A Multi-Culti Thomas Jefferson

506px-Liberty_Bell_2008

Islamists and progressives both want the Founders to have said something different than what they really said.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, July 16, 2016:

When reflecting on the rich history of the city of Philadelphia, one might think of William Penn, Benjamin Franklin, the Liberty Bell, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.  The timeless principles of freedom and liberty speak not only to the Philadelphian but also more broadly to the American.  Because of Philadelphia’s significance and contribution to America, its history has become a major target of revisionism.  Despite having different motivations, Liberal-progressives and Islamists both share the common goal of turning our founding fathers into advocates of multiculturalism.

For Islamists it’s all about making the founding fathers supportive of Islam, and of course they mean political Islam.  Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. is helping create that narrative by hosting an event in Philadelphia’s City Hall July 26, with Denise Spellberg, author of the controversial book titled Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders.  David F. Forte, Cleveland State University professor of law, lays out two important themes asserted in the book that reveal Spellberg’s prejudices: 

1) that the founders’ references to “imaginary Muslims” led them to include other minorities, such as Jews, Catholic Christians, and Deists, as full citizens, and 2) that America is now in the grip of “Islamophobia,” and many Americans are attempting to “disenfranchise” Muslims from their rights as full citizens.

The ‘Islamophobia’ campaign has propagated a lot of nonsense, from ‘Islamophobia’accelerating global warming to the rewriting of a more ‘inclusive’ American history as Spellberg’s book seems to indicate.  To think that Jefferson and the founding fathers included political Islam when they championed religious liberty is ridiculous.  Religious liberty and Islamic law are incompatible because Islamic law prohibits and punishes beliefs that are in opposition to Islam.  This multiculturalist narrative Spellberg is trying to sell is similar to that advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood linked Congressman Keith Ellison (first Muslim Congressman).  Ellison was the one who took his oath of office by swearing in on the Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson, and tries to insinuate that because Jefferson owned a Quran it helped mold his views on religious liberty and toleration.  A 2007 Seattle Times article reports Ellison’s take on swearing in on the Quran:

“It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran,” Ellison said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

“A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system,” Ellison said. “This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of.”

In reality, Jefferson not only had some unflattering things to say about Islam but also got a taste of radical Islam from a conversation with the Ambassador of Tripoli at the time:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Besides Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. who are some of the other supporters of the event with Spellberg in Philadelphia?  Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is one of the backers of the event. The Muslim Brotherhood in North America is dedicated to “destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.”  CAIR has even given Spellberg an awardthat epitomizes her work that’s being used for the Islamist cause:

I-CAIR Faith in Freedom Award from the Council American-Islamic Relations, Cleveland, Ohio Chapter, “For promoting a better understanding of the history of religious freedom in America and for writing Muslims back into our nation’s founding narrative through the extraordinary and illuminating scholarly work, Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders,” May 11, 2014.

Militant Islam Monitor.org provides information about some of the other event sponsors such as:

…They include Emerge Pac, the Universal Muslim Business Association, Masjid Masjidullah and ICPIC. The Islamic Cultural Preservation And Information Council which receives funding from the PA Council on the Arts among others.http://icpic.co/. EmergePac is a subsidiary of EmergeUSA which is headed by stealth Islamist lawyer Khurrum Wahid.”Emerge USA, despite its patriotic sounding name, has an extremely radical agenda based on terrorism and bigotry shrouded in the guise of political advocacy. The main individual behind Emerge USA is Khurrum Wahid, a South Florida attorney who has built his name on representing high profile terrorists. They include members of al-Qaeda and financiers of the Taliban. According to the Miami New Times, Wahid himself was placed on a federal terrorist watch list in 2011.

The contact for the event is Imam Salaam Muhsin, who recently spoke at CAIR-Philadelphia’s Interfaith Press Conference after the Orlando massacre.  The sponsors have a long list of Islamist ties to say the least.  On the event/luncheon flyer it is also noted that it occurs during the week of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, advertising for their liberal fan base.  This progressive/Islamist alliance is working together to reinterpret our nation’s founding fathers (and founding documents) in order to change the American narrative to fit their multiculturalist vision for the U.S.  For the Islamists it’s all about using multiculturalism to insert political Islam/Sharia into society under the guise of religious liberty.

Paul Sutliff on the Islamic “Long March Through the Institutions”

Huma and Hillary

The Rebel, by Victor Laszlo, July 16, 2016:

This is the first part of a two part interview with author and educator Paul Sutliff. Paul discusses infiltration of the US government by Muslim Brotherhood entities in this segment.

This is the second part of the interview with Paul Sutliff. Paul explains the US Government’s use of the office of Countering Violent Extremism to assist the Muslim Brotherhood, and of all things, fund mosques.

Paul recently appeared as a guest on Blog Talk Radio discussing the CVE and Islam in the United States.

The Rebel has published several articles on the Countering Violent Extremism policy previously from a more academic point of view, featuring interviews with retired US Army intelligence officer, Stephen Coughlin.

Rather than reducing the level of terrorism, these so-called “Countering Violent Extremism” policies seem to be part of the strategy of Islamic infiltrators to increase the influence of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in the West, in tandem with UN resolution 16/18. 

Paul is the author of two booksCivilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam, and Stealth Jihad Phase two. American Colleges.

Paul’s website is here.

Illinois Seeks Nation’s First Muslim Advisory Council

screen_shot_2016-07-12_at_4.30.19_pm

Truth Revolt, by Trey Sanchez, July 12, 2016:

Legislation currently pending in the state of Illinois would authorize a special Muslim-only advisory council if signed by Gov. Bruce Rauner.

It would be a permanent 21-member council made up of volunteer members appointed by the governor and House and Senate members to advise the governor and the General Assembly on issues that would impact Muslim-Americans and immigrants. Meetings would be held monthly with two public hearings each year. Members would serve two-year terms and are required to have expertise in business, law, or health care.

The timing of this legislation is a bit curious, as Bruce Cornibe notes at Counter Jihad:

At the end of an especially bloody month of Ramadan, which included the worst terror attack in America since 9/11, some politicians and lawmakers feel the solution is to give Muslim community more of a voice in government.

Not to mention the mixing of religion with official state business.

“This special status for a religious group is surprising in a country that bars an official state religion,” Cornibe states. “Why wouldn’t Illinois require a Christian council? Or how about a Jewish council?”

Cornibe notes that Muslims aren’t the biggest victims of discrimination, and in fact, FBI records show that nearly 60% of crimes against Jews are motivated by anti-Semitism. But that matters little to those screaming “Islamophobia.”

And it’s no surprise to know that those Muslim activists and organizations, like CAIR, who are supporting the bill have known associations with terrorists and the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Just as CAIR and other Brotherhood-linked activist groups weaken the functioning of our government, so too would the Muslim-American Advisory Council in Illinois,” Cornibe writes. “There are no councils to represent the interests of other faiths in Illinois, and the likely leaders of this council are from the same band urging the Federal government towards censorship of criticism.”

“Sheer Horror” in Paris

blackoutCounterJihad, July 11, 2016:

Ben Judah is a journalist who comes especially well-recommended.  His two books, one about Russia and the other about London, have been hailed for their shockingly honest accounts of unpleasant truths.  Of his work on London, the New Statesman reviewer wrote:  “Every MP should be given a copy immediately. On every page lies an uncomfortable truth, in every paragraph sheer horror.”

Now he has turned to the rapid shift towards Islam in France.  Brought on by mass immigration and hardline Islamic preachers, Judah finds a neighborhood in the shadow of the tombs of French kings that is no longer French.

“The French are too scared to come and shop in Saint-Denis since the attacks. There’s fear. There’s less order — less police, more druggies, more dealers and more thieves. It’s getting worse. I tell you — ten years ago it was not this bad.”

How does the French state explain all this? I take the butcher’s accusation to the prefect. Grey-haired Philippe Galli is Saint-Denis’s most powerful official and the president’s envoy to the department of Seine-Saint-Denis. His throaty, gravelly voice is accustomed to power.

“Those same people who say there is a lack of authority,” snaps the 60-year-old prefect, “are the same ones who refuse the police access when they try and enter. Those from the Maghreb, by origin, permit themselves to behave in ways that would be unthinkable where they came from.”

He tells me that the secret services are currently monitoring 700 people at risk of radicalisation in Saint-Denis, and the police are too frightened to enter alone most areas under his control.

The whole of his piece should be read.

The French government has been drawing up counter-insurgency plans against those al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS) have been recruiting.  Last year’s multiple major terror strikes in Paris not only led to the deaths of hundreds, but also highlighted the failure of European police authorities to handle the problem of rising Islamic radicalism.

Meanwhile, with French native birthrates continuing to be below replacement level, mass immigration has continued apace.  A quarter of teenagers in France are now Muslims, implying a future in which any radicalized Islam poses only a greater threat to the stability of the Republic.  Second generation immigrants, according to several major inquiries, seem to be the ones most inclined to radicalization.  The problems of France today may well pale in comparison to the problems of a generation from now.

Already Judah’s article identifies a rising Antisemitism that is driving French Jews from their homes.  But it is also driving non-Jewish French from their homes, and making those who continue to live in the changing neighborhoods feel besieged.

The response by the French has been a rising nationalism.  Even al Qaeda’s top figure in charge of recruting from France has endorsed the National Front.  “If the French don’t want war, they should vote Marine Le Pen,” he said. “OK, she’s a woman, and one can call her a racist.  But at least she defends the true values of France.”

Does she?  Judah cites a gay leftist who has come to feel inclined towards a more nationalist politics.  “I realised… my error of interpretation on immigration and Islamisation, which is a danger to liberty…. [A]ll around us this rise of halal, this halalisation of France through its dishes, it’s a conquest of France through its dishes, if you look closely.”

That has parallels in Germany, where nationalism is also rising as a response.  These stories may not be pleasant to read, but every wise person should consider them, and ponder what is to be done.

Also see:

AOSHQ: YouTube’s Video Ban Proves Rich Higgins Right

Capture-5

Former DOD Official Rich Higgins warned of the Islamist influence shaping America’s policies against “violent extremism.” He was right.

CounterJihad, July 6, 2016:

Just yesterday, the right-of-center blog Ace of Spades described an interview given by former DOD official and Special Forces trainer Rich Higgins.  Higgins said that the Obama administration had adopted a set of counter-terrorism policies that ended up being drafted by many Islamists, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Ostensibly about countering extremism, these policies were really about silencing critics of Islam and Islamism.  That motive, which is a core part of the Brotherhood’s agenda, is also shared by other radical Islamist groups including al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS).

Political warfare includes both non-violent and violent actions working in synthesis, Higgins says. The left, with enemy-friendly Muslim Brotherhood allies, is able to control the dominant cultural narrative with the media and the government, blinding us in the war on terror and impacting how Americans think, he argues.

Higgins calls for a “strategic and operational pause” in America’s misguided battle to stop the terror. He would, instead, ask new leadership to develop a comprehensive political warfare plan, while removing the subversive policies and personnel causing America to lose this paramount battle.

He cites the “purges” carried out by law enforcement and intelligence officials throughout government, which Phil Haney, Sebastian Gorka and Steve Coughlin have made public.

Today, Ace notes, the YouTube controversy proves that he was right.  While YouTube is not a government agency, YouTube’s parent company is involved in a public-private partnership with the US government aimed at “countering violent extremism” — the very program Higgins is describing.  Jigsaw, formerly “Google Ideas,” is being run by a former US State Department employee who has been tasked with figuring out how Alphabet (formerly Google) can “use technology to tackle the toughest geopolitical challenges, from countering violent extremism to thwarting online censorship to mitigating the threats associated with digital attacks.”

Higgins is indeed correct about the root of the issue.  The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was identified by the FBI as an American front for the Muslim Brotherhood.  Its current president is Mohamed Magid, who has been celebrated in the press for helping the Federal government develop its “countering violent extremism” plan.

Likewise, the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been an active participant.  By its own admission, its intent is to weaken the degree to which American officials have elected to frame their “relationship with American Muslims through a securitized lens.”  Expressing a concern that this stigmatizes the community, they would like to push security professionals out of the center role.  Efforts like this Google outreach are just what they have been hoping to see.

The effect, though, is to turn the program’s intent on its head.  This was intended to address the dangers of increased terrorism.  Instead, it has made it more difficult for critics of the ideology that produces such terror to speak and be heard.  That happens to be a goal of radical Islamist groups, ironically.

As Ace put it, “somehow our policy has been turned inside-out from being anti-terrorist to anti-upsetting-potential-terrorists — which is the precise goal potential terrorists seek… The goal is to make people afraid to speak negatively about their religion and their Caliphate — to implement sharia’s prohibition against ‘slander’ against Islam.”

CAIR and ISNA will likely say that they have some other goal than advancing the rule of sharia’s prohibitions in America.  However, that has been the effect of their actions.  That effect does line up with the express goals of outlined in the infamous Explanatory Memorandum, which was introduced as evidence by the Department of Justice in the nation’s largest-ever terrorism financing trial.

Perhaps that’s just a coincidence.

YouTube bans video on Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia and Civilization Jihad as “hate speech”

vlcsnap-2016-06-29-12h59m01s200

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, July 6, 2016:

Here is a full transcript of the video. Where is the “hate speech”? Where is there even any factual inaccuracy?

For the Left, truth is no defense. What they want to do is silence their ideological foes. That’s all. The problem with the increasingly mainstream concept that “hate speech is not free speech” is that what exactly constitutes “hate speech” is a subjective judgment, often based on the political proclivities of the person doing the judging. If a Leftist analyst who subscribes to the fantasy that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “firewall against extremism” is doing the judging, he may think that the information below is “hate speech,” while if someone who is aware of the true nature and magnitude of the jihad threat is the judge, he would more likely consider Hamas-linked CAIR’s “Islamophobia” reports to be genuine “hate speech.”

The concept of “hate speech” is, in reality, a tool of the powerful to silence and demonize their critics. It has no place in a free society. This action by YouTube is ominous in the extreme, and is almost certainly the harbinger of much worse to come.

You can still see the video on Facebook here, and here is the full transcript: “Killing for a Cause: Sharia Law & Civilization Jihad,” Counter Jihad, June 29, 2016:

What is Civilization Jihad? This video explains in three minutes.

We have a new video aimed at non-experts as an introduction to the basic ideas behind the Counterjihad. Please watch it, and share it with those whom you think need to see it. The text of the video is as follows:

Terrorism seems to be everywhere, and it’s getting worse. The bad guys have lots of names—ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram—but they have one thing in common. They are all killing for a cause: Islamic Law known as Sharia.

Sharia is a return to medieval Islam. Sharia demands a Holy War calledJihad. The most widely available book of Islamic Law in English says: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

There are two kinds of Jihad. Violent Jihad is horribly simple, slaughtering innocents and forcing submission. Violent Jihadists want to conquer land for their Caliphate – essentially an Islamic State where Sharia Law is supreme.

But there is another kind of Jihad. In their Explanatory Memorandum, theMuslim Brotherhood, calls this, “civilization jihad,” saying, “The [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

Civilization Jihad has the same goal as the Violent Jihad—to conquer land for their Caliphate—but instead of waging war or staging terror attacks like their brothers in the violent jihad, these Civilization Jihadists wear suits and ties, and their work is much more subtle.

So what do they do? They file lawsuits for Muslim truck drivers who don’t want to drive beer. They convince schools to hold Muslim Day, where the girls wear head scarves and the kids say Muslim prayers. They complain when our government watches to see if their violent buddies are hanging out with them.

They call anyone critical of Islamic Law an “Islamophobe,” a term they invented to make people scared to speak out—like the neighbors of the terrorists in San Bernardino who knew something was wrong, but didn’t want to say anything because they’d be accused of profiling.

These bad guys have lots of names, too: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); the Muslim Student Association (MSA); Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The Justice Department found that these groups were, in fact, started by the Muslim Brotherhood.

These groups like to say that terrorism has no religion, but only Islam has Sharia and Jihad.

Not all Muslims practice Sharia or support it, but an awful lot do. They believe that anyone who insults Islam can be killed; they believe thatwomen are property; that gays should be killed; and that little girls should be mutilated and forced to marry old men they’ve never men. These things are simply not allowed in our free society and are against the Constitution.

There are plenty of Modern Muslims who want to “live and let live,” but unfortunately the groups that speak most often for the Muslim community follow the medieval version based on Sharia.

They are working to make the US more like the Caliphate. They have to go.

The strategy to defeat civilization jihad

1620421133

Secure Freedom Radio, July 1, 2016:

Dr. SEBASTIAN GORKA, Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, author of “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War”:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Coming to grips with who the real enemy is
  • Global Jihadi Movement versus violent extremism and lone-wolf terrorism
  • Distinguishing Civilization Jihad

(PART TWO): (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the global jihad
  • Practical implications of “willful blindness” on law enforcement
  • CAIR’s involvement in the FBI investigation of the Orlando terror attack

(PART THREE): (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Training with law enforcement
  • Hillary Clinton’s role in the Istanbul process

(PART FOUR): (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Similarities between Sharia and Communism
  • Ties between global Islamist organizations and jihadists

(PART FIVE) (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • ISIS’s ideology and the “Last Jihad” message
  • How can the West win the war against Jihad
  • The threat of Saudi Arabia and Qatar
  • Turkey’s turn to fundamental Islam and autocracy

5 Things We Know About Sharia Law (But the Washington Post Won’t Tell You)

78728a4d-db5a-4373-adc1-d47aef511c68There is no controversy amongst Muslim scholars as to the meaning of Sharia—it is Islamic law.

CounterJihad, by Immanuel Al-Manteeqi · @Al_Manteeqi | June 30, 2016

Asifa Quraishi-Landes writes frequently on Sharia– and always from a very positive, promotional point of view. While an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin School of Law and a frequent speaker affiliated with the Islamic group Karamah, she wrote a story for the Islamic Society of North America’s Islamic Horizons magazine in 2013 arguing that,

When it comes to dealing with diversity, America could learn a lot from Islamic law, if only it could stop painting it as something that it is not.

Interestingly, Prof. Quraishi-Landes’ article, “How to Talk About Sharia,” appeared on the magazine’s cover. Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna graced the cover of a 1999 issue of the same Islamic Horizons magazine, heralded as, “A Martyr of Our Times.”

On June 24th, Quraishi-Landes penned an article for the Washington Post entitled “Five Myths About Sharia.” The “myths” that she delineates and attempts to refute are as follows: (i) Sharia is “Islamic Law”; (ii) in Muslim countries, sharia is the law of the land; (iii) Sharia is anti-woman; (iv) Islam demands brutal punishments; (v) Sharia is about conquest. These so-called myths, with the possible exception of (ii), are not myths at all; they are verifiable truths.

1. Sharia is “Islamic law”

The first “myth” that Quraishi-Landes mentions is the “myth” that “Sharia” means Islamic law. For her to call this identification a “myth” is very strange, and frankly nothing short of absurd. It is linguistically incorrect—period.

In the Arabic language, “Sharia” (شريعة) does in fact mean Islamic law. Indeed, the word “Sharia” in Arabic comes from the triliteral root, sh-r-a (شرع), which means “to legislate.” This can be readily gleaned from a quick consultation of the most renowned Modern and Classical Arabic-English dictionaries and lexicons.[1] Quraishi-Landes’ statement here is factually incorrect on a very basic level. Sharia has incontrovertibly been understood to mean Islamic law by Muslim scholars for centuries. To take but one of innumerable examples, IslamQA.com, run by the Saudi cleric Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, has the following answer posted in response to the question, “what is Sharia?”:

Shariah is all of [Islamic] religion. It is what God gave to his servants in order to bring them from the darkness into the light. And it  is what God legislated to his servants [the translation is mine], consisting of commands and prohibitions, what isharam (forbidden), and what is halal (permitted).

There is no controversy amongst Muslim scholars as to the meaning of Sharia—it is Islamic law.

However, to support the proposition that Sharia does not mean Islamic law, Quraishi-Landes attempts to drive a wedge between “law” and “Sharia,” stating that the latter “isn’t even ‘law’ in the sense that we in the West understand it.” She does this by emphasizing that Sharia is understood by Muslims ultimately to originate from God rather than the state. But this is hardly evidence that Sharia is not understood to be “law” in the “Western sense”—as if the general concept of law differs between East and West—rather, it is evidence that Sharia is understood by Muslims to be divine law.

But not only is Quraishi-Landes grossly mistaken in calling this a myth, she seems to be inconsistent: for only a few sentences earlier—in her same article—she states that Sharia is “Islam’s legal framework.” One wonders how Quraishi-Landes believes that Sharia is “Islam’s legal framework” without simultaneously believing that Sharia is Islamic law. Either she is being flagrantly inconsistent, or she is using a definition of “law” that is so idiosyncratic as to make her central claim here—viz., that it’s myth to say Sharia is “Islamic law”—utterly irrelevant to the public discourse on Islam.

All this being said, the idea that Sharia means Islamic law is, far from being a myth, a rock solid truth.

2. In Muslim countries, Sharia is the law of the land

The second “myth” that Quraishi-Landes seeks to bust is the “myth” that in “Muslim countries, sharia is the law of the land.”

However, her statement of the so-called myth is ambiguous; whether or not this is a myth will depend on what she means by the proposition in question. Does she intend the proposition “in Muslim countries, Sharia is the law of the land” to mean that (i) in Muslim countries the law is greatly influenced by Sharia? Or does she intend the proposition to mean the bolder statement that (ii) in Muslim countries Sharia, tout court, is the law of the land?

If the latter, then she is surely correct in describing it as a myth. There are many secular provisions in the laws of most, if not all, Muslim countries. Indeed, because of the practicalities and realities of modern life, it would be surprising if a Muslim country could be ruled by pure and authentic Sharia.

However, if she intends the proposition that, in Muslim countries the law, is greatly influenced by Sharia, then she is not correct to say that it is a myth. In most, if not all, majority Muslim countries, the legal system is greatly influenced—and to some extent governed—by Sharia law. For example, Article 2 of the 2014 Egyptian constitution explicitly states that “Islam is the religion of the state,” and that “the principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation.”

To take another example, the introduction to Pakistan’s constitution reads “Islam shall be the state religion.” Furthermore, the following is stated in the Pakistani constitution’s preamble:

Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed; Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;

Even Iraq’s 2005 constitution, which the Iraqis received help from the Americans in drafting, contains such totalitarian Islamic provisions. The first section of Article 2 of the Iraqi constitution reads as follows:

Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation.

(1) No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam; (2) No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy; (3) No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this Constitution.

Egypt, Pakistan, and Iraq are only three Muslim majority countries, but there are many who have such provisions in their legislation. While it is true that virtually no Muslim majority country is ruled strictly (only) by Islamic principles, sharia does purvey the legislation of many Muslim majority countries. There does not seem to be any mythology here.

3. Sharia is anti-woman

The third myth that she seeks to blow out of the water is the idea that Islam is anti-woman.

While Prof. Quraishi-Landes grants that, in many Muslim majority countries, the rights of women are infringed upon, she downplays the connection that this has been due to Islamic doctrine. Indeed, she goes so far as to say that “on a range of issues, Islam can fairly be described as feminist.” As examples of this Islamic feminism, she cites how some fiqh scholars (i.e., Islamic jurisprudents) believe that first-trimester abortions are permissible.

Most comical is when she favorably cites how fiqh scholars “have concluded that women have the right to orgasm during sex and to fight in combat.” Can you imagine a group of Catholic cardinals coming out and saying that that in Christianity wives have the right to be sexually pleasured by their husbands? Of course not—it would go without saying. That Islamic jurisprudents or fuqaha even have to conclude this is in and of itself evidence of the low status accorded to women under sharia.

The “patriarchal rules in fiqh,” she says, is a byproduct of human interpretation, and not of Islamic doctrine. But this is just false.

There is much in Islamic doctrine that is patriarchal and that infringes on the rights of women. For example, according to Q 4:34, husbands are allowed to beat their wives if they “fear disobedience;” according to Q 2:282, the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man’s; according to Q 4:11 and Q 4:176, a woman should only inherit half as much as a man does;  according to Q 2:223, women can be “plowed” at the whim of their husbands; according to Q 65:4, sexual relations with females who have not yet had their menstrual cycle (i.e., prepubescent girls) are permissible; according to Q 4:24, having female sex slaves, “those whom your right hand possess” (ما ملكت ايمانكم), is permissible. These verses are all from the Qur’an, the most authoritative source for Islamic doctrine and praxis.

However, such anti-woman teaching is also found in the ahadeeth, which, it must be remembered, are the sources of most Islamic praxis. The following hadith from Sahih Al-Bukhari, the most authoritative Sunni collection of ahadeeth, is instructive:

Once Allah’s Messenger [i.e., Muhammad] went out to the Musalla [place of prayer] (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Messenger?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” [emphases are mine].

All these texts speak for themselves. Sharia is, in fact, anti-woman.  Not surprisingly, Quraishi-Landes does not even bother to mention any of these texts in her attempt to refute the “myth” that sharia is anti-woman. The simple truth is that women are not equal to men in mainstream Islam—they are considered inferior.

4. Sharia demands brutal punishments

This one is no myth at all. Islam does demand brutal punishments.

The Qur’an, for example, clearly states that the hands of thieves should be cut off (Q 5:38), and that fornicators are to be publically flogged with one-hundred lashes (Q 24:2). It demands that polytheists be fought and punished for being non-Muslim polytheists (Q 9:5). It demands that Christians and Jews be fought and brought under submission for their beliefs (Q 9:29). It states that the punishment for “those who sow corruption on the Earth” (الذين يسعون في الارض فسادا), which can include large swathes of people, is to be executed, crucified, or mutilated (Q 5:33). The Qur’an commands that Muslims be harsh against unbelievers, and merciful amongst themselves (Q 48:29).

Further, according to a well-known, though by no means universally accepted hadith, those who engage in homosexual acts are to be put to death. So brutal is sharia that the great Muslim philosopher, Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126 – 1198 A.D.), states that there is disagreement among Islamicists as to whether it is allowed in time of war to “slay hermits who have retired from the world, the blind, the chronically ill and the insane, those who are old and unable to fight any longer, peasants, and serfs.”[2] He cites as-Shafi’i (c. 767 – 820 A.D.), the founder of one of the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, as being in favor of slaying all such people.[3] In Sahih al-Bukhari, Muhammad clearly and unambiguously lays out the penalty for leaving the religion of Islam—execution.

Furthermore, the idea that apostates should be executed is not a fringe view; rather, it is the view of the five greatest schools of Islamic law—the Sunni Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i schools, and the Shi’i Ja’fari school.

5. Sharia is about Conquest

This last so-called myth is ambiguous, due to Quraishi-Landes use of the word “about.” However, it seems like Quraishi-Landes intends this proposition to mean that “sharia prescribes conquest.”  But if this is the case, which it seems to be, then she is once again mistaken.

Islamic law does, in fact, seem to legitimize expansionism. One can point to Q 9:5 and Q 9:29 as evidence, which seem to imply that fighting non-Muslims (polytheists and “People of the Book”) because of their beliefs is God-ordained. One can also point to Q 8:39, where the Qur’an mandates Muslims to “fight [polytheists] until there is no fitna [i.e, strife] and all religion belongs to Allah.” Furthermore, there is a notorious sahih (correct) hadith where Muhammad seems to outright command that all non-Muslims should be fought. The notorious hadith is as follows:

I have been commanded that I should fight against people till [حتى] they declare that there is no god but Allah, and when they profess it that there is no god but Allah, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection from me except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah [emphasis is mine].

The straightforward interpretation of this hadith is that non-Muslims are to be fought until they become Muslims—and only then will their lives and property be spared from Muhammad. Indeed, in mainstream Islam, the world is divided into two main blocks: Dar al-Harb (The House of War), and Dar al-Islam (The House of Islam), indicating a design for permanent war and expansion to the lands of non-Muslims. Classical jurists even argued that truces can only last for so long, perhaps as long as Muhammad’s treaty of  Hudaybiyyah, after which Muslims must continue their expansionist jihad against the infidels occupying Dar al-Harb. As the Dutch Islamicist Rudolph Peters notes,

The crux of the doctrine [of jihad] is the existence of one single Islamic state, ruling the entire umma. It is the duty of the umma to expand the territory of this state in order to bring as many people under its rule as possible. The ultimate aim is to bring the whole earth under the sway of Islam to extirpate unbelief.[5]

The fact is that if one looks soberly at Islamic history, one cannot help but conclude, along with Samuel Huntington, that since the 7th century Arab conquests or “futuhat,” Islam has had “bloody borders.”

Conclusion

As we have seen, none of these so-called myths that Quraishi-Landes mentions, with the possible exception of the second one—depending on what it means—is in fact a myth. Rather, they are demonstrable truths based in reality.

In any case, it should be noted that even if Islam apologists like Quraishi-Landes are correct–that Sharia is not, actually, a bad thing, and that some Islamists have merely misinterpreted it for their own ends–that does not mean that there does not exist a certain type of Sharia that is a threat. The Sharia that is common to Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizbollah, ISIS, Al-Qa’ida, and others is still a threat—and it is not one that is outside the interpretive parameters of Islamic tradition.

[1] Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J. Milton Cowan (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1979), 541; Edward W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, ed. Stanley Lane Poole (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1984), 1534.

[2] Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Clasiscal and Modern Islam (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996), 33.

[3] Ibid, 34.

[4] Ibid, 39.

[5] Ibid, 3.

UTT Testifies About Jihadi Threat at Senate Hearing

Screen-Shot-2016-06-29-at-12.48.12-AMUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 29. 2016:

UTT’s Chris Gaubatz testified on Capitol Hill Tuesday before a U.S. Senate hearing on the use of the term “Radical Islam” in discussing the terrorism threat to the United States.

Mr. Gaubatz set the stage with laying out the threat America faces from the Global Islamic Movement:

“UTT is the only organization in America which trains law enforcement, intelligence professionals, military, and leaders on the threat from the Global Islamic Movement, the doctrine of jihadi groups, and how to identify, investigate, and dismantle them.  At UTT, we hold the firm belief that in order to defeat the Global Jihad, we must understand the enemy. US military war fighting doctrine, specifically the , ‘Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield Manual’, states war-planners must begin all analysis of the enemy threat with (1) who the enemy says they are, and (2) why they are fighting us.  That becomes the basis for determining the enemy threat doctrine, which, in the case of jihadis, is sharia – Islamic law. Universally, the enemy – jihadis – whether they are ISIS, Al Qaeda, or the Muslim Brotherhood, all state they are Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State (Caliphate) under sharia.”

After detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s dangerous doctrine, Mr. Gaubatz related his personal experiences working undercover at Hamas offices in the U.S. (CAIR):

“During my time conducting undercover research as an intern with Hamas, both at CAIR MD/VA in Herndon, VA, and CAIR National in Washington DC, I preserved documents that revealed Hamas doing business as CAIR:

  *Conspired to cover-up fraud committed by one of their attorneys
  *Discussed coordinating with Bin Laden and his associates
  *Placed staffers and interns inside congressional offices
  *Conspired to influence congress, specifically judiciary, intelligence, and homeland security committees
  *Impact congressional districts, tasking each Hamas Chapter with influencing at least two legislators
  *Ordered books from the Saudi embassy on the virtue of jihad and martyrdom
  *Worked with a Muslim law enforcement officer to influence a major terrorism investigation by accessing a classified federal police database and tipping off the suspect

“The current administration and the US national security apparatus continues to use leaders of Muslim Brotherhood groups like ISNA, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), CAIR, and others to provide direct input into American foreign policy and domestic counter-terrorism strategies.”

With a strong finish, Mr. Gaubatz made clear the dire threat America faces if we do not reverse course immediately and address the enemy.

“According to our enemy – the Global Islamic Movement, made up of many groups including Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Tabligi Jamaat, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hizbollah, many nation states including Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many others – they all seek to impose sharia on the planet. It is also the blueprint from which they create their war-fighting strategies. From a U.S. war-fighting perspective, that naturally makes sharia the enemy threat doctrine and adherents to sharia a direct threat to the Republic. Until American leaders and national security professionals identify the threat and formulate policies and strategies that address adherents to this ideology we will continue on our current path of defeat and eventually lose this war here at home as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Mr. Gaubatz’s remarks can be seen HERE from 00:55:03-01:02:18

***

If you scroll down to “user created clips” you can view Chris Gaubatz’s testimony

CAIR: Supporters of Gun Control Bill Are Anti-Muslim

CAIR's Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (R); National Communications Director and Spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (L). Awad was present at the 1993 secret meeting of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI. Participants of the meeting discussed how to support Hamas and, in the words of U.S. District Court Judge Solis the “goals, strategies and American perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (Photo: © Reuters)

CAIR’s Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (R); National Communications Director and Spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (L). Awad was present at the 1993 secret meeting of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI. Participants of the meeting discussed how to support Hamas and, in the words of U.S. District Court Judge Solis the “goals, strategies and American perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, June 26, 2016:

If left-wing politicians thought they were immune from ridiculous accusations of anti-Muslim bigotry by treating the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) with kid gloves, they are in for a surprise.

In declaring its opposition to the latest bi-partisan bill to prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns, the sordid group has accused the Democrats and Republicans of trying to suppress Muslims’ civil liberties.

CAIR is, according to the Justice Department, a front for the U.S.Muslim Brotherhood and has links to Hamas. The Muslim country of the United Arab Emirates, which previously funded CAIR, designatedCAIR as a terrorist organization when it cracked down on Islamist extremism.

Gun control is an intense debate in the United States with reasonable supporters on each side, but CAIR is polluting the political dialogue with (yet again) ridiculous cries of Islamophobia—and this latest round is exceptionally over-the-top.

The Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016 aims to stop suspected terrorists whose names are on the no-fly list or the “selectee” list for extra scrutiny from buying guns. There are multiple cases of people who are obviously not terrorists who have ended up on the no-fly listand there are legitimate questions about the bill’s compatibility with the U.S. Constitution, but that’s not the respectable dialogue CAIR is promoting.

Rather, CAIR claimed that the bipartisan group of Senators secretly wants the gun control because it only impacts Muslims:

“We oppose the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016 because it appears to limit the ban on firearms purchases to American Muslims…”

“It would seem the Senate is willing to only apply constitutional limitations on the American Muslim community, which is disproportionately impacted by federal watch lists.”

Absolutely nothing in the bill would separate the Muslims from the non-Muslims on the terror watch lists so the former could be blocked and the latter be permitted. Much of the negative media attention surrounding the watch lists is from non-Muslims being inappropriately placed on them.

CAIR’s gotten away with the Islamophobia card for so long that they didn’t even bother pairing this propaganda with any semblance of logic.

Speaking of disproportionality, the disproportionate hysteria of CAIR’s rhetoric is plain to see when the actual facts and context are presented.

The broad term of “watch lists” refers to the consolidation of lists within the Terrorist Screening Center. Its database has about one million names—not one million Americans—one million names of individuals around the globe. Out of  a world-wide population of 7.4 billion people, only 5-15,000 names on the list are Americans (although it reached 25,000 citizens and permanent residents in 2013).

According to the FBI, of the more than 23 million background checks made in connection with gun purchases last year, 244 of those checks were on people on the terror watch lists. Over 90% of those on the terror watch list who wanted a gun were allowed to buy it (and presumably did). Only 21 were blocked.

That means 223 suspected terrorists were allowed to buy guns in one year.

Those that were blocked were stopped not because they were on a terror watch list. They were stopped because other regulations got in the way, such as being a convict or because of substance abuse.

The “anti-Muslim” legislation that CAIR is attacking doesn’t even use the entire database. The Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016uses two: the No-Fly List and the Selectee List (for additional screening). That means about 900,000 foreigners and 2,000 Americans on the terror watch list are still allowed to buy guns under this proposal.

The No-Fly List has 81,000 names. The FBI says only about 1,000 Americans—1,000 out of the total U.S. population of 320 million—are on this list and would be blocked from getting a gun if a proposal like this was adopted.

The Selectee List has 28,000 names. Less than 1,700 are Americans.

For the Terrorist Screening Center, a government agency submits a name and evidence justifying why they believe there is a reasonable suspicion that they are linked to terrorism. The National Counterterrorism Center looks at it and, about 90% of the time, agrees and adds the name.

Names are also frequently removed, at a rate of about 16,500 per year.  The standard for inclusion is high enough that Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was on the list and taken off, despite plenty of evidence he could be a threat.

Names cannot be added on the basis of activity permitted under the First Amendment. And anyone (even a non-citizen) who has experienced difficulty traveling and believe it is because their name is on a watchlist can follow the redress process with the Department of Homeland Security so a review happens.

While this process can take far too long and needs to be fixed, removal is possible. Ask the terror-linked Islamists who have used lawsuits to get themselves removed from the list.

The bill includes a provision that individuals who believe their rights have been violated can appeal to a federal court and, if they win, the government pays their attorney’s fee.

There is understandable concern about the bill’s provision that the government can present secret evidence to the court for security reasons. If the secret evidence is used, the court is responsible for releasing as much information as possible in order to respect due process. Senator Collins’ factsheet says this is done in other criminal proceedings and is not unusual.

While there are logical reasons to oppose the bill, Islamophobia isn’t one of them. Progressives who have looked the other way when CAIR exploits anti-Muslim sentiment by playing the Islamophobia card should learn a lesson from this.

This deceitful attack on the integrity of Senators (including top Democrats) who support this gun control bill is just as unacceptable as the deceitful personal attacks on anti-Islamist voices seen (fairly or unfairly) as conservative.

There’s a common thread between this cry of Islamophobia and

Let this be a wake-up call for more progressives to see CAIR for what it really is: A Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that uses bullying and deception to pollute productive dialogue about anything related to national security, Islamism and anti-Muslim discrimination.

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

Understanding the threat here in America

431531030Secure Freedom Radio, June 22, 2016:

With JOHN GUANDOLO, President and Founder of Understanding the Threat.com, veteran of Desert Storm, and former commanding officer of an FBI SWAT team.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Elaboration on the nature of Sharia and jihad
  • The lone wolf fallacy
  • PC culture’s protection of Islam

(PART TWO): Podcast (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Propaganda of ISNA, MSA, and CAIR
  • James Clapper’s classification of the Muslim Brotherhood as a “largely secular” group
  • Origins and problems with “Countering Violent Extremism”

(PART THREE): Podcast (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Willful blindness to the true enemy
  • Marxist/socialist penetration of the US government
  • Dangers of classifying civilization jihad as a conspiracy theory

(PART FOUR): Podcast (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Origins of the term “islamophobia”
  • Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure in use by violent jihadists

(PART FIVE) Podcast (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • “Countering Violent Extremism” Program passed by Congress
  • Zakat Foundation’s funding of NPR
  • Islamophobia labels and its use to silence opposition

Officials Reveal America’s National Security is “Controlled” by the Jihadists

2211774854

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 20, 2016:

Two former U.S. government officials made explosive revelations on national radio this past Friday including the charge the U.S. government is a “tool” for the jihadi movement here, and that the driving force behind America’s domestic counter-terrorism strategies and our foreign policy is the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

President Obama with Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader (Islamic Society of North America) Imam Mohamed Magid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia

President Obama with Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader (Islamic Society of North America) Imam Mohamed Magid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia

The exchange took place on the Sean Hannity radio program between the host, Philip Haney (former DHS law enforcement officer with Customs and Border Protection) and Richard Higgins (a former leader inside the Department of Defense who managed programs at the Combating Terrorism and Technical Support Office (CTTSO) and Irregular Warfare Section).

Both Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins revealed there is a massive Muslim Brotherhood movement in the United States, and made clear the MB’s influence is so significant they control how the issue of terrorism is discussed and how it is handled at the national security level.

Hillary Clinton and closest aide Huma Abedin, who is an operative for the MB Movement

Hillary Clinton and closest aide Huma Abedin, who is an operative for the MB Movement

When asked about language being scrubbed from the U.S. government Mr. Higgins responded by saying, “What (leaders in the US government) are actually scrubbing is any references to the Islamic doctrine that would allow us to define who is or who is not actually one of our enemies.”

He went on to say, “When you look at the deliberate decision-making process of the United States government as it relates to radical Islam, that deliberate decision-making process is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.  And the way they control it is by prohibiting US national security personnel from ever developing an understanding to the level where Phil (Haney) had it.”

MB/Hamas Leader Imam Magid with the President’s Chief of Staff and Former Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough

MB/Hamas Leader Imam Magid with the President’s Chief of Staff and Former Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough

More precisely Mr. Higgins said, “To bring it back to the point earlier about the United States being put to work fulfilling the objectives of the Brotherhood:  the Brotherhood was killed en masse by Saddam Hussein – we removed him.  Qaddafi killed the Muslim Brotherhood – we removed him. We asked Mubarak to go. We are their instrument because they control our deliberate decision-making process.”

UTT has written about the willful surrender to our enemies by American leaders here, here, and here.

Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swearing in MB Leader Mohamed Elibiary to the DHS Advisory Committee

Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swearing in MB Leader Mohamed Elibiary to the DHS Advisory Committee

With regard to the Marxist/Socialist collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood – as UTT has detailed via the Black Lives Matter/Hamas relationship – Mr. Higgins warned, “Every time one of these attacks happens in the United States, you see the Left in unison with the Muslim Brotherhood immediately respond with direct attacks on the First and Second Amendments.  That is not by accident, and we are going to continue to see that.”

Philip Haney’s story is devastating to hear because he publicly states he was ordered by DHS supervisors to remove the names of terrorists and terrorist organizations from DHS databases which he inputted through the course of investigations he was conducting.

This is a violation of the law.  The names removed included several known Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S.

His story can be found here or here, and his powerful new book See Something, Say Nothing is now available.

Mr. Haney reiterated what UTT has been teaching and publishing for years:  “The gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is not radicalization, the gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is the implementation of sharia Law.”

It’s all about sharia.

Both Mr. Higgins and Mr. Haney made it clear the jihadi threat to America must be addressed immediately or we will suffer significant consequences for our inaction and for allowing our leaders to surrender their duties to our enemies.

Philip Haney said it best when he articulated, “This is the first and foremost obligation of the U.S. government:  to protect it’s citizens from a threat, both foreign and domestic.  And I can also tell you that if we don’t address it voluntarily with courage and conviction now, we’re going to be addressing it involuntarily, and we are going to be at a much greater disadvantage than we already are right now.”

The full audio for the show can be found HERE and the discussion with Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins begins at approximately minute 14.

Stealth Jihadists are Hiding Their Identities Behind the Islamic State

ISIS-has-always-been-hereJihad Watch, by Christine Williams, June 13, 2016:

An American-born man, reported to be 29-year-old Omar Mateen of Fort Pierce, Florida, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and went on the deadliest mass shooting in American history, described as the worst terror attack since 9/11.

Robert Spencer has been following the media in its the defense of the indefensible, including: ACLU lawyers blaming the Christian Right and the GOP for the Jihadi rampage, while Obama babbled that it was too early to know the precise motivations of the killer. Too late, Mr. President! You already knew that the gunman had identified himself to police and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on a 911 call, and Mateen was also said to have recited prayers to Allah during the attack.

The victimology machine, as expected, went into high gear, with warnings about the backlash of “Islamophobia” before the crime scene was even cleaned up. The nefarious display of insensitivity on the part of by agenda-driven cads toward the families of the victims who were targeted in this monumental Jihadist attack, as well as the rampant political posturing, is grievous — and sure to continue. Even some of those who were directly affected in the attacks have been regurgitating the “Islamophobia” agenda, which has been shoved down their throats by means of a propagandist message about Muslim victimhood, racism, the past sins of European colonialism, the Crusades, and the present sins of right-wing foreign policies that supposedly provoke Jihadists. I’ll be surprised if the Jews don’t thrown onto the villain list somewhere, somehow.

Combine that focus with the media emphasis on the Islamic State’s “un-Islamic doctrine,” and its fears about where the next target could be. In all this, one group escapes mainstream scrutiny virtually unscathed, and thus continues in its malevolence virtually undetected. That group is the stealth Jihadists, who are using the presence of the Islamic State to hide behind and conceal their own activities. They did well at hiding almost completely — at least up until the Holy Land Foundation case, in which many of them were designated them “unindicted co-conspirators”, thus blowing their cover and showcasing their ties to jihad terrorism. Nonetheless, the mainstream media still gives them immunity from critique and analysis.

Before delving into some of the trickery of the stealth jihadists, it is important to note that Western water-carriers for the Jihad have been psychologically beaten into forgetting that the worst atrocities worldwide are being committed by Jihadists against innocents. These jihadists, who are both homegrown and foreign, are brainwashed by fanatical Islamic clerics — teaching in Western mosques and Islamic institutions — and linked to foreign entities that provide funding and issue fatwas and commands to conquer and kill infidels, along with their fellow Muslims who are deemed apostates. The anti-black racism in the Arab world, discussed at length in this AlJazeera article by an Arab woman, and the historic and current Arab slave trade, are also conveniently ignored.

June is Gay Pride month in America, and Orlando recently wrapped up a festival reported to have drawn up to 150,000 in the LGBT community to theme parks, gay nightclubs and special events.  The Pulse nightclub is well known for its power party atmosphere and its weekly themed performances. Chances are that it hasn’t gone unnoticed by local jihadists.

To delve into the subject of Jihadists operating largely unnoticed on our soil:

Only half an hour’s drive away from the Pulse Club is the Husseini Islamic Center of Sanford, which recently invited a Sheikh who had once called for the murder of gays as an Islamic act of love. His talk was so shockingly violent that prior to his recent visit to the local mosque,  some locals in Sanford were outraged by his invitation to the Center.

Sheikh Dr. Farrokh Sekaleshfar stated in 2013 that the killing of homosexuals is the compassionate thing to do. See the video here.

Sheikh Sekaleshfar also said, in an eerily calming manner, that:

“Death is the sentence.  We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this.… We have to have that compassion for people, with homosexuals, it’s the same, out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”

He also declared that homosexual sinners are Allah’s creation and that Muslims should never hate, but that the “punishment for the act of homosexuality is one of love”.

Westerners have a hard time grasping how it is that this Jihadist could be welcomed in by the local Husseini Islamic Center of Sanford; a Jihadist who not only believes, but preached that killing homosexuals is an act of love and compassion. And he uttered those vile words using a loving and compassionate tone.

A word to Westerners: when trying to gauge what a Jihadist enemy looks like, or sounds like, preconceived Western notions do not work. Just because a person may be calm, serene, polite, intelligent and charming does not mean that he or she will not murder according to Jihadist ideology.

The Sheikh also justified the murder of gays as a “happy” act, as being something that only looksbrutal. So in the mind of Sheikh Sekaleshfar, the Pulse Club massacre only looked violent, but in his ideological belief system, these victims were killed by Mateen as an act of love. He states:

“We see the physical killing as something brutal, and this is the point when human hatred toward the act has to be done out of love….You have to be happy for that person … we believe in an afterlife, we believe in an eternal life … and with this sentence, you will be forgiven and you won’t be accountable in the hereafter.”

Organizations invite speakers that espouse their views, and Sheikh Sekeleshfar was invited by the Husseini Islamic Center of Sanford. What does that reveal about the Center?

The Sheikh also noted that you can’t enter homosexuals’ houses to murder them because they are free inside their houses, and you can’t prove their act, because according to Islamic law, there must be four witnesses to convict a homosexual. Disturbingly, he went on to claim that Islam is not homophobic because there is no hatred against such people.

Anti-gay violence is rooted in Islamic law, so the Pulse massacre is not an aberration of normative Islam. Indeed, there are those Muslims who are genuinely kind, pluralistic, and democratic-minded, and mortified by what took place at the Pulse Club. These Muslims are routinely deemed apostates by their co-religionists, and do not deserve to be targeted as a fallout from Jihadist violence.

One such person is Dr. Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, founder of the Koranist sect in Egypt, who warned about the danger of blindly accepting a jihadist organization as mainstream without question. He used CAIR as an example of a terrorist organization, warning that the “culture of CAIR is the same as Usama bin Laden, but they have two faces.”

Mansour was ejected from his professorship at Al Azhar University in Egypt for preaching against traditional Islamic doctrines of violence and subjugation. He was subsequently tortured in prison under then President Hosni Mubarek and eventually exiled from Egypt. He settled in Boston, only to report that he found the same violent ideology in a Boston mosque. He stated in an interview:

“I passed by the old mosque and attended the sunset prayer. I found materials in Arabic full of hatred against America and the Jews. It proved that the leaders of that mosque were very fanatical. I have my own painful story of persecution in Egypt from the same fanatics, so I was so scared and I finished my prayer quickly and did not go there anymore.”

The most effective way to battle Jihadist ambitions is for Western authorities, law enforcement and media to target those ambitions vigilantly and assiduously. The more we try to sweep this evil under the carpet, the more innocents will suffer.

Muslims who speak out against Jihadist violence are not necessarily friends. Stealth jihadists routinely speak out against the Islamic State and against violence committed in the name of Islam to make a show, and Westerners are fooled by them. For example, in a striking display of manipulation and hypocrisy , that same Husseini Islamic Center that invited Sheikh Sekeleshfar (who called for the “loving” murder of homosexuals), issued this statement following the Pulse Night Club massacre:

“Members of Husseini Islamic Center  stand united with our fellow Americans in categorically condemning this attack. We share the grief and sorrow of the nation and stand united with the Central Florida community and City of Orlando. Our heartfelt condolences and prayers go out to the families and loved ones who are victims of this tragedy.”

The Orlando regional CAIR chapter also condemned the Pulse Club massacre and called for Muslims to donate blood, a noble gesture — if sincere.

Unfortunately, CAIR is well credited with the bogus “Islamophobia” branding, intended to deflect any criticism of Islam and intimidate those who speak the truth JIhadist ambitions. After the San Bernardino killings, CAIR quickly condemned the violence and once again distanced the murders from Islam. Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of Orange County, showed up with CAIR in a show of a united front, at which CAIR stated, “We have condemned all violence, everywhere” and urged people to “not implicate Islam or Muslims” at large for the attack. Siddiqi said that “our faith has nothing to do with [the shooting], our faith is against this kind of behavior.”

Read more

Also see:

Canadian Marc Lebuis on the business of Islamophobia

3187833668

Center For Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, June 1, 2016:

Welcome to Secure Freedom Radio. This is Frank Gaffney, your host and guide for what I think of as an intelligence briefing on the war for the free world. We don’t often get good news in that war these days, I’m sorry to say, but I am very pleased to be able to present a little bit, at least for the moment. And to call back to our microphones for that purpose a man I’ve come to admire greatly and who has been indispensable in bringing about this bit of good news. He is Marc LeBuis. He is the founder and director of Point de Bascule, or Tipping Point, a web-based, investigative magazine that you can find online. It’s based in Montreal, Canada. And this bit of good news comes there, from Canada, from Quebec province, specifically. And to talk a little bit about it, I’m delighted to say congratulations and welcome, Marc LeBuis.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, thank you. And thank you for having me, Frank.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

So tell us about this development. Bill 59 is something that you’ve been warning about for some time. You’ve been working hard against. And I think as a result, in no small measure of your efforts, it’s come undone. Talk a little bit about what happened.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, Bill 59, of course, is technically a censorship bill. And the current government in place, it’s called the Quebec liberal government, gave in after a lot of a backlash, the backlash against the bill would not die down. Now the entire civil society, I could say almost with just a couple of exceptions, have been opposing this bill systematically for months. It’s been almost a year that it’s been very actively pushed forward. And then, there’s the opposition to the bill, PQ Representative Agnes Maltais who stood technically almost alone, she is doing what I think in English we call a filibuster where she would systematically oppose the bill in what she called intelligent opposition. So out of sixty to eighty hours of debate over the bill, only one and a half articles out of something like twenty-five were read. They were systematically asking question. And Agnes Maltais basically got it. There’s quite a few politicians, they may participate in these types of debate, but sometimes they don’t really get it. Well, she did get it. She expressed a couple of weeks ago that she felt that this was, out of about twenty years of [UNCLEAR] as a politician, she felt that this was the most important and significant debate that Quebec has ever faced in terms of the danger that it was for democracy.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

This is so important. And Marc, I want to make sure while we acknowledge and express appreciation for this sort of Horatius at the Bridge in the parliament, Agnes Maltais, your own role in helping get that civil society engaged on this issue, understanding the implications of this censorship in the name of not offending Muslims was incalculably important. And you may not want to boast about it, but let me just say thank you to you specifically. I was struck by the minister of justice in Quebec, Stephanie Vallee, indicating that while this kind of regulation of so-called hate speech is adopted elsewhere, she said, quote, we’re not ready for that, unquote. So it doesn’t necessarily mean this is a commutation of sentence, maybe it’s just a stay of execution. But in that regard, Marc, talk if you would a little bit about how things seems to be developing in terms of trying to classify as racism so-called Islamophobia and what implications it might have.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, there is – there is what we call now, what we’re noticing, a form of axis, I mean, Islamophobia bills or efforts or lobbies trying to push Islamophobia. We know that it’s happening all over the West. But there is a particular axis right now developing which we call the Paris-Brussels-Quebec-Ottawa Axis. There is now an organisation in – based out of Paris, led by a man by the name of Marwan Muhammad who’s very close to Tariq Ramadan, close also to organisations that are linked with Yusuf al-Qaradawi out of Qatar. And he’s also very, very close to not just Muslim Brotherhood operatives but also other Salafist-based Islamist operatives who are known to have radical views in France. And they’re working together with, for example, recently they have met very, very powerful lobbies out of Canada called the CAIR Canada or the new name, the NCCM, that they’re using, and they seem to be coordinating a lot of effort to push institutions and policies inside of Canada to be able to qualify or equate Islamophobia as a racism and this would be happening. What that means, it’s even worse than having a bill that would do censorship. It would take on the current laws on racism and just basically hook onto them or piggyback on them and then would be able to have the same effect in order to kill free speech, kill criticism of anything that’s related to Islamist activities in Canada and maybe in Europe.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Now I know, Marc LeBuis, that you have been accused of being an Islamophobe, I certainly have, many of those we work with have. Just dissect for us this concept that this is in fact some sort of racism. There is no race. Islam is practiced by people of many different races. And what I think we all are concentrating on is not even Islam itself as much as it is the political, military, legal doctrine of shariah that its Islamic supremacist adherents are trying to impose on all of us. And if we were to accede to this idea that this is somehow a racist activity, where would a country like Canada find itself? Where would, you know, people like you who are warning about what’s coming if they’re not careful?

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, there definitely would be, even more difficult than it is now to be able to name the threat that we’re facing, specifically the jihadist threat. It would be extremely difficult to – notions of infiltration, and I’m talking about serious infiltration inside government agencies, when we would try to expose how certain lobbies, associations, or individuals are trying to penetrate a political party, a police force, or even a legal institution. It recalls –

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Or the government itself for that matter.

MARC LeBUIS:

Or the government itself. There’s this leader called Jamal Badawi out of Canada, and I think he’s very known in the United States, who basically, in an interview in the early 2000s said that we should – Muslims should penetrate government institutions, specifically become judges so they can use their own personal discretion in order to avoid applying legal references that will go against shariah. So he’s encouraging Muslims to enter and penetrate and infiltrate. Become lawyers, police officers, and any type of form of positions of power that allows them to have a certain amount of discretionary power.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

As you look at this effort on the part of the Islamists, these Islamic supremacists, to promote shariah, when you find yourself confronting these pressures, Marc, just as the takeaway from your efforts on Bill 59, what should all of us learn from it and take heart from?

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, on our part, I think having the information well-structured, intelligently put together, was able to help some of the people that are pushing these policies, some politicians that could understand what’s happening, to be able to be well-equipped to articulate a defence and even, sometimes, even be on the offensive. So documenting what these organisations are doing, quoting them, knowing exactly – and also, exactly like you said, the memorandum is a perfect example. There are so many plans out there to demonstrate that there is a coordinated effort to disrupt our civilisation, to change laws. There are plans out there that clearly express that.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Marc, we have to leave it at that for the moment, but there’s so much more to talk about. I look forward to doing so with you and just want to say, hats off to you and all of those in Canada who have fought this important fight. We’ll talk with you again very soon. Next up, Kyle Shideler of the Center for Security Policy joins us. We’ll talk about how this problem is manifesting itself here thanks to our so-called friends, the Saudis, among others. That and more straight ahead.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download