What Is The Purpose of Islamic Centers/Mosques in America?

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of Boston was founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi and was home to the Boston Marathon Bomber Tsarnaev brothers

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of Boston was founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi and was home to the Boston Marathon Bomber Tsarnaev brothers

UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 20, 2016:

Many Americans believe a mosque or Islamic Center is simply a “Muslim church.”  This could not be further from the truth.

In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example of a man.  Anything he did is considered the example for all Muslims to follow for all time.  Muslim men can marry girls as young as six years old because Mohammad did.  Mohammad beheaded Jews at the Battle of the Trench, so this is an “excellent example” for Muslims to follow.  And Mohammad built mosques.

Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)” governed by sharia (Islamic Law).  There is no separation of politics, religion, or military operations.  Mohammad was a political, religious, and military leader.  The mosque was and is a place where politics, religion, community, and military affairs are all combined.

Mohammad used mosques as a place for the community to gather and learn about Islam.  It was a place to store food, water, weapons, and ammunition.  It was a place where jihadis lived and trained.  It was also the place where battles were planned and the place from which battles were launched.  So, thats what a mosque is.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) strategic plan for North America entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum” was discovered during an FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia in 2004 at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader.  This document was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Dallas, 2008.

Regarding mosques/Islamic Centers, An Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Understanding the role and the nature of work of “The Islamic Center” in every city with what achieves the goal of the process of settlement (Civilization Jihad):  The center we seek is the one which constitutes the “axis” of our Movement, the “perimeter” of the circle of our work, our “balance center”, the “base” for our rise and our “Dar al-Arqam” to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the “niche” of our prayers.(emphasis added)

“This is in order for the Islamic center to turn – in action not in words – into a seed ‘for a small
Islamic society’…Thus, the Islamic center would turn into a place for study, family, battalion, course, seminar, visit, sport, school, social club, women gathering, kindergarten for male and female youngsters, the office of the domestic political resolution, and the center for distributing our newspapers, magazines, books and our audio and visual tapes…Meaning that the “center’s” role should be the same as the “mosque’s” role during the time of God’s prophet…when he marched to “settle” the Dawa’ in its first generation in Madina…From the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew. This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into “operations rooms” for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role model to be followed.” (emphasis added)

In 2002, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan quoted a famous muslim refrain:  “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” further highlighting the understanding among Muslims of what a mosque it.  (“Turkey’s Charismatic Pro-Islamic Leader.” BBC News. 4 November 2002)

The Islamic Center of Irving is owned by the MB’s bank, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)

The Islamic Center of Irving is owned by the MB’s bank, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)

One of the leading Islamic jurists in the world who also led the first prayers in Egypt after the successful MB revolution there in 2011 – Yusuf al Qaradawi – published a fatwa (legal ruling) on the question “Is it permissible to use a mosque for political purposes?”  In it he stated, in part:

“It must be the role of the mosque to guide the public policy of a nation, raise awareness of critical issues, and reveal its enemies. From ancient times the mosque has had a role in urging jihad for the sake of Allah, resisting the enemies of the religion who are invading occupiers. That blessed Intifada in the land of the prophets, Palestine, started from none other than the mosques. Its first call came from the minarets and it was first known as the mosque revolution. The mosque’s role in the Afghan jihad, and in every Islamic jihad cannot be denied.”

There is a reason American soldiers and Marines find weapons, ammunition, and jihadis in mosques overseas, and why the French are finding weapons in mosques in France – this is what mosques are.

It is worth noting when the FBI killed Imam Luqman Abdullah in a shootout in Detroit in 2009, the complaint in the case quoted an FBI source stating he/she, “…saw and participated in extensive firearms and martial arts training inside the Masjid al Haqq (mosque).”

Finally, the Islamic Law of Sacred Space makes clear that when Muslims build mosques they are claiming ground for Islam.  Specifically, a radius of up to three (3) miles from the mosque belongs to Islam.  This explains why the Muslim Brotherhood, with funding from Saudi Arabia and others, are building huge mosques in the middle of nowhere in America.  They are claiming ground for Islam.  Now all they have to do is occupy that ground.

In America today there are over 2100 Islamic Centers/Mosques in all 50 states.  Land ownership by the Muslim Brotherhood’s bank – the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) – and the jihadis leading these organizations, indicates over 80% of these centers are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in America.  Independent investigation also reveals over 80% of American mosques teach sharia adherence and violence to attendees, which is a logical outcome of them being MB jihadi mosques.

According to our enemy, the mosque/Islamic Center is the place from which the jihadis here will launch the jihad when “Zero Hour” arrives.

We can sit by and wait for that day, or we can begin dismantling this jihadi network in our Homeland.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America

us-fallschurch-va-dar-al-hijrah-islamic-center-jpg_095911Politically Short, by Nick Short, Jan. 14, 2016:

While much has been written on the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood, for the most part the majority of Americans continue to remain unaware of this nefarious organization as it operates freely in America under a litany of various front organizations posing as charities and civil rights groups. Although terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS), and Hamas have clear tactical differences, they both share the exact same ideology and goals. In fact, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and ISIS would not exist today if it wasn’t for the Muslim Brotherhood which birthed these groups through the teachings of ideologues like Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutd. It is no understatement to say that the Muslim Brotherhood has inspired the entire modern Islamic terrorist enterprise.

Yet, too much attention has been given to groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS as they seek to bring about their ultimate goal of establishing Sharia law via the “Caliphate” through violence. The spotlight has been virtually ignored on the Muslim Brotherhood though as they seek the same goal of Sharia but through a gradual, termite-like approach that burrows deeply into a host society by eating away it’s institutions slowly from within. These are the two tactical differences that Americans need to become aware of as the former has virtually controlled the narrative while the latter is whitewashed away as not irrelevant. The Muslim Brotherhood in America has acquired positions of influence behind the scenes in the government, academia, and even the media with little to no resistance. For the Brotherhood, it all begins with the establishment of various innocuous sounding Islamic organizations created at the grassroots level which eventually serve the purposes of evolving into breeding grounds for radicalization.

More than thirty years ago the Muslim Brotherhood laid out a twelve point strategy to put up a false front of peace while acting covertly to subvert the Western world in a document that came to be known as “The Project“. The document was recovered by Swiss authorities as they raided the lakeside villa of the Brotherhoods’ then foreign minister Youseff Nada shortly after the September 11th attacks on the United States. The document was written in 1982 and it outlines a strategy for the Muslim Brotherhood to “establish an Islamic government on earth.”

Patrick Poole, a counter-terrorism consultant and National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media, notes that “what makes The Project so different from the standard ‘Death of America! Death to Israel!’ and ‘Establish the global caliphate!’ Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the ‘cultural invasion’ of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood master plan.”

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, Hamas, ISIS, and various other terrorist organizations, the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. Poole highlights a few of the following tactics and techniques that are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”.

Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals.

Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers.

Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements.

Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”.

Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support.

Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world.

While these are just a few of the key bullet points outlined in the document, one only needs to look towards a 2005 report conducted by the Dutch on the Muslim Brotherhood clandestine infiltration in the Netherlands to get an idea of how the strategy operates within western society. The report, titled From Dawa to Jihad: The various threats from radical Islam to the democratic legal order explains that their exists in the Netherlands “radical branches of the Muslim Brotherhood which employs covert dawa (propagation of radical Islamic ideology and appeal to convert people to become Muslim) strategies that seek to gradually undermine it (the State) by infiltrating, and eventually taking over the civil service, the judicature, schools, local administrators, etc.”

Aiming at a clandestine infiltration of political and social institutions, the 2005 report goes on to state that their are also conceivable, for example, “attempts to infiltrate community-based organisations with the aim of monopolising them (thus obstructing the proper functioning of ‘civil society’). But in the long run, more serious forms of such covert subversion are also conceivable, for example attempts by radical Islamic organisations to infiltrate local administration, the judicature et cetera, whilst concealing their actual objectives and loyalties.”

“While the instigators themselves do not wish to openly present themselves as jihadists or even be associated with armed jihadists, they wish to promote violence in a covert way,” concludes the report. As we can see the influence of “The Project” not only matches exactly what is happening in the Netherlands, but also aligns identically to the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America. This memo, meant for Brotherhood operatives working within the United States, explains the strategy behind the establishment of an Islamic Center in every city.

The memo notes, “The center we seek is the one which constitutes the ‘axis’ of our Movement, the ‘perimeter’ of the circle of our work, our ‘balance center’, the ‘base’ for our rise and our ‘Dar al-Arqam’ to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the ‘niche” of our prayers. This is in order for the Islamic center to turn – in action not in words – into a seed ‘for a small Islamic society’ which is a reflection and a mirror to our central organizations.”

For an example on how this works in America, Erick Stakelbeck in his book The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy illustrates how the Brotherhood goes about establishing their Centers in the following illustration:

An Islamist organization—usually linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and flush with cash from Saudi Arabia and/or the Gulf states—spends big bucks to buy up several acres of property in a town where hardly any Muslims reside. Plans are announced to build an ‘Islamic Cultural Center’ where all faiths are welcome and diversity will be celebrated in a new, multiculti mini-utopia. But blindsided local residents, after doing some research, quickly learn of the nefarious connections of the mosque’s leadership and see a potential hub for terrorist plotting in their midst—one with financial backing from overseas radicals to boot.

Yet, when these same neighbors demand to know where the money is coming from to pay for the planned mega-mosque, smooth-talking Muslim spokesmen involved with the project just smile and calmly reassure all comers that the funds have been “locally raised.” The local city council, petrified of being called racist, ultimately approves the so-called Islamic center against the will of the people. On cue, the mainstream media and Islamic groups then team up to condemn critics of the mosque as “bigots” and “Islamophobes.” Neighbors are left feeling demonized, abandoned, angry, and alone. And the mosque is built—even though its leadership has been exposed as having ties to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, a hatred for Israel, and a fondness for sharia law.

Examples such as this can be seen virtually everywhere throughout the United States and represent a direct threat to Americans as the mosque nexus to terrorism can be found in the majority of cases in which the arrest or the attack of a “homegrown jihadist” hits the news. The reason for this is because these mosques are operating in the exact way described by both “The Project” and the 1991 memorandum.

In what should have been a major wake up call to law enforcement and those working within national security, a 2011 study originally published by the  Middle East Quarterly and examined in depth by Perspectives on Terrorism ,the correlation between sharia adherence and violent dogma in U.S. mosques is found to be shockingly high. In a random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S., the Shariah Adherence Mosque Survey found that 80% provide their worshipers with jihad-style literature promoting the use of violence against non-believers and that the imams in those mosques expressly promote that literature.

The study explains that the texts were selected for scoring based on the fact that they either called for violent jihad against non-Muslims or because the texts called for hatred of “the other.” For example, Reliance of the Traveller by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-NaqibThe Fiqh-us-Sunnahand Tafsir Ibn Kathirand authors including Maulana Maududi and Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayed Qutb  were selected because their texts make explicit demands for jihad against non-Muslims. As the study states, “texts authored by Maududi and Qutb and similar materials, such as pamphlets and texts published and disseminated by the Muslim Brotherhood, were selected in part because these materials strongly advocate the use of violence as a means to establish an Islamic state.” Remember, 80% of mosques surveyed carried such material, directly indicating that the Brotherhood is more than influential and flourishing within these mosques.

The study found that when a mosque imam or its worshipers were “sharia-adherent,” as measured by certain behaviors in conformity with Islamic law, the mosque was more likely to provide this violent literature and the imam was more likely to promote it. Moreover, the study also found that of the 80% of mosques that contained severe materials:

100% were led by an imam who recommended that worshipers study violent materials;

100% promoted violent jihad;

98% promoted the financial support of terror;

98% promoted the establishment of the Caliphate in the United States;

100% praised terror against the West;

and 76% invited guest speakers known to have promoted violent jihad.

171-1120-1-pb

The survey’s results help to provide insight into the role that Sharia-adherent behaviors play in defining group identities, creating an us-versus-them outlook, and projecting violence against the West and non-Muslims, which is mirrored by the Sharia literature found in the mosques prone to violent literature. Ultimately, the survey concludes by suggesting that “Islam, at least as it is generally practiced in mosques across the United States, continues to manifest a resistance to a sufficiently tolerant religio-legal framework that would allow its followers to make a sincere affirmation of Western citizenship. This survey provides empirical support for the view that mosques across the U.S., as institutional and social settings for mosque-going Muslims, provide a milieu resistant to, the legal, theological, or political arguments that make political, civic, and social cooperation within a secular constitutional political order ideal.”

By providing the ideological breeding grounds for terrorists, mosques and various Islamic centers within the U.S. serve as a critical starting point in which the radicalization, justification, and resources for committing jihad is prevalent. So where are these mosques and Islamic centers located and can it be shown that they are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and have produced jihadists?

To answer both questions all we need to do is look at a few examples of various instances in which either a jihadist has been arrested, carried out an attack, or joined a terrorist organization and note which mosque or center they attended as well if its linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The first mosque examined is the notorious Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). The ISB is owned and operated by the Muslim American Society (MAS) which federal prosecutors described in a 2008 case as being an “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” So far at least 8 former attendees to the mosque have become jihadists including the following; The boston marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; Abdurahman Alamoudi, the mosque’s founder and first president, who in 2004 was sentenced to 23 years in prison for plotting terrorism. In 2005, the Treasury Department issued a statement saying Alamoudi raised money for al Qaeda in the U.S.; Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT scientist-turned-al Qaeda agent, who in 2010 was sentenced to 86 years in prison for planning a New York chemical attack; Finally, there’s Ahmad Abousamra, who was eventually killed in 2015 but not before becoming one of the top media propagandists for the terrorist group known today as the Islamic State or ISIS.

[Also see: ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF BOSTON HOSTS PREACHERS WHO ADVOCATE SEX SLAVERY]

Next, we have the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (ICCP) whose own website declares that it is “entrusted with the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The importance of this cannot be understated as NAIT’s status as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity was confirmed by federal prosecutors during the 2009 prosecution of another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity named the Holy Land Foundation. The Justice Department designated NAIT as an unindicted co-conspiratorin that case. So far at least 4 former attendees to the Islamic Center in Phoenix are known jihadists. The most notorious are Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi who were killed last year while attempting to execute people holding a draw Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. Yet, as Patrick Poole of PJ Media notes, “two other previous ICCP mosque attendees — Hassan Abu-Jihaad and Derrick Shareef are currently in federal prison on terrorism-related charges.”

Most recently, and unfortunately tragically, is the Islamic Society of Corona/Norco (ISCN) which was attended by the San Bernardino jihadist Syed Farook and his friend as well as financier and arms supplier Enrique Marquez. According the federal complaint filed against Marquez he was charged with conspiring with Farook in 2011 and 2012 to commit crimes of terrorism, as well as unlawfully purchasing two assault rifles used in the San Bernardino massacre and defrauding immigration authorities by entering into a sham marriage conducted at the ISCN. The federal complaint also states that in 2012 Marquez and Farook were planning on carrying out an attack on a busy California freeway as well as a local community college but scrapped their plan as Marquez stated that he “distanced himself from Farook and ceased plotting with him after 2012 for a variety of reasons, including the arrest of Ralph Deleon and others on material support [for terrorism] charges in November 2012.” This statement by Marquez indicates that he knew whoRalph Deleon was, this is important to note because Deleon along with three others were charged on November 16, 2012, for conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists. All four men in that case were from the Riverside/San Bernardino area and according to the federal complaint, one of the informants for the FBI was told by Deleon that there were “a couple of brothers from the mosque who wanted to [travel abroad] for jihad.” While the FBI doesn’t identify which mosque, one can guess which one Deleon & his “brothers” were attending.

Finally, we have the example of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center (DAH) located in Falls Church, Virginia. “Dar al-Hijrah, which fittingly means Land of Migration, is where the Brotherhood has settled in America,” writes former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in his book The Grand JihadMcCarthy elaborates on Dar al-Hijrah explaining that, “in the shadow of the White House and Capitol Hill, it is the optimal location as the $6 million complex was established in 1991, the same year the Brotherhood playbook was written…The Dar al-Hijrah complex was purchased in the 1980s by the North American Islamic Trust. The Islamic Affairs Department of the Saudi embassy in Washington chipped in for the construction and the trustee was the Muslim Brotherhood operative Jamal Barzinji.” Supporting McCarthy’s claim, according to a 2002Customs and Border Protection document, DAH is stated as “operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.” while a December 2007 document says it “has been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing” and “has also been associated with encouraging fraudulent marriages.”

Some of Dar al-Hijrah’s most infamous congregants have included Omar Abu Ali, who is now serving life in prison for joining al-Qaeda while also having plotted mass murder attacks against the United States and conspiring to murder former President George W. Bush. Then we have Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, who are now better known for crashing Flight 77 into the Pentagon, just a short distance away from the Land of Migration. Adding to the list is probably the most infamous and, thanks to a drone strike in 2011, now deceased former Imam by the name ofAnwar al-Awlaki. Before going on to become the leader of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, al-Awlaki was the spiritual leader of Dar al-Hijrah and in 2001 the mosque just so happened to feature a worshiper by the name of Nidal Hassan. Hassan, now known as the Ft. Hood jihadist, went on a killing spree in a 2009 attack as he opened fire on his fellow soldiers killing 13 and wounding 30 at the Texas military base.

From Boston to California and Phoenix to Virginia, these four examples alone epitomize the threat posed to America by the ideological machinery of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet, in the face of such evidence none of these mosques or Islamic Centers have been investigated let alone shut down for their ties to terrorism. Instead we are told by various Brotherhood front organizations such as theCouncil on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) that these mosques and centers in no way, shape, or form serve as the ideological springboard for the promotion of violence. This, of course, serves the purposes of obfuscating the truth as the facts have repeatedly shown that the first step on the road to jihadist terrorism is the instruction in Islamist ideology.

The Islamist threat is very real and is the result of decades of networking, infrastructure building, and intellectual as well as ideological preparation. It is advancing at an unprecedented speed as it actively and openly creates a fifth column of activists, jihadists, and apologists who work tirelessly to undermine the very foundations of America with the establishment of new mosques and Islamic centers. It cannot be stressed enough that the very ideology that the Muslim Brotherhood supports is at the root of the majority of Islamic terrorist groups in the world today and without acknowledging the ideology America itself stands no chance in even beginning to fight.

So the next time a jihadist attack happens on American soil and representatives from organizations like CAIR immediately crawl out of their holes in an attempt to act as apologists for the jihadist, remember that they themselves are directly responsible for supporting the ideology that promotes jihad.

As the Brotherhood creed goes, “Allah is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

Nick Short, a graduate of Northern Arizona University with a Bachelors in Criminal Justice. Politically Short offers a millennials perspective over today’s news outside the beltway of Washington D.C. Follow Nick on Twitter , LinkedIn and Google+ You can also email him at Nds56@nau.edu

What is Sharia?

shariah dem

UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 7, 2016:

Earlier this week, UTT published the first in a series of articles about sharia (Islamic law) entitled “Understanding the Threat” which amplified the fact that sharia is the focal point and driving force behind everything jihadis across the globe are doing.

Today, we will breakdown what sharia actually is and its origins.

All Islamic sources define Islam as a “complete way of life governed by sharia.”

According to the most widely used text book in Islamic junior high schools in the United States (What Islam is All About), “The Shari’ah is the ideal path for us to follow.”

There are two sources of sharia:  the Koran and the Sunnah.

Islam is the system of life under sharia.  Those who submit to Islam and the sharia are called “Muslims.”

The Koran (also Quran or Qur’an)

According to Islam, the Koran is the “uncreated word of Allah,” who is the Islamic god, and the contents of the Koran were revealed to the Prophet Mohammad between the years 610 A.D. and 632 A.D. in the Arabian peninsula through an angel.  The Koran has 114 chapters or “suras” which are arranged in no particular order.  They are generally arranged by size from largest to smallest.  However, the first chapter is approximately the smallest, and the sizes of the chapter vary so this is not a perfect rule.

The Islamic scholars have authoritatively listed the chapters of the Koran in chronological order.  This is very important because Allah said in the Koran (2:106, 16:101) that whatever comes chronologically last overrules anything that comes before it.  This is called “abrogation.”  Allah revealed his message to Mohammad progressively over time.  By the time it was all revealed, what came last was the most important and overrules anything that was said earlier.

“It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that though mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages.” (Koran 17:106)

So, for instance “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256) is overruled or abrogated by “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him” (Koran 3:85) which is why we get “Take not the Jews and the Christians as your friends…” (Koran 5:51).  Chapter 5 in the Koran is the last chronologically to speak about relations between Muslim and non-Muslims.

Chapter 9 is the last to discuss jihad.

“Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)

Furthermore, every verse in the Koran has been legally defined in the Tafsir.  The most authoritative Tafsir scholar in Islam is a man named Ibn Kathir.  For instance, the Tafsir defines a portion of verse 9:5 above as follows:  “This is the Ayah (verse) of the sword…’and capture them’ (means) executing some and keeping some as prisoners…’and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush’ (means) do not wait until you find them.  Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them.  This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.”  (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol 4, pages 375-376)

Tafsir

The Tafsir is taught at mosques in the United States on a regular basis.  There is no such thing in Islam as a “personal interpretation” of a particular verse of the Koran.

The Sunnah

The Sunnah is the example of the Prophet Mohammad who is considered the al Insan al Kamil in Islam – the most perfect example of a man.  If Mohammad did it or said it, it is an example for all Muslims to follow for all time.

His words and deeds are recorded in the authoritative biographies (Sira) and the collection of the Hadith or stories about him. In Islam there are many Hadith scholars, but the most authoritative are by men named Bukhari and Muslim.

The Prophet said, “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.”  Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926. Volume: Jihad; Chapter: Fighting the Jews

The above quote from Mohammad is doctrine in Islam.  Mohammad said it and it is authoritatively recorded by Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith scholar in all of Islam.  This is why the above quote is not only in the Hamas Covenant, it is taught at the first grade level in Islamic schools.

Example:  Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl?  Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was six (6) years old and consummated the relationship when she was nine (9). Mohammad is the perfect example, therefore, it is a capital crime in Islam to suggest this is wrong behavior.

The Koran, as understood with the Koranic concept of abrogation, and the Sunnah form the “Sharia” or the way for all Muslims to follow. This is a totalitarian legal system and cannot be altered or amended because it comes from Allah and was exemplified by the actions and words of Mohammad.  Therefore, when it comes to the definition of jihad, the obligation of jihad, the law of jihad, the obligation of the Caliphate (Islamic State), the rules under the Caliph, and relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is no disagreement among any of the scholars.

If Allah said it chronologically last in the Koran, Mohammad said it, and Mohammad did it, how could there be a legal “gray area” in sharia?

  1. “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)
  2. Mohammad said:  “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”  Hadith reported by Bukhari and Muslim
  3. Mohammad went out and fought many battles against non-Muslims until they converted to Islam or submitted to Islam.  Those who did neither were killed.

Any questions?

Muslim Immigration is Exactly What ISIS Wants

isis_esu6io

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Dec. 25, 2015:

To understand ISIS, you have to understand the difference between terrorists and Islamic terrorists.

Ordinary terrorists have two goals; to compel the enemy to meet their political demands and to rally their supporters to consolidate their class, race or national identity group behind them.

Islamic terrorists are not interested in the “political demands” part. They will occasionally accept concessions and even offer Hudnas, temporary truces, but no permanent separate peace can be achieved with them. It’s why Israel’s peace process with terrorists has gone on failing for decades. It’s why the attempt by Gaddafi to achieve peace with the LIFG ended in a civil war and his death. It’s why Obama’s attempts to negotiate with the “moderate Taliban” failed miserably.

Al Qaeda and ISIS are not “negative” protest movements formed in response to our foreign policy. That’s a foolish self-centered idea held by foolish self-centered Westerners. Al Qaeda and ISIS are “positive” movements that seek to achieve larger religious goals entirely apart from us. Islamic terrorists are not responding to us. They are responding to the Koran and to over a thousand years of history.

Osama bin Laden did not carry out 9/11 to inflict harm on Americans. That was a secondary goal. His primary goal was to rally Muslims to build a Caliphate by encouraging them to attack America.

The ritualistic “Why do they hate us” browbeating favored by the chattering classes is nonsense. Al Qaeda hated us because we were not Muslims. But it was only using us as the hated “other” to consolidate a collective Muslim identity. We are to Islamists what the Jews were to Hitler; a useful scapegoat whose otherness can be used to manufacture a contrasting pure Aryan or Islamic identity.

No dialogue is possible with an ideology whose virtue is premised on seeing you as utterly evil.

You can negotiate with terrorists, though you shouldn’t. But Islamic terrorists rarely even bother to negotiate. Their core focus is on rallying local Muslims and the Ummah behind them. They don’t recognize national borders so any hope for a permanent peace behind recognized borders is wishful thinking. Islam is a transnational movement. Islamic terrorism is a race between terror groups around the world to carve out their own Islamic states and then use them as a springboard to a Caliphate.

ISIS is the end stage of Islamic terrorism. Its leader is a Caliph with all Muslims obliged to submit to him. The Islamic State is not just in Syria and Iraq. It is everywhere that a Muslim outpost swears allegiance to the Caliph. On its own maps the Islamic State encompasses parts of Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Russia. The more local Islamic terror groups pledge allegiance to ISIS, the bigger it becomes.

ISIS doesn’t plan to defeat America through acts of terrorism. The plan for defeating America, like every other country, Muslim or non-Muslim, is to build a domestic Muslim terror movement that will be able to hold territory and swear allegiance to the Islamic State.

The idea of an American Emirate may seem silly but consider Molenbeek, the neighborhood in Brussels known as the Jihadi capital of Europe, deemed a no-go zone by local authorities, right in the capital of the European Union.  You can take a taxi from NATO HQ to a Muslim micro-state linked to most of the major recent Islamic terror attacks in Europe including the latest ISIS attack in Paris.

Molenbeek provides ISIS recruits for its war and a gateway for ISIS attacks in Europe. The media is filled with articles about what ISIS wants, but there is no question that Molenbeek is what ISIS wants.

And it’s only Muslim immigration to Europe that makes an ISIS base like Molenbeek possible.

ISIS has short term and long term needs. In the short term, ISIS needs as many recruits as possible. And it is in the West where traditional Muslim ties of kinship and community are so frayed that the transnationalism of heading out to fight for a Caliphate in someone else’s country is most deeply appealing. ISIS aggressively seeks to recruit Muslims in the West because they have the skills, money and naiveté to be useful to the Islamic State. But in the long term, ISIS needs more Muslim immigration to the West to create a steady supply of recruits, collaborators and eventually Western emirates.

If ISIS is serious about making a bid for Italy, it needs a large Muslim population on the ground. It doesn’t even matter if this population comes from refugees fleeing ISIS. The children of these refugees will still be Sunni Muslims in a foreign land where Algerian, Somali, Syrian and Pakistani Muslims discover that they have more in common than they do with the natives. It is this accidental Western multiculturalism that erases tribal Muslim rivalries and makes the ambition of a single Muslim Caliphate appear plausible.

ISIS does not plan to defeat America with terror plots. But those plots will eventually accumulate into an organized domestic terror organization. An Islamic State in America based around a majority Muslim town or neighborhood with its own leader pledging allegiance to the Caliph of the Islamic State.

An American Molenbeek; and there are already plenty of candidates for that horrifying honor.

Any Muslim plans for expanding into the West depend on Muslim immigration. Whether it’s ISIS or its Muslim Brotherhood ancestor, or any of the other Islamist organizations and networks, they all require manpower. Some of that manpower will be provided by high Muslim birth rates, but it won’t be nearly enough, not for a country the size of America, without a large annual flow of Muslim migrants.

We are told that halting Muslim immigration would only encourage Muslim terrorism. But our open door to Muslim immigration certainly hasn’t stopped terrorism. Instead it has increased it by providing reinforcements to the terrorists. If we can’t stop Muslim terrorism with the population we have now, how are we going to manage it if the Islamic population continues doubling and even tripling?

Even if we defeat ISIS tomorrow, Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups descended from the Muslim Brotherhood will continue pursuing the same goals. And they will rely on the Muslim population in the United States to provide them with money, supplies, cover and an infrastructure for terrorism.

ISIS can’t defeat us with terror attacks. The only hope for an enduring Islamic victory over America is through the rise of domestic groups that pledge allegiance to the Caliphate. ISIS can’t invade America. It has to be invited in. That’s what our immigration policy does.

Trump isn’t a threat to national security. Muslim immigration is.

Islamic terrorists can’t defeat us no matter how many planes they fly into buildings. But they can and will defeat us if they continue landing planes at JFK and disembarking thousands and tens of thousands of settlers who will serve as a base population for their war against America.

Muslim immigration is the Islamic State’s only hope for victory over America.

TREASON: DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to Meet with MB/Hamas Monday

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson

UTT, by John Guandolo, Dec. 6, 2015:

How much treasonous and traitorous behavior must Americans endure from our leaders?

Monday evening December 7th – Pearl Harbor Day – the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – Jeh Johnson – will hold a press conference at the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas ADAMS Center in Sterling, VA.

AC event

The ADAMS Center was founded by senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders including Ahmed Totonji who still resides in Northern Virginia and was the Chairman of the Board for the ADAMS Center.  Totonji also founded major Muslim Brotherhood organizations including the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the SAFA Trust (raided by the FBI), and others.

Moreover, the Executive Director of the ADAMS Center – Imam Mohamed Magid – is the outgoing President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), identified by the Department of Justice and FBI as the “nucleus” for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in America and a funding support entity for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

ISNA remains an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008).

ADAMS also states on their website that 1/8 of all the Zakat they collect goes to JIHAD…terrorism.

And this is the place the Secretary of Homeland Security has decided to go to talk about the “civil rights” of Muslims.

At what point do we collectively realize leaders like this cannot claim ignorance of the enemy at this level. Therefore, a rational person would surmise Secretary Johnson is aware ISNA and ADAMS are enemy entities, yet he is going to provide support to them none-the-less.

In these times, Americans have a number of enemies.  In this case, there is the identifiable jihadi threat from organizations like ISNA, NAIT, MPAC, CAIR and so many others.  The enemy also includes senior government officials like Secretary Johnson who is aiding and abetting a Hamas support entity whose doctrine states it is waging “civilization jihad” against us to “destroy America from within” in order to establish and Islamic state under Sharia (Islamic Law).

Seems like that Mr. Johnson’s continued efforts to protect and support enemies of the United States meets the legal criteria of Treason, much like his colleague in the Attorney General’s office.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason:  Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treasonand shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Also see:

“Interfaith Outreach” Movement Led by Marxists and Jihadis

UTT, by John Guandolo, Nov. 3, 2015:

Two weeks ago the Parliament of the World’s Religions held its annual conference at the Salt Lake City Convention Center boasting “10,000 People. 80 Nations. 50 Faiths.”  Representing Islam were the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia.  That alone tells a story, but the presence of Marxists/Alinskyists and Muslim Brotherhood organizations funded primarily by Saudi Arabia driving the “Interfaith Outreach” efforts in America is a stark reminder that well-intentioned people are being duped by those with a dark agenda using the guise of “togetherness” and “tolerance” to achieve nefarious ends.

The key speakers representing Islam at the Parliament of the World’s Religions were Sheikh Salah Abdullah bin Humaid, Chief Justice and Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abdullah bin Humaid was also the head of the Fiqh Assembly of the Muslim Brotherhood’s World Muslim League in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia’s official legal system is the Sharia (Islamic Law) including the Hudud punishments – stoning for adultery, beheading for those who apostacize from Islam, cutting off hands of thieves – which directly contradicts all Western understanding of human rights.  Those Hudud punishments come directly from the Allah in the Quran.

humaid-233x300

Sheikh Saleh Abdullah bin Humaid, Chief Justice and Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia

Also featured as a speaker at the Parliament’s event was Saudi lap-dog and apologist for Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood, John L. Esposito of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  Bin Talal is one of the wealthiest Saudi princes in the world and funds the global jihad to the tune of millions of dollars annually.

Funny, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic University.

ramadan-300x300

Tariq Ramadan, International face of the Muslim Brotherhood and grandson of the MB founder

Tariq Ramadan continues to travel the world with a smile on his face fooling Western leaders, especially religious leaders, who view him as a nice man with a peaceful message.  Yet, as one of the leading faces for the International Muslim Brotherhood, he supports Civilization Jihad to overthrow un-Islamic governments and replace them with Sharia because that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and affiliates of these organizations are the key drivers of the U.S. Interfaith movement. ICNA is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. efforts; ISNA is a Hamas support entity; and CAIR is a Hamas organization according to evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v HLF, Dallas 2008).

“Left-wing religious” organizations like the Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement (VOICE) are directly partnered with the Saul Alinsky organization the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). The VOICE website is directly tied to IAF – http://www.voice-iaf.org.  VOICE dutifully follows the guidance provided by the Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Centers with which they work.

alinsky-251x300

Saul Alinsky (photo 1965), Marxist Revolutionary, Author of Rules for Radicals dedicated to Lucifer

Saul Alinsky was a Marxist revolutionary whose book Rules for Radicals details how to penetrate and overthrow societies.  It was dedicated to Lucifer.  [note:  President Obama studied Alinsky’s lessons and became a “community organizer” – a term coined directly from Rules for Radicals].

Why is it so difficult for Christian leaders to understand Islam?

Islam divides the world into two parts: the Dar al Islam (the house of Islam) where Sharia is the law of the land, and the Dar al Harb (the house of war) – everywhere else.  The purpose of Islam is to eliminate the Dar al Harb until the entire world is under the Dar al Islam and Sharia.  Then there is “peace.”

The vehicle to accomplish this is called “Jihad.”

The Sharia unanimously states lying to non-Muslims is obligatory in the pursuit of obligatory goals. Jihad is obligatory, and 100% of all Islamic Law only defines jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

In Islam, Mohammed is considered the “insan al kamil” or “the perfect man.” Mohammed himself said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat (agreed upon by Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Ibn `Umar).” Then Mohammed waged war against non-Muslims.

When Christians conduct “outreach” to Muslim communities, they must know the ground truth about what they are getting into, especially when they send others in to do this kind of work.

Should Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Marxist Revolutionaries drive American “Interfaith Outreach?”  Whether they should or shouldn’t is not truly the point.  Currently, they are.

In his seminal work, Strength to Love, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. admonished Christians to be tough minded and discerning in their approach to evil. “This prevalent tendency toward soft mindedness is found in man’s unbelievable gullibility…Soft mindedness often invades religion…Soft-minded persons have revised the Beatitudes to read, ‘Blessed are the pure in ignorance: for they shall see God.’”

It is time for the flock to demand their pastors speak the truth about Islam, no matter the cost.

In Light of Jeremiah Wright’s Comments UTT Asks: Was Jesus a Muslim?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Oct. 12, 2015:

Saturday at the Nation of Islam event titled “Justice or Else!” President Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright stated Jesus was a “Palestinian.”  This is historically untrue, but it opens up a door for a deeper discussion.

In light of a nationwide push by Muslim Brotherhood organizations to propagate the message that Jesus of Nazareth was a Muslim, it is time to bring some much needed light onto this subject.

abThis billboard, and many like it, are funded and sponsored by groups such as ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) which is a leading jihadi organization in North America and a driving force in Interfaith Outreach here.

Since Islamic jihadis attacked the United States on 9/11/2001, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood has led a large-scale information operation (“propaganda campaign” if you prefer) to convince Americans – especially religious leaders – Islam is a one degree off from Christianity and Judaism.  Almost the same really.

We are told by leading Muslim scholars in America (who just happen to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood), there is “One God” and “Three Abrahamic Faiths” – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.  We are also told “Muslims respect Jesus too.”  The first is a lie according to Islamic doctrine.  The second is true if you understand Islam through the lens of Islam.

Islam and Sharia

Islam divides the world into the Dar al Islam (“House of Islam” where Sharia is the law of the land) and the Dar al Harb (“House of War” – everywhere else).  The purpose of Islam is to eliminate the Dar al Harb until the entire world is under the Dar al Islam.  The vehicle to do this is called Jihad.  Once the entire world is under Sharia, there will be “Peace.”

Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life governed by Sharia (Islamic Law).”  Sharia comes from the Quran and the Sunnah (the way of the Prophet Mohammad).

Quran

The Quran can only be understood if “Abrogation” is understood.  The Quranic concept of Abrogation comes from Quaran 16:101 and 2:106, and is understood by all Sunni Islamic scholars to mean that whatever comes chronologically last in the Quran overrules what comes before it.

It should be noted that all Islamic scholars agree Sura (Chapter) 9 of the Quran is the last (chronologically) to discuss Jihad, and Sura 5 is the last to discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.

An example:  the Quran says “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256).  However, that is abrogated when Allah says all people who do not convert to Islam will go to hell (Quran 3:85), which is why Muslims are commanded never to take Jews and Christians for their friends (Quran 5:51).  Therefore, Muslims are commanded to “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war.” (Quran 9:5)  In addition to converting to Islam or being killed, people of the book (Jews, Christians, and Zoroastians) get the third option of submitting to Islam, paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), and living under Sharia with lesser rights than Muslims. (Quran 9:29)

Sunnah

In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example for all Muslims to follow. His sayings, actions, and example are codified in authoritative Hadith and in the Sira (biographies of Mohammad).  The most authoritative Hadith scholar is Bukhari.  This is critical to understanding Islam and how Muslims relate to the world.

The reason it is okay for a 60 year old Lebanese Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl, is because Mohammad married a 6 year old and consummated the relationship when she was only 9.  The reason Muslims wage war on non-Muslims until Islam rules the world is because Allah commanded it (9:5 et al), Mohammad repeated this command as related by Bukhari, and then Mohammad waged war on non-Muslims and made them convert, submit, or die.  This is why there is no disagreement among the scholars on these matters.

One God, Three Abrahamic Faiths?

So let us go back to the question:  Can Allah be the same God of the Christians and Jews?  Can the same God who calls the Jews his chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6-8 for example) be the same God who calls for a holocaust of the Jews?

“The Prophet said, ‘The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.’ (Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926).

How can the God of the Bible who calls us to love one another (Leviticus 19:18 and John 15:12) be the same God (Allah) who calls Muslims to “Fight them (non-Muslims), and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them.” (Quran 9:14)

Allah will “punish” non-Muslims through the hands of the Muslims.  This verse (9:14) creates a requirement for Muslims to punish non-Muslims.

Is Jesus a Muslim?

As seen through the eyes of Islam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others are Muslim prophets.  How can that be?  We must first begin by understanding Islam teaches that no authentic Torahs, Old Testaments, or New Testaments exist on the planet today.

Islam teaches the Quran has existed for all time in Paradise.  When the authentic Law of Moses was given to the Jewish people, those who did not follow it were lost (condemned).  When Jesus brought the Gospel, those who did not follow it were lost.  When Mohammad came with the “final” revelations as the “seal” of the prophets, those who did not follow Islam were lost.

“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Quran 5:46)           [emphasis added]

Islam teaches that corrupt Jews and Christian priests changed the original Old and New Testaments which, according to Islam, predicted the coming of Mohammed.

“And if only they upheld [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed provision from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate community, but many of them – evil is that which they do.” (Quran 5:66)

Historical accounts, biblical manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, archeology, and other tangible sources of evidence be damned.  This is what Islam teaches.

To the point…

Can the Jesus who said to his followers “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) be the same guy about whom this is said:  “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya. Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425)

No one comes to our Father in heaven except through Jesus OR will Jesus return to cast all Christians into hell for not converting and kill the Jews (pigs)?  It cannot be both.

Can it be true that Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30 and 14:9), the Holy Spirit guides his disciples since Jesus ascended to heaven, and can disciples of Jesus say the Apostles Creed with integrity while this is true:  “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Quran 5:73)

Jesus was either the Messiah and the Son of God who was crucified, died, resurrected and ascended as Christians teach and believe or he is merely a prophet as Islam believes.  It is one or the other.  He cannot simply be a “nice” guy.  Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.  If that is not true he was a liar.

This is not a theological debate.  This is a discussion of logic and reason.  These two worlds are completely incompatible with one another in the realm of Logic 101.

Christians believe God is the Father, the Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  One God, three persons in a heroic fellowship into which mankind was invited to participate relationally.  God promises his inheritance and his Kingdom to his children whom he loves because he created them in his image.  Jesus gave all who believe in him all the authority his Father in heaven gave him to continue his work (John 14:12, Mark 16:17-18), and lifted all believers, spiritually, to sit with him at the Father’s right hand in heaven when he ascended.

Islam teaches Allah is the ultimate lawgiver and humans must obey the law or suffer punishment.  Islam teaches those who do not follow the Sharia are Apostates or unbelievers and must be converted, subjugated, or killed. Islam teaches Allah is unknowable.

From a rational, reasonable, and logical perspective, there is a difference here between love and hate – good and evil.

Islam is not a one-off of Christianity.  It sits in direct opposition to it.

Curt Schilling and the Death of Free Speech

curtschilling-flickr-ucinternational-jpg

Frontpage, by Robert Spencer, August 27 2015:

“Curt Schilling’s tweet comparing Muslims to Nazis is even worse than it sounds,” howled Max Fisher in Vox – one of the many voices this week screaming for Schilling’s head for transgressing against America’s new and unwritten, but nonetheless frightfully draconian, speech codes.

Fisher professes ignorance of the perp’s illustrious career, semaphoring that he is a good Leftist elitist, ignorant of Schilling’s brutish, bourgeois athletic achievements: “Curt Schilling, whom Wikipedia informs me is a former baseball star and current ESPN commentator, sent a tweet on Tuesday that seems to have emerged straight from the internet nether-void of racist email forwards.”

“Racist”? Schilling tweeted a graphic that read, “It’s said only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How’d that go?” So where is the “racism”? What race are “extremist Muslims”? What race are Muslims in the aggregate? What race is Islam? Or did Fisher mean that Schilling’s tweet was racist against Germans?

Screen_Shot_2015-08-25_at_9.05.25_p.m.0

Fisher compounds this muddled thinking by doubling down on the false claim in his headline, that Schilling likened Muslims to Nazis: “The argument here is pretty clear, even if the numbers are pure nonsense, but just so it’s not lost: Schilling is saying that the religion of Islam is akin to Nazi Germany, and that the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are responsible for the actions of a tiny minority of extremists in the same way that Nazi-era Germans were complicit in Nazi crimes.”

Actually, Schilling’s tweet does neither of those things. It likens not the religion of Islam, but “extremist Muslims,” to Nazis, and it doesn’t say a thing about all Muslims being responsible for the crimes of Islamic jihadists. And Fisher’s woolly logic is typical of the firestorm that has engulfed Schilling, as he has been removed from ESPN’s coverage of the Little League World Series and is being pilloried everywhere. Schilling himself is repentant and apologetic, but it may do no good: he may be facing more punishment, and is taking a beating in the mainstream media for being “insensitive.”

But what exactly is so offensive about his tweet? Is it that he compared “extremist Muslims” to Nazis? Surely that can’t be it. The Islamic State hasn’t murdered six million Jews, but surely would if it could, and meanwhile its gleeful bloodlust, sex slavery, terrorizing of non-Muslims and all the rest of it make the comparison reasonable.

Or was Schilling “insensitive” for daring to suggest that peaceful Muslims aren’t doing much to rein in their violent coreligionists? Well, let’s see. Last month, Muslims in Ireland held a demonstration against the Islamic State. How many Muslims showed up? Fewer than fifty. And in October 2014 in Houston, a rally against the Islamic State organized by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) drew the grand total of ten people. In August 2013 in Boston, about 25 Muslims rallied against “misperceptions” that Islam was violent. About the same number showed up in June 2013 at a progressive Muslim rally in Toronto to claim that their religion had been “hijacked.”

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

Read more

Actually the number of radical Muslims is higher:

**

Why Muslim Rapists Prefer Blondes: A History

swedish_rape_victimFrontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, July 30, 2015:

The Muslim penchant to target “white” women for sexual exploitation—an epidemic currently plaguing Europe, especially Britain and Scandinavia—is as old as Islam itself, and even traces back to Muhammad.

Much literary evidence attests to this in the context of Islam’s early predations on Byzantium (for centuries, Christendom’s easternmost bulwark against the jihad).  According to Ahmad M. H. Shboul (author of “Byzantium and the Arabs: The Image of the Byzantines as Mirrored in Arabic Literature”) Christian Byzantium was the “classic example of the house of war,” or Dar al-Harb—that is, the quintessential realm that needs to be conquered by jihad.  Moreover, Byzantium was seen “as a symbol of military and political power and as a society of great abundance.”

The similarities between pre-modern Islamic views of Byzantium and modern Islamic views of the West—powerful, affluent, desirable, and the greatest of all infidels—should be evident.  But they do not end here.  To the medieval Muslim mind, Byzantium was further representative of “white people”—fair haired/eyed Christians, or, as they were known in Arabic, Banu al-Asfar, “children of yellow” (reference to blonde hair).

Continues Shboul:

The Byzantines as a people were considered as fine examples of physical beauty, and youthful slaves and slave-girls of Byzantine origin were highly valued….  The Arab’s appreciation of the Byzantine female has a long history indeed.  For the Islamic period, the earliest literary evidence we have is a hadith (saying of the Prophet).  Muhammad is said to have addressed a newly converted [to Islam] Arab: “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?”  Not only were Byzantine slave girls sought after for caliphal and other palaces (where some became mothers of future caliphs), but they also became the epitome of physical beauty, home economy, and refined accomplishments.   The typical Byzantine maiden who captures the imagination of litterateurs and poets, had blond hair, blue or green eyes, a pure and healthy visage, lovely breasts, a delicate waist, and a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light.[1]

While the essence of the above excerpt is true, the reader should not be duped by its overly “romantic” tone. Written for a Western academic publication by an academic of Muslim background, the essay is naturally euphemistic to the point of implying that being a sex slave was desirable—as if her Arab owners were enamored devotees who merely doted over and admired her beauty from afar.[2]

Indeed, Muhammad asked a new convert “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?” as a way to entice him to join the jihad and reap its rewards—which, in this case, included the possibility of enslaving and raping blonde Byzantine women—not as some idealistic discussion on beauty.

This enticement seems to have backfired with another Muslim who refused Muhammad’s call to invade Byzantine territory (the Tabuk campaign).  “O Abu Wahb,” cajoled Muhammad, “would you not like to have scores of Byzantine women and men as concubines and servants?” Wahb responded: “O Messenger of Allah, my people know that I am very fond of women and, if I see the women of the Byzantines, I fear I will not be able to hold back. So do not tempt me by them, and allow me not to join and, instead, I will assist you with my wealth.”[3]  The prophet agreed but was apparently unimpressed—after all, Wahb could have all the Byzantine women he desired if the jihad succeeded—and a new Sura for the Koran (9:49) was promptly delivered condemning the man to hell for his reported hypocrisy and failure to join the jihad.

Thus a more critical reading of Shboul’s aforementioned excerpt finds that European slave girls were not “highly valued” or “appreciated” as if they were precious statues—they were held out as sexual trophies to entice Muslims to the jihad.

Moreover, the idea that some sex slaves became mothers to future caliphs is meaningless since in Islam’s patriarchal culture, mothers—Muslim or non-Muslim—were irrelevant in lineage and had no political status.   And talk of “litterateurs and poets” and “a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light” is further anachronistic and does a great disservice to reality:  These women were—as they still are—sex slaves, treated no differently than the many slaves of the Islamic State today.

For example, during a recent sex slave auction held by the Islamic State, blue and green eyed Yazidi girls were much coveted and fetched the highest price.  Even so, these concubines are being cruelly tortured.  In one instance, a Muslim savagely beat his Yazidi slave’s one year old child until she agreed to meet all his sexual demands.

Read more

Liars and Lunatics

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 28, 2015:

In the wake of the jihadi attacks last week in France, Kuwait, and Tunisia, the reality of the Islamic threat is as clear as it could possibly be, yet our enemies continue to use the same tactics and the leadership in the West regurgitates the obvious lies fed to them.  Western leaders continue to delude themselves and their nations about the darkness sweeping over the planet leaving bodies, human decency, liberty, and reasonable thought in its wake.

After the two jihadis were killed a few weeks ago in Garland, Texas, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organization where they were trained/radicalized – the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix – claimed neither the two shooters, nor the man who trained them were bad guys when he knew them.  The Phoenix media gave them all a pass, as have many of the religious leaders in Arizona.  The Boston Marathon bombers and the man FBI agents shot to death in Boston a few weeks ago, as well as quite a number of other jihadis (“terrorists” if you wish) have all been trained and supported by the ISB (Islamic Society of Boston) which was  founded by Al Qaeda financier Alamoudi, and is an MB/Hamas organization.  Yet, the FBI is still outreaching to the ISB for “help.”  The leaders of the ISB claim they reject violence, and media, government, and law enforcement officials believe them because they said it.

The mother of the jihadi in Grenoble, France said on French radio, “My sister-in-law said ‘put on the TV’. And then she began to cry. My heart stopped…We have a normal family life. He goes to work, he comes back. We are normal Muslims.  We do Ramadan. We have three children and a normal family. Who do I call who can give me more information because I don’t understand.”

Any police officer with more than ten minutes of experience can watch any of these folks on TV and tell you they are lying.  Where is the hungry media asking the tough questions?  Where are the law enforcement organizations turning these places inside and out using facts already in evidence to get search and arrest warrants?  Where are national leaders in Europe, Canada, and the United States calling for the boot to once again come down on the Islamic Movement before its power becomes so great, we will lose nations and millions of people fighting it?

cameron chamberlain

David Cameron, the leader of the United Kingdom, in response to the killing of dozens of Britons in Tunisia said the UK and others must do all they can to combat the threat.  This “means dealing with the threat, at source, whether that is ISIL in Syria and Iraq or whether it is other extremist groups around the world.  And we also have to deal, perhaps more important than anything, is with this poisonous radical narrative that is turning so many young minds, and we have to combat it with everything we have.  The people who do these things, they sometimes claim they do it in the name of Islam.  They don’t.  Islam is a religion of peace.  They do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology that we have to confront with everything we have.”

Where is that peaceful “other” version of Islam taught Mr. Cameron?  Not in any of the Islamic schools in the UK.  They teach jihad is a permanent command on the Muslim world until Sharia is the law of the land.  How do you combat this Mr. Cameron?  I propose Britain begin with electing leaders who speak the truth.

It appears there is no amount of reason, evidence, facts or world events that is going to break Mr. Cameron from the narrative handed to him by the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadis in the UK, like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain.  Mr. Cameron appears to be fully surrendered to the bidding of the enemies of the West and, like Neville Chamberlain, is willing to bring Britain to the brink of destruction without even a whisper of courage to do otherwise.

The problem is there does not appear to be a Winston Churchill anywhere in England.

Is there a Charles Martel, Jan Sobieski, or Winston Churchill anywhere in the West?

Also see:

Revealed: Names of Four American Muslim Leaders at White House ‘Anti-Muslim Bigotry’ Meeting

Obama-fist-afp-640x480Breitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, Feb. 5, 2015:

The White House has still refused to name the “American Muslim leaders” with whom President Obama met to “discuss a range of domestic and foreign policy issues.”

According to a White House statement on the President’s meeting, the domestic issues discussed were the “Affordable Care Act, anti-Muslim violence and discrimination, the 21st Century Policing Task Force, and the upcoming White House Summit on Countering Violence Extremism.” On the foreign policy front, “the President discussed the need to continue countering ISIL and other groups that commit horrific acts of violence, purportedly in the name of Islam,” while also congratulating Muslims on their “remarkable contributions” to America.

Breitbart News has uncovered the names of four of the American Muslim leaders in attendance.

Comedian and left-wing pundit Dean Obeidallah revealed that he was one of the fifteen Muslim-American “leaders” brought to the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

“The No.1 issue raised: The alarming rise in anti-Muslim bigotry in America,” Obeidallah said of the meeting with the President. Their chief collective concern was not the rise of the Sunni Islamic State, nor the expansion of the Caliphatist Shiite Iranian regime and its messianic drive towards nuclear weapons, but instead, “anti-Muslim bigotry in America.”

Also at the event was Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC was founded by members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written a position paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has also publicly entertained that Israel should be considered a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks against America. He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance,” according to Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Foundation.

Elshishtawy revealed that Dr. Sherman Jackson, who serves as the King Faisal Chair of Islamic Thought at the University of Southern California, was also at the meeting. One lecture Dr. Jackson gave has been described as a “call to battle” between Muslims and the West.

Obeidallah also revealed that Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, was behind the effort to get Muslim leaders to the White House.

Muslim Advocates reveals on its website that its three main objectives are to “end profiling,” “strengthen [Muslim] charities,” and “counter hate.” Its Press Center section is filled with posts demanding intelligence organizations, such as the New York Police Department and federal agencies, end their “Muslim Suspicionless Spying Program,” while also dictating to the media that it should “Report Accurately on Muslims.” Another post reads, “What You Need to Know About the New Federal Racial Profiling Policy.” Review of Muslim Advocates’ press releases reveals that the only foreign policy issue with which the group has concerned itself over the past year was urging Sec. of State John Kerry to ensureMuslim “Americans are able to safely perform the annual religious Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia.”

Obeidallah does point out that Texas state Representative Molly White and others have made concerning remarks regarding the Muslim community. However, Obeidallah conflated anti-Muslim remarks with those criticizing Islam as a whole.

Hate crimes against Muslims remain a very small percentage of those that are religiously motivated. According to the latest FBI statistics, Muslims are victims of only 13.7 percent of religiously motivated hate crimes. American Jews remain almost five times more likelyto be victims of hate crimes than Muslims.

Obama’s Anti-Cop Jihad

obama-glareBy: William Michael
misterchambers

The Protests were Organized for one Specific Purpose – Dead Cops

In December 2012, a respected Egyptian news magazine named six Obama administration officials who were in fact agents of the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. They claimed that these individuals had helped change the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

One of these alleged agents was Imam Mohamed Magid, a Koranic scholar from Sudan. In the Obama administration, Magid was appointed to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violence and Extremism working group in 2011. He is on the FBI’s Sikh, Muslim, and Arab advisory board (yes, we have one of those). He has trained and advised personnel affiliated with the FBI and other federal agencies.

Under Obama’s dictates since he entered the Oval Office, the United States government decided to publicly announce a softer approach to countering Islamic terrorism and the ideology behind jihad (i.e., war in the name of Islam). Imam Mohamed Magid has been a centerpiece in Obama’s show of tolerance (of violence) and diversity (of means of death), so much so that he and his organization have been “cited … as the primary means of outreach to the American Muslim community.”

It’s now known that Magid has a remarkable connection to the murderer of two NYPD officers this December.

***

Unlike his approach toward American Muslims, who apparently (at least based on policy since 2009) need the White House to reassure them that they are not “violent extremists,” Barack Hussein Obama’s attitude toward police officers has been hostile from the beginning. Multiple instances mar the six year old administration’s relationship with law enforcement.

The anti-police stance of the administration has been toxically mixed with anti-gun propaganda, and the blatant fanning of racial tensions that have resulted in violence, murder, and even city-wide chaos.

The first example came in July 2009, when Harvard Professor Henry Louis ‘Skip’ Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct by the Cambridge Police department. Sgt. James Crowley saw Gates trying to break into a home, and, not realizing it was actually his own home, arrested Gates. The charges were later dropped by the police, but not before Obama said on national television that the police “acted stupidly,” and further insinuated that the arrest was racially motivated. To make everyone feel better, Obama later held a “beer summit” at the White House, hosting Gates and Crowley in what was presented as some great healing moment. (No word on whether pork or all beef hot dogs were served.)

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder, while noting that the number of officers killed in the line of duty jumped 13% that year, blamed the increase on illegal gun ownership. In 2013, Holder went on the record saying that he had to tell his son how to protect himself from the police, because, you guessed it, he’s black. Holder said this talk was family tradition.

For his part, Obama came out in support of the 2011 anti-cop and anarchist movement, Occupy Wall Street, who were not only occupying Wall Street, but terrorizing downtown Manhattan.

Then came the February 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, as he was being violently assaulted and threatened with death while on neighborhood patrol. In what has become a national tradition, Al Sharpton and Eric Holder descended to prey upon the citizens of a small community, calling for “justice.”

In fact, mob justice is what they were looking for.

The next stop for the Obama, Holder, and Sharpton anti-police racial mob circus was Ferguson, Missouri, following the death of Michael Brown by the gun of a police officer who he was attacking and threatening. The case is familiar and fresh enough in everyone’s minds not have to rehash in any detail. Once again, Obama and the administration issued thinly veiled attacks on the police and insinuated that the officers and the department were racially motivated haters.

The caustic and raw social tumult that ensued led to widespread looting, riots, arson (even by allegedly “peaceful” protestors), and even the murder of a friend one of the trial witnesses.

Obama’s, Holder’s, and Sharpton’s carnival of hate then went prime time, this time to the Big Apple. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. And, with a little help from the all-too-willing Mayor Bill DeBlasio, in the Staten Island death of Eric Garner, which was caused not by bullets but by a lung condition, the carnival got what they were looking for all along: the blood of police officers.

On December 20, 2014, five days before Christmas, Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were assassinated by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley in their patrol car in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. After weeks of anti-police protests, which explicitly shouted for “dead cops,” Brinsley had bragged to pedestrians just prior to the shooting that he was going to satiate the protestors with their pound of flesh.

***

At this time, you may be asking what Mohamed Magid, the alleged Muslim Brotherhood agent, has to do with the assassination of two NYPD officers. This will be clear to you soon enough. But first it is necessary to understand that the supposedly grassroots protests, in Ferguson and in New York, were anything but organic.

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at NoisyRoom.net has documented the nefarious players behind the protests, and has an incredible list of organizations involved in the protests. One of the most prominent organizing groups is ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER is often found alongside Occupy Wall Street. A little digging into ANSWER’s coalition partners and speakers reveal their roots; groups such as the Muslim Students Association, Free Palestinian Alliance, National Council of Arab Americans, the Nicaragua Network, and Korea Truth Commission (you got me ?).

Furthermore, ANSWER is described by DiscoverThe Networks as “a principal player in all anti-war and pro-Palestinian demonstrations… ANSWER was formed a few days after 9/11 as a ‘new anti-racism, anti-war, peace and justice’ group and led its first protest just weeks later against the impending US-led attack on Afghanistan.”

To be blunt about it, ANSWER is a pro-jihad front organization that was fully behind Hamas in this summer’s Gaza war. Hamas, it’s noted, is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – the same Muslim Brotherhood that the Egyptian magazine claimed Mohamed Magid was a member of.

***

Isn’t it odd that a Muslim Brotherhood front group would lead protests in New York City over the accidental death of a black man in the course of an arrest? Last time I was there, Staten Island wasn’t a center of Israeli-Palestinian debate, and there are no public pictures of Eric Garner smoking hookah or riding camels in Giza. On the contrary, Garner was dealing single cigarettes, and tobacco is decisively haram (forbidden) according to Islamic sharia law.

Puzzling, perhaps, but the Facebook page of Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley Muhammad ties the story’s loose ends together. According to his own biography on Facebook, Brinsely-Muhammad “Worked at: Islamic Society of North America.” The Islamic Society of North America, aka ISNA, is headquartered in Plainfield, Indiana. Hmm.

Killer's Facebook page: Obama and Magid are caught red-handed

Who is the President of ISNA, where the cop killer said he worked? That would be Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama’s advisor to DHS and the National Security Council.

Obama himself addressed ISNA’s annual convention in 2013. You can read about one of ISNA’s greatest influences, Pakistani radical Abul A’la Maududi, here.

Here are a few other facts to consider when contemplating that the Obama and Holder-inspired cop killer was, according to himself, employed at the organization of one of Obama’s most trusted security advisors, the Islamic Society of North America.

  • ISNA President and Obama advisor Imam Mohamed Magid was a lecturer at Howard University, teaching courses on the Koran.
  • The Trayvon Martin case only caught on after it was plucked from relative obscurity from a student at Howard University. This student, Kevin Cunningham, began a petition on the website change.org. Said Cunningham, a lawyer, “that’s how I think about life, is to be a social engineer.”
  • Cop killer Brinsley-Muhammad, who additionally may have attended a Brooklyn mosque associated with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, martyred himself by suicide in a subway station before being apprehended by police. He’s no longer with us to answer any questions.
  • In light of Obama’s recent embrace of Communist Cuba, it is worth noting that one of Castro’s last acts as a revolutionary leader was to order the targeted killing of Cuba’s police officers. Why? Police keep law and order on the streets, and because they’re uniformed, they’re easy targets for revolutionaries who thrive off anarchy.

Obama’s six yearlong anti-cop jihad has serious consequences. In 2014, there was an increase of 56% in police killed by guns – 50 officers, compared to 32 in 2013. Since the assassinations in New York, many infractions are going unpunished, as police are reluctant to engage with the community, fearing targeting by assassins and mobs. This is a very tenuous and delicate situation.

It might be worth mentioning, to the next person you bump into who still has a functioning brain, that Obama’s trusted advisor, Imam Mohamed Magid, had the NYPD cop killer as an employee of his nationwide Islamic organization. This, according to his own Facebook bio.

The circumstantial evidence presented above points to a deliberate plan by the administration and the Muslim Brotherhood to stoke violence that led to cop killings. These are revolutionary tactics, creating conditions that lead to chaos, anarchy, and eventually the total dissolution of societal trust. After that occurs, people beg for order, in whatever form it offers itself.

Is 2015 the year of the American Spring? In the New Year, several detailed reports will be published that point to deliberate, witting, and eager cooperation between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood aimed at precisely this end.

Opening the Door to Muslim Dissidents

22 Nov 2014:

“When presidents say Islam is a religion of peace,” former George W. Bush advisor Elliot Abrams said at a forum on Monday, “the average American thinks this is crap.”

Presidents Bush and Obama both publicly declared Islam to be a religion of peace, which has struck a sour chord for many. Far better, Abrams said, for American leaders to ask, “Is there something in Islam that has led some Muslims to behave in a way that we consider to be terrible? And what’s the debate in Islam?” It is this last question that signals what may prove to be the most important weapon in the ever-escalating battle between the West and ISIS.

To date, American and Western leaders have preemptively shut down any debate within Islam by declaring that Islam is the religion of peace and that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. In so doing, Western governments have effectively shut the door on those Muslims who dare to dissent, who suggest reform rather than radicalism as the solution to Islam’s ills. The result is that the Islamists are running the show, from Iraq to Syria to Libya to Iran.

During the Cold War, U.S. support for Soviet and Eastern European dissidents was a decisive factor in breaking the Soviet Union’s grip over much of the world. In the 1960s and 1970s, American support came primarily from private groups and individuals. But President Reagan understood that support to dissidents could be decisive in the battle. If dissidents received moral and material support from the West, it would help to prove that Soviet domination was not inevitable and that the so-called Forces of History were in fact reversible. Thus, engaging in the war of ideas became a key component of the Reagan doctrine.

Today, no one has heard of the Muslim dissidents, the reformers. They certainly are not invited to the White House. That privilege is reserved for the heads of CAIR and ISNA and MAS.

To date, one man has helped to get the voices of dissidents heard. Stephen Ulph started his career studying terrorism. A Brit, he was a founder and former editor of Terrorism Security Monitor and editor and analyst for Islamic Affairs, published by Jane’s Information Group. But his fluency in various Middle Eastern languages eventually brought him into contact with some of the Middle East’s dissident voices. He understood their importance in the fight against terrorism, and it then became his mission to support them and bring their voices to a Western audience. He created the website http://www.almuslih.org, The Reformer, where he publishes their articles in both English and Arabic. Mr. Ulph brought a small group of reformers together in December 2012 in Rome, a meeting I had the privilege to attend. Most were familiar with each other’s work, but they had never met each other.

The voices within the reformist movement are wide-ranging. Some consider themselves devout Muslims who want to see their religion learn to live alongside other religions; others had left the faith but maintained pride in their Muslim-Arab heritage. The solutions they offered were also wide-ranging. The most prominent among the participants in Rome was Lafif Lakhdar, a French-Tunisian writer who died just a few months after the meeting. He argued that terrorism did not come out of a vacuum; it came out of the education, which glorified martyrdom. “We have to dismantle the martyrdom argument,” he said. Dr. Abd al-Khaliq Hussein, an Iraqi intellectual, argued against the “root-cause analysis” that has so pervaded U.S. counter-terrorism policy. He warned that the West’s courting of the Islamists defeats any efforts at reform and can lead only to totalitarianism.

These are the men and women who can answer Eliot Abrams’ question, “What is the debate in Islam?” On December 2, Stephen Ulph is bringing a handful of the Almuslih reformers to Washington for a one-day discussion, co-sponsored by the Westminster Institute, entitled Progressive Arab Voices on Islamic Reform. Perhaps some in Washington will understand the importance of U.S. support for dissident voices in the Muslim world and will want to hear what they have to say.

For more information on the conference, go to www.Almuslih.org.

Katie Gorka is the president of the Council on Global Security: @katharine gorka.

Video: Christopher Holton on Civilization Jihad, the Global Islamic Insurgency and Shariah Compliant Finance

moa1Terror Trends Bulletin, Oct. 17, 2012, by Christopher Holton:

This information makes up the introductory portion of the briefing that I have been delivering around the country for the past 3 years. It is important given the mounting evidence of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the West, and the US in particular.

On 22 May 2007, the Pew Research Center, certainly not a “conservative” organization, published a report on a survey that they conducted of Muslims in America. The name of that report was “Muslims in America: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream.”

Pew rolled it out as a celebration of Muslims in America. The media jumped on the bandwagon and the report was received with delight.

But there are aspects of the report which deserve more scrutiny and which Pew and the media essentially ignored in their spin during the release.

First a few background highlights:

• Pew reported that there were 2.35 million Muslims in America, including 1.4 million over the age of 18 (the target group of the survey).

This is important because the Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as CAIR and ISNA, frequently claim that there are 5-6 million Muslims in America. President Obama parroted the bogus 5-6 million figure from the Muslim Brotherhood in his 2009 Cairo speech.

• 30% of the 1.4 million (420,000) were said to be between 18 and 29.

This is important because this is the demographic most likely to be involved in jihadist activity.

Most importantly, there were two particularly relevant questions that were buried deep in the Pew survey that Pew chose not to address or highlight in its release and rollout of the report:

Relevant Question Number 1: Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?

A: Often/Sometimes: 8%

A: Rarely: 5%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 9%

A: Never: 78%

 In other words, AT LEAST 13% of American Muslims believed that suicide bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

 182,000 Muslims in America over the age of 18 believed that Islamikaze bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

Here is another important point: This same question was asked of Muslims under the age of 30 (the age group most associated with jihadist activity):

A: Often/Sometimes: 15%

A: Rarely: 11%

A: Don’t know/refuse to answer: 5%?

A: Never: 69%

 26% or 109,200 Muslims in America between 18 and 29 believed that Islamikaze bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

Relevant Question Number 2: What is your view of Al Qaeda?

A: Favorable: 5%

A: Somewhat Unfavorable: 10%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 27%

A: Very Unfavorable: 58%

Same questions to Muslims under 30:

A: Favorable: 7%

A: Somewhat Unfavorable: 16%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 19%

A: Very Unfavorable: 58%

 70,000 Muslims in America admitted to having a favorable view of Al Qaeda.

 29,400 Muslims in America between the ages of 18 and 29 admitted to having a favorable view of Al Qaeda.

It is particularly noteworthy that younger Muslims in America appear to be more predisposed to violent Jihad than older Muslims based upon the answers to these two questions.

Note that this survey was conducted of Muslims in America, not Muslims in Benghazi, Ramadi, Fallujah, Gaza, Cairo, Sana’a, Tehran, Kandahar, or Islamabad. The tens of thousands of Muslims that harbor these views all live in America. These numbers are staggering and frightening.

Civilizational Jihad and Global Islamic Insurgency with Christopher Holton, Published on Dec 26, 2013 by Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors:

 

“… new reality makes identifying and understanding the Islamic doctrinal basis of our Jihadist enemies all the more important, yet with each passing attack, we seem to be getting further and further away from doing so.”

Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy discussed what America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, an even more toxic danger — a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

Civilizational Jihad is succeeding through government, finance, military institutions…and though our schools.

Christopher Holton is Vice-President of Outreach at the Center for Security Policy. He directs the Center’s Divest Terror Initiative and Shariah Risk Due Diligence Program. He has been involved in legislation in twenty states to divest taxpayer supported pension systems from foreign companies that do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Sudan, and the Syrian Arab Republic. Since 2008, Chris has been the editor-in-chief of the Shariah Finance Watch Blog. In 2005, he was a co-author of War Footing, published by the US Naval Institute Press. Holton’s work has also been published by National Review, Human Events, The American Thinker, Family Security Matters, Big Peace, World Tribune, World Net Daily, NewsMax, and thehayride.com. Before joining the Center, Chris was President of Blanchard and Company, a two hundred million dollar per year investment firm, and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit. Christopher blogs at TerrorTrendsBulletin.com.

 

And this is an excellent presentation on Shariah Compliant Finance with a long Q&A beginning about 50 min. in:

 

Here is a transcript of a similar presentation given in 2012.

 

Ibn Warraq Takes on Fact, Fiction, and Freedom

9780988477858_p0_v1_s260x420-232x350By Andrew Harrod:

The world’s free peoples “risk losing all to Islamist thuggery,” the pseudonymous Islam scholar Ibn Warraq warns in his latest book, Sir Walter Scott’s Crusades and Other Fantasies, a collection of essays previously published online.  Analyzing past Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations, the Muslim apostate Warraq insightfully separates historical fact from popular fiction before defending the freedom necessary to distinguish between the two.

The book’s first half analyzes the Crusades and their perception in light of Sir Walter Scott’s writing.  Warraq’s first chapter examines the sympathetic treatment of Jews in Scott’s Ivanhoe, a novel set in Crusader-era England.  Ivanhoe shows Scott’s “commitment to religious and racial tolerance, his Enlightenment abhorrence of superstition and fanaticism.”

The subsequent chapter, the book’s longest, compares the presentation of the Crusades in Scott’s novel The Talisman with various historical writings.  Contrary to a “characteristically shallow, sneering aside” in Edward Said’s OrientalismThe Talisman’s “overall and overwhelming impression” is of “bickering…barbaric…course…fanatical” Crusaders in a “futile enterprise.”  By contrast, the “Muslims were patient, forbearing, and tolerant of other religions, and simply defending their homelands” while Third Crusade Muslim leader Saladin appears “virtuous, calm, refined, and sagacious.”  This Saladin is “much given to uttering what Scott must take to be pearls of Eastern wisdom but which read more like those pseudo-Confucian proverbs to be found in Chinese cookies.”

The Talisman reflected that Scott, like other intellectuals, was a “child of the Scottish Enlightenment” with its belief that “non-European civilizations were at least the equal of, and perhaps even superior to, Western civilization.”  Yet Islamophile sentiments extended beyond Scott to 20th century Islam scholar Sir Hamilton Gibb and his “biography—or rather hagiography” of Gibb’s “hero” Saladin.  For Warraq “startling,” Gibb recommended The Talisman to students as a “book from which they could learn much Middle Eastern history.”  Other historians developed a view that “Saladin, in his younger days, was essentially a shy retiring, unambitious youth who preferred a quiet seclusion to court intrigues, politics, and war.”

Yet The Talisman is “wildly inaccurate” as history.  The plot’s depiction of Saladin disguised as a doctor treating English king Richard I (“the Lionheart”) is fanciful, given that the two Third Crusade opponents never met.  These two commanders pursued “grim warfare” and “politics all the way” such that “neither of them displayed any clemency if it did not suit them.”

Saladin’s historic “characteristic ruthlessness” is far less appealing, such as when his forces slaughtered 50,000 disarmed Sudanese soldiers in Cairo in 1169 in breach of a surrender agreement.  “Not bad for a shy retiring scholar who preferred the discourse of pious men,” Warraq scoffs.  Saladin likewise had Christian prisoners killed who rejected conversion to Islam, including Crusaders sent in 1183 to Mecca to be “ritually slaughtered by having their throats cut…in the place of goats or sheep.”  Templar and Hospitaller Knights met a similar grisly end after the 1187 Battle of Hattin in a “cruel circus watched by a smiling Saladin.”  Other actions such as church destructions ordered by Saladin indicate that a “true Muslim is not tolerant” but rather pursues the “totalitarian nature of jihad” in world domination.  Yet despite Saladin’s image battling Crusaders, he spent 12 years during his reign as sultan from 1174 to 1193 fighting other Muslims and only five fighting Christians.

Crusaders “are always depicted as barbarians” in histories of the era, Warraq notes.  Nonetheless, the “Crusades were a reaction against over three hundred years of jihad when the Eastern Christians were persecuted, and hundreds of churches destroyed.”   This jihad, moreover, continued following the Crusades when Muslims went on “occupying far more territory in Europe than the Western settlers had ever held in Syria and Palestine.”  Crusades were “never a war of conversion, rather a rightful attempt to recover Christian territory which had been injuriously seized in the past.”  Contrary to modern Crusader colonialism theories, “most crusaders would have laughed at the prospect of material gain,” particularly considering the immense subsidies needed to maintain Crusader kingdoms.

“Two wrongs do not make a right,” Warraq adds concerning excuses for Islamic atrocities referencing crimes committed in Christianity’s name such as during the Crusades.  Moreover, “Islamic intolerance is presently a far more immediate danger to all, whereas Christian intolerance is a thing of the past.”  This real danger contrasts with a Muslim “false idea of a continuing western assault” since the Crusades.  In actuality, the “Crusades had almost passed out of mind” of Muslims, the Crusades’ “outright winners,” by the fourteenth century.  They “only began to take in an interest in the Crusades again in the 1890s” due to “Western imperialist rhetoric.”

Read more at Front Page