Spain’s Escalating Mosque Wars

by Soeren Kern:

“The rules of the city and the country are mandatory for everyone, and Mollet del Vallès will be uncompromising toward any kind of radicalism or blackmail.” — Josep Monràs, Mayor of Mollet del Vallès, Spain

Police in Spain have forcibly removed Muslim activists from an illegal mosque in a small town in Catalonia, an autonomous region in northeastern Spain that is home to the largest Muslim population in the country.

The eviction ends — for now, anyway — a highly public one-year standoff in which Muslim immigrants in the Catalan town of Mollet del Vallès openly and aggressively challenged the authority of municipal officials to evaluate and determine the proper location of new mosques based on established urban planning regulations.

The dispute over the unauthorized mosque is the latest in a growing number of mosque-related conflicts resulting from efforts by towns and cities across Spain to relocate overfilled mosques from congested downtown areas to uninhabited industrial parks.

Catalan police ended the standoff in Mollet del Vallès on October 2 by conducting an early morning raid on the property, which was being illegally occupied by up to 50 Muslims from North Africa who were angry over a decision by the town council to prohibit the premises from being used as a mosque.

The confrontation began in July 2012, when the Al Huda Muslim Community told the town council that their existing mosque on Sant Ramon Street in downtown Mollet del Vallès had become too small for the swelling ranks of Muslims who gather for weekly prayers each Friday.

Al Huda — one of two Muslim communities in this town of 50,000 inhabitants, near Barcelona — went on to tell municipal authorities that the group was interested in purchasing an old factory building, also situated in the downtown area, in order to convert the property into a mosque.

In response, the mayor of Mollet del Vallès, Josep Monràs, warned Al Huda that the building in question was zoned for commercial use only and, in accordance with the Municipal Management Plan dated 2004, could not be used as a mosque.

As an alternative, Monràs offered to provide Al Huda with a much larger property in an industrial park located two kilometers from the downtown area. This location would not only accommodate a greater number of worshippers, it would also serve to avoid the noise and parking problems associated with hundreds of Muslims gathering in the cramped downtown area.

In any event, Monràs argued, the Islamic Council of Mollet del Vallès, the other Muslim community in town, had accepted a similar offer and was already operating a mosque in the same industrial park without any problems.

Al Huda rejected the mayor’s alternative offer, calling it a case of “Islamophobia” and alleging that the municipality was eager to “banish” all Muslims from the downtown area. “We are not some merchandise that should be in an industrial park,” a member of Al Huda told the Catalan newspaper La Vanguardia.

Rejecting the mayor’s warning, Al Huda went ahead and purchased the old factory building in June 2013. Shortly thereafter, Al Huda demanded that the town council change the zoning regulations so that the property could be converted into a mosque. The town council refused this demand.

The conflict escalated when members of Al Huda began construction work to convert the new building into a mosque — in defiance of the town council, and despite lacking a building permit. On July 10, 2013, the town council sealed off the old factory building, due to urban planning violations, thus prohibiting Al Huda from continuing its illegal construction activities.

Al Huda responded by ordering more than 400 Muslims to hold five prayers each day in front of the town hall (photos herehere and here). “We will be one or two months or however long it takes. We will not leave until the town council gives us back our site,” said the president of Al Huda, Ahmed Balghouch.

 

Members of the Al Huda Muslim community stage a public prayer protest in Mollet del Vallès, Spain.

The “pressure tactic” ended up disrupting normal daily activity for non-Muslims in downtown Mollet del Vallès for three months, from July through September.

Mayor Monràs refused to back down, however, saying he would not give in to Al Huda’s “blackmail” tactics. “The [Al Huda] Muslim community knew that they could not purchase the property in order to convert it into a mosque because it would be a breach of municipal planning regulations. Yet, they have launched a number of protest actions that are illegal. The rules of the city and the country are mandatory for everyone and Mollet del Vallès will be uncompromising toward any kind of radicalism or blackmail,” Monràs said.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

If you see something, say nothing

Runners at the start of the 117th Boston Marathon. Stew Milne / AP

Runners at the start of the 117th Boston Marathon. Stew Milne / AP

Changes to the AP stylebook show that we’re blinding ourselves to the connections between Islamic extremism and terrorism.

by Andrew C. McCarthy:

It was a report of the now numbingly familiar sort. Witnesses at the synagogue in Paris recounted that an Iranian immigrant had been screaming “Allahu Akbar!” while he chased the rabbi and his son. When he finally caught up, he slashed away at them with a box-cutter, causing severe lacerations. Nevertheless, the Associated Press assured readers that “[a]n official investigation was underway to determine a possible motive.”

Quite a mystery, that.

It is necessary to search for some “possible” motive because to notice the actual and perfectly obvious motive is verboten in the judgment of both the legacy media and Western governments. The motive, of course, is adherence to Islamic supremacist ideology, a mainstream interpretation of Muslim doctrine commonly referred to by the shorthand “Islamist.”

Indeed, just this April, the AP revised its stylebook to posit new guidelines for use of the term “Islamist.” In so doing, the news service deferred to admonitions from the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood’s influential public-relations-cum-lawfare arm in the United States, is a longtime supporter 0f Hamas, the terrorist organization that doubles as the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

Before these revisions, the definition off which the AP had been working was reasonably accurate. An Islamist, according to the old guidelines, was “a supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam.” Such supporters make up a sizeable percentage of the 1.4 billion-strong global Islamic ummah (the community), and thus reflect a wide range of Muslim notions about how best to impose these “laws of Islam”—the societal framework and politico-legal system known as sharia (the path). But all Islamists agree that they must be imposed. That is what makes an Islamist an Islamist. The dramatic ascendancy of Islamists—the implementation of their substantially anti-democratic system through democratic procedures—is the story of the so-called Arab Spring.

There is plenty of disagreement within the ummah about what constitutes sharia, which is derived from the Koran and other sources of Islamic scripture, in particular the hadith—authoritative collections of the words and deeds of Mohammed, Islam’s warrior prophet. Some claim it is merely a set of aspirational guidelines intended as a private behavioral compass designed to achieve a Muslim’s personal experience of the divine. This construction, though held by various reformers and modernizing “secular Muslims,” flies in the face of some stubborn realities.

Sharia, for example, is the law of Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, bastions of fundamentalist Islam that admit of no other legal systems, that employ “religious police” to promote strict sharia compliance, and that routinely apply Islam’s harsh corporal punishments, such as scourging and even stoning. Furthermore, even in Islamic countries that attempt to meld sharia with other legal systems (e.g., Napoleonic law), sharia is given pride of place and enforced both officially, in civil and criminal court cases, and culturally, by public mores.

The claims that sharia is aspirational and a matter of personal conscience are further contradicted, by its emphasis on governance: Only a small percentage of Islamic ideology prescribes what we in the West would recognize as religious principles (e.g., the oneness of Allah); the lion’s share is a thoroughgoing regulation of political and social life, from economic and military affairs through interpersonal relations and matters of hygiene. In addition, sharia has long been codified: The treatise “Umdat al-Salik,” reflecting the broad consensus on sharia’s prescriptions across the four ancient Sunni jurisprudential schools, was assembled by the renowned scholar Ahmad ibn an-Naqib al-Misri in the fourteenth century. It is translated into English as Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, and is readily available through most large book retailers—complete with endorsements, in the manual’s foreword, from such influential institutions as Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni learning since the tenth century, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, an Islamist think-tank headquartered in Virginia by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Islamic supremacist interpretation of sharia found in Reliance of the Traveller and systematically taught by the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most significant Islamic mass-movement, is the dynamic Islam of the Muslim Middle East. It is also gradually making inroads in the West, courtesy of a Brotherhood stratagem best described as “voluntary apartheid.” The idea is for Muslims to immigrate and integrate, but not assimilate. They are encouraged, instead, to move into Islamic enclaves, organizing their lives around the local mosque and Islamic community center, which the Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna stressed as the “axis” of the movement. The goal is to pressure the host government to abide an ever-increasing degree of sharia autonomy.

This form of sharia, to which Islamists widely adhere and aspire, is fundamentally antithetical to Western liberalism. It rejects individual liberty and privacy, equality before the law for women and non-Muslims, freedom of conscience and speech, economic liberty, and even the bedrock principle that a body politic has the power to make law for itself, irrespective of any religious or ideological code. Sharia also expressly endorses jihad. These are the “laws of Islam” to which the AP refers without describing them. The installation of these laws is the top priority of emerging Islamist “democracies,” which establish Islam as the state religion and enshrine sharia in their new constitutions—such new governments as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, whose sharia constitutions were drafted with the helping hand of the U.S. State Department.

Read more at The New Criterion

The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat

siegel

Ever wonder how people could be so duped about the true nature of Islam and the threat it poses to Western Civilization? Are you having trouble wrapping your brain around the the level of infiltration that Islamists have been able to achieve in all levels of our government and civil institutions? Well here is the answer. I encourage you to read the whole interview.

By Jamie Glazov:

FrontPage Interview’s guest today is Bill Siegel, a lawyer and business executive. He has been a producer of several documentary films and assists numerous non-profit organizations. He is the author of The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat.

Excerpt:

FP: Describe the threat we face in our Islamic enemy. And you talk about the three levels of jihad against us. What are they?

Siegel: Simply stated, our Islamic Enemy seeks the totalitarian domination of Islam throughout the world – Islamic supremacy. It seeks to have the West submit to Islam. Obviously, this does not mean that everybody becomes a Muslim. Islam, in all its varied expressions, permits dhimmis- those Christians, Jews, and some others who are permitted to remain as protected non-Muslims as long as they submit to an inferior status. What is critical is that Shariah (Islamic Law) ultimately rules the world.

Jihad, loosely, is the effort/struggle to see this vision through. The most obvious method of Jihad is through violence; it is the one most familiar to most Westerners and almost all of the Koranic references to Jihad are based in violence.  The Violent Jihad includes al-Qaeda and its offshoots as well as other groups that formed around the globe independent of al-Qaeda. It also obviously includes the violence from Islamic nations such as the Islamic Republic of Iran whose constitution specifies such vision. It also includes, however, various militant groups and training camps here in the US as well as ad hoc efforts of individuals.

Since 9/11, there have been something in excess of 15,000 Violent Jihadic attacks across the globe. However, as terrible as this is, we have a tendency in the West to think that the only dimension of threat we face comes from violence. While the Bush administration helped initiate this thinking, the Obama administration has actively abused it by limiting any discussion of the threat we face to al-Qaeda and some other terrorist groups abroad. As frightening as these groups are, we can get some ease from thinking they are a band of “extremists limited in number, weaponry, sophistication, and means. Stunningly, Hillary Clinton recently estimated that there are only about 50,000 “homicidal” violent extremists around the world who simply have been able to project power much greater than their number should allow. Here the Control Factor makes the threat appear more easily manageable.

Jihad, however, is pursued in other often even more effective ways which I have grouped into three “levels.” A second more insidious level of threat is what the Muslim Brotherhood itself called the “Civilization Jihad.” It is the effort to infiltrate all aspects of our society, peacefully according to our laws, in order to later be in position to sabotage and destroy it from the inside. The Civilization Jihadists have learned the culture and rules of the territories they seek to command and use those rules to maneuver—specifically using our freedoms to destroy our freedoms. They use “lawfare” to seek changes in our laws so as to push Shariah into our society. Your readers should read Daniel Pipes and Brooke Goldstein’s Lawfare Project material and others to fully appreciate how cancerous this activity has become. This includes intimidating in a variety of ways anyone who speaks out against them or Islam and seeking to squelch our treasured broad right to free speech so as to ultimately prevent any criticisms of Islam. Once criticism of Islam is prohibited, little can stop it from cascading throughout the culture.

The Civilization Jihad includes situating such Jihadists in critical positions in the society, in the government, in the legal system, the military, and elsewhere. It includes the control over university programs that distribute propaganda about Islam and Islamic history which then filters down throughout textbooks for even younger students. It includes control over most of the nation’s mosques and local Imams guiding the messages engaged Muslims are receiving. Most troublesome are the Muslim groups (CAIR, ISNA, MSA and others associated and/or joint venture partners with the Muslim Brotherhood) supposedly interested in “outreach” which know how to appear Westernized and interested in the goals of Western Civilization. They have fooled a large part of our authorities and media due in part to their patience and willingness to chip away, one airport prayer room, one frivolous intimidating lawsuit, one Congressman or CIA officer, one mosque, one ruling at a time.

Particularly in the US, given our deep attachment to freedom as well as cultural and psychological tendencies toward diversity, Western guilt and expectations of truthfulness, this effort is devious and difficult to uproot. The Civilization Jihadists present one face to the American public which is completely at odds with their true agenda and how they deal in private. Jamie, you and David and others such as Steve Emerson, Frank Gaffney, Andy McCarthy and others have done so much to uncover this level of Jihad that your readers should be urged to review as much of their work (including Steve’s recent excellent documentary, The Grand Deception, and Frank’s important web video course, The Muslim Brotherhood in America) as possible.

Finally, there is a third level – the International Institutional Jihad. Here the most powerful international institutions such as the UN and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and others seek to push into America from without those changes which are difficult to complete from within. The OIC is the largest Islamic institution in the world. It essentially controls the vote in the UN’s General Assembly and thus explains in part the absurd and abject pro-Islamic, anti-Israel thrust of that organization. This level seeks to use the power of Islamic nations to work from outside the West to force changes within the West. While there are various conflicts between many of the nations, being Islamic majority states, there is a great deal they agree upon which becomes the focus of these efforts. Just as the Obama administration is beginning to cooperate with international efforts to control gun ownership, so has Hillary Clinton’s Istanbul Process become a dangerous step in the effort to restrict speech critical of Islam by norm (or possibly even treaty) when it may not be fully executable by domestic action alone.

I should point out that Stephen Coughlin, the former Pentagon officer who has an important must-see presentation of Islamic Law, uses different names for these same three levels – Jihad, Dawa, and Ummah. Had I seen his work before I wrote my book I would have conformed to his categorizations.

We must learn how powerful language has become on all three levels. Words such as “peace,” “freedom,” ”terrorism,” and phrases such as “human rights” have different meanings for us and for our Islamic Enemy. To oversimplify, “peace” is not something for now but that which comes when all the earth is submitting to Islam. In the context of battles, “peace” is at best a temporary ceasefire. “Freedom” is best understood as having the freedom to fully submit to Islam, not to choose whatever beliefs one desires while respecting the same right in others. We’ve all seen how ”human rights” and “terror” really only apply among Muslims, not to non-Muslims. Our enemy fully understands these differences and uses them at all levels to paralyze us.

Look simply at how the phrase “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” has equalized the two parties, making it all the easier to ascribe features of one to the other and view the problem as a simple-to fix division of assets into statehoods but for personality problems among the leaders. The simple truth is that this is and has always been a one-sided Arab war against Israel as Ruth Wisse and others have described and, as Bibi Netanyahu made clear, the ONLY state truly at issue here has been the State of Israel that the Arabs have refused for over half a century. Nonetheless, the Control Factor hypnotically abuses the mind’s susceptibility to the intricacies of language.

Even the label “Peace Process” has been damaging language. While most focus upon the first word, turning this into a “process” has helped ensure that peace is never obtained. It is more appropriately called the “Extortion Process” because all that results is that violence is used over decades to extract concessions from Israel.

These three levels must be understood for their differences while united by a single goal. While these levels often operate together and assist each other, we must avoid “level confusion” which the Control Factor employs to curtail our fears. If the Obama narrative is swallowed- that the only threat is the Violent Jihad- we will miss the other contamination fomenting within our borders. We must appreciate how these levels work together and even unite with other forces such as the global Leftist movement that you, Jamie, have described so forcefully in United in Hate.

FP: You write about how we like to talk of “Good Muslims” and how we are always on the eternal search for “moderate” Muslims (Khatami, Mousavi, Abbas, etc), while we stress how the “extremists” are the real problem and how “few” they really are. All of this is connected to the Control Factor. Enlighten us.

Siegel: The Control Factor seeks to have us feel in control of the situation. The easiest way to do this is to simply minimize the number of potential enemies. We have been lectured for years about how Islam is a “religion of peace” and that the violence we see (remember that we have already improperly limited the problem to violence) is the product of a small number of “crazies” (remember Hillary Clinton’s 50,000) who have distorted Islam. I call this the “Peaceful Muslim Disclaimer” as virtually everyone in the press and government has been bullied into making some statement of the kind to silence those who will pressure them that they are “Islamophobic” and Islam is being attacked. (These are the Islam hustlers who operate on the same principles that black race hustlers so effectively used to extort concessions over the last six decades or so).

Nobody has done any real work to support this proposition, nor is it clear exactly how it would be tested. My view is that the grammar “Islam is x” is itself problematic because Islam has expressed itself throughout history in a variety of fashions. It is more useful to talk in terms of how seriously engaged with Islam, the Koran and other texts, a Muslim is. What is significant is how Muslims today are using Islam and most of those who are in power either throughout a large territory or within a small community tend toward, if not fully advocate, the very supremacist ideas that we try to tell ourselves are reserved for the few ”extremists.”  Presumably most Germans did not wish to see all Nazi atrocities carried out but in the end they fell in line because they had to. Those our politicians and press call the “extremists” are in one sense more accurately the “good” Muslims who are following their Islamic beliefs dutifully.

Read it all at Front Page

The OIC: Quietly Islamizing the West

imagesCA5SCGM8by Baron Bodissey

The of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the polite face of the Great Jihad. It represents the entire Islamic community, Sunni and Shi’ite, and acts as the political arm of the Ummah. It is in essence the nascent global Caliphate.

Professor Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu is the Secretary General of the OIC. He epitomizes those characteristics that Islam prefers to display to a gullible Western public. He is urbane, well-educated, soft-spoken, and eminently reasonable.

Below are excerpts of an interview in Arabic with Prof. İhsanoğlu. It took place in Jeddah in November 2012, and appeared on Saudi TV just after the U.S. elections. In it the professor discusses the OIC’s ten-year plan for eradicating the slander of Islam in Western countries, and presents the usual taqiyyah about what Islamic law actually means to women, dissidents, and non-Muslims.

Dr. İhsanoğlu also confirms what I have long contended in this space: the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood object to violent terrorist factions within Islam not because the objectives of those groups are wrong, but because they are counter-productive. Islamic violence against infidels tends to waken the kuffar from their slumber and arouse their resistance. Therefore, with an eye on the long-term goal, it is to be avoided.

The OIC believes it can accomplish the same end — the establishment of the World Caliphate — without detonating any bombs or slitting even a single infidel throat.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Some samples from the interview:

…the most important point here is that we have succeeded in the period since 2005 (the publishing of the Danish cartoons) succeeded internationally in that we issued reports from the Human Rights Council of the UN on how to deal with such issues… and these reports we have adopted in agreement with the US and European countries that were objecting to these reports.

…At this moment we have the resolution 16/18 which was issued last year at the UN which forms a legal groundwork for criminalising such actions that could lead to violence… there is in the international agreement for civil and political rights (year 1966 paragraph 18) A provision that would allow us to put limits on the misuse of freedom of speech including misuse of freedom of the press, freedom of thought, the misuse of these freedoms towards others, in a sense that it would encourage to violence and to hatred based on religious belief. We have these legal bases… bases that existed for some time and new bases that we developed and the international community accepts; all we are now missing is some steps that would allow enforcement of these laws.

And:

… there is indeed cooperation between us and the U.S. government, there is a cooperation with the Islamic Development Bank, and it is one of the OIC foundations… There is cooperation between us and the Bill Gates Foundation.

People who are preoccupied with what Obama does, or what Cameron does, or what Gillard does — or even with what Anjem Choudary and Imam Rauf do — are missing the center of the action. The most crucial components of the plan to Islamize the West were conceived in conferences and meetings within the OIC. They are being implemented continuously and quietly — and successfully.

For video and transcript go to Gates of Vienna

See also:

Threat to Free Speech (counterjihadreport.com)

A One-Sided Suicide Pact

By Edward Cline:

Soeren Kern, writing for the  Gatestone Institute in his November  16th article, “Islam Needs a  Fair Chance in Germany,” reported a significant development in Germany that  portends dire consequences for that benighted nation and for all of Europe: the  city of Hamburg signed a “treaty” with organizations representing its Islamic   population.

The “treaty” features a series of  concessions, not by the Muslims to secular  authority, but by the secular  government of Hamburg to the Muslims. The  “treaty,” which requires ratification  by the city’s Parliament, grants Muslims  “rights” and “privileges” enjoyed by no  other religious group there.

The November 13 agreement, signed  by Hamburg’s Socialist Mayor Olaf Scholz  and the leaders of four Muslim umbrella  groups, is being praised by the  proponents of multiculturalism for putting the  northern port city’s estimated  200,000 Muslims on an equal footing with  Christian residents….

The most controversial part of  the accord involves a commitment by the city  government to promote the teaching  of Islam in the Hamburg public school  system. The agreement grants the leaders  of Hamburg’s Muslim communities a  determinative say in what will be taught by  allowing them to develop the  teaching curriculum for Islamic studies.

Moreover, Muslim officials will  also be able to determine who will (and who  will not) be allowed to teach  courses about Islam in city schools. In practice,  this means that only Muslims  will be allowed to teach Islam and that pupils  will not be exposed to any  critical perspectives about the religious, social  and political ideology of  Islam.

Under the wide-ranging accord,  Muslims in Hamburg will also have the right  to take three Islamic holidays as  days off from work. Up until now, it has been  up to individual employers to  decide whether or not to grant Muslim staff  religious days off on a case-by-case  basis. In addition, Muslim students will  be exempt from attending school on  Muslim holidays.

The agreement also includes  provisions for the construction of more mosques  in Hamburg, the upkeep of  cultural Islamic facilities, the authorization for  Muslims to bury their dead  without the use of coffins, as well as the  counseling of patients and prison  inmates by Muslim clerics.

Moreover, the “treaty” will  guarantee “broadcast slots alongside Protestant  and Catholic broadcasts on  public and private radio and television, as well as  broadcasting council seats  for Muslims with the northern Germany NDR public  broadcaster and Germany’s  federal ZDF television channel.”

The German term for treaty,  vertag, occurs no less than five times  in the article. It occurs in the  document itself. In the article, the term agreement occurs  fifteen times. But the actual document  reads, in a loose English translation, “A Draft Treaty between the Islamic Community and the Municipal Authority of Hamburg.”

However, no matter how many times  the term agreementappears in the  article, a treaty is what the  agreement is. Islam is on a cultural or  civilizational jihad against the  West and all Western institutions.  So, what is a treaty? Is it a “truce” between  the secular authorities and the  religious Muslims? Is it a “non-aggression pact”  between two powers vying for  hegemony? Is it the granting to Muslims a “separate but equal” political status?

A treaty is commonly regarded as  an agreement between belligerent nations,  states, or governments. TheOxford  English Dictionary defines treaty as:

3a. A settlement or  arrangement arrived at by treating or  negotiation; an agreement, covenant,  compact, contract.

3b. spec. A  contract between two or more states, relating to  peace, truce, alliance,  commerce, or other international relation; also, the  document embodying such  contract, in modern usage formally signed by  plenipotentiaries appointed by the  government of each state.

A treaty between belligerents  indicates a cessation of hostilities between  the parties. The Hamburg treaty  implicitly acknowledges that its Muslim  “communities” are part and parcel of the  Islamic Ummah, or the  worldwide, global “community” of Islam. The treaty  has implicitly recognized  the Ummah as a state to “treat” or “negotiate”  with. So, the  “agreement” is called a “treaty.” The German government has not  been waging  cultural or political jihad against Muslims; it is Muslims,  especially those of  Turkish origin in Germany, who have been waging all sorts of  jihad against  non-Muslim Germans in the way of rape jihad, jihad against  freedom of speech, and jihad against Jews.

This is the situation in all European countries now, especially  in the western European nations of Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and  Finland. Across the Channel, Britain is succumbing to the same phenomena.

Out of a population of about 1.8  million in the city proper of Hamburg,  Muslims of various sects, including the  Alevi, a Turkish sect, constitute over  nine percent.

Again, I think it is significant  that this agreement is consistently called  a treaty. It acknowledges that  Islam has been at war with Western  culture, and will continue to be until the  “peace” of a global caliphate is  achieved. For the time being, in Hamburg, its  activists see a short-term gain  in minimizing or playing down their necessary  and constant hostility. In Islam,  this is an instance of Dar al-Ahd, or a  temporary truce. The  “treaty,” from the Muslim perspective,  is also necessarily an instance of what  could be called “Grand Taqiyya,”  or the Koranic sanctioning of lies and deceit when dealing with the enemy kaffirs and infidels, especially in their own countries.

But these “treaties” will turn  out to be nothing but “truces,” when a  movement is renewed to exact more  concessions from the Germans. Call these  “treaties” for what they are: fleeting  “non-aggression pacts,” with Islam being  the sole aggressor.  Regardless of the nature or content of these treaties, Germany will remain  Dar al-Harb, the land of the enemy, and Dar al-Kufr, or the  land  of the kaffirs or unbelievers. It is noteworthy that all the concessions  will be  paid by non-Muslim Germans as a form of jizya, or “protection”  tax.  Germans will not “retaliate” against Islamic aggression, for political   correctness will silence them for fear of being accused of racism or  bigotry.

Islam, however, is first and  foremost, from top to bottom, a totalitarian  ideology. Its doctrine requires  that Muslims and their spokesmen advocate  Islam’s own kind of racism and  bigotry.

Islam is a nihilist ideology, as  well. It is the enemy of all human values.  In exchange for submission to it, it  promises a paradise after death. Life on  earth is merely transitory and not  important. The Hamburg “treaty” is an  extension of that nihilism; it requires  its secular signers to aid and abet the  piecemeal annihilation of their  values and their culture. The  Islamists know what they are doing. Their secular  cosigners do not. It seems  the “right” thing to do, per a Kantian categorical  imperative to pursue an end  regardless of, but especially because of, its  selfless nature, in the name of  what Mayor Scholz called “the strengthening the  societal foundation” of  Hamburg.

Which is tantamount to injecting  the bubonic plague pathogen into a human  body in order to “strengthen an  individual’s well-being.”

Read more: Family Security Matters

Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in  England  and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and  suspense  novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all  available on  Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have  appeared in The  Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other  publications.  He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security  Matters,  Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.  

Hamburg signs historic deal with Muslims

The Local:

Hamburg authorities have signed a deal with the city’s Muslim community groups guaranteeing Islamic holidays, school religion lessons, and burial rights. It’s the first agreement of its kind in Germany.

“Something that should be taken for granted has gained a lot of attention,” Hamburg’s centre-left mayor Olaf Scholz said as he presented the new agreement on Tuesday. It is the first ever deal between a German state and its Muslim community, Scholz said – “a signal that we’re ready and willing to cooperate.”

The 11-page agreement, which still has to be approved by the city parliament, is meant to regulate religious freedoms, school lessons, burial rituals, and recognition of Germany’s constitution, the taz newspaper reported.

The deal, which has been in negotiations since 2007, was signed by the council of Islamic communities (Schura), the Turkish-Islamic Union (Ditib), the association of Islamic cultural centres (VIKZ), as well as the city’s Alevi community.

These community groups, representing the Hamburg’s 120,000 Muslims, have agreed to recognize the “basic values of constitutional order,” to reject “violence and discrimination based on origin, sexual orientation, and faith” and “religious and political viewpoints,” and to recognize “equality between genders.”

In exchange, Hamburg city authorities will declare Eid al-Adha (“Festival of Sacrifice”), Eid ul-Fitr (the end of Ramadan), and the Day of Ashura (“Day of Mourning”), officially recognised holidays.

Muslim and Alevi workers will be allowed to take these days off, and their children will be allowed to stay out of school if they wish – under the same conditions that Christians can take Church holidays such as the Day of Repentance off. This means they have the right to take the day off – either taking it as holiday or in return for another working day.

The deal also promises Islamic communities more say in how religious lessons in school are formed.

Similar deals were signed with the city’s Protestant and Catholic churches in 2005, and with the Jewish community in 2007.

Schura official Daniel Abdin described the agreement as “an important step towards the institutional recognition of Islam in Germany,” while Aziz Aslandemir of the Alevi community organization said, “We hope that this contract will be seen as a spark for other German states.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law

Center for Security Policy:

Over a decade following 9/11, MAJ Steve Coughlin was one of the U.S. governments most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic Law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe.

Through knowledge of published Islamic Law, MAJ Coughlin had a demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen.

He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for members of Congress.

Today he is Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

Join Our Protest of the Chicago Caliphate Conference

by Ryan Mauro

An Islamic extremist group called Hizb ut-Tahrir that opposes democracy and supports violent jihad, including the killing of U.S. soldiers, is coming to Rolling Meadows, Illinois on June 17. The conference, titled “Revolution: Liberation by Revelation–Muslims Marching Toward Victory” is about how Muslims must help resurrect the Caliphate and institute Sharia-based governance.

The event is to be held at the Meadows Club at 2950 W. Golf Rd from noon to 4:00 PM EST. If you wish to express your opinion to the Meadows Club, the business can be contacted at info@themeadowsclub.com or called at 847-640-3200. In 2010, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s annual conference at the Chicago Marriott Oak Brook hotel was canceled after the venue dropped the group’s reservation.

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HUT) was founded in 1953 in East Jerusalem when it was under the control of Jordan. It was begun by a former member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood named Sheikh Muhammad Taqiuddin al-Nabhani. He also worked with with Haj Amin al-Husseini, a cleric who is most famous for his close alliance with Hitler. HUT came to the U.S. in the early 1990s under a front called “Walnut,” or the Islamic Cultural Workshop. HUT now operates openly in the U.S.

Zeyno Baran, an expert on Islamist groups, calls HUT a “conveyor belt for terrorists.” Multiple members have been radicalized by its preaching, which gives Muslims every reason to become violent, and gone on to commit terrorism. Examples include Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

What makes the Meadows Club’s hosting of HUT especially outrageous is the fact that HUT is outwardly anti-American and jihadist. The promotional video for the conference features a clip of a protester in the Middle East declaring, “We are here to say that we want to reestablish an Islamic state with Sharia as the “only source of legislation.” This is followed by a clip of an Egyptian cleric preaching, “Oh Muslims! Rise up to aid and support the call for Khilafah [Caliphate] even if it is at the expense of your lives.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir says that it is non-violent, but the reality is more complicated. It does not engage in violent jihad as an organization but that doesn’t mean that it opposes violent jihad by its members on their own accord or by other groups. Its website explains:

“So whenever the disbelieving enemies attack an Islamic country it becomes compulsory on its Muslim citizens to repel the enemy. The Hizb ut-Tahrir in that country are part of the Muslims and it is obligatory upon them.to fight the enemy and repel them. Wherever there is a Muslim amir who declares jihad.the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir will respond in their capacity as Muslims in the country where the general call to arms was proclaimed.”

HUT’s Facebook page links to an article by “Hizb-ut-Tahrir Publications” about jihad. It opens with Quran 9:29: “Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day.until they pay the Jizya [a special tax for non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” Non-Islamist Muslims may have a passive interpretation of this passage’s meaning, but Hizb ut-Tahrir’s threatening interpretation is clear.

The author of the article fondly recalls the “days when the Islamic Ummah [the Muslim community] was an ummah of jihad” and how “the Jihad of the Muslims imprinted in the minds of the Europeans the notion that the army of Islam is invincible.” The power of the Muslim world has fallen because Muslims “relinquished jihad.”

The group has called for killing U.S. soldiers specifically. In January 2010, it accused the “U.S. crusaders” of massacring Afghan children and stated that it must “be answered by sharp swords of Muslim united armies under true Muslim leaders.” The invitation to an HUT conference in Denmark in January 2011 mentioned “the duty of armed resistance of the Muslims in Afghanistan and its environs. We consider this resistance as fully legitimate.” HUT has also published materials supporting jihad against U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq.

After the bombings in London in 2005, a top HUT official was asked to condemn them. His response was that he’d “condemn what happened in London only after there is a promise from Western leaders to condemn what they have done in Falluja and other parts of Iraq and in Afghanistan.” Its Facebook page has promoted an anti-democracy lecture by Anwar al-Awlaki, the Al-Qaeda leader who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

The vilest rhetoric is directed at Israel and Jews as a whole. A HUT document reads, “if the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel or for the Jews in it.” A HUT spokesman in Denmark distributed a leaflet that instructed Muslims to “kill them all [Jews], wherever you find them” and endorsed suicide bombings against Israel as acts of “martyrdom.”

After the Turkish flotilla incident in 2010, HUT’s branch in the U.S. supported violent retaliation. “There is no solution except to mobilize armies, gathering the capable soldiers and fight the Jews.” It criticized Pakistan and Iran for not attacking Israel. “O you possessors of the missiles that you boast can blow ‘Israel’ off the map, so where are you now, O Pakistan and Iran’s rulers?” it asked.

The Pakistani branch of HUT told the country’s military must “prepare nuclear bombs and other weapons for Jihad.fight under this command to annihilate Israel.” The Bangladeshi branch saidMuslims must “eradicate Israel and purify the earth of Jewish filth.”

HUT also supports violent jihad against India. In July 2011, the Pakistani HUT believes “The only way Kashmir can be liberated is through organized jihad under a state that mobilizes the armies.” Its journal from December 19995 said “Muslims need swords, not candles” in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. HUT leaders have also been videotaped endorsing jihad in Chechnya and Kashmir.

The group is openly hostile to Western secularism and democracy. It does not even pretend to believe in the system. A speaker during its last conference in the U.S. admitted that HUT would dismiss the Constitution entirely and replace it with Sharia Law. One past edition of its publication compared the Founding Fathers to “tyrant dictators.”

Read more at Stop Radical Islam

 

 

 

 

 

The Mosque as Mother

by NANCY HARTEVELT KOBRIN, PHD:

The Dome of Mosque of the 8th Shia Imam, Reza Our current  Salman Rushdie is the young courageous Iranian rapper Shahin Nafaji, now in  hiding in Germany who has received a death threat because he wrote lyrics to his  song Naqi. However, I contend it is the album cover, which broke the proverbial  camel’s back of the Mahdists. The cover depicts the dome of the mosque of the  8th Shia Imam as a female breast with a rainbow flag “a la sexual diversity” as  a thin impotent phallic minaret arising out of the nimple! A picture speaks a  thousand words.
In an interview by the BBC Shahin spoke about sex and Shia  Islam — “how transparent Islam is with regard to sexuality.”
What  exactly did he mean by “transparent”?  I take him to mean that a perverse  sexuality lurks below the surface of Mahdist culture, which hates the female.   The dome of the mosque is an unconscious representation of the female breast of  the nursing mother. This is the essence of a shame honor culture signifying that  there is maternal deprivation and paranoia. They go hand in hand. The little  girls and women are abused. With shame, comes blaming the other but hardly ever  the mother because the mother is the object to be protected by the little  humiliated,shamed boy who witnesses his mother being abused. The little boy  feels his mother to be an extension of himself. To see her hit, is for him to  feel her pain. He must protect her at all costs. Picture a frightened little boy  clinging hysterically to his mother’s skirt.
This same little boy  harbors an erotized rage that in many instances exceeds murder itself. It is not  just enough to murder; it must in order to redeem honor through blood violence. The hatred and violence is an erotized hatred – the intense hatred of the  female that is not satiated by merely murdering.
The Mahdist regime  is perpetually stuck in an infantile mode of shame, regressed to defending their  weak mothers who live their lives through them and they hate it. It is a vicious  cycle for which we pay the price as the rage is projected outwards in the vessel  of political violence and nuclear war. Remember too, that it was Shia’s  Hezbollah who initiated Islamic suicide truck bombing on a grand scale in  southern Lebanon in the early 1980s. It was readily adopted by Arab Muslim  cultures because they too are shame/honor. The mosque is their mother too.  Indeed this transparency of symbol and obsession for the mother can be sensed in  the word “Umma” meaning the Muslim community, which comes from the same root in  Arabic for ummi or “mommy”.
Read more: Family Security Matters

Dr. Nancy Kobrin, a psychoanalyst with a Ph.D. in romance and  semitic  languages, specializes in Aljamía and Old Spanish in Arabic script. She  is an  expert on the Minnesota Somali diaspora and a graduate of the Human  Terrain  System program at Leavenworth Kansas. Her new  book is The  Banality of  Suicide Terrorism: The Naked Truth About the Psychology of Islamic  Suicide  Bombing.