paris-jihad-attackFrontpage, by Robert Spencer, Nov. 14, 2015:

That didn’t take long: one of the Islamic State (ISIS) jihadis who murdered at least 160 people in Paris on Friday held a Syrian passport and passed through Greece in October. In October, he was a “refugee” seeking asylum in Europe from the Syrian war zone; in November, he was murdering French civilians for the Islamic caliphate. The Migrant Jihad has begun.

French and European authorities can’t say they weren’t warned. Last February, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. And the Lebanese Education Minister recently said that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. Meanwhile, 80% of migrants who have recently come to Europe claiming to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all.

So why are they claiming to be Syrian and streaming into Europe? An Islamic State operative gave the answer when he boasted in September, shortly after the migrant influx began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had already entered Europe. He explained their purpose: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.” These Muslims were going to Europe in the service of that caliphate: “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.”

A year before that the Islamic State issued a call for jihad murders of French civilians: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be.”

Then after the attacks the Islamic State issued a statement claiming responsibility for them, and warning: “Let France and all nations following its path know that they will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign, as long as they dare to curse our Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and as long as they boast about their war against Islam in France and their strikes against Muslims in the land of the Caliphate with their jets, which were of no avail to them in the filthy streets and alleys of Paris. Indeed, this is just the beginning. It is also a warning for any who wish to take heed.”

So war was declared, and acts of war carried out – and the response has been drearily predictable. German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere was swift to try to dissociate the Paris attacks from the migrant influx into Europe: “I would like to make this urgent plea to avoid drawing such swift links to the situation surrounding refugees.” Alas for de Maiziere, there was the inconvenient fact of that Syrian “refugee” who pass through Greece on his way to jihad in Paris.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama was true to form, not mentioning Islam or Muslims in his statement on the Paris attacks, and not giving a hint that it was his precipitous and politically motivated withdrawal from Iraq that created the vacuum that allowed for the rise of the Islamic State. Indeed, the Islamic State could end up being the most significant legacy of the Obama Administration. Obviously American troops couldn’t have stayed in Iraq forever, and the Iraq project from its beginnings was based on false assumptions about Islam, ignoring its political, supremacist and violent aspects; but Obama’s hasty and ill-thought out withdrawal took into account none of the realities on the ground: the Sunni/Shi’ite divide, the Iranian influence in Baghdad, the Sunnis’ unwillingness to participate in the Baghdad government and the Shi’ites’ refusal to allow them to do so in any significant way, and more. France today is paying the price for the willful ignorance and short-sightedness of Obama and his administration.

The Leftist media is firmly stuck in willful ignorance mode as well. Salon published a piece entitled, “Our terrorism double standard: After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves,” and another entitled, “And so the hate speech begins: Let Paris be the end of the right’s violent language toward activists.” The Guardian worried that after the Paris jihad murders Friday, “far-right groups may well fuel more hatred.” Neither Salon nor the Guardian, nor any other mainstream media outlet, published any realistic assessment of the advancing jihad threat in France and the West in general.

And so as the Western intelligentsia fell into familiar patterns of response, it only ensured that there would be many, many more attacks, in Europe and the U.S., like the one in Paris Friday. It seems as if no amount of disconfirming evidence will move the establishment Left to remove its blinkers, discard its politically correct fantasies, and face the jihad threat realistically. The Leftists in the corridors of power are today ensuring that there will be much, much more bloodshed.

Also see:

Report: UC Merced stabber was on terror watch list, had Islamic State flag


If the information in this report is true, then Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke was deliberately lying when he told the media that this attack had nothing to do with Faisal Mohammad’s Islamic faith. What is the motive of these people? When it comes to Islamic jihad attacks, virtually all public officials downplay the Islamic aspect, obfuscate the motive, and often lie outright, all to protect Islam. What has made Islam sacrosanct so that no matter how high the stack of bodies gets, no matter how many atrocities are committed in its name and in accord with its teachings, the one thing we must not do at all costs is identify the root cause properly?


“Were Law Enforcement Leaders and UC Chancellor Aware of Threat by Terrorsits [sic]/Extremists to Attack UC Merced?,” by Matthew Gonzales, Merced TV News, November 7, 2015 (thanks to Joe):

…From the information I have gathered, the suspect was indeed not only on the FBI’s terrorist watch list but he was also on a national watch list and had been one of the topics of discussion at a recent FBI briefing to Merced County law enforcement leaders. According to recently obtained information, about 6 months ago the FBI held a terrorist/extremist briefing with Merced County law enforcement leaders. At this meeting several suspected terrorist with ISIS links were said to be here in Merced County. Names and photos were presented including one of Faisal Mohammad. Based on the FBI’s own analysis and a number of people on the terrorist watch list that are in the area they projected an attack at the UC Merced campus. Though they were not absolutely certain of the attack on the UC they did feel that there was enough information for them to be here if it did.

According to my sources the UC Chancellor was also briefed on the potential threats.

A witness who wishes to remain anonymous stated that they had seen what appeared to be a picture of an ISIS flag which was pulled out of the suspect’s pocket. Two of my law enforcement sources have verified that this is in fact true and that the UC Chancellor along with the FBI and DHS have instructed our local media and our local law enforcement leaders to feed the current narrative that FM was a disgruntled student instead of what he actually was… an extremist Muslim bent on attacking American students in the name of ISIS. And their reasoning for not informing Merced County residents or our out-of-town students and their parents about these potential threats to their lives? According to all three law enforcement sources the information was withheld because it would be bad for business. Protecting four innocent people’s lives and the truth was bad for business….

The last thing one of my law enforcement sources said before she hung-up was, “ISIS is here, Matt, and this is no longer a safe community. This info needs to be made public to the people of Merced County to be aware of the d anger signs.” I think she’s right because we have the right to know to be able to protect ourselves and our families from this impending danger.

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

quran (3)

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

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

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

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

Ahmed’s longtime colleague, Hamas-linked CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, said in 1993: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

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

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

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

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

And there are others as well. Sperry quotes Muzammil Siddiqi, the chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America and the North American Islamic Trust: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

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

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

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

Robert Spencer: The speech the U.S. Catholic Bishops don’t want you to see


Published on Oct 5, 2015 by JihadWatchVideo

Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer was the keynote speaker at the annual convocation of the North American Lutheran Church, Dallas, Texas, August 13, 2015. He spoke about Muslim persecution of Christians.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pulled their representative from the North American Lutheran Church convocation when they found out Spencer was the keynote speaker. Watch this speech and see what the Catholic Bishops of the United States don’t want you to know.

The Watchman Show: Is ISIS Winning Against the West?


CBN, by Erick Stakelbeck, Sep. 15, 2015:

On this week’s edition of The Watchman, we sit down with Islam expert Robert Spencer to discuss his new book, The Complete Infidels’ Guide to ISIS.

Plus,  Austrian counter-jihad activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff joins us to discuss ISIS among the Muslim refugees of Europe.

Watch below:

Premiere of “Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks”


Photo above –– AFDI’s 9/11 Ground Zero mosque protest –– over 30,000 attended.

Atlas Shrugs, By Pamela Geller, September 12, 2015:

Tonight’s Saturday Night Cinema selection is the world online premiere of AFDI’s historic and acclaimed documentary, The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks. It is on YouTube for a limited time only.

In light of yesterday’s terrible anniversary, we thought it was time to upload the film online. You can purchase the DVD here. This is the first time this incredible film is available for viewing online.

This is the true story of the Ground Zero mosque controversy. Watch it.

The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks is a groundbreaking documentary on the controversy over the planned Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero. Geller said in a statement: “The Ground Zero Mosque has become a watershed issue in our effort to raise awareness of and ultimately halt and roll back the advance of Islamic law and Islamic supremacism in America. Although 70% of Americans oppose this insulting victory mosque, the mainstream media continues to propagandize for it, whitewashing the links to jihad terror and unsavory financial dealings of mosque organizers, and smearing the vast majority of Americans who oppose the mosque as racists and hatemongers.” The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks strikes back against the media liars. This is the first documentary that tells the whole truth about the Ground Zero mosque. Be prepared to be shaken to your core. The documentary includes exclusive footage of AFDI/SIOA’s June 6 and September 11 rallies in lower Manhattan against the mosque, featuring speakers such as Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders, former Ambassador John Bolton, conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart, popular talk show host Mike Gallagher, Sudanese ex-slave Simon Deng, courageous military vet Ilario Pantano, and many 911 family members and first responders as well as others. It also features brand-new interviews with Geller and AFDI/SIOA Associate Director Robert Spencer, as well as inside details and media footage of the struggle to stop the mosque, and more. This film is perfect for showing your skeptical friends and family what we’re really up against, and explaining to them how and why we must fight back. It is the first accurate reportage of the number one national and international news story that became national news without the mainstream media. The press has tried to shape the narrative to demonize the freedom lovers and denazify the Islamic supremacists, but the American people no longer trust big media.”

Also see:

Savage Enemy: How ISIS Wants to Start Armageddon

Robert-Spencer-CBN-090215CBN, September 02, 2015

ISIS, or the Islamic State, is in the news every day. The brutal terrorist army burst on the scene in 2014 when it gobbled up huge swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria.

Today, ISIS controls a land area the size of Great Britain and is the wealthiest jihadist organization in the world.

As ISIS expands, it brings with it chaos and savagery everywhere it goes, beheading its enemies, destroying cultural artifacts and treasures, and displacing millions of Christians and other non-Muslims.

Despite all that we do know about ISIS, the terror group remains shrouded in mystery. Who are they? What do they believe? Why do they hate America?

Robert Spencer, a leading terror expert, answers these questions and more while exposing the blood-drenched history and mysterious inner workings of the Islamic State in his latest book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS. The book provides an essential primer to comprehending one of the world’s most dangerous enemies.

The brutality of ISIS is unquestioned; what remains misunderstood is their strength. Spencer expertly exposes deceptive propaganda and Western misunderstanding of an ever-present threat in an easily accessible and digestible format.

ISIS attracts staggering numbers of followers and commits unspeakable acts of violence. His book exposes the message behind the ever-cryptic ISIS machine, giving us a deeper look into the details of their terror campaign and unprecedented access to ISIS insiders.

In The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, Spencer reveals:

  • The significance of ISIS declaring itself a “caliphate and why that’s an especially dangerous sign for the West.
  • The ISIS timetable for conquering Rome by 2020 and witnessing Israel’s fall beginning in 2022.
  • How the Islamic State is working toward starting the battle of Armageddon now.
  • Why beheading victims remain calm in recruitment videos.
  • Why ISIS cares about health care.

With its social media presence, cyber knowledge, and false promises of glory, ISIS has a presence on the world stage unlike anything we’ve encountered before. Spencer’s sharp, in-your-face assessment of America’s newest enemy affirms they cannot be ignored any longer.

Robert Spencer appeared on The 700 Club, Wednesday, to discuss these points and more. Click play to watch the interview.

Relax: UK Government to Battle Islamist Violence by Fighting ‘All Forms of Extremism’

Theresa-MayPJ Media, By Robert Spencer On September 2, 2015;

British Home Secretary Theresa May announced last week:

[I]n the not-too-distant future we will be launching an anti-extremism, counter-extremism strategy as a Government. That will be looking across the board at all forms of extremism — yes, Islamist extremism, but also neo-Nazi extremism.

Is Dr. Strangelove patrolling the British countryside in his wheelchair? Has Oswald Mosley mysteriously reappeared and begun ranting on the BBC?

Do the handful of skinheads, convicts, and other idiots with swastikas on their necks sieg-heiling around the fringes of British society really constitute a threat equivalent to that of the international jihad? Hardly. And Theresa May certainly knows it.

She not only knows there is a global threat from Islamic jihadists, she also can’t help but be aware of the fact that there is a very severe and imminent jihad threat within Britain itself. To equate this with a minuscule threat from a handful of neo-Nazi nutjobs (who should of course be combated in any case, however much she exaggerates the threat they pose) shows how deeply May and the entire Conservative government of David Cameron are beholden to Islamic supremacists who will pillory the government as “racist,” “bigoted,” and “Islamophobic” if it speaks too forthrightly and honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

The enlightened and multicultural home secretary is not, of course, speaking just about real neo-Nazis. She also almost certainly is lumping in with neo-Nazis the opponents of jihad terror that she and her government consider to be “right wing.”

In doing this, she has behind her a series of libels from groups such as the far-Left Hope not Hate, and the Marxist, Palestinian jihad-supporting One Law for All to abet this mischaracterization. Both groups, and others like them, have labored for years to brand those who dissent from their far-Left, anti-Israel stances as “right-wing extremists.”

In taking up these tendentious smears and giving them the imprimatur of the British government, May and her cohorts have ruled all honest discussion about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as being unacceptable discourse. In place of that honest discussion, the government has instituted the prevailing fantasies about how Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” and groups such as the Islamic State are not Islamic.

She is, in other words, smearing an honest and realistic response to the jihad threat as “neo-Nazi,” and is enforcing falsehoods about “Islamist extremism” that will hamstring, and ultimately doom to failure, her government’s attempts to combat it.

The same thing is happening in Obama’s America. The administration has published several statements and reports about the threat from “right-wing extremists” while consistently denying the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. He even did so last Wednesday, after a gay, black man murdered two white journalists in a rage over injustices he believed he had suffered. Obama said:

What we know is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism.

Just as with the recent “study” that purported to show that “right-wing extremists” were more of a threat than Islamic jihadists, in saying this Obama is probably leaving out the deaths from 9/11. And if even a fraction of the foiled jihad plots had come to fruition, this would be an even more risible claim than it is.

But this is the opinion of the powerful elites in both America and Britain today, and in both countries, innocent people are going to suffer as a result. Innocents will be unjustly tarred as “right-wing extremists,” and will be susceptible to the incomplete, faulty response to the very real jihad threat that the American and British governments would rather wish away than confront.

Unfortunately, the confrontation cannot and will not be avoided forever. The official denial ensures than when it comes, it will be worse than it could have been had more realistic and effective action been taken sooner. Future generations of free Britons, if there are any, will condemn Theresa May and her boss Cameron as naive fantasists, whose draconian measures against counter-jihadists and blind eye to jihad activity within Britain (except in the most egregious cases) doomed Britain to years of bloodshed and chaos.

In the meantime, British people can sleep easy knowing their government’s good efforts have kept them safe from the neo-Nazi scourge.

Curt Schilling and the Death of Free Speech


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?


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:


Glazov Gang: Choudary, Spencer and Jasser Battle It Out On “Jihad in Chattanooga.”

free-672x372By Jamie Glazov July 31, 2015:

This special episode of The Glazov Gang was joined by Anjem Choudary, a London Imam, Robert Spencer, the Director of, and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

The three guests came on the show to discuss “Jihad in Chattanooga.”

Don’t miss the fireworks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Sharia Should Have No Place in America

20150301_shariawilldominatetheworldsign (1)Family Security Matters, by Eileen F. Topansky, June 22, 2015:

There are still far too many Americans who do not perceive the terrifying Nazi-like intentions of Islamic jihadists either through their outright destruction of the infidel and/or the implementation of sharia law as Allah has ordained it to be.

The alphabet-soup-named groups’ ultimate goal of extermination of Jews, Christians and any others deemed infidels has still not penetrated the consciousness of the media or academia.  And no matter how many ardent efforts are made to educate and raise awareness of the Islamists’ goals, people either ignore or minimize the dangers.

And, yet, like Churchill, there are those of us who feel a moral obligation to continue the clarion call and not bend, dhimmi-like, to the whims and wishes of those who deliberately abuse the freedoms of this country in order to abolish those very freedoms for the rest of us.

Which is why, freedom loving Americans need to support Pamela Geller, Ayanna Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Nonie Darwish and other courageous souls who refuse to cower before the appalling attacks on freedom of speech.  Given the opportunity, Islam swallows the whole body politic. Thus it has been in the past and thus it will be going forward.  After all, “Hijab Day was imposed on citizens in Minneapolis” in 2014.

Author/neuroscientist Sam Harris in his article entitled “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks” asserts that “[t]he position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you.”  Furthermore,” [o]nly Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century.”

Contrary to Muslims’ oft-repeated assertions of victimization, it is interesting to note that the latest FBI statistics indicate that Muslims are the least discriminated among groups in the United States.  In fact, “[t]here were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish” as compared to “anti-Islamic ones [which] constituted just 13.1 percent.”  Yet Muslims play the victim game with the result that “Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying ‘respect’ to the glaring pathologies in their culture.”

How many Americans understand the true import of the word “dhimmitude?”  Victor Sharpe describes it as the “parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second-class citizens in order to avoid death.”

Secularists from India to Indiana must understand that “by being silent about the horrendous practices in Islam, they only help toward further subjugation of women.” The veil is but one of the many symbols of “a totalitarian political system and an ideology which declares war on the non-Muslims.”  It is as clear and potent as the Nazi swastika was in its declaration of war against civilization.  Yet, when Muslim women activists speak out against sharia and Islamic gender apartheid, they are ignored by the majority of so-called Western feminists.

One need only read the March 2015 report by Baroness Cox entitled “A Parallel World: Confronting the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today” to see what jihadist ideology is doing to the land of Churchill who, in 1897, wrote “western civilization is face to face with militant Mohammedanism.”  Baroness Cox has written that the “suffering of women oppressed by religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all” would “make the suffragettes turn in their graves.”

In 2014 in their publication entitled Sharia Law: Britain’s Blind Spot, Sharia Watch warned about the encroaching sharia law that was affecting “the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.”

Yet the West continues to contort itself to ban Islamophobia, that completely false narrative that disguises and whitewashes the true intentions of the jihadists.  What every freedom-loving individual should be doing is demanding an “Islamist Apartheid Week” to show the “genocidal, totalitarian and racist states that operate under Islamic rule.”  In fact, it isChristianophobia and Judenphobia which are endemic across the Muslim world.

Is sharia law America’s blind spot as Joanne Moudy asserts? In her June 2014 article, Moudy explains that “. . . many states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of foreign religious law in their courts. Yet despite strong voter support for these measures, the ACLU is fighting to get them all overturned. Oklahoma was one such state and – sure enough – in 2013 a federal court struck down their efforts, ignoring 70% of the population’s wishes that the U.S. Constitution take precedence.”  Moreover, “[t]he ACLU claims it is necessary to consider religious law (Shari’a) when negotiating adoptions, custody of children, executing a will and/or settling disputes over private property rights, to name a few. What the ACLU fails to mention is that within Shari’a law, women are considered property and thus have no rights, which means they have no say in court.”

In addition, Bethany Blankley in her article entitled “What America Would Look Like Under Sharia Law” notes the disingenuousness and double standards that define Islamic organizations as they stealthily infiltrate American organizations.

Blankley’s most cogent point is that since Islamists say there is no conflict between sharia law and constitutional law, “why then [do these same Islamic groups] vigilantly advertise, lobby, award ‘educational grants,’ and fund political campaigns, to implement sharia compliant American law?”

In fact, one need only look at Saudi Arabia and other sharia-ordered countries to see that Jews and gays have no civil rights in Islam.  Thus, “like everyone else, they must either submit to Islam or die.  But they are especially forbidden and targeted for death — because the Qur’an instructs it.”  According to Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, “[t]he Muslim regimes, which do not know even the definition of liberty–and their systematic criminalization of free speech; their suppression of inquiry and creativity; and their unending intertribal fights–are the reason their people have remained in the seventh century.”

Amendment VIII in the Constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  Yet, in sharp contrast, “every day, arrests, trials, floggings, torture and the murder of journalists, poets, students and human rights activists are a routine practice” in the world of sharia law.

In fact, “[i]n Islamic Sharia law, a free mind is the most inexcusable crime in the Muslim world.”

Under “sharia, no free exercise of religion exists, especially for Muslims who choose to leave Islam.”  Additionally, “blasphemy laws exist worldwide to criminalize offensive speech or actions related to the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad.” Thus, anything that is deemed “offensive” is illegal.  And finally, “inequality, slavery and murder are enforced through the Islamic construct of dhimmitude.”

To further understand what life would actually be like for women under an Islamic state, it behooves readers to study the manifesto on women by the Al-Khanssaa Brigade in the February 2015 piece entitled Women of the Islamic State. A propaganda piece to recruit young girls to ISIS, some highlights include a “lengthy rebuttal of the ills of Western civilisation [.]”  ISIS has proposed a curriculum that would ‘begin when [girls] are seven years old and end when they are fifteen, or sometimes a little earlier.'” In essence, “the role of women is inherently ‘sedentary’, and her responsibilities lie first and foremost in the house [.] This role begins at the point of marriage which, . . . can be as young as nine years old. From this point on, it is women’s ‘appointed role [to] remain hidden and veiled and maintain society from behind.'” In actuality, “the ideal Islamic community should refrain from becoming caught up in exploring [science], the depths of matter, trying to uncover the secrets of nature and reaching the peaks of architectural sophistication.”  Consequently, “the implementation of sharia,” and doing “jihad” is paramount.

In Wisconsin and Ohio public school female students are now being asked to pretend to be Muslims.  This subtle propaganda is a first step to indoctrinating American youth.  In fact, much of American life is now being tainted with militant and violent Islamic ideology, be it in public schools, hospitals, and mosques.

Concerning actual sharia incursions into American life, on the one hand, Elizabeth K. Dorminey in her March 2012 article entitled “Sharia Law in American Courts” asserts that “[s]o long as U.S. courts and the federal and state legislatures adhere to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, Sharia’s proscriptions and prohibitions cannot displace constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the United States.”  Likewise Eugene Volokh believes American jurists will halt sharia-like incursions.

But in reality, American courts are already using sharia to adjudicate cases; this is highlighted in the December 2014 booklet entitled Shariah in American Courts, which pdf is available here and whose blurb states that “[t]his monograph also suggests that the effort to invoke shariah in U.S. courts is expanding. Worse yet, the total number of such cases is surely far larger in light of the fact that the proceedings of the vast majority of them are not published.”

In fact, Frank Gaffney emphatically asserts the “need for state legislators to clearly define public policy related to foreign law and Shariah.”  Consequently, . . .  in every case where foreign law and Shariah emerge in the court of a state that has yet to define clearly this policy, it creates one more advance in the Islamists’ determined campaign to have us destroy ‘our house’ by ‘our own hands.'”

Moreover, Gaffney underscores that “Shariah is distinctly different from other religious laws, like Jewish law and Catholic Canon, and distinctly different from other secular foreign laws” because of the “fundamental Shariah doctrine that Islamic law must rule supreme in any jurisdiction where Muslims reside.”  This three minute you-tube is a short version of the article entitled “Shariah vs. Jewish Law and encapsulates the stark differences.

Most alarming is that in “146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail[ed] to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy.”  Consequently, there is an “increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization.”  Multi-cultural tolerance is being turned on us. Being paralyzed by political correctness eliminates what self-preservation demands.

In the June 2014 booklet entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” published by One Law for All, the authors explain that “[f]undamentalist terror is predicated on “. . . controlling all aspects of society in the name of religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people — they physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, musicians, painters – like fascists do. Like fascists, they physically eliminate the ‘untermensch’ – the subhumans -, among them ‘inferior races’, gays, mentally or physically disabled people. And they lock women ‘in their place [.]'”he Campaign La All

Why would we want to import any part of this to our shores?

Eileen has been a medical librarian, an Emergency Medical Technician and a Hebrew School teacher.  She is currently an adjunct college instructor of English composition and literature.  Active in the 1970’s Soviet Jewry Refusenik movement, she continues to speak out against tyranny.  Eileen is also a regular contributor to American Thinker. She can be reached at

ISIS Is Following a Plan Laid Out Ten Years Ago by Al-Qaeda, and It’s All Working

-, -:  (FILES) -- A TV grab from the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera news channel dated 17 June 2005 shows Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri delivering a speech at an undisclosed location with a machine gun next to him. Al-Zawahiri, in a video posted on the Internet 29 September 2006, called US President George W Bush a liar who had "failed in his war against Al-Qaeda", Al-Jazeera television reported. The previous day, Islamist websites on the Internet had said there would be a new video message posted by Zawahiri entitled " Bush, the pope, Darfur and the Crusades."  AFP PHOTO/AL-JAZEERA  -- QATAR OUT & INTERNET OUT --  (Photo credit should read -/AFP/Getty Images)

-, -: (FILES) — A TV grab from the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera news channel dated 17 June 2005 shows Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri delivering a speech at an undisclosed location with a machine gun next to him. Al-Zawahiri, in a video posted on the Internet 29 September 2006, called US President George W Bush a liar who had “failed in his war against Al-Qaeda”, Al-Jazeera television reported. The previous day, Islamist websites on the Internet had said there would be a new video message posted by Zawahiri entitled ” Bush, the pope, Darfur and the Crusades.” AFP PHOTO/AL-JAZEERA — QATAR OUT & INTERNET OUT — (Photo credit should read -/AFP/Getty Images)

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, June 19, 2015:

It has been almost a year since June 29, 2014, when the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) declared the formation of a new caliphate and dropped the second half of its name, rebranding itself as simply the Islamic State. It has survived nine months since Barack Obama vowed to “degrade and ultimately destroy” it.

It has survived, and has continued to attract Muslims from all over the world, even after virtually every major world leader and Islamic group has condemned it as un-Islamic. And it shows no sign of going anywhere anytime soon.

All this is well-known. What is less known is that the plan for the restoration of the caliphate was sketched out ten years ago by al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, and has been followed out more or less exactly by the Islamic State.

The claim to reconstitute the caliphate is the key to the Islamic State’s success — the importance of this cannot be overstated.

The revival of the caliphate is, in the eyes of those who support it and have longed for it all these years, a return to the form of government of the glory days of Islam. From Muhammad’s death through Islam’s Golden Age up until the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after the end of World War I, Muslims were ruled by a caliph, the successor to Muhammad as spiritual and political leader of Islam.

And the declaration of the caliphate, and its placement in and around Syria and Iraq, was not an invention of the Islamic State, or incidental to what it perceived as its mission from the beginning. In reality, a new caliphate had long been an aspiration dear to the hearts of many jihadi terrorists, including al-Qaeda.

Bin Laden’s lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri wrote to the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq (which ultimately became the Islamic State), Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, on July 9, 2005:

It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula and Iraq; however, the center would be in the Levant and Egypt.

Zawahiri also heaped praise on Zarqawi for helping bring that state — the revived caliphate — closer to reality:

If our intended goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly — according to how it appears to us — in the heart of the Islamic world, then your efforts and sacrifices — God permitting — are a large step directly towards that goal.

Zawahiri then offered Zarqawi his “humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals,” the first of which was to “expel the Americans from Iraq.” The second stage, wrote Zarqawi, would be exactly what the Islamic State ended up doing nine years later:

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate — over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

Following the establishment of this state, the third stage would be to “extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq,” followed by the fourth stage, which “may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.”

Zawahiri wrote in an extremely deferential manner to Zarqawi, repeatedly assuring the Iraq commander that his analysis was not “infallible.” Nonetheless, he did not hesitate to give him direction, emphasizing that:

The mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal.

If they did that:

We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us. Instead, their ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic state, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.

Zawihiri summed up the “two short-term goals” as “removing the Americans and establishing an Islamic amirate in Iraq, or a caliphate if possible.” Attaining them, he wrote, would ensure possession of “the strongest weapon which the mujahedeen enjoy — after the help and granting of success by God,” which was “popular support from the Muslim masses in Iraq, and the surrounding Muslim countries.”

But al-Qaeda itself hesitated to declare a caliphate for fear that the Americans would nip it in the bud. A letter from Osama bin Laden, found in the trove of documents at the Abbottabad compound and declassified in May 2015, explained:

We should stress on the importance of timing in establishing the Islamic State. We should be aware that planning for the establishment of the state begins with exhausting the main influential power that enforced the siege on the Hamas government, and that overthrew the Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan and Iraq despite the fact this power was depleted. We should keep in mind that this main power still has the capacity to lay siege on any Islamic State, and that such a siege might force the people to overthrow their duly elected governments. We have to continue with exhausting and depleting them till they become so weak that they can’t overthrow any State that we establish. That will be the time to commence with forming the Islamic state.

Bin Laden saw the restoration of the caliphate as the ultimate goal of al-Qaeda’s activities:

[T]he result that we deployed for … to reinstate the wise Caliphate and eliminate the disgrace and humiliation that our nation is suffering from.

But he argued against “insisting on the formation of an Islamic State at the time being” — and instead wanted his followers:

… to work on breaking the power of our main enemy by attacking the American embassies in the African countries, such as Sierra Leone, Togo, and mainly to attack the American oil companies.

Bin Laden was overcautious. The Islamic State established itself as the new caliphate and has thrived, and no one seems to have the will to do what is necessary to “degrade and destroy” it in any real sense. And so its first anniversary is unlikely to be its last.

Video: Robert Spencer vs. Imam on Hannity on Sharia and U.S. mosques

spencer vs imamJihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, June 3, 2015:

Last night I appeared on Fox’s Sean Hannity Show discussing the prevalence of a preference for Sharia over U.S. law among Muslims in the United States, and what mosques are doing (and not doing) about it. Appearing along with me was the Imam Mohammad Ali Elahi of the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights, Michigan. We were discussing the video by Ami Horowitz in which Muslims freely avow their preference for Sharia; Hannity’s overview of that video and interview with Horowitz begin this clip and give the context for my discussion with the imam, which begins at 3:56.

Assassin’s Veto: Our Muhammad Ad Spurs D.C. Metro Transit Authority to Ban All ‘Issue’ Ads

Screen-Shot-2015-05-26-at-9.57.21-AMPJ Media, By Robert Spencer On May 29, 2015:

The winner is clear, and to the winner be the laurels. There is one man only that all people — regardless of race, creed, color, political perspective, nationality, and whatever else — must respect: Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has moved to prevent our American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) ads, which feature a cartoon of Muhammad, from being featured on city buses. With this, Muhammad’s ascendancy is complete: he is the man of the hour.

On CNN, Chris Cuomo demonstrated the fealty we all owe to the messenger of Islam in a Thursday morning interview with my colleague, AFDI President Pamela Geller (I am vice president of AFDI). Cuomo repeatedly referred to “the prophet Muhammad.” As far as I know, Cuomo is not a Muslim and does not believe that Muhammad is a prophet. Also, CNN is not an Islamic organization, yet CNN’s chyron read: “PROPHET MOHAMMED ADS SUBMITTED TO BUSES, TRAINS.”

Cuomo and CNN are not the only ones offering this respect to Muhammad alone. Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, and Sean Hannity are not Muslims, yet during their coverage of the jihad attack on our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas — Hannity and Kelly did defend our right to freedom of speech — they all referred to “the prophet Muhammad.”

How often do you hear the media refer to “the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?” Muhammad is the man whom all must respect, whether they actually accept that he is a prophet or not.

Now, the taxpayer-funded Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has shown us what that respect is all about. To avoid losing a First Amendment lawsuit over our ad featuring the winning Muhammed cartoon from Garland along with the caption “SUPPORT FREE SPEECH,” the MTA has chosen to no longer accept all “issue-related” ads.

The cartoon is not obscene or profane. It simply lampoons Muslims’ attempt to intimidate the West into submitting to Sharia blasphemy laws. The cartoon depicts Muhammad shouting: “You can’t draw me!” and the cartoonist responding, “That’s why I draw you.”

The MTA’s decision was motivated — solely — by fear. It was motivated by the kind of respect that Bob Dylan described in his film Masked and Anonymous: “I got a lot of respect for a gun.” The D.C. MTA recognizes that if they run ads featuring a Muhammad cartoon on their buses, the buses could be — and probably would be — targeted by murderous Islamic jihadists. Realizing that, they have two choices: a) protect the buses and their passengers, and in doing so protect freedom of speech as the cornerstone of a free society, or; b) refuse to run the ads, thereby signaling to murderous jihadists that being a murderous jihadist is a successful position in a growth industry.

The MTA has shown that its respect for Muhammad can be obtained at the point of a gun. This action ensures that other Islamic jihadists will be encouraged to press American non-Muslims to show more respect for Muhammad and Islam. They will press for that respect in exactly the same way they have before: with threats of more violence. The MTA, with the eager support of the mainstream media, has canonized the assassin’s veto and assured that the veto will be exercised more than ever.

Cuomo rambled on CNN about wanting to avoid causing offense. This never crossed his colleagues’ minds when they hailed “Piss Christ” as a monument to freedom of expression. Christianity has not earned their respect because Christians have not attempted to gain that respect at gunpoint.

Whatever we may actually think about him, Muhammad is now “the prophet Muhammad” for all of us. Like Orwell’s equally absent and lethal Big Brother, we had better love him — or else.

All this sums up the order of the day: now we must do the bidding of whoever declares that he will kill us unless we do his bidding. CNN is fine with that. O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Greta van Susteren, and others putatively on the right are fine with that.

Fittingly, in this superficial and secular age, the most superficial and secular of all are carefully referring to Muhammad as “the prophet.” Their homage to the man who proclaimed “I have been made victorious through terror” is a notable emblem of their submission to the cult of violence that overshadows this era.


Also see: