Video: Steve Coughlin Counterterror Training Education and Analysis

622022286
Center for Security Policy, September 13, 2012

Over more than a decade following 9/11, MAJ Stephen Coughlin was one of the US government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe.

Through knowledge of published Islamic law, MAJ Coughlin had a demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen.

He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

 

Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law:

 

Part 3: Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law:

 

Part 6: The Boston Attack and “Individual Jihad” –  summary of key points

Watch Deborah Weiss on Fox News discussing “Freedom of Speech Under Attack

NER, by Jerry Gordon, Jan. 21, 2015:

Last weekend, 9/11 survivor and human rights lawyer, Deborah Weiss, Esq. was on Fox News’ Justice with Judge Jeannine discussing “Freedom of Speech under Attack.”   This discussion occurred in the wake of the murderous jihadist attacks in Paris on the French satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher kosher super market in which 17 died;  cartoonists, journalists, shoppers and workers, five of them Jews.   Ms. Weiss drew attention to media and government self-censorship and the redaction of national law enforcement and homeland security training materials preventing identification of Islamist terrorist threat doctrine based on sacralized Islamic texts.  She also exposed the prominent role of the Saudi-backed Organization of Islamic Cooperation seeking to enforce blasphemy codes under Sharia in Western governments including the US.  Weiss is in the midst of preparing a monograph about the OIC UN resolutions to stifle all criticism of Islam-related subjects.  We interviewed Ms. Weiss about her compelling experience as a survivor of 9/11, who became an advocate for free speech, opposing  acquiescence to Islamic blasphemy codes under Sharia law.  See New English Review: A Survivor of 9/11 Speaks: An Interview with Deborah Weiss, Esq. (September 2014). Thursday January 22, 2014, Weiss will be interviewed on the nationally syndicated radio program, “Line of Fire” at 3:05PM EST. You may listen live, here.

Watch this You Tube video clip of Weiss on FoxNews’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine”:

The Muslim population of America is expanding at warp speed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, we’re doing the exact opposite.

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

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

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

 

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

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

At least before the invasion began.

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

The Somali population of Lewiston now exceeds 40,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·      Our prisons are breeding grounds for jihadists.

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

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

What are we doing?!

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

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

Is Violence a Core Teaching in Islam?

jihad-300x180UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 20, 2015:

If the recent events of the past 14 years have not brought clarity to understanding that the core teachings of Islam is the sole reason the West is facing the warfare we are from so many different directions, then you may be incapable of reasonable and rational thought.

Since two Muslims killed a dozen people at the media outlet Charlie Hebdo in France, Muslims all over the world are holding massive protests…for the victims?  No.  They are protesting their “outrage” over the cartoons.  In a sane society, a group of identifiable people who barbarically brutalize decent society would not be able to globally complain about how cartoons effect their feelings.  But they are not ignored for the exact opposite reason  intellectually dishonest leaders in Europe and America tell us we should embrace, appease, and empathize with the Islamic world.

They threaten us violence while our leaders tell us to embrace the Muslim community because, as they say, “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Truer words have never been spoken, if you understand that “Peace” in Islam (per Sharia/Islamic Law) occurs when the entire globe is under the rule of Islam and Islamic Law.

As massive crowds of Muslims across the globe call for more violence and killings (read “justice” for those who “slander” the prophet), our leaders tell us we should stop offending the Muslim by publishing cartoons or speaking truth about Islam.  Color me reactionary, but I find sawing the heads off of 5 year old children and putting them on spikes for all the world to see just a bit more offensive.  Yet I do not see any massive demonstrations around the world against that or for the children who are victims.

It is time for rational and reasonable people to stop giving quarter to those who are psychotically disconnected from reality – i.e. those who believe Islam “doesn’t stand for this (violence).”

* Nearly every Islamic School on the planet, beginning in the first grade, teaches Jihad is a permanent obligation on the Islamic community until the world is under Islamic rule (under Sharia).

* Islamic legal scholars are (and always have been) unanimous in their understanding on the definition of “jihad”; the obligation of jihad; the requirement to establish a global Islamic state (Caliphate) under Sharia (Islamic Law); and that Muslims may never take Jews or Christians as their friends.  There is no such thing as a “version” of Islam that teaches something other than that.

* Sharia mandates jihad when the Islamic community has the strength and material ability to wage it.  Historically, over the last 1400 years, the Muslim community has waged jihad when they had the strength to do so.  In Islam, Mohammed is the “insan al kamil” or the “perfect man.”  Mohammed commanded Muslims to “fight and slay the unbelievers” until they (1) convert to Islam, (2) submit to Islam, pay the jizya (non-Muslim poll tax), and “feel themselves subdued,” or (3) be killed.  Mohammed waged war on the non-Muslims until they submitted, converted or were killed.

* All published Sharia (Islamic Law) defines “slander” as those who say anything about the prophet or Islam “which a Muslim would dislike.”  This is a capital crime in Islam.  The truth of the comment is not a part of the discussion in Islamic Law – only that a Muslim “dislikes” it.

The jihadis who took innocent lives in France at Charlie Hebdo, did so in accordance with, not against, Islamic Law.

100% of the Islamic jihadis we face on the battlefield, have committed acts of jihad in Europe or America, or those jihadis we have arrested before they did what they were trying to do all say words to the effect of: “We are jihadis fighting jihad in the cause of Allah in order to impose Sharia and establish the Islamic State.”

All Islamic doctrine backs this statement up – unequivocally.

The jihadis – or “terrorists” – are in complete agreement as to why they are doing what they are doing across the globe.  All Islamic jurisprudence supports them and never hasn’t supported them.  We are witnessing millions of Muslims protest over cartoons but not over the victims at Charlie Hebdo or Fort Hood or London or Madrid or Mumbai or Boston or anywhere else in the world.

To make this as clear as possible, Al Qaeda has never misquoted Islamic Law in furtherance of what they are doing.  Never.

If you had a dinner guest who didn’t follow your rules, was rude and inappropriate with your wife and daughter, and threatened you while eating a dinner you prepared in your house, you would ask him to leave.

The West may want to consider this option for a Muslim population which continues to threaten our lives in bolder and bolder fashion, while demonstrating absolutely no respect for human life, decency, liberty, or reasoned thought.

U.S. Military Not Taught Ideology of Islamic Jihad, ‘Our Nation Is In Great Peril,’ Says CSP

By Penny Starr

Tommy Waller, director of state outreach for the Center for Security Policy.

Tommy Waller, director of state outreach for the Center for Security Policy.

(CNSNews.com) – Center for Security Policy (CSP) official Tommy Waller, who fought against Islamic jihadists “on their turf” in Afghanistan and elsewhere, said his military training did not include instruction in the ideology of the enemy, a deliberate omission that puts America in “great peril.”

Waller, a Marine Reserve major, speaking via Skype at the National Press Club on Jan. 16, said he was speaking as an employee of the CSP, a conservative national security group in Washington, D.C., which released that day a new report, The Secure Freedom Strategy: A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement.

The plan, designed by 16 experts on counter-terrorism, intelligence, the military and national security, is based on President Ronald Reagan’s plan to defeat the Communist Soviet Union.

The Secure Freedom Strategy explains that Muslims who adhere to Sharia law are behind the global jihad movement and the deadly attacks around the world on innocent people of all faiths, including other Muslims.

Waller, who is CSP’s director of state outreach, said it was his hope that the strategy can help defeat that enemy. His full remarks are reproduced below:

 

“Ladies and gentlemen, the first thing I have to tell you is that I’m addressing you as Tommy Waller, an employee of the Center for Security Policy and not as Major Waller, a commissioned officer in the Reserve component of the Marine Corps.

“Now, why is it that I have to make that distinction? Well, it saddens me to say that if I were currently in an active duty I would have to refrain from speaking about factual information about this ideology – Sharia — the very ideology that threatens our way of life because my words might be offensive.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I took an oath to the Constitution of the United States to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic and when those that take an oath cannot be taught about the threat to our Constitution, which is both foreign and domestic, our nation is in great peril.

“Now I’ve deployed as an active duty Marine to numerous theaters of operations. I’ve faced the global jihad movement on their turf. And yet I was never taught what animated those Jihadists.

“Still to this day, if you attend a formal military school, you’ll find that there’s never mention of the ideology that animates our enemies.

“We speak in terms like violent extremist organizations. We never nail down the facts about what animates these organizations or, as Clare mentioned, individuals that subscribe to the ideology.

“I recently attended a school that was nearly a year long – a formal military school for commissioned officers at the field grade level. And in 10-plus months we covered information operations for less than an hour and our case study was the Communist insurgency and how we conducted propaganda operations against it in Vietnam.

“It’s mind-boggling to me how our enemies maintain absolute information dominance but it makes sense if that’s the curriculum that we have in our military’s formal schools.

“I’ve been up until this point, shocked and saddened by – and almost bewildered – by the absence void in factual analysis of our enemy on behalf of the national security community and what we face today is tantamount to the military of the Cold War being prevented from studying Communism. Being prevented from studying the ideology that they faced on the battlefield.

“And so it’s my sincere hope that my generation and those that follow it can recover the courage that our previous generation had to study the ideology of the enemy.

“I have to say that the ‘Secure Freedom Strategy’ gives me hope. It’s the first step in our generation doing a major course correction.

“And my personal request on behalf of the men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice to that Constitution – in defense of that Constitution – on behalf of them, my request is that we embrace this strategy because we owe it to the generations that went before us and those that will follow us.”

At Waller’s request, the press conference ended with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Frank Gafney, president of the Center for Security Policy. (Photo: CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Frank Gafney, president of the Center for Security Policy. (Photo: CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Members of the “Tiger Team” include Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin; Clare Lopez, former Operations Officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service and senior vice president for research and analysis at the CSP; Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, former Commander–in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and father of the Navy Red Cell counterterrorism unit and chairman of CSP’s military committee; Dr. J. Michael Waller, expert on psychological warfare, propaganda and influence operations and a senior fellow at CSP; and Frank Gaffney, former acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy and the president of CSP.

You can see read the report here.

***

Launch Materials (PDF format):

***

Tom Trento Of The United West uploaded this recording of the entire news conference (event begins at 7:30 in the video)

 

Video: Sharia No-Go Zones Threaten Free Speech and Breed Jihad

Robert Spencer on Hannity, January 9, 2015 on Sharia No-Go Zones as Incubators of JIhad:

Published on Jan 12, 2015 by JihadWatchVideo

*****

Sharia & No-Go Zones Threaten Free Speech:

Published on Jan 12, 2015 by act4america
****
Also see:

Jihadis Strike in Paris – US Response Demonstrates Continued Cluelessness

Hebdo-300x170UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 8, 2015:

In another offensive against the West, two Muslim jihadis killed twelve (12) people in Paris yesterday at the offices of the satirical media outlet Charlie Hebdo.  American Leaders responded by calling the attacks anything but Islamic jihad (or even terrorism).

Authorities identified the men as Said and Cherif Kouachi (brothers), both French, and Hamyd Mourad, 18, whose nationality has not yet been made public.  At the time of this posting, U.S. Counterterrorism officials are saying that one of the three has been killed by French security services, and French officials  are reporting Hamyd Mourad has surrendered, but neither of those have been confirmed.

Shouting “allah u abkbar” the jihadis were dressed in tactical gear and armed with AK-47’s.  They moved through the offices of the media outlet Charlie Hebdo and killed the editor and several of the leading cartoonists at the publication which humorously criticized everything under the sun – including Islam.  The difference, however, is that the Islamic Law of Slander – cloaked by the term “Islamophobia” – mandates capital punishment for anyone who says anything about the prophet or Islam “which a Muslim would dislike.”  Paris is learning what it is to face the penalty of violating Sharia’s Slander law in Islam.

Strikingly, the day before the attack in Paris, Turkish President Erdogan called on the European Union to “crack down” on Islamophobia, which is jihadi speak for “Silence all who slander Islam, or else.”

[This, by the way, is also one of the many points where the political Left shares common ground with jihadis – trying to silence all “offensive” language (read:  “language that is truthful and counters our agenda”).  In both cases the objective is the destruction of individual liberty and power to the  State.]

In September of 2012 at the United Nations, President Obama stated – for all the world to hear – “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.”   Comments like these provide a green light for the Islamic jihadis to go forward and kill in the name of Islam for those who slander the prophet Mohammed.

The response from America’s leaders to the Paris attack has been to call them anything but jihad or even terrorism, and outlandishly claim these attacks have “nothing to do with Islam.”

On CNN, Chris Cuomo asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest “Do you see this as an act of terrorism?”.

Earnest’s response is telling.  “I think, based on what we know right now, it does seem like that is what we’re confronting here,” he replied. “And this is an act of violence that we certainly do condemn. And, you know, if based on this investigation it turns out to be an act of terrorism then we would condemn that in the strongest possible terms, too.”  What is the confusion here that in the moment the Obama administration cannot call this obvious jihadi attack in Paris Jihad or Terrorism?

Hillary Clinton previously stated we must “empathize” with our jihadi enemies, respect their point of view, and not “leave anyone on the sidelines.”  Secretary of State John Kerry called the attack “extremism” while key Democrat strategist and leader Howard Dean said Wednesday that the men who perpetrated the attacks in Paris are “about as Muslim as I am.”  He further stated he has read the Quran and it doesn’t support this kind of behavior.  It is clear Mr. Dean is either lying about reading the Quran or has significant reading comprehension issues.

Which brings us back to the crux of the issue – America’s leadership does not actually know the teachings of Islam because they continue to rely on Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/Al Qaeda operatives in advisory roles inside our government to tell them what it is instead of doing their due diligence as professionals.  Besides being completely unprofessional and negligent, this approach to our enemy has left many Americans dead in places like Boston, Fort Hood, Little Rock, and elsewhere because of our leaders willful ignorance.  We put doctors and lawyers in jail for that.

The representative for the President, Press Secretary John Earnest, made it very clear that the ignorance of our enemy is complete.

“The other thing we have tried to do is to work with the leaders in the Muslim community, both here in the United States and around the world to try to counter those violent messages.  We’ve seen ISIL distort the name of a peaceful religion, distort the tenants of an otherwise peaceful religion, to try to inspire people to carry out acts of violence.  That’s why its incredibly important that we see leaders in the Muslim community stand up and speak out about the true teachings of Islam are.”

I am curious which part of “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war” (Quran 9:5) our leaders do not understand.  I guess the President’s Islamic advisors have not made it to the point of sharing this core Islamic teaching with the Administration, FBI, CIA, DHS, Pentagon or others.

Mr. Earnest has clearly demonstrated the entire U.S. decision-making process and the leaders participating in it are completely and utterly unprofessional OR are knowingly aiding and abetting the enemy and concealing the true nature of their intentions.

100% of Islamic doctrine from first grade text books to Al Azhar University in Egypt – the oldest and most authoritative school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world – state that Islam is a “complete way of life” governed by Sharia (Islamic Law).  100% of all published Islamic Law in every century and in every language states the purpose of Islam is to wage jihad until the world is subordinated to the Sharia and a global Islamic state (Caliphate) is established.  100% of all published Islamic Law (Sharia) only defines “Jihad” as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

The problem is that Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and all the other jihadi groups are getting their “version” of Islam correct.  Here is the challenge:  you can go to any mosque book store in the world or even amazon.com and purchase authoritative Islamic Law written by recognized Muslim authorities written for Muslim audiences (important that the book is not written for a non-Muslim audience) which all state what has been stated above about Islam.  There is no such thing as a book of Islamic Law that says otherwise.  Those of you who are wanting to scream “racist/bigot/islamophobe” right now, please produce the name of one such book of Islamic Law that instructs the Muslim community to “love” non-Muslims and to “peacefully exist with them” where all groups of people have equal rights under the law.  You won’t find it because it doesn’t exist.

Don’t Blame the Charlie Hebdo Mass Murder on ‘Extremism’

pic_giant_010715_SM_Hebdo-Attack-MainNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy:

There are now at least twelve confirmed dead in the terrorist attack carried out by at least three jihadist gunmen against the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo. While it practices equal-opportunity satire, lampooning Islam has proved lethal for the magazine, just as it has for so many others who dare to exercise the bedrock Western liberty of free expression. Charlie Hebdo’s offices were firebombed in 2011 over a caricature of Mohammed that depicted him saying, “100 lashes if you don’t die from laughter.”

The cartoon was obviously referring to sharia, Islam’s legal code and totalitarian framework. Don’t take my word for it. Just flip through Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, the authoritative sharia manual. You will find a number of offenses for which flagellation is the prescribed penalty.

To take just a couple of examples, “the penalty for drinking is to be scourged forty stripes,” although the caliph (the Islamic ruler) is authorized to increase this to 80 stripes — although he must pay an indemnity if death results. . . . Pretty moderate, right? (Reliance, p. 617, sec. o16.3.) For adultery “the penalty consists of being scourged one hundred stripes” — and that’s if the adulterer “is not considered to have the capacity to remain chaste” (e.g., if she “is prepubescent at the time of marital intercourse.” “If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death.” (Reliance, p. 610, sec. o12.2.)

What Charlie Hebdo has satirized is a savage reality. That reality was visited on the magazine again today. As night follows day, progressive governments in Europe and the United States are already straining to pretend that this latest atrocity is the wanton work of “violent extremists,” utterly unrelated to Islam. You are to believe, then, that François Hollande, Barack Obama, David Cameron, and their cohort of non-Muslim Islamophiles are better versed in sharia than the Muslim scholars who’ve dedicated their lives to its study and have endorsed such scholarly works as Reliance.

Let me repeat what I have detailed here before: Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State did not make up sharia law. Islam did. We can keep our heads tucked snug in the sand, or we can recognize the source of the problem.

As I detailed in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the literalist construction of sharia that Islamic supremacists seek to enforce is “literal” precisely because it comes from Islamic scripture, not from some purportedly “extremist” fabrication of Islam. Moreover, this “classical sharia” is enthusiastically endorsedin principle by several of the most influential institutions in the Islamic Middle East, which explains why it is routinely put into practice when Islamists are given — or seize — the opportunity to rule over a territory.

Reliance is not some al-Qaeda or Islamic State pamphlet. It is a renowned explication of sharia’s provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements, including one from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think tank begun in the early Eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”). Perhaps more significantly, there is also an endorsement from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West.

In their endorsement, the al-Azhar scholars wrote:

We certify that the . . . translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community. . . . There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. . . . May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.

There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.

Charlie Hebdo, of course, is in the business of cartoon caricature for satirical purposes. That is a time-honored method of expression, political and otherwise, in the West. That is in stark contrast to how such expression is viewed by Islam. Here, as I summarized in my book Spring Fever – quoted verbatim and supported by citations — is what Reliance has to say about such visual art forms:

It is forbidden to make pictures of “animate life,” for doing so “imitates the creative act of Allah Most High”; “Whoever makes a picture, Allah shall torture him with it on the Day of Judgment until he can breathe life into it, and he will never be able to.” (Reliance w50.0 & ff.)

Nor is visual depiction alone in drawing sharia’s wrath. “Musical instruments of all types are unlawful.” As Reliance elaborates, singing is generally prohibited (for “song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage”), and “on the Day of Resurrection Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” There is an exception, though: If unaccompanied by musical instruments, song and poetry drawn from Islamic scripture and encouraging obedience to Allah are permissible. Ironically, although music is generally forbidden, dancing is permissible “unless it is languid, like the movements of the effeminate.” (Reliance r40.0 &ff.)

Understand, the prohibitions just described apply to artistic expression in general; Islam need not be lampooned for caricatures to run afoul of sharia. With that hostile predisposition in mind, let’s now consider Islam’s draconian treatment of expression that renounces Islam, belittles it or, in the slightest way, casts it in an unfavorable light:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

It is worth pausing to mull these latter prohibitions against denying or reviling any aspect of Islam, Allah, or the prophet. The call to kill apostates for such offensesobviously applies with equal or greater force to non-Muslims, who are pervasively treated far worse than Muslims are by sharia. See, for example, the infamous verse 29 from Sura 9, the Koran’s most bellicose chapter:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which had been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the book [i.e., Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [the poll tax imposed on non-believers for the privilege of living in the Islamic state] and feel themselves subdued.

While insipid Western leaders cannot admonish us often enough that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” the French satirical magazine has offered a different take — one rooted in the cherished Western belief that examination in the light of day, rather than willful blindness, is the path to real understanding. In that tradition, a few other choice aspects of sharia, detailed by Muslim scholars in Reliance, are worth reviewing:

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity”); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster. . . . They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1–17.)

As commanded in the aforementioned Sura 9:29, non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliance p50.0 & ff; p74.0 & ff.)

The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.)

A Muslim woman may marry only a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. — Marriage.)

A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliance p42.0 & ff.)

A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliance m13.2–3.)

A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Reliance o14.0.)

The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliance p7.0 & ff.)

The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Reliance o24.7.)

If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet . . . said, ‘Men are already destroyed when they obey women.’” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”)

This is not “violent extremist” doctrine. This is Islamic doctrine — sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. Millions of Muslims, particularly in the West, do not abide by it and are working heroically — and at great risk to themselves — to marginalize or supersede it. Of course we should admire and help them. That, however, is not a reason to pretend that this doctrine does not exist. It is, furthermore, suicidal to ignore the fact that, because this doctrine is rooted in scripture and endorsed by influential scholars, some Muslims are going to act on it, and many millions more will support them.

This anti-liberty, supremacist, repulsively discriminatory, and sadly mainstream interpretation of Islam must be acknowledged and confronted. In its way, that is what Charlie Hebdo had been attempting to do — while, to their lasting shame, governments in the United States and Europe have been working with Islamist statesto promote sharia blasphemy standards. That needs to end. The future must not belong to those who brutalize free expression in the name of Islam.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

The Future Belongs to Charlie Hebdo

resize
CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 7, 2015:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” were the words of President Barack Obama, before the United Nations. And for twelve people at the office of satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, massacred by gunmen today in Paris, there will indeed be no future.

The two gunmen reportedly forced their way into the magazine offices, yelling “allahu akbar” (God is Greater),and opened fire. There are reports coming in that the gunmen instructed survivors, “You say to the media that it was al-Qaeda in Yemen.” If this is true, it would be a realization of a threat made against the newspaper’s editor by a 2013 edition of the AQAP produced “Inspire Magazine.”

PARIS-wanted_poste_3157269cEach gunmen wore a black ski mask, and were armed with kalashnikov rifles. A video shot by a nearby bystander shows  two gunmen emerge from the building and engaged a French police officer with more gunfire. After the policeman fell, a gunmen executed him with an additional round at close range, before the two attackers fled in a stolen vehicle.

The same White House which is now condemning the attack, had previously gone out of its way to condemn the cartoons published by the magazine back in 2012:

“We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,” [Then White House Spokesman Jay] Carney told reporters during a midday press briefing at the White House. “We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential be be inflammatory,” Carney said in a prepared statement. Putting satirical cartoons on the same level as terrorist murder is exactly the problem.

Unfortunately, this is not merely a matter of spinelessness, but spinelessness as official policy.

The Obama administration has been deeply involved in pursuing an agenda, promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which equates speech which offends with direct incitement to murder. That effort, known as Resolution 16/18, after the joint U.S.-Egyptian resolution which introduced it, or the “Istanbul Process,” by the series of  high-level meetings held between the State Department and OIC members, is explicitly intended by Islamic states to prohibit what they describe as “defamation of religion” including insulting Islam’s prophet.

White House officials were already uttering the standard reassurances that despite the clear effort by the gunmen to enforce Sharia strictures on Blasphemy, this attack may not be terrorism, and of course, taking the submissive posture that Islam is an inherently and indisputably a peaceful religion (which is not the same thing as recognizing that many individual Muslims are themselves peaceful people.)

The attack on Charlie Hebdo is only one front in the war on free expression perpetuated in the name of enforcing Sharia blasphemy laws. The staff of Charlie Hebdo are martyrs to free speech, but they are not alone. Over 35 Christians in Pakistan were lynched last year over the mere rumor of possible blasphemy, including a couple which was burned alive. In 2012, a Saudi blogger tweeted a comments questioning his own commitment to belief in Mohammed’s prophethood. Death threats followed. He fled to Malaysia, but was deported under an Interpol Red notice to Saudi Arabia, where he faced execution for blasphemy (he was eventually freed after almost two years in prison.)

But it is not only in the Middle East. In The United Kingdom, an 85-year old woman was charged by police after yelling outside a Chatham-area mosque,  expressing anger regarding the brutal massacre of British Army Drummer Lee Rigby.  Here in the United States, Terry Jones (whose face adorns the Al Qaeda hit list), was directly castigated by President Obama and General David Petraeus in an attempt to prevent the Pastor from conducting a public burning of the koran in an act of protest (a perhaps distasteful but legally permissible act of free expression.) In 2012, following the attack on the Benghazi consulate where four Americans were killed, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told one victim’s father that the maker of a film mocking Mohammed would be jailed as a result. As indeed, it turned out that the man, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, was indeed jailed. Molly Norris, a cartoonist was forced into hiding, after she  attempted to establish “Every One Draw Mohammed Day” in defense of the creators of the TV Show South Park being censored for attempting to do so. In 2010, Christians were arrested in Dearborn, Michigan for “breach of peace” during a peaceful attempt to preach to Muslims at an Arab Festival. (They were eventually released and the city apologized following a lawsuit.) And there remains, of course, the infamous, Danish Cartoons, whose authors have repeatedly and continuously faced assaults and threats ever since.

Whichever jihadist group was responsible for the attack of Charlie Hebdo bears the ultimate responsibility. But there is a culpability also for those who have hinted that violence and threats of violence will encourage us to abandon our commitment to free expression, or established a policy which says that the West is amendable to surrendering cherished freedom rather than risk “offense.” That culpability remains until political and media leaders can say unapologetically, “The Future belongs to Charlie Hebdo.”

charlie-hebdo-no1163-011014-276x350

Also see:

Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System

Center for Security Policy, Jan. 5, 2015:

SHARIAH IN AMERICA COURTS 2.0: CENTER’S NEW CIVILIZATION JIHAD READER SERIES STARTS WITH THE PENETRATION OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM

(Washington, D.C.): Center for Security Policy Press today launched a collection of monographs called the Civilization Jihad Reader Series with the publication of an update to an earlier and highly influential study concerning the insinuation of Islam’s supremacist shariah legal code into the U.S. judiciary. Entitled Shariah in American Courts: The Expanding Incursion of Islamic Law in the U.S. Legal System, this inaugural booklet documents 146 cases in 32 states in which a party to litigation attempted to have the matter resolved by applying shariah, rather than the statutes of the state in question.

The Center first raised an alarm about the penetration of American jurisprudence by one of the most anti-constitutional of such foreign legal codes with its 2011 report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. That study examined a sample of fifty cases and found that in twenty-seven of them, in twenty-three different states, the courts in question allowed the use of shariah, generally to the detriment of women and/or children whose rights under our Constitution were infringed.

With the bedrock of the American Republic being the U.S. Constitution and individual state constitutions derived therefrom, these analyses provide insights into how our own legal system can be – and is being – used as a mechanism to anchor and expand in this country shariah, an ideology wholly at odds with such documents and, more generally, irreconcilable with freedom and democracy.

Most Americans take the rule of law and our constitutional rights for granted. Yet, Shariah in American Courts is a reminder of how even institutions like our judiciary can be influenced – and potentially subverted – by foreign legal codes and practices, to the grave detriment of our nation and liberties.

FirefoxScreenSnapz024-697x1024This 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.

As the new monograph establishes, moreover, there is reason to believe that the surge in such cases is the result of the activism of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups like the Association of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA). The Brotherhood is an Islamic supremacist organization whose mission according to its secret plan (The Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America), is to “destroy Western Civilization from within.”

The good news is that, at least at the appellate level, judges appear increasingly to be rejecting the use of shariah in their courtrooms. A contributing factor to these rulings may be the rising awareness in the judiciary of what is afoot, thanks to the adoption in numerous states of legislation drawing upon a model statute known as “American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC).

While the average citizen of this country would assume it to be the case that only laws derived from or consistent with our Constitution would be applied in U.S. courts at both the federal and state level, the evidence that foreign laws – including, but not limited to, shariah – are encroaching has moved legislatures across the country to act. Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Washington and Alabama have adopted ALAC’s prohibitions against the use of such foreign laws in their respective state courts if they are at odds with constitutional rights or state public policy. (Florida also enacted in 2014 a version of this legislation).

In unveiling the release of the Center for Security Press’ newest publication, the Center’s President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

The Center is delighted to be putting a spotlight on the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy, pre-violent jihad in America. It behooves each of us to become knowledgeable about the presence in our judicial system – and, for that matter, in other civil society and governing institutions – of forces seeking the destruction of our Republic.

The Civilization Jihad Reader Series is intended not only to provide factual evidence of the extent to which this attempt to destroy us from within is advancing, but what patriots can do to prevent it. We recommend as a step towards countering the subversion of our legal system the adoption by every state in the Union of “American Laws for American Courts.”

Additional monographs in the Civilization Jihad Reader Series will be published in coming months. For more information on the Center for Security Policy, the offerings of its Press and the necessity of countering the Muslim Brotherhood and its efforts to impose shariah in America, visit www.SecureFreedom.org.

Buy Shariah in American Courts at Amazon

View PDF here

Nicolai Sennels: Why We Fight Islam

This enemy is different than anything we have encountered before: You can not intimidate an enemy who loves death more than life.

I was recently asked: Why fight Islam? The short answer is because Islam fights us and since it knows no borders and it knows no mercy, it will keep fighting us until we are defeated or we – hopefully – stop them forever.

The goal in Islam is world domination and a central part of every Muslim’s religious practise is to spread his faith with all possible means until it covers the Earth completely. Ever since the 6th century where Islam’s founder and self-proclaimed prophet, Mohammed (who maybe never existed), set out to conquer neighbouring towns, killing, maiming, raping and enslaving scores, Islam has spread its suppressing and destructive doctrine as far as it could. Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist countries and cultures have been crushed by relentless waves of jihadis (Arabic: mujahideens), leaving up to 270 million non-Muslims dead, mostly killed in exceedingly barbaric ways. The recent Islamic takeover of areas in Africa, the Middle East and Western cities that until recently were not under sharia, is not a new phenomena. It is just another phase of a 1,400 year old war against non-Muslims, with the aim of consolidating Muslim power over non-Muslims, and Islamic rule over democracy and human rights. With millions of Muslims fleeing to the West from their self-created atrocities, Islam is about to spread to countries that has been almost Muslim-free. Citizens of Eastern Europe and Baltic States who think that West Europe can handle the problem without their help are naive and lack solidarity: it is time for the democratic world to stand together. Since the nature of Islam is to eventually spread everywhere, nobody is safe anyway.

What do they want?
The final goal of Islam is a worldwide Caliphate ruled by Sharia. The world that Islam’s followers dream of is a planet ordered after the wishes of Allah and his prophet. In such a world there is no Free Speech since the slightest criticism of the system is to be punished by death. There is not even Freedom of Thought, since everybody has to believe in Allah and Mohammed as his prophet, pray five times a day, eat halal, and kill family members and others flinching from the Islamic rules. According to Sharia, women are effectively the property of their male family members and men are allowed to have four wives and beat them all. Jews and Christians will be spared death if they pay a protection tax, jizya, and accept the status as dhimmis, second class citizens whom Muslims are allowed to abuse and rape on a whim. People not believing in the Old Testament – Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others – will have the choice between being killed or converting to Islam (which constitutes psychological rape and forces one to live a strict Muslim life, including killing other non-Muslims).

A society where science and research must be aligned with the world view of a crazed pedophile living in the 6th century (Mohammed married and started fondeling Aisha when she was six and had intercourse with her when she was nine) will of course not be able to establish a functioning stable economy, political system or the comforts of modern medicine, technology and infrastructure.

When it comes to human freedom and rights, the Soviet Union was a utopia compared to any Islamic caliphate, which can best be compared to the joy- and loveless, totalitarian worlds of anger depicted by J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of The Rings and in George Lucas’ Star Wars. Should our civilization collapse under Islamic aggression – aided by our own political correctness, cowardice, laziness  – the only known place with intelligent life in this universe will be a dark and destroyed planet drifting through space, populated by billions of mostly inbred humans living in total misery, enslaved by the freedom-hating, death-loving, brutal, mind-numbing sharia. What tragedy could be worse than that?

Read more

Australian Police Kill Muslim Jihadi While Sydney’s Islamic Community Feigns Shock

397141-sheik-man-haron-monis-450x253UTT, by John Guandolo, Dec. 16, 2014:

Australian Police stormed a cafe in Sydney today (Dec 15) killing an Iranian Sunni Muslim who had taken hostages and made demands, ending the siege which began yesterday.

This incident is instructive in so many ways because of:  (1) the language used by all sides to describe the perpetrator – Man Haron Monis (a Jihadi); (2) attempts by the media to differentiate Monis from the broader Muslim community which claims he was completely “unknown” to them;  (3) what Monis said and did, which is being interpreted through a Western lense instead of the Islamic lens (Sharia);  and (4) the immediate response from the Islamic community in Australia, which is calling for more concessions from Australia for Muslims at the same time one of it’s own killed people in the non-Muslim community.  This last note is the exact same response we always see around the world when a Muslim kills a soldier in Arkansas, beheads people anywhere, blows up a bomb in Boston, shoots and kills soldiers at Fort Hood, or any of a number of other events in recent memory.  Muslims kill, then demand more concessions and call for protection from the oncoming “backlash” which, oddly enough, never comes.

The Language We Use to Describe the Enemy

At the outset, let us all be reminded that the filter through which Islamic jihadis speak, communicate and understand words is SHARIA (Islamic Law).  So when they speak, the words they use, although they may be in English, cannot be interpreted the way we understand those words in the West.  We must use Sharia as the filter through which we understand these words.  As an example, when Muslim leaders say they “condemn terrorism” they are not lying as some have suggested.  “Terrorism” as Islam understands it is to “kill a Muslim without right.”   Under Sharia, Western troops are, in fact, terrorists when killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.  This is an important fact for our military and law enforcement leadership to know when local Imams decry terrorism, because it does not represent a friendly move towards us or our position.  In Sharia, it is lawful for a Muslim to be killed in only a few instances, most notably when he or she leaves Islam (Apostacy).  In this case, if the Muslim refuses to return to Islam he/she must be “immediately killed.” (Um Dat al Salik, Book O Justice, o8.2)

The Prime Minister of Australia – Tony Abbott – referring to the siege in Sydney, said it is “profoundly shocking” that a man would take “innocent” hostages like this, and was unsure of the motive for this attack.  How shocking is it that a Muslim cleric who recently converted from Shia to Sunni Islam would participate in jihad since it is not only an obligation in Islam until the world is under the rule of Sharia, but is the sixth right of pure worship between man and Allah.  Jihad is not a “pillar” of Islam because when the entire world is under Sharia, the need for jihad goes away.  There is no such thing as a “version” of Islam that does not include this requirement.

How does Islam define “innocent” people?  Only Muslims are “innocent” under Islamic Law (sharia), so, according to Sharia none of those hostages were “innocent” therefore they can always be killed by a Muslim jihadi.

Many in the news media have been quick to call Man Haron Monis a “lone wolf” a “radical Muslim Cleric” or (this one I love) a “violent extremist,” which means absolutely nothing at all.  Are these accurate statements?  Is there such a thing in Sharia as a “lone wolf?”  The answer to both questions is a resounding ‘No.’  As a matter of fact, the Law of Jihad in Sharia defines ‘Individual Jihad’ and provides the requirements for it.  Individual Jihad is the kind of jihad we have seen at places like Fort Hood, Little Rock Arkansas, Wichita, New York City, and elsewhere.  Australia’s leaders and media use phrases like “lone wolf” and “radical Muslims” because these are the phrases fed to them by the leaders of the Islamic community, most of whom are Muslim Brotherhood/Salafis, as is true in most other nations in the West.

Watering Down Monis’ Actions

It is also interesting to witness the Australian media bending over backwards to distance Man Haron Monis’ actions from “true Islam” because “no religion supports violence” as world leaders continue to say – which is contrary to a factual analysis of Sharia (Islamic doctrine).  In fact, 100% of all published Sharia mandates jihad until the entire world is under the rule of Islam and Islamic Law (Sharia), and 100% of all published authoritative Sharia only defines “jihad” as ‘warfare against non-Muslims.”  These are statements of fact with cannot be contradicted factually or by any Islamic doctrine.  Therefore, Islamic doctrine not only condones violence, it mandates it.

SydneyBlackFlag

When hostages were made to hold the black flag of jihad in the window of the cafe in which they were being held by Monis, many news organizations reached out to their “Muslim experts” to help us all understand what this could mean.  The most absurd of these was the UK’s Guardian which quoted Aftab Malik, a “high level expert” working for with the UN, who stated “It has no politically dominant or ideological meaning.  It only has a spiritual meaning.”  Friends, this is a lie.

This is the same man who blames Australia’s jihadi threat on those who essentially speak truth about Islam.

The black flag of jihad contains the Shahada in Arabic, which is the statement of conversion into Islam.  It is the flag which has been used by jihadis since the earliest days of Islam.  To disconnect this flag from Jihad is to be disconnected from reality.

Backlash?

The leading Islamic organizations in Australia (read: Salafists/Muslim Brotherhood) are calling for help and protection against the backlash directed at the Islamic community, and even offered up the story that a Muslim woman was harassed in light of the cafe siege in Sydney.  It appears the intellectual honesty is completely gone when it comes to these matters.

I believe if we put the facts on the table of what Islam commands from its adherents, as well as the fact that the leading Islamic organization are a part of the global Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and then we tally up the hundreds of thousands of people killed around the world in the last 10 years by Muslims, it gets a little tough to sympathize with people in the Muslim community getting harassed.

Here is an idea for the Islamic leaders:  stop killing non-Muslims or be prepared for a real backlash.

America’s Fatal Flaw in the War on Terror: Underestimating the Jihadist Enemy

isis-flag-youtube-afp (1)Breitbart, by Kyle Shideler, Dec.16, 2014:

Hillary Clinton recently gave a foreign policy speech in what seems to be part of her early groundwork for an eventual 2016 Presidential candidacy.  In a speech widely panned by conservatives and foreign policy hawks, the former Secretary of State called out for more “smart power”, specifically encouraging that in the pursuit of peace the United States should be,

Leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”

The remarks led to outrage and were called “naïve,” and “irrational.”

But Clinton is correct, although, admittedly, not in the way she meant. One of the largest problems since the beginning of the “Global War on Terror” has been the inability of U.S. policymakers to adequately understand the nature of the threat posed.

We have not shown respect for our enemies as Clinton demands. Instead we have minimized them as a “tiny minority of extremists,” when in reality the imposition of Shariah law-the stated raison d’etre of jihadist groups everywhere- is supported by substantial percentages of Muslim populations throughout the Middle East, Southwest and southeast Asia, and by significant percentages of Muslims in the Europe and North America.

We additionally fail to show respect by not taking our enemies and their ideas seriously. Instead we continuously assert-without evidence- that jihadist organizations, the members of Islamic State, Al Qaeda, etc. are ignorant of their own professed beliefs. We insist on this narrative even though the speakers in almost every video they produce- from the lowest AK-47-wielding foot soldiers to the highest-ranking propaganda spokesmen- remain utterly consistent in the quotation of traditional Islamic scripture, orthodox exegesis and the citation of canonical shariah jurisprudence regarding their actions.

It is we who are ignorant.

Clinton is correct as well in saying we lack empathy, the ability to put ourselves into the shoes of our opponents and understand their mindset sufficiently to know their goals, their dreams, their nature. Empathy is not something that can be outsourced to “cultural experts,” or regional allies. Instead of understanding, we super-impose our own values upon others, assuming that the sorts of things that would motivate us (access to clean water, governmental corruption, poverty etc.) automatically motivate our opponents.

As a result the United States finds itself flat-footed in attempting to comprehend, and respond to the Islamic State-for example- whose efforts to re-establish a Caliphate ruling all Muslims everywhere seems ludicrous to us, but represents a genuine dream held by millions of people around the world. That remains true, even though some of those people may also disagree with ISIS’s leader Abubakr Al-Baghdadi as the head of it.

Instead of genuine empathy, understanding the enemy as he understands himself, Clinton is proposing mere sympathy, an expression of apologetic support because it’s the “polite thing to do.”

Instead of getting into the minds of our opponents, we prefer to see them as aberrations. This is admittedly easy enough to do, with beheadings, forced conversions, sexual slavery and suicide bombings. These things seem alien to us, but they are not aberrations. They are the acts of real people with a different, but equally real, world-view. Viewing the enemy as a mere “aberration” does not lead to victory.

In the Orson Scott Card novel “Ender’s Game,” a piece of military sci-fi which remains part of the USMC Commandant’s Professional Reading List, the main character Ender, a young boy who is being prepared to lead the combined forces of the entire human race against an implacable alien enemy, says:

I don’t know anything about them, and yet someday I’m supposed to fight them. I’ve been through a lot of fights in my life, sometimes games, sometimes- not games. Every time, I’ve won because I could understand the way my enemy thought. From what they *did*. I could tell what they thought I was doing, how they wanted the battle to take shape. And I played off that. I’m very good at that. Understanding how other people think.

What Ender goes on to point out, and what Clinton’s “smart power” formulation misses, is that while understanding is essential to victory, it does not inevitably lead to peace.

Contrary to Clinton’s belief, it may be the case that a genuine understanding of the enemy- an examination of his doctrine and intentions that respects the seriousness of his commitment and the nature of his cause- does not lead to peace. It may lead to recognition that the enemy’s foundational beliefs rest on views of human nature, freedom, the relationship between God and men, and how society is meant to be organized which are fundamentally different from our own.

Hillary Clinton is right. To exercise “smart” power calls for understanding our enemies. But Clinton is wrong if she thinks that understanding the enemy obligates us to acquiesce to them.


Kyle Shideler is the Director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy.

“Islamophobia” Joins the Rainbow Coalition

IslamophobiaThreat-300x181Jihad Watch, by Andrew Harrod, DECEMBER 4, 2014:

“Same-sex marriage bans” and “anti-sharia/anti-‘foreign law’” bills seek “to disenfranchise historically marginalized groups,” according to the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU)’s latest “Islamophobia” study, “Islamophobia: A Threat to All.” An audience of around fifty at a recent panel discussion on the study at Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) witnessed an unconvincing attempt to integrate combatting “Islamophobia” into a broad leftist coalition.

The study’s “manufacturing bigotry” section analyzes correlations between “restrictive legislative agendas” in American state legislatures across six areas: “voter identification,” “immigration laws,” “right-to-work,” “laws restricting abortion rights and access,” and the aforementioned topics. Assessing the study, panel moderator Dalia Mogahed—ISPU research director and longstandinganti-Israel apologist for radical Islam—proclaimed that an “injustice to one is really a threat to all.” ISPU, she added, is however “focused on the Muslim-American community.”

Lead study researcher Saeed Khan dismissed American alarm over sharia law encroachments as prejudice. This lecturer in the department of classical and modern languages, literatures, and cultures at Wayne State University, Detroit is a regular speaker at the University of California, Berkeley’s annual Islamophobia conferences. In light of Obama’s successful elections, Khan strained credulity by predicting that the future replacement of the country’s historic white protestant majority with a “majority-minority country” would cause a “moral panic that America is irreversibly changing.” “Islamophobia within this broader demographic shift,” he argued, “is not really an isolated or unique phenomenon.” Accordingly, one of his PowerPoint presentations recommended that Muslims, “explore potential intersections with other issues,” however unrelated to Islam.

Georgetown labor historian Joseph McCartin—Jesuit employer and Catholic undergraduate education notwithstanding—portrayed anti-sharia efforts as “connected to other regressive policies,” such as opposition to abortion and homosexuality. According to McCartin, homosexuals, feminists, and others allegedly targeted by “regressive policies . . . have to stand together” with sharia’s defenders. Laughably, in his imagination, the “things that unite us are more important than the things that divide us.” Drag queens, burka-clad Muslims, and union workers of the world unite!

In leftist jargon, McCartin described the “othering” of Islam within a “carefully orchestrated attack” on workers and voting rights, while assuming that enforced unionization and a lack of identification safeguards, respectively, best protect these interests. Referencing past animosity towards Irish-Catholic immigrants, while seemingly oblivious to modern American diversity, McCartin reiterated the worn out trope that Americans are only comfortable with minorities “as long as they don’t have power and voice.”

National Black Caucus of State Legislators policy director Ajenai Clemmons, meanwhile, was “incredibly grateful” for a study that is “deeply reaffirming to our experience” of “structural racism.” A “large part of the electorate,” Clemmons claimed, advocates “policies that are especially destructive to people who don’t look like them,” such as racially neutral right-to-work laws. She dismissed voter identification laws, or “legislation ostensibly combatting voter fraud,” as merely “intensifying efforts to suppress the vote.”

While decrying “ultra-conservative messages,” Clemmons praised Democratic congressman Keith Ellison as a “great” example of a Muslim politician. She seconded McCartin’s superficial unity appeal, emphasizing “how important it is for all our communities to collaborate” by “seeing your fate and stakes as one” in “transformational coalition building.” Fortunately, no rousing “kumbaya” rendition followed.

Madihha Ahussein, an attorney with Muslim Advocates (MA), praised the study’s findings that Muslims like her—or those supposedly suffering from “Islamophobia”—are “not alone.” Accordingto the Investigative Project on Terrorism, MA “reflexively criticizes counter-terrorism investigations.” Ahussein claimed there had been a “noted increase” in FBI-recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes since 2010, although 2012 figures show the majority of America’s religiously motivated hate crimes targeting Jews—a longstanding trend. Lamenting that the “industry of hate . . . particularly the anti-Muslim hate network, is very large” and “extremely vocal and active,” she warned that a “huge population on the Internet . . . can mobilize very quickly . . . within seconds.” Rather than the term “Islamophobia,” Ahassein pointed out that MA prefers “anti-Muslim hate or bigotry,” for Islam’s critics “are not afraid of Muslims” and are “very deliberate.”

Jonathan Brown, ACMCU Chair of Islamic Civilization, boasted that co-host ACMCU is a “huge supporter” of research on “civil liberties, Islamophobia,” and “bigotry.” He argued that “to deprive a group of Americans of rights” via “Islamophobia” calls into question American exceptionalism, or Americans’ belief “that there is something special about their country.” Apparently for Brown, victimhood promotion looms larger than America’s considerable human rights legacy.

Although IPSU’s study seeks to foment the type of leftist-Muslim alliance seen throughout the world, most recently in Ferguson, Missouri’s racial unrest, reception attendees indirectly demonstrated the unwieldiness of this coalition. Deepa Iyer, for example, formerly led South Asian Americans Leading Together, a group that has collaborated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a radical faux civil rights group. Yet, demonstrating that not all South Asian “people of color” think alike, Harsh Voruganti’s Hindu-American Foundation has focused on Muslimrepression of Hindus.

Such disparate and, at times, mutually contradictory ethnic and political interests cannot effectively coalesce with some Muslims’ concerns, genuine or not, over “Islamophobia.” Muslims, in turn, risk alienating conservative Americans with ill-considered leftist political alignments. Yet anti-Western Islamic groups have no choice for support and legitimacy other than the political left, given the unifying hatred of Judeo-Christian, bourgeois society in the United States, Israel, and elsewhere. Observers of Islamist groups should carefully consider these political tactics.

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project; follow him on twitter at @AEHarrod. He wrote this essay for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

The Ideology Problem in Timbuktu Is Not al-Qaeda’s Making — It Is Classical Islam

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy:

Andrew’s post describing the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Mali is essential, if excruciating, reading. Beyond the monstrously cruel but all too usual punishments being imposed, I’m struck by two things, which really show how willful blindness leads inexorably to spring fever: The Guardian attributes the atrocious penalties to the “menace of al-Qaida”; it also notes, however, that the “ban [on music] comes in the context of a horrifically literal and gratuitous application of Sharia law in all aspects of daily life.”

Much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, al Qaeda did not make up sharia law. Islam did. And in the West, it is a key tenet of due process that law is imposed literally — ambiguous laws violate the principle that people of ordinary intelligence must be on fair notice of what is prohibited. There’s nothing “gratuitous” about applying as it is written.

16044762We can keep our heads tucked snug in the sand, or we can recognize the source of the problem. As I detail in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the literalist construction of sharia that al Qaeda’s local franchise is enforcing in Mali is “literal” because it comes from Islamic scripture, not from some purportedly “extremist” fabrication of Islam. Moreover, while it seems only militant jihadists proudly urge this construction in practice, it is enthusiastically endorsed in principle by two of the most influential institutions in the Islamic Middle East: al Azhar University and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Don’t just take my word for it. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law is not some al Qaeda pamphlet. It is a renowned explication of sharia’s reliance (1)provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think-tank begun in the early eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”) — and from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West (“We certify,” the famed scholars wrote, that the “translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community…. There is no objection to printing it and circulating it…. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.” There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.).

#more#

Reliance is also endorsed by Islamic authorities in Jordan (leading influences on a largely Palestinian population that may well overthrow the pro-Western monarchy) and Syria (leading influences on the “rebels” on whose side interventionists — including both presidential candidates — would have us jump to abet the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing campaign to oust the minority Alawite Assad regime).

Here, as I summarize in Spring Fever – quoted verbatim and supported by citations — is what Reliance has to say about the arts:

It is forbidden to make pictures of “animate life,” for doing so “imitates the creative act of Allah Most High”; “Whoever makes a picture, Allah shall torture him with it on the Day of Judgment until he can breathe life into it, and he will never be able to.” (Reliance w50.0 & ff.)

“Musical instruments of all types are unlawful.” Singing is generally prohibited (for “song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage), and “[o]n the Day of Resurrection Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” However, if unaccompanied by musical instruments, song and poetry drawn from Islamic scripture and encouraging obedience to Allah are permissible. Ironically, although music is generally forbidden, dancing is permissible “unless it is languid, like the movements of the effeminate.” (Reliance r40.0 &ff.)

Those sharia provisions are complemented by these — again, endorsed by al-Azhar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and our “moderate” “allies” in the region:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

[Note: These latter prohibitions against denying or reviling any aspect of Islam, Allah or the prophet are the basis for imposing death for blasphemy. The call to kill apostates for such offenses obviously applies with equal or greater force to non-Muslims, who are pervasively treated worse than Muslims by sharia (see, e.g., Sura 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which had been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the book [i.e., Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [the poll tax imposed on non-believers for the privilege of living in the Islamic state] and feel themselves subdued.”)]

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity” –zakat can only be given to Muslims and is designed strictly to fortify the Muslim community, not benefit the less fortunate generally); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster…. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1-17.)

Non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various adhesive conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliancep50.0 & ff; p.74.0& ff.)

The penalty for fornication is to be stoned to death, unless one is without the “capacity to remain chaste,” in which case the penalty is “being scourged one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81 km./50mi. for one year.” (Relianceo12.0 & ff.)

The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.)

A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. – Marriage.)

A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliancep42.0 & ff.)

A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliance m13.2-3.)

A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Relianceo14.0.)

The penalty for drinking alcohol is “to be scourged forty stripes.” (Reliance o16.3; p.14.2.)

The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliancep7.0 & ff.)

The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Relianceo24.7.)

If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet … said, “Men are already destroyed when they obey women.” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”)

This is not al Qaeda doctrine. This is sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. It is not the construction of Islam that many Muslims in the West wish to live under. But it is the mainstream supremacist Islam of the Middle East, which Islamic leaders — including those who come to the West to preach it — would not dream of discrediting, even if they are not as enthusiastic as al Qaeda where imposing it is concerned.

The State Department and the leading foreign policy voices of both major American political parties say sharia is perfectly compatible with “democracy” and the Western conception of human rights — of liberty and equality. Sure it is. And then you wonder why the Obama administration opens a consulate in Benghazi, one of the most perilous places in the world for Americans, refuses to safeguard it despite multiple pleas for beefed up security, and then fraudulently claims a pluperfectly predictable atrocity was caused by a video no one ever saw. If you’re going to live in a dreamworld, better get used to nightmare consequences.