Clare Lopez: “Jihad Resurgent: Islamic Challenge, Western Response”.

 

Published on Sep 16, 2014 by Q Society of Australia Inc

Clare Lopez at the Q Society event in Sydney on the evening of 5 September 2014.

RECOMMENDED READING: Understanding The Islamic Caliphate State

Abu Bakr Al-BaghdadiBy Cultural Jihad:

While apologists in the west are clinging to a theme that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam …” Al-Baghdadi is emulating the Prophet Muhammad – the ultimate Islamic role model.”

Much of the western world is under the impression that ISIS/IS (Islamic State) is preparing  to attack western targets.  A report by  The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI),  Understanding Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi And The Phenomenon Of The Islamic Caliphate State, notes that while global attacks are part of the Islamic State’s long term strategy,  it’s current focus is on  “establishing and consolidating a state”:

The successive atrocities committed by the Islamic State (IS, previously called the Islamic State in Iraq and Al-Sham – ISIS) have diverted the discussion away from an understanding of this organization’s political program, creating the erroneous impression that it is simply a more vicious version of Al-Qaeda. According to this view, this organization presumably intends to attack the West by means of its foreign militants who hold Western passports and could return to Western countries to carry out terror attacks – and hence it is paramount to destroy the IS forthwith. Saudi King ‘Abdallah bin ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz promoted this approach when he said that he was certain that those jihadists “would arrive in Europe within a month and in America within two months”.

This report seeks to clarify the IS’s doctrine based on the organization’s official writings and speeches by its leaders. It will argue that, unlike Al-Qaeda, the IS places priority not on global terrorism, but rather on establishing and consolidating a state, and hence it defers the clash with the West to a much later stage. In this, it is emulating and reenacting the early Islamic model.

hijrahIn The Islamic State – building its infrastructure, we highlighted how witness accounts out of Raqqa, Syria indicate  an effort by the Islamic State to attract foreigners to serve as jihadis and experts in various fields to provide infrastructure support.  These accounts seem to fit the narrative of the MEMRI report:

What supplants the struggle against the West at this stage are the duties of hijra [migration to the Islamic calipahte state] and bay’ah[pledge of allegiance to the Caliph], both of them central components in building the caliphate. In an audio message published immediately after the caliphate was declared, Al-Baghdadi said to Muslims everywhere,  including in the West: “Whoever amongst you can migrate to the Islamic State should migrate. Hijra to Dar Al-Islam is obligatory.” In his first public appearance, his Friday sermon in Mosul,  he referred to the implementation of the shari’a as “a religious obligation,” while avoiding any call to global jihad or to harming the West. Both Al-‘Adnani in the declaration of the caliphate and Al-Baghdadi in his Mosul sermon refer to the caliphate as an “obligation that has been forgotten for generations.” In this, their discourse contrasts sharply, for example, with the discourse of Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Salam Faraj, a major theorist of the Egyptian jihad movement in the 1980s, who termed jihad (rather than the establishment of a caliphate) the forgotten obligation.


The MEMRI report also notes that Al-Qaeda publications such as Inspire constantly call for terror attacks on the west and include advice/instructions on how to proceed as a “lone wolf” or in groups.  In comparison, an issue of  the Islamic State’s English publication Dabiq included,  “A life of jihad is impossible until you pack your belongings and move to the caliphate.” :

The issue also says: “Many readers are probably asking about their obligations towards the Khilafah right now. Therefore the Dabiq team wants to convey the position of the Islamic State leadership on this important matter. The first priority is to perform hijra from wherever you are to the Islamic State, from darul-kufr to darul-Islam. Rush to perform it as Musa (‘alayhis-salam) rushed to his Lord, saying {and I hastened to You, my Lord, that You be pleased} [Taha:84]. Rush to the shade of the Islamic state with your parents, siblings, spouses and children. There are homes here for you and your families. You can be a major contributor towards the liberation of Makkah, Madinah, and al-Quds. Would you not like to reach Judgment Day with these grand deeds in your scales[?] Finally, if you cannot do any of the above for reasons extremely beyond your control, inshallah your intention and belief that the Islamic State is the Khilafah for all Muslims will be sufficient to save you from the warning mentioned in the hadith, ‘Whoever dies without having bound himself by a bay’ah dies a death of jahiliyya.’”

While apologists in the west are clinging to a theme that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, the MEMRI report points out:

In his approach that prioritizes the consolidation of the Islamic State over an all-encompassing battle with Islam’s enemies, Al-Baghdadi is emulating the Prophet Muhammad – the ultimate Islamic role model. The Prophet, while displaying cruelty in battle – cruelty mirrored by the IS – put off battles with his enemies and integrated compromises and tactical agreements in his policy, in order to gather strength prior to renewing action to obtain his ultimate goals. The IS, ruling from its informal capital in Syria’s Al-Raqqa, conducts itself in a similar manner, enforcing the laws of the shari’a while selling oil to Europe via the black market.

In other words, Al-Baghdadi and his Islamic State are attempting to repeat history as described in the Quran.

Despite the emphasis on the Islamic State’s current priority in  establishing and consolidating a state, the MERI report cautions:

It should be emphasized that, although the doctrine of postponing the clash with the West is solidly entrenched, as reflected in the organization’s writings and actions, it cannot be ruled out that certain developments, such as a massive Western attack, could change the organization’s order of priorities and advance the stage of conflict with the West. The Western strategy of nipping the Islamic State in the bud may provoke counterattacks that were not planned by the organization at the outset. This places the West in a bind: inaction endangers the West in the long run, while immediate action may exact a heavy price that Al-Baghdadi did not plan to exact in the present stage.

The full report, Understanding Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi And The Phenomenon Of The Islamic Caliphate State can be read HERE

Foreign Fighters and the Religious Foundation of Jihad

ISISSSSSSBlind Eagle, Brian Fairchild / July 23, 2014:

Over the past three years, the Syrian civil war has attracted over 12,000 young radicalized Muslims who left their homes and rushed to join the jihad.  In early July 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) created a new Caliphate that is expected to attract many thousands more, a situation described by the US Attorney General as a “global crisis”.

Many of the foreign fighters, most in their early to mid-20s, hail from Western countries such as Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK.  American officials estimate that over 100 American Muslims have joined them.  This fact begs the question:  why did these young Muslims leave their homes to travel abroad and join the jihad?  An accurate and unbiased answer to this question is crucial if the US is to have an effective counter-terrorism policy.

The answer, at the most fundamental strategic level, is that the ranks of foreign fighters are filled by Muslims who accept a Salafi interpretation of Islam and join the jihad because of their religious beliefs.  Salafism is an ancient ultraconservative form of Sunni Islam which demands that Muslims live by an unquestioning literal acceptance of Allah’s commands in the Qur’an (Sharia law), and they wage jihad because numerous Qur’anic verses command them to do so.

The United States government, however, rejects this basic strategic fact.  At a speaking engagement in mid-August 2009,John Brennan, then counter terrorism advisor to the president and current CIA director, emphasized President Obama’s rejection of any religious dimension:

  • Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against “jihadists.” Describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, “jihad,” meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.”

The president was so adamant in his position, that, in 2010, he ordered the removal of all religious terms such as “jihad” and “Islamic extremism” from the US National Security Strategy assessment, effectively stopping the government from any inquiries involving a connection between Islam and terrorism.  In explanation, the administration states that admitting to a connection between Islam and terrorism would bestow legitimacy on the terrorists, insult Islam, and alienate Muslims, so it unilaterally decided to remove Islam from the equation and to henceforth refer to Islamist terrorists as simply “violent extremists”.

The facts, however, contradict the administration’s position.  On July 22, 2014, in a follow-up report to the 9/11 Commission investigation, the commissioners noted that:

  • “A senior national security official told us that the forces of Islamist extremism in the Middle East are stronger than in the last decade…Officials are also deeply concerned at the region’s seemingly endless supply of disaffected young people vulnerable to being recruited as suicide bombers.”

The majority of the world’s Muslims understand the religious extremism of the terrorists all too well given that they are their predominant target.  A 2013 Pew Research poll reveals that “across 11 Muslim publics surveyed…, a median of 67% say they are somewhat or very concerned about Islamic extremism. In five countries – Pakistan, Jordan, Tunisia, Turkey and Indonesia – Muslim worries about extremism have increased in the past year”.[1]

The president of Egypt also understands and accepts the connection between terrorism and Islam.  On January 31, 2014, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, called for changes within Islam that amount to an Islamic Reformation saying:

  • Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, pointing to the need for anew 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 administration’s own key Muslim partners, too, have explicitly admitted just how permeated Islam is by the extremist interpretation.  The following two examples are especially significant because they come from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which considers itself to be the leader of the Sunni Muslim world due to the fact that it is the Protector of the Two Holy Cities –Mecca and Medina, where Islam was revealed to the prophet and flourished:

  • Far from trying to hide the religious foundation of Islamist terrorism, on May 16, 2009,  Saudi Arabia’s Assistant Minister of the Interior told Ambassador Richard Holbrooke that al Qaeda hijacked Islam, stating “Terrorists stole the most valuable things we have…They took our faith and our children and used them to attack us”.  Moreover, he expressed no hesitation telling Holbrooke how far Islamist penetration had succeeded in the Kingdom, stating that in 2003 the Saudis discovered Islamist radicals in “90 percent” of the mosques.
  • On May 24, 2009, Ambassador Holbrooke was given a counter-terrorism briefing by the Saudi Ministry of the Interior that revealed the ancient Islamic roots of Salafi ideology and how it spread:

“The counterterrorism briefing began with history and geography:  Briefer Captain Bandar Al-Subaie said the Takfiriideology behind extremist groups dated back to the earliest days of Islam, and had figured in the killings of two early Caliphs.  Its tenets were reflected in the beliefs of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and had spread from there to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then to the Arabian Peninsula where it had been taken up by modern day terrorists including Al-Qaeda (AQ).”

Moreover, an analysis of ISIS’ recent actions and proclamations provides more than enough proof to show that it is not just a gang of sectarian “violent extremists”, but a radical Islamist religious movement.

  • Note:  The following analysis includes numerous citations to Qur’anic verses.  Except for black highlighting, none of the citations have been altered in any way; they are all copied verbatim exactly as they appear in The Noble Qur’an:  English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, published by the King Fahd Complex of the Saudi Arabian Government.  Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the word of God verbally revealed to Muhammad, in Arabic, through the angel Gabriel.  All of the verses in the Qur’an (which constitute Sharia law) are considered direct commands in God’s voice.     

 According to the US administration, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the new Islamic State are no more than “violent extremists” perpetrating regional sectarian violence.  As such, their communications are considered to be simply hate speech or exhortations to violence and of no real intelligence value.

The reality, however, is quite to the contrary.  On July 5, 2014, al-Baghdadi made his debut appearance in a video at the Great Mosque of al-Nouri in Mosul, Iraq.  Wearing Islamic garb and sporting a long beard, he made a speech that was carefully crafted specifically to establish his religious legitimacy to rule all Muslims as the leader of the new Caliphate.

Al-Baghdadi’s speech occurred during the Muslim month of Ramadan, and he opened by stating that “Ramadan is a month to wage jihad”, noting that the Prophet Muhammad made armies and fought the “polytheists” during this month.  This reference sent a particularly potent message to Muslims, especially to radicalized Salafis, who understood its implications.

The Prophet Muhammad led Islam’s two most important battles during Ramadan – the very first battle – the Battle of Badr, and the Battle of Mecca.  In Islamic history, Muhammad, against all odds, was victorious at the desert oasis of Badr as a result of Allah’s divine intervention.  At the Battle of Mecca, he deployed an Army of 10,000 and the city fell virtually without resistance.  The victory at Mecca consolidated Muhammad’s power and caused the surrounding tribes to join him.  The few remaining opposing tribes were quickly subdued.

The parallels to al-Baghdadi are unmistakable.  Al-Baghdadi’s total force is estimated to be around 10,000.  He emerged out of the desert and, against all odds, defeated the Iraqi military with many Iraqi units running from his advance.  He consolidated his power in the new Islamic State, and the surrounding tribes have joined him.  He is currently pursuing the remaining opposition.  He also claimed that the success he and his mujahideen have achieved was only possible because they “have been bestowed upon by Allah to achieve victory” – divine intervention.

After referencing Ramadan, al-Baghdadi quoted the Qur’an – Chapter 51, Verse 56, “I (Allah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship me (alone)”[2], which reminded all Muslims that they were created to submit to and follow the commands of Allah.  Having established this basic tenet of Islam, he followed by saying that Allah commanded them to fight against his enemies and then paraphrased Allah’s command to “Wage jihad using your wealth and yourself for the sake of Allah”, which appears in the Qur’an Chapter 9, Verse 41:

  • “March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), and strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah.  This is better for you, if you but knew.”[3]

To reinforce this point, he immediately quoted two additional jihad commands – “I have ordered you to fight even though you do not like it”, which paraphrases Qur’an Chapter 2, Verse 216:

  • Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you.  Allah knows but you do not know.”[4]

As well as, “And fight them so there is no discord and this religion is for all people to adopt in their life for Allah”, which paraphrases Chapter 2, Verse 193:

  • And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone)…”[5]

Having amply established each Muslim’s duty to wage jihad, he then told his audience what the jihad is for – to establish Allah’s religion on earth through the creation of a Caliphate ruled by Sharia law, after which he announced the creation of the new Caliphate with himself elected as its Imam.

This speech is nothing but religious.  It methodically used Qur’anic references to make the Sharia case to all Muslims that al-Baghdadi’s jihad, his recent victories, and the establishment of the new Caliphate are all Islamically legal and sanctioned by Allah.  It was devoid of any other content.

ISIS’ strict adherence to Sharia law is not only confined to the new Imam’s speeches, however.  On July 21, 2014, ISIS gave Christians in Mosul an ultimatum:  to convert to Islam, submit to Islam and pay the Jizya (a tax for Muslim protection), or die.

These threats were described in the media and by government officials as another example of the group’s intolerance and mindless “sectarian” violence, but with no other significance.  This superficial assessment, however, misses the larger point.  The threats are an integral part of Sharia as commanded by Allah in Qur’an Chapter 9, Verse 29:

  • Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger Muhammad, (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”[6]

Even the most barbaric of ISIS crimes adhere to Sharia.  In late May 2014, news reports surfaced that ISIS had crucified a number of its opponents, which is commanded in Chapter 5, Verse 33:

  • “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.  That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.”[7]

In mid-June 2014, reports surfaced of ISIS beheadings, which is commanded in Chapter 47, Verse 4:

  • “So, when you meet (in fight – Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them…”[8]

Understanding the religious foundation of ISIS and all other Salafi-jihadi organizations is not just an academic exercise.  The definition of an enemy dictates how national resources are used to combat it.  As the facts above reveal, ISIS is not a regional, sectarian organization seeking a place for Sunnis in Iraq’s political structure.  Nor is it just a band of thugs committing violence for violence’s sake.  It is a radical religious movement that transcends borders.  In the minds of its leaders and followers it is fighting a holy war justified by Allah’s commands in the Qur’an (Sharia law).  It is not driven by regional political ambition, but by religious zeal.  The young radical Muslims that flock to it share the same religious beliefs and zealotry.

Brian Fairchild bio.

“Our Present Is Your Future”

Gates of Vienna:

Below is the prepared text of the speech given in Chanhassen, Minnesota tonight by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, at an event sponsored by SW Metro Tea Party Patriots and ACT! for America, Minneapolis Chapter.

esw-churchLadies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me here to Chanhassen. It’s the first time I’ve been to Minnesota, and I must say it’s a pleasure to be here. The closest I came to this part of the country was when I lived in Chicago, but that was many years ago.

I have always admired the Tea Party Movement, contrary to most of my fellow Austrians, who are uneducated when it comes to the historical significance of the original Boston Tea Party. What I admire most is that you are nourished by the very American belief that the government does not have the answers, that reform comes from below, that people are wiser than their leaders.

I bring you greetings from Austria. I’d like to be able to report some happy news, but there is little good news to be had in my country. Austria, like most of the rest of Western Europe, is being Islamized at an accelerating pace, even as our freedom of speech is more and more often suppressed. The two processes are connected with each other: in order to prevent any real public understanding of what Islamization means, and to inhibit any popular discontent, the ability to tell the truth is vigorously squashed.

Those of you who know me are aware that I will NOT cease telling the truth about Islam. For almost ten years I have made it my business to inform my fellow Austrians about the nature of Islam, as revealed in the Koran and the sayings of Mohammed. I refuse to cease my activities merely because dhimmi government bureaucrats consider such truths to be “hate speech”. In the past I have been prosecuted and convicted for explaining Islam in a factual manner, and I may well be prosecuted again. But I shall continue regardless.

Similar conditions exist in other European countries. Austria is not even the worst-off — Britain and Sweden are vying with each other to see who can be the most repressive. In both countries you are likely to be prosecuted for saying anything that reflects badly on Islam. And, just as in Austria, the truth is no defense.

As an example, consider what happened to my good friend Paul Weston, a Counterjihad activist and the leader of the LibertyGB party in Britain. Last April, as a part of his election campaign for the European Parliament, Paul stood on the steps of the Winchester Guildhall and quoted from a book written in 1899 called The River War. He recited the following words:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

Someone in earshot heard his words, took offense, and called the police. Paul was eventually arrested, taken to the police station, and charged with “incitement of racial hatred”, which is a “racially aggravated crime under Section 4 of the Public Order Act.” The charges were later dropped, but what happened to him served as a warning to others who might consider doing something similar.

All of this is bad enough — to be arrested for reading from an old book that makes politically incorrect observations about Islam. But that book happens to have been written by a man named WINSTON CHURCHILL.

Such is the sad state of affairs in Modern Multicultural Britain: an English citizen can now be arrested for giving a public reading from a book by the greatest British prime minister who ever lived.

I could cite more examples from all over Western Europe, but if I did I would exceed my allotted time and keep all of us up long past our bedtime. Someone is arrested almost every day in Europe for “hate speech”, and the offending words almost always concern Islam.

There is currently a demand by the Islamic Faith Community in Austria for an “anti-Islamism law”, which is actually a ruse to obtain new favorable provisions for Muslims. The drive for this law is being backed by Turkey. The same law is also being demanded in Germany by the Turkish community. The final result, if they are successful, will be that Muslims in both countries will gain further special privileges and be protected from criticism.

Truth is the first victim when our freedoms are threatened. Seraphina Verhofstadt was asked in a TV interview why she still displays the Israeli flag after being beaten up, and whether it would not be wiser to remove it. She answered: “If I do that, I will also lose my freedom of speech.”

I have been asked frequently after my conviction whether it would not be wiser just to stop talking about Islam “in this way”. My answer is: “If I do that, more people will lose their freedom of speech.”

First we lose truth, then we lose freedoms, and finally we lose life itself.

As I have said previously, “There is no free speech in Austria and in Europe. That’s just an illusion; that’s just what the politicians are telling you. If you wanted a definition of European free speech, I would say, ‘Well, you have the right to say anything as long as it’s within what the government tells you to think.’”

Our politicians, similar to yours here in the United States are members of the Global Ministry of Truth, with its policy that Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists. They are forcing truth upon us, preventing us from seeking truth and knowledge.

The engine driving the assault on civil liberties in Europe is the presence of millions of Muslims. It’s not just that the Islamic population is large enough in most major cities to pose the risk of mob violence when roused. Muslims also tend to vote as a bloc, and mostly for the socialist parties, so that the ruling establishment falls all over itself to cater to Islamic needs in order to retain its hold on power. Muslims require that there be no public criticism of Islam, so all such speech is in the process of being outlawed. Related issues, such as mass immigration from the Third World, may also trigger the same penalties under the same laws.

Within its borders Europe now has an Islamic population equivalent to that of Saudi Arabia. Due to their aggressive behavior and their group solidarity, Muslims wield an influence far beyond what their numbers would suggest. Muslim demands tend to be enacted as public policy, and what they dislike tends to be outlawed. Halal food is served to everyone at public schools, and gender segregation is instituted at public swimming pools. Muslims are granted special exemptions from dress codes, the right to pray in rooms specially set aside for them, and the right to blast the call to prayer at ungodly hours from the minarets of their mosques.

Not surprisingly, anti-Semitism has risen to a level not seen in Europe since the fall of the Third Reich. And, needless to say, the new Jew-hatred largely originates with European Muslims — the “New Swedes”, the “New Germans”, and the “New Austrians”.

Yes, there are anti-Semitic native Europeans. But they are few in number, and their political parties are generally considered a joke in most countries. The two most significant Jew-hating parties are Jobbik in Hungary and Golden Dawn in Greece. The former arose in a former East Bloc country where pre-war attitudes were preserved by communism like a fly in amber. The latter developed out of the despair and chaos of economic ruin in the most destitute country in Europe — much as the National Socialists did in Germany during the Great Depression.

People outside of Europe, especially talking heads on television, tend to lump the anti-jihad parties in with Golden Dawn and Jobbik as “right-wing extremists”. But this is a false grouping: such parties are quite different. The anti-jihad parties support Israel, promote civil liberties, and generally espouse a classical liberal philosophy. Examples include the PVV in the Netherlands, the Danish People’s Party, the Sweden Democrats, the Austrian Freedom Party, and the Lega Nord in Italy. What they all have in common is their opposition to Islamization and mass immigration.

The rising anti-Semitism in Europe is Islamic anti-Semitism, which, as chronicled by my good friend Dr. Andrew Bostom, is as old as Islam itself. It is sanctioned — even mandated — by the Koran and the sayings of Mohammed. There is no Muslim community in Europe, not even the most “mainstream”, that is not rife with Jew-hatred.

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

The recent formation of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq has drawn the world’s attention to the true nature of Islam. Images of the horrors unleashed by ISIS have spread all over the world via YouTube and social media. Our cowardly political leaders repeatedly deny that there is any justification in Islam for these acts. They keep telling us: “ISIS does not represent the true Islam”.

Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The Islamic State has returned to the core instructions recorded in the Koran, which Muslims consider to be the word of Allah. This IS the real Islam.

And this is the pernicious ideology that was deliberately imported into Europe along with millions of Muslim immigrants from North Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Subcontinent. The process began forty years ago, and has been chronicled by Bat Ye’or in her ground-breaking book Eurabia. The first Oil Crisis in 1973 induced European governments to strike a Faustian bargain with Arab countries: in return for a guaranteed flow of oil at a relatively stable price, they were required to support the Palestinian cause, and also allow mass immigration from OPEC countries into Europe.

Four decades later, the results are as I have described. Our political leaders may well regret the decisions their predecessors made back then, but it is now far too late to reverse course. Not only is Muslim anger a potential threat to the civil order, but those in power depend on Muslim votes to keep them there. All they can do is double down on their failed policies, allowing more immigration, granting more concessions to Islam, and paying out billions and billions of additional euros in welfare and other subsidies.

Ladies and gentlemen, this will not end well.

Read more

Honor the 9/11 Dead: Defeat the Enemy & Punish Those Supporting Them

WTC-and-Pentagon-on-9-11By John Guandolo at Understanding the Threat, September 11, 2014:

It is 13 years after September 11, 2001.

How are we honoring those slain on that day? How are we honoring those in uniform who have given the last full measure of devotion for a cause they believed is truly right and just?

In preparation for his speech Wednesday night (9/10/14), America’s President sought council from the King of Saudi Arabia – the largest financial sponsor of the global jihad.

At the leadership level of our federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies, “catastrophically ignorant” is the only appropriate way to describe their status with regards to our enemy.  And yet our leaders shut down meaningful, fact/evidence based training on this enemy in compliance with the requests of their Muslim Brotherhood masters.

Nearly every major Islamic organization in the United States has been identified in U.S. federal terrorism trials as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement with the stated goal of destroying America from within via Civilization Jihad.  Yet, our President, National Security Council, State Department, FBI, DHS, Pentagon, and others, ONLY rely on Islamic advisors who are leaders of known MB organizations or affiliated with the MB Movement.

Around the world the Islamic armies are overthrowing nations, brutally murdering non-Muslims (over 100,000 Christians per year in the last few years) by beheading them, crucifying them, burying them alive, and the like – all of which comports to Sharia (Islamic Law).  Yet our leaders say this war has “nothing to do with Islam.”

Because of cowardly and criminally negligent leadership on both sides of the political aisle in America, in our Universities, in our churches, and across our media, the enemy has been given wide latitude to push their jihadi movement forward with great force and success.

We wouldn’t want to offend them after all.

On Wednesday (9/10/14), demonstrating the light of hope for rational thought is still alive, Vice President Dick Cheney called (19:06) for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and noted they are the root of the global jihad.  At the same time this administration materially supports the MB and Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria against the sitting governments.  All of us would be in jail for such actions.

This behavior, in no way honors the 9/11 dead or our troops who have died in battle.  It is time we rectify this.  It is time to engage and defeat the enemy and punish those who support them.

It is time to recognize the fact that the enemy leading the MB Movement in America wearing suits and spending time with our leaders in cities like Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York, Nashville, Denver, Charlotte, Miami, Dallas, Detroit, and others, is the same enemy  cutting off children’s heads and putting them on pikes in Syria and Iraq.  It is the same enemy our troops fought and are fighting in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, North/Central/East Africa, and elsewhere.  This is the global Islamic Movement with one unified goal – the establishment of a global Islamic state (caliphate) under which Sharia (Islamic Law) is the law of the land.

Our Constitutional Republic stands on the principle that God gave us our liberty and no man nor any government may take that liberty from us.  That is the ideal found in our Declaration.  Our Constitution is the first great attempt to make that ideal a reality.  Since its inception, our nation has been the most prosperous, generous, and virtuous in the history of mankind.  Not perfect, but our system requires the drive towards liberty and away from tyranny.

The Islamic Movement seeks to impose Sharia, which necessarily enslaves people and strips them of their God-given liberty.  Women are property under Islamic Law.  Apostates and homosexuals must be killed if they do not repent and change their ways under Islamic Law.  Non-muslims must convert, be killed, or submit to Sharia and pay the non-muslim poll tax under Islamic Law.  100% of all published Islamic law agree on these matters.

This enemy only understands one thing – strength and power.  We must exert our strength and power and ensure the enemy knows we will not surrender anymore ground, and we will retake the ground lost thus far.

It is time for the think tanks across this nation to stop mincing words about this Islamic enemy by creating fictitious meaningless phrases which do anything but identify the enemy.  We must recognize that at the nation-state level (hint: Organization of Islamic Cooperation), there is a global war being waged by an Islamic enemy, and we appear to be the only ones unaware.

It is time to shut down the thousands of MB front groups and Islamic Centers in America – which the MB itself says are places from which the jihad will be launched.  All of the MB leaders should be treated like the jihadis (“terrorists”) they are.

Saudi Arabia should be handled like the terrorist state it is.  Men like former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar, who funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,  should be treated as a “terrorist,” as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the U.S. government knows are currently funding the global jihad.

Men like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, one of the richest men in the world and a leading funder of the global jihad, and who sits on the board of Time Warner  and News Corp, should be handled like any other terrorist, not like an executive of a media giant.

George Soros has created thousands of organizations which work daily to undermine our Constitutional Republic.  Included in these are many organizations, like the New America Foundation, which directly support and work with the Islamic Movement.  Mr. Soros, his enterprise, and at least one of his sons all work to support our enemies and destroy this nation, and all should spend the rest of their days behind bars for it.

Leaders of DHS, FBI, CIA, State Department, and other branches of the government, as well as elected officials who:  continue to appoint Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, and Al Qaeda individuals to positions of authority inside our bureaucracy; give quarter to our enemies; apologize for and defend their actions; attend functions to raise money for the jihadis; and aid and abet them in any way, should meet the fate of a traitor because they have and are violating the law – not to mention violating their Oath of Office to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies.”

When men like Denis McDonough, the President’s former Deputy National Security Advisor, publicly laud leaders of MB organizations and funders of Hamas like Imam Mohamed Magid of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), allow him to have input on U.S. foreign policy and domestic counterterrorism strategies, and give him a security clearance and access to sensitive U.S. systems, Mr. McDonough should go to jail, not get promoted.

When the FBI Director collaborates with leaders of Hamas (dba “CAIR”), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and other jihadis, and then testifies before Congress that he did not know the place where the Boston Marathon bombers were radicalized was founded by an Al Qaeda operative – and Americans are dead – well…we put doctors and lawyers in jail for criminal negligence like this.

When elected officials and law enforcement leaders raise money for Hamas in America, they should be prosecuted for a variety of charges, including material support for terrorism.  They are breaking the law and should pay the price for directly supporting our enemies.

The President himself has violated his oath of office and federal law, abused his powers of the office he holds, and has exposed America and its people to grave dangers on a number of levels.  At no time in history has such a gross disregard for the Constitution been so evident, yet the American people so silent.

It is time for those who give aid and comfort, propaganda, material support, and financial reward to our enemies to pay a price.  And it should be a harsh price.

If we are to honor the great and heroic sacrifices of all of the men and women who gave their lives on 9/1/01 and since, it is time for America to shed its weak and traitorous leadership and begin to retake our place in the world as the strong, principled leader we are and were meant to be.

If Americans would like to experience on U.S. streets what we are witnessing in Syria, Iraq, Niger, Mali, Pakistan, and elsewhere around the world, then let us continue on the road we are on of capitulation and defeat.

If we want to stand on the wall and defend Western civilization, the actions advocated here are much less severe than we will have to engage in when the enemy makes itself prominently known in our hometowns.

John Guandolo bio

Interfaith dupes: Chautauqua Institution partners with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s Cordoba House

At Chautauqua Institution, the Truth About Qaradawi and Terrorism Will Out

By RACHEL LIPSKY:

To fully appreciate the meaning of interfaith dialogues with so-called “moderate” Muslims and friends, consider the apt Sears Optical commercial. “Mama,” Kitty’s myopic owner, fails to see without her glasses. She opens the door to let Kitty in to “snuggle with mama” but instead, a raccoon―known to carry rabies―runs in and jumps in with ‘mama’ on her cozy bed.

Consider this an analogy for a distressing drama in progress at Chautauqua Institution, a strikingly beautiful summer retreat in Chautauqua, N.Y. While enveloped by pastoral landscape, Lake Chautauqua, beautiful houses and gardens, and enriched by music, visual arts, ballet, opera, symphony, chamber music and much more, Chautauqua is opening its doors to another sort of rabid beast.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf speaks with Maureen Rovegno, associate director of the Department of Religion, and the Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, former director of the department.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf speaks with Maureen Rovegno, associate director of the Department of Religion, and the Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, former director of the department.

After toying with the idea for many years, Chautauqua’s religion department this summer announced plans to add a Cordoba House to the Institution’s “Abrahamic family,” to be led by the infamous Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a move it describes as “highly supported by Chautauqua Faith leaders.”

What’s the rush? Why now, when bands of Islamic brigands roam much of the Middle East and Africa, and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers worldwide endanger Western civilization? Why at this moment, as Islamic jihadists slaughter Christians throughout the entire Middle East as well as elsewhere. After all, Chautauqua Institution was founded by Protestant Christians.

Rather than outrage over endemic tyrannical Islamic abuses of Christians, associate religion department director Maureen Rovegno expresses what an objective individual could at best describe as naiveté:

“The only way that this fear [of Islam] can be alleviated, or neutralized, is to get to know each other in a personal way.” As the Psalm goes: ‘How good is it, and how pleasant, when people dwell together in unity’.”

Thus, only this summer, Chautauqua featured five influential Muslim Brotherhood functionaries and apologists as guest speakers: Former Islamic Circle of North America president Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, Imam Rauf, Dalia Mogahed, Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, a Georgetown University professor and head of its Prince Alwaeed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, eponymous for the Saudi royal who in 2005 donated $20 million to the center.

espositoEsposito has long espoused views consistent with Brotherhood doctrine and during the 1990′s was known to claim that Islamic fundamentalism, in fact, was democratic and posed no threat to the U.S. Esposito has also served with global Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusef Qaradawi―since 1999 banned for his terror support from entry to the U.S.―at both the Institue of Islamic Political Thought and the Circle of Tradition and Progress as well as the United Association For Studies and Research (USAR), part of the Hamas’ U.S. Muslim Brotherhood support infrastructure.

On Aug. 15, 2014, I tried to question Esposito following his presentation at the Chautauqua Hall of Philosophy. Chaos briefly ensued. I began with a referral to Sheikh Qaradawi, the MB spiritual leader banned in the U.S., and a major supporter of Hamas―the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I stated:

John Esposito is known to view Sheikh Yusef Qaradawi as a “reformist.”

Karen Armstrong considers him a moderate.

Imam Rauf favorably describes him as the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”

Dalia Mogahed, a featured Chautauqua speaker during the Week on Egypt, conducted her first interview with Qaradawi on his Islam Online website.

(All four, presumably involved with Chautauqua’s future Muslim House, were the Institution’s guest speakers this summer.)

I intended to share the following data on the horrors that Qaradawi sanctions, authorizes and stands for. Esposito refused to let me read even a small sample of Qaradawi’s edicts:

・  Qaradawi condones female genital mutilation;

・  Qaradawi endorses  killing Muslims who leave Islam (apostates);

・  Qaradawi claims that Hitler was sent by Allah to punish the Jews (see video);

・  Qaradawi declares force a legitimate means to establish or support Islamic principles (“changing wrong by force whenever possible”)  Priorities of the Islamic Movement chapter

・  Qaradawi promotes Islamic conquest of the West;

・  Qaradawi describes the mosque as a political institution to mobilize participants for jihad;

・  Qaradawi endorsed the use of suicide bombers and killing Americans in Iraq.

Time clearly was not at issue. The preceding questioner was as short as possible. To paraphrase, he asked (55:13-55:45)

The U.S. state department declares Hamas a terrorist organization. Would you be willing to denounce Hamas?”

Esposito claimed that this was not his topic. When pressed, Esposito again dodged.

At other Chautauqua assemblies, questioners ran on at length but asked no question—and received applause. On Jul. 15, 2014, after Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid spoke, for example, another woman stood in the same Hall of Philosophy and for two minutes (1:03:27 – 1:05:05) bemoaned the fate of Sami Al-Arian, a “convicted terrorist-supporting felon, …under…separate indictment for criminal contempt,” as if he were a “poor victim.” Al Arian workedwith the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and served as a board member. In September 1991, Al Arian was caught on tape declaring:

These people – whom God, the Glorious and sublime, had made into monkeys and pigs, had become discontent and angry with, had cursed in this world and in the hereafter… [Koran 5:78, 5:60, and related Hadith]”

On Aug. 15, by contrast, I could have finished my question in under one minute. However, Esposito interrupted repeatedly and instructed me to “show some civility.” (55:50 – 58:40) This same man refers to the wicked Qaradawi ― for good reason banned from the U.S. for 15 years ― as a “reformist” and “continues to consider Al-Arian a ‘very close friend’ and ‘a man of conscience with a strong commitment to peace and social justice’.” Obviously, he wished only to conceal the truth.

Fellow audience members shouted me down, displaying appallingly belligerent disrespect. They thus unveiled Chautauqua’s general tolerance for such fascist attitudes: not a single voice asked the hecklers to behave with decorum.

Read more at PJ Media

Also see:

London Imam Choudary to Hannity: You Have ‘No Choice,’ Sharia Is ‘Coming to a Place Near You’

 

Truth Revolt, by  Caleb Howe:

On Wednesday night, Fox News’ Sean Hannity interviewed Muslim cleric, Imam Anjem Choudary, who made outrageous claims including direct threats against the United States, should give any non-Muslim pause, . His point of view closely aligns with ISIS and is all too common in Great Britain.

Not only is Choudary a controversial and high profile cleric, but his followers reportedly indoctrinated and radicalized Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, the main suspect in the barbaric beheading of James Foley. He also recently sent some terrible, treasonous tweets about Great Britain, for which there appear to be no consequences. Hannity highlighted one of those tweets at the beginning of the interview to set the tone.

Anjem tweet

During the interview the Imam did not temper his words with caution, but doubled and tripled down, going so far as to claim that the United States, too, would come under sharia law.

Among the more disturbing of his responses to Hannity’s questions were these:

“If the Americans bomb and murder hundreds of thousands of people, and they torture people, and they continue to do so in Guantanamo Bay, obviously this will have repercussions. I think it was your own master George Bush who said either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists. And you know, we’re not with America definitely, so we must be with the terrorists.”

On the persecution of Christians in Iraq:

“The Christians are actually queuing up to come back into Mosul because they realize life under the sharia is much better than the Nouri Al-Maliki regime which the Americans propped up and who was murdering and torturing the people in the region.”

On the implementation of ISIS’ goals:

“I’m afraid you are living in a dream world. The Sharia will be implemented in America. It’s coming to a place very close to you.”

Should women who commit adultery be stoned to death?

“Both men and women, if there are witnesses, or they are self-confession, of course they will be punished. In Islam there is punishment.”

Should gay people be stoned to death?

“Under the Islamic state, people will not be doing this relationship in the public community. If they do, then there will be punishment. Of course.”

On support of Israel’s self-defense:

“When you live in America, you can believe that. The rest of the world think you’re crazy.”

And the quote of the day. Sean says “I don’t want your sharia law, and neither does anybody in Great Britain that has a brain.” The Imam responds definitively:

“You will have no choice about it Sean. It’s coming to a place near you. It’s coming to a place near you.”

This is the voice of the enemy. To continue to turn a blind eye and deaf ear, as the American left and others would have you do, is simply absurd. It is hard to imagine what more an aggressive, militarized group can do to be clear that they are the enemy. At this point words like “non-interventionist” are just replacement words for “cowardice.”

 

More commentary on the interview:

UK’s Anjem Choudary Justifies Beheading of James Foley

UK Islamist cleric Anjem Choudary (center)

UK Islamist cleric Anjem Choudary (center)

By Ryan Mauro:

Anjem Choudary, an Islamist cleric in Britain, spoke to the Clarion Project and said reports linking him to Abdel Majed Abdel Bary, the British rapper identified as the Islamic State terrorist who beheaded American journalist James Foley. However, he justified the atrocity and endorsed the caliphate declared by the Islamic State.

Choudary denied ever meeting Bary or his father, an Al-Qaeda member involved in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa who was extradited to the U.S. in 2012 from Britain. Choudary said his group did protest the elder Bary’s prolonged detention in the United Kingdom since 1998.

He also rejected press reports that his organization radicalized Bary. Choudary said no one in his group ever mentioned meeting Bary and that he’s confident someone would have discussed it if they had.

Choudary told the Clarion Project that the beheading of Foley by the Islamic State is permissible under sharia (Islamic) law.

“Muslims who abide by the sharia and follow the jurisprudence do not make a distinction between civilians and army,” he said.

Read more at Clarion Project

DECLARE WAR ON SHARIAH

iraq-machine-guns-held-aloft-afpBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR., Aug. 24.2014:

The National Journal called earlier this week for the United States to “declare war on ISIS.” The magazine is right to argue for a new authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), a legislative vehicle that passes these days for a congressional declaration of war. It is wrong, however, to urge that the existing AUMF, which targets al Qaeda and “associated forces,” be replaced by one that focuses just on the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham/Syria, or ISIS, or the Islamic State in the Levant, or ISIL).

Nearly thirteen years after 9/11, it is past time to recognize that we are at war not with one group of “terrorists” or another. Rather, adherents to a doctrine or ideology they call shariah are at war with us. Shariah is, at its core, about power, not faith. While some small percentage (some estimates suggest ten-percent) of its dictates prescribe the religious practices, the rest of it defines comprehensively how every relationship must be ordered – between individuals, families, neighbors, business associates, all the way up to how the world is governed.

Most importantly, shariah obliges its followers to engage in jihad (or holy war). Don’t be misled by those who argue jihad means “personal struggle.” The Koran makes clear that jihad is “holy war.” And for shariah-adherent Islamists that war has two goals: the triumph of shariah worldwide and the establishment of what is, for want of a better term, a theocratic government to rule the entire planet according to that doctrine.

The jihadists may disagree among themselves about some points of theology (notably, differences that divide Sunnis and Shiites). They may be committed to the use of terrifying violence under all circumstances. Or, as in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, they may believe it is to be used where practicable, but insist on employing not so much non-violent as pre-violent, subversive techniques where terrorism will be counterproductive.

Whatever the banner under which these shariah-adherents wage jihad – for example, the Islamic State, al Qaeda, Taliban, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Ansar al-Shariah or Muslim Brotherhood – all these Islamists are our avowed enemies. That is not because of how we view them. That is because of their own doctrine which is endlessly reinforced in their mosques, via the Internet, through social media and other vehicles.

We can no longer kid ourselves, or otherwise avoid a harsh reality: While perhaps hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world – including it seems the majority of those in America – practice their faith without regard for shariah (they don’t want to live under it themselves and they do not seek to impose it on others), the authorities of Islam regard shariah as the true faith and consider these co-religionists to be apostates.

At the moment, fortunately, only a relatively small number are actively engaged in violent jihad. Many more, though, are doing what shariah demands of those unable or unwilling to wield the sword in holy war: underwriting those who do, through the practice of zakat (Islam’s obligatory contributions to approved charitable causes, one of which is jihad).

Unless and until we understand that shariah-adherent Muslims are inherently dangerous, we will be unable to define our enemy correctly. Unless and until we hold such Muslims accountable, we will not only restrict unduly the focus and effectiveness of our countervailing efforts.

Worse yet, we will actually encourage Muslims – whether states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, organizations or individuals – to associate with, underwrite, or in other ways enable deadly foes of freedom.

Some will respond that an AUMF focused on shariah is a formula for a “clash of civilizations.” The truth is that enemies of civilization – namely, those who adhere to and seek to impose, whether through violence or by stealth, brutally repressive, totalitarian, misogynistic, homophobic, intolerant and anti-constitutional shariah on others – have made no secret of their determination to conquer and destroy us and the rest of the civilized world.

Only by making clear that we are determined to fight back in defense of freedom will we have a chance of protecting our civilization against these enemies. By identifying the political-military-legal ideology of shariah as the defining ideology of those with whom we are at war – much as we did in the past against Nazism, Fascism, Japanese imperialism, and communism – we have a chance of prevailing. And that chance will be greatly enhanced if we bring to bear now, as in the past, not only military but all other instruments of national power.

We will also incentivize Muslims who do not conform to this doctrine to join us in fighting those who accuse them of apostasy, a capital offense under shariah. If they do so, the likelihood of our early success improves still further.

So, by all means, let’s have a new authorization for the use of military force. Or better yet, a proper declaration of war approved by the Congress, authorizing the use of the full array of our economic, political, intelligence, strategic and military means of waging war. But for the sake of our civilization and freedoms, we must ensure that it correctly defines the object of our defensive war: those who adhere to and are trying compel us to submit to shariah.

WE MUST OBJECT TO THE AIM, NOT JUST THE METHOD

Islamic State (or ISIS or IS) is without doubt a particularly vile Islamist group.  Disavowed by Al-Qaeda for being too extreme, the group emerged in early 2013 and is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Baghdadi recently declared himself leader of a new caliphate which so far covers parts of Iraq and Syria. Islamic State intends to stretch its caliphate much further – including in to parts of Europe.

The atrocities committed by this jihadist group, in pursuit of their Islamic state, have been widely publicised.  Death squads have lined people up to be shot in the back of the head, people (including children) are reported to have been buried alive, beheadings are widespread, and women are being kidnapped and sold in to slavery.  Christians in Iraq have reportedly been ordered to “leave, convert, or die”.

It is the plight of the Yazidi people, a religious minority in Iraq, which has prompted the United States to respond with air strikes against Islamic State.  Around 50,000 people of the Yazidi minority have fled for their lives and many have been hidden away in mountains facing starvation and dehydration, as well as the threat of slaughter by the Islamist militants.

It is right that the US has responded to Islamic State with military strikes, and it is right that this group is condemned across the world for its brutality.  What has not been sufficiently condemned however, or even acknowledged, is the ultimate aim of the Islamist group, or the fact that groups all over the world share this aim – the creation of Islamic states under sharia law.  Until the world is ready to condemn this underlying motivation, confronting IS will merely paper over the cracks.

Across the globe, Islamist groups are fighting the same war: a war against freedom, human rights, and anything that doesn’t fit with their version of Islam.  It is the war being fought by Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram in Africa, by Hamas against Israel, and it is the war being fought by various Islamic groups in the west, whose methods may differ from the terrorists but whose aim is the same; the establishment of sharia law.

In the UK, sharia-advocating groups are widespread and are often entertained by our leaders as “moderates”.  The Muslim Council of Britain endorses sharia, as does the Muslim Brotherhood linked Muslim Association of Britain.  Senior figures in the Islamic Sharia Council (the largest ‘sharia court’ body in the UK) call for stonings and lashings and “jihad against the non-Muslims”.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group which advocates a global Islamic state, can attract a crowd of 10,000 or so to Wembley stadium.  Islamists and jihadists routinely preach (and recruit) on British university campuses (Sharia Watch UK will soon release a report on Islamism in UK universities) and those speakers share the aim of Islamic State – a society governed by sharia law.

Islamism and the quest for sharia law is a global phenomenon.  It is present on every continent and is growing in power by the day.  It is aided by the stubborn refusal of Western leaders to acknowledge the underlying problem, which is the nature of the Islamic state itself.  This is a problem because it is fundamentally at odds with democracy, liberty, and basic civil rights.

To oppose the likes of Islamic State, and what is truly driving them, Western leaders are called upon to do something very powerful – to defend democracy, freedom, and civil liberties, and to do so without apology.

Currently, this looks to be sadly improbable

Vice News: Bulldozing the Border Between Iraq and Syria: The Islamic State (Part 5)

Published on Aug 13, 2014 by VICE News

On August 8, nearly three years after the United States pulled out of Iraq, President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes to commence on Islamic State positions in northern Iraq, as the group’s fighters advanced towards the Kurdish capital of Erbil. For six weeks prior to the strikes the Islamic State made stunning gains within Iraq, effectively dismantling the border with Syria and defeating the Iraqi army with little in the way to stop them.

In the final installment of VICE News’ unprecedented look inside the Islamic State, reporter Medyan Dairieh journeys 200 miles from the the group’s power base in the Syrian city of Raqqa to the border with Iraq. There, after defeating the Iraqi army manning the checkpoint, Islamic State fighters work further to bulldoze the border.

As they clear apart a barrier that divided Iraq and Syria, Islamic State fighters declare an end of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a nearly 100-year-old pact between France and Britain that divided up the Middle East. For now, that area between Iraq and Syria is part of a new territory: the Islamic State.

View parts 1-5 here

or watch:

The Islamic State (Full Length)

Vice News Documentary: The Islamic State (Parts 1-5)

Vice News

The Spread of the Caliphate: The Islamic State (Part 1)

 

Grooming Children for Jihad: The Islamic State (Part 2)

 

Enforcing Sharia in Raqqa: The Islamic State (Part 3)

 

Christians in the Caliphate: The Islamic State (Part 4)

 

Bulldozing the Border Between Iraq and Syria: The Islamic State (Part 5)

 

The Islamic State (Full Length)

 

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights

 

We can learn a lot about the Islamic world view by knowing what Islam thinks human rights are. Warning: it is not a good world for the Kafir.

By Bill Warner:

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights was a document put together in 1990 after the United Nations had come out with its Universal Human Rights. The Muslims looked at it and said: “We don’t like universal human rights. We will put together an Islamic document about human rights.”

We can learn something very interesting about Islam and about us as Kafirs from this document. It is a 2 to 3 page document that is based on the Sharia. It has some lofty language, which at first seems to be wonderful, until you look at it really closely. For instance, it starts off by saying that all human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah. What? Human beings are those who submit to Allah and that’s our first insight into the true nature of this doctrine. What about those who do not submit to Allah?

It goes ahead to say all men are equal in terms of basic human dignity. Well, not really because in the Sharia, there are Kafirs and believers and Kafirs are not treated equally under the Sharia.

The Cairo Declaration states that the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is forbidden to take away a life except for a Sharia prescribed reason. What might those be? Well there’s the usual ones, such as the penalty for murder. But then there are other reasons to take a life, which I personally don’t like. For instance, it’s allowed to take the life of a Kafir, if it is in jihad. That is wrong and doesn’t really give me a lot of rights. Another reason that you can kill somebody is, buried deep in the back of the Sharia text, is that both parents and grandparents shall not be considered guilty if they kill one of their children. So in other words, honor killings are built into the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.

It states that men and women have the right to marriage and no restrictions stemming from race color or nationality. What are we missing? Yes, religion! Because you see there are many prohibitions on Muslims. A Muslim woman is not supposed to marry a Kafir male, but a Kafir woman can marry an Islamic male, a Muslim male. Why? The children have to be raised as Muslims.

The Cairo Declaration says that a woman is equal to a man in human dignity. Right. But included in the Sharia are prescriptions on how a woman is to be beaten and the appropriate ways to do this. So much for equality.

It say that everyone shall have the right to enjoy their fruits of his scientific, literary, or artistic work. Well, not really. Because you see, any art which portrays Mohammed or Islam in a bad way is strictly forbidden.

Then we have one that sounds great. All individuals are equal before the law. But individuals are not equal under the Sharia. A Kafir cannot testify in a Sharia court against a Muslim. That’s the equality under the Sharia.

The Cairo declaration says that everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely. Try going to Pakistan and say something about Mohammed Muslims don’t like and you’ll see how much right you have to freely express your opinion. You’ll be dead.

The Cairo Declaration ends with a simple statement. All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this declaration are subject to the Sharia. It is a case where the little print takes away everything that the big print promises. Because there aren’t any rights and freedoms inside of the Sharia for the Kafir. Human rights are only for Muslims. Kafirs don’t have any rights because Kafirs are not humans. So much for the declaration of human rights under Islam.

IIIT: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank

IIITCSP, By Kyle Shideler:

Founded in 1981 following a summit by high level Muslim Brotherhood leaders, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) is the leading Islamist think tank in the world. Despite a federal investigation into its ties to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fundraising, members of IIIT continue to operate among the Washington policy community. This addition to the Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper Series examines the founding of IIIT, its disturbing ideology calling for “the Islamization of knowledge” and “civilizational battle,” and its troubling ties to terrorist organizations.

Read the paper at the link below:

Kyle Shideler and David Daoud: International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT): The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank | Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper Series | July 28, 2013 (PDF 14 pages, 245kB)

Philly Mosque Leader Attempts to Amputate Suspected Thief’s Hand

West Philly Mosque leader Merv Mitchell (aka Mabul Shoatz) pictured next to the Masjid Ar-Razaqq Ul-Karim mosque where he and the mosque's imam attempted to cut off the hand of an alleged thief. (Photo: Police)

West Philly Mosque leader Merv Mitchell (aka Mabul Shoatz) pictured next to the Masjid Ar-Razaqq Ul-Karim mosque where he and the mosque’s imam attempted to cut off the hand of an alleged thief. (Photo: Police)

Clarion Project, by Hana Rose

A Muslim leader at a West Philadelphia mosque was arrested last week for attempting to cut off the hand of a 46 year-old mosque member who he accused of stealing money from jars belonging to the mosque.

The mosque’s “emir,”  Merv Mitchell, who also goes by the name of Mabul Shoatz, was charged with criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault and related offenses after using a machete to try to detach the mosque member’s hand.

Although the victim, who was known to help organize prayers at the mosque, denied participating in theft, the emir and imam (who was unnamed) dragged the accused down a flight of stairs to the mosque’s backyard, held his hand down on a log and attempted to cut off his hand with a two-foot long machete.

Cutting off a thief’s hand is mandated by Islamic (sharia) law, “[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned as a deterrent [punishment] from Allaah.” (Quran 5:38)

They “swung at his wrist, cut through his skin and cut his tendons, but didn’t make it all the way,” said Lieutenant John Walker, a detective with the police department.

If it were not for the machete’s dull blade, the victim may not have even been able to receive the reconstructive surgery he is currently undergoing.

The mosque, called Masjid Ar-Razaqq Ul-Karim, is located in West Philadelphia. Police are looking for the imam who is said to be on the run.