Nebraska: “Tri-Faith” project has links to Muslim Brotherhood, media cowers in fear

Screen-Shot-2014-04-10-at-10.22.40-AM-e1397139690722

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer:

I just arrived in Omaha to speak on these issues tonight, and in Lincoln tomorrow night. The Muslim Brotherhood ties of Hamas-linked CAIR and ISNA are abundantly documented. So why would the local Omaha media be afraid to discuss these issues? Who has intimidated them into silence, or paid them off? Have Bob Smietana and Niraj Warikoo warned their Omaha counterparts that saying anything negative about the Muslim Brotherhood would be “Islamophobic”?

“Omaha ‘Tri-Faith’ project has links to Muslim Brotherhood,” by Joe Herring for the Daily Caller, April 10:

Hailed as a global first, a Jewish synagogue and an Episcopal church are co-locating their new worship facilities on a plot of land with a Mosque. They call it the “Tri-Faith Initiative,” and the project has become the darling of the progressive wings of Christianity and Judaism.

The Jewish and Christian participants’ motivations are easily discerned by reading their rather facile statements regarding the project. Standard left-progressive boilerplate about “inclusiveness and social justice” abounds.

Like the EpiscopaliansReform Jews routinely place progressive politics and social justice above doctrine, making them ideal partners for a project like this. From their statements, one gets the impression that this sort of interfaith cooperation is naughtily intoxicating.

The particular form of Islam to be practiced at this new Tri-Faith campus has yet to be revealed, as well as the name of the Imam, or even the sect of Islam from which the Imam will be drawn.

One thing is clear however, the mosque – and those behind it – have distinct ties to groups previously named as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the largest terrorist funding investigation in our nation’s history.

The first of these, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is a well-documented purveyor of Islamism, preaching the supremacy of Islam over not only all other religions, but all nations as well.

Their fellow-traveling co-conspirator, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has similarlywell documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic supremacist organizations.

The Tri-Faith Initiative features links to both groups on their website, under the “Resources” and “Recommended Reading” tabs. Considering the security concerns presented by a post 9/11 world, these links are disturbing and warrant a discussion.

Dr. Mark Christian, the Executive Director of the Global Faith Institute (also based in Omaha) has called for the Tri-Faith Initiative to sever ties and disavow connections with all terror-linked Muslim groups.

He raised this issue with the Tri-Faith leadership and has had his concerns summarily dismissed. Perhaps it is only a coincidence, but intimidation efforts toward Dr. Christian subsequently surfaced on social media, coming from CAIR and other similarly freedom-phobic groups.

Dr. Christian is an Egyptian-born convert to Christianity from Islam. His family’s ties to the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood go back to its founding, and his conversion to Christianity has earned him a fatwa of death, should he return to his home country.

Understanding the danger as few others can, Dr. Christian is hosting a pair of conferences in Omaha and Lincoln on the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the heartland, at which the lead presenter will be Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch and favored target of radical Muslims everywhere.

Having already ignored Dr. Christian’s call to disavow CAIR and ISNA involvement, the occasion of Mr. Spencer’s arrival has led local media to further bury their heads in the sand.

In one recent instance, a large radio station has canceled a previously scheduled interview with Dr. Christian and Mr. Spencer, claiming to have done so “on advice of legal counsel.”

This is the station that features Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin as the mainstays of their weekday programming. The largest radio station in the state has expressed interest in speaking with Mr. Spencer, but only if the Tri-Faith Initiative remains undiscussed.

CAIR has been tweeting and speaking against the planned conferences, labeling them “Islamophobic” despite having made no effort to determine their content.

In CAIR’s eyes, the presence of Robert Spencer seems reason enough to launch an attack.

The primary weapon employed by CAIR and ISNA is pre-emption by intimidation. The “co-conspirators” level charges of Islamophobia at the first sign of opposition. They threaten lawsuits and boycotts, doing a 21st-century version of shouting down their opposition.

Attempts to address the concerns raised over the clear links between CAIR, ISNA and the proposed Mosque, have been met with stony silence from the Jewish and Christian legs of this Tri-Faith stool.

Both groups are profoundly leftist in orientation, and as many progressives do when faced with unpleasantness, they figuratively cover their ears and hum loudly.

Consequently, the reform-minded Muslims in Omaha, who wish to practice their faith without the interference of the Muslim Brotherhood, or 7th-century interventions from imported Imams, find themselves with no voice whatsoever.

The media – both local and national – lazily turn to CAIR and ISNA for the “Muslim perspective” on any issue. CAIR then issues statements on behalf of all Muslims and the media accepts it as such, leaving the moderate reform elements of Islam unable to overcome American media myopia.

All Dr. Christian has asked, is that the Mosque organizers eschew the support of, and affiliation with, CAIR and ISNA, as well as any other groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or terrorism.

This doesn’t seem to be a burdensome request for a group of people who claim to be creating a global model for interfaith cooperation and respect. Their stubborn refusal to separate themselves from radical Islamists is quite disturbing. The slack-jawed and uninterested response from our mainstream media is perhaps worse.

 

******************

Global Faith Institute:

Is this really the face of tolerance and respect that the Tri Faith Initiative in Omaha, NE seeks to promote?
Condemning conservative Christians while leading an organization (ISNA) that operates under the auspices of the Muslim Brotherhood, not to mention the organizations status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, the largest terrorism funding case in U.S. History.
TRI FAITH INITIATIVE: CUT THE TIES!

10255765_396948847113738_2954665410722750838_nDiscover the Networks profile on Ingrid Mattson

Declassified FBI memos reveal that ISNA was identified as a Brotherhood front as early as 1987.

Listen to this radio interview:

Robert Spencer, Dr. Mark Christian and the Tri-Faith Fight on 1110 KFAB’s Scott Voorhees Show

Dr. Mark Christian bio

 

 

Can Malaysia’s Airliner Disaster Happen Here?

2014-03-20T035353Z_1_CBREA2J0ATV00_RTROPTP_3_MALAYSIA-AIRLINESTown Hall, By Robert Spencer:

Could anything prevent an American plane suffering the same mysterious fate as Malaysian Airlines flight MH370?

Exactly what happened to flight MH370 is still unknown. Investigators and terror experts now believe the pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was solely responsible for the downing of the flight, and did so deliberately as a suicide mission.

A friend of Captain Zaharie said, according to the New Zealand Herald, that Zaharie was “in no state of mind to be flying a Boeing 777,” as he “had personal issues; having recently separated from his wife – whom he had children with. It is thought his relationship with another woman was also on the rocks.” The friend said that Zaharie’s “world was crumbling and felt the captain had taken MH370 on a ‘last joyride.’”

While it is remotely possible that this was all there was to it, Captain Zaharie is by no means the first or only pilot to take the helm while his world is crumbling or he is distraught over a failing marriage; yet few have taken their planes on a “last joyride.”

What is more likely, albeit not conclusive, is that Captain Zaharie, who apparently reprogrammed the flight himself in order to take it hundreds of miles off course, was on a jihad mission related to his “fanatical” support for Malaysian opposition politician Anwar Ibrahim, who has recently been jailed on sex charges that his supporters say are trumped-up. The spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has praised Hitler and prayed that Allah would exterminate all the Jews, has endorsed Ibrahim for Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Anwar Ibrahim is a founder of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which was named in a captured internal Muslim Brotherhood document as one of the Brotherhood’s “organizations of our friends” dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.” He has also served as a trustee for the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), another Brotherhood organization.

None of this proves that Captain Zaharie was on a jihad-martyrdom suicide mission, but the possibility cannot be ruled out – as even Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel acknowledged Wednesday. And in light of recent warnings from the Department of Homeland Security about renewed jihad terror plots against airplanes, it is useful to ask if there are any safeguards in place to prevent such a plane takeover from happening in the U.S.

Imagine a pilot for a U.S. air carrier who was a “fanatical” follower of a political leader with extensive connections to a group dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” There could actually be such pilots flying commercial planes in the U.S. today, since there is absolutely nothing in place that would prevent it. As I detail in my new book Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re Incounter-terror measures have been overwhelmed by a politically correct delicacy that places the fear of offending Muslims over the fear of mass murder, such that government, law enforcement and private businesses are today woefully unequipped – often by their own choice – to deal adequately with the threat of Islamic jihad.

As I detail in the book, the Obama Administration, under pressure from Islamic groups, many of which were tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, in 2010 and 2011 mandated the removal from all counter-terror training materials of all mention of Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism.

In a sane society, a pilot who had allegiances such as those of Zaharie Ahmad Shah would be carefully scrutinized, and would not have had the freedom Zaharie apparently had to reprogram the direction of his flight, as well as to commandeer it under the nose of a stunned world. But as Arab Winter Comes to America shows, the premium is on political correctness, even above protecting airline passengers from suicidal ideologues. Consequently, not only has Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 apparently gone down, but there are almost certain to be many more tragedies like it in our future.

Also see:

 

Video: Glick, Spencer & Ibrahim on the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

hj1-450x250This week’s special episode of The Glazov Gang was filmed at David Horowitz’s West Coast Retreat held at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California, from March 21-23, 2014.

The panel, titled The Mideast Test, was joined by:

Caroline Glick, the senior contributing editor to the Jerusalem Post who is the author of the new book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.

Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch who is the author of an upcoming book, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In.

and

Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center who is the author of his recent book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, published by Regnery.

The panelists discussed their books and how to best confront the threats emanating from the Islamic Middle East:

Religion News Service, Washington Post bemoan fact that foes of jihad terror “still popular in law enforcement training”

Omar-Sacirbey_avatar-300x300By :

Omar Sacirbey, the fiercely smiling author of this RNS editorial masquerading as a news story that the Washington Post picked up, has all the journalistic standards of Josef Goebbels. Recently he published assertions about me that were obviously and flagrantly false, whereupon I wrote him asking for a retraction and an apology. He wrote back saying that his “editor” had sided with him (big surprise) and thus the lies stayed up.

In this piece he is no less magnificently unimpressed with the truth, as he assembles an impressive tissue of smears, half-truths, innuendos and lies about various foes of jihad terror, and wraps them up nicely into a “news story” that the WaPo, eager as ever to run defamation in the service of Islamic supremacists and jihadists, then presents to its hapless readers. Sacirbey is smarting because a Hamas-linked CAIR smear campaign failed to get former FBI agent John Guandolo’s training course for law enforcement officers canceled in Culpeper County, Virginia. Sacirbey wrote up this hit piece to try to ensure that this failure would not be repeated.

“Anti-Muslim speakers still popular in law enforcement training,” by Omar Sacirbey for the Religion News Service, March 12:

Law enforcement officers in Virginia will no longer receive credit for a counterterrorism course taught by a former FBI agent and anti-Muslim activist after the academy where the course was taught canceled its accreditation the day it was scheduled to begin.

Sacirbey uses “anti-Muslim” throughout this piece for foes of jihad terror, which — as I have said before when pseudo-journalistic ideologues like Sacirbey have used this term in the past — is like calling foes of Nazism “anti-German.” It shows Sacirbey’s bias and sympathy for jihadists, and should never be acceptable practice in what are supposedly respectable journalistic outlets like RNS and the WaPo. But standards go out the window when it comes to journalists covering for jihad terrorism; they do it so unanimously, zealously and unflinchingly that they must either be true believers or paid off, or both.

Nevertheless, the three-day course with John Guandolo, which Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins vigorously defended, proceeded at nearby Germanna Community College late last month.

Some 50 people, many from out of state, reportedly enrolled in the seminar, “Understanding and Investigating Jihadi Networks in America,” advertised as $225 per trainee.

Note the emphasis on the fee. Leftist allies of Islamic supremacism such as the Center for American Progress and the Southern Poverty Law Center have millions upon millions of dollars — far more than any counter-jihad organization of individual has ever had. But it is a staple of these smear pieces that the so-called “Islamophobia industry” is a well-heeled machine in which people are just in it for the money, as if getting regular death threats and constant vilification is worth any amount of money. Anyway, $225 is a perfectly reasonable charge for a seminar like this one — indeed, far lower than what other organizations charge for programs of similar duration. But Sacirbey is following his marching orders: Imply that it’s all about the money.

The Culpeper controversy is the latest law-enforcement training course to draw harsh criticism from Muslim groups who say agencies hire purported experts in Islam or counterterrorism who in fact have other agendas.

While Muslim-American activists and media reports have raised awareness about anti-Muslim trainers, occasionally resulting in curriculum reviews and canceled classes, many say the problem persists because there are too few police administrators to properly vet courses and instructors.

What Sacirbey means is: “The problem persists because there are too few Leftists and Islamic supremacists putting pressure on police administrators so that they don’t dare host a course that tells the truth about Islam and jihad.”

The consequences, critics add, go beyond political incorrectness and include undermining public safety and obscuring real dangers as police officers chase bad leads based on profiling.

What’s behind this absolutely baseless charge (for which Sacirbey offers no evidence, because there is none) is the ongoing effort by Hamas-linked CAIR and other groups like it to end all surveillance of Muslim communities, including the NYPD’s program which just withstood a Leftist/Islamic supremacist challenge in court.

After 9/11, several anti-Muslim activists emerged, speaking about Islam to audiences at churches, synagogues, political organizations and universities. With the nation focused on homeland security, many anti-Muslim speakers began offering their courses to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, which paid for them with taxpayer-funded government grants.

Nearly 13 years later, these speakers continue to win lucrative fees to train law enforcement officers despite a history of rhetoric that seems to undermine their credibility.

Note again the emphasis on the money. I would have told Omar Sacirbey if he had asked me, but of course he didn’t, because he didn’t want the truth: when I was flying around the country in order to help give training seminars for the FBI, CIA, JTTF, and military groups, I didn’t get paid. Not a penny. Not even for expenses. I paid my own way, bought my own hotel rooms, etc. On a few occasions a Colonel who had me speak several times on military bases told me about a form I could fill out for reimbursement of my travel expenses. I never filled out the form. I did the training out of a sense of duty to my country, not for personal gain. If Omar Sacirbey were a journalist rather than a smear merchant, he might have asked me and some others what we were paid, whether we were paid, etc. But quite obviously he is not a journalist.

For example, Guandolo, who taught the Culpeper class, is seen saying in a YouTube video with anti-Muslim blogger Robert Spencer that CIA Director John Brennan converted to Islam. In another recording, he claims that Brennan is “unfit for duty,” because he has brought in leaders of Hamas to advise the government.

Note again the identifier intended to demean: “anti-Muslim blogger.” Not, say, “bestselling author and former FBI trainer.” Daniel Martin Varisco, another “Islamophobia” smear merchant, has a blog and wasrecently whining about how it was less popular than this one. But you can be sure that Sacirbey would never, ever refer to Varisco as a “blogger.”

Anyway, Sacirbey presents Guandolo’s charge that Brennan is a Muslim as if it were self-evidently false. On what basis? Has Brennan ever denied this? No. Is it widely known that there is a top intelligence official in the Obama Administration’s CIA who has converted to Islam? Yes. It was reported in none other than the Washington Post in 2012. Why couldn’t it be Brennan? Did Sacirbey speak to Brennan? If he did, he doesn’t mention it in the article. What is much more likely is that Sacirbey didn’t speak to Brennan, and has no idea whether or not he is a Muslim, but since Brennan hasn’t said anything one way or the other about the charge, he uses it to portray Guandolo as crazy. (You can see the video of my interview with Guandolo here.)

Read the rest of this excellent rebuttal at Jihad Watch

UK: Judge tells jihad murderers of soldier that they betrayed Islam; they start screaming “Allahu akbar” and fighting prison guards

AdebolajoJudge-300x168Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer:

The Imam Sweeney told them: ”You each converted to Islam some years ago. Thereafter you were radicalised and each became an extremist, espousing views which, as has been said elsewhere, are a betrayal of Islam.” This enraged them, and they began a fight in the courtroom. It would have been interesting to see Mufti Sweeney explain what exactly was a betrayal of Islam in the actions of Mujaahid Abu Hamza and Ismail ibn Abdullah, aka Adebolajo and Adebowale. Right after the murder, Mujaahid Abu Hamza invoked the Qur’an and made specific reference to the Islamic doctrine that one must fight against those who fight against Islam.

The Qur’an says, “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors” (2:190). That “do not transgress” has often been interpreted by Islamic scholars as meaning, do not begin hostilities. I.e., this verse is a foundation for defensive jihad. But in this case, as the killer himself made clear, he believed that the soldier was fighting Muslims in Islamic lands — Iraq and Afghanistan. So the soldier was already fighting Muslims, and the killer would have thought that he was not “transgressing” by therefore fighting “in the way of Allah those who fight you” — i.e., the Muslims.

And how is one to fight them? “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers” (2:191). “Kill them wherever you overtake them” — even on, say, a street in Woolwich.

Until British (and American) authorities come to grips with the fact that there is ample Islamic justification for such murders, and stop playing games with their Let’s Play Pretend version of Islam, there will be many more such killings.

“Scuffle breaks out as defendants told they betray Islam,” from ITV, February 26:

The struggle in the dock at the Old Bailey was triggered when Adebolajo and Adebowale – both wearing Islamic robes – reacted angrily to comments that Mr Justice Sweeney made about their extremist beliefs.

He told them: “You each converted to Islam some years ago. Thereafter you were radicalised and each became an extremist, espousing views which, as has been said elsewhere, are a betrayal of Islam.”

Adebowale protested that this was a lie, ranting about America and Britain, and his accomplice joined in, screaming “allahu akbar” and hurling abuse at the prison guards who grappled him to the ground.

Both men were grabbed around the face as guards struggled to control them, and taken down to the cells.The soldier’s family were visibly distressed, and one relative needed medical treatment.

 

 

 

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Ridiculous ‘Hate Group’ List

s000016517-300Front Page, by :

Rest easy: the nation’s watchdogs, patented Hate Detectors gripped in their sweaty palms, are still on the job. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has released its latest report on hate groups, and while the numbers of these vile entities has decreased, the SPLC solons assure us they’re scarier than ever: Mark Potok of the SPLC, trying his best to affect a stiff-backed Joe Friday pose conveying grim and unimpeachable authority, declared: “The radical right is growing leaner and meaner. The numbers are down somewhat, but the potential for violence remains high.” In other words, keep those checks coming, folks!

And they do. The SPLC took in over $38 million in 2011; the previous year, its CEO Richard Cohen earned $351,648, and its notorious Chief Trial Counsel, Morris Dees, pulled in a cool $346,919. All that to keep you safe from the likes of…me. The SPLC lists my website Jihad Watch (www.jihadwatch.org) as a hate group, along with the American Freedom Defense Initiative, of which I am vice president, and its Stop Islamization of America program. My colleague Pamela Geller founded AFDI/SIOA; the SPLC also lists her website Atlas Shrugs (www.pamelageller.com), along with our international umbrella group Stop Islamization of Nations, as hate groups — so Pamela Geller and I are both four hate groups, and between us are responsible for five hate groups. Two people. We are also both the subject of lavish and arguably libelous profiles as “hate group leaders.” The brilliant FrontPage writer Daniel Greenfield’s blog Sultan Knish (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/) is listed as another hate group. That’s six hate groups, three people. “Leaner and meaner,” indeed!

download (76)This demonstrates how risible the SPLC’s claim that there are 939 hate groups currently operating in the U.S. The very label “hate group” conjures up images of KKK members in robes, their venal and stupid faces illumined by the flame of a burning cross – not columnists, commentators, and human rights activists dedicated to defending the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the principle of the equality of rights of all people before the law.

But that’s the idea. The SPLC’s objective is not to spur rational discussion or debate about what exactly constitutes a “hate group,” and what are or should be the parameters of acceptable political discourse. It is to manipulate people into thinking that mild-mannered writers such as Daniel Greenfield and human rights activists like Pamela Geller are indeed exactly the same as those cross-burning Klansmen, and to be equally as shunned and marginalized.

The SPLC’s Hate Groups list is a cudgel, a tool for the use of Leftist enemies of the freedom of speech. When Pamela Geller or I or some other “hate group leader” is invited to speak somewhere, Leftists and Islamic supremacists avid to shut down honest discussion of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism contact the event organizers, tell them that the SPLC classifies us as “hate group leaders,” and all too often, ignorant or cowardly officials, unaware of or indifferent to how they’re being played and anxious to avoid “controversy,” cancel the event. It works like a charm, in just the way it was intended to work.

These classifications, unsurprisingly, have also become a staple of every report from lazy Leftist journalists. By citing the SPLC as if it were a reliable source, they encourage an uncritical, uninformed public to see its targets as worthy of the opprobrium the Center heaps upon them. It is no surprise that reporters, who tend almost universally to be Leftists, take for granted that the SPLC is some kind of neutral observer, when actually the SPLC is a far-Left attack outfit, using its “hate group” classifications to stigmatize and demonize foes of its political agenda. In these days of the New Black Panthers and the Occupy movement, it lists no Leftist groups as hate groups. Nor does it include any significant number of Islamic jihad groups on the hate group list, and has now even dropped an Ohio branch of the racist, violent and paranoid Nation of Islam from the list.

The SPLC is merely a propaganda organ for the Left, tarring any group that dissents from its extreme political agenda as a “hate group.” And while Potok warns of “right-wing” violence, actually the SPLC itself is more dangerous than its targets: its “hate group” designation against the Family Research Council led one of its followers to storm the FRC offices with a gun, determined to murder the chief of the FRC. This shows that these kinds of charges shouldn’t be thrown around frivolously as tools to demonize and marginalize those whose politics the SPLC dislikes.

There is a great deal more that is wrong with the Southern Poverty Law Center, as this article illustrates. The organization epitomizes the Left’s hypocrisy and its increasing taste for authoritarianism: its fascist impulse to demonize and smear its foes rather than engage them on the level of rational discourse. If freedom is to be preserved in this country, those who value it are going to have to convince their fellow Americans to pause and ask quis custodiet ipso custodes? — Who watches the watchmen? Why is fighting for the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people now classified as “hate”? Why is the SPLC an authority that anyone recognizes, given its naked biases?

Conservative groups must stop bowing to smear campaigns orchestrated by Leftist groups with a clear anti-freedom agenda. We will never win the country back without challenging – and absolutely refusing to accept — the authority and reliability of the Left’s self-appointed guardians of acceptable opinion. A good place to start would be to relegate the SPLC to the dustbin of history it has reserved for the foes of Leftist thuggery and jihad terror.

Video: Jonathan Matusitz and Robert Spencer on Hamas-linked CAIR’s intimidation and harassment

cair5Robert Spencer:

Hamas-linked CAIR has been hounding University of Central Florida Professor Jonathan Matusitz. Find out why on this episode of my ABN Jihad Watch program.

 

 

See also:

Sisi calls for “modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam”

Martin-Luther-9389283-1-402-300x300By Robert Spencer:

The latest Muslim Martin Luther, taking up the tattered crown from the cynical, deceptive Tariq Ramadan, is Egypt’s General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has called for a reformation within Islam. Such a reformation is certainly urgently needed, and even in calling for it, Sisi has gone much farther than the Muslim Brotherhood scion Ramadan ever did.

Sisi, however, is a general, not a member of the Egyptian ulama; his words are unlikely to spark a mass movement for general reformation of the elements of Islam that give impetus to violence and supremacism. And the existence of those elements, and people who believe in them, is likely to menace Sisi for simply making this call — as others have been menaced for calling for reform in Islam in the past. Just last year, the Moroccan cleric Ahmed Assid condemned violence in Islam’s name, and was promptly declared an apostate and an enemy of Allah by other clerics, and threatened with death. The Iraqi Shi’ite scholar Sayyed Ahmad Al-Qabbanji called for reason in Islamic discourse and jurisprudence, and was immediately arrested.

Sisi has the power of the state behind him, for now, so such a fate is not likely to befall him, at least in the near future.

“Islamic ‘Martin ‘Luther’ issues his proclamation,” by James Zumwalt for UPI, January 28:

HERNDON, Va., Jan. 28 (UPI) — During late January, two high-profile personalities took actions — one outside the United States and one within — that couldn’t be any farther apart in terms of their global impact.

Due to irresponsible media coverage, the first story — with major global impact — went unreported while the second — involving an out-of-control, spoiled 19-year old kid — kept grabbing daily headlines.

Starring in the latter was Canadian entertainer Justin Bieber whose drinking, drugging and reckless driving binge in Florida was ended by police, fortunately before he killed anyone. The other action starred Egyptian leader Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who made the bombshell announcement it is time for Muslims to reform Islam, bringing it into sync with modern times….

While the United States’ Islamic nightmare seems unending, time will have to tell whether Sisi’s declaration will have its intended Martin Luther-esque effect on the religion.

Sisi delivered a speech, saying, “Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, pointing to the need for a new vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam — rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.”

The “800 year” reference was to the year 1258 — allegedly when highly qualified Islamic scholars of the day (“mujtahids”) declared, through “ijtihad” (independent reasoning), they had officially resolved all disputes about religious doctrine. Therefore, the “gates of ijtihad” were closed to future debate as no scholar could ever again qualify as a mujtahid — obviously a somewhat short-sighted position to assume.

For Sisi to suggest reopening ijtihad “to improve the image of this religion in front of the world” is the equivalent of Martin Luther defiantly nailing his proclamation (known as “The Ninety-Five Theses”) to a church door in 1517, seeking to reform self-promoting Roman Catholic religious practices.

 

Read more at Jihad Watch

Litigation Jihad: Hamas-CAIR Canada (NCCM) Sues Harper Government for Libel

By Pamela Geller:

Litigation jihad. The Hamas-tied group CAIR has filed a libel suit against the Harper government.

Before the Canadian Prime Minister’s official visit to Israel earlier this month, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), the Canadian branch of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), wrote to PM Steven Harper demanding that Rabbi Daniel Korobkin be removed from the PM’s delegation to Israel because the Rabbi attended and spoke briefly at my September talk in Canada.

Their letter charged that both Robert Spencer, who also spoke at that September event, and I “have a lengthy and clear record of promoting anti-Muslim sentiments and demonization.” Video of the event here and here.

Rabbi Korbkin and Pamela Geller at Canada event

Rabbi Korbkin and Pamela Geller at Canada event

In response, the great Prime Minister of Canada set the standard that leaders should follow, most notably Barack Hussein Obama, and ignore these sinister supremacist thugs. Jason MacDonald, Harper’s director of communications, blistered the NCCM: “We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas.”

Absurdly, CAIR-Canada filed a lawsuit today against the good Prime Minister’s government. Sharia enforcement. Of course, this publicity stunt will garner these thugs sympathy from the sniveling lapdog media, but I, for one, would love to see the full force of a leading Western government exposing the terror ties of terror-tied groups like CAIR. The United States government successfully prosecuted the previously well-regarded Islamic charity, the Holy Land Foundation, in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation’s history. CAIR, ISNA, MSA, MSU and over 300 other Muslim groups were named, many designated unindicted co-conspirators. Those prosecutions were scuttled by the treacherous Obama administration under Attorney General Eric Holder.

We know that there is a “mountain of evidence.” Let’s hope that the Obama administration will share it will the Harper administration. Don’t hold your breath. But there are numerous sources.

Discovery in the case will bite these Islamic supremacists. You have to wonder what these jihad enablers are thinking. Does CAIR-Canada think that just because they changed their name last July to the National Council of Muslim that they are fooling anyone?

CAIR has done this before. And lost. The suit was dismissed. CAIR filed a $1.35 million libel suit filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR (ACAIR), who called CAIR a “terrorist front organization,” that was “founded by Hamas supporters,” and was working to “make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States.” The case was dismissed with prejudice.

Given the current craven climate, my bet is that they think that the media will aid and abet their propaganda and advance their lies, this time in their jihad against the Harper government.

At a recent CAIR conference,  the CAIR/ISNA Spokeswoman said,  “Media in the US is very gullible…If you have something to say, especially as a Muslim, they’ll come running to you. Take advantage of that!”

CCTV: The National Council of Canadian Muslims is serving the Prime Minister’s Office with a libel notice, claiming that Stephen Harper’s communications director defamed the group in an interview earlier this month.

The NCCM is demanding “an unequivocal apology and retraction of the defamatory words” that Jason MacDonald, Harper’s communications director, used in an interview with Sun News Network on Jan. 16.

The notice quotes the offending statement as: “We will not take seriously criticism from an organization with documented ties to terrorist organization such as Hamas.”

The notice says MacDonald made the statement when asked about the NCCM’s objection to the inclusion of a particular rabbi on Harper’s official delegation to the Middle East.

The council had criticized the inclusion of Rabbi Daniel Korobkin because he introduced American activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who founded the group Stop Islamization of America, at a Toronto event last fall.

In its libel notice, the NCCM says MacDonald’s words “were meant or were understood to mean that NCCM is, gives material support to, and/or is affiliated with a criminal terrorist organization. These words are defamatory per se.”

The document notes that the federal government has designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

“The defamatory words were stated maliciously in order to discredit and insult an organization that did nothing other than exercise its constitutional right to freedom of expression to criticize a decision made by the Prime Minister,” the notice states.

The notice is a first step toward what could become a formal libel lawsuit, in which the council “will seek damages, interest and costs against you,” referring to Harper and MacDonald.

Stephen Lecce, a spokesperson for the prime minister, told CTV News Tuesday that because “this matter may be the subject of litigation, we have no further comment.”

In the notice, the council says it is an “independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization” that has spent 14 years working on human rights and civil liberties issues and public advocacy on behalf of Canadian Muslims.

The group says MacDonald’s comments “were stated to discredit the NCCM’s reputation and undermine its ability to do its work.”

Read more at PamelaGeller.com - including great backgrounder on CAIR

The Hypocrisy of Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR’s ‘Islamophobic List’

36459-193808-1By Robert Spencer:

Editor’s Note: This is Part VI of an ongoing series by Robert Spencer highlighting human rights hypocrisy and fraudulent peace activists. For Part I see “The Hypocrisy of the ‘Islamophobia’ Scam,” for Part II see “The Hypocrisy of the Fatwa Against Terrorism,”  for Part III see “The Hypocrisy of the Feminist Response to Islam’s Oppression of Women,” for Part IV see “The Hypocrisy of the Western Christian Response to Muslim Persecution of Christians,” and for Part V see last week’s “The Hypocrisy of the Leftist Response to Ariel Sharon’s Death.”

Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) last week sent out a crafty and deceptive op-ed as a “service,” and of course our lazy, clueless and compromised mainstream media was happy to oblige him by publishing it. The op-ed, “Islamophobic ‘List’ Used to Justify Suspicion of Muslims,” seems to have been a response to Pamela Geller’s recent exhaustive summary at Breitbart of Islamic jihad and supremacist activity in America in 2013. In response, Hooper offered not honesty and reform, but disingenuousness and deception.

Hooper claimed that,

one of the bigoted themes often promoted by the growing cottage industry of Muslim-bashers is that the increasing level of Islamophobia online and in the public arena is merely a legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide.

He thus reveals the dishonesty at the heart of the entire “Islamophobia” initiative: Islamic supremacists and leftists use the term to refer both to analyses of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism (e.g., what my colleagues and I do) and also to attacks on innocent Muslims (which neither I nor my colleague nor any decent person favors).

The objective is to make Americans think that any criticism of Islamic texts that jihadis use to incite violence worldwide threatens and endangers Muslims at home who don’t approve of that violence in the first place. Then by saying that “Muslim-bashers” claim that “Islamophobia” is a “legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide,” Hooper is implying that those who decry violence and terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam approve of violence against innocent, peaceful Muslims, as if to say, they had it coming.

Hooper cannily designs all this to obscure the real point: that people are suspicious of Islam because of jihad terror attacks — but not just because of them, but also because of the endless mau-mauing, intimidating, opposition to counter-terror efforts, claiming of victim status, faked hate crimes, smear campaigns against foes of jihad terror, and all the other things that make people suspicious of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslim organizations in the U.S.

No genuine attack on any innocent person, Muslim or otherwise, is ever justified. If Hamas-linked CAIR really wants to stop such attacks, it could do so by working sincerely to end the suspicions people have of Islam and Muslims — not with disingenuous “outreach” sessions designed to dispel “misconceptions” about Islam (i.e., spread more misconceptions about Islam, fool people into thinking it is a “Religion of Peace,” etc.), but by honestly working within Muslim communities and with law enforcement to root out jihadis and teach against the understanding of Islam that creates jihadis. Instead, Hamas-linked CAIR has opposed virtually every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed, and one of its California chapters distributed a poster reading “Don’t talk to the FBI.”

You might wonder why Hamas-linked CAIR would do this if it wants to end “Islamophobia” (in the sense of suspicion of Islam) — surely Hooper, Awad and co. must know that those things increase such suspicion? Yes, I am sure they do — but in fact they want “Islamophobia” (both suspicion of Islam and attacks on peaceful Muslims) because they can use such attacks to claim victim status and the privileges that come with it, thus intimidating officials into thinking that surveillance of Islamic organizations is unjustified and endangers innocent people.

“These Islamophobes,” Hooper also asserted, “scour the Internet to highlight every act of violence or political instability that can be tied to Islam and Muslims.” At my website Jihad Watch, I chronicle Islamic jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world, and I never in ten years have had to “scour the Internet” to do so. On the contrary, there is so much jihad violence that rarely am I able to post all the news items I’d like to post; time and resources limit the ones I can get to. Whatever I have on Jihad Watch, there is always more jihad. But Hooper, of course, would prefer you didn’t know that.

Read more at PJ Media

Muslim anti-Semitism is only decades old, Obama claims

2014-01-17T162147Z_1_CBREA0G19GH00_RTROPTP_4_USA-EDUCATION-e1390000075233The Quran’s words created and maintain Islamic anti-Semitism, which is so ubiquitous that even sects of Sunni and Shia Muslims who are trying to kill each other agree that Jews are to blame for their fighting –  Andrew Bostom

By Neil Munro:

Experts are scoffing at President Barack Obama’s apparent belief that widespread Muslim hatred of Jews is only decades old.

“Obama reveals that he has no idea, or doesn’t want to give the impression that he has any idea, about the reality of Islamic anti-Semitism,” said Robert Spencer, the author of many books on Islamic ideas and director of Jihad Watch.

“Anti-Semitism is hard-wired into Islam,” from its origins before 700, said Andrew Bostom, author of three books about Islam, including “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism,” which lists centuries of anti-Semitic hatred, murders, pogroms and apartheid-like discrimination.

Intellectuals, politicians and diplomats are loath to admit the centrality of anti-Semitism in Islamic beliefs, because it fuels conflict with Israel and the West and it can’t be fixed by Westerners, Bostom said. ”You’re dealing with an intractable situation, and people hate intractable situations,” he said, adding “diplomats are the worst.”

In an interview with The New Yorker magazine, Obama described the Muslim hatred of Israel as byproduct of recent fights, not as a consequence of Islam’s doctrinal objection to any Jewish government.

“With respect to Israel, the interests of Israel in stability and security are actually very closely aligned with the interests of the Sunni states,” Obama said.

The “Sunni states” are nations populated by Arabs who believe in the mainstream Sunni version of Islam. In contrast, Iran advocates the Shia version of Islam, which is endorsed by roughly 10 percent of Muslims.

“What’s preventing them from entering into even an informal alliance [against Shia-run Iran] with at least normalized diplomatic relations is not that their interests are profoundly in conflict but the Palestinian issue, as well as a long history of anti-Semitism that’s developed over the course of decades there, and anti-Arab sentiment that’s increased inside of Israel based on seeing [Jewish] buses being blown up,” Obama said.

“If you can start unwinding some of that, that creates a new equilibrium,” he said.

“The Palestinian issue,” is the refusal by Muslims to recognize the right of Jews to have a Jewish government in the historically Jewish homeland around Jerusalem.

However, the refusal to recognize Israel is entwined with Islamic anti-Semitism, which Obama claimed “has developed over the course of decades there.”

Obama’s “course of decades” comment “ignores the numerous anti-Semitic teachings of the Quran and other Islamic texts — most notably the Quran’s designation of the Jews as the worst enemies of the believers,” Spencer said.

For example, Spencer cited the fifth chapter of the Quran, which declares that “If [Jews] believed in Allah and the Prophet and that which is revealed unto him, they would not choose them for their friends. But many of them are of evil conduct. Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters.”

Read more at Daily Caller

***************

Andrew Bostom makes the case that Islamic anti-Semitism and the ideological motivation for jihad began with the Quran:

I was privileged to join Clare Lopez, Mark Langfan, and Dr. Walid Phares for this panel presentation jointly sponsored by The Endowment for Middle East Truth and the Center for Security Policy

Using photos, text, and clips, the video depicts how jihadism, and canonical Islamic antisemitism motivate the relentless effort to destroy the State of Israel from a shared Sunni-Shiite perspective. Featured, prominently, is an end of times messianic theme re-activated with fervor in Islam, for at least a century now, since the advent of the modern Zionist movement. Uniquely Shiite “infidel impurity” (so-called “najis”) regulations and their impact are also explored in the context of centuries of Iranian Shiite theocratic rule.

These motifs are illustrated, from the Sunni perspective by:

  • The founder of the Palestinian Arab Muslim jihadist movement, ex-Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, via his 1937 proclamation seeking to galvanize the global Muslim umma (or community) for a jihad to annihilate Palestinian Jewry, a decade before modern Israel came into existence. El-Husseini’s proclamation, which some deemed a “fatwa,” hinged upon Koran 5:82, which declares that the Jew’s harbor inveterate hatred toward Muslims, and the apocalyptic canonical tradition of Islam’s prophet Muhammad that maintains the messianic age will be ushered in by the annihilation of the Jews.
  • A repetition of this end of times canonical tradition of Jew-annihilation, 75 years later, by the current Palestinian Authority Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Hussein, during a January 9, 2012 sermon
  • A May 10, 2013 sermon at Sunni Islam’s Vatican equivalent, Al-Azhar University, and its mosque, by Muhammad Al-Mahdi, a senior scholar and head of the Sharia Association at  Al-Azhar, invoking both Koran 5:82 and the same end of times canonical tradition of Jew-annihilation
  • An October 25, 2013 interview by Sunni Islam’s Papal equivalent, Al-Azhar Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayeb, also invoking Koran 5:82

Doctrinal Shiite jihadism, and Islamic antisemitism in Iran, including the unique (and dehumanizing) impurity regulations, since the nation became a Shiite theocracy during the Safavid era (i.e., at the beginning of the 16thcentury), were characterized next, past as prologue to our era, and the current Rouhani Presidency. This material—the remainder and bulk of the presentation—includes:

  • A concise formulation of jihad by the jurist al-Amili (d. 1621)
  • Description of the “najis” impurity regulations by the Ayatollah Khomeini of his era, al-Majisi (d. 1699), from Majlisi’s treatise,“Lightning Bolts Against the Jews” 
  • The chronic, ugly consequences of those regulations over centuries for Jews, in particular, captured by the first hand account of French observer Claude Anet, from 1905
  • Ayatollah Khomeini’s statements on jihad, Jews and Jew-annihilation, martyrdom, and takiya, i.e., sacralized Islamic dissimulation, 1942-1989
  • Statements sanctioning Israel’s destruction by alleged “moderate” Iranian Presidents Khatami, Rafsanjani, and Rouhani
  • The disturbing views on “infidel impurity” and Jew-annihilation by much ballyhooed “Green Movement” inspiration, the late Ayatollah Ali Montazeri
  • A clear and forthright encapsulation of the Iranian regimes’ ideology vis a vis Israel—again riveting on Koran 5:82, and Islamic messianism—by current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s representative in the Iranian Martyr Foundation, Mohammad Hassan Rahimian
  • The poignant, experientially wise observations of Iranian Jewish exile, Farideh Goldin, born (1953) and raised in the Shiraz Iran Jewish ghetto

 

Spencer and Geller Banned from Britain for Supporting Israel

ty1

The Conservative government of David Cameron has failed the British people as thoroughly and resoundingly as the Republican Party has failed the American people. Both could have and should have constituted themselves as a loyal opposition, departing from the Leftist line. Instead, they have parroted it in innumerable ways, and disenfranchised millions of their constituents by offering no alternative to the dominant paradigm.

by :

New revelations about why I was banned from entering Great Britain reveal how deeply compromised the British government is to hard-Leftists and Islamic supremacists – including the most virulent haters of Israel.

As faithful FrontPage readers may recall, last June I was banned from Britain because, as a letter from the U.K. Home Office told me, “your presence here is not conducive to the public good.” Why not? Because I said (quite factually) that Islam “is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society.” And also because, the letter said, “you are the founder of the blog Jihad Watch (a site widely criticized for being Islamophobic),” and “you co-founded the Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America, both of which have been described as anti-Muslim hate groups.”

Note the passive voice: the Freedom Defense Initiative (actually the American Freedom Defense Initiative, AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America “have been described as anti-Muslim hate groups” by whom? The letter didn’t say. And Jihad Watch has been “widely criticized for being Islamophobic” by whom? The letter gives no hint, instead attempting to establish these charges as the judicious assessment of neutral observers.

Now, however, newly released documents relating to our case, as Pamela Geller discussed in a recent Daily Caller article, reveal that the Home Office’s decision was guided by far-Left agitation groups with a deep animus against Israel.

Of course, this was already obvious from the Home Office’s repetition of the charge that Jihad Watch is “Islamophobic” in its letter to me. “Islamophobia” is a manipulative and propagandistic neologism designed to intimidate non-Muslims into thinking that there is something “bigoted” and “racist” about resisting jihad terror and opposing Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims, gays and others. The only people who use it at all are Islamic supremacists who want to clear away all obstacles to the advance of jihad, their Leftist allies, and those whom they have bamboozled into thinking it is a legitimate term of discourse – such as the British Home Office.

So it was obvious already who was whispering into the Home Office’s ear, but now it is confirmed. As Pamela Geller noted, in the newly revealed documents “all reference to the identities of those who asked that we be banned have been blacked out.” However, “their black marker missed one reference, revealing that one of the groups complaining about us was Faith Matters. Faith Matters was founded by a Muslim named Fiyaz Mughal, who also heads up Tell Mama, a group dedicated to tracking ‘Islamophobia.’ Tell Mama lost government funding in June after making false claims of waves of attacks ‘Islamophobic incidents.’”

So around the same time that Tell Mama was being stripped of its government funding for lying about the prevalence of “anti-Muslim hate crimes,” that same government was accepting its advice and counsel in favor of banning Pamela Geller and me from the country. Was the Home Office unaware that Tell Mama was wildly exaggerating “Islamophobia” in Britain, and was thus an untrustworthy source for any information related to it, or did it simply not care?

Read more at Front Page

The Unbearable Lightness of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi

copyright-parsons-media-15th-febJuicy Ecumenism, By  (@AEHarrod)

“You are a sushi,” Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the United Kingdom’s Minister for Faith and Communities, recounted friends describing her mixed Sunni-Shia Pakistani-Muslim ancestry during a November 15, 2013, Washington, DC, address.  Warsi’s delectable presentation of her Muslim heritage, however, was part of a junk food understanding of different belief systems having no irreconcilable differences hindering harmony, all past and present evidence notwithstanding.

“Conflict has taken many forms” throughout history, Warsi began her remarks at Georgetown University’s Alumni House.  Today, though, a “dangerous and rising phenomenon” of “religion turning on religion…is forming the fault lines.”  Among the “people…singled out and hounded out simply for…faith” globally were “Baha’is, Shias, Sunnis, and Alawites, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists—I could go on.”

Warsi, though, placed a “focus on a religion which is suffering particularly in the wake of changes to the Middle East.”  Christian “minority populations have co-existed with the [Muslim] majority for generations,” she claimed, but now they are “increasingly treated as outsiders.”  Religious oppressors “range from states to militant groups, and even to a person’s own family.”  The “countless causes” include “[t]urf wars, social unrest and corruption…[p]olitical transition, authoritarianism and terrorism.”  Thereby “faith is used as a proxy for other divisions.”  Somewhat contradicting her modern focus, Warsi noted that, “of course, this isn’t to say the persecution of religious minorities is new” but “is woven into the history of most of our faiths.”

In the United Kingdom, Warsi presented a counterexample of coexistence between vibrant faiths.  She “grew up practicing a minority religion, Islam, in a majority-Christian country” with a sense, to cite Hillary Clinton, that “one’s faith is unshakeable” irrespective of hostility.  Enrollment of her daughter, meanwhile, in a “Christian convent school didn’t make her less of a Muslim.”  Here she “adapted the Lord’s prayer and made it her own by ending it ameen, instead of amen.”  Warsi thus expressed opposition to a “worrying phenomenon” of “societies being told they needed to dilute their faith in order to accommodate others.”  In fact, Warsi had “called on Europe to become stronger and more confident in its Christianity” during a February 14, 2012, Vatican visit.

Internationally as well, Warsi called “freedom of religion and belief a key priority for the British government.”  Here Warsi called the Saudi Arabia-headquartered Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a grouping of 57-Muslim-majority states (including “Palestine”) with some of the world’s worst religious freedom abusers, a “key partner in our quest to promote religious freedom.”  The OIC-supported United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 16/18 also “lays the foundations for combating discrimination against people based on their religion.”

Lurking at home for Warsi, though, is the danger of “Islamophobia,” something that “had passed the dinner table test…it could be found in the most civilized of settings.”  Warsi likewise condemned in the United States “individuals like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer denying the place of Muslims in society.”  Such “so-called patriots ignore the founding tenets of their nation, of freedom and equality.”

Warsi demanded to “expose those who seek to twist history, who are neither true to the roots of their faiths or the founding principles of their nations” such as Spencer and Geller. Warsi therefore reiterated President Barack Obama’s twisted politically correct history that “America’s founding father, Thomas Jefferson, over 200 years ago hosted an iftar at the White House and had a Quran on his bookshelf.”  Unmentioned by Obama or Warsi,President Jefferson merely shifted the usual afternoon dinner hour on December 9, 1805, to after sunset in order to accommodate a fasting Tunisian envoy, Sidi Soliman Mellimelli. Mellimelli was negotiating restitution for Tunisian vessels seized by the USS Constitution while running a blockade to the Barbary Pirates of Tripoli.  Their depredations against American merchantmen had caused Jefferson to acquire a Quran in order to better understand his Muslim enemies.

“Spain’s Islamic Golden Age was a period of harmony and progress,” Warsi similarly superficially asserted, invoking an oft-critiqued cliché in order to demonstrate that “history shows that it is possible for these religions to live together.”  “The fundamental tenets of the major faiths…are not intrinsically on some collision course.”  Reiterating a quotation in her Vatican address from Islam’s fourth caliph, Ali ibn Abu Talib, Warsi drew inspiration from “the teachings of Islam, which tell us your fellow man is your brother—either your brother in faith, or your brother in humanity.”

Yet all of Warsi’s examples of religious repression involve various Muslim oppressors, with the exception of Burma’s Muslim Rohingha population and “attacks against Christians” in “in some parts of India.”  The mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries following Israel’s establishment in 1948 also belies Warsi’s assertion of past coexistence between religious minorities and Muslim majorities.  Hardly any objective observer would share Warsi’s view that the “Arab Spring” manifested no Muslim “sectarian tension” but merely a “mutual desire for democracy, freedom, and equality.”  Warsi’s controversial claim of a “moderate Syrian opposition” with a “strong commitments to protecting minorities” has additionally failed to win public support around the world for intervention in Syria’s civil war.

Seemingly some examination of aggressive and authoritarian teachings of Islam such as sharia and militant jihad would be in order.  Appropriate as well would be explanation by Warsi concerning how her Shiite and Sunni relatives avoided conflict while these two branches of Islam have battled each other up to the present day.  Warsi would not lack for material on these issues; whole books have appeared on dhimmitude, for example, such as Mark Durie’s The Third Choice:  Islam, Dhimmitude, and Freedom and Bat Ye’or’s Islam and Dhimmitude:  Where Civilizations Collide.  Yet Warsi apparently denies any actual Islamic motive in the numerous international security issues that have vexed the world since Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks.  Islam merely serves as a “proxy” in the persecution of Christians in places like Nigeria, Pakistan, the Middle East, Muslim terrorist attacks, or the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Warsi’s behavior following her return to the United Kingdom suggests that her superficiality has not improved.  Her fellow peer, Lord Pearson, expressed on November 19 in the House of Lords his “fear that the dark side is moving strongly within Islam” and considered “part of Islam’s problem” that the Quran “commands the faithful to kill the unbelievers.”  Warsi responded with a West Wing segment criticizing various archaic Old Testament passages to argue that “[t]hese texts from the Old Testament could so easily be manipulated to cause mischief and indeed have been manipulated in the past.”

As Warsi’s bête noir Spencer noted at his website Jihadwatch, Warsi’s “argument is “extremely common and extremely disingenuous.”  While there are “armed jihad groups justifying violence by referring to the Qur’an and Sunnah all over the world,” both Judaism and Christianity distinguish between various forms of law in the Old Testament.  Judaism sees the religious laws of the Old Testament, in contrast to moral laws, as applicable only to Jews and has interpretations defining various brutal practices in the Old Testament as no longer applicable (see here and here).  Christianity, meanwhile, sees Old Testament religious law’s completion in Jesus Christ’s life (see here and here).

Warsi’s approval of UNHRC Resolution 16/18 indicates that she is not terribly interested in rebuttal.  The resolution references “derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion” and “denigration.”  Hidden behind such words is the OIC’s long term goal of criminalizing Islamic blasphemy, something even more evident in earlier OIC resolution drafts abandoned in the face of Western resistance.

Speaking on February 7 to the 2013 OIC summit in Cairo, Warsi evinced no opposition to this agenda.  Using the OIC’s favored propagandistic terminology, Warsi argued that the “OIC has for many years been concerned about the scourge of Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim hatred, and other hate speech.”  Warsi noted that “incitement to religious hatred remains an offence in Britain” under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, such that speech like Quran burning is illegal.  Opposition to “Islamophobia” has similarly barred Geller and Spencer from entering the United Kingdom.

A Muslim version of Obama, Warsi believes that belief systems like religions are equivalent to ice cream flavors, tasting different but having the same basic ingredients.  Yet Islam’s core canonical teachings do indeed claim in various ways the propriety of using force in the name of faith.  Like the communist regimes discussed by Warsi, orthodox Muslims want “to remove all ideological opposition.”  Warsi’s assertion following her address that religious fanaticism comes from “not too much religion, but from too little” is thus hardly accurate.  Warsi’s support of “Gay rights,” meanwhile, risks infringing a religious “freedom to manifest…beliefs” as shown in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Bold Christian witness simply does not always bring forth a benign response from ideological competitors like Muslims and homosexuals.  Warsi apparently has forgotten what Christian confidence entailed in the Roman Empire.  Christians and others seeking to advocate conflicting ideas peacefully should remember this, Warsi’s well-meant but shallow appeals for interfaith harmony notwithstanding.

Will the Real Muslim ‘Moderates’ Please Stand Up?

Abu Hamza, an honest Muslim

Abu Hamza, an honest Muslim

By Paul Wilkinson:

Britain has numerous so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims aka self-righteous ‘media-whores’, who carve a living from shamelessly denying all the nasty things clearly written in the Qur’an. They publically espouse equal rights and state how they are against any form of discrimination, yet on the other hand are all religious zealots who follow the Qur’an to the letter and worship the Prophet Muhammad and his teachings.

Many Brits do not have a great knowledge of Islam; certainly the overwhelming majority have not read the Qur’an and rely on the media for ‘enlightenment’. Qur’an inspired violence, terrorism and civil wars are on the news daily, but self-appointed spokesmen will feed off the public’s ignorance and tell the largely gullible audience this is all a contradiction to the real, ‘true Islam’.

At the other end of the spectrum are ‘hate preachers’ who are really being honest like Anjem Choudary, Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, who at times may be portrayed as ‘pantomime villains’, but the media does not tell us that they are simply obeying the Qur’an’s commands which do incite hatred and violence.

Hence the reason why Robert Spencer and Pam Geller were banned from entering Britain, because they would have challenged these ‘moderates’ and told the uncomfortable truth about what the Qur’an actually says. This is not what the multiculturalists in the media want you to hear… Not to mention the fact that Muslims would have been violent- remember, “Islam is peace”!

There is no Islamic caliphate anymore (thankfully), but having no ‘Pope-like’ leader gives rise to all these ‘spokesmen’ who claim they speak for 99% of Muslims. However they are ‘stealth jihadists’ who want to spread undiluted Islam, but their tactics are tailored differently and so do not publically admit to this. The only ‘moderate’ trait is by not personally partaking in or publically condemning violence, and misleading people by making Islam not appear extreme.

Other than in the public sphere many of these moderates are all essentially ‘nobodies’ and only have value due to the exposure they get from the media, like the BBC putting them on television most Sunday mornings. They effectively have carte blanche as they are totally unchallenged by the politically correct media and certainly never have Islamic scripture quoted at them. Their modus operandi is the ‘non-violent form of Jihad’, as Jon MC explains:

“Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) and/or jihad by the pen (jihad bil qallam). This might sound like simple proslytisation, but in essence Islam recognises any method including lying or dissimulation (Taqiyya/Muda’rat, Kitman, Tawriya and Tayseer) to ‘spread Islam’ to win converts, or gain acceptance for Islam within a host society, or disguising elements of Islam (hence the ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ statement). It also includes attempting to silence criticism by labelling critics as ‘racists’, ‘fascists’ or ‘Islamophobes’ or any verbal/written means to promote/defend Islam and/or silence opposition and critics.”

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

 

When Opposing Jihad Is ‘Racist’

download (32)By :

“Islamophobia” has broken out at Washington University of St. Louis, sparking outrage, grief, an “open solidarity forum,” and an avalanche of groveling apologies from university administrators.

It all started, according to the university’s independent student paper Student Life, with a “controversial Halloween photograph” that went “viral” and became an “emotional trigger” for Muslim students, “bringing back memories of personal experiences with racism.”

The offending photo featured a group of students apparently dressed as soldiers pointing waterguns at a student dressed as Osama bin Laden, or perhaps as a generic Islamic terrorist.

Oh, the hatred! The racism! The “Islamophobia”! A Muslim student, Mahroh Jahangiri, posted a screenshot of the horrific photo on her Facebook page, with its original caption, which showed that the students in the photo themselves approached the idea of fighting against jihad terror with a certain irony: “Halloween ‘13. Amurrica!!” But the irony was lost on Jahangiri, who added a seven-paragraph caption of her own, fulminating that the photo represented “a broader, more aggressive (and apparently violent) Islamophobia rampant here at WashU and in the United States.”

Jahangiri, who has served as an intern with the Department of Homeland Security, claimed that as a Muslim she had been discriminated against at the university, called om students to “RAISE HELL ABOUT THIS,” and complained: “I find it hard to believe that if this was a black man or a gay man or a Latino man with guns aimed at his face, that black students or queer students or Latino students would not have been up in arms. But because this costume did not represent my friends’ communities, it did not warrant a response.”

Of course, a black man or a gay man or a Latino man didn’t murder 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 in the name of being black or gay or Latino. Black men and gay men and Latino men have not declared their determination of “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions,” as has the Muslim Brotherhood, of which the Muslim Students Association is an affiliate.

Nonetheless, Washington University Vice Chancellor Sharon Stahl, her eyes no doubt still stinging from being subjected to the visual assault of having to view this photo, appeared at the Muslim Students Association’s “open solidarity forum,” at which she issued an abject apology to Muslim students and took the fall for other administrators: “I am the person, the only person, to whom this posting was sent on Halloween,” she said, “I made a grave mistake in not responding sooner than I did. I deeply regret that. If I could go back and undo this, I would, but I can’t, so I have to accept the responsibility of my mistake. I apologize, and I hope that moving forward you will be able to find it in your hearts to give me that grace.”

Read more at Front Page