Submission – Islam does not mean peace

Submissiony-Position-for-PJ (1)By Bill Warner, July 30, 2015:

The word “Islam” means “submission”. In Islam one submits to the Koran, the words of Allah, and to the Sunna, the life example of Mohammed. One does this by following them without question. One also submits to the “umma”, the community of Islam, and to the “Sharia”, the divine law of Allah.
The problem is that submission does not just apply to Muslims, it applies to the Kafir, the non-believer as well.

Ignored by US Media? Sharia Law’s Conflict With Rights of Women

Women in Afghanistan (Photo: © Reuters)

Women in Afghanistan (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, Daniel GallingtonJuly 13, 2015:

Earlier this year I wrote a short article on the political, societal and legal tensions associated with the large-scale Muslim immigrations to Europe in the late 1960’s and early 70’s – a period when I lived in both England and Germany.

I wrote the piece because I disagreed fundamentally with the suggestion by some of our senior political leaders that violent incidents – such as the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris – could have been avoided had Europeans worked harder to “assimilate” their Islamic immigrants.

The article included discussion of traditional Muslim “proprietary” doctrines toward women and girls. I wrote, “We still have brutal ‘honor killings’ of women – even in the United States – and young girls are murdered, raped and enslaved (in the name of religious law) throughout the more ‘modern’ Muslim world” and explained how such doctrines and practices were fundamentally inconsistent with the law in Western democracies.

Shortly after the article appeared, I was surprised by an email from my editor at the time – who had previously declined to run the piece – saying: “I have reached the unfortunate conclusion that your views on the matter are well outside the spectrum that we are willing to publish…”

I also wondered, was this “conclusion” a clear example of our “big media’s” reluctance to publish on the negative aspects of Islam? Was such critical coverage, whether reporting or commentary, “well outside the spectrum that [they] are willing to publish”?

Here’s another example: After my article appeared, a scholarly report on the practice of “female genital mutilation and cutting” (or “FGM/C”) of some Muslim women and girls was published by the independent American Population Reference Bureau (PRB). 

The findings of this report are shocking:

“Girls under age 18 made up one-third of all females at risk…. While some of these girls were born in countries with high prevalence rates, the majority are U.S.-born children of parents from high-prevalence countries. Anecdotal reports tell of U.S.-born girls being cut while on vacation in their parents’ countries of origin and of people traveling to the United States to perform FGM/C on girls here.” 

Mainstream American media has simply ignored this report. Is it because even totally objective factual coverage of the report could somehow be considered “Islamophobic” — an editorial descriptor for all things critical of Islam?

In a larger context, has U.S. big media learned anything from the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, the killings in Copenhagen, the brutal attack at a Kenyan university and the recent mass shootings in Tunisia? Doesn’t our media see these vicious acts as a direct threat to their – and our – basic freedoms of thought, press and expression — the very fundamentals of a democracy?

This is not a new tension in the West. More than a hundred years ago, Sir Winston Churchill observed – in reference to the conflict between fundamental Islam and democracy – that “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

In short, an Islamic reformation is long overdue, as I wrote, “…Muslim integration into Western cultures – especially ours – requires the abandonment of laws, rules and practices inconsistent with living in free societies. This is nothing radical or new – most other organized religions have done it for the past few hundred years, some far more than others.”

Whether one agrees or not with this conclusion is perhaps less important than the willingness to address it, and therefore it must remain an important concern for Western lawmakers and our legal scholars.

Yet, some of our media continues its reluctance to publish on the anachronistic and negative influences of Islam and sharia law – especially as it affects women – and this while attempting to “assimilate” itself into Western democracies and modern legal systems.

And, the idea that media criticism of Islam or sharia law is somehow off limits  – especially as it teaches or condones violence toward women  – is also fundamentally inconsistent with our democratic values. This is an aspect of Islam or Sharia Law that can never be “assimilated” in Western democracies.

Daniel Gallington is the Senior Policy and Program Adviser at the George C. Marshall Institute in Arlington, Virginia.

I Am An Islamophobe

CI7-0c8VEAAs6BX

By George Garbow

I am an Islamophobe, I’m proud to be an Islamophobe and you should be proud to.

You should be proud of the fact that you criticise a religion that in it’s most important and fundamental texts the Quran and the Hadith’s tells it’s followers to not take non-muslims as friends, to lie to and deceive non-muslims in order to advance the spread of Islam and that there will never be any peace in the world until every single person on this planet either by persuasion or violent force becomes a Muslim. You should be proud to criticise a religion that in it’s most important and fundamental texts condones and encourages the cruel treatment of animals for Halal meat, the beating of disobedient wives and the taking of non-muslim women and children as sex slaves by muslim men. You should be proud of the fact that you speak out about a religion that instructs it’s followers in the Quran and Hadith’s to terrorise and force all non-muslims to live as subservient slaves under their Muslim masters, to crucify and behead any non Muslims who disobey their masters in any country in the world where Muslims live and to make war on anyone who tries to stop them doing this. You should be proud to oppose a religion that considers Mohammed to be the most perfect man, a man who in the Muslim Hadith’s is praised and revered for being a thief, a peadophile and a murderer. You should be proud that by being an Islamophobe you are standing up to Western politicians and the Western media who out of fear and cowardice and for their own personal greed are trying to stop you telling the undeniable truth about what Islam teaches to it’s followers and the crimes against humanity that it is responsible for throughout history and that we see happening all around the world today.

You should be proud of the fact that the use of the word Islamophobe by our politicians and the media will not silence you and will not make you live in fear as they do. Be proud of the fact that by being an Islamophobe shows you care about the victims of this religion, you care about the muslim women who are forced to wear the Burqa and are treated as second-class citizens under Islamic law, you care about the non-muslim women who are taken as sex slaves by muslim man, you care about the children who are raped by Muslim men as they follow the teachings an example of their prophet, you care about the victims of Muslim terrorism and violence who are being shot, stoned, crucified and beheaded in the name of this religion all around the world today. So be proud to be called an Islamophobe by cowards and liars because it shows that in this world you choose right over wrong and good over evil and that you will not live your life on your knees.

So be proud of the fact that you are an Islamophobe.

***

SIX SURE SIGNS SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS AN ISLAMOPHOBE by Eric Allen Bell

The word “Islamophobia” was popularized by Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, operating under several different names in America – most effectively as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of, not only Hamas, but Al Qaeda and countless other Islamic terrorist groups.

The Holy Land Foundation trial was the result of the largest bust in FBI history of an Islamic “charity.” This organization was caught funneling about $12 million to Hamas.  These monies were to be used to enable Islamic jihadists to murder innocent civilians in the name of Islam.

During this FBI raid, a memo was unearthed.  This memo has become known as the “Explanatory Memorandum.” In summary, the Muslim Brotherhood and a couple dozen of its front groups in America declared a “Civilization Jihad.”  In plain terms, the Muslim Brotherhood stated its intention to destroy the US from within, using our own culture, media, legal system, academia, law enforcement, you name it.  Unfortunately, most people cannot or will not look at this – and consequently, the plan is moving forward like clockwork.  As author Dr. Bill Warner reminded me recently, “You can wake a man who is sleeping, but you cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep.

Now, as it turns out, not everyone believes in this concept called “Islamophobia.” In fact, there exists a rapidly growing number of Patriotic Americans who see this form of terrorist spin control for what it is. But unfortunately, one of the ways that the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/CAIR has infiltrated our culture, is by using one of our greatest weaknesses, and that is the fear of not toeing the line when it comes to multiculturalism.  Those who do not drink the Kool Aid are called the “Islamophobes.”

You may already have an “Islamophobe” living in your community, or as a member of your family, an elected official, a member of your religious organization or even someone at work.  The “Islamophobes” are everywhere, and they are spreading.  Here are six ways to spot one:

1 – An “Islamophobe” loves liberty more than they love submission.  They know that the word “liberty” means “freedom” and that the word “Islam” literally means “submission.” And just like America’s Founding Fathers, the “Islamophobe” knows the value of liberty and knows it comes with a cost – a cost they are willing to pay, even when those around them neither understand nor appreciate this.

2 – An “Islamophobe” is more interested in the truth than the approval of their peers. They place their own moral intuition and the principles of the American Constitution above the group think of the times.  The “Islamophobe” is strong-willed, independent and exemplifies the American spirit.  They are unwilling to compromise the political self-determination that this great Republic was founded on, including and especially free speech.

3 – An “Islamophobe” resists passionately any attempt to impose Islamic law (Sharia) onto them.  Islamic law mandates the killing of those who leave Islam, the death penalty for homosexuals, second-class status for women, punishment for the crime of being raped (Islamic law calls this “adultery”), it forbids the questioning of Islamic doctrine, promotes slavery, forbids religious freedom and criminalizes free speech.  Although the “Islamophobes” are often smeared in the press as being irrational, the truth is that most actually realize that the more obvious forms of Sharia Law are not their most immediate concern.  Rather, it is understood among “Islamophobes” that it is “Creeping Sharia” or death by a thousand cuts that Americans have to watch out for and stand against.  The “Islamophobe” is always the first to notice when the political doctrine known as “Islam” is being given special treatment in schools, the courts and in the media.  The “Islamophobe” is often the first to realize that their own God-given right to free speech is being threatened by the slow and stealth implementation of Sharia Law into all levels of our society.

4 – An “Islamophobe” sees a pattern emerging before the rest of the population sees it, and they don’t hesitate to warn others, even when the social, professional and personal safety consequences come with a hefty price.  As David Horowitz pointed out recently, “80 percent of the American public was opposed to getting involved in WWII before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.”  What was it that the other 20 percent were able to see?  What was the pattern they were able to identify?  An “Islamophobe” sees the writing on the walls and does not sit around passively waiting for our so-called “leaders” to get it.  An “Islamophobe” is very likely already a member of organizations such as “Act for America” because they are already taking action at the grassroots level.

5 – An “Islamophobe” is able to tell the difference between Islam, the totalitarian political ideology, and Muslims – who are human beings.  “Islamophobes” are not concerned with how Muslims worship.  Rather, it is Islamic Law that concerns them, specifically as it pertains to the treatment of the infidel, who is to be subjugated or killed.  Contrary to popular opinion, “Islamophobes” do not hate Muslims.  In fact the “Islamophobes” know better than most, that no one is more victimized by the brutality of Islam than Muslims.  “Islamophobes” look for ways to stop this pattern, so that all people can be free, have dignity and human rights.  An “Islamophobe” is often somebody with a big heart, such that they tend to care about people whom they don’t even personally know. The “Islamophobes,” however, do oppose a violent ideology which seeks to subjugate or kill the unbeliever, and they make no apologies for not tolerating such inhumanity.  Ironically, “Islamophobes” are often branded as bigots for simply being the ones willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room.  And making sure they are branded as such is the job of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas front group.

6 – “Islamophobes” tend to define themselves by what they are for – and not by what they are against.  An “Islamophobe” stands for liberty, stands for human rights and cares about our national defense.  They are less concerned about complaining about the problems and are more likely to actually do something about it.  “Islamophobes” are people of action.  “Islamophobes” take the time to read the Islamic scriptures (Koran, Hadith and Sira) and to understand what we are up against.  They study the works of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Sam Harris, Nonie Darwish, Bill Warner, Brigitte Gabriel and so many others.  An “Islamophobe” takes the time to understand the ruthless and barbaric Islamic Law (Sharia), which is committed to taking away our fundamental rights.  Consequently, many “Islamophobes” have the tools to speak to others, including their elected officials, spiritual leaders, friends and family and even the media, to affect positive social change – and preserve our American way of life.

Do you know someone who might exhibit these traits?  Is someone you know an “Islamophobe”?  Well now there is something you can do about it.  Join them!

If you love liberty more than the approval of your peers – you may already be an “Islamophobe.”

The word “Islamophobia” literally means an irrational fear of the ideology known as Islam.  It is misapplied, as this is in fact the intention of the word. Someone with an irrational fear of Islam would more likely make a statement such as, “The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.”  And really, what kind of a spineless coward would say something so utterly ridiculous? (Barack Hussein Obama, addressing the United Nations, October 2012.)

Those who are called the “Islamophobes” are generally anything but. However, they are strong enough not to allow cheap name calling to stop them from honoring their moral convictions.  The “Islamophobes” are our best and our brightest.  These are the people who can see around corners, connect the dots, spot a pattern, and are true to their moral intuition – even when it is inconvenient.

The so-called “Islamophobes” have the courage to speak out.  It has been said that “liberty is paid for in installments, one generation at a time.”  If you feel in your heart that you are ready to make your payment, to continue the legacy of freedom and liberty that has been paid for dearly by those brave men and women who have gone before us, then now is your time.  Now is our time.  Be willing to be branded an “Islamophobe.”  And if you are already a semi-active “Islamophobe” may I suggest becoming a “Raging Islamophobe.”  A word of caution: This could result in some people not liking you.  But if that is all that is being asked of us, for now, to stand up for liberty, to champion the cause of freedom — then being labeled an “Islamophobe” is a small price to pay.  In fact, to be an “Islamophobe” is an honor.

***

Picture-16 (1)

Download the pdf:

Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future
By: David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

D.C. PR Agency for Sharia Law

4130735_orig

Qatar funds Hamas and supports the Muslim Brotherhood.

Truth Revolt, by Ron Torossian, July 9, 2015:

The Public Relations world is abuzz with the news that according to reports filed with the government, Qatar has extended its $88,500 per month contract with Levick Communications, a leading PR firm. The company was hired by the Embassy of Qatar to “bolster their relationships with the United States and non-profit organizations,” according to FARA filings.

The assignment covers strategy, research and opinion leader outreach, and reports to Qatar’s United States Ambassador Mohammed Jaham Al Kuwari.

According to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Qatar’s image has been “battered by allegations that it mistreats migrant workers, aids terrorists and bribed its way to hosting the 2022 soccer World Cup.” As the BBC reported a few months ago, on a press trip arranged by Portland Communications, Qatar’s UK PR firm for the country’s Prime Minister, journalists were put in jail for reporting on accommodations provided to migrant workers.

Qatar funds Hamas, one of the world’s leading terror organizations, and is an outspoken supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have all recalled their ambassadors from Qatar to protest its support of terror organizations. The nation is home to the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi, as well as Hamas’ leader Khaled Mashal.

The country is ruled in part by Sharia law, and in 2013 Qatar joined a coalition of other countries in vowing to administer a “homosexual test” to visitors, in an effort to restrict gays’ entrance into the country. In certain areas of the nation’s court, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s – and in some cases women witnesses are not permitted.

Levick in the United States, and Portland Communications have chosen to serve as sharia’s PR firm. As the owner of a top 20 American PR firm I agree with the CEO of the world’s largest PR firm, Richard Edelman, who said “PR is not like the law – not everyone deserves representation.”

Ronn Torossian is CEO of 5WPR, a top 20 independently owned Public Relations firm.  His best-selling book, For Immediate Release: Shape Minds, Build Brands, and Deliver Results with Game-Changing Public Relations is available on Amazon.

Also see:

Worrisome Number of American Muslims Polled Believe Sharia and Violence Are Acceptable

u1_muslim-image-intense-us-flag

Political Islam, Jul 8 2015, by Bill Warner:

We are constantly told that only a tiny minority of Muslims hold extremist views and that Muslims make wonderful citizens. But a recent survey refutes all of this optimistic propaganda.
The survey tell us that significant numbers of Muslims in America do not want to be ruled by our Constitution but want Sharia law. Nearly a third of the Muslims said that violence to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws are acceptable. Nearly 10% of American Muslims say that Islamic State is real Islam.
Why do we want to admit more Muslims who oppose our laws and customs? How can Muslims be true citizens of America?
Survey: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

Bill Warner: What should those who oppose political Islam and Sharia call themselves?

dissidentBy Bill Warner, July 1, 2015:

What should those who oppose political Islam and Sharia call themselves? Some call themselves counter-Sharia or counter-jihad. We need a better name.
Look carefully at how Islam actually expands its power. It is not the Muslims who actually do the work of Islamification. No, it is the Establishment media, schools, churches, government, and others who do the actual work. The Establishment is the near enemy and Islam is the far enemy.
Our name needs to reflect both enemies. Since we dissent from the dogma of the Establishment and Islam, the name “dissident” fulfills our needs. It also pays homage to the brave dissidents of the Soviet era. If you agree, start calling ourselves dissidents.

***

Liars and Lunatics

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 28, 2015:

In the wake of the jihadi attacks last week in France, Kuwait, and Tunisia, the reality of the Islamic threat is as clear as it could possibly be, yet our enemies continue to use the same tactics and the leadership in the West regurgitates the obvious lies fed to them.  Western leaders continue to delude themselves and their nations about the darkness sweeping over the planet leaving bodies, human decency, liberty, and reasonable thought in its wake.

After the two jihadis were killed a few weeks ago in Garland, Texas, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organization where they were trained/radicalized – the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix – claimed neither the two shooters, nor the man who trained them were bad guys when he knew them.  The Phoenix media gave them all a pass, as have many of the religious leaders in Arizona.  The Boston Marathon bombers and the man FBI agents shot to death in Boston a few weeks ago, as well as quite a number of other jihadis (“terrorists” if you wish) have all been trained and supported by the ISB (Islamic Society of Boston) which was  founded by Al Qaeda financier Alamoudi, and is an MB/Hamas organization.  Yet, the FBI is still outreaching to the ISB for “help.”  The leaders of the ISB claim they reject violence, and media, government, and law enforcement officials believe them because they said it.

The mother of the jihadi in Grenoble, France said on French radio, “My sister-in-law said ‘put on the TV’. And then she began to cry. My heart stopped…We have a normal family life. He goes to work, he comes back. We are normal Muslims.  We do Ramadan. We have three children and a normal family. Who do I call who can give me more information because I don’t understand.”

Any police officer with more than ten minutes of experience can watch any of these folks on TV and tell you they are lying.  Where is the hungry media asking the tough questions?  Where are the law enforcement organizations turning these places inside and out using facts already in evidence to get search and arrest warrants?  Where are national leaders in Europe, Canada, and the United States calling for the boot to once again come down on the Islamic Movement before its power becomes so great, we will lose nations and millions of people fighting it?

cameron chamberlain

David Cameron, the leader of the United Kingdom, in response to the killing of dozens of Britons in Tunisia said the UK and others must do all they can to combat the threat.  This “means dealing with the threat, at source, whether that is ISIL in Syria and Iraq or whether it is other extremist groups around the world.  And we also have to deal, perhaps more important than anything, is with this poisonous radical narrative that is turning so many young minds, and we have to combat it with everything we have.  The people who do these things, they sometimes claim they do it in the name of Islam.  They don’t.  Islam is a religion of peace.  They do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology that we have to confront with everything we have.”

Where is that peaceful “other” version of Islam taught Mr. Cameron?  Not in any of the Islamic schools in the UK.  They teach jihad is a permanent command on the Muslim world until Sharia is the law of the land.  How do you combat this Mr. Cameron?  I propose Britain begin with electing leaders who speak the truth.

It appears there is no amount of reason, evidence, facts or world events that is going to break Mr. Cameron from the narrative handed to him by the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadis in the UK, like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain.  Mr. Cameron appears to be fully surrendered to the bidding of the enemies of the West and, like Neville Chamberlain, is willing to bring Britain to the brink of destruction without even a whisper of courage to do otherwise.

The problem is there does not appear to be a Winston Churchill anywhere in England.

Is there a Charles Martel, Jan Sobieski, or Winston Churchill anywhere in the West?

Also see:

A Counterjihad Survey From a British University

oxfordummahGates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey (Ned May) June 25, 2015:

A few weeks ago a PhD candidate at a British university sent us the following email.

I am a PhD student at [a major British institution of higher learning]. I am researching groups set up to oppose radical Islam in Europe and North America, including anti-Jihad, anti-Sharia and anti-halal organisations.

I would like to interview activists within these organisations, to help me understand how they became involved, what their concerns are about radical Islam, and how they are going about countering them.

I would welcome the opportunity to interview someone from Gates of Vienna as part of my research, given that it is one of the most prominent counter-jihad websites.

Depending on the questions, I’m not averse to answering such surveys, even though I know the all but universal multicultural agenda of the institutions that sponsor them. I wrote him back and told him that if he wanted to use my answers to compile statistical results, that was fine. But if he quoted me, I required that he include the entire questionnaire — all his questions and my answers in full — somewhere in his published material, even if only as an appendix. In the past, various Counterjihad people (including several of my friends) have had the unfortunate experience of being quoted out of context. This method at least makes the entire context available for anyone who is interested. Plus, of course, I am posting it here — I told him that I reserved the right to publish the entire interview myself.

When the questionnaire arrived, it was prefixed with an option to choose between two waivers:

Delete as appropriate: EITHER: I agree that these answers may be attributed to me in published materials; OR: I would prefer to remain anonymous in published materials.

Please note: There is no compulsion to answer any question. If you prefer not to answer a question, just leave the box blank.

I chose the second option, but appended a proviso:

I agree that these answers may be attributed to me in published materials provided that they are made available to readers in their entirety, including the complete wording of each question.

The questions and my responses are reproduced below in their entirety:

Part A: Personal details

Name: Ned May
Organisation: Gates of Vienna
Position within organisation: Editor
Age: 60+
Gender: M
Ethnicity: Human Race

Part B: Questionnaire

1. When and how was Gates of Vienna set up?

We put up our first post on October 9, 2004. For the first eight and a half years we were hosted for free at blogspot.com, under the aegis of Blogger (i.e. Google). Then, after a series of incidents in which our blog was closed or locked by Blogger, in January 2013 we moved to our own domain gatesofvienna.net hosted by a commercial service.

For the first couple of years most of the blogging was done by my wife Dymphna. After I was laid off in 2006, I started blogging more regularly. As Dymphna’s chronic illness worsened, I took on more tasks, and now perform most of them.

2. What is your role in Gates of Vienna?

I am the principal editor. We have a number of translators and contributors, and it is my job to edit their prose where appropriate, find and prepare images to use as illustrations, and do the general formatting for each post. This is in addition to writing an occasional post myself.

I also maintain the database used to create each day’s news feed, and write the programming code that makes it possible.

3. Were you involved in political activism before Gates of Vienna? If so, please indicate which organisations.

No, I was never politically active. My wife and I made modest campaign contributions to our congressman from time to time, but that was all.

4. How would you describe the purpose or aims of Gates of Vienna?

Our principal aim is to resist the Islamization of Western societies. More specifically, we want to prevent the imposition of Islamic law (sharia), which is encroaching on our legal system piecemeal at an increasing rate, by a process that is commonly known as the “stealth jihad”.

Examples of the new sharia-based rules include the “religiously-aggravated Section 5 public order offences” in the U.K., the “hate crime” prosecutions by the various Human Rights Commissions in Canada, and the prosecutions for the “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” in Austria. Numerous other examples may be found in almost all Western countries.

Sharia-based norms violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the constitutions of the countries in which they are implemented. In that sense they are illegal or extra-legal, and not in conformance with the law of the land.

Islamization is only making headway in the West because the existing cultural matrix has been damaged. For that reason, Gates of Vienna frequently examines other issues that pertain to our ongoing social and political breakdown.

5. What are the main challenges or obstacles you face in achieving these aims?

(a) Lack of funding. Everything must by financed by small individual donations from readers.
(b) The unwillingness of the legacy media to cover these issues in depth and without bias. Counterjihad people are routinely characterized as “racists” and “far-right”, while at the same time the issues we raise are virtually never examined on their merits.
(c) The toxic smog of political correctness that shrouds all public discourse and prevents an honest discussion of Islam as a totalitarian political ideology, and not just as a religion.

6. What is Gates of Vienna’s relationship to the wider counterjihad movement?

As envisioned by the original participants in the 910 Group (later CVF and then ICLA), we function as a “network of networks”. That is, we help expedite contact and communication between and among individuals and groups that share the same broad Counterjihad goals.

When I say “we”, I mean the very loosely associated groups under the ICLA umbrella. Gates of Vienna serves as a clearinghouse and bulletin board for those groups and their leaders.

7. What is your assessment of the counterjihad at this point in time?

The Counterjihad is fairly fragmented and often at odds with itself. Cooperation across a broad spectrum of groups is relatively rare. Like the rest of the culture, the members of the loose constellation of groups and people who oppose Islamization are afraid of being called “racists”. That fear causes people to shy away each other if there is even a faint perception of “racism” on one side or another. For this reason broad, sustained coordination among groups is very difficult to achieve.

However, due to the rise of the Islamic State and the increasing incidence of atrocities committed by jihad groups, more and more people are becoming aware of the nature of the crisis that faces us. As a result, I can see our work becoming less difficult in the not-so-distant future — we will not be required to overcome as much initial resistance as has been true in the past.

“Racism” will eventually seem less important, given the immediacy of violent jihad and the illiberal cultural regimen imposed in areas that have accepted sharia rules.

8. If the counterjihad were to be successful, how would the world be different in twenty years’ time?

Your question doesn’t make any sense, because the Counterjihad can’t possibly achieve success within twenty years, or even forty. This is the “Long War”. I expect it to last at least two more generations. I will be long dead before there is any final resolution, so I’m reluctant to predict the shape of things to come.

Let’s just say that I expect that we will experience an undetermined number of grim and bloody decades before this is over.

9. If someone wanted to learn more about the issues discussed on Gates of Vienna, where would you direct them? For example, are there particular books, websites, or other resources that you would recommend?

As a starter, I recommend the book Among the Believers by V.S. Naipaul. After that, anything written by Robert Spencer in his books, or at JihadWatch.org, would help the reader become fully informed. To stay abreast of the violence and brutality of Islamic terrorists worldwide, people should read TheReligionOfPeace.com every day.

For comprehensive, in-depth analysis of sharia law and jihad, the book
Catastrophic Failure by Maj. Stephen Coughlin is highly recommended.

10. Are there any issues not covered in your previous responses that you think should also be considered as part of this research?

I would like to emphasize the importance of studying Islamic law. Until non-Muslims in the West grasp the essentials of sharia, they will remain confused and perplexed by current events involving Islam.

Sharia is based directly on core Islamic scriptures — the Koran, the hadith, and the sunna — and has not changed in any meaningful way in more than a thousand years. When one has acquired a basic understanding of how it all works, such disparate phenomena as Boko Haram, the Islamic State, Louis Farrakhan, the Taliban, Hamas, and Anjem Choudary begin to make sense. The interconnectedness of events concerning Islam — whether “moderate” or “radical” — will start to become clear.

After reading some of the books and websites mentioned earlier, interested citizens should acquire a copy of ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

English-speakers should read the Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994), “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The publisher is listed as amana publications in Beltsville, Maryland.

This is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.

Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad

u1_Muslim-image-intense US FLAGCenter for Security Policy, June 23, 2015:

According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.

The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.

Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall.  The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey.  It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem.  The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year.  If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today.  That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad.

Why Sharia Should Have No Place in America

20150301_shariawilldominatetheworldsign (1)Family Security Matters, by Eileen F. Topansky, June 22, 2015:

There are still far too many Americans who do not perceive the terrifying Nazi-like intentions of Islamic jihadists either through their outright destruction of the infidel and/or the implementation of sharia law as Allah has ordained it to be.

The alphabet-soup-named groups’ ultimate goal of extermination of Jews, Christians and any others deemed infidels has still not penetrated the consciousness of the media or academia.  And no matter how many ardent efforts are made to educate and raise awareness of the Islamists’ goals, people either ignore or minimize the dangers.

And, yet, like Churchill, there are those of us who feel a moral obligation to continue the clarion call and not bend, dhimmi-like, to the whims and wishes of those who deliberately abuse the freedoms of this country in order to abolish those very freedoms for the rest of us.

Which is why, freedom loving Americans need to support Pamela Geller, Ayanna Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Nonie Darwish and other courageous souls who refuse to cower before the appalling attacks on freedom of speech.  Given the opportunity, Islam swallows the whole body politic. Thus it has been in the past and thus it will be going forward.  After all, “Hijab Day was imposed on citizens in Minneapolis” in 2014.

Author/neuroscientist Sam Harris in his article entitled “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks” asserts that “[t]he position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you.”  Furthermore,” [o]nly Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century.”

Contrary to Muslims’ oft-repeated assertions of victimization, it is interesting to note that the latest FBI statistics indicate that Muslims are the least discriminated among groups in the United States.  In fact, “[t]here were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish” as compared to “anti-Islamic ones [which] constituted just 13.1 percent.”  Yet Muslims play the victim game with the result that “Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying ‘respect’ to the glaring pathologies in their culture.”

How many Americans understand the true import of the word “dhimmitude?”  Victor Sharpe describes it as the “parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second-class citizens in order to avoid death.”

Secularists from India to Indiana must understand that “by being silent about the horrendous practices in Islam, they only help toward further subjugation of women.” The veil is but one of the many symbols of “a totalitarian political system and an ideology which declares war on the non-Muslims.”  It is as clear and potent as the Nazi swastika was in its declaration of war against civilization.  Yet, when Muslim women activists speak out against sharia and Islamic gender apartheid, they are ignored by the majority of so-called Western feminists.

One need only read the March 2015 report by Baroness Cox entitled “A Parallel World: Confronting the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today” to see what jihadist ideology is doing to the land of Churchill who, in 1897, wrote “western civilization is face to face with militant Mohammedanism.”  Baroness Cox has written that the “suffering of women oppressed by religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all” would “make the suffragettes turn in their graves.”

In 2014 in their publication entitled Sharia Law: Britain’s Blind Spot, Sharia Watch warned about the encroaching sharia law that was affecting “the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.”

Yet the West continues to contort itself to ban Islamophobia, that completely false narrative that disguises and whitewashes the true intentions of the jihadists.  What every freedom-loving individual should be doing is demanding an “Islamist Apartheid Week” to show the “genocidal, totalitarian and racist states that operate under Islamic rule.”  In fact, it isChristianophobia and Judenphobia which are endemic across the Muslim world.

Is sharia law America’s blind spot as Joanne Moudy asserts? In her June 2014 article, Moudy explains that “. . . many states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of foreign religious law in their courts. Yet despite strong voter support for these measures, the ACLU is fighting to get them all overturned. Oklahoma was one such state and – sure enough – in 2013 a federal court struck down their efforts, ignoring 70% of the population’s wishes that the U.S. Constitution take precedence.”  Moreover, “[t]he ACLU claims it is necessary to consider religious law (Shari’a) when negotiating adoptions, custody of children, executing a will and/or settling disputes over private property rights, to name a few. What the ACLU fails to mention is that within Shari’a law, women are considered property and thus have no rights, which means they have no say in court.”

In addition, Bethany Blankley in her article entitled “What America Would Look Like Under Sharia Law” notes the disingenuousness and double standards that define Islamic organizations as they stealthily infiltrate American organizations.

Blankley’s most cogent point is that since Islamists say there is no conflict between sharia law and constitutional law, “why then [do these same Islamic groups] vigilantly advertise, lobby, award ‘educational grants,’ and fund political campaigns, to implement sharia compliant American law?”

In fact, one need only look at Saudi Arabia and other sharia-ordered countries to see that Jews and gays have no civil rights in Islam.  Thus, “like everyone else, they must either submit to Islam or die.  But they are especially forbidden and targeted for death — because the Qur’an instructs it.”  According to Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, “[t]he Muslim regimes, which do not know even the definition of liberty–and their systematic criminalization of free speech; their suppression of inquiry and creativity; and their unending intertribal fights–are the reason their people have remained in the seventh century.”

Amendment VIII in the Constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  Yet, in sharp contrast, “every day, arrests, trials, floggings, torture and the murder of journalists, poets, students and human rights activists are a routine practice” in the world of sharia law.

In fact, “[i]n Islamic Sharia law, a free mind is the most inexcusable crime in the Muslim world.”

Under “sharia, no free exercise of religion exists, especially for Muslims who choose to leave Islam.”  Additionally, “blasphemy laws exist worldwide to criminalize offensive speech or actions related to the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad.” Thus, anything that is deemed “offensive” is illegal.  And finally, “inequality, slavery and murder are enforced through the Islamic construct of dhimmitude.”

To further understand what life would actually be like for women under an Islamic state, it behooves readers to study the manifesto on women by the Al-Khanssaa Brigade in the February 2015 piece entitled Women of the Islamic State. A propaganda piece to recruit young girls to ISIS, some highlights include a “lengthy rebuttal of the ills of Western civilisation [.]”  ISIS has proposed a curriculum that would ‘begin when [girls] are seven years old and end when they are fifteen, or sometimes a little earlier.'” In essence, “the role of women is inherently ‘sedentary’, and her responsibilities lie first and foremost in the house [.] This role begins at the point of marriage which, . . . can be as young as nine years old. From this point on, it is women’s ‘appointed role [to] remain hidden and veiled and maintain society from behind.'” In actuality, “the ideal Islamic community should refrain from becoming caught up in exploring [science], the depths of matter, trying to uncover the secrets of nature and reaching the peaks of architectural sophistication.”  Consequently, “the implementation of sharia,” and doing “jihad” is paramount.

In Wisconsin and Ohio public school female students are now being asked to pretend to be Muslims.  This subtle propaganda is a first step to indoctrinating American youth.  In fact, much of American life is now being tainted with militant and violent Islamic ideology, be it in public schools, hospitals, and mosques.

Concerning actual sharia incursions into American life, on the one hand, Elizabeth K. Dorminey in her March 2012 article entitled “Sharia Law in American Courts” asserts that “[s]o long as U.S. courts and the federal and state legislatures adhere to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, Sharia’s proscriptions and prohibitions cannot displace constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the United States.”  Likewise Eugene Volokh believes American jurists will halt sharia-like incursions.

But in reality, American courts are already using sharia to adjudicate cases; this is highlighted in the December 2014 booklet entitled Shariah in American Courts, which pdf is available here and whose blurb states that “[t]his monograph also suggests that the effort to invoke shariah in U.S. courts is expanding. Worse yet, the total number of such cases is surely far larger in light of the fact that the proceedings of the vast majority of them are not published.”

In fact, Frank Gaffney emphatically asserts the “need for state legislators to clearly define public policy related to foreign law and Shariah.”  Consequently, . . .  in every case where foreign law and Shariah emerge in the court of a state that has yet to define clearly this policy, it creates one more advance in the Islamists’ determined campaign to have us destroy ‘our house’ by ‘our own hands.'”

Moreover, Gaffney underscores that “Shariah is distinctly different from other religious laws, like Jewish law and Catholic Canon, and distinctly different from other secular foreign laws” because of the “fundamental Shariah doctrine that Islamic law must rule supreme in any jurisdiction where Muslims reside.”  This three minute you-tube is a short version of the article entitled “Shariah vs. Jewish Law and encapsulates the stark differences.

Most alarming is that in “146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail[ed] to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy.”  Consequently, there is an “increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization.”  Multi-cultural tolerance is being turned on us. Being paralyzed by political correctness eliminates what self-preservation demands.

In the June 2014 booklet entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” published by One Law for All, the authors explain that “[f]undamentalist terror is predicated on “. . . controlling all aspects of society in the name of religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people — they physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, musicians, painters – like fascists do. Like fascists, they physically eliminate the ‘untermensch’ – the subhumans -, among them ‘inferior races’, gays, mentally or physically disabled people. And they lock women ‘in their place [.]'”he Campaign La All

Why would we want to import any part of this to our shores?

Eileen has been a medical librarian, an Emergency Medical Technician and a Hebrew School teacher.  She is currently an adjunct college instructor of English composition and literature.  Active in the 1970’s Soviet Jewry Refusenik movement, she continues to speak out against tyranny.  Eileen is also a regular contributor to American Thinker. She can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

Inside Islamic State group’s rule: Creating a nation of fear

Jun. 18, 2015:

ESKI MOSUL, Iraq (AP) — Inside the Islamic State’s realm, the paper testifying that you have “repented” from your heretical past must be carried at all times. Many people laminate it just to be safe. It can mean the difference between life and death.

Bilal Abdullah learned that not long after the extremists took over his Iraqi village, Eski Mosul, a year ago. As he walked down the street, an Islamic State fighter in a pickup truck asked directions to a local mosque. When Abdullah didn’t recognize the mosque’s name, the fighter became suspicious.

“He told me my faith is weak and asked, ‘Do you pray?'” Abdullah recalled. Then the fighter asked to see his “repentance card.” Abdullah had been a policeman until the IS takeover, and policemen and soldiers are required to have one. So are many other former government loyalists or employees — even former English teachers, since they once taught a “forbidden” language and tailors of women’s clothes because they once designed styles deemed un-Islamic.

Abdullah had left his card at home. Terrified, he sent his son running to get it.

“They are brutal people,” he told The Associated Press. “They can consider you an infidel for the simplest thing.”

The Islamic State’s “caliphate,” declared a year ago, stretches across northern Syria through much of northern and western Iraq. Untold numbers have been killed because they were deemed dangerous to the IS, or insufficiently pious; 5-8 million endure a regime that has swiftly turned their world upside down, extending its control into every corner of life to enforce its own radical interpretation of Islamic law, or Shariah.

The Islamic State’s domain is a place where men douse themselves with cologne to hide the odor of forbidden cigarettes; where taxi drivers or motorists usually play the IS radio station, since music can get a driver 10 lashes; where women must be entirely covered, in black, and in flat-soled shoes; where people are thrown to their deaths off buildings on suspicion of homosexuality; where shops must close during Muslim prayers, and everyone found outdoors must attend.

There is no safe way out. People vanish— their disappearance explained by a video of their beheading, an uninformative death certificate, or nothing at all.

“People hate them, but they’ve despaired, and they don’t see anyone supporting them if they rise up,” said a 28-year-old Syrian who asked to be identified only by the nickname he uses in political activism, Adnan, in order to protect his family still living under IS rule. “People feel that nobody is with them.”

The AP interviewed more than 20 Iraqis and Syrians who survived life under the group’s rule. One AP team travelled to several towns in northern Iraq, including Eski Mosul, north of Mosul, where residents are just emerging from nearly seven months under IS rule. Another AP team travelled to Turkish cities along the border, where Syrians who have fled IS territory have taken refuge.

What follows is based on their accounts, many of which were verified by multiple people, as well as on IS social media and broadcast operations and documents obtained by the AP, including copies of repentance cards, weapons inventories, leaflets detailing rules of women’s dress and permission forms to travel outside IS territory — all emblazoned with the IS black banner and logo, “Caliphate in the path of the prophet.”

The picture they paint suggests the Islamic State’s territory, now an area roughly the size of Switzerland, has evolved into an entrenched pseudo-state, one based on a bureaucracy of terror.

Read more

The Most Inexcusable Crime in the Muslim World

Gatestone Institute, by Uzay Bulut, June 16, 2015:

  • Even visionary calls for Islamic reform by Egypt’s President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, were not publicly welcomed by a single Western leader.
  • An ideology that encourages its adherents to engage in deadly rioting, burn down embassies, and kill people over cartoons, but that shows no great signs of sorrow as little girls are sold and raped, most likely does not have much to contribute to advancing civilization.
  • An ideology that treats women as property, that murders or imprisons intellectuals and that sentences a blogger to 1000 lashes and ten years in jail — if he survives — has no right to blame troubles on the West or anyone else.
  • This view has nothing to do with the West or any kind of Western intervention.

Violence and intolerance envelop the Muslim world. People who commit barbaric acts — slaughtering Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus, almost anyone — say they are merely upholding Islamic sharia law against “blasphemy,” apostasy and “unbelievers.” These Islamic extremists daily take those laws in their own hands, murdering anyone who wants to think freely or differently. Every day, arrests, trials, floggings, torture and the murder of journalists, poets, students and human rights activists are a routine practice.

In 2013, a Pakistani Professor of English, Junaid Hafeez, was arrested and jailed on blasphemy charges after a student affiliated with the Jamaat-i-Islami party accused him of insulting Muhammad, the founder of Islam, on Facebook. His original lawyer, Chaudhry Mudassar, left the case in June 2013 after facing a multitude of death threats. His second lawyer, Rashid Rehman, was shot dead in his office in front of his colleagues on May 7, 2014. His current lawyer, Shahbaz Gurmani, has received death threats, including guns fired outside his house, and a letter from the Islamic State (ISIS), warning him against pursuing the case, and stating that he will be beheaded unless he stops.

Junaid Hafeez remains in jail.

On December 28, 2014 the Egyptian writer Fatima Naoot was brought to court for allegedly “insulting” Islam. Her “crime” was to write comments on her Facebook page criticizing the slaughter of animals during Eid al-Adha, the Muslim feast of sacrifice. “I will not be defeated even if I am imprisoned,” Naoot told Reuters. “The loser will be the cultural movement.”

Fatima Naoot is a columnist and poet with a critical mind. She has the courage to speak out against the injustices in her society — traits apparently too threatening for many Muslims.

Article 98(f) of the Egyptian Penal Code prohibits citizens from “ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions or inciting sectarian strife.”

But in Egypt, the law seems to function only against followers of religions other than Sunni Islam. According to the 2014 annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom,

“The bulk of the charges target Sunni Muslim entertainers, prominent personalities, and journalists. Yet the majority of those sentenced by a court to prison terms for blasphemy have been Christians, Shi’a Muslims, and atheists, mostly based on flawed trials. Some 40 percent of the defendants were Christians, a high percentage when compared to the approximately 10-15% Christian population.”

A Muslim cleric, Hussein Ya’qoub, said in 2009, “The Jews are the enemies of Muslims regardless of the occupation of Palestine. You must believe that we will fight, defeat and annihilate them until not a single Jew remains on the face of the earth.”

Another Muslim cleric, Sallah Sultan, said in a speech aired on Hamas TV in 2012, that people he meets everywhere “thirst for the blood of the Jews…. Israel used girls with AIDS to seduce young Egyptians and infect them,” he said, evidently without bothering to validate the story, which is just another example of fabricated Jew-hate.

Neither cleric has yet been brought to court for proudly calling for genocide, but Fatima Naoot is tried for criticizing the slaughter of animals during Eid al-Adha.

On August 30, 2014, an Iranian photographer, Soheil Arabi, 30, was sentenced by a criminal court in Tehran to death by hanging for “insulting the prophet of Islam” (Sabbo al-Nabbi) in Facebook postings. On November 24, 2014, Iran’s Supreme Court upheld the death sentence.

Soheil Arabi (right) was last year sentenced to death by an Iranian court for “insulting the prophet of Islam” in Facebook postings.

In 2014, Raif Badawi, 31, a Saudi blogger and creator of a website intended to foster debate on religion and politics, was sentenced to 10 years in prison, 1000 lashes and 1 million Saudi riyals (about $267,000) for “adopting liberal thought” and “insulting Islam.” Badawi received the first 50 lashes of his sentence on January 9, 2015, outside a mosque after morning prayers, “surrounded by a cheering crowd who cried incessantly ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is greatest)” during the whipping.” The sentence was upheld last week by Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Court; the only reprieve can come from King Salman.

In Islamic Sharia law, a free mind is the most inexcusable crime in the Muslim world. Being imprisoned, tortured or put to death for having one is also the reason there are centuries between Muslim countries and the West in the field of human liberation. To Euripides, “Not to speak one’s thought, this is slavery;” to many Muslim countries, free thought is death.

Those who have the courage to try to abolish this “slavery” in the Muslim world are forced to pay a huge price. The young Nobel Prize laureate, Malala Yousefzai, was shot in the head for demanding an education. Lawyers representing people trying to abolish this “slavery” or other allegations — even fraudulent ones — are killed.

You can blow up children at school; deliberately run over innocent people for the sake of jihad; slaughter people at prayer and then distribute sweets to celebrate your “victory;” devalue a woman’s worth in countless ways — by taking four wives, beating them, then with a word divorcing them — and you will be praised by many Muslims for being a “hero,” a “martyr” or a “true Muslim.”

This view has nothing to do with the West or any kind of Western intervention. It was not the Europeans, the United States or the State of Israel that spread these coercive sharia-based laws against blasphemy and apostasy among Muslims.

The Muslim regimes, which do not know even the definition of liberty — and their systematic criminalization of free speech; their suppression of inquiry and creativity; and their unending intertribal fights — are the reason their people have remained in the seventh century.

The rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria; the expanding reach of Iran into four more countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen) as the United States retreats from three (Libya, Yemen and Iraq), and the indifference of much of the Muslim world in the face of this new catastrophe, all indicate that there is not yet much hope for positive change in the Muslim world. Even visionary calls for Islamic reform by Egypt’s President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, were not publicly welcomed by a single Western leader.

Apart from the defenders of liberty such as Hafeez, Naoot, Arabi, and Badawi, the situation seems to be getting grimmer by the day. A pamphlet handed out by ISIS answers over 27 questions, including: “Can all unbelieving women be taken captive?” and, “Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty?”

The pamphlet also approves of enslavement, rape (including of prepubescent girls), beating to achieve gratification [darb al-tashaffi], and torture [darb al-ta’dheeb].

An ideology that encourages its adherents to engage in deadly rioting, burn down embassies, and kill people over cartoons, but that shows no great signs of sorrow as little girls are sold and raped, most likely does not have much to contribute to advancing civilization.

An ideology that treats women as property, that murders or imprisons intellectuals and that sentences a blogger to 1000 lashes and ten years in jail — if he survives — has no right to blame its troubles on the West or anyone else.

Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara, Turkey.

AFDI Rolls Out New Free Speech Billboard Campaign Featuring Muhammad Cartoon

AFDI-billboard-640x480Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, June 8, 2015:

The human rights advocacy group the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has announced a new billboard campaign to defend freedom of speech and stand up to violent intimidation.

AFDI President Pamela Geller said in a statement: “Because the media and the cultural and political elites continue to self-enforce the Sharia without the consent of the American people by refusing to show any depictions of Muhammad or showing what it was in Texas that had jihadists opening fire, we are running a billboard ad featuring the winning cartoon by former Muslim Bosch Fawstin from our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas.”

The new free speech campaign went up on 100 billboards today in St. Louis.

Geller explained: “Drawing Muhammad is not illegal under American law, but only under Islamic law. Violence that arises over the cartoons is solely the responsibility of the Islamic jihadists who perpetrate it. Either America will stand now against attempts to suppress the freedom of speech by violence, or will submit and give the violent the signal that we can be silenced by threats and murder.”

“Speech that is offensive to some must not be curtailed, but protected (i.e., the Mohammed cartoons). Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced. If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.”

Geller added: “There is nothing about this cartoon that incites violence. It is within the established American tradition of satire. If America surrenders on this point, the freedom of speech is a relic of history.”

AFDI Vice President Robert Spencer stated: “Many people on both the Left and the Right are saying that we should do nothing to provoke Islamic fundamentalism. The immediate answer would seem to be that we should do nothing to provoke violent jihadis, that the prudent thing to do would be to avoid doing things that anger them. But if we did that, they would not they stop coming at us. Last September, an Islamic State spokesman boasted: ‘We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is His promise to us; He is glorified and He does not fail in His promise. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.’

In light of that, what is the point of asking whether or not we should provoke them? They’re already provoked. A more useful question now is whether it is really productive and helpful to signal to them that we will acquiesce to their threats of violence and change our behavior accordingly, or whether we will instead signal to them that their violent threats are not going to frighten us into submission.”

The ads have been submitted to run on billboards in the St. Louis area. The next city will be going up tomorrow.

AFDI stands for:

  • The freedom of speech – as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of “blasphemy” and “slander,” which are used effectively to quash honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism;
  • The freedom of conscience – as opposed to the Islamic death penalty for apostasy;
  • The equality of rights of all people before the law – as opposed to Sharia’s institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

Join the AFDI Facebook page here.

Chris Cuomo’s Sharia Folly

PJ Media by Andrew Bostom, June 5, 2015:

In the wake of CNN’s Wednesday revelation that journalist/activist Pamela Geller was targeted for beheading by slain Boston area jihadist Usaama Rahim, CNN’s Chris Cuomo interviewed Ms. Geller Thursday. Most attention to the interview has been focused on Geller’s understandable reaction to Cuomo’s suggestion that non-profane, free-speech cartoons of Muhammad — for example, ex-Muslim artist Bosch Fawstin’s thoughtful drawing below, which was awarded first prize at the recent Garland, TX exhibit – were somehow too provocative.

Fawstin_Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-small-1024x814 (1)

Said Geller to Cuomo:

Drawing a cartoon … warrants chopping my head off? That’s too far? I just don’t understand this. They’re going to come for you, too, Chris. They’re coming for everybody and the media should be standing with me.

But the most illuminating — and in Cuomo’s case, pathognomonic — segment of the interview (starts at 6:57 of the below clip) was when Geller asked Cuomo:

Where are the mainstream Muslims teaching in the mosques against the [Islamic] blasphemy laws, against Islamic law, the Sharia, the jihadist doctrine?

Geller’s query elicited this breathtakingly ignorant though commonly reiterated media falsehood, here asserted by Cuomo with supreme confidence:

Sharia is not mainstream Muslim thought.

Mr. Cuomo and other media figures across the political spectrum would do well — before issuing such embarrassing, factually challenged pontifications — to study the serious work of Joseph Schacht (d. 1969), who was the most authoritative modern Western Islamic legal scholar.

The sharia, or “clear path to be followed,” as Schacht demonstrated, is the “canon law of Islam,” which “denotes all the individual prescriptions composing it.”

Schacht traced the use of the term “sharia” to Koranic verses such as 45:18, 42:13, 42:21, and 5:48, noting an “old definition” of the sharia by the seminal Koranic commentator and early Muslim historian Tabari (d. 923) as comprising the law of inheritance, various commandments and prohibitions, and the so-called hadd punishments.

These latter draconian punishments, defined by the Muslim prophet Muhammad either in the Koran or in the hadith (the canonical collections of Muhammad’s deeds and pronouncements), included:

(Lethal) stoning for adultery; death for apostasy; death for highway robbery when accompanied by murder of the robbery victim; for simple highway robbery, the loss of hands and feet; for simple theft, cutting off of the right hand; for “fornication,” a hundred lashes; for drinking wine, eighty lashes.

As Schacht further noted, sharia ultimately evolved to become “understood [as] the totality of Allah’s commandments relating to the activities of man.”

The holistic sharia, he continues, is nothing less than Islam’s quintessence:

The Sharia is the most characteristic phenomenon of Islamic thought and forms the nucleus of Islam itself.

Schacht also delineated additional characteristics of the sharia which have created historically insurmountable obstacles to its reform:

Allah’s law is not to be penetrated by the intelligence . . . i.e., man has to accept it without criticism, with its apparent inconsistencies and its incomprehen­sible decrees, as wisdom into which it is impossible to enquire [inquire].

One must not look in it for causes in our sense, nor for principles; it is based on the will of Allah which is bound by no principles, therefore evasions are consid­ered as a permissible means put at one’s disposal by Allah himself.

Muslim law . . . has always been considered by its followers as some­thing elevated, high above human wisdom, and as a matter of fact human logic or system has little share in it. For this very reason, the Sharia is not “law” in the modern sense of the word, any more than it is on account of its subject matter.

It comprises without restriction, as an infallible doctrine of duties the whole of the religious, political, social, domestic and private life of those who profess Islam, and the activities of the tolerated members of other faiths so far as they may not be detrimental to Islam.

Most importantly, Schacht elucidated how sharia — via the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad war – regulated the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. These regulations make explicit the sacralized vulnerability of unvanquished non-Muslims to jihad depredations, and the permanent, deliberately humiliating legal inferiority for those who survive their jihad conquest, and incorporation into an Islamic polity governed by sharia.

Consistent with the doctrine of jihad, in accord with the Sunna (the traditions of Muhammad and the early Muslim community), by using foul language against the Muslim prophet Muhammad, Allah, or Islam, the non-Muslim transgressors put themselves on a war footing against Muslims, and their lives became licit (such as the poet Kaab b. al-Ashraf, who composed poems denigrating Muhammad, and was assassinated). (See herehere, and here.)

This “offense” was then constructed and legitimated by Muslim jurists when Islam was politically, militarily, and economically dominant, so that it was expected that the non-Muslims under Islamic rule would not denigrate the religion of Islam, nor cast aspersions on its major figures or institutions. (See herehere, and here.) The jurists saw any such denigration as an unacceptable hostile act, punishable by death, automatically, as per three of the main Sunni schools of Islamic Law (Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali), and the major Shiite schools.

According to the fourth major school of Sunni Islamic law, the Hanafi, the punishment of a non-Muslim guilty of blasphemy is left to the discretion of a Muslim judge. The death penalty was in fact most often applied by the Hanafis. (See here and here.)

Read more

ICNA-MAS in Crisis: Islamophobia Works

1924991841Center For Security Policy, June 5, 2015:

In the wake of violence, looting, and riots that swept across Baltimore, Maryland the night of 25 April 2015, Muslim Brotherhood supporters from thirty-eight states gathered in this virtual ghost town over a bloody Memorial Day weekend during which twenty-nine people were shot, including nine reported homicides. While the residents of Baltimore were reeling from their deadliest month since 1999, the 40th Annual Islamic Circle of North America-Muslim American Society Convention revealed that Muslim Brotherhood leadership is also in crisis mode following jihadist attacks against free speech in Copenhagen, Denmark, Paris, France, and Garland, Texas, compounded by a litany of savage brutality from the Islamic State’s campaign to conquer and subjugate in the name of a new Caliphate. Atypical of past Muslim Brotherhood conventions, this most recent ICNA-MAS convention’s almost despondent tone seemed surreal, while confusion emanated from an uncharacteristically subdued leadership, which completely overhauled the convention’s theme at the last minute. Facing an identity crisis and public relations debacle, thanks to jihadist rampages at home and abroad, ICNA-MAS tried hard to send a convincing message of love and peace to non-Muslim Americans. Nevertheless, relentless pressure from Americans both Muslim and non-Muslim, newly-awakened to the shocking reality of Islamic rampages as well as the frightening closeness of Muslim blasphemy code enforcers, clearly took its toll on this conference.

Even the U.S. Brotherhood could not escape the stark reality that Islamophobia is real, it’s reasonable, and it’s spreading with every new beheading, crucifixion, execution, and jihad assault flashing across our screens. The Memorial Day 2015 Baltimore ICNA-MAS conference didn’t change its programming because its leadership disapproves of the jihad assault wave: it changed it because Islamophobes are multiplying, denouncing the jihad narrative, and turning against all who are perceived to support the Global Jihad Movement. And that includes ICNA-MAS.

Read more