Michael Coren with Aly Salem – Hijacked Islam?

Published on Nov 4, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

Let’s Talk About How Islam Has Been Hijacked (wsj.com)

This week a Canadian Muslim gunman went on a rampage in Ottawa, killing a soldier and storming into the Parliament building before he was shot dead. Authorities have since said he had applied for a passport to travel to Syria. Three Muslim schoolgirls from Colorado were intercepted in Germany apparently on their way to Syria, the base for attacks there and in Iraq by the terror group Islamic State, or ISIS. An Aug. 20 article in Newsweek estimated that perhaps twice as many British Muslims are fighting for ISIS as are serving in the British army.

What could possibly inspire young Muslims in the West to abandon their suburban middle-class existence and join a holy war? How could teenagers in Denver or anywhere be lured by a jihadist ideology—or are grisly videos of ISIS beheadings and crucifixions not enough of a deterrent?

What is so compelling about radical Islamism may lie within its founding texts. It is time we acknowledged the powerful influence these texts have had even on ordinary Muslims. The political ideology based on them has already dragged the Middle East back toward the Stone Age.

As a teenager growing up in Egypt in the 1980s, I liked to stroll through Cairo’s outdoor book market, fishing out little gems like an Arabic translation of “War and Peace.” One day I stumbled upon a book that shook everything I believed in.

The book was “In the Shadows of the Quran,” Sayyed Qutb’s magnum opus. The Egyptian writer, who died in 1966, remains arguably the most influential thinker in contemporary Muslim societies. He was the principal theorist of the Muslim Brotherhood and the intellectual impetus behind the Islamist parties it spawned. Qutb’s ardent disciples included Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri of al Qaeda. It is not an exaggeration to say that Qutb is to Islamism what Karl Marx is to communism.

Qutb’s brilliance as a theorist was in how he applied Western-style literary criticism to the Quran to interpret God’s intentions. He concluded that the reason for the Muslim world’s decline were external cultural and political influences that diluted Islam: The culprits included everything from Greek empiricism and liberal democracy to socialism, Persian poetry and Hegelian philosophy. The only path to an Islamic renaissance was to cleanse Muslim societies of these contaminants and restore Islam to its seventh-century purity.

Today, Qutb’s outlook—Islamism—is the dominant political ideology in most Muslim-majority countries, often taking root in vacuums where secular politics have never had space to develop. Polls by the Pew Research Center, such as 2013’s “The World’s Muslims” indicate that in many Muslim countries, the population is overwhelmingly in favor of veiling for women, the death penalty for leaving Islam and stoning as punishment for adultery; rabid anti-Semitism is rampant. The few exceptions to these statistics tend to be countries with a long history of militant secularism (like Turkey), or former communist states (Tajikistan, Bosnia, Albania, etc.) where religion was effectively wiped out of the public sphere. But Islamism is now growing even in those places.

The trend of history is being reversed. In Egypt, for instance, veiling was unheard of 50 years ago and was virtually extinct until the Islamists resurrected the practice in the 1970s. Today an estimated 90% of Egyptian women are veiled. In many other countries the veil—originally a tribal norm not a religious one—is now ubiquitous, as are views on apostasy in countries that were far more progressive 50 years ago.

Many of my fellow Muslims are trying to reform Islam from within. Yet our voices are smothered in the West by Islamist apologists and their well-meaning but unwitting allies on the left. For instance, if you try to draw attention to the stark correlation between the rise of Islamic religiosity and regressive attitudes toward women, you’re labeled an Islamophobe.

In America, other contemporary ideologies are routinely and openly debated in classrooms, newspapers, on talk shows and in living rooms. But Americans make an exception for Islamism. Criticism of the religion—even in abstraction—is conflated with bigotry toward Muslims. There is no public discourse, much less an ideological response, to Islamism, in academia or on Capitol Hill. This trend is creating an intellectual vacuum, where poisonous ideas are allowed to propagate unchecked.

My own experience as a Muslim in New York bears this out. Socially progressive, self-proclaimed liberals, who would denounce even the slightest injustice committed against women or minorities in America, are appalled when I express a similar criticism about my own community.

Compare the collective response after each harrowing high-school shooting in America. Intellectuals and public figures look for the root cause of the violence and ask: Why? Yet when I ask why after every terrorist attack, the disapproval I get from my non-Muslim peers is visceral: The majority of Muslims are not violent, they insist, the jihadists are a minority who don’t represent Islam, and I am fear-mongering by even wondering aloud.

This is delusional thinking. Even as the world witnesses the barbarity of beheadings, habitual stoning and severe subjugation of women and minorities in the Muslim world, politicians and academics lecture that Islam is a “religion of peace.” Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia routinely beheads women for sorcery and witchcraft.

In the U.S., we Muslims are handled like exotic flowers that will crumble if our faith is criticized—even if we do it ourselves. Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats alike would apparently prefer to drop bombs in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, because killing Muslims is somehow less offensive than criticizing their religion? Unfortunately, you can’t kill an idea with a bomb, and so Islamism will continue to propagate. Muslims must tolerate civilized public debate of the texts and scripture that inform Islamism. To demand any less of us is to engage in the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Mr. Salem is an Egyptian writer based in New York.

Canada’s Jihad Denial

michael-zehaf-bibeauBy Robert Spencer:

Canada has experienced two murderous jihad terror attacks in the last three days, not long after the Islamic State called for such attacks – but the denial and obfuscation are as thick as ever.

On Monday, Ahmad Rouleau, a convert to Islam, hit two Canadian soldiers with his car, murdering Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Then he led police on a high-speed chase, during which he called 911 and explained that he was doing it all “in the name of Allah.” The chase, and Rouleau’s jihad, ended when he flipped his car and then, brandishing a knife, charged police, who shot him dead. One of Rouleau’s close friends said: “It was a terrorist attack and Martin died like he wanted to. That’s what happened….He did this because he wanted to reach paradise and assure paradise for his family. He wanted to be a martyr….The caliphate called all the Muslims on earth to fight. He listened to what they had to say and he did his part here.”

Then on Wednesday, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who has been widely reported to be a recent convert to Islam but whose father is a veteran of the jihad in Libya and who has been a Muslim for at least three years, went on a shooting rampage in Ottawa, murdering military reservist Corporal Nathan Cirillo and engaging in a gun battle inside Canada’s Parliament building. Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said that there was “no evidence at this stage” that Zehaf-Bibeau had connections to any jihad groups, but CNN reported that “according to a U.S. counterterrorism source, Zehaf-Bibeau was connected to Hasibullah Yusufzai through social media. Yusufzai is wanted by Canadian authorities for traveling overseas to fight alongside Islamist fighters in Syria.” And “other radicalized people connected to Zehaf-Bibeau are still believed to be living in Canada, two U.S. law enforcement officials said.”

So Zehaf-Bibeau had connections to at least one jihadist who went to Syria to wage jihad, and Rouleau listened to what the Islamic State was saying, and “did his part” in Canada. What was the Islamic State saying? Late in September, the Islamic State’s spokesman, Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, urged Muslims to murder non-Muslims in the West. “Rely upon Allah,” he thundered, “and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling.” He also addressed Western non-Muslims: “You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms. You will pay the price when this crusade of yours collapses, and thereafter we will strike you in your homeland, and you will never be able to harm anyone afterwards.”

Al-Adnani told Muslims to murder non-Muslims with any weapon at hand, or anything that could be used as a weapon: “If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.” Zehaf-Bibeau found a bullet. Rouleau found a car.

Yet despite the indications that Rouleau and Zehaf-Bibeau were heeding the Islamic State’s call to wage jihad at home by any means possible, the mainstream media was ready before the blood had dried to swing into the usual denial and obfuscation about the motives and goals of their attacks. Before Zehaf-Bibeau’s identity was known, CBC’s Doug Stoffel tweeted: “Amid the speculation in the #OttawaShooting in #Canada, it’s important to remember #ISIS hasn’t shown interest in attacks abroad.” Once Zehaf-Bibeau was identified as the shooter and was known to be a Muslim, ABC News one-upped Stoffel’s flagrantly counter-factual statement with the claim that “authorities in Canada are trying to understand what motivated a gunman to kill a soldier in the country’s capital Wednesday.”

In reality, what motivated him was blazingly obvious, but it was the one thing most Western government officials and all of the mainstream media have determined to ignore, and so the search was one for some other remotely plausible motive that could be sold to a public that is increasingly suspicious of what the government and media elites are telling them. Toronto’s Globe and Mail quoted a friend of Zehaf-Bibeau saying, “I think he must have been mentally ill,” although the only evidence for this that the paper presented was that “his friend frequently talked about the presence of Shaytan in the world – an Arabic term for devils and demons” – in other words, that Zehaf-Bibeau spoke frequently of what are standard beliefs of mainstream Islam.

Read more at Frontpage

*********

Michael Coren – Liberal denial over Islamic terror attacks in Canada

Published on Oct 24, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

**********

Ezra Levant – Liberal whitewashing of Islamic terrorism in Canada

Michael Coren – Islam and terrorism

Published on Sep 4, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

The 4 stages in the denial of Islamic terror:

1) Where we empty our heads.
2) Where we bury our heads.
3) Where we bow our heads.
4) Where we lose our heads.

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/St…

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/St…

Michael Coren – Hatred: Islam’s War on Christianity

Published on Aug 11, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

“The themes are perennial . . . what you’re seeing right now in Iraq and Syria is beyond our imaginations: mass beheadings including of children, crucifixions, rape, slaughter, sadism, burying people alive . . . civilization has to conquer barbarism.”

- Michael Coren

Video: Robert Spencer and Michael Coren on the jihad in Iraq

By Robert Spencer:

On my regular weekly Jihad Watch segment on Michael’s Sun TV program, we discussed the jihad in Iraq and the Obama Administration’s naivete regarding the Muslim Brotherhood.

Video thanks to AlohaSnackbar01.

Michael Coren – Islamic Sharia law adopted by British legal chiefs

 

Arutz Sheva, Expert: Not All Muslims Happy Over UK’s Sharia Acceptance

In the wake of a decision by Britain to accept the rulings ofIslamic sharia law in matters of inheritance, Arutz Sheva spoke with Ari Soffer, the Managing Editor of Arutz Sheva English and a former resident of London who is familiar with the on-the-ground political situation in the United Kingdom.

According to Soffer, not all British Muslims support the “creeping Islamization” that the UK has been undergoing, in which Islamic law takes its place among the laws of the land. That process is being pushed by Muslim organizations in Britain, but a large number of Muslims in the country would prefer to keep such laws as a private matter between themselves.

UK law already has provisions for the implementation of Sharia law on an individual basis, with decisions handed down by Islamic courts enforced in the country’s courts. Thus, the only purpose for the legislation, he said, was for Islamist radicals to promote their agenda of installing Islamic law in the daily life of Britons.

Soffer added that the British government has only itself to blame for the situation. It was the government that promoted the idea of a “dialog” with what turned out to be a set of radical groups, convinced they were a positive alternative to Al Qaeda. There was a need to create such a dialog in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it was felt.

The groups encouraged the government to see them as an “Islamic alternative” to Al Qaeda, even though theologically they had much in common. “This was the main reason the governments of Europe enhanced the status of these groups, and now their agenda is clear,” he said. However, he added, most Britons were puzzled at what to do about the situation. “They do not to deal with the new reality because they don’t know how to,” he added.

 

Also see

 

The Muslim Suicide Convert

By Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 6, 2014:

Both of the suicide bombers who struck in Russia were Muslim converts. They follow a long string of Muslim terrorist converts, including the murderers of British soldier Lee Rigby who were sentenced last month and Terry Lee Loewen who plotted to car bomb the Wichita Mid-Continent Airport that same month.

suicide-bomber-8Muslim converts engage in terrorism at a higher rate than Muslims. It’s gotten so bad that converting to Islam is almost a form of suicide.

The popular theory is that Muslim terrorist groups use converts because they blend in better. But in most Western countries, screening by race is nearly illegal and in even in targeted countries where it isn’t, there are usually many members of Muslim ethnic groups in most major cities.

There are four reasons for the rise of the Muslim Suicide Convert. Muslim converts are gullible, fanatical, suicidal and expendable.

Let’s start with the last one first. Muslims usually come from tribal cultures with extended family groups. Despite its claims of transnationalism and multiculturalism, Islam is an ethnic religion with the descendants of Mohammed elevated over everyone else, the families in the region of his first conquests elevated over other Arabs, Arabs elevated over non-Arabs, Asian Muslims over African Muslims and African Muslims over Western converts to Islam.

A convert to Islam is lowest on the totem pole because he has no family group. In a tribal society, not having a family connection makes you an outsider and expendable. A Muslim who Jihads himself to death creates a hole in the tribal network of arranged cousin marriages, illegal business arrangements and other extended family support structures. A Muslim convert was never part of the network unless he married into it. And even then he can easily be unplugged because he has no common ancestry with them.

In a Muslim country, he can be killed without having to pay blood price. In a Western country, he can be sent off to die without the “tribe” of Pakistanis or Egyptians who built the mosques and hired the Imams who converted him and convinced him to kill non-Muslims being affected by his death.

He is expendable.

Converts are not part of the family networks of the Muslim settlers in their Western diasporas. That makes them useful cannon fodder. If they are captured, the mosque denies all responsibility and blames the internet even though most mosques and Muslim student groups host those same speakers who “radicalize” converts over the internet at their own facilities and events.

Muslim converts are also suicidal.

The act of conversion is a form of death. It destroys the entire cultural and faith background of the individual. It cuts him off from his family, his people and his way of life. Conversion can be constructive, but it should never be forgotten that it is also destructive.

The Muslim convert has been trying to kill himself all his life to some degree, to destroy the essence of what he is to overcome that perceived flaw preventing him from being happy and living a worthwhile life. Islam is his drug and alcohol abuse, his meaningless sex and his cult. It is how he punishes himself hoping to find redemption in self-destruction and meaning in the sacrifice of the self to the first utterly devouring and consuming thing that comes along.

suspectConverts to Islam often discuss feeling empty. They expect Islam to fill the void within them and when it does not, they are told that the failure is theirs.

The Muslim convert finds Islam in a search for fulfillment and then still feeling unfulfilled, seeks out its “purer” forms whose commitment to Jihadist violence is more overt. The violence of their rhetoric and the force of their commitment briefly feel like fulfillment, but then dissatisfaction sets in again. Told to blame himself for this final failure, the Muslim Suicide Convert is encouraged to make his final kamikaze run hoping to find the meaning and fulfillment in the afterlife that evaded him in this life.

Muslim converts have personal problems that they try to treat with Islam the way that sufferers from conventional diseases try to treat their illnesses with phony cures. Muslim clerics promise that Islam will solve the personal problems of non-Muslims and non-Muslim societies, but like so many criminal gurus, they are peddling phony cures that kill the patient.

That is one reason why Muslim converts are fanatical. Another reason is that they have no baseline. Converts plunge into another religion and culture as into deep water.

Muslims have learned to make the necessary compromises with their fanatical religion that make their lives livable. That is why most of them do not go out and blow themselves up; instead they undermine Western societies in slower and steadier ways through demographics, disinformation and political influence.

The Muslim Suicide Convert seeks an uncompromising purity. He rejects the compromises that Muslims have learned to make over the centuries. Seeking the core revelation in a religion of death; he finds that revelation only in death. The truth of Islam is in its killing fields. It preaches war for power and paradise. The Muslim convert who searches for its essence finds a grinning skull in the desert sands and hurries to emulate its terrible example.

Finally, Muslim converts are gullible. The natives of every land have games that they play with tourists, relying on their unfamiliarity with another culture to mislead them and trick them. Muslim converts are strangers in a strange land, slowly learning a foreign way of life and pathetically eager to be accepted by another culture. It is all too easy for Muslim clerics to lead them down the garden path to the suicide bomber’s paradise by offering and withholding affection until they are willing to do anything to belong.

Muslim Suicide Converts are enlisted in a war the way that men have been enlisted in wars throughout the ages with appeals to patriotism, strategic shaming, tales of outrageous atrocities and myths of incredible heroism. The Muslim clerics, like so many military recruiters before them, tailor their pitch to the disposable people who are least likely to question orders and the least likely to be missed.

Muslim recruiters thrive on campus for the same reasons as cult recruiters and leftist academics.

The modern university is a good place to find insecure young people questioning everything that they believe in and unsure of what to do when they have destroyed everything they were and found that their impulse to ridicule and tear down everything does not fulfill the human need for something to believe in. It is where young men and women seeking to find something beyond their limits, experimenting with and becoming someone they are not and feeling inward guilt and loss at the abandonment of their old selves and their old values can be hunted and trapped.

Into this universe of doubt, the Muslim cleric intrudes with his false offer of certainty, with the air of the victim, the badge of the underdog, the mysticism of the east and the romance of the grass, that like the terrorist flags that wave among it, always grows greener on the other side of the world.

Westernized Muslims are urged to recommit to Islam, to steel themselves for the coming conflict between the civilizations of the sword and the microchip, to purge themselves of Western culture, embrace the black flags and atone for their beers they drank, the girls they kissed and the songs they sang with the death screams of sirens and the blood of their non-Muslim friends and neighbors.

The seduction of the non-Muslim runs more slowly but surely. The dissatisfied and unhappy, those trained by a liberal culture contemptuous of its own values and traditions to instinctively value non-Western spirituality over their own “materialistic” and “imperialistic” religions, are lured in.

Read more at Sultan Knish

 

“Ask why so many psychotic and murderous people embrace not peaceful Christianity or pluralistic Hinduism but the colossal abattoir of violence of Islamic fundamentalism.”
– Michael Coren

Lars Hedegaard and the Enemies of Truthfulness

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. ..Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter? Milton

lars

by Andrew Bostom:

Last week I noted how Michael Coren of Canada’s Sun TV was far bolder than any of his US television network colleagues in dealing with Islam’s threat to Western free speech, epitomized by Coren’s interview of Danish journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard, who survived an assassination attempt by a likely Muslim assailant, still at large. No such interview with public airing on television was conducted by any major US television network—ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN—not even the self-proclaimed “alternative” to “stultifying political correctness,”  and “champion” of free speech, The Blaze TV.

Emphasizing, yet again, the ongoing, complete dereliction of duty of not only the mainstream legacy media, but so-called conservative outlets such as Fox News and The Blaze, Michael Coren opened his follow-up interview  of Lars Hedegaard, yesterday (2/15/13), with this observation:

You [Hedegaard] should be on every single TV show. This should have been [on] the front page of every newspaper in the civilized world.

To add insult to bitter irony, as described in this news item Friday (2/15/13)from Dispatch International, which Lars Hedegaard continues to edit while in protective seclusion, and reiterated during Coren’s latest interview, Hedegaard has been compelled to sue several Swedish media (including Aftonbladet, Svenska Dagbladet, Sveriges Television, Sydsvenskan and Helsingborgs Dagblad) for libel. The libel charge was filed with Allmänhetens Pressombudsman, (the Press Ombudsman) as well as the Chancellor of Justice.

Read more

Also see:

 

 

In Defence of Lars Hedegaard

imagesCARSLEUK

For background on the assassination attempt see my previous post – Another Attempt to Murder Free Speech in Denmark

Chris Knowles of the International Civil Liberties Alliance:

The following is our response to an article on The Copenhagen Post website entitled Hedegaard lashes out following failed assassination attempt.

My organisation the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) awarded Mr Hedegaard our Defender of Freedom Award last year in the European Parliament.

Unlike many newspapers, he is willing to stand up and speak truth to power.  Newspapers tend to no longer do their job of informing the public and challenging the powerful.  Instead they provide a skewed ideologically driven picture of the world.  Rather than report the facts they choose to demonise individuals like Mr Hedegaard and in doing so deliberately put them in danger.

Lars Hedegaard has shown willingness even to put his life on the line in the cause of freedom.  How many newspaper editors can say the same thing?

ICLA supports Mr Hedegaard’s call to remove the blasphemy clause.  Indeed we call for the abolition of all blasphemy laws worldwide.  This includes laws that are effectively blasphemy laws that are dressed in the clothes of secularism.  For instance the United Kingdom abolished its blasphemy law but incorporated similar restrictions in other laws.  It is the freedom to talk freely about all philosophies that needs to be protected by law.  Blasphemy laws stifle freedom of speech and prevent the progressive development of our society.

Lars, we salute your bravery and your continuing commitment to freedom.

Chris Knowles

International Civil Liberties Alliance

Lars Hedegaard speaks with Michael Coren about surviving an assassination attempt:

Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist and the great Dane Lars Hedegaard of the Free Press Society join Michael Coren to discuss their new enterprise, Dispatch International:

Support Freedom of Speech

Subscribe to Dispatch International

Why Dispatch International?

The mainstream media has deteriorated to a point where it constitutes a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The fourth estate was supposed to act as corrective to the legislative, judicial and administrative powers but has in fact become a part of the ruling elite. It no longer considers it its duty to criticise or expose.

One survey after another shows that the vast majority of Western journalists suffer from groupthink. They do not inform the public about what is happening in the real world but want to educate and mould the citizens to conform to their own preconceived ideas of what ought to be.

Vast swathes of reality are brushed under the carpet because the mainstream media considers them antithetical to the multiculturalist, cultural relativist, “green” and anti-Judean-Christian ideologies they strive to impose on the public.

This cannot be allowed to stand. The time has come to publish a real newspaper.

On 30 August we will issue a test issue of Dispatch International. It will appear as a print paper in Danish and Swedish with e-versions in Danish, Swedish, English and German.

More languages will be added as the need arises.

If the test issue is all well received as we antitipate, we will commence regular, weekly publication on Thursday, January 3, 2013.

In the meantime, click onto our website: http://www.Dispatch-International.com.

Chief editors are Ingrid Carlqvist, former news editor of the Swedish daily Kvällsposten, and Lars Hedegaard, former editor-in-chief of the Copenhagen daily Information. Ingrid is Chair of the Swedish Free Press Society and Lars of the Danish Free Press Society.

Together with Canadian free speech activist and board member of the Canadian Free Press Society Bjorn Larsen we have set up a company that is protected from any attempt at a hostile take-over.

We can neither be bought, nor will we be dependent on public subsidies or advertising income.

Dispatch International is your paper. We have no other purpose than to keep you informed of all the news that is fit to print – but rarely is.

Let us make this a success.

All best

Ingrid Carlqvist

Lars Hedegaard

Bjorn Larsen

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Ayaan Hirsi AliMichael Coren interviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Responds to Questions at Ohio University:

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken defender of women’s rights in Islamic societies, was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. She escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992 and served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006. In parliament, she worked on furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society and defending the rights of women in Dutch Muslim society. In 2004, together with director Theo van Gogh, she made Submission, a film about the oppression of women in conservative Islamic cultures. The airing of the film on Dutch television resulted in the assassination of Mr. van Gogh by an Islamic extremist. At AEI, Ms. Hirsi Ali researches the relationship between the West and Islam, women’s rights in Islam, violence against women propagated by religious and cultural arguments, and Islam in Europe.

See also:

The Counter Jihad Report’s Youtube playlist for Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Steve Emerson on Sun News Network with Michael Coren – Political correctness has damaged all aspects of life

Investigative Project on Terror :

mrctv video here

Michael Coren: It’s not just what happened last week and it’s still continuing to happen all over the world, it’s also the reaction of people you think should know better to this. They, they’re blaming the, that idiot who made this stupid film. That’s not the issue, for goodness sake! The issue is mass violence murder, hostility, craziness, and …. Steve Emerson has been writing and commenting, commentating on these issues for so long now and really predicted this would happen. Steve, welcome to you. It’s always good to have you on the show.

Steven Emerson: Hi, Michael. Good to be here with you, and you’re right, and actually, in the 17 years I’ve been working on, I did a documentary in 1994 called “Jihad in America” and in 1996 I got my first death threat. This is way before today. Today’s New York Times, you know, gave all the grievances; why Muslims are angry. None of the grievances happened in the 1990’s and yet the ’93 World Trade Center bombing happened, you know, 17 years ago. So, the bottom line here is the issue is not the film. The issue is the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and their like don’t believe in the First Amendment., don’t believe in free speech, and the irony of course is that the, the liberal pundits in this Administration said, “Well, if we have democracy in the Muslim world, it’ll satiate their political anger. They’ll chatter within the political system. What they’re doing is they’re imposing a totalitarian system on their own people, and now they’re imposing it on us.

COREN: Yes. This is so significant. We may never win over people in the Middle East. The Islamic World may always believe that censorship is the order of the day, but it’s beginning, as you say, to influence people in the West. People who have called themselves liberals for so long, are saying, “Well, you shouldn’t provoke them, that the moviemaker was in the wrong. We should change our way of life to accommodate theirs.

EMERSON: This is, listen, Michael. This is big. Hollywood now feature any more Islamic terrorists or protagonists. In fact, they submit their scripts to Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Publishing houses, like the one doing on the one on the Danish cartoons, won’t republish the Danish cartoons, right? So, we’re self censoring ourselves. We have this culture or relativism that Western values are no longer superior, that the First Amendment, I mean that the way we reacted was, we regret the fact that we have a First Amendment, and then most reporters started investigating the crazy guy that did the film., when the real investigation should have been about the fact that these people insist that their values which is, are totalitarian should be applied to our system, and the President should have stood up, and instead of saying, demanding that our diplomats be protected, should have said, “We have the First Amendment, that’s a sacred right of this country, of the West. It’s the bedrock of Western civilization, and unless you respect tha, t we’re not going to deal with you.

COREN: You mentioned, and for those who are not aware of this, you mentioned the Danish cartoon. There is an entire book written about the Kurt Westergaard cartoon of Muhammad. The entire book is devoted to that subject. There is not one single cartoon in the entire bloody book.

EMERSON: Yeah, well, that’s right, I mean. And in this country, by way. And in Europe, in sympathy to the Danish cartoonists,. newspapers around Europe published the cartoons. In this country, out of the 300 newspapers, only two newspapers republished the cartoons. And the book that’s being published, of course, you know about South Park, the televisions comedy series. They censored, you know, a whole series that featured a satire on Muhammad. They satire all religions. The reality is that, that they, empowering them now has given them the right to basically impose values and also it has stoked new violence that we’ve never seen before. This is not going away. This is the beginning of a new chapter, and in fact in the next four years, I’m going to predict this right now: that you, that we will now see the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, a whole, it’s going to take away. It’s going to replicate the sphere of influence that the Soviet Union once had. It’ll be the Muslim Brotherhood Union. They’ll have Iran on their side. They’ll probably have nuclear weapons. And, and the world will be a much more dangerous place

COREN: Well, it’s interesting that you say that because the Soviets were who they were, we knew, and there was a certain consensus of, of aspiration if you like. And they probably also acknowledged that their sphere of influence stopped at a certain place. They did want to survive. They didn’t want Armageddon. They valued life over death as opposed to the Muslim Brothers. This is a very, very different confrontation now. And they are winning. And we have this Fifth Column that is incredibly large. Are there are liberal journalists, any journalists on the left who are standing up and saying, “Hey, guys, what are you doing here? We believe in freedom of speech.”

EMERSON : Well, there are some, interesting enough, there are some. Well, there aren’t many. I’ll tell you the truth. I mean, you won’t find in the New York, the irony of course is that liberals and the ACLU should be standing. The ACLU for example, the American Civil Liberties Union, was founded on the basis that there shouldn’t be any blasphemy laws, and yet in the last ten years they’ve appointed members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. to all their boards, who believe in blasphemy laws. And the reality is, we are essentially implementing them, although we don’t admit it, these type of self censorship, blasphemy laws. People won’t publish books. People are, I’m doing a new documentary. It’s coming out in the next week, it’s called “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception.” It’s about the Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States. I cannot tell you the reactions I’ve gotten from major cable channels who are afraid to air it. They won’t admit it, but they’re afraid, right? And that’s affecting our freedom of speech already, without openly admitting that they’re being intimidated. So we’re already being affected by it.

COREN: Of course, and it does come down to this. It really does. Blasphemy laws. People will try and twist and turn and say, “Well, provocation and offense, Many things which are offensive and provocative. We have certain laws such as

EMERSON: You know what? Being not a Muslim, being not a Muslim is offensive. I was just reading a transcript – and we do a lot of undercover work – and I was reading a transcript of a group based in New York, but they’re Jamaat e Islami, called the Islamic Circle of North America, and they admitted their entire mission in North America and around the world is Da’wa, to convert others to Islam and they freight it however in the cultural neutral term of trying to be, to open people eyes to another religion, but they admit in this conference that, our purpose here is to convert everybody to Islam, and in fact Islam was on top of the world until they lost at the gates of Vienna, and then they’ve been on the bottom of the world. And how do they explain this? The West and the United States now is, has been involved in a conspiracy to subjugate Islam. So no matter what we do, Michael. No matter what year, they’ll always have grievance. OK? And they believe we are at fault for the fact that they are at the bottom of the totem pole in the world today. And the reality is, you know, the great scholar Bernard Lewis wrote a great piece after 2011, after 2001, called “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” And I recommend that for everybody. And it shows that, that, you know, the New York Times story that they’re angry about Gitmo. They’re angry about the Iraq War. They’re angry about Afghanistan. I tell you, those things are, yes, they’re angry about that. They’re also angry about the fact that the United States, you know, has freedom of speech.

COREN: You know, I wish we had more time. Saddam Hussein was hated by Islamic Fundamentalists. He was a secularist who dealt with fundamentalists in a way, well, maybe others should have, but hey had no time for him at all. This nonsense about conspiracy and persecution. What you say, it comes down to blasphemy. The very people who consummate dramas about how evil the Medieval Church was and blasphemy, are the very same people who just open the door to Islamic fanatics and say, “You have more blasphemy laws, we’ll accept them because we’re too frightened and intimidated to actually stand up to these people, and say, ‘Enough is enough.'”

EMERSON: Michael, when was the last time a Westerner or US mob or Canadian mob attacked a, embassy, Muslim embassy or consulate for the tens of thousands of videos on YouTube and on Internet site with Islamic clerics calling for the killing of Christians and Jews? I can’t remember one.

COREN: It’s never happened, and it never will. Steve, a great pleasure as it was We’ll have you back in the show very soon. Thanks so very much.

EMERSON: You’re very welcome.