Speaking Truth Boldly is the Best Response to the Islamic Threat

Understanding the Threat, by John  Guandolo, May 29, 2018:

Propaganda is, by definition, intentionally used to manipulate and control, making it antithetical to liberty.

The Islamic Movement uses its “Islamophobia” campaign as a hammer to impose the Islamic Law of Slander on the non-muslim world.  Slander is legally defined in Islam as saying anything about Islam that muslims would “dislike,” and is a capital crime under sharia.

The best way to counter the tidal wave of lies, deceit, and propaganda coming from Islamic leaders is to speak truth boldly without hesitation, no matter what the cost.

In the shadow of 2018’s Memorial Day when America honors it’s war dead, what better way to pay tribute to those who gave it all in the defense of freedom than to sacrifice some comfort to dare to say what is true about a barbaric and evil foe.

While people who self-identify as “muslim” may or may not adhere to sharia as required under penalty of death in Islam, their lack of adherence to sharia does not constitute a different “version” of Islam.

Islam requires muslims to submit to Allah’s sovereign law which is sharia.

All authoritatively published sharia comes from the Koran and the example of Islam’s prophet Mohammad.

There is one Quran which commands warfare against the non-muslim world until Islam (sharia) rules the world – it must because Allah’s law is perfect according to Islam.

There was only one Mohammad who is identified in the Koran as a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for all muslims to follow.  Mohammad tortured, killed, married a six year old, permitted people to be killed who mocked him, permitted sex slaves, and waged war on those who did not convert to Islam or submit to Islam.

No gray area in sharia on these matters.  Warfare against non-muslim is obligatory until the world is under sharia.

Islam divides the world into the Dar al Islam (House of Islam where sharia is the law of the land) and the Dar al Harb (House of War).  The stated purpose of Islam is to eliminate the Dar al Harb until the entire world is under the House of Islam and sharia.  The vehicle to do this is called “Jihad.”

Simple.

Many people have a hard time swallowing the simplicity of Islam’s goals for a number of reasons.  That does not change the truth.

Learn to speak the truth about this threat.  Time is running out.  As we see citizens of Europe arrested for using social media to share their views, publishing photos online, or simply standing in front of a court filming muslim gang-rapists, liberty is under assault.

The least we can do is speak truth about it.

UTT encourages you to:

  1. Learn how to respond to typical comments from ignorant people about this threat.
  2. Study sharia as it relates to this war.
  3. Purchase UTT’s books and DVD’s to learn more about this threat.
  4. Be bold and speak truth as a way to honor those who gave their lives for our liberty.

Brief Supports Extreme Vetting for Jihadists

AFLC Files Brief in SCOTUS on Behalf of National Security Experts in Support of Extreme Vetting for Islamist Sharia Ideology

 

Washington, D.C. (February 28, 2017) — Yesterday, lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national, nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed an amicus curiaebrief on behalf of seven national security experts (Andrew C. McCarthyCenter for Security PolicyFrank GaffneyDr. Robert J. ShillmanAdmiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr., U.S. Navy RetiredLieutenant General William G. Boykin, U.S. Army Retired, and Ambassador Henry F. Cooper) in the United States Supreme Court in the case litigating the President’s proclamation restricting travel from certain countries.

The AFLC-authored brief argues that the President’s most recent executive proclamation suspending entry and creating a more rigorous entry vetting process for immigrants and travelers from certain high-risk countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia) was a constitutional and statutorily permitted first step before implementing a more thorough-going “extreme vetting” of potential jihadists.  The brief lays out the policy and legal basis for an extreme vetting of Islamists who advocate or adhere to a political ideology predicated upon Sharia supremacism.  The brief argues that it is classic and extant Islamic law that is the threat doctrine underpinning jihad by the various Islamic groups, whether they be Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, or the Muslim Brotherhood.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, and described by The New York Times as one of the central leaders of the anti-Sharia movement in the U.S., explained,

“The litigants and other amici will focus on the narrow statutory issues of the proclamation, and especially on the power of the executive branch to exclude travelers from failed states.  Most of the president’s adversaries will claim the revised travel ban is a disguised ban on Muslims while the President and his legal team from the Solicitor General’s Office will flee from that fight by arguing that it has nothing to do with Muslims or Islam.  This brief plants a flag of coherence on the beach we must take if we are to protect this country’s security from the quiet and legal infiltration of jihadists flowing in from not only Muslim failed states, but also Muslim functioning states, Africa, and even Europe.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, and considered one of the country’s top First Amendment litigators, added,

“The AFLC brief argues that the President has not only the authority for a travel ban, he has the constitutional and statutory authority to impose an ideological vetting process to screen for Sharia-adherent Islamists.  This will be the first time since 9-11 that this issue will be squarely and coherently briefed to the Supreme Court.  It begins the all too important policy discussion at the highest levels within the Halls of Justice and, as such, within the inner reaches of the law.  It turns the lawfare of the Islamists and Progressives in on itself and reshapes and indeed opens up new fronts on the legal and policy battlefields enabling those who cherish western civilization and our constitutional republic to take an offensive and ultimately rational posture into the lawfare and policy trenches.”

As one piece of the evidentiary framework for the brief, AFLC cites to a relatively recent peer-reviewed study, co-authored by Mr. Yerushalmi, revealing the statistically relevant correlation between sharia adherence at U.S. mosques and the propensity to preach and to propagate violent jihad against the West.  The study was first published by the Middle East Quarterly and subsequently in expanded form in Perspectives on Terrorism.

Copies of the National Security Experts’ amicus curiae brief may be downloaded here.

American Security and Islamic Reform

muslims

The government must vet aliens for sharia-supremacist ideology.

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — February 11, 2017

‘Do you think Islam needs reform?”

Wouldn’t it be interesting, wouldn’t it get us to the crux of the immigration debate, if our best news anchors — I’m looking at you, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier — would put that question to every major politician in Washington?

Instead, the press is asking not just the wrong question but one that utterly misses the point, namely: “How many terrorist attacks have been committed by immigrants from this handful of Muslim-majority countries?” It is the same wrong question posed by the imperious federal judge in Seattle who suspended President Trump’s temporary travel ban on aliens from those countries — seven of them. It is the same wrong question that animated the incorrigible Ninth Circuit appeals court in upholding this suspension — and intimating along the way that Trump, and by implication all who fear for the future of our country, are anti-Muslim bigots crusading against religious liberty (the Ninth Circuit being notoriously selective when it comes to protecting religious traditions).

Does the Trump administration realize it’s the wrong question? I wonder. Instead of attacking the question’s premise, the administration undertakes to answer it. It seems not to grasp that the security argument is not advanced, much less won, by compiling a list of terrorist plots.

Let’s try this again.

Islam does need reform. This is critical to our national security for two reasons that bear directly on the question of which aliens should, and which should not, be allowed into our country.

First, reform is essential because the broader Islamic religion includes a significant subset of Muslims who adhere to an anti-American totalitarian political ideology that demands implementation of sharia — Islamic law. This ideology and the repressive legal code on which it rests are not religion. We are not talking about the undeniably theological tenets of Islam (e.g., the oneness of Allah, the acceptance of Mohamed as the final prophet, and the Koran as Allah’s revelation). We are talking about a framework for the political organization of the state, and about the implementation of a legal corpus that is blatantly discriminatory, hostile to liberty, and — in its prescriptions of crime and punishment — cruel.

Islam must reform so that this totalitarian political ideology, sharia supremacism (or, if you prefer, “radical Islam”), is expressly severable from Islam’s truly religious tenets. To fashion an immigration policy that serves our vital national security interests without violating our commitment to religious liberty, we must be able to exclude sharia supremacists while admitting Muslims who reject sharia supremacism and would be loyal to the Constitution.

Second, sharia supremacists are acting on a “voluntary apartheid” strategy of gradual conquest. You needn’t take my word for it. Influential sharia supremacists encourage Muslims of the Middle East and North Africa to integrate into Western societies without assimilating Western culture. The renowned Muslim Brotherhood jurist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who vows that “Islam will conquer Europe, conquer America,” urges Muslim migrants to demand the right to live in accordance with sharia. Turkey’s sharia-supremacist president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, admonishes that pressuring Muslims to assimilate is “a crime against humanity.” The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim governments that purports to speak as a quasi-caliphate, promulgated its “Declaration of Human Rights in Islam” in 1990 — precisely because what the United Nations in 1948 presumptuously called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is neither “universal” nor suitable to a sharia culture.

Voluntary apartheid does not require insinuating terrorists into migrant populations. It requires insinuating assimilation-resistant migrant populations into Western countries. Those populations form sharia-supremacist enclaves, which (a) demand the autonomy to conduct their affairs under Islamic law as a challenge to the sovereign authority of the host country, and (b) become safe havens for incitement, radicalization, paramilitary training, fundraising, and jihadist conspiracy — the prerequisites for terrorism.

The problem is not that our “See No Islam” policies may be letting some small percentage of trained terrorists into the country (although that is certainly a problem). The main problem is that we are creating the conditions under which anti-American enclaves can take root, the Constitution can be undermined, and today’s young Muslim teenager becomes tomorrow’s radicalized jihadist.

RELATED: Weeding Out Terrorist Immigrants Isn’t Enough

We cannot grapple with these challenges if we are intimidated into silence by such questions as whether a “Muslim ban” is being proposed; whether heightened scrutiny would be tantamount to a “religion test”; how many refugees or aliens from this or that Muslim-majority country have been charged with terrorism crimes; whether Muslims would be disproportionately affected by immigration exclusions; and whether a ban on a few Muslim-majority countries can be justified if most Muslim-majority countries are exempted.

Such questions are designed to make vetting Muslims seem inconceivable. They are meant to exhaust you into conceding: “If we have to fret so mightily about the potential impact of immigration laws against Muslims, how could we possibly contemplate examining Muslims directly to sort out sharia supremacists from pro-American Muslims?” You are to pretend that there is no obvious subset of Muslims who are hostile to our country. You are to assume that screening for hostile Muslims would be illegal because to ask about Islam would offend religious liberty — but because you know there are hostile Muslims, you silently hope the authorities have figured out some sneaky, roundabout way to screen for them without appearing to screen for them.

Enough of that. We need to move beyond the “are we targeting Muslims” nonsense and get to the critical question: How do we embrace our Islamic friends while excluding our sharia-supremacist enemies?

Here’s a suggestion: Bring our Muslim friends, loud and proud, into the process.

The only people who may have more interest than we do in Islamic reform are Islamic reformers: courageous Muslims who embrace American constitutional principles of liberty and equality. And at great risk to themselves: Under the supremacist view of sharia, those who depart from Islamic-law principles set in stone a millennium ago are apostates, subject to the penalty of death. You’re not supposed to question that, though, because it’s, you know, “religion.”

How about we stop consulting with the Muslim Brotherhood and other sharia supremacists who tell us Islam is just fine as is, even as its aggressions mount? How about we bring the reformers very publicly into the vetting process, to help the administration tell the good guys from the bad guys? To help the administration show that it is not Muslims but anti-American totalitarians that we seek to exclude.

It is the reform Muslims who tell us that Islam can separate sharia from spiritual life and that pro-Western Muslims do exactly that. It is the sharia supremacists who are outraged by the very suggestion that reform is possible, let alone necessary. If we continue taking our cues from the latter, it means that their noxious political ideology is part and parcel of Islam, and therefore that screening to keep that ideology out of our country is a violation of First Amendment religious liberty.

In other words, if you’re unwilling to say that Islam needs reform, then we can’t vet . . . and we are doomed. On the other hand, if Islam does need reform, isn’t it imperative that we identify the Muslims who resist reform — the sharia supremacists who seek not to join but to radically change our free, constitutional society?

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Egyptian Terrorist at Louvre Was Carrying Paint Bombs to Destroy West’s Most Famous Art Collection

ruptlyssThe Gateway Pundit, 

Terrorist Identified As Egyptian Immigrant

The terrorist who attacked French soldiers on Friday in Paris at the Lourve has been identified as a 29-year-old Abdullah Reda al-Hamamy, an Egyptian immigrant who just entered the country last month.

French President François Hollande said was clearly an act of terrorism and was linked to the wave of terrorism that France has been experiencing over the last couple of years.

Abdullah Reda al-Hamamy was screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he knifed an officer on his way inside the historic art museum.
He arrived in Paris late last month.

The Islamic terrorist was carrying a satchel full of paint bombs.
Vlad Tepes reported:

The aggressor, aged about thirty, was seriously wounded in the flank and buttocks. He was conscious when taken away by the ambulance. No explosives were found in his backpacks.
The man fought and risked being killed to try and gain entrance to the Louvre with a satchel full of PAINT BOMBS.

Think about the damage to the treasures of Western civilization he could have done had he succeeded. And more importantly, lets consider the actual agenda of an agent that would be willing to risk his life to destroy the great works of art of our Wester heritage.

This was an attack on our culture on a scale we have not seen yet, had it been successful. The great works of art at the Louvre might have become mere legends. As it is, the focus on teaching things like art and music is diminishing rapidly with increased Islamic populations, as typically they will not allow their children to learn it.

So this would be in keeping not only with the Islamic prohibition on representational art, but on the Islamic notion of ‘jehillia’, or erasing the “time of ignorance” (the period of all history before the time of Mohammad). The Saudis do it when archeologists discover an artifact from before the time of Islam. They will not allow it to be uncovered or seen, and often destroy it if it relates to another religion. In Gaza, Muslims are working every day to dig up any Jewish artifact and destroy it on conveyor belts with smashing machines.

Muslim expert Dr. Bill Warner weighed in on the significance of the Louvre terrorist attacks:

***

Free Speech Champions Fight Back Against OSCE ‘Islamophobia’ Industry

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Center for Security Policy, by Clare Lopez, October 13, 2016:

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry’s all-out assault on free speech was on full display at the recent annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. The Center’s VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez and Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin attended the 26-27 September 2016 session, along with Debra Anderson, ACT! For America Chapter leader in Minnesota, Dave Petteys, ACT! Chapter leader from Colorado and key European colleagues Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf from Austria, Henrik Clausen from Denmark, and Alain Wagner from France.

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is a 57-member regional security organization with representatives from North America, Europe and Asia. It describes itself as a ‘forum for political dialogue on a wide range of security issues’ whose approach encompasses ‘politico-military, economic and environmental, and human dimensions’. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is an office within the OSCE that claims to be dedicated to democratic elections, respect for human rights, rule of law, tolerance, and non-discrimination.

Their stated overall objective is helping governments protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance and non-discrimination, as well as to improve and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. Except that the actual theme of the two-day proceedings had a lot more to do with countering ‘hate crime,’ criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ and demonizing ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Islamophobes’ than it did with genuinely championing the right to believe, live, and speak freely.

Of course, the campaign to shut down free speech when it’s about Islam is very much in line with the top agenda item of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which is to achieve the criminalization of criticism of Islam in national legal codes. Gagging criticism of Islam is also what the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 tries to do. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hard to make that happen in the U.S. and around the world when she promoted the Istanbul Process. The idea is to use existing laws against ‘incitement to violence,’ but in a novel way that applies a so-called ‘test of consequences.’ That is, if someone, somewhere, sometime decides what somebody said somewhere, sometime is offensive and then launches a ‘Day of Rage,’ or goes on a lawless rampage destroying property, injuring or killing people, guess whose fault that would be? Under the ‘test of consequences’ speech code, that would be the speaker.

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Notably, though, the Islamophobia crowd seemed to be very much on the defensive at this OSCE meeting. Their crouch-and-whine posture most likely had to do with the accelerating numbers of horrific Islamic terror attacks, whose trail of carnage and destruction is splashed across screens around the world for all to see. Along with those visuals comes increasing awareness on the part of more and more ordinary people that when they yell ‘Allahu Akbar,’ it doesn’t mean ‘Hail to the Redskins’: it means they are committing that attack in the name of Allah and Islam.

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry has neither the ability nor actual wish to stop jihad but it sure does wish so many were not putting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and Islamic terror together and then speaking out about it. The only recourse left to them is trying desperately to shut down free speech—including places like the U.S. where free speech is Constitutionally-protected. As CSP Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin puts it:

This is a direct extraterritorial demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions submit to Islamic law and implement shariah-based punishment over time. In other words, the OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere in the world—including the United States—to say anything about Islam that Islam does not permit.

In other words, what they’re trying to do is enforce shariah’s law on slander – on us, on everyone, whether Muslim or not.

That effort at the Warsaw OSCE meeting went at it by various means: there was a great deal of emphasis on equating Islamophobia with ‘racism’ (but a new kind – not based on skin color), ‘bigotry,’ and violation of ‘human rights.’ Pouty complaints were heard about ‘feeling discriminated against,’ ‘marginalized,’ and the object of ‘hard looks’ because of wearing a hijab. When legal eagle Steve Coughlin and Danish defender Henrik Clausen demanded a specific legal definition of the term ‘Islamophobia,’ they were assailed for…you guessed it, ‘Islamophobia’! Needless to say, there was no legal definition forthcoming (because ‘everybody knows what it means’).

‘Islamophobia’ hysteria reached peak during the OSCE’s second day plenary session, where the Turkish General Secretary of the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), Bashy Qurayshi, came unglued with a plaintive wail that ‘Islamophobes’ who’d been permitted to infiltrate the OSCE were “lying, ranting and attempting to spread hatred at this conference.” He even threw in a reference to such ‘Islamophobes’ as ‘Nazis,’ at which point senior representatives at the OSCE head table actually broke into applause.

By way of counterpoint, however, it must be added that many delegates from Civil Society organizations throughout the OSCE membership area—including atheists, Baha’is, Christians, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons—firmly pressed the case for free speech. We know that they took encouragement from our presence and outspokenness, even as we did from theirs.

The ‘Islamophobia’ crown went home from Warsaw in the sure knowledge that their attempts to silence free speech about Islam have stirred a gathering force of liberty’s champions who will not be silenced.

For more coverage of this year’s OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, including photos and video, please see Gates of Vienna at https://gatesofvienna.net/

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy

***

You can also see all the videos here

Austrian Activist Fights Charge of “Denigration of Religious Teachings” for Insulting Mohammed

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-2-07-20-pm

Political correctness married to the Islamic concept of Slander is stifling free speech in the West

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Sept. 30, 2016:

Parts of the West are becoming so politically correct that if one even questions Islamic doctrine or a practice associated with Islamic culture one could face serious legal troubles.

An Austrian free speech activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff experienced this first-hand – after giving one of her seminars about Islam for the Austrian Freedom Party she was prosecuted for some of its contents. Apparently, an individual secretly recorded the speech and turned it in to the authorities. Then the public prosecutor went after Sabaditsch-Wolff for a number of statements. In the end she was allegedly charged for the “denigration of religious teachings” because she pointed out how Islam’s prophet Muhammad married a girl (Aisha) when she was six years old and had sex with her when she reached the age of nine years old, which Sabaditsch-Wolff essentially called pedophilia. Apparently, the judge decided what Muhammad did wasn’t pedophilia because Aisha was married to Muhammad until she reached eighteen years old. Sabaditsch-Wolff ended up being found guilty and had to pay a fine – she then appealed the case to several other court levels.

Even though one should be careful when comparing individuals of previous eras to today’s standards, Sabaditsch-Wolff’s criticism of Muhammad’s actions is based on Islamic texts and is legitimate (Sahih Muslim 8.3309). Are we seeing the courts in Austria citing “denigration of religious teachings” when a non-Christian takes issue with a Biblical fact about Jesus?

Or how about when unscriptural conspiracy theories arise surrounding Jesus and his teachings or any other individual in the Bible? Furthermore, when did Western courts become interpreters of Islamic texts? Sabaditsch-Wolff refers to a “hate speech narrative” that is being used “to silence the truth.”

Sabaditsch-Wolff believes that “you have to be intolerant of the intolerable.” These would include female genital mutilation (FGM), child rape, beating one’s wife and the like – whether they stem from Islam or any other religion, culture, etc. Sabaditsch-Wolff also talks about how women in Austria are taking extra security precautions because of the prevalence of migrants abusing women.

Western politicians need to be addressing these concerns. Unfortunately, a lot of them are worried about the political costs, but even if it cost them an election in the short-term it is worth it because the survival of Western civilization is at stake. When we can get punished for having a discussion based on facts and evidence, then we know that the West is heading toward destruction. It’s time to stop this madness before it’s too late.

Europe Needs A Strong America To Stop Multicultural Political Correctness, Says Austrian Activist [VIDEO]

Weaponized rhetoric of jihad

you-keep-using-that-word

Gates of Vienna, Dec. 18, 2014: (a good time to revisit this excellent video. h/t Vlad Tepes)

A non-Muslim who studies Islamic law in any depth soon learns that certain words have different meanings in Islam than they do in ordinary usage. Terms used in Islamic law that have specialized definitions include justice, peace, freedom, innocent, human rightsterrorism, slander, and any number of other seemingly commonplace English words and phrases.

Spokesmen for Islamic organization — and particularly those for Muslim Brotherhood front groups — rely on our ignorance about these “terms of art”. One reason that they are winning their information war with the West is that we simply do not understand what they really mean when they use these deliberately misleading words.

The following video draws on the expertise of Major (ret.) Stephen Coughlin, Dr. Bill Warner, Robert Spencer, and Clare Lopez to explain the special meanings prescribed by sharia for various crucial terms.

Many thanks to the Victor Laszlo Media Group for producing this video:

Also see: