Frank Gaffney: Governments Have Been Appeasing Jihadists, Not Resisting Them

KENZO TRIBOUILLARD/AFP/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, June 21, 2017:

On Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily, Center for Security PolicyPresident Frank Gaffney talked about the latest incident of “Ramadan rage,” as SiriusXM host Alex Marlow dubbed theBelgium suicide bombing.

“Well, it’s jihad, is what it is,” said Gaffney. “It’s taking the form of perhaps an inspiration by the Islamic State to do a lot of it in the Ramadan period, and to do it in the West. It’s basically what has been developing now for a long time – the increasing confidence of what I think of as sharia supremacists that they are on a roll, and that they are going to be rewarded for being more aggressive, more violent, more jihadist by governments in the West.”

“Unfortunately, they’ve got a lot of reason for thinking that,” he said ruefully.

Marlow proposed that Western Europe has been slow to learn lessons about jihad that Eastern Europe, with its tighter border controls, seems to have absorbed.

“You know the old line about a conservative being a liberal who’s been mugged by reality,” Gaffney said with a chuckle. “The people in Eastern Europe are what Don Rumsfeld used to call ‘New Europe,’ are people who have spent a lot of time facing totalitarianism – living under it, struggling for freedom from it.”

“By the way, that goes back many, many, many years before, to the totalitarianism meted out by sharia supremacists,” he added. More recently of course it was communism, but I think they were able to perceive in the current crop of totalitarians that kind of communism with a god – which turns out to be a lot more dangerous than the original kind, because people who think the next world is going to be where they get their rewards are not as easily deterred from trying to take us all there as the people who think this is it, this is the only life there is.”

“The point that I’m really trying to get it is, I think that our government agencies in this country, and in particular in Old Europe – the Brits we’ve seen a lot of this lately, the French with the Macron victory, the Germans and so on – have been appeasing these guys, not resisting them. The reaction to that I think increasingly is a real restiveness, shall we say, if not fear on the part of the people who live in those countries and see them slipping away,” he said.

“I’m not making any excuse for it, certainly not endorsing it, but I do think you’re going to see more of the kind of retaliation in kind that we witnessed in London last week at the Finsbury Park mosque,” Gaffney predicted.

He said that reaction would be driven by the perception that “the government isn’t going to stand up for their countries isn’t going to protect their people against these jihadists – of either the violent kind, or sort of the stealthy kind of the Muslim Brotherhood that sets the stage for this sort of sharia supremacism and jihad in due course.”

Gaffney said the spate of Ramadan terrorist attacks was “simply the outcropping of what has been cultivated for a long time” in Old European nations where “they have been indulging in a sort of multiculturalist fantasy, or they’ve been trying to deal with hard demographic realities by accommodating large numbers of people making what is, in the Muslim tradition, called ‘hijrah’ – a kind of colonization, invasion if you will, migration in large numbers.”

“You’re seeing an infrastructure put into place, primarily at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, with funding – let’s be honest – by the Saudis and the Qataris and others, that is creating the conditions in which this jihad will manifest,” he warned.

“Finsbury Park Mosque is one of the most virulently jihadist mosques in the world,” he noted by way of example. “It happens that this is where this attack took place. I don’t think that’s entirely an accident.”

“The point is, if our governments are going to continue to be willfully blind about these preconditions to more extremism, more jihadism, more violence, then you’re going to find that the populations in these countries are either going to have to submit – and many are prepared to do that, I guess, look at France at the moment – but doubtless some will fight back, and that’s perhaps the formula for civil war,” Gaffney warned. “We’ve seen a lot of that over the years in Europe, and I fear it may be in prospect again.”

Marlow turned to the return of American hostage Otto Warmbier by North Korea, and the comatose Warmbier’s death soon afterward.

“To be perfectly clear, this young man – this apparently very bright and promising American student – was murdered by the Kim Jong-un regime,” Gaffney declared. “I believe he was taken prisoner on trumped-up charges. I’m not sure there’s any evidence that he actually stole anything. I think he was taken hostage, as the government of North Korea has done repeatedly.”

“It goes back to what we talked about earlier with respect to the Islamists: they have been rewarded for seizing Americans, by both Republican and Democratic administrations,” he charged. “It is no wonder that they continue to do it. The fact that they actually so badly brutalized this guy, that they basically sent him back just prior to his death, is simply the latest example of how horrific this government is. What it does to its own people every day makes that look like a day at the beach, quite frankly.”

“We keep turning a blind eye to it. We keep trying to appease them. We think the Chinese will help us in dealing with them, when the Chinese are the great enablers of this regime. This is as screwed-up a policy, I believe, as we’ve got at the moment, not least because we’ve continued to delude ourselves that somehow, under Bill Clinton notably, and his wife Hillary I guess, we can say we were snookered into thinking that somehow, if we just improved relations with them, they would give up the bomb. They haven’t done it. The threat to us has metastasized,” he warned.

“This is a time for a wholesale relook. The Trump tweet of yesterday about the Chinese deal having not worked out, I hope is the beginning of that kind of fundamental reassessment and redirection,” said Gaffney.

Marlow asked if Gaffney had any idea what really happened in the strange case of a container ship colliding with the USS Fitzgerald near Tokyo Bay on Saturday.

“Not really,” Gaffney replied. “I think all of us are sort of confused by the information that’s available. It certainly seems as though this cargo ship that rammed the destroyer, the Fitzgerald, did some rather dramatic course corrections. In order to do that, it didn’t just happen. I gather the weather wasn’t all that good.”

“The question of what was going on on that ship is one set of issues that has to be addressed, but frankly, what was going on on the bridge of the USS Fitzgerald?” he asked. “This is a formidable, highly equipped warship in the United States Navy. It’s just inconceivable to me that lumbering big freighter just somehow caught this crew by surprise. Somebody was seriously derelict on the Fitzgerald, it sounds like too.”

“Whatever the motivation or the circumstances, here’s the bottom line: that ship, which is an anti-ballistic missile equipped vessel, is critical to the defense of the fleet out in an increasingly dangerous world, in which increasingly the Russians, the Chinese, and even the North Koreans are bringing to bear ballistic missiles that will be capable of attacking our ships,” Gaffney said.

“It’s offline for perhaps as long as a year. Because of the Obama drawdown of our military, particularly our Navy, that is a huge problem. I’m afraid it may be an incentive to others around the world to try to do similar things to our ships at sea,” he added.

UTT Throwback Thursday: No Wider Plot?

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 22, 2017:

If a Special Forces soldier was captured in a foreign land with which America was at war, would our enemy consider him a “lone wolf” disconnected from any “wider plot” or larger army?

On March 11, 2004, 10 bombs were detonated on four trains by Islamic jihadis in Madrid, Spain killing 191 people and injuring nearly 2000 others.  In analyzing the attacks, American academic Scott Atran, who investigated numerous Islamic jihadi attacks, said, “We’ve been looking at it closely for years and we’ve been briefed by everybody under the sun and … nothing connects them.”  Apparently, this was an “isolated” event conducted by “self-radicalized lone wolves.”

On November 5, 2009, muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a table on base at Fort Hood, Texas, shouted “Allah u akbar,” and began shooting anyone he could.  When it was over, 14 were dead and over 40 people were wounded/injured.  Before the FBI even reached Fort Hood they publicly stated this was not an act of terrorism.  The extensive DoD after action report entitled “Protecting the Force” was chaired by VA Secretary Togo West and Admiral Vernon Clark (USN, ret) and made no mention of Islam, jihad, sharia, or anything which Major Hasan said were the reasons he did what he did.  The DoD assessed this was a case of  “workplace violence” with no wider plot connected to anyone else.  Apparently, Hasan was a “lone wolf.”

Soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas treat their fellow soldiers wounded by jihadi Major Nidal Hasan

On June 13, 2013, muslim Omar Mir Seddique Mateen killed 49 people and wounded over 50 others in a nightclub in Orlando, Florida.  As the attack was unfolding, Mateen let officials know he was associating himself with ISIS.  Mateen’s father was involved in Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations in the United States and declared his support for the Taliban.  FBI Special Agent Ron Hopper stated the FBI interviewed Mateen three times beginning in 2013.  An investigation was opened, but was closed after the FBI was unable to tie Mateen to a wider plot. Apparently, Mateen was a “self-radicalized lone wolf.”

On Wednesday June 21, 2017, Canadian-muslim Amor Ftouhi yelled “Allah u akbar” and stabbed a police officer in the neck.  FBI Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Detroit office, David Gelios, said there is “nothing to suggest a wider plot.”

And so it goes.  Nearly 16 years after 9/11 and with all of America’s technology and bloated federal intelligence and law enforcement resources, there is not one ounce of logic nor an understanding of the threat.

In fact, the individuals who perpetrated these acts were not “lone wolves” who “self-radicalized.”  Like the Special Forces soldier mentioned in the opening sentence of this article, these men are a part of a large army, guided by doctrine, supported by nation-states, and dedicated to their focused singular objective.

Our enemy identifies itself as the “Global Islamic Movement” and tells us they are “muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State under sharia.”  All the jihadi organizations on the planet from ISIS to the Muslim Brotherhood say it.  100% of authoritative Islamic doctrine and the highest authorities in Islam, like Al Azhar University, say it.

Their paths to the objective may differ, but they all have the same objective.

There is a WIDER PLOT.  It is called the Global Islamic Movement.

It is the same Islam the West had to deal with at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD.

It is the same Islam from 1095 when the Crusades were launched in answer to over 450 years of muslim violence and incursion into Western lands.

It is the same Islam defeated at the miraculous Christian victory at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.

It is the same Islam pushed back at the Gates of Vienna on September 11, 1683.

It is the same Islam America fought in our first war after the Revolution – the war against the muslims of the Barbary (Islamic) States.

Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon at Derna.

American is at war with this adversary again.  All of these muslim jihadis are not “lone wolves” but soldiers for Allah.

They are part of the wider plot called Islam.

Vlad Tepes Interviews Former CIA Station Chief, Brad Johnson

Interview One on jihad and politics:

Interview Two on the Jihadist playbook,  “The Manchester Manual”Carlos the Jackal’s “Revolutionary Islam” and much more:

***

Jihadist Arrests in EU Doubled Last Year, Rising for Third Year in a Row

Police deal with an ongoing incident at London Bridge on June 3, 2017. (Rex Features via AP Images)

PJ Media, by Patrick  Poole, June 16, 2017:

A new Europol report today on terrorism in eight European Union member states finds that jihadist arrests doubled in 2016, rising for the third year in a row:

Deutsche Welle reports:

Europol, Europe’s top law-enforcement organization, said in its annual EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report that 718 suspects were arrested on offenses relating to jihadi terror in 2016, up from 395 in 2014.

The number of attacks dropped from 17 in 2014 to 13 last year, six of which were linked to the so-called “Islamic State” (IS) group.

The report noted that women and children, as well as young adults, were playing an increasingly important operational role.

One in four of those arrested in Britain in 2016 were women, an 18 percent increase from 2015, Europol said […]

In total 1,002 arrests were made in 2016 relating to terror activities. France had the highest number of arrest at 456, with almost a third of those detained 25 years or younger, Europol said.

There were 142 “failed, foiled or completed terrorist attacks”including those by jihadis, more than half of them in the UK.

The Europol report breaks down the arrests by country, and notes that nearly all reported terror fatalities were from jihadist attacks:

In 2016, a total of 142 failed, foiled and completed attacks were reported by eight EU Member States. More than half (76) of them were reported by the United Kingdom. France reported 23 attacks, Italy 17, Spain 10, Greece 6, Germany 5, Belgium 4 and the Netherlands 1 attack. 142 victims died in terrorist attacks, and 379 were injured in the EU.

Although there was a large number of terrorist attacks not connected with jihadism, the latter accounts for the most serious forms of terrorist activity as nearly all reported fatalities and most of the casualties were the result of jihadist terrorist attacks. Explosives were used in 40% of the attacks and women and young adults, and even children, are playing increasingly operational roles in committing terrorist activities independently in the EU. Most arrests were related to jihadist terrorism, for which the number rose for the third consecutive year.

Earlier this month I reported here at PJ Media on global terrorism statistics from 2016 showing that terrorism has tripled globally since 2011, with deaths from terrorism in OECD countries jumping a whopping 900 percent since 2007:

Since April I’ve been warning about another “Summer of Terror” — last year we saw an attack about every 100 hours:

Currently, Europe in 2017 is seeing an attempted terror attack every nine days:

A new report on Western terrorism suspects published earlier this week found that since 2014, nearly one-third of jihadist attacks in the West occurred in the U.S., only outpaced by France:

Despite these reports about the rapid rise in Islamic terrorism in the West, and all over the world for that matter, there are some who assure us that everything is fine:

The recent terror attacks in the UK give evidence that all may not be OK:

Yet London Mayor Sadiq Khan seems unalarmed by the escalating terror trend:

But after the recent London Bridge terror attacks, Khan was evasive about the reported 400 potential terrorists living in his city:

Sadly, the response by U.S. authorities about the scope and extent of the problem in the face of these startling terrorism statistics from these recent reports would most likely be as evasive as Khan’s unreassuring response.

Why the Odds Favor Islam

(Photo credit: Associated Press)

Crisis Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, June 12, 2017:

On May 22, an Islamic suicide bomber detonated himself outside a pop concert in Manchester, England, killing and wounding dozens, many of them young children.

The terrorist was a 22-year-old named Salman Abedi. A few days after the attack, I was reading an article about the mosque he attended—the Didsbury Mosque. “That’s funny,” I thought looking at the accompanying photo, “that doesn’t look like a mosque, it looks like a church.”

Sure enough, as I discovered, the Didsbury Mosque was once the Albert Park Methodist Chapel. It had been bought by the local Syrian Muslim community and transformed into a Muslim place of worship.

Similar transformations have been taking place in other parts of the UK. St. Mark’s Church in London is now the New Peckham Mosque, St. Peter’s Church in Cobridge was sold to the Madina Mosque. The Brick Lane Mosque in London was originally a Methodist church. But church-to-mosque conversions are only part of a larger story. There are now 423 mosques in London, and the number is expected to grow. Meanwhile, 500 London churches have closed since 2001, and in all of England 10,000 churches have closed since 1960.

The transformation of the Albert Park Methodist Church to the Didsbury Mosque is emblematic of one of the most significant shifts in history: the transformation of Europe from a largely Christian continent to a largely Islamic one. The transformation is far from complete, and there’s an outside chance the process can be reversed, but time and demographics favor Islam.

In several of Europe’s cities, the Muslim population now hovers around the thirty percent mark. In ten years’ time, that will be forty percent. Of course that doesn’t mean 40 percent of highly committed Muslims facing 60 percent of deeply devout Christians. Both faiths have their share of half-hearted “nominals” for whom religion is more a cultural inheritance than a deeply held conviction. Still, the “nominal” problem is a much greater problem for European Christians than for European Muslims. In many European countries, Sunday church attendance is the 5-10 percent range whereas mosque attendance is very high in relation to the size of the Muslim population. In England, there are already more Muslims attending Friday prayers than there are Christians attending Anglican services on Sundays. A study by Christian Research predicts that by 2020 the number of Muslims attending prayer service in England and Wales will exceed the number of Catholics attending weekly Mass.

It’s also noteworthy that the expanding Muslim population in Europe is relatively young, whereas the declining “Christian” population is an aging one. Sixty-forty seems like good odds until you realize that the average age of the 60 percenters will be around 55 while the average age of the 40 percenters will be around 25.

You may object that if there is any fighting to be done, most of the fighting on the “Christian” side will be done by the army, not by citizens in walkers and wheelchairs. But keep in mind that the military draws its recruits from the ranks of the young. As the population of the people that Islamists refer to as “crusaders” ages, European governments will be forced to draw more of their new recruits from the Muslim population. The same goes for the police forces. Many Muslims will serve their country or their city faithfully, but many will have divided loyalties, and some will have signed up in the first place with mutiny in mind.

Most likely, however, the transformation will be effected without major battles. It won’t be a matter of numbers or of military strength, but of strength of belief. Those with the strongest beliefs will prevail. Those who are not sure what to believe will submit without a fight.

Will Europe Defend its “Values”?
That’s the theme of Michel Houellebecq’s Submission, a novel about the gradual Islamization of France. The protagonist, a middle-aged professor, has a number of qualms about the Islamic takeover of the university system, but nothing sufficient to resist it. The things he values most—literature, good food, and sex—are, in the end, no impediment to accepting Islam. True, he is offered several inducements to convert—career advancement, plenty of money, and several “wives”—but one gets the impression that, even without these incentives, he would still eventually convert. At one point prior to his submission, he thinks about joining a monastic order as his literary hero, J.K. Huysmans, had done, but he soon realizes that he lacks the necessary Christian conviction. Indeed, he has no strong convictions.

His plight is the plight of contemporary Europe in a nutshell. Many Europeans see no sense in resisting Islamization because they have nothing worth defending. To be sure, European leaders still talk about “our values,” but they can’t seem to specify what those values are, beyond appeals to “diversity” and “pluralism.” For example, after the Manchester massacre, British Prime Minister Theresa May stated that “our values—the liberal, pluralistic values of Britain—will always prevail over the hateful ideology of the terrorists.”

I’m not so sure of that. In an earlier era, Brits would have connected their values to God, country, family, and honor. In other words, things worth fighting for. But “liberal, pluralistic values”? That’s not very solid ground on which to take your stand. Who wants to die for diversity? Indeed, it can be argued that the worship of diversity for its own sake is what allowed terrorists to get a foothold in England in the first place. No one wanted to question all those diverse preachers spreading their diverse message about Jews, infidels, and homosexuals. The trouble is, unless there are higher values than diversity, there’s no way of judging between good diversities and bad diversities—between, say, honoring your wife and honor-killing her if she displeases you.

The same is true of freedom. Freedom is a fundamental right, but what you do with your freedom is also important. There has to be some higher objective value that directs our choices to good ends rather than bad ones. Otherwise, freedom becomes a license to do anything one pleases.

An Attack on Childhood
Here we touch on a very touchy subject. I would not like to be in Theresa May’s shoes when, after a horrifying attack, she has to come up with just the right words. But one thing she said struck me as not quite right. She said: “We struggle to comprehend the warped and twisted mind that sees a room packed with young children not as a scene to cherish, but as an opportunity for carnage.”

It’s possible to fully agree with May’s sentiments while, at the same time, noting that there once was a time when a room full of children watching an Ariana Grande concert would not be considered “a scene to cherish.” “Her dress, dancing, and song lyrics,” wrote one columnist, “are deliberately decadent and immodest.” And, after watching some YouTube clips of her performances, I would have to agree. I’m pretty sure that most of the parents I know would not want their children to attend one of her concerts.

While the world was justly outraged at Salman Abedi’s attack on innocent children, no one seems to notice the attack on childhood innocence that the typical pop concert represents. The two “attacks” should not be equated, of course. The producers of pop concerts are not the moral equivalents of a suicide bomber. Still, the fact that so many parents saw nothing wrong with dropping their children off at the Manchester concert suggests a great deal of moral confusion in the West.

Unfortunately, such moral confusion leaves people vulnerable to those who are absolutely certain about their beliefs. The moral relativism of the West is one of the chief reasons why the Islamic cultural jihad has been so successful. People who can’t see that the soft-porn style of Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, and Ariana Grande is not good for children will have difficulty seeing the problem with polygamy, child marriage, and other aspects of sharia law. In a relativistic society, the safest default position is “who’s to judge?”

Relativism Leads to Islamic Dominance
Earlier I said that Europe is being transformed from a Christian culture to an Islamic culture, but that’s not quite accurate because it’s actually a three-stage transformation. Much of Europe has already transitioned out of its Christian stage and into a post-Christian or secular stage. There are still many Christians in Europe, but Europe’s Christian consciousness has been largely lost. The next stage is the transition from secularism to Islam. That’s not inevitable, but it’s likely because without a framework of Judeo-Christian beliefs, secularism becomes relativism and relativism can’t offer much resistance to determined true believers.

Back in 2014, Theresa May said “we celebrate different ways of life, we value diversity, and we cherish our freedom to lead our lives as we choose.” But if your culture stands for nothing more than the freedom to shop for different lifestyles, it won’t last long. The contemporary Western fascination with pop culture highlights the problem. Pop culture is by its very nature a transient phenomenon. What is pop today won’t be pop tomorrow. Indeed, the popular culture of tomorrow may very well favor burqas, multiple wives, and male supremacy. There may still be a place for singer-dancers like Ariana Grande and Miley Cyrus, but that place would most likely be as a harem dancer in a Sultan’s palace or as entertainment for a Saudi prince who has bought up a country estate in Oxfordshire.

It’s hard to beat transcendent values with transient values. That’s especially the case when the transcendent crowd are willing to die (and kill you in the process) for their values. Most Brits, on the other hand, are not willing to lay down their lives for the sake of keeping bacon on the menu or porn on the telly.

Christianity vs. Two Forms of Totalitarianism
When I use the word “transcendent,” I refer only to a belief in an eternal life beyond this worldly existence. Quite obviously, as in the case of Salman Abedi, transcendent values can be twisted. The idea that God will reward you for murdering innocent young women in Manchester by furnishing you with virginal young women in paradise is a truly twisted concept. But apparently it is widely shared in the Muslim world. When, during a World Cup qualifier in Australia, a minute of silence was called to commemorate the London terror victims, the whole Saudi soccer team refused to observe it. As Sheik Mohammad Tawhidi later explained:

In their eyes the attackers are martyrs who are going to paradise. And if they stand for a minute of silence they are against their Muslim brothers who fought for jihad and fought the infidels.

As twisted as these values may be, it’s beginning to look as though secular values aren’t up to the job of opposing them. The trouble with secular values when they are cut off from their Judeo-Christian roots is that they are arbitrary. Autonomy? Dignity? Equality? Says who?

“If there is no God,” wrote Dostoevsky, “everything is permitted.” Secularism has no God and, therefore, no ultimate standard of judgment. The end result is that each man becomes his own god and does his own thing—even if that “thing” involves the exploitation of childhood innocence. Islam, on the other hand, does believe in God, but not the God Dostoevsky had in mind. The God of Islam is an arbitrary despot whose commands are not rooted in reason, love, or justice.

So we have two arbitrary systems vying for control of the West—the soft totalitarianism of secularism and the hard totalitarianism of Islam. Both are really forms of slavery. Muslims are slaves of a tyrannical God, and secular man becomes the slave of his own desires and addictions. It may seem unthinkable that the West will ever submit to Islam, but many Western citizens are already in submission mode. Submission to their desires has put them in a bad spot. As a result, they are looking for something bigger to submit to—something outside and above their own fragile selves. Some have already turned to Islam. Many more will unless…

Unless, that is, there is a recovery of the Judeo-Christian belief that God is a God of love, justice, reason, and goodness—and that we are made in his image (a concept which does not exist in Islam). In the context of that vision, belief in human dignity and the rights of man is thoroughly justified.

People who believe that they and their neighbor are made in the image of God will generally have a strong sense of their responsibility to act accordingly. Such people will be far from perfect, but they will at least realize that it is wrong to submit both to Islam’s warped image of God and to secularism’s degraded image of man.

In the end, the choice for the West is not between Islam and pluralistic secularism. A rootless secularism will almost certainly submit to Islam. The only real hope for the West is the recovery of the faith that once inspired Christians to build a beautiful church near Albert Park in West Didsbury, England.

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

Ramadan Red Pill

The Rebel, by Faith Goldy, June 6, 2017:

In the first ten days of Ramadan, Islamic terrorists killed shy of 600 innocents, in 55 attacks, across 17 countries.

We’ve tried things the diversity-is-our-strength-open-borders-cultural-enrichment way. In order to reverse the European Caliphate, the region is going to have to change its approach– radically

What Europe needs in order to solve it’s jihad problem is a multi-pronged plan that’s both preventative and adaptive (for the Muslim populations already within their borders).

I propose the following 5 actions:

1. A Trump-style travel ban in the skies;
2. NATO troops along the Mediterranean to turn away migrant boats;
3. Intern every migrant who is on a terror watch-list;
4. Close Europe’s sharia courts and radical mosques; and
5. Heavily regulate or close European madrasas.

Islam is a religion of submission through force– it’s a language Muslim migrants understand. And the state is the only body in a position to legitimately and surgically execute such plans.

Because, God knows, if the politicians and military don’t take matters into their hands– the people will.

Also see:

Accept Islamic Terror as the New Normal?

Gatestone Institute, by Nonie Darwish, June 4, 2017:

  • “The use of terror under this doctrine [Targhib wal tarhib, “luring and terrorizing”] is a legitimate sharia obligation.” — Salman Al Awda, mainstream Muslim sheikh, on the Al Jazeera television show “Sharia and Life”.
  • Part of the tarhib or “terrorizing” side of this doctrine is to make a cruel example of those who do not comply with the requirements of Islam. That is the reason Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and entities such as ISIS, intentionally hold ceremonial public beheadings, floggings, and amputation of limbs.
  • Islamic jihad has always counted on people in conquered lands eventually to yield, give up and accept terrorism as part of life, similar to natural disasters, earthquakes and floods.

After terror attacks, we often hear from Western media and politicians that we must accept terrorist attacks as the “new normal.”

For Western citizens, this phrase is dangerous.

Islam’s doctrine of jihad, expansion and dawah (Islamic outreach, proselytizing) rely heavily on the use of both terror and luring. Targhib wal tarhib is an Islamic doctrine that means “seducing (luring) and terrorizing” as a tool for dawah, to conquer nations and force citizens to submit to Islamic law, sharia. It amounts to manipulating the instinctive parts of the human brain with extreme opposing pressures of pleasure and pain — rewarding, then severely punishing — to brainwash people into complying with Islam.

Most ordinary Muslims are not even aware of this doctrine, but Islamic books have been written about it. Mainstream Muslim sheikhs such as Salman Al Awda have discussed it on Al Jazeera TV. On a show called “Sharia and Life,” Al Awda recommended using extremes “to exaggerate… reward and punishment, morally and materially… in both directions”. “The use of terror under this doctrine,”‘ he said, “is a legitimate sharia obligation.”

People in the West think of terror as something that Islamic jihadists inflict on non-Muslims, and it is. But terror is also the mechanism for ensuring compliance within Islam. Under Islamic law, jihadists who evade performing jihad are to be killed. Terror is thus the threat that keeps jihadists on their missions, and that make ordinary Muslims obey sharia.

An online course for recruiting jihadists contains this description:

“Individual Dawa depends on eliciting emotional responses from recruits (and building a personal relationship). Abu ‘Amr’s approach illustrates a recruitment concept called al-targhib wa’l-tarhib, which is a carrot-and-stick technique of extolling the benefits of action while explaining the frightening costs of inaction. The concept was introduced in the Qur’an and is discussed by many Islamic thinkers exploring the best way to call people to Islam (several scholars, for example, have written books titled al-targhib wa’l-tarhib). According to Abu ‘Amr, recruiters should apply the concept throughout the recruitment process, but emphasize the benefits of action early in the process and the costs of inaction later.”

In other words, recruiters of jihadists should start by emphasizing the “good stuff” first, the “lure” — the future glory, supremacy and fulfillment of every lustful wish, such as virgins in heaven. Later, they should threaten the recruits with “terror” and shame — the consequence if they fail to participate in jihad.

Part of the tarhib or “terrorizing” side of this doctrine is to make a cruel example of those who do not comply with the requirements of Islam. That is the reason Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and entities such as ISIS, intentionally hold ceremonial public beheadings, floggings, and amputation of limbs. Countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey are more discrete, but they tolerate and support honor killings; killing apostates; beating women and children, and torture and murder in their jails. The doctrine of targhib and tarhib is alive and well, not just in Islamic theocracies but also in the so-called “moderate” Muslim countries.

Islam has been using these “pleasure and pain” brainwashing techniques, and cruel and unusual punishment, from its inception and until today. While the Bible — the Western Judeo-Christian tradition — is in harmony with, and nurtures, kindness in human nature, Islam does the opposite: it uses the human instincts for self-preservation and survival to break the people’s will and brainwash them into slavish obedience.

Like the majority of Muslims, I never heard of this foundational Islamic doctrine when I was growing up in Egypt, but have felt the impact of this doctrine on my life — in every aspect of Islamic culture; in Islamic preaching, in my Islamic family relations; in how Islamic governments operate and how people of authority, in general, treat the people under them.

The Islamic doctrine of “lure and terror” has produced a culture of toxic extremes: distrust and fear, pride and shame, permission to lie (“taqiyya“), and rejecting taking responsibility for one’s actions.

Having lived most of my life under Islam, I am sad to say that people the West calls “moderate Muslims” are frequently, in fact, citizens who have learned to live with and accept terror as normal. For centuries, many have made excuses for terror, condemned victims of terror, remained silent or equivocal, and have even compromised with the terrorists to survive. The Islamic culture in which I lived looked the other way when women were beaten. When girls were honor-murdered, the question was “what did she do?” instead of “how could that be?” When Christians were killed and persecuted, many blamed the Christians for their own persecution at the hands of Muslims. The normal Islamic response to terror became: “None of my business.”

And now the Islamic doctrine of Targhib wal Tarhib, has moved to the West and aims at changing Western humanistic culture. It would replace respect for human rights, caring for one’s neighbor and the values of freedom and peace, with the values of bondage, terror, tyranny and fear.

Islamic jihad has always counted on people in conquered lands eventually to yield, give up and accept terrorism as part of life, similar to natural disasters, earthquakes and floods.

It did not take long for the Islamic doctrine of Targhib wal Tarhib to work on the psyche of Western leaders and media, who are now telling us to live with it as the “new normal.” Islam counts on turning everyone into “moderate” Muslims who will eventually look the other way when terror happens to the person next to you.

The new normal? Police help survivors of the terrorist attack on London Bridge, June 4, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

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

***

***