Myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’

2689c65c-b354-4ba1-97cf-201643de3eae

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.”

– The Quran, Surah 9:5

Townhall, by Matt Barber, Jan. 3, 2016:

When it comes to the global scourge of orthodox Islam, the Western world, which Islamists expressly seek to “destroy from within,” is an upside-down realm wherein objective facts, logic and reason must yield to multiculturalist make-believe, “progressive” propaganda and political correctness run amok. Faithful Muslims want to kill you, and faithless progressives seem all too happy to help them along. Look at the ongoing Muslim invasion of Europe. This progressive paradise, a burgeoning multicultural dystopia, is beginning to look an awful lot like hell on earth.

Fact: Islam is about control. The word itself means “submission.” It is a socio-political pseudo-religion based upon the incoherent scribblings of one man – the “prophet” Muhammad, a warring tyrant who, as even the Quran concedes, was a murderous misogynist and pedophile. This unholy book is loosely plagiarized from the Bible’s Old and New Testaments – Scriptures that, by contrast, were seamlessly transcribed over centuries by roughly 40 men under the direct and divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that elusive, perpetually mute category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels. They’re bad Muslims and so, according to the Quran, not Muslims at all.

To be sure, “moderate Muslim” is a contradiction in terms. It is intrinsically oxymoronic. Whereas “moderate” (read: liberal) “Christians,” such as those belonging to the PCUSA, embrace certain apostasies that run directly counter to the biblical teachings of Christianity (e.g., the pagan embrace of homosexual sin and child sacrifice by way of abortion), “moderate Muslims” likewise embrace an apostate version of Islam that runs directly counter to the clear teachings of the Quran.

While devout followers of Jesus Christ, who is Life – God incarnate – are, like He, characteristically peaceful; devout followers of Muhammad, the dead, child-raping, woman-beheading founder of Islam – demon incarnate – are, like he, characteristically violent. Whereas “Muslim extremists,” that is, faithful Muslims, kill people extremely; “Christian extremists,” that is, faithful Christians, love people, including their enemies, extremely.

Islam explicitly requires a worldwide caliphate (global domination and the violent imposition of Islamic Shariah law). This fact is not open for serious debate and is available for all to read, hear, see and, tragically, experience. Islam, therefore, is inherently at odds with freedom, democracy and the United States Constitution. While devout followers of Muhammad readily admit this reality, the suicidal left yet remains hell-bent, head in the sand, on “tolerating” itself, and the rest of us, to death.

According to the Islamic watchdog group TheReligionofPeace.com – a fantastic resource for the unfiltered facts on Islam – “The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.” The aim of these verses is to dehumanize all non-Muslims, making it easier for Muslims of every stripe to slaughter them with impunity when the time is right. In addition to Surah 9:5, cited above, here are but a handful of Muhammad’s bloody calls to arms:

  • “Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” – Quran (9:73)
  • “O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.” – Quran (9:123)
  • “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” – Quran (17:16)
  • “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.” – Quran (48:29)

From the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad):

  • “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” – Bukhari (52:177)
  • “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” – Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992
  • “Allah’s Apostle said … ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’” – Bukhari (52:220)

“But the Bible says to kill unbelievers too!” cry the Muslim apologists. Nonsense. “Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence,” observes ReligionOfPeace.com, “the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.” (Christian theologian Dr. Michael Brown has penned a brilliant contrast/comparison between the Quran and the Old Testament, which thoroughly debunks manipulative false equivalencies often drawn by those who wish to sow confusion.)

Still, we need only look to the many polls to affirm the alarmingly high percentages of Muslims (hundreds-of-millions in number) who seek, through the most violent means imaginable, Islamic world domination. Again, here are but a few:

  • 83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll(2009).
  • 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
  • Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
  • 38.6 percent of Western Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified. Gallup(2011).
  • 45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
  • 38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. (Forty-three percent disagree.) The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
  • 78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
  • 80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
  • Nearly one-third of Muslim-Americans agree that violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran is acceptable. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • 68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
  • 51 percent of Muslim-Americans say that Muslims should have the choice of being judged by Shariah courts rather than courts of the United States (only 39 percent disagree).The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • 81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeerapoll (2015).

Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and the moderate Muslim: Even as we hear of the occasional sighting, most reasonable people remain skeptical as to whether, in reality, these mysterious creatures even exist.

What Muslims Really Believe

mm_1

Frontpage, by John Perazzo, Dec. 31, 2015:

Eric Holder once called the United States “a nation of cowards,” when he claimed that Americans are largely afraid to have an honest discussion about race. He was partially correct: Leftists like Holder arefearful of discussing race in any manner that depicts African Americans as something other than the perpetual, pathetic victims of white bloodlust and simpleminded bigotry. The meek responses that Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, and Hillary Clinton recently bleated out when confronted by some of the aggressive racists in the Black Lives Matter movement, were classic illustrations of this cowardice.

Equally pitiful has been the Left’s propensity for turning two blind eyes to the very obvious problems posed by Islam and the value system inherent in its scriptures. For the most part, leftists are content to simply depict anyone who’s willing to have a substantive conversation about those problems, as a dimwit, a Nazi, or both. Thus, when Donald Trump recently suggested that it would be advisable to temporarily stop Muslim immigration into the U.S. until the government is able to get its woefully deficient vetting process in order, he was instantly ridiculed and excoriated by a conga line of glib, self-congratulating know-nothings. Hillary Clinton, for instance, called Trump’s remarks “reprehensible, prejudiced and divisive.” Dawud Walid of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations characterizedTrump’s proposal as “fascist.” Martin O’Malley called Trump “a fascist demagogue.” CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen saw, in Trump, “the traits of a proto-fascist.” And White House spokesman Josh Earnest informed us that Trump’s remarks “disqualif[y] him from serving as president.”

Not to be outdone, numerous high-profile Republicans showed themselves to be just as cowardly, and just as dumb, as the aforementioned leftists. House Speaker Paul Ryan said that Trump’s views are “not what this party stands for and more importantly … not what this country stands for,” given that “freedom of religion is a fundamental constitutional principle.” Jeb Bush’s assessment was more pithy, calling Trump “unhinged.” Chris Christie portrayed Trump’s remarks as “the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about.” Lindsey Graham warned that Trump’s “bombastic rhetoric” was “downright dangerous.” And John Kasich cited Trump’s words as proof that he “is entirely unsuited to lead the United States.”

Implicit in each of these criticisms is the premise that newcomers from all faith traditions are more-or-less equally able, and equally willing, to assimilate into Western society, embrace Western values, and abide by Western laws; in other words, that it ultimately makes no difference what religion is practiced by those who immigrate to America. But quite frankly, no informed individual could possibly believe such a thing, particularly in light of the fact that in recent years researchers have accumulated a great deal of data regarding the attitudes, beliefs, and allegiances of Muslims around the world. Consider just a few of these vital facts, and contemplate whether you think they should at least be factored into the formulation of American immigration and refugee policy:

  • 39% of people in Afghanistan believe that suicide bombings are “often or sometimes” justified, as do 25% of Egyptians, 26% of Bangladeshis, and 62% of Palestinians.
  • Fewer than half of Pakistanis and Malaysians have a negative view of al Qaeda. Barely half of Nigerians and Tunisians have negative opinions about the Taliban. And a mere 16% of Pakistanis hold Hamas in low regard.
  • In a 2011 survey of Muslims in seven Middle Eastern countries, nowhere did any more than 28% of respondents accept the notion that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were carried out by Arabs.
  • In most of these same Middle Eastern countries, significant majorities of Muslims view Westerners generally as being “selfish,” “violent,” “greedy,” “immoral,” “arrogant,” and “fanatical.”
  • In Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Pakistan, the proportion of Muslims who hold Jews in low regard is nearly 100%.
  • In every sub-Saharan African nation where the Pew Research Center has conducted polls in recent years, a majority of Muslims believe that women should not be permitted to decide for themselves whether or not to wear a veil. The same is true of Muslims in Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq.
  • Overwhelming majorities of Muslims throughout South and Southeast Asia, as well as in the Middle East, believe that wives should “always” obey their husbands. And in almost all of these same countries, solid majorities oppose the idea that daughters and sons should be entitled to equal inheritance rights.
  • In Islamic strongholds like Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Morocco, and the Palestinian Territories, more than 80% of survey respondents believe that their respective governments should be based on strict Sharia Law. And among those who favor Sharia, anywhere from 29% to 61% wish to impose it not only on fellow Muslims, but on all citizens regardless of their faith.
  • Among Sharia supporters throughout South Asia and the Middle East: (a) a majority believe in employing the types of severe corporal punishment mandated by Islamic Law—e.g., whipping criminals or amputating the hands of thieves; (b) between 80 and 90 percent of Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Egyptians favor the death penalty for apostates (those who leave Islam); and (c) more than 80% of Jordanians and Egyptians believe that stoning is the appropriate punishment for adultery.
  • It is common for majorities of Muslims in South Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa to believe that honor killings are sometimes justified as punishment for pre- or extra-marital sex.
  • More than 70% of Muslims in Malaysia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, the Palestinian Territories, and Jordan believe that religious leaders should have much, or at least some, influence in politics.
  • In many Islamic countries, very small minorities of the population view polygamy as morally unacceptable. For example, only 8% of Egyptians, 6% of Jordanians, 5% of Nigerians, 11% of Malians, 8% of Senegalese, and 18% of Iraqis object to the practice.
  • Among Muslims throughout Asia, Africa, and Southern and Eastern Europe, the percentage of Muslims who say that homosexuality is morally acceptable rarely exceeds 3%.

To what degree can we reasonably expect newcomers from places like these to assimilate into Western society? What problems, if any, are likely to arise from their views regarding the use of suicide bombings against civilians; their support for genocidal terror groups; their low regard for Westerners generally; their profound hatred of Jews; their unwavering rejection of women’s rights; their opposition to freedom of religion and freedom of thought; their preferred criminal-justice practices; their support for varying degrees of authoritarian theocracy; and their views regarding marriage and sexuality? Do such considerations even merit a conversation? Or should we simply be content to console ourselves with soothing bromides about the unquestioned importance of “diversity”—until the values and traditions that have long bound our society together are entirely dissolved by the multiculturalist delusions and fairy tales of the Left?

For an in-depth look at the key research that has been conducted regarding these beliefs, click here.

‘By the Numbers’: Watch Clarion’s New Short Film

By-the-Numbers-IP

Clarion Project, Dec. 11, 2015:

“By the Numbers” is an honest and open discussion about Muslim opinions and demographics. Narrated by Raheel Raza, president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, this short film is about the acceptance that radical Islam is a bigger problem than most politically correct governments and individuals are ready to admit.

The film addresses the questions: Is ISIS, the Islamic State, trying to penetrate the US with the refugee influx? Are Muslims radicalised on U.S. soil? Are organizations such as CAIR, who purport to represent American Muslims, accepting and liberal or radicalized with links to terror organizations?

The Hard Line | Raheel Raza and Ryan Mauro discuss a new film about Islamic extremism

Do We Really Need More Jihadists?

Raheem Kassam / Breitbart News

Raheem Kassam / Breitbart News

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Dec. 10, 2015:

On Monday, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump created a political firestorm by releasing a statement, “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United Statesuntil our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on.”

While it should be self-evident that allowing unvetted mass immigration from Muslim-majority countries is a formula for national security disaster (look no further than Europe for proof), Trump’s statement identifies an even more important problem: the fact that our leaders in Washington have not been able to “figure out what’s going on” with respect to the global jihad movement – and what it will take for us to defeat it, before the jihadists destroy us.

Mr. Trump has clearly picked up on a conviction increasingly shared by millions of Americans. They have begun to realize that the Obama administration has long been downplaying, misrepresenting and mishandling a threat more and more of us see plainly.

The killers who plotted and executed the massacre in San Bernardino are no different than Islamic supremacists the world over. For them, terror is one of the tools used to advance an agenda aimed at imposing worldwide the repressive politico-legal-military code they call shariah and establishing a global Caliphate.  Other techniques employed by the granddaddy of all modern jihadist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, involve more stealthy efforts to penetrate and subvert from within our civil society and governing institutions.

We must understand shariah and the ideological impetus it provides for our enemies’ actions. We must also recognize its inherent and unalterable incompatibility with Western civilization. And we must take action to keep jihadis from threatening our lives – and our freedoms – in furtherance of their stated goal: installing shariah worldwide.

In his statement, Trump cited a poll of Muslims in America commissioned by the Center for Security Policy earlier this year, revealing the disturbing fact that large percentages of those who responded (51%) agreed that, “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  

Even more troubling, nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Those who don’t like the poll’s results have questioned its methodology. Yet, opt-in, online surveys are used routinely to gauge the views of populations like American Muslim that are relatively small and hard-to-reach. In particular, major survey organizations like SurveyMonkey & Harris Interactive that are relied upon and quoted extensively use the same approach.

For its part, the industry trade association, the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), has issued a study of online, opt-in survey panels. It states: “There are times when a nonprobability online panel is an appropriate choice, as there may be survey purposes and topics where the generally lower cost and unique properties of Web data collection is an acceptable alternative to traditional methods.”

Examples of other surveys using the same online, opt-in panel methodology include:

The AP-GfK Poll, which is widely reported on, including one finding increasing support for gay marriage and gun control.

NBC News, including a poll recently released on Americans’ divided attitudes ongovernment surveillance; and

A Cronkite News poll conducted as part of a project focused the Sikh religious community.

The Center’s poll of U.S. Muslims, however, seems to have touched a particularly sensitive nerve, perhaps because it asked questions that other polling firms seem reluctant to ask. In addition, the results could signal that a significant portion of American Muslims hold views that reflect mainstream Islam’s shariah. Such views conflict dramatically with the Constitution and concepts of civil rights, are nevertheless reflective of the way mainstream Islam is practiced in many Muslim-majority countries.

The United States govenment has every right to determine which immigrants enter this country. And the fact is that some would-be immigrant aliens present a far greater threat than others.

Here are some of the options available to try to ensure that this threat is mitigated:

Defund the Obama administration’s breathtaking decision to allow into the United States aliens who have engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism had “limited” contact with its perpetrators.

Deny any funding for the president to bring in not just refugees, but anyone coming in under any immigration program from Syria and Iraq, given that we cannot perform adequate screening on them, until such time as Congress reauthorizes such spending.

Likewise, deny any funding for the president to bring in via any immigration program from other nations whose traditions of Islamic supremacism makes the need for such vetting imperative. These would, presumably include those deemed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be “Specially Designated Countries” (notably, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Libya, and Afghanistan). An exception could be made for aliens from Israel, provided the Israeli government deems them not to be a threat.

Defund the approval of further chain migration from such countries in the name of “family reunification” – a practice that could be used to expand exponentially the 10,000 Syrians President Obama intends to bring here and that was used to bring Tashfeen Malik to the country under a K-1 visa.

Require that funds provided to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) must be used to relocate more of its charges closer to home, which it systematically refuses to do –  causing it to run a deficit unnecessarily, since it costs 12 times more to support a refugee here than there.

Provide the funds necessary for both the southern and northern border states’ governors to deploy their National Guard to secure our land frontiers unless and until other means of denying unauthorized access across them can be assured.

Include some variation of Texas Rep. Brian Babin’s Refugee Accountability National Security Act, which would place a moratorium on refugee resettlement until Congress deems the program has been adequately reviewed, as well as a Government Accountability Office audit of its costs. Even simply defunding all refugee resettlement from Syria would be a start, though the problem of jihadis posing as refugees extends far beyond Syria.

Include some version of the bill sponsored by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, which would restore control over how many refugees the U.S. admits each year to the legislative branch, where it belongs.

Eliminate funding for the so-called “voluntary agencies” (a.k.a. VolAgs) that are paid by-the-head to resettle refugees and, therefore, have become, as a practical matter, self-interested lobbies for expanding the number of refugees ad infinitum.

Restore U.S. control over whom we deem a refugee, ending the practice of allowing the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to dictate who is eligible for resettlement here. This is especially imperative in light of the extraordinary influence over the High Commissioner apparatus (and the U.N. more generally) enjoyed the proto-Caliphate, multinational Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). That influence has contributed to the fact that, by some estimates, nine out of 10 “refugees” being admitted here under the present arrangement are Muslims.

As previously recommended by then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, revoke the citizenship of those Americans who join foreign terror organizations by banning the expenditure of funds to admit such individuals back into the United States after they have traveled abroad.

Suspend funding for the Visa Waiver program unless and until the FBI designates that participant countries have given us sufficient access to the Passenger Name Record (PNR) data that the European Union has historically withheld from us.

Given the Islamist massacre in San Bernardino, not to mention the burgeoning growth of violent and stealthy jihadist activity around the world since 2011, America must admit what so many of its leaders refuse to say: Jihad and the hateful ideology of shariah that undergirds it are problems we must address, and must address now.

Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

friday prayersNational Review, by David French, Dec. 7, 2015:

It is simply false to declare that jihadists represent the “tiny few extremists” who sully the reputation of an otherwise peace-loving and tolerant Muslim faith. In reality, the truth is far more troubling — that jihadists represent the natural and inevitable outgrowth of a faith that is given over to hate on a massive scale, with hundreds of millions of believers holding views that Americans would rightly find revolting. Not all Muslims are hateful, of course, but so many are that it’s not remotely surprising that the world is wracked by wave after wave of jihadist violence.

To understand the Muslim edifice of hate, imagine it as a pyramid — with broadly-shared bigotry at the bottom, followed by stair steps of escalating radicalism — culminating in jihadist armies that in some instances represent a greater share of their respective populations than does the active-duty military in the United States.

The base of the pyramid, the most broadly held hatred in the Islamic world, is anti-Semitism, with staggering numbers of Muslims expressing anti-Jewish views. In 2014, the Anti-Defamation League released the results of polling 53,100 people in 102 countries for evidence of anti-Semitic attitudes and beliefs. The numbers from the majority-Muslim world are difficult to believe for those steeped in politically correct rhetoric about Islam. A full 74 percent of North African and Middle Eastern residents registered anti-Semitic beliefs, including 92 percent of Iraqis, a whopping 69 percent of relatively secular Turks, and 74 percent of Saudis.

RELATED: The Controversy over Syrian Refugees Misses the Question We Should Be Asking

The trend toward Muslim anti-Semitism continues even when Muslim nations are far removed from the Arab–Israeli conflict. A solid majority — 61 percent — of majority-Muslim Malays harbor anti-Semitic attitudes, while only 13 percent of neighboring majority-Buddhist Thais are anti-Jewish.

The next level of the pyramid is Muslim commitment to deadly Islamic supremacy. In multiple Muslim nations, overwhelming majorities of Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy. Collectively, this means that hundreds of millions of men and women support capital punishment for the exercise of the basic human rights of freedom of expression and free exercise of religion:

death-penalty-for-leaving-islam

Moving beyond Islamic supremacy to the next step of the pyramid, enormous numbers of Muslims are terrorist sympathizers. It is still stunning to see how popular Osama bin Laden was early last decade, and even as his popularity plunged (as he grew weaker and more isolated), his public approval remained disturbingly high:

confidence-in-osama-bin-laden

But what about ISIS — the world’s most savage and deadly terror organization? The latest polling data show that while a majority of Muslims reject ISIS, extrapolating from the populations of polled countries alone shows that roughly 50 million people express sympathy for a terrorist army that burns prisoners alive, throws gay men from buildings, and beheads political opponents. In Pakistan a horrifying 72 percent couldn’t bring themselves to express an unfavorable view of ISIS:

views-of-isis-overhelmingly-negative

But sympathy for terror is different from active support, and here’s where the numbers are difficult to pin down. I know of no reliable database that shows how many Muslims give to jihadist charities, spread jihadist propaganda on social media, support radical preachers, or otherwise take concrete actions to advance the terrorists’ cause. We do know, for example, that anti-Israel terrorism is so popular in Saudi Arabia that a telethon once raised $100 million to support the 2002 intifada. Shows of support included this charming scene:

A 6-year-old boy, with a plastic gun slung over his shoulder and fake explosives strapped around his waist, walked into a donation center and made a symbolic donation of plastic explosives, according to Al Watan daily.

It is from this fertile soil that jihadists grow. And here the numbers decisively belie the “few extremists” rhetoric. In Iran alone, the Revolutionary Guard represents a proportionate share of the population similar to the combined strength of the active-duty Army and Marines here in the United States. Between Boko Haram, the Al-Nusra front, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Yemeni militias, Libyan militias, and many others, the number of active jihadists numbers in the hundreds of thousands; some estimates indicate that 100,00 are fighting in Syria alone.

To give a sense of proportion, the United States is a nation that honors military service, respects its veterans, and engages in a massive military recruiting effort that includes offering soldiers generous salaries, pensions, benefits, and the best military equipment in the world. Even then, only about 0.4 percent of the American population engages in active-duty military service at any given time.

Jihadists, by contrast, have low life expectancies, second-rate gear, low salaries, and often have to break domestic laws and journey across battlefields to join terrorist insurgencies, but still they join. In Britain, for example, more Muslims join ISIS than join the British army.

Simply put, America’s leaders actively deceive the American people about the sheer scale of Muslim hatred and commitment to jihad. Rather than tell us the truth, the Obama administration and the media aristocracy constantly lecture Americans about discrimination, apparently believing that only their scolding keeps the great redneck masses at bay.

Telling us the truth won’t send Americans on an anti-Muslim killing spree. Instead, it will make us no more radical than Egypt’s president, who briefly made headlines earlier this year after calling for a “revolution” in Islam and decrying faith traditions that he admitted had been “sacralized over the centuries.” Telling the truth can demonstrate the scale of the problem and at least begin the process of convincing the American people that there is no quick fix, that the defense of the nation will require courage and resolve over the long term.

Islam has a problem. It is Muslims’ responsibility to reform their own faith. It is America’s responsibility to defend itself and its citizens. Neither goal is advanced by telling convenient, politically correct lies. After 14 years of war, can we finally tell the truth?

— David French is a staff writer at National Review, an attorney, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Also see:

Discussion with Sam Sorbo of the Paris Jihad Carnage, Trump, US Mosque Data, & US Policy etc..

By Andrew Bostom, Nov. 19, 2015:

Thanks to Sam Sorbo for a wide-ranging discussion of the ISIS-orchestrated Paris jihad carnage, the merits of Trump’s populist commentary in the aftermath of that jihadist barbarity, and related policy questions on our “Muslim allies,” i.e., perfidious, ISIS-abetting Neo-Ottoman Turkey; US-hating masses of Jordanians celebrating a jihad murderer of US workers as a “martyr,” while chanting “Death to America” in the streets, or “despicable America” at the “martyr’s” burial; and Sisi’s Egypt prosecuting Copts for mocking ISIS.

.We also discussed US mosque, and Muslim-attitude data, vis-à-vis Sharia and jihadism (see here; here; here), and Obama’s morally cretinous abandonment of the bona fide Yazidi and Christians refugees, the former whom his own Administration admits are being subjected to a “designated” genocide, the latter, the Obama Administration grudgingly acknowledges, is suffering from mass killings.

Most importantly, I quoted (just the bold) from this recent interview (blogged and transcribed by Diana West; who added an additional query) of a real 1991 Iraq war fighting hero, then tank commander Col. Douglas MacGregor.

If we commit large ground forces to the Middle East with the goal of defeating or destroying ISIL (the Islamic State)” the results will include all of the following:

“First, it would provide a temporary, rather than a permanent setback to Sunni Islamism. Sunni Islamist fighters will retreat into Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa. We forget that without the tacit and active support of Turkish President Erdogan and his supporters in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, ISIL could not exist.

 “Second, we will yet again ensure the expansion and consolidation of Iranian-Shiite strategic power and influence from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Our intervention in Iraq created an Iranian Satellite in Baghdad. This time we would end up working with the Russians to ensure Iran controls all of Mesopotamia.

 “Third, like the French, our first action should involve the closing of our borders, not the invasion of the Middle East. Given that our borders are open, immigration (legal and illegal) is uncontrolled and (if) unchecked no change will occur in the conditions inside the United States that foster criminality and terrorism.”

Macgregor continued: “As long as Sunni Islamist leaders in Turkey, KSA and Qatar provide the support and pathways for recruits that brought ISIL to life in the first place, nothing will fundamentally change. Moreover, if we do intervene on the ground, assuming we find anything before it flees into neighboring Arab states and Anatolia, we stand an excellent chance of securing Mesopotamia for Iran and its strategic partner Russia. Since we did accomplish that already in Baghdad, I am unconvinced we should repeat the mistake in the rest of the region.”

Channel 6 wrote: “Instead, Col Macgregor thinks America should secure its borders, enforce Federal immigration law, and halt immigration (legal and illegal) until US Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) can find out who is in the United States.”

“Right now, we just don’t know,” Macgregor said. “We have at least 30 million illegals including large numbers of Muslims and Chinese. How many are agents that wish to steal intellectual property or pursue cyber terrorism? How many Chinese and Latino girls are in brothels managed by organized crime? What we do know is that we now have Muslim communities inside the US where the population wants to substitute Muslim holidays for Federal Holidays and Sharia law for the Constitution. I strongly suggest we deal with these internal problems first.”’

I asked Col. Macgregor if he had anything to add. He replied:   “For some reason, we forget that Tsarnaev and his brother, the Sunni Muslims who attacked and killed Americans in Boston, were Turks from the Caucasus, not the Middle East.  Before we march into vast wastelands of the Middle East we had better secure Americans at home first. Marching into the Middle East the last time made matters worse, not better.” 

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ” (Prometheus, November, 2008) You can contact Dr. Bostom at @andrewbostom.org

51% of U.S. Muslims Want Sharia. What could possibly go wrong?

quran (3)

Frontpage, by Robert Spencer, Oct. 16, 2015:

Lost in the controversy over Ben Carson’s remarks on Sharia and a Muslim President was the fact that a recent poll bears out his concerns.

Investigative journalist Paul Sperry reported during the Carson brouhaha that “Muslims living in the U.S….just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having ‘the choice of being governed according to Shariah,’ or Islamic law.” He also noted “the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”

Many key Muslim leaders in the U.S. have said the same thing. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” So said the cofounder and longtime Board chairman of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Omar Ahmad, back in 1998. He has since denied saying this, but the original reporter stands by her story.

Ahmed’s longtime colleague, Hamas-linked CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, said in 1993: “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.”

Another prominent Muslim leader in the U.S., Siraj Wahhaj, said back in 2002: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

Younger Muslims have expressed the same sentiments. “We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don’t lobby Congress or protest because we don’t recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah.” That was Muhammad Faheed, a young Muslim leader at a Muslim Students Association meeting at Queensborough Community College in 2003.

Some may object that none of these quotes are newer than twelve years old. One wonders, then, what transformation in Islam in the United States has taken place over the last twelve years to make it likely that these men have changed their views.

Others may suggest that these men don’t speak for the vast majority of Muslims. If that is so, however, then where is the Muslim group that equals the power and influence of Hamas-linked CAIR while eschewing jihad violence, Islamic supremacism, and any desire to impose Sharia in the United States now or in the future? Where is the Muslim student group that rivals the Muslim Students Association in the number of campuses on which it has chapters (the MSA has hundreds, all over the country) while rejecting all attachment to the aspects of Sharia that are incompatible with U.S. law, such as its denial of the freedom of speech and of the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims?

And there are others as well. Sperry quotes Muzammil Siddiqi, the chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America and the North American Islamic Trust: “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.”

Sperry also quotes the Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California, has said: “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.”

Really, what did you expect? Islam has been supremacist, authoritarian, and expansionist since its inception. U.S. Muslims are not from some sect that rejects all that. Yet a considerable portion of U.S. domestic and foreign policy is based on the assumption that Islam in the U.S. will be different: that Muslims here believe differently from those elsewhere, and do not accept the doctrines of violence against and subjugation of unbelievers that have characterized Islam throughout its history.

But on what is that assumption based? Nothing but wishful thinking. And future generations of non-Muslims will pay the price.

THE MYTH OF INTEGRATION: MUSLIMS IN EUROPE GETTING MORE RADICAL WITH TIME, NOT LESS

HOMAS LEKFELDT/AFP/Getty Images

HOMAS LEKFELDT/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Oliver Lane, Oct. 15, 2015:

Research in the European microcosm nation of Denmark has found three-quarters of Muslims in the country register on an important measure for radicalisation – more now than a decade ago.

Whereas 10 years ago Muslims in Denmark could have been considered to be comparatively moderate, today a poll by newspaper Jyllands-Posten finds attitudes have hardened – and the younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views.

In a series of polls released by the paper over the course of this week, it has been revealed that Muslims are now more likely to take the word of the Quran literally, and that the teaching of the Islamic holy book should be implemented directly. In 2006 the number of people who agreed with the statement “the Quran’s instructions should be followed completely” was 62 per cent – today it has grown to 77 per cent; a strong majority.

While many have argued that the more violent verses of the Quran, which includes commandments to slay the enemies of the religion, have been taken out of context and are not to be interpreted literally, the view of three quarters of Muslims living in Denmark seems to contradict this view.

As well as taking the faith more literally, Muslims in Denmark also practice it with greater devotion, with more than half now praying at least five times a day, and a similar proportion rejecting the notions of any form of modernisation or reformation.

Jyllands-Posten reports this attitude towards a possible Islamic reformation came as a great disappointment to the small, elite group of Muslims that exist within the fashionable and powerful neighbourhoods of Copenhagen, such as Conservative member of parliament Naser Khader, who campaigns for such a reformation.

The paper reports the comments of one left-wing campaigner of Syrian Muslim heritage, who said in response to the poll’s findings that the fact Danish Muslims weren’t on board with their modernising mission was because the message had been mis-worded, and a rebranding of the concept of reformation would bring them up to date and in line with her metropolitan ideals. Contradicting this conceit, the paper also printed the remarks of Imam Fatih Alev of the Danish Islamic Centre, who said: “You can not change what is in the Quran and what the prophet has told us we need to do. Then you are not a Muslim any-more”.

On integration, attitudes towards the children of Muslim families marrying non-Muslims in Denmark varied. While a minority supported the idea of a daughter marrying someone outside the faith, a remarkable 74 per cent said they would be happy for a son to marry a non-Muslim.

This may be less surprising considering the literal interpretation of the Quran now enjoyed by the majority of Muslims in Denmark allows for polygamy, and for some wives to be treated less kindly than others.

Sociologist Brian Arly Jacobsen of the University of Copenhagen expressed surprise at the finding.

He told the paper: “It seems that Danish Muslims have become more religious in all dimensions, both in terms of faith and practice. Generally, we would expect that the opposite would happen, and that they would eventually come to resemble the rest of the Danes, who are not particularly religious activity”.

He said the opening of 30 new mosques in the past decade was likely the main cause of the radicalisation, a key warning to other European nations presently planning to allow the construction of mosques to serve their own booming Muslim populations. Perhaps most telling of all are the comments of Free Press Society chairman Katrine Winkel Holm, who said of the findings that they were a sign of Islamist forces within Denmark “unfolding at full speed”.

That Danish Muslims are now more hardline today than they were ten years ago should concern freedom of the press campaigners in the nation. It was back in 2005, a mere decade ago that cartoonists working with the Jyllands-Posten were threatened with execution, and massive protests spread from the nation worldwide after the paper published depictions of Mohammed.

The news reflects a trend also observed in Britain. In 2007 it was revealed that a staggering 36 per cent of young Muslims believe the act of leaving Islam deserves death.

Brigitte Gabriel VVS15 Talks Pew Poll on Sharia Law

9090403242_e7d1c68a43_z

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. http://www.actforamerica.org

Join ACT’s Refugee Resettlement Working Group

assimilated-800

***

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.”

Worrisome Number of American Muslims Polled Believe Sharia and Violence Are Acceptable

u1_muslim-image-intense-us-flag

Political Islam, Jul 8 2015, by Bill Warner:

We are constantly told that only a tiny minority of Muslims hold extremist views and that Muslims make wonderful citizens. But a recent survey refutes all of this optimistic propaganda.
The survey tell us that significant numbers of Muslims in America do not want to be ruled by our Constitution but want Sharia law. Nearly a third of the Muslims said that violence to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws are acceptable. Nearly 10% of American Muslims say that Islamic State is real Islam.
Why do we want to admit more Muslims who oppose our laws and customs? How can Muslims be true citizens of America?
Survey: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

ISIS Has Up To 42 Million Supporters in the Arab World

Islamic State supporters

Islamic State supporters

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, June 28, 2015:

An analysis of four polls surveying Arab public opinion towards the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) reveals that the group has a bare minimum of 8.5 million strong supporters and that’s a conservative estimate. If you include those who feel somewhat positively towards the Islamic State, the number rises to at least 42 million.

The estimate is based on a March 2015 poll by the Iraq-based Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies;  a November 2014 poll by Zogby Research Services; another  November 2014 poll by the Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and an October 2014 poll by the Fikra Forum commissioned by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The following is a breakdown of the support for the Islamic State in 11 Arab countries:

Iraq

The November 2014 poll by the Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found that 2% of Iraqis view the Islamic State positively and another 4% view it positively to some extent. The March 2015 poll found that 5% do not consider the Islamic State to be a terrorist group.

With a population of 32,586,000 according to the CIA World Factbook, that means the Islamic State has between 651,720 and 1,955,160 supporters in Iraq.

Syria

Seventeen percent of Syrians said that they completely support the Islamic State’s goals and activities in the March 2015 poll. That statistic grows to 27% when you account for Syrians who do not consider the Islamic State to be a terrorist group.

The November 2014 poll interviewed 900 Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey and found that 4% are positive towards the Islamic State and another 9% are somewhat positive. This should raise serious concerns for countries that are accepting refugees from the civil war.

With a population of 17,952,000, that means the Islamic State has between 3,051,840 and 4,847,040 supporters in Syria.

Palestinian Territories

About 4% of Palestinians view the Islamic State positively but a shocking 20% feel the Islamic State is positive to some extent. This is the highest level of positivity towards the Islamic State in the November 2014 poll (which does not include Syria).

The CIA World Factbook says there are 1,816,000 Palestinians in Gaza and 2,731,000 in the West Bank, for a total of 4,547,000. This equates to a range of between 181,800 and 1,091,280 Palestinian supporters of the Islamic State.

Tunisia

The November 2014 poll found that Tunisia has the highest percentage of people who are view the Islamic State positively (7%). Another 6% view it somewhat positively. The finding is substantiated by assessments determining that Tunisia is the biggest source of foreign fighters for the Islamic State.

The country’s population of 10,937,000 would include 765,590 people who are unequivocally supportive of the Islamic State; a number that grows to 1,421,810 if you include those who are somewhat positive.

Egypt

The Fikra Forum poll from October 2014 found that 3% of Egyptians view the Islamic State very positively (1%) or fairly positively (2%). The March 2015 poll has 4% of Egyptians viewing the Islamic State positively and another 6% viewing it somewhat positively.

Egypt has an estimated population of 86,895,000. The number of those who view the Islamic State positively ranges from 86,895 to 347,580 depending on which poll has the more accurate number. If you include all of those with some positivity towards ISIS, the range is 260,685 to 8,689,500.

Saudi Arabia

The Fikra Forum concluded that 2% of Saudis are very positive towards the Islamic State and 3% are fairly positive. The March 2015 poll has it at 5% positive and 5% somewhat positive.

Saudi Arabia has an estimated population of 27,346,000. The lowest statistic would mean that there are between 546,920 and 1,367,300 Saudis who are fully positive towards ISIS. If you include those who are somewhat positive, it is between 820,380 and 2,734,600 Saudis who are inclined towards the Islamic State.

United Arab Emirates

The Zogby poll from November 2014 found that 13% of the UAE’s population most favors the Islamic State in the Syrian civil war. The country has a population of 5,629,000, translating to 731,770 Islamic State supporters.

Yemen

Approximately 7% of Yemenis say they do not consider the Islamic State to be a terrorist group. The CIA World Factbook estimates Yemen’s population to be 26,053,000. This equates to 1,823,710 people.

Jordan

Only 3% of Jordanians view the Islamic State positively and another 6% view it somewhat positively. About 5% say they do not consider the Islamic State to be a terrorist group.

With a population of 7,930,000, this translates to 237,900 supporters on the low end and 713,700 on the high end.

Libya

An estimated 7% of Libyans do not consider the Islamic State to be a terrorist group. The estimated population is 6,244,000, placing the number of Islamic State supporters at 437,080.

Lebanon

The Fikra Forum poll found that support for the Islamic State is nearly non-existent in Lebanon with only 1% of the country’s Sunnisseeing the Islamic State as fairly positive. The Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies had a similar conclusion.

The CIA World Factbook says that only 54% of the Lebanese population is Muslim. Of that Muslim population, only 27% is Sunni. The result indicates the presence of 8,578 Sunnis in Lebanon who view the Islamic State fairly positively.

In Sum

If we use the most optimistic of the polls for each of the 11 Arab states, we come to an estimate of 8,523,803 supporters of the Islamic State and an average of 5.8% support in the Arab world. If we extend that average to the other 11 Arab countries with a total population of 370 million, you get a result of 21,460,000 strong supporters of the Islamic State in the Arab world overall.

This is in line with the November 2014 poll by the Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. It concluded that 85% of Arabs view the Islamic State negatively and 4% view it positively. The difference of 1.8% can be attributable to the margin of error in the polls and/or slight changes in opinion.

If we include the most pessimistic polls and include those who view the Islamic State somewhat positively, the result is 24,454,228 Arabs who view the Islamic State at least somewhat positively. If the average of 11.5% is consistent across the entire Arab world, then up to 42,550,000 Arabs view the Islamic State at least somewhat positively.

This second number is also in line with the November 2014 survey’s conclusion that an additional 7% are somewhat supportive of the Islamic State for a total statistic of 11%.

With a minimum of 8.5 million strong supporters and 24.5 million who view the group at least somewhat positively, the Islamic State has plenty of room for growth in the Arab world.

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

Chris Cuomo’s Sharia Folly

PJ Media by Andrew Bostom, June 5, 2015:

In the wake of CNN’s Wednesday revelation that journalist/activist Pamela Geller was targeted for beheading by slain Boston area jihadist Usaama Rahim, CNN’s Chris Cuomo interviewed Ms. Geller Thursday. Most attention to the interview has been focused on Geller’s understandable reaction to Cuomo’s suggestion that non-profane, free-speech cartoons of Muhammad — for example, ex-Muslim artist Bosch Fawstin’s thoughtful drawing below, which was awarded first prize at the recent Garland, TX exhibit – were somehow too provocative.

Fawstin_Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-small-1024x814 (1)

Said Geller to Cuomo:

Drawing a cartoon … warrants chopping my head off? That’s too far? I just don’t understand this. They’re going to come for you, too, Chris. They’re coming for everybody and the media should be standing with me.

But the most illuminating — and in Cuomo’s case, pathognomonic — segment of the interview (starts at 6:57 of the below clip) was when Geller asked Cuomo:

Where are the mainstream Muslims teaching in the mosques against the [Islamic] blasphemy laws, against Islamic law, the Sharia, the jihadist doctrine?

Geller’s query elicited this breathtakingly ignorant though commonly reiterated media falsehood, here asserted by Cuomo with supreme confidence:

Sharia is not mainstream Muslim thought.

Mr. Cuomo and other media figures across the political spectrum would do well — before issuing such embarrassing, factually challenged pontifications — to study the serious work of Joseph Schacht (d. 1969), who was the most authoritative modern Western Islamic legal scholar.

The sharia, or “clear path to be followed,” as Schacht demonstrated, is the “canon law of Islam,” which “denotes all the individual prescriptions composing it.”

Schacht traced the use of the term “sharia” to Koranic verses such as 45:18, 42:13, 42:21, and 5:48, noting an “old definition” of the sharia by the seminal Koranic commentator and early Muslim historian Tabari (d. 923) as comprising the law of inheritance, various commandments and prohibitions, and the so-called hadd punishments.

These latter draconian punishments, defined by the Muslim prophet Muhammad either in the Koran or in the hadith (the canonical collections of Muhammad’s deeds and pronouncements), included:

(Lethal) stoning for adultery; death for apostasy; death for highway robbery when accompanied by murder of the robbery victim; for simple highway robbery, the loss of hands and feet; for simple theft, cutting off of the right hand; for “fornication,” a hundred lashes; for drinking wine, eighty lashes.

As Schacht further noted, sharia ultimately evolved to become “understood [as] the totality of Allah’s commandments relating to the activities of man.”

The holistic sharia, he continues, is nothing less than Islam’s quintessence:

The Sharia is the most characteristic phenomenon of Islamic thought and forms the nucleus of Islam itself.

Schacht also delineated additional characteristics of the sharia which have created historically insurmountable obstacles to its reform:

Allah’s law is not to be penetrated by the intelligence . . . i.e., man has to accept it without criticism, with its apparent inconsistencies and its incomprehen­sible decrees, as wisdom into which it is impossible to enquire [inquire].

One must not look in it for causes in our sense, nor for principles; it is based on the will of Allah which is bound by no principles, therefore evasions are consid­ered as a permissible means put at one’s disposal by Allah himself.

Muslim law . . . has always been considered by its followers as some­thing elevated, high above human wisdom, and as a matter of fact human logic or system has little share in it. For this very reason, the Sharia is not “law” in the modern sense of the word, any more than it is on account of its subject matter.

It comprises without restriction, as an infallible doctrine of duties the whole of the religious, political, social, domestic and private life of those who profess Islam, and the activities of the tolerated members of other faiths so far as they may not be detrimental to Islam.

Most importantly, Schacht elucidated how sharia — via the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad war – regulated the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. These regulations make explicit the sacralized vulnerability of unvanquished non-Muslims to jihad depredations, and the permanent, deliberately humiliating legal inferiority for those who survive their jihad conquest, and incorporation into an Islamic polity governed by sharia.

Consistent with the doctrine of jihad, in accord with the Sunna (the traditions of Muhammad and the early Muslim community), by using foul language against the Muslim prophet Muhammad, Allah, or Islam, the non-Muslim transgressors put themselves on a war footing against Muslims, and their lives became licit (such as the poet Kaab b. al-Ashraf, who composed poems denigrating Muhammad, and was assassinated). (See herehere, and here.)

This “offense” was then constructed and legitimated by Muslim jurists when Islam was politically, militarily, and economically dominant, so that it was expected that the non-Muslims under Islamic rule would not denigrate the religion of Islam, nor cast aspersions on its major figures or institutions. (See herehere, and here.) The jurists saw any such denigration as an unacceptable hostile act, punishable by death, automatically, as per three of the main Sunni schools of Islamic Law (Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali), and the major Shiite schools.

According to the fourth major school of Sunni Islamic law, the Hanafi, the punishment of a non-Muslim guilty of blasphemy is left to the discretion of a Muslim judge. The death penalty was in fact most often applied by the Hanafis. (See here and here.)

Read more

The Muslim population of America is expanding at warp speed

American Thinker, by Carol Brown, Jan. 21, 2015:

Even when Muslims are a minority population they can and do transform whole cultures and societies. And not for the better.

Why? Because their holy book is a totalitarian ideology founded on submission and world domination. And toward that end, Islam is on the march. Meanwhile, the West remains mired in cowardice and complicity. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in Europe, which is on the fast track to join the Caliphate.

Not to be outdone by Europe’s madness, the United States is traveling down the same bloody path, importing large numbers of Muslims from Islamic countries thanks to the Islamophile sitting in the Oval Office and a nation full of dhimmis.

muslims in americaEstimates on the number of Muslims living in the US vary, ranging from 3 million to 7 million. Whatever the precise number, it’s already outdated as it rises with each passing nanosecond.

Since 9/11, there has been a dramatic uptick in immigration from Islamic countries with a 66% increase in the past decade. And things are just warming up. Islam is now the fastest growing religion in America.

Muslim popStrange, is it not? War has been waged against America in the name of Islam and we’ve opened our doors ever-wider to those who adhere to the very ideology that mandates our destruction.

Pew Research projects that by 2030, the Muslim population in the United States will more than double. In large part this will be attributable to immigration; to a lesser degree due to the size of Muslim families.

9781612154985In his book Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam, Peter Hammond wrote a detailed analysis on the proportion of Muslims to the overall population and increased violence and adherence to Sharia law. Hammond’s research reads like a roadmap to ruin; a horrifying picture of the future of civilization. To summarize an oft-quoted section:

When the Muslim population remains at or under 2%, their presence tends to fly low under the radar. In the 2% – 5% range, Muslims begin to seek converts, targeting those they see as disaffected, such as criminals. When the population reaches 5% they exert influence disproportionate to their numbers, becoming more aggressive and pushing for Sharia law. When the population hits the 10% mark Muslims become increasingly lawless and violent. Once the population reaches 20%, there is an increase in rioting, murder, jihad militias, and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship. At 40%, there are “widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.” Once beyond 50%, infidels and apostates are persecuted, genocide occurs, and Sharia law is implemented. After 80%, intimidation is a daily part of life along with violent jihad and some state-run genocide as the nation purges all infidels. Once the nation has rid itself of all non-Muslims, the presumption is that ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ has been attained – the Islamic House of Peace.

(Peace, of course, is never attained. Schisms among sects, starting with the rift between Shia and Sunni, erupt. The ideal of absolute power with divine authority always leads to internal conflict.)

That the United States is ramping up Muslim immigration is sheer insanity. A crucial step to putting the brakes on this frenzied march to our demise is to close the door to Muslims – whether those from Islamic countries or anywhere else.

Unfortunately, we’re doing the exact opposite.

In the last three years alone, 300,000 Muslims immigrated to the United States. And that’s just the beginning. The Refugee Resettlement Program is paving the way for a mass of Muslims to flock to our shores. With the United Nations in charge of determining who qualifies for refugee status and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Islamic Conference) as the power broker at the UN, you can count on a flood of Muslim refugees to be arriving at a town near you – if not your own town – soon.

And as one might expect, Obama is on board with any and all avenues to bring Muslims to the United States. I guess it’s part of his dream; our nightmare.

Who can forget the lie he told back in 2009 when he said the United States was one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Taqiyya? Stupidity? Slip of the tongue? Wishful thinking? Whatever the reason, it appears he is doing everything in his power to make that lie a reality.

 

Part of the process of flooding this country with Muslims from Islamic countries involves transplanting entire communities from places like Somalia. And just as we see in Europe, the new arrivals don’t assimilate and they live off the public dole.

20100715_SomaliMigrantsFor example, Family Security Matters reports that Somali immigrants have overwhelmed many small towns in America, creating their own enclaves. In some cases they’ve become the majority population – a population distinguished by being the least educated and most unemployed in the country, with evidence to show some have little motivation to become gainfully employed. When they first arrive, they are urged to go to towns where welfare is easy to access – places like Lewiston, Maine, a city of about 30,000 people.

At least before the invasion began.

The town provided welfare and public housing to Somali Muslims, many of whom were mothers with lots of children. And the Somalis came at a rate of about 100 per day.

The Somali population of Lewiston now exceeds 40,000.

In addition to Muslims from Somalia, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, a new wave has started arriving from Syria. The State Department expects “admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond.” It is expected that 9,000 or more Syrian refugees will arrive this year with a plan to bring at least 75,000 over the next five years.

syrian-refugees-protest (2)And as refugees flow in, our tax dollars flow out as the American tax payer funds the Muslim invasion, because when refugees arrive they are linked with a broad array of publically-funded services (food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized medical care, tutors, interpreters, and so on). In addition, charities (many of which are Christian or Jewish) that assist refugees receive federal grant money to provide additional support.

And where do these new immigrants from Islamic countries settle once they arrive? Well, just about everywhere and anywhere. The five states with the largest number of refugees are Texas, California, New York, Michigan, and Florida. But the situation is very dynamic and as numbers are updated, demographic shifts occur.

These were the top 5 states in FY2014. Right now Arizona is edging out Florida and Michigan has moved to number 3.

These were the top 5 states in FY2014. Right now Arizona is edging out Florida and Michigan has moved to number 3.

There are also regions of the country that participate in what is called the Preferred Communities Program. The program considers small towns and rural areas to be most suited to refugees and immigrants because small communities are best able to offer the kinds of services this new class of imports need. Or so they claim. And so we’ve got Somali refugees flocking to Cheyenne, Wyoming, in order to get easy-to-come-by Section 8 housing vouchers they take to other states. Those states either pick up the tab, or bill Cheyenne. And Cheyenne is running out of money. Duh.

So much for the taqiyya on the Preferred Communities Program website waxing poetic about the contributions these immigrants make to our society: “Refugees help communities learn and appreciate the many ways newcomers’ talents contribute to a richer, stronger society.”

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Maybe that was the case in another time in America. But not now in the age of multi-culturalism. Not with Muslim refugees with no skills, enormous needs, and a sense of entitlement. Oh, and for some, the desire to kill us.

DSC_8770-TrojanHorse-PSSo why are all of these Muslim refugees coming here anyway? Why aren’t they being taken in by Muslim majority countries? It would certainly make sense. After all, they’re much closer geographically, language barriers would be reduced, and local values and traditions are closer.

That Muslim majority countries have not opened their doors to these refugees is, I am confident, quite by design. This is about conquest. Otherwise known as Hijra, the Islamic doctrine of immigration. Hijra works in concert with violent jihad to overwhelm a society until Islam becomes the single dominant force.

And while Muslim refugees swarm into the United States as part of this conquest, Obama has twisted the knife even further by (1) easing requirements for potential immigrants who have links to “soft” terror, and (2) closing the door to persecuted Christians in the Middle East who have precious few options of where to flee. (Obama is also making it exceedingly difficult for French Jews to immigrate to the United States.) Per Investor’s Business Daily:

In another end-run around Congress, President Obama has unilaterally eased immigration requirements for foreigners linked to terrorism. (snip)

…By exempting five kinds of limited material support for terrorism, Obama instantly purges more than 4,000 suspects from the U.S. terror watch list and opens our borders up to both them and their families. (snip)

At the same time Obama opens the floodgates to them, he’s closing our borders to Christians fleeing persecution by Muslims in Egypt, Iraq and other Mideast countries.

Leave it to Obama to make a good situation bad. And then make a bad situation worse. He isn’t satisfied until he’s upped the ante so far imminent danger is at hand.

So we’re importing Muslims from Muslim majority countries who are traumatized, who don’t speak English, who have few skills, who follow the teachings of the Koran, many of whom want to spread Sharia law, some of whom actively support terror, and/or others of whom are or will become terrorists, while we’ve abandoned Christians trapped in the Middle East as they are slaughtered en masse.

To be blunt: We are importing Islamic terror. Not because every Muslim is a terrorist. But because enough of them are. And plenty more who don’t commit acts of terror support it – quietly at home or loudly in the street.

Below is a snapshot of where American Muslims stand on a variety of issues based on polls conducted over the past few years (see here, here, and here):

·      13% agree that some frequency of violence to defend Islam against civilians is justified.

·      19% are either favorable toward Al Qaeda or aren’t sure.

·      40% support Sharia law and believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution.

·      46% believe Americans who mock or criticize Islam should face criminal charges, with 12.5% in support of the death penalty for blasphemers, another 4.3% somewhat agreeing on the death sentence for those who insult Islam, and 9% unsure if the death penalty should apply.

In addition, to name a few additional points of concern among many (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here):

·      Mosques are proliferating across the landscape at breakneck speed, 80% of them preach jihad (through sermons and/or materials), and more than 95% of American Muslims attend such mosques.

·      Many American Muslims send their children to Islamic schools where they are indoctrinated in hate.

·      Many American Muslims have embraced Jew-hatred, as is written in the Koran.

·      There are compounds across America where Muslims receive jihad training.

·      Our prisons are breeding grounds for jihadists.

·      The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated every arm of our government as well as other major institutions.

So all-in-all, there are a lot of Muslims in America who are on board with Islamic law/jihad. It doesn’t matter if all of them are. Enough of them are.

What are we doing?!

We’re carefully planning our suicide, that’s what.

As Michael Walsh wrote at PJ Media: “There is no assimilating invaders who wish to replace your society with theirs, whether they call themselves ‘immigrants,’ ‘refugees’ or ‘asylum-seekers’…When it comes to the soul of a country, there really can be only one.”

Large Percentage of 1.2 Billion Muslims Are Radicalized

Published on Jan 12, 2015 by act4america

http://www.actforamerica.org
In this clip from a panel discussion of Fox, Brigitte Gabriel, President of ACT For America explains studies that show what percentage of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims are radicalized.

SHAPIRO: Politifact Thinks There’s No Such Thing As a Radical Muslim

Truth Revolt, by Ben Shapiro:

Politifact has long been an outlet for the left. Masquerading as a news-only, “just the facts, ma’am” truthtelling outlet, Politifact has burnished its reputation for veracity by labeling President Obama’s “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” lie half-true – only to reverse course and label the very same statement its lie of the year just a year later.

Now, Politifact has seen fit to attempt to debunk my video attempting to estimate the number of radical Muslims on the planet.

This was, admittedly, a tall order for the mental midgets at Politifact. That’s because I drew all my numbers directly from well-established polling companies like Pew, and clearly defined my terms: radical Muslims, I said, believed in one of the following: (1) honor killings; (2) conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11; (3) the implementation of shariah law; (4) support for terrorist groups or attacks. I then calculated the highest polling percentages from the world’s most populous Muslim countries that fell within these four categories. The goal: to set an outer limit at the number of radical Muslims on earth. My conclusion: at least 800 million Muslims fell within these categories.

So, what was Politifact’s response? They didn’t like my criteria. Instead, they claimed, my claim was false. They did not claim that I misquoted the polls, or that I skewed the numbers. They simply stated that supporting honor killings, conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, implementation of shariah law, and support for terrorism didn’t make you radical.

Which begs the question: what in the hell actually makes you a Muslim radical according to Politifact?

Let’s analyze their asinine analysis.

First, they argued, believing in implementation of shariah law did not make one a radical Muslim:

It is a moral code that covers marriage, crime and business. Different branches of Islam use different versions of the law. Some elements are widely accepted, such as the immorality of fraud. But for countries and sects that follow the harshest versions in which thieves have their hands cut off and unfaithful women are stoned to death, the opposition from the West, and parts of the Muslim world as well, is strong and visceral.

Somehow it seems less than honest to suggest that those who back implementation of shariah law in Pakistan want to restrict that implementation to usury laws.

And yet that’s precisely what Politifact does:

Pew reported that 84 percent of Pakistani Muslims wanted Sharia law, but of those, nearly two-thirds said it should only apply to Muslims. Run those numbers through and you get about 54 million Muslims who think all Pakistanis should be subject to Sharia law. That’s about 60 percent fewer than Shapiro said.

Well, no. If Christians wanted governments to apply Biblical punishments for adultery, but only for Christians, they’d still be radical Christians. It matters little to the young Muslim woman stoned for adultery whether shariah law is only applied to Muslims or not. The person doing the stoning is radical.

But here’s where Politifact gets truly hilarious: they can’t even stick with their own statistics:

We are not saying that Pakistan has 54 million radical Muslims. Our point is that more detailed polling data changes the results a great deal. Shapiro chose one yardstick. Other analysts could with at least as much justification choose another.

That doesn’t make my yardstick wrong, of course. It just means Politifact doesn’t like my yardstick. So they try their own. And, sadly, they come up with a calculation of 181 million Muslims in 15 countries who are radical. Which is lower than my estimate, but reasonable.

But that’s politically incorrect. So Politifact simply says that no standard can be used for determining radicalism in the Muslim world: “To be clear, we’re not saying there are 181 million radical Muslims.”

They’re not saying there are 54 million radical Muslims in Pakistan or 181 million radical Muslims in the most populous Muslim countries. So, what are they saying?

They’re saying that all definitions of Muslim radicalism are off the table, so we can never tell if there are any Muslim radicals at all. As they concede, “We should note that we found no solid estimate of the number of radical Muslims worldwide.”

To prove that point, Politifact quotes James Zogby of the Arab American Institute to support the notion that even honor killings do not make one a radical Muslim: “Zogby said that as cruel as honor killings are, they are not tied to beliefs that underlie beheadings and suicide bombings.” In other words, as long as you’re not a head-chopper, you’re not a radical Muslim. And even then, we’d have to examine your true Islamic motives.

That’s certainly convenient for Zogby, given his reported defense of groups including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as certain individual terrorists. Zogby even said that Palestinian organizations that refused to sign a pledge not to use American aid for terrorism were not supporting terrorism. So there’s that.

Finally, Politifact concludes that my claim that a majority of Muslims are radical is false: ““Shapiro’s definition of radical is so thin as to be practically meaningless and so too are the numbers he brings to bear.”

Which is beyond ridiculous, given that they established no definition for radicalism, disowned their own numbers in order to avoid coming to uncomfortable conclusions, and even admitted that my yardstick was justifiable, as were others.

Politifact, it turns out, is actually just PolitiOpinion.

We rate Politifact’s brand “false.”