Daniel Greenfield on The Invasion on Our Southern Border – on The Glazov Gang

Front Page:

This week’s special guest on The Glazov Gang was Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center who writes the blog, The Point, at Frontpagemag.com.

Daniel discussed The Invasion on Our Southern Border, unveiling the horror of Obama’s border disaster. He also discussed Israel vs. Hamas, Obama’s Iraq Throwaway, Hillary’s Rape Defense Lies, and much, much more.

The Glazov Gang-Raymond Ibrahim on ISIS’s Islamic Inspirations

Raymond Ibrahim and Jamie Glazov discuss how the jihadist terror we see in Iraq today, and throughout the world, is founded on Islamic theology. Raymond also discussed Jamie’s Battle on Hannity against the Unholy Alliance, Jihad Denial, Obama’s Enabling of Jihad, Jihadi Foreign Travelers, and much more:

 

Raymond Ibrahim, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Middle East and Islam specialist, and the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

 

Video: Jamie Glazov on Obama’s Islamist Odyssey

United-in-Hate-coverby Frontpagemag.com:

In a recent special episode of The Glazov GangAnn-Marie Murrell interviewed Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov about his recent battle on Hannity against Jihad-Deniers, in which he called out progressives’ willful blindness in the face of the Islamic threat.

Due to the overwhelming interest and support that Jamie’s confrontation with the Unholy Alliance has garnered from our readers, Frontpage’s Editors have decided to run an earlier two-part video interview that Josh Brewster conducted with Jamie about his study of the Left’s romance with tyranny and terror.

high noonThroughout the interview, Josh asks Jamie about his critically-acclaimed United in Hate and most recent, High Noon For America: The Coming Showdown. Jamie crystallizes the impulses that draw leftists, such as Obama, to make alliances with America’s enemies — namely with contemporary jihadist forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Jamie also discusses his family’s struggle for freedom, David Horowitz’s work, influence and contribution to freedom, and much, much more:

 

 

Both parts of the two part series are below:

 

Video: Jamie Glazov Discusses His Battle on Hannity Against the Unholy Alliance

kl-450x250In this special episode of The Glazov GangAnn-Marie Murrell interviews Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov about his battle on Hannity against the Unholy Alliance:

‘You’re Dangerous!': Sparks Fly Between ‘Hannity’ Panel on Radical Islam

Fox News Insider:

On a special Hannity, Sean welcomed a panel of national security experts and commentators to examine the rise of radical Islam.

Sean asked Michael Ghouse, from the America Together Foundation, if he thinks enough moderate Muslims are speaking out against extremists who are hijacking his religion.

“They’re not loud enough. We need to gather momentum. Shows like yours have given voices to moderate Muslims like me,” he said.

Things quickly escalated when Fox News contributor Tamara Holder blasted Act for America President Brigitte Gabriel as the “most dangerous person in society.” [Tamara begins at 9 min. into the video and Jamie Glazov gives a a fantastic rebuttal at about 12 min.]

“To say things like moderate Muslims are ‘supposedly’ not terrorists, ‘supposedly’ are not dangerous – the majority of Muslims in this country and in this world are safe, loving people who want peace. Those Nigerian girls were Muslims as well,” Holder said.

Gabriel defended her stance, saying, “I’m not saying the majority of Muslims are terrorists. […] The terrorists are only 15 to 25 percent.”

Holder shot back, saying that percentage is much lower and charged Gabriel with spewing hate.

Go to 32 minutes into the video to see Jamie Glazov courageously stand up to Mike Gouse and Tamara Holder when they try to prevent him from criticizing Islam. 

 

The Glazov Gang-Dr. Mark Durie on “Our Fear of Islam.”

Front Page:

Mark discussed, “Our Fear of Islam,” analyzing the different psychological mechanisms the West is now engaged in its surrender to a totalitarian ideology, which includes the “Tend and Befriend” response.  The dialogue also involved a focus on Islamic female genital mutilation and the world’s denial about its Muslim theological foundations:

Daniel Greenfield on “How Obama Surrendered Iraq” – on The Glazov Gang

Front Page:

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He writes the blog, The Point, at Frontpagemag.com.

Daniel discussed “How Obama Surrendered Iraq,” outlining a Radical-in-Chief’s suicidal foreign policy [starting at the 8:30 mark].

The dialogue also involved an analysis of Obama’s disastrous Afghanistan give-away, more revelations on the Benghazi betrayal, the scandalous Taliban-Bergdahl swap, and much, much more:

Video: Dr. Mordechai Kedar on the “Good Koran” vs. the “Radical Koran”

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Mordechai Kedar, the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation) at Bar-Ilan University, Israel.

He joined the show to discuss The “Good Koran” vs. the “Radical Koran,” analyzing the phenomenon of Jihad-Denial and the reluctance to recognize the true threat we face.

Brandeis, Female Mutilation and the Falsehoods of a Faculty Petition

But this woman is a black, feminist atheist from Somalia. And so what we’re learning here, which is fascinating, in the hierarchy of progressive-politics identity-group victimhood, Islam trumps everything. Islam trumps gender. The fact that she’s a woman doesn’t matter. It trumps race. The fact that she’s black doesn’t matter. It trumps secularism. The fact that she’s an atheist doesn’t matter. They wouldn’t do this if it was a Christian group complaining about her, if it was a Jewish group complaining about her. But when the Islamic lobby group says oh, no, we’re not putting up with this, as I said, these jelly-spined nothings at Brandeis just roll over for them. – Mark Steyn


fgm (2)By 
Jamie Glazov:

Last Tuesday, on April 8, Brandeis University rescinded its invitation to human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree from the institution. Brandeis caved in the face of intimidation from CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, as well as a student petition on Change.org and a faculty petition – the contents of which have now become known.

The faculty petition is a textbook case of leftist pathology and of how “progressives” demonize true heroic freedom fighters and push millions of victims of totalitarian regimes and ideologies into invisibility for the sake of their own egotistical and destructive agendas.

A case in point in this ugly leftist narrative is how the signatories of the Brandeis petition have succeeded in banning a woman from their university who is the victim of female genital mutilation (FGM), suffered under an Islamic knife because of Islamic doctrine. She represents millions of Muslim females — mutilated and mutilated-to-be. And yet the signatories of the petition are callously indifferent, because they have their progressive program to attend to and fulfill.

The Brandeis faculty petition, written on April 6 and addressed to President Lawrence, stresses “the horrible message” that inviting Ali to the university “sends to the Muslim and non-Muslim communities at Brandeis and beyond” because of Ali’s “virulently anti-Muslim public statements.” Aside from complaining about Ali’s truth-telling about Islam, the petition also issues a dire warning about the “unnecessary controversy” that the human rights activist’s presence would bring to the campus.

To be sure, who needs nightmarish scenarios like debate and intellectual diversity when the Marxist Left has already lovingly bestowed the peaceful the Party Line?

The petition then references the major issues with which Ali is concerned: female genital mutilation, forced marriages, and honor killings. “These phenomena,” the petition flippantly notes, are not “exclusive to Islam.” This is a standard and perpetual tactic of obfuscation and equivocation employed by the Left whenever a monstrous evil is labelled in a totalitarian enemy. It serves as an excuse for inaction by presupposing that if a crime is committed by someone else, somewhere else, that it somehow justifies doing and saying nothing in the face of a crime being perpetrated on a mass scale right before our eyes – and one that we can do something about.

In other words, the logic implies that if a sin or an injustice exist somewhere else on the planet, that one must never fight for — or defend the victims of — any one ideology or system (unless it is of the western variety, of course).

Thus, if one dares to show concern for the millions of Muslim girls who are victims of female genital mutilation, the leftist will reflexively retort: “Muslims are not the only group that practice FGM.”

But so what? The bottom line is that Muslims are the principle religious group that practices this sexual violence against women. And if a young girl is a victim of FGM, the chances are that she lives in a Muslim household and in a Muslim culture. And this barbarity is kept alive and legitimized by Islamic theology.

The faculty petition to President Lawrence also expresses a deep concern about the fact that Ali has suggested “that violence toward girls and women is particular to Islam or the Two-Thirds World.” This is intolerable (even though completely true) because, according to the petition, it obscures “such violence in our midst among non-Muslims, including on our own campus.”

This is another consistent tactic that the Left engages in to insert its falsehoods into dialogues about oppressed people under monstrous tyrannies. The plain fact staring everyone in the face is that while violence may exist among non-Muslims, their laws and institutions delegitimize and illegalize such conduct. For instance, if a non-Muslim anywhere in the United States, including on a university campus, engages in violence against a woman and the police are called, he will be charged. In Islam, violence against women is inspired and sanctioned by the institutions themselves, precisely because misogyny, including wife beating, is embedded in the Qur’an.

In other words, non-Muslims who are violent toward women operate despite and against the laws of their lands; Muslims, on the other hand, are violent toward women because of their laws, and that is why they are, in turn, protected by those laws.

Thus, in terms of female genital mutilation, millions of Muslim girls are victims of this horrifying crime which is rooted in Islam and is integral to Islam’s misogynist structures. The road to saving millions of Muslim girls from this crime is to do what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is bravely doing, and what the signatories of the Brandeis faculty petition are trying to stop her from doing: to isolate and pinpoint Islam as the main culprit in this context.

The point cannot be stressed enough: female genital mutilation is fundamentally Islamic and it is rooted in Islamic texts such as Umdat al-Salik:

“Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris.” Sacred Islamic Reliance: page 59, Umdat al-Salik  (“Reliance of the Traveler”), a manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, endorsed by Egypt’s very own Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world.

This explains why one of Sunni Islam’s “Four Great Imams,” Ahmad ibn Hanbal, quotes Muhammed as saying: “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women?” It is no shock, therefore, that Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University has called circumcision “a laudable practice that did honor to women.”

Read more at Front Page (with video)

From ACT! For America:

According to the World Health Organization, more than 125 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

The African Women’s Health Center of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, report that approximately 228,000 women and girls in the U.S. have either suffered the procedure or are at risk of having it done to them. Many of these young girls are subjected to FGM when they vacation in a country that sanctions the practice. In other cases, circumcisers are brought into the U.S. – even though FGM is illegal in this country.

ACT! for America has been working diligently at the state level to see legislation passed so that no girl ever suffers the horrors of FGM – either on U.S. soil or elsewhere.

Also see:

Video: Glick, Spencer & Ibrahim on the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

hj1-450x250This week’s special episode of The Glazov Gang was filmed at David Horowitz’s West Coast Retreat held at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California, from March 21-23, 2014.

The panel, titled The Mideast Test, was joined by:

Caroline Glick, the senior contributing editor to the Jerusalem Post who is the author of the new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch who is the author of an upcoming book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In.

and

Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center who is the author of his recent book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, published by Regnery.

The panelists discussed their books and how to best confront the threats emanating from the Islamic Middle East:

Jew Hatred and the Art of Political Warfare — On The Glazov Gang

jhFront Page:

This week’s special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Ben Shapiro, the Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.orgElisha Krauss, Morning Co-Host at KRLA AM 870 The Answer and a staff writer at TruthRevolt.org, and Jeremy Boreing, the Managing Editor of TruthRevolt.org.

The Gang gathered to discuss Jew Hatred and the Art of Political Warfare. The dialogue occurred within the context of  Ben’s recent successful appearance at the UCLA Divestment from Israel Hearing, in which he blasted both the student sponsors and those considering the anti-Semitic measure. The panel also discussed How Conservatives Can Best Fight Political WarPierce Morgan’s Ratings Tanked After Being Eviscerated By ShapiroUN Ambassador Samantha Power’s Jew-Hatred, and much, much more. Watch the two-part series below:

Part I

 

Part II

Ben Shapiro, “We’re not conservative. There’s nothing left to conserve. We’re on offense, ok? Our territory is gone. The only thing we can do now is break out, right? This is our break out point. And the only way to break out of a box is to be unbelievably aggressive and to never stop fighting. And that means we can’t get tired, and we can’t get bored and it means we can’t get distracted. We have to be as single minded as the left has been for the last 80 to 100 years in order to reverse the sort of massive changes that has occurred in this country. And when we put our kids to bed and we tell them what we did during this crucial time during really what is the breaking point for the United States , we can’t sit there and tell them anything other than that we did everything we possibly could every single day to affect the future of country and change it into the freedom and liberty country that it once was and can be again”

bs-90w

New e-book by Ben Shapiro of Truth Revolt: “How to debate leftists and destroy them”

Hating Valentine’s

Pakistan Valentine Protestby :

Today, Friday, February 14, is Valentine’s Day, the sacred day that intimate companions mark to celebrate their love and affection for one another. If you’re thinking about making a study of how couples celebrate this day, the Muslim world and the milieus of the radical Left are not the places you should be spending  your time. Indeed, it’s pretty hard to outdo jihadists and “progressives” when it comes to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. And this hatred is precisely the territory on which the contemporary romance between the radical Left and Islamic fanaticism is formed.

The train is never late: every year that Valentine’s comes around, the Muslim world erupts with ferocious rage, with its leaders doing everything in their power to suffocate the festivity that comes with the celebration of private romance. Imams around the world thunder against Valentine’s every year — and the celebration of the day itself is literally outlawed in Islamist states.

This year, the Indonesian Ulema Council in Dumai, Riau, and the Education, Youth and Sport Agency in Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara, issued a dire warning to people against celebrating Valentine’s Day, stating that the Day of Love “is against Islam.” This is because, as the Indonesian Ulema Council 2011 judgment explained, Valentine’s Day takes young people into a “dark world.”

Malaysia’s State mufti chief assistant Mat Jais Kamos keeps his mind focused on that dark world and so, a few days ago, he ordered young people to stay clear of Valentine’s Day: “The celebration emphasizes the relationship between two individuals rather than the love between family members or married couples,” he affirmed, and department officials backed up his command by distributing leaflets to remind Muslims of the 2006 ban on Valentine’s Day issued by the state fatwa council.

In Islamic Uzbekistan this year, several universities have seen to it that students actually sign contracts promising not to celebrate Valentine’s.

In Pakistan on Valentine’s Day last year, supporters of Jamat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s main religious party, took to the streets in Peshawar to vehemently denounce the day of love. Demonizing it as “un-Islamic,” the Muslim protestors shouted that the day has “spread immodesty in the world.” Shahzad Ahmed, the local leader of the student wing of Jamat-e-Islami, declared that the organization will not “allow” any Valentine’s Day functions, warning that if Pakistani law enforcement did not prevent Pakistanis from holding such functions, that the Jamat-e-Islami would stop them “in our own way.” Khalid Waqas Chamkani, a leader in Jamat-e-Islami, calls Valentine’s a “shameful day.”

These Islamist forces in Pakistan cannot, of course, completely succeed in preventing couples from showing love to each other on this special day, and so many Pakistanis still cryptically celebrate Valentine’s Day and exchange presents in secret.

All these Islamic outcries against Valentine’s Day reflect myriad other efforts to suffocate the day of love throughout the Muslim War. For instance, in Aceh province in Indonesia every year, Muslim clerics issue stern warnings to Muslims against observing Valentine’s Day. Tgk Feisal, general secretary of the Aceh Ulema Association (HUDA), stated two years ago that “It is haram for Muslims to observe Valentine’s Day because it does not accord with Islamic Sharia.” He added that the government must watch out for youths participating in Valentine’s Day activities in Aceh. One can only imagine what happens to the guilty parties.

The Saudis consistently punish the slightest hint of celebrating Valentine’s Day. The Kingdom and its religious “morality” police always officially issue a stern warning that anyone caught even thinking about Valentine’s Day will suffer some of the most painful penalties of Sharia Law. This is typical of the Saudis of course. As Daniel Pipes has reported, the Saudi regime takes a firm stand against Valentine’s every year, and the Saudi religious police monitor stores selling roses and other gifts. They arrest women for wearing red on that day. Every year the Saudis announce that, starting the week of Valentine’s and until a certain day in the future, it is illegal for a merchant to sell any item that is red, or that in any way hints of being connected to Valentine’s Day. As Claude Cartaginese has reported, any merchant in Saudi Arabia found selling such items as red roses, red clothing of any kind (especially dresses), toys, heart-shaped products, candy, greeting cards or any items wrapped in red, has to destroy them or face the wrath of Saudi justice.

Christian overseas workers living in Saudi Arabia from the Philippines and other countries always take extra precautions, heeding the Saudis’ warning to them specifically to avoid greeting anyone with the words “Happy Valentine’s Day” or exchanging any gift that reeks of romance. A spokesman for a Philippine workers group has commented: “We are urging fellow Filipinos in the Middle East, especially lovers, just to celebrate their Valentine’s Day secretly and with utmost care.”

The Iranian despots, meanwhile, consistently try to make sure that the Saudis don’t outdo them in annihilating Valentine’s Day. Iran’s “morality” police consistently order shops to remove heart-and-flower decorations and images of couples embracing on this day — and anytime around this day.

Typical of this whole pathology in the Islamic world was a development witnessed back on February 10, 2006, when activists of the radical Kashmiri Islamic group Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of the Community) went on a rampage in Srinagar, the main city of the Indian portion of Kashmir. Some two dozen black-veiled Muslim women stormed gift and stationery shops, burning Valentine’s Day cards and posters showing couples together.

In the West, meanwhile, leftist feminists are not to be outdone by their jihadi allies in reviling — and trying to exterminate — Valentine’s Day. Throughout all Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for instance, you will find the demonization of this day, since, as the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a manifestation of how capitalist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and oppress women and push them into spheres of powerlessness.

As an individual who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this war against Valentine’s Day up close and personal. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.

So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and jihadis? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the radical Left and Islam together into its feast of hate?

The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.

The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed,female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.

The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.

Read more at Front Page

See also:

John Kerry and Saudi Women Driving

John Kerry and Prince Saud al-FaisalBy :

For the Left, all cultures are equal, but some cultures are more equal than others.

For instance, in the world of the Left, the West never has a right to say what is right or wrong — when dealing with an adversary culture and regime, that is.

If it’s Israel, you can start shooting right away.

For example, when it comes to Israelis getting out of line and engaging in monstrous behavior like building houses and apartments on their own territory, they must be denounced immediately for that — and pressured relentlessly to desist from such unconscionable activity.

When Israelis have the audacity to imprison Palestinian terrorists who have massacred Israeli innocent civilians, something has to be done fast. And that’s why, on April 24, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry and the Obama administration demanded that Israel release a number of Palestinian terrorists from its prisons — to make the Palestinian Authority happy of course. (P.S.: The P.A. was not pressured to stop its mosques, schools and media outlets from teaching that Israel has no right to exist or that Jews are descended from apes and pigs.)

If Kerry were asked what he thinks of apartheid-era South Africa, which Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has compared Israel to, one just dares to presume that he would say it was a bad thing that blacks were considered second-class citizens — which of course it was. He would, in other words, apply a universal standard of human rights on South Africa and declare that a society that marginalizes and disempowers a certain group of people based on skin color is an inferior society and must civilize itself. And that would be a legitimate position.

But for a leftist, this attitude only applies, naturally, when one is dealing with cultures and regimes that are allied to the United States. If one is dealing with an adversary culture or religion, then that culture and religion automatically get a pass for all of their  monstrosities.

Read more at Front Page

Don’t miss Josh Brewster‘s video interview with Jamie Glazov about why the Left abandons victims of Islamic terror and gender apartheid in the two-part series below:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Understanding Iran’s Threat to Rape One of Obama’s Daughters Over Syria

iranA former Iranian official has threatened the rape and murder of one of Obama’s daughters if the U.S. attacks Syria. This Islamic threat is simply following traditional Islamic rules of Jihad against the infidel. It is safe to assume, however, that MSNBC, CNN and the NY Times will not any time soon explore why this former Iranian official has made such a pronouncement — and shed light on the aspects of Islamic theology that inspire and sanction owning slaves and raping “kafir” females. Frontpage has therefore decided to rerun Jamie Glazov’s interview with Bill Warner, “Islam, Slavery and Rape,” from our Nov. 23, 2007 edition, which deals directly with this issue. 

*

Islam, Slavery and Rape 

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com. CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors. The Center’s latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome back to Frontpage Magazine. This is the second part in our two-part series with you on the Center’s most recent book. In the first part we discussed Islam and its doctrine on the submission of women. In this second and final part we will discuss the matter of slavery. Welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: It is a pleasure to work with Frontpage.

FP: So tell us in general where Islam stands on slavery.

Warner: Islam’s stand on slavery is based on its political principles of submission and duality. The principle of submission could not be clearer. By definition a slave is the most submissive of all people. You become a slave only when you have no more choices. A slave has completely submitted to a master.

The principle of duality is shown by the fact that Islam does not enslave Muslims, only kafirs (non-Muslims). Since only kafirs are enslaved, it assures that more of the world submits to Islam.

Islamic slavery is based on the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). All three texts say that slavery is permitted, ethical, desirable and a virtue. There is not one single negative word about slavery.

Slavery is seen as a process that brings kafirs to Islam. It is a virtue to free slaves, but Mohammed only freed slaves who submitted to Islam. If the kafir slave does not submit, then their children will. So given enough time, slaves convert to Islam. That is one of the reasons that Islam sees slavery as a positive.

Of course, there is another reason that Islam sees slavery as being so “good” and that is the money. Mohammed and the other jihadists made a fortune out of enslaving kafirs. Mohammed used the money for more jihad. So slavery financed the spread of Islam and jihad from the beginning.

FP: What were the ingredients of Mohammed’s own life in terms of slavery?

Warner: Mohammed is the perfect pattern for all humanity and his life was saturated in slavery. When his mother died, it was a freed slave who nursed him. His first wife owned slaves. One of his first converts was a slave. His closest friend, Abu Bakr, traded one of his black kafir slaves for a Muslim who was enslaved by a kafir.

But all of this was small change compared to his envolvement with slavery once he turned to jihad. In his first major battle at Badr, he stood by and prayed as his henchmen beat and tortured captured slaves to get information about the enemy kafirs.

Slaves made Mohammed’s pulpit. Slaves mended his cloths, cooked his food, and did every thing that a slave does for the master. He gave away slaves as gifts and received them as gifts. He went to war to kill the males so that the remaining people would surrender to be sold as slaves. Mohammed sold slaves on both the retail and wholesale markets.

He offered captured slaves their freedom if they would first agree that he was the prophet of Allah. A kafir slave then became a slave of Allah, because all Muslims are slaves of Allah. For a slave, the religion of Mohammed started and ended with slavery.

FP: Can you talk a bit about Islam and sexual slavery?

Warner: All morality in Islam is patterned after the example of Mohammed. Everything that he did and said defines what is permitted or “good”. Mohammed repeatedly sanctioned forced sex (rape) with kafir females after they were captured. The Hadith clearly reports that he got first choice of the women. In one case, he repeatedly demanded one particular woman for himself and swapped two other kafir slave women for his choice. So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error.

Read more at Front Page

 

Obama and the Jihad

images (34)Front Page:

Editor’s note: Below is the video of the panel discussion “Obama and the Jihad,” featured at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2013 West Coast Retreat. The event was held February 22nd-24th at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California. A transcript of the discussion follows. Speakers: Andrew McCarthy, Robert Spencer and John Solomon

Jamie Glazov: We have a heroic truth-teller by the name of Michele Bachmann.  And one of the names that she was concerned about was Mohamed Elibiary.  An Egyptian magazine, by the way, just recently boasted that the Muslim Brotherhood is penetrating Washington.  And one of the names they mentioned was Mohamed Elibiary.

Just want to tell a very quick story about this individual, and for us to let it swirl around in our head that this is a person that today’s in the Homeland — he’s on the Advisory Council in Homeland Security.  Mohamed Elibiary in 2004 gave a speech at an evening dedicated to the Ayatollah Khomeini.  It was a tribute to the grand Islamic visionary.  This is in 2004.  This is a mass murderer — the killing fields, Ayatollah Khomeini.  Imagine one of us gives a speech at a conference praising Adolf Hitler or Stalin.

And Robert Spencer, our distinguished guest with us this evening, approached Mohamed Elibiary, if I am correct — right, Robert?

Robert Spencer: Yes.

Jamie Glazov: And he asked him — what were you doing there?  And he said — oh, I was there, but I didn’t really know what it was about.  But, you know, I was there anyway.  And we are not investigating this.

Imagine that you end up at a conference praising Adolf Hitler, and you don’t know why you’re there.  And then you’re there anyway, and your reaction is — oh, they’re praising Adolf Hitler here tonight.  Well, I’m here anyway, might as well go ahead and make the speech.  Because he did go ahead and make the speech.

This is one of the individuals in our government today.  And what I’m thinking about is — do we have a right to ask some questions?  Should there be an investigation?

Ladies and gentlemen, the future must not belong to the slanderers of the Prophet of Islam.  In Islam, “slander” is also known and interpreted to be not even slander; it could be just saying something uncomfortable.  It could be saying something that Muslims just don’t want to hear.  And my response to that is — no, Mr. President, the future must belong to the truth-tellers.

And we have three of them with us this afternoon.

Andy McCarthy: For all the awful things there are to say about the Obama Administration — and there certainly isn’t time in a panel, in a weekend, in a lifetime, to catalogue all of those — a lot of what we’re seeing today is simply Obama exploiting an atmosphere that has been created over a course of more than 20 years.

I said 20 years — Jamie mentioned the Blind Sheikh prosecution — Tuesday will be the 20th anniversary, if you can call it that, of the World Trade Center bombing.  And I thought that was pretty significant, because we just got through the testimony at the confirmation hearing of John Brennan.  And Michele catalogued a lot of Brennan’s dubious background last night.  But I think the most interesting thing I’ve come across about Brennan is his speech about jihad just a couple of years ago, and explaining his interpretation of the concept of jihad.

And the interesting thing about that is that here we are 20 years after the Trade Center bombing, 20 years of jihad in America, and we actually don’t even know what jihad is yet, even at an official level.  And I think the interesting thing — if you go back to that trial and flash forward to today, a couple of interesting things stand out.  One is the Blind Sheikh wanted his defense at the trial to be that we couldn’t hold him liable for green-lighting acts of terrorism, for issuing fatwas — or the Islamic edict, juristic edict, approving a course of conduct — any course of conduct, but in this instance, terrorist attacks.

Because in his view, he was simply performing under Sharia the customary traditional role of a jurist of his academic accomplishment, which meant that the members of the flock or the faithful would come to him, propose one course of conduct or another — you know, can I marry this person, can I blow up this building and, you know –

(Laughter)

– everything in between.  And it was the Sharia jurist’s job to say, you know, yes, that’s permissible or no, it’s not permissible.

So back in those days, we had a great — I thought, the greatest trial judge in the United States at the time, later the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey, who, after hearing arguments about it, would not allow that defense to be presented to the jury, on the common-sense principle that we are in the United States, and we follow American law in the United States.  And it didn’t matter what Sharia said, or really — not just to single out Sharia — what any other religious code would say in terms of where religious law would collide with the civil law.  Because there’s a lot of Supreme Court law that says that, you know, basically if you allow chaos like that, you have every person being a law unto himself.  And that’s not an acceptable way to have a civil society.  So that defense got bounced out pretty easily.

The reason I think that’s interesting is — flash forward almost 20 years, in my own home state of New Jersey. And we had a woman, a Muslim woman, who was married to a Muslim man who she was trying to divorce, who was serially raping and beating her.  And she went into New Jersey state court to try to get a protective order.  And the court refused to give her the protective order under circumstances where there was no doubt that the attacks and the sexual abuse was actually going on.  But the court reasoned that he was simply following his religious principles, under which his own understanding of them was that she had no right to say no.

So think about that.  We go from 20 years ago — where a Sharia defense basically gets laughed out of court on a very straightforward, confident idea of American law that we follow our own law in the United States, we don’t — Sharia’s not the law of the land — to a situation we have now where — not just in New Jersey; that case happened to be reversed on appeal — but in almost every state in the Union, we’ve had Sharia principles creeping into our law.

And the reason I think we’ve had them creeping into our law is what a lot of our distinguished speakers have discussed throughout the course of the day, and that is cultural confidence.  We really lack it.  And we’ve lacked it for 20 years.  And the result of that is that the people who are now in charge of our government really have precedents that you could drive a truck through.  And that’s pretty much what they’re doing.

I mean, what we’ve done for 20 years is basically suppress any discussion of our enemies’ ideology.  I mean, I’ve said probably every bad thing that you can say about the idea of using the civilian courts as your main counterterrorism weapon, the idea of bringing our enemy combatants into court and awarding them all of the Bill of Rights protections.

Let me tell you the one really good thing about using civilian courts.  And it’s one that I don’t think has been replicated by any other part of our government.  And that is that juries won’t convict people unless you give them a rational explanation not only of what was done but why it was done.

So even though 20 years ago we were saying the same things that we’re saying today — you know, religion of peace, Islam has nothing to do with terrorism — back then, it wasn’t violent extremism, but the basic message of the government was we didn’t really have a national security problem so much as we had 20 knuckleheads in Jersey City who weren’t representative of Islam as a whole.  And if we could just reign them in, all would be well.  And they said that in the White House, they said it in the White House Pressroom, they said it on the steps of the courthouse, Janet Reno said it, everybody in the government said it.

The only place it didn’t get said was inside our courtroom.  Inside the courtroom — because we had to prove to the jury not only what was done in the way of terrorist attacks but why it was done — we were actually able to prove why the terrorist acts were committed.  And what we were able to show was that there was an unavoidable, undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine — and I’m not going to try to parse at this point, you know, Islamism or Islamist, or — we’ve had that discussion again and again.

What I’m talking about is what’s undeniably in Islamic doctrine — the nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims, and the mediating agent from one to the other, where people like the Blind Sheikh — who we wanted to paint as wanton killers but who, in fact, were authoritative figures in their own communities.

Go to Front Page for the rest of the transcript