Published on Aug 15, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01
Published on Aug 15, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01
by Douglas Murray:
Most noticeable was that the protests across Western European cities have overwhelmingly been led by Muslims — not Islamists — just normal, “integrated” Muslims, who stay at home when any other war occurs. (Where were their protests against Qatar for funding Hamas?)
What is harder for people to address is the lies that feed this violence.
These otherwise “integrated” people hate Israel and Jews because they have beentaught to. A whole generation — perhaps several — has been taught to hate. That is a lot of hate, but it needs to be tackled.
The best place to start might be by tackling the lies and defamations that are allowed to go on underneath everyone’s noses, such as the frivolous — and false — accusations of Israeli “genocide,” “war-crimes” and the like. The problem is worse than anyone had thought.
The Gaza War has had disturbing fallout in Europe. The Gaza War has produced flagrantly anti-Semitic protests, attacks on Jews and the burning down of Jewish buildings. Those protests have come as a surprise to parts of the European public – nowhere more so than in Germany, where a hatred thought to have been disgraced for all time has found its way back onto European streets under a new guise.
As well as being a time for outrage, this also ought to be a time for re-thinking. And some of that rethinking will have to be done by those who assumed they best understood these outbursts. Certainly calls to “kill the Jews” in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy are a part of the problem, but these, as well as the outbreaks of violence against Jews across Europe, are condemned by politicians and journalists alike. To some extent it is too easy for them to do so. There is not yet any real political or other price to pay for saying that you think people should beat up rabbis in the street, send “Jews to the gas” or call openly for genocide. What is harder for people to do is address the lies that feed this violence, and the underlying hatred that the Gaza War revealed. These need attention.
Groups in Europe that monitor anti-Semitic hate crimes have, for many years, been ahead of the public curve in understanding that these attacks are no longer carried out by white, neo-Nazi, skinhead thugs. Although such people do exist, they are small in number and shunned by the wider society. The discovery that anti-Semitism today is spurred by Muslims and (to a lesser extent) misinformed fellow-travellers has been recognized by people who work in the field, but has taken a long time to trickle down to public awareness.
This latest round of events in the Gaza, however, and the response to it on European streets, have thrown some of those experts. It turns out that a very major part of their analysis might be wrong. It seems to have been the assumption of many involved in trying to prevent anti-Semitism in Europe that the problem of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activism could be put down, among the Muslim communities, to a minority of radicalized people called “Islamists.” These were recognized to be the sort involved in extremist groups, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir or similar groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood and its various Western front-groups. They were expected to be individuals who are highly politically and religiously motivated — very possibly the same people who attend protests against American or any other Western military engagements in the world. But now, since Gaza, a terrible realization has begun to strike: that analysts may have been focussing on the tip of the iceberg while ignoring the vast immensities beneath.
Most noticeable was that the protests across Western European cities have overwhelmingly been led by Muslims. Not Islamists or Islamist groups in particular, but by extremely angry Muslims – especially young Muslims – who stay at home when any other war occurs anywhere in the world, but who seem spurred to anger whenever Israel is involved in any conflict with any of its neighbors. The crowds appear deaf to the reasonable charge that they are singling Israel out for special treatment. They are unwilling to consider that they are perpetrating a grotesque double-standard (where were their protests against Qatar for funding Hamas? ). But they otherwise seem like normal, “integrated”, Muslims.
There are examples that might, at first, even seem frivolous. The British boy band, One Direction, for instance, has five members. One of its members, Zayn Malik, happens to be a Muslim. When the Gaza war began, it was Zayn Malik alone, out of all five members of One Direction, who started tweeting hashtags to do with “FreePalestine.” They caused a media storm. The singers in One Direction are not generally known for their interest in geo-strategic issues. Is it coincidence that it was Malik and not any of his bandmates who felt compelled to weigh in on the side of the government in Gaza, led by the terrorist group Hamas, rather than on the side of the open, democratic nation-state of Israel? Whatever the cause, it has an effect. Malik has 13 million Twitter followers. That is more followers than there are people in Belgium, and twice as many as live in Switzerland. Malik’s tweet has been re-tweeted and favorited over 300,000 times to date.
|The “FreePalestine” tweet from Zayn Malik, of the boy-band One Direction, caused a media storm. (Image source: Mailk – DeviantART/pawa24)|
Or consider the only Muslim in the British cabinet. Just as Israeli ground forces were withdrawing from Gaza, Sayeeda Warsi resigned in protest, stating that the British government has been too “uncritical” of the Israeli government. She claimed that the British government had shown an unwillingness to condemn Israel for defending its citizens. That this UK cabinet “support” included accusations (albeit, under international law, inaccurate accusations) of “disproportionality” as well as an official call to reconsider all arms sales contracts to Israel, is something Warsi seems to have overlooked. She simply claimed that her “conscience” prevented her from remaining silent on the situation in Gaza any longer, and that she believed that the Israelis should be investigated for “war crimes” — also, under international law, no more than Hamas’s double war crime of both shooting at civilians and hiding behind civilians. And that does not even include mentioning that the civilians Hamas hid behind were their own Palestinian subjects.
Read more at Gatestone Institute
Despite Ahmed answering with a willingness to lead any such movement, her past provokes deeply disturbing questions about oft-sought “moderate Muslims” and their ability to counter aggressive Islamic agendas.
Having previously met, the veiled Ahmed smiled to me in the audience during the first panel of a June 16 seminar on the September 11, 2012 attack upon America’s Benghazi, Libya, consulate.
“How can we fight an ideological war with weapons?” was Ahmed’s not particularly pertinent audience question for the panel.
Ahmed argued that “we portray Islam and all Muslims as bad” while 1.8 billion followers of Islam remained unrepresented on the panel. Agreeing with Ahmed’s emphasis on ideology, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney’s response distinguished between personally pious Muslims and a faith-based political agenda of brutal sharia law.
That Ahmed “stood there to make a point about peaceful, moderate Muslims” while showing no interest in the panel’s discussion of a lethal attack against Americans, however, irritated national security activist Brigitte Gabriel.
“We are not here to bash Muslims… I am glad you are here,” Gabriel stated before asking to a standing ovation, “but where are the others speaking out?”
Gabriel cited intelligence estimates from various countries rating 15-25 percent of Muslims worldwide as radicals, a group perhaps as large as the American population.
“Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda,” Gabriel argued in describing the outsized influence of a militant minority such as jihadists. Just as the peaceful majority were irrelevant in imperial Japan and Communist dictatorships such as in China and the Soviet Union.
“It is time that we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs” Gabriel announced to cheers.
Following this exchange Ahmed left, giving evidence to suspicions that she merely wanted to make a point and not attend the event. Subsequent reception discussion revealed multiple observations of Ahmed’s appearance at other Washington, D.C. events involving Islam. One person noted that Ahmed at another event had similarly unilaterally raised the subject of anti-Muslim hostility.
Curiosity about my casual acquaintance Ahmed prompted by the Heritage event initiated a revealing internet search. An online interview deepened my limited knowledge of Ahmed, a woman raised in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, by an upper-middle class family before coming Oregon with her family at age 12.
Read more at The Blaze
Much more at Political Islam
The liberal mainstream media has long portrayed the picture of moderate (good) Muslims versus extremist Muslims. This narrative has been institutionalized in the thinking of Western Muslim scholars who advocate for Islam as well. This has led to the thought that Islam is an ideology and religion of peace, because a majority of Muslims fall in the category of moderate or good Muslims.
If we analyze this dichotomy in-depth, the reality of this phenomenon on the ideology of Islam can become clear. Besides analytical and theoretical frameworks, I will also draw on my own experience growing up in the Muslim world.
We were taught in school that the Qur’an has descended, word for word, from the creator Allah, through Muhammad. This is accepted throughout the entirety of the Islamic word. If we take this speculation as accurate information of Islam, then every Muslim is supposed to follow Allah’s verses exactly in order to be a good Muslim and to be considered a representative of the real ideology and religion of Islam.
Secondly, if we take the assumption that the Qur’an is made up of Allah’s words as accurate, then Qur’anic verses should be followed for eternity, as long as human beings exist in this universe. No changes are allowed to Allah’s rules and words because Allah, as Muslims say, is perfect and his knowledge is absolute, as a result, his words cannot be relative and every word he utters or reveals should apply in any time of human history.
In fact, even Muhammad himself repeatedly said two things a Muslim should follow are the Qur’an (words of Allah) and the Hadith (Muhammad’s teachings).
Considering this information and based on these standards, a true Muslim, who represent the real Islam, should be the one who follows and obeys Allah’s words (from the Qur’an) completely. As a result, anyone who ignores some of the rules is not, and cannot be, considered a reflection of Islam, a good Muslim, or even a Muslim. Accordingly, Allah’s words and rules are not a basket of vegetable to choose from, meaning that one cannot obey some orders and disregards others.
In this concept, the whole dichotomy of a good Muslim as opposed to an extremist as portrayed by the mainstream liberal media must be altered. By this definition, real, true, and good Muslims who represent Islam, are people such as Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ayatollah Khomeini (the founder of Iran’s political theocracy), Osama Bin Laden, Hassan Nasrullah (the leader of Hezbollah), Ayman Alzawaheri, Hasib Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinjead, and the likes, because they follow the Qur’an and Allah’s social and legal rules word for word. All these people who committed crimes against humanity will be considered to be the real Muslims, representing the actual ideology of Islam, Qur’an, Allah’s words, and Muhammad’s teachings because they follow the rules of Islam.
Read more at Front Page
This may be one of the most difficult issues to deal with for those of us who are working to defeat the third jihad: What about the moderate Muslims? Is there such a thing? What does “moderate” mean?
I think what most of us hope it means is “a Muslim that openly and definitely repudiates the violent, intolerant, supremacist passages in the Koran.”
But the more I read about mainstream “moderate” Muslim organizations in America, the more I realize that what I hope “moderate” means and what those “moderate Muslims” mean by the term are entirely different. I am getting the feeling that the term “moderate Muslim” is not only pointless, but misleading — perhaps even deliberately misleading.
We should stop using the term. We should come up with a name for Muslims who straightforwardly reject the violent, intolerant passages in the Koran and openly reject the supremacist ideology strewn throughout Islamic teachings.
In my opinion, someone who does that is not really a Muslim, but maybe they still enjoy praying five times a day and fasting during Ramadan, so they might prefer to call themselves Muslims. Maybe they don’t want to be rejected by their community and family. Who am I to tell someone what they call themselves?
On the other hand, we non-Muslims need a term that draws a distinction between the two types of Muslims. One type is dangerous to non-Muslims and one is not. A Muslim may not care about this distinction, but it’s pretty important to us non-Muslims.
I heard Walid Phares use the term “democracy-seeking Muslims” and I thought that was pretty good, but it doesn’t go far enough. Until a Muslim acknowledges that there are, in fact, calls to violence and intolerance against non-Muslims in their central holy book, and then repudiates those specific Koranic passages, I don’t feel that Muslim can be trusted.
I know that would sound terrible to someone who doesn’t know anything about Islam. But really, this is a pretty straightforward matter. If you call yourself a Muslim, almost everybody on earth is assuming you think the Koran contains the core teachings you will follow. For us non-Muslims who have read the book, that’s a scary thought. For those of you who haven’t read it yet, these passages will give you an idea: What the Koran Says About Non-Muslims.
So a firm repudiation of those passages would at least acknowledge that the Muslim knows those passages exist and acknowledges that they should be rejected. I know it is entirely possible someone saying so could be lying, but it would at least be a start.
What should we call Muslims who repudiate intolerant and supremacist Islamic teachings? “Moderate” isn’t good enough. How about “Scrubbed Muslims?” “Jihad-rejecting Muslims?” “Freed Muslims?” “Friendly Muslims?” “Non-jihadi Muslims?” “Pluralist Muslims?”
I like “Jihad-rejecting Muslims,” or JRMs. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, JRMs are the only ones we should engage in “interfaith dialogs” and the only ones allowed to provide counsel for the FBI and the only ones translating documents for security services.
JRMs are the only Muslims who should be allowed to preach in mosques in free countries or teach in madrassas. This is just simple, reasonable self-preservation. A person who calls himself a Muslim but does not openly reject the killing of non-Muslims for being non-Muslims, and who does not reject the overthrow of legitimate democracies, and who does not reject Shari’a law, should not be allowed into those positions. That should be a no-brainer for any person who cares about their government’s survival.
By Paul Wilkinson:
Britain has numerous so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims aka self-righteous ‘media-whores’, who carve a living from shamelessly denying all the nasty things clearly written in the Qur’an. They publically espouse equal rights and state how they are against any form of discrimination, yet on the other hand are all religious zealots who follow the Qur’an to the letter and worship the Prophet Muhammad and his teachings.
Many Brits do not have a great knowledge of Islam; certainly the overwhelming majority have not read the Qur’an and rely on the media for ‘enlightenment’. Qur’an inspired violence, terrorism and civil wars are on the news daily, but self-appointed spokesmen will feed off the public’s ignorance and tell the largely gullible audience this is all a contradiction to the real, ‘true Islam’.
At the other end of the spectrum are ‘hate preachers’ who are really being honest like Anjem Choudary, Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, who at times may be portrayed as ‘pantomime villains’, but the media does not tell us that they are simply obeying the Qur’an’s commands which do incite hatred and violence.
Hence the reason why Robert Spencer and Pam Geller were banned from entering Britain, because they would have challenged these ‘moderates’ and told the uncomfortable truth about what the Qur’an actually says. This is not what the multiculturalists in the media want you to hear… Not to mention the fact that Muslims would have been violent- remember, “Islam is peace”!
There is no Islamic caliphate anymore (thankfully), but having no ‘Pope-like’ leader gives rise to all these ‘spokesmen’ who claim they speak for 99% of Muslims. However they are ‘stealth jihadists’ who want to spread undiluted Islam, but their tactics are tailored differently and so do not publically admit to this. The only ‘moderate’ trait is by not personally partaking in or publically condemning violence, and misleading people by making Islam not appear extreme.
Other than in the public sphere many of these moderates are all essentially ‘nobodies’ and only have value due to the exposure they get from the media, like the BBC putting them on television most Sunday mornings. They effectively have carte blanche as they are totally unchallenged by the politically correct media and certainly never have Islamic scripture quoted at them. Their modus operandi is the ‘non-violent form of Jihad’, as Jon MC explains:
“Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) and/or jihad by the pen (jihad bil qallam). This might sound like simple proslytisation, but in essence Islam recognises any method including lying or dissimulation (Taqiyya/Muda’rat, Kitman, Tawriya and Tayseer) to ‘spread Islam’ to win converts, or gain acceptance for Islam within a host society, or disguising elements of Islam (hence the ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ statement). It also includes attempting to silence criticism by labelling critics as ‘racists’, ‘fascists’ or ‘Islamophobes’ or any verbal/written means to promote/defend Islam and/or silence opposition and critics.”
Read more at Cherson and Molschky
The question of Islamic extremism has more relevance to Muslims than to non-Muslims. It’s mainly Muslims who are obsessed with Islamic extremism. And with good reason. As they so often point out; they tend to be its leading victims.
It’s not that Islamic extremism doesn’t exist. Islam, like every ideology, has its gradations. It’s that for Muslims, there is a great deal at stake in the battle over Islamic extremism. That battle will determine whether they can listen to music, play chess or watch soccer games. Whether men can shave their beards, women can drive cars, little girls can go to school and little boys can grow up learning anything except Koranic verses.
Non-Muslims however remain unequal no matter which brand of Islamic theocracy is in charge. And either way they remain fair game in their own countries.
Every leading form of Islam agrees that an Islamic society is perfect, that its laws perfect man and that imposing those laws on society is a religious duty. They may differ on whether those laws allow Muslims to vote or fly kites; but that is small consolation to the non-Muslims who lose their civil rights either way.
Islamic societies are built around an Islamic law that makes non-Muslims second class citizens. Whether Islamic law is the basis of all legislation, as tends to be written in the constitutions of most “moderate” Muslim countries, or whether it actually is the legislation, makes a great deal of difference to Muslims who fear losing the ability to sing or play chess at the snap of a fatwa; but has less impact on non-Muslims who are still doomed to an unequal status.
What Western secular liberals insist on describing as extremism is really a reform movement seeking to purge innovations from the modern Islamic admixture absorbed from the cultures and peoples whom they conquered.
Reform means major changes for the descendants of the Islamic conquerors who have learned to like the living standards of Islamic empires and don’t care for going back to the ways of their many times great-grandfathers. It doesn’t change things nearly as much for the non-Muslim minorities who were conquered by those Islamic empires. Life for them would become worse if the Salafists were to take over. But the difference lies in degrees of subjugation.
There is no Islamic option for equal rights.
Distinguishing moderate and extreme Muslims is as useful as making distinctions between moderate and extreme Communists. These distinctions did and do exist, but they are less relevant in the context of an overall ideology whose goals are war, dominance and subjugation.
A moderate Communist was still a pretty terrible person. Likewise, a moderate president of Iran is still a political force in a theocracy that discriminates against non-Muslims, engages in regional religious wars and denies many civil rights to half the population.
Western liberals obscure this basic fact in their obsession with finding moderates to talk to. Moderate Muslims are still extreme by the standards of the West. They still support violence; the only difference is that they are more willing to try non-violent methods of conquest first.
In the long run, how much difference is there between the moderate slave owner who tricks his slaves into putting on their own chains and the extremist slave owner who makes them do it at gunpoint?
The end result is still the same. And that is the problem.
Read more at Front Page
Those of us who believe that Islam is a “religion of peace” that desires to live in harmony with the West and is comprised mainly of “moderates” who pose no danger to our way of life are living in a fool’s paradise. Despite its bloody sectarian divisions, Islam is strong, durable, belligerent and determined to impose its faith-based imperium upon an infidel world through one or another form of jihad. Violent jihad is the child of short-term thinking; stealth jihad is an expression of long-term planning. The only difference between the incendiary and the vanilla, the “extremist” and the “assimilated,” is patience, for both adhere to the tenets and commands of the Koran and the Sunnah. “Moderates,” whether they know it or not, keep the faith intact, maintaining its longevity and social status; their militant brethren profit from both the informal and official approval that “moderation” ensures, staking out the terrain in which the radicals are able to operate unhindered. As I’ve written before, moderation is the sea in which the sharks swim. (The British website Liberty GBfeatures a sober and persuasive article, “Ten Reasons Why Moderate Muslims Are Not the Answer,” which should be consulted by those who believe they are.)
A keynote speaker at the October 2013 Islamic Peace Conference in Oslo, addressing an audience of several hundred ordinary Muslim citizens, repeatedly made the point that “normal” Muslims hold to the same Koranic principles mandating abhorrent punishments as do the “extremists,” concluding that this cultural and scriptural contiguity somehow proves that normal Muslims are not extremists. Go figure! What he actually succeeded in showing is that Islam is Islam and not the innocuous doppelgänger we ludicrously wish or assume it to be. It is from its very origins a conquering religion that has never ceased throughout its more than 1400 year history to pursue its constitutive and self-defining aims. Like the tide, it has advanced and receded many times over, but it is now poised to complete an inundation from which we in the West may not recover. And we have only ourselves to blame.
There are, broadly speaking, five categories of individuals who refuse to take the Islamic threat seriously or who claim that no such credible threat even exists, namely: (1) overt or covert sympathizers and allies; (2) those who have been bought off with fees, perquisites or substantial gifts of money or donations to a cause or institution; (3) those who feel secure and protected, imbued with a “gated community” mindset, convinced they are exempt from any possible menace (no mosque will ever be built in their neighborhoods); (4) those who have been intimidated into keeping a low profile; and (5) the indifferent or ignorant, the low information — no information majority uninterested in or oblivious to the wider issues that impinge upon the health of the culture or the well-being of society.
Such attitudes bear an uncanny resemblance to the prognosis spelled out for Western civilization in the cataclysmic vision of Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West. As historian H. Stuart Hughes explained in his study of Spengler’s thought, a new “Caesarism” or tyranny will proclaim itself in our time, “while the mass of mankind will look on in bewilderment, apathy or resignation, ready to accept without question” their depressing fate. “A new primitivism will begin to pervade all human activity [and men] will be ready to believe anything,” as part of a “second religiosity” that Spengler foresees.
There is much truth in Spengler’s diagnostics. The secular religion of Communism has been superseded by the political faith of Islam, both aspects of that “second religiosity” replacing the Judeo-Christian foundation of the West. In the present time, the “new primitivism” of Islam has been embraced or accepted, consciously or passively, by a sweeping constituency of the bewildered, the resigned, the credulous — and, of course, the exploitative and the parasitical.
Owing significantly to the five categories enumerated above, it seems plausible to assume that the “clash of civilizations” in which we are now profoundly embroiled — the struggle between a far too insouciant West and the forces of supremacist Islam — will eventually be settled in favor of the latter. Barring a sudden awakening and an unlikely stiffening of resolve, the West as we have known it in recent history is probably doomed. Observing the shameful spectacle of Western politicians bending over backwards to placate their growing Muslim immigrant populations or siding with the objectives of their leaders, to the point where an American president has salted his administration with Muslim Brotherhood operatives and has materially supported its adherents abroad; considering the successful strategy of lawfare jihad, which has in effect suborned the legal community and the judiciary, as well as bullying many writers, journalists, magazines, newspapers and TV networks into an unoffending silence; and reflecting on the vast cohort of profiteers, academics, intellectuals, members of the privileged classes, and illiterates functional or otherwise who offer no opposition to or even concretely facilitate the progress of Islam — it is hard to escape the conclusion that it is only a matter of time before Islam triumphantly asserts its hegemony over the West.
Naturally, it won’t happen overnight, but it is happening gradually and inexorably, day by day, year by year, as one bastion after another falls to Islam’s insidious predation: lawfare in the courts in which citizens and citizen groups taking issue with Islamic practices are driven into bankruptcy; major cities being carved up into no-go zones or problematic neighborhoods; universities becoming hotbeds of Islamic advocacy; the mainstream media launching itself, in Doug Giles’ apt formulation, as “21st century truth reconstructors”; race-based or two-tier policing; political parties assiduously seeking Muslim votes and political administrations civic and national, as we have seen, riddled with Islamic agents. Islam has understood that it cannot win on the battlefield, but that it can bring its millennial campaign against the West to fruition on the fields of civil society, culture, the judiciary, the media, the entertainment industry, the constabulary, the political establishment and the energy sector.
And again, as we have noted, it is aided and abetted by a miscellaneous fifth column of fellow travelers whose posture toward Islam — whether through fear, ignorance, delusion, conciliation, profit, or liberal complacency and multicultural toleration of the intolerant — is one of supine compliance. The sequel seems foreordained. Conor Cruise O’Brien in On the Eve of the Millennium gives Western civilization 200 years before it collapses. He is probably being over-optimistic. A new poll, for example, based on exploding Muslim birth rates in conjunction with the so-called “deathbed demography” of Europe, has projected that Britain will be a majority Muslim nation by the year 2050. Indeed, the Malthusian geometric increase in Muslim immigrant populations spells the end of Europe as we know it and the victorious ascension of Eurabia. It has been estimated that France, Germany and Scandinavia are well on the way to Muslim majority status before mid-century. Even Russia faces the prospect of internal subversion, home to a restive Muslim population that constitutes 25% of the census.
Read more at PJ Media
David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, was released by Mantua Books. His latest book is The Boxthorn Tree, published in December 2012.
By Pamela Geller:
AFDI has issued an 18-point platform for defeating jihad in America. If Muslim groups in the U.S. were genuinely “moderate,” they’d endorse every point. Instead, they smear us as “Islamophobes.” It’s telling.
On Friday, October 11, a Muslim convert who calls himself Hasan Abu Omar Ghannoum was taken off a terror-bound bus in California and arrested for aiding and abetting the jihadi group al-Qaeda. Another Muslim busted for jihad in America.
This is hardly new or unique. We see these reports daily. Muslims and converts to Islam wage jihad in the cause of Islam. They cite the Quran, chapter and verse. Muslims worldwide continue the 1,400-year-old war to impose Islam across the world — all citing the same Islamic texts and teachings.
There is a problem in Islam.
So what is the response of the Muslim community?
On the same day that Hassan Abu Omar Ghannoum was arrested, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California issued a statement: “We share the collective concern for the safety of our communities and security of our nation.” However, it went on to say: “We ask that law enforcement officials and members of the media refrain from assuming that the alleged criminal’s wrongful conduct, if any, was a product of his self-proclaimed faith or associations with members of the southern California Muslim community.”
Obfuscation, cover-up, and deceit. The bottom line is that they know exactly what Ghannoum is doing and why. Ghannoum’s brother said that after converting to Islam, Ghannoum had gone to Lebanon to learn more about the religion: “He wanted to view more of the religious things. Firsthand experience.” His sister said that he went to Syria to study the Quran. While there, he began posting on Facebook about how he was fighting alongside the jihad forces there, bragging about his “first confirmed kill” and writing: “So pumped to get more!!”
The Islamic Shura Council of Southern California never mentioned the possibility that Ghannoum’s study of the Quran inspired him to wage jihad. They just warned everyone else not to consider that possibility. Did the Shura Council call for the expunging in the Quran of the violent texts that call for jihad? No.
We never see that from Muslim groups. What we do see is this Islamic pattern of stealth jihad. Muslim Brotherhood groups issue pro-forma, fill-in-the-blank condemnations after jihadi attacks or arrests (e.g., the Boston bombing), but they never address the Islamic texts that inspire jihad — nor do they attempt to organize programs that intervene in the recruitment of young Muslims or Muslim converts to jihad. What are the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, CAIR, ICNA, ISNA, et al. doing to stop the mosques preaching and teaching jihad? Nothing. Instead, these Muslim groups urge Muslims not to talk to law enforcement (as with the notorious CAIR poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI), and they seek to dismantle counter-terror programs in the USA.
Read more at American Thinker
Political Islam, by Kenneth Roberts:
There’s good reason to ask this question to ‘nice’ Muslims. It invites Muslims to declare their true values and loyalties: “When jihad comes, whose side will you be on?”
Shoppers at Westgate Mall in Nairobi and Christian students in Nigeria have recently been killed because they had the wrong religion. What will our Muslim neighbors do when the jihadists come to our neighborhood schools, churches and shopping centers in Europe and North America? Will Muslims protect non-Muslim neighbors from death or will they side with the jihadists? A shopping mall jihad has already occurred in the U.S., but it was largely ignored.
You mean, it’s already happened in America?
Yes, an event similar to the Westgate Mall attack occurred on the evening of Feb. 12, 2007. A young Muslim man walked into the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City with a pistol-grip, 12-gauge shotgun and a 38-caliber revolver and opened fire on shoppers, killing five and wounding four others, including a pregnant woman. The death toll at Trolley Square was higher than in the Boston Marathon Bombing, but the killings were misattributed to insanity, rather than jihad.
Will jihadists attack shopping centers across America? Undoubtedly! They will do so because it is the Sunna, the perfect example of Mohammed. In 627 AD, Mohammed beheaded 800 unarmed male civilians in Medina in a single day. He did so in a market.
Islam’s Dual Allegiance
Muslims have two loyalties: religious and political. Americans are loyal only to the constitution. America has no state religion to adhere to. But Islam has both. True Muslims must be loyal to the political act of jihad as well as to the religion of Islam. Islam is a religion as well as a military organization. This is not an opinion, but the decree of Mohammed:
“My brother and I came to the Prophet and I requested him to take the pledge of allegiance from us for migration. He said, “Migration has passed away with its people.” I asked, “For what will you take the pledge of allegiance from us then?” He (Mohammed) said, “I will take (the pledge) for Islam and JIHAD.” – (Bukhari 4,52,208)
Mohammed says allegiance to Islam includes the political act of jihad. Jihad is holy fighting against the Kafirs; it is the personal duty of every Muslim. If a Muslim does not participate in jihad, he will die a ‘hypocrite’ and burn in hell. Mohammed is the authority on Islam.
Why don’t Muslims denounce the terrorists?
Islam is harsh on ‘hypocrites’ (munafiqoon in Arabic). Munafiqs are ‘moderate Muslims’. They give only lip service to Islam. Mohammed wanted to burn the munafiqs to death in their homes for not participating in prayers or jihad.
Nonetheless, participate or not, they must not hinder jihad by thought, word or deed. Islam’s ‘munafiqs’ sit back and look the other way, while jihadists fight the Kafirs and subdue them. When a munafiq helps Kafirs during jihad, he becomes a traitor to Islam; he is considered to be a Kafir at war with Islam, so jihadists may kill him too.
When jihad comes, a munafiq is not neutral. He is on the side of jihad, rather than on the side of Kafirs. A munafiq is silent when the jihadists knock on their non-Muslim neighbor’s door. The reason for this silence is in the Koran (28.86) ‘never be a supporter of the disbelievers’.
Munafiqs can be reactivated in jihad
One of the surprising things about Islam is how non-practicing Muslims often return to active service in jihad. Sometimes it only takes a personal contact or a rousing sermon to turn a non-practicing, ‘moderate’ Muslim into a jihadist. This is similar to the recruitment of young pacifists in time of war. The Tsarnaev brothers were nice, ‘moderate’ Muslims and then they became religious jihadists.
How did ‘munafiqs’ behave during the Boston Marathon Bombings? When Djokhar Tsarnaev was about to be arrested, he called his non-practicing, ‘secular’ Muslim friends to dispose of incriminating evidence in his dorm room. They eagerly complied. When members of the Tsarnaevs’ mosque were asked about the two brothers, they kept silent about what they knew. When recruited, the munafiqs acted on the side of jihad.
Munafiqs at Westgate Mall, Nairobi
When jihad came to Westgate Mall in Nairobi, there were many munafiqs shopping that day. Did those munafiqs try to convince the jihadists that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ and to stop the executions and tortures? No, they left hurriedly and let the jihadists do their work of executing unarmed Kafirs in a market. The Westgate jihadists believed they were following Sunna.
The Westgate Mall munafiqs were not neutral. They took the side of jihad by doing nothing to stop it. Their silence gave approval to jihadic terrorism.
Salman Rushdie Fatwa
When a fatwa was declared against writer Salman Rushdie, ordinary British Muslims expressed strong support for blasphemy laws to punish critics of Islam.
The musician known as Cat Stevens was asked if he would go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie. ”I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing,” he replied.
Furthermore, if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ”I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like…I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is.” In his own words, Cat Stevens, aka Yusuf Islam, would take the side of jihad if the opportunity came. ‘Moderate’ Muslims like Yusuf Islam know which side they are on. Not on the side of the Kafir, because jihad is not a ‘peace train’.
Jihad at Broken Hill, Australia, 1915
In 1915, two Kurdish immigrants to Australia read the Sultan’s pamphlet announcing a universal jihad and planned their own self-directed jihad. They waited beside railway tracks and randomly shot Australian civilians on a train on its way to a picnic. Fatalities occurred. They then shot a police constable. It’s similar to the Boston Marathon bombings, when you think about it.
What has changed in 100 years? The doctrine is the same. The weapons are more sophisticated.
Munafiqs of the Armenian Genocide
Edwin Pears recorded this account from a Muslim woman in Turkey:
“Then one night, my husband came home and told me that the padisha (caliph) had sent word that we were to kill all the Christians in our village, and that we would have to kill our (Christian) neighbours. I was very angry, and told him that I did not care who gave such orders; they were wrong. These neighbours had always been kind to us, and if he dared to kill them Allah would pay us out. I tried all I could to stop him, but he killed them — killed them with his own hand.” (Sir Edwin Pears, Turkey and Its People, London: Methuen and Co., 1911, p. 39)
When jihad against Christian subjects of Turkey was declared in 1915, ordinary Muslim village men were led to Friday prayers. Someone read out the Sultan’s summons to jihad and the villagers proceeded to participate in the genocide of Armenians, Assyrian Orthodox and Greek Anatolians, the indigenous peoples of Turkey. Ordinary ‘moderate’ Muslims responded to the call of jihad. Three million people disappeared from the populace within ten years.
There are some noteworthy examples of Muslims who saved lives during jihad. Khaled Abdewahhab of Tunisia was the first Arab to receive a ‘Righteous Gentile’ award from Israel. He had hidden a Jewish family at his country home until liberation came. In 1915, a Turkish doctor ‘married’ four of his Armenian patients to save them from extermination. The uncle of the Tsarnaev brothers denounced his nephews and ordered them to surrender.
So what motivates Muslims when they help Kafirs in trouble? The answer is these ‘moderate’ Muslims are disregarding the Koran (28.86) ‘never be a supporter of the disbelievers’.
We Western people need to reexamine our political correctness. We need to learn the dualistic doctrine of the Kafir that underpins jihad. Otherwise, we will continue to have attacks against Kafir civilians like those at the Westgate Mall, Trolley Square Mall and the Boston Marathon. Muslims who attack civilians are imitating what Mohammed did in Medina in 627 AD.
One of the ways to learn about Islam’s dualism is to ask a Muslim: ‘When jihad comes to our neighborhood, whose side will you be on?’
The following is an article from Paul Marek (author of the outstanding piece, Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant). Reprinted with permission.
Mubarka is a Canadian born woman of Pakistani parents. She grew up in Toronto among other Canadian children and attended university where she received a degree in commerce. Today she holds a prominent position with a transportation company.
Mubarka used to be as mainstream as any Canadian young adult can be; in fact, those who met her for the first time may have been struck by her vivacious personality. Her effervescence went hand in hand with her distinct Asian beauty which she shamelessly displayed with stylish clothing including the occasional low cut top. Mubarka used to converse for hours over topics as varied as business practices in Canadian politics to contemporary music.
It comes, therefore, as a shock, when one learns what path Mubarka has recently chosen for herself. She will be wedding a Pakistani man…a devout Muslim, whom she has never met but who was chosen for her when she was an infant. Not only that, but she has donned the Hijab for the first time in her life and is strictly observing Muslim tenets. She has chosen subservience to a man and subservience to his religion over the gender freedom offered her by the Western democracy she grew up in, and she’s done so without so much as a whimper of protest.
When asked why she has picked the life of Sharia, Mubarka simply states that it is as Muhammad would will, and that there is no greater prophet than Muhammad. When asked how she will raise her children, Mubarka makes it clear…they will be raised as Muslims first, and Canadians second.
Hardi is perhaps one of the most pleasant Canadian women anyone could ever meet. In her capacity as a caregiver of seniors, she is gentle, loving, and incredibly patient. She laughs deliciously at the kind of comical moments that only seniors can deliver and her mood seems to be permanently stuck on happy. Hardi is an angel.
Those who encounter Hardi for the first time will be struck not by her character, that comes later, but by the fact that she is virtually covered from head to toe by traditional Indonesian Muslim attire. She covers her entire body with colourful costume that leaves only her hands and face exposed. Hardi is devout, in fact, so devout that during Christmas any appreciation given her by way of gifting must be void of any reference to the season. Furthermore, during quiet moments when Hardi is free to discuss her Muslim faith, it becomes clear she believes wholeheartedly in the strict observance of Sharia. For her, Islam in its pure non-secular form, is truth.
Both Hardi and Mubarka present us with a perplexing conundrum because they are members of what has become known as the “peaceful” Muslim majority. They don’t have a violent bone in their bodies, and are clearly law abiding and productive members of Canadian society. But, they are also both part of a very small minority within Canada where they and their fellow Muslims have very little effect on Canadian politics or on the evolution of Canadian cultural norms. What if though, Hardi and Mubarka were part of a Muslim majority where they and their co-religionists held the power?
Both women are Muslims first and Canadians second. No matter how much respect one may have for either woman’s character, there is little doubt where either would place her loyalty if faced with choosing between the Canadian traditions of liberty for all, or Sharia. There is also little doubt that if they were part of a majority, they would acquiesce to the demands of the Muslim clerical class and choose Sharia for all Canadians.
It is therefore irrelevant in the grand scheme of things whether or not Hardi or Mubarka are “good” people; most people on the planet are, no matter their religion, race, or culture. What matters in the greater sense, is that as parts of the Muslim collective, neither woman would set aside her Muslim beliefs in order to safeguard and protect the full rights of non-Muslims to live as they choose. What’s even more disturbing, is that both women have experienced the gender freedoms afforded them in Canada, yet both have voluntarily resigned themselves to the greater Muslim collective.
As long as each woman is part of a small minority within Canada, she offers Canada much; but once she becomes part of a significant minority, or heaven forbid, a majority, she becomes dangerous. Why? Because Muslims wherever they form a majority choose Islamic norms over the broader more tolerant standards of the West. If given a chance, as has been clearly demonstrated the world over, they would unravel hundreds of years of hard fought human rights gains and replace them with the medieval practices of their faith. As such, both Hardi and Mubarka are simply bit players in a monstrous and destructive Muslim vortex that would drag civilization backwards hundreds of years.
Some of my best friends are Muslims. Or rather, some of my best friends were Muslims—not that they are no longer Muslims but that they are no longer my friends.
The problem I had over years of friendship had to do with certain personal attributes which I value highly, namely, consistency and the ability to recognize facts. My friends were good men who believed in Western democratic values, in selective immigration policies based on the possession of needed skills that would contribute to both society and the economy, in the necessity for Muslim (and all) immigrants to assimilate into the heritage culture, and in customary methods of education and a traditional curriculum; they rejected the utter folly of multiculturalism as it is practiced in Canada. At the same time they were staunch adherents of Islam as they understood it and swore by the distinction between Islam and Islamism, between genuine Muslims and radical Islamists, a distinction characterized, they claimed, by an unbridgeable divide.
I enjoyed a positive and warm relation with two of these men in particular. Both are published authors. Both are much in the limelight, reviewed and interviewed in many different places, for defending the liberal society they find superior to any other. And both are under a fatwa issued by their less tolerant brethren. And yet one of these valiant combatants considers Mohammed to be the perfect man whom Muslims should strive to emulate, is not well versed in the complex history of the Middle East, and entertains a corrosive skepticism about Israel. The other, while regarding his jihadist co-religionists as barbarians, yet argues that the atrocities associated with the development and diffusion of Islam should be historically contextualized, that the doctrinal heart of Islam is untarnished by events, and that the faith has not been properly interpreted by those who, he feels, wantonly abuse it. He believes that Islam blossomed under Mohammed as a spiritual quest, ignoring completely the historical fact that the Prophet was also a conquering warlord who engaged in raids for booty and committed bloody and indiscriminate acts of slaughter.
My two ex-friends reminded me of Irshad Manji who, in The Trouble with Islam Today, anatomizes everything that is wrong with her religion but makes a passionate case for its reform, including the revival of the faculty of ijtihad (independent thinking and counsel). It is hard to take her argument seriously. After 1400 years of nearly unchecked imperial conquest, with a holy book brimming with commandments to kill, mutilate, tax and enslave those it denominates as “infidels,” with hardline clerics in control of dogma today, and with terrorist regimes intent on bringing the West to its knees, can one credibly argue that Islam is even remotely susceptible to wide-scale, peaceful renovation? Moreover, reform would entail the gutting of myriad canonical texts, including the Koran, the Hadith and the five schools of Sunni and Shia jurisprudence, leaving nothing but a rump scriptural archive. Plainly, under the aegis of “reform,” Islam would cease to exist.
My own trouble with Islam, and the reason for calling it quits with my former friends, involved precisely what I understand as the immutable or essentialist nature of Islam. This nature prevails despite the historical nuances, the times when the faith was less oppressive than at other times (e.g., the Abbasid dynasty of early ninth century Baghdad), and the existence of comparatively enlightened movements like the eighth-and-ninth century Mu’tazalites, who fought for the primacy of reason, man’s free will, and the moral responsibility of the individual. The Mu’tazalites, be it noted, were decisively crushed in the tenth century by the fundamentalist Ash’arite sect, after which, as the latter’s leading theologian al-Ghazali wrote in his perennially influential The Incoherence of the Philosophers, “the gate of ijtihad is closed.” And it has been closed ever since. Additionally, we should keep in mind that although the Mu’tazalites believed that the Koran was a divinely created text, contingent upon the circumstances of its revelation, and not, as the Ash’arites claimed, co-existent with Allah and therefore fixed eternally, it nevertheless could not be transformed into something it was not.
Read more at Front Page
For an opposing view see “Recommended Reading: Islam and Islamism” (globalmbwatch.com)
Author’s note: This was originally published in Dec. 2011 in Front Page Magazine and it was the most popular piece I’ve written until this piece of mine. I’m a cartoonist, so the only essays I write are ones that I cannot express in any other way but words, and here- in light of the latest Jihad attack in London, and the latest “Islam vs “Islamism”” debate going on- is what I think is my most comprehensive piece on Islam, Muslims & Jihad.
My name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim.
That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.
But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.
So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.
Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.
Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.
The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.
In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.
Read more at Front Page
Conservatives Must Stop Using the Terms ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’
During my counter-terrorism work I have the great opportunity to speak with Americans who understand Islam and are trying to educate others about the dangers Islam and Sharia create for our beautiful country. There are organizations such as ACT For America and FrontPage Magazine that are doing outstanding work. There are Americans who belong to no organization and they are doing outstanding work. I respect all who are educating Americans.
There is one major error many organizations and well intended people make when discussing Islamic issues. There is hardly a day goes by that I don’t speak with someone who uses the terms ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’. Using these terms causes great harm to our country and the movement by conservatives to show the dangers of Islam. I ask many of the people who use these terms if they believe the Islamic ideology itself is dangerous. Most agree that Islam and Sharia are very dangerous and America’s number one security threat. At the same time some of these people commonly use ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’ in their writings and lectures to the American public. If you truly believe the Islamic ideology is dangerous and harmful to our country and children, you must at once cease from using these terms.
Let me explain why. If you say ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’ then you are saying that in reality Islam is peaceful, a good religion, and has its place in American society. You are saying that Islam has been ‘hijacked’ by a few ‘Radical Muslims’ and the Radical Muslims’ are misinterpreting the Islamic ideology that was founded by Prophet Mohammed. Most of us know that the pure and simple Islam is dangerous and we want no part of it to be in America, and we don’t want our children to be led by liberal politicians, journalists, and naive Americans to believe Islam is a good thing for our country. Islam is not good for our country. Islam has been violent and dangerous for over 1400 years and it will always be dangerous. The people you refer to as ‘Radical Muslims’ are not radical. They are simply carrying out the ‘true Islamic ideology as Prophet Mohammed wanted it to be carried out. These people are ‘Pure Muslims’. They are Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbolla, and the numerous other Islamic acronyms. The leaders of such organizations as MSA, ISNA, MANA, and CAIR are Muslim Brotherhood organizations who are practicing the true form of Islam. They are not ‘Radical’, they are ‘Pure Muslims’. These organizations want all Muslims to think and behave as they do. They want all Muslims to practice ‘Pure Islam’.
Many well intended Americans also use the term ‘Moderate Muslims’. In reality a ‘Moderate Muslim’ does not uphold the violent aspects of Sharia law. In accordance to the Islamic ideology these people are Apostates of Islam. You can’t separate one aspect of Sharia from another and be a ‘Pure Muslim’. Even Islamic leaders say exactly what I described above. If you were to attend lectures at Dar Al Hijra Mosque in Fairfax, Va., you would be informed by the Islamic leaders that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. One is actually adhering to all aspects of Sharia law and therefor a ‘Pure Muslim’ or they aren’t and are Apostates of Islam. In accordance with Sharia law the penalty for Apostasy is death.
To sum it up: Immediately stop using the terms ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’. Stop legitimizing the Islamic ideology. ‘Radical Muslims and Radical Islam’ are terms brought into America by terrorist loving countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE to name a few.