On Defining Religion

(Image source: Brent Payne/Flickr)

(Image source: Brent Payne/Flickr)

Gatestone Institute, by Nonie Darwish, February 12, 2017:

  • What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam and that Muslims must, sooner or later, demand to live under an Islamic government.
  • The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader rather than to see a dictatorship — secular or theocratic — as a world leader.
  • Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, but in fact Islam came to the world 600 years after Christ, not to affirm the Bible but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book” — Jews and Christians — but to replace them, after accusing them of intentionally falsifying the Bible.
  • Islam was created as a rebellion against the Bible and its values, and it relies on government enforcement to do so.
  • Political and legal (sharia) Islam is much more than a religion. Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said that President Donald Trump’s 90-day ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries is “a religiously based ban,” and “if they can ban Muslims, why can’t they ban Mormons.” This has become the position of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, which has influenced not only the American public but has convinced the majority of the world that America is “bad.” How can we blame the world, and even a good segment of American citizens, for hating America when such disingenuous and misleading claims are aired to the world from US officials and broadcast by American television channels?

The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump Administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader, rather than to see a dictatorship — secular or theocratic — as a world leader. He ran as a Republican; meanwhile, Democrats and the mainstream media refuse to engage in respectful and legitimate debate on the most vital threat to Western civilization in the twenty-first century: Islam. Truth has become irrelevant; people seem to prefer a political game of tug-of-war to sway public opinion against the Trump Administration, and, presumably, to elect Democrats forever. That is how the system is set up.

Political discussions on television have become extremely frustrating; they have turned into shouting matches and name-calling at the least informative levels. Television hosts often become instigators and participants in the shouting matches. The thinking is apparently that the louder they get, the more attractive the program will be. Meanwhile everyone is talking at once; the viewer cannot hear anyone, so the program could not be more boring.

Under the US Constitution, freedom of religion is protected. and Islam has been welcomed inside the West on that basis as one of the three Abrahamic religions. According to Western values and the Western understanding of the word, “religion” is supposed to be a personal relationship with God, where free will is of utmost importance; the believer has authority only over himself or herself when it comes to religious laws or punishing sins (such as leaving the religion or committing adultery) — quite different from criminal laws intended to protect society. Western values also allow followers of a religion the freedom to proselytize, but never by resorting to government enforcement.

Bottom line, the Western definition of religion is in harmony with the Biblical values of the human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that all human beings are created equal under the law. It is considered a basic Western value to view God, family and country as a top priority.

Now let us compare these values to Islamic values:

  1. Muslim citizens have the right to punish other citizens with humiliating, severe, cruel and unusual punishments such as death, flogging and amputation, for sinning against Allah, the Quran or Islam. Those “crimes” include leaving Islam, being a homosexual, or committing adultery. And if the Islamic government does not enforce such punishments, any Muslim on the street has the right to apply the punishment against another Muslim and not be prosecuted. That is why apostates, such as myself, cannot visit any Muslim county; the fear is not only from Islamic governments but from anyone on the street.
  2. Being a Muslim is not a personal relationship with God, as it is under the Bible, but is enforced by the state at birth. When a child is born in Egypt to a Muslim father, the birth certificate is stamped “Muslim” and all government-issued documents as well. A child must learn Islamic studies in school and practice Islam throughout his life. In Egypt, the twin sons of a Christian divorced mother were forced to take Islamic studies and become Muslim just because their originally-Christian father converted to Islam. Today, in Egypt, I am still considered Muslim and such a status could never change if I ever lived there again.
  3. Islamic law and leaders rely on government enforcement — under penalty of death — to keep Muslims within Islam and to convert the minority Christian population into Islam. Islamic sharia law, obliges Islamic states to enforce religious law, and if the Muslim head of state refuses to follow religious law, sharia permits the public to use force to remove the head of state from office.
  4. Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, but in fact Islam came to the world 600 years after Christ, not to affirm the Bible but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book,” Jews and Christians, but to replace them — after accusing them of intentionally falsifying the Bible. Islam was created as a rebellion against the Bible and its values, and relies on government enforcement to do so.

The tenets above are just a few of the differences in values between Islam, the Bible and the Western concept of religion. What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam, and Muslims must demand to live under an Islamic government sooner or later. That might explain the reason for the eternal violence in nearly all Muslim countries, between government being in the hands of a religious theocracy or of the military. Islam, as it is practiced today, has violated all Western definitions of religion and values.

Political and legal (sharia) Islam is much more than a religion. Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values.”

Gad Saad interviews Ibn Warraq

warraq-books
Published on Feb 8, 2017 by Gad Saad

Topics covered include Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton, Trump’s recent executive order on immigration, multiculturalism, cultural relativism, Islamic doctrines, Sharia law, the Western mindset regarding Islam, the rise of atheism in the Muslim world, and Islamic reformation, among other topics.

Ibn Warraq’s Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/Ibn-Warraq-8…

Ibn Warraq’s website: http://www.ibnwarraq.com

Trump’s immigration order: Why Islam is the issue

donald_trump_29093637770-868x579WND, BY LT. COL. JAMES ZUMWALT, 02/01/2017

On Friday, Jan. 27, President Donald Trump fulfilled a campaign promise, briefly imposing a temporary ban on immigrants entering the U.S. to allow the government time to implement a more effective screening policy. Cries ranging from unconstitutionality to simply being un-American quickly followed.

It is imperative any analysis of this issue be driven by logic – not emotion. Yet critics play on emotion, claiming Trump’s ban targets Muslims.

As of 2010, 49 countries had Muslim majority populations; this ban only lists seven. And, all seven were flagged earlier by President Barack Obama as “countries of concern.”

They also were countries Obama had previously imposed restrictions against, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. All Trump did was to broaden those restrictions into a temporary ban. Critics voicing concerns about Trump’s ban registered no concerns about Obama’s earlier restrictions.

Other critics complain the ban fails to include countries with links to the 9/11 attacks – Saudi Arabia, Egypt and United Arab Emirates. This may well have been motivated by the false hope using Obama’s list would stymy criticism.

Clearly, the seven represent countries either in turmoil or known to foster anti-U.S. and terrorist sentiments. The fact all are heavily Islamic does not give them a free pass precisely for this reason. The ban is legal, focusing on threats emanating from the most prevalent countries.

Democracies have a value system tolerant of diverse beliefs, particularly when it concerns religion. What we need understand is some beliefs come with “baggage” – i.e., a noted propensity for violence. We simply cannot wave these believers through on the hope and prayer they will not act upon them.

Without stigmatizing an entire religion as violent, but while recognizing believers have performed numerous violent acts in its name, scrutinizing entry is not unreasonable. This is particularly so for immigrants originating from countries known as cauldrons of violence.

We must understand the baggage Islam brings with it and the threat it presents to our national security.

Islam is unique among religions. It is a hybrid involving two ideologies – one religious, one political. Fundamentals for both rest upon three pillars: the Quran, the Sira (Prophet Muhammad’s biography) and the Hadith (traditions mandating believers live their lives as did Muhammad).

An effort to separate these two ideologies by analyzing these pillars was undertaken by professor Bill Warner. Known as the Trilogy Project, his approach “was based upon scientific principles and objective methods, so that any independent person could achieve the same results if they used the same methods.”

It involved identifying every reference within the pillars where Islam dictates how Muslims are to treat “kafirs” – i.e., non-believers. Such references were tagged as “political” Islam for failing to address the believer’s relationship with Allah, while references that did address it were deemed “religious.”

Astonishingly, Warner found, “The Quran says that the kafir may be murdered, tortured, plotted against, enslaved, robbed, insulted, beheaded, demeaned, mocked and so forth. The Hadith and Sira agree. …”

Warner’s analysis applied a well-known ethical yardstick – the Golden Rule. As it demands one treat others as one would like to be treated, he noted its application, “…removes the brutality, insults and prejudice directed at the kafir. The constant attacks would disappear.”

Significant to our Muslim immigration threat analysis is noting Project Trilogy’s results. Applying the Golden Rule to these three pillars would require a large amount of their content, disguised as religion, be eliminated as purely political. Warner determined that 61 percent of the Quran’s content, 75 percent of the Sira’s and 20 percent of the Hadith’s meet this test.

Warner underscores Islam’s bottom line: “The worst error in thinking about Islam is that it is a religion … religion is the smallest part of Islam.” We must understand this: Islam is predominantly a political ideology packaged as a religion.

Just imagine Democrats or Republicans seeking to do what Muslims have – establishing a political ideology disguised as a religion. Think how much more effective they would be in imposing it upon Americans.

As Muslims’ fundamental beliefs evolve from these pillars, we must recognize what they teach believers about non-believers: intolerance.

The pillars tell Muslims to force non-believers, by whatever means necessary, to submit to Islam or die. Interestingly, any Muslim denying this is true becomes an apostate (disbeliever); however, any Muslim denying it just to mislead a kafir is exempted under taqiyya — the Islamic concept sanctioning lies by Muslims to non-Muslims to further Islam’s influence.

This leads us to question President Barack Obama’s assertions over the years that Islam is “peaceful.” The Trilogy Project results undermine this. Obama claimed Islam was hijacked by extremists endeavoring to give it a violent interpretation; we now know Islam was hijacked by moderates endeavoring to give it a peaceful one.

If an ideology is built around a belief system mandating all others submit to it or die, its believers potentially are a threat to non-believers. Does this mean all believers will embrace their right to kill? Of course not; however, the ideology issues believers an Allah-sanctioned “hunting license” to do so. Indiscriminately opening our doors to them without adequate screening leaves us to determine the identification of license users by the non-believer body count they leave behind. This was what we had to do in San Bernardino, Orlando, Fort Hood and elsewhere.

Accordingly, all Muslims conceivably present a potential danger to followers of all other religions. But critics objecting to Trump’s ban as targeting a specific religion ignore a responsibility to better understand Islam’s political ideology. Giving Islam the full weight of a religion only invites future attacks by Muslim extremists, gaining entry posing as moderates. Harboring a political ideology, Islam exceeds its baggage weight as a religion.

Too many of Trump’s immigration critics base their opposition on what is right about America without understanding what is wrong about Islam. What is wrong about Islam is the intolerant political ideology it brings, packaged as a religion. Islam’s small religious component has become the camel’s nose under the West’s tent seeking to impose its political ideology upon us. We ignore it at our peril.

Video: Bill Warner Speaks at ACT Cleveland 5 Dec 2016

Published on Dec 7, 2016 by KRoseVideo

From ACT For America – Cleveland, Ohio Chapter:
=======================================
“I am pleased to invite you to come and hear our next guest, Dr. Bill Warner. He is considered by CAIR to be one of the top Islamophobes in the country. Now consider the source, LOL!

Dr. Warner is a renowned national and international speaker on the topics of Islamic doctrine and history.

Dr. Warner will explain quite clearly how and why Mohammed’s success began with migration. The Islamic calendar is based on Mohammed’s migration, the Hijra. Islamic migration is the beginning of Sharia and Jihad.

Here’s more of Dr. Warner’s Bio:

Dr. Bill Warner has been a physicist, businessman and professor. He is the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. He is the first person to use the scientific method to produce a Koran that can be easily understood.

Dr. Warner made the other two sacred texts of Islam, the Sira, Mohammed’s biography, and the Hadith, his Traditions, simple to read and understand. He has written a dozen books on Islam. His Sharia Law for Non-Muslims is an international best seller.

Dr. Warner developed the first self-study courses on Islam — The Foundations of Islam and a three level training-A Self-Study Course on Political Islam, that explains Islamic political doctrine.”
======================================
see: http://www.politicalislam.com

maxresdefault-11

Identifying the Threat

maxresdefault-1-868x488AIM, by Retired Adm. James A. Lyons

On 13 December 2016, Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer received the prestigious Freedom Flame Award presented annually by the Center For Security Policy (CSP) for his unswerving commitment to freedom and democracy. The CSP is headed by Frank Gaffney, who has been a staunch voice in promoting freedom and democracy for the Western world, but also for Israel which finds itself in a sea of hostility.

Gaffney and the dedicated team of professionals at CSP, in their fight to protect our Constitution, have always put principle foremost in their efforts. This fact was recognized by Ambassador Dermer in his acceptance remarks. Separately, Ambassador Dermer was criticized by the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for accepting the award because the SPLC considers Gaffney and the CSP to be anti-Muslim.

What SPLC principally objects to is the CSP’s exposure of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) penetration in all of our government agencies including the White House. This should be of great concern to all Americans since the MB creed is to destroy America from within (Civilization Jihad) by our own miserable hands and replace our Constitution with the seventh century draconian Islamic “Shariah Law.” This point is not debatable, since facts supporting this claim were introduced as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial in 2008 in Dallas, Texas. Two principal MB front groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) were designated (among others) as un-indicated co-conspirators in that trial. The Obama White House frequently uses these two MB front groups to deflect any linkage of Islam to terrorist acts.

Ambassador Dermer then went on to address how, in his view, the main terrorist threat we face today, what he called is “militant Islam.” This was more than surprising as it implies that there is some “non-militant” or “moderate” version of Islam. While it is true that all Muslims do not adhere to the scriptures in the Quran, there is only one Islam; one doctrine; one Islamic law (Shariah); and one scripture–the Quran!

Muslims do not consider Islam a religion but more “a complete way of life.” Furthermore, according to that doctrine, the law and scriptures in the Quran, as affirmed by all senior scholars of Islam since the 10th century, jihad (warfare against non-Muslims per Islamic law) is obligatory for all Muslims. This is true for all time until the world is dominated by Allah (Q 8:39).

Many Western leaders have failed to comprehend the supremacist hostility of Islamic doctrine and are delusional to the point that they believe that there is some version of Islam that can co-exist with Western values. They are quick to point out that not all Muslims are terrorists. True, Muslims are individuals and some will be more devout or faithful or obedient than other Muslims. But that doesn’t matter because it has no bearing whatsoever on the core doctrine of Islam which includes the obligation to support jihad. Therefore, even though individual Muslims may be fine upstanding human beings, friendly, and embracing our culture, that has no bearing on the core principles of Islam.

All four major schools of Sunni Islam and the principal Shiite one are in agreement about all major elements of Shariah, including death for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality and sometimes slander. They also all agree on the commitment to jihad, Jew-hatred and Islamic supremacism. Jihad on the part of both Sunnis and Shiites has continued non-stop since Muhammad led the migration (hijra) to Medina in 622 A.D. Therefore, what we are witnessing today in Europe and here in the U.S. is nothing more than the continuation of the jihad launched by Muhammad following the hijra. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1838, “Jihad, holy war, is an obligation for all believers….The state of war is the natural state with regard to the infidel….These doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran….The violent tendencies of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them.” Amen! Jihad is not something unique to the 20th or 21st century. It has only been suppressed when confronted resolutely by both political and military force.

While President al-Sisi of Egypt, speaking before all the leading Sunni clerics at al-Azhar University, called for a reformation of Islam on 1 January 2015, unfortunately, his call has no standing with the leading Sunni clerics. He is viewed by them as a political/military leader, not a scholar or jurist of Islam. In fact, it may be said that Islam already has been through three major “Reformations”: these were led by the 1st Caliph Abu Bakr in the Ridda—or Apostasy—wars; Ibn Wahhab in the 1700’s; and now the Islamic State and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whose name tells you whom it is he emulates. These reformations have been more in the sense of “purification and returning to Mohammad’s true intent” than making Islam compatible with Western values.

Until it is understood by Western leaders that Islam is a totalitarian ideology bent on world domination, masquerading as a religion, we will not be successful in defeating this threat. The current migrations to America and Europe must not only be stopped but reversed. Islam cannot coexist with Western values and must be confronted resolutely, both politically and militarily.

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. Lyons is a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi.

‘Real Housewives of ISIS’

real-housewives-of-isis

Geller Report, By Pamela Geller – on January 4, 2017

The BBC created a short video designed as a fake trailer for a show parodying Real Housewives – ‘Real Housewives of ISIS.’

I, for one, do not think it funny. Not for the reasons that Muslims and leftists don’t. Leftists and most especially Muslims don’t think it’s funny because they see it as mocking Islam and many support the work of ISIS. Insulting, mocking or criticizing Islam is punishable by death which is why I have been targeted for assassination multiple times by devout Muslims.

I don’t think it’s funny because the oppression, subjugation, misery, and slaughtering of millions to impose Islam across the world is happening now. The blood in Istanbul still stains the streets. Berlin, Nice, San Bernardino, Paris, Copenhagen, Orlando, Ohio State, Garland, NYC, Jerusalem, Brussels, Munich, Nairobi, etc — it’s too fresh, the flesh and the bone.

And yes, while Charlie Chaplin was funny and phenomenal as Hitler in The Dictator, his film was a warning in 1940. And Hogan’s Heroes was funny because we had already won the war.  But the films of the mid-forties about the Nazis were dead serious and rightly so. America was in the thick of it then just as ewe are now. And like the Europe is really in the throes of war.

I guess we should applaud the BBC for evening attempting such a thing because they are as much the problem as the ideologies they protect — jihad and sharia. Still it is something.

WATCH: LEFTISTS AND MUSLIMS HAVE MELTDOWN AFTER BBC AIRS PARODY ‘REAL HOUSEWIVES OF ISIS’

The Rebel, January 4, 2017:

The BBC did something no one expected and amusingly mocked the Islamic State and women who travel to Syria in a clip from their show Revolting.

The short video is designed as a fake trailer for a show parodying Real Housewives. There’s actually some fun shots thrown at Islamists, feminists, and the religion of Islam itself. It’s borderline politically incorrect, which means it’s way funnier than anything the CBC has ever done.

However, some on the left don’t like this one bit. On Facebook Aftab Bashir wrote, “Let’s make satire about British soldiers being killed in Iraq and let’s ridicule their widows and children coz its all a bit of a laugh ain’t it.”

In a follow up comment, Ebrahim Dar-wa said, “Funny for non Muslims but we don’t take this as a joke. Even though ISIS is made up by the West a lot of views are based on religion so this is attacking Islamic values.”

Another user, Hannah Berry wrote, “How about instead of putting in the money to make this you could actually send the money out to help those suffering in places like Allepo.”

More Muslims whined saying “Disgraceful and distasteful. The BBC is normalising Islamophobia through comedy” and “So a show depicting hijab wearing women as terrorists. How do you think this will help the Muslim women living in west suffering daily attacks from ignorant, hateful people? This is really sick.”

While these may seem like minority Muslim opinions, you’d be surprised. A poll released last year found that 23 per cent of British Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law. And that’s not all. 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband.

Inside the Minds of Orthodox Muslims

islam2

Citizen Warrior, January 3, 2017:

The following are excerpts from an article in The Week entitled, Inside the Minds of Jihadis. It is a book review:

As with any enemy, the best way to defeat the Islamic State is to understand it. And to do that, the best place to start is a new book by Graeme Wood, The Way of the Strangers. This book gives us the best insight yet into what makes the Islamic State tick.

Wood, a national correspondent at The Atlantic and lecturer in political science at Yale, spent years from the streets of Cairo to London to the Philippines to Australia, interviewing supporters of the Islamic State and getting inside their heads. What results is a series of gripping, fascinating portraits. Wood’s subjects have little cageyness towards him. Since everything is foreordained by Allah anyway, revealing your plans to a Western journalist won’t change the outcome. Plus, Wood has the talented journalist’s skill for interview and observation. He’s an astute psychologist and a good writer to boot…

The book’s implicit thesis, one which is both inarguably true and persistently denied by so many decision makers in the West, is that ideas have consequences. While the motives of any individual and group of people are always multifaceted and almost always include a good helping of interest-seeking and self-delusion, it is also impossible to deny that large sections of Islamic State members and supporters, from its leadership down to foot soldiers, make decisions on the basis of what they believe.

As the Islamic State keeps repeating over and over through its high-polish propaganda apparatus, it has a theology, and this theology has content, and an internal logic, that can be understood on its merits. Once this theology is understood, and once the proponents of this theology are actually listened to, and their actions watched, it becomes impossible to deny that this theology is a key cause (maybe not the cause, but a key cause) of the actions of the Islamic State, most of its leaders, and most of its supporters.

What’s more — and this is the source of the willful blindness of elite policymakers and commentators towards the Islamic State — this theology does have Islamic roots…

All Muslims agree on at least one thing, which is that Muslims should follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad. And the Prophet Muhammad did do many of the things that the Islamic State is most reviled for, such as waging absolute religious warfare, engaging in slavery, stoning adulterers, and so forth…

It’s a great read. But more importantly, Wood’s book reveals truths about ISIS that are hiding in plain sight — but that our leaders make themselves willfully ignorant of. They ought to read his book, too.

Read the whole article here: Inside the Minds of Jihadis

Our Responsibility to Criticize Islam

The Flight into Egypt by Vittore Carpaccio, c. 1515 [National Gallery, Washington, DC]

The Flight into Egypt by Vittore Carpaccio, c. 1515 [National Gallery, Washington, DC]

The Catholic Thing, by William Kilpatrick, December 28, 2016:

A Commonplace has emerged among media and political elites that criticism of Islam or even of radical Islam will only serve to drive moderate Muslims into the radical camp.

That argument should be questioned because it can just as easily be that lack of criticism has led to the rebirth of militant Islam. Far from being critical of Islam, Western governments, media, academia, and even churches have bent over backward to claim that all the atrocities committed in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, the Western media have adopted a rigid system of self-censorship that keeps them from admitting that these atrocities are in fact committed in the name of Islam.

The latest example is the reporting on the assassination of a Russian ambassador by a Turkish policeman. Almost the first words out of the assassin’s mouth after the shooting were: “We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on jihad.” If you don’t remember him saying that, it’s because that part of the statement was omitted from almost all news and television reports. Apparently, our betters in the media were afraid that if we were aware of the man’s devotion to Muhammad, we might say something provocative that would turn untold numbers of peaceful Muslims into bomb-throwing jihadists.

Perhaps the prime example of the wages of silence is the current crisis in Europe. Islamic terrorists have declared war on Europe and the result has been a series of deadly attacks – at airports, subways, cafés, concert halls, and, most recently, Christmas markets. All this mayhem is the indirect result of ignorance about Islam – an ignorance that, in turn, is the result of an almost complete blackout of news unfavorable to Islam.

Anyone with a thorough understanding of Islamic culture and religion could have predicted that, even without the 2015-16 flood of Muslim migrants, the steady flow of Muslim immigrants over the years would create a combustible situation. The amazing thing is that the consequences of this massive migration were never discussed – except in glowing terms. Just about the only thing allowed to be said about the migrants was that they would solve labor shortages, refill welfare coffers, and bring cultural enrichment to Europe.

That was the official line. Anyone who deviated from it could expect censure, possible job loss, or even a criminal trial. Say something negative about Muslim immigration on your Facebook page and you would be visited by police. Say it in public and you would receive a court summons. It didn’t matter if you were a famous writer (Oriana Fallaci), the President of the Danish Free Press Society (Lars Hedegaard), or a popular member of the Dutch Parliament (Geert Wilders). If you couldn’t say something nice about Islam, then you shouldn’t say anything at all.

In the European case, the idea that criticizing Islam will create an army of radicals doesn’t hold up. Criticism of Islam is essentially a crime in many parts of Europe and has been for a long time. In Europe, few dared criticize Islam, but the radicals came anyway. More than anything else, it was silence that allowed Islamization and radicalization to spread through France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Practically no one spoke up about no-go-zones, sharia courts, polygamy, and forced marriages, refusal to integrate, crime waves, and the rape epidemic. Now that many are finally beginning to speak out, it may be too late to avoid capitulation (Sweden’s likely fate) or bloody conflict (more likely in France).

The very argument that criticism of Islam will drive moderates into the radical camp suggests that criticism is needed. If Islam is such a hair-trigger religion that the slightest offense might radicalize adherents, there is something radically wrong with the religion itself. We don’t worry that criticizing Catholicism is going to produce angry Catholic mobs rampaging through the streets. We don’t fear that one wrong word is going to cause a young Southern Baptist to strap on a suicide belt.

Islam invites criticism. Given its bloody past and present, it would be highly irresponsible not to subject it to a searching analysis and critique. Such a critique would not aim at alienating Muslims (although some will inevitably be alienated), but at alerting likely victims of jihad.

One of the basics that non-Muslims need to know is that Islam divides the world in two – the House of Islam, and the House of War (all non-Islamic societies). And every Muslim is expected to do his part to make the House of War submit to the House of Islam. Europeans are now experiencing a “don’t-know-what-hit-me” sense of bewilderment because they never learned this basic fact about Islam.

One reason for our reluctance to analyze and criticize Islam (an idea) is that such criticism seems tantamount to criticizing Muslims (a people). Unfortunately, even if that is not the intention, it is often the result. A person can’t separate himself entirely from his beliefs, and, consequently, we take criticism of our religion personally. That’s a good reason for presenting the critique as tactfully as possible. But it’s not a good reason for offering no critique at all.

If you can’t criticize a belief system because it would hurt the feelings of people who subscribe to that system, then we were wrong to criticize Nazism, Communism, and Japanese imperialism. Ordinarily, we refrain from criticizing other religions. Such a live-and-let-live approach is generally sensible, but when the other religion takes the attitude that you must either convert, submit, or die, then live-and-let-live is no longer an option. That is the position that we are in with regard to Islam. And it is suicidal to pretend that things are otherwise.

New Year Speech to the Muslim World

Gatestone Institute, by Nonie Darwish, January 1, 2017:

  • By Western standards, military rule is shunned as an oppressive form of government, but in the Islamic world it is the only buffer of protection from the tyranny of total sharia law that must be enforced by Islamic theocracies, such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
  • The days of sacrificing the safety and security of citizens of the West for the sake of multiculturalism, are over. In order for multiculturalism to work, it must be a two-way street between people that share common values of respect of each other’s culture. Unfortunately, the West did not get that from Islam.
  • It really does not matter what is “true Islam”. That is something the Muslim world needs to deal with internally; it does not serve us in the West to try to evaluate what is “true Islam” and what is not.
  • Your religious leaders, whose salaries are paid by Islamic governments, stand before your media cameras and call on Muslims to stab, slam trucks, kill, rape and humiliate the kafir [non-Muslim] Jews, Christians and Pagans.
  • Islamic governments and terror groups are two peas in a pod, working together for the same goal: enforcing Allah’s law, sharia, on the world. It is no secret that a Muslim head of state must rule by sharia and must conduct jihad against non-Muslims. Sharia law commands Muslim citizens to remove, by rebellion or assassination, any Muslim leader who does not abide by sharia and support jihadists.
  • As of today, the West must hold Islamic governments responsible for jihadist actions of their own terrorist citizens. Nothing happens in Muslim countries without the knowledge of their governments. If a Muslim government has no control of its citizens, it should be considered a rogue nation.
  • Bringing in unvetted refugees from Syria and Iraq is not an act of compassion, but gross negligence. Western governments have failed their citizens for too long in that respect and that will end today.
  • After all, why should cultures that loathe the West seek to live in the West? As President-elect Trump said, why should America — or any country — not allow in only immigrants who love us and who respect our laws and way of life?
  • Our doors will be reopened to citizens from Islamic nations only when Islamic governments prove to the world that they have fundamentally changed, that they have ended once and for all their obsessive jihadist propaganda and hate education prevalent in the Muslim world.
  • Until then, all kinds of visas from such troubled areas will be suspended, except for the few who would be properly vetted. Such actions will surely expedite the reformation of Islam and Islamic education in Muslim nations who are desperate to give us their excess unhappy population.

Obama’s first major speech after his election in 2008 was to the Muslim world in Cairo. His speech did not deal with the harsh realities of Islam and its impact on world peace. No Muslim authority shook Obama’s hand promising change, a new relationship with the West based on mutual respect, or a reflection on what went wrong on 9/11, even if they were not directly responsible for it. No Arab leader publicly announced an end to the Islamic jihadist and anti-Western hate education and Arab media propaganda. Instead, the Muslim world got an apology from Obama.

After Obama left Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood was empowered, and military rulers weakened and brought down one after another. By Western standards, military rule is shunned as an oppressive form of government, but in the Islamic world it is the only buffer of protection from the tyranny of total sharia that must be enforced by Islamic theocracies, such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Muslim Brotherhood and then ISIS quickly filled the vacuum and the Muslim world is now on fire.

Obama’s first major presidential speech, on June 4, 2009, was to the Muslim world in Cairo. His speech did not deal with the harsh realities of Islam and its impact on world peace. No Muslim authority shook Obama’s hand promising change, a new relationship with the West based on mutual respect, or a reflection on what went wrong on 9/11. (Image source: White House)

A huge storm of Islamic darkness, spilling over and sweeping across our planet, headed towards the West. Let us never allow our freedoms, built by generations of Americans, be lost to fear and terror. It is time for the West to unite and send a firm message to the Muslim World — a message that should have been sent by Obama back in 2009.

With the election of President-elect Donald J. Trump, citizens of the West have renewed their hope to make America again the leader of the free world and human rights for all, as should be. Trump hopefully will rally leaders of the free world to give a firm message to the Muslim world:

The days of sacrificing the safety and security of citizens of the West for the sake of multiculturalism, are over. In order for multiculturalism to work, it must be a Two-Way Street between peoples that share common values of respect of each other’s culture. Unfortunately, the West did not get that from Islam. America, Europe and Australia have been the safe haven of people from all over the world — different nationalities, religions and races. We love the Muslim people as we love all people but our love to people of the world should never supersede our number one duty, which is to protect of our citizens, our freedoms, our way of life, and yes, our Biblical-based, Judeo-Christian values.

Today the Middle East is on fire, overrun and ravaged by terrorists and extremists who have no respect for their own governments or law and order. Groups such as ISIS and others brought back ancient barbarity that humanity had mistakenly thought it had transcended. We keep hearing that this has nothing to do with Islam and that Islamic terrorists are just a small number of misguided Muslims who misinterpret true peaceful Islam.

But now it is our turn to tell you what is on our mind: It really does not matter what is true Islam and what is not. When a terrorist plows through a crowd with a truck aiming to kill, the last thing anyone cares to hear is whether “the driver was a true Muslim or not”. That is something the Muslim world needs to deal with internally; it does not serve us in the West to try to evaluate what is “true Islam” and what is not.

Middle Eastern governments-run schools still teach hate propaganda against the West, Jews and Christians. They still teach their children lies such as that Yasser Arafat died from poisoning by Jews. They still teach in their public schools that jihad is a holy war against non-Muslims; that killing apostates and honor killing of girls is a duty under Islamic law and those who do it will not be prosecuted, but will be rewarded with virgins by Allah. Muslim Imams spread their hatred and incitement right under the noses of the so-called moderate Muslim leaders, on your government-run television screens. Your religious leaders, whose salaries are paid by Islamic governments, stand before your media cameras and call on Muslims to stab, slam trucks, kill, rape and humiliate the kafir [non-Muslim], Jews, Christians and Pagans.

We have done enough appeasing and looking the other way when it comes to the dirty little secret that no one wants to admit: that Islamic governments and terror groups are two peas in a pod, working together for the same goal: enforcing Allah’s law, sharia, on the world. It is no secret that a Muslim head of state must rule by sharia and must conduct jihad against non-Muslims. Sharia law commands Muslim citizens to remove, by rebellion or assassination, any Muslim leader who does not abide by sharia and support jihadists. The world understands the plight of Islamic leaders who must fulfill their sharia obligation before their Islamists, otherwise they are “toast.” Solving this problem is not the responsibility of the West, but it is a major problem that the Muslim world must address in the open and deal with.

While Muslim people and governments develop the courage openly to settle their issues over their jihad duty, the unholy alliance game played by Islamic governments and terror groups must be exposed for what it is, and emphatically rejected. The West cannot afford to participate in such a dishonest game anymore.

As of today, the West must hold Islamic governments responsible for jihadist actions of their own terrorist citizens. Nothing happens in Muslim countries without the knowledge of their governments. If a Muslim government has no control of its citizens, it should be considered a rogue nation. Islamic nations that continue to breed terrorists in their media, schools and mosques and then act innocent of the crime must be held accountable. Muslims themselves have no tolerance for one Western cartoonist who offended them with a cartoon of Muhammad. Instead of saying that this cartoonist does not represent all Western nations, the Muslim public rioted, burned and killed several Westerners and their embassies in retaliation for the actions of one, over a cartoon. That is from the same nations that flooded the world with terrorists that use airplanes, guns, explosives, knives and even trucks to kill non-Muslims. Muslims need to live by the saying “If your house is of glass, do not throw rocks at others.”

Any Western nation that does not protect its own citizens first and foremost should be a pariah among civilized nations. Bringing in unvetted refugees from Syria and Iraq is not an act of compassion, but gross negligence. Western governments have failed their citizens for too long in that respect and that will end today.

It would be insane for Western governments not to use extraordinary measures for self-preservation. The doors of immigration to Muslim citizens from nations overrun by terror will be closed. After all, why should cultures that loathe the West seek to live in the West? As President-elect Trump said, why should America — or any country — not allow in only immigrants who love us and who respect our laws and way of life?

Absorbing refugees from terror run Syria is not only bad for the West, but also for Syria. If we take the moderate Muslims out of Syria, then who will be left to fight ISIS and rebuild the country?

Our doors will be reopened to citizens from Islamic nations only when the war on Islamic terrorism is won and when Islamic governments prove to the world that they have fundamentally changed, that they have ended once and for all their obsessive jihadist propaganda and hate education prevalent in the Muslim world. Until then, all kinds of visas from such troubled areas will be suspended, except for the few who would be properly vetted. Such actions will surely expedite the reformation of Islam and Islamic education in Muslim nations who are desperate to give us their excess unhappy population.

We are looking forward to the day when moderate Muslims will be able to take control of their governments, their educational systems, and their law and order, so the Western world could resume mutual constructive relations based on friendship and respect. The whole world is looking forward to that day and praying for a peaceful Middle East. The ball is now in the Muslim world’s court.

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values.”

Are Mosques Muslim “Churches?”

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, December 11, 206:

“But is the mosque only for prayers?  No.  The mosque is the center for all Islamic activity as it used to be in the mosques of the Prophet in Medina.  In these mosques, not only prayers took, place, but it was a school of knowledge where companions used to study the Quran and ask questions.  It was a place for the Government to receive delegations from foreign countries.  It was a treasury from which charity work was done and it was a war-room where decisions and planning for wars imposed on Muslims were made.”  A Quote from Islam-USA.com on Mosques

dic

The $110 million Diyanet Islamic Center of America opened in April 2016 in Lanham, Maryland.  The opening was hosted by Turkish President Ergodan

Many people in the West are significantly confused about the true nature of a mosque.

To understand what a mosque is, one must first understand what Islam is. To be a “muslim” is to be one who submits to Islam. To submit to Islam is to submit to the law of Allah – sharia.  100% of all sharia mandates jihad until the world is under Islamic rule (sharia).  Jihad is only defined in sharia as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

The mosque is the center of all life in the Islamic community.  Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life (social, cultural, military, political, legal and religious)” and the mosque is the center of all things social, cultural, military, political, legal and religious.

In a video HERE, former Islamic scholar and professor of sharia, Sam Solomon (name he uses since his conversion to Christianity), details a mosque is the center of Islamic government and much more than a place to pray.

According to Islam, the perfect example for all mankind is Mohammad.  The koran says so.

“And thou (Mohammad) standest on an exalted standard of character.”  Koran 68:4

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern of conduct for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.”  Koran 33:21

Why do Muslims step their right foot into the mosque first? Because Mohammad did it.

Why is it unlawful for Muslim men to wear gold? Because Mohammad forbid it.

Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry a 7 year old girl? Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the relationship when she was 9.

Why is it okay for Muslims to war against non-Muslims? Because Mohammad said it and Mohammad did it.

How did Mohammad use the first mosque in Medina?  It was used for: social gatherings; for legal rulings; for teaching Islam; for storing food, water, ammunition and weapons; for housing jihadis; for planning battles; and it was the place from which jihadi was launched.

Mosques are the center of the Islamic State, and the places from which Islam enforces its will on the community and on the world.

This is why all over the world, military and security services continue to find weapons and explosives in mosques, and the mosques teach jihad is obligatory for the muslim community.

The mosques our military went into in Iraq and Afghanistan had weapons.

The mosques recently raided by European security officials had weapons or evidence of weapons and/or explosives training.

As a matter of fact, UTT’s Chris Gaubatz went into mosques around the United States posing as a Muslim and discovered most of them advocate violence and have literature advocating/supporting violence against non-Muslims.

The “Mapping Sharia” research project conducted between May 2007 and May 2010, reveals 51% of U.S. mosques advocate violence and another 30% have texts that support violence.

The Center for Religious Freedom (Freedom House) published a report in 2005 – with Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey as its Chairman – revealing a large number of mosques in America are owned and funded by the government of Saudi Arabia, and teach American muslims they must wage jihad against non-Muslims, hate non-Muslims, and they can never truly be “citizens” of a non-Muslim state, among other things.

Canadian officials publicly admit “extremist” literature calling for violence against unbelievers is “common” in mosques in Canada (Aug 2016).

Here are some other noteworthy news stories affirming mosques are not simply places of worship for Muslims:

After the jihadi (“terrorist”) attacks in Tunisia in the summer of 2015, the Tunisian government moved to close 80 of the 100 remaining mosques there.  The head of Tunisia’s association of imams said police searches uncovered weapons in 40 mosques around the country in 2014.

The largest mosque in Madrid was a jihadi recruitment center run by a former prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba U.S. facility for terrorists (Dec 2014).

One of the largest mosques in Switzerland was raided because the Imam instructed his followers that Muslims who do not attend mosque and pray should be killed (Nov 2016).

Netherlands authorities thwarted a plot centered at a mosque to massacre Jews at a local synagogue (Nov 2016).

Germans raided and closed a Mosque for teaching ISIS Ideology – ie Islam (Dec 2014).

The Oklahoma Mosque attended by jihadi Alton Nolen, who beheaded his co-worker, taught attendees they must establish a caliphate under sharia and destroy the US (Sep 2014).

Russian officials arrested the Imam of a Mosque and found explosives there (Jan 2016).

At two separate mosques in Afghanistan in (March 2014) and (April 2016) Muslims blew themselves up in the mosques while making explosives.

Danish police found machetes in mosque they raided (June 2014).

A large mosque in Gaza was struck by Israeli military officials because it contained weapons (July 2014).

mosques

In April 2015 the Imam of the Grand Mosque called for an all out war against all Shiites and Christians. This Imam is one of the most respected leaders in the Islamic world.

The chairman of Al Azhar (who is ranked #1 among the 500 most influential muslims on the planet) calls for jihad against unbelievers.  Al Azhar University is the oldest and most respect school of Islamic jurisprudence in the world.

This might explain why in Denmark only 14% of mosques distance themselves from ISIS and ISIS ideology (April 2015).

For more information see UTT’s article “What is the Purpose of Islamic Centers/Mosques in America” from January 2016.

UTT Asks You to Consider 3 Simple Action Items:

  1.  Know the threat.  Use UTT as a resource for research.
  2. Bring the UTT 3-Day law enforcement program “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Network” to your area so those charged with protecting you know this too.
  3. Ensure your pastors and rabbis are sharing this truth with their flocks so as to protect them and the broader community.

And, as always, ensure your local leaders know CAIR is Hamas so when CAIR starts yapping to con your leaders into believing they are friendly, your leaders will know better and treat them like the terrorists they are.

“Nothing to do with Islam”?

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, December 3, 2016:

  • “Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution.” — The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
  • “The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs… Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches… Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?” — Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University.
  • The jihadists who carry out terrorist attacks in the service of ISIS, for example, are merely following the commands in the Quran, both 9:5, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them…” and Quran 8:39, “So fight them until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah.”
  • Archbishop Welby — and Egypt’s extraordinary President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — has finally had the courage to say in public that if one insists on remaining “religiously illiterate,” it is impossible to solve the problem of religiously motivated violence.

For the first time, a European establishment figure from the Church has spoken out against an argument exonerating ISIS and frequently peddled by Western political and cultural elites. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, speaking in France on November 17, said that dealing with the religiously-motivated violence in Europe

“requires a move away from the argument that has become increasingly popular, which is to say that ISIS is ‘nothing to do with Islam’… Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution.”

Archbishop Welby also said that, “It’s very difficult to understand the things that impel people to some of the dreadful actions that we have seen over the last few years unless you have some sense of religious literacy”.

“Religious literacy” has indeed been in short supply, especially on the European continent. Nevertheless, all over the West, people with little-to-no knowledge of Islam, including political leaders, journalists and opinion makers, have all suddenly become “experts” on Islam and the Quran, assuring everybody that ISIS and other similarly genocidal terrorist groups have nothing to do with the purported “religion of peace,” Islam.

It is therefore striking finally to hear a voice from the establishment, especially a man of the Church, oppose, however cautiously, this curiously uniform (and stupefyingly uninformed) view of Islam. Until now, establishment Churches, despite the atrocities committed against Christians by Muslims, have been exceedingly busy only with so-called “inter-faith dialogue.” Pope Francis has even castigated Europeans for not being even more accommodating towards the migrants who have overwhelmed the continent, asking Europeans:

“What has happened to you, the Europe of humanism, the champion of human rights, democracy and freedom?… the mother of great men and women who upheld, and even sacrificed their lives for, the dignity of their brothers and sisters?”

(Perhaps the Pope, before rhetorically asking Europeans to sacrifice their lives for their migrant “brothers and sisters” should ask himself whether many of the Muslim migrants in Europe consider Europeans their “brothers and sisters”?)

A statement on Islam is especially significant coming from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop and principal leader of the Anglican Church and the symbolic head of the Anglican Communion, which stands at around 85 million members worldwide, the third-largest communion in the world.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby (left), recently said that dealing with the religiously-motivated violence in Europe “requires a move away from the argument that has become increasingly popular, which is to say that ISIS is ‘nothing to do with Islam’… Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution.” (Image source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

Only a year ago, commenting on the Paris massacres, the Archbishop followed conventional politically correct orthodoxy, pontificating that, “The perversion of faith is one of the most desperate aspects of our world today.” He explained that Islamic State terrorists have distorted their faith to the extent that they believe they are glorifying their God. Since then, he has clearly changed his mind.

Can one expect other Church leaders and political figures to heed Archbishop Welby’s words, or will they be conveniently overlooked? Western leaders have noticeably practiced selective hearing for many years and ignored truths that did not fit the “narrative” politicians apparently wished to imagine, especially when spoken by actual experts on Islam. When, in November 2015, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University, explained why the prestigious institution, which educates mainstream Islamic scholars, refused to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic, none of them was listening:

“The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from non-Muslims]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?”

Nor did Western leaders listen when The Atlantic, hardly an anti-establishment periodical, published a study by Graeme Wood, who researched the Islamic State and its ideology in depth. He spoke to members of the Islamic State and Islamic State recruiters and concluded:

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam”.

In the United States, another establishment figure, Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican National Committee and Donald Trump’s incoming White House Chief of Staff, recently made statements to the same effect as the Archbishop of Canterbury. “Clearly there are some aspects of that faith that are problematic and we know them; we’ve seen it,” Priebus said when asked to comment on incoming National Security Adviser former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s view that Islam is a political ideology that hides behind being a religion.

In much of American society, Flynn’s view that Islam is a political ideology is considered controversial, despite the fact that the political and military doctrines of Islam, succinctly summarized in the concept of jihad, are codified in Islamic law, sharia, as found in the Quran and the hadiths. The jihadists who carry out terrorist attacks in the service of ISIS, for example, are merely following the commands in the Quran, both 9:5, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them…” and Quran 8:39, “So fight them until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah.”

The question becomes, then, whether other establishment figures will also acknowledge what someone like Archbishop Welby — and Egypt’s extraordinary President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — has finally had the courage to say in public: that if one insists on remaining “religiously illiterate,” it is impossible to solve the problem of religiously motivated violence.

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

***

Understanding the  Threat:

The oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic jurisprudence is Al Azhar University, founded in Egypt in approximately 970 AD.

Al Azhar and its leadership continue to affirm “Jihad,” which it defines as war-fighting against unbelievers (non-Muslims), is obligatory until the world is under Islamic rule.

Oddly enough, this is exactly what Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all of the other jihadi organizations in the world teach, and what is taught in Islamic elementary schools around the world, including the United States.

***

The Doctrine of Cowards

Why are so many Muslim refugees coming to the US? Why do so few persecuted Christians come? The answer is the position of the churches. The biggest door into US society is the church door. The Christians and Jews love to attend interfaith gatherings where they sit and nod their heads yes to all that the Muslims say.

But the Christian and Jewish leaders are ignorant about Islam. They know nothing about the Islamic doctrine of Christian and Jew hatred. But what is worse is that they refuse to learn.

Christian leaders have developed a doctrine of the coward to justify their pious ignorance and fear. They are all about turning the other cheek, loving their enemies, and doing nothing while waiting for Jesus to return. They are incapable of boldness and courage. Wimps all (well, about 95% of them).

And if you are not a Christian, why aren’t you concerned with the greatest human rights tragedy happening today—the killing of religious minorities in Islamic lands? Why can’t persecuted Christians come as refugees to America? When will Christians care about the persecution of their own brothers and sisters?

What has happened to us (Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and all others) that we are no longer able to have moral outrage? Righteous anger?

Political Islam

2547553538-1

Center for Security Policy, November 14, 2016:

DR. BILL WARNER, Founder and Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Teaching the average person about Islam
  • The trilogy of Islamic doctrine
  • Why the doctrine is purposely difficult to understand

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

  • What political Islam deems a “good” Muslim
  • The anti-Constitutional nature of Sharia

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

  • Civilization war as established by Muhammad
  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s curtailment of Freedom of Speech

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

  • Why the Muslim Brotherhood is more dangerous than violent jihadists
  • How Donald Trump can avoid repeating the mistakes of his predecessors
  • Declaration on Cairo Human Rights in Islam

The Psychopathic and Insincere Jihad

lp_1Front Page Magazine, by Raymond  Ibrahim, October 28, 2016:

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Whenever Muslims engage in behavior that ostensibly contradicts Islam—from taking drugs and watching porn to killing fellow Muslims—Islam’s apologists loudly proclaim “Aha, see, they’re not true Muslims!”  Or, in the words of CIA head John Brennan on the Islamic State: “They are terrorists, they’re criminals.  Most—many—of them are psychopathic thugs, murderers who use a religious concept and masquerade and mask themselves in that religious construct.”

Overlooked is that many self-styled jihadis are indeed “psychopathic thugs, murderers”; some may not even believe in Allah at all.  Yet this does not exonerate Islam, for its “religious construct” was designed to entice such men.

As usual, this traces back to the prophet, Muhammad.  After telling his followers that Allah had permitted Muslims four wives and limitless concubines (Koran 4:3), he later claimed that Allah had delivered a new revelation (Koran 33.51) permitting him, Muhammad alone, to marry and sleep with as many women as he wanted.  In response, his young wife Aisha quipped: “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”  (Apostates from Islam regularly cite this episode as especially disenchanting them with the prophet.)

But it is the concept of jihad that especially comports with those who seek to indulge their carnal appetites.  For whoever fights in the name of Allah and/or seeks to empower Islam—that is, jihadis/terrorists—is exonerated of all blame and, if he dies fighting, guaranteed the highest levels of paradise (where more sex awaits).

That’s because Allah made a “pact” with them.  According to Koran 9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them Paradise: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain….  Rejoice then in the bargain you have struck, for that is the supreme triumph.”   Muhammad elaborated: “Lining up for battle in the path of Allah [jihad to empower Islam] is worthier than 60 years of worship.”  Moreover,

The martyr is special to Allah. He is forgiven from the first drop of blood [that he sheds]. He sees his throne in paradise…. He will wed the ‘aynhour [supernatural, celestial women designed exclusively for sexual purposes] and will not know the torments of the grave and safeguards against the greater horror [hell]. Fixed atop his head will be a crown of honor, a ruby that is greater than the world and all it contains. And he will copulate with seventy-two ‘aynhour.

As for those Muslims who reject jihad, Muhammad said “they will be tortured like no other sinful human.”  (For many more Islamic scriptures depicting jihad as the greatest undertaking, one that earns unconditional forgiveness and paradise, see here.)

There is no denying that the historic growth of Islam is related to its carnal incentives.  After more than a decade of preaching in Mecca, Muhammad had about 100 followers, mostly relatives.  It was only when he became a successful warlord and caravan raider that his followers grew and multiplied.  So long as such fighters helped spread the banner of Islam into infidel lands, they were deemed good and pious Muslims—regardless of their true intentions, priorities, or even faith.

Many of the original jihadis now revered in Islamic hagiography were by modern standards little more than mass killing psychotics.   Consider Khalid bin al-Walid: a Meccan pagan, he opposed Muhammad for years; but when the prophet seized Mecca, Khalid—like many of Muhammad’s foes, such as his archenemy, Abu Sufyan—expediently converted, proclaimed the shahada, joined the winning team, and then went a-jihading—mutilating, plundering, raping, enslaving, crucifying, and setting people on fire in the process.  But because he did so under the banner of jihad, this serial killer and rapist is today one of Islam’s most revered heroes.

The reason for this is that nowhere in Islam is there talk about the “condition” of the jihadis’ “heart,” or if he’s “right” with God.  Allah is not God: he is not interested in “hearts and minds” but in fighters and swords.  So long as his fighters proclaim the shahada—“There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”—and fight under the banner of Islam, they can take, plunder, murder, and rape the infidels; and if they die doing so, they go to paradise.

Such was the genius of Muhammad: in the Arabian society he lived in, members of one’s tribe were as inviolable as non-members were free game, to be plundered, enslaved, or killed with impunity.  Muhammad took this idea and infused it with a pious rationale.  Henceforth there would be only two tribes in the world: the umma—which consists of all Muslims, regardless of race—and the “infidels,” who deserve to be plundered, enslaved, or killed with impunity for rejecting Allah.

This explains why other tribal/nomadic societies—Turks and Mongols/Tatars, whose way of life consisted of preying on everyone outside their tribe—also converted to Islam and, under the banner of jihad, continued preying on the other, the infidel, but now as venerated “champions of the faith.”

Christian Europe was aware of Islam’s true appeal from the very beginning.  Theophanes the Byzantine scholar (d. 818) wrote the following about Muhammad in his chronicles:

He taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy—or being slain by the enemy—entered into paradise [see Koran 9:111].  And he said paradise was carnal and sensual—orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the women were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., Koran 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77].  And all sorts of other nonsense.

Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) made similar observations:

He [Muhamad] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine…. Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.  Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms.

There is, finally, another group of Muslims who should not be overlooked.  These do not give a fig for Allah nor wish to be “martyred” in exchange for paradise, but they rely on Islam to justify robbing, enslaving, raping, and killing non-Muslims, as many Christian minorities in nations like Pakistan and Egypt will attest.  Because their victims are just “infidels”—and it’s a sin to aid a non-Muslim against a Muslim (that is, a non-tribal member against a tribal member)—Muslim criminals target non-Muslim minorities precisely because they know Muslim authorities will not do a thing on behalf of the victimized infidels.

In short, enough of these claims that this or that jihadi is, in the words of the CIA’s Brennan, “terrorists,” “criminals,” “psychopathic thugs,” and “murderers.”  Yes, they are.  But that doesn’t change the fact that one group of them is convinced that no matter how immoral or perverse their behavior is, as long as they continue fighting and dying in the name of jihad, paradise is assured them; and another group doesn’t care a bit about the afterlife, but knows that, as long as they only victimize “infidels,” no Muslim will hold them accountable.  In both cases, Islam aids and abets their behavior.

Former Muslim warns that if Islam continues as is, the West will not

 (AP Photo/Shiho Fukada)

(AP Photo/Shiho Fukada)

Family Security Matters, by Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.) October 26, 2016:

A 1986 television commercial punch line for makers of Vicks Formula 44 cough syrup proved very successful in marketing their product. The line, “I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV” was delivered by actor Peter Bergman who played a doctor on daytime television.

Seeking accurate medical advice, one left to choose between a real doctor and an actor playing one, obviously would opt for the former as a knowledgeable duty expert.

Why then, seeking to understand Islam, do we accept what our non-Muslim leaders tell us about the religion being peaceful, ignoring what we are told by real duty experts-those once-practicing Muslims more intimately knowledgeable about it?

President Barack Obama has supposedly read the Koran. He assures us, although not a Muslim himself, the religion is peaceful. Having grown up in Muslim countries, he may have played the role of a Muslim but he was not one. Thus, his repeated pronouncements Islam is peaceful should carry no more weight than a diagnosis of a real illness by an actor playing a doctor on television.

Somali-born author, activist and former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a duty expert on Islam. Just like Christianity underwent a Protestant Reformation, she explains, Islam also needs reform. And, while she admits only Muslims can make it happen, “the West cannot remain on the sidelines as though the outcome of this struggle has nothing to do with us.”

Ali lived as a Muslim before experiencing its dark side. Forced into marriage with a man she never met, she experienced firsthand abuses directed at Muslim women. But, she warns, should the West remain on the sidelines concerning reform, terrorist attacks will continue.

Ali makes a connection Obama refuses to make. She warns [emphasis added]:

“I believe it is foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam, can somehow be divorced from the religion itself…Islam is not a religion of peace…There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world…The call to violence and justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred text of Islam. Moreover, this theologically-sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offences including, but not limited to, adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality and apostasy…Those who tolerate this intolerance do so at their peril.”

Clearly Ali, unlike Obama, sees the Koran as a spring-loaded trigger for violence-activated by numerous offenses-which, while viewed in the West as the exercise of individual rights, are viewed by Islam as crimes punishable by dismemberment or death.

Ali is dumbfounded Western liberals and progressives believing “so fervently in individual liberty and minority rights make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threat to that very freedom and those very minorities.”

As an example, Ali told of her experience, despite working for Muslim women’s rights and being invited to accept a degree from Brandeis University in 2014 for doing so, of then being disinvited by professors and students protesting her criticism of Islam.

“My disinvitation…was no favor to Muslims-just the opposite,” Ali explained. “By labeling critical examination of Islam as inherently racist, we make the chances of reformation far less likely.”

Ali points out, while other religions are fair game for criticism, we contort Western intellectual traditions, giving Islam a free pass-even ignoring Muslim activists who risk life and limb seeking Islam’s badly needed reform.

She notes Western hypocrisy in having supported Cold War activists seeking to reform the Soviet Union’s system, but ignoring today’s Muslim activists seeking to reform Islam.

“These are the Muslims we should be supporting for our sake as much as for the sake of Islam,” Ali says. Yet, “the West either ignores them or dismisses them as ‘not representative.’ This is a grave mistake…If we do, in fact, support political, social and religious freedom, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass on the grounds of multicultural sensitivity. We need to say to Muslims living in the West, if you want to live in our societies, to share in the material benefits, then you need to accept that our freedoms are not optional. Islam is at the crossroads of reformation or self-destruction-but so is the West.”

There is a frighteningly real declaration Islamic expert Ali makes that clearly is at odds with representations by non-expert Obama. Ali states, “The call to violence and justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred text of Islam.”

Thus, Muslims answering the call need feel no remorse for their violence. This leaves non-Westerners to determine, among those invited into their countries as refugees and immigrants, who among them will heed the call. It is a near impossible task to screen out those who agree with this command now or, who may choose to obey it in the future.

The bottom line is this: every Muslim entering a non-Western nation does so with a license, issued by the Koran, to commit violence in Allah’s name. Just like one who obtains a fishing license, some will choose to use it and fish; some will not; but all have the right to do so.

Shockingly, while assuring us Islam is peaceful, Obama continues to embrace as such the Muslim Brotherhood. That Brotherhood’s basic tenet is a global caliphate-a tenet it cannot renounce and seeks to impose upon the world-violently if necessary. For that reason, even our U.K. ally has condemned Obama’s “peaceful” Brotherhood.

There is a basic misconception about Islam Obama perpetuates: It is not, as he claims, extremists who have hijacked Islam, trying to give it a violent spin; it is moderates who have hijacked the religion, trying to give it a peaceful one. The trigger for violence is written into the Koran for followers to obey.

It is time to heed the voice of a real expert on Islam and not that of he who plays one as our president.

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.), is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam war, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of “Bare Feet, Iron Will–Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam’s Battlefields,” “Living the Juche Lie: North Korea’s Kim Dynasty” and “Doomsday: Iran–The Clock is Ticking.” He frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.