Mr. Al Qaeda Becomes Mr. Right Wing Extremist?

nidal-hasan-afpBreitbart, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka:

Peter Bergen, CNN’s Mr Al Qaeda, has declared via the New America Foundation, that the real threat to America is not the terrorist group responsible for 9/11, the Fort Hood massacre, or the attempted Time Square bombing, but “right wing extremists.”

As our own John Sexton has ably demonstrated here already the whole edifice of Bergen’s argument is built on a foundation of sand.

The comparison of numbers killed by Jihadists and right winger zealots conveniently leaves out the 2,996 killed on 9/11. Why? That is the most important datapoint of all, surely? Then numerous attacks are added under the rightwing tally that are clearly not rightwing and several Islamically-motivated killers, such as the DC sniper, have been magically erased from the jihadi column.

Besides (intentionally?) sloppy math, the whole exercise is fundamentally flawed at the strategic level.

Al Qaeda is not just a domestic threat to the continental United States or just to Americans in America. One can argue all day long about President Bush and Iraqi WMDs, but on what basis does Bergen and the NAF exclude the death and maiming of US troops fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan or our Ambassador in Benghazi and the three brave Americans who tried to save him from local jihadists?

Then there is the absurdity of only counting successful attacks and using this as the measure of who is a more serious threat.

Sixteen jihadi plots targeting NY alone have been intercepted since 2001. We can never know how many more across the country since many will have been thwarted without an arrest or a prosecution, but it is likely hundreds, and hundreds that each could have had hundreds or thousands of victims. And the counterargument that white supremacists and rightwing extremist may have also plotted many more attacks is fallacious too, as these actors usually kill in the single digits. Al Qaeda specializes in spectaculars, be it 9/11, 7/7 in London, or the Bali and Mumbai attacks. I challenge Bergen to point to one rightwing attack on the scale of any of these.

Then of course there is the issue of why there have been so many intercepted jihadi plots here in the US. The Director of National Intelligence stated earlier this year in open congressional testimony that al Qaeda has operational centers in 12 nations around the world. Every member of each one of those organizational hubs is committed to destroying America after they have killed President Assad, taken over Mali, or retaken Egypt for the “true believers.” Can we compare this to rightwing extremism or any other organized threat to America? Even North Korean and the Russia Federation pale in comparison to the international conspiracy that is Global Jihad.

If one makes a more honest assessment of the threat then the facts tell a different story and the relevant dangers reverse.

Below is a chart of the number of attacks linked to al Qaeda globally over the last few years, based upon unclassified sources.

If you add information from the START database to the above you get the following disturbing graph.

The key fact here is the trendline.

Despite the narrative of the White House that al Qaeda is spent and dying, AQ has in fact become more and more dangerous. So why does Peter Bergen and why does the NAF want to convince us of the opposite, that rightwing extremists are a bigger threat to America than those who were responsible for 9/11?

Perhaps the clue lies in Fort Hood. The authors of the study state unequivocally:

Today, almost 13 years after 9/11, al Qaeda has not successfully conducted another attack inside the United States.

Excuse me? So the Fort Hood massacre was indeed “workplace violence?”

The fact that Major Nidal Hasan–before he killed 12 of his fellow soldiers, a civilian, and an unborn child, and wounded another 30-plus people–was in regular contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the top leaders of al Qaeda in Yemen, doesn’t make it a jihadi attack? Should we list it under the Ku Klux Klan perhaps?

Peter Bergen built his career on al Qaeda, as “the man who interviewed bin Laden.” He must have a very strong reason for trying to make his career-building subject of al Qaeda seem irrelevant. Could it be the crown he now hangs with? The NAF board members bios are here. The real report on Fort Hood written by the former director of the FBI–that was of course released by the Obama administration on a Friday afternoon–is here.

You be the judge of who threatens us more.

Sebastian Gorka PhD is the national security editor for Breitbart.com

Britain’s Jihadists Within

70976852_019514832-2-450x325by :

Some of the “freedom fighters” who are at war against the evil tyrant Assad in Syria, the “rebels” whom both U.S. President Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron wanted to help, have now been re-classified as “the biggest threat to Britain’s security” and a “greater threat than al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” The British Home Office identifies Syria as “the most significant development in global terrorism.”

More than half of anti-terror investigations by the UK security service MI5 involve “Britons” who went to fight in Syria. Charles Farr, the Home Office’s counter-terrorism chief, and others warned that the Syrian war is stoking the biggest terror threat to the West since September 11, and this problem is predicted to persist for as long as the hostilities will continue.

Syria is much closer to Europe than Afghanistan and Pakistan, making it a particularly easy and dangerous destination for UK Muslims who come back well trained, armed and ready for business: terrorism. And because the security services monitor about half of them, the risk is very high.

Robert Spencer asks some pertinent questions:

Why aren’t they monitoring the rest? And why were these men let back into the country in the first place? Simply because they’re citizens? (Are they even all citizens?)

In the past three years, from the beginning of the conflict, no fewer than 500 Britons have travelled to Syria to fight, many more than the corresponding number for Iraq. According to French President Francois Hollande, they are actually up to 700.

Between 250 and 400 of them are believed to be back with us, although the number may be higher. Apparently, they found life there “too hard,” so they say. But they may have been encouraged to return “home” in order to carry out attacks in the UK.

Hundreds more are still in Syria, and one of them has posted an Internet video urging his coreligionists in Britain to join them and help their Syrian brothers and sisters, saying: “The doors of jihad are still open.” He is a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a group which wants Syria to become an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law and which is considered too extreme even by Al-Qaeda, that officially disowned it. The first jihadists returning provincial capital to be occupied by ISIS was the city of Raqqa, on whose Christian community it has imposed payment of the jizya and other rules associated with dhimmi status.

These are people who know their Islam, no doubt. They’ve forced even the BBC reporters to become familiar with the triple choice: convert, submit, die.

Read more at Front Page

Taqiyya about Taqiyya

raqBy Raymond Ibrahim:

I was recently involved in an interesting exercise—examining taqiyya about taqiyya—and believe readers might profit from the same exercise, as it exposes all the subtle apologetics made in defense of the Islamic doctrine, which permits Muslims to lie to non-Muslims, or “infidels.”

Context: Khurrum Awan, a lawyer, is suing Ezra Levant, a Canadian media personality and author, for defamation and $100,000.  Back in 2009 and on his own website, Levant had accused Awan of taqiyya in the context of Awan’s and the Canadian Islamic Congress’ earlier attempts to sue Mark Steyn.

For more on Levant’s court case, go to www.StandWithEzra.ca.

On behalf of Awan, Mohammad Fadel—professor of Islamic Law at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law—provided an expert report to the court on the nature of taqiyya, the significance of which he portrayed as “a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America.”

In response, Levant asked me (back in 2013) to write an expert report on taqiyya, including by responding to Fadel’s findings.

I did.  And it had the desired effect.  As Levant put it in an email to me:

It was an outstanding report, very authoritative and persuasive. Of course, we don’t know what the plaintiff’s [Awan’s] private thoughts about it were, but we do know that after receiving the report, he decided to cancel calling his own expert witness [Dr. Fadel]—who happens to be a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. After reading your rebuttal, he decided he would rather not engage in that debate.

My expert report follows.  In it, I quote relevant portions of Fadel’s expert report (which can be read in its entirety here).  Most intriguing about the professor’s report is that it’s a perfect example of taqiyya about taqiyya.  By presenting partial truths throughout the report, Fadel appears to have even employed taqiyya’s more liberal sister, tawriya.

Accordingly, readers interested in learning more about the role of deception in Islam—and how to respond to those trying to dismiss it as an “Islamophobic fantasy”—are encouraged to read on.

Raymond Ibrahim’s Expert Report on Taqiyya

Instructions: I have been asked to assess a report concerning the doctrine of taqiyya in Islam, written by one Mohammad Fadel; and, if I disagreed with any parts of it, to explain why—objectively, neutrally, and in a non-partisan manner.  My findings follow.

 Introduction

The Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to actively deceive non-Muslims—above and beyond the context of “self-preservation,” as is commonly believed.

One of the few books exclusively devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (“Taqiyya in Islam”) make this unequivocally clear. Written (in Arabic) by Dr. Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya in its opening pages:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[1]

The following report is written as a response to Mohammed Fadel’s report (henceforth referred to as MFR) which deals with the topic of taqiyya and its place and usage in Islamic jurisprudence.   Because MFR is written in a premises-conclusion format, the following report will follow MFR’s numbering schemata, pointing out which premises are agreeable and which are not—offering correctives to these latter resulting in an antithetical conclusion.

Numbers/Premises of MFR in Order:

1-3: Preliminary statements.

4: Agreed.

5:  Agreed, with the following caveat:  To many Muslims, jihad, that is, armed struggle against the non-Muslim, is the informal sixth pillar.   Islam’s prophet Muhammad said that “standing in the ranks of battle [jihad] is better than standing (in prayer) for sixty years,”[2] even though prayer is one of the Five Pillars, and he ranked jihad as the “second best deed” after belief in Allah as the only god and he himself, Muhammad, as his prophet, the shehada, or very First Pillar of Islam.[3]

All this indicates jihad’s importance in Islam—and thus importance to this case, since, as shall be seen, taqiyya is especially permissible in the context of jihad or struggle to empower Islam and/or Muslims over non-Muslims.

6: Agreed.  Qiyas, or analogical reasoning, the practice of finding antecedents in the teachings of the two revelatory sources (Qur’an and Hadith) and rationalizing their applicability to modern phenomena, also belongs to usul al-fiqh, or Islam’s roots of jurisprudence.  It gives more elasticity to Islam’s rules (a major theme throughout this report).  Qiyas, for example, is the way al-Qaeda and other jihadi organizations justify suicide attacks: although killing oneself is clearly forbidden in Islam, in the context of jihad—in the context of trying to empower Islam—suicide attacks are rationalized as legitimate forms of stealth warfare, since those giving their lives are not doing so out of despair but rather for Islam (as in Qur’an 9:111).[4]

7-19: Generally agreed (or indifferent to: some information in these numbers is not necessarily germane to the issue at hand and did not warrant confirmation).

20:  “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth.”

This is the first of many statements/premises that are only partially true.

For starters, Islamic jurisprudence separates humanity into classes.  The rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a fellow Muslim differ from the rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a non-Muslim.

First there is the umma—the “Islamic nation,” that is, all Muslims of the earth, irrespective of national, racial, or linguistic barriers.  Many of the Qur’an’s and Hadith’s teachings that appear laudable and fair are in fact teachings that apply only to fellow Muslims.

For example, although the Qur’an’s calls for Muslims to give charity (zakat) appear to suggest that Muslims may give charity to all humans—in fact, normative Islamic teaching is clear that Muslim charity (zakat) can only be given to fellow Muslims, never to non-Muslims.[5]

As for legal relations between Muslims and non-Muslims—or kuffar, the “infidels” (kafir, singular)—within the Islamic world, these fall into two main categories: first, the harbi, that is, the non-Muslim who does not reside in the Islamic world; if at any time a Muslim comes across him in the Muslim world, according to classic Islamic doctrine, he is free to attack, enslave, and/or kill him (the exception is if he is musta’min—given a formal permit by an Islamic authority to be on Muslim territory, such as the case of the many foreigners working in the Arabian Peninsula).[6]

Second is the dhimmi, the non-Muslim who lives under Muslim domination (for example, all the indigenous Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Berbers, etc. whose lands were conquered by Muslims beginning in the 7th century).   By today’s standards, the rules governing the dhimmi, most of which are based on the so-called “Conditions of Omar” (sometimes the “Pact of Omar”) are openly discriminatory and include things such as commanding non-Muslims to give up their seats whenever a Muslim wants it.[7]

It is, then, in this divisive context that one must approach the Qur’an, keeping in mind that most of the verses discussing human relations are discussing intra-relations between Muslims, not Muslims and non-Muslims.  For examples of the latter, see Qur’an 9:5, 9:29, 5:17, and 5:73 for typical verses that discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, verses which have further abrogated the earlier, more tolerant ones. [8]

As for the Qur’an verses listed in MFR 20—which are meant to support the statement that “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth,” a close reading, supported by mainstream Islamic exegeses, demonstrates that the true function of those verses is to portray true believers (Muslims) and Islam’s prophets as the epitome of honesty and sincerity.  Significantly, none of the verses mentioned in MFR 20 actually exhort Muslims to be honest and truthful, including to fellow Muslims, in the same vein as, for example, unequivocal statements such as Do not lie to one another” (Colossians 3:9) and “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).

The fact is, other Islamic teachings and caveats have permitted Muslims to deceive even fellow Muslims.  For example, the doctrine of tawriya allows Muslims to lie in virtually all circumstances provided that the lie is articulated in a way that it is technically true.

The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, “hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion.” Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).

As a doctrine, “double-entendre” best describes tawriya’s function. According to past and present Muslim scholars (several documented below), tawriya is when a speaker/writer asserts something that means one thing to the listener/reader, though the speaker/writer means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.

For example, if someone declares “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies.

This is legitimate according to Islamic law, or shari‘a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—and does not constitute “lying.”

In a fatwa, or Islamic decree, popular Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid asserts that, “Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a shari‘a interest.”  As mentioned, empowering Islam is one of the highest shari‘a interests [9] (hence why jihad, so lauded by Islam’s prophet as aforementioned, is sometimes seen as the “sixth pillar”).

Read more at Front Page

‘Mainstream’ Muslim Org. Puts Out Shocking Jihadi Educational Guide

ICNA2

ICNA’s guide teaches that jihad is the fight against forces that “oppose the Islamic Call” and the waging of war so that only the “evil sovereignty of beings other than Allah is wiped out.”

By Ryan Mauro:

An educational guide produced by the Chicago chapter of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) demolishes the group’s pretenses that it’s moderate. The book, produced for ICNA members, tells Muslims to wage jihad to conquer the West and establish sharia and repeatedly references the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood as a source.

ICNA’s annual convention is one of the largest Muslim-American events year. The group is part of a newly formed Islamist coalition that hopes to unite Muslims into a single voting bloc. Its “moderate” presentation is so effective that it has formed partnerships with churches. ICNA’s own internal documents conflict with its contrived image.

The training guide produced by the Tarbiyah Department of ICNA’s Chicago chapter was provided to the Clarion Project by former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo.

The book repeatedly references Hassan al-Banna, the extremist founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sayyid Qutb, a Brotherhood cleric whose teachings inspired Osama Bin Lden.

That makes sense since ICNA was named in a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” The stated goal of the Brotherhood network in the U.S. was to wage “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…”

Read more at Clarion Project

 

Muslim Terrorism: Children Are Dispensable

Martin Richard, the 8 year-old killed in the Boston Marathon bombing, wanted peace. (Photo: Lucia Brawley via Facebook

Martin Richard, the 8 year-old killed in the Boston Marathon bombing, wanted peace. (Photo: Lucia Brawley via Facebook

By Rachel Molschky:

When it comes to Muslim terrorism, children are dispensable, both the enemy children as well as those of the jihadists themselves. Our Western culture promotes compassion, in particular when it comes to children. However, Islam is quite the opposite. There is no worry over whether or not children are among the victims of their crimes.

Even when their own children are killed, they use their deaths as leverage to evoke sympathy from the Western world. A prime example would be Palestinian terrorists who use their children as human shields and subsequently take photos of the dead and point the finger at Israel. Then they continue the propaganda game when the same photos resurface from one war to the next, and many times the original photos themselves were fabricated.

This is a photo of an injured Israeli baby after a rocket attack from Hamas. Arab propaganda has changed it to a Palestinian baby. Source: http://fakewarclaims.com/category/middle-east/page/2/

This is a photo of an injured Israeli baby after a rocket attack from Hamas. Arab propaganda has changed it to a Palestinian baby. Source: http://fakewarclaims.com/category/middle-east/page/2/

Several photos from the Syrian War have been regurgitated as Palestinian anti-Israel propaganda when it was Muslims who killed the children in Syria and had nothing to do with Israel. Photos of injured Israeli children, the victims of Palestinian terrorism, are also used with the claims that they are children in Gaza.

There are many examples of this at fakewarclaims.com, and I recommend visiting the site if you can stomach the gore. Some of the photos are extremely disturbing.

All this propaganda is for the West. How do Muslims really treat children? Let’s take a look at some recent news stories: (H/t The Religion of Peace)

58 Students Shot or Burned to Hacked to Death… Dozens Killed in Attack on Nigerian School: “Islamic militants set fire to a locked dormitory at a school in northern Nigeria, then shot and slit the throats of students who tried to escape through windows during a pre-dawn attack Tuesday. At least 58 students were killed, including many who were burned alive. “They ‘slaughtered them like sheep’ with machetes, and gunned down those who ran away, said one teacher, Adamu Garba…”
90 Killed in 2 Attacks in Northern Nigeria(including children dancing at a wedding) “Twin car bombs at a bustling city marketplace blasted buildings to rubble and tore apart bodies the same night an attack on a farming village razed every thatched-roof hut. At least 90 people have been killed,   officials and survivors reported Sunday, as Nigeria’s Islamic extremists step up attacks and criticism mounts of the failure of the military and government to suppress the 4-year-old Islamic uprising in the northeast…The victims include children dancing at a wedding celebration and people watching a soccer match at a cinema, survivors told The Associated Press…”
Two Bahrain children wounded while planting bomb: police: “DUBAI: Two children, aged 10 and 11, were wounded while planting a roadside bomb in a Shia-dominated village in Bahrain where a blast killed three policemen this week, police said on Thursday. ‘A group of   terrorists exploited these children by asking them to plant a home-made bomb’ in Daih, state news agency BNA quoted a police official as saying. He said one child was ‘seriously’ wounded when the device exploded. Police photos showed one child’s fingers mangled by the blast and both boys’ faces and bodies peppered with shrapnel…”
16 Christians killed in latest attack in Nigeria (4 children among them):”Armed gunmen believed to be Muslim Fulani herdsmen have attacked a cluster of villages in Plateau state, killing 16 Christians and destroying numerous homes, Christian leaders said… Musa Gunduma Dang of Gwon village said they killed his mother, wife, four children and three other relatives. ‘They shot sporadically and set my house ablaze, killing all members of my family, and the entire village has been destroyed,’ Dang said…”
Afghan child killed, 5 women injured in clinic attack: “Afghanistan- One child and two policemen were killed while five women were wounded Saturday when militants opened fire on women, who line up to receive food at a maternity and women’s clinic in eastern Afghan province of Laghman, sources said…’One seven-year-old child and two Afghan Local Police cops were martyred and five women got gunshot wounds in the incident,’ the statement said…”
Christian Family Murdered in Alexandria (including 6 year-old):”Four members of a Christian family of Syrian origin living in Alexandria, Egypt, were stabbed to death Monday. A man was seen walking out of their apartment holding a black plastic bag. The father of the family, 44, who was employed in one of Sharm el-Sheikh’s hotels, was found stabbed in the stomach, the chest and the shoulder. His 35-year-old wife was stabbed in the neck, and so was the husband’s 43-year-old sister. Their six-year-old daughter was also found murdered…”
Jihadists loaded bomb devices into ambulance carrying pregnant woman from Syria into Turkey (No worries over the woman or her unborn baby):”While Israel is constantly excoriated for supposedly targeting civilians, we see Islamic jihadists in Gaza and now in Syria deliberately staging jihad operations in areas where civilians will almost certainly get hurt by retaliatory action. Loading bomb devices for jihad attacks in Turkey onto an ambulance carrying a pregnant woman shows yet again the egregious jihadist disregard for human life and cynical willingness to use civilians for cover…”
Pakistani man hands over 3 sons to Hafiz Saeed for jihad: “A Pakistani man has handed over his three young sons to Jamaat-ud-Dawah chief Hafiz Saeed for jihad. Abu Haider, a Jamaat-ud-Dawa activist, handed over his three sons to Saeed at a workers’ convention yesterday in Nankana Sahib, about 80 kilometres from Lahore. ‘I hand over my three young sons to you for jihad (holy war). They will be now on your hands in your struggle,’ Haider said…”

Coptic_ChristiansThese are all stories from about a two-week period and are only but a snippet of violence compared to the long history of a Muslim disregard for human life including the lives of children. Boko Haram militants repeatedly storm schools and slaughter as many children as possible. Islamic suicide bombers do not back away if they see children present. In the Sbarro suicide bombing in Jerusalem, among the dead were seven children and a pregnant woman. An 8 year-old boy was killed in the Boston Marathon bombing after one of the bombs was left just feet away from him. His 6 year-old sister survived but lost a leg, (and his mother suffered a brain injury.)

When there are Islamic acts of terrorism, there are dead children, not inadvertently but purposely. In the Fogel Family Massacre, Palestinian terrorists broke into the Jewish family’s home and viciously butchered the parents and three of their children, including a baby.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

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

h/t Jack Ellison – “Just a month away now from the next Boston marathon, site of Islamic jihad last year”

I will keep this short since I just sent out an earlier newsletter today. I feel it is important for Americans to understand that what happened in Boston today is only a surprise to politicians and the liberal media. When I was in Iraq I had the opportunity to interview Al Qaeda, Fedeyeen (Saddam Forces) and other terrorists.  I wanted to know what type of attacks our country would endure in the future from the fighters of Islam.  I was informed on numerous occasions that Islamic fighters would attack the heart of America.  I asked what was the heart of America? We were told the children are the heart of the American people and they will be attacked physically and emotionally.
 
We must all begin educating the American public about the dangers of Islam or attacks like in Boston will continue. They will be on the same scale as the Boston Marathon bombing.  I do not believe they will be on the scale of 9-11.  Islamic leaders have informed me that another major attack like 9-11 would isolate the Muslim community and the U.S. govt. would have to strike back. It would set Islam back 20 plus years in their goals and objectives.  The Islamic leaders prefer attacks such as in Boston.  They know in the end the politicians and liberal media will call it an attack by a couple radicals and it will be forgotten such as the killings at Ft. Hood, Tx.
 
If there are Americans who believe the Islamic leaders and their supporters will not attack a school, children’s bus, or in a shopping mall you are only kidding yourself.
 
Many people will ask what can we do? The only way to eliminate Islam and Sharia as a danger in America is for Americans to be educated that Islam is not a religion, it is a dangerous ideology and if it is not labeled as such by our leaders and media, our children will suffer and we will lose this beautiful country.  This strategy may seem radical, but it is the reality and if you love your children you will start demanding our leaders see Islam not as a religion, but America’s number one National Security threat. Dave G.

Allah’s Sword of Terror

khby Raymond Ibrahim:

The first time I heard about Khalid bin al-Walid—the 7th century Muslim jihadi affectionately known in Islamic history as “The Sword of Allah”—was when I was in college researching for my MA thesis on the Battle of Yarmuk, when the Muslims, under Khalid’s generalship, defeated the Byzantines in 636, opening the way for the historic Islamic conquests.

Nearly a decade and a half later, Khalid, that jihadi par excellence, has come to personify a dichotomy for me—how the jihad is understood in the West and how it really is: officially, Western academia, media, and politicians portray it as defensive war to protect Muslim honor and territory; in reality, however, jihad is all too often little more than a byword to justify the most primitive and barbaric passions of its potential recruits and practitioners.

Based on the English language sources I perused in college, Khalid was a heroic, no-nonsense kind of jihadi—fierce but fair, stern but just.  He was the champion of the Apostasy Wars, when he slaughtered countless Arabs for trying to leave Islam after the death of Muhammad.

Modern day Muslims writing about Khalid—see for example Pakistani army lieutenant-general A.I Akram’s The Sword of Allah—had naught but praise for him, the scourge of infidels and apostates.

But as years went by, I came across more arcane and Arabic sources telling of the “darker side” of The Sword—a depraved and sadistic side.

For example, only recently I came across a video of a modern-day Egyptian Salafi explaining how Khalid raped Layla, the wife of Malik bin Nuwayra—but only after he severed her husband’s head, lit it on fire, and cooked his dinner on it.

Khalid was recalled and questioned by the caliph—not because he killed and dined on an apostate’s head and “married” his wife, but because some believed that Malik was still Muslim, not an apostate to be treated so, and that Khalid killed him on the accusation of apostasy only as a pretext to take possession of his wife, whose beauty was renowned.

In the words of Ibn Kathir’s authoritative historical tome, The Beginning and the End (al-bidaya we al-nihaya), “And he [Khalid] ordered his [Malik’s] head and he combined it with two stones and cooked a pot over them.  And Khalid ate from it that night to terrify the apostate Arab tribes and others.  And it was said that Malik’s hair created such a blaze that the meat was so thoroughly cooked.”

More eye-opening is the way the videotaped Egyptian cleric recounts this whole narrative with awe and admiration—boasting, for example, how that when Khalid entered the caliph’s tent for questioning he was “wearing armor all soaked and rusted from blood [of his enemies], with arrows sticking out of his turban.”

As for the near-cannibalistic meal that the Sword of Allah ate, the cleric complained that “People wonder how our lord Khalid could have eaten from such meat?  Oh yes—he ate from it! Our lord Khalid had a very strong character, a great appetite, and everything!  All to terrorize the desert Arabs [apostates].  The matter requires determination; these matters require strength—terrorism.”

Of course, all this accords with the Koran’s many commands to “strike terror” into the hearts of disbelievers, be they born infidels or apostates (see Koran 3:151, 8:12, 8:60).

Now, let us fast-forward to the modern era’s “Arab Spring” and U.S. support for “freedom-fighters” trying to “liberate” Syria (the official, Western narrative of the jihad), and let us reflect on its true nature—from a jihadi (ironically named “Khalid”biting into the heart of a soldier (and thus striking terror into the hearts of Assad’s “apostate” regime) to Islamic clerics justifyingrape and prostitution to gratify the many swords of Allah.

And at last, let us understand that the heartbeat of the jihad—sex, violence, and rapine—has scarcely changed in nearly fourteen centuries.

 

Jihadis Are Seething at Russia Over Crimea—Will It Boil Over?

Crimean Tatars hold flags during rallies near the Crimean parliament building in Simferopol this week. (Baz Ratner/Reuters)

Crimean Tatars hold flags during rallies near the Crimean parliament building in Simferopol this week. (Baz Ratner/Reuters)

By  and :

Some are calling on Muslims to travel to Ukraine to take up arms for their Crimean brothers

With Russia and Ukraine in a tense standoff over the fate of Crimea, jihadis are bashing Russia in their forums and social media accounts. In some cases, they’re even calling on Muslims to travel to Eastern Ukraine to defend their religious brothers.

This week, the hashtag #NafirforUkraine began making the rounds on Twitter. The Islamic Arabic term “Nafir” is a call to action that requires any member of a jihadi group to travel to the country Nafir is called against and participate in a holy war in the name of Allah. Nafir was declared in the early stages of the conflicts in Syria and Egypt, and it helped spark jihadi migrations into these nations.

In this case, there’s no evidence yet of radical Muslim fighters flocking to Crimea to team up with the Muslim minority living there, but the #NafirforUkraine hashtag has been used more than 1,000 times, predominantly in tweets from Saudi Arabia.

One tweeter offered advice on traveling to Ukraine, suggesting that Turkey is the best route into the country.

One of these forums, Hanein, is an Al Qaeda-connected site that frequently disseminates propaganda and is used to recruit members and pass on tactical know-how to active fighters.

An Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Facebook page, which has almost half a million likes, referred to the Tatar community as their fellow Muslim compatriots. They provided videos showing the loyalty of the Tatars to their Sunni brothers in Syria.

On a forum related to the conflict in Syria and affiliated with the Free Syrian Army, members spoke about the Tatar leader, Mustafa Cemil, declaring that jihadis are ready to resist the Russian occupation.

We also talked with Fazil Amzayev, a representative for the Crimean Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group that seeks to establish Islamic rule in Muslim countries and that has been blamed for promoting radicalism in some places. “If there will be some conflict, I think that Muslims will come here. It is natural now in all Muslims countries if there is a war, then fighters from different countries try to come,” he says, adding that he hopes Crimea doesn’t become a war zone.

“We ask God for this conflict not to go on,” Amzayev says. “I think it may become another Pakistan, Afghanistan [or] Syria.”

Read more at vocativ.com

What U Penn Teaches Muslim Law Students

20140304_burkajusticeUSAby LANCE SILVER, ANDREW PALASHEWSKY:

Saturday evening, Feb. 22nd, University of Pennsylvania Law School hosted the “Eighth Annual Muslim Law Students Conference,” on the topic of “MUSLIM OBLIGATIONS IN PROMOTING JUSTICE IN AMERICA.” Our interest in Islamic law as American citizens is to learn first-hand exactly what Muslim American law students are being taught.

The fairly innocuous and well-meaning title of the program masked the true intent, which we believe is to lull the audience and our society into a false sense of complacency regarding the real aims and effects of Islamic incursion in our society – which Stephen Coughlin covers in his must-read thesis, ” To Our Great Detriment.”

We were greeted with “As-Salamu ‘ Alaykum” (Peace be upon you), upon entering the conference and by each speaker, prior to presentation. What a comforting greeting. I responded with “Aslim Taslam.”

As is typically the case, conference attendees were highly educated and polite. This is a high-end mix of people who are difficult to fault on any personal level.

The attendees, primarily American and foreign Muslim law students, as well as a few foreign lawyers, presented a mixed canvas racially, yet each person is culturally Islamic and a member of the ummah, the global body of believers. The speakers and each future American lawyer we spoke with advised us that Islam has been misinterpreted for 1,400 years. Isn’t that amazing? As if we had no ability to study the history of Islam from both Muslim and non-Muslim sources on our own.

We are authoring this report in response to what we believe is attempted hoodwinking, enabled by the practice of Taqiyya and Kitman, forms of lying encouraged in Islam, if such lying is to be useful for the spread of Islam. No other religion/culture encourages its adoption by lying. But, because Islam is also a political theory that embodies military notions, the ability to further aims by deception is enshrined in the Qur’an and in Shari’ah, as it would be on the battlefield. The intended recipients of this mendacity were not only us, but the attendees and the law school itself.

The first speaker, Professor Faisal Kutty, presented us with a bogus definition of the terms “jihad” and “Islamophobia.” He spoke of jihad, as if it were apple pie with vanilla ice cream, splitting the term jihad into its normative components – the “Lesser Jihad,” meaning defensive or offensive military struggle, and the “Greater Jihad,” meaning, personal struggle for good against evil. She downplayed the importance of Jihad’s military meaning to relative insignificance, ignoring the vast majority of references in the Qur’an on Jihad, compelling Muslims to wage a military struggle as the Sixth Pillar of Islam.

Jihad is offensive.  Duplicity and deception as tactics to throw off the opponent are inherent in Islam and that’s why Islam states that jihad is purely defensive. In fact, jihad was, and is still, used as the normative call to action in the military conquest of vast tracts of formerly Christian, Jewish ,Hindu lands within 100 years of its founding by Muhammad. That empire still stands in terms of the Islamic culture it forced on the conquered Nations and cultures.

The reality of jihad is that Islam considers itself to be supremacist and must triumph, be victorious, over all other religions and cultures. Islam compels Muslims to spread Islam to all corners of the earth, first by invitation, Aslim Taslam, which means, “Submit and Be At Peace.”

And, if that isn’t effective, then by the sword or forcing subject people to accept Dhimmi status.  Living in dhimmitude relegates subjects to second-class status, with vastly diminished rights, including no right for the Dhimmi peoples to defend themselves.  Muhammad conquered many with that simple statement, Aslim-Taslam, which was intended to strike terror into the hearts of those offered the choice, and it did. This is the beginning of the Muslim Mafia mentality, perfected by the Ikhwan, Wahhabis, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.

Likening it to the Mafia is no facile rhetoric. Islam offered three choices to the people of the book; Convert, Pay the Jy’izia tax or lose the right to life and property. So when Islam characterized this choice as the benefit of protection, one must ask, protection from whom? Obviously, the answer is protection from Islam, which reserved the right to take life and property if the conditions of conversion or the payment of the Jy’izia tax were not met. How different is this from the Black hand extorting protection money from the neighborhood grocer?

If Islam does not succeed in becoming the world’s only true religion, then Muslims will not have fulfilled Allah’s commands in the Qur’an. Thus, Muslims are obligated to proselytize Islam throughout the world through da’wa and Jihad. Whether violently or nonviolently, this is accomplished with 100% impunity from Allah, as per the Qur’an. One could make the comparison with Christianity being a proselytizing religion, but Christianity as found in the Gospels does not allow the use of violence to spread the faith, whereas, Islam specifically does. Muslims may quote the Koran saying, “There is no compulsion in religion.” But, that statement is superseded and abrogated by later statements in the Koran that enthusiastically endorse violent compulsion in the spread of Islam.

Professor Faisal Kutty went on to make further incredible claims, saying that Terrorism had only killed 5 people in the last ten years. In this, presumably he was referring to within the US, and ignoring events like Major Hassan’s slaughter of fellow military personnel at Fort Hood, Texas. But, he also ignored the more than 10,000 terror attacks worldwide, in the last 10 years; almost all committed by Muslims and in which, ironically, many of the victims were fellow Muslims as well. Thousands of Christians, Jews and Hindus were victims as well.

He also claimed that the popular definition of jihad is only accepted by the Taliban and by al-Qaeda, stating that they had sought to reinterpret the historical meaning of jihad to support their violent means. In this, he ignored 1,400 years of written teaching on Islam readily available from Muslim sources, as well as established treatment of jihad in recognized Sharia sources like, “The Reliance Of The Traveller,”  Shafi’i Shari’ah , Section O9.1- Page 600 – Justice-jihad.

In reality, his analysis is Taqiyya and Kitman. Is this what the law students are taught about jihad by a respected law professor?

Read more: Family Security Matters

Los Angeles Gang Members Fight In Syria Alongside Pro-Hizbullah, Pro-Assad Forces

18436MEMRI: Videos and images that surfaced recently show members of Los Angeles gangs fighting in Syria alongside pro-Hizbullah and pro-Assad forces. Two gang members, “Creeper,” from the G’d Up-13 gang and “Wino,” from the Westside Armenian Power gang, filmed themselves shooting AK-47s and boasting of being on the “front lines.” Wino, aka “Wino Ayee Peeyakan,” whose real name is Nerses Kilajyan, uploaded the images and videos to his Facebook profile.[1]

The images on Wino’s Facebook page include multiple photos of him brandishing weapons; in one he is seen standing beside a Hizbullah operative, and in another he himself is wearing Hizbullah garb. Creeper is photographed and filmed alongside Wino in multiple photos and videos posted on the page.

Judging by the photos, Wino seems to have been fighting in Syria since December 2012. Comments by Wino’s Facebook friends suggest that the two were deported from the U.S. due to their involvement in criminal activity.  

Mum, I’m fighting for Allah Now

German MuslimsBY AHMAD MANSOUR:

Around 200 young people from Germany have joined the civil war in Syria, but there are thousands more who dream of going down in history as Muslim heroes. “I don’t recognize my son anymore. I don’t know how else I can help apart from breaking off contact with him,” says Mathilde M. on the telephone, sobbing. Her son has become a radical Islamist. He has discarded his German name, and from now on will only answer to a new name of his choosing. In search of help, Mathilde M. has called the Centre for Democratic Culture’s (ZDK) Berlin helpline, “Hayat.”

Organizations like ZDK are encountering an increasing number of cases like this. It is usually the mothers who call; the fathers have often been absent in these families for a long time. Most stories begin in a similar way to that of Mathilde M.’s son. There is a new friend on the scene who invites the boy to come along to the mosque. They listen to presentations about Islam, and soon enough they are praying together. Old friends are written off. Jeans, t-shirts, and baseball caps are swapped for cotton trousers, a long robe, and a small crocheted cap. Music and alcohol are taboo. He no longer shakes hands with his aunt or female cousin. That’s haram, he says, unclean. He has also stopped eating together with the family — he says the same pans have been used to cook pork. There are arguments. The mother finds her son’s new way of life threatening, and the son no longer agrees with the Western lifestyle of his mother and siblings.

These stories, which might sound foreign to the majority of society, are actually all very similar. The parents are unable to cope, and are often deeply hurt to have been rejected in this way. And, of course, they are also concerned for their children. Some parents break off contact; others make desperate attempts to get their children back.

Yet it is often the case that the child has been unhappy and frustrated for years, and in search of some kind of meaning in his or her life. Such children have felt estranged from their families for a long time, but the parents have only just begun to notice this estrangement. From the Islamists, the son, or occasionally the daughter, gets something that he or she has never had from parents, school, or society: attention and recognition. The parents cannot dispute this.

Even so, advisers tell parents to stay in contact with their child. They first encourage parents to determine whether it is a harmless case of their child changing beliefs, or whether radicalized tendencies are behind the behavior. Before they can confront their son or daughter with critical questions, the parents first have to re-establish a sense of trust and an emotional connection. They have to be very patient; they should avoid confrontation on the one hand, but maintain a firm stance on the other. They have to learn to pose open questions, without imposing anything on their child. Ideally, this is done with the help of advice and support from psychologists, social workers, or other professionals in the field.

CONSERVATIVE MUSLIM PARENTS OFTEN RECOGNISE THE SIGNS TOO LATE

Muslim parents call the helpline, too. The difference is that the traditional, conservative families often get in touch with us only when their child has become completely estranged from the family, and they are practicing their faith not only dogmatically, but also in an extremely politicized way. These conservative Muslim families often respond to early indications that their child’s religiousness is getting out of hand with approval and a sense of pride. Their son is adhering to Muslim dietary requirements; their daughter is not only wearing a veil, she is also covering her entire body: “What exemplary children we have!”

Yet the parents are embarrassed, and attempt to solve the problem within the family, or, at most, they place their trust in their Imam. Sometimes this helps for a while, but in many cases it can also be counter-productive since many imams rely too much on the power of their religious authority, and thereby ignore the young people’s completely ordinary desires.

In the worst cases, radicalized young people travel to training camps run by radical Islamists in North Africa, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. According to German security authorities, already over 200 so-called “foreign fighters” from Germany have gone to Syria to join the civil war. Eight of these people are reported to have died there. How has the situation escalated in this way? Why would young people from Germany want to swap the luxury of safety and prosperity for the brutality of war?

Read more at Clarion Project

Academia Legitimizes Extremist Speakers

by Samuel Westrop:

What chance do Muslim and non-Muslim students — who oppose the incitement to hatred against non-Muslims and the subjugation of women — have of exposing extremists such as Al-Kawthari, if he is pronounced a “representative voice of Islam” by academics who claim to be experts on the British Muslim community?

Extreme Islamic preachers do not only appear on university campuses at the request of radicalized students; increasingly, extremists are afforded a university platform, with all the credibility that comes with it, by the academics themselves.

The Centre for the Study of Islam, based at the University of Cardiff in Wales, for instance, has recently announced a lecture series starting this February. The Centre was opened in 2005 by Yusuf Islam, the former musician known as Cat Stevens who has called for apostates and adulterous women to be stoned to death. In keeping with that spirit, one of the presentations this February is to be delivered by Muhammad ibn Adam Al-Kawthari, who will be discussing “The Role of a Mufti in Modern Society.”

 

Muhammad ibn Adam Al-Kawthari. (Image source: YouTube video screenshot)

Speaking to Wales Online, the Centre’s Director, Dr Sophie Gilliat-Ray, said, “We’ve managed to attract some of the leading experts to offer thought-provoking insights into various aspects of Muslim life in the UK.”

In 2011 several student societies at the University of York actually organized a campaign against a proposed visit by Al-Kawthari to the University; they claimed he promoted intolerant and violent ideas

It seems he supports the killing of adulterers:

“If the crime of fornication is carried out by an individual who is sane, mature, Muslim and is married to a spouse who is also sane, mature, Muslim, and that their marriage is consummated, then the legal punishment is that he/she will be stoned to death (rajm). The Imam, witnesses and other Muslims would take part in the stoning. … If the crime of fornication is carried out by an individual who does not qualify to be in the above category, then the punishment is that he/she will be given 100 lashes. These whips and lashes will be spread over the body, avoiding the head, face and the private parts. A pregnant woman will not be whipped until she gives birth to her child and after her post natal bleeding (nifas). However, if she is to be stoned, then this may be carried out straight after giving birth.”

When asked, “When Is Jihad an Obligation on Me?” Al-Kawthari appears to encourage Muslims to travel and fight overseas:

“If the Muslims who are being attacked are incapable of defending themselves or they are neglectful, jihad becomes Fardh Ain [compulsory] for the Muslims nearest them and then those nearest them and so forth, until it becomes personally obligatory for all the Muslims of the East and the West … If the people of Kashmir, Chechnya, etc. are not capable of defending themselves or if they are neglectful, then Jihad will become personally obligatory on the Muslims nearest them, e.g. Muslims of Pakistan. If they are also neglectful or weak, then the Muslims nearest them, and so forth, until it becomes personally obligatory for all the Muslims.”

He advocates that thieves should have their hands and feet amputated:

“The penalty for the one who steals (when the above conditions are met) is that his/her right arm is amputated. If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then he will be imprisoned until he repents, but no further amputation will take place.”

When Kawthari was asked whether a lawyer should help an Iranian fleeing death by stoning in his home country for the “sin” of adultery or the “crime” of apostasy, Kawthari advised:

“It is thus clear from the above that, to leave your religion in order to get into a country is an extremely offensive and outrageous act and considered disbelief (kufr). To assist and aid such people will also be unacceptable, impermissible, and highly sinful.”

Al-Kawthari has also advised that, “Women should not come out of their homes unnecessarily,” and frequently expresses hatred against non-Muslims by advising: “Do not commence by greeting the Christians and Jews with Salam. If you meet one of them on a pathway, force them to walk on the side … The reason for this impermissibility of saying Salam to non-Muslims is to not show them respect.”

On another occasions, Al-Kawthari has claimed, “We live in an age where evils such as incest among the non-Muslims is becoming common.”

How is it, then, that Dr Gilliat-Ray, a claimed expert on British Islam, has chosen Al-Kawthari to be an “expert” voice of the British Muslim community?

Al-Kawthari is not the only problematic speaker invited by Gilliat-Ray. Other proposed lectures include presentations by Ajmaal Masroor, a supporter of Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood; and Ahtsham Ali, the former chairman of the Islamic Society of Britain, a Muslim Brotherhood group.

By inviting preachers such as Al-Kawthari to present their version of British Islam, then, Dr. Gilliat-Ray only serves to impose extremist ideas upon the Muslim community.

Read  more at Gatestone Institute

In Their Own Words

20140216_canada_train_largeFamily Security Matters, by CLARE M. LOPEZ:

In an unusual move, one of the suspects in the 2012-13 Via Railway terror plot has been allowed to give an interview to the Canadian National Post. That interview is remarkable because it explains the jihadist motivations behind the plot in clear and unambiguous language that leaves no room for doubt about “why they hate us.” Those who would confront and defeat this hate and the terror plots it inspires would do well to listen to the words of Chiheb Esseghaier.

Esseghaier was a Tunisian doctoral student at the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, a branch of the Université de Quebec and a landed immigrant who’d come to Canada in 2008. His travel to Zahedan, in eastern Iran, caught the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), which launched a complex investigation that eventually led to the unraveling of a joint al-Qa’eda-Iran plot to blow up a passenger train over the Niagara River gorge. Esseghaier and fellow suspect, Raed Jaser (from the United Arab Emirates), were arrested in the conspiracy and now face terror charges in Canadian court. Over the months since their April 2013 arrest, Esseghaier has made a number of court appearances as well as public statements, of which the recent National Post interview includes just the latest.

Although thanks to good intelligence and police work, Canada to date has been spared the kind of horrific terror attacks that have made headlines elsewhere in the West (Burgas, London, Madrid, U.S.), there have been jihadist attempts, including the August 2010 Ottawa Parliament plot and the earlier 2006 Toronto 18 plot.  National Post coverage of the Via Railway terror plot has been extensive and its multiple reports quoting the very vocal Esseghaier are revealing, even though it is clear the Post itself doesn’t understand what he’s been trying to tell them. Faced with the reality that their country, too, is a target, Canadians have been struggling to make sense out of Esseghaier’s simple pronouncement: “I am a Muslim.” The so-called “experts on extremism” consulted by the National Post weren’t much help: Prof. Lorne Dawson, ex-director of the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society, opined that Esseghaier’s views were “very comparable to what one might hear from a strident anti-abortion activist coming from a Christian perspective.”

In fact, Esseghaier is nothing like a Christian pro-life activist. In his own words, he has explained that he sees himself as a faithful member of the global Islamic ummah. He calls Muslim Afghans his “brothers and sisters,” because according to Islamic doctrine, national borders and the world order that Canadian and other NATO members seek to defend in Afghanistan are meaningless. He believes it is his duty to follow the commands of Islam, which obligate every Muslim to wage jihad as an individual duty (fard ‘ayn) whenever non-believers (kufar) invade Islamic lands. In his court appearances, Esseghaier repeatedly has asserted his allegiance to Islamic Law (shariah) and rejected the authority of Canadian law. Challenged by the National Post to explain why he plotted to kill Canadian and American rail passengers, Esseghaier accused Canada of “[making] lawful what God made unlawful…”], which is an explicit reference to Qur’anic verse 9:29, which says

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

It is critical that national security experts and leadership grasp what Esseghaier is trying to tell us. Pretending that authoritative Islamic law and scripture are not the doctrinal source of justification for Islamic jihad (terrorism), as does A Guide to Refuting Jihadism, just out from the Henry Jackson Society, only serves to blind and neutralize our ability to confront the shariah threat. Likewise, getting hung up on group names and affiliations misses the point that Esseghaier describes so clearly: Islamic terrorism is conducted not just to kill people but to establish the pre-conditions for the ultimate objective which is the universal enforcement of Islamic Law. The 5 February 2014 War on Error from Foreign Policy offers another good illustration. Starting out by making a valiant effort at sorting out the many off-shoot franchises of Usama bin-Laden’s original al-Qa’eda, this piece unfortunately winds up taking an already muddled topic and compounding the muddling. Terming Islamic jihadis “violent extremists” or al-Qa’eda “nihilistic” with “an outlier interpretation of Islamic Law” is to miss the point entirely. Esseghaier is obviously both well-educated and well-versed in the doctrine of his faith; he is also representative of jihadis the world over who are indeed violent, but neither extremists nor nihilists within the parameters of authoritative Islam. They seek well-defined objectives based on widely-available Islamic scriptures and do not hesitate to declare them and pursue them both openly and by guile.

It is not often that a self-avowed Islamic jihadi like Esseghaier is given this sort of platform. It behooves us all to pay attention to what he says.

Response to A GUIDE TO REFUTING JIHADISM – Critiquing radical Islamist claims to theological authenticity

download (69)By Mark Durie:

The Henry Jackson Society had just launched a guide to rejecting jihadi theologies in Islam, A Guide to Refuting Jihadism by Rashad Ali and Hannah Stuart.  There are also forewords by two Sheikhs, including one from Al-Azhar University, and endorsements from other Muslim leaders.

Although the appearance of this guide as a welcome acknowledgement that jihadi violence is theologically motivated, its use of Islamic sources is flawed and unconvincing, and there are risks for secular governments in embracing its arguments.

It is good that the theological motivations for jihadi movements are being acknowledged and engaged with by peaceable Muslims.

This is not a new strategy.  It is necessary and the strategy has long been used by authorities as a counter to jihadi movements.  For example the British empire extracted fatwas from Mecca and Istanbul in the 19th century to declare that British India was not ‘Dar al-Harb’ [House of War], but Dar al-Islam [House of Islam]‘, which meant that it was forbidden for Muslims to engage in insurgencies against the British.  Muslim leaders have always asked their scholars to produce such rulings to counter violent rebellions.  This is also a traditional Islamic technique for controlling the undeniable tendency that Islamic theology has to generate violent rebel movements.

This project is also helpful because it acknowledges what is often denied – that the credibility of radical jihadism relies upon religious, theological claims.  It claims Islamic legitimacy and uses this to gain converts.  It is true that to counter this religious legitimacy it is necessary to use theological arguments.

However there are some dangers here for Western governments.  One is that there will be a cost to adopting theological positions on Islam.  Is a secular state really in a position to make an announcement that one particular form of Islam is ‘correct’ over others? This is like saying that catholicism is correct, but the baptist faith is not.  And if the state does canonize a “theologically correct” view on Islam, would it really be persuasive to the minds of young radically inclined Muslims that a secular government is teaching Islam to them, or would it just incite suspicion, and detract from the credibility of voices of moderation within the Muslim community?  Also where does combating radicalism start and promoting Islam start? (The al-Azar Sheikh in his introduction [in Arabic] to the report sees the report as an exercise in spreading Islam, not just in combating radicalism.)

The great weakness in the arguments offered is that they appear to be opportunistic and often ignore conflicting evidence. For example on the subject of suicide bombing, a wide range of modern Muslim scholars have endorsed martyrdom operations against Israel.  It is not just al-Qaradawi or Al-Qaida ideologues who say this: senior respected contemporary jurists such as the Syrian jurist Al-Bouti have endorsed these attacks. To counter this tactic a more whole-hearted acknowledgement of the weightof Islamic voices which have endorsed it.

There is also a tendency to cherry pick texts.  For example Al-Ghazali is cited to support an argument against killing women and children, but his justification of collateral damage against civilians is ignored:

‘[O]ne must go on jihad at least once a year… one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them.’

Another example is the discussion of ‘perfidy’ or ‘subterfuge’ in warfare.  It is claimed on the basis of a hadith from [hadith collection] Sahih Muslim that Islam forbids the use of deception in warfare, a key point in the theology of the suicide attacks often referred to as ‘martyrdom operations’.  However the hadith is cited from a secondary source, and the translation is not accurate.  The actual Arabic in Sahih Muslim (translated more accurately here) forbids stealing booty and says that a Muslim is not supposed to break his ‘pledge’, so this is not about deception in warfare in general.  The authors also have ignored a very well-known hadith of Muhammad in which he said, ‘War is deceit’.   This approach sets up a straw man – a weakly argued jihadi position – only to knock it down. In Islam, support for deception in warfare is more resistant to re-analysis than this.

In the discussion on citizenship – which is a very important issue in Islamic law: can Muslims be loyal citizens? – the authors overlook important rulings collected by the International Fiqh Academy on this issue, which go against their position.

Furthermore, in discussions on the treatment of non-combatants, the authors ignore Muhammad’s command for several hundred non-combatant Jewish men from the Qurayza tribe to be beheaded after they surrendered to him unconditionally.  For radically inclined Muslims, Muhammad’s example would trump the musings of medieval theologians.

One of the problems with citing arguments from later jurists and commentators, which is the preferred approach of the Guide’s authors, is that most jihadis’ theology is Salafist, and as such it looks to the early sources on Islam – the Qur’an, the example of Muhammad and the testimony of the companions of Muhammad – to construct their war theologies.  Such people will not be persuaded by arguments based on later interpreters, which appears to be the main polemical tactic of this Guide.

Of course, as soon as one raises such objections, one runs the risk of being accused of supporting the jihadis.  Nevertheless, the fact is that the radical jihadis have more support than this document would acknowledge, especially in the canonical sources, and the arguments used against them would convince few.  Would these arguments be convincing to a well-trained Muslim scholar? I think not.

The strongest Islamic argument of all against jihadi theology is the ‘necessity’ argument: that it will harm Islam by causing its reputation to be destroyed among Muslims, and incite infidels to attack Muslims.  We are seeking such arguments being presented these days across the Middle East. General Sisi is being applauded in Egypt for ‘saving’ the reputation of Islam from the Muslim Brotherhood.  This argument is not based upon an appeal to theological legitimacy of specific positions, but pragmatic necessity, and what is in the best interests of the Muslim community.  Of course this argument would not have any traction at all if the militaries of Islamic states had the power to challenge those of non-Muslim countries.  Then it would probably be in the best interests of the Muslim world to pursue war.  The argument only works if it is not in Muslims’ interests to be at war.

What about the Al-Azhar Sheikh’s support?  This is political.  In the current political climate Al-Azhar must support the anti-jihadi cause.  The Brotherhood are being killed and wiped out due to their violent theologies.  The wind is blowing against the jihadi position.  It is significant that the Sheikh does not endorse specific arguments of the book – I suspect he knows better – but only the general intention of the project.

Works like this guide can back-fire.  On the one hand they acknowledge that the problem of jihadi violence is theological.  On the other hand, through the use of weak arguments relying on cherry-picked sources, they run the risk of validating the radicals’ position even more.  Perhaps their real function is to ‘save Islam’ in the eyes of moderately inclined Muslims and theologically illiterate secular people, who have an ideological preference  to embrace the narrative that the jihadis have ‘hijacked’ Islam.

But will this help to defuse Islamic jihadism?  I doubt it.

Revd Dr Mark Durie is an Anglican priest, Fellow of the Australian Academy for the Humanities, and a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum in the US.  He is the author of The Third Choice: Islam Dhimmitude and Freedom published by Deror Books.

A version of this review appears in Middle East Forum:

That was the polite review. Now read Rassooli’s refreshingly blunt “In a nutshell: BULL CRAP!” response:

Five Reasons Why Islam is a Cult

death cultby Bob Smith:

1. A Muslim who quits Islam has to worry about being killed by another Muslim.

This is the first rule of Islam. This is why so few Muslims quit the faith. This simple fact — alone — makes Islam a cult. It is hard to understate the significance of this cold hard fact about Islam.

This practice is widely followed today throughout the Islamic world. The most frequently quoted Islamic theological source is Sahih Al-Bukhari Number 6922:

Allah’s apostle said, “if anyone changes his (Islamic) religion, then kill him.”

WikiIslam.net says the following: “the rejection of faith, is a serious offense in Islam. The punishment for apostasy as prescribed by Prophet Muhammad is death”.

Don’t let any Muslim try to deny this fact by quoting the Islamic phrase “there is no compulsion in religion”. All Muslims know the Islamic doctrine of “abrogation” negates this phrase. And Muslims only use this phrase when they are trying to deceive non-Muslims

In Afghanistan, NATO had to use a promise of asylum in Europe to get Said Musa out of prison for the crime of converting to Christianity.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI.org), in clip #3926, translated a broadcast from Al-Arabiya TV on June 14, 2013, which quotes Egyptian Islamist Abu Al-’Ela Abd Rabbo, one of the assassins of secularist Farag Foda in 1992:

Interviewer: What was the religious justification for the assassination of Farag Foda?

Abu Al-’Ela Abd Rabbo: The punishment for an apostate is death, even if he repents.

Need more proof? Simply Google “quit Islam” or, click the this link for an insightful discussion on the issue.

2. Muslims are encouraged to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Muslim theological documents — the Koran, Hadith, and Sunna — are filled with statements which encourage devout Muslims to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Here are just a few:

  • Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)
  • Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood (9:123)
  • When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)
  • Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)
  • Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)
  • The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)
  • Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam (5:33)
  • The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)
  • Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies (22:19)
  • Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)
  • The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)
  • Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)
  • Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)
  • Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels

In addition to the Muslim theological documents mentioned above, Islamic social norms encourage violence. It is widely noted that Friday is the most likely day when jihad attacks will occur within Muslim society. This is because the mullahs use their Friday pulpits to encourage their flock to commit violence in the name of Islam.

In Muslim societies, even the media become involved in the incitement to violence. MEMRI.org has translated thousands of articles from print and electronic media. These translated articles are filled with direct incitement to commit violence in the name of Islam.

Remarkably, some of the most glaring examples of incitement to violence come from new “converts” to Islam. Why would a new convert to Islam commit violence? The obvious answer is the “theological” incitement from their new religion — Islam’s core texts.

There is an unfortunate PC effort to deny, ignore and whitewash this Islam inspired violence. The amount of violence committed worldwide since 9/11 is simply too high to overlook.

The web site The Religion of Peace has been collecting, counting, and publishing a list of deadly Islamic terror attacks worldwide since 9/11/2001. As of January 1, 2014 the number was 22,178. Don’t let the PC crowd tell you it is just the same as the Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or the Jews — make them prove it. Only an intellectual buffoon would try to deny the relationship between Islam and violence.

3. Islam does not allow criticism or change.

Islam considers anyone who criticizes or tries to change Islam guilty of blasphemy. And blasphemy is an capital crime under Sharia law. As a result any Muslim who even critiques or attempts to change Islam has to worry about being murdered by some devout Muslim.

In Denmark in late 2013, an 18-year-old Muslim named Yahya Hassan received numerous death threats after reading one of his Islam-critical poems on TV.

It is bad enough that Muslims can’t criticize Islam, but this rule even applies to non-Muslims in non-Muslim societies. Just look at what happened to Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam. He made a short movie about women in Islam. As Van Gogh walked to work one morning, he was murdered by a devout Muslim named Mohammed Bouyeri. At his trial the murderer told the court Van Gogh had insulted Islam. “What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith,” Bouyeri went on. “I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet.”

The Comedy Central series “South Park” parodied Islam in a couple of 2010 episodes. What happened? According to the New York Times:

Mat Stone and Trey Parker the creators of South Park were threatened by the Islamic web site RevolutionMuslim.com. It warned Mat and Trey “what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

In Seattle, the cartoonist Molly Norris thought she could counter Islamic reality. She declared May 20, 2010 “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”. She published a cartoon with a number of household items (a spool of thread, a cup and saucer, a domino…) all claiming to be Mohammed. Within a week Norris had received numerous death threats. Eventually the Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki put a fatwa on Norris’ head. After talks with the FBI she ultimately had to implement her own “cartoonist protection program”. She has reportedly changed her name, left Seattle, and gone underground.

To make matters worse, Islam encourages devout believers to be “self-initiating” in the enforcement of Sharia law. This means any devout Muslim believer anywhere might commit violence in the blink of an eye, if he finds you doing something he considers offensive to Islam.

4. Muslim theology teaches hatred of non-Muslims.

This practice is widespread within Islamic society. It has been documented by numerous authors literally thousands of time. (See a long list of articles below.)

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI.org) has recorded and translated hundreds of television broadcasts in which Muslim religious leaders encourage hatred and violence against non-Muslims, and especially the Jews.

Here is a screen shot from one:

To make matters worse, this Islamic hate-theology is being taught right here in Western society right under the noses of politically correct governments.

In the United States, the Freedom House Center for Religious Freedom published in 2005 an investigative report titled “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques”. This extensive analysis states: “The Saudi Arabian publications in this study, which espouse an ideology of hate and purport to be the authoritative interpretation of Islam, continue to be in plentiful supply at some of our nation’s main mosques and continue to be used as a principal educational resource on Islam for Muslims in America”. (Is there any wonder how the Boston Marathon bombers got their ideas?)

Read more at Gates of Vienna

From Syria to Stateside: New Al Qaeda Threat to US Homeland

Seen in this image is "Abu Dujana al-Amriki," who identifies himself as an alleged al Qaeda fighter from the U.S. American officials have not been able to identify the young man and suspect the video could be part of an Assad regime hoax.

Seen in this image is “Abu Dujana al-Amriki,” who identifies himself as an alleged al Qaeda fighter from the U.S. American officials have not been able to identify the young man and suspect the video could be part of an Assad regime hoax.

By :

Dozens of people from the U.S. who fought in Syria have returned home and are under FBI surveillance, but American officials fear that they haven’t identified all of them, several senior officials told ABC News in interviews beginning last October.

The senior officials said that more than 50 “U.S. persons” — a designation that covers both natural-born and naturalized citizens as well as those who have lived in the U.S. — have returned here after battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in the Middle Eastern nation’s bloody civil war. One of the senior counter-terrorism officials went further, saying the actual number of returning U.S. fighters from Syria is classified but is “much higher” than 50.

Not all of those who have returned are considered “jihadis” who adhere to the anti-U.S. violent ideology espoused by the late al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, but many are suspected of such sympathies, officials say.

Al Qaeda-aligned jihadi commanders in Syria screen new American arrivals in the ranks of foreign fighters to recruit those with clean passports who have the capability to conduct future operations against the West, two national security officials told ABC News.

One of the officials compared that process of selection to how the U.S. military screens raw recruits for Special Operations Forces qualification courses.

FBI Director James Comey said Thursday the threat is one of his “greatest concerns.”

“My concern is that people can go to Syria, develop new relationships, learn new techniques and become far more dangerous, and then flow back,” Comey told reporters.

Previous estimates put the number of Americans in the Syrian conflict at 16, but researcher Aaron Zelin at the Washington Institute for Near-East Policy in a report last month said as many as 60 from the U.S. may have fought among an estimated 11,000 foreign militants in Syria.

Read more at ABC News