7 Moments from Trump’s Speech in Saudi Arabia

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in Saudi Arabia (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, May 22, 2017:

President Trump’s brazen speech in Saudi Arabia is being praised from (almost) all quarters. Its powerful moments will be remembered for years and will reverberate throughout the Middle East. But no speech is perfect.

Here are seven moments from the speech, starting with what may be the closest President Trump may come to having his “Tear Down This Wall” moment:

  1. It is a choice between two futures – and it is a choice America CANNOT make for you.
    A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.
     DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship.
    DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities.
    DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and
    DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH.
    This is strongest statement towards the Muslim world uttered by an American president since 9/11 and perhaps in history. These words—and the Trumpian delivery of them—will be remembered for years to come. While eloquent words favored by speechwriters and high-brow elites are usually forgotten, these won’t be.There are also two clear sub-messages: One, that the Muslim world is not adequately “driving them out,” meaning, the Islamists still thrive in mosques, holy lands (which would include Saudi Arabia) and Muslim communities. The enemy are not fringe, undetectable loners. Secondly, don’t outsource your responsibility for this to America.

    We won’t let you scapegoat us and have us respond by apologizing for the grievances you use to excuse yourself from responsibility. This is your problem: Own it.

  2. Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory – piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED. This is another strike in the ideological war where the Trumpian way of speaking is powerful, especially when you consider how accustomed the Middle East is to the softer diplomatic tone of the West in contrast to the fiery hyperbole that is common place in that part of the world.Trump recognized something crucial: The enemy believes it is pious and is impacted by religious teaching from authoritative figures. It’s not about anger over foreign policy or joblessness or lack of education. It’s about piety and a belief that dying in jihad is a guaranteed ticket to Paradise.
  3. That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews and the slaughter of Christians.

    Most of the speech used vague, relative terms like “terrorism” and “extremism.” The focus was almost entirely on ISIS and Iran. But then came this paragraph. President Trump identified the enemy not just as Islamist terrorist groups, but the Islamist extremism foundation necessary for those groups to manifest.Of special note is the line about “persecution of Jews.” This was not stated with some moral equivalence about how Israel shares blame for stifling the nationalist aspirations of Palestinians. No, Trump identified anti-Semitism as a central problem outside of the context of Israel. That omission is powerful.The identification of the enemy as Islamist extremism is refreshing, but as Dr. Daniel Pipes points out, “one statement does not a policy make.” Even Obama uttered the word “jihadist” on a few rare occasions.

    The framing of the enemy as Islamism should have been the focal point of the speech, rather than waiting until the middle and the end to use the term. What should have followed was a strategy, with the sticks and carrots, to uproot the sustainers of the ideology so it dissipates into history. A question is left hanging, “Now what? What changes?”

  4. The true toll of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and so many others must be counted not only in the number of dead. It must also be counted in generations of vanished dreams.

    The inclusion of Hamas and Hezbollah in this section is very significant. It wasn’t a call for Hamas and Hezbollah to drop terrorism to achieve their goals, as if they are freedom fighters gone astray.The argument wasn’t that their actions are counterproductive: It was that their very existence has sabotaged a potentially promising future from the people of the Middle East—not just Palestinians and Lebanese, but everyone. Again he framed the issue not as a consequence of Israel, thus negating claims of Hamas and Hezbollah of being “liberation” movements.

  5. The birthplace of civilization is waiting to begin a new renaissance. Just imagine what tomorrow could bring.This is a call for a reformation into modernity (as opposed to the “reformation” offered by the Islamist movements). President Obama acknowledged this necessity—but he did it in an interview, not in a historical speech to the Muslim world from Saudi Arabia.Ideally, Trump would have given a little more time to describe what is holding back this renaissance beyond a generic attribution to “extremism.” He should have taken a queue from Egyptian President El-Sisi and consulted with progressive Muslim reformers.

    Trump called for “gradual change,” but failed to mention freedom, even gradually-granted freedom. His team likely worried that the mention of freedom would be interpreted as a synonym for democracy promotion, but caveats could have addressed that. This renaissance and rolling back of Islamism will require greater political and religious freedom, and acknowledging so does not make one an advocate of hasty destabilizations.

  6. Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.President Obama’s attitude towards Iran unnerved our Sunni Arab partners in the region. The heavy focus on Iran should help address that, but the fixation on the Iranian regime seemed to echo the Saudi line that Iran is responsible for practically all of the terrorism and extremism in the region. This let the Sunni side of radical Islam get off easy.The statement about hoping for a better government for the Iranian people is positive, as it at least welcomes regime change.However, it does not signal an American commitment to regime change in Iran or even regime destabilization. President Trump’s opposition to regime change is clear. To the ears of skeptical Iranians seeking freedom, this will sound like another investment in the hope that the Iranian  “moderates” in the regime can slowly gain support in the theocratic system.
  7. The Sunni governments got off easy.If you listened to the Saudi king’s speech before Trump’s—where he said sharia protects innocent life and promotes peace and tolerance [basically engaging in dawa (proselytizing) to the world] — you’d see that he was one small step from declaring an American-Sunni jihad on Iran. It gave the impression that the Saudis saw the words of the speech as relating to ISIS and Iran alone, not holding them accountable.Based on the way Trump talked about the Saudis, you would have thought they were modern day Minutemen in need of a motivational speech. I shared Dr. Daniel Pipes’ reaction of “gagging” at the praise he gave to King Salman, who is known to have directly financed jihadists.The massive sale of arms to the Saudis was described as “blessed,” as if God’s hand had arranged and approved of the transfer. The Saudis’ opening of a Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology was praised as “groundbreaking,” even though we’ve heard this story over and over and have no details with which to judge it as “groundbreaking” or not. At this point, it’s more like the wolf guarding the hen house.Qatar and Kuwait, two major financiers of Islamist terrorism and extremism, were praised shortly before Trump praised the Gulf Cooperation Council for blocking terror-financing.

Overall, the speech had tremendous moments, with important subtleties that are important to notice. But the speech was not a launch of an ideological war against Islamism. While it was a great call to action, it was not a plan of action. If this speech is to produce concrete results, the declaration of a bold plan of action must soon follow.

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s Shillman Fellow and national security analyst and an adjunct professor of counter-terrorism. He is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. To invite Ryan to speak, please contact us.

Trump in Saudi Arabia: Fight ‘Islamic Terror’ & ‘Drive Them Out’

President Donald Trump delivers a speech to the Arab Islamic American Summit, at the King Abdulaziz Conference Center, Sunday, May 21, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, May 21, 2017:

President Donald Trump delivered the first major foreign policy speech of his tenure Sunday evening in Riyadh, discussing his vision for how America should conduct its international affairs.

America will engage with the world through the lens of a “Principled Realism,” Trump explained, “rooted in common values and shared interests.”

The president delivered on a crucial campaign promise to identify the global jihadist movement as one of the key threats to world stability. Speaking in Saudi Arabia, in front of the leaders of dozens of Muslim nations, Trump called upon the world to “drive out” the “Islamic terror” movements that persist within their countries.

“The true toll of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead. It must also be counted in generations of vanished dreams,” he proclaimed.

In labeling the enemies of world order as “Islamic” terrorists, he diverted from a final prepared transcript of the finished speech that referenced “Islamist” terrorists. The departure is significant. Defining the enemy as “Islamic” signals a call for reform within the religion, while labeling the enemy as “Islamist” refers to a violent supremacist political ideology.

The president demanded that leaders confront “the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamist and Islamic terror of all kinds.”

“And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians,” he added.

Delivering an impassioned plea to his counterparts in the Muslim world, he argued that “a better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists.”

“Drive. Them. Out!” the president exclaimed. “Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land, and drive them out of this earth.

Marking a departure from the Obama administration’s coziness with Iran, Trump highlighted the threat posed by the Iranian regime and its proxies in Lebanese Hezbollah and the Houthis of Yemen. He called on American allies to isolate the Iranian regime and stop it in its quest for global dominance.

“From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror,” President Trump said. “It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.”

The president called upon “nations of conscience”  to “work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.”

Trump will wrap up his visit to Saudi Arabia this evening and depart for Israel, where he will spend the next two days.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

Also see:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Trump must tackle Saudi fanaticism when he’s in Riyadh

Fox News, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, May 19, 2017:

As he leaves behind a maelstrom of domestic political troubles, President Trump must be one of the few people in the world who goes to the Middle East for some peace. However, the region badly needs some of Trump’s characteristic disruption.

On Saturday and Sunday, the president will meet Saudi leaders in Riyadh. The Saudis have organized a sprawling “Arab Islamic American Summit” around Trump’s visit, with leaders from dozens of Muslim countries visiting. No doubt his hosts will want Mr. Trump to focus on strategic issues, in particular the threat to them and other Sunni states posed by Iran. Yet he should resist the temptation to read from Riyadh’s script.

For decades, there has been bipartisan concern in America about Saudi Arabia’s role in disseminating radical Islamist ideology around the world.

After the initial shock of the 9/11 attacks, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) investigated the risks posed by Wahhabi ideology in the United States. Hearings uncovered a serious problem, but the Bush administration opted to focus on acts of violence, not the ideology underlying the violence.

President Obama’s former representative to Muslim communities, Farah Pandith, visited eighty countries between 2009 and 2014.

“In each place I visited, the Wahhabi influence was an insidious presence . . . funding all this was Saudi money, which paid for things like the textbooks, mosques, TV stations and the training of Imams,” she wrote in 2015.

Just last year, Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), stated that thousands of schools in Pakistan funded with Saudi money, “teach a version of Islam that leads . . . into an . . . anti-Western militancy.” Yet Obama, like Bush, did little to counter these Saudi efforts, despite their obviously harmful effects around the world.

Americans elected Donald Trump because they wanted to shake things up, and not only in Washington, D.C. When he is in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Trump should shake things up by publicly raising three issues:

1. Salafi Wahhabi ideology

In the 18th century, a desert warrior named Ibn Saud formed an alliance with a Hanbali religious reformer, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab. Saud wanted power. Wahhab aimed to return to Islam’s “pure” early history. The two decided to join forces.

In modern times, Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabist clergy has been given an effective monopoly over education and religious instruction in the Kingdom, while the royal family has run economics and foreign policy.

The problem is that Wahhabi Islam is highly discriminatory towards women, non-Muslims and religious reformers.

It fosters radical Islamic indoctrination (dawa) which lends itself easily to violent jihad. This is what Saudi’s Grand Mufti, ibn Baz, argued in an English-language book in 1998:

The aim of dawa and jihad is not to shed blood, take wealth, or enslave women and children; these things happen incidentally but are not the aim. This only takes place when the disbelievers (non-Muslims) refrain from accepting the truth and persist in disbelief and refuse to be subdued and pay the jizya [the tax levied on free non-Muslims living under Muslim rule] when it is requested from them. In this case, Allah has prescribed the Muslims to kill them, take their wealth as booty and enslave their women and children . . . this religion (Islam) . . . is superior to every law and system.

2. The funding of dawa, the ideology of radical Islam

From 1973 through 2002, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia spent an estimated $87 billion to promote dawa efforts abroad.  Some of this money landed in the United States: Saudi Arabia helped finance at least 16 Islamic and cultural centers in California, Missouri, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Virginia and Maryland.

A study by Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom in 2005 found that “Saudi-connected resources and publications on extremist ideology remain common reading and educational material in some of America’s main mosques . . . including Los Angeles, Oakland, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Washington, and New York.”  The publications contained anti-American, anti-Semitic, and jihadist ideology, and advocated removing women from the public sphere entirely. Since 2005, a number of overtly hateful materials have been removed from American mosques, but as of 2017 the ideological infrastructure of political Islam in America remains largely intact.

The Saudis also continue to influence America’s top universities. In 2005, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud donated $20 million to Harvard and another $20 million to Georgetown to advance Islamic Studies. Georgetown created “the Bridge Initiative against Islamophobia”. Increasingly, that word “Islamophobia” is used to silence anyone, even Muslim reformers, who dare ask critical questions about radical Islam.

President Trump must make it clear that this type of funding of dawa in the United States must stop immediately—including contributions from Saudi NGOs and private individuals who support radical ideology within the United States.

3. The imams or the agents that are trained and funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and others

Saudi Arabia has played a harmful role by indoctrinating Muslim clerics from around the world at Wahhabist institutions such as the University of Medina.

Many Western citizens are concerned about the human rights abuses committed by the radical group Boko Haram, including the kidnapping of Nigerian schoolgirls. But how did radical Islam establish itself in Africa’s most populous state? The answer is: Saudi Arabia.

According to one recent study, the spread of Islamic extremism in northern Nigeria began “with graduates of the Islamic University of Medina who returned home in the 1990s and 2000s.” Although the founder of Boko Haram, Muhammad Yusuf, was not himself a Medina graduate, he was a protege of Shaykh Ja’far Mahmud Adam, who had studied at Medina.

It happened here, too. Warith Deen Umar was for two decades the top imam in New York’s prison system. With help from the Saudi government, Umar traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned to indoctrinate to New York’s expanding ranks of Muslim prisoners with Wahhabism. Umar ministered to thousands of inmates and training dozens of chaplains. Yet this was the man who in 2003 told the Wall Street Journal that the 9/11 hijackers should be “honored as martyrs”.

For decades, to be sure, American officials have raised these concerns with the Saudis, but only privately. The Saudis usually promise some improvement, which never materializes. Almost inevitably, short-term military considerations lead us to drop these concerns.

After 9/11, the U.S. even accepted the Saudi demand not to associate Islamic terrorism with Islam itself—hence the endless repetition of the empty phrase that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

The result is a worldwide epidemic. Saudi Salafi-Wahhabi Islam can now be found in all corners of the world, destabilizing Pakistan, the horn of Africa, Nigeria, and even Indonesia.

More than 15 years after 9/11, it is now time to do things our way.

During his election campaign, Donald Trump pulled no punches on the issue of Islamic extremism. He pledged to “eradicate radical Islamic terrorism completely from the face of the earth.”

Former Muslims like me dared to hope that an American president might finally get serious by tackling not only terrorism but also the wells of extremist ideology from which terrorists drink long before they commit acts of violence.

Yet for Mr. Trump, eager to seek a political “success” story after weeks of White House turmoil and negative media coverage, the old path of least resistance must now look tempting. No doubt he is being advised to raise the three issues I have described above only privately, if at all. No doubt he is being urged to focus on military cooperation, like his predecessors.

But if Mr. Trump does not follow through on this promise to tackle radical Islamic ideology at the root, he will be passing up an historic opportunity.

The world has suffered for too long from Saudi Arabia’s toxic ideological exports.

The Kingdom’s young reforming leader is not the first Saudi prince to ask for American help. This time, Donald Trump should ask for something meaningful in return.

Now is not the time, and Saudi Arabia is definitely not the place, for the most disruptive president of modern times to dial it down.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is founder of the AHA Foundation, which exists to protect women and girls from abuses of the sort described in this article. She is also a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford.

How to Prepare for a ‘Meet Your Muslim Neighbors’ Event

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn speaks during an open day at Finsbury Park Mosque in North London. Visit My Mosque Day, London, UK – 05 Feb 2017 On Visit My Mosque Day over 150 mosques around the UK open their doors to the public, offering a better understanding of religion in effort to counter rising Islamophobia. (Rex Features via AP Images)

PJ Media, by Hugh Fitzgerald, May 19, 2017:

Have you visited a mosque lately?

“Meet Your Muslim Neighbors,” “Ask A Muslim,” “Coffee, Cake, and Islam.” These are some of the welcoming names for these events you may have seen advertised recently, events at which local imams and other Muslims promise to tell visitors “the truth about our faith.”

These events are highly scripted — and highly predictable. What they actually deliver: a well-practiced lecture that sanitizes Islam, confirming the rose-colored, politically correct concept of the religion that dominates the political Left.

The event ordinarily begins with a fulsome welcome. The Muslim hosts mention being thrilled that so many have come out to “meet your Muslim neighbors” because “so many of you, I know, want to learn more about our faith.” Most importantly, “you are probably confused by all the stories in the media, so we thought we’d try to set the record straight. For there can be no better way to learn about Islam than by meeting Muslims themselves to tell you what it’s all about.” Then a short lecture is given, with a Q and A afterwards. And — an important part of the charm offensive — generally some amazing Middle Eastern food is laid out to end the evening, leaving everyone sated and content.

The lecture generally begins with the declaration by the hosts that “Islam means peace,” and this is flatly false. Any Arabic speaker would know that Islam means “submission.”

But who would be impolite enough to take issue with a welcoming Muslim telling you that he believes Islam means peace? Probably, some guests may think there’s room for doubt in translation, but in any case, why would they cause a fuss already when they are all trying to get along?

Then it’s on to the Five Pillars of Islam, which are always given pride of place: the Shahada (profession of faith); Salat (the five canonical prayers); Zakat (the required charitable giving); Sawm (the fasting at Ramadan); and Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca that a believer should make, if he can afford it, at least once in his life).

The list is winningly exotic, great fun for the guests to take notes on — oh, but there’s no need, they’ve been given a sheet that lists all five and their supposedly authoritative definitions — and memorize. The Five Pillars may seem comforting, too, because they do sound familiar to Judeo-Christian guests: a profession of faith, prayers, fasting, charitable giving, pilgrimage.

Yet these presentations never inform the audience that the Five Pillars are not shared elements of the Abrahamic religions, but in fact radical departures.

For example: Salat, the five daily prayers, include the repeated recitation — 17 times a day — of a phrase condemning Jews and Christians from the Fatiha, the first sura of the Qur’an. The last two verses of the Fatiha ask Allah:

Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn thine anger nor of those who go astray.

According to virtually all Muslim Qur’anic commentary, including that deemed most authoritative both today and throughout Islamic history, those who “earn thine anger” are the Jews, and those who “go astray” are the Christians. These descriptions of the Jews and Christians appear elsewhere throughout the Qur’an, removing any doubt. In both cases they are to be avoided by Muslims; they are cursed people.

But what Muslim host will admit “we curse the infidels 17 times a day”? And what infidel guest who attends such an event will know enough about the Fatiha to ask about the matter?

Similarly, Zakat is described as the charitable giving required of Muslims, and this certainly puts Muslims in a good light. But what will not be explained is that charity is to be given only to fellow Muslims. These may include recent converts to Islam who may be wavering, and need a kind of bribe, in the form of zakat, to guarantee their continued allegiance. The infidel guests at these events will not be told any of this, and again, likely would not know to ask.

Then it’s on to the Qu’ran. The hosts will explain that “Muslims believe the Qur’an is the immutable word of God.” The “suras,” these are “our chapters,” and some of the titles of the 114 suras will be given — “The Cow,” “The Bee, “The Ornaments of Gold,” “The Small Kindness” — to amuse the infidel guests. It’s all so new and exotic! The Muslim hosts may mention that “just as you have Bible competitions, we have Qur’an competitions to see who has memorized all of the Qur’an; we call such a person a hafiz. We have contests to see who can recite the Qur’an most beautifully.” Continuing in this insubstantial vein, they may explain why Muslims treat the physical Qur’an with such respect. And why Muslims should ideally read the Qur’an in Arabic; how beautiful it sounds to those who know the language.

A lot of time is being used up, and the guests are under the illusion they are learning something of substance. They are not.

On to the Qur’an itself: Whatever other verses the Muslim hosts may choose to discuss, two that are almost certain to be mentioned are 2:256 and 5:32. Qur’an 2:256 states:

There is no compulsion in religion.

This seems unambiguous. But if we know just a little about Islam, which our Muslim hosts hope we do not, we may be aware that the penalty for apostasy in Islam is death. Could there be a more severe kind of “compulsion in religion”?

If we also know about the treatment of the dhimmi — a word that will never be brought up by the Muslim hosts — we will have a still more skeptical view of 2:256. An unbeliever has only three choices in a Muslim state, according to the Qur’an: to convert to Islam, to be killed, or to endure life as a dhimmi by paying a heavy tax called the jizyah and submitting to many other humiliations. This is, of course, as severe as “compulsion” gets. But most infidels would simply take Qur’an 2:256 at face value during these events.

The second verse that is certain to be quoted is 5:32:

[W]hoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

Well, that sounds like proof the “real,” peaceful Islam we’ve all been hearing about. But the Muslim hosts never get around to reading the very next sentence, 5:33, because all of this hinges on the word “innocent”:

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after  corruption in the land  will be  that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.

Who “makes war upon Allah and His messenger”? Why, the infidels, of course. But who among the guests at these Meet-Your-Muslim-Neighbor nights will know enough to question this deceptive matter of quoting 5:32 without 5:33?

Just as there are a handful of verses sure to be quoted, there will be others left carefully alone. No Muslim at these Meet-Your-Muslim-Neighbor affairs wants you to know about Qur’an 9:29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (the Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Nor will they want you to know about Qur’an 9:5:

Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

There are more than 100 other Jihad verses, similarly blood-curdling, including several that command believers to “strike terror” into the hearts of non-believers, which will also be left carefully unremarked.

And that’s not all that will be left out. What about Muhammad, the Perfect Man? What Muslim at these affairs will willingly discuss little Aisha, whom Muhammad married (and consummated the marriage) when she was nine and he was in his 50s? What Muslim will talk about how Muhammad had certain people who had mocked him assassinated (Asma bint Marwan, Abu ‘Afak, Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf)? What Muslim will want to talk about Muhammad as a slave-owner?

What Muslim will discuss Muhammad’s ordering and participating in the slaughter of 600-900 prisoners of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe?

What Muslim will talk about Muhammad’s raid on the Khaybar oasis, where he seized Safiyya after having killed her husband, father, and other relatives, and “married” her?

What Muslim will want to discuss Kinana, a Jewish man from Khaybar, tortured gruesomely on Muhammad’s express orders just to extract information about hidden treasure?

What Muslim would want to explain, given all that, that Muslims consider Muhammad to be “the Perfect Man” (al-insan al-kamil) and the “Model of Conduct” (uswa hasana)?

By all means, go to these events. Shunning them simply leaves the floor wide open for Muslim apologists and propagandists. You have a duty to inform your fellow infidels about all these misrepresentations and evasions.

Go prepared: learn about the Fatiha’s kuffar-cursing, about zakat, about the two Qur’anic verses you will definitely be force-fed, and about the “Jihad” verses that will be deliberately kept from you. Bring a dozen of the most disturbing verses on notecards, ready to be rattled off. Know the more piquant details of Muhammad’s life, beginning with little Aisha, that suggest Muhammad was not a “Model of Conduct.” Ask your host to comment on Aisha, or Asma bint Marwan, or the Banu Qurayza. Ask, as innocently as you can, why Qur’an 98:6 describes infidels as ‘the vilest of creatures.”

You can help undermine the meretricious farce of these Meet-Your-Muslim affairs. Even a little learning about the Qur’an and Muhammad can be, if you are rightly guided, a dangerous thing for your hosts and a service for your community.

Islamist Who Lobbied Congress Lauds Brotherhood Luminary

Ayat Oraby

IPT, by John Rossomando  •  May 18, 2017:

One of the Muslim Brotherhood supporters who recently tried to lobby Congress to cut off aid to Egypt’s military regime is lauding an Islamist ideological architect who inspired Osama bin Laden‘s thinking.

Ayat Orabi joined the Egyptian Americans for Freedom and Justice (EAFJ) Capitol Hill lobbying mission earlier this month. In a Facebook post Tuesday, she calls Sayyid Qutb a martyr and “the most knowledgeable master of intellectual output in the history of modern Islamic movements.”

It’s consistent with Orabi’s previous radical statements. She claimed last September that Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority had declared “war on Islam,” a message that often incites violence.

Qutb taught that the Muslim world had degenerated into a state of apostasy that he called jahiliyyah, and that insufficiently Islamic regimes should be violently replaced. His manifesto Milestones advocates using jihad of the sword to clear the way for Islamic preaching. He also denounced Muslims who taught that jihad could only be used defensively as “defeatists” in his commentary, In the Shade of the Quran.

“As for those who are in a land hostile to Islam, neither their lives nor their properties are protected unless they have concluded a peace treaty with the land of Islam,” Qutb wrote.

Qutb is often praised by other EAFJ leaders. President Hani Elkadi, for example, posted an Internet meme emblazoned with Qutb’s picture on his Facebook page in 2015.

“There has to be a sacrifice, There has to be a calamity, We must be tested, Because cheap victory does not last … and no one is capable ‘to carry it’ except the mighty—Giant of Islamic thought, the martyr: Sayyid Qutb,” the post said.

EAFJ spokesman Mahmoud El Sharkawy cited Qutb later in 2015, invoking In the Shade of the Qur’an. It reads: “The banner of Allah is still there awaiting the arms that will raise it and the nation which under this banner will advance towards righteousness, guidance and success. #Sayyid Qutb #In the Shade of the Quran.”

Other American Islamists laud Qutb or see him as a role model.

“Curious u feel qutb extreme how exactly / do u mean it was his ideas=extreme?” former Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council member Mohamed Elibiary asked on Twitter in 2013.

Ahmed Rehab, executive director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Chicago listed Qutb next to Malcolm X as his two favorite modern personalities on his personal website. “(martyred for what they stood for, same year!)” Rehab wrote.

Milestones is included in a recommended reading list by the Islamic Circle of North America’s Southern California chapter.

It’s clear that Qutb’s influence continues in so-called “mainstream” American Muslim groups, not just among violent jihadis.

American Islam’s Most Extreme Conference

IPT, by Samuel Westrop, May 18, 2017:

  • Islamists, forming inherently political movements, insist to policy-makers and the media that Islam is homogenous and that their Islamist organizations speak on behalf of all Muslims, despite their clear lack of any mandate.
  • Politicians and journalists — by speaking at Islamist conferences, or treating the Muslim community as a homogenous bloc represented by self-appointed groups such as MAS or ICNA — actually serve to legitimize extremist Islamist leadership.
  • Now it falls to national and state governments to stop working with Islamists, and to support genuinely moderate Muslims instead.

Last month, Keith Ellison’s name disappeared from a list of speakers at one of the largest conferences in the Muslim calendar. The annual event, which took place in Baltimore from April 14-16, was organized by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS).

In December 2016, Ellison also withdrew from the convention’s sister-conference, the “MAS-ICNA conference,” after reports about extreme clerics sharing the stage.

April’s conference was no different. Speakers included Siraj Wahhaj, an imam who addresses Muslim events across the country every week, and is a former advisory board member of the Council on American Islamic Relations. Wahhaj has preached:

“I don’t believe any of you are homosexual. This is a disease of this society. … you know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to, kill them both.”

Elsewhere, Wahhaj cites the death penalty for adultery, advocates chopping off the hands of thieves, and tells Muslims:

“Take not into your intimacy those outside of your race. They will not fail to corrupt you. Don’t you know our children are surrounded by kafirs [disbelievers]. I’m telling you, making the hearts of our children corrupt, dirty, foul.”

Other listed speakers included Abdul Nasir Jangda, who advocates sex-slavery and gives husbands permission to rape their wives; Suleiman Hani, who claims that “Freedom of speech is a facade” used to stifle “objective discussion” of the “Holocaust and Jews”; Mohammad Elshinawy, who claims that women who fail to wear the hijab will contract breast cancer; and Yasir Qadhi, whose violent homophobia was recently the subject of an investigative report by The Times.

Such extremism is not confined to the speakers. The organizing bodies, MAS and ICNA, are not ordinary Muslim organizations, but Islamist groups with long-standing ties to extremism at home and abroad. Senior MAS-ICNA official Ahmed Taha, the organizer of the December conference, is a strident anti-Semite. He published a text on social media that states, “O Muslim, O servant of God. There is a Jew behind me, come kill him.”

MAS was founded in 1993 by operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, while ICNA has identified itself as an American front for Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), a South Asian Islamist group that Bangladeshi officials have linked to terrorism. One of the other listed speakers at the ICNA-MAS conference was, in fact, Yusuf Islahi, a member of the Central Advisory Council of the Indian branch of Jamaat-e-Islami. According to the academic Irfan Ahmad, Islahi claims that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks, as part of a conspiracy to defame Islam.

As America finds itself increasingly exposed to the homegrown Islamist terror that has, in recent years, increasingly gripped Western Europe, politicians and law enforcement are starting to ask how Muslim communities have come to be represented by such extremist groups.

Part of the answer lies in the make-up of Islam. Sunni Islam has no organized clergy. There is no equivalent of a Pope. Instead, Islam is divided into dozens of fractious political and religious sects, which no single person or organization can represent. But Islamists, forming inherently political movements, insist to policy-makers and the media that Islam is homogenous and that their Islamist organizations speak on behalf of all Muslims, despite their clear lack of any mandate.

Non-Muslims either do not know any better, or else are seeking votes. Neither reason helps anyone but the extremists. Politicians and journalists — by speaking at Islamist conferences, or treating the Muslim community as a homogenous bloc represented by self-appointed groups such as MAS or ICNA — actually serve to legitimize extremist Islamist leadership.

Ellison made a sensible choice to not attend the ICNA-MAS conference. It is a decision that can only help his political ambitions. Allegations of anti-Semitism made against Ellison during the DNC chairmanship race, whether warranted or not, would likely not be put to bed by standing on a stage next to such preachers.

By withdrawing from the ICNA-MAS conference, as DNC vice-chairman, Ellison also avoided lasting harm to the Democratic Party. This is progress. Now it falls to national and state governments to stop working with Islamists, and to support genuinely moderate Muslims instead.

DNC vice-chairman Keith Ellison’s name disappeared from a list of speakers at one of the largest conferences in the Muslim calendar, after reports about extreme clerics sharing the stage. (Image source: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Samuel Westrop is the Director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

America’s Islam Trance

David Kupelian on why Muslim religion is growing rapidly in world’s most Christian nation

WND, by David Kupelian, May 14, 2017:

It’s not that unusual for an Islamic society.

After all, the usual features are all on display – the Muslim call to prayer, the teaching of Islam in the nation’s schools to the exclusion of other religions, preferential treatment afforded Muslims by government and the courts, news coverage reflexively portraying Islam in a positive light, the rapid growth in mosque construction – and also the disturbing cultural phenomena of female genital mutilation, “honor killings” and so on.

Except this is not Saudi Arabia or Egypt we’re talking about, or any of the world’s approximately 50 Muslim-majority countries.

This is the United States of America. Not America as it might be one day if current trends continue, but as it is right now – today.

That’s right. While North Korea threatens to nuke the U.S. mainland, while the left (including most of the media) continues its infantile post-election meltdown into madness, while President Trump endeavors to remedy the torrent of national and international problems unleashed by his predecessor Barack Obama – beneath the radar and largely out of view, America is inexorably becoming ever more Islamized.

While a few brave souls have been sounding the alarm over the progressive inroads Shariah Islam is making into American culture, schoolscolleges, religion, medicinelaw, government and even the military, perhaps the most important question that needs to be addressed at this point is, why?

Why, when Judeo-Christian America has been hands-down the most successful nation in history – indeed why, when Americans are blessed with a crystal ball called Europe in which they can clearly see the disastrous future awaiting a once-Christian civilization that recklessly embraces Islamic expansionism – would we continue down the same suicidal path that has led to Europe’s virtual suicide?

There are several reasons, some obvious, some less so.

Let’s start with the obvious: Power-mad Beltway Democrats’ obsession with importing multitudes of voters in hopes of attaining a “permanent progressive voting majority,” since statistically the vast majority of Muslims in America vote Democrat. Big business’s selfish desire for cheap immigrant labor. Liberal-left Christians’ naive compulsion to “welcome” Muslim “refugees,” not simply to help the needy and downtrodden, but to prove to others – and to themselves – that they are good people and not “racists,” “Islamophobes” or “xenophobes.” And of course, Muslim Brotherhood-front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ go-to tactic of exploiting America’s expansive First Amendment religious freedom protections to aggressively advance their Shariah-supremacist agenda.

But there are other not-so-obvious, but ultimately more fundamental, reasons America is bending over backward to welcome the growth and influence of an ideology openly dedicated to dominating us.

To understand the forces truly at work here, we need to focus for a few moments on the most basic, core, bottom-line issues of life: Unlike previous generations of Americans who grew up under the strong moral umbrella of Judeo-Christian values, tens of millions of today’s Americans – and indeed virtually the entirety of our nation’s elites – have essentially abandoned the biblical understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, morality and immorality, life and death that served for millennia as the moral foundation of Western Civilization.

Let’s get specific: What we cryptically call “the left” – which for the last two to three generations has shaped American life, politics, culture and government – simply cannot operate without violating all of the Ten Commandments. Replacing Americans’ traditional Judeo-Christian reverence for life and higher law is the left’s substitute religion, which violates God’s commandments even as it celebrates its false gods of “reproductive rights” (“Thou shalt not kill”), “sexual freedom” (“Thou shalt not commit adultery”), “wealth redistribution” (“Thou shalt not steal”) and so on. Moreover, as I document in “The Snapping of the American Mind,” because of this rebellion against reality, the left has succeeded, whether intentionally or not, in pushing millions of decent Americans right over the edge into widespread dependency, debauchery, family breakdown, crime, corruption, addiction, despair and suicide.

This inversion of Americans’ traditional core values, which causes us, for example, to glorify and celebrate immorality, perversion and mental illness (like troubled people amputating healthy body parts and pretending to be the opposite sex) while reviling and punishing virtue (like the Christian county clerk jailed for conscientiously objecting to signing a marriage license for two homosexuals) is the same inversion of values that inspires us to enthusiastically import into our country as many people as possible who are steeped in a religious and political ideology dedicated to crushing our own.

It’s as though we’re living in a hypnotic trance, in a dream state, wherein we are moving in slow motion toward certain destruction. A few of us see the danger and shout warnings, but to no avail. No one seems to hear us, or else if they do hear they don’t comprehend the peril and instead attack us and call us terrible names – or worse.

Bizarre alliance

Let’s take a closer look now at the bizarre alliance between two seemingly incompatible utopian ideologies – the progressive left and expansionist Islam – currently undermining America at every turn. After all, those on the Democratic left are continually defending, excusing and running interference for Islamic supremacists in America, not to mention “welcoming” into our country thousands of Muslims from the most radicalized regions on earth. Why would they do that?

The alliance between the left and Islam can best be explained by the overarching reality that both share a common enemy, Christianity. Thus does the left warmly sidle up to Islam, which, truth be known, were it in charge would destroy the left, throwing members of some of the left’s main constituent groups off buildings or hanging or stoning or otherwise executing or enslaving them.

Both since the Marxist left and Shariah Islam both detest and fear Christian civilization more than each other, they therefore are natural, albeit temporary, allies in their shared aim to defeat a common enemy. (After all, America temporarily allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler.)

Andrew C. McCarthy is the former federal prosecutor who convicted the notorious “blind sheikh” and other jihadists for waging a terror war against America, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He explores the strange alliance between Islam and the left in his 2010 book, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.”

Zeroing in on the disturbingly symbolic yet pregnant-with-meaning spectacle of President Barack Obama scandalously bowing waist-deep to Saudi dictator King Abdullah bin Abdul Azziz, McCarthy asks the obvious: Why would the leader of the free world grovel before a corrupt Muslim potentate?

“Because,” writes McCarthy, “Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islam. More specifically, it is the bottomless purse and symbolic crown of a movement which aims at nothing less than supplanting Western political, economic and cultural values. The subversion of those values is Obama’s fondest wish: the work of his presidency, the Hope behind the Change. The president was bowing to a shared dream.”

Setting aside as equally irrelevant both Obama’s Muslim affiliation as a youth in Indonesia and his professed Christianity as an adult, McCarthy observes: “The faith to which Obama actually clings is neocommunism. It is a leftism of the most insidious kind: secular and uncompromising in its rejection of bourgeois values, but feverishly spiritual in its zeal to tear down the existing order, under the banner of its all-purpose rally-cry: ‘social justice.’

“Neocommunists need not adhere to a formal religion,” explains McCarthy. “Instead, they tend to infuse causes like environmentalism, privacy and secularism with religious fervor. For most leftists, though, religion is a useful tool. It is never a straitjacket because neocommunists consider themselves no more bound by the strictures of creed than by the constraints of tradition.”

Still, one wonders, how could the left’s consuming utopian obsessions possibly mesh with the equally uncompromising demands of Shariah Islam, bent on world domination for 14 centuries? The former federal prosecutor of terrorists explains the strange dynamics allowing this alliance:

Nihilism is the key. Today’s hard left is defined by what it is against: the United States, free-market capitalism, and any foreign policy premised on defending American interests or promoting individual liberty. Only this part of the agenda is concrete, leaving neocommunism elastic enough to strike alliances with any movement that shares it. What neocommunists are for, by contrast, is a set of abstractions – “social justice, “equality,” “redistributive rights,” the “rule of law,” and, of course, “our values.” The details of those can be worked out later, once the more pressing imperative of undoing the existing order has been realized.

In other words, says McCarthy, to the left, “‘change’ is not designed to create a new system. Its purpose is to destroy the old one. What comes next is negotiable.” Thus, he explains:

That is why neocommunism aligns so seamlessly with revolutionary movements catalyzed by religious fervor. What comes next for a millenarian movement may not be negotiable, but before the new can be imposed the old must be swept aside. That calls for collaboration among all factions that need to depose the established order, even if their ultimate designs don’t perfectly mesh.

There’s another critical dynamic that explains, at least in part, the cravenly pro-Muslim “trance state” of the leftist media, academy and culture: Terrorists provide powerful public relations cover for non-violent “moderate” Muslims seeking the same ultimate end as jihadists – for America to become Islamic. As McCarthy explains:

“Just as the Soviet collapse has been a boon for the left, the ferocity and overreach of Muslim terrorists has been a dual boon for Islamism. So atrocious has been the bloodbath wrought by al Qaeda, its affiliates and its imitators that it has enabled more methodical Muslim extremists to operate under the radar. Repeated terror strikes, culminating in the death of nearly 3,000 innocents and the surreal demolition of the seemingly impregnable Twin Towers, shock Americans and their government into a myopic determination to prevent additional mass-murder attacks.

“In this climate of fear, the calculating but apparently non-violent Islamist compares favorably with the uncompromising, blood-soaked Islamist terrorist. He is thus regarded as cause of hope – indeed, as a moderate – by government and opinion elites. This, despite the fact that his agenda is essentially the same as the terrorist’s: Only their methods differ, and even those differences are shades of gray.”

We are just scratching the surface here. I invite you to join me in exploring this crucial subject much more fully in the current eye-opening issue of Whistleblower magazine, titled “HOW ISLAM IS SECRETLY TRANSFORMING AMERICA.”