Good News: Female Muslim Prof. Says Muslims Can Rape, Rob Infidel Women Only in Some Circumstances

p.sized-770x415xtPJ MEDIA, BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM, FEBRUARY 8, 2016:

Straining at gnats while swallowing camels is increasingly how Islam’s apologists rationalize away the violence and hate Sharia engenders for the “infidel,” the non-Muslim. Consider the significance of yet another video of yet another learned Muslim justifying the enslavement and rape of non-Muslim women.

Suad Saleh, a female professor of doctrine at Al Azhar University, correctly defines the Arabic phrase melk al-yamin — “right hand possession” (see Koran 4:3):

[Non-Muslim] female prisoners of wars are “those whom you own.” In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the [Muslim] army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives.

Ms. Saleh’s comments are not new or unique. Countless Muslims — beginning with Muhammad himself — have confirmed that Islam permits the sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women seized during the jihad.

Saleh cannot even take the “honor” of being the first Muslim woman to support this inherently misogynistic creed.

Of interest here to the West is how the Al Azhar professor claims the Islamic institution of sex slavery is fair and just — it’s just that too many Muslims exploit it, to the detriment of Islam:

Some [Muslim] opportunists and extremists, who only harm Islam, say: “I will bring a woman from East Asia, as [as a sex slave] under the status of ‘right hand possessions.’ And with the consent of my wife, I will allocate this woman a room in the house, and will have sex with her as a slave girl.”This is nonsense. This is not prescribed by Islam at all. Islam says that a woman is either a wife or a slave girl. Legitimately owned slaves come from among prisoners from a war.

Saleh is correct in saying that many Muslim men twist the “right hand possession” law in ways that allow them to have extramarital sex. For example, some years back in Egypt a Muslim scholar formally took a woman to be his “right hand possession,” even though she wasn’t conquered in a jihad and in fact entered the agreement willingly.

Yet what Professor Saleh and Muslim apologists fail to understand is that an inherently unjust and uncivilized law — such as one that permits the sexual enslavement of “infidel” women — will, by nature, always be “abused.”

For example, Saleh and others would insist that the mass rape and sexual abuse of European women by Muslim men in Cologne and elsewhere does not fit the literal definition of “right hand possessions.”

However, other interrelated Islamic doctrines command Muslim men to hate all non-Muslims, and to see women — especially “white,” infidel women — as little more than sex objects. In the words of a Muslim who recently murdered a Christian girl in Pakistan for refusing him sex:

Christian girls are only meant for one thing, the [sexual] pleasure of Muslim men.

Moreover, Islamic clerics routinely encourage Muslims to migrate to Europe to help empower Islam anyway they can — including through propaganda, proselytization, apologetics, births, theft, etc. — and not just through violent jihad. If they do any of this, they technically become jihadis. After all — and as the apologists are fond of insisting — jihad literally means “striving” on behalf of Islam.

Thus, many Muslim rapists in Europe believe it their Islamic right and reward to sexually abuse infidel women.

The “exploitation” of Islam’s already unjust and uncivilized laws is common and inevitable.

Muslims are not supposed to coerce non-Muslims to convert (Koran 2:256). Yet from the dawn of Islamic history until to the present, forced conversions have been a normal aspect of Islam. Why?

Because based on the hate that Islam engenders for non-Muslims, “compelling” infidels (especially female ones) to embrace Islam can — and often is — rationalized as an altruistic act. After all, how bad can it be to force hell-bound infidels into the true religion? Moreover, it helps the growth of Islam, and so it can also be seen to fall into the jihad category.

As one human rights report explained while discussing the rampant sexual abuse and forced conversion of Christian girls in Pakistan:

The dark side of the forced conversion to Islam is not restricted only to the religious Muslim groups but also involves the criminal elements who are engaged in rape and abduction and then justify their heinous crimes by forcing the victims to convert to Islam. The Muslim fundamentalists are happy to offer these criminals shelter and use the excuse that they are providing a great service to their sacred cause of increasing the population of Muslims.

Likewise, Islamic law (based on Koran 9:29) calls for the leaders of state to extort money (jizya) from Christian and Jews who live under their authority. Most Muslim countries, thanks to European pressure in the colonial era, abolished this practice and its strictures. However, Muslims around the world know the basics, namely that the non-Muslim is meant to provide the Muslim with wealth and resources. In the words of one caliph to his general in Christian Egypt:

Milk the camel [the Copts] until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood.

Nearly 1600 years later, a Muslim cleric in the UK receiving welfare referred to British taxpayers as “slaves.”  He explained:

We take the jizya, which is our haq [“right”], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [“infidel”], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money — you work, give us the money, Allahu Akbar. We take the money.

Unsurprisingly, all over the Muslim world non-Muslims are being kidnapped and held for ransom, or just robbed and plundered.

The problem isn’t that Muslims aren’t strictly following Islam’s rules concerning the sexual enslavement of infidel women, but rather that Islam allows non-Muslim women to be enslaved in the first place.

The problem isn’t that Muslims aren’t strictly following Islam’s rules concerning conversion, but rather that Islam calls for nonstop enmity and war against non-Muslims in the first place.

The problem isn’t that Muslims aren’t strictly following Islam’s rules concerning who has the ultimate right to collect jizya from infidels, but rather that Islam allows non-Muslims to be plundered in the first place.

It is no solace for non-Muslims to learn that Islam bans their being enslaved, raped, converted, and plundered in certain circumstances while allowing them to be enslaved, raped, coerced, and plundered in others.

What Happens When a Muslim Dies?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 9, 2016:

Why are so many Muslims motivated to fight and die as martyrs/shaheeds in Islam?

According to Islamic doctrine, when a Muslim dies for any reason – car crash, heart attack, old age – his body is washed, shrouded, prayed over, and buried in accordance with Sharia (Islamic Law).  Specific details of how the body is washed, who is to wash, specific prayers to be prayed, and how the grave is dug is all a part of the Sharia covering this topic.

Once the deceased is placed in the grave, his soul separates from the body and lingers above it.  Here is a description from What Islam is All About, the most popular text used in Islamic junior high schools in America:

“When you die, your soul is taken from your body by the Angel of Death.  If you were a good person, it is gently drawn out from  your flesh.  If you were bad, however, then your soul is ripped violently from it….

“If you were a believer in Allah, and followed the teachings of your Prophet…your environment will then be softly lighted.  Your resting place in the spiritual dimension will be made roomy and comfortable and you will sleep and dream gently until the Day of Judgment.

“But if you were a bad person, who didn’t believe in Allah, or a hypocrite, then the angels will become horrifying to you.  They will strike you and cause your soul’s resting place to squeeze in upon you until you feel suffocated.  Then you will be tormented and in agony until the Day of Judgment.”

But how does a Muslim know whether he followed the teachings of Islam or not throughout his life? Islam teaches that every Muslim has two beings called “Jinns” which record all of their good and bad deeds throughout life.  If the bad deeds outweigh the good deeds, he goes to hell on the Day of Judgment.  If the good deeds outweigh the bad deeds, he goes to paradise.  But there is no way to know until the Day of Judgment where he is going.

There is only one exception.

The martyr or shaheed – the one who dies in battle in Allah’s cause (Jihad) – immediately goes to the highest level of paradise the moment his first drop of blood hits the ground, and he receives the promise of sensual pleasures.  The shaheed avoids all punishments of the grave and is sure of his reward in paradise. The shaheed does not feel the pain of death.

Jihad (6)

“It is unlawful to wash the body of a martyr or perform funeral prayer over him. A martyr means someone who died in battle with non-Muslims.  It is recommended that war gear be removed from the body, and it is best to bury the martyr in the rest of his bloodstained clothes since it is the effect of worship.” [Um dat al Salik, 14th Century Islamic Sacred Law, certified by Al Azhar as authoritative Sunni Islamic Law]

To die as a shaheed against non-Muslims is the highest form of worship in Islam.

The Koran promises shaheeds go to the highest level of paradise above all other Muslims:

“Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons.  Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home. Unto all in Faith Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” [Koran 4:95]

“Those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah (jihad) and are then slain or die, on them will Allah bestow verily a goodly Provision; truly Allah is he who bestows the best Provision.” [Koran 22:58]

This is why in Islamic schools across the world, and in America, 7th graders are taught:  “If anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically will go to Paradise.  A Shaheed, or Martyr, is described this way by Allah, ‘Don’t think that those who were killed in Allah’s Cause are dead.  No, they are alive, finding their bounty in the presence of their Lord.’ (Koran 3:169)” [What Islam is All About, pg 164]

In Islam “The Cause of Allah” is Jihad.

It is clear to all Muslims, which is why it is taught to Muslim children in mosques and Islamic schools across America, that to die fighting non-Muslims is the highest form of worship in Islam and the only way to guarantee paradise when a Muslim dies.

President Obama’s Speech at Islamic Center of Baltimore: A Fact Check

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by Clare Lopez, Feb.5, 2016:

Perhaps it’s because he was making faces in Qur’an class instead of paying attention to his teacher. Or maybe he just has a selective memory about what he was taught as a young Muslim student in Indonesia.

Whatever the reason, President Barack Obama got a lot of things factually wrong in his 3 February 2016 speech at the Islamic Center of Baltimore. Things that are basic to doctrinal Islam are not only knowable because they are readily available in English but, it might be argued, obligatory that an American commander-in-chief should know in fulfillment of his oath to defend the Constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic.”

First, Mr. President, a mosque is not simply the Muslim version of a church, synagogue or temple. Because of the example of Muhammad, who is called the perfect man in the Qur’an (believed by Muslims to be the exact words of Allah), we know that mosques are established not only as places of prayer and worship, but also as centers for indoctrination, the dispensing of shariah justice, the stockpiling of weapons, and the launching of jihad. If in doubt about any of this, please check with the French police, who recently have been conducting raids on mosques and Islamic Centers in the wake of horrific jihadist attacks in Paris.

The president must have missed more than one lesson on Arabic grammar, too. When he claims that “the word itself, Islam, comes from salam—peace,” he is mistaken. While the words “Islam” and “salam” share the same three root letters—s, l, m—they are, in fact, very different words with completely different meanings. While “salam” indeed means “peace” in Arabic, “Islam” means “submission.” Submission to what? To Allah and Islamic Law. A “Muslim” is a person who submits. Surely the president knows this. Or maybe the White House Arabic language translator needs to be replaced.

Unfortunately, in pursuit of that submission, Islamic doctrine obligates Muslim conquest of the Dar al-Harb (places not yet subjugated to shariah). We know this not only from the example of Muhammad’s own life as taught to Muslim students from the 1st grade, but also from the Qur’an and hadiths. For example, Qur’an verse 9:29 says: “Fight those who believe not… until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” The Qur’an is quite clear in verse 3:85 as well: ‘Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him…’ Islamic Law defines jihad quite simply: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

This is not cherry-picking Qur’anic verses. This is Islamic doctrine as uniformly presented in the Qur’an, hadiths, biography of Muhammad, and Islamic Law. It is the agreed consensus of all authoritative Islamic scholars throughout the centuries. We may wish that more Muslim scholars would teach the prohibition of terror (jihad). But of course, they cannot teach what is contrary to Islamic doctrine. For the Qur’an itself commands Muslims to “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power… to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy.” (Q 8:60)

And when the President purports to quote the Qur’an about killing an innocent, he either willfully or out of ignorance is misquoting Islamic scripture. In fact, Qur’an verse 5:32cites from a Jewish commentary on the Talmud: “On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people…” This is the definition of killing without right in Islam. The takeaway here is that a Muslim may not kill except those who themselves have killed without right or perpetrated “mischief in the land”—which may include failing to accept Islam. What the President and others too often leave out is the next verse, Q 5:33, which lays out the punishments for those who disobey 5:32. They are: “death, crucifixion, amputation of the hand and foot on opposite sides or exile from the land.” The President might be asked why he left those out, when they are precisely the punishments the Islamic State (IS) is applying to those under its control in faithful obedience to what they believe is the word of Allah. This isn’t an IS version or interpretation of the Qur’an. It is what the Qur’an actually says.

These are just a few of the things the President might have said, were his intention to be accurate about the enemy we fight. He might have added that we are not actually fighting terrorism: we are fighting to defend the Constitution from attack by forces of jihad seeking to impose shariah. This does not mean we must be at war with all Muslims. But all those who fight or support the Global Jihad Movement are on the wrong side of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the way of life Americans treasure because, unlike Islamic doctrine, they enshrine principles of individual liberty, equality before man-made law, government by consent of the governed, and the right to freedoms of belief and speech.

Those, Mr. President, are the “first things” principles we Americans are willing to fight and die for. American Muslims who accept and defend them are patriots, too—but unfortunately, these are not principles to be found anywhere in the authoritative Islamic canon—and Americans need to know that.

Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

Dutch Intelligence Report Exposes Horrors of Daily Life Under ISIS

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
February 4, 2016

1349When the leaders of ISIS declared the caliphate of the Islamic State in June 2014, the world already had a strong idea of who they were: a jihadist group so violent, so barbaric, so extreme, that even al-Qaida, with whom they had once been affiliated, wanted nothing more to do with them.

But as the world soon learned, it would get even worse.

The founding of the Islamic State brought some of the most inhumane violence of modern civilization: captives held in cages and burned alive; beheadings captured on video and broadcast on the Internet; mass enslavement and rape of non-Muslim women; and the genocide of Iraq’s Yazidi tribe.

Coupled with this has been a perverse propaganda campaign that makes the Caliphate look like a teenage summer camp, aimed at recruiting Westerners to join the jihad and enjoy life in their idyllic, Allah-blessed commune-on-the-sea. And for thousands of Western Muslims, it has worked, either by inducing them to make the journey, or hijrah, to Syria and Iraq, or by motivating them to carry out terrorist attacks on Western towns and cities.

This is what we know.

What we have not known has been the reality of life in the Islamic State, including the social order, the availability of housing and health care and other basic necessities and the treatment of women and children.

A new report by the Dutch Intelligence Service (AIVD) now shines a spotlight into the heart of the Islamic State, its workings, and the psychology of its leaders. The picture it paints is no less terrifying than one might expect, a society increasingly paranoid and totalitarian, devoid of human empathy, lacking in the most vital resources, and yet somehow, still surviving through a combination of propaganda, lies, oppression, violence, and the profound power of delusion.

It is that delusion which seems most apparent in the AIVD report: the myth of a life of comfort and companionship and a coziness with God that ISIS’s propaganda promulgates, promotes, and perpetuates on social media; the delusion of those who manage to equate murder and enslavement with religious duty and moral good; and those delusions with which ISIS leaders fill the minds of children raised in their domain – and so, build and secure the future of their narrative and their jihad.

“Violence is inherent to ISIS,” the report says. “On a daily basis, it is practiced, glorified, and preached.” Through that violence has emerged a state (such as it is) that is at once overbearing, tyrannical, and powerful and yet, at its core, vulnerable, fragile, and afraid.

Following are highlights of the AIVD report, which was compiled on the basis of 18 months of research.

DAILY LIFE

While many Westerners make hijrah not to fight, per se, but for the glory of living in a true Muslim state, the reality that greets them is not what they likely anticipate, the AIVD reveals. Constant bombardments from Assad troops, allied forces, and Russia mean that every day is lived in perpetual fear and danger. The trauma this brings to children, especially, and particularly those who travel to the caliphate with their parents from the West, is incalculable.

Moreover, despite photographs ISIS distributes on the Internet of houses with exquisite views and happy families, most homes are in disrepair. There are food shortages. Medical care is as minimal as one might expect in a war zone that receives no legal imports or medicines, where there are excruciatingly few doctors or nurses, and daily streams of wounded. Electricity is also scarce; most homes can rely on only an hour or two of power every day.

And while all men receive a state salary (with supplements for wives and children), those salaries were recently halved – an unwelcome development for Caliphate citizens at a time when oil income has fallen and prices for basic necessities, especially food, skyrocket.

MEN

Men and women are separated on arrival, according to the AIVD. Men are required to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph, before being interrogated to ensure they aren’t spies. They are then sent into military training. Though not all men sign up to fight, all must be prepared to join the battle if called upon and participate actively “in ISIS-led executions, torture, and rape.”

From here, they are generally able to select their own roles, be it as marketing advisers, bus drivers, doctors, or warriors. Some, however, are assigned roles. Reports the AIVD, “specifically-selected men can be trained by ISIS and sent back to stage attacks in Europe.”

WOMEN

While many women make hijrah with the idea of joining in battle, in actuality women are forbidden to participate in what is viewed as men’s work. They also cannot work closely with men who are not family, a law that further bars them from the battlefield.

They have their own parts to play in the Caliphate, the most important of which is childbearing: as many and as fast as possible. Reports the AIVD, “Mothers are [then] required to raise their sons to be ISIS fighters. Daughters, for their part, are to marry fighters and, with the same purpose as their own mothers, to bear children.”

In addition, women can play an active role in recruiting, largely through social media. Others join the all-women Al-Khansaa brigade, which enforces sharia law as it applies to women, be it their manner of dress or their public behavior. “If a woman is apprehended by the brigade and convicted, then another woman carries out the punishment,” the AIVD report explains. “Hence even Western women who have joined Al-Khansaa will execute the lashings of women who have, according to ISIS, violated rules and boundaries.”

CHILDREN

It is the children, however, who suffer most in the Islamic State – children whose lives are made of daily confrontations with death and agony and fear. Nonetheless, shockingly more and more Western families are making their way to ISIS territory with their children, or with pregnant mothers wishing to give birth there. And then there are the children born not just to ISIS brides, but to rape victims and sexual slaves such as the Yazidis.

But where most boys of 7- or 8 years of age may go on fishing trips with their fathers or play soccer in local parks, these frequently are brought to observe public executions and beatings. Parents may pose their child with the head of a beheaded enemy. At school, they learn English, Arabic, and the tenets of ISIS doctrine alongside lessons in the use of firearms and “execution practice.” By the age of 9, girls are expected to cover themselves in public, while their male schoolmates are ushered off to training camps to learn to fight.

“Children take an increasingly frequent role in ISIS propaganda,” states the report. “In various execution videos made by the group in the first half of 2015, boys between the ages of ten and twelve served as executioner, shooting or beheading prisoners. The use of children in propaganda fits the strategy of ISIS, which largely hopes to use media images to shock and so, gain attention. Through this propaganda, which is often picked up by regular mass media, it becomes clear that parents who travel to the ISIS territory have a fully realistic view of what awaits their children when they get there.”

The Overview

Increasingly, it appears that life in the Caliphate is becoming tougher. A growing paranoia and fear that disillusioned fighters might leave and counter their propaganda with the truth – not to mention a concern about spies attacking from within – haunts ISIS leaders. They are cracking down in response. It is becoming harder and harder to leave the Islamic State, even for temporary, medical reasons.

Similarly, contact between residents of the Caliphate and those on the outside is being increasingly controlled. “Since July, 2015, it is no longer permissible to use wireless internet in Raqqah,” according to the report. “The Internet can only be accessed through ISIS-approved Internet cafes, where careful watch is kept over which sites are visited. In some cases, permission must be granted by a military leader or emir to spread information to the outside. Whoever fails to observe these rules must appear before a sharia court.”

Such measures ensure that the myth of an idyllic state continues, along with the flow of new warriors and the women who will give birth to them.

Ultimately, concludes the intelligence agency, “the so-called caliphate of ISIS stands far from what the organization purports it to be. The region that is occupied by ISIS is not a holy state or ideal society in its infancy. ISIS functions as a totalitarian regime. Whoever emigrates to the ISIS territory makes a conscious, deliberate choice to take part in an organization, an institution that commits terrorist activities and conducts attacks in Europe. In practice, this means that men as well as women who join the Islamic State, armed or otherwise, take part in ISIS’s jihad.”

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

Sharia as the Jihad’s Point of Coordination

arabwaveFrontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 4, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin has a really important paper out and you should read it all, but I just want to highlight one area.

The three entities (the ummah, dawah and jihadi) do not have to act along formal chains of command to interoperate successfully. This is because they each execute according to their own functional orientation to Islam that reconciles through a common understanding of Islamic law.

And further

To appreciate the strategy, it should be visualized along the lines of the starfish rather than the spider: Cut an appendage from a starfish, and the severed part can grow into a fully functional starfish. Cut off a spider’s head, and all appendages become useless. In terms of command relationships, we in the West tend to think like spiders. While the Soviet Union was a spider; the Islamic Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and ISIS are starfish.

These are very important points that need to be understood to grasp the larger scope of the struggle. Finally…

To say the threat arises out of Islam is to say that it emanates from shariah. Hence, the arrow in the diagram reflects the recognition that the three lines of operation emanate from Islam through a common understanding of shariah. For this reason, shariah also provides a common reference point based on Islamic legal concepts recognized as settled. This doctrinal framework is commonly understood and easily communicated in the Islamic world. For this observation to be valid, one does not have to prove that the underlying Islamic law reflects “true Islam,” or even that most Muslims agree with it.

As I’ve said, read the whole thing, but this needs to be kept in mind, particularly when arguing with the “ISIS is not real Islam” or “Hamas is not real Islam” school of deniers.

Sharia and Non-Muslims

sharia1 (2)

Political Islam, by Bill Warner, Feb 3 2016:

Sharia law is the most important part of Islamic doctrine. Sharia is Islam; Islam is Sharia. Sharia includes law, but it also includes how to raise a family, theology, philosophy and every aspect of daily living. Sharia law includes pronouncements for both Muslims and non-Muslims (Kafirs). Sharia is a manual for a civilization.

Sharia does not allow free speech. It is forbidden to make a joke about Mohammed. Blasphemy is forbidden. The US is following Sharia when it allows the UN to determine that Muslim refugees come to America and not Christians.
We have Sharia compliant textbooks now in Tennessee. We hesitate to anger Muslims or criticize Islam. In Europe Islamic rape is accepted behavior.

Sharia says that our Constitution is manmade and a product of ignorance. Sharia is Allah’s law and must replace all other governments. Countries that adhere to all of Sharia are Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen.

South Carolina House Passes Bill Excluding Sharia Law From State Courts

SHAUN CURRY/AFP/Getty Images

SHAUN CURRY/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 28, 2016:

The South Carolina House has passed a bill blocking Islamic sharia law from being recognized or approved in the state, after years of debate over similar legislation.

The legislation voted upon was explained as “A bill to amend the code of laws of South Carolina … so as to prevent a court or other enforcement authority from enforcing foreign law including, but not limited to, Sharia Law in this state from a forum outside of the United States or its territories under certain circumstances.”

On Thursday, the legislation passed with 68 for the bill and 42 opposed.

Sharia law is the legal and political system mandated in the Koran and other Islamic texts. It include laws governing religious practice, such as praying and ritual washing. But sharia also rules what Westerners see as non-government social practices — divorce, child-rearing, free-speech, clothing or sexual behavior, for example — and it also rules government responses to crimes, such as theft and murder.

Sharia law relegates women and non-Muslims to a lesser status, and grants men enormous authority over wives, daughters and sons. It allows for the primitive treatment of women and non-Muslims, and allows fierce punishment — sometimes, “honor killings” by fathers — for refusing to complying with sharia mandates.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Chip Limehouse. He told Breitbart News following the bill’s passage:

“This goes to demonstrate that the South Carolina House of Representatives is committed to preserving and protecting the American way of life here in South Carolina.”

“Sharia Law has been used as a defense in American courtrooms,” he adds. “We are working towards making that defense not an option for radical extremists from any country.”

“In South Carolina, we’ve had cases where people have tried to use [the rules of] Sharia Law as a defense, and we are speaking very clearly from the South Carolina House,” Limehouse said. “Shariah Law can not and will not be used as a legal defense in the state of South Carolina.”

Because the bill was passed at the beginning of the current legislative session, Rep. Limehouse said he was optimistic that the Senate would have enough time to pass the bill. In order for the bill to become law, it must now be passed by the South Carolina State Senate and signed by Governor Nikki Haley.

Tea Party and conservative grassroots organizations are credited with initiating the movement to ban sharia rules through the state legislatures. Conservative leaders Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann have publicly advocated for the need to enact nation-wide legislation against the threat of sharia.

Underground sharia courts operate in Muslim communities throughout Europe and alsoin the United States. Last year, Breitbart Texas reported that a “voluntary” sharia court had already been established in Texas.

Several countries in Europe, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, have many underground sharia courts within migrant communities. In the U.K, the government has formally deputized at least one sharia court to decide non-criminal issues among people who agree to use the court, even as public concerns rise that immigrant women are socially pressured to accept the courts’ authority

U.S. opponents of sharia courts point to Europe for evidence that western democracies can gradually cede more de-facto legal authority to self-segregating Muslim communities, so enabling the self-segregation of Muslim communities into no-go zones within cities.

Several states–including Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina South Dakota, and Tennessee–have passed “foreign law” bans against sharia. More than a dozen other states are currently considering similar legislation.

REPORT: Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror

UA-Report-2Unconstrained Analytics, by Stephen Coughlin, Jan. 27, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin has written a new Unconstrained Analysis report entitled, Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror.”

This strategic overview argues for how the War on Terror should be visualized alongside the processes that seek to obscure it and reflects analyses undertaken over the years to explain the nature of the threat in light of emerging Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) protocols, how the enemy envisions the war, and how he understands victory.

The metaphor is a house engulfed in a crucible of flames. Where the people burning in the house see three players, it is long overdue to understand them as one. Where people see civilization jihad disassociated from assaults from the left, it is time to recognize alliance. The enemy believes he has enjoyed success in the war and, indeed, believes he is winning. This view has merit.

The strategic picture painted by this overview is based on the enemy’s self-identified threat doctrine when mapped against the authorities he relies on to legitimize his activities and guide his operations. For this analysis, a decision was made to exclude all bureaucratic programmatics and academic models.

It is based on who the enemy in the War on Terror says he is, not on how others define him. The enemy states repeatedly that he fights jihad to impose Islamic law (shariah) and to re-establish the Caliphate. He does not say he fights jihad to force conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. He never states that he fights in furtherance of “root” or “underlying” causes.

From a legal perspective, the threat’s stated fidelity to shariah as the law of the land suggests that the threat does not raise First Amendment issues so much as it raises concerns regarding Article VI of the Constitution (“This Constitution shall be … the supreme law of the land”). It turns out that Islamic law, with unsettling precision, supports “violent extremists” to a degree that true moderates cannot match and that faux moderates seek to suppress.

This explains why “moderates” of all stripes avoid talking about Islamic law when discussing Islamic terrorism. This overview does not delve into defining doctrines when discussing the threat’s strategic reality. However, it is hoped that the concepts identified here, viewed as a whole, will offer clarity and shed important light on the most serious threat facing the United States today.

While all elements of U.S. national power are engaged in kinetic operations against “violent extremists” in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the primary threat actually defines itself as mujahids, views kinetic operations as a support activity tasked with either sustaining strategic distractions or supporting narratives, and seeks victory against the United States through ideological subversion directed against senior leadership and media elites. This analysis challenges the current conceptual and operational framework and calls for its dramatic reconsideration.

A diagram (see page 3) is used to illustrate the three lines of operation along which the United States has come under sustained assault in the War on Terror in much the way that a house can be engulfed in flames. All of these lines of operation, only one of which is kinetic, will be associated with a real-world entity to show how it orients on the objective.

diagram of threat

This strategic overview is the product of extensive research that in recent years has informed and supported numerous papers, presentations, a thesis (To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad), and the book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Its purpose is to explain how the enemy understands and orients to his universe.

A further objective is to advocate a return to true intelligence analysis and urge the abandonment of current analytical processes that sustain the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) narrative at the expense of a real threat-focused fact-based analysis.

Read the Report:

Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror (pdf)

Does Islamic company selling ‘Sharia-compliant mortgages’ control Asbury Park NJ boardwalk?

1452718428836Fox News, by Tommy De Seno, Jan. 13, 2016:

With ISIS committing acts of terror on 4 continents, and President Obama importing refugees from their home territory, now is a bad time to offer interest-free Sharia Law mortgages in America, but that’s exactly what one company is doing.

The beach town of Asbury Park, New Jersey has undergone a slow-grinding redevelopment for the better part of 30 years.   Bereft of money in 2007, the city sold millions of dollars worth of storied boardwalk buildings including Convention Hall to a private company — Madison Marquette.  Madison Marquette also owns concert venues near the boardwalk like the famed Stone Pony.  They are positioned in expensive retail properties across America in California, Ohio, Washington, D.C., Florida and more.

What few know is that Madison Marquette is owned by an Islamic company rooted in the Middle East; a company whose other subsidiary specializes in “Sharia Law Compliance” and lures Sharia-following Muslims to 23 states with interest-free home mortgages.

The parent company is Capital Guidance Corporation, whose managing director Amer Hammour is also CEO of Madison Marquette.  Hammour was born in Syria and educated in Lebanon, France and the U.S.  Another wholly-owned subsidiary named Guidance Financial Group, run by Mohamad Hammour with help from Amer Hammour, was formed to enter the burgeoning “Islamic Financial Market.”  Capital Guidance states its “main vehicle” for doing business in the U.S. is Madison Marquette, and controls $5 billion in assets.

Guidance Financial maintains a “Shariah Supervisory Board.”  This board counsels in financial matters to ensure compliance with the controversial Muslim value system known as “Sharia.”

For the uninitiated, Sharia is a set of Islamic laws dating back to the 7th century, still used in whole or in part in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen.  Sharia contains the notoriously brutal social and penal rules that Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram and other terrorists wish to impose on the West, including America.

Under Sharia, women are chattel of men, and if convicted of adultery are stoned to death [Warning: Graphic], can be punished if raped, suffer “honor killings” and  “female genital mutilation.”  Homosexuality is punishable by death by stoning ordropping them from great heights.  Stealing is punished by having a hand chopped off  [Warning: Graphic] while apostasy and blasphemy will get you beheaded.

Sharia also has strict business rules rooted in religious texts like the Koran and Hadith. For instance, it is prohibited to charge or pay interest, which they call riba.  Sharia compliance is so complex that barely 100 Islamic scholars are recognized to opine on it, and they have set up a profitable cottage industry as “Sharia compliance advisors,” including in America.  Guidance Financial is a world leader in this area.

Guidance Financial’s “Sharia Supervisory Board” is chaired by Sheik Muhammad Taqi Usmani, who sits on dozens of Shariah boards around the world.  Usmani is part of the Deobandi movement, whose madrassas inspired the creation of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and for whom Usmani tried to set up a Sharia banking system. In 2013 he issued a fatwa against the Pakistani government for assisting the U.S. in the fight against Afghan terrorists.

His support for the Taliban against the U.S. did not get him in as much hot water as when his book, “Islam and Modernity” was translated into English in 2006. It’s been reported Usmani was on the Sharia Board of the Dow Jones Islamic Fund Index, who cut ties with Usmani and scrubbed his name from their media materials after his radical writings were published.

In his book, a questioner asked Usmani if it was necessary to commit Jihad against a Western country, if Muslims were already free to practice and preach Islam there.

Usmani answered that the right to practice and preach Islam wasn’t good enough.  Muslims must break the “grandeur and domination” of non-believers in the West, as dominance gives a psychological advantage.  He then cited the Koran, thusly:

Here, killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay Jizyah [a Muslim tax on non-Muslims], after they are humbled or overpowered.  If the purpose of killing was only to acquire permission and freedom of preaching Islam, it would have said “until they allow for preaching Islam.”  But the obligation of Jizyah and along with it the mention of their subordination is a clear proof that the purpose is to smash their grandeur, so that the veils of the domination should be raised and people get a chance to think over the blessings of Islam.

Usmani made two other points consequential to the West.  First, he said if Muslims do not posses the capability of “Jihad with Power” then agreements can be maintained “until power is attained.”   Second, he opined that imperialism by conquering other lands was a legitimate goal of Islam.

Adding it all up, Sheik Usmani said Muslims should come here, obtain power then launch jihad by killing us.  After they destroy our culture (grandeur), they will spare those who agree to pay a tax and submit to Islam.  The survivors will have the status of a dhimmi.

No wonder Dow Jones ended their relationship.  Capital Guidance has not.  Usmani is still on Guidance Financial’s website as chair of their Sharia board and Usmani lists the same affiliation on his website.

Of course for Usmani’s idea of attack to work in America, he would first need to settle Muslims here who are devoutly committed to Sharia.   Well…

Be introduced to another Guidance Financial project – Guidance Residential – which gives interest free Sharia-compliant mortgages to buy homes in 23 states, including New Jersey.  They are luring people who wish to follow Sharia and already closed 8,000 loans around the country.  Who is chair of the Shariah Board for Guidance Residential?   The same Sheik Usmani who advised Muslims to lay in wait and kill us.  Guidance Residential held training seminars for Imams in Berkeley California to school them in Sharia, using videos of Sheik Usmani.

President Obama sent Governor Chris Christie a letter telling him some of the 10,000 Syrian refugees he’s bringing to America will be in New Jersey.  Syrians culturally grew up with Islamic Law written into their Constitution (1973 and 2012 versions), and codified a  form of Sharia into a statute on marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted terrorists my try to exploit Obama’s refugee settlement program.

Won’t Sharia compliant mortgages attract them if they do?

Not all Muslims follow Sharia, but all Islamic terrorists claim to. Filtering the good from the bad is hard, so Sharia mortgage applications should be a red flag.

We are all looking for possibilities of terrorists in America and 9/11 was a failure to connect the dots.

Our mantra now is, “If you see something, say something.”  So here is what needs to be said:

Asbury Park is a very diverse city where no one stands out.  If terrorists are looking for a place to lay in wait to commit jihad, as Sheik Usmani suggested they do, Asbury Park is now magnetized to attract them. An Islamic controlled company runs the beachfront and will help with a Sharia mortgage.

Cozy.

A perfect storm of jihadi possibility, even if the parent company and the local Madison Marquette office don’t intend it.

Are terrorists already here?  An ISIS terrorist supporter was arrested in Asbury Park in 2015.

What reliance shall we place on “screening” for terrorists?  The San Bernardino killer was screened but laid in wait. Jihadists have the advantage when hiding in a group as big as 10,000, as it only took 19 men to conduct the 9/11 attack, 8 in Paris, 2 in Boston and 1 at Fort Hood.

Discovering those laying in wait is hard and Sharia adherence may present the only clue the FBI and CIA can follow. They should.

With ISIS now committing a Christian genocide, complete with beheadings and crucifixions, even of children, this is no time to countenance an immigration policy that enables terrorists to infiltrate our country by gaming our screening process just so politicians can feel good about themselves. Let’s not attract them with interest free mortgages, either.

Enjoying a day at Asbury Park’s boardwalk shouldn’t require a terrorist risk assessment.

Tommy De Seno contributes to ricochet.com and is the editor ofwww.JustifiedRight.com. An attorney and proud Catholic, he hails from Asbury Park, N.J.

***

For more on Sharia compliant finance see the CJR archives:

http://counterjihadreport.com/?s=shariah+compliant+finance&submit=Search

The Patience of the Jihadists

sssAmerican Thinker, by Eileen F. Toplansky, Jan. 26, 2016:

The ongoing interpretations concerning natural-born citizenship may eventually become a moot point.  With the burgeoning immigration of groups of people who have little to no devotion to American ideals but who will have children born on American soil, one can easily envision that, in the not so distant-future, an American-born individual schooled in the hatred of jihad could conceivably occupy the White House.

Already the radical Muslim Brotherhood has “built the framework for a political party in America that seeks to turn Muslims into an Islamist voting bloc.”  The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) aims to elect Islamists in Washington in order to institute sharia law and dismantle the American Constitution.

The Center for Security Policy’s Star Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party is part of its Civilization Jihad Reader Series (Volume 5).  The Center asserts:

[T]he Muslim Brotherhood has been actively infiltrating American government and society since shortly after the Second World War. But March 2014 marked a significant step forward for the Brotherhood in America. Some of its key leadership figures joined together to establish the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), the first political activist group in this country to be openly associated with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood. Formation of the USCMO was announced  … [in] March 2014, just blocks from the U.S. Capitol Building. At the podium were: Ousama Jammal, Secretary General USCMO and past President of The Mosque Foundation; Naeem Baig, President, Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); Nihad Awad, National Executive Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); Mazen Mokhtar, Executive Director, Muslim American Society (MAS); Imam Mahdi Bray, National Director, American Muslim Alliance (AMA)[.] The significance of this move is best understood in the context of what the Muslim Brotherhood itself calls ‘civilizational jihad,’ a term used in its 1991 strategic plan: An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America. As the Explanatory Memorandum states, the Brotherhood’s mission in America is ‘destroying Western civilization from within,’ preparing the way for its replacement by the rule of Islam’s supremacist code, shariah (Islamic law). Unlike more immediately violent Brotherhood off-shoots – for example, al-Qa’eda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic State or HAMAS, the Brotherhood in the West has generally taken care to operate stealthily, under the radar, even to the point of sometimes denying its very presence in the United States.

And it has been stunningly successful.

Obama continually exhibits a preference for Islam and has, over the period of his two terms, shown a “willingness … to engage in dialogue, outreach, and collaboration with self-identified jihadis.”  In February 2015, at a White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism, Obama actually said that “the notion that the West was at war with Islam was an ‘ugly lie.'”  Furthermore,  he asserted that “when people feel marginalized, that opens a door for the terrorist ideology.”  He implied that Americans who criticize Islam are guilty of provoking Islamic terrorists.  This, coupled with the disturbing in-depth piece by Soeren Kern entitled “Islam and Islamism in America” for the period January-March 2015 wherein one learns that Representative Andre Carson (D-Indiana), a convert to Islam with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, was appointed to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence should make one shudder.

Obama’s appeasement toward Iran and his indifference to the jihadist danger in Europe and  America have paved the way to what the jihadists crave – Islamization of America.  Obama is the prelude to this Islamization, since his “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” has helped “advance the Brotherhood’s ‘civilization jihad agenda.'”  For example, Obama stated he was “committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they could fulfill zakat,” or charitable giving, but conveniently glossed over the fact that this charitable giving requires a fixed percentage to be donated to jihad.

The USCMO is actually the “first religious identity political party” in the history of America.  And while it projects “an image of patriotic transparency,” it is, in fact, “shrouding its actual anti-Constitutional activities and objectives.”  Its members participate in anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas, pro-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations and raise funds for Islamic Relief USA.  According to Ryan Mauro at the Clarion Project, “IRUSA is the American branch of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), based in the United Kingdom.”  In 2014, the United Arab Emirates banned IRW as a terrorist group.  In fact, under the guise of philanthropy and social welfare, the organization raises funds for Hamas.  Mauro explains that IRUSA “donated to a fundraiser for the Chicago chapter of CAIR in March 2012 and the annual joint MAS-ICNA [Muslim American Society-Islamic Circle of North America] conference in December 2012.”  Yet in 2011, “an anonymous high-ranking Justice Department official was quoted as saying, ‘ten years ago we shut down the Holy Land Foundation. It was the right thing to do. Then the money started going to KindHearts. We shut them down too. Now the money is going through groups like Islamic Relief[.]'”

In 2014, the USCMO joined anti-Israel protesters in downtown Chicago.  This “Stand with Gaza” event marked USCMO’s “first public demonstration in solidarity with Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Recall that Hamas’ Covenant commits it to the “destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.”

USCMO financially supports U.S. representatives Keith Ellison and Andre Carson.  Their remarks made at the Muslim Brotherhood political party banquet held in June of 2014 have never been made public.  Both of these elected American politicians are committed to “mobilizing the Muslim political machine in the United States.”  Carson has stated that “America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged, where the foundation is the Quran.”  Neither Ellison nor Carson has explained why he was participating at a USCMO event in an official capacity.

Is it a coincidence that USCMO debuted in Illinois politics in 2014, considering Obama’s own roots in the windy city?

As the 2016 presidential election looms, the USCMO is attempting to “fortify Muslim citizenship rights.”  Obama is rushing to bestow citizenship on immigrants in part “by adjusting Justice Department rules so that those who want to help with the citizenship process can get their credentials quicker.”  In addition, there is a “blitz of television promotional spots” aimed at enticing legal permanent residents who have been here for a minimum of three years to take the test.

And while it has been clarified that Pine Bush High School in New York did not compel students to say, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Allah,” this can be taken as yet one more incremental step toward softening American sensibilities – reciting the pledge in any other language still must maintain the truth of the translation, which clearly this did not do.

Daniel Greenfield explains that “[w]hat ISIS accomplishes by brute force, the Muslim Brotherhood does by setting up networks of front groups. Both ISIS and the Brotherhood control large Muslim populations. ISIS conquers populations in failed states. The Muslim Brotherhood however exercises control over populations in the cities of the West. We could bomb Raqqa, but can we bomb Dearborn, Jersey City or Irvine? This is where the Caliphate curve truly reaches its most terrifying potential.”

Moreover, “we are not at war with an organization, but with the idea that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims and are endowed by Allah with the right to rule over them, to rob them, to rape them and enslave them.  ISIS is the most naked expression of this idea.  But it’s an idea that everyone [such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the USCMO] on the Caliphate curve accepts.”

I urge everyone to obtain a copy of Star Spangled Shariah in order to comprehend the depth and breadth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s desire to install sharia law into America.  It is very evident that “the United States of America faces a clear and present danger from the Muslim Brotherhood through the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) members because of their shariah compliant agenda that supports and advocates jihad.”

Sharia is a supremacist and totalitarian law that is totally and absolutely incompatible with the Constitution.  It is imperative that Americans understand this difference and demand the passage of American laws for American citizens.  Furthermore, Americans must publicly object to the conversion of churches into mosques.

Ultimately, Americans need to question candidates about their views on Islam and sharia.  The duplicity of the Muslim Brotherhood and the USCMO have to be continually exposed if the Republic is to survive.  This is, indeed, a civilizational conflict between freedom and slavery.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

Video: In-depth interview with Bill Warner

maxresdefault (8)
Published on Jan 21, 2016  by Gad Saad

We discuss Islam’s holy texts along with a statistical analysis of their contents, key Islamic concepts (e.g., the kafir, the dhimmi, and abrogation), Sharia law, and Islamic reformation, among other topics.

UN Plan to Prevent “Violent Extremism” Ignores its Primary Cause

cx

Frontpage, by Joseph Klein, Jan. 19, 2016:

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is operating from the same playbook as President Obama when it comes to addressing the threat of global jihad. They both deny that such a religiously-based threat exists. Just like Obama, Ban Ki-moon uses the euphemism “violent extremism,” without linking it to its primary ideological source – Islam.

The global terrorist scourge is driven by Islamic supremacy and the jihadist war against the “infidels” that are embedded in sharia law. That is not to say that the jihadists are the only terrorists in the world. However, to diffuse responsibility by contending that violent extremism is found in all faiths ignores the fact that the only global terrorist network threatening our way of life today is bound together by the teachings of Islam.

In the Secretary General’s remarks to the UN General Assembly on January 15th introducing his “Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism,” he said that “the vast majority of victims worldwide are Muslims.” Obama said essentially the same thing last February at his Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, lamenting that it is “especially Muslims, who are the ones most likely to be killed.”

Both Ban Ki-moon and President Obama omitted to say that the killers are also primarily Muslims. Moreover, they left out entirely any mention of the ongoing genocide being conducted by Muslims in the name of Allah against Christians and Yazidis in the Middle East.

When I asked the spokesperson for the Secretary General why the Secretary General did not acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of global terrorists today are Islamists, the spokesperson responded that “the Secretary‑General’s focus is not on targeting or pointing finger at one ethnic group, one religious group, or people who claim to act in the name of a particular religion.”

This begs the question as to why the Secretary General took pains to assert that Muslims constitute the majority of terrorists’ victims but refused to acknowledge that the vast majority of perpetrators are also Muslims.

The Secretary General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism describes what it calls the “drivers of violent extremism.”  These drivers include, according to the UN document, lack of socioeconomic opportunities, marginalization and discrimination, poor governance and violations of human rights, prolonged and unresolved conflicts, radicalization in prisons, collective grievances, and exploitation of social media.

Obama offered essentially the same explanation for the growth of violent extremism put forth by Ban Ki-moon. A key problem, he said, was lack of economic opportunity that trapped people –especially young people – “in impoverished communities.”

Obama added: “When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied — particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines — when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism.”

Ban Ki-moon and President Obama both have argued that Islam itself is blameless. It is, in Ban Ki-moon’s words, the “distortion and misuse of beliefs” that are to blame. At his February 2015 Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama called out what he described as “the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempt to use Islam to justify their violence.”

However, the truth is that Islam itself contains the seeds for the violence that is such a prominent part of jihad. Jihadists using violence as a tactic to impose Islam as the world’s only “legitimate” belief system are following the path laid down by Prophet Muhammed himself and his early followers, according to their literal words and acts.

The proposed actions to address the problem of “violent extremism,” both Ban Ki-moon and Obama agree, include better education, more opportunities for women, better governance, and respect for human rights including freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief.  The UN Secretary General and President Obama base their common strategy on their shared utopian belief that peoples from every country and culture embrace a common set of “universal” human rights, as expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration’s preamble states:  “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, despite its enlightened vision of the inherent dignity and fundamental rights of all human beings, is far from being a truly universally accepted creed. Muslims reject it to the extent that it conflicts with sharia law.

While Muslim member states of the United Nations, with the notable exception of Saudi Arabia, signed the Universal Declaration, they disavow its Western, secular-based principles. Islamists refuse to be ruled by any human rights document that deviates from what they regard as the divinely-inspired sharia law.

As the Islamic response to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation foreign ministers adopted The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam in 1990. After reciting a litany of human rights that it pledges to protect, the Cairo Declaration subjects all of its protections to the requirements of sharia law. “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.” (Article 25)

By making Islamic law the sole authority for defining the scope of human rights, the Muslims’ Cairo Declaration sanctions limits on freedom of expression, discrimination against non-Muslims and women, and a prohibition against a Muslim’s conversion from Islam. Such restrictions on freedoms directly contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Saudi Arabia and Iran, the leading Muslim majority countries today representing the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam respectively, may be at odds with one another regarding certain sectarian and geopolitical issues. However, they both purport to govern according to sharia law, which is used to justify their religious intolerance, brutal suppression of dissent, misogyny and capital punishment for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery and homosexuality. It is Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism which has helped fuel the jihadists inside and outside of Saudi Arabia seeking to forcibly purify Islam from the influence of “infidels.” And Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, as it seeks to fulfill the vision of Ayatollah Khomeini, the late founder of the Iranian Islamic revolution, to kill the infidels and ensure “that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

Iran’s current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which he claims is reflective of a “culture of dominance.” Instead, he said “the answer is return to Islam, and recourse to Divine revelation.” He called for the use of “Islamic sources (the Quran and the Sunnah) in legal matters.” Presumably, what the Supreme Leader described as the “Islamic mode of thinking in society” would explain the Islamic Republic of Iran’s arbitrary imprisonment, torture and the killing of political dissidents and members of minority groups. The “Islamic sources in legal matters” evidently serve as the basis for the regime’s discriminatory laws against women, among other repressive laws.

In 2013, Iran was rewarded by the UN for its vows of global conquest with a seat on the General Assembly’s disarmament committee. Last year Iran was rewarded for its horrendous record of abuses against women with membership on the executive board of the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. And as of January 16, 2016, Iran has been welcomed back into the international community with the lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of assets worth approximately $150 billion.

The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, expressed back in 2008 the religious intolerance that lies at the heart of the leading Sunni country’s practice of Islam: “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes).” With the help of the Islamic State and al Qaeda that receive funding from Saudi Arabia, this ambition is on its way to being realized, and even expanded to reach throughout the Middle East and beyond.

The same Saudi sheikh and head of the Supreme Judiciary Council also said: “Women who are raped by men are themselves to blame. They provoke men by the way they dress or walk.”

Last year Saudi Arabia was rewarded for its horrendous human rights record with a seat and leadership position on the UN Human Rights Council.

Coddling the leading jihad exporting countries and pretending that sharia law can ever be reconciled with so-called “universal” human rights values will render all plans of action to prevent “violent extremism” an utter failure.

The Problem with Islam Is Aggressive Scripture, Not Aggressive ‘Traditionalism’

quran

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — January 16, 2016:

On the Corner this week, the eminent Jim Talent touted (with some reservations) an essay about “moderate Islam” by Cheryl Bernard. A Rand Institute researcher, she is also a novelist, a defender of war-ravaged cultures, and the wife of Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to post-Taliban (or is it pre-Taliban?) Afghanistan. With due respect to Dr. Bernard, who does much heroic work, I believe the essay highlights what is wrong with Western academic analysis of Islam.

The problem comes into focus in the very title of Senator Talent’s post, “Aggressive Traditionalism.” That is the attribute of Islamic societies that Dr. Bernard blames for the frustration of her high hopes for “moderate Islam.” In truth, however, the challenge Islam poses for moderation is not its tradition; it is Islamic doctrine — the scriptural support for traditional sharia and Islamic supremacist ideology.

I give Bernard credit. She is the unusual strategist who is willing to admit failure — in this instance, of the strategy of promoting “moderate Islam” as the antidote to “radical Islam.” But even this concession goes off the rails: She maintains that the strategy was somehow “basically sensible” despite being “off track in two critical ways.” The real problem, though, is not the two errors she identifies but the fatal flaw she fails to address: The happenstance that there are many moderate Muslims in the world does not imply the existence of a coherent “moderate Islam.” Try as she might, Bernard cannot surmount this doctrinal hurdle by blithely ignoring the centrality of doctrine to a belief system — without it, there is nothing to believe.

But let’s start with the two critical problems she does cite. The first is the matter of defining what a “moderate” is. Bernard concedes that she and other thinkers adopted a definition that was “too simplistic” — meaning, too broad. It made “violence and terrorism” the litmus test for “moderation.” This enabled what she labels “aggressive traditionalists” to masquerade as moderates.

Who are the “aggressive traditionalists”? Muslims who, though nonviolent themselves, “harbor attitudes of hostility and alienation” against non-Muslims. The failure to account for the challenge that “aggressive traditionalism” poses for moderation led to the second flaw Bernard admits: the undermining of “integration” — a reference to Muslim assimilation (or the lack thereof) in the West.

This is fine as far as it goes. In fact, Bernard is quite correct about the main challenge posed by hostile, alienated, integration-resistant Muslims: Even if they are personally nonviolent, the communities they create become “the breeding ground for extremism and the safe harbor for extremists.”

But “extremism” about what? This is the salient question, and it is one Bernard studiously ducks. The error is implicit from the very start of her essay (my italics):

Over the past decade, the prevailing thinking has been that radical Islam is most effectively countered by moderate Islam. The goal was to find religious leaders and scholars and community ‘influencers’ — to use the lingo of the counter-radicalization specialists — who could explain to their followers and to any misguided young people that Islam is a religion of peace, that the term jihad refers mainly to the individual’s personal struggle against temptation and for moral betterment, and that tolerance and interfaith cooperation should prevail.

Plainly, the “prevailing thinking” casually assumes “facts” not only unproven but highly dubious. Bernard takes it as a given not only that there is an easily identifiable “moderate Islam,” but also that this . . . what? . . . doctrine? . . . attitude? . . . is the most effective counter to “radical Islam.”

But what is moderate Islam? She doesn’t say. She maintains that there are countless moderate Muslims who, by her telling, embrace “Western values, modern life and integration.” In fact, she assumes there are so many such Muslims that they constitute the “mainstream” of Islam. Yet, that proposition is not necessarily true even in the West, where Muslims are a minority who might be expected to assimilate into the dominant, non-Muslim culture; and it most certainly is not true in the Muslim-majority countries of the Middle East.

Even worse is Bernard’s assertion — uncritical, and without a hint that there may be a counter-case — “that Islam is a religion of peace, [and] that the term jihad refers mainly to the individual’s personal struggle against temptation and for moral betterment.”

As is the wont of Islam’s Western apologists, Bernard is attempting to shield from examination what most needs examining. Her reliance on the potential of “moderate Islam” to quell “radical Islam” is entirely premised on the conceit that Islam is, in fact, moderate and peaceful. Her assumption that the vast majority of Muslims can be won over (indeed, have already been won over, she seems to say) to Western values is premised on the conceit that those values are universal and, hence, locatable in the core of Islam — such that “tolerance and interfaith cooperation should prevail” because Islam is all for them.

Islam, however, is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of conquest that was spread by the sword. Moreover, it is not only untrue that jihad refers “mainly” to the individual’s internal struggle to live morally; it is also untrue that the Islamic ideal of the moral life is indistinguishable from the Western conception.

To be clear, this is not to say that Islam could not conceivably become peaceful. Nor is it to say that jihad could not be reinterpreted such that a decisive majority of Muslims would accept that its actual primary meaning — namely, holy war to establish Islam’s dominance — has been superseded by the quest for personal betterment. To pull that off, though, will require a huge fight. It cannot be done by inhabiting an alternative universe where it has already been done.

That fight would be over doctrine, the stark omission in Bernard’s analysis. I do not think the omission is an oversight. Note her labeling of faux moderates as “aggressive traditionalists.” Citing “tradition” implies that the backwardness and anti-Western hostility she detects, to her great dismay, is a function of cultural inhibitions. But what she never tells you, and hopes you’ll never ask, is where Islamic culture and traditions come from.

Alas, they are direct consequences of Islamic scripture and sharia, the law derived from scripture. She can’t go there. She wants Islam to be moderate, but its scriptures won’t cooperate. She must rely on tradition and culture because traditions and cultures can and do evolve. Scripture, by contrast, does not — not in Islam as taught by over a millennium’s worth of scholars and accepted by untold millions of Muslims. Mainstream Islam holds that scripture is immutable. The Koran, the center of Islamic life, is deemed the “uncreated word of Allah,” eternal. (See, e.g., Sura 6:115: “The Word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and justice: None can change His Words: For He is the one Who heareth and knoweth all.”)

Bernard must blame aggressive traditionalism because if the problem is aggressive doctrine rooted in aggressive scripture, then it’s not changing any time soon — or maybe ever. Moreover, she is not in a position to challenge doctrine and scripture without deeply offending the believers to whom she is appealing. They are taught that any departure from centuries-old scholarly consensus is blasphemy.

The story Dr. Bernard tells of Islamic intransigence in her own Northern Virginia neighborhood is instructive. A Muslim-American friend of hers is a social worker who finds jobs for Muslim immigrants. He lands openings for a group of Somali women in a hospital laundry service; but the women first tell him they must check with their imam, then they turn down the jobs because they will not be allowed to wear their hijabs. The social worker and Bernard are exasperated: Why don’t the women and their adviser grasp that because hijabs could get caught in the machinery and cause injury, there is a “pragmatic reason” for departing from the traditional Islamic norm?

Notice: Bernard never considers, or at least never acknowledges, that there is doctrinal support for every decision the Somalis make: The scriptures instruct Muslims to consult authorities knowledgeable in sharia before embarking on a questionable course of conduct; they instruct Muslim women to wear the veil (particularly in any setting where they will be exposed to men who are not their husbands or close relatives). And while pragmatism suggests to the rational Dr. Bernard and her moderate, Westernized social-worker friend an obvious exception to Islam’s usual clothing rule, mainstream Islam in the Middle East and Somalia admonishes that Western reliance on reason and pragmatism is a form of corruption, a pretext for ignoring religious duty.

Doctrine is the answer to virtually every immoderate instance of aggressive “traditionalism” Bernard complains about: the separation of men from women in the mosque, and the decidedly poorer accommodations (“often unacceptable and even insulting,” as Bernard describes them) to which women are consigned; the separation of the sexes in work and social settings; the instructions not to trust or befriend “unbelievers”; the admonitions to resist adopting Western habits and developing loyalty to Western institutions. There is scriptural support for every one of these injunctions.

From the fact that she has moderate, “modernized” Muslim friends, who do not comport themselves in such “traditional” fashion, Bernard extravagantly deduces that tradition is the problem. She never comes close to grappling with doctrine — i.e., the thing that most devout Muslims believe is what makes them Muslims. The closest she comes is the fleeting observation that her moderate social-worker friend “is a scholar [presumably of Islam] and a professor who emigrated from a conservative Muslim country.” The obvious suggestion is that if he is not troubled by the flouting of traditional Islamic mores, surely there must not be any credible scriptural objection. But if it is relevant that her friend is a scholar, is it not also relevant that there are thousands of other scholars — scholars who actually do Islamic jurisprudence rather than social work for a living — who would opine that sharia requires these traditional behaviors and that it is the social worker who is out of touch?

When Dr. Bernard’s husband, Ambassador Khalilzad, served in Kabul, he midwifed the new Afghan constitution that purported to safeguard Western notions of liberty while simultaneously installing Islam as the state religion and sharia as fundamental law. In short order, Afghanistan put former Muslims who had publicly renounced Islam on capital trial for apostasy. Dr. Khalilzad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other Western officials and intellectuals pronounced themselves duly shocked and appalled — notwithstanding that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Islamic scripture knows that it calls for public apostates to be killed.

To great American embarrassment, the apostates had to be whisked out of the country lest the incompatibility of civil rights and sharia become even more painfully apparent. It is worth acknowledging, however, that what chased them out of Afghanistan was not aggressive traditionalism. It was Islamic doctrine, which simply is not moderate. Looked at doctrinally, the challenge for “moderate Islam” is . . . Islam.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

 

If You Don’t Know Abrogation You Don’t Know Sharia

shariadfgs-300x199UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 15, 2015:

One of the facets of sharia (Islamic Law) that turns the light bulb on in people’s minds more than anything else seems to be the moment they grasp the Koranic concept of abrogation and progressive revelation.

Islam teaches that Allah (the god of Islam) revealed Islam to mankind throughout history progressively. Allah revealed the Law to Moses which predicted the coming of Mohammad.  Those who did not accept the Law of Moses were lost.  When Allah revealed the Evangel to Jesus, which also foretold of the coming of Mohammad, it abrogated the Law of Moses, and those who did not accept it were lost (hellbound).  When the final seal of the prophets – Mohammad – came and revealed the Koran to all of mankind, it abrogated all that came before it, and those who did not accept it were lost.

According to Islam, the original Law of Moses and revelations given to Jesus were corrupted by the Jews and Christian Priests and, therefore, do not exist on the planet today in their “original” form.  In other words, Islam teaches that all Bibles in the world today are corrupt because the fore-tellings of Mohammad were all intentionally removed.

According to Islam, the message of the Koran was revealed to Mohammad via an angel over a period of approximately 23 years – progressively over time.

The Koran is organized into 114 chapters called “Suras.”  These suras are not organize chronologically, but generally by size of the chapter from largest to smallest with the exception of Sura 1 which is only several lines long.

Three times in the Koran (2:106, 16:101, 17:106) Allah says that whatever he reveals chronologically later abrogates (overrules or cancels) what he previously revealed.  Allah commands Mohammad to bring the community of people from their unbelief to full compliance with sharia progressively in stages.  This is exactly what we are seeing on the ground today across the world.  The Muslim community is slowly moving from living however they want to live to living in communities that are adhering to the sharia to a greater and greater degree.

According to Islam, Mohammad first received revelations in Mecca for a period of thirteen (13) years.  He was completely rejected as a “prophet” by the religious scholars (Jewish, Christian) of the time.  During those years only approximately 200 people converted to Islam – in 13 years.  This is the time of “tolerance” where Mohammad had to tolerate the non-Muslims and there were no revelations of jihad.

Then Mohammad made the hijra to Medina, and was called to become a political and military leader. There he raised an army and gained many converts to Islam as he began to get revelations of jihad.  First Mohammad received revelations of defensive jihad, then limited offensive jihad, and finally, the command to wage jihad as a permanent obligation until the entire world is under sharia.

Allah said it last (chronologically) in the Koran, then Mohammad said it, and then Mohammad did it.  This is why there is no gray area in sharia as to the permanent command for all Muslims to wage jihad until the entire world is under sharia when they have the strength and ability to do so.

The Law of Jihad provides for how jihad can be waged by Muslims depending on where they are and their abilities.

Bringing greater sharia adherence to the world via jihad is the Muslim Brotherhood’s entire focus of all they do, and the stated objective of all of the jihadi organizations on the planet.

Therefore, it is logical, when seen from the perspective of Islam, that if the Koran abrogated all that came before it Allah would say “Whoever accepts a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him and he will be of those who truly fail in the hereafter (go to hell).” (Koran 3:85)

This logically leads to the requirement of the Koran for Muslims to never take Jews and Christians as friends (Koran 5:51), for pagans to be given the option to convert or be killed (Koran 9:5), and for the “People of the Book” (Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians) to be given the option – if they choose not to convert to Islam and do not want to be killed – to submit to Islam under sharia, pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), and “feel themselves subdued.” (Koran 9:29)

Islamic scholars have come to an agreement on the chronological order of the suras.  While there are slight differences in some of the listings, Sura 5 is always the last sura (chronologically) to discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Sura 9 is the last to discuss jihad.  These are the last words from Allah on these issues, and Islam teaches they abrogate all that came before them.

Screen-Shot-2015-09-08-at-3

Individuals who convert into Islam are also taught Islam progressively and not all at once.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s “How To” manual entitled Methodology of Dawah Ilallah in American Perspective has this to say about converting a non-Muslim to Islam:

“Some rituals of religion and traditions of the Muslim Community are explained.  A short account of the Prophet’s (PBUH) life is presented, without the revolutionary aspect.  When Islam is acceptable to the new entrants in this concocted or abbreviated form, the ceremony of Shahadah is performed with great reverence.  A non-Muslim thus becomes a Muslim, obedient to Allah (SWT) alone.  The revolutionary aspect of Islam is rarely brought before the new converts, as in most cases the Da’ee (the one bringing the non-Muslim to Islam) himself is not conversant with it.”

When individuals or communities come to Islam, it is done progressively and in stages.  Unlike when people join into other groups, Muslim do not tell new converts the whole story.  They bring it to them over time.  Mohammad had 23 years to bring people from where they were to full obedience to Allah.

Looking at today’s world events through this lense, we can see the move in the Ummah (global Muslim community) towards greater sharia adherence.  We see it in their dress, how they behave, how they pray, and in many other ways.  We also know that the more we visually see sharia adherence, the more violence is being taught within the Muslim community.

This progression over time from little sharia adherence to full sharia adherence is the mirror of Mohammad receiving the revelations of the Koran progressively and moving the Muslim community towards complete obedience to Allah and his law – sharia.

The focus is on the Muslim community first, as we see the military jihadi organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda doing today.  They are forcing Islamic nations to adhere to sharia.

Soon we will see, and are seeing, the HIJRA into non-Muslim lands – also known as the “refugee” surge into Europe and the United States.  Finally, we will see the call for all non-Muslims to convert to Islam, submit to Islam or be killed.  While some of this is beginning to happen, when the Global Islamic Movement assesses Muslim lands are sharia compliant, they will focus their attention on the West.

All of this is the mirror image of the progressive revelation of Islam as revealed to the world over history, and specifically to Mohammad during the 23 years he received the Koran from Allah.

We are all watching it practically play out today in real time, and this is something the suit-wearing jihadis in America are not telling our leaders.

How Does Sharia Define “Jihad”?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan.12, 2016:

Since 9/11, Presidents, Members of Congress, the media, and many others have publicly stated that individuals who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam are acting as “criminals” or “thugs” but certainly are not doing what Islam teaches because “no religion would teach that.”

In fact, Islam divides the entire world into two parts:  the Dar al Islam (the “house” of Islam where sharia is the law of the land) and the Dar al Harb (the “house of war” – the entire rest of the planet).  According to Islamic sources, the purpose of Islam is to eliminate the dar al harb until the entire world is the dar al Islam under sharia law.  Then you have “peace.”

The vehicle to do this is called “jihad.”

Because sharia is a totalitarian system of law, we must look at how sharia defines “jihad.”

jihad1-300x196

The Umdat al Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) is a 14th century book of Islamic law that is relevant today because the leading Muslim Brotherhood entity in the United States, the Islamic Society of North America, tells Muslims this book should be in every Muslim home in America.  Additionally, Al Azhar University, the oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic jurisprudence on the planet has a certification in the Reliance of the Traveller stating it approves what is contained inside it.

There, jihad is defined as follows:  “to war against non-Muslims…signifying warfare to establish Islam” and is “obligatory for every Muslim.”  There is no other definition for jihad.

The 12th century Distinguished Jurist’s Primer states:  “war…is obligatory on men who are free, have attained puberty, who find the means for going to war, are of sound health, and are neither ill nor suffer from a chronic disease…the jurists agreed, with respect to the people who are to be fought, that they are all of the polytheists, because of the words of the Exalted, ‘And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.”

The Al-Hidayah: A Classic Manual of Hanafi Law defines jihad as follows:  “Jihad is a communal obligation…Jihad is determined till the Day of Judgment…’Then shall ye fight, or they shall submit (Qur’an 48:16)’ When the Muslims commence battle, and they have surrounded a city or a fort, they are to invite the inhabitants to accept Islam…If they respond positively, they are to refrain from fighting them, due to the attainment of the purpose. If they refuse, they are to invite them to the payment of jizyah, and this is what the Prophet ordered the commanders of the armies to do for it is one of the consequences
upon the conclusion of battle…if they reject the invitation, they are to seek the help of Allah and engage them in combat.”

From the most widely used text in Islamic schools in America, What Islam is All About, we see American Muslim school children are taught this:  “The word jihad is most often associated with the act of physically confronting evil and wrong-doing…if anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically go to Paradise.  A Shaheed or Martyr, is described this way by Allah, ‘Don’t think that those who were killed in Allah’s Cause are dead. No they are alive, finding their bounty in the presence of their Lord…the Law of the Land is the Sharia of
Allah…the duty of the Muslim citizen is to be loyal to the Islamic State.”

kid jihadi

It is worth noting that all authoritative Islamic law only defines jihad as warfare against non-Muslims until they either convert to Islam or – in the case of those who had a holy book at the time of Mohammad (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians) – submit to sharia, pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), and “feel themselves subdued.”

There is no other “version” of Islam which contradicts this.

It is interesting to note that nearly fifteen (15) years after 9/11, Western leaders continue see jihad being committed right in front of their faces, and still continue to say that it does not represent “true Islam.”  Yet, at Islamic schools across the globe, first grade Muslim children are taught that non-Muslims must convert to Islam, submit to sharia, or be killed for the sake of Allah.

Where on the planet does authoritative sharia teach Muslims that jihad is spiritual yoga to better oneself?  It does not teach this anywhere.  However, Muslim “advisors” do tell American officials this definition exists even though it is not taught to the Muslim community.

So the next time you see a Muslim kill or attempt to kill someone and they proclaim it is a command from Allah, you will realize that person is not a “radical” or a “violent extremist” – that person is a Jihadi.