After the terrors in Paris, Bill Whittle asks if we should just listen to our President and accept Islam as a progressive path for America… Can Sharia Law and The Constitution coexist?
After the terrors in Paris, Bill Whittle asks if we should just listen to our President and accept Islam as a progressive path for America… Can Sharia Law and The Constitution coexist?
By Andrew Bostom, Nov. 19, 2015:
Thanks to Sam Sorbo for a wide-ranging discussion of the ISIS-orchestrated Paris jihad carnage, the merits of Trump’s populist commentary in the aftermath of that jihadist barbarity, and related policy questions on our “Muslim allies,” i.e., perfidious, ISIS-abetting Neo-Ottoman Turkey; US-hating masses of Jordanians celebrating a jihad murderer of US workers as a “martyr,” while chanting “Death to America” in the streets, or “despicable America” at the “martyr’s” burial; and Sisi’s Egypt prosecuting Copts for mocking ISIS.
.We also discussed US mosque, and Muslim-attitude data, vis-à-vis Sharia and jihadism (see here; here; here), and Obama’s morally cretinous abandonment of the bona fide Yazidi and Christians refugees, the former whom his own Administration admits are being subjected to a “designated” genocide, the latter, the Obama Administration grudgingly acknowledges, is suffering from mass killings.
Most importantly, I quoted (just the bold) from this recent interview (blogged and transcribed by Diana West; who added an additional query) of a real 1991 Iraq war fighting hero, then tank commander Col. Douglas MacGregor.
If we commit large ground forces to the Middle East with the goal of defeating or destroying ISIL (the Islamic State)” the results will include all of the following:
“First, it would provide a temporary, rather than a permanent setback to Sunni Islamism. Sunni Islamist fighters will retreat into Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa. We forget that without the tacit and active support of Turkish President Erdogan and his supporters in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, ISIL could not exist.
“Second, we will yet again ensure the expansion and consolidation of Iranian-Shiite strategic power and influence from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Our intervention in Iraq created an Iranian Satellite in Baghdad. This time we would end up working with the Russians to ensure Iran controls all of Mesopotamia.
“Third, like the French, our first action should involve the closing of our borders, not the invasion of the Middle East. Given that our borders are open, immigration (legal and illegal) is uncontrolled and (if) unchecked no change will occur in the conditions inside the United States that foster criminality and terrorism.”
Macgregor continued: “As long as Sunni Islamist leaders in Turkey, KSA and Qatar provide the support and pathways for recruits that brought ISIL to life in the first place, nothing will fundamentally change. Moreover, if we do intervene on the ground, assuming we find anything before it flees into neighboring Arab states and Anatolia, we stand an excellent chance of securing Mesopotamia for Iran and its strategic partner Russia. Since we did accomplish that already in Baghdad, I am unconvinced we should repeat the mistake in the rest of the region.”
Channel 6 wrote: “Instead, Col Macgregor thinks America should secure its borders, enforce Federal immigration law, and halt immigration (legal and illegal) until US Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) can find out who is in the United States.”
“Right now, we just don’t know,” Macgregor said. “We have at least 30 million illegals including large numbers of Muslims and Chinese. How many are agents that wish to steal intellectual property or pursue cyber terrorism? How many Chinese and Latino girls are in brothels managed by organized crime? What we do know is that we now have Muslim communities inside the US where the population wants to substitute Muslim holidays for Federal Holidays and Sharia law for the Constitution. I strongly suggest we deal with these internal problems first.”’
I asked Col. Macgregor if he had anything to add. He replied: “For some reason, we forget that Tsarnaev and his brother, the Sunni Muslims who attacked and killed Americans in Boston, were Turks from the Caucasus, not the Middle East. Before we march into vast wastelands of the Middle East we had better secure Americans at home first. Marching into the Middle East the last time made matters worse, not better.”
Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Nov. 16, 2015:
Barack Obama implied Monday that opponents of his mad scheme to fill this country with Syrian refugees (including an untold number of active Islamic jihadists) were motivated by religious prejudice.
And when I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.
But he does. In 2011, our international organization, Stop Islamisation of Nations (SION), appealed to the Obama Administration and the United Nations to grant emergency asylum to the real refugees of jihadi wars. Our call was met with deafening and deadening (literally) silence.
Obama’s American compassion.
In his speech at the G20 Summit in Turkey on Monday, Obama took a harsher tone with Republicans than he has with ISIS. In the wake of the Paris jihad slaughter, he is obsessed with… importing more Muslims, not defeating the Islamic State. And he calls anyone opposed to increased Muslim migration — namely the GOP — “shameful.” But it is Obama who is shameful. He’s the one who has applied a religious test to migrants. He has refused Christians seeking refuge from jihad genocide. He has refused to meet with Middle Eastern Christian leaders. They are the true victims of the jihadi wars.
Obama took to the world stage to push for more Muslim migration and to scold anyone who tied terrorism to Islam. Why is he admonishing us? We didn’t tie Islam to terrorism. The jihadists are the ones who have done that. Devout Muslims are waging war in the cause of Islam by their word and deed, so why is Obama blaming us?
Obama’s American compassion.
As the number of Christian and religious minorities who are refugees began to rise in concert with the ascent of Islamic supremacist groups, and as the violence continues against non-Muslims under the sharia, part of Obama’s anti-freedom foreign policy is to suppress the horror of what is happening under his watch. He has gone so far as to remove the Religious Freedom Section from the State Department’s Human Rights reports.
Obama’s American compassion.
Obama then went on to angrily school us on the meaning of America, admonishing opponents of his disastrous and suicidal refugee resettlement plan: “That’s not American. That’s not who we are.”
Was abandoning our ambassador and our soldiers in Benghazi American? Leaving Americans to die instead of rescuing them is the definition of anti-Americanism.
Blaming the First Amendment after a jihad terror attack is the opposite of Americanism.
Abandoning our closest ally in the Middle East is the opposite of Americanism. Ousting Mubarak and Qaddafi to install terror regimes is the opposite of Americanism. Aiding“moderate al Qaeda” (as if there really were such a thing) in Syria is the opposite of Americanism.
Who the hell is Barack Hussein Obama to tell us what is American and what isn’t?
While never holding Muslims to account for jihad, Obama has excoriated Christians for… the Crusades. Is that American?
The Islamic State has posted the names and addresses of U.S. soldiers, FBI agents, Navy SEALs, and other defenders of freedom. They have issued a fatwa (death sentence) against my supporters and me. Our assassins will gain entry under Obama’s refugee plans. Is that American?
Obama demands that we believe his lies. He insists that the refugees are fleeing the war in Syria when, in fact, four out of five of the migrants who have recently come to Europe are not Syrian. He insists that they are all fleeing war — how does he know? ISIS vowed last February to send a half-a-million-man army to Europe via refugee migration — and now they have done it. How does Obama know who they are and why they are coming? How can he possibly vet them, when he refuses to acknowledge the jihad ideology and scrubbed all counter-terror material of any mention of jihad and Islam? How can our intelligence agencies determine if they are jihadists?
Obama’s America — what is Obama’s America?
An America that supports BDS?
An America that abandons her allies?
An America that supports terrorism?
An America that partners with terrorist groups?
An America that denigrates America on the world stage?
That’s not America. That’s not American. Contrary to Obama’s claims, that’s what’s really shameful.
Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.
PJ Media, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Nov. 14, 2015:
Earlier this year, following the Charlie Hebdo massacre and related terrorist attacks in and around Paris, I wrote Islam and Free Speech, a “Broadside” that is part of the series published by Encounter Books. The following is an excerpt.
How did we get to this historical anomaly in France where, as the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes observes, “a majority population accepts the customs and even the criminality of a poorer and weaker community”? It is the result of a conquest ideology taking the measure of a civilization that no longer values its heritage, no longer regards itself as worthy of defense.
France’s population of 66 million is now approximately 10 percent Islamic. Estimates are sketchy because, in a vestige of its vanishing secularist tradition, France does not collect census data about religious affiliation. Still, between 6 and 7 million Muslims are reasonably believed to be resident in the country (Pew put the total at 4.7 million back in 2010 – other analysts peg it higher today). To many in France, the number seems higher, due to both the outsize influence of Islamist activists on the political class and the dense Muslim communities in and around Paris – approximating 15 percent of the local population. An online poll conducted by Ipsos Mosi in 2014 found that the average French citizenbelieves Muslims make up about a third of the country’s population.
As night follows day, when Muslim populations surge, so does support for jihadism and the sharia supremacist ideology that catalyzes it. The reason is plain to see, even if Western elites remain willfully blind to it: For a not insignificant percentage of the growing Muslim millions in Europe, infiltration – by both mass immigration and the establishment of swelling Islamic enclaves – is a purposeful strategy of conquest, sometimes referred to as “voluntary apartheid.”
One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. A Qatar-based Egyptian octogenarian, Qaradawi is a Muslim Brotherhood icon. He is a copiously published scholar graduated from Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium, and thus oversees both the International Union of Muslim Scholars and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Thanks to his pioneering of the highly trafficked IslamOnline website and, especially, to his hugely popular al-Jazeera television program, Sharia and Life, he has become the world’s most influential sharia jurist.
Qaradawi is the sharia backbone of the violent jihad to exterminate Israel – a tiny country surrounded by hundreds of millions of hostile Muslims. The sheikh also vows that Islam will “conquer” both Europe and America, but acknowledges that this conquest will require a strategy more suited to a determined minority that knows it cannot win by force of arms. The key, he asserts, is dawa, the Muslim equivalent of proselytism. In radical Islam, it is hyper-aggressive, pushing on every cultural cylinder, pressuring every institution, and exploiting the atmosphere of intimidation created by jihadist terror to blur the lines between legal advocacy and extortion.
In France, dawa presses against laïcité, the credo of secularism through the strict separation of religion and the state. Qaradawi is quite clear that “secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” He is equally adamant that Muslims, who are bound to live in accordance with the strictures of sharia, must reject a secular framework because “acceptance of secularism means abandonment of sharia, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions.” Thus, he elaborates, “The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of sharia is downright apostasy.”
This nexus between free speech and Western democracy is worth pausing over. Notice that, in focusing on the incompatibility between Islamic law and democracy’s secular, pluralist underpinnings, Qaradawi draws the inevitable conclusion that democracy equals apostasy. The term apostasy is not invoked idly in radical Islam. As explained in Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual endorsed by al-Azhar scholars, the renunciation of Islam is a death penalty offense.
Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It is the plinth of freedom’s fortress. It is the ineliminable imperative if there is to be the robust exchange of knowledge and ideas, the rule of reason, freedom of conscience, equality before the law, property rights, and equality of opportunity. That is why it must be extinguished if there is to be what Qaradawi calls a “place of religion” – meaning his religion. For all its arrogance and triumphalist claims, radical Islam must suppress speech because it cannot compete in a free market of conscience.
To sustain their movement, therefore, Islamist leaders must separate Muslims from secular society. In the West, this means forming Islamic enclaves in which sharia gradually takes root as the de facto and, eventually, the de jure law – enabling Muslims to resist the challenge of critical thinking under the guise avoiding the near occasion of apostasy. Over time, dominion is established over swaths of not only physical territory but legal privilege. Qaradawi puts the matter succinctly:
Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.
The key to the conquest strategy is to coerce the West into accepting a Muslim right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict. For precisely this reason, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – a bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) – has decreed that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, similarly pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate in the West “is a crime against humanity.”
Free expression is the gateway to assimilation. Consequently, radical Islam cannot tolerate it.
As a result, France is now rife with Zones Urbaines Sensibiles – “sensitive urban areas.” The government officially lists some 751 of them: Islamic enclaves in the banlieues, often referred to as “no go zones” because the indigenous populations discourage the presence of non-Muslims who do not conform to Islamic standards of dress and social interaction, and of public officials – police, fire-fighters, emergency medical teams, and building inspectors – who are seen as symbols of the state’s effort to exercise sovereignty in areas Muslims seek to possess adversely.
Some of these zones inevitably evolve into hotbeds of jihadist activity. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern notes, there has been no shortage of Internet traffic suggesting, for example, “the killing of France’s ambassadors, just as the manly Libyan fighters killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi.” In a low-intensity jihadist thrum stretching back several years, the torching of automobiles has become a commonplace – as many as 40,000 cars burned annually. Perhaps most alarmingly, over a thousand French Muslims, more than from any other Western country, are estimated to have traveled to Syria to fight for ISIS – meaning many will return to the country as trained, battle-hardened jihadists. Beyond the direct ISIS participants, moreover, the Washington Post has reported that a recent poll found 16 percent of French citizens expressing some degree of support for ISIS – an organization whose rule over the vast territory it has seized is best known for decapitations, rapine, the execution of homosexuals, mass graves, and the enslavement of non-Muslim communities.
Once one grasps the voluntary apartheid strategy, it becomes obvious why radical Islam’s inroads in France, and elsewhere in Europe, seamlessly translate into demands for the enforcement of sharia’s curbs on speech and artistic expression. What is not so obvious is just how profound a challenge to the West this constitutes.
Gatestone Institute, by Raymond Ibrahim, November 11, 2015:
In compliance with Islamic demands, Indonesian authorities in the Aceh region have started to tear down Christian churches. Their move comes after Muslim mobs rampaged and attacked churches. At least one person was killed; thousands of Christians were displaced.
On Friday, October 9, after being fired up during mosque sermons, hundreds of Muslims marched to the local authority’s office and demanded that all unregistered churches in Aceh be closed. Imams issued text messages spurring Muslims from other areas to rise up against churches and call for their demolition.
On Monday, October 12, authorities facilitated a meeting with Islamic leaders and agreed to demolish 10 unregistered churches over the course of two weeks.
Apparently this was not fast enough to meet Muslim demands for immediate action. On the following day, a mob of approximately 700 Muslims, some armed with axes and machetes, torched a local church, even though it was not on the list of churches agreed upon for demolition.
The Muslim mob then moved on to a second church, an act that led to violent clashes. One person, believed to be a Christian, died after being shot in the head. Several were injured, as Christians tried to defend their church against the armed mob.
Approximately 8,000 Christians were displaced; many fled to bordering provinces. Their fears were justified: Islamic leaders continued issuing messages and text messages saying, “We will not stop hunting Christians and burning churches. Christians are Allah’s enemies!”
Instead of punishing those who incited violence and took the law into their own hands by torching and attacking churches, local authorities demolished three churches (a Catholic mission station and two Protestant churches) on October 19. In the coming days, seven more churches are set to be demolished; in the coming months and years, dozens more.
Authorities had originally requested of church leaders to demolish their own churches. “How can we do that?” asked Paima Berutu, one of the church leaders: “It is impossible [for us to take it down] … Some of us watched [the demolition] from afar, man and women. It was painful.”
The situation in Aceh remains tense: “Every church member is guarding his own church right now,” said another pastor
As for the displaced Christians, many remain destitute, waiting for “desperately needed clean water, food, clothes, baby food, blankets, and medicines.” As Muslim militants were reportedly guarding the border with an order to kill any Christians crossing the line, reaching the Christians is difficult.
Many Muslims and some media try to justify this destruction by pointing out that the churches were in the wrong for not being registered. In reality, however, thanks to Indonesia’s 2006 Joint Decree on Houses of Worship, it is effectively impossible to obtain a church permit. The decree made it illegal for churches to acquire permits unless they can get “signatures from 60 local households of a different faith,” presumably Muslims, as well as “a written recommendation from the regency or municipal religious affairs office” — that is, from the local sheikh and council of Muslim elders: the same people most likely to incite Muslims against Christians and churches during mosque gatherings. Christian activists say there are many mosques that are unregistered and built without permits, but the authorities ignore those infractions.
Others try to justify these recent attacks on churches by pointing out that they took place in Aceh, the only region in Indonesia where Islamic law, or Sharia, is officially authorized, and where, since 2006, more than 1,000 churches have been shut.
Yet in other parts of Indonesia, where Islamic law is not enforced, even fully registered churches are under attack. These include the Philadelphia Protestant Church in Bekasi — nearly 1,500 miles south of Sharia-compliant Aceh. Even though it had the necessary paperwork, it too was illegally shut down in response to violent Muslim protests. On December 25, 2012, when the congregation assembled on empty land to celebrate Christmas, hundreds of Muslims, including women and children, threw rotten eggs, rocks, and plastic bags filled with urine and feces at the Christians. Police stood by and watched.
A church spokesman stated, “We are constantly having to change our location because our existence appears to be unwanted, and we have to hide so that we are not intimidated by intolerant groups. … We had hoped for help from the police, but after many attacks on members of the congregation [including when they privately meet for worship at each other’s homes], we see that the police are also involved in this.”
Bogor is another area where Islamic law is supposedly not enforced. Yet the ongoing saga of the GKI Yasmin Church there illustrates how Islamic law takes precedence over Indonesian law. In 2008, when local Muslims began complaining about the existence of the church, even though it was fully registered, the authorities obligingly closed it. In December 2010, the Indonesian Supreme Court ordered the church to be reopened, but the mayor of Bogor, refusing to comply, kept it sealed off.
Since then, the congregation has been holding Sunday services at the homes of members, and occasionally on the street, to the usual jeers and attacks by Muslim mobs. On Sunday, September 27, the church held its 100th open-air service.
The Indonesian jihad is taking place in varying degrees all throughout the East Asian nation and is not limited to Sharia-compliant zones such as Aceh. For the country once hailed as the face of “moderate Islam,” the “extremist” behavior one would expect of the Islamic State (ISIS) — hating, attacking, and demolishing churches — has apparently become the norm.
Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War in Christians (published by Regnery in cooperation with Gatestone Institute, April 2013).
Alert Long Island presents Clare Lopez – former CIA officer and Strategic Policy and Intelligence Expert – The US Response to the Global Jihad Movement
Albertson, NY Feb 24, 2015
Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Nov. 9, 2015:
Frank Gaffney, the President of the Center for Security Policy, appeared on Breitbart News Daily on Monday to discuss Sen. Ted Cruz ’s bill that seeks to designate the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as a terrorist organization. Gaffney also urged Republican nominees go on the record about Sharia-finance and Sharia law as a whole during Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate.
The bill “lays out the case” the add the MB on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, said Gaffney, who served as acting Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan.
The Center For Security Policy president said that Republican candidates should not be asked whether they support the pending legislation, but instead what reasons they have not to advocate for it, given the Brotherhood’s extremism.
The Obama administration, on the other hand, has “engaged with them, enabled them, empowered them,” and has even in some cases, decided to “fund and arm them,” Gaffney told Breitbart News Daily host Stephen K. Bannon.
Sharia law, the Islamic doctrine advocated by the MB, is a “totalitarian, brutally repressive, misogynistic, homophobic, and” is part of a “downright dangerous agenda of Islamic supremacism,” Gaffney said.
The Muslim Brotherhood is deploying a “subversive agenda that they call civilization jihad that is designed to take us down,” he added, explaining that the group explained in its own words that it wants to “destroy civilization from within” with the goal to make their God’s religion victorious over all other religions.
Bannon, who leads Breitbart News as its executive chairman, asked Gaffney what question he would want each candidate to answer in Tuesday’s debate.
Gaffney offered as a question in the economy-themed debate that is scheduled to air on Fox Business channel: “Do you believe that it is in America’s interests to have Sharia-compliant finance adopted in our economic system as a parallel to our capitalist system?”
This would “set the stage” for a larger conversation on what the American people “think of Sharia law, period,” he added. “It’s not just the finance piece, it’s the idea that [Sharia] should be superior to our constitution and the freedoms” it entails, Gaffney explained.
The Cruz bill is “the essential issue of the day,” he added, going back to the bills brought to both the House and Senate recommending the listing of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity. There needs to be a “counter-jihad campaign,” Gaffney said.
Most leaders are completely “unaware” about the deceptive tactics utilized by the Brotherhood to influence western leaders, Gaffney said, commending Breitbart News for bringing this issue to the forefront.
Over the past few decades, Israel has served as the harbinger for everything the Islamic jihad has wrought on western civilization. The suicide bombings began there and have now become widespread throughout the world. Now Israel is suffering from the most devastating form of terror – the ubiquitous threat of spontaneous stabbing attacks from Muslims living among them.
Well, it didn’t take long for the knife intifada to come to America, too.
Last Wednesday, 18-year-old Faisal Mohammad, in a scene eerily similar to what is happening in Israel on a daily basis, went on a stabbing rampage against his classmates at University of California Merced. Thanks to the heroic interference from Byron Price, a construction worker on scene, only four people were injured and nobody was killed. Mohammed was eventually shot dead by campus police after arriving to the scene. But a manifesto written by Mohammad, discovered by the coroner after his death, showed that he intended to “kill a lot of people.” The manifesto also contained references to Allah.
In Israel today, many of the attacks are not emanating from “Palestinian” Arabs living in Judea and Samaria but from the 1.5 million Israeli Arabs who have citizenship and work among them.
Every time one of these attacks occur, the first reaction from most observers – to the extent they even recognize Jihad as the root cause – is to suspect ISIS of being involved. In reality, what we are now facing in this country, much like Israelis are confronted with in their neighborhoods, is a widespread freelance Jihad that is even more dangerous than the targeted command-and-control attacks of the past that were the hallmark of Al Qaeda.
In Israel today, many of the attacks are not emanating from “Palestinian” Arabs living in Judea and Samaria but from the 1.5 million Israeli Arabs who have citizenship and work among them. The success of the global cyber jihad is lighting all of the fuses around the world in a way that presents the West with a greater existential threat than isolated “9-11 style” attacks.
Consider the following finding from a recent counterterrorism report put out by the House Committee on Homeland Security:
There have been more U.S.-based jihadist terror cases in 2015 than in any full year since 9/11. The number of U.S. terrorist cases involving homegrown Islamist extremists has gone from 38 in July 2010 to 127 today—more than a three-fold increase in just five years.
You wouldn’t know it from the media coverage or the silence from most elected officials, but we have suffered from a number of homegrown terror attacks this year. These attacks are not directed by Al Qaeda or ISIS, they are inspired by their change in focus to fard ‘ayn – the individual duty to carry out Sharia law.
At its core, this is the problem with the mass immigration from the Middle East and Obama’s imminent plan to bring in thousands of more Islamic refugees from Somalia and Syria – a plan that has, thus far, gone unchallenged by Congress. It’s not just a threat of admitting a handful of professionally trained terrorists. It’s the certainty of bringing in a large percentage of those who believe in Sharia law and will inevitably subvert our culture and be lured into global Jihad. We are witnessing the suicide of a nation with our immigration policies and the willful disregard of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood here at home. What is especially tragic is that we are not learning the vivid lessons of Europe and Israel.
With this clear and present danger staring us in the face, we don’t need a political leadership with a particular degree of sentience to realize the problem. We need those with the courage and common sense to put aside the political correctness and spare this country – the “Great Satan” (as the Jihadists endearingly call the U.S.) – from becoming as endangered as the “Little Satan.”
Daniel Horowitz is a Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.
National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Nov.7, 2015:
“The Muslim Brotherhood youth in Egypt reject any form of violence.” So said Rachid Ghannouchi, who — you’ll no doubt be stunned to hear — heads up the Muslim Brotherhood’s Tunisian branch, Ennahda.
Naturally, Ghannouchi gave his Egyptian confederates a clean bill of health while speaking as an invited guest of the U.S. Institute for Peace in Washington. He is a master of the Brotherhood game, consulted by the State Department and a bipartisan Beltway clerisy ever on the hunt for that elusive “moderate Islamist.” He is an Islamic supremacist who knows he can worm his way into Washington’s heart by whispering sweet nothings about “democracy,” “pluralism,” and their seamless compatibility with sharia — Islam’s authoritarian, discriminatory, and brutally punitive legal code and societal framework.
It is nonsense, but Ghannouchi knows it is precisely the nonsense our government wants to hear. We don’t want to know about the Brotherhood, but man oh man do the Brothers ever go to school on us. Ghannouchi understands that if he chants “democracy” and “non-violence” enough times, there will be no inconvenient mention of his support of Hamas — the terrorist organization that is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. No one will bring up his 2009 call for the opening of a “third jihadist front” against Israel. No one will quote his proclamations such as “I bring glad tidings that the Arab region will get rid of the germ of Israel” or “There are no civilians in Israel. Men, women and children, they are all reserves soldiers and can therefore be killed” — or that the United States government is “the great Satan.” Not a word will be uttered about his close alliance with Brotherhood eminence Yousef al-Qaradawi, the influential sharia jurist who calls for suicide bombings against the Jewish state and terrorist attacks against American soldiers in Iraq.
This week, finally, Ted Cruz decided enough is enough. The Texas senator and Republican presidential hopeful has proposed a bill to force the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as what it actually is: a terrorist organization.
The legislation, Senator Cruz tells me, “is part of a larger effort to expose the various radical elements that are trying, both at home and abroad, to undermine our very way of life.”
A parallel focus of this effort is Iranian aggression — manifested again this week with the regime’s taking of yet another American hostage. Cruz has been a vigorous critic of the deal, negotiated by President Obama, that will make the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism a threshold nuclear power while materially supporting its terror promotion with over $100 billion in funding. The senator has also joined with colleagues in the House on a bill to apply the terrorist designation to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps — the elite regime force that orchestrated much of the terrorist insurgencies against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, to say nothing of the 1995 bombing that killed 19 American airmen at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
The menace that is Iran is clear to most Americans outside the Obama administration. The Brotherhood, though, is a “complicated case,” Cruz acknowledges. They’ve managed to “convince the Obama administration they are a secular, political entity” that can be America’s “moderate partner and assist in outreach to the Muslim world.”
The proposed legislation corrects this dangerous misimpression by sketching the Brotherhood’s history and the centrality of violent jihad to it. It details, for example, the instruction of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna that “jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored or evaded.”
From its origins in the 1920s, Brotherhood doctrine has taught that jihad means “fighting the unbelievers,” “including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols.” It has called for willing “martyrs” who understand the necessity of terrorism as “the art of death” — the route to ensuring Islam’s global dominance by convincing enemies that Islamic forces “loved death more than life” and were willing to perform any atrocities necessary to prevail.
While Ghannouchi would have us believe he has no information connecting the Egyptian Brotherhood with violence, Cruz’s bill recounts that, from its earliest days, the Egypt-based movement “established a terrorist wing, referred to as the ‘secret apparatus’, which conducted bombings and assassinations.” The savage use of force continues to this day, spearheaded by Hamas (designated as a terrorist organization since the mid-1990s), the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood (Lajnat al-Dawa al-Islamia — designated as a terrorist organization in 2001), and Brotherhood factions in Egypt that oppose the current government and torment Coptic Christians, torching scores of churches, businesses, and homes.
Indeed, in 2010, the bill relates, the Brotherhood’s “supreme guide,” Mohamed Badie, “called on Arab and Muslim regimes to confront not just Israel but also the United States,” declaring that “resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny.” The call to jihad followed the 2008 convictions of Hamas operatives in the Holy Land Foundation case. There, the Justice Department proved that the Brotherhood was the core of an elaborate conspiracy to support and finance Hamas — a conspiracy in which leading American Islamist organizations were complicit.
Cruz could not be more right in describing the Brotherhood as “the key foundation stone for radical Sunni terrorism that has spawned both al-Qaeda and ISIS.” In fact, as the bill describes, there is a significant history of Brotherhood underwriting of terrorism. In addition, key al-Qaeda figures have been launched by immersion in Brotherhood ideology.
It should come as no surprise, then, that where the Brotherhood is active, ISIS and al-Qaeda thrive.
This is notoriously the case in Syria, headquarters of the ISIS “caliphate,” where opponents of the Iran-backed regime are labeled “moderates” and “rebels” — a clear case of Washington straining to obscure the opposition’s significant Brotherhood and jihadist elements. Top Cruz adviser Victoria Coates points out that several years and millions of dollars have been squandered because the Obama administration “refuses to see that the Brotherhood is every bit as hostile to America as Assad is.”
Meanwhile, the Brotherhood is a prominent agitator in Libya, where al-Qaeda affiliates helped massacre Americans in Benghazi and where ISIS has established a beachhead. As Cruz’s legislation relates, Brotherhood factions are now colluding with jihadist groups fighting with great success against the failed government.
The United States will not have success in this volatile region until we have a strategy based on reality. Cruz persuasively contends that reality begins with no longer allowing the Brotherhood “to perpetuate the fiction that they are somehow reasonable and should be advising the highest levels of our government.”
To disastrous effect, the Obama administration has indulged the fantasy that American interests are served by making common cause with virulently anti-American Islamists who want Israel wiped from the map. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, has been an enthusiastic partner in the project to cultivate the Brotherhood. And too many Republicans have fallen prey to the illusion of a Middle East tamed by “sharia democracy” — an illusion that portrays enemies as friends and is continually surprised by the rising tide of jihadism.
Ted Cruz understands the threat and is distinguishing himself by charting a very different policy direction. It will serve him well. And it would serve the country well.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.
People’s Pundit Daily, OCTOBER 26, 2015 BY
In 2008 Basak Otus, a writer for Yale Daily News, the leading news source for Yale University wrote an article that started:
English majors getting tired of Shakespeare and Wordsworth will soon be able to turn to Yale’s libraries for a poet of a different kind altogether: Osama bin Laden.
The backlash to this article should have been taken as a prophetic warning of what was to come, akin to the handwriting on the wall of King Belshazzar of Babylon in the Book of Daniel. In that story, the fingers of a man’s hand appeared and wrote on the wall an ominous warning that the Prophet Daniel interpreted as meaning:
1) God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it.
2) You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting.
3) Your kingdom has been divided, and given away.
Basak Otis’ article in 2008 pointed out that Yale University no longer had America’s best interests at heart, but was in a love affair with one of the most notorious men of the modern era: Osama bin Laden. Perhaps the article would have faded into the background and remained forgotten if Yale woke up when it was attacked that June by a jihadist firebombing, which was intended to destroy their power plant.
But the wake-up call was ignored.
Yale University reverted to its love affair with Osama bin Laden in September 2009 and published a sharia compliant version of a book about Muhammad cartoons, by censoring the illustrations from being printed. This was less than three months after the attempted fire-bombing.
It was Yale University’s overt attempt to display “dhimmitude”–submission to Muslims–rather than show their heritage as great defenders of the First Amendment. Yale had the opportunity to take a strong stand for America and her beliefs in liberty for all of her citizens! It was a chance to be seen as the University that defends the First Amendment. Yale, however chose to become an example of “being weighed and found wanting” in their defense of the US Constitution.
In 2014 Yale Law School hosted Rachid Al-Ghannouchi to speak to its students and thecommunity as well. Rachid is a member of the Ennahda Party in Tunisia. Ennahda is the Muslim Brotherhood entity in Tunisia. Osam bin Laden was and is still counted as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yale University has people that vet public speakers. How is it possible they did not know that Al-Ghannouchi was a staunch defender of Hamas, a US declared terrorist entity?
Yale’s last act of dhimmitude was their receipt of $10 million dollars from the son of Saleh Abdallah Kamel, a documented financer of al-Qaeda with banking ties with Osama bin Laden, himself. Yale has agreed to place an Islamic Law Center in their Law School, but refuses to acknowledge that Islamic law is sharia. This act equates Sharia with the US Constitution.
The act of placing an Islamic Law Center at Yale forces the university to fight itself. Those studying at Yale to earn degrees in its seminary must take a stand, it is their Christian duty. The Music School also must fight this as Sharia requires the destruction of musical instruments and the very concept of a Music School.
The writing was on the wall in 2008. It seems 2015 is the year that Yale becomes divided against itself and will soon no longer exist as the great educational institution it once was.
Can Yale survive its Dhimmitude? I think not.
Paul Sutliff is an educator and research writer particularly focused on Islam, whose work has been recognized by Ryan Mauro of Clarion Project and FOX News. His latest book is Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam.
Clarion Project, Oct. 25, 2015:
The UK government has finally agreed to investigate how sharia councils in Britain represent a parallel legal system, one that particularly discriminates against women and fails to protect them from violent husbands.
Baroness Cox, a member of the House of Lords, has been a leading voice over the years speaking out against the dangers of sharia law. Friday, she led a debate in parliament about quasi-legal systems in Britain, such as sharia councils.
The move comes amid the government’s unveiling of its “Counter-Extremism Strategy” released last week. The document states the “overriding principle” of any religious arbitration body is that it must “operate within the rule of law in the UK.”
Evidence has emerged that sharia law is “misused and applied in a way which is incompatible with the law,” the document states. It notes, “There is only one rule of law in our country, which provides rights and security for every citizen. We will never countenance allowing an alternative, informal system of law, informed by religious principles, to operate in competition with it.”
Drawing on research provided by Cox, the government document acknowledges some women were “unaware of their legal rights to leave violent husbands and are being pressurized to attend reconciliation sessions with their husbands despite legal injunctions in place to protect them from violence.”
The government has now committed to commissioning an independent review “to understand the extent to which Shari’a is being misused or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law.”
Cox’s website, equalandfree.org, provides more information on her legislation as well as numerous cases studies of women who have bared the brunt of sharia councils in Britain.
ACT for America president and founder Brigitte Gabriel talks about “moderate Muslims” in the top 5 Islamic countries and how they voted on Sharia Law. Gabriel message: Heed a warning from a victim of Islamic extremism. http://www.actforamerica.org
Meanwhile, An Islamic Fifth Column Builds Inside America by Paul Sperry
In berating GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson for suggesting a loyalty test for Muslims seeking high office, CNN host Jake Tapper maintained that he doesn’t know a single observant Muslim-American who wants to Islamize America.
“I just don’t know any Muslim-Americans — and I know plenty — who feel that way, even if they are observant Muslims,” he scowled.
Tapper doesn’t get out much. If he did, chances are he’d run into some of the 51% of Muslims living in the U.S. who just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.
Maybe they’re all heretics, so let’s see what the enlightened Muslims think.
If Tapper did a little independent research he’d quickly find that America’s most respected Islamic leaders and scholars also want theocracy, not democracy, and even advocate trading the Constitution for the Quran.
These aren’t fringe players. These are the top officials representing the Muslim establishment in America today.
Hopefully none of them ever runs for president, because here’s what he’d have to say about the U.S. system of government:
• Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America, which dispenses Islamic rulings, and the North American Islamic Trust, which owns most of the mosques in the U.S.: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”
• Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the top Muslim lobby group in Washington: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
• CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
• Imam Siraj Wahhaj, director of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”
• Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time. . . . What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”
Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, Oct. 1, 015:
Muslim asylum seekers are enforcing Islamic Sharia law in German refugee shelters, according to police, who warn that Christians, Kurds and Yazidis in the shelters are being attacked by Muslims with increasing frequency and ferocity.
Muslim migrants from different sects, clans, ethnicities and nationalities are also attacking each other. Violent brawls — sometimes involving hundreds of migrants — are now a daily occurrence.
Police say the shelters, where thousands of migrants are housed together in cramped spaces for months at a time, are seething cauldrons ready to explode. The police are urgently calling for migrants of different faiths to be housed in separate facilities.
Some politicians counter that such segregation would go against Germany’s multicultural values, while others say that separating hundreds of thousands of migrants by religion and nationality would be a logistical impossibility.
As the consequences of unrestrained migration become apparent, the tide of public opinion is turning against the government’s open-door policy. Observers say that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the so-called most powerful woman in the world, may have met her Waterloo.
A report published by the newspaper Die Welt on September 27 sheds light on the targeting of Christians by Muslims in German refugee shelters. The paper interviewed an Iranian convert to Christianity who said:
“In Iran, the Revolutionary Guards arrested my brother in a house church. I fled from the Iranian secret service because I thought that in Germany I could finally live my faith without persecution. But in the refugee shelter, I cannot admit that I am a Christian, or I would face threats.
“Muslims wake me before the crack of dawn during Ramadan and say that I should eat before sunrise. When I decline, they call me a kuffar, an unbeliever. They spit at me. They treat me like an animal. They threaten to kill me.”
At a refugee shelter in Hemer, a town in North Rhine-Westphalia, 10 Algerian asylum seekers attacked a Christian couple from Eritrea with glass bottles. The Muslims said they were angry that the man was wearing a cross. They ripped the cross from his neck and stole his money and cellphone.
Die Welt also interviewed an Iraqi Christian family from Mosul who were living at a refugee shelter in the Bavarian town of Freising. The father said that threats by Islamists were a daily fact of life. “They shouted at my wife and hit my child,” he said. “They say: ‘We will kill you and drink your blood.'” Life in the shelter, he said, was as if in a prison.
According to the director of the Munich-based Central Committee for Oriental Christians, Simon Jacob, these incidents are only “the tip of the iceberg.” “The actual number of attacks is very high,” he said. “We have to expect further conflict, which the migrants bring to Germany from their homelands. Between Christians and Muslims. Between Shiites and Sunnis. Between Kurds and extremists. Between Yazidis and extremists.”
Max Klingberg, the director of the Frankfurt-based International Society for Human Rights (Internationale Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte, IGFM), says that much of the aggression is being perpetrated by Afghans and Pakistanis, who are “even more Islamic than some Syrians and Iraqis.” He warns that conflict in the refugee shelters will only become worse:
“We have to dispense with the illusion that all of those who are coming here are human rights activists. Among those who are arriving here now, a substantial number are at least as religiously intense as the Muslim Brotherhood.
“We are getting reports of threats of aggression, including threats of beheading, by Sunnis against Shiites, but Yazidis and Christians are the most impacted. Those Christian converts who do not hide their faith stand a 100% probability of being attacked and mobbed.”
In a September 29 interview with the newspaper Passauer Neue Presse, the head of the German police union (Deutschen Polizeigewerkschaft, DPolG), Rainer Wendt, warned that “brutal criminal structures” have taken over the refugee shelters and that police are overwhelmed and unable to guarantee safety and security. He called for Christians and Muslims to be separated before someone gets killed:
“We have been witnessing this violence for weeks and months. Groups based on ethnicity, religion or clan structures go after each other with knives and homemade weapons. When these groups fight each other at night, all those German citizens who welcomed the migrants with open arms at the Munich train station are fast asleep, but the police remain awake and are left standing in the middle…
“We can only estimate the true extent of violence because women and children are often afraid to file a complaint. Since it is also about sexual abuse and rape…
“Sunnis are fighting Shiites, there are Salafists from competing groups. They are trying to impose their rules in the shelters. Christians are being massively oppressed and the Sharia is being enforced. Women are forced to cover up. Men are forced to pray. Islamists want to introduce their values and order at the shelters.
Wendt gave the interview days after 300 Albanian migrants clashed with 70 Pakistani migrants at a refugee shelter in Calden, a town in the state of Hesse, on September 27. More than a dozen people, including three police officers, were injured in the melee, which erupted after two migrants got into a fight while waiting in line at the canteen. It took 50 police officers several hours to restore order at the shelter, which is home to 1,500 migrants from 20 different countries.
More than 60 migrants, including ten children, were injured after Pakistanis and Syrians clashedat the same shelter on September 13. The fight broke out just after midnight, when someone sprayed mace into a tent filled with sleeping migrants. Police did not inform the public about the fight for more than a week, apparently to prevent fueling anti-immigrant sentiments.
Violent brawls are becoming commonplace at German refugee shelters across the country.
|In the past two months alone, dozens of violent brawls and riots between different groups of migrants have erupted in Germany’s refugee shelters.|
On September 30, migrants went on a rampage at a refugee center in Braunschweig, a city in Lower Saxony. On September 29, Syrian migrants clashed at a refugee shelter in Gerolzhofen, a small town in Bavaria. Also on September 29, migrants from Algeria and Mali clashed at a refugee center in Engelskirchen, a town in North Rhine-Westphalia.
On September 28, more than 150 Syrians and Pakistanis clashed at a refugee shelter on Nöthnitzer Straße in Dresden. The migrants attacked each other with wooden planks and metal bars. Two dozen police officers were needed to restore order. More than 30 Syrians and Pakistanis clashed at the same shelter on August 10.
Also on September 28, between 100 and 150 migrants of different nationalities clashed at a refugee shelter in Donaueschingen, a town in the Black Forest. The trouble started over a dispute about who should be able to use the shower facilities first. On September 22, more than 400 migrants marched through town to protest conditions at the same facility. On September 15, a male migrant was attacked by another migrant for using a female bathroom at the shelter.
On September 24, around 100 Syrians and Afghans clashed at a refugee shelter in Leipzig, the largest city in Saxony. The fight broke out after a 17-year-old Afghan pulled a knife on an 11-year-old Syrian girl at the shelter, which houses 1,800 migrants. On September 23, migrantsclashed at a refugee shelter for unaccompanied minors in Nuremberg.
On September 3, Syrian migrants attacked security guards at a refugee shelter in the Moabit district of Berlin. Also on September 3, Iraqi migrants attacked security guards at a refugee shelter in Heidelberg. A total of 21 squad cars were dispatched to restore order. On September 2, Algerian and Tunisian migrants clashed at the same shelter. A dozen police cars were deployed to restore order.
On September 3, migrants clashed at a refugee shelter in Hövelhof, a town in North Rhine-Westphalia. On September 2, migrants clashed at a refugee facility in Wolgast, a town in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Also on September 2, migrants clashed at a refugee center inGütersloh, a town in North Rhine-Westphalia.
On September 1, migrants clashed at a refugee shelter in Delitzsch, a town in Saxony. A 27-year-old Tunisian migrant was killed after being stabbed by a 27-year-old migrant from Morocco. Also on September 1, a 15-year-old Somali migrant stabbed a 15-year-old Egyptian migrant with a scissors at a refugee center in the Groß Borstel district of Hamburg.
On August 31, Libyan and Tunisian migrants clashed at a refugee shelter in Hoyerswerda, a town in Saxony. Also on August 31, migrants clashed with each other and with security guards at a refugee shelter in Heidelberg. On August 30, a 25-year-old Sudanese migrant was arrested for going on a rampage at a refugee shelter in Jesteburg, a small town in Lower Saxony.
On August 29, a 17-year-old Algerian migrant was arrested for robbing the cellphones of other migrants at a refugee center in Elzach, a town in Baden-Württemberg. On August 25, 60 migrants went on a rampage at a refugee shelter in Karlsruhe.
On August 24, a migrant from Montenegro was stabbed by a migrant from Algeria at a refugee shelter in Seevetal, a town in Lower Saxony.
On August 16, 50 migrants attacked each other with broken tree branches, umbrellas and trash cans at a refugee center in Friedland, a town in Lower Saxony. The facility, which has a capacity of 700, is home to 2,400 migrants.
On August 19, at least 20 Syrian migrants staying at an overcrowded refugee shelter in the eastern German town of Suhl tried to lynch an Afghan migrant after he tore pages from a Koran and threw them in a toilet. More than 100 police officers intervened; they were attacked with stones and concrete blocks. Seventeen people were injured in the melee, including 11 refugees and six police officers. The Afghan is now under police protection. The president of the German state of Thuringia, Bodo Ramelow, said that to avoid similar violence in the future, Muslims of different nationalities must be separated.
On August 10, 40 migrants clashed at a refugee shelter on Bremer Straße in Dresden.
On August 1, 50 Syrians and Afghans clashed at the same shelter. More than 80 police officers were needed to restore order.
According to Jörg Radek, the vice chairman of Germany’s police union, (Gewerkschaft der Polizei, GdP), police have reached the “absolute breaking point,” and Christian and Muslim migrants should be housed separately. In a September 28 interview with the newspaper Die Welt, Radek said:
“Our officers are increasingly being called to respond to confrontations in refugee shelters. When there are 4,000 people in a shelter which only has space for 750, this leads to aggression where even something as insignificant as a walk to the restroom can lead to fisticuffs.
“We must do everything we can to prevent further outbreaks of violence. I think it makes perfect sense to separate migrants according to their religion.”
Not everyone agrees. In an interview with N24 television, the former mayor of the Neukölln district of Berlin, Heinz Buschkowsky, warned that if migrants are separated by religion and nationality, Germany risks the permanent establishment of parallel societies throughout the country.
Buschkowsky said the first lesson migrants must learn when they arrive in Western countries is tolerance, and if they refuse to accept people of other faiths, their asylum applications should be rejected. He expressed pessimism about the possibility of integrating the current wave of migrants into German society: “The bulk of the migrants who are arriving here cannot be integrated.”
Meanwhile, the head of German intelligence, Hans-Georg Maaßen, was warned that radical Muslims in Germany are canvassing the refugee shelters looking for new recruits. He said:
“Many of the asylum seekers have a Sunni religious background. In Germany there is a Salafist scene that sees this as a breeding ground. We are observing that Salafists are appearing at the shelters disguised as volunteers and helpers, deliberately seeking contact with refugees to invite them to their mosques to recruit them to their cause.”
The editor of the newspaper Neue Westfälische, Ansgar Mönter, reports that Salafists in Bielefeld, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, have already infiltrated refugee centers in the area by bringing toys, fruits and vegetables for the migrants.
Mönter says “naïve” politicians are contributing to the radicalization of refugees by are asking Muslim umbrella groups in the country to reach out to the migrants.
Mönter points out that the main Muslim groups in Germany all adhere to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and are anti-Western in outlook. Some groups have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood while others want to implement Sharia law in Germany. According to Mönter, politicians should not be encouraging these groups to establish contact with the new migrants.
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him onFacebook and onTwitter. His first book,Global Fire, will be out in early 2016.
The Hayride, by Scott McKay, Sep. 28, 2015:
Here’s a very succinct, no-nonsense video which puts Sharia Islam in a proper historical perspective. Namely, that for the last 100 years or so the world has been wracked with conflict originating from ideologies which legitimize state tyranny along utopian lines. First came fascism, as it emerged in Germany, Italy and Japan, and to a lesser extent in Spain (though the Spanish government of Francisco Franco was distinctly inward in its worldview and didn’t project itself on its neighbors). Then came international communism in the wake of fascism’s demise in World War II. But the victory of free people in the Cold War in the second half of the 20th century made us believe the fight against “isms” was over.
Sadly, it wasn’t. Islamism, or Sharia Islam, has made a roaring comeback out of the ash-heap of history that Western colonialism had relegated it to in the 19th century and is now in an ascendant position in a significant swath of the globe. Even more frightening is that Islamism is creeping into states which aren’t even Muslim, and those states – specifically in Europe – are in swift demographic decline. Islamism is a far more primitive and unappealing ideology than fascism and communism before it; fascism and communism purported to bring heaven on earth through scientific principles and thus create equality and prosperity and technological advancement as never seen before, while the utopia Islamism promises contains a host of features non-Muslims generally find abhorrent on their face.
And yet in the face of Western cultural decline it’s Islamism that’s on the rise. Which is perplexing, and unnerving.
A full explanation comes in this video, narrated by Raymond Ibrahim, the author of The Al Qaeda Reader…
Daily Beast, by Asra Q. Nomani, Sep. 24, 2015:
In too many instances, we are seeing an erosion of those boundaries, in part led by some Muslims, increasingly using America’s spirit of religious accommodation and cultural pluralism to challenge rules that most of the rest of America accepts. Many of those incursions have been led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a controversial self-described advocacy group for Muslims that, not surprisingly, called for Carson to step down this week.
For example, when I was a girl in New Jersey in the early 1970s, we took our Muslim holidays off, if we wanted, but didn’t demand the rest of the school take the day off with us. Last week, however, four decades later, New Jersey Muslims stormed out of a Jersey City school board meeting after the school board refused to cancel school at the last minute for the Muslim holiday called “Eid al-Adha,” or “the Feast of Sacrifice,” being celebrated Thursday. CAIR has lobbied public school officials for the change for the sake of “diversity and inclusion.”
At the meeting, the local NBC news segment showed an older woman yelling in Arabic that the holiday was her “right,” followed by a young Muslim woman, wearing a headscarf and smiling eerily as she said, “We’re no longer the minority. That’s clear from tonight. We’re going to be the majority soon.”
The thinly veiled threat was as disturbing to me as it might be to other Americans. Unspoken is the sharia ruling that Muslims engage in no work or school on the day of Eid-ul Adha, but, instead, as the prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying in a hadith, “O people of Islam, these are days of eating and drinking.”
Tthis month, an ExpressJet flight attendant, Charee Stanley, a relatively new convert to Islam, demanded the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reinstate her job after she was put on leave for refusing to serve alcohol. CAIR argued the flight attendant deserved “a religious accommodation.”
But Ali Genc, senior vice president of media relations at Turkish Airlines, said in an interview that his carrier, based in a Muslim country, doesn’t make such allowances, saying, “The service and consumption of alcoholic beverages onboard is regulated in the framework of the rules of Turkish Airlines. In this respect, a refusal of such service by our cabin crew is not possible as a matter of course.”
Some years ago, a Muslim woman, Ginnah Muhammad, demanded her right to enter a Michigan small claims courtroom with a face veil, a demand that was correctly refused. CAIR supported her petition, saying removing the veil meant denying the woman her “constitutional rights.”
Before that, another Muslim woman convert, Sultaana Freeman, sued the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to allow her to take her driver’s license photo with her veil. CAIR supported her demand, saying the woman “sincerely” believed it would “advance her piety.” These efforts at appealing to schools, courts, and other government structures to suit hyper-conservative interpretations of sharia reveal how some Muslims are going too far in demanding accommodations by U.S. authorities, blurring the mosque and state divide.
Corey P. Saylor, director of the “department to monitor and combat Islamophobia” at CAIR, disputed my argument that the organization has worked to erode secularism in the United States, saying, “CAIR’s legal and political advocacy aims to preserve our nation’s spirit of religious accommodation from efforts to erode it or restrict it to certain faiths.”
He added, “Americans of the Islamic faith have equal rights and responsibilities in civic life and may argue for policies they favor, and win or fail based on a well-established political and legal process to which everyone has, and should have, equal access.”
In the cases that I cited “the courts or relevant political entities make the final decision,” Saylor said, “not us.” Indeed, fortunately, CAIR has so far lost its Florida, New Jersey and Michigan efforts.
Carson wasn’t being hyperbolic in expressing concern. Globally, Muslims express deep problems with separation of mosque and state. In a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, an alarming percentage of Muslims worldwide, numbering 99 percent in Afghanistan and 45 percent in Russia, answered “favor” when asked whether they favor or oppose making sharia the law of the land. A disturbing percentage supported including sharia in family, marriage, and criminal law, including settling property disputes, deciding child custody arrangements, stoning people for adultery, and cutting off the hands of thieves. While to be sure the survey wasn’t conducted in the West, the results reveal cultural mindsets.
In the United States, I first confronted our Muslim community’s difficulty with the concept of secularism in late 2003 when I walked through the front door of my mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia, citing Islamic rights as well as civil rights granted me as a woman in this country. Soon after, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette wrote an article that included this passage: “Dalía Mogahed, outreach coordinator for the Pittsburgh mosque, agrees on Muhammad’s respect for women but says Nomani is viewing the issues through the eyes of a secular feminist rather than the eyes of a Muslim.”
I read the passage twice because to me, being a secular Muslim feminist wasn’t a contradiction in terms. To me, though they are few and far between, we have Islamic theologians who advocate for equal rights for women and secularism in governance. But the criticism was a wakeup call to me of the challenges we face advocating for secular values among Muslims. (Mogahed later led survey research at Pew and was a member of an Obama administration advisory council. She didn’t return a request for comment.)
It’s not “time to pull the plug” on Carson’s campaign for his indelicate comments on Islam, as columnist P.J. O’Rourke argues. But it is time to continue the politically incorrect but critical conversation that he started.
The presidential candidate is talking against a backdrop of 9/11 and a reality in which political Islam expresses itself violently in the West and in Muslim countries from Iraq to Indonesia. To me, not acknowledging this real issue among Muslims amounts to another Carson allegation, of Muslims practicing taqiyya, or deception.
Much of the modern-day debate dates back to 1977 when Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a theological brain trust of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood political party, fighting secularism, wrote, “Al-Hulul al Mustawradah wa Kayfa Janat `alaa Ummatina,” or “How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah,” casting secularism and Islam in a cosmic battle, with a section entitled, “Secularism vs. Islam.”
He wrote: “Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” Today, even ordinary Muslims ask questions like, “Is it permissible to pray behind imams who…promote democracy and secularism?” The answer from too many in Muslim leadership is no.
Carson dared to address an explosive issue that Muslims are still struggling to resolve on issues of sharia and fiqh, a related concept, referring to Islamic jurisprudence. Not long ago, Ayad Jamal Deen, a former Iraqi parliament member and courageous intellectual and religious cleric, admitted, “In my opinion, the fiqh is more dangerous than nuclear technology.” He acknowledged that “Islam has been politicized and is used as a sword.” We would be wise to listen to advocates of secularism who have battled the forces of political Islam.
In his Fox walk-back interview, Carson said, “Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them.”
To me, Carson’s words aren’t “anti-Muslim” either, as a Guardian headline described them. They are a realistic mirror on the challenges Muslims today face with the notion of strict secularism.
Even John Esposito, founding director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, funded by a rich member of the theocratic Saudi ruling family and criticized for publishing “apologist” explanations of Islam, wrote not long ago:
“Many Muslims, in particular Islamists, cast secularism as a completely foreign doctrine imposed on the Islamic world by colonial powers.” Even “secular reformers” who appreciate Western secular democracies “opt for a state that reflects the importance and force of Islamic principles and values as they proceed to engage in wide ranging reformist thinking.”
Interestingly, for secularists, like Iraqi-born Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, founder of the Global Secular Humanist Movement, raised by a liberal Muslim family and now living in New York City, it’s actually strict secular Muslims who could truly understand the critical need for a separation of mosque and state. He said in an interview that he doesn’t agree with Carson’s edict and noted, “I would also argue that secular Muslims would make the best presidents on the topic of the First Amendment because they understand the most [that] the marriage between religion and politics is very poisonous.”
One of his Facebook friends responded: “Faisal Saeed Al Mutar for President.” Meanwhile, some of his Muslim critics have also called him a “heretic” and an “infidel,” not to mention “Uncle Tom” and “sellout.”
For a reality check on whether a Muslim, absent sweeping reform of Islamic doctrine, can truly be secular see Dr. Stephen M. Kirby’s series on Fantasy Islam: