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

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

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

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

The Language We Use to Describe the Enemy

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

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

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

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

Watering Down Monis’ Actions

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

SydneyBlackFlag

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

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

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

Backlash?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is we who are ignorant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

“Islamophobia” Joins the Rainbow Coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy:

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

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

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

 

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

#more#

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Germany: Hooligans Declare War on Islamic Radicals

 Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern:

Hooligans from rival football clubs have temporarily set aside their mutual hatred for each other in order to unite against a common enemy: radical Salafists who are bringing Islamic Sharia law to Germany.

After police predicted that more than 10,000 hooligans would show up at an anti-Salafist rally in Berlin, authorities cancelled the event. Similar rallies planned for Frankfurt, Hamburg and Hannover have also been banned.

Vogel, a former professional boxer who often depicts himself as the embodiment invincible Islam, is now portraying himself as a helpless and fearful victim of the football hooligans

A group of nearly 5,000 football hooligans from across Germany gathered in the western city of Cologne on October 26 to protest the spread of radical Islam in the country.

The watershed march was organized by a new initiative called “Hooligans against Salafists,” better known by its German abbreviation, HoGeSa, short for Hooligans gegen Salafisten.

HoGeSa is a burgeoning alliance between hooligans from rival football clubs who have temporarily set aside their mutual hatred for each other in order to unite against a common enemy: radical Salafists who want to replace Germany’s democratic order with Islamic Sharia law.

The alliance has its roots in a hidden Internet forum called GnuHoonters (homophone of “New Hunters”) formed in 2012 between 17 different hooligan groups from across Germany. GnuHoonters was established primarily to fight anarchists, Marxist-Leninists and other left-wing extremists in the country.

In 2013, some 300 members of GnuHoonters set up another hidden Internet forum called “Because Germans Still Dare” (Weil Deutsche sich’s noch trauen), aimed at developing an action plan to fight the leaders of Germany’s Salafist scene.

After the forum was hacked in early 2014 and its secrets were spilled to the public, the group adopted the name “Hooligans against Salafists” and began operating openly. Initially, HoGeSa’s activities were limited to the Internet and social media, through which it developed a considerable following. Its Facebook page, for example, had more than 40,000 followers before it was recently shut down by Facebook censors.

On September 28, 2014, around 300 HoGeSa members met in person for the first time in Dortmund, a city in the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia that has a large Muslim population. Similar meetings were also held in the cities of Essen, Mannheim and Nuremberg.

These introductory meetings paved the way for HoGeSa’s first mass gathering, the rally in downtown Cologne on October 26. The organizers of the event were expecting a turnout of around 1,500 hooligans, but more than three times that many people (4,900 by some counts) showed up.

According to some commentators, the mass mobilization was fuelled in part by a growing sense of frustration that the German government is not doing enough to curb the spread of Islam in the country. Others said that protesters were incited by the Salafists’ unceasingly provocative support for the jihadist group Islamic State.

The rally, which began in front of Cologne’s central train station, was initially peaceful, given that Salafists appeared to give the area a wide berth. But matters turned extremely violent after participants refused to obey police orders to clear the area after the event was over.

More than 1,300 police were called in, many using batons, pepper spray and water cannons against the protesters, who hurled rocks, bottles and firecrackers at them. Nearly 50 police officers were injured and 20 protesters were arrested.

Thousands of police and hooligans face off at a rally by “Hooligans against Salafists” that turned into a riot in Cologne, Germany, on October 26, 2014. (Image source: Focus.de video screenshot)

The intensity of the violence shocked many Germans and commentators pondered over who these “new hooligans” are and whether this “unexpected phenomenon” portends serious trouble ahead.

One newspaper wrote: “The hooligans are more dangerous than ever. They have a new opponent. German security authorities are on high alert! A state security official has warned: ‘If hooligans actually meet Salafists next time, there will certainly be severe injuries or deaths.'”

HoGeSa representatives seemed to apologize for the violence in Cologne, saying that “not everything went according to plan” and that they had learned from their mistakes.

At the same time, HoGeSa leaders insist that the group is “apolitical” and not connected to any partisan organization, including Germany’s neo-Nazi movement. “We stand behind our cause,” one of the event organizers shouted into a megaphone. “We are not right-wing radicals,” he added.

But large numbers of neo-Nazis are said to have joined the rally, sparking fears that right-wing extremists are seeking to influence and possibly co-opt the hooligan scene, with the aim of leveraging HoGeSa’s mass mobilization potential to its own advantage.

The newspaper Die Zeit reported that senior leaders of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of Germany [NPD] participated in the Cologne rally and offered to help “professionalize” the HoGeSa movement. “The starving NPD, which has been in a political free fall for three years now, is apparently on the offensive and wants to join this new extremist trend,” the paper wrote.

A new report published by police in North-Rhine Westphalia estimates that there are a total of 13,600 hooligans in all of Germany, but that only 400 (or 3.3%) have ties to the neo-Nazi movement or other right-wing extremist groups.

The president of the German domestic intelligence agency BfV, Hans-Georg Maassen, saidthat hooligans have not been subject to state surveillance because, for the most part, they are “politically indifferent” and their personal values are limited to “drinking beer and fighting.”

Some commentators argue that mainstream media outlets are now using the fear of hooligan violence to completely shut down the debate about the rise of Islam in Germany. They are doing so by demonizing any German citizen with legitimate concerns about the spread of Sharia law and the establishment of a parallel Muslim society in the country as “neo-Nazi.”

In the words of one such commentator, the guardians of German multiculturalism are protecting the “beheaders of Christians and mutilators of women” by seeking to silence those who are politically incorrect enough to express outrage at such atrocities.

HoGeSa’s next major rally was set to be held in Berlin on November 15. The event — which was being organized under the motto, “Against Salafists, Islamization and Refugee Policy” — was to have been held at the Pariser Platz, a square in the center of Berlin that is situated within walking distance of the seat of the German government.

The rally organizers originally said they were expecting a turnout of 1,000 people, but after police predicted that more than 10,000 hooligans would show up, authorities in Berlin cancelled the event. Similar rallies planned for Frankfurt, Hamburg and Hannover have also been banned, although social media chatter indicates that the hooligans plan to proceed anyway.

In any event, HoGeSa appears to be striking fear into the hearts of the Salafists, who are now on the defensive, an accomplishment that has so far eluded German counter-terrorism officials.

Following the violence in Cologne, Pierre Vogel, a notorious convert to Islam who in recent years has emerged as a central figure in Germany’s Salafist scene, hired full-time bodyguardsto protect himself and his family.

The German media say Vogel, a former professional boxer who usually depicts himself as the embodiment of an invincible Islam, is now portraying himself as a helpless victim at the hands of football hooligans.

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 on Facebook and on Twitter.

“Obama Will Witness His Own Country Run by the Sharia.”

British Islamist Abu Ramaysah

British Islamist Abu Ramaysah

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield:

We’re going to need a lot more Muslim immigrants before that happens.

60 Minutes decided to run a piece on a moderate Muslim who has a beautiful vision for co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims.

 

“I understand that many people are unaware of the Sharia and the blessings it can bring,” he said. “The Sharia is not there to subjugate non-Muslims, it’s there to liberate them.”

It is.

Islamic law is there to liberate non-Muslims from their civil rights, women from being able to leave the house and everyone else from being able to freely practice their religion.

“So I do believe one day that America and Europe will one day be under the Sharia,” Rumaysah continued. “And I think that is a blessing. However, I would also say that in the short-term, the Americans and the British, they need to be very wary.”

Until they get properly liberated and/or beheaded. After that it’s smooth sailing.

“We’re going to see the Khilafah expand into Jordan, into Saudi Arabia, onto the shores of Europe. And one day Obama, he will witness his own country be run by the Sharia.”

And what’s that going to involve?

 “Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe,” Rumaysah told 60 Minutes correspondent Clarissa Ward. “I want to the see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see sharia law in Europe, and I want to see it in America, as well. I believe our patrols are a means to an end.”

And if civilized societies don’t do something about them, those patrols will be our end.

Austria: Civil Law vs. Sharia Law

by Soeren Kern:

Austria has emerged as a major base for radical Islam and as a central hub for European jihadists to fight in Syria.

The proposed revisions would, among other changes, regulate the training and hiring of Muslim clerics, prohibit the foreign funding of mosques, and establish an official German-language version of the Koran to prevent its “misinterpretation” by Islamic extremists.

Muslims would be prohibited from citing Islamic sharia law as legal justification for ignoring or disobeying Austrian civil laws.

Leaders of Austria’s Muslim community counter that the contemplated new law amounts to “institutionalized Islamophobia.”

Official statistics show that nearly 60% of the inhabitants of Vienna are immigrants or foreigners. The massive demographic and religious shift underway in Austria, traditionally a Roman Catholic country, appears irreversible.

The Austrian government has unveiled a sweeping overhaul of the country’s century-old “Islam Law” that governs the legal status of Austria’s Muslim community.

The proposed revisions—which are aimed at cracking down on Islamic extremism in Austria—would regulate the training and hiring of Muslim clerics, prohibit the foreign funding of mosques, and establish an official German-language version of the Koran, among other changes.

The government says the modifications would give Muslims legal parity with other religious groups in Austria. But the leaders of Austria’s Muslim community counter that the contemplated new law amounts to “institutionalized Islamophobia.”

The updated Islam Law (Islamgesetz) was presented as a draft bill to parliament on October 2 and overhauls the current law, which dates back to 1912.

The original law was brought into being to help integrate Muslim soldiers into the Habsburg Army after the Austro-Hungarian Empire annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908. The law recognized Islam as a religious community in Austria, and allowed Muslims to practice their religion in accordance with the laws of the state.

After the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed in the aftermath of World War I, the number of Muslims in Austria was reduced to just a few hundred people. After World War II, however, Austria’s Muslim population increased rapidly with the arrival of “guest workers” from Turkey and the Balkans in the 1960s, and refugees from Bosnia in the 1990s.

The Muslim population in Austria now exceeds 500,000 (or roughly 6% of the total population), up from an estimated 150,000 (or 2%) in 1990. The Muslim population is expected to reach 800,000 (or 9.5%) by 2030, according to recent estimates.

Official statistics show that nearly 60% of the inhabitants of Vienna, the capital and largest city of Austria, are immigrants or foreigners.

The massive demographic and religious shift underway in Austria, traditionally a Roman Catholic country, appears irreversible. In Vienna, for example, Muslim students now outnumber Catholic students at middle and secondary schools. Muslim students are also on the verge of overtaking Catholics in Viennese elementary schools.

At the same time, Austria has emerged as a major base for radical Islam. A June 2014 report by the Austrian intelligence agency [BVT] warned of the “exploding radicalization of the Salafist scene in Austria.” Salafism is an anti-Western ideology that seeks to impose Islamic sharia law.

Austria has also emerged as a central hub for European jihadists seeking to fight in Syria, because Austria’s geographic location provides easy access to land routes through the Balkans.

The Austrian Islamist known as “Abu Hamza al-Austria,” fighting in Syria, pictured from his jihadist recruitment video.

In an interview with Austrian Public Radio Ö1-Morgenjournal, the Austrian Minister for Integration and Foreign Affairs, Sebastian Kurz, said the rapid rise of Islam in Austria has rendered the old Islam Law obsolete. A new law is needed, he said, to stipulate more clearly the rights and responsibilities of Muslims living in the country.

From now on, according to Kurz, Muslims residing in Austria will be expected to adhere to Austrian values and to acknowledge the primacy of Austrian law over Islamic Sharia law. In practice, he said, this means that Muslims would be prohibited from citing Islamic law as legal justification for ignoring or disobeying Austrian civil laws. Sharia law has “no place” in Austria, he stressed.

IS THE ISLAMIC STATE ISLAMIC?

iraq-al-qaeda-convoy-APBreitbart:

Robert Reilly, former director of the Voice of America, has written a seminal article on the religiously-motivated threat America currently faces. The original was published on Tuesday by the Liberty Fund and is reposted with permission.

Nothing could be more curious to Muslims than Western non-Muslims telling them what their religion is about.

Would not Christians find it odd to hear from Muslims what the true meaning of their religion is? Nevertheless, after almost every terrorist act against a Westerner, particularly the more gruesome ones like beheadings, Western heads of state reflexively react with protestations that such acts are absolutely un-Islamic, despite the explicit claims of their perpetrators that they are done precisely as religious acts, as they exultantly declare, “Allahu Akbar.”

For example, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron, noted Muslim scholars both, were the first to assure us that the Islamic State or ISIS, after it had decapitated an American and a British citizen, has nothing to do with Islam. (Of course, we can trace the genealogy of this thinking at least back to former President George W. Bush who said, after 9/11, “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. . . Islam is peace.) Their subalterns also chimed in. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Islam is a “peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings.” He denounced the Islamic State as “this enemy of Islam.” U.K. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond asserted that the Islamic State “goes against the most basic beliefs of Islam.”

Clerics were not far behind. The Archbishop of Brisbane, Australia, Mark Coleridge said, “It has nothing to do with real Islam.” At a September press conference, retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick claimed that “Catholic social teaching is based on the dignity of the human person . . . [and] as you study the holy Koran, as you study Islam, basically, this is what Muhammad the prophet, peace be upon him, has been teaching.” Therefore, these killings were not canonically correct. So they must not be due to Islam, but to a lack of opportunity—something we can fix.

This sort of exculpation happens so frequently that I can only understand it as a kind of preemptive Stockholm Syndrome. Because we don’t want to face the consequences if such acts are Islamic, we will simply insist that they are not: they can’t be because we find that unacceptable. The preemptive Stockholm Syndrome not only provides huge psychological relief to us, but it also lets Islam off the hook.

Why don’t we wait to hear from Muslims on this? Wouldn’t they be in a better position to say? In Jordan, politician Muhammad Bayoudh Al-Tamimi, a Palestinian, adamantly defended ISIS during a television appearance posted online in late August. Islamic State ideology “stems from the Quran and the Sunna,” he said, according to the translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). “The Quran and the Sunna constitute their ideology, doctrine, and conduct. . . . There is no such thing as ‘ISIS ideology’—it’s Islam.”

That of course supports the position of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who has declared himself caliph and claims descent from Mohammed. Unlike Obama and Cameron, he has a PhD in Islamic studies. As any good caliph would, he has commanded the allegiance of all Muslims in order that they might reclaim their “dignity, might, rights and leadership,” and announced that ISIS would march on Rome. If he is a real caliph, there is nothing particularly unorthodox about this, and it would resonate with a desire in the hearts of many Muslims.

“We look forward to the coming, as soon as possible, of the caliphate,” said Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most popular preacher and scholar in the Sunni Muslim world. However, he cautioned, the “declaration issued by the Islamic State is void under sharia and has dangerous consequences for the Sunnis in Iraq and for the revolt in Syria,” adding that the title of caliph can “only be given by the entire Muslim nation,” not by a single group.

So the problem is not with the idea of the caliphate, but with this particular pretender to the title. However, as the long history of Islam has shown, power is self-legitimating in the Muslim world. Power comes from Allah; otherwise, how could one have it? Therefore, further success in battle and more oaths of allegiance from other Muslim groups may vindicate Al-Baghdadi’s claim. That is why Muslim rulers, particularly in the Middle East, are particularly anxious that he be defeated. Otherwise, their goose is cooked.

This is essentially a Muslim quarrel. In fact, the Muslim opponents of ISIS refer to its members as Kharijites, referring to a 7thcentury intramural conflict over the caliphate that was likewise settled with a great deal of blood.

However, we in the West are unlikely to hear of the struggle in these terms. More likely, we are assuaged by statements like that made in August by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who said: “There is no place for violence in Islam. Islam is a religion of peace and some people have wrongly interpreted the religion.” No doubt, and there have been many such protestations from Muslim leaders and religious figures.

But how is peace defined in Islam? The key is to understand the Islamic jurisprudential context in which these things are said. I have no doubt of the sincerity of most Muslim leaders in saying the things they do, but we in the West are largely unaware of what they mean by what they say. This is due to our ignorance of Islam.

Read more at Breitbart

Robert Reilly is the Senior Fellow for Strategic Communication at the American Foreign Policy Council. He is the author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis (ISI Books, 2010) and The Prospects and Perils of Catholic-Muslim Dialogue (Isaac Publishing, 2013) .

Total Strategic Incoherence

kerry-300x173UTT, By John Guandolo, Oct. 15, 2014:

Enough Americans have a solid understanding of the threats our nation currently faces that the perspective of history is unnecessary for us to recognize – in the moment – that our leadership is catastrophically unprofessional in their national security duties, and we have now achieved a level of strategic incoherence never before seen in recorded history.

America’s enemies are telling us exactly who they are and want they intend to do.  In many cases, they are putting it right in our faces. Yet our leaders at the federal level continue to ignore the clearly articulated plans of those who wish to destroy us in exchange for unmitigated fantasy that we can convince others to like us, as well as those inside our government who are intentionally sabotaging this nation in an effort to destroy it.  The latter will not be addressed here as it has been detailed in previous UTT articles.

Across continents, Islamic armies are butchering non-Muslims and Muslims who will not comply with the Sharia or whom are guilty of crimes under Sharia. These groups call themselves Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, Al Shabaab, and a variety of others all of whom state their objective is to impose Sharia globally under the Islamic State or Caliphate. This is the same stated objective of the Muslim Brotherhood, Tabligi Jamaat, Jamaat e Islami, and every Muslim nation on earth at the Head of State and King level via the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Ten Year Plan. This also happens to be the same stated objective of every jihadi arrested in Europe, the United States, and everywhere else on the planet. It is also a fact that 100% of all published Sharia (Islamic Law) mandates jihad until the entire world is ruled by Sharia under the Caliphate, and all (100%) published Islamic Law only defines “jihad” as “warfare” against non-Muslims.

The Islamic enemy is completely unified in their stated objectives, yet the entire U.S. Government leadership from the President, to his National Security Advisor, to the heads of the CIA, FBI, DHS, and Military, and the Cabinet Secretaries all march in unison stating none of this has to do with Islam. From this grotesque lack of intellectual and factual honesty comes strategic blunders that leave a person speechless.

The President states ISIS is “not Islamic” yet continues to support the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, Al Qaeda forces and others in places like Syria and Libya.  Secretary of State Kerry stated before Congress recently that “(ISIS is) the enemy of Islam. That’s what they are.  There’s nothing in Islam that condones or suggests people should go out and rape women and sell off young girls or give them as gifts to jihadists and, you know, cut people’s heads off.”  Apparently, neither has read Islamic Law which explicitly calls for these things.  As a matter of fact, beheadings and crucifixion are part of the Hadud Laws which are specifically articulated in the Quran.

The President and his Chief of Staff (former Deputy National Security Advisor), FBI Director, Director of Central Intelligence, Secretary of Homeland Security, and others continue to look to Muslim Brotherhood leaders in America to give them their info on Islam and Sharia, as well as allowing these jihadis to write doctrine for domestic counterterrorism strategy and foreign policy – which is why our leaders are clueless. This cluelessness allows our enemies to extract the very outcome they are gunning for – complete strategic incoherence.  When the FBI fails in these duties, state and local law enforcement officials are left out to dry.

The catastrophic strategic results speak for themselves:

* The U.S. Department of State wrote the Constitutions for Iraq and Afghanistan which created Islamic Republics (not democracies) under Sharia law – thus fulfilling Al Qaeda’s objectives for the region.  Despite crushing our enemies on the field of battle, the U.S. lost these wars.  Today, Americans and those who gave their blood and bodies for this cause watch as the gains made are being washed away by a different flavor of the same enemy.

* The U.S. government takes sides with “moderate” Islamic groups without understanding the strategic implications, and our government ends up supporting Al Qaeda and/or Muslim Brotherhood entities with arms and money in Libya, Syria, and Egypt.

* The U.S. Government via the President and Secretary of State negotiate with hostile nations/entities like the Taliban, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others thinking we can cajole them into seeing the issues our way. All the while we are completely ignorant that their guiding principles are enshrined in Sharia, a body of law they believe must be obeyed above all other laws and systems. Therefore, we are always on the losing side of these discussions.

* Those on the front lines of this war go into harms way unclear about the threat, the enemy threat doctrine (Sharia), and how to dialogue with the enemy until they gain practical experience on the ground. Since primary Muslim Brotherhood organizations like ISNA, CAIR, MAS, and others have been given access to military units and our war colleges by the Pentagon and commanding generals, our military is not only being kept from a factual understanding of the enemy, they are the target of information operations by our enemy to specifically keep them from knowing the enemy.

* When senior generals do speak out, it is to silence the factual basis for identifying and understanding the enemy. It is the reason our leaders obliged our military to dangerously absurd rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and why senior Pentagon officials ordered the soldiers at Guantanamo Bay guarding the jihadists to carry Qurans for prisoners wearing white gloves and treating the Quran like a“delicate piece of art.” This nonsense has no place in a war, but is the intentional result of our leadership failures to get a clear understanding of what this nation is facing.

* The U.S. military continues to train foreign personnel in Islamic countries yet cannot understand why these same “friends” would kill our troops in acts of jihad (martyrdom).

* There is no understanding of the implications of the US v Holy Land Foundation trial (Dallas, 2008), the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history – inside our federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Therefore, senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders and organizations continue to support jihadi operations, recruit and “radicalize” jihadis, and influence and conduct counterintelligence operations inside our national security apparatus.  They do this almost completely unimpeded.

*Our counterintelligence programs do not blend well with the counterterrorism programs in either the CIA or FBI and, therefore, we do not see – strategically – the meshing of foreign intelligence services, their political representatives here, and the jihadi operations. Saudi Arabia is an excellent example of this. The Saudi government was complicit in 9/11, as was the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. and members of Saudi intelligence. Saudi Arabia supports terrorism more than any other nation on the planet beside Iran – yet they continue to be given a free pass by the U.S. government.

* U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country partner with Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas entities to train their employees, as well as FBI and DHS employees, despite facts already in evidence (US v HLF).

* Since 2012 when the FBI Director, DHS Secretary, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey shut down all training inside the government about the Muslim Brotherhood, the HLF trial, Islamic Law (Sharia), the strategic threat from the global Islamic Movement and related topics, the impact on international operations and investigations has been severe. The FBI’s latest threat matrix does not even include Islamic terrorism as a major threat to the United States. This defies rational thought. These days Chairman Dempsey publicly states his concern for ISIS, but fails to recognize it is his own policy of silencing the facts and truth inside the Pentagon that has led to a strategic collapse of fundamental war fighting mantras like “know thy enemy.”  The question he must be asked when he makes statements that Islam does not support what Al Qaeda and ISIS are doing is: “What Islamic Law have you read General?”

* Congressmen Gerry Connolly, Keith Ellison, Andre Carson John Conyers and Senators like Richard Durbin and others have given public support, using their official office, and, in some cases, raised money for MB/Hamas in the U.S. doing business as “CAIR.”  Yet, this behavior, which is against U.S. law, is left unchallenged by the Department of Justice.

There are those who have argued that it is difficult and nearly impossible to speak truth inside the system today, and that is true.  However, the Oath of Office obliges all in positions of authority to give their fidelity to the Constitution, not to their jobs or their promotions.

But this strategic incoherence is certainly not left only the Islamic threat.

The Iranians are forging ahead with their nuclear program openly stating they will destroy Israel when capable.

The Chinese and the Iranians have been conducting joint Naval exercises while the Chinese intelligence service is eating our lunch by penetrating U.S. government systems on a regular basis and conducting economic warfare against us at unprecedented levels.

The Chinese and the Russians have taunted the U.S. on a number occasions with provacative actions including a Russian bomber flying over Guam during the President’s State of the Union Speech last year.  The Chinese popped one of their subs up in the middle of a U.S. Naval exercise recently just to show us they can. Our strategic response – nothing.

In fact, our military and civilian leaders publicly state our greatest threat is “global warming.”

Message to our enemies – we are weak and will not respond to aggressive action.

The historical result of such weakness and appeasement has always been grave violence to the nation demonstrating such weakness.

Our allies do not trust us and our enemies do not fear us. We are extremely vulnerable.

And this is not the worst of it. The utter catastrophic failure by our leaders to have a working knowledge of our enemies and their doctrine has resulted in the deaths of Americans abroad and at home. Equally devastating is the loss of the security of communities across this nation which will – because of the failure of our leaders – have to deal with the jihadis on the streets of America in coming months in ways most people find unimaginable.  This is a threat that can be mitigated now, and needs to be.  Every day we wait is another level of security we are losing.

The way in which the government is dealing with the threat from Ebola – while ISIS calls for it to be used as a strategic weapon against us – gives us a glimpse into the lack of leadership, basic intellectual acumen, and the vacuum of common sense in those men and women charged with defending our nation at the top.

There is no other outcome than the defeat of America when the entire American leadership structure on both sides of the political aisle fails to identify the enemy and make  complete victory our national objective.

Anything less will  leave the world without the lamp on the hill shining the light of liberty.

 

Jeff Crouere interviews Dr. Andrew Bostom on Muslim polling data

Published on Oct 9, 2014 by Kenneth Sikorski

This radio broadcast interview on the Jeff Crouere show with Dr.Andrew Bostom 9.10.2014 was on Islam, jihad and how mainstream 7th century Islam (basic Islam 101) is in mainstream Islam.

Audio: Clare Lopez analysis of the Islamic State

Published on Oct 9, 2014 by The Final Say Radio Show

Clare Lopez, Vice President for Research & Analysis with the Center for Security Policy, joins the show to discuss ISIS and other security threats.

The Conviction of Truth

 

religion 1By Justin O. Smith:

The ideology of Islam and Islam’s champions have broadcast their intentions to destroy America and have acted on those intentions often enough, just like communism and fascism, that Americans must  quit treating Islam as “a religion” worthy of the First Amendment’s protection, and America must halt all Muslim immigration and mosque construction now. America must acknowledge this Islamic threat to the nation and act swiftly and harshly to counter Islam’s “Trojan Horse” of immigration, as coined by the late and great Oriana Fallaci, in the face of relativism, multicultural recriminations and Islamic apologists, if we truly desire for all Americans to remain free.

Although Article V_Clause 2 of our U.S. Constitution says, “This Constitution … shall be the Supreme Law of the Land,” one would think that Muslims founded America, by the manner in which the majority of U.S. Muslims claim the “right” to impose Sharia law in their Muslim communities and in the public square. This “right” does not exist.

For the better part of our nation’s existence, it has held true that our nation is a Christian nation with 78% of Americans professing to be Christian, tolerant of all other religions, and much of our government and Our Declaration of Independence is based on Judeo-Christian principles. Our rights come from God alone, and the Muslims do not have the right to divest us of them.

In August 2014, construction of a 15,000 square foot mosque began in Anchorage, Alaska. Mosque leaders called it “a purpose built mosque.” It’s purpose is to spread Sharia law and Islam, among other things.

Remember __ Islam is an all-encompassing ideological system, and as such, wherever there is a Muslim community and a mosque there will be Sharia law, and Sharia law leads to the Islamization of regions and ultimately the nation. Muslims, currently only 2.5% of America’s population, already hold inordinate power, as Islam is promoted and enabled by Progressives and Obama, who believe all cultures are equal and deny American Exceptionalism.

With extremely the high birthrates of Muslims and Progressives intent on changing the face of America by flooding America with hundreds of thousands of Muslim “refugees” from terror sponsoring nations, it is not absurd or beyond the realm of the possible to envision the Muslim population to growing significantly enough to command a strong influence in the U.S. government, 30% or better, and voting Sharia law into our legal infrastructure. We already see it across Europe, in the U.K., Denmark, France and Germany. And let’s not forget that the Bolsheviks only represented about 8% of the population when they took Russia by violent means.

As Sam Solomon, professor of Sharia law and former Muslim, explains, any mosque must be viewed through the life of Mohammed. A mosque legislates and teaches the Islamic ideology. It is a meeting place for important dignitaries and Mohammed used it like a Supreme Court, so Sharia law is developed there. It is the place where Mohammed proclaimed Islamic superiority, just as imams proclaim today, and it is the symbol of Islamic rule. And it is a military base, because it was from the mosque that Mohammed proclaimed jihad and recognized his warriors.

Concrete evidence exists that connects numerous Islamic imams and their mosques with terror plots and actively calling for violent jihad/ “holy war”. Three fourths of America’s 2300 mosques should be on a watchlist (Center for Security Policy).

Sheik Osama al-Rifai, a terror finance facilitator for the Detroit based Sunrise Foundation, has raised millions of dollars from Chicago to Miami for the Islamic Front, Al Qaeda and ISIS. He recently stated: ” The unification of these great Islamists and jihadist groups (the Islamic State) … is a great event that brings happiness and thrill to every Muslim, not only in Syria but in the whole Islamic world. I congratulate this brilliant news.”

Suhaib Webb learned his trade at the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, the same mosque that spawned jihadist murderer Alton Nolen, who beheaded Colleen Hufford on September 25th, 2014. Webb is now the new imam of the Islamic Center of Boston, home of the Boston Bomber terrorists, which was founded by terrorist Abdurhaman Alamoudi and had Yusuf Qaradawi (Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas spiritual leader) for its first imam; in the ‘Jewish Advocate’ last year, Charles Jacobs described Webb, as someone who “teaches viscious hatred and calls for young Muslims to engage in jihad against non-Muslims in order to establish a global Islamic state.”

Even Dalia Mogahed, a top advisor to “president” Obama, dissimulates in stating that Sharia “values” are equivalent to Constitutional rights, when just this year alone, Saudi Arabia beheaded 19 people for non-violent “crimes” such as adultery, homosexuality and apostasy. Mogahed also asserts that Islamic terrorism is an expression of “Muslim greivances” and “concerns over injustices”, playing to her ties to terror supporters, such as Dr Kamal Helbawi, who is banned from the U.S.; at a 1992 conference in Oklahoma City, Helbawi told Muslim youths that Jews and Christians are the enemies of Muslims and that the terror group Hamas was holding the mantle for Muslims in “an absolute clash of civilization” against them. Mogahed and Helbawi attended the 2010 U.S.-Islamic World Conference together in Doha.

Too many Muslims never relinquish their allegiances to whatever godforsaken Islamic hell-hole they left and its Islamic doctrines, and they never fully commit to supporting our U.S. Constitution, honoring our Flag and American Heritage and assimilating as true U.S. citizens, as illustrated by, another Mogahed associate, Yusuf Qaradawi’s words.

Banned from the U.S. in 1999, Qaradawi stated, “If everyone who … dies defending his sacred symbols [the Koran] is considered a terrorist then I wish to be at the forefront of the terrorists.” To defend an idea is one thing, but it becomes something entirely different once one begins to force it on others.

Now based in Qatar, Qaradawi regularly calls on Allah to kill all Jews. And speaking in Canada in 2013, Qaradawi stated a plan to “bring [the mosque] from a static place of worship to a center of Islamic revolution … To guide public policy of a nation” and urge “jihad for the sake of Allah.”

The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide-pact, nor should America allow those enamored with Islam, the Progressives and Obama, to continue pushing us into societal suicide through multicultural policies. Our leaders must respond to the Islamic threat through the following measures: 1) Reintroduce sedition laws that have been repealed and prosecute transgressors, (CAIR, MB, converts ect)._ 2) Legislate American culture and values as dominant. Prohibit all Sharia law and the advocacy of Sharia law. _ 3) Deport all non-citizen Muslims immediately. _ 4) Outlaw Sharia finance connections to sensitive U.S. assets, and 5) Discard history books that describe our American culture as one of genocide and oppression and teach our children the unbiased truth and about American Exceptionalism without shame.

America must start implementing her response, for we have allowed the Straussian nightmare of relativism to arrive, in which intolerance to our society is treated as value “equal dignity” to intolerance. We must not allow tolerance to prove the Achilles heel of freedom. To defend our tolerance, we must be intolerant of those who oppose us.

America must be committed to the U.S. Constitution and the Original Intent behind the concepts of Equality and Justice and Liberty, the good guiding our Western principles, all of which the Islamic ideology would contravene and abrogate, and we ourselves must uphold the legitimacy of Our Founding Principles. Without the conviction of the Truth and what our Judeo-Christian principles represent, America cannot long endure.

Ben Affleck: Portrait of Islam’s Clueless Apologists

AP REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER A ENT USA CABy Raymond Ibrahim:

The value of actor Ben Affleck’s recent outbursts in defense of Islam [1] on HBO’s Real Time is that here, in one 10-minute segment [2], we have all the leftist/liberal bromides used whenever Islam is criticized.

In what follows, Affleck’s main arguments are presented and then discredited.

Relativism and the Islamic Heterogeneity Myth

At the start, when author Sam Harris began making some critical remarks concerning Islam, a visibly agitated Affleck interrupted him by somewhat sarcastically asking, “Are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam?  You’re the interpreter of that?”

Affleck was essentially arguing that really no one is qualified to say what is or is not Islamic, since all Muslims are free to interpret Islam anyway they want.   This notion has less to do with how Islam is practiced and more to do with Western relativism, specifically the postmodern belief that there are no “truths,” that everything is open to individual expression.  Thus even if an Islamic sheikh from Al Azhar University were to tell Affleck that the criticism leveled against Islam were true, the actor would no doubt reply, “Fine, that’s your opinion, but I know that most other Muslims disagree.”

The fundamental mistake in this position is that it places Muslims on a higher pedestal of authority than Islam itself (even though muslims are by definition “one’s who submit” to islam, which is “submission” to Allah’s laws).  Islam is based on the law, or Sharia — “the way” prescribed by Allah and his prophet.  And Sharia most certainly does call for any number of things — subjugation of women and religious minorities, war on “infidels” and the enslavement of their women and children, bans on free speech and apostasy — that even Affleck would normally condemn.

In short, Sunni Islam, which approximately 90% of all Muslims follow, is far from heterogeneous.  It has only four recognized schools of jurisprudence, and these agree over the basics, with only minor differences over detail.  Even in the other 10% of Islamic sects, most of which are Shia or Shia offshoots, one finds that when it comes to intolerant aspects, they too are in agreement.  For example, while all Islamic schools of law prescribe the death penalty for leaving Islam, some argue that female apostates should “only” be imprisoned and beat until they embrace Islam again.

The ‘Racism’ Card

When Bill Maher, the host of Real Time, asked “But why can’t we talk about this [Islamic issues]?” Affleck shot back with, “Because it’s gross, it’s racist.”

This meme is as common as it is absurd and does not deserve much rebuttal.  Suffice to say that Muslims are not a race.  There are Muslims of all nations, races, ethnicities — from sub-Saharan Africans to blonde haired, blue-eyed Europeans.   Yet many apologists for Islam, including congressmen and congresswomen [3], habitually rely on this lie — I won’t even deign to call it an “apologetic” — simply because accusing someone of being “racist,” in this case, critics of Islam, is one of the surest way of shutting them up.

Conflating Muslim Teachings with Muslim People

At one point, after the other speakers made certain statistical points, Affleck made the following outburst, to much applause: “How about the more than a billion people [Muslims], who aren’t fanatical, who don’t punish women, who wanna go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day, and don’t do any of the things you’re saying of all Muslims. It’s stereotyping.”

Again, Affleck conflates the actions of people — Muslims — with the teachings of a religion — Islam.  Going back to the apostasy example, Islamic law clearly teaches that those who abandon Islam — including as the world recently saw, one pregnant Christian woman, Meriam Ibrahim [4] — are to be executed.   One can therefore say that Sharia calls for the death of apostates.

But can one say with similar certainty  that every single Muslim alive today believes that the apostasy penalty should be upheld?  Obviously not.  Yet this is not a reflection of Islam; it is a reflection of individual human freedom — a freedom that ironically goes against Islamic teaching.

Nonetheless, this conflation of Islam with Muslims is an all too common approach used to shield the former from criticism.  (See this 2007 video [5] where I respond more fully to this question from a concerned reporter.)

Read more at PJ Media