BOOK RELEASE: Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts










Center for Security Policy, 27 October 2015:

For Immediate Release                                           

For more information contact: Adam Savit | 202-719-2413 |


In Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts, David Yerushalmi, Esq., Director of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) and General Counsel for the Center for Security Policy, and AFLC co-founder Robert J. Muise, Esq. describe the use by our Islamic supremacist enemies of U.S. jurisprudence to compel submission to the doctrine they call shariah. As with so many other facets of the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy, pre-violent jihad against this country, most of us are unaware that such lawfare is taking place, let alone with such deleterious effects.

Even more importantly, Messrs. Yerushalmi and Muise lay out their recommendations for an offensive strategy to defend the U.S. Constitution and the rights it guarantees our countrymen and women from any further encroachment by Islamic law.Photoshop CCScreenSnapz001 In stark contrast to the longstanding use of such techniques to intimidate or suppress freedom-loving peoples, offensive lawfare against the Brotherhood and its ilk is a relatively nascent area of the law, in which the authors are true pioneers and formidable innovators.

Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said on the occasion of the publication of the latest monograph in the Center’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series:

“In Offensive and Defensive Lawfare, David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, have added to the great service they perform for the nation every day through their public interest law firm’s pro bono representation of exponents of religious and other freedoms. We hope that this treatment of their battlespace – with its clear depiction of the Islamic supremacists’ lawfare and insights into how this front of the civilization jihad can best be countered – will inspire many other accomplished litigators to join the authors in this fight.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series . Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts is available for purchase in kindle andpaperback format on

—> Full PDF of the newly released monograph

Differing Views from Catholic Clergy on the Threat from Jihad and Shariah

Pope Francis and Turkey’s Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Pope Francis and Turkey’s Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher W. Holton:

With the visit of Pope Francis to the United States, some attention has been paid to his views on Jihad in general and the September 11 attacks in particular.

On a visit to the September 11 memorial at Ground Zero, the pope made a statement that we find offensive and born of ignorance.

From USA Today:

In a remark some relatives of 9/11 victims may disagree with, the pope attributed “the wrongful and senseless loss of innocent lives” at Ground Zero to “the inability to find solutions which respect the common good.”

To what solutions could Pope Francis possibly be referring?

What “solutions which respect the common good” would have convinced Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta that violent Jihad was wrong?

Al Qaeda and all Jihadist groups have as their goal the imposition of Shariah through violent Jihad. We can only assume that the pope is unaware of this. We must also assume that he is unaware that mainstream Islamic doctrine also calls for the imposition of Shariah worldwide.

Which Catholics and other Christians should be sacrificed to live under Shariah for the “common good?”

This was not the first time Pope Francis made statements that demonstrate an ignorance of Islamic doctrine.

In his The Joy of the Gospel, the pope stated:

Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.

No one can study Islamic doctrine based on the Islamic trilogy–the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah–and come away believing that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.”

It should be noted that when it comes to commentary on Islam, Pope Francis is merely stating his opinion; this is not a statement that has the authority of the Catholic church behind it since it applies to the interpretation of another religion.

But all one has to do to see the folly in the pope’s assertion here is to review the too numerous to count examples of Islamic religious leaders and Shariah scholars admonishing their followers to violent Jihad.

We could fill volumes with examples of violent exhortations in the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah. We could go into depth here about the principle of abrogation in the Quran. But rather than do that, we would like to point out that there are other members of the Catholic clergy and community who are more informed on Islam, Shariah and Jihad and they have put their thoughts in writing. In some cases, these good men are much closer to the tip of the spear in the clash of civilizations:

  1. Nigerian cardinal criticizes role of sharia, says Muslim leaders must ‘rein in their mad dogs’

Nigeria of course has been wracked for several years now by horrible violence committed by Boko Haram, which has recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Cardinal Onaiyekan has seen thousands of Christians in his country slaughtered at the hands of Jihadists and he knows that Boko Haram’s stated goal is the imposition of Shariah.

2. It’s Time to Take the Islamic State Seriously

Rev. James V. Schall, S.J. expresses a very different view from that of Pope Francis on the issue of the Islamic State and the role of Islam in violence.

3. Making Islam “As Banal as Catholicism”

Robert Royal, editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C., also expresses a far different view of Islamic terrorism than the one expressed by Pope Francis.

Why have these three men, two American and one Nigerian, two men of the cloth and one a prominent lay Catholic, one black and two white, reached such a different conclusion than that of Pope Francis?

To those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine over the past 15 years, the clear answer is that they have studied the Quran, the Hadith, the Sirah and Shariah. Pope Francis clearly has not. Francis is not alone in that state of being; few if any world leaders in the non-Islamic world have studied Islamic doctrine.

But those who have know what it contains and it isn’t all about peace, the “opposition to every form of violence” and “solutions for the common good.”

Yale Establishes Islamic Law Center Thanks to $10M from Saudi Sharia-Banker, Alleged Bin Laden Financier

Amr Dalsh / REUTERS

Amr Dalsh / REUTERS

Breitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, Sep. 13, 2015:

Saleh Abdullah Kamel, a Saudi banker who is now worth billions of dollars thanks to his success with Sharia-compliant financing, has donated $10 million to Yale University as part of a successful effort to build an Islamic Law Center at the Ivy League school.

“Mr. Kamel’s extraordinary generosity will open up exciting new opportunities for Yale Law School and for the entire university, said Yale President Peter Salovey. “The Abdullah S. Kamel Center for the Study of Islamic Law and Civilization will enhance research opportunities for our students and other scholars and enable us to disseminate knowledge and insights for the benefit of scholars and leaders all over the world.”

Professor Anthony Kronman, a new co-director of the Islamic Law Center, said of the school’s new addition:

“The contemporary challenges of Islamic law are broadly relevant to political events throughout the entire Islamic world and those are developments that are watched by a much larger audience of people who in many cases have not much knowledge at all of the history and traditions of Islamic law.”

“It’s the responsibility of universities to teach and instruct and that obligation applies with particular force where an issue or a subject tends to be viewed in an incomplete or inadequate or even caricatured way. There the responsibility to teach and enlighten is even stronger,” he added.

Noticeably left out of the press release is the fact that Mr. Kamel’s Dallah Al Baraka Group, for which he is the Chief Executive, has been investigated by U.S. officials for bankrolling al-Qaeda’s operations worldwide.

Moreover, the bank was founded by former al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden along with a group of Sudanese jihadists, the State Department has alleged, according to the Wall Street Journal.

And in the 1998 New York City trials of al-Qaeda members, witnesses testified that Mr. Kamel’s bank had previously transferred hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to al-Qaeda to help them buy an airplane, the report stated.

Additionally, Kamel’s father’s name appears on the “Golden Chain,” a list of alleged al-Qaeda funders that was confiscated by Bosnian authorities after raiding an al-Qaeda front group in 2002.

The new Yale Islamic Center becomes the latest of many Saudi-funded influence operations on American university campuses throughout the continental United States. Some more notable Saudi-funded campus outfits include the $20 million Prince Alwaleed Islamic Studies Program at Harvard University and the $20 million Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. More Saudi-backed Professorships and Islamic Centers have made their way to Columbia University, Rice University, the University of Arkansas, University of California in Los Angeles, the University of California/Berkeley, and countless other institutions.

Also see:

University president Peter Salovey added that the gift, announced once day before the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, was particularly timely because of the “changing relationship between the United States and states in the Middle East.”

Obama Makes U.S. Oath of Allegiance Comply with Islamic Law

By Raymond Ibrahim, August 6, 2015:

The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.

bbOn July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance which immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

Now the USCIS says that “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”

These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well.  For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.

The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan—the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer—comes to mind and is illustrative.

A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life—American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.

However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States”—to quote the original Oath of Allegiance—against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.

Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.  According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.

However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty—even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it—with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims.  In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.

Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the last simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims—“even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).

Most germane is Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”

The words translated here as “guard” and “precaution” are derived from the Arabic word taqu, from the trilateral root w-q-y—the same root that gives us the word taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims whenever under their authority.

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), author of one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran, explains taqiyya in the context of verse 3:28 as follows: “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.”  As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”[1]

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of another standard commentary on the Koran, interprets verse 3:28 as follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[2]

And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims—who, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty—it is forbidden. As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri puts it in his treatise on Loyalty and Enmity, Muslims may pretend to be friendly and loyal to non-Muslims, so long as they do “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 75).

Thus the idea that Nidal Hasan might be deployed to a Muslim country (Iraq or Afghanistan) was his “worst nightmare.”   When he realized that he was about to be deployed, he became “very upset and angry.”  The thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” He also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims.”

Hassan is not the only Muslim to expose his disloyalty when pushed into fighting fellow Muslims on behalf of the United States.

rIn 2010, Naser Abdo, another Muslim soldier who joined the U.S. Army, demanded to be discharged on the claim that he was a “conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.”  The army agreed, but while processing him, officials found child pornography on his government-issued computer and recommended that he be court-martialed.  Abdo went AWOL and later tried to carry out a terrorist attack on a restaurant with the use of weapons of mass destruction.

And in April 2005, Hasan Akbar, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

In short, the first loyalty of any “American Muslim” who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality.  It is not to American “infidels,” even if they be their longtime neighbors whom they daily smile to (see here for examples).  Hence why American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, once boasted: “I could be joking and smiling [with non-Muslims] and then cutting their throats in the next second”—reminiscent of the aforementioned quote by Muhammad’s companion.

Now, in direct compliance with Islamic law, the Obama administration has made it so that no Muslim living in America need ever worry about having to defend her—including against fellow Muslims or jihadis.

Raymond Ibrahim, a Judith Friedman Rosen writing fellow at the Middle East Forum,is a Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War in Christians.

[1] ‘Imad ad-Din Isma’il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author’s translation.

[2] Abu Ja’far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an ta’wil ayi’l-Qur’an al-Ma’ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author’s translation.

Islamic State’s Dabiq 10 Emphasizes Global Jihad over Islamist Nationalism

dh110Center for Security Policy, by Jennifer Keltz, July 15, 2015:

The Islamic State recently released the tenth issue of its online magazine, Dabiq, titled “The Law of Allah or the Laws of Men.” Dabiq 10, the magazine’s Ramadan edition, focuses primarily on the Islamic State’s Muslim opponents, whom the group accuses of disregarding the word of Allah.

Dabiq 10 addresses two audiences. The first is the general global Muslim population and the second consists of other Islamist and nationalist organizations who have fought against the Islamic State. The Islamic State is trying to convince both to join its campaign of jihad against non-Muslims.

To the global Muslim population, Dabiq 10 stresses the authority of the Caliphate. In its opening remarks, the magazine states that

The call to defend the Islamic State – the only state ruling by Allah’s Sharī’ah today – continues to be answered by sincere Muslims and mujāhihīn around the world prepared to sacrifice their lives and everything dear to them to raise high the word of Allah and trample democracy and nationalism.

Repeatedly, Dabiq 10 denounces nationalism and calls upon Muslims to pledge their allegiance to the Islamic State, which serves Allah above men and nations. The magazine emphasizes the importance of Shariah and points to a hierarchy within Islamic law; it sees itself as having a monopoly over the understanding of this hierarchy. For example, it talks of the Islamic duty to honor one’s parents. However, the magazine notes that children must disobey parents that order their children to defy Shariah,  specifically addressing situations when children are forbidden by their parents to participate in jihad, saying,

Ibn Qudāmah said, “If jihād becomes obligatory upon him then the permission of his parents is not taken into consideration because the jihād has become fard ‘ayn and abandonment of it is a sin. There is no obedience to anyone in disobedience of Allah.”

The Islamic State believes that it represents the only legitimate source of Shariah jurisprudence as a result of having established the Caliphate under AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi. As a result, its declarations “to the sincere Muslims around the world to march forth and wage war against the crusaders and apostates who seek to wipe out the Sharī’ah” carry with them the force of religious obligation and law.

Continuing on this theme of its religious superiority, Dabiq 10 specifically talks about Muslim women whose husbands are either not Muslim or who are Muslim but fight against the Islamic State. These women are instructed to abandon their husbands and family. According to the magazine,

It is not permissible for you in any case to remain under the same roof with someone who has removed the noose of Islam from his neck, and the marriage contract between you and him was nullified the moment when he apostatized from the religion of Islam. …As such, any relationship you have with him is a relationship that is impermissible according to the Sharī’ah. Rather, it amounts to zinā (fornication), so beware.

Fornication carries with it severe punishments, including possibly stoning, so this represents  a thinly veiled threat to both the Islamic State’s enemies, and their spouses.

When addressing other Islamist and nationalist organizations, Dabiq 10 is fiercely critical of the numerous Kurdish nationalist groups and Al Qaeda-affiliated groups. It acknowledges that Kurdish fighters have had some success against its own armies, but it says that Kurdish gains have come at the cost of complete submission to the American “crusaders.” It puts forth the additional point that these Kurdish victories will be short-lived because they have a nationalist, rather than Islamist, agenda. The magazine says,

It should be noted here that all nationalist agendas in the Muslim’s usurped lands are ultimately doomed to fail, even those that seek to unite the members of one nation, or even one ethnicity as in the case of the Kurdish murtaddīn. This includes the agenda of the “Islamist” nationalists, who would readily sacrifice their religion for the sake of temporary political gain, in contrast with the mujāhidīn of the Khilāfah who would readily cut off the heads of the murtaddīn from their own people in defense of Allah’s Sharī’ah.

Dabiq 10 uses a similar argument to criticize Jabhat al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, its affiliate in Yemen. These groups are faulted for working with nationalist militias and for failing to enforce Shariah law in areas they control. It accuses these groups of following the laws of men and paying no heed to the laws of Allah, because

Some of those mentioned had fallen into apostasy… like those who permit partaking in the shirkī democratic elections, or those who seek intercession from the absent and dead, or those who take the Arab and non-Arab tawāghīt as well as the Crusaders as close allies, or those who deny some of the obvious, definite laws of the Sharī’ah.

Muslims fighting in nationalist groups against the Islamic State are called upon to “repent to Allah and wake up, for by Allah you are fighting the Sharī’ah whether you realize it or not. So gather your brothers, rise in unison, and kill those who order you to fight against those who rule with the Sharī’ah.”

The magazine focuses more closely on Jahbat al-Nusra, whom it calls the “Jawlānī front” in reference to the group’s leader Abu Muhammed Al-Joulani.  It calls Nusra out for Joulani’s recent interview with Al Jazeera, where he specifically stated that the group is not attacking the Druze in Syria. Dabiq 10 features its own interview with Abū Samīr al-Urdunī, a former member of the organization who defected to the Islamic State. According to Urdunī, Nusra fighters were tricked into fighting the Islamic State because they were deceived into believing that Islamic State fighters were members of the pro-Assad Syrian army. Urdunī provided an anecdote to this effect, saying,

One of the soldiers saw a signboard that had drawn on it the flag of the Islamic State. So he shouted, “The Islamic State will remain!” So Abū ‘Abbās stopped the convoy and said to the soldier, “What are you saying?” He said, “The Islamic State will remain. These are our brothers.” He said to him “Do you not know where you are going?” He said “I don’t know.” He said “How do you not know? You are going to fight the Islamic State…” The soldiers said, “We do not want to fight the Islamic State and we don’t agree with fighting it. They told us that we were going for ribāt at the 17th.”

Ribat typically refers to border or guard duty. The 17th is likely a reference to the 17th Syrian division, an Assad regime army unit which had been stationed at a base near the Islamic State’s capital of Raqqa.

The remaining Islamist organization that Dabiq 10 addresses is the Taliban. It publishes a question from a member of the Taliban who is unsure if he should remain loyal to the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Omar, or if he should defect to the Islamic State. The article makes clear the Islamic State’s stance on the ongoing feud between the two groups over control of Islamist activity in Afghanistan. The magazine describes the Taliban as a nationalist movement, pointing out that Taliban leader Mullah Omar has been at best circumspect about his global ambitions, and never publicly declared his position as Caliph. In contrast, the Islamic State is a global movement which purports to have established the Caliphate, therefore rendering the Islamic State the supreme and ultimate authority. Also notable is the claim by the Islamic State that the Caliphate position must go to a Quraysh, which is the tribe of Islam’s prophet Mohammed. Mullah Omar has openly declared his ancestry, which is not Quraysh, and Al-Baghdadi claims (almost certainly falsely) that he is Quraysh and that he does meet this important requirement.

Throughout the entirety of Dabiq 10, the power of the Islamic State and its supreme authority over all of Islam is repeatedly emphasized. It is upon this mantle of religious authority as the reestablished Caliphate that the Islamic State claims the right to target and killed other Muslims who do not recognize their authority and so views even other dedicated jihadist organizations as apostates.

BOOK RELEASE: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech


Washington, D.C.: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest Islamic organization in the world – comprised of 56 UN Member states plus the Palestinian Authority — has long been trying to silence, and ultimately criminalize, all criticism of Islam, specifically targeting America and the West. What has largely gone unremarked is the help the OIC has received from the Obama administration to this end.

Deborah Weiss, attorney, author and expert on Islamist efforts to stifle free speech reveals in a new monograph published by the Center for Security Policy Press how the OIC is working through UN resolutions, multilateral conferences and other international vehicles to advance its agenda. The goal of these efforts, according to the OIC’s 10-year program of action, which was launched in 2005, is to combat so-called “Islamophobia” and “defamation of religions”. In practice, this means banning any discussion of Islamic supremacism and its many manifestations including: jihadist terrorism, persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.

Upon the publication of her monograph entitled, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech, Ms. Weiss remarked:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the largest and most powerful voting bloc in the United Nations and yet most Americans have never heard of it. Of particular concern is the OIC’s ten-year program which amounts to an international effort to suppress freedom of expression under the guise of protecting Islam from so-called “defamation.” This initiative, however, is in the service of OIC’s long-term mission: the world-wide implementation of Shariah, a legal-political-judicial-religious doctrine which favors Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, and denies basic human rights and freedoms.

Ms. Weiss’ monograph documents how the Obama Administration has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in ways that, whether intentional or unwitting, have advanced the OIC’s supremacist agenda. As it happens, recently released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch through court-enforced Freedom of Information Act requests underscore the extent of Team Obama’s collusion with the OIC.

Specifically, these emails offer insights into how, in September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the White House worked with the OIC to fabricate a narrative that falsely blamed an online video “Innocence of Muslims” for the violent uprising at the U.S. special mission compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the documents reveal that the Obama administration immediately went into damage-limitation mode, with a well-coordinated effort to scapegoat the video as the cause of the attack. Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s envoy to the OIC, reached out to the Organization’s leadership urging it to condemn the “anti-Islamic film” and “its related violence” and to respond in a way that is “consistent with Islamic principles.”

The OIC readily obliged, issuing a statement accusing the video of “incitement” – though nothing in the video called for violence against Muslims – and claiming that it “hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims” and “demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression”.

The effect was to reinforce the OIC’s goal to protect Islam from “defamation” instead of supporting the US Constitutional principle of free expression.

In her monograph, Ms. Weiss elucidates examples of the escalating assault on freedom of expression that the OIC has launched against the West and their implications. She describes the critical role freedom of speech plays in preserving religious freedom, human rights and national security efforts. As she correctly points out, “If you look around the world, you will see that freedom is the exception, not the rule.”

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

Deborah Weiss’ important new book is a clarion call to Americans and their federal representatives to end all cooperation with the Islamic supremacists of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, including cessation of participation in the anti-free speech “Istanbul Process” launched by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. Citizens and policy-makers alike should, instead, commit themselves vigorously and unapologetically to freedom of expression – including to its employment as an indispensable weapon in the execution of a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Global Jihad Movement.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present Ms. Weiss’s monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech by Deborah Weiss, Esq. is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on at:

Or download the pdf:

Americans know better than politicians on the Islamist threat

1484545495Center for Security Policy, June 12, 2015:

Last month, Kellyanne Conway’s the Polling Company conducted a phone survey of 802 Americans to gauge their opinions on various topics related to shariah law, jihad, immigration, refugee resettlement, the nuclear deal with Iran, and free speech.

In the brief videos below, Kellyanne highlights the most striking results from the survey, which support the thesis that the political and media classes lag far behind the common sense of the American citizenry when it comes to the national security threats of our day.

Part 1: Americans Know Better on Shariah and the Iran Deal

  • More than half of Americans now know the term “shariah.” Is this a watershed?
  • Americans are deeply skeptical of any deal with Iran. Why have the media and administration told us otherwise?

Part 2: Americans Know Better on the 1st Amendment and Blasphemy

  • Nearly 2/3 of Americans believe the freedom to offend Muslims (or anyone) is guaranteed in the Constitution. How has this colored their reaction to the Mohammed cartoon violence in Frank, Denmark and Texas?

Part 3: Americans Know Better on Dangers of Refugee Resettlement

  • Americans want the U.S., not the U.N., to determine who qualifies for the refugee resettlement program.

Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad

1710871446Secure Freedom Radio, June 10, 2015: With Stephen Coughlin

STEPHEN COUGHLIN, author of “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in Face of Jihad”:


  • The Islamic law of the land: Shariah
  • The non-kinetic battle space of information operations
  • Political, military, legal, and religious arms of Shariah
  • Defining “Jihad”


  • Western misconceptions of the term “jihad”
  • The Muslim Brotherhoods explicit purpose in America
  • David Shipler’s Freedom of Speech
  • An Islamist alignment with the Left


  • Examining the relationship between the Pentagon and the Islamic Society of North America
  • The true reach of Muslim Brotherhood agents and affiliates within the US government
  • What does it mean if “you don’t know your enemy?”


  • State Department mantra that “ISIS isn’t Islamic”
  • U.N. Resolution 1618, Hillary Clinton, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
  • Understanding the Interfaith Movement as a cultural, Marxist organization
  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s stealth jihad within the US

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Activity on the Home Front

4123927469Secure Freedom Radio, May 12, 2015:

Frank Gaffney interviews Dr. MARK CHRISTIAN, Founder of the Global Faith Institute:


  • Dr. Christian’s family background and his conversion from Islam to Christianity
  • How the abolishment of Shariah Law in Muslim-majority nations led to the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood
  • Thoughts on the ongoing power struggle in the Islamic State


  • Origins of Shariah law
  • The phenomenon of Taqqiya and purposeful misdirection for the Islamic cause
  • Historical roots of the Muslim Brotherhood and the group’s presence in the United States
  • Incompatibility of Shariah law and Western, democratic constitutions


  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s declared ambitions in the U.S.
  • Untangling the different relationships between jihadist groups
  • Muslim Brotherhood efforts to subvert the U.S. government from within
  • Parallels between militant and civilization jihad


  • Does “jihad” also have a more benign meaning?
  • The establishment of a caliphate within the United States by Muslim Brotherhood front organizations
  • What is the Exploratory Memorandum?

See Something, Say Something about Jihad

sharia1 (1)CSP, May 11, 2015:

Secure Freedom announces the launch of our new CounterJihad campaign with an ad calling for free people everywhere to speak their minds about the encroachment of Islamic law, known as shariah.

With jihadists on the march worldwide – including here – truth-tellers about Islam’s anti-constitutional shariah doctrine should be commended, not slandered.

Two armed jihadists were shot dead before they could murder proponents of free speech meeting in Garland, Texas. After the attack, some commentators have taken to blaming its targets, claiming they are “racists,” “bigots,” and “Islamophobes” who provoked the Islamic supremacists by drawing pictures of and denouncing their prophet Mohammed.

It is not racism or bigotry, let alone an unfounded fear of Islam that prompts courageous freedom fighters like Pamela Geller and Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to defend our civilization against those determined to destroy it. They are willing to challenge a threat to freedom of speech that not just Islamists but others, including Hillary Clinton, insist must be accommodated.

So join the CounterJihad and stand up for the freedoms that make America, and all of our allies in the free world, beacons of liberty to oppressed people everywhere.

CounterJihad is a combination of education, advocacy and action designed to stop the spread of The Global Jihad Movement (GJM). Muslims declared holy war, jihad, on non-believers long ago. They have been killing, enslaving, torturing and putting more territory under their dominion every day. It is long overdue for the free world to stand up and fight back.

We call our enemy the Global Jihad Movement because regardless of how they name themselves, they share a common goal: The global supremacy of Islam. We advocate harnessing the full range of powers of the United States and our allies including Military, Diplomatic, Intelligence, Cyber and Economic forces. We must also champion and promote the power of our culture which values individual liberty and government by man-made, not religious law.

The GJM comprises two identifiable and mutually-supporting lines of endeavor: Violent Jihad and Civilization Jihad.

Violent Jihadists include al Qaeda, the Islamic State (IS), Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah and any of their ideological comrades who fly the black flag of jihad. The Violent Jihadists ply their deadly trade all around the world. The alliance between IS and Boko Haram creates a trans-continental Caliphate in the Middle East and Africa and it is expanding daily.

They are Hostis Humani Generis, Enemies of all Mankind, and we must defeat them.

Civilization Jihadists, as they refer to themselves, use a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to denote a stealthy jihad in its pre-violent stage of societal infiltration. They include the MB and its many associated organizations and front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and others who follow the same ideology as the violent ones, but use covert means to advance it.

The Civilization Jihadists comprise perhaps an even more dangerous threat to US national security interests, culture. They convert and indoctrinate new generations to become the next violent jihadists, and they finance, and provide political cover for their violent brethren. They infiltrate in seemingly innocuous ways and use our own freedoms to advance their agenda of Shariah law and the eventual creation of Islamic states where democracies now exist.

Victory over the Civilization Jihadists requires government and citizens working together to counter the threat.

  • We must counter their lawfare by enshrining the supremacy of US laws
  • We must end government outreach to jihadist groups of all types
  • We must declare the Muslim Brotherhood, and affiliates, terrorist groups
  • We must investigate and close radical mosques that preach jihad
  • We must stop the infiltration of groups that promote Shariah

Join us in the CounterJihad to Secure Freedom for ourselves and our posterity.

Islamic Terror in an Age of Individual Jihad

20150504_texassuspectsshotmohammed.siFamily Security Matters, by Clare Lopez, May 7, 2015:

Anyone who thinks that what happened at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, TX on 3 May 2015, when two Muslim terrorists tried to attack a “Draw Muhammad” art contest, was an isolated incident, needs to think again. Although the two jihadist shooters, both affiliated with the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (a Muslim Brotherhood-linked mosque), were quickly shot dead by security at the site, it’s their modus operandi that we need to understand. This is what the future jihad in America is going to look like. It is called ‘individual jihad’ (fard ‘ayn) and it is not just doctrinally-authorized in Islam, but is aggressively being encouraged, even commanded, by the Islamic State (as the Caliphate) through its online magazine, ‘Dabiq,’ as well as a flurry of other statements and videos by both IS and al-Qa’eda.

As the Center’s Senior Fellow (and author of the newly-released “Catastrophic Failure”), Steve Coughlin, points out, 2015 is the final year of the “10 Year Programme of Action” for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The top action item for that decade has been criminalization of the criticism of Islam – that is, pushing for legal measures to bring U.S. and other Western societies into compliance with Islamic blasphemy and slander laws. Those laws impose the death penalty for anything considered ‘offensive’ to a Muslim. Some think that just avoiding anything that might remotely be thought ‘offensive’ to Muslims is the best way to deal with the situation. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton certainly did all she could during her tenure to collaborate with the OIC through the Istanbul Process and UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. But it’s never enough and never going to be enough until all of humanity is subjugated to shariah; so now, in this final year of the ‘Programme,’ we are beginning to see the physical enforcement of those Islamic speech codes across the Western world, including in our own homeland. That enforcement increasingly is taking the form of individual acts of jihad terrorism.

Prior to 9/11, as al-Qa’eda took aim at ‘the far enemy,’ the key perpetrators-Usama bin Laden and other top leaders of AQ, Hizballah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban-met to plot, plan, and direct that attack. It was very much a top-directed operation. Today, the Global Islamic Movement is dispersed, institutionalized, and operationalized. Myriad jihad groups as well as unaffiliated individual jihadis seek to instill terror across the world, even as AQ and IS compete with Iran for leadership of the kinetic vanguard role. The OIC functions at the Islamic head-of-state institutional jihad level. And the Muslim Brotherhood provides the civilization jihad indoctrination, infiltration, and subversion operations within target governments and societies.

These three jihad levels – kinetic vanguard, Islamic institution, and civilization jihad – work in synergistic tandem to undermine the West, sap our will to resist, and play the siren song of submission as the easiest, most reasonable way out of this nightmare. Violent jihad attacks by Muslim terrorists against Western free speech targets have proliferated throughout the first half of 2015. In early January 2015, two Muslim gunmen murdered twelve staff members of the French satirical magazine, ‘Charlie Hebdo.’ Three police officers were executed as well and another four people were killed by a third jihadist shooter who targeted a Jewish deli market in Paris. Then, in February, a jihadist gunman attacked a Copenhagen event called “Art, Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression” where Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks was speaking, killing one civilian and injuring two law enforcement officers (although Vilks himself escaped harm). And now they’ve taken aim at Pamela Geller, the courageous founder of Stop Islamization of America, also known as the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The body count is rising, but that’s not really the objective: free speech is. Free society and free-thinking individuals governed by consent of the governed under rule of man-made law are. Simply by existing, such individuals and such societies block the forces of jihad from achieving their obligatory shariah objective, which is the global imposition of shariah. Free speech is the most important, first line of defense against that onslaught because shariah cannot reign unchallenged as long as free people may speak their minds.

Taking shape, then, is a concerted jihad campaign to instill terror among those who dare to resist shariah. Especially via online messaging and social media, the Islamic State has been urging faithful Muslims to make the hijrah to Middle East battlefields but specifically encourages those who cannot or choose not to, to wage individual jihad in place, wherever they live. Thanks to misguided federal refugee resettlement policies that are channeling thousands of all-too-often poorly-vetted Muslim immigrants into the U.S., combined with official refusal to recognize Muslim Brotherhood operatives, groups, and Islamic Centers as the jihadist threat they actually are, there is a now a ready pool of indoctrinated jihad recruits living among us, whose numbers the FBI admits it has no way to manage or even monitor. From this pool in coming weeks and months will emerge the individual jihadis, converted, inspired, and trained by Brotherhood imams and mosques who will answer the IS call to jihad issued by recruiters lying in wait for them all over the Internet.

Understanding and confronting this dynamic that is taking direct aim at the American right to free speech is imperative for both the engaged citizen and an informed law enforcement community. It is the only way to stay free.

Eleven Reasons to Reject Sharia Law in Any Form

sharia1 (1)Citizen Warrior, May 2, 2015:

The following list was posted at the Infidel Blogger’s Alliance and has been attributed to Larry Houle. It is a countdown of the top eleven reasons to reject Shari’a. Shari’a is Islamic law, based on the Quran and the Sunnah. It is considered my Muslims to be Allah’s law, and the only rightful set of laws on earth.

Several countries apply Shari’a today, and millions of Muslims around the world are uniting and recruiting and willing to die to get Shari’a applied in more countries. Here is why their efforts must be stopped:

11. Shari’a condones slavery.

Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora notes: “the Quran stipulated that female slaves might lawfully be enjoyed by their masters.” Mohammad himself owned many slaves, some of whom he captured in wars of conquest and some he purchased. The names of forty slaves owned by Mohammad are recorded by Muslim chroniclers.

Islamic law (Sharia) contains elaborate regulations for slavery. A slave had no right to be heard in court (testimony was forbidden by slaves), slaves had no right to property, could marry only with the permission of the owner, and were considered to be chattel, that is the movable property, of the slave owner.

Muslim slave owners were specifically entitled by Sharia law to sexually exploit their slaves, including hiring them out as prostitutes. One reason why very little has been written about the Arab involvement in slavery is that traditional Islamic culture still condones slavery. The Sharia, the codified Islamic law which is based upon the teachings and example of Mohammad, contains explicit regulations for slavery. One of the primary principles of Islam is following the example of Mohammad.

Whatever Mohammad did, we must do, what he forbade, we must forbid, what he did not forbid, we may not forbid.

As Mohammad himself traded in slaves and owned slaves, accumulating multiple wives, even marrying a six year-old, and having concubines — slavery and the sexual exploitation of women is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition.

Muslim nations had engaged in the slave trade for over 600 years before Europe became involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.


According to the Hughes Dictionary of Islam, slaves had few civil or legal rights. For example:

  • Muslim men were allowed to have sex anytime with females slaves – Sura 4:3, 4:29, 33:49.
  • Slaves are as helpless before their masters as idols are before God – Sura 16:77
  • According to Islamic tradition, people at the time of their capture were either to be killed, or enslaved. Shows you that they were at the bottom of the barrel to start with.
  • According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves were merchandise. The sales of slaves was in accordance with the sale of animals.
  • Muhammad ordered that some slaves who were freed by their master be RE-ENSLAVED!
  • It is permissible under Islamic law to whip slaves.
  • According to Islam, a Muslim could not be put to death for murdering a slave. Ref. 2:178 and the Jalalayn confirm this.
  • According to Islam, the testimony of slaves is not admissible in court. Ibn Timiyya and Bukhari state this.
  • According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves cannot choose their own marriage mate. – Ibn Hazm, vol. 6, part 9.
  • According to Islamic jurisprudence, slaves can be forced to marry who their masters want. – Malik ibn Anas, vol. 2, page 155.

Slavery continued in Islamic lands from about the beginning to this very day (read one man’s recent experience escaping slavery in Sudan). Muslim rulers always found support in the Quran to call ‘jihad’, partly for booty, partly for the purpose of taking slaves.

As the Islamic empire disintegrated into smaller kingdoms, and each ruler was able to decide what Islam’s theology really meant. Usually, he always found it in support of what he wanted to do. Their calls of jihad against their neighbors facilitated the taking of slaves for Islam. The Quran and Islamic jurisprudence support the taking of slaves, so, those petty Muslim rulers were following the Quran when they needed slaves.


  • Islam allows Muslims to make slaves out of anyone who is captured during war.
  • Islam allows for the children of slaves to be raised as slaves.
  • Like (a), Islam allows for Christians and Jews to be made into slaves if they are captured in war. After Muslim armies attacked and conquered Spain, they took thousands of slaves back to Damascus. The key prize was 1000 virgins as slaves.
  • Christians and Jews, who had made a treaty with the ruling Muslims could be made into slaves if they did not pay the “protection” tax. This paying for ‘protection’ was just like paying a Mafia racketeer! This allowed Muslim rulers to extort money from non-Muslim people.

10. Shari’a commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason number 9 below), but also for drinking alcohol. In 2005, in Nigeria a Shari’a court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes. In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90-91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does.

A poor ‘criminal’ was brought to Muhammad who became angry: The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad’s presence].

(Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774-6775)Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment? The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.

9. Shari’a allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

In 2004, Rania al-Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia. Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. One of the guests was an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of Allah], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. Allah is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Quran, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘Abdur Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr:

Muslim no. 2127: ‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual ‘crimes’ may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women.

Generally, Shari’a restricts women’s social mobility and rights, the more closely Shari’a is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars.

In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women’s testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

8. Shari’a allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge — physical eye for physical eye.

In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiancé. In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man’s eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.The Quran says:

5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Quran, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.

The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.

Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC (the law is based on the Torah) and to re-impose the old law of retaliation — literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally.

7. Shari’a commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

This punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan. The Quran says:

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done — a deterrent from Allah: Allah is almighty and wise.

5:39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief’s hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

6. Shari’a commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. An article about it said of this punishment that it was the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation).

AI has recorded thirty-three amputations and nine cross-amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated. The Quran says:

5:33-34 Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter…unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that Allah is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33-34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away…The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.

Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

5. Shari’a commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over on top of three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108-113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’ These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: …’If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.’ (Abu Dawud no. 4447)
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have a wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, ‘Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.’ In a version…on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

4. Shari’a orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex. The Quran says:

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s law]. (Hilali and Khan)

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833. The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

In Iran, a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty-five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.

In December 2004, Amnesty International reports: An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging.

Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped. She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her… (Muslim no. 4206) The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her.

Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet’s words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

3. Shari’a orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even Shari’a itself.

In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote The Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran.

Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa. In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia’s vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. The Muslims’ ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam. Here are the classical legal rulings:

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597-98, o8.7):

  1. Reviling Allah or his Messenger;
  2. being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’;
  3. denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’;
  4. holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’;
  5. reviling the religion of Islam;
  6. being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
  7. denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message…to be the religion followed by the entire world.

‘It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ head.

The non-Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)-(5)):

  1. Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her;
  2. conceal spies of hostile forces;
  3. lead a Muslim away from Islam;
  4. mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet…or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows:

  1. death,
  2. enslavement,
  3. release without paying anything, or
  4. ransoming in exchange for money

These punishments also execute free speech — even repulsive speech — and freedom of religion or conscience. Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one’s position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth.

As it stands, Shari’a — with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and the Shari’a itself — testifies to their weakness since Shari’a threatens those who dare to differ. How confident was Muhammad (and today’s Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

2. Shari’a orders apostates to be killed (an apostate is someone who leaves Islam).

In Iran, an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi’ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings. See the previous point number 3 for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.

Citing Quranic verses and hadith passages, Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, argues that Sura 9:11-12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death. Apostates should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.

And the number one reason why Shari’a is bad for all societies…

1. Shari’a commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the memetic code for Islam — waging war. In the ten years he lived in Medina from AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. Muhammad had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax (“protection” tax) on northern Christians and Jews.

Money flowed into the Islamic treasury.

What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

  1. Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may ‘marry’ the women, since any previous marriages of slaves are automatically annulled upon their capture, according to Shari’a.
  2. Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, did this.
  3. Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low.
  4. Old men and monks could be killed.
  5. A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.
  6. Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non-Muslim.
  7. Civilian property may be confiscated.
  8. Civilian homes may be destroyed.
  9. Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed.
  10. Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.
  11. People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced ‘charity’ or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury.

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad a revelation to stop these practices. Therefore, Islam is violent — unjustly and aggressively.

Also see:

NJ Islamic Center to host Muslim Brotherhood Shari’ah event

3506095By Cultural Jihad, April 30. 2015:

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) has a history of being associated with Islamic radicals promoting terror …

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) advises that on May 2, 22015, the Islamic Center of Passaic County (Paterson, New Jersey) will host “Understanding Shari’ah: Sacred Principles for Human Development” in collaboration with the Fiqh Council of North America.

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch notes the following about the council:

The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) is an organization comprised of Islamic scholars associated with the Global Muslim Brotherhood. As FCNA itself acknowledges, the organization grew out of the activities of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and later became affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), itself an outgrowth of MSA. FCNA maintains a relationship with other similar bodies in the Global Muslim Brotherhood including the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) as well as the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Saudi Arabia.Two individuals known to have been ECFR members, Jamal Badawi and Solah Soltan, are also known to have been associated with the FCNA.

Most of scheduled speakers for the May 2nd event are from U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (MB) organizations:

  • Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi (ISNA, NAIT)
  • Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah (ICNA)
  • Dr. Ihsan Bagby (ISNA)
  • Br. Azhar Azeez (President of ISNA)
  • Sh. Mohammad Qatanani (HAMAS)
  • Dr. Zainab Alwani (IIIT and daughter of MB leader Taha Al-Alwani)
  • Sh. Yasir Fahmy
  • Prof. Ebrahim Moosa

ISNA – Islamic Society of North America
ICNA – Islamic Circle of North America
NAIT – North American Islamic Trust
IIIT – International Institute of Islamic Thought

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) has a history of being associated with Islamic radicals promoting terror.  A 2013 Clarion Project reports:

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) was founded by Mohammad El-Mezain, who was convicted in 2008 for fundraising for Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation. It is led today by Imam Mohammad Qatanani, whose deportation is sought by the Department of Homeland Security.

Muhammad al-Hanooti was an imam at ICPC from 1990 to 1995.  He was president of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a pro-Hamas organization and Muslim Brotherhood front organization, from 1984 to 1986.


In January 2014, the ICPC hosted Syrian Sheik Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi as part of an 11-city tour across America and co-sponsored by the Syrian American Council (SAC).   The Sheik al-Nabulsi supports suicide bombings and has labeled all Jews as combatants.

In 2014 we  reported on the lobbying efforts of SAC on Capitol Hill and its ties to the MB.

A top Shariah lawyer’s stunning response to the question: ‘Is there such a thing as moderate Islam?’

419gPOS7xaLThe Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, Feb. 26 2015:

We sat down with a leading Shariah lawyer from Iran, Daniel Akbari, to discuss his illuminating new book ”Honor Killing: A Professional’s Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources, in which he seeks to awaken Americans to the generally antithetical nature of Islam to Judeo-Christian society, and specifically Shariah-dictated domestic violence towards women — up to and including so-called honor killings — and how we in the West can prevent such atrocities.

During the extensive interview, which you can skip to here, we had a chance to ask him a series of questions on the nature of Islam, its goals, tactics, how Western Muslims become jihadists, and all manner of other topics.

But it was in response to a question on whether there is such a thing as moderate Islam that Mr. Akbari, a man who studied at the seat of Shia religious learning at the Tehran University School of Law, and specialized in criminal and family law before leaving Iran, gave perhaps his most stunning response of all, stating:

What Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey says is actually perfect and totally Islamic because Islamis Islam. We don’t have such a thing like — “radical Islam extremism” — many things that are said in Islam like beheading, like stoning, like flogging — they are not extremism acts, those are pure Islam.

…The second thing is, this is not “extremism,” this is “fundamentalism.” People who believe in [the] Koran understand it and practice it and take it serious.

About moderate Muslims, we have to…make a distinction between those people who come from Islamic backgrounds, come from [the] Middle East, their names are ‘Mohammed’…they might not believe in [the] Koran at all. They might just be atheists. They just come from that region.

Who are moderate Muslims in reality according to Akbari?

…Moderate Muslims actually are kind of like CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] people — people who are Muslim Brotherhood types…and these people fight for Islam, love it, but they give a peaceful feature, and good-looking [nature] to Islam, to…deceive Americans not to resist the process of Islam.

Sometimes they deceive Americans this way that “We are the same as your neighbor who is from the Middle East.” That neighbor might be an atheist, might be a Buddhist at heart. Just by nature and feature, people might assume [him or her] Islamic.

…Moderate Muslims, as we might know as Muslim Brotherhood, they are the backbone of jihad.

Without them, there…[are] not gonna be any jihadis. They support jihad financially. They recruit here for jihadists — they recruit in this country. They have their own Islamic centers. They go to jail and recruit for ISIS.

So without these moderate Muslims — I’m not talking about just people coming from [the] Middle East — I’m talking about those who fight for Islam, or those who love Islam and pay for jihadists and also support to…try to recruit people, or sympathizers. My point about moderates is kind of different than what Americans might say.

Moderates are not anybody from [the] Middle East with an Islamic name.

My point about moderates are people who have Islamic organizations in an organized way, fight to improve Islam, I call those people moderates. To my eyes, those moderates are no different than ISIS or other jihadists.

During the interview, we also had the opportunity to discuss a series of other topics with Mr. Akbari including:

Follow Ben Weingarten (@bhweingarten) and TheBlazeBooks on Twitter and Facebook.

DEFEAT JIHAD SUMMIT Identifies the Enemy in Unusually Plain Language

Screen-Shot-2015-02-12-at-8.58.26-AM-300x147UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 13, 2015:

On Wednesday February 11th, the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. hosted the first ever “Defeat Jihad Summit” with leaders represented from across the world discussing the threat of Islamic Jihadis and how to build a strategy for victory.  This has never been done since the jihadis in Iran declared war against us in 1979.

Participating in this event were Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukaseyformer House Speaker Newt GingrichSenator Ted CruzRepresentative Steven King, Representative Mike Pompeo (Kansas), Representative Scott Perry (Pennsylvania), Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.), Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.), former Representative Pete Hoekstra, Leading 9/11 family member Deborah Burlingame, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard, Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson, Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, Claremont President Brian Kennedy, former Muslim Nonie Darwish, Muslim reformer Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Australian pastor Mark Durie, Andrew McCarthy (author and former Chief CT Prosecutor, NY), the Honorable Joseph Schmitz (Inspector General, Department of Defense, Bush Administration), Judge Jeanine Pirro, human rights attorney Deborah Weiss, author/journalist Diana West, Dr. Charles Jacobs (Executive Director, Americans for Peace and Tolerance), national security expert and CSP Fellow J. Michael Waller, CSP Fellow and strategic analyst Major Stephen Coughlin (US Army, reserves), Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, retired CIA case officer Clare Lopez, and leadership of the Center for Security Policy.

Understanding the Threat Founder John Guandolo participated in this program as well.

The focus of the program was to clearly identify the enemy the United States and the West is facing, and begin a discussion on building long-term solutions to defeating the Islamic Movement in all its forms.  The focus is total victory.

In summation, the threat we face is a global Islamic Movement whose doctrine is Sharia (Islamic Law).  Now subverting governments worldwide, conquering nations/regions across the globe, and barbarically killing hundreds of thousands of human beings on several continents, this massive threat continues to be minimized and given little attention by the current U.S. administration.

While the threat of China, Russia, the Progressive Movement, and others threaten our way of life, the Global Islamic Movement is at the forefront because it is conquering nations and barbarically killing men, women, and children, and literally acting as the agent of evil in the world today.

Truth, courage, faith and determination are watchwords if victory in this war is to be had.  The light of liberty and the survival of Western civilization depend on citizens of free nations coming to grips with the fact we are at war – a war we must win if our children and grand children are to enjoy the fruits and blessings of liberty as we have.

See the best highlights of the day in these two 9 minute videos below:

* Defeat Jihad Summit Highlights Part 1

* Defeat Jihad Summit Highlights Part 2

The Defeat Jihad Summit can be viewed in its entirety here.  The program begins at the 28:50 mark.