Stop Importing Jihadists: Sharia Supremacists Have No Right to Enter the U.S.

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by Jim Hanson, June 29, 2016:

Donald Trump lit off a firestorm with his call for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. The deadly threat of Islamist terror and the migrant violence in Europe make a ban on Muslim immigration seem like a reasonable solution.

But we have Muslim allies, the King of Jordan for example, who would be affected by such an action. So if banning all Muslims is not the perfect solution, how can we deal with the ones who are a serious problem without alienating our allies?

The Center for Security Policy just released a white paper detailing how to do that entitled “Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization.” It explains how existing laws can be used to stop allowing Muslims from coming to this country who do not share our American values. This does not mean all Muslims, but it is a significant number who believe the totalitarian Islamist code called Sharia should be placed above the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. citizens have rights. But clearly, there are no rights for non-citizens to visit or migrate to the United States. It is a privilege. We need to make sure that anyone coming here doesn’t believe their mission is to bring with them an antiquated and barbaric system to impose on us. We have the authority under current law to stop members of totalitarian ideologies from infiltrating and working to subvert our free system.

The problem is not Muslims per se; it is Islamic Supremacists who push the totalitarian ideology called Sharia. Unfortunately, this is a significant number of Muslims worldwide; a Pew International poll shows more than half of them believe Sharia should be the law of their land. Most also believe this law should apply to non-Muslims, as well. That could hardly be more un-American and we have every right to tell those folks “That’s not how we do things here.”

There are differing versions of Sharia, but they agree that the practice of all aspects of life is governed by the unassailable word of Allah and not one single bit of it may be questioned. That includes an ironclad prohibition on any man-made law superseding Sharia and a requirement for believers to actively work to impose it everywhere. This makes it impossible for a Sharia-adherent Muslim to swear an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution or any other country’s governing document. There can be no agreement to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, Caesar must submit to Allah.

That single fact makes it prudent to restrict immigration by anyone who holds those beliefs. We have done this previously to stop totalitarian communists and fascists from infiltrating with a mind to undermine our society from within. That subversion is actually the very goal articulated by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood for its operations here in the United States: “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house.”

It makes perfect sense to say to a group that wants to destroy us “from within” that “you are not welcome to come in.”

The dividing line we need to use for making policy is Sharia; the practice of Sharia is simply not compatible with life in the U.S. It is also the dividing line between Medieval Islam, with its abhorrent practices such as death for homosexuals; stoning for victims of rape; forced marriages and genital mutilation for girls; and Modern Islam, which could properly be called post-Sharia. The problem is Modern Islam does not truly exist yet. There are Muslims who do not practice or believe in the barbaric acts Sharia requires, but they are technically apostates, defectors of Islam, and the penalty for leaving is death.

The current state of play has members of the medieval form acting as the loudest voices of the “Muslim” community. Those who wish to practice a modern version do so at their own peril: they face shunning at best and death at worst. The medieval practitioners are aided in this effort by vast support; even the U.S. government has embraced them both abroad, by supporting groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and here at home, in the form of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others.

Our U.S. government has a responsibility to safeguard this country and our way of life. That includes banning those who wish to destroy us from entering the United States. We must add Sharia to the list of totalitarian ideologies that trigger this prohibition. This will help all Americans including Modern Muslims who just want to live in peace in the land of the free.

ISIS is a Footnote: The Real Threat is Sharia and Islamic Supremacism

CJ-white-logo (1)CounterJihad, by Shireen Qudosi · @ShireenQudosi | June 29, 2016

The battle against radical Islam isn’t an ‘over there’ fight confined to the wastebin landscape of some forgotten town. It’s a ubiquitous problem that takes place on American soil in two forms. The first is through direct jihadi attacks as we most recently saw in Orlando; the second takes the form of political warfare.

Yesterday, the battle of ideas took place on the floor of a Senate hearing spearheaded by Senator Ted Cruz. The “Willful Blindness” hearing, attended by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Philip Haney, and Andrew McCarthy among others, offered testimony to better understandbarriers to combating radical Islam.

Other witnesses included soft-Islamist Farhana Khera, President and Executive Director ofMuslim Advocates, who refused to admit that jihad or radicalization had absolutelyanything to do with radical Islam. In fact, Senator Cruz’s attempt to engage Khera in dialogue yielded a minimum of 6 instances of denial within five minutes, with Khera defaulting to a regressive left narrative that the conversation is somehow empowering ISIS.

National security consultant Chris Gaubatz debunks the myth of an all-powerful and seeing ISIS:

“The global Islamic movement is made of terrorist groups and nation states; all seeking to impose sharia.”

ISIS is a footnote at best, not the bogeyman that Islamists try to threaten free speech with. The real threat is sharia and a mindset of Islamic supremacism.

Testimony was also provided by Michael German, a fellow of the Brennan Center for Justice and a former FBI Special Agent. German sees radical Islam as a problem but not in the context we would assume is logical based on the facts and common sense. In the same line of thinking as Khera, German denounces a theological association with violent acts of terror under a political doctrine.

German’s reasoning fails. He is neither expert in nor a student of Islamic theology. Had he an objective mind and trained scholar in both academic and traditional Islam, he would see that Islam has become a highly political system that forms and orchestrates national movement. The version of radical Islam adopted by terror groups is not that different than the version of Islam adopted by Islamic states – and to go further – the version of Islam that Islamists identify with. All versions ultimately hold Islam as supreme, paving the way for what is an undeniable theological supremacy. In other words, Islamic supremacy. And that understanding of Islam is adopted by billions of adherents.

In the same vein of thought as Islamists, German believes “radical Islam” is used to smear a faith group. He further argues “collective national security [is not achieved] by undermining security of others.” For German, “Ideas cannot be killed and ideologies cannot be destroyed.” He points to Nazi ideology that while defeated, was not destroyed.

However, radical Islamic ideology can be challenged and destroyed…from within. A growing movement in partnership with allies is already underway by Muslim reformers. Reformers are the new wave of Muslim scholars appearing nearly a millennia after the original Muslim free thinkers, the Mu’tazilites. The waves of movement in Islamic critical thought from the time of the Prophet, through his passing, and till today, shows that Islam is not the monolith German and Khera try to depict.

Andrew McCarthy, a former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney, understands Islam has seen a struggle to define itself from its earliest days. As McCarthy points out, Muslims “have not settled the question what is an authentic Islam.”

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a top North American Muslim Reformer, sees Muslim reformers “as the most essential head of spear in the battle against Islamic theocracy.” The largest collective of Muslim Reformers are presently in the United States.

“Ideas of freedom can happen in the laboratory of America,” adds Dr. Jasser. The West offers Muslim voices for humanity a level of freedom that is unmatched in any other part of the world, making Western Muslim reformers critical in this battle against radical Islam — particularly because truthful conversations on faith are painted as persecution, courtesy of the regressive left.

For McCarthy, the focus needs to shift to the supremacist interpretation of Islam that is fundamentally at odds with Western values. A clash of civilizations between Islam and the West is not a case of multiculturalism where room can be made for both. Islamic supremacism in its nature allows for only one ideology: its own.

So while German underscores that radical Islam is not a problem – that it is a misnomer – McCarthy points to history which shows us something entirely different. He summarizes that a struggle in Islam has been “ongoing for fourteen centuries supported by centuries of scholarship,” adding that “Islam is less a religion than a political radicalization with a religious veneer.”

McCarthy doesn’t see this as something the U.S. can fix, but it is something that we need to understand and not obscure – particularly because as Chris Gaubatz added, “We can kill every member of Al-Qaeda tomorrow, but it won’t end.”

Zuhdi Jasser added that America has “a sophisticated whack-a-mole system” of combatting terrorism. These are key assessment recognizing that ultimately we need to target the ideology and develop a system that moves beyond a fear of might trigger ISIS – a running theme for both Khera and German.

Khera along with German were both supported by Senator Dick Durbin who brought up a failed ongoing argument that needs to die: Westboro and the KKK are no more Christian than ISIS is Islamic. A cheap, tired trick, it shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about both Islam and Christianity.

Westboro and KKK are not acting in the footsteps of Jesus. However, ISIS is in many ways following the post-Medina violent warring behavior of its prophet, Muhammad. If we’re to see whether something is Islamic or Christian, we need to look at the verses and the leadership. Christianity did not have a violent Jesus and the teachings of Christ himself do not advocate violence. On the other hand, Islam has a violent version of Muhamad, which however justified in whatever context, is still violent and includes violent rhetoric that justified jihadi and supremacist agendas.

Germans builds on the back and forth highlighting Nazi Germany was defeated in part by criminalizing the ideology, something he feels can’t be done with Islam because the ideology can’t be scrubbed. I would argue we’ve already scrubbed so much: over 900 instances of references to jihad and Islam from official documents in what is a systematic purge of intelligence in a critical war.

Let’s go further still and get to the actual problem: the ideology. We need to do the same to political and violent doctrines in Islam, while supporting alternate voices found in reformers who are well on their way by outrightly challenging the theology or through grassroots efforts calling for modernized adaptations.

Also see:

Witness Tells Senate Committee CAIR Engaged In Corrupt Activities With Hamas

ISIS (1)Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, June 28, 2016:

WASHINGTON — A national security consultant testified Tuesday he conducted undercover research as an intern for Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and accused the Islamic organization at a Senate Oversight Judiciary Committee hearing of corruption and other crimes.

Chris Gaubatz, the undercover consultant, told the committee, “During my time conducting undercover research as an intern for Hamas, both at CAIR MD/VA in Herndon, VA, and CAIR National in Washington DC, I preserved documents that revealed Hamas doing business as CAIR: conspired to cover-up fraud committed by one of their immigration attorneys; discussed coordinating with Bin Laden and his associates; placed staffers and interns inside congressional offices -conspired to influence congress, specifically judiciary, intelligence, and homeland security committees; impacted congressional districts, tasking each Hamas Chapter office with influencing at least two legislators.”

Gaubatz also claimed he ordered books from the Saudi embassy “on the virtue of jihad and martyrdom” and worked “with a Muslim law enforcement officer to influence a major terrorism investigation by accessing a classified federal police database and tipping off the suspect”

Other witnesses warned the committee Tuesday that Muslim Brotherhood influence found its way through the federal government and law enforcement.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser stated in his testimony, “The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) are two of those Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups in America.”

He explained, “They have typically generically renounced the use of terror and violence, but they have never taken a public position against the ideology of Political Islam (Islamism) and have as a matter of policy sought to obstruct any emphasis on the role of ‘radical Islam’ and Islamism in radicalization. They both have also been some of the primary antagonists to efforts by law enforcement to understand and mitigate the real stages of radicalization of Muslims in America.”

Jasser noted that CAIR and other similar groups “spearheaded a successful effort to purge the NYPD of their seminal counterterrorism documents endorsed by our American Islamic Leadership Coalition.”

Former Customs & Border Protection Officer Philip Haney talked about how the administration purged records of terrorism investigations from the agency database.

He stated in his testimony, “The threat of Islamic terrorism does not just come from a network of armed organizations such as Hamas and ISIS, who are operating ‘over there’ in the Middle East. In fact, branches of the same global network have been established here in America, and they are operating in plain sight (at least to those of us who have been charged with the duty of protecting our country from threats, both foreign and domestic).”

He went on to say, “The threat we face today – that continues growing, despite the Willful Blindness of those who insist on pretending otherwise – are not the tactical methods of violent extremism, terrorism, or even operative verbs such as Jihad, but rather, the historical and universally recognized Islamic strategic goal of implementing Shariah law everywhere in the world, so that no other form of government (including the U.S. Constitution) is able to oppose its influence over the lives of those who must either submit to its authority, become second-class citizens, or perish.”

Also see:

Why Turkey’s Seizure of Churches is Deeply Troubling

unnamed (5)

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, April 19, 2016:

You don’t need to have “Istanbul, Not Constantinople” memorized to know that Turkey is a Muslim country built by Muslim colonists and settlers on the back of a Christian civilization. Some of its mosques used to be churches. And quite a few Muslims in Turkey would like to turn all the remaining churches into mosques or, in some cases, back into mosques.

That makes the question of church property an explosive one and the seizures of churches by the Islamist AKP Erdogan regime more troubling.

After 10 months of urban conflict in Turkey’s war-torn southeast, the government has expropriated huge sections of property, apparently to rebuild and restore the historical centre of the region’s largest city, Diyarbakir.

But to the dismay of the city’s handful of Christian congregations, this includes all its Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches. Unlike the state-funded mosques, Turkey’s ancient church buildings – some of which pre-date Islam – have been managed, historically, by church foundations.

The Erdogan regime has a history of using this brand of eminent domain and accompanying “reconstruction” to eliminate problem areas. Tear down a place that serves as a gathering for people you don’t like and replace it with a shopping mall. The Europeans won’t complain. They’ll float you a loan to do it.

While Obama welcomes Erdogan’s megamosque in America, Christians have trouble with churches in Turkey. But Obama instead lobbies Greece to make more space for Islamic services.

On April 2, a gigantic Ottoman style of mosque was opened in Lanham, Maryland by the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The mosque, according to Turkish officials, is “one of the largest Turkish mosques built outside Turkey.”

Funds to build it, as reported by the Turkish pro-government newspaper, Sabah, came from Turkey’s state-run Presidency of Religious Affairs, known as the Diyanet, as well as Turkish-American non-profit organizations.

The mosque is actually part of a larger complex, commonly referred to as “Maryland kulliye.” Akulliye, as such Islamic compounds were called in Ottoman times, is a complex of buildings, centered on a mosque and composed of various facilities including a madrassa (Islamic religious school).

Erdogan recited verses from the Quran inside the mosque after the mosque was opened.

Meanwhile, thousands of miles away from the American soil, in Turkey, Christians have for decades been deprived of the right to build their places of worship.

It’s not just that the left insists on welcoming Muslims. But it shows its double standards when it refuses to stand up for the rights of Christians. It doesn’t believe in freedom of worship. It believes in empowering Islamists to oppress Christians and Jews, not to mention Hindus and Buddhists, all over the world.

UK Megamosque Backs Persecution of Christians in Pakistan

1280x720-bla

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, March 8, 2016:

When Muslim leaders in the UK make it clear that they want to see the persecution of Christians in Pakistan, what do they intend for the Christians and other non-Muslims in the UK? It’s a very good question that we all ought to think about.

Asia Bibi is a defenseless Pakistani Christian woman who was maliciously accused of “blasphemy” by her Muslim neighbors. They did this to settle a score after she committed the other “crime,” as a non-Muslim, of drinking water from the same cup as them. Asia was sentenced by Pakistan’s courts to death by hanging in 2010. She languishes in jail awaiting execution until this day. So far, so obscene.

Five years ago, Asia must have thought she had been given a lifeline. Imagine the delight felt by this powerless woman—for Christians are a tiny and discriminated against minority in Pakistan—when the governor of Pakistan’s largest province, the flamboyant secular Muslim, Salmaan Taseer, publicly took up her case…

In 2011 Salmaan Taseer was gunned down by his own bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri… Qadri came to be regarded as a hero by many Barelwi Pakistani Sufi Muslims for “defending” the “honor” of the Prophet Muhammad.

Blasphemy laws in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world exist to lock in Muslim authority over non-Muslims. The Bibi case is typical. When Muslims speak of defending the honor of Mohammed, they really mean defending their own honor and their subjugation of non-Muslims. And in the UK, there’s plenty of support for Qadri.

One of Europe’s largest mosques, the Barelwi Sufi managed Ghamkol Sharif in Birmingham, UK, held a wake “in honor of the lover of the Prophet, Warrior Mumtaz Qadri, the martyr.”

Another Barelwi Imam, Muhammed Asim Hussain, whose verified Facebook page has been liked nearly 137,000 times, posted his position openly:

“A dark day in the history of Pakistan; the day Ghazi [warrior] Mumtaz was wrongfully executed and martyred in the way of Allah, when he did what he did in honor of the Prophet.”

A mainstream conservative Barelwi leader, Muhammad Masood Qadiri who presents a weekly show on Ummah TV, available on the Sky TV platform, doubled-down after hailing “warrior” Qadri as a “martyr”:

“This does not make me a terrorist sympathizer as I, along with millions of fellow Muslims do not accept that Gazi Mumtaz Qadri was a terrorist in the least. I have always been the first to condemn terrorism wherever in the world it takes place. I am also an Islamic religious minister. I therefore have a duty to express an opinion on fundamental matters concerning Islam and on this occasion, the crime of blasphemy.… As for having travelled to the funeral of Gazi Mumtaz Qadri, along with hundreds of thousands of others who also attended, I am not at all ashamed of this.”

If you believe in killing people in the name of Islam… you are a terrorist. It’s that simple. Any supporter of Qadri should be treated as a supporter of Islamic Supremacist terrorism.

Ghamkol Sharif is one of the UK’s megamosques. It can fit in 5,000 people. It’s one of those “moderate” megamosques though. And doesn’t at all want its support for murdering anyone who defends Christians to be viewed as “extremism”.

“Some are equating honouring Mumtaz Qadri to extremism. The issue must be holistically understood before any judgements are made,” the megamosque posted on Facebook.

Because when you shoot someone. You should understand that holistically.

The victim who was murdered for trying to protect a Christian woman, “while being aware of the strong religious sentiments of the Pakistani Muslims, he said the law- regardless of how it was applied- was a ‘Black Law’ and compared it to his excrement.” And so naturally his Jihadist killer, “is being hailed a hero not just for standing up to what he believed in but as a victim of a system that should have been fair. Comparing this case to terrorism and extremism is an absurdity.”

Sure. It’s absurd to compare terrorism to terrorism.

This is the Islamofascist infrastructure that has set up shop in the UK that justifies murder for blasphemy. Under these conditions, freedom of speech and religion becomes structurally impossible. The UK must choose between these and Islamic supremacism.

Also see:

Germany’s Migrant Crisis: January 2016

In January, there were thousands of cases of migrants sexually assaulting women in Germany, including many that took place in public pools. The government began to face a rising voter backlash to the open-door migration policy, including public protests (left). In some areas, authorities have distributed cartoon guides, to "educate" migrants that sexual assault is not acceptable (right).

In January, there were thousands of cases of migrants sexually assaulting women in Germany, including many that took place in public pools. The government began to face a rising voter backlash to the open-door migration policy, including public protests (left). In some areas, authorities have distributed cartoon guides, to “educate” migrants that sexual assault is not acceptable (right).

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, February 12, 2016:

  • Despite snow, ice and freezing temperatures across much of Europe, a total of 91,671 migrants entered Germany during January 2016.
  • German taxpayers could end up paying 450 billion euros ($500 billion) for the upkeep of the million migrants who arrived in Germany in 2015. This would presumably double to nearly one trillion euros if another million migrants arrive in 2016.
  • A 19-year-old migrant from Afghanistan sexually assaulted four girls between the ages of 11 and 13 at a swimming pool in Dresden. The migrant was arrested but then set free.
  • Three teenage migrants from North Africa tried to stone to death two transsexuals in Dortmund after they were seen walking around in women’s clothing. The victims were saved by police.
  • Bild reported that politicians in Kiel had ordered the police to overlook crimes perpetrated by migrants.
  • “The topics we cover are determined by the government. … We must report in such a way that serves Europe and the common good, as it pleases Mrs. Merkel. … today we are not allowed to say anything negative about the refugees. This is government journalism.” – Wolfgang Herles, retired public media personality.
  • The European Commission called for the “rejection of false associations between certain criminal acts, such as the attacks on women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, and the mass influx of refugees.”

In January 2016, the German public appeared finally to wake up to the implications of their government’s decision to allow 1.1 million — mostly male — migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East to enter the country during 2015.

After more than a thousand Muslim migrants sexually assaulted hundreds of women in cities across Germany on New Year’s Eve, Chancellor Angela Merkel began to face a rising voter backlash to her open-door migration policy.

Merkel’s government has responded to the criticism by: 1) attempting to silence critics of the open-door migration policy; 2) trying to “export” the migrant problem to other countries in the European Union; and 3) announcing a series of measures — branded as unrealistic by critics — to deport migrants accused of committing crimes in Germany.

What Merkel has steadfastly refused to do, however, is reduce the number of migrants entering the country. Despite snow, ice and freezing temperatures across much of Europe, a total of 91,671 migrants — an average of around 3,000 migrants each day — entered Germany during the month of January 2016.

The following is a review of some of the more notable stories about the migration crisis in Germany during January 2016.

January 1. More than a thousand migrants sexually assaulted hundreds of German women in the cities of Cologne, Hamburg and Stuttgart. The government and the mainstream media were accused of trying to cover up the crimes, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiment.

January 1. As Muslim migrants were causing mayhem on German streets, the Minister President of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, said he could not understand public concerns about the “alleged Islamization” of Germany. In an interview with Die Welt, he said: “If you look at the facts, this fear is unfounded. We have a stable democracy and a free society. State and religion are separated. How should Muslims, who represent a minority, Islamize our society?” When asked why Germans are afraid, Kretschmann replied: “People are afraid of strangers they do not know.”

January 1. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that 1.3 million asylum seekers would enter the European Union annually during 2016 and 2017.

January 2. A fight between children as young as 11 at a refugee shelter in Stockach near Konstanz turned into a mass brawl after parents of the children joined in the fighting. Police were deployed to restore order. Seven people were injured.

January 3. A 16-year-old Moroccan migrant went on a rampage after a judge in Bremen ordered him to be jailed for stealing a man’s laptop at knife-point. On the way from the courthouse to the jail, the Moroccan seriously injured a police officer by kicking him in the face. Once inside the jail cell, the migrant ripped a toilet from the floor and smashed it against a wall.

The chairman of the Bremen Police Union, Jochen Kopelke, said that migrants were attacking city police with increasing frequency: “The tone has become extremely aggressive; sometimes the police must apply massive force to get a situation under control.” According to Bremen Senator Ulrich Mäurer, “the excesses of violence against police officers show that these people have no respect for our constitutional order and its representatives.”

January 3. More than 50 migrants were involved in a mass brawl at a refugee shelter inEllwangen near Stuttgart. Police said migrants attacked each other with fire extinguishers, metal pipes, rocks and stones. According to local media, mass brawls have become commonplace at migrant shelters in the area.

January 3. Hans-Werner Sinn, one of the best-known economists in Germany, cited estimates that German taxpayers could end up paying 450 billion euros ($500 billion) for the upkeep of the million migrants who arrived in Germany in 2015. This estimate would presumably double to nearly one trillion euros if another million migrants arrive in Germany in 2016.

January 4. An internal report written by a senior federal police officer revealed chaos “beyond description” in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. The report, which was leaked to the news magazineDer Spiegel and published in full by the newspaper Bild, said that women were forced to “run a gauntlet” of drunken men of a “migrant background” to enter or depart the main train station. “Even the appearance of the police officers and their initial measures did not stop the masses from their actions.” One migrant told a police officer: “I am Syrian; you have to treat me kindly! Mrs. Merkel has invited me.”

January 5. Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker said: “There is no reason to believe that those involved in the sexual assaults in Cologne were refugees.” Cologne Police Chief Wolfgang Alberssaid: “At this time we have no information about the offenders.”

January 6. Former Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said it was “scandalous that it took the mainstream media several days” to report on the sexual assaults in Cologne. He said public media was a “cartel of silence” exercising censorship to protect migrants from accusations of wrongdoing.

January 7. A charity called Refugees Welcome Bonn, which organized a Rhine River cruise as welcoming party for migrants in Bonn, apologized after it emerged that migrants groped and sexually harassed some female guests during the event.

January 8. The Interior Ministry revealed that of the 32 suspects identified in the Cologne assaults, 22 were asylum seekers. Cologne Police Chief Wolfgang Albers was fired for withholding information about the assaults from the public.

January 9. A vigilante group began patrolling the streets of Düsseldorf to “make the city safer for our women.” Similar groups emerged in Cologne and Stuttgart.

January 10. Three teenage migrants from North Africa tried to stone to death two transsexuals inDortmund after they were seen walking around in women’s clothing. The victims were saved by police, who happened to pass by in a car. One of the victims said: “I never could have imagined that something like this could happen in Germany.”

January 11. A 35-year-old migrant from Pakistan sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl at a refugee shelter in Kamen.

January 12. In an interview with Bild, Frank Oesterhelweg, a politician with the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU), caused a scandal when he said that police should be authorized to use deadly force to prevent migrants from raping German women:

“These criminals deserve no tolerance, they have to be stopped by the police. By force if necessary, and, yes, you read correctly, even with firearms. An armed police officer has a duty to help a desperate woman. One must, if necessary, protect the victims by means of force: With truncheons, water cannons or firearms.”

Police union leader Dietmar Schilff was irate: “These statements are outrageous and do not help the police at all. There are clear rules for using the service weapon. What would have happened in Cologne if the police had used clubs and guns?” According to Bild, many German police officers are afraid of using lethal force “because of the legal consequences.”

January 12. A YouGov poll showed that 62% of Germans believe the number of asylum seekers is too high, up from 53% in November. According to the poll, the growing resistance to immigration was being driven by the hardening of attitudes by German women.

January 13. An Interior Ministry report leaked to Bild warned that jihadist attacks like those in Paris could take place in Germany “at any time.” The report said that attacks would likely be spread over several days and against “various target categories.”

January 13. A 20-year-old migrant from Somalia was sentenced to four years in prison for raping an 88-year-old woman in Herford. His defense attorneys argued for leniency because, according to them, the man was traumatized by his flight from Somalia. In Gelsenkirchen, four migrants attacked a 45-year-old man after he tried to prevent them from raping a 13-year-old girl.

January 14. The Bundestag, the lower house of the German parliament, approved a plan to provide all refugees with identity cards that will contain information such as fingerprints and country of origin. The cards will be linked to a centralized refugee data system. The plan may be too late: the German government has lost track of the whereabouts of hundreds of thousands of migrants who entered the country in 2015.

January 14. Prosecutors in Cologne said they were offering a reward of 10,000 euros ($11,000) for information leading to the arrest or identification of those who committed the sexual assaults and robberies on New Year’s Eve.

January 14. A Bavarian politician sent a bus carrying 31 refugees on a seven-hour journey to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office in Berlin to protest her open-door refugee policy. Merkel sentthe migrants back to Bavaria.

January 14. City officials in Rheinberg cancelled this year’s carnival celebrations. Local police said that in wake of the sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, they were unable to guarantee the safety of female revelers.

January 15. A 36-year-old migrant sexually assaulted an eight-year-old girl at a public park in Hilden near Solingen. A 31-year-old migrant from Tunisia was arrested for attempting to rape a 30-year-old woman in Chemnitz. A 31-year-old migrant from Morocco appeared in court for raping a 31-year-old woman in Dresden. A migrant sexually assaulted a 42-year-old woman inMainz. A migrant sexually assaulted a 32-year-old woman in Münchfeld. An African migrantsexually assaulted a 55-year-old woman in Mannheim.

January 15. Male migrants were banned from a public swimming pool in Bornheim, near Bonn, after they were accused of assaulting female patrons at the facility.

Read more

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

The Muslim Man’s Sexual “Rights” Over Non-Muslim Women

1153402-3x2-940x627

Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, Feb. 12, 2016:

In word and deed, in Islamic and non-Islamic nations, Muslim men appear to think that non-Muslim women—impure “infidels”—exist solely to gratify their sexual urges.

First, consider the beliefs and actions of those committed to waging jihad for the cause of Allah, such as the Islamic State:

In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old [non-Muslim] girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted. He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her. When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion. “I kept telling him it hurts — please stop,” said the girl, whose body is so small an adult could circle her waist with two hands. “He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to” Allah.

Yet such behavior is not limited to fanatical jihadis, who have “nothing whatsoever to do with Islam,” as most fools and liars will assure us; rather it permeates the totality of Islamic culture.

Consider recent events in Pakistan: three Christian girls walking home after a hard day’s work were accosted by four “rich and drunk” Muslims—hardly ISIS candidates—in a car. They “misbehaved,” yelled “suggestive and lewd comments,” and harassed the girls to get in their car for “a ride and some fun.” When the girls declined the “invitation,” adding that they were “devout Christians and did not practice sex outside of marriage,” the men became enraged and chased the girls, yelling, “How dare you run away from us, Christian girls are only meant for one thing: the pleasure of Muslim men.”  They drove their car into the three girls, killing one and severely injuring the other two.

Or consider the words of human rights activists speaking about another Muslim man’s rape of a 9-year-old Christian girl: “Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a right. According to the community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”

Once relegated to third world countries like Pakistan and ISIS-controlled areas, the subhuman treatment and sexual abuse of “infidel” women is becoming a common fixture in the West.

Thus recently in Germany, a group of Muslim “refugees” stalked a 25-year-old woman at night, hurled “filthy” insults and taunted her for sex.  One told her that “German women are there for sex,” before reaching into her blouse and trousers and groping her.

These recent stories from Germany and Pakistan are identical—Muslim men harassing non-Muslim women on the assumption that it’s their Islamic right and privilege—except for one difference: the German “infidel” escaped with her life, whereas the Pakistani “infidel” was murdered for refusing to gratify the sexual desires of her Islamic accosters.  As Islam’s presence continues to grow in Europe, this difference will quickly fade.

Already there are other, more subtle similarities between “third world” Pakistan and “first world” Germany.  In the report about the manslaughter of the three Christian girls in Pakistan, we find that “Other girls in the local area are now too scared to travel at night and are being accompanied by the men in their families.”  In Germany, “The latest reports from Dortmund [where the “German-women-are-there-for-sex” anecdote transpired] paint a terrifying picture of a city where it is now unsafe for women to go out at night for fear of being attacked and raped by refugees.”

Indeed, less than a month earlier, on New Year’s Eve, 1,000 Muslim migrants, also apparently thinking that non-Muslim women exist for one thing, went on a raping spree in Cologne and elsewhere, leaving hundreds of “infidel” women violated, beaten, and traumatized—the same way “infidel” women living in Muslim-majority nations often feel.

Of course, well before the migrant crisis, Europe had and ignored ample lessons concerning what happens when Muslim populations grow.   In Britain alone, where a large Muslim minority has long existed, countless British girls in various regions have been sexually abused and gang raped by Muslims who apparently deemed it their Islamic right.  Said one rape victim: “The men who did this to me have no remorse. They would tell me that what they were doing was OK in their culture.”   Days ago a judge told 12 Muslim men that they “took such terrible and heartless sexual advantage” of a 13-year-old British girl before sentencing them.

A Muslim imam in Britain confessed that Muslim men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority” and that the imams preach a doctrine “that denigrates all women, but treats whites [meaning non-Muslims] with particular contempt.”

Another Muslim convicted of rape in a separate case told a British court that sharing non-Muslim girls for sex “was part of Somali culture” and “a religious requirement.”

And there it is: Whether seen by “pious” Muslims as a “religious requirement”—as cited by an ISIS rapist to his 12-year-old victim—or whether seen as part of Pakistani (Asian) and Somali (African) culture—in a word, Islamic culture—the subhuman treatment and sexual degradation of non-Muslim women and children by Muslims who deem it their “right” is apparently another “exoticism” the West must embrace if it wishes to keep worshipping at the altar of multiculturalism.

***

Also see:

The Problem with Islam Is Aggressive Scripture, Not Aggressive ‘Traditionalism’

quran

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — January 16, 2016:

On the Corner this week, the eminent Jim Talent touted (with some reservations) an essay about “moderate Islam” by Cheryl Bernard. A Rand Institute researcher, she is also a novelist, a defender of war-ravaged cultures, and the wife of Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to post-Taliban (or is it pre-Taliban?) Afghanistan. With due respect to Dr. Bernard, who does much heroic work, I believe the essay highlights what is wrong with Western academic analysis of Islam.

The problem comes into focus in the very title of Senator Talent’s post, “Aggressive Traditionalism.” That is the attribute of Islamic societies that Dr. Bernard blames for the frustration of her high hopes for “moderate Islam.” In truth, however, the challenge Islam poses for moderation is not its tradition; it is Islamic doctrine — the scriptural support for traditional sharia and Islamic supremacist ideology.

I give Bernard credit. She is the unusual strategist who is willing to admit failure — in this instance, of the strategy of promoting “moderate Islam” as the antidote to “radical Islam.” But even this concession goes off the rails: She maintains that the strategy was somehow “basically sensible” despite being “off track in two critical ways.” The real problem, though, is not the two errors she identifies but the fatal flaw she fails to address: The happenstance that there are many moderate Muslims in the world does not imply the existence of a coherent “moderate Islam.” Try as she might, Bernard cannot surmount this doctrinal hurdle by blithely ignoring the centrality of doctrine to a belief system — without it, there is nothing to believe.

But let’s start with the two critical problems she does cite. The first is the matter of defining what a “moderate” is. Bernard concedes that she and other thinkers adopted a definition that was “too simplistic” — meaning, too broad. It made “violence and terrorism” the litmus test for “moderation.” This enabled what she labels “aggressive traditionalists” to masquerade as moderates.

Who are the “aggressive traditionalists”? Muslims who, though nonviolent themselves, “harbor attitudes of hostility and alienation” against non-Muslims. The failure to account for the challenge that “aggressive traditionalism” poses for moderation led to the second flaw Bernard admits: the undermining of “integration” — a reference to Muslim assimilation (or the lack thereof) in the West.

This is fine as far as it goes. In fact, Bernard is quite correct about the main challenge posed by hostile, alienated, integration-resistant Muslims: Even if they are personally nonviolent, the communities they create become “the breeding ground for extremism and the safe harbor for extremists.”

But “extremism” about what? This is the salient question, and it is one Bernard studiously ducks. The error is implicit from the very start of her essay (my italics):

Over the past decade, the prevailing thinking has been that radical Islam is most effectively countered by moderate Islam. The goal was to find religious leaders and scholars and community ‘influencers’ — to use the lingo of the counter-radicalization specialists — who could explain to their followers and to any misguided young people that Islam is a religion of peace, that the term jihad refers mainly to the individual’s personal struggle against temptation and for moral betterment, and that tolerance and interfaith cooperation should prevail.

Plainly, the “prevailing thinking” casually assumes “facts” not only unproven but highly dubious. Bernard takes it as a given not only that there is an easily identifiable “moderate Islam,” but also that this . . . what? . . . doctrine? . . . attitude? . . . is the most effective counter to “radical Islam.”

But what is moderate Islam? She doesn’t say. She maintains that there are countless moderate Muslims who, by her telling, embrace “Western values, modern life and integration.” In fact, she assumes there are so many such Muslims that they constitute the “mainstream” of Islam. Yet, that proposition is not necessarily true even in the West, where Muslims are a minority who might be expected to assimilate into the dominant, non-Muslim culture; and it most certainly is not true in the Muslim-majority countries of the Middle East.

Even worse is Bernard’s assertion — uncritical, and without a hint that there may be a counter-case — “that Islam is a religion of peace, [and] that the term jihad refers mainly to the individual’s personal struggle against temptation and for moral betterment.”

As is the wont of Islam’s Western apologists, Bernard is attempting to shield from examination what most needs examining. Her reliance on the potential of “moderate Islam” to quell “radical Islam” is entirely premised on the conceit that Islam is, in fact, moderate and peaceful. Her assumption that the vast majority of Muslims can be won over (indeed, have already been won over, she seems to say) to Western values is premised on the conceit that those values are universal and, hence, locatable in the core of Islam — such that “tolerance and interfaith cooperation should prevail” because Islam is all for them.

Islam, however, is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of conquest that was spread by the sword. Moreover, it is not only untrue that jihad refers “mainly” to the individual’s internal struggle to live morally; it is also untrue that the Islamic ideal of the moral life is indistinguishable from the Western conception.

To be clear, this is not to say that Islam could not conceivably become peaceful. Nor is it to say that jihad could not be reinterpreted such that a decisive majority of Muslims would accept that its actual primary meaning — namely, holy war to establish Islam’s dominance — has been superseded by the quest for personal betterment. To pull that off, though, will require a huge fight. It cannot be done by inhabiting an alternative universe where it has already been done.

That fight would be over doctrine, the stark omission in Bernard’s analysis. I do not think the omission is an oversight. Note her labeling of faux moderates as “aggressive traditionalists.” Citing “tradition” implies that the backwardness and anti-Western hostility she detects, to her great dismay, is a function of cultural inhibitions. But what she never tells you, and hopes you’ll never ask, is where Islamic culture and traditions come from.

Alas, they are direct consequences of Islamic scripture and sharia, the law derived from scripture. She can’t go there. She wants Islam to be moderate, but its scriptures won’t cooperate. She must rely on tradition and culture because traditions and cultures can and do evolve. Scripture, by contrast, does not — not in Islam as taught by over a millennium’s worth of scholars and accepted by untold millions of Muslims. Mainstream Islam holds that scripture is immutable. The Koran, the center of Islamic life, is deemed the “uncreated word of Allah,” eternal. (See, e.g., Sura 6:115: “The Word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and justice: None can change His Words: For He is the one Who heareth and knoweth all.”)

Bernard must blame aggressive traditionalism because if the problem is aggressive doctrine rooted in aggressive scripture, then it’s not changing any time soon — or maybe ever. Moreover, she is not in a position to challenge doctrine and scripture without deeply offending the believers to whom she is appealing. They are taught that any departure from centuries-old scholarly consensus is blasphemy.

The story Dr. Bernard tells of Islamic intransigence in her own Northern Virginia neighborhood is instructive. A Muslim-American friend of hers is a social worker who finds jobs for Muslim immigrants. He lands openings for a group of Somali women in a hospital laundry service; but the women first tell him they must check with their imam, then they turn down the jobs because they will not be allowed to wear their hijabs. The social worker and Bernard are exasperated: Why don’t the women and their adviser grasp that because hijabs could get caught in the machinery and cause injury, there is a “pragmatic reason” for departing from the traditional Islamic norm?

Notice: Bernard never considers, or at least never acknowledges, that there is doctrinal support for every decision the Somalis make: The scriptures instruct Muslims to consult authorities knowledgeable in sharia before embarking on a questionable course of conduct; they instruct Muslim women to wear the veil (particularly in any setting where they will be exposed to men who are not their husbands or close relatives). And while pragmatism suggests to the rational Dr. Bernard and her moderate, Westernized social-worker friend an obvious exception to Islam’s usual clothing rule, mainstream Islam in the Middle East and Somalia admonishes that Western reliance on reason and pragmatism is a form of corruption, a pretext for ignoring religious duty.

Doctrine is the answer to virtually every immoderate instance of aggressive “traditionalism” Bernard complains about: the separation of men from women in the mosque, and the decidedly poorer accommodations (“often unacceptable and even insulting,” as Bernard describes them) to which women are consigned; the separation of the sexes in work and social settings; the instructions not to trust or befriend “unbelievers”; the admonitions to resist adopting Western habits and developing loyalty to Western institutions. There is scriptural support for every one of these injunctions.

From the fact that she has moderate, “modernized” Muslim friends, who do not comport themselves in such “traditional” fashion, Bernard extravagantly deduces that tradition is the problem. She never comes close to grappling with doctrine — i.e., the thing that most devout Muslims believe is what makes them Muslims. The closest she comes is the fleeting observation that her moderate social-worker friend “is a scholar [presumably of Islam] and a professor who emigrated from a conservative Muslim country.” The obvious suggestion is that if he is not troubled by the flouting of traditional Islamic mores, surely there must not be any credible scriptural objection. But if it is relevant that her friend is a scholar, is it not also relevant that there are thousands of other scholars — scholars who actually do Islamic jurisprudence rather than social work for a living — who would opine that sharia requires these traditional behaviors and that it is the social worker who is out of touch?

When Dr. Bernard’s husband, Ambassador Khalilzad, served in Kabul, he midwifed the new Afghan constitution that purported to safeguard Western notions of liberty while simultaneously installing Islam as the state religion and sharia as fundamental law. In short order, Afghanistan put former Muslims who had publicly renounced Islam on capital trial for apostasy. Dr. Khalilzad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other Western officials and intellectuals pronounced themselves duly shocked and appalled — notwithstanding that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Islamic scripture knows that it calls for public apostates to be killed.

To great American embarrassment, the apostates had to be whisked out of the country lest the incompatibility of civil rights and sharia become even more painfully apparent. It is worth acknowledging, however, that what chased them out of Afghanistan was not aggressive traditionalism. It was Islamic doctrine, which simply is not moderate. Looked at doctrinally, the challenge for “moderate Islam” is . . . Islam.

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

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: What do we want in the Muslim lands?

India Kashmir Saudi Execution Protest

JIHAD WATCH, JANUARY 6, 2016 2:54 PM BY

The multifarious geopolitical messes in the Middle East, the almost comical variety of resentments, hostilities, mutual denouncements, and hatreds in the Muslim lands that are presented to us each day on some news channel’s platter, the confusion worse compounded that overcomes us when we look at any part or aspect of the Camp of Islam — all this beggars belief, but you’d better nonetheless believe it. You’d better believe, for example, that the Uber-Sunni Saudis, who gave rise to Al-Qaeda, who provided Al-Qaeda not just with Osama bin Laden but with a host of other members (including 11 of the 19 who went on that 9/11/2001 mission), are now dead-set on executing members of that same Al -Qaeda, and have just done so, and are also prepared to make war on the uberest-Sunnis of them all, the members of the Islamic State. And at the same time as those Saudi rulers execute, in the same galere, both those Al-Qaeda and Islamic State anti-Shi’a fanatics, they also can — and did — execute a leading Shi’a cleric in Saudi Arabia, one Nimr Al-Nimr. Those who like things kept simple, and not complicated, will be disappointed by the Muslim Middle East, where every (geopolitical) prospect teases, and only man is vile.

Let’s see what we can do to improve our chances of seeing things steadily and whole, by standing a bit back from the radio, and limning the broad outlines of Islam.

Let’s begin with the all-encompassing nature of this faith. Islam is a Total System, a Complete Regulation of Life, a Compleat Explanation of the Universe. The True Believers in Islam are consumed by their demands of their faith. There is no such thing as “wearing one’s faith lightly” when that faith is Islam. Even those whom one might have suspected to be Islamic “moderates” turn out too often on closer inspection to believe in the uncompromisable rightness of Islam, the ingratitude and perfidy of non-Muslims, the need or duty to engage in the Struggle or Jihad, using chiefly combat (qitaal) or terrorism, but not excluding the use of other instruments to promote the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam everywhere. And among those instruments are economic warfare (less of a threat now that the “oil weapon” has so obviously faltered, and oil producers are desperate for customers), propaganda and diplomatic warfare, and the latest instrument of Jihad, demographic conquest, through the large-scale movement of Muslims into non-Muslim lands, where through their mere presence they gain political power and inhibit the freedom to maneuver of political leaders and the freedom of speech of people who become too fearful to speak out about Islam: if they dare to do so, they are promptly attacked by all the bien-pensants.

But, as Muslims like to say, meaning something quite different, “Islam is not a monolith.” By that phrase they attempt to inhibit non-Muslims from ever speaking about something called “Islam” because — since it is “not a monolith”– any such generalizing attempt would be false. Yet in the basic tenets and teachings, in the centrality of the Qur’an, in the agreement as to which are the most authoritative collections of Hadith, in the understanding of what constitute the Five Pillars of Islam, the faith called Islam is indeed a “monolith.”

But that is not the end of the story. As Professor Bernard Lewis pointed out long ago, Muslims in the Middle East have “multiple identities.” A man may be a Muslim “and an Arab” or a Muslim “and a Berber” or a Muslim and a “black African in the southern Sudan.” A man may be a “Sunni Muslim” or “Shi’a Muslim” or — so as not to overlook a very small group found mainly Oman and in some Algerian oases — an “Ibadi Muslim.” And some Muslim peoples possess the awareness of and tug from a particular national history — I am thinking of Egypt and Iran especially, as those nations (along with Israel) have the strongest sense of national identity in the Middle East. An Egyptian is “Egyptian” or an Iranian an “Iranian” in a way that a Qatari is not a Qatari, nor an inhabitant of Abu Dhabi an Emiratian.

Islam is a universalist faith. It is meant for everyone to accept. And those who among the Ahl al-Kitab, or People of the Book (that is, Christians and Jews), do not accept the full message of Islam — i.e., become Muslims — are required to pay a tax, or Jizyah, in conditions that bespeak humiliation, in order to be allowed to continue to practice their religion.

Read more

Islam in our schools

is (2)American Thinker, by Carol Brown, Jan. 6, 2016:

Creeping sharia infiltrates every nook and cranny of America. Including our classrooms. Among other things, the Muslim Brotherhood (as well as the Saudis) wields enormous influence over curriculum that threatens not only public schools, but private and parochial schools as well.

After reporting on Islamic supremacy in our schools a year ago, I thought it worthwhile to see how things have progressed since then, for better or for worse. (Guess which it is.) When last we left off, here’s where things stood. In most cases, information only came to light because parents stumbled upon homework assignments or their child told them something of concern.

Students learned to recite allegiance to Allah along with Muslim prayers and chants. Students were also taught the Five Pillars of Islam, that Muslims pray to the same God as Christians and Jews, that Mohammed was a man with strong moral values, that terrorists are “freedom fighters,” that Muslims treat those they conquer better than America does, along with the taqiyya version of CAIR’s mission. Sharia law was promoted, Qurans were introduced into classrooms, students studied Arabic, female students wore burqas as part of a lesson on Islam, and special courses on Islam prohibited students from wearing a cross or saying the name “Jesus.”

Homework assignments required students to promote the “Golden Age of Islam” while students also had to write about what it would be like to travel to Mecca. All the while, Muslim students were given special privileges that Christian and Jewish students were not afforded, including time off during the day to pray.

Textbooks whitewashed Islam while diminishing Christians and Jews, videos framed non-Muslims as bigots and validated enforcement of blasphemy laws, a Muslim author gave a lecture that stretched over four days about her Islamic-themed book, and field trips to mosques (including the one the Tsarnaev brothers attended) involved non-Muslim students praying to Allah, with non-Muslim boys joined adult Muslims in prayer while girls were told Islam is pro-woman.

Teachers who spoke out were punished. An elementary school teacher was forced to resign after making critical comments about Islam on a talk radio program, CAIR attempted to smear another teacher by accusing her of being a “racist” after she drew an analogy between the Taliban and Hamas during a lesson on bullying, and Christian teachers were harassed by Muslims in the school hierarchy.

(See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

So where do things stand today? Sadly, we have more of the same. Much more of it, as Islamic supremacy continues to gain ground in our schools. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

A workbook for a three-week course on Islam told students that for the duration of the course they will “become Muslim” by selecting Muslim names and wearing them on ID tags around their necks, dressing up as Muslims and acting the part in order to receive a good grade, being told jihad is a struggle against oppression, playing a dice game called Jihad that pits one group of students against another, reading the opening chapter of the Quran and analyzing various other verses, and memorizing the Shahada (the prayer for conversion to Islam).

Students across various school districts were told that Islam had nothing to do with the 9/11 terror attacks, were taught an Islamic fight song that implied that Allah is the only God, completed a project that involved making pro-ISIS propaganda posters, and a Palestinian activist gave a presentation to third graders that urged them to become “freedom fighters for Palestine.”

Homework assignments included analyzing statements by bin Laden, material from an ISIS blog featuring a female recruiter, and statements from Obama’s Cairo speech that demonized the West and framed Muslims as victims. Students also had to write the Shahada (including the oath “There is no God by Allah”) and sing “Allahu Akbar” in an Arabic song. And a Muslim cleric who was a public school teacher peddled sharia and routinely left school early to conduct prayer services at his mosque. (He’s since been fired.)

Meanwhile Muslims continued to press for special accommodations, such as school closures for Muslim holidays. Mind you, federal law allows students of minority religions to take off from school on their religious holidays without any penalty. But this is not good enough for many Muslims who offer all manner of rationales for why they need more. Some cite relatively high (emphasis on relatively) percentages of Muslims who live in certain districts. But even when their numbers are scant the same pressure is applied, as in Baltimore where no tests are scheduled on Muslim holidays, despite the fact that Muslim students comprise a mere two-to-three percent of the student body.

In one case, a Muslim community leader argued that Muslim students don’t want to miss class even if the absence is excused because it would place an undue burden on them to catch up for the day they missed. So he wants school policy to prohibit tests on Muslim holidays and the day after so Muslim students won’t have any pressure to study during their observance. He admits the ultimate goal is for the school district to close schools completely on those days because: “We want our sons and daughters to feel as American as anyone else and to be on equal footing as everyone else.” (Nice try. How about Muslim students cope just like Jewish students and Hindu students and students from other religious minorities who have been faring just fine? Deal with it!)

Another example of we-are-a-tiny-minority-but-you-owe-us rationale can be found in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, where Muslims comprise less than two percent of the population. No matter. Sporting events are banned the night prior to Muslim holidays and no tests are administered on the holidays themselves.

Then there’s this rationale offered up in Burlington, Vermont, where it is being recommended that schools close for Muslim holidays because most Muslim students are recently arrived refugees who don’t speak much English and missing school will have a negative effect on their learning. But as often happens in these cases a domino effect kicks in, and now the small Hindu community in Burlington wants school closures on their holidays. However no accommodations will be made for Hindus.

Here’s another scenario. In Irvington, N.J., where the superintendent had no idea how many Muslim students were in the school system, schools are closed on Muslim holidays based on “inclusion” rather than necessity. Riiiiiiiiight. And what “necessity” could one ever argue in any of these cases?

But who needs “necessity” when you can stand on the soap box of “rights,” as Kaity Assaf, a Muslim teenager in New Jersey did when she claimed it comes to down having the “right” to have the two most important Muslim holidays acknowledged publicly by closing all schools in her district.

Then there are those who claim victimhood and make loud demands, as happened a couple of months ago in Jersey City, NJ, when the school board made a “difficult and gut-wrenching” decision and refused to close schools for Muslim holidays after Muslims in the community requested this accommodation on six days notice. One Muslim in attendance screamed, “My child should be able to celebrate the holiday!” (as if anyone was stopping that from happening) while another stated “We feel alienated!” (what’s new?). Still another stepped up to the microphone and smirked: “We’re no longer the minority. That’s clear from tonight. We’re going to be the majority soon.”

Arrogance, demands, victimhood, threats, and above all, being above all.

Hat tips: Fox News, Counterjihad Report, Breitbart, Jihad Watch, The Clarion Project, Atlas Shrugs, The Right Scoop, Legal Insurrection, Front Page Magazine

***

Also see:

https://counterjihadreport.com/category/pro-islam-textbook-bias/

THE KORAN IS NOT A HOLY BOOK: IT IS A ROADMAP TO TOTAL WAR

leytonstone-attack-02Liberty GB, by IQ al Rassooli, Dec. 6, 2015:

War is an act of faith for Muslims since physical supremacy is the foundation of Islam. It is a Quran-mandated, non-negotiable imperative.

To believe in Islam is to have faith in Allah’s Sharia that commands Muslims that they must and will conquer and subjugate the entire world to believe in Muhammad and Allah. Hence to be a true Muslim, one is called upon to assist in global conquest, whether it is by stealth jihad (providing money, intelligence, safe havens, propaganda and other resources) to the jihadists or by being an active war jihadist (slaughtering unarmed and unsuspecting civilians with bombs, guns and knives).

Violence against non-Muslims / infidels / kuffar becomes the essence of their cult belief system, because as I said before, Islam and Muslims express themselves in physical omnipotence. Hence anything that insinuates Islam is not absolutely superior touches on Islamic lack of self-worth and insecurities, is seen as an attack on Muslims and Islam and called blasphemy, racism or Islamophobia.

Please remember how a cartoon or a comment by anyone about their cult belief system or their mentor Muhammad has produced in Muslims paroxysms of violent rage over these trivial things, because to Muslims, any loss of face for Islam is the worst kind of blasphemy.

Because Islam is a religion of physical supremacy, anything that challenges that supremacy is interpreted by them as a direct attack on their beliefs.

Readers should bear in mind, on the one hand, the harsh, even fanatical reaction of Muslims worldwide to what they perceive as the profanation of their holy sites or any slur on their culture, or the enthusiastic and self-assured way they go about spreading their faith and imposing it on others; but on the other hand, the intolerable ease with which they deny others’ religious rights, and even step in to obliterate the religious heritage of other faiths.

The aim of every apologist for Islam will always be to construct a sanitized, modernity-friendly Islam, albeit a non-existent and mythical version of Islam, as a counterpoise to the very violent and utterly intolerant Islam, the Islam that exists in the world today, just as it has been for the last 1,400 years since the time of Mohammed.

The advocacy by most of the left-liberal media, academia, clergy and politicians on behalf of an Islam that has never existed, that will never exist, but nonetheless they insist does exist, will soon be exposed (through European elections) as nothing short of the fanaticism synonymous with so many other extremist belief systems.

Dear readers, what the resurrection of Jesus means to the Christian or the Ten Commandments are for the Jew, physical dominance of Islam over the whole world is to the Muslim. Political supremacism is the be-all and end-all of a Muslim’s faith and it is not an aberration or ‘twisting’ or ‘perversion’ of Islam, but the real and purest form of Muhammad’s Islam.

Al Imran 3:85 – “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him …”

Al Tauba 9:33 – “It is He (Allah) who hath sent His apostle (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to proclaim it over all other religions …”

Al Anfal 8:55 – “For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe (la you^minoona)…”

These beasts that Allah is mentioning are all unbelievers! Currently, unbelievers / infidels / kuffar represent 80 percent of humanity: all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, pagans, atheists, agnostics etc. That is, any and all those who are not Muslims!

******

Muhammad 47:4 – “Therefore when ye meet the unbelievers / infidels chop off their necks …”

The very verse that ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram and every believing Muslim agrees to and tries to fulfil.

******

Al Baqara 2.216: – “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.50, narrated by Anas bin Malik – “The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavour of fighting in Allah’s cause (Qital fi Sabil Allah) (jihad) is better than the world and whatever is in it.'”

Sahih Muslim Hadith 4631 & 4626 Abu Huraira – “I heard Muhammad say: … I love that I should be killed in Allah’s cause; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again in jihad.'”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.73, narrated by Abdullah bin Abi Aufa – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.'”

These verses remind me of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, the Nazi Master Race creed.

******

Al Anfal 8.12: – “[O Muslims] Remember thy Lord inspired the angels [with the message]: ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'”

Al Mai’da 5:51 – “O ye who believe (Muslims)! take not the Jews (Yahood) and the Christians (Nasara) for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them …”

The implication of the last sentence is of immense importance: “And he amongst you that turns to them is of them …” – meaning that any followers of Muhammad who befriend or are under the rule of Christians or Jews (or any non-Muslim group) would be considered apostates to Islam, outsiders to Islam, enemies of Islam who must be slaughtered.

In a nutshell, no Muslim in the UK can ever be loyal to British Laws because they are man-made, not from Allah’s Sharia, nor can any Muslim in the UK (or any non-Muslim country) be a loyal citizen because non-Muslim British people are infidels /kuffar / unbelievers / kafiroon to be either subjugated or exterminated.

Al Tauba 9:29 – “Fight (qatiloo) those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle (Muhammad) nor acknowledge the religion of truth (Islam) [even if they are] of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) until they pay the jizya (onerous tax for not being a Muslim) with willing submission and feel themselves humiliated.”

******

Just to make sure that readers believe what I am revealing, I would like to put forth a challenge worth $200,000 to the first person who can show us all a single operative verse in Muhammad’s Quran that demonstrates any compassion and mercy to all unbelievers.

As mentioned earlier, unbelievers represent 80 percent of humanity: all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, pagans, atheists, agnostics etc. That is any and all those who are not Muslims.

$200,000 for just one verse from over 6,200 verses in Muhammad’s Quran!

******

Al Imran 3:118 – “O you who believe (Muslims)! Take not into your intimacy those outside your religion. They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin. Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths. What their hearts conceal is far worse …”

Al Imran 3:56 – “As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them.”

Al Imran 3:110 – “Ye (Muslims) are the best of peoples evolved for mankind enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) had faith it were best for them; among them are some who have faith but most of them are perverted transgressors.”

Al Bayinah 98:6 – “Those who reject [the truth of Islam] among the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) and among the polytheists (pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), will be in hell-fire to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.”

Please tell me, is there anything ambiguous about the contents of these verses, even though they are in English?

The Quran is not a holy book.

The Quran is a roadmap to total war.

The Quran is Muhammad’s early version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

IQ al Rassooli

******

IQ al Rassooli is Liberty GB’s expert advisor on Islam.

Also by IQ:

A Poor Exchange

IQ al Rassooli Challenges ‘Moderate’ Ed Husain of Quilliam

IQ al Rassooli on Violence in the Bible and the Koran

IQ al Rassooli on Islamophobia

Liberty GB Advisor’s $100,000 Challenge: “Prove the Koran is Not a Book of Hate”

Can Islam Be Reformed? IQ al Rassooli Responds To Daniel Pipes

Virgins in Islamic Paradise

IQ al Rassooli on the Islamic Murder in Woolwich

IQ al Rassooli: The Islamisation of Europe

How Expert Are the BBC’s ‘Islam Experts’?

The Controversy over Syrian Refugees Misses the Question We Should Be Asking

Syrian refugees cross to HungaryNational Review by Andrew McCarthy, Nov. 28, 2015:

The jihad waged by radical Islam rips at France from within. The two mass-murder attacks this year that finally induced President Francois Hollande to concede a state of war are only what we see.

Unbound by any First Amendment, the French government exerts pressure on the media to suppress bad news. We do not hear much about the steady thrum of insurrection in the banlieues: the thousands of torched automobiles, the violence against police and other agents of the state, the pressure in Islamic enclaves to ignore the sovereignty of the Republic and conform to the rule of sharia.

What happens in France happens in Belgium. It happens in Sweden where much of Malmo, the third largest city, is controlled by Muslim immigrant gangs — emergency medical personnel attacked routinely enough that they will not respond to calls without police protection, and the police in turn unwilling to enter without back-up. Not long ago in Britain, a soldier was killed and nearly beheaded in broad daylight by jihadistsknown to the intelligence services; dozens of sharia courts now operate throughout the country, even as Muslim activists demand more accommodations. And it was in Germany, which green-lighted Europe’s ongoing influx of Muslim migrants, that Turkey’s Islamist strongmanRecep Tayyip Erdogan proclaimed that pressuring Muslims to assimilate in their new Western countries is “a crime against humanity.”

RELATED: Obama’s Moral Hypocrisy on the Syrian-Refugee Question Is Astounding

So how many of us look across the ocean at Europe and say, “Yeah, let’s bring some of that here”?

None of us with any sense. Alas, “bring it here” is the order of the day in Washington, under the control of leftists bent on fundamentally transforming America (Muslims in America overwhelmingly support Democrats) and the progressive-lite GOP, which fears the “Islamophobia”smear nearly as much as the “racist” smear.

This, no doubt, is why what is described as the “controversy over Syrian refugees” is among the most deceitful public debates in recent memory — which, by Washington standards, is saying something.

RELATED: There Are Serious, Unbigoted Reasons to Be War of a Flood of Syrian Refugees

Under a Carter administration scheme, the Refugee Admissions Program, the United States has admitted hundreds of thousands of aliens since 1980 — and, as the Center for Immigration Studies explains, asylum petitions have surged since the mid-Nineties. If there is a refugee “crisis,” it most certainly is no fault of ours: For example, the U.S. took in two-thirds of the world’s refugees resettled in 2014, with Canada a distant second, admitting about 10 percent.

Those figures come from an invaluable briefing by Refugee Resettlement Watch, which illustrates that the Syrian component is but a fraction of what we must consider. Tens of thousands of what are called “refugees” have come to our shores from Muslim-majority countries. From Iraq alone, the number is 120,000 since 2007, notwithstanding the thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars sacrificed to make Iraq livable.

Many of the refugees are steered to our country by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Naturally, the UNHRC has a history of bashing Israel on behalf of Palestinian Islamists — indeed, it works closely with the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, one of Hamas’s most notorious sympathizers. The UNHRC works in tandem with the State Department, which resettles the refugees throughout the U.S. with the assistance of lavishly compensated contractors (e.g., the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, other Christian and Jewish outfits, and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants) — often absent any meaningful consultation with the states in which Washington plants these assimilation-resistant imports.

Responsibility for vetting the immigrants rests with the Department of Homeland Security. As the ongoing controversy has illustrated, however, a background check is only as good as the available information about a person’s background. In refugee pipelines like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan, such information is virtually nonexistent. (But don’t worry, we can rest assured that the UNHRC is doing a fine job.)

RELATED: Media Coverage of Europe’s Migrant Crisis Ignores the Long-Term Problems it Poses

Let’s assume for fantasy’s sake, though, that the vetting is perfect — that we have comprehensive, accurate information on each refugee’s life up to the moment of admission. We would still have a calamity.

There are two reasons for this, and they are easily grasped by the mass of Americans outside the Beltway.

First, vetting only works if you vet for the right thing. Washington, in its delusional Islamophilia, vets only for ties to terrorism, which it defines as “violent extremism” in purblind denial of modern terrorism’s Islamist ideological moorings. As the deteriorating situation in Europe manifests, our actual challenge is Islamic supremacism, of which jihadist terrorism is only a subset.

For nearly a quarter-century, our bipartisan governing class has labored mightily to suppress public discussion of the undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism. Consequently, many Americans are still in the dark about sharia, classical Islam’s societal framework and legal code. We should long ago have recognized sharia as the bright line that separates authentic Muslim moderates, hungry for the West’s culture of reason and individual liberty, from Islamic supremacists, resistant to Western assimilation and insistent on incremental accommodation of Muslim law and mores.

RELATED: Why Does the Left Continue to Insist that Islamic Terrorism Has Nothing to Do with Islam?

The promotion of constitutional principles and civic education has always been foundational to the American immigration and naturalization process. We fatally undermine this process by narrowly vetting for terrorism rather than sharia adherence.

Yes, I can already hear the slander: “You are betraying our commitment to religious liberty.” Please. Even if there were anything colorable to this claim, we are talking about inquiring into the beliefs of aliens who want to enter our country, not citizens entitled to constitutional protections.

But the claim is not colorable in any event — it just underscores how willful blindness to our enemies’ ideology has compromised our security. Only a small fraction of Islamic supremacism involves tenets that, in the West, should be regarded as inviolable religious conviction (e.g., the oneness of Allah, the belief that Mohammed is the final prophet, the obligation to pray five times daily). No one in America has any interest in interfering with that. For Muslims adherent to classical sharia, however, the rest of their belief system has nothing to do with religion (except as a veneer). It instead involves the organization of the state, comprehensive regulation of economic and social life, rules of military engagement, and imposition of a draconian criminal code.

RELATED: The Trouble with the ‘Nation of Immigrants’ Argument

Unlike the Judeo-Christian principles that informed America’s founding, classical sharia does not abide a separation of spiritual from civic and political life. Therefore, to rationalize on religious-liberty grounds our conscious avoidance of Islamist ideology is to miss its thoroughgoing anti-constitutionalism.

Sharia rejects the touchstone of American democracy: the belief that the people have a right to govern themselves and chart their own destiny. In sharia governance, the people are subjects not citizens, and they are powerless to question, much less to change, Allah’s law. Sharia systematically discriminates against women and non-Muslims. It is brutal in its treatment of apostates and homosexuals. It denies freedom of conscience, free expression, property rights, economic liberty, and due process of law. It licenses wars of aggression against infidels for the purpose of establishing sharia as the law of the land.

Sharia is also heavily favored by Muslims in majority-Muslim countries. Polling consistently tells us that upwards of two-thirds of Muslims in the countries from which we are accepting refugees believe sharia should be the governing system.

RELATED: The Left’s Dishonest Biblical Argument for Taking in Syrian Refugees

Thus, since we are vetting for terrorism rather than sharia-adherence, and since we know a significant number of Muslims are sharia-adherent, we are missing the certainty that we are importing an ever-larger population hostile to our society and our Constitution — a population that has been encouraged by influential Islamist scholars and leaders to form Muslim enclaves throughout the West.

This leads seamlessly to the second reason why the influx of refugees is calamitous. Not only are we vetting for the wrong thing, we are ignoring the dynamics of jihadism. The question is not whether we are admitting Muslims who currently have ties to terrorist organizations; it is whether we are admitting Muslims who are apt to become violent jihadists after they settle here.

RELATED: ‘Je Suis … qui?’: A Report from the Banlieues

The jihadism that most threatens Europe now, and that has been a growing problem in the United States for years, is the fifth-column variety. This is often referred to as “homegrown terrorism,” but that is a misnomer. The ideology that ignites terrorism within our borders is not native: It is imported. Furthermore, it is ubiquitously available thanks to modern communications technology

In assessing the dynamic in which ideological inspiration evolves into actual jihadist attacks, we find two necessary ingredients: (1) a mind that is hospitable to jihadism because it is already steeped in Islamic supremacism, and (2) a sharia-enclave environment that endorses jihadism and relentlessly portrays the West as corrupt and hostile.

Our current refugee policies promote both factors.

RELATED: France’s No-Go Zones: Assimilation Resistant Muslims Are the Real Refugee Problem

One last point worth considering: Washington’s debate over refugee policy assumes an unmet American obligation to the world. It is as if we were not already doing and sacrificing far more than every other country combined. It is as if there were not dozens of Islamic countries, far closer than the United States to refugee hot-spots, to which it would be sensible to steer Muslim migrants.

Yet, there is nothing obligatory about any immigration policy, including asylum. There is no global right to come here. American immigration policy is supposed to serve the national interests of the United States. Right now, American immigration policy is serving the interests of immigrants at the expense of American national security and the financial security of distressed American workers.

Our nation is nearing $20 trillion in debt, still fighting in the Middle East, and facing the certain prospect of combat surges to quell the rising threat of jihadism. So why is Congress, under the firm control of Republicans, paying for immigration policies that exacerbate our peril?

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

***

How France Became an Inviting Target of the Jihad

paratk2

PJ Media, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Nov. 14, 2015:

Earlier this year, following the Charlie Hebdo massacre and related terrorist attacks in and around Paris, I wrote Islam and Free Speech, a Broadside” that is part of the series published by Encounter Books. The following is an excerpt.

How did we get to this historical anomaly in France where, as the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes observes, “a majority population accepts the customs and even the criminality of a poorer and weaker community”? It is the result of a conquest ideology taking the measure of a civilization that no longer values its heritage, no longer regards itself as worthy of defense.

France’s population of 66 million is now approximately 10 percent Islamic. Estimates are sketchy because, in a vestige of its vanishing secularist tradition, France does not collect census data about religious affiliation. Still, between 6 and 7 million Muslims are reasonably believed to be resident in the country (Pew put the total at 4.7 million back in 2010 – other analysts peg it higher today). To many in France, the number seems higher, due to both the outsize influence of Islamist activists on the political class and the dense Muslim communities in and around Paris – approximating 15 percent of the local population. An online poll conducted by Ipsos Mosi in 2014 found that the average French citizenbelieves Muslims make up about a third of the country’s population.

As night follows day, when Muslim populations surge, so does support for jihadism and the sharia supremacist ideology that catalyzes it. The reason is plain to see, even if Western elites remain willfully blind to it: For a not insignificant percentage of the growing Muslim millions in Europe, infiltration – by both mass immigration and the establishment of swelling Islamic enclaves – is a purposeful strategy of conquest, sometimes referred to as “voluntary apartheid.”

One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. A Qatar-based Egyptian octogenarian, Qaradawi is a Muslim Brotherhood icon. He is a copiously published scholar graduated from Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium, and thus oversees both the International Union of Muslim Scholars and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Thanks to his pioneering of the highly trafficked IslamOnline website and, especially, to his hugely popular al-Jazeera television program, Sharia and Life, he has become the world’s most influential sharia jurist.

Qaradawi is the sharia backbone of the violent jihad to exterminate Israel – a tiny country surrounded by hundreds of millions of hostile Muslims. The sheikh also vows that Islam will “conquer” both Europe and America, but acknowledges that this conquest will require a strategy more suited to a determined minority that knows it cannot win by force of arms. The key, he asserts, is dawa, the Muslim equivalent of proselytism. In radical Islam, it is hyper-aggressive, pushing on every cultural cylinder, pressuring every institution, and exploiting the atmosphere of intimidation created by jihadist terror to blur the lines between legal advocacy and extortion.

In France, dawa presses against laïcité, the credo of secularism through the strict separation of religion and the state. Qaradawi is quite clear that “secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” He is equally adamant that Muslims, who are bound to live in accordance with the strictures of sharia, must reject a secular framework because “acceptance of secularism means abandonment of sharia, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions.” Thus, he elaborates, “The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of sharia is downright apostasy.”

This nexus between free speech and Western democracy is worth pausing over. Notice that, in focusing on the incompatibility between Islamic law and democracy’s secular, pluralist underpinnings, Qaradawi draws the inevitable conclusion that democracy equals apostasy. The term apostasy is not invoked idly in radical Islam. As explained in Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual endorsed by al-Azhar scholars, the renunciation of Islam is a death penalty offense.

Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It is the plinth of freedom’s fortress. It is the ineliminable imperative if there is to be the robust exchange of knowledge and ideas, the rule of reason, freedom of conscience, equality before the law, property rights, and equality of opportunity. That is why it must be extinguished if there is to be what Qaradawi calls a “place of religion” – meaning his religion. For all its arrogance and triumphalist claims, radical Islam must suppress speech because it cannot compete in a free market of conscience.

To sustain their movement, therefore, Islamist leaders must separate Muslims from secular society. In the West, this means forming Islamic enclaves in which sharia gradually takes root as the de facto and, eventually, the de jure law – enabling Muslims to resist the challenge of critical thinking under the guise avoiding the near occasion of apostasy. Over time, dominion is established over swaths of not only physical territory but legal privilege. Qaradawi puts the matter succinctly:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

The key to the conquest strategy is to coerce the West into accepting a Muslim right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict. For precisely this reason, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – a bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) – has decreed that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, similarly pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate in the West “is a crime against humanity.”

Free expression is the gateway to assimilation. Consequently, radical Islam cannot tolerate it.

As a result, France is now rife with Zones Urbaines Sensibiles – “sensitive urban areas.” The government officially lists some 751 of them: Islamic enclaves in the banlieues, often referred to as “no go zones” because the indigenous populations discourage the presence of non-Muslims who do not conform to Islamic standards of dress and social interaction, and of public officials – police, fire-fighters, emergency medical teams, and building inspectors – who are seen as symbols of the state’s effort to exercise sovereignty in areas Muslims seek to possess adversely.

Some of these zones inevitably evolve into hotbeds of jihadist activity. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern notes, there has been no shortage of Internet traffic suggesting, for example, “the killing of France’s ambassadors, just as the manly Libyan fighters killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi.” In a low-intensity jihadist thrum stretching back several years, the torching of automobiles has become a commonplace – as many as 40,000 cars burned annually. Perhaps most alarmingly, over a thousand French Muslims, more than from any other Western country, are estimated to have traveled to Syria to fight for ISIS – meaning many will return to the country as trained, battle-hardened jihadists. Beyond the direct ISIS participants, moreover, the Washington Post has reported that a recent poll found 16 percent of French citizens expressing some degree of support for ISIS – an organization whose rule over the vast territory it has seized is best known for decapitations, rapine, the execution of homosexuals, mass graves, and the enslavement of non-Muslim communities.

Once one grasps the voluntary apartheid strategy, it becomes obvious why radical Islam’s inroads in France, and elsewhere in Europe, seamlessly translate into demands for the enforcement of sharia’s curbs on speech and artistic expression. What is not so obvious is just how profound a challenge to the West this constitutes.

Prisons: Microcosms of Islamic Supremacy and Western Idiocy

muslim-convictsAnother example of Islam’s Rule of Numbers.

Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, Nov. 9, 2016:

Islam’s Rule of Numbers holds that, wherever and whenever Muslims grow in numbers, the same acts of “anti-infidel” violence that are endemic to the Islamic world grow with them.

This has become especially evident in one Western institution that has a disproportionately large number of Muslims: prisons.  Several anecdotes just surfaced last month alone.

Whitemoor prison in Cambridgeshire recently became the first Muslim-majority prison in Britain.  Between the ages of 22 and 39, Muslims now represent 56 per cent of the population there.  “Prisoners and staff found the Muslim presence overwhelming” says a recent report. Non-Muslims “were often bullied into converting to Islam, and those who resisted were too scared to cook pork in communal kitchens in case it caused offence.”

As for those non-Muslim inmates who refuse to convert, they are being pressured to pay a “protection tax”—or in Islamic parlance, jizya—to Muslim gangs.  Along with Whitemoor prison, the collection of jizya is taking place in at least three other of Britain’s largest prisons.  According to a new investigation “religious extremists in prison are using bullying tactics and violent threats to force prisoners to convert or pay money.  Tobacco and other luxury commodities smuggled inside prisons are often used by non-Muslims to pay the tax, while some victims said they had to ask friends and family for money….  Faced with the option of paying up or suffering at the hands of the radicals, some prisoners have been pressured into converting to Islam to ease their time in prison.”

A Whitehall source said that “the tax may have been inspired by the actions of ISIS, who are well known to demand jizya from non-Muslims living in Syria and Iraq.”

In fact, it is the Koran, Islam’s holy book, that calls for the collection of jizya from subdued Christians and Jews:

Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not embrace the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the jizya with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued” (Koran 9:29).

In other words, Muslim prisoners are not copying ISIS; rather, both they and ISIS are obeying the Koran.

Meanwhile, down under, in Australia’s highest security prison, “an extremist ISIS gang … has threatened to behead correctional officers and inmates unless they convert to radical Islam.”  At least 30 Muslim gang members residing in Goulburn jail “have engaged in warfare against ‘infidel’ that oppose their religious ideologies.”

“They were going to take a hostage — one of the six Christians in the yard — and behead them,” reported a prison guard.

Bullying and threatening non-Muslims into converting to Islam or else demanding money (jizya) from them if they refuse is a regular occurrence around the Muslim world, wherever “infidel” minorities live side by side with Muslim majorities.  As Muslims make for disproportionately large numbers in Western prisons—another fact that speaks for itself—it should come as no surprise that coercion, threats, and extortion in the name of Islam are also becoming a regular occurrence.

Ironically, one may have supposed that, if anywhere, it would be in prisons that the Muslim sense of supremacism would be broken.  Far from it; Western prison policies—whether banning pork for all inmates to appease Muslims (in an Ohio prison), allowing prayer mats where knives are concealed and used, spending thousands of tax payer dollars to rebuild toilets to face away from Mecca, apologizing for serving non-halal food to Muslim criminals, or possibly accommodating the Salafi beard against prison policies—all serve to confirm Muslims in their sense of supremacy.

This is to say nothing about the fact that lax and politically correct policies have made prisons prime recruiting grounds for the jihad.  One U.S. prison was referred to as a “terrorist university” for the Islamic State and one U.K prison allowed the distribution of a jihadi book calling on the slaughter of non-Muslim “infidels.”

Thus prisons have become microcosms of Islamic behavior vis-à-vis “infidels”—replete with a sense of violent Islamic supremacism on the one hand and craven political correctness on the other.

Pamela Geller, Breitbart News: “1001 Muslim Myths and Historical Revisions”

1001_Inventions_ShopBreitbart, by Pamela Geller, July 26, 2015:

CNN last Wednesday ran a viciously mendacious “article” dragging out the “Muslim inventions” myth – yet again.

This is hardly new; I wrote of it in 2012. CNN is pushing a new book that is based on 1001 Muslim Inventions, a traveling museum exhibit that has appeared all over the West to huge acclaim from the likes of Prince Charles. It has indoctrinated hundreds of thousands of children into a rosy and romanticized view of Islam that makes them less appreciative of their own culture’s achievements and more complacent about Islamization in the West.

1001-inventions-800x450

And now we see historical revisionism take on a new life, as history is scrubbed and manufactured Muslim myths are presented as fact. “1001 Muslim Inventions” is almost unfailingly dishonest. It touts surgery as one of the top 10 Muslim inventions, but in reality, surgery began in the Neolithic era and was widely practiced in ancient Greece. Likewise, the coffee plant was discovered in Christian Ethiopia.

Next on CNN’s list is flight: “Abbas ibn Firnas was the first person to make a real attempt to construct a flying machine and fly.” Abbas ibn Firnas was a man who threw on a pair of manmade wings and attempted to fly, but only ended up breaking his back. That makes him the father of the flying machine?

Fourth in CNN’s top ten Muslim inventions is the university: “In 859 a young princess named Fatima al-Firhi founded the first degree-granting university in Fez, Morocco.” The first university? Tell it to the Jews, a people 6,000 years old, with education as the cornerstone of their culture. And Nalanda University of India dates back to the fifth century.

Then comes algebra, and this claim, as well as the others, is utter nonsense. A Muslim, Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Musa, is often described as the originator of algebra. But Abu Ja’far lived between 780 and 850 AD; algebra initiated in ancient Babylon, Egypt, and Athens, 2,500 years before Abu Ja’far was born.

Next is optics, which also began long before Islam, in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, where lenses were developed by artisans working from theories the Greek philosophers.

CNN even has the audacity to claim music as a Muslim invention, despite the fact that Islamic law forbids music. Are they kidding? Where are the Muslim Bachs, Beethovens, and Gershwins? What about Jewish music, which goes back over 5,000 years? Muhammad wasn’t even a twinkle in his father’s eye.

CNN also claims the toothbrush for Islam, saying that Muhammad, whom they refer to, of course, as “the prophet,” “popularized the use of the first toothbrush in around 600. Using a twig from the Meswak tree, he cleaned his teeth and freshened his breath.”

Muhammad was the first man to use an object to clean his teeth? Color me laughing. In reality, the bristle toothbrush wasn’t invented until 1498, in China. And the crank, the next item on CNN’s list (which was compiled by a crank indeed), dates back to Spain in the fifth century BC. The hospital, the last item on CNN’s list, goes back to ancient Rome.

With the advent of now daily jihad terror plots, arrests, and attacks, the Islamic/leftist machine is in fifth gear. Teen Vogue, the BBC, the Huffington Post, the New York Times,Newsweek and all the mainstream media outlets are churning out lies, myths and Islamic supremacist narratives to counter reality. Damn the truth, full speed ahead.

It’s endless, this sharia scrubbing of history. It’s why our children are not taught true Islamic history in the public schools: the jihadi wars, cultural annihilations, and enslavements or why the hundreds of millions of victims of Islamic wars have disappeared from world history courses.

Many of the inventions the Muslims take credit for are the inventions of the peoples, countries and lands they conquered. The booty from their conquests wasn’t only tangible gold, women, and monies, but intellectual theft as well.

The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital was founded in Baghdad during the Abbasid caliphate — not by a Muslim, but a Nestorian Christian. A pioneering medical school was founded at Gundeshapur in Persia — by Assyrian Christians. The bottom line: the inventions and discoveries attributed to the Muslim world were actually stolen from conquered peoples.

CNN, by spreading this nonsense, shows itself yet again to be more interested in politically correct fiction than news. “1001 Muslim Inventions” is not history, but propaganda – and par for the course for the mainstream media these days.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.