Islamic doctrine also mandates virulent hatred of infidels and Jews.

The Muslim Brotherhood may not move immediately to implement all of these principles, but approval of the new constitution would give them the authority and the popular mandate to do so. Morsi himself has left no doubt about how he intends to govern, pledging to an enthusiastic crowd in a May 2012 campaign speech on Egyptian TV that he is dedicated to “The shari’a, then the shari’a, and finally, the shari’a.”

And the thing is, the Egyptian people, who are over 70% literate, know all this either from their own reading or through their imams and mosques. Andrew Bostom has been indefatigable in drawing our attention to credible surveys of the Egyptian public which unambiguously and overwhelmingly demonstrate that they want “strict application of Sharia law in every Islamic country (74%),” to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries (91%)” and to “unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate (67%).”

As recently as December 2010, a Pew survey found that 82% of Egyptians favor the stoning to death of people who commit adultery, 77% approved of whipping and hand amputation for theft and 84% said they thought apostates from Islam should be executed.

Despite the last spasms of protest from Egypt’s tragically outnumbered liberals and secularists, does anyone still have any serious doubts about how this referendum is going to go? Backed and emboldened by the Obama administration in Washington, D.C., the Muslim Brotherhood has orchestrated its takeover of Egypt masterfully from the beginning: It won the initial constitutional amendments referendum by a landslide, then, together with its Salafist allies, grabbed an overwhelming majority in the January 2012 parliamentary elections, before taking the presidency in June 2012.

As Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, though, “The constitution was always the prize” and now that looks to be soon within their grasp as well. Once the December 15 up or down vote enshrines these sharia principles as law of the land, just as in Iran, there will be no going back for Egypt for a long, long time.

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 20 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Morsi’s Totalitarian Mandate Is Sharia

imagesCAVMJJFM

By Andrew G. Bostom

Theodore Roosevelt penned these remarkably prescient words in a 1911 letter to his longtime correspondent and friend, Sir George Otto Trevelyan, reflecting upon Roosevelt’s post-presidency visit to Cairo, Egypt, the previous year.

 

The real strength of the Nationalist movement in Egypt … lay not with these Levantines of the café but with the mass of practically unchanged bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian, and a return to all the violence and corruption which festered under the old-style Moslem rule, whether Asiatic or African.

 

Roosevelt’s concerns about the recrudescence of “old-style Moslem rule” — that is, a totalitarian sharia (Islamic law) not reshaped or constrained by Western law, may now be fully realized a century later.

 

Less than two years after the forced abdication of Egyptian President Mubarak, we appear to be witnessing the ultimate triumph of the electoral ascendancy of vox populi, mainstream Egyptian Islamic parties — and most prominently, the Muslim Brotherhood.  Muhammad Morsi, the Brotherhood’s freely elected presidential candidate, has successfully outmaneuvered a minority coalition of secular-leaning Muslims, and Christians, to orchestrate the passage of a more robustly sharia-complaint Egyptian constitution.

 

Given President Obama’s repeated admonitions (as reported here and here) that Mubarak relinquish power, immediately, during early February 2011, this prior Tuesday, May 19, 2009 confidential assessment of Mubarak by then-U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey raises profound questions about U.S. actions which facilitated his removal, and the subsequent triumph of Egypt’s sharia supremacists.

 

Mubarak is a classic Egyptian secularist who hates religious extremism and interference in politics. The Muslim Brothers represent the worst [emphasis added], as they challenge not only Mubarak’s power, but his view of Egyptian interests. As with regional issues, Mubarak, seeks to avoid conflict and spare his people from the violence he predicts would emerge from unleashed personal and civil liberties. In Mubarak’s mind, it is far better to let a few individuals suffer than risk chaos for society as a whole. He has been supportive of improvements in human rights in areas that do not affect public security or stability. Mrs. Mubarak has been given a great deal of room to maneuver to advance women’s and children’s rights and to confront some traditional practices that have been championed by the Islamists, such as FGM [i.e., female genital mutilation, sanctioned by not merely “Islamists,” but the predominant Shafiite school of Islamic law in Egypt, leading to rates of this misogynistc barbarity among Egyptian women of 95%], child labor, and restrictive personal status laws.

 

The Hard-Won Local Triumph, and Global Aspirations of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan)

 

February 18, 2011 marked the triumphal return to Cairo of Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) “Spiritual Guide” Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  Qaradawi’s own words, accompanied by images and actions during this appearance, reaffirmed his obscurantist, albeit mainstream Islamic Weltanschauung of sharia-based, aggressive jihadism, and its corollary — virulent Jew- and other infidel-hatred, which should have shattered the delusive view that the turmoil leading to President Mubarak’s resignation augured the emergence of a modern, democratic Egyptian society devoted to Western conceptions of individual liberty and equality before the law.

 

Qaradawi’s Tahrir Square appearance foreshadowed events that have transpired, predictably, from the subsequent nearly two years ’til now, punctuated by the open ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and party affiliates within Egypt and across North Africa and the entire Middle East.  Indeed, Qaradawi’s February 18, 2011 “khutbah,” or sermon, to the adoring Muslim throngs that day reflected the longstanding aspirations of “martyred” Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna and was symbolic of an Islamic revival begun earlier by the so-called “Al-Manar modernists” — Jamal Al-Din Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, and Muhammad Rashid Rida — more than a century before Qaradawi took the stage at Tahrir Square.

 

Charles Wendell introduced his elegant 1978 translation of five Al-Banna treatises with a particularly astute summary assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood founder’s Weltanschauung.  Wendell stressed Al-Banna’s seamless connection not only to the Al-Manar modernists, but to traditional Islam itself.  Moreover, Wendell’s concluding observations remain critical to understanding the deep Islamic religious animus towards Israel and the West — so much in evidence today — that Al-Banna and his movement both inspired and reflected.

 

Hasan al-Banna’s fundamental conviction that Islam does not accept, or even tolerate, a separation of “church” and state, or of either from society, is as thoroughly Islamic as it can be. Any attempt to translate his movement into terms reducible to social, political, or religious factors exclusively simply misses the boat. The “totality” created by the Prophet Muhammad in the Medinese state, the first Islamic state, was Hasan’s unwavering ideal, and the ideal of all Muslim thinkers before him, including the idle dreamers in the mosque. His ideology then, before it was Egyptian or Arab or whatever, was Islamic to the core. Since it embraced all aspects of human life and thought, it was at least as much religious as anything else. [Emphasis added.] Practically all of his arguments are shored up by frequent quotations from the Qur’an and the Traditions, quite in the style of his medieval forbears. If one considers the public to whom his writings were  addressed, it becomes instantly apparent that such arguments must still be the most compelling for the vast bulk of the Muslim populations of today. The nagging feeling that Islam must, and very quickly at that, catch up with the West, had even by his time filtered down from above to the masses after having been the watchword of the modernizing intellectual for almost a century. There was also the notion that all these Western sciences and techniques were originally adopted from Islamic culture, and were therefore merely “coming home” — a piece of self-conscious back-patting that was already a cliché of most Muslim political writing[.] … To this [Islamic] revivalist mentality, nothing could be more hateful than further diminution of the lands traditionally dominated by Islam. I believe that much of the fury and unconcealed hatred of the Zionist state which is expressed by the majority of Arabs will become more comprehensible in light of what the Islamic domain as a concept really means to the Muslims, seen through the lens of Hasan’s exposition[.] … [T]he Muslim Brotherhood … had, on the basis of indisputable historical facts and clear religious traditions, a ready-made program for a world crusade that required only actors and a leader. Islam had from the beginning been a proselytizing faith. The error of the Islamic peoples, as Al-Afghani had pointed out forty years before, had been to cease their inexorable forward march, to abnegate their God-ordained destiny[.]

 

Nadav Safran’s 1961 study of modern Egyptian political evolution through 1952 confirmed that already by the late 1930s, Egypt’s inchoate experimentation with a Western cultural orientation and constitutional polity had failed miserably, and the authentic Islamic ideals of the Muslim Brotherhood’s  al-Banna were prevailing.  He provided this summary of the predominant attitudes by then, which:

 

… reawakened hostility against Britain for violating Egypt’s national rights, and deep resentment for its support of the foundation of Israel. … The Muslim orientation had become predominant, and the opposition to the Western culture on the ideological level had become nearly total, even though in practice imitation of the surface aspects of that culture remained[.]

 

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s popular appeal and resultant political ascendancy were clearly evident at the close of the 1940s. As noted by Richard P. Mitchell, pre-eminent historian of the movement’s late 1920s advent and first quarter century of activities:

 

… by 1948-49, this movement had reached such massive political proportions  as to undermine the claim of the rulers to speak for the Egyptian people. The government’s decision to crush the movement in 1949 was presumably taken because of the organization’s potential threat to the existing political order.

 

Olivier Carré’s 1983 analysis of the profound regional impact of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood since the 1950s described what he termed, aptly, “a striking phenomenon,” which pervaded Egypt, and the Arab Muslim Near East:

 

[W]hen one discusses Islam, as one often does in terms of a social and polit­ical ideal, whether out of religious conviction or because it is in the news, a common language, a sort of conceptual koine [a lingua franca, or widely used language] is found in all Eastern Arab countries — in Muslim schoolbooks, in the speech or behavior of people, whether friends or casual acquaintances, or in press reports on various current events. This common language is derived, ultimately, from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood of the Nasserist period and also from what I shall call the “new Muslim Brothers” of the 1970s and 1980s

 

Carré concluded with this foreboding observation, borne out dramatically, at present, by the unfolding events of the so-called Arab Spring, most notably in Egypt:

 

[W]e shall eventually come to speak of a Saudi-inspired and directed neo-Ottomanist utopia, socially based on the middle classes of the Arab East, which is not particularly “new” except by virtue of an acculturation drive. Its militant basis will be Islamic politico-religious groupings of which the new Muslim Brothers is the most significant group.

 

Resilient tenacity and wide, ongoing appeal to Egypt’s Muslim masses enabled the Brotherhood to survive brutal crackdowns under Egyptian autocrats Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak.  Spring Fever, Andrew McCarthy’s invaluable recent primer, chronicles how the Brotherhood’s current savvy, battle-hardened leadership rapidly capitalized on the Arab Spring “democracy” fervor to finally assume governmental power with the imprimatur of parliamentary and then presidential electoral victories.

Read more at American Thinker