New Gatestone Institute video:
New Gatestone Institute video:
Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, October 20, 2016:
Today when a Muslim attacks non-Muslim in America, our leaders, Muslim leaders, and the media tell us these are the actions of “mentally ill” people. Strangely, this nonsense has been going on a long time.
For this edition of Throwback Thursday, UTT looks at a forgotten jihadi attack on America.
The Beltway Snipers
John Allen Muhammad was a U.S. Army veteran and a convert to Islam. Along with Lee Malvo – a 17 year old – the two terrorized the Washington, D.C. metro area by killing ten people in the fall of 2002.
John Allen Muhammad was executed in Virginia for these crimes. Lee Malvo was sentenced to life in prison.
Prior to this, the Muhammad and Malvo killed seven people and wounded seven others in a multi-state robbery and murder spree.
Four days before the shootings in the Washington Metropolitan area began, Ayman al Zawahiri, the second in command of Al Qaeda, issued a warning that Al Qaeda “will continue targeting the lifelines of the American economy.” The “Beltway Snipers” shot their victims at gas stations, a Home Depot, a Shopper’s Food Warehouse, a Michael’s craft store, an Auto Mall, and a Post Office.
Former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Office in Arkansas Ivian Smith, who worked in the Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence Divisions, stated: “The cumulative effect of the shootings has been an economic slowdown in the local area.”
John Allen Mohammad was supposedly a “homeless” guy, but he always had money to travel overseas on trips and vacations. Yet, investigators never uncovered a source of funding.
Needless to say, Hamas’s U.S. Leader Nihad Awad (doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations – CAIR) weighed in on the shootings: “There is no indication that this case is related to Islam or Muslims. We therefore ask journalists and media commentators to avoid speculation based on stereotyping or prejudice. The American Muslim community should not be held accountable for the alleged criminal actions of what appear to be troubled and deranged individuals.”
After his arrest, Lee Malvo drew pictures in prison. Many of these were entered into evidence by his attorney in an attempt to show how Malvo was influenced by John Mohammad. These drawings clearly showed support for Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the kinds of things that would lead an investigator to conclude these murders were acts of jihad.
Maybe it was jihad after all.
Robert Spencer discusses redemptive jihad as one explanation for “sudden jihad syndrome”. Muslims who have become Westernized may feel guilty and actually fear what will become of them in the hereafter. They may believe that the only way to redeem themselves is to commit jihad as taught in the Quran.
The lies of Londonistan’s first Muslim mayor against Trump.
Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, Sept. 30, 2016:
Recently while touring the U.S. and Canada, London’s first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, “attacked anti-Muslim views and policies and argued that what is needed is to build ‘bridges rather than walls’—a reference to Mr. Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.”
He specifically and repeatedly criticized the notion “that it is not possible to hold Western values and to be a Muslim.” This notion, which he attributed to Trump, plays “into the hands of Daesh and so-called ISIS because it implies it’s not possible to be a Western liberal and mainstream Muslim, said Khan”
Can Muslims hold to Western liberal values and still be true to mainstream Islam?
This pivotal question is easily answered by determining what is and is not Islamic. Muslims have traditionally accomplished this by asking the following questions:
What do the core texts of Islam say about the thing in question, call it “X”? Does the Koran, believed by Muslims to contain the literal commands of Allah, call for or justify X? Do the hadith and sira texts—which purport to record the sayings and deeds of Allah’s prophet, whom the Koran (e.g., 33:21) exhorts Muslims to emulate in all ways—call for or justify X?
If any ambiguity still remains concerning X, the next question becomes: what is the consensus (ijma‘) of the Islamic world’s leading authorities concerning X? Here one must often turn to the tafsirs, or exegeses of Islam’s most learned men—the ulema—and consider their conclusions. Muhammad himself reportedly said that “My umma [Islamic nation] will never be in agreement over an error.”
For example, the Koran commands believers to uphold prayers; accordingly, all Muslims are agreed that Muslims need to pray. Yet the Koran does not specify how many times. In the hadith and sira, however, Muhammad makes clear believers should pray five times. And the ulema, having considered all these texts, are agreed that Muslims are to pray five times a day.
Thus, it is most certainly Islamic for Muslims to pray five times a day.
While both Muslim and Western scholars of Islam readily accept the aforementioned methodology (in Arabic known as usul al-fiqh) as foundational to determining what is Islamic—prayer is in the Koran, Muhammad clarified its implementation in the hadith, and the ulema are agreed to it—whenever the thing in question goes against Western values, then this standard approach to ascertaining what is and is not Islamic is wholly ignored.
In reality, however, countless forms of behavior that directly contradict Western values are called for in the Koran and/or hadith, and the ulema, are agreed to them: death to apostates and blasphemers, subjugation of Muslim women, sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women, polygamy, child-marriage, ban on and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship and scriptures, and enmity for non-Muslims—are all no less Islamic than prayer is.
Even Islamic State atrocities—such as triumphing over the mutilated corpses of “infidels” and smiling while posing with their decapitated heads—find support in the Koran and stories of the prophet.
To fully appreciate how much of Islam directly contradicts Western values, consider the findings of one Arabic language article by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr. It lists a number of things that mainstream Muslims support even though they directly contradict Western values. These include (unsurprisingly): demands for a caliphate that rules according to Sharia and expands into “infidel” territory through jihad; death for anyone vocally critical of Islam or Muhammad; persecution of Muslims who try to leave Islam; rejection of equality for Christians and Jews in a Muslim state; rejection of equality for women with men; and so forth (read entire article).
Anyone who understands how Islam is actually articulated—such as presumably London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan—knows that the assertion that it is “possible to be a Western liberal and mainstream Muslim” is a grotesque oxymoron. It’s akin to saying that it’s possible to fit a square peg through a round hole. It’s not—unless, of course, one forcefully hammers it through, breaking portions of the peg (the Muslim) and/or cracking the surface of the hole (Western society).
It is disingenuous to accept the well-known methodology of Islamic jurisprudence—is X part of the Koran, hadith, sira, and does it have consensus among the ulema?—but then to reject this same methodology whenever X is something that clearly contradicts Western values, as much of Islam is so wont to do.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).
Also by Ibrahim:
Here is an in depth interview with Raymond Ibrahim:
Nations are crumbling. Religious murder haunts Western streets. Millions of refugees swamp our borders, with unknown numbers of terrorists hiding among them. The Obama administration’s foolish policies ignited a fuse that has set off global jihad. Now they are keeping those same policies in place, and letting the crisis fester.
Join the CounterJihad, and help us enact our five-part strategy:
1. Stop Importing Jihadists
2. Cut Down the Black Flag and defeat ISIS
3. Cure Willful Blindness
4. Designate the Muslim Brotherhood as the terrorist organization that it is
5. Tear Up the Iran ‘Deal’
Learn more at http://counterjihad.com
You have to look past what you wish were true.
CounterJihad, Aug. 26 2016:
Let’s say that you wanted to reach the people who carry out murder in the name of jihad, and persuade them not to kill anyone. How would you do it? There are four approaches that governments are trying today, and none of them work.
The first approach is to identify likely candidates for radicalization while they are young, and talk them out of it using government propaganda. The FBI’s “Don’t Be A Puppet” campaign is an example of this. It aims at young people using an online video game that rewards them for solving problems associated with recognizing attempts to radicalize them. The hope is to teach them to recognize that they are being manipulated by radical religious figures so that these young people will turn away from those messages.
Because the FBI is a counterintelligence agency using government propaganda, however, it has a serious credibility problem with young people — especially those in the community that the FBI is targeting. Credibility is the currency in propaganda operations, just as it is in any other attempt to lead or influence or persuade. If you’re a young Muslim, you can see that the FBI doesn’t trust you, is thinking a lot about you, and is trying to manipulate you. Secretive government agencies — of the US or any other government — are operating out of a serious deficit compared with any religious leader that the community takes to have a real relationship with God. While these propaganda efforts are not necessarily a complete waste of time and money, as they might persuade a few who are inclined to view the government positively, the people you really want to reach are likely to take this attempt to manipulate them as further evidence that you don’t trust them — and, therefore, that they shouldn’t trust you either.
The second approach treats jihad not as a crime or an act of war, but as a psychological problem. There are significant moral and legal problems for forcing people into psychological programs designed to alter their religion. An even bigger problem, though, is that there’s very little evidence that such psychological approaches even work. Thus, in addition to being government-backed violations of the basic human right to freedom of religion, it’s likely that the approach will only harden opposition among Muslims to the government. Indeed, there’s a reasonable argument that a government that used these approaches to force your children to change their beliefs would really be creating an actual moral justification for violence.
What about an approach by leaders of factions of Islam to persuade the young? Egypt’s Al Azhar University is attempting that right now.
In a speech to Muslims worldwide and the West, Grand Imam of al-Azhar Ahmed el-Tayeb had renounced all radical takfiri-inspired actions, saying that such deeds are in no way related to the teachings of Islam’s fundamental Sunni sect…. The top Muslim scholar then confirmed that the sole salvation and solution for such an abomination is the true interpretation and abiding by the true Sunnah teachings of prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and companions.
Allowing that a rejection of “all takfiri-inspired actions” would represent a real improvement, this approach does nothing to solve the problem of jihad against non-Muslims. Takfiri violence is about declaring other Muslims not to be real Muslims, and thus to be subject to violence as apostates. The attacks on 9/11, and in places like San Bernardino, Orlando, and Paris, are attacks of jihad against non-Muslims. The attempt to spread Islam through coercion is a huge part of the problem, and yet in the traditions of Islamic law endorsed by generations of scholars, that is more plausibly a duty than an affront. A full scale reform of Islam must occur to change that, one that sets aside all of its existing factions for a new way.
Finally, what about divide and conquer? The Russian government appears to be approaching the problem in this way. They are backing Iran and Assad against Sunni groups in a manner designed to set various Islamic groups against one another. There is also a propaganda campaign designed to push the idea that a kind of socialism designed to govern Islam was the real answer to violence. This campaign paints the United States as the real enemy of Islam (and therefore not Russia), as the United States opposed socialist Islam and Russia supported it.
Divide and conquer does not reduce violence, however, it increases it. The hope is that it will become manageable not because people stop fighting, but because they expend most of their energy fighting one another. In terms of the number of people convinced that violent jihad must govern their lives, however, that number will greatly increase if we follow such a strategy.
Ultimately none of these answers work, though in the third answer we at least get a glimpse of a solution that might. Pushing a real reform of Islam, one that sets aside all existing categories and all traditional schools of thought, at least has the potential for putting an end to the violence. So far, however, that approach is the purview of only a tiny minority of Muslims. No government, Islamic nor Western, has endorsed the program.
Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, Aug. 19, 2016:
An old (and tiresome) debate appears to have been settled by those best positioned to settle it. According to Andrew Gripp, a former political science professor:
Since 9/11, one of the defining fault lines in American and Western politics has concerned whether jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS are motivated by their religion or by politics – or more specifically, by grievances against Western foreign policy. Some insist that Islamic doctrine is the basis of their violence, while others insist that such groups are not truly Islamic, but are instead using the guise of religion to lash out against Western influence and intervention.
After indicating how “jihadist groups’ political behavior is consistently traceable to their beliefs about what the Quran, hadith, and respected commentaries say they have a divine injunction to do,” Gripp writes:
For years, however, making this case has been a challenge. This is in part because al-Qaeda was intentionally speaking to both sides in this debate. As the scholar Raymond Ibrahim demonstrates in The Al Qaeda Reader, the terrorist group would regularly frame its grievances in political terms when broadcasting its message to the West (so as to insinuate that once the West withdrew, peace would come). Yet when speaking to the Muslim world, the group would make highly sophisticated religious arguments, explaining why its actions, however reprehensible on their face, were in fact justified by a close reading of the holy texts.
This was indeed the main reason I sought to translate and publish al-Qaeda’s internal communiques to fellow Muslims side-by-side with al-Qaeda’s communiques to the West: to show the stark differences in tone and purpose. As I wrote in the book’s preface ten years ago:
This volume of translations [The Al Qaeda Reader], taken as a whole, proves once and for all that, despite the propaganda of al-Qaeda and its sympathizers, radical Islam’s war with the West is not finite and limited to political grievances—real or imagined—but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in faith.
Now, however, the world need not rely on my translations and can get it straight from the horse’s mouth: In a recent article titled “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You,” the Islamic State gives six reasons. Reason number one says it all:
We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son [Christ], you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone’” (Al-Mumtahanah 4 [i.e., Koran 60:4]). Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option [“People of the Book”] – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims [per Koran 9:29].
This is as plain as it gets, not to mention wholly grounded in Islam’s traditional worldview. As has been repeatedly pointed out, if Muslims are persecuting their fellow country men and women—people who share their nationality, ethnicity, culture, and language—on the simple basis that they are Christians, why should there be any surprise, or excuses of “grievances,” when Muslims terrorize the “infidels” of the West?
It is only in reasons five and six that ISIS finally mentions “grievances” against Western foreign policies—only to quickly explain:
What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. […] The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you [emphasis added].
It is this unrelenting hatred that Westerners cannot comprehend; a hate that compels Muslim husbands to hate their non-Muslim wives, and compels America’s great “friends and allies” Saudi Arabia and Qatar to publish government sanctioned decrees proclaiming their hate for America.
And it was always this hate that fueled al-Qaeda’s jihad—not grievances. All of the Koran verses that call for hate against non-Muslims have been repeatedly cited by al-Qaeda in its Arabic writings to Muslims. (Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s current leader, wrote a 60 page treatise devoted to delineating how Islam commands Muslims to hate non-Muslims, see “Loyalty and Enmity,” The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 63-115.)
Osama bin Laden once wrote
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone” [Qur’an 60:4 referenced above in ISIS’s recent publication]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [in which case, bin Laden later clarifies, they should dissemble (taqiyya) before the infidels by, say, insisting the conflict is about “foreign policy,” nothing more]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
Yet, in every communique he issued to the West, bin Laden stressed that al-Qaeda’s war was entirely based on Western foreign policies detrimental to Islam: eliminate these and terrorism would cease. This rhetoric was accepted at face value by many so-called “experts” (such as ex-CIA agent Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris) and became the default answer to the tired question, “why do they hate us?” As late as 2014 U.S. President Obama invoked the “grievance” meme concerning ISIS.
Of course, it was one thing for Western leaders to accept and disseminate al-Qaeda’s lies concerning “grievances,” and another thing for them to continue doing so now, in light of ISIS’ recent and open confessions concerning the true nature of the jihad. Any Western leader, analyst, or “expert” who at this late hour continues peddling the “grievance” narrative falls within the ever growing ranks of fools and liars.
Understanding the Threat, by Jon Guandolo, Aug. 15, 2016:
Zakat is defined in Islamic Sacred Law (sharia) as “the name for a particular amount of property that must be payed to certain kinds of recipients under the conditions (specified in sharia).”
Zakat is also one of the five pillars of Islam.
According to Islamic sharia, “Zakat is obligatory for every free Muslim (male, female, adult, or child) who has possessed a zakat-payable amount for one lunar year.”
Sura (Chapter) 9 in the Koran is the “sura of the sword.”
Verse 9:60 states: “Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect zakah and for bringing hearts together for Islam and for freeing captives or slaves and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the stranded traveler – an obligation imposed by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise.”
From this Koranic verse, sharia declares: “It is obligatory to distribute one’s zakat among eight categories of recipients – meaning that zakat goes to none besides them, one-eighth of the zakat to each category.”
Sharia states the eight (8) categories are: (1) the poor; (2) those short of money; (3) zakat workers; (4) those whose hearts are to be reconciled; (5) those purchasing their freedom; (6) those in debt; (7) those fighting for allah; (8) travellers needing money.
Specifically, category 7 is defined in sharia as:
“Those Fighting for Allah. The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster, but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged.” [Um dat al Salik, Book H Zakat, H8.17]
This means that all sharia compliant Islamic organizations in America which accept Zakat payments, must send 1/8 of all the money they collect to support jihad.
Paying zakat that supports jihad is a violation of U.S. law because it necessarily is “material support for terrorism.”
This is why some of the largest and most prominent Islamic charities have been identified by the U.S. government as funding “terrorism” (jihad). It is a command from allah.
Every law enforcement agency in the United States has probable cause right now that all Islamic organizations in their jurisdiction which receive zakat payments are in violation of the law and are materially supporting terrorism.
As a matter of fact, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) stated on it’s website it gives 100% of their zakat to category 7 (the “cause of allah” / “fisabilillah”) – jihad/”terrorism.” Why wouldn’t they? They are Hamas after all.
On another note, President Obama publicly stated “That’s why I am committed to working with American muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”
Heat Street, By Miles Goslett, Aug. 5, 2016:
The British authorities have said Zakaria Bulhan – the 19-year-old Norwegian man of Somali descent arrested on suspicion of murdering American tourist Darlene Horton (pictured above) in London on Wednesday night and stabbing five others – does not necessarily have any links to Islamic terrorism.
Update: An exhaustive search of UK records by Heat Street shows there appears to be only one person in the whole of Britain with the name Zakaria Bulhan. He is registered as living at an address in Tooting, South London.
It is a near-certainty that this is the same person arrested by police and said to have “no links” to terrorism, but merely to be mentally ill.
Between January 2014 and September 2015, Zakaria Bulhan flagged up on Good Reads three books on Islam and Islamist theology as texts they intended to read.
The most interesting, and the one that shows that at the age of 17 this person was at the very least exploring a book which is very clear on urging violent jihadism as a duty of Muslims, is Riyad-us-Saliheen, a 13th century text.
It is a text widely read by devout Muslims which is discussed at a counter-jihad website called Counter Jihad Report:
According to the site, this is what Riyad-us-Saliheen has to say about jihad (emphasis added):
CJR: I’m very pleased to see my resource section on Islamic texts being put to good use! Credit for the analysis of seven Islamic texts widely read by Muslims goes to the authors of Mapping Sharia, Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi who reported in the Summer 2011 issue of Middle East Quarterly about a new survey that found that “51% of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Sharia-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim.” Another 30% of mosques in the United States “had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence,” while only “19% had no violent texts at all.”
PJ MEDIA, BY ROGER L. SIMON AUGUST 4, 2016:
Did Adolf Hitler have “mental health issues”?
I would like to think so, because to regard Der Furher as normal would be a terrifying commentary on the human race and likely mean it would never have survived.
Now how about those ISIS characters who take videos of themselves lopping people’s heads off and then sticking those heads on poles to make a fence? Psychologically normal or not?
And what about those who don suicide vests and blow themselves up in shopping malls while yelling “Allahu Akbar,” killing or maiming any man, woman or child within range? Mentally sound? Let’s hope not.
So you will have to forgive me if I find the current excuse being given for acts of terrorism (of the Islamic sort, needless to say) that the perpetrators had “mental issues” no more than a pernicious, self-deluding cover-up.
We have seen this form of cover-up after Nice where the poor, misguided soul who drove a truck into hundreds of Bastille Day celebrants, killing more than eighty, was said, as an excuse for his behavior, to only recently have been radicalized. That turned out to have been dead wrong, but it would have been irrelevant anyway.
Now we are hearing the same of the Norwegian-Somali (whatever that means exactly) who knifed an American woman to death at London’s Russell Square, injuring several others from various countries. It wasn’t terrorism, we are being told for now by British police, because the 19-year old has “mental issues.”
Well, let’s hope so.
Why don’t we look at this is in a more logical—and vastly more honest—way?
What is it about Islam and its ideology that attracts so many of these disturbed people and turns them violent? That is the question we should be asking as the epidemic of Islamic terror continues to spread across the globe with no end in sight.
Regarding this issue, PJ Media commenter “Ciceronian” had a fascinating response to my own brief comment—”Islamic doctrine attracts crazies for a reason”—on Bridget Johnson’s Wednesday night report on the knifings.
“Islamic doctrine attracts crazies for a reason.”Beyond that, one could argue that Islamic doctrine actively “createscrazies.”
In effect, it seizes upon the anger, insecurity, and anxiety that often accompany the transition from adolescent to adulthood, and then, via a kind of diabolical alchemy, it transmutes those minor–and, typically, transitory–psychic pathologies into the precious political commodity of murderous rage.
Put another way, Islam reverses and exaggerates the program of psychoanalysis, which was—as Freud put it—to “transform neurotic misery into common unhappiness”: Islam transforms “common unhappiness” not simply into “neurotic misery,” but, much worse, into sociopathic dysfunction.
Makes sense to me. The problem is how do we port all these young Muslim men back to “common unhappiness” when there are so many forces in the world militating against it, including the “mental issues” cover-up now taking its turn?
And speaking of militating forces, the kind coming perpetually from our über-politically correct government, the increasingly invaluable Judicial Watch reported today that our Dept. of Homeland Security uniquely gave Somali immigrants a backstage look at the Minneapolis airport security systems because the Somalis had complained of profiling and harassment there. Good thing those weren’t Norwegian-Somalis, only Minnesota-Somalis.
Oh, wait, isn’t Somalia the home of al-Shabaab, the group that is allied with al Qaeda and was responsible for the 2013 Westgate mall attack in Nairobi that killed 67 and the 2015 university massacre in Garissa, Kenya that dispatched 150, mainly Christian, students?
Not to worry. That was over there. To say they are recruiting over here would be profiling, no?
Okay, maybe a problem, but not to worry again. Minneapolis-St. Paul is only our 17th busiest airport.
Political Islam, by Bill Warner, June 14, 2016:
The Kafirs lost 50 to 1 in the Orlando nightclub jihad.
The reason for choosing to kill homosexuals is found in Islamic doctrine. The Koran condemns homosexuals, but offers no penalty for the crime. The Hadith (traditions of Mohammed) calls for a death sentence.
But this latest jihad killing is just one of thousands that have happened around the world. Why are we losing? We are losing the war, because we keep offering reasons to excuse Islam for the jihad.
Jihadists are never lone wolves. Every jihadist has a perfect partner in the jihad in Mohammed and Allah.
Don’t see, don’t tell. Actually, we have a stupid motto of: “If you see something, say something.” But if you report a problem about a Muslim, it will be ignored and you can be called a bigot.
We accept Sharia as another set of religious laws, like Jewish law. However, the Sharia contains evil in the form of jihad, hatred of Kafirs, killing homosexuals and apostates. All of Sharia is contaminated with evil.
We call jihad extremism. But 24% of the Koran of Medina is about jihad. If it is in the Islamic doctrine, then it is not extreme, but normal.
We call jihad imams extremist. If an imam talks about the doctrine of jihad, he is not extreme, but speaking about doctrine.
We say that Islam needs reform. How do you reform a Koran that is complete, perfect, universal and eternal?
Those who talk about political Islam are called Muslim haters, but we just talk about a political doctrine.
We cannot criticize a religion (except Christianity). Well, political Islam is not a religion, it is a political system.
Our politicians back tying the hands of law enforcement. Clergy defend Islam and refuse to complain about the killing of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.
So, how do we win? Our strategy: It’s the Islam, stupid! We need to attack a political doctrine by knowing it and use the right language. Every Muslim shall be held accountable for all of the jihad, Kafir hating actions and words of Mohammed and Allah. We must defeat political Islam by using political attack methods of humor, irony, ridicule and criticism of a political system.
It’s the Islam, stupid!
About That New Speech Code for Lawyers – Andrew McCarthy wonders if lawyers will get to prove cases against jihadist terrorists anymore.
And Steve Coughlin explains how the CVE narrative prevents us from speaking the truth about jihad:
Is the world going in the direction of Orwell’s 1984?
What are you going to do about it?
CJN, April 7, 2016:
Mira Sucharov, an Ameinu board member, is associate professor of political science at Carleton University in Ottawa and a regular columnist at Haaretz, The Globe and Mail and the Canadian Jewish News.
In an op-ed article “Democracy Means Individuals Can Choose” (CJN, December 22, 2015), Sucharov criticized the “recent call for Muslims in Canada and the United States to publicly denounce acts of terrorism” because such a call “violates the delicate multicultural balance.”
The following are excerpts from her article:
“Which is why the recent call for Muslims in Canada and the United States to publicly denounce acts of terrorism committed by the Islamic State (ISIS) and others inspired by them, is understandable – but ultimately wrong…
“Demanding that sort of stand taking by others in a civic forum violates the delicate multicultural balance that is intrinsic to a liberal democracy where the individual is the only meaningful object and subject of political action.”
Sucharov did not reply to CIJnews’ request to provide references to the “recent call for Muslims in Canada” to denounce terrorism she mentioned in her article.
Muslim organizations and individuals in Canada denounce terrorist attacks committed by the Islamic State. On November 17, 2015, the highest Muslim religious authority in Canada, the Canadian Council of Imams (CCI), issued a statement “vehemently” denouncing “ISIL killings and attacks in Paris and around the world.”
In recent years, the Canadian Council of Imams, headed by Iqbal Al-Nadvi, also condemned the ISIS attack in Brussels, the terrorist attack in Ottawa, the abduction of Christian girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria, the sectarian violence in the Muslim world, and the terrorist attack in Toulouse.
Iqbal Al-Nadvi serves also as the Amir (President) of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) Canada. On its official website, ICNA Canada shares with its members, followers and supporters the book “Riyad us Saliheen”. The book which appears on ICNA Canada site adds modern commentary to the verses from the Qur’an and hadith.
The following are excerpts from the book which deal with the duty of jihad and and its offensive role in fighting heresy in the world in order to bring about an Islamic global dominance:
“Polytheists and infidels should be invited to Islam, and if they reject the invitation, then Jihad be made against them…
“l. The objective of Jihad. This objective warrants that one must struggle against Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (polytheism) and the worship of falsehood in all its forms. Jihad has to continue until this objective is achieved. This contention is supported by a Hadith, to the effect that Jihad will continue till the Day of Resurrection…
“It is incumbent on the Muslims to wage Jihad against them to wipe out Kufr and Shirk and raise the banner of Tauhid everywhere.
“This Hadith strongly refutes the people who distort the Islamic concept of Jihad and hold that Islam preaches defensive war only. It is an apologetic approach because defensive war has to be fought in any case by every nation and country. Thus, it is a compulsion and needs no justification.
“The real distinction of Islam lies in its enjoining Muslims to wage war for upholding the truth beside fighting for their own defense.
“The domination of Kufr, Shirk and falsehood is darkness, heresy and tyranny, and the objective of Islam is to purge the world of all these evils.
“It aims at liberating man from the worship of man, set them on the path of worship of Allah, and to provide a just and equitable society to mankind.
“Wherever in the world there is tyranny, ignorance and heresy, Muslims are bound to fight such evils and finish them by means of Jihad.
“There is also a third form of Jihad which is waged against countries where Muslims are victims of aggression, suppression and cruelties of the non-Muslims. It is incumbent upon Muslims to liberate their brethren in Faith from the clutches of the non-Muslims by means of Jihad…
“It is evident from this Hadith that so long as Kufr [disbelief] is present in this world, it is necessary to wage Jihad against it to finish it off, and so long as all the disbelievers do not openly accept Islam and adopt the Islamic way of life, Muslims are duty- bound to make Jihad against them.”
The Islamic definition of terrorism is the killing of a Muslim without right.
Stealth jihadists use language deceptively. Learn the definitions of Islamic terms here: Islam’s Deceptive Use of Western Terminology
That’s something only the “Republican base” believes. Along with all too many Muslims.
Frontpage, by Robert Spencer, March 31, 2016:
Barack Obama is amused.
“I’m amused,” he said in remarks published Tuesday, “when I watch Republicans claim that Trump’s language is unacceptable, and ask, ‘How did we get here?’ We got here in part because the Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent, that this is who these folks are. And if you’ve been hearing that a lot, and then somebody shows up on the scene and says, well, the logical conclusion to civilizational conflict is we try to make sure that we’re not destroyed internally by this foreign civilization, that’s what you get.”
Where would anyone get the crazy idea that Islam was inherently violent? Well, the day’s headlines might give us that very strong impression, but Obama would tell us (and has told us) that those Muslims who are screaming “Allahu akbar” as they murder non-Muslims are, despite appearances, not really Muslims at all, but just people who have twisted, hijacked, misunderstood the Religion of Peace.
It is, true, however, that there are plenty of Muslims who tell us that Islam is inherently violent. Here are a few of them:
“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30
“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants
“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud
“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad
“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” —Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari.
Obama would dismiss all these as “extremists” who are not really Muslim at all and have nothing to do with Islam. Yet one also might get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.
All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent. It would be illuminating if Obama or someone around him produced some quotations from Muslim authorities he considers “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslim who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent.