Brigitte Gabriel VVS15 Talks Pew Poll on Sharia Law


Published on Oct 1, 2015 by Brigitte Gabriel

ACT for America president and founder Brigitte Gabriel talks about “moderate Muslims” in the top 5 Islamic countries and how they voted on Sharia Law. Gabriel message: Heed a warning from a victim of Islamic extremism.

Join ACT’s Refugee Resettlement Working Group



Meanwhile, An Islamic Fifth Column Builds Inside America by Paul Sperry

In berating GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson for suggesting a loyalty test for Muslims seeking high office, CNN host Jake Tapper maintained that he doesn’t know a single observant Muslim-American who wants to Islamize America.

“I just don’t know any Muslim-Americans — and I know plenty — who feel that way, even if they are observant Muslims,” he scowled.

Tapper doesn’t get out much. If he did, chances are he’d run into some of the 51% of Muslims living in the U.S. who just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.

Maybe they’re all heretics, so let’s see what the enlightened Muslims think.

If Tapper did a little independent research he’d quickly find that America’s most respected Islamic leaders and scholars also want theocracy, not democracy, and even advocate trading the Constitution for the Quran.

These aren’t fringe players. These are the top officials representing the Muslim establishment in America today.

Hopefully none of them ever runs for president, because here’s what he’d have to say about the U.S. system of government:

Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America, which dispenses Islamic rulings, and the North American Islamic Trust, which owns most of the mosques in the U.S.: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the top Muslim lobby group in Washington: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Imam Siraj Wahhaj, director of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time. . . . What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”

How Nazism Explains ‘Moderate’ and ‘Radical’ Islam


Were non-violent Nazis the “real” Nazis?

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, Aug. 14, 2015:

If Islamic doctrines are inherently violent, why isn’t every single Muslim in the world — that is, approximately 1.5 billion people — violent?

This question represents one of Islam’s most popular apologetics: because not all Muslims are violent, intolerant, or sponsor terrorism — a true statement — Islam itself must be innocent.

Let’s consider this logic.

There are many people who identify themselves as Muslims but who do not necessarily adhere to or support Islam’s more supremacist and intolerant doctrines. If you have lived in a Muslim majority nation, you would know this to be true. The all-important question then becomes: “What do such Muslims represent?” Are they following a legitimate, “moderate” version of Islam, one more authentic than the terrorist variety?

That’s what the media, politicians, and academics would have us believe. The best way to answer this question is by analogy.

German Nazism is a widely condemned ideology due to its (“Aryan”/”white”) supremacist element. But many Germans who were members or supporters of the Nazi party were “good” people. They did not believe in persecuting Jews and other “non-Aryans,” and some even helped such “undesirables” escape at no small risk to themselves. Consider Oskar Schindler: An ethnic German and formal member of the Nazi party, he went to great lengths to save Jews from slaughter.

How do we reconcile his good deed with his bad creed? Was Schindler practicing a legitimate, “moderate” form of Nazism? Or is it more reasonable to say that he subscribed to some tenets of National Socialism, but when it came to killing fellow humans in the name of racial supremacy, his humanity rose above his allegiance to Nazism?

Indeed, many Germans joined or supported the National Socialist Party more because it was the “winning” party, one that offered hope, and less because of its racial theories. That said, other Germans joined the Nazi party preciselybecause of its racial supremacist theories and were only too happy to see “sub-humans” incinerated.

Now consider how this analogy applies to Islam and Muslims: first, unlike most Germans who chose to join or support the Nazi party, the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world were simply born into Islam. They had no choice. Many of these Muslims know the bare minimum about Islam — the Five Pillars — and are ignorant of Islam’s supremacist theories.

Add Islam’s apostasy law to the mix — leaving Islam can earn the death penalty — and it becomes clear that there are many nominal “Muslims” who seek not to rock the boat.

That said, there are also a great many Muslims who know exactly what Islam teaches — including violence, plunder, and enslavement of the kafir, or infidel — and who happily follow it precisely because of its supremacism.

In both Nazism and Islam, we have a supremacist ideology on the one hand, and people who find themselves associated with this ideology for a number of reasons on the other hand. We have those born into it, those who join it for its temporal boons, and those who are sincere and ardent believers.

The all-important difference is this: when it comes to Nazism, the world is agreed that it is a supremacist ideology.

Those who followed it to the core were “bad guys” — such as Adolf Hitler. As for the “good Nazis” who helped shelter persecuted Jews and performed other altruistic deeds, the world acknowledges that they were not following a “moderate” form of Nazism, but that their commitment to Nazism was nonchalant at best.

This is the correct paradigm for viewing Islam and Muslims: Islam contains violent and supremacist doctrines. This is a simple fact. Those who follow it to the core were and are “bad guys” — for example, Osama bin Laden.

Still, there are “good Muslims.” But they are good not because they follow a good, or “moderate,” Islam, but becausethey are not thoroughly committed to Islam in the first place.

Put differently, was Schindler’s altruism a product of “moderate Nazism” or was it done in spite of Nazism altogether? Clearly the latter.

In the same manner, if a Muslim treats a non-Muslim with dignity and equality, is he doing so because he follows a legitimate brand of “moderate Islam,” or is he doing so in spite of Islam, because his own sense of decency compels him?

Considering that Islamic law is unequivocally clear that non-Muslims are to be subjugated and live as third-class “citizens” — the Islamic State’s many human rights abuses vis-à-vis non-Muslims are a direct byproduct of these teachings — clearly any Muslim who treats “infidels” with equality is behaving against Islam.

So why is the West unable to apply the Nazi paradigm to the question of Islam and Muslims?

Why is it unable to acknowledge that Islamic teachings are inherently supremacist, though obviously not all Muslims are literally following these teachings, just like not all members of any religion are literally following the teachings of their faith?

This question becomes more pressing when one realizes that, for over a millennium, the West deemed Islam an inherently violent and intolerant cult.

Peruse the writings of non-Muslims from the dawn of Islam up until recently — from Theophanes the Confessor (d. 818) to Winston Churchill — and witness how they all depicted Islam as a violent creed that thrives on conquering, plundering, and subjugating the “other.”

Here, read Marco Polo’s thoughts.

The problem today is that the politically correct establishment — academia, mainstream media, politicians, and all other talking heads, not ones to be bothered with reality or history — have made it an established “fact” that Islam is “one of the world’s great religions.”

Therefore, the religion itself — not just some of its practitioners — is inviolable to criticism.

The point here is that identifying the negative elements of an ideology and condemning it accordingly is not so difficult.

We have already done so with Nazism and other ideologies and cults. And we know the difference between those who follow such supremacist ideologies (“bad” people), and those who find themselves as casual, uncommitted members (“good” or neutral people).

In saner times when common sense could vent and breathe, this analogy would have been deemed superfluous.

In our times, however, where lots of nonsensical noise is disseminated far and wide by the media and tragically treated as serious “analysis,” common sense must be methodically spelled out. Yes, an ideology/religion can be accepted as violent or even evil, and no, many of its adherents need not be violent or evil — they can even be good — for the reasons discussed above.

This is the most objective way to understand the relationship between Islam as a body of teachings and Muslims as individual people.


Muslim Moderates Rally Against Terror in Ireland – All Fifty of Them

300x213xislam-peace-300x213.jpg.pagespeed.ic_.f7kjkwah12Frontpage, by Robert Spencer, July 28, 2015:

Everyone has been waiting for this for years, and at last it has happened. The historic happening took place in Ireland, a nation hitherto not distinguished for standing in the cultural vanguard, but all that will change now, thanks to a rally hosted by a group calling itself the Irish Muslim Peace and Integration Council, which has finally delivered to the world the desire of the ages: Muslims rallying against terrorism!

Surely tens of thousands of Muslims attended, right? You know, that vast majority of Muslims who abhor and reject terrorism? Those moderates upon whom the leaders of Western countries are betting the very futures of their nations turned out in droves, didn’t they?

Well, not exactly. RTE News reported this on Sunday about the blessed event: “Up to 50 people took part in a rally organised by the Irish Muslim Peace and Integration Council to protest over the actions of the so-called Islamic State.”

That’s right. I’m afraid the turnout was, uh, fifty people. Not fifty thousand. Fifty. And not only that, but according to the Irish Examiner, the Irish Muslim Peace and Integration Council “faced resistance from a few members of the Islamic community, while promoting the event.” Not just verbal resistance, either: “Organisers said that a member of the council was assaulted by someone at a mosque who claimed to support ‘ISIS’, while he was handing out leaflets to promote today’s protest against terrorism.”

So not only did the vast majority of moderate Muslims fail to show up, but the group protesting against jihad terror faced active resistance from other Muslims. When have we heard about a Muslim who wanted to join the Islamic State facing active resistance, even to the point of assault, from moderate Muslims? We have seen Muslims express bewilderment that they went, and anger at the government (whether of the U.S. or Britain) for not stopping them from going, but we have not generally seen Muslims doing anything themselves to prevent them from going.

What’s more, this is not the first time that attendance at a Muslim rally against terrorism has been decidedly underwhelming. In October 2014 in Houston, a rally against the Islamic State organized by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) drew the grand total of ten people. In August 2013 in Boston, about 25 Muslims rallied against “misperceptions” that Islam was violent. About the same number showed up in June 2013 at a progressive Muslim rally in Toronto to claim that their religion had been “hijacked.”

And back in 2005, a group called the Free Muslims Coalition held what it dubbed a “Free Muslims March Against Terror,” intending to “send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are numbered … and to send a message to the people of the Middle East, the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and peaceful coexistence that we support them.” In the run-up to the event it got enthusiastic national and international publicity, but it ended up drawing about twenty-five people.

Contrast those paltry showings to the thousands of Muslims who have turned out for rallies against cartoons of Muhammad or against Israel. Here are some headlines from the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre of Muhammad cartoonists in January 2015:

Chechnya: 800,000 Muslims protest Muhammad cartoons; protests also in Iran, Pakistan, Ingushetia, elsewhere

Pakistan: 10,000 Muslims protest against Charlie Hebdo’s Muhammad cartoons

Australia: 1,000 Muslims rally against Charlie Hebdo and the freedom of speech

Kyrgyztsan: 1,000 Muslims rally: “I am not Charlie, I love my Prophet.”

But given a chance to show how Muslims overwhelmingly reject “extremism,” only a handful show up.

This is just the opposite of what the situation should be if the mainstream narrative about Islam and jihad were true. We should be seeing pro-jihad terror Muslims opposed strenuously within their own community. Instead, those who oppose jihad terror are the real “tiny minority of extremists,” hounded and opposed by their fellow Muslims.

You’d think that some of the non-Muslim analysts who have been confidently telling us that moderate Muslims will any day now rise up against their “extremist” brethren and take back their religion from those who have “hijacked” it would get a clue from all this, and realize that the moderates have had almost fourteen years now since 9/11 to rein in the “extremists,” and have not done so, and are not going to do so.

But they won’t. They will be out there with their pom-poms again to cheerlead for the next “moderate Muslim rally against terror” – and they’ll not have to strain their pocketbook all that much to buy a nice halal dinner for everyone who shows up.

Where’re the Protests to Ban Islam’s Black Flag?

This article was written for by Ralph Sidway, an Orthodox Christian researcher and writer, and author of Facing Islam: What the Ancient Church has to say about the Religion of Muhammad. He operates the Facing Islam blog.

Over at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher has a really stirring piece in which he grapples with the complexity and pain of the guerre du jour, the movement to finally banish forever the Confederate Flag (a movement so sweeping that the classic film ‘Gone With The Wind’ may itself soon be gone with the wind). Dreher is a born and raised Southerner, and shares his inner struggle over the issue:

From the time I was old enough to realize what slavery and the ideology of white supremacy that sustained it, and that remained after slavery died, I have had a troubled conscience about the South. I found it so difficult to reconcile the place and the culture into which I was born, and which I loved, and do love, with the hideous facts of our history.

That is the tone of honesty grappling with reality. There’s much more, for Dreher strives to place himself (and his readers) in the shoes of any and all who have dark shadows in their cultural and societal and ideological history. To wit:

Even though your people may have thought and behaved wrongly in a particular instance, you may try to explain the context in which the sin was committed, and to point out the complexity of the situation — not to excuse it, necessarily, but to shed light on the broken humanity of the phenomenon…

I would assert that such issues of situational “complexity” and “context” won’t wash when it comes to Islam and Muslims, because in Islam, it’s not about what Dreher calls “a few bad actors” in “particular instances.” It’s about a lot of bad actors — beginning with one in particular — consistently acting badly over fourteen centuries, under the black flag of divine sanction and command.

Indeed, if anyone has dark shadows in their history, it is Muslims. Yet we rarely if ever see from them any self-examination or troubled conscience such as Rod Dreher and other Southern progeny are displaying now. President el-Sisi of Egypt comes to mind, but most Muslim critics of Islam are ex-Muslims (think Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq).

The darker side of Islam — jihad, genocide, sharia, apostasy and blasphemy laws, honor killings, abuse of women, child marriage, FGM, and that whole supremacist culture which eternally demands for Islam to reign supreme — is analogous neither to the white-supremacist side of Southern Culture, nor to other examples Dreher uses, such as the challenges within Black America or the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandals, all of which derive from the flaws of human nature in each person, extended at times to the mob.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote, “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”

Yet this is precisely why the case of Islam and American Muslims is radically unlike that of any other cultural, racial or religious group. The evils being perpetrated by the “bad actors” of Islam do not merely stem from the human heart of darkness, “the line dividing good and evil [which] cuts through the heart of every human being.”

No, Islam’s “bad actors” are acting out of deeply held beliefs created by one man — Muhammad — who fourteen hundred years ago unleashed upon the world his own tormented heart of darkness. His devotees take the words he recited (the Quran) as the literal words of God, investing in them eternal validity and unbounded dominion. And they adopt his example as the lens through which to view, understand and apply those words, emulating Muhammad in every manner possible, the more devout they become.

Mass beheadings of Christians by Muslims in Libya, the rape and sexual assault of thousands if not a million British schoolgirls by Muslims, the death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy, and criticizing Islam: all stem from Muhammad’s example and the commands in the Quran.

Another example of Islam’s dark allure is what Daniel Greenfield calls “the Nice ISIS Jihadist Next Door.”  How is it we keep seeing more and more American Muslim men and women — “moderate”Muslims: affluent, college-educated, successful — sneak off through Turkey to join the Islamic State, or simply become “lone wolf” jihadis here at home? “Until they began killing people, they seemed just like the rest of us. And with one difference, they were.”

That one difference, my friends, is Islam, Muhammad, the Quran.

Even Southerners now are calling for the removal of the Confederate Flag from public display, yet Muslims can’t seem to raise more than 24 protesters against jihad attacks in North America.

We have even seen a Pope (John Paul II) publicly repent over and ask forgiveness for the treatment of Jews, women and minorities under the flag of Christendom over the centuries. Yet where is the Muslim mea culpa for 14 centuries of warfare, land expropriation, slavery, persecution and genocide?

Islam now has a new caliphate and a reinvigorated global jihad, and Muslims are committing a new genocide against Christians in the name of Allah. Yet where are the Moderate Muslim protests against the Black Flag of Jihad? Where is the Muslim repentance and soul-searching analogous to what we saw in Rod Dreher’s lament over the “hideous facts of our history”?

There is none. Instead we see Muslim condemnations and death fatwas against those brave souls who try to shine light on the dark recesses of Islam and its endless threat against all non-Muslims. We see Muslims saying they have no reason to apologize for Islamic terrorism and jihad.

As long as Muslims see no reason to apologize en masse or reform Islam, we shall continue to hammer on Islam’s crimes against humanity, on the fact that 80% of mosques in the United States promote jihad and sharia law over the Constitution, and nearly 30% of U.S. Muslims think violence is justified against those who insult Muhammad.

We are at a critical moment in human history, when proclaiming the truth about evil is essential for any people anywhere to have a free future. Solzhenitsyn warned that it is essential to expose evil itself — the evil ideology — as well as to punish the evildoers. Behold the Epitaph of America and Europe, from The Gulag Archipelago:

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.

Let’s get the Confederate Flag out of the news cycle and concentrate on the real threat to free people everywhere: the Black Flag of Islam. Let us not keep silent about the evil.

Also see:

Where are Those Moderate Muslims — and How Should We Deal with Them?

American Thinker, by Steve Chambers, June 9, 2015:

Eleven months before 9/11, I heard a series of lectures from a Muslim doctor to a Protestant congregation, in which he contradicted much of what I had learned about the religion’s history and foundation when I had studied it and lived abroad among Muslims two to three decades earlier.  For example, he assured the credulous audience that Islam had never been spread by the sword, but rather that was a Western canard.  Already extremely concerned about militant Islam, I started reading updated works on the ideology.  It didn’t take me long to realize that my prior understanding hadn’t been superseded by new discoveries.  At best, the pious doctor was offering a positive spin on Islam; more likely he was actually, deliberately engaging in taqiyya – righteous deception to advance Islam.

With the attacks of 9/11, I began an extensive, deliberate effort to understand the religion and the violence that it was spewing.  I read authors across the spectrum of attitudes towards Islam, from the highly sympathetic Karen Armstrong to the implacably critical Ibn Warraq.  I also attend the lectures of Islamic scholars such as leading apologist John Esposito (“the antidote to Bernard Lewis,” one liberal minister mockingly assured me), and I interviewed pious Muslims.  I then organized my thoughts by writing them down in what eventually became a book.  One of the most significant insights I obtained from this process was that there are eight basic principles of Islam that lead to its violent aggression.  Exhibit 1 enumerates those tenets.


Each of these principles comes directly from the Qur’an, except the last.  They are all virtually universally accepted in Islam, as attested by my interviews with Muslims as well as the writings of western Islamic scholars.  These principles impel observant Muslims to struggle to advance Islam to its divinely ordained position of global dominance, and while doing so to unite with other Muslims while holding non-Muslims at arm’s length, at best.  At worst (as we have been seeing recently in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Nigeria), Muslims should force others either to convert to Islam or take one of two other alternatives: if Christians or Jews, to submit to Muslim rule while paying a tax to show their submission; or if they can’t, or are of another or no faith, to die.

Recently a Protestant minister and I led a two man panel discussion of Islam, and when we came to this exhibit, he explained to the audience that these eight tenets makes some Muslims militant.  I had to correct him, pointing out that these tenets make Islam militant and that extremists accept them explicitly.  That distinction is vital.

Since they impel the faithful to violence, these tenets raise the question: How can believing Muslims do anything other than engage in jihad?  Put another way, how can Muslims be moderate?  That in turn raises the question, what is a moderate Muslim?

Research for the book uncovered the view, widely held across the sympathy spectrum, that “moderate” Muslims accepted a series of pacifying interpretations of Islam and its scriptures.  These interpretations, which had evolved over Islam’s first five centuries, essentially toned down its harsher messages and rubbed off its sharper edges, enabling Muslims to live harmoniously with one another and, particularly since about the 19th Century, more peacefully with non-Muslim neighbors.  The difference extremists exhibited was that they took the commands of their scriptures literally and hence acted upon them.

However, seeking to understand which Muslims were moderate and how large a portion of the 1.6 billion global Muslim community, or Ummah, they represented, it is impossible to find hard numbers: The definition of “moderate” is simply too slippery.  Is a Muslim living peacefully in rural villages of Morocco or Indonesia, practicing traditional Islam but outraged that a Jewish state took land from Muslims in direct violation of shari’a, moderate?  What if he suddenly decided to act on his outrage?  What about a Muslim of Pakistani descent living near Nottingham with similar views, at least up until he decided to go to a terrorist training camp?  (This is the real story of Kasim Hafeez before he renounced violence.)  Are Muslims living in peace on the Arabian Peninsula who donate generously to Hamas — a legitimate Islamic charity in their eyes — moderate?  Is a Muslim doing the same thing in Dearborn or a Chicago suburb moderate?  Is a Muslim moderate if he engages in non-violent jihad, such as lawfare, in order to make Islam dominant, as practiced by members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Student Association?  Bright lines don’t exist, yet virtually everyone commenting on Islam speaks of “moderate Muslims.”  Few, however, define them.

In presentations on radical Islam, one of the conceptual devices I have employed that helps people think about the ideological differences between Muslims is Exhibit 2.


The vertical axis refers to whether Muslims read their sacred texts interpretively, as has been the practice of most Muslims for about 1,000 years, or strictly literally as the Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood and their various ideological offspring, including al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Iranian Shi’a Islamists, insist.  The horizontal axis measures how traditional a Muslim is in his attitude towards and practice of Islam, versus how modernized he is, in one of two ways.  “Modernized” can mean adapted to modernity, but it can also mean incorporating into Islam elements of 20th Century authoritarian ideologies such as communism and fascism, again as directed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The two dimensions are of course continua and there are no hard and fast boundaries.  In addition, one might add a third dimension, the intensity of belief.  That is probably most relevant in the upper left quadrant of traditional non-militants, where intense piety might make Muslims more likely to become militant and move downward or even to the lower right.  It is possible that among modernist literalist jihadis in the lower left there are some cynical opportunists who couldn’t care less about the spiritual aspects of Islam but are selfishly attracted to the jihad by the opportunity for power and booty.  However, such inwardly secular extremists probably represent a small portion of such militants and may be marginalized or even culled out by the true believers.

While the quadrants have equal areas, they most definitely do not represent equal proportions of the Ummah.  The upper left quadrant contains the vast majority of Muslims.  That would include Muslims not just in traditional Islamic societies from the Maghreb through South Asia and into Indonesia, but also in sequestered Muslim communities in the West.  When Muslims from that quadrant become radicalized by the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, or to drive out infidel Russians or Americans, they descend, at least initially, into the lower left quadrant.  Some might then move to the lower right.

Those in the lower right are the highly radicalized, militant Muslims that are most aggressively pursuing the Third Jihad.  Some, such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed Khalifa Ibrahim, come from traditional, pious, even scholarly Islamic backgrounds, and have apparently imbibed inebriating amounts of the Muslim Brotherhood’s radicalizing ideology.  However, it appears that most of the older leaders came from more modern, even Western backgrounds, perhaps even indifferent to Islam early in life.  When these people first became serious about Islam, they read it literally, often with the guidance of other radicalized Muslims, and hence adopted its purest, harshest meanings.  Radicals of this sort include Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohammed Atta, and Major Nidal Hassan, among many others.  Dr. Daniel Pipes recognized this phenomenon 20 years ago, and has since commented on it frequentlyMany others have noted it as well.  Increasingly, we are seeing young Muslims who have been deliberately radicalized by their elders, whether in Islamic countries, at radical mosques in the West, or simply online, including the Boston bombing brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

We haven’t yet addressed one quadrant, the upper right.  This holds the still practicing but interpretive, open-minded, modernized, often Westernized Muslims, whether they live in Chicago or Cairo, London or Lahore.  Widely recognized examples are Fareed Zakariah, King Abdullah and especially Queen Noor of Jordan; lesser known but still prominent ones includeTarek Fatah, Irshad Manji, Dr. Qanta Ahmed, and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.  Some, such as Dr. Jasser, take the unusual position that the Qur’anic commands to violence and aggression were meant for 7th Century Arabia, not the 21st Century world, but most appear to have a more conventional view of the scriptures and simply interpret them more peacefully or choose to ignore the more violent commands.  They may be the Muslim equivalents of cafeteria Catholics.  Muslims in this quadrant are the ones most Westerners encounter in their daily lives as neighbors, friends, and coworkers.  Importantly, the population in this quadrant is probably quite small, but may seem representative to the typical Western, non-Muslim observer because they are the types of Muslims most Westerners encounter.  Whether there are more of them than the extremists in the lower right is debatable, but they probably have less influence on Islam overall because of the threats they face for speaking out.

So which are the elusive moderates?  While most Westerners would view those in the upper right as moderate, most pious, practicing Muslims would probably consider them liberals.  Indeed, the extremists in the lower right view those in the quadrant above not as Muslims at all, but as apostates whom they declare takfir (excommunicated) and target for “reversion” to the true Islam, or extermination.  It is no wonder that so many modernized Muslims keep their heads down and their mouths shut about militant Islam.

Read more

William Kilpatrick: ‘How to Alienate Moderate Muslims’

Jihad Watch, JUNE 1, 2015, BY RALPH SIDWAY:

“If the moderate Muslim was inclined to resist the radicals, he will be less likely to do so if he looks around and notices that no one else is resisting… Why should he stick his neck out?”

William Kilpatrick makes a compelling case for resisting encroaching Islamization and the creeping advance of sharia culture in America.

How to Alienate Moderate Muslims

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine — May 26, 2015

GarlandTX-muhammed-sword-winnerThe recent “draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, Texas not only drew fire from two armed jihadists, it also drew fire from Christian leaders and media critics. One of the chief objections was that events of this type will alienate moderate Muslims and possibly drive them into the radical camp.

It can just as easily be argued, however, that caving on the cartoon issue is more likely to result in a defection of moderate Muslims than the drawings themselves. And caving seems to be the order of the day. The Muhammad art exhibit and cartoon contest has been roundly criticized not only by the usual suspects in the liberal media but also by conservative journalists and conservative religious leaders such as Franklin Graham. In general, the critics say that free speech is a wonderful thing, but that it should never be used to insult what is most sacred to others.

When Franklin Graham registers his disapproval, it’s undoubtedly because he genuinely believes that it’s wrong to mock another person’s deeply held faith. On the other hand, when secular opinion-makers voice the same concern, it’s probably because they are genuinely afraid. Any moderately informed moderate Muslim knows that secular pundits have no problem if someone mocks the things held sacred by Catholics or Mormons [or Orthodox!]. He will understand that what’s at issue is not whether religion is insulted, but whether Islam is insulted. And, if the most powerful players in the media are afraid of Islam, why wouldn’t he be?

If the moderate Muslim was inclined to resist the radicals, he will be less likely to do so if he looks around and notices that no one else is resisting, except for a handful of people whom the media has labeled as “haters.” Why should he stick his neck out? If the supposed guardians of free speech who are relatively safe from retaliation nevertheless bow to Islamic law, then prudence suggests that he do the same. The constant kowtowing to Islamic demands has the result of putting increased pressure on the moderate Muslim to do some kowtowing of his own. He won’t necessarily join forces with the jihadists, but neither will he do much to oppose them.

One of the ways that the ever-helpful mainstream media is helping the public come to the “right” conclusion about the Garland event is by neglecting to say much about the context surrounding it. Three months before the cartoon contest, Islamic activist groups staged a “Stand with the Prophet” rally in Garland calling for restrictions on speech that is offensive to Islam. It was held in the same room in the same conference center. So the Muhammad art exhibit didn’t pop up out of nowhere. It was a response to the earlier event.

The cartoon contest is best understood not as a gratuitous provocation of Muslims, but as a wake-up call to non-Muslims. It was meant, in part, to show just how far down the road to capitulation we have gone. If we have to abide by Islam’s rules about drawing Muhammad, we may be further down the road than most realize.

Where’s the line at which Americans will take their stand against encroaching Islamization? Judging by the media reaction to the Garland event, the right to robustly criticize the prophet is a line too far. What then? Will Americans draw the line when Muslims request that the sculpture of Muhammad be removed from the Supreme Court chamber? Probably not. Why make a fuss? How about demands for sharia law courts? I’m guessing that many Americans won’t find it difficult to convince themselves that Muslims should be allowed to settle disputes among themselves in their own courts of law. Burqas on buses? Compulsory courses on Islam? Court imposed fines for critics of Islam? All along the road to complete sharia compliance there will be numerous places where one might draw the line—and numerous reasons why it will be deemed prudent not to.

Islam is a religion that respects strength. As Osama bin Laden famously said, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” This is not simply the idiosyncratic view of one extremist. As Lee Smith writes in The Strong Horse, it “represents the political and social norm” of the Middle-East. And of much of the rest of the Muslim world, as well. When Muslims view the controversy surrounding the cartoon event, they look upon it not as a contest between the forces of tolerance against the forces of “hateful” provocateurs, but as a contest of Islam against non-Islam. The Muhammad cartoon exhibit was a battle in a campaign to see whether or not Islam will dominate. The event organizers understand that. And so do most Muslims.

Many Americans think that if the contest organizers lose the opinion wars, then pluralism is the winner. Most Muslims will look at the issue in a different way. A defeat for the organizers makes it more likely that there will, indeed, be no future for those who slander the prophet of Islam. And that means not much of a future for those moderate Muslims who have only a lukewarm regard for the prophet.

The craven reaction to the cartoon incident comes on top of a number of other Western capitulations to sharia culture, if not always to sharia law. In view of these numerous victories, the moderate Muslim will reasonably conclude that militant Islam is the strong horse. When he places his bets for a secure future for himself and his family, he will place them on the side that looks to be the winning side.

If the citizens of the West are interested in keeping moderate Muslims moderate, they had better start showing more backbone when it comes to defending their freedoms. Many American Muslims no doubt hope that they can continue to live in a sharia-free society. But if their fellow Americans continue to kick the can down the road, it will become increasingly dangerous for them to express that hope. The surest way to push moderate Muslims into the arms of the radicals is to signal to them that if they resist sharia, they’re on their own—they can expect little sympathy and even less in the way of government protection. The response to the cartoon controversy suggests that no one will cover your back if you stand up to extremists. After all, it will be argued, people who won’t conform to Islamic norms are just asking for trouble.

All Muslims share the Same Islam

islam (2)
Political Islam, by Bill Warner, May 26, 015:
The Establishment is always telling us that there are good, moderate Muslims and extremist, jihadist Muslims and that the two different kinds have nothing in common with each other.

Wrong. What all Muslims have in common is the same Koran, the same prayers, the same Sunna of Mohammed and being a member of one umma (Islamic community).

Indeed, the Koran tells us that the jihadist is a better Muslim than the moderate Muslim. The phrase, Allahu akbar, is not only used a war cry, but every Muslim uses it in his daily prayers.

We are told that all Muslims want prosperity and democracy, but all Muslims do not want a democracy, because a democracy means that a Kafir is equal to a believer.

All of the Muslims share the Sunna of assassination. So instead saying they do not want violence of Garland, TX, they need to say that they reject the evil of the assassination Sunna of Mohammed. That would have real meaning.

The Failed Tactic of Flattering Islam Won’t Go Away

Palestinian_militant_with_rifle-450x338Frontpage, May 11, 2015 by Bruce Thornton:

The recent attack in Texas against a “draw Mohammed” event ended up with two dead jihadis and widespread criticism of event organizer Pamela Geller for “inciting” or “provoking” the assault on our First Amendment right to free speech. The hypocrisies and ignorance behind such criticism have been amply documented, including by some on the left. But there’s another argument against actions and events like Geller’s that needs dismantling. This is the received wisdom that we should avoid criticizing Islamic doctrine or Mohammed because it will alienate moderate Muslims who otherwise would help us against the so-called “extremist” jihadists.

Geraldo Rivera on Fox News invoked this rationale in his hysterical attack on Geller for “spewing her hatred and making us all look like the intolerant jerks they are saying we are in the Middle East and elsewhere.” In other words, most Muslims dislike the jihadis, who have “hijacked” and “distorted” their faith, and want to support our efforts against them. But they are put off by our “insults” of Mohammed and our “intolerance” of the wonderful “religion of peace,” all of which serve to “recruit” new jihadists. Even Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham skirted this notion, advising against making any image of Mohammed, and thus in effect ratifying the legitimacy of the shari’a law against any representation of Mohammed, good or bad.

Consistent with this notion that flattery and respect can change Muslim behavior, many in the foreign policy establishment, including conservatives, have for decades counseled flattering “outreach” to Muslims as a tactic in winning the “hearts and minds” of the supposed large majority of Muslims angry at the jihadists’ “distortions” of their faith. Even before 9/11, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, called Islam “a faith that honors consultation, cherishes peace, and has as one of its fundamental principles the inherent equality of all who embrace it.” Even after 9/11 confirmed Islam’s traditional theologized violence and intolerance, George Bush claimed in his first address after 9/11 that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” In 2005, administration officials encouraged this tactic of false flattery as a way “to support the courageous Muslims who are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends.”

Of course Obama, who has serially groveled before Muslims and praised Islam, has continued this sorry practice. After his administration blamed the Benghazi murders on an obscure Internet video, he lectured that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” The 2 gunmen in Garland Texas obviously agreed.  His quondam Secretary of State and now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is on record extolling Islam’s “deepest yearning of all––to live in peace.” How is that going in Nigeria, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan? Worse of all, training materials used by our military and security services have excised any mention of jihad, which Western infidels have redefined as “a quest to find one’s faith in an external fight for justice,” as the New York Times put it in 2008. So Obama identifies the 13 slaughtered at Fort Hood to the traditional jihadist cry of “Allahu Akbar” as victims of “workplace violence.” Never mind the Koranic command to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush”––exactly what various jihadi outfits are doing today across the Middle East, and tried to do in Garland Texas.

Two decades of such flattery and admiration have failed to prevent nearly 26,000 violent jihadist attacks since 9/11, for they are based on Western bad ideas rather than on an accurate understanding of Islamic doctrine and the Muslim mentality. Behind our delusions is the peculiarly arrogant assumption that traditionalist Muslims––by which I mean those who take seriously the doctrines and precepts of their faith has practiced for 14 centuries––do not have their own motives and aims, but can only react to our bad behavior. Besotted by our own materialist superstitions and failure to take religion seriously, we reduce jihadist behavior to material and psychological causes: wounded self-esteem, resentment of “colonial” and “imperial” crimes, disrespect of Islam, or the lack of jobs, political freedom, or even sexual access to women.

Thus despite consistent polling data showing widespread Muslim support of illiberal shari’a law and its draconian penalties like death for blasphemy, we won’t accept that millions of Muslims actually believe what the Koran, Hadith, and 14 centuries of jurisprudence teach about the superiority of Islam and their right to use violence in order to bring the whole world under the sway of the superior social, economic, and political order that shari’a represents. In the guise of “respecting” Muslims, then, we patronize them as little more than children who can only “act out” violently in the face of injustice instead of “using their words.” Having reduced our own faith to holidays and comforting slogans, we simply can’t believe that Islam endorses violence and cruelty in the name of Allah, or that otherwise loving and kind people, as bin Laden was said to have been by all who knew him, can at the same time slaughter and brutalize innocents in pursuit of spiritual aims. No, either they are “crazy” or “evil,” or they are traumatized by our bad behavior.

This dubious pop-psychological assumption is usually accompanied by a catalogue of the historical crimes against Muslims perpetrated by the West, from the Crusades to the wars against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. These depredations, so the story goes, also fuel anger and resentment, and help to incentivize otherwise peaceful Muslims into turning jihadist. But this narrative is belied by the facts of history. For what history tells us is that the record of Muslim conquest, occupation, colonizing, slaving, raiding, and killing of Christians far surpasses the alleged crimes of the West against Islam. We recently marked the centenary of the Ottoman genocide against the Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, a crime being duplicated today by ISIS in northern Iraq. Recently our historically challenged president whined about the Crusades and the Inquisition, with nary a word about the centuries of Muslim invasion, occupation, colonization, and brutal suppression in Christian Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, and Greece.

Or what about the 1066 pogrom in Granada, the alleged paradise of “pan-confessional humanism,” as an ignorant Wall Street Journal editorial claimed a few years back. Those tolerant, humanist Muslims slaughtered 5000 Jews, equaling the toll of dead during the whole existence of the Inquisition. But can anyone name one Muslim religious leader in the Middle East who has publicly and consistently apologized in Obama fashion for these 14 centuries of slaughter? Who has justified our defensive wars in the region as an understandable reaction to that history? Who has chastised Muslims for destroying and desecrating churches, and blamed them for inviting violent reactions? Muslim Turkey won’t even own up to its copiously documented slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians. If anyone has a historical grievance that justifies payback, it is Christians and Jews.

Finally, if Western insults and crimes against Muslims are really the reason jihadists want to kill us, why do they let Russia off the hook? No Christian power has killed more Muslims or occupied more Muslim lands than has Russia, from the siege of Izmail in 1790, when 40,000 Muslim men, women, and children were slaughtered, to the invasion of Afghanistan, which killed a million, to the brutal wars against Muslim Chechnyans, which killed at least 100,000. Or how about the 10 million Muslim Uighurs oppressed by China and forbidden to fully practice their faith?  Is Russia or China the “Great Satan”? Are they the constant targets of jihadist attack and thundering denunciations by the mullahs of Iran? Are “moderate” Muslims “alienated” by their behavior and rushing to join the jihad against them?

The obvious answer is no, for the simple reason that Russia and China are contemptuous of such juvenile psychological blackmail, pursue their national interests without regard for criticism by the “Muslim community,” and respond with brutal force to violent attacks. Meanwhile the U.S. has rescued millions of Muslims in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan from brutal dictators, ethnic cleansing, and psychotic autocrats, yet is deemed “Islamophobic” because we exercise our Constitutional rights in our own country. Worse yet, we grovel and apologize and demonize those like Pamela Geller who practice their right to free expression at a private function, and we vainly believe despite all evidence that if we just act nice to Muslims and join them in demonizing their critics, they’ll ignore their spiritual beliefs, the traditions of their faith, and the model of Mohammed and his credo to “fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah.”

To paraphrase Cicero and Orwell, there are some things so stupid that only rich, arrogant Westerners will believe them. If we let this president continue to predicate his dealings with Iran on this same delusional belief in the power of flattering engagement and “mutual respect,” we will soon find out the high cost of this stupidity.

Winner of “Draw Mohammed” contest Bosch Fawstin speaks out

My Winning Mohammad Contest Drawing

Bosch Fawstin, winning Garland “Mohammed” cartoonist: Polls show “far more Muslims are bloodthirsty than act on it themselves”


More videos here:

Videos! Media firestorm over Geller and Spencer’s tactics in the fight to protect free speech

A top Shariah lawyer’s stunning response to the question: ‘Is there such a thing as moderate Islam?’

419gPOS7xaLThe Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, Feb. 26 2015:

We sat down with a leading Shariah lawyer from Iran, Daniel Akbari, to discuss his illuminating new book ”Honor Killing: A Professional’s Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources, in which he seeks to awaken Americans to the generally antithetical nature of Islam to Judeo-Christian society, and specifically Shariah-dictated domestic violence towards women — up to and including so-called honor killings — and how we in the West can prevent such atrocities.

During the extensive interview, which you can skip to here, we had a chance to ask him a series of questions on the nature of Islam, its goals, tactics, how Western Muslims become jihadists, and all manner of other topics.

But it was in response to a question on whether there is such a thing as moderate Islam that Mr. Akbari, a man who studied at the seat of Shia religious learning at the Tehran University School of Law, and specialized in criminal and family law before leaving Iran, gave perhaps his most stunning response of all, stating:

What Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey says is actually perfect and totally Islamic because Islamis Islam. We don’t have such a thing like — “radical Islam extremism” — many things that are said in Islam like beheading, like stoning, like flogging — they are not extremism acts, those are pure Islam.

…The second thing is, this is not “extremism,” this is “fundamentalism.” People who believe in [the] Koran understand it and practice it and take it serious.

About moderate Muslims, we have to…make a distinction between those people who come from Islamic backgrounds, come from [the] Middle East, their names are ‘Mohammed’…they might not believe in [the] Koran at all. They might just be atheists. They just come from that region.

Who are moderate Muslims in reality according to Akbari?

…Moderate Muslims actually are kind of like CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] people — people who are Muslim Brotherhood types…and these people fight for Islam, love it, but they give a peaceful feature, and good-looking [nature] to Islam, to…deceive Americans not to resist the process of Islam.

Sometimes they deceive Americans this way that “We are the same as your neighbor who is from the Middle East.” That neighbor might be an atheist, might be a Buddhist at heart. Just by nature and feature, people might assume [him or her] Islamic.

…Moderate Muslims, as we might know as Muslim Brotherhood, they are the backbone of jihad.

Without them, there…[are] not gonna be any jihadis. They support jihad financially. They recruit here for jihadists — they recruit in this country. They have their own Islamic centers. They go to jail and recruit for ISIS.

So without these moderate Muslims — I’m not talking about just people coming from [the] Middle East — I’m talking about those who fight for Islam, or those who love Islam and pay for jihadists and also support to…try to recruit people, or sympathizers. My point about moderates is kind of different than what Americans might say.

Moderates are not anybody from [the] Middle East with an Islamic name.

My point about moderates are people who have Islamic organizations in an organized way, fight to improve Islam, I call those people moderates. To my eyes, those moderates are no different than ISIS or other jihadists.

During the interview, we also had the opportunity to discuss a series of other topics with Mr. Akbari including:

Follow Ben Weingarten (@bhweingarten) and TheBlazeBooks on Twitter and Facebook.

Islam’s Dangerous Degrees of Devotion

Cartoon for 3/23/06American Thinker, By Carol Brown, Feb. 20, 2015:

The obsession to convince us that most Muslims are moderate and that Islam is a religion of peace brings to mind Shakespeare’s “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Is there any other religion that draws such an incessant chorus of voices proclaiming the religion to be peaceful?


It is only the case with Islam that we hear the ceaseless lie because it is the only religion that warrants explanation on a daily basis. If the explanation reflected the truth, we might actually win this war that has been waged against us – a war that has been raging to a greater or lesser degree for 1400 years.

The fact is, Islam is a political doctrine of war. In the West, it is also a religion of caveats.

The caveats

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, Muslims generally fall into one of two categories.  There is the ever-elusive “moderate” Muslim, though it’s not clear what that means.

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, moderate Muslims follow a peaceful religion and are presumed to be like any other group of reasonable, law-abiding, freedom-loving folk.

But there is ample evidence to show that moderate Muslims might also represent jihad lite. “Moderate” may describe the kind of Muslims the Obama administration is importing from places like Syria who have had “minor” associations with terrorists. Or perhaps they are American Muslims who believe that drawing a parody of Mohammed should be a criminal offense, with some saying the person should receive the death penalty.

In any case, if there’s a moderate version of a religion, there must be a pious orthodox version. Which brings us to the other category for Muslims: extremists. They are the ones who commit heinous acts of violence by, presumably, misrepresenting Islam. Although that’s a bit confusing because people can’t represent an extreme form of something while simultaneously not representing that something in any way, shape, or form.

So increasingly, the uninformed or intentionally misleading tell us that Islam has nothing to do with these “extremists.” Apparently it’s a gigantic coincidence that these savages keep shouting “Allahu Akbar” while quoting the Quran chapter and verse as they kidnap, rape, behead, burn, execute, and destroy every living thing in their path.

Are we to believe these barbarians have come across an imposter version of the Quran that is different from the real Quran – the one that preaches nothing but love for humankind?

By removing the words Islam/Islamic from descriptions of Islamic terror, all that remains is a vague, generic, and incomplete description of the truth: “Extremist.”

The key word that truly informs is left out: Islam/Islamic.

This verbal manipulation occurs repeatedly. It is embraced and peddled by regular folks, the media, far too many in the GOP, just about everyone on the left, and of course the Obama administration. A recent example among an ever-growing list was Obama’s summit to “fight violent extremism around the world” – as if we are witnessing a strange phenomenon of random worldwide violence perpetrated by random demographic groups targeting random people.

But back to the caveats.

If moderates represent the true nature of Islam and extremists have nothing to do with Islam, that leaves only moderates. In which case, why would those who follow Islamic teachings need an extra descriptor (“moderate”) at all? They wouldn’t. They would just be Muslims – the people who follow a religion called Islam.

So, good. We’ve found some common ground. We can toss out these needless caveats because Islam is Islam is Islam. And Islam by any standard is extreme at its core.

Now, how to awaken the brainwashed masses to this growing problem (understatement) that threatens all of civilization?

The uninformed or intentionally misleading

The uninformed or intentionally misleading willingly spew opinions as facts. The most common refrain we hear is that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Working in tandem with the daily dishing of lies is the distraction method. This is when “not all Muslims are terrorists” is pulled out of the proverbial closet.

Complicating this disgraceful situation is the fact that the uninformed or intentionally misleading are rarely challenged when they spread this garbage around.

So when someone says that Islam is peaceful and that terrorists do not represent Islam, they need to be called out every single time and asked:

  • Upon what do you base your assertion?
  • Have you read the Quran? If so, do you understand the meaning of Chapter 2, Verse 106: Abrogation, or what the word taqiyya means?
  • Why do you assume all religions are created equal? Do you think all ideas the same; that none are better than others?
  • Are you afraid to speak the truth because you fear retaliation against you and/or your family and/or your employer?

The truth

First of all, Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political ideology. The ultimate goal is world domination. If that sounds crazy or extreme, I didn’t make it up. It’s written in the Quran and it is central to Islam’s history of conquest over the past 1400 years. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here among a long list of examples.)

Second, while it is often said that not all Muslims are terrorists, the discourse tends to stop there or gets re-routed away from the central point. But it shouldn’t. Because here’s the deal: Some Muslims are terrorists. And given the size of the population of Muslims on the planet, “some” is quite a lot.

But what of the rest of the population of Muslims?

While most do not commit outright acts of terror, many of them support terror. And they do so in a variety of ways, including financial support, political activism, and brainwashing their children. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here among numerous examples.)

Then there are those who are not terrorists and who don’t overtly support terror, but who have attitudes that support it or feel ambiguous toward it, including those who support Sharia law – an oppressive and draconian legal system based on Islamic supremacy.

When you do the math, as Ben Shapiro did, you wind up with quite a few Muslims – millions and millions of them – with a vision for civilization that is at odds with Western values. Shapiro’s analysis of a Pew Research poll revealed that more than half of the total Muslim population on earth hold radical views. Additional polls and analyses point to similar conclusions.

We can speak the truth. Or we can allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the Islamic invasion that is well underway. So far the West is doing the latter. Which makes it all the more urgent that every single one of us step forward to the front lines of this battle. Speak the truth at every opportunity and educate others. Because the propaganda machine runs 24/7.

And it is powerful and effective.

Earlier this month a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus participants revealed that 53% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats had a positive view of Islam as a peaceful religion. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say most, if not all, of those who make up these numbers are uninformed.

They need to learn the truth.

Who will tell them?

That would be us.

Diana West at Center for Security Policy Defeat Jihad Summit

Diana West comments on Muslim Immigration:


Notes from a Defeat Jihad Summit

By Diana West, Feb. 13, 2015:

Earlier this week, I participated in the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit.

I find that the several hours of speeches and discussion have distilled into some salient recollections and comments.

1) There remains a chasm between American “messaging” and that of some of our European friends who were invited to speak, including the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, who contributed a taped message, and Lars Hedegaard, who addressed the conference via Skype from Denmark.

American participants in the main demand, even a little truculently, that we now, finally, break the bonds of “political correctness” and speak frankly about “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” “ideas of ISIS,” etc.

Wilders, whose Party for Freedom is No. 1 in the Dutch polls, and Dispatch International editor Hedegaard both speak, and have always spoken about “Islam” — pure and very simple.

Indeed, Wilders has encapsulated everything you need to know about Islam and the West thus: “The more Islam there is in a society, the less freedom there is.”

Not “Islamism.”

This difference is more than semantic.

The primary mechanism of control that Islam exerts over people is Islamic slander law, Islamic blasphemy law. This is the institutional means by which Islam protects itself against criticism, even objective facts about Islam that might be construed critically. The penalty is death. Not for nothing did Yusef Qaradawi state that Islam wouldn’t even exist without the death penalty for “apostasy.” We have seen innumerable instances, particularly since the 1989 publication of Salman Rushdie’sSatanic Verses, where Muslims have executed, or tried to execute this death sentence even against non-Muslims, from Europe to Japan, in efforts to extend the rule of Islam.

When American lawmakers, generals and security experts omit “Islam” from their debates and war councils, focusing instead on what they have dubbed “radical Islam,” “Islamism” and the like, they are succombing to this same control mechanism. They are protecting Islam. They are themselves sheltering Islam against the cold light of analysis. By extension, they are also preventing their own Western societies from devising means of defense against Islamization. They are accepting and carrying out what is probably the most important Islamic law.

There is concrete danger in this. Unless we can come to an understanding that it is the teachings of Islam — not the teachings of some peculiar strain called “Islamism,” or of an organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS — that directly undermine our constitutional liberties, we cannnot protect our way of life from these teachings, whose popularity grows with the increasing Islamic demographic. This is what the advanced Islamization of Europe shows us. A nominally sensible US immigration policy would immediately halt Islamic immigration to prevent a sharia-demographic from gaining more critical mass in the USA, democratically.

Then again, we don’t have a national border, much less a sensible immigration policy. That means many of these questions are moot.

2) Still, it bears noting: The Left has responded to the current cycle of Islamic jihad — a recurring blight on civilization, as Andrew Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad amply documents — by inventing a foe called “violent extremism.” The Right, scoffing at this euphemism, “pinpoints” the threat of “radical Islamism.”

What is the difference? Ultimately, I see none. Both terms protect Islam. Warning against the dangers of “radical Islam” implies that there exists some “normal Islam” that is completely compatible, perhaps even interchangeable, with Christianity and Judaism. Indeed, this ongoing effort to normalize Islam is equally as dangerous as the institutional efforts that long ago “normalized” Communism. This officially began when FDR “normalized” relations with the wholly abnormal Soviet regime in 1933, a morally odious event whose horrific repercussions are treated at length in American Betrayal.

Just as it required endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” Communism, so, too, does it require endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” or “moderate” Islam. According to all of Islam’s authoritative texts, according to the example of Islam’s prophet, this “moderate” creed does not Islamically exist.

To turn the notion around, as Lars recently reminded me, when the brave and splendid ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan was asked several years ago to distinguish between “Islam” vs. “Islamism” at a Copenhagen conference, she brought the airy theory back to earth by asking: Based on your definition of Islamism, was Mohammed a Muslim or an “Islamist”?

3) This brings me to The Best Line of the summit, which was spoken by Lars Hedegaard: “Islamism is Islam and Islam is Islamism.”

4) The Spirit of ’76 Award goes to retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons who inquired of guest speaker and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich whether there was any movement in the Congress to censure Obama or initiate impeachment hearings. The consensus on this burning, patriotic question is, no, expediently speaking, there is not nor will there be such a movement. As per the entire US elite’s corruption and complicity in Soviet crime outlined in American Betrayal, it seems we have arrived at the point where Obama’s political judge and jury — our elected representatives in the Congress — is surely complicit in his crimes against the Constitution, as well as with his identity fraud on the American people.

5) The Most Profound New Thought of the summit came from brave and splendid ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish (who, bonus, I met for the first time here).

Nonie conveyed her understanding, having grown up in Egypt the privileged daughter of an Egyptian shahid (martyr), that terrorism, the threat of terrorism is a feature of Islamic life at all levels: inside the family, in the public square, and everywhere in between. I’m paraphrasing, but what came through her talk was the idea that Muslim “moderates” in Islamic society (which I am taking to mean human beings who do not have the seeds of violence within them) have come to take Islamic terrorism/violence/coercion as a given. This means that they have come to accept such terrorism/violence/coercion as normal. Her great fear is that Americans, too, are coming to accept such Islamic violence as normal — that we, in a sense, are taking on the role of such Muslim moderates. This is, if it can be imagined, an even darker iteration of dhimmitude.

6) Speaking of ex-Muslims, I made a comment about the role of the apostate in the great ideological battles of our time. Today, it is the ex-Muslims who offer special insight into totalitarianism of the Islamic kind. Many of my American colleagues, however, still prefer to lean on guidance from Muslim “moderates” — despite the fact, referenced above, that Islam’s own sacred texts, including the example of Islam’s prophet, support no such “moderation.” As they wish, they may await, or even themselves lead an Islamic reformation, but this in no way protects free speech or preserves public safety in our country now — especially when there are indicators that an alarming level of support for curbing and even criminalizing free speech about Islam exists among American Muslims — punitive measures, again, that find support in Islam’s texts.

In the 20th-century-battle against totalitarian Communism, anti-Communists did not embrace “moderate Communists.” Rather, they embraced ex-Communists who understood the totalitarian teachings and practices of Communism in Moscow’s gangster-quest for global dominance — a “caliphate” a la Lenin & Marx. It was mainly the Left and Center  — the anti-anti-Communist Left and Center — that made common cause with “moderate Communists,” i.e., Social Democrats, Communist apologists, also Soviet agents among others, engendering meaningless treaties, defeats and loss. Even more pernicious, though, was the resulting “postmodern” rot across the political spectrum, which tells me, as I argue in American Betrayal, that the West lost the “struggle of ideas” in the “Cold War.”

This spectral shift is interesting in and of itself. I see its patterns repeat in the past decade of military disaster in which it was US military strategy to ignore the teachings of Islam and instead lean on perceived Muslim moderates, or just bank on a hoped-for emergence of Muslim moderation, in the Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrible defeats ensued.

As former FBI special agent John Guandolo pointed out at the summit, we’ve tried this type of thing for 15 years and it doesn’t work.

Nor does it make sense — logically, doctrinally, strategically. But then neither does seizing on  “radical Islamism” and other terms of art that exclude and thus protect Islam.

The Moral of this summit: You can’t protect Islam and defeat jihad at the same time.

Defeat Jihad Summit panel debates the use of ‘qualifiers’ when referring to Islam


CJR: The perennial debate over use of qualifiers such as radical, extremist or even fundamentalist to describe Islam is brought up by the intrepid Diana West at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit. Diana West believes that we are in fact abiding by Islamic blasphemy laws when we say “radical” Islam rather then just Islam.

Stephen Coughlin comes at this from a military intelligence perspective which seeks to define just what the Islamic threat doctrine is so that we can “orient on the enemy”.  He explains that he chooses to refer to The Reliance of the Traveller shariah manual because it represents the sanctioned views of A Azhar, the OIC and the American Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore it represents the prevailing view of Sunni Islam and can be said to be Islam…not radical Islam. Coughlin then says something very interesting that needs to be highlighted. He refers to the tactic of using qualifiers in order to “bring people along”. In other words, some counter jihadists, especially those who are working in the political arena, choose to use qualifiers in order to soften the message for politically correct ears, including moderate Muslims.

Following Coughlin, David Yerushalmi speaks to the legal issues of trying to reform shariah law with an explanation of Fiqh and what it would take to overturn articles of Islamic jurisprudence developed over thousands of years as Islamic reformers such as Zuhdi Jasser and Egyptian President Al Sissi are advocating.

Debra Burlingame then speaks to the quandry of Moderate Muslims who have no safe place to express their views. Andrew McCarthy and Fred Fleitz believe it is important to reach out to Moderate Muslims and enlist their help.

I think a general consensus was reached that it is not necessary to address what the true Islam is if you can identify as the enemy those Muslims who subscribe to the Islamic Threat Doctrine of Shariah. John Guandolo gets down to law enforcement brass tacks and asserts that we need to start prosecuting those in high positions who are aiding and abetting terrorists. While John Guandolo did not agree that moderate Muslim outreach is producing results, he asserted that counter jihadists do not have to agree on everything in order to work together. I heartily agree.

Watch the debate which goes from 5:03 to about 5:38 in the video.  I’ve set the video to begin with Diana West  but if for some reason that changes just move the progress bar with your cursor:



Here are some clips of the Summit now available at securefreedom:

Michael Mukasey at Defeat Jihad Summit


Gen. Jerry Boykin at Defeat Jihad Summit


Gov. Bobby JIndal at Defeat Jihad Summit


Rep. Scott Perry at Defeat Jihad Summit


Rep. Mike Pompeo at Defeat Jihad Summit


Rep. Steve King at Defeat Jihad Summit


Andrew McCarthy at Defeat Jihad Summit


Pete Hoekstra at Defeat Jihad Summit


Newt Gingrich at Defeat Jihad Summit


Nonie Darwish



Brigitte Gabriel on why Peaceful Muslims Keep Silent

Published on Feb 5, 2015 by Brigitte Gabriel
President of ACT for America, Brigitte Gabriel, talks with Don Imus about the latest and most brutal Islamic State (ISIS) video showing Jordanian pilot, Muath al-Kasaesbeh, being burned to death. They also talk about the response from moderate Muslims; and the rise of radical Islam world wide

The Information Age will be the Death of Islam

GERMANY-ISLAMFaith Freedom, by Eric Allen Bell, Jan. 14, 2015:

We do not vandalize. We do not engage in hate speech. We have respect for the law. We do not harm our fellow citizens. We are slow to anger and when we finally get angry, we express that anger in a civilized way. UNDER THAT BANNER, I WILL STATE THE FOLLOWING:

Follower of Islam, I do not tolerate you. Your feigned or willful ignorance, about Islam, is no longer an excuse. I hold you personally accountable.

I am offended by you. I cannot and will not tolerate a person, who follows an ideology, which teaches the inferiority of women, the killing and hatred of Jews, the execution of homosexuals, the silencing of free speech, forced amputations, the stoning of rape victims, genital mutilation, and the violent overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and civilizations.

Islam is Nazism with a god. And I cannot and will not “coexist” with Nazis. I will not patronize your places of business. I will not hire you. I will not buy your products. I will not support politicians who support you. I will not be your friend. And if I am your neighbor, I will always be suspicious of you and cautious. I want you to feel so uncomfortable in my free country, in my civilized country, that you renounce your allegiance to this savage and fascist ideology or leave.

ISLAM IS THE ENEMY of free speech, of human rights and of Liberty. If you follow Islam, you are my enemy. I encourage you now to leave Islam and take your place among the civilized people of this world. But if you insist on remaining loyal to the brutal savagery of Islam, your enemies will grow faster than can be contained, by an Islamic lobbyist group or the media or any government agency. This is a zero sum game and the Civilized World will win.

ISLAM HAS BEEN AT WAR FOR 1,400 YEARS with freedom and all that is good. But my head is no longer hidden in the sand. I am at war with you. All people who value human rights, freedom and Liberty should be at war with you. And they will be soon enough, because the enemy of Islam is information and we are spreading information faster than you can keep up with. There is no way to put this genie back in the bottle now. The information age will be the death of Islam.

Your 1,400 year reign of terror is coming to an end. And you, follower of Islam, are on the wrong side of history.

It is time for all civilized people to find the moral clarity and the courage to GET ANGRY and to BECOME INTOLERANT. You have the ability to do this in a civilized way. We must not become like the savages whom we oppose – otherwise they win. Islam is Nazism with a god. Islam must be stopped. When you support the followers of Islam, you support an ideology that promotes genocide against the unbeliever – as clearly outlined in the Quran.


Tolerance is overrated. If you follow the Quran, you are the enemy of freedom and you are my enemy.

Eric Allen Bell is a filmmaker, columnist and Counter Jihad activist. He was banned from the Liberal-Progressive Daily Kos for writing 3 articles about Islam which ran afoul of the politically-correct mindset there. He is director of both Global Infidel TV, and Mosque Confidential and is currently in production on a documentary feature entitled, “American Infidel”. You can read more about Bell’s conversion story in “The High Price of Telling the Truth about Islam”. Visit him on Facebook at

Also see: