Tweet of Defeat

by Mark Steyn  •  Mar 12, 2015

I’ve written many times about the Islamic State’s ingenious use of social media – or, as they’ve brilliantly transformed it, anti-social media. These guys really are on – what’s the phrase? – the cutting edge. By contrast, the 12-year-old zeitgeist-surfers running communications at the Obama Administration are clumsy, cack-handed, and worse than useless. Even though it’s a mere droplet in the bottomless sinkhole that is the US federal budget, I deeply resent having to pay for the halfwit embarrassments of “Think Again Turn Away” – the State Department’s social-media outreach strategy for countering “violent extremism”.

Here’s a recent Tweet from the geniuses at State:

In open societies, all faiths enjoy freedom of speech; under #ISIS rule, no such thing as freedom of expression.

And beneath it was the photograph at right – “a group of burqa-clad women promoting Sharia law“, under the approving slogan:

Muslims coming out inviting society to #Islam

1207That’s one way of putting it. In fact, the body-bagged crones are asserting the superiority of Islam over your society – that’s to say the superiority of Sharia over what they call “man-made law”.

The women are promoting Sharia not in, say, Turkey or Indonesia, but on what appears to be a street in Britain.

Why is the State Department promoting Sharia for the United Kingdom?

And, given that that the “man-made law” in question is English Common Law, which is the basis of American law, why by implication is the State Department promoting Sharia for the United States? Aren’t they supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

Sharia is incompatible with that constitution, as it is with the entire legal inheritance of western civilization.

You might make the case that the US Government is simply demonstrating how absolute is its commitment to free speech – although given that President Obama and Secretary Clinton got that video-maker tossed in jail and did a cringe-making ad for Pakistani TV apologizing for him, I would doubt that.

But, even so, our enemies are not interested in our “fairness”; they’re interested in winning – which is one reason why they attract tens of thousands of the west’s nominal citizens. And, when the best you can do to counter that is tell them, “Hey, why go all the way to Syria and Iraq when you can stay home and hollow us out from within?”, they rightly conclude we’re a bunch of losers.

After all, what’s the underlying message of the State Department Tweet? We’ve no problem with your end, we’re just a little bit squeamish about your means.

That’s not enough for me. I don’t want to live under Sharia. And, if you’re in favor of Sharia, by definition you are incapable of being a citizen of a free society. So, when the global superpower can muster no better argument than “the great thing about western civilization is that we’re open to letting you destroy it”, it’s a wee bit demoralizing. The State Department’s Tweet tells our enemies we’re losers, and we’re happy to lose, as long as you let us lose incrementally.

As I say, I wish all those Obama hipster pajama boys were as good at social media as they tell themselves.

ISIS is the Syndrome, Sharia the Real Malignancy

20150301_shariawilldominatetheworldsignFamily Security Matters, by Alex Alexiev, March 11, 2015

As the US-led kinetic war against ISIS continues with indifferent success and less than certain prospects to date, answering the obvious question of what motivates that murderous organization becomes more pressing by the day. Remarkably, there have been no visible efforts in that direction by either the White House or the Defense Department. Indeed, the much touted Obama Administration-sponsored conference on “countering violent extremism” further obfuscated the issue by its oxymoronic definition of terrorism as “acts of violence” committed “against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths.” Neither did the “Team America” high-level Pentagon-sponsored recent meeting in Kuwait help much with its lapidary conclusion that the US strategy against ISIS is correct.

Against that meager analytical background, a much discussed and praised effort to decipher ISIS ideology by journalist Graeme Wood in the March issue of the Atlantic Magazine deserves close scrutiny, because it is a good example of just how muddled and unrealistic our understanding of radical Islam with respect to ISIS has become.

Titled “What Does ISIS Really Want,” the article’s main contribution is its common sense proposition that ISIS is Islamic, indeed, “very Islamic.” Unfortunately, the rest of it is a largely failed effort to explain what drives ISIS to do what it does with a confused exegesis of its Islamic beliefs and interviews with several sympathizers. Key emphasis is given to its ostensible eschatological predilections as a “key agent of the coming apocalypse” and a “headline player in the imminent end of the world” when the messiah Mahdi will show up on Judgment Day. Mr. Wood also makes much of ISIS’s reported faithfulness to something called the “prophetic methodology of the caliphate” and implies strongly that what they practice is a “distinctive variety” and a “coherent and even learned interpretation of Islam,” which aims “returning civilization to a seventh century legal environment.”

Much of this makes little sense to anybody who’s familiar with the foundational texts of Islam. It is true that the Quran does deal with Judgment Day in Sura 75 (Yawm al-Qiyamah), but much of what it says appears to be borrowed from the Bible and Mahdi, an essentially Shia concept, is not mentioned at all. ‘Prophetic methodology’ is a propaganda term used by ISIS and means nothing, especially in connection with the caliphate, which is not mentioned in either the Quran or the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad. As far as the “seventh century legal environment” is concerned, it’s worth noting that during Muhammad’s life time and that of his immediate successors, there was no Islamic corpus juris in existence and to the extent that a legal system existed at all, it was mostly the old Arab customary law (urf) and arbitration that were practiced. In fact, the codification of sharia as Islamic law did not begin until the middle of the 8th century and was not completed until the end of the 9th century, or 2nd and 3rd century of Islam.

If ISIS ideology thus has little to do with “prophetic methodology” and eschatological propaganda, it has everything to do with sharia.  And the reason for that is very simple, for sharia is the most radical possible interpretation of Islam and a real source of legitimacy for those practicing it among the millions of Islamist sympathizers.

So what exactly is sharia? To radical Islamists, salafis and jihadists of all kinds, sharia is ‘God’s sacred law’ to be obeyed to the letter if a Muslim were to end up in heaven. More than that, it is also the constitution of the Islamic state and the guarantee of the perfect synergy between religion and the state (din wa dawla). To reform-minded Muslims and most non-Muslims it is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a post-Quranic, man-made doctrine designed to legitimate the imperialist policies of the hereditary Muslim empires that followed Muhammad and his successors and the open discrimination against non-Muslims and women widely practiced by them. Moreover, sharia was based for the most part not on the Quran, but on secondary and often unreliable sources such as the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings).

To the extent that sharia is based on the Quran, the cornerstone of its interpretation is the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which invalidates most of the peaceful and tolerant verses of the earlier Meccan period and replaces them with the later violence-preaching Medinese verses.  As a result, sharia is not only radical and intolerant, but is also in direct conflict with many Quranic injunctions. Thus, the punishment for apostasy is death in sharia, but 100 lashes in the Quran. The former makes the establishment of the caliphate and sharia a religious obligation for Muslims, while the latter does not mention either one of them at all. In the Quran, Muslims are enjoined to fight in self-defense, sharia makes offensive jihad for the spread of Islam mandatory among many other examples.  If one were to characterize sharia today, which Muslims have been obligated to follow blindly (taqlid) since the 10th century, what comes readily to mind is the Catholic faith at the time of the inquisition.

The discriminatory and violent nature of sharia’s injunctions made it impractical as a law early on in Muslim states that were multi-national and multi-confessional, as most of them were, and though it was regularly paid lip service to, it was seldom practiced, except occasionally as family law. In the early Muslim empires, for instance, justice was administered mostly by courts of grievance (mazalim), police courts (shurta) or market judges (sahib al souk), rather than sharia, while in the historically greatest Muslim state of all, the Ottoman empire, the law of the land was kanun osmanly, an essentially secular law.

In fact, sharia’s political fortunes did not change for the better until the patron saints of contemporary radical Islam, Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, elevated the imposition of sharia as the sole criterion of whether or not a state is Muslim or apostate in middle of the 20th century. Since then, with the help of huge amounts of Saudi money and the spread of Muslim Brotherhood networks, sharia has become the sine qua non of the radical Islamist idiom that currently dominates the Muslim establishment worldwide. It is simply a fact that from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on down to countless mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizations, no rule, regulation or bylaw is viewed as legitimate if it contradicts sharia.

What the widespread support for sharia among Muslims means is that President Obama’s repeatedly expressed belief that there is no radical Islam, but just individual terrorists, is widely off the mark. In just a couple of examples relevant to ISIS, a recent open letter signed by 126 prominent Muslims from around the world, including many US Islamists, denouncing ISIS’ tactics, nonetheless endorses sharia. In another example, a radical Wahhabi preacher and passionate sharia supporter named Mohamed al-Arefe, approved of raping kidnapped Yazidi women in a tweet to his 10 million followers, while the prominent Islamist and member of the influential “senior council  of clerics” in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa arguing that whoever denies the legitimacy of slavery in sharia becomes an infidel.

For jihadist organizations like ISIS, being sharia-compliant in a self-proclaimed caliphate bestows them huge legitimacy in the eyes of the devout. What we view as barbaric practices, including raping and enslaving “infidel” women, crucifixions, killing homosexuals and Muslim apostates, are fully justified in sharia. Undoubtedly, the ISIS cutthroats believe that some of their more recent gruesome innovations, such as chopping off women’s hands for using cell phones or beheading smokers, are also legitimate under sharia.

Muslims are also obligated by sharia to emigrate to the caliphate, which helps explain the huge number of volunteer jihadists who continue to flock to ISIS. The ISIS’ self-anointed  “Caliph Ibrahim” enjoys yet another political benefit under sharia, which orders Muslims to obey him even if he is “unjust,” because  “a rebellion against a caliph is one of the greatest enormities.”

What is beyond doubt is sharia’s absolute incompatibility with basic human rights, democratic norms and the law of nations and its highly seditious nature in calling for violence against non-Muslims and non-conforming Muslims both. Until the community of nations and the Muslims themselves come to terms with this malignant doctrine and act to delegitimize it, its poisonous offshoots like ISIS will continue to thrive.

Alex Alexiev is IASC’s Senior Fellow for Eurasia Affairs.  He has more than 35 years of analytical experience in U.S. national security as a senior analyst and project director with the Rand Corp’s National Security Division, and several think tanks in Washington D.C.  He has directed numerous research projects for the Department of Defense, Office of Net Assessment, U.S. Army Intelligence, USAF intelligence, DIA, CIA, and other U.S. Government agencies, and has testified before Congress numerous times. He is the author of several books and myriad monographs and articles on national security issues.

Boko Haram: What It Means to Swear an Oath

2700814599CSP, by Kyle Shideler, March 11, 2015:

In response to the fact that Nigerian terror group Boko Haram has sworn allegiance to Islamic States, analysts have primarily seized on what benefit Boko Haram is expected to get out of it, and whether the Nigerian insurgency needed a “propaganda” boost, at a time when they are facing a coalition of African states seeking to roll back them back.

This focusing solely on the question of benefit seems logical to the average western analyst, but is deeply problematic.

First, what is Boko Haram? An insurgency? A terrorist organization? Boko Haram, in their own words, is a jamaat (group) dedicated to dawa (proselytizing) and jihad (warfare against unbelievers). These words in and of themselves are pregnant with significance.

Consider from the prospective of those whom Boko Haram considers a relevant authority on these matters. Founder Mohammed Yusuf in 2009 reportedly stated that: “All Islamic scholars who undermine Ibn Taymiyyah, Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna and Osama Bin Laden are not authentic Islamic scholars.” Sayyid Qutb, in his seminal work “Milestones” had this to say about Dawa and Jihad:

“The movement uses the methods of preaching and persuasion (Dawa) for reforming ideas and beliefs and it uses physical power and Jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili (pre-Islamic) system.”

As a Dawa and Jihad organization adhering to Qutb’s methodology, Boko Haram from the beginning was oriented towards the eventual seizure of territory upon which to rule while abolishing Nigerian rule.

Having reached a stage (or milestone as Qutb would have called it), where they felt it appropriate, Boko Haram announced in August of 2014 the establishment of an Islamic state over the territory they controlled in Northern Nigeria. At the time many western analysts misunderstood this claim to be one of a “rival” caliphate. Boko Haram reaffirmed its position of ruling territory in January of this year, noting in discussing its seizure of the town of Baga:

“As for it’s importance to us, it’s because of it removes that military presence from the lands of the Islamic state, and hence establish the Shariah of Allah in the region, and attain safety and security in it for Muslims.”

It was during this period that Boko Haram began openly expressing itself with Islamic State imagery, including their version of the black shahada flag, and using nasheeds (acapella singing) popular with IS fighters in their videos.

Finally the Boko Haram’s Shura Council was previously reported to be considering whether or not to swear an oath to “Caliph” AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi. Having finally done so, it has been reported as an “alliance” or a “team up” but the reality is different. An oath to a caliph carries with it significant implications. Regarding the oath, Islamic jurist Ibn Khaldun (d.1406) wrote:

It should be known that the bay’ah (oath of allegiance) is a contract to render obedience. It is as though the person who renders the oath of allegiance made a contract with his amir, to the effect that he surrenders supervision of his own affairs and those of the Muslims to him and that he will not contest his authority in any of (those affairs) and that he will obey him by (executing) all the duties with which he might be charged, whether agreeable or disagreeable.

In practice, because of geographical distance, and because Boko Haram remains capable of operating independently, it’s unlikely that this degree of total control would be applied, particularly if Boko Haram is granted the position of an IS Province), but legally that is what has been sworn.  It’s an oath which is pre-modern in its conception, and attempting to understand it in the context of  a joint venture between two companies, or a nation-state alliance is an error.

As regards Islamic State’s view of the matter, many questioned whether Boko Haram’s oath would be accepted (it appears to have been). This should come has no surprise either, because Islamic State has explicitly told groups like Boko Haram that such an oath is not only welcome, but “obligatory.” The Islamic State noted in its Caliphate Declaration (This is the Promise of Allah) that:

We clarify to the Muslims that with this declaration of khilāfah, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to the khalīfah Ibrāhīm and support him (may Allah preserve him). The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah’s authority and arrival of its troops to their areas. (emphasis added).

This would seem to suggest that the Islamic State is now in the position to offer at least some level (of possibly technical) assistance to Boko Haram, thus representing an “arrival of its troops.” Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has already claimed that Islamic State has been training Boko Haram’s forces, although whether that’s true remains to be seen.

Seeking to understand and analyze jihadist organizations absent the context of the sharia law that dictates their actions and which they hold as legally binding and obligatory,  continues to mislead and confuse.

 

The ISIS Penal Code: Shariah Justice and the Quest for Religious Legitimacy

AFP PHOTO / HO / AL-FURQAN MEDIA

AFP PHOTO / HO / AL-FURQAN MEDIA

Breitbart, by DR. PHYLLIS CHESLER,  March 9, 2015:

The global allure of a self-designated Caliphate, especially one that insists that its every barbaric action is Qur’an-based and Sharia-true, should not be underestimated.

In October 2014, ISIS released the fourth issue of Dabiq, its online English- and multi-language newsletter. ISIS described a “successful consolidation of the judiciary,” and the formation of “sharia courts” that render decisions in a speedy and non-corrupt manner. ISIS has implemented a “radical interpretation of sharia law, killing men accused of blasphemy or homosexuality. The group has also carried out amputations and lashings for reasons as trivial as smoking or improper dressing.”

ISIS has taken over the education system in horrendous ways: one must memorize the Qur’an, there is to be no teaching of science, history, civics, physical education, and geography. Basic mathematics is allowed. ISIS has also established military training on children, imposed early curfews and full-face and body niqab on women, including those who work at hospitals.

While Westerners may find this as horrifying as ISIS’s systematic and taped destruction of ancient, precious pre-Islamic sculptures and artifacts, according to Jonathan Spyer and Jawad al-Tamimi in Middle East Forum, ISIS has, nevertheless, been carefully justifying their every atrocity as based on the Qur’an and Sharia law. For example, in terms of crucifixions, ISIS invoked Qur’an 5:33 (Those “who wage war on God and His Messenger” may be crucified).

Apostates may also be crucified—and ISIS bases this on a hadith (similar to Qur’an 5:33). Christians are required to pay a special tax “jizya,” “may not publicly wear crosses, pray in the presence of Muslims, or repair or renovate places of worship.”

Spyer and al-Tamimi point out that ISIS “already considers itself a state (dawla), not a mere group or organization (jamaat, or tanzim).” Therefore, like Saudi Arabia or Iran, it can lawfully cross-amputate for theft, stone adulterers to death, drop homosexuals from rooftops (and stone them if they are still alive), crucify or behead Christians and apostates, etc.

In October of 2014, 126 Islamic scholars and Muslim leaders from 38 countries signed an Open Letter to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi claiming that ISIS was violating Islamic Law. There was more than one signatory from the same country. For example, there were no fewer than 13 signatories from North America, mainly from the United States. Interestingly, many of the names belong to known Islamists, Muslim Brotherhood supporters and “fronts,” or anti-Zionists. For example, signatories include Nihad Awad (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Azhar Aziz (Islamic Society of North America), and Berkeley’s Hatem Baziem (American Muslims for Palestine).

While I am no Qur’anic scholar, much of what these signatories claim cannot be true. Or, rather, what they claim is the right interpretation of the Qur’an has not been followed by Muslim leaders historically—just as it is not being followed now by ISIS. For example, in their own Executive Summary, the signatories claim that “it is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent;” “forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers;” “forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture;’ “It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture;” “The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus;” “It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert;” “It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights;” “It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights;” “It is forbidden in Islam to torture people;” “It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.”

Undaunted, in December 2014, ISIS released a formal penal code in which they spelled out “a set of fixed punishments.” This document’s release was followed by a spate of violent executions in which “a woman accused of adultery [was] stoned to death, 17 men crucified, and two men accused of homosexual acts thrown off a building.”

According to the translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), here are some of the acts and their punishments:

  • Blasphemy against Allah, Blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed, Blasphemy against Islam—all merit Death as does Sodomy, Adultery,  Murder, Apostasy, and Spying for Unbelievers.
  • Theft merits cutting off the hand;
  • Drinking alcohol merits 80 lashes;
  • Slandering merits 80 lashes;
  • Terrorizing People merits Exile.

Issue #7 of ISIS’s glossy online newsletter, Dabiq, was released in February. It is more than 80 pages long and is titled: “From Hypocrisy to Apostasy. The Extinction of the Grayzone.” ISIS means the “gray zone” in which Christian “Crusaders” and Jews, as well as Muslim hypocrites and apostates of all religions, are put on notice.

“Islam is the Religion of the Sword Not Pacificism” is the title of one chapter. This issue also displays many photos of ISIS’s atrocities and the Qur’anic justification for them. It blesses Bin Laden, boasts of the Islamic attacks against Europeans and Americans, prays that “Allah take revenge for the Muslims and the mujahidin, and rain fire and destruction upon the kuffar and murtaddin, wherever they are.”

Dabiq justifies ISIS’s ongoing persecution and murder of Coptic Christians as an act of revenge because Coptic Christians allegedly tortured and murdered Muslim women. This issue also deals with how ISIS is “clamping down on sexual deviance” and describes how the West has been “plunged into a downward spiral of sexual deviance and immorality.” It boasts of the murder of Theo Von Gogh and lauds the captured convert to Islam, John Cantlie who praises his captors and denounces “our deceitful governments.” He is quoted as saying: “Despite being a prisoner I’ve been shown respect and kindness, which I haven’t seen from my own [British] government.”

ISIS is a totalitarian cult led by barbarian psychopaths and extremist misogynists who seek to cover their criminality and self-perceived marginality with a cloak of religious respectability. They will continue on their path unless the “good people” of the world decide to stop them by any means possible and by any means necessary.

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article which argued that the Islamic State caliphate “appears to be fraying from within, as dissent, defections, and setbacks on the battlefield sap the group’s strength and erode its aura of invisibility.”

According to Lina Khatib, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, ISIS has failed because it has not been able to “unify people of different origins under the caliphate.” Many foreigners are people from “the margins of society” and many have come to “live in the Islamic State. They didn’t come to fight.” Finally, the Islamic “revolution” is not only crucifying Christians and forcing them and Yazidis into sex slavery, be-heading foreign aid workers and journalists—it has also begun to turn on its own.

One wonders whether Lina Khatib and the Washington Post are right.

Sharia Tribunal in Texas an Islamic Trojan Horse?

The homepage of the Dallas Islamic Tribune's website.

The homepage of the Dallas Islamic Tribune’s website.


CBN News, by Caitlin Burke,  March 08, 2015: (see video at CBN)

DALLAS — Sharia is the law of the land in many Muslim dominated countries. Spreading Sharia around the world is also the stated goal of terror groups like ISIS, Boko Haram and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now an Islamic tribunal has brought the practice to of all places, Texas.

“Sharia, it is exactly Islamic law, it is from God, it is from Allah,” Dr. Taher El-Badawi, one of the four judges of the new tribunal, said. “It’s full of mercy. I know you have a lot of bad experience and a lot of bad examples around us, I agree with you. But not just in Islam, it is everywhere.”

No Conflict with US Law?

The Islamic Center of Irving, Texas, is one of the locations that the Islamic tribunal operates. The fact that Sharia law is being practiced in the United States at all comes as a shock to many Americans.

“Immediately my mind went to ‘how can that be, we have a constitution in our country?'” one Texas resident said.

Dr. El-Badawi assures people that no decision will conflict with federal or state law. They will handle no criminal cases, only divorce or business disputes.

Yet, many Muslims see it as the ultimate authority.

“If just the Muslim woman wants to go to civil court, and she got the final decree from the civil court, that’s not enough for her to be divorced, so she has to go to an imam or to come to Islamic tribunal to get the final divorce for both parties for both sides, the Sharia law, or Islamic law or religious way and also the civil way,” El-Badawi said.

gaffney on sharia tribunalsOpponents of the Islamic tribunal say there is no place for Sharia law here in the United States. CBN News spoke with Dr. Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, who says Muslims will be coerced to take their issues to the tribunal.

“If a woman for example wants her divorce to be recognized in the Islamic community, then she must get it through the sharia process,” Gaffney explained.

Mediators for the Community

The judges from the Islamic tribunal say there are similar tribunals in any religion and they’re just trying to act as mediators and counselors for the Islamic community.

“Many, many communities have the same thing. For Muslims, this is the first time, I agree with you, but this is not an attack or ‘ignore anything in the United States,'” El-Badawi said.

Texas lawyer John Degroote said he sees parallels to mediations settled out of court.

“If it’s non-binding and simply helps people guide their way through the dispute, all the better,” Degroote said.

The Islamic tribunal stresses that it will not follow the harsh Islamic law practiced in Muslim countries. But Gaffney argues allowing any Sharia here will undermine U.S. laws and protections for Muslims, especially women and children.

He points out the track record of what’s already happened in Europe.

“In places like Britain we’ve seen a separate court system take effect,” he explained. “You now have something like 87 different Sharia courts recognized by the British government that operate kind of in parallel with the courts of the English common law.”

“In our country we’ve both seen this kind of effort made, mostly through arbitration councils to this point, now this tribunal, but also an effort made to penetrate our actual own American court system and this is very troubling,” Gaffney added.

In Mississippi, lawmakers are working on legislations that would prevent Sharia law from being argued in their courtrooms. Another two dozen states have also considered measures to curb it.

Also see:

Lisa Daftari: The Real War on Women: A Look Into Global Human Rights Abuses and the Americans Who Ignore Them

Published on Feb 20, 2015 by The Heritage Foundation 

***

Iranian American: ‘Sharia Law Is Here in the U.S.’  by By Penny Starr at CNS News, February 25, 2015

Investigative reporter and Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari spoke at the Heritage Foundation on Feb. 20, 2015. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Investigative reporter and Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari spoke at the Heritage Foundation on Feb. 20, 2015. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) – Iranian American Lisa Daftari, an investigative journalist and contributor to Fox News, said on Friday that Sharia law is being followed by practitioners of radical Islam right here in the United States, even if many Americans think of the human rights abuses towards women by these practitioners as something that only takes place in the Middle East and Africa.

“And some might ask why should Americans care about what goes on in those countries?” asked Daftar, whose family fled Iran during the 1979 revolution that overthrew Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and established an Islamic state in the country. “How about tolerance for other practices; respect for Sharia law – the cultural and religious differences?

“Well the answer is it’s not just contained to that part of the world,” Daftari said. “It’s here.

(see excerpted video at CNS News)

“It’s in Europe. It’s in our cities. It’s in our places of work. It’s in our schools,” Daftari said. “Yes, Sharia law is here in the U.S., and this too is a war on women.”

Daftari, who spoke at the Conservative Women’s Network at the Heritage Foundation, focused her remarks on what she said is “the real war on women,” including “honor killings” that have taken place in the United States.

“Every year, about 26 women are killed in the U.S. by a relative in the name of family honor,” Daftari said.

She cited two such killings. On Jan. 1, 2008, a man shot his two teenage daughters, Amina and Sarah Said.

“It later came to light that these murders were premeditated as honor killings as retribution for [Amina] rejecting an arranged marriage to a man in Egypt,” Daftari said.

In an essay written in September 2014, Amina’s boyfriend, Joseph Moreno, said the couple hoped to marry and that the father has never been arrested and his whereabouts are unknown.

“In 2011 an Arizona judge sentenced an Iraqi man to more than 34 years in prison, Daftari said. “He ran over his 20-year-old daughter because he claimed she’d become too westernized.”

Faleh Hassan Al-Maleki was found guilty in the killing of his daughter Noor, according to an article posted on AZCentral.com.

Daftari said radical Islam is also being promoted by Muslim groups on college campuses in the U.S., based on her investigative reporting on the phenomenon.

Daftari cited other examples of human rights abuses against women around the globe that she said represent “the real war on women.”

“The real war on women is about the millions of women throughout the Middle East and the continent of Africa who are forced to undergo genital mutilation,” she said. “In 2013, 3.6 million were mutilated in these parts of the world. In Somalia, FGM (female genital mutilations) is at 99 percent.

“That means nearly every single woman,” Daftari said.

“The real war on women is about the many religious minorities who stand firmly behind their faith and beliefs in Muslim-dominated countries – Christians, Jews, Bahi’s and others facing minority taxes, imprisonment, persecution,” she said.

“The real war on women is about the women of Iran who cannot dress as they want, dance as they want, attend the schools or obtain the jobs that they want,” Daftari said.  “They cannot file for divorce, even from a violent spouse, and even if they do, custody of all their children will go to the husband.”

Daftari also cited the case of a 26-year-old Iranian woman who was jailed and eventually executed because she fought back against the man who raped her.

Also see:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Obama Must Confront the Threat of Radical Islam

An ISIS member waves an ISIS flag in Raqqa, Syria on June 29, 2014.

An ISIS member waves an ISIS flag in Raqqa, Syria on June 29, 2014.

ISIS is recruiting young Muslims from around the globe to Jihad, and the White House apparently doesn’t understand why

Time, By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Feb. 20, 2015:

How can the Obama Administration miss the obvious? Part of the answer lies in the groups “partnering” with, or advising, the White House on these issues. Groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council or the Islamic Society of North America insist that there should be no more focus at the Summit on radical Islam than on any other violent movements, even as radical Islamic movements continue to expand their influence in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Nigeria, and elsewhere.

Amplifying a poor choice of Muslim outreach partners, however, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have argued in recent days that economic grievances, a lack of opportunities, and countries with “bad governance” are to blame for the success of groups such as ISIS in recruiting Muslims to their cause. Yet, if this were true, why do so many young Muslims who live in societies with excellent governance—Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, the United States—either join ISIS or engage in Jihadist violence in their own countries? Why do young Muslims with promising professional futures embark on the path of Jihad?

Neither the Summit partners nor the U.S. Administration can effectively answer these questions.

Both Denmark and the Netherlands have “good governance.” Denmark and the Netherlands not only offer free health insurance but also free housing to Muslim refugees, along with high-quality education for their children. This should produce an outpouring of gratitude by young Muslims towards the host society, and no Jihadists.

Yet there are dozens of Jihadists hailing from the Netherlands and a recent attack in Copenhagen was committed by a man who was raised in Denmark and had effectively enjoyed years of Danish hospitality.

The question is not limited to Europe. Minnesota, for instance, is hardly a state with “bad governance.” Minnesota offers ample opportunity for immigrants willing to work hard. Yet more than a dozen young men from the Twin Cities area have joined the Jihadist movement in recent years.

How can Barack Obama or John Kerry explain this? Based on President Obama’s public statements and John Kerry’s analysis in The Wall Street Journal, they cannot.

It is worth remembering Aafia Siddiqui, the M.I.T.-educated neuroscientist who could have enjoyed a prestigious and lucrative career in the bio-tech industry but instead chose to embrace radical Islam, eventually becoming known as “Lady Al-Qaida.”

Or think of the three Khan siblings who recently sought to leave Chicago in order to go live in Syria under the rule of ISIS. The Khan sister, intelligent and studious, had planned to become a physician. The siblings were intercepted before they could fly out of the country, and prosecutors argue they wanted to join armed Jihad. Defense attorneys have a different explanation, stating the siblings desperately wanted to live under a society ruled by Shariah law—under the rule of Allah’s laws, without necessarily wanting to commit acts of violence.

It is this motivation—the sincere desire to live under Islamic religious laws, and the concomitant willingness to use violence to defend the land of Islam and expand it—that has led thousands of Western Muslims, many of them young and intelligent—and not the oft-described “losers”—to leave a comfortable professional and economic future in the West in order to join ISIS under gritty circumstances.

In its general strategy, the U.S. Administration confounds two things. It is true that in “failed states” criminal networks, cartels, and terrorist groups can operate with impunity. Strengthening central governments will reduce safe havens for terror networks. Secretary Kerry’s argument in The Wall Street Journal is different, however, namely: If we improve governance in countries with “bad governance,” then fewer young people will become “violent extremists.” That’s a different argument and not a plausible one. In fact, it’s a really unpersuasive argument. Muslims leave bright, promising futures to join ISIS out of a sense of sincere religious devotion, the wish to live under the laws of Allah instead of the laws of men.

In reading Kerry’s piece, I am glad that in the late 1940s the U.S. had people such as George Kennan employed in its service to see the Communist threat clearly and describe it clearly. But where is today’s Kennan in this administration? Who in the U.S. government is willing to describe the threat of radical Islam without fear of causing offense to several aggressive Islamic lobby groups?

American policymakers do not yet understand Islamism or what persuades young Muslims to join Jihad: sincere religious devotion based on the core texts of Islam, in particular early Islam’s politicized and aggressive period in Medina (compared to Islam’s spiritual and ascetic period in Mecca).

How does one tackle misguided religious devotion of young Muslims? The answer lies in reforming Islam profoundly—not radical Islam, but mainstream Islam; its willingness to merge Mosque and State, religion, and politics; and its insistence that its elaborate system of Shariah law supersedes civil laws created by human legislators. In such a reform project lies the hope for countering Islamism. No traditional Islamic lobbying group committed to defending the reputation of Islam will recommend such a policy to the U.S. government. Yet until American policymakers grapple with the need for such reform, the real problem within Islam will remain unresolved.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the founder of the AHA Foundation and the author of Infidel, Nomad, and the forthcoming Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation, to be published next spring.

President Obama: Jihadists Have No Legitimate Grievances

obama31CSP, by Fred Fleitz, February 20, 2015:

Did President Obama really say at the “countering violent extremism summit” yesterday and in his recent LA Times op-ed that jihadist terrorist groups are winning recruits by exploiting economic, political and historic grievances that are “sometimes accurate.”

Yes he did.

This incredible claim begs two questions.  What kind of legitimate grievances could possibly justify beheadings and burning people to death?  And what type of people are being motivated to join Jihadist groups because of such atrocities?

Mr. Obama’s statement reflects his continuing refusal to acknowledge that the global jihad movement is motivated by a unifying ideology: radical Islam and its doctrine of imposing shariah worldwide through violence.

It also is impossible to square President Obama’s claim that al-Qaeda and ISIS are attracting recruits for political and economic reasons with the fact that thousands from Western countries are buying plane tickets to fly to Turkey to join ISIS.  And let’s not forget that al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was not poor; he was the son of a Saudi billionaire.

Moreover, the president’s claims that ISIS and al-Qaeda jihadists are perverting or exploiting Islam are at odds with radical Islam’s long historical legacy and its basis in the Koran.

The president also is ignoring growing radicalism in mainstream Islamist theology.  Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, confirmed this last week at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit when he said that to combat ISIS and al-Qaeda, the United States must avoid aligning with Islamist organizations which may currently be non-violent but sympathize or endorse violent jihadist groups.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said at the Defeat Jihad Summit that these groups are waging a “pre-violent’ campaign to advance a jihadist agenda in the West which the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”  Click HERE to read a Center for Security Policy analysis of this issue, “Civilization Jihad: the Muslim Brotherhood’s Potent Weapon.”

Jasser also took issue with “countering violent extremism,” the term President Obama uses to describe America’s efforts to oppose al-Qaeda, ISIS and other radical groups.  Jasser said “Stop the nonsense of ‘CVE’.  We’re not countering violent extremism.  I can’t help you as a reform-minded Muslim with my book The Battle for the Soul of Islam if you say this is a battle for the soul of violent extremism.  That’s nonsense.”

In short, President Obama is dead wrong.  Jihadist terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS are recruiting followers by promoting the anti-Western, anti-modern ideology of radical Islam.  They are recruiting people who hate modern society, Western civilization and the United States.  These disgruntled and disturbed individuals are not going to be dissuaded by a new U.S. jobs program for youth in Muslim countries or President Obama making excuses for their decision to join terrorist groups that are the face of evil in the modern world.

French Premier Manuel Valls had it right when he said after the Paris shootings by French jihadists last month, “It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity.”

This is what President Obama needs to say about the threat posed by the global jihad movement.  Until the president stops denying this threat, he is signaling American weakness and lack of resolve which will allow this threat to continue to spread and grow.

Sharia Court in Texas: What Could Go Wrong?

By Patrick Poole:

Yesterday I was interviewed by the Glenn Beck Show on Blaze TV following up from Glenn’s interview on Monday with two of the imams responsible for the sharia court that they’re opening up in Dallas, Texas.

A sharia court in Texas? What could possibly go wrong? Well, I can think of a few things…

In this segment of Glenn’s interview with the imams, Taher El-Badawi claims that cutting off heads is not just something they do in Islam, but it’s practiced everywhere, including the US (!!!), and that cutting off hands for theft in America would be economical:

 

Taher : We are ready for any point to discuss with, but the main point here, the reason we are here to discuss this issue what kind of cases Islamic tribunal handle, and you start with the sharia. Why the people afraid from sharia? I’m sorry to say it, one point related to this, cut head is not just in sharia law, just in Islamic law. It’s everywhere. Who said that just in Islamic law? That’s even another sharia, in Jewish sharia, in Christian sharia, in American here, we cut we cut head for some reason.

So, I’m asking you an easy question, if anyone kill another, he should get killed by law, by Islamic law, by government. He should get killed. What is wrong with that? If a thief jump, I’m sorry, to your house, scare your wife, scare your children, scare your neighbor, and they did that with our stores, this is the law, the law to cut his hand because if he feels my hands were cut because of that, he will think about this 100 times. He will never do it. If he do that one time, he will never do it again.

Look how many millions of dollars American here or other states or other states outside spend to keep the criminal in jail, a lot of millions of dollars. We can save that, just let him go, and that’s it, because he did something wrong in the whole community and this kill the whole community. Why not?

OK, then…

One of the other important issues covered my interview was about the imam’s claims that the court will only handle “family issues, includes manners, behavior characters, including marriage divorces, including inheritance law…”.

Contrary to sharia apologists, these courts are not just about whether you pray five times a day or which foot you enter a bathroom with. It is precisely where U.S. family law conflicts with Islamic law that is one of the greatest concerns some have with the establishment of sharia courts in the US.

In 2013, the BBC program Panorama went undercover in sharia courts operating in the UK and found systematic discrimination against women in these courts and regularly telling women suffering from domestic violence not to go to police against UK public policy.

You can view the full Panorama program here:

 

When Glenn asked whether divorces by U.S. courts would be recognized, the imam admitted that women would also need to get an Islamic divorce, and that her US court divorce would not be recognized if she traveled to Islamic countries (the imam specifically mentions US ally, Jordan). So US civil law, even by their own admission, isn’t recognized by Islamic law, here or abroad.

And what about the testimony of women in Islamic court? The imams tried to brush it off that it only related to financial transactions, but you only need to go to the IslamQA website where they defend the principle that the testimony of women isn’t the same as that of men.

As I noted in my own interview, a 2011 survey of Middle East countries by UNICEF found only in Tunisia and Oman (one could also add here Israel) is the testimony of women fully admitted in all judicial proceedings. In most Middle Eastern countries, a woman’s testimony is regularly limited in family and financial matters. This is hardly a secret.

I recall the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Barack Obama’s favorite US Islamic group, used to publish a ruling on their website by one of the top Islamic jurists in the US expressly forbidding Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men, saying “It is better to a slave, bondsman than get married to a non-Muslim.”

After the ruling was pointed out by sharia critics, ISNA removed it from its website, but it still can be found at Web Archive.

fiqh

Among the more laughable claims the imams made in their interview is that you need an Islamic state led by a caliph to implement penal “hudud” punishments (meaning therefore that no one is actually implementing Islamic law anymore), and that Saudi Arabia is not governed by Islamic law.

One only need look at the implementation of sharia in Islamic-majority countries around the world, and enshrining sharia as the ultimate source of their law codes in their respective constitutions, to see they have no problem implementing sharia in the absence of a recognized caliph or an Islamic state.

And Saudi Arabia isn’t governed by Islamic law? Really? [insert laugh track]

In my interview I noted that you can walk into practically any mosque or Islamic bookstore and pick up books like Mohamed S. El-Awa’s “Punishment in Islamic Law,” which is published by American Trust Publications, the publishing arm of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which owns and operates hundreds of mosques around the country. In El-Awa’s book, you find helpful advice on: “How the hand should be cut off (Makan al-Qati’),” “Stoning as punishment (al-Rajm),” “Flogging (al-Jald),” and “The Death Penalty (al-Ta’zir bil-Qatl).”

The same is true for another manual of Islamic law from the Shafi’i school of jurisprudence published in America – translated in English and approved by many global Islamic authorities – called “Reliance of the Traveller (sic).” Book O is dedicated to “Jihad,” and they don’t mean “internal struggle.” Again, these are books marketed directly to American Muslims.

And let’s not forget the imam last July, as reported by Reuters, who tried to cut off the hand of one of the mosque attendees accused of stealing. But this wasn’t Cairo, Tehran or Riyadh. This happened in Philadelphia. Did this imam misunderstand Islam?

Read more at PJ Media

To Undermine Sharia — on The Glazov Gang

 

defeating political islamFebruary 9, 2015 by

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy, the author of Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War.

Dr. Muthuswamy came on the show to discuss To Undermine Sharia, analyzing how and why the West needs to spearhead the effort to undercut the Sharia narrative.

 

Sharia law is empowering Islamist radicals at the expense of secularists by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy

PORTLAND, Oregon — The astonishing recent confession of a serving American commander that “[w]e do not understand the [Islamist] movement” calls for a revisit of an old problem.

Two centuries ago, when science began to replace religion as a source for understanding the world, secularists began growing in power. Science gave us an unprecedented mastery over nature, and led to societies that were more advanced than earlier ones.

If one compares how people lived in 1870 with life in 1970, the advancement of society is self-evident. This was true of Muslim societies as well.

In the 1970s, secular dictators ruled most of the Muslim-majority nations. Now, many of these dictatorships are history, and the ones still left are fighting an uphill battle against growing Islamist power whose outlook is regressive.

In most non-Muslim religious communities — Hindus in India, Buddhists in Asia or Christians in Europe, Latin America and Africa — the reverse is true. These communities continue to advance while largely avoiding conflicts and are increasingly democratized.

Historically, Muslim religious ideologues felt that their communities should live by the principles of Islam. This idea was framed in the form of calls to adhere to Sharia, portrayed compellingly as all-encompassing “divine law.” As an interpretation of Islam, Sharia laws vary widely.

In general, they reflect the cultural norms of the Arab tribes of a bygone era. In part, clerics’ or religious ideologues’ prestige and usefulness stem from their status as interpreters of Sharia.

The infusion of modernity and secular ideas into Muslim communities threatened to upend the influence of orthodox leaders. Beginning in the early 1900s, prominent ideologues such as Hassan Al-Banna, and later Sayyid Qutb in Egypt, Abul Maududi in Pakistan and Ruholla Khomeini in Iran started to push back against secularism, by cogently articulating the need for Muslims to live by Sharia laws.

Had oil not been discovered in the Middle East, the calls of the orthodox would have likely been ignored; the price of rejecting modernity certainly would have been poverty.

Iran and Saudi Arabia, prominent Shia and Sunni Islamic nations, respectively, not only found themselves awash in oil wealth, but also provided jobs for millions of Egyptians and Pakistanis, among others.

Starting in the 1970s, Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and home to its two holy mosques, began a worldwide export of Sharia and armed jihad emphasizing Wahhabism, a conservative and intolerant form of Islam. Saudi-trained clerics told their flock that Allah would reward them with oil wealth if they practice Islam like the Saudis, including a strict adherence to “God’s law (Sharia).”

The Saudis also pioneered religious sponsorship (in addition to the financial one) of armed jihad through the Afghan Islamic insurgency of the 1980s.

In particular, the impact of the emphasis on Sharia has been no less consequential. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center report, in 25 out of 38 nations, the majority of the Muslims surveyed considered Sharia to be the “revealed word of God” and favored making it the law of the land. Among those who favored doing so, in 10 out of 20 nations, the majority supported corporal punishments such as whippings or cutting off the hands of thieves and robbers, much like what Saudi Arabia enforces under its Sharia laws.

Not surprisingly, in a handful of these 25 nations, including Pakistan, Nigeria and Iraq, newly formed militant groups — Tehreek-e-Taliban, Boko Haram and the Islamic State — are waging armed jihad with the intent of imposing strict Sharia-based governance on communities where a mix of modern and Sharia laws prevail.

What then if only a minority supports the above referenced Sharia measures in a Muslim majority nation? Predictably, there can be a welcome possibility: Nations moderate in their outlook that can sustain socioeconomic development. One such nation is Turkey.

Instead of being at the top of counterterrorism policy agenda, Sharia has become an afterthought. For example, in a 2014 address to the United Nations, President Barack Obama called on Muslims to “reject the ideology of [militant] organizations,” without any mention of Sharia.

The issue is not Islam, but those who are pushing the self-serving narrative of Sharia as an all-encompassing divine law. Specifically, much like the successful war of ideas waged against Soviet communism, the West needs to spearhead the effort to undercut this Sharia narrative.

Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy is a scholar of radicalism who lives in Portland, Oregon.

***

Also see:

Sharia Adherent Muslims Are Not “Extremists”

cropped-cf404835c7c93f19d7efce5545012ae5_2e08UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 9, 2015:

The U.S. government continues to label the Islamic terrorists we face as “violent extremists” who commit acts of “workplace violence.”  Here at UTT we prefer to live in reality because it is the only place our enemies can be defeated.

The phrase “violent extremism” is a non-sensical term which means nothing, and was brought to the U.S. via the FBI and DHS who were convinced by our British counterparts it identifies those who are willing to support their beliefs with violence.  In this light, U.S. military forces and any American willing to defend a just cause can be classified as a “violent extremist.”

Unfortunately, those participating in the global Islamic jihad do not call themselves “extremists.” They call themselves “Jihadis” seeking to impose jihad on the world until the entire world is under Sharia (Islamic Law).  American war fighting doctrine states we begin our analysis of any enemy by how that enemy describes itself.

This enemy specifically states they seek to impose Sharia and it is the blueprint for everything it does.  Jihad is total warfare.  It is Civilization Jihad per the Muslim Brotherhood’s own strategic plan for North America, and the MB’s global strategy.  Jihad is warfare that comes at a society in a hundred different ways:  political, economic, psychological, spiritual, cultural, societal, and includes violence in the community and on the battlefield.

Sharia is the filter through which this enemy communicates and understands the world.  This is why it is crucial that we also use Sharia when we hear our adversaries speak so we can properly understand what the enemy intends.  “Terrorism” is killing a Muslim without right.  “Human Rights” is the imposition of Sharia (per the Cairo Declaration, a formal document served to the UN by the entire Muslim world via the OIC in 1993).  Extremism is when a Muslim exceeds his ability or authority.

Nowhere in the Muslim world do Islamic jihadi organizations call themselves “extremists” – they call themselves “Jihadis.”

At the Muslim Peace Conference in Oslo, Norway in 2013, we see the Muslim Community openly agreeing that the punishments of the Sharia are broadly supported.  Fahad Qureshi, the founder of IslamNet, asked the crowd a series of questions.  The answers from the entire Muslim audience put this issue right in our face.  They specifically state they are in full support of the Sharia, its punishment, and its importance to the Muslim community.

 

It is arrogant and condescending to believe Muslims do not believe the very thing they say they subscribe to – the very things Islam teaches.

They are not “extremists” – they are jihadis.

***

Also see:

The Muslim Brotherhood Comes to the White House

Obama-and-Valerie-Jarrett-AP-Photo-Jacquelyn-Martin-640x480Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 7, 2015:

The Obama White House has finally released the names of the fourteen Muslim “leaders” who met with the President this past week. Among the group — which included a comedian, along with a hijab-wearing basketball player and a handful of left wing activists — were a select few individuals with disturbingly close ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood.

As previously uncovered by Breitbart News, the White House confirmed that Azhar Azeez, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was one of the Muslim leaders that met with President Obama. ISNA was founded in 1981 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. Federal prosecutors have previously described how ISNA funneled its money to Palestinian terrorist group Hamas (via Investigative Project):

ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” the original name for the HAMAS military wing. Govt. Exh. 1-174. From that ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to HAMAS leader…

Azeez’s bio also reveals him as a founding member the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter. CAIR has also allegedly funneled money to Palestinian terror groups and was also started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In October, 2014, Azeez signed a letter endorsing Sharia Islamic governance. Under the Sharia, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens. The Sharia also endorses the hudud punishments in the Koran and Hadiths, which state that apostasy from Islam is punishable by death.

Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) was also in attendance at the Muslim leaders’ meeting with President Obama.

MPAC, just like CAIR and ISNA, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written and often endorsed a paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has publicly encouraged officials to look at Israel as a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks.

He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance.” In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, an MPAC senior official described the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah as one that fights for “American values.” In an MPAC-sponsored March 2009 protest to “Defend al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Quds,” participants could be heard chanting slogans encouraging Palestinians to wipe out Israel. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” demonstrators chanted.

Mohamed Majid, who serves as Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), was also in attendance at the White House meeting with the President, and senior advisors Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett.

In 2002, ADAMS was raided as part of a U.S. government initiative called “Operation Green Quest,” where federal agents suspected the group of supporting terrorist organizations. Government documents said that the ADAMS Center was “suspected of providing support to terrorists, money laundering, and tax evasion.”

Majid is also an official with the brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

He also signed the October 2014 letter, along with White House meeting attendee Azhar Azeez, insisting that Sharia law should be an acceptable political system worldwide.

It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Islamic cleric (and Hitler admirer) Hassan al-Banna after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The group seeks as its end-game to install a Sunni Islamic caliphate throughout the world. al-Banna said of his organization’s goals, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood. Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Also see:

Telling the Truth About Muhammad to the Bleeding Hearts


main-qimg-d0a7e7c524eb284f87b13ecd2ab69821By Eric Allen Bell:

Muslims are not what is wrong with Islam. This is what has been nearly impossible to communicate to most Liberals today.  The problem with Islam is the Prophet Muhammad.  According to Islamic scripture, in other words, what mainstream Muslims are taught to believe, the Prophet Muhammad was a slave owner, a rapist, committed mass murder, hated Jews with a passion, wanted homosexuals punished, killed his critics, stripped women of all rights and had sex with a nine year old girl, whom he married when she was six, named Aisha.

If the Prophet Muhammad was a Republican Senator from Kentucky, Liberals would oppose him vehemently. But as I have stated before, within the Liberal mind there seems to be a perceptive disability. When I say “Islam” they hear “Muslim”. Such is the nature of the Collectivist mind.

But Muslims are a symptom and not the source of the problem.  The problem is the Prophet Muhammad. If he were alive today, Amnesty International would certainly have a problem with his followers obeying his laws, which demand that certain people have their limbs amputated and their nose cut off. The Democrats would have him in their crosshairs as being at the forefront on the “war against women”. The New York Times would certainly seek to expose him and any whistle blower in his ranks would be celebrated as the next Julian Assange.

The Huffington Post and Daily Kos would be collecting signatures, to demand that our government do something to stop him. Media Matters would be reprinting all of the outrageous things he said, such as “I have become victorious through terror”.

Michael Moore would probably follow the Prophet around, trying to trick him into a “gotcha” question, then win an Academy Award for his latest documentary, “Muhammad and Me”. The poster would feature Michael Moore gloating in his baseball cap, next to a cut out of the Prophet – and then of course he would be executed, because of the piction of the Prophet.

Gloria Allred would be representing all of the women whom the Prophet Muhammad took as sex slaves. Every major women’s rights group in America would send out mailers, asking for donations to stop the Prophet Muhammad from instructing his followers to rape his enemies, as an act of war.  Rachel Maddow would have a field day, every day, with this story – and rightfully so. Organizations for the rights of women would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper would profile the Prophet Muhammad in his “Keeping Them Honest” segment of his highly rated show, because of all the contradictions in Muhammad’s best seller, the Holy Quran (look up “Abrogation”).  Cat Stevens would be held in Guantanamo Bay for aiding an enemy of the United States, since he is a follower of the Prophet and Muhammad says that no government is legitimate, unless it follows the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. And he would be likely be sharing a bunk with Representative Keith Ellison.

The ADL would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad stating that Jews are all apes and pigs (see Suras 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166), rather than trying to protect the rights of Islam’s female followers to wear black sheets over their bodies, as the Prophet’s laws command. If someone were alive today, calling Jews apes and pigs, while having 1.6 billion followers, the ADL would have something to say about it.

The Daily Show would have more fun mocking the Prophet than taking pot shots at Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.  Bill Maher and Sean Hannity would ironically be sharing a Nobel Peace Prize for their brave and pioneering work, in exposing the war crimes of the Prophet Muhammad.  No one would be drawing parallels between the persecuted yet devout followers of Muhammad and the Holocaust, if the Prophet Muhammad were conducting his mass genocide of infidels today (see Quran 9:5).

Gay rights groups would be a little concerned about the Mormon Church, but totally freaked out about anyone who follows the laws of the Prophet, known as the Sharia, because Sharia Law calls for homosexuals to be severely punished.  Every cult awareness website and organization out there would put out an alert, since the penalty for leaving the Prophet’s religion is death.

After the Prophet Muhammad beheaded an entire tribe of Jews, possibly no one would have a problem with waterboarding anyone who knew where to find him.  The Prophet Muhammad had several wives, but the one named Safiyya became his wife after he tortured and killed her father, her brothers, the men in her tribe, told his fighters to take the women of that tribe as sex slaves and then raped Safia that night. Anyone who had a problem with that, which would be anyone in their right mind, would not be called a “bigot”.

Given that the Prophet Muhammad advocated slavery and owned slaves, it would be unlikely that any African Americans would follow him.  Louis Farrakhan’s speeches would end up on a blooper reel, right next to Malcom X and of course the champion of human rights, Ben Affleck.

The young multibillionaire owner of the world’s largest social network would not be able to quietly obey the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.  But the Prophet is said to have been told about his impending death by the Angel Gabriel. He was said to have been given a choice between being a great king on Earth and going to meet Allah. Apparently he chose not to remain immortal. However, if we compare the body counts of Pol Pot, Hitler and Chairman Mao against the 270 million people killed in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, I guess you can say he has become immortal after all.

Anyway, that young multibillionaire is named Mark Zuckerberg and his social network is called Facebook. At the time this article was written, there are an estimated 1.2 billion Facebook members and the average time a member spends on Facebook is 55 minutes a day. So, whatever policy Facebook decides to adopt is kind of a big deal – in some ways it has more of an impact than what the United Nations decides.

Currently the United Nations has approximately 57 nations which make up what is called the OIC, or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.  The OIC is trying to make it an international law that criticizing the Prophet Muhammad become illegal. Vice President of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, here in the United States, Syrian immigrantAbdou Kattih, said he supports such a law.  But the OIC are lightweights compared to the power of Facebook. There is an argument to be made that the world went inside the internet and became the world.

Today as I write this, there have been about 25,000 acts of terrorism committed, just since 9/11 alone, in the name of the Prophet Muhammad.  That is several per day – approximately 2 million people actually.  But you can’t say that on Facebook. A new Facebook educational page went up this morning, called “Exposing the Prophet Muhammad” and was taken down, hours later, as it violates Facebook’s policy concerning anything that offends the followers of the Prophet Muhammad.

What did that Facebook page post that was so offensive?  It posted a video that referenced all of the Islamic scripture that tells the story of how Muhammad took Aisha as his wife when she was six years old and consummated their marriage when she was nine.  Oh, and it referenced the Islamic law that states that anyone drawing a picture of the Prophet be killed.

What does this mean for you and me?  It means that in the Information Age, the most powerful force on the internet has agreed to follow the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad.  Islamic Law is also called “Sharia”.  Do you still think the Sharia scare is some crazy Right Wing conspiracy theory?

Eric Allen Bell is a writer, filmmaker and Media Adviser living in Los Angeles, California.  While making a documentary about the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in Murfreesboro, TN he attempted to expose “Islamophobia”. Once he stated that Islam was the biggest threat to human rights in the world today, he was banned from the writing for Daily Kos and MichaelMoore.com, after LoonWatch.com created a petition to silence him. His article, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam” has been widely circulated and has caused several Liberals to rethink how they look at the Religion of Peace.

Basis in Islamic Jurisprudence (Shariah) and Scripture for Execution of Jordanian Pilot

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton, Feb. 3, 2015:

“Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.”

Quran Sura 4:56

In the burning scene video the Islamic State gave the Islamic edict straight from the top Islamic authority of Ibn Taymiyya’s jurisprudence:

“So if horror of commonly desecrating the body is a call for them [the infidels] to believe [in Islam], or to stop their aggression, it is from here that we carry out the punishment and the allowance for legal Jihad”

Ibn Taymiyya was one of the most esteemed Sunni Islamic scholars of all time. He is considered one of the originators of the Hanbali school of Shariah. He originated the practice of declaring Jihad on Muslims who did not follow the Shariah based on the belief that they were not true Muslims, despite their claims to the faith.

taymiyya

***

“Healing The Chests Of Believers,” And The Duty To Instruct As Well As Protect

NER,  by Hugh Fitzgerald

That was the title, that was the theme, that was the point, of the video of the burning alive of Moaz Al-Kasasbeh. Obama refers to this “bankrupt ideology” that has come, apparently, out of nowhere. King Abdullah, in Washington, is apparently amazed and flabbergasted at these people, who have absolutely nothing to do with Islam. And the rest of the world’s leaders are also horrified, and amazed, and presumably puzzled, as to this “ideology” that comes out of nowhere, that has “nothing to do with Islam” and for which no texts, not a single sentence, can be found that is not in the Qur’an, or not in the Hadith, or not in essence discoverable in the biography (Sira) of Muhammad, beginning with that of Ibn Ishaq. Perhaps someone should offer a sufficiently high reward — say, $25 million, the price the American government put on the head of Osama bin Laden — to anyone who can come forward with the presumably fictional quotes from Qur’an and Hadith that the Islamic State relies on.

If you happen to google — it takes about 30 seconds — “heal the chests of believers” or a variant, you will find what I found, in Sura 9, ayat 14.

Read here.

For a story about setting fire to someone regarded as an enemy — a Jew of the Khaybar Oasis, because he didn’t want to give up all of his property to Muhammad and his marauding followers at Khaybar — who was set alight, and then decapitated, google “Kinana” and, if you need to, “Ibn Ishaq,” and you will discover that Kinana first had his chest set alight. And then he was decapitated. And his propoerty taken. And his wife Safiya taken by Muhammad to be his sex slave. Youu can read more about it, in Ibn Ishaq and in the Hadith,here.

Obama — and other Western leaders — cannot continue this attempt to hide from those to whom they have a duty not only to protect, but to instruct — what is in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. They think they can continue this indefinitely. They apparently think it is possible to “keep the support” — what support, really? — of our “staunch allies” in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, and also “keep the support” — what support, really? — of Muslims in the West, and yet not lose the support of non-Muslims who in ever greater numbers will be alarmed, as they find out what is being kept from them, and will, already do, distrust their governments, distrust much of the media, and wonder why they cannot be properly informed so that they may, in turn, vote for candidates who understand the problem abroad, and the problem within our countries too.

This menace, and this misinformation about that menacee, and this growing mistrust of those all over the West who have a duty to instruct as well as protect us, will not go away. It will not lessen. It will only get worse.

***

Islamic State Justification for Burning Alive the Jordanian Pilot: Translation and Analysis 

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi  •  Feb 4, 2015

Below I have translated the document circulated by the Islamic State’s al-Eftaa wa al-Buhuth committee on the subject of the burning alive of the Jordanian pilot. This committee is responsible for providing Islamic textual justifications for various decrees on the acceptability of certain acts. This latest example is perhaps the most notorious. It is important that these documents be brought to light because as the corpus of Islamic texts- whether verses of Qur’an, the ahadith and acts from early Islamic history- is so vast, the Islamic State will likely find some reference that can justify its actions and make its supporters and members feel more sure of themselves. My friend Hassan Hassan has already noted this problem, and it presents a significant challenge to those who wish to counter the Islamic State on interpretation and counter-interpretation grounds.

Question: What is the ruling on burning the kafir [disbeliever] with fire until he dies?

Answer: […] The Hanafis and Shafi’is* have permitted it, considering the saying of the Prophet ‘Fire is only to be administered as punishment by God’ as an affirmation of humility. Al-Muhallab** said: “This is not an abslolute prohibition, but rather on the path of humility.”

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar*** said: “What points to the permissibility of burning is the deeds of the Companions, and the Prophet put out the eyes of the Uraynians with heated iron…while Khalid ibn al-Waleed**** burnt people of those who apostazied.”

And some of the Ahl al-‘Ilm have been of the opinion that burning with fire was prohibited originally, but then on retaliation it is permitted, just as the Prophet did to the people of Urayna, when he put out the eyes of the Uraynians with fire- in retaliation- as is related in Sahih [reliable] tradition, and this brought forth the words together among the proofs.

[…]

Notes

*- Two of the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence, the others being Maliki and Hanbali.
**- Early theologian in Islam- died c. 702 CE.
***- Fifteenth century imam and jurist from Egypt: bio here.
****- Companion of Muhammad who participated in early Muslim conquests in the Levant.

***

Why ISIS Used Fire to Murder the Jordanian Pilot

PJ Media, By Bridget Johnson On February 4, 2015:

After ISIS released the video yesterday of 1st Lt. Muath al-Kasaesbeh being burned to death in a cage, U.S. news reports were musing about the method of his murder as cremation is not permissible in Islam.

Pundits and anchors steered toward the conclusion that the fire was intended to be the ultimate insult to the pilot called an apostate by his captors.

ISIS supporters, though, defended burning him alive by claiming the principle of “qisas,” claiming that he burned children with airstrikes so should burn himself. They bulldozed rubble over his body, again symbolizing the airstrikes.

Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper provides a lengthy primer on qisas: “The Quran provides two options to deal with someone who is found guilty of intentional murder: qisas (ie that he/she be killed in the manner in which the victim was murdered) and forgiveness by the heir/s of the victim.”

ISIS and its supporters, which had been using the Arabic hashtag #SuggestAWayToKillTheJordanianPilotPig right after the pilot’s capture to suggest murder methods, particularly put social media effort into defending the murder of al-Kasaesbeh, himself a Muslim, as keeping with Islamic laws. There was also some debate on Twitter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Newt Gingrich on the Islamist Threat and America’s Survival

 

PJ Media, By Andrew C. McCarthy On January 30, 2015:

How is our nation dealing with the continuing menace of Islamic supremacism, the ideology that catalyzes the jihadist and cultural threat to the West?

At the Freedom Forum in Iowa last Saturday, Newt Gingrich drew an apt analogy to the period from the end of World War II through 1948, as the Iron Curtain consigned half of Europe to tyranny: Imagine that the president of the United States had been not Harry Truman but Stalin’s useful idiot, Henry Wallace – the former vice president whom FDR thankfully dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1944.

Had that happened, Gingrich opined, our president would have been assuring us, “There is no KGB. There is no Comintern. The Soviet Union is not a threat. Communism is okay. I don’t think you should be worried about all these things.”

Meaning: What we’d have had is defeat in the Cold War.

Newt’s admonition was clear. In a rousing speech about “America’s survival,” the former House speaker argued that, after being at it for fourteen years, we are losing “the war with radical Islamists.”

His main point, one very similar to the contention advanced by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (in a recent London speech that was the subject of my NROcolumn last weekend), is that we are at war with an enemy that seeks to destroy the West, and that we cannot win the war without telling the truth about the enemy — indeed, “without admitting it’s a war.”

In the interest of candor, then, I will concede that I am not crazy about the term Newt uses to describe the enemy: “radical Islamists.” The right term is “radical Islam.” An Islamist is a Muslim who wants repressive, discriminatory sharia imposed. In the West, an Islamist is radical by definition.

It is not pedantry to raise this difference. When we say “radical Islam,” we concisely divide our enemies – extremist, sharia-supremacist Muslims, violent or nonviolent – from the rest of Islam, with which we would like to live amicably. But saying “radical Islamist” implies that there must also be “moderate Islamists.” There aren’t, of course, but the progressives’ insistence that there must be has led to exactly what the former speaker is rightly concerned about: paralyzing political correctness and reckless policy errors (e.g., Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood) – the things that obscure the threat to us.

Still, any difference of opinion on this point is narrow. “Radical Islamist” is geometrically more clarifying than the Beltway’s willfully blind preference, “violent extremist.” Moreover, in invoking “radical Islamists,” the former House speaker is clearly referring to violent jihadists – i.e., Islamists who commit terrorism. Terrorists are radical even among Islamists – although Islamist support for terrorists (at least moral support and often material support) is alarmingly high.

Our bipartisan ruling elite attempts to minimize the ideological underpinning of the Islamist threat as well as its geographical scope. Gingrich was firm that the jihad is formidable, unified and global. In its blatant contempt for our government, the Iranian regime locks up a journalist and enables its proxies to rout Yemen (which Obama had touted as a counterterrorism success) — confident that the Obama administration will keep talking to them and appeasing them no matter what they do. ISIS, of course, has obliterated the border between Iraq and Syria even as Western leaders grope for country-specific policies based on a map that no longer exists.

But that’s not the half of it. As Gingrich elaborated, Western intelligence estimates about ISIS in Syria and Iraq warn us of at least 1,000 jihadists from France, 600 from Britain, and 100 from the United States. Many if not most of these Islamists will return home not just with training and combat experience but with an enhanced prestige that comes with taking part in the jihad – a prestige that makes them more effective recruiters, fundraisers, and practitioners of domestic jihad.

Meanwhile, as the threat intensifies, Western governments, led by our own, continue to lie about it. The ruthless Boko Haram jihadist organization in Nigeria has 10,000 fighters (and, as the Wall Street Journal reported this week, it eyes conquest in nearby Chad, Cameroon and Niger). Yet, under Hillary Clinton, the State Department would not even designate it as a terrorist organization – even though, Gingrich sharply observed, Boko Haram named one of their main training camps “Afghanistan” in honor or the Taliban.

Again, that’s not the half of it. Under Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton, the State Department has declined to designate the Afghan Taliban itself as a terrorist organization. This underscores Newt’s on-target assessment that, when it comes to obfuscation about Islamic supremacist ideology, the State Department was nearly as bad under Bush as under Obama. And while Bush at least included the Taliban as a terrorist organization in a 2002 executive order, Obama spokesmen have spent this week spinning the risible yarn that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization but a purely domestic “insurgent” group.

In truth, as the former speaker asserted, we have an elite in both parties that is unwilling to tell the truth. You can’t win the war without telling the truth and without admitting it’s a war. As he put it, there is a common thread that unites the enemy, wherever on earth the enemy operates: They “hate our civilization and would impose their religion by force.”

This cannot be blinked away – neither by what Gingrich tartly but accurately diagnosed as Obama’s “pathological incapacity to deal with reality,” nor by the ineffable John Kerry’s insistence that jihadist terror has nothing to do with Islam – that these atrocities are committed by “specific, unique, random individuals” who just happen to be Muslims bent on imposing sharia.

From his national security right perspective, Newt anticipated and dismissed as “Baloney!” an attack on his position from the strange-bedfellow alliance of antiwar leftists and extremist libertarians who see U.S. counterterrorism as a greater threat than the jihad. It is the claim that what Gingrich is really calling for is “an army of 7 million” so we can “occupy everywhere” in the Middle East.

As he countered, we are talking about defeating an enemy whom we must identify. And in identifying that enemy “we can draw a clear distinction.” To wit:

If you are a Muslim, and you want to live in peace with your neighbors, and you have no problem with people converting in both directions, and you’d like to be allowed to have a mosque but, by the way, they can have a synagogue, a temple, or a church – I have no problem with Muslims who are prepared to live in diversity. But if you’re a Muslim who believes you are going to impose sharia by cutting off my head, I have a desire to kill you before you cut off my head.

The ensuing standing ovation from Freedom Forum attendees carried a salient message for the GOP’s field of would-be presidential nominees: A Republican will not win the White House in 2016 unless national security is a major issue and one on which Republicans hold a decisive edge.

The keys to gaining that edge are candor, clarity and courage. As Newt recounted, Churchill took the time to read and understand Mein Kampf. He was unafraid to call the threat to civilization what it was, even when no one in England or Europe wanted to listen. Reagan – “not having gone to Harvard Law School and been thoroughly educated in how to avoid reality” – understood that when Stalinists said they wanted to conquer the West, what they meant was … that they wanted to conquer the West. In his “magnificent” post-9/11 speech to a joint session of Congress, George W. Bush warned rogue regimes that they had a choice to make: With us, or with the terrorists?

It is again time – past time – to be bold in calling the threat against us what it is, and in understanding why it seeks to conquer us (i.e., in grasping that it is about their ideology not our flaws). That has been the essence of self-defense throughout history, and it hasn’t changed.

Among the best parts of Newt’s excellent speech was its call for practical action. With Republicans now in control of both houses of Congress, he argued that conservatives can serve the cause of national security by demanding months of hearings to examine, to speak bluntly about, the Islamist challenge to the West. Gingrich’s suggestions along these lines tracked his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed:

  • Appraise the strength and growth rate of the enemy.
  • Assess the danger on a country-by-country basis, through each jihadist hub – Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
  • Shine a spotlight on the Muslim Brotherhood – the enemy’s theoretical backbone that is “so little understood by Washington elites that it deserves its own set of hearings.”
  • Identify the primary sources of funding, especially in the Gulf.
  • Learn from Arab countries that have successfully contained the radicals.
  • Study the radicalization process, particularly the role of mosques and social media in recruiting young Muslims into terrorism.
  • Tackle “the Islamist cyberthreat” – in fact, as Gingrich declared (to much applause), we should be “driving them off the Internet.”

The recent barbarities in Paris, the stepped up pace of al Qaeda and ISIS atrocities, must be a wake-up call. For Newt Gingrich, conservatives do not just have an opportunity to lead the way. If America is to survive as we know and love her, conservatives must see that opportunity as a duty. The hour is growing late.