Sharia Versus Freedom in America

constitution-vs-sharia-1By Andrew Bostom, July 5, 2016:

Yesterday July 4th, Independence Day, celebrated American liberty. Consistent with that spirit of hard won freedom, new polling data reveal non-Muslim Americans are increasingly cognizant of the threat Sharia, Islam’s totalitarian religio-political “law,” poses to their basic liberties, and overwhelmingly, they reject its encroachment in the US.

Opinion Savvy polled a random sample of 803 registered voters—98.2% non-Muslim, and 1.8% Muslim (with age, race, gender, political affiliation, and region propensity score-weighted to reduce biases)—June 19 to June 20, 2016, and asked, “Do you believe that the United States government should screen, or actively identify individuals entering the United States who support Sharia law?”  Seventy-one percent affirmed, “Yes, supporters of Sharia should be identified before they are admitted into the US.” As a follow-up, the group answering “yes,” was asked, “Once identified, do you believe that individuals who support the practice of Sharia law should be admitted into the United States?” Eighty percent responded,“No, supporters of Sharia should not be admitted into the US.”Moreover, the very next query, which addressed foreign visitors, elicited an even more emphatic demand for fidelity to bedrock first amendment US Constitutional principles. It asked: “Do you believe that the United States government should require all foreign individuals entering the United States to affirm that they will uphold the principles of the constitution, such as freedom of religion and speech, above all personal ideologies for the duration of their stay in the country?” Seventy-eight percent of the sample insisted, “Yes, visitors to the US should be required to agree to uphold the constitution, regardless of their personal ideology, as a condition of their visit.”

The unblinkered assessment of Sharia validates its broadly shared rejection by non-Muslim Americans, but also illustrates how countervailing increased US Muslim Sharia support represents a dangerous trend.

The Sharia, Islam’s canon law is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith,” or traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community, and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists. Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.,” within Western European Christendom, and it is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Liberty-crushing, and dehumanizing, Sharia sanctions: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

Compounding these fundamental freedom and dignity-abrogating iniquities, “matters of procedure” under Islamic law are antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law: “evidentiary proof,” is non-existentby Western legal standards, and the Sharia doctrine of siyasa(“government” or “administration”), grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, rendering permissible arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects. Clearly, Sharia “standards,” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to obtain “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

These profound threats to US constitutional liberties notwithstanding, polling data reveal an ominous—and growing—proportion of American Muslims wish to impose Sharia on America.

Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, polled 600 US Muslims of high socio-economic status. When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied “no,” while only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious, or any other dogma. Indeed, oblivious to US constitutional law, as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed “…that those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges,” while 38% did not, and 17% were “unsure”.  Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.” Three years later, in June of 2015, data from a survey of another 600 US Muslims conducted by the respected political pollster Kellyanne Conway revealed 51%, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharia.” (A “mere” 25% of those polled agreed that “violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad”)

 Why is Sharia supremacism—diametrically opposed to US Constitutional law—so alarmingly prevalent among US Muslims? The inescapable conclusion, validated in Senate Judiciary Committee testimony this week by Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney, is that mainstream institutional Islam within the US inculcates this liberty-crushing mentality. Haney’s presentation mentioned in passing the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, (AMJA). Well-accepted by the broader American Muslim community, the Islamic scholars affiliated with AMJA have attained influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. AMJA scholars train American imams, and issue online “fatwas”, Islamic Sharia rulings, to guide individual Muslims. Should the mainstream AMJA accomplish its unabashed goal of implementing Sharia in North America, the organization has already issued, for example, a ruling which sanctions the killing of non-Muslim “blasphemers.”

Donald Trump’s rational call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, especially from hotbeds of violent Sharia supremacism, must be viewed gimlet-eyed bearing in mind irrefragable data capturing US (here; here) andglobal Muslim attitudes, as well as the behavior of mainstream, institutional American Islam.

Forty years ago, Husayn al-Quwatli, director general of Dar al-Ifta, the center of spiritual authority for the Sunni community of Lebanon, and author of the treatise, “Islam, the State, and Secularism (1975)” candidly elucidated the Muslim Sharia supremacist mindset which perhaps best validates Trump’s moratorium, pending wrenching changes in such pervasive Muslim attitudes:

 The position of Islam is very clear on one point, namely that the true Muslim cannot take a disinterested position vis-à-vis the state. As a result, his position with regard to ruler and rule cannot be an indecisive one which is content with half solutions. Either the ruler is Muslim and the rule Islamic, then he will be content with the state and support it, or the ruler non-Muslim and the rule non-Islamic, then he rejects it, opposes it, and works to abolish it, gently or forcibly, openly or secretly.

Shock Poll: Most U.S. Voters Want Immigrants Screened, Barred for Supporting Sharia Law

shariah-law-picture1Seventy-eight percent believe “the United States government should require all foreign individuals entering the United States to affirm that they will uphold the principles of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion and speech, above all personal ideologies for the duration of their stay in the country.”

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, June 25, 2016:

More than 7 in 10 registered American voters think Muslim immigrants should be screened for belief in Sharia law, a totalitarian system that calls for executing gays, adulterers and apostates, among other human-rights abuses, a new national poll finds.

And of those respondents, more than 80% say all immigrants ID’d as Sharia adherents should be barred from entering the U.S.

The findings, part of a nationwide survey of voters conducted after the June 12 Islamic terrorist attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, indicate widespread support for presumptive GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposal to screen and restrict admission of foreign nationals from hostile Muslim countries based on “radical beliefs.”

“We have to screen applicants to know whether they are affiliated with or (are) supporting radical groups and beliefs,” Trump said after the Orlando massacre, adding that suspending immigration for those who “support oppressive Sharia law” may be necessary.

The survey, conducted June 19-20 by Opinion Savvy, an Atlanta-based polling firm, defined Sharia as “laws based on Islamic texts and judicial decisions (and) enforced by governments through the use of courts, law enforcement and citizen involvement.” It cited Saudi Arabia and Iran as governments prescribing Sharia “penalties including death for activities such as adultery or any act of homosexuality.”

As a result, 71% of respondents say they support ID’ing foreign supporters of Sharia law prior to their admission to the U.S. Of those who support identification, 80% think that those ID’d should not be admitted into the U.S.

In other words, when voters understand what shariah is, the vast majority want to know if foreigners are Sharia-adherent, and then 80% of those people want a method for keeping them out of the U.S.

Additionally, American voters demanded that all immigrants accept the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land. Seventy-eight percent believe “the United States government should require all foreign individuals entering the United States to affirm that they will uphold the principles of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion and speech, above all personal ideologies for the duration of their stay in the country.”

The scientific poll of 803 registered voters, which has a +/-3.5% margin of error, was weighted toward females and Democrats.

Security experts say the results are a devastating indictment of the Washington establishment’s national security and immigration policies.

Both President Obama and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton want to boost immigration from Muslim nations, including Syria and other ISIS hotspots; while the GOP leadership in Congress opposes Trump’s moratorium on Muslim immigrants.

“This poll illustrates the native common sense of the American people. By substantial majorities, they see through official efforts to mislead them about the roots of the danger we increasingly face here at home, as well as overseas — namely, Sharia-supremacism and the jihad it requires Muslims adherents to perform against the rest of us,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy and a former senior Reagan defense official.

“And they expect the government, instead, to protect them against this real, obvious and present danger,” he added.

In a separate 2013 poll, Pew Research Center found that vast majorities of Muslims living abroad “clearly support” brutal forms of punishment under Sharia law, including: stoning women accused of adultery, amputating the hands of thieves, publicly flogging people who “insult” Islam, and decapitating those who leave the Islamic faith.

According to Pew, “Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%)” — two nations viewed as relatively moderate in the Muslim world.

Foreign Muslims said they favor making the harsh Islamic legal code — the same one implemented by Saudi Arabia and Iran — the “law of the land” for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, the poll found. And they said they prefer appointing “religious judges” to enforce it.

Overwhelmingly, Muslims abroad condemn homosexuality while supporting polygamy. Shockingly large pluralities even favor “honor-killing” daughters who engage in premarital sex.

Most disturbing: Solid majorities in Egypt, Lebanon and several other Muslim nations agree that carrying out suicide bombings against non-Muslims “can be justified,” according to another Pew survey of Muslim attitudes on terrorism conducted more recently.

66% of Palestinians in Hamas-Controlled Gaza Believe Terrorism Serves the Palestinian Cause

children_1543287iThese numbers are symptoms of a larger issue at work in Palestinian culture: jihadist ideology promoted through corrupt leadership.

Counter Jihad, by Bruce Cornibe · | April 26, 2016

Amid months of heightened tension between Arabs and Israelis, Palestinian attitudes continue to show a propensity towards violence against Israelis. A recent poll by the JMCC (Jerusalem Media and Communications Center), sampling 1,000 random Palestinians ages 15-29, reveals that young Palestinians feel terrorism serves the Palestinian cause. The poll found a shocking 66% of youth in the Gaza Strip and 40% in the West Bank believe the recent terror attacks against Israelis furthers the Palestinian cause, while only 17% (Gaza Strip) and 23% (West Bank) say the attacks hinder the cause. This is an alarming statistic to say the least. Here are some other disturbing figures,

“More than 35% of respondents in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip predicted that the violence would develop into a fully-fledged uprising, the results showed.”

“Palestinian youth seem to be equally split over “military operations” against Israel: 43% in favor and against. Support among Palestinian youth for the two-state solution stands at 42%, according to the poll. Nearly 20% said they preferred a bi-national state.”

“An overwhelming majority of 67% of respondents believe that negotiations will not succeed in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In addition, the survey found, a majority of 63% of Palestinian youths oppose working with like-minded Israeli youths to find a solution to the conflict, while 27% supported the idea.”

These numbers are symptoms of a larger issue at work in Palestinian culture; jihadist ideology promoted through corrupt leadership. From Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh, Palestinian leaders continue to push propaganda and incite violence against Israelis, leaving their citizens misinformed and misguided. One example is the Hamas controlled Al-Aqsa TV which runs programs such as “Pioneers of Tomorrow,” that encourages the audience to “throw stones” at Jews, and in one episode the host applauds a young child for her wish to be a police office and “shoot Jews.” Palestinian social media is another outlet where this this kind of violence is transmitted (poll shows about 60% of youth depend on “Facebook and Twitter as a first source of news”). Late last year Israel’s UN ambassador, Danny Danon, talked about the prevalence of “How to Stab a Jew” tutorials on the internet, while Twitter users utilized the Arabic hashtag, “Slaughtering the Jews,” encouraging further stabbings.

What Britain’s Muslims Really Think… Is That Nothing Is Ever Their Fault

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Breitbart, by James Delingpole, April 14, 2016:

In a Channel 4 documentary called What Britain’s Muslims Really Think, presenter Trevor Phillips presented survey evidence suggesting that large numbers of British Muslims don’t want to integrate and dislike Jews and that many thousands of them support extremist views including terrorism and suicide bombing.

The British Muslim community has responded in the usual way…

Smear the polling company

“Lets not forget ICM is one of the polling companies that wrongly predicted the 2015 general election. The stats just don’t hold enough weight.” (Nazia, 35, W. Yorkshire)

Cast doubt on the methodology

“Other issues include the fact that the study targeted areas that were at least 20% Muslim and a large chunk of the sample were born abroad. If the study was conducted where English is not widely spoken, how do we know the participants fully understood what they were being asked?” (Nazia, 35, W. Yorkshire)

Hint that even asking these questions is divisive and Islamophobic

What is going to happen to our stated desire to build robust social cohesion if we keep singling out British Muslims as unique special cases? And what is it that is really underlying such constant scrutiny? (Rachel Shabi, Al Jazeera)

Nothing to do with Islam. It’s ‘cultural’, innit?

Moreover, Trevor Philips and the show portrayed segregated schools as an Islamic problem, that somehow where a school finds itself admitting children of a certain colour, that it is a religious issue. I would argue that this is a cultural and geographical issue and conflating religion with state school segregation is ridiculous. (Ibraham Ilyas, 18, Birmingham)

There’s no such thing as a ‘Muslim’

Being a Shia Muslim I wish Wahhabi or Salafi elements of society weren’t able to answer on my behalf. (Zaynab Mirza, 32, London)

I have a degree in social sciences, majoring in grievance studies

“We were presented in an extremely negative light. We were othered.” (Ismail, 32, Dewsbury)

Some Muslims are doctors, nurses, and teachers – so that makes everything nice

The show did not look at all at the positive contribution Muslims have made to Britain; that we serve as doctors, nurses, teachers and we actually aid the community we live in. (white convert Sarah Ward Khan, 36, London)

Whatabout…?

None of this is to give sexism, homophobia or any other prejudices a free pass. Nobody is suggesting that it’s brilliant that a minority of British Muslims support stoning – or, for that matter, that 45 percent of the overall British population would bring back hanging. (Rachel Shabi, Al Jazeera)

Lovely Nadija from Great British Bake Off make everything nice

But when there are 13 Muslim MPs, a British Muslim candidate for mayor of London, aMuslim dragon in the Dragons’ Den, and a Muslim winner of the Great British Bake Off, it seems that in reality, Muslims are very much part of British society. (Miqdaad Versi, Muslim Council of Britain)

Nothing to do with Islam. Did we mention this already? Well, it isn’t. And here’s some made-up stasticoids from a parti-pris organisation with affiliations to the Muslim Brotherhood…

The Muslim Council of Britain’s own research has shown that far more serious concerns relate to poverty, gender, criminality and Islamophobia. (Miqdaad Versi, Muslim Council of Britain)

Have you noticed something glaringly absent from these responses?

At no point does anyone seem to be suggesting that there is a serious problem here which Muslims need to address.

Perhaps there isn’t.

Perhaps, for example, you think it’s perfectly OK that – as the programme reported – a nine-year old boy at one of the Trojan Horse schools in Birmingham suggested that his middle-aged Muslim headmistress was a “slag” because she wasn’t wearing a headscarf.

Or that boys at the same Birmingham state primary school would act like religious police and clout girls not wearing the veil over the head.

Or that there are now 85 Sharia councils in Britain which – according to Zurich professor Elham Manea, herself a Muslim – are enforcing on Muslim communities (especially with regard to marriage) a version of Islam as extreme as that practised by the Taliban or in Manea’s native Yemen.

Or that over 40 per cent of the mosques in Britain are controlled by the Deobandis, promoters of the same form of fundamentalist Islam as the Taliban.

Or that in part two of BBC Radio 4’s excellent investigation into the Deobandis, researchers found literature in a London mosque aggressively promoting the kind of hatred against the supposedly heretical Ahmadi sect which led to the recent murder of a peaceful Muslim Glasgow shopkeeper?

Call me an Islamophobe but I’m not sure that any of the above represent shining examples of a community that is bending over backwards to accommodate itself with the host culture.

Isn’t about time we heard a bit more from British Muslims about what they plan to do remedy this?

I worry, you see, that if they’re not careful that harmless, peace-loving religion of theirs might start to get a bad rap.

***

Also see:

Creator of “Islamophobia”: I Got Everything Wrong

unnamed (39)

By Counter Jihad, April 12, 2016:

Twenty-three percent of British Muslims support the introduction of sharia law to replace the laws crafted by Parliament, according to a new study in the UK. The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, is helping to present the study as a way of making up for having gotten “almost everything wrong”during his tenure in government.  While heading the commission he led the formation of an official report that created and popularized the term “Islamophobia” as a way of stigmatizing any criticism of Islam or of mass Muslim immigration.

Now, he admits he was wrong about everything.

An ICM poll released to the Times, in Britain, ahead of the broadcast reveals:

• One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house

• 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband

• 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife

• 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal

• 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament

The documentary will portray the U.K.’s Muslims as a “nation within a nation” that has its own geography and values.

His comments ought to improve the debate over mass immigration, at least.  Since the 1997 report he commissioned, concern about large-scale Muslim immigration has been treated as if it were literally a psychological disorder.  A “phobia” is a groundless, irrational fear that ought to be trained out of a person by aversion therapy or some other treatment.  It is not in any way a concern to be taken seriously.  It is simply a disorder that must be corrected.

Now we learn that those who were raising these concerns were right all along.  The fear that the massive importation of Muslims would create significant changes in British culture turns out to be perfectly well-grounded.  The suggestion that it would create a growing bloc of voters who wanted to repeal the unwritten British constitution in favor of sharia law was not a part of a ‘phobia’ at all.  It was simply true.

Phillips also acknowledges that it is not the general run of British society, but the Muslims themselves, who are possessed of sexism and racism.  Speaking of the child-rape scandals that have plagued England’s cities with large Muslim communities, Phillips wrote:  “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities.”  (Emphasis added.)

Now he is trying to fix his mistakes.  His proposals include the very things this site and others suggest as obvious, common-sense steps:  “halting the growth of sharia courts,” watching mosques with extremist funding, and an end to avoiding criticism of Islamic law and communities in return for votes.  If Britain is to survive, it has to reclaim its soul.

UK Equalities Chief Who Popularised The Term ‘Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I Should Have Known Better’

Bradford, United Kingdom – Getty

Bradford, United Kingdom – Getty

Breitbart, by Raheem Kassam, April 10, 2016:

The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.

Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals: 

  • One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
  • 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
  • 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
  • 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
  • 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.

Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.”

Phillips commissioned “the Runnymede report” into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now become synonymous with any criticism – legitimate or not – of Islam or Muslims.

Durham University’s Anthropology Journal noted in 2007: “It has been a decade since the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia was established, a Commission that through its 1997 report, “Islamophobia: a challenge for us all” (“the Runnymede report”) not only raised an awareness of the growing reality of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic hostility in Britain, but also marked the onset of what might be described as ‘the first decade of Islamophobia’. In doing so, the Runnymede report propelled the word ‘Islamophobia’ into the everyday common parlance and discourses of both the public and political spaces.”

Phillips says his new data shows “a chasm” opening between Muslims and non-Muslims on fundamental issues such as marriage, relations between men and women, schooling, freedom of expression and even the validity of violence in defence of religion. He notes – echoing an article on Breitbart London just two weeks ago which reveals a growing disparity between older and younger Muslims in Britain – that “the gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim youngsters are nearly as large as those between their elders”.

And while he is cautious to note that many Muslims in Britain are grateful to be here, and do identify with role models such as Hussain and Farah, there is a widening gap in society with many Muslims segregating themselves.

“It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he admits.

“Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”

His comments will come as a blow to those who continue to attack elements in British society who are concerned about Muslim immigration and integration, and in fact may even go some way to shoring up comments made by U.S. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz seeking to slow down or pause the rate of Muslim immigration into the West.

“We estimated that the Muslim population of the UK would be approaching 2 [million] by 2020. We underestimated by nearly a million. We predicted that the most lethal threat to Muslims would come from racial attacks and social exclusion. We completely failed to foresee the urban conflicts of 2001 that ravaged our northern cities. And of course we didn’t dream of 9/11 and the atrocities in Madrid, Paris, Istanbul, Brussels and London.”

“For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.”

And Mr. Phillips even acknowledges that the mass sexual grooming and rape scandals that are plaguing heavily Muslim populated towns across Britain are because of Muslim – not ‘Asian’ – men. He writes: “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities” – in a nod to those who have long protested this to be the case in the face of political, media, and even police cover ups.

Even left wing columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told him: “[W]e [liberal Muslims] are a dying breed — in 10 years there will be very few of us left unless something really important is done.”

Phillips comments: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.”

And indeed he lays the blame at the feet of the liberal, metropolitan elite, media classes: “Oddly, the biggest obstacles we now face in addressing the growth of this nation-within-a-nation are not created by British Muslims themselves. Many of our (distinctly un-diverse) elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. Any undesirable behaviours are attributed to poverty and alienation. Backing for violent extremism must be the fault of the Americans. Oppression of women is a cultural trait that will fade with time, nothing to do with the true face of Islam.”

“Even when confronted with the growing pile of evidence to the contrary, and the angst of the liberal minority of British Muslims, clever, important people still cling to the patronising certainty that British Muslims will, over time, come to see that “our” ways are better.”

In terms of solutions, Mr. Phillips opines on “halting the growth of sharia courts and placing them under regulation” ensuring that school governance never falls into the hands of a single-minority group, “ensuring mosques that receive a steady flow of funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, however disguised, are forced to reduce their dependency on Wahhabi patronage” and an end to the “silence-for-votes understanding between local politicians and Muslim leaders — the sort of Pontius Pilate deal that had such catastrophic outcomes in Rotherham and Rochdale”.

Mr. Phillips’s comments echo those of the Czech president, and research from across Europe that revealed attitudes amongst Muslims on the continent have hardened. The younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views, one recent study found.

What British Muslims Really Think is on Channel 4 at 10pm on Wednesday

Also see:

An Up-close Look at the Liberal-Muslim Alliance

1000922_432486470201470_1578099232_n-630x414American Thinker, by Jack Cashill, March 31, 2016:

I have read about the paradoxical alliance between Islam and the left for years. I have even written about it — at some length, in fact, in my newest book Scarlet Letters. But it was only a few weeks go that I got to see up close the mechanisms that allow people who celebrate homosexuals to find common cause with those who, when the law allows, happily sever their heads.

As a result of my book, I was invited to sit on a panel titled “Muslim in the Metro,” an event sponsored by an enterprise called American Public Square and televised in edited form — fairly, I must say — on the regional PBS channel here in Kansas City, KCPT.

There were five panelists — myself, a Republican state rep from Kansas, a fiftyish Muslim woman in the diversity business, a U.S. attorney appointed by Obama, and a female Muslim college student who used the word “microagression” as something other than a punch line to a joke. The moderator was also a former Obama appointee.

I would use names, but I am confident if American Public Square ran a comparable event in other cities, the four Muslim advocates — the moderator included — would espouse almost identical views. They represent a type. So too did the overwhelmingly liberal audience. I could have written their questions for them.

These American Public Square debates feature an active online fact checker and a civility bell. I was a little queasy about the civility bell, but I welcomed the fact checker. He proved to be my greatest ally.

The state rep did a fine job. As an elected official he had to be a little cautious, but he made his case about terror and immigration well.

My strategy was a little different. Knowing that I was not about to convert anyone, I thought I could at least confuse the audience members with the truth, and the truth is that their affection for Islam makes no apparent sense. This proved to be a difficult assignment, and here is why.

The left has a unique ability to deny the obvious.

In attempting to establish my premise, I said to the panel, “Muslims are culturally very conservative around the world,” adding rhetorically, “Is that fair to say?”

This premise struck me as inarguable. My fellow panelists felt otherwise. The two women, both wearing Hijabs, and the moderator all shouted out “No” or some variant. Said I, “When it comes to issues like family, women, abortion, gay rights, you’re telling me they’re not conservative?”

The moderator admonished me. “Jack,” he said, “you’re asking a question, and they didn’t give you the answer you want.” He then challenged me to make my case or move on.

Knowing there was a fact checker, I pulled out my one file card and read through the numbers from Pew Research Foundation, a liberal but generally reliable source. When asked about gay rights, 87 percent of Germans approved but no more than 9 percent of Muslims in any country surveyed and as little as 2 percent in some.

On the question of whether a women should always obey her husband, 87 percent of Muslims approved. On the question of whether apostates should be executed, 56 percent of Muslims who approved of Sharia law said yes. Asked whether they held “highly unfavorable” views of Jews, 99 percent of Jordanians and 100 percent of Lebanese sad yes. The fact checker could not deny what I was saying.

My fellow panelists could and did. They protested that these attitudes did not reflect American Muslims, but I had to repeat that I began my discussion by saying these surveys were done in the countries that comprise our immigration pool, and that the threat of immigration motivated the anti-Muslim sentiment about which they complained.

The left instinctively denies the worth of America.

I did concede that American Muslims were likely more moderate in their views. This relative moderation, I argued, reflected the “palliative effect of American culture on Islam.” This comment drew boos from the audience. From the left’s perspective, nothing America does is palliative.

The left controls the debate.

When I added, “If you go to Cologne, Germany you’re going to meet people who haven’t had that [palliative] experience,” the moderator insisted that I stick to local issues. Europe seemed particularly off limits. Although this was billed as a nonpartisan event, it proved to be no more nonpartisan than PBS in general or CNN or NBC or the New York Times. The moderator unabashedly took sides.

The left inevitably falls back on false moral equivalence.

Indeed, from the Muslim women and especially from the U.S. Attorney, there was so much talk of Timothy McVeigh, Clive Bundy, the KKK, the Sovereignty movement, and even the mid 19th-century Know-Nothing Party, a latecomer might have thought the event about Christian terrorism. Of course, in none of these conversations did the moderator insist the speaker restrict himself to local issues.

The left is plagued with cognitive dissonance.

I kept returning to the transparently separate standards liberals held for traditional Christians and traditional Muslims. I pointed out, for instance, that the Kansas City Star designated a prominent liberal pastor a “drum major for justice” for his denunciation of the Christian right as “a threat far greater than the old threat of Communism.”

The fact checker confirmed that to be an exact quote. And the threat the pastor alluded had nothing to do with violence. No, what troubled him was that Christian conservatives were running for office. They were “anti-pornography,” he warned, and opposed — he noted daintily — a woman’s “having a say about what goes on in her own body.”

Had he said something half as outrageous about Muslims, he would have lost his pulpit, if not his head. Focusing his spite on Christians, however, got his speech excerpted in the New York Times and won him the Harry S. Truman Good Neighbor Award.

The alliance validates the left’s moral superiority.

At one point, the older Muslim woman claimed to have been so appalled by the “anti-Muslim” tenor of the Republican debates that she would not let her children watch them. Echoed the U.S. Attorney, “Their children see grown men espousing hate.”

Bingo! There was the money quote. Indeed, if there is one shared feel good experience among leftists of all stripes it is the imputation of “hate” to others. Author Shelby Steele coined the phrase “zone of decency” to describe the sacred preserve in which progressives imagine themselves clustering. By aligning themselves with Muslims, liberals assure themselves a place in the zone and “decertify” those not quite so keen on self-destruction.

Did I mention that the left denies the obvious?

My opponents on the panel repeatedly insisted that terrorists did not represent Islam. “You have places called the Islamic State,” I countered. “These guys think they’re the real deal.”

“What one chooses to call oneself is not necessarily the only test we have to apply,” said the moderator who had long since abandoned anything resembling neutrality.

“There is an element of disingenuousness about this conversation tonight,” I replied. I pointed out that there are millions of Muslims who subscribed to ISIS or who supported ISIS “To make believe that there is not a religious thread to this,” I concluded, “is to deceive ourselves.”

“What’s disingenuous is to blithely say there are millions,” the moderator snapped back. He then made the fatal mistake of asking for a fact check on my numbers. Said the fact checker, “Pew says 63 million Muslims support the Islamic State in the eleven Muslim countries polled.”

“That,” I said with my final words, “is a lot of Muslims.”

DATA: Young Muslims in the West Are a Ticking Time Bomb, Increasingly Sympathising with Radicals, Terror

Getty

Getty

 Breitbart, by RAHEEM KASSAM, March  22, 2016:

On the back of the Brussels terror attack it is worthwhile remembering that while a majority of Muslims in the West appear to have no truck with terrorism or extremism, there are a significant number who sympathise with terrorism and repeatedly attempt to justify attacks on the West.

TERRORISM

An ICM poll from 2006 revealed that 20 per cent of British Muslims sympathised with the 7/7 bombers who brought terror to the streets of the British capital, killing 52 and injuring hundreds. This number rose to one in four British Muslims, according to NOP Research for Channel 4. With a British Muslim population of over 3 million today, that translates to roughly three quarters of a million terror-sympathising people in the UK.

The number rises for younger British Muslims – a sure sign that radicalisation through schools, mosques, and prisons (often via Saudi-funded groups) is creating a long-term problem in Europe. Thirty-one per cent of younger British Muslims endorsed or excused the 7/7 bombings of 2005, with just 14 per cent of those over 45 doing so.

Twenty-seven per cent of those polled in the United Kingdom say they had sympathy with the attacks on Charlie Hebdo – the French satirical magazine that published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammed last year, with 78 per cent supporting punishment for the publication of cartoons featuring Muhammed and 68 per cent supporting the arrest and prosecution of British people who “insult Islam.”

And this number pales in comparison to global Muslim population figures. According to World Public Opinion (2009) at the University of Maryland, 61 per cent of Egyptians, 32 per cent of Indonesians, 41 per cent of Pakistanis, 38 per cent of Moroccans, 83 per cent of Palestinians, 62 per cent of Jordanians, and 42 per cent of Turks appear to endorse or sympathise with attacks on Americans or American groups.

A 2013 study found that 16 per cent of young Muslims in Belgium believed that state terrorism is “acceptable,” while 12 per cent of young Muslims in Britain said that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified.

Pew Research from 2007 found that 26 per cent of young Muslims in America believed suicide bombings are justified, with 35 per cent in Britain, 42 per cent in France, 22 per cent in Germany, and 29 per cent in Spain feeling the same way.

And Muslims who are more devout or dedicated to Islam are three times more likely to believe that suicide bombings are justified — a harrowing statistic when you consider that 86 per cent of Muslims in Britain “feel that religion is the most important thing in their life.”

While just 5 per cent of UK Muslims said they would not report a terror attack being planned, the number leaps to 18 per cent amongst young, British Muslims. The anti-police narrative fuelled by groups like Black Lives Matter are no doubt contributing to this idea that people should not work with the police, with the British Muslim Youth group recently urging a boycott of police.

More recently, in 2015, it was revealed that 45 per cent of British Muslims think that hate preachers that advocate violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.”

Forty per cent of British Muslims say they want Sharia law in the West, while 41 per cent oppose it.

Despite the fact that “Islamophobia” did not rise after the Paris Attacks, there remains a grievance industry across the Western world which targets young Muslims especially, urging them to feel victimised by Western governments for taking a stance against Islamism – and scarcely a tough stance at that.

No more was this evident than in the case of Tell MAMA, a government-backed Muslim grievance group which saw its state funding removed after it was found trying to artificially inflate statistics on hate crimes against Muslims in the UK.

CRIMINALITY

Earlier this year it was reported that one in five prisoners in the United Kingdom’s top security jails is now Muslim, a rise of 23 per cent from just five years ago. In total, a 20 per cent increase in the jail population in Britain has been outstripped by the rise in Muslim inmates — up 122 per cent over 13 years.

The same disproportionate figures are borne out across the United States, where Pew datafrom 2011 revealed that Muslims made up 9 per cent of state and federal prisoners though at the time Muslims made up just 0.8 per cent of the U.S. population.

In 2008, the Washington Post reported “About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in [France’s] prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country’s population.”

ANTI-SEMITISM

“An average of 55 percent of Western European Muslims harbored antisemitic attitudes. Acceptance of antisemitic stereotypes by Muslims in these countries was substantially higher than among the national population in each country,” an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report found in 2015.

A Swedish government report from 2006 found that that 5 per cent of the total population held anti-Semitic views, with the number surging to 39 per cent amongst adult Muslims.

In Germany in 2012, a study of the country’s burgeoning Turkish population revealed that 62 percent of Turks in Germany said they wanted to only live amongst each other, with 46 per cent wanting the country to become a Muslim majority nation. This report also found that 18 per cent of the Turkish population thought of Jews as “inferior.”

Breitbart News reported in January about an ongoing exodus of French Jews, with some 8,000 headed for Israel in 2015 and many others migrating to the UK or the U.S, as a result of rising anti-Semitism.

INTEGRATION

Despite hundreds of millions of pounds, dollars, and euros spent on integration projects, it appears to be a Sisyphean task – calling into question the rate at which immigration is occurring throughout the Western world and the tolerance with which our societies have operate thus far.

The BBC found that 36 per cent of 16 to 24-year-old Muslims believe that if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death. Thirty five per cent of Muslims say they would prefer to send their children to an Islamic school, and 37 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds say they want government-funded Islamic schools to send their kids to.

The report again highlights the radicalisation of the Muslim youth in the West, with 74 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds preferring Muslim women to wear the veil, compared with only 28 per cent for those over the age of 55.

Raheem Kassam is the Editor in Chief of Breitbart London. He tweets at@RaheemKassam and you can follow him on Facebook here

Flashback: Shapiro On The Myth Of The Tiny Radical Muslim Minority

unnamed (21)

Daily Wire, by Chase Stevens, March 28, 2016:

In light of Europe’s ongoing refugee crisis and the latest terrorist attacks by radical Islamists in Belgium, here’s a flashback to October 2014 when Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro made the case against the myth of the “tiny radical Muslim majority.”

In the video (above), Shapiro explains that there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, then breaks down the radical Muslim populations of 15 countries based on Pew research polling. He defines radicalization as being a broader category than just the extremists actively carrying out terrorism; radicals are those in favor of such things as Sharia Law, honor killings, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, says Shapiro.

Here are the 15 countries, with total population shown followed by number of radicalized followers:

  • Indonesia – 205 million, 143 million
  • Egypt – 80 million, 55.2 million
  • Pakistan – 179 million, 135.4 mill​ion
  • Bangladesh – 149 million, 121.9 million
  • Nigeria – 75.7 million, 53.7 million
  • Iran – 74.8 million, 62.1 million
  • Turkey – 74.7 million, 23.9 million
  • Morocco – 32.4 million, 24.6 million
  • Iraq – 31.1 million, 24.3 million
  • Afghanistan – 24 million, 24 millilon
  • Jordan – 6.4 million, 3.8 million
  • Palestinian areas – 4.3 million, 3.83 million
  • France – 4.7 million, 1.6 million
  • Great Britain – 2.8 million,  2.2 million
  • United States – 2.6 million, 500,000

Of the 942,400,000 total population of the 15 countries listed, 680,030,000 espouse radical ideologies.

“It seems fair to assume that similar proportions of people in countries like Algeria, Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Tunisia, Somalia, and Libya are also radicalized,” says Shapiro. “And if they are then, well, we’re above 800 million Muslims radicalized, more than half the Muslims on Earth. That’s not a minority, that’s now a majority. And that’s still not even surveying the hundreds of millions of Muslims in other countries.”

“The tiny radical minority is myth,” he concludes, “a myth that is going to get a lot of people killed.”

Follow-up flashback: For the full clip of Ben Affleck angrily arguing to Bill Maher that criticizing Islam is “racist,” click below…

Myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’

2689c65c-b354-4ba1-97cf-201643de3eae

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.”

– The Quran, Surah 9:5

Townhall, by Matt Barber, Jan. 3, 2016:

When it comes to the global scourge of orthodox Islam, the Western world, which Islamists expressly seek to “destroy from within,” is an upside-down realm wherein objective facts, logic and reason must yield to multiculturalist make-believe, “progressive” propaganda and political correctness run amok. Faithful Muslims want to kill you, and faithless progressives seem all too happy to help them along. Look at the ongoing Muslim invasion of Europe. This progressive paradise, a burgeoning multicultural dystopia, is beginning to look an awful lot like hell on earth.

Fact: Islam is about control. The word itself means “submission.” It is a socio-political pseudo-religion based upon the incoherent scribblings of one man – the “prophet” Muhammad, a warring tyrant who, as even the Quran concedes, was a murderous misogynist and pedophile. This unholy book is loosely plagiarized from the Bible’s Old and New Testaments – Scriptures that, by contrast, were seamlessly transcribed over centuries by roughly 40 men under the direct and divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that elusive, perpetually mute category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels. They’re bad Muslims and so, according to the Quran, not Muslims at all.

To be sure, “moderate Muslim” is a contradiction in terms. It is intrinsically oxymoronic. Whereas “moderate” (read: liberal) “Christians,” such as those belonging to the PCUSA, embrace certain apostasies that run directly counter to the biblical teachings of Christianity (e.g., the pagan embrace of homosexual sin and child sacrifice by way of abortion), “moderate Muslims” likewise embrace an apostate version of Islam that runs directly counter to the clear teachings of the Quran.

While devout followers of Jesus Christ, who is Life – God incarnate – are, like He, characteristically peaceful; devout followers of Muhammad, the dead, child-raping, woman-beheading founder of Islam – demon incarnate – are, like he, characteristically violent. Whereas “Muslim extremists,” that is, faithful Muslims, kill people extremely; “Christian extremists,” that is, faithful Christians, love people, including their enemies, extremely.

Islam explicitly requires a worldwide caliphate (global domination and the violent imposition of Islamic Shariah law). This fact is not open for serious debate and is available for all to read, hear, see and, tragically, experience. Islam, therefore, is inherently at odds with freedom, democracy and the United States Constitution. While devout followers of Muhammad readily admit this reality, the suicidal left yet remains hell-bent, head in the sand, on “tolerating” itself, and the rest of us, to death.

According to the Islamic watchdog group TheReligionofPeace.com – a fantastic resource for the unfiltered facts on Islam – “The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.” The aim of these verses is to dehumanize all non-Muslims, making it easier for Muslims of every stripe to slaughter them with impunity when the time is right. In addition to Surah 9:5, cited above, here are but a handful of Muhammad’s bloody calls to arms:

  • “Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” – Quran (9:73)
  • “O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.” – Quran (9:123)
  • “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” – Quran (17:16)
  • “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.” – Quran (48:29)

From the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad):

  • “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’” – Bukhari (52:177)
  • “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” – Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992
  • “Allah’s Apostle said … ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’” – Bukhari (52:220)

“But the Bible says to kill unbelievers too!” cry the Muslim apologists. Nonsense. “Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence,” observes ReligionOfPeace.com, “the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.” (Christian theologian Dr. Michael Brown has penned a brilliant contrast/comparison between the Quran and the Old Testament, which thoroughly debunks manipulative false equivalencies often drawn by those who wish to sow confusion.)

Still, we need only look to the many polls to affirm the alarmingly high percentages of Muslims (hundreds-of-millions in number) who seek, through the most violent means imaginable, Islamic world domination. Again, here are but a few:

  • 83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll(2009).
  • 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
  • Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
  • 38.6 percent of Western Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified. Gallup(2011).
  • 45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
  • 38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. (Forty-three percent disagree.) The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
  • 78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
  • 80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
  • Nearly one-third of Muslim-Americans agree that violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran is acceptable. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • 68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
  • 51 percent of Muslim-Americans say that Muslims should have the choice of being judged by Shariah courts rather than courts of the United States (only 39 percent disagree).The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • 81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeerapoll (2015).

Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and the moderate Muslim: Even as we hear of the occasional sighting, most reasonable people remain skeptical as to whether, in reality, these mysterious creatures even exist.

What Muslims Really Believe

mm_1

Frontpage, by John Perazzo, Dec. 31, 2015:

Eric Holder once called the United States “a nation of cowards,” when he claimed that Americans are largely afraid to have an honest discussion about race. He was partially correct: Leftists like Holder arefearful of discussing race in any manner that depicts African Americans as something other than the perpetual, pathetic victims of white bloodlust and simpleminded bigotry. The meek responses that Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, and Hillary Clinton recently bleated out when confronted by some of the aggressive racists in the Black Lives Matter movement, were classic illustrations of this cowardice.

Equally pitiful has been the Left’s propensity for turning two blind eyes to the very obvious problems posed by Islam and the value system inherent in its scriptures. For the most part, leftists are content to simply depict anyone who’s willing to have a substantive conversation about those problems, as a dimwit, a Nazi, or both. Thus, when Donald Trump recently suggested that it would be advisable to temporarily stop Muslim immigration into the U.S. until the government is able to get its woefully deficient vetting process in order, he was instantly ridiculed and excoriated by a conga line of glib, self-congratulating know-nothings. Hillary Clinton, for instance, called Trump’s remarks “reprehensible, prejudiced and divisive.” Dawud Walid of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations characterizedTrump’s proposal as “fascist.” Martin O’Malley called Trump “a fascist demagogue.” CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen saw, in Trump, “the traits of a proto-fascist.” And White House spokesman Josh Earnest informed us that Trump’s remarks “disqualif[y] him from serving as president.”

Not to be outdone, numerous high-profile Republicans showed themselves to be just as cowardly, and just as dumb, as the aforementioned leftists. House Speaker Paul Ryan said that Trump’s views are “not what this party stands for and more importantly … not what this country stands for,” given that “freedom of religion is a fundamental constitutional principle.” Jeb Bush’s assessment was more pithy, calling Trump “unhinged.” Chris Christie portrayed Trump’s remarks as “the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about.” Lindsey Graham warned that Trump’s “bombastic rhetoric” was “downright dangerous.” And John Kasich cited Trump’s words as proof that he “is entirely unsuited to lead the United States.”

Implicit in each of these criticisms is the premise that newcomers from all faith traditions are more-or-less equally able, and equally willing, to assimilate into Western society, embrace Western values, and abide by Western laws; in other words, that it ultimately makes no difference what religion is practiced by those who immigrate to America. But quite frankly, no informed individual could possibly believe such a thing, particularly in light of the fact that in recent years researchers have accumulated a great deal of data regarding the attitudes, beliefs, and allegiances of Muslims around the world. Consider just a few of these vital facts, and contemplate whether you think they should at least be factored into the formulation of American immigration and refugee policy:

  • 39% of people in Afghanistan believe that suicide bombings are “often or sometimes” justified, as do 25% of Egyptians, 26% of Bangladeshis, and 62% of Palestinians.
  • Fewer than half of Pakistanis and Malaysians have a negative view of al Qaeda. Barely half of Nigerians and Tunisians have negative opinions about the Taliban. And a mere 16% of Pakistanis hold Hamas in low regard.
  • In a 2011 survey of Muslims in seven Middle Eastern countries, nowhere did any more than 28% of respondents accept the notion that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were carried out by Arabs.
  • In most of these same Middle Eastern countries, significant majorities of Muslims view Westerners generally as being “selfish,” “violent,” “greedy,” “immoral,” “arrogant,” and “fanatical.”
  • In Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Pakistan, the proportion of Muslims who hold Jews in low regard is nearly 100%.
  • In every sub-Saharan African nation where the Pew Research Center has conducted polls in recent years, a majority of Muslims believe that women should not be permitted to decide for themselves whether or not to wear a veil. The same is true of Muslims in Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iraq.
  • Overwhelming majorities of Muslims throughout South and Southeast Asia, as well as in the Middle East, believe that wives should “always” obey their husbands. And in almost all of these same countries, solid majorities oppose the idea that daughters and sons should be entitled to equal inheritance rights.
  • In Islamic strongholds like Malaysia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Morocco, and the Palestinian Territories, more than 80% of survey respondents believe that their respective governments should be based on strict Sharia Law. And among those who favor Sharia, anywhere from 29% to 61% wish to impose it not only on fellow Muslims, but on all citizens regardless of their faith.
  • Among Sharia supporters throughout South Asia and the Middle East: (a) a majority believe in employing the types of severe corporal punishment mandated by Islamic Law—e.g., whipping criminals or amputating the hands of thieves; (b) between 80 and 90 percent of Afghanis, Pakistanis, and Egyptians favor the death penalty for apostates (those who leave Islam); and (c) more than 80% of Jordanians and Egyptians believe that stoning is the appropriate punishment for adultery.
  • It is common for majorities of Muslims in South Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa to believe that honor killings are sometimes justified as punishment for pre- or extra-marital sex.
  • More than 70% of Muslims in Malaysia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, the Palestinian Territories, and Jordan believe that religious leaders should have much, or at least some, influence in politics.
  • In many Islamic countries, very small minorities of the population view polygamy as morally unacceptable. For example, only 8% of Egyptians, 6% of Jordanians, 5% of Nigerians, 11% of Malians, 8% of Senegalese, and 18% of Iraqis object to the practice.
  • Among Muslims throughout Asia, Africa, and Southern and Eastern Europe, the percentage of Muslims who say that homosexuality is morally acceptable rarely exceeds 3%.

To what degree can we reasonably expect newcomers from places like these to assimilate into Western society? What problems, if any, are likely to arise from their views regarding the use of suicide bombings against civilians; their support for genocidal terror groups; their low regard for Westerners generally; their profound hatred of Jews; their unwavering rejection of women’s rights; their opposition to freedom of religion and freedom of thought; their preferred criminal-justice practices; their support for varying degrees of authoritarian theocracy; and their views regarding marriage and sexuality? Do such considerations even merit a conversation? Or should we simply be content to console ourselves with soothing bromides about the unquestioned importance of “diversity”—until the values and traditions that have long bound our society together are entirely dissolved by the multiculturalist delusions and fairy tales of the Left?

For an in-depth look at the key research that has been conducted regarding these beliefs, click here.

‘By the Numbers’: Watch Clarion’s New Short Film

By-the-Numbers-IP

Clarion Project, Dec. 11, 2015:

“By the Numbers” is an honest and open discussion about Muslim opinions and demographics. Narrated by Raheel Raza, president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, this short film is about the acceptance that radical Islam is a bigger problem than most politically correct governments and individuals are ready to admit.

The film addresses the questions: Is ISIS, the Islamic State, trying to penetrate the US with the refugee influx? Are Muslims radicalised on U.S. soil? Are organizations such as CAIR, who purport to represent American Muslims, accepting and liberal or radicalized with links to terror organizations?

The Hard Line | Raheel Raza and Ryan Mauro discuss a new film about Islamic extremism

Do We Really Need More Jihadists?

Raheem Kassam / Breitbart News

Raheem Kassam / Breitbart News

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Dec. 10, 2015:

On Monday, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump created a political firestorm by releasing a statement, “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United Statesuntil our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on.”

While it should be self-evident that allowing unvetted mass immigration from Muslim-majority countries is a formula for national security disaster (look no further than Europe for proof), Trump’s statement identifies an even more important problem: the fact that our leaders in Washington have not been able to “figure out what’s going on” with respect to the global jihad movement – and what it will take for us to defeat it, before the jihadists destroy us.

Mr. Trump has clearly picked up on a conviction increasingly shared by millions of Americans. They have begun to realize that the Obama administration has long been downplaying, misrepresenting and mishandling a threat more and more of us see plainly.

The killers who plotted and executed the massacre in San Bernardino are no different than Islamic supremacists the world over. For them, terror is one of the tools used to advance an agenda aimed at imposing worldwide the repressive politico-legal-military code they call shariah and establishing a global Caliphate.  Other techniques employed by the granddaddy of all modern jihadist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, involve more stealthy efforts to penetrate and subvert from within our civil society and governing institutions.

We must understand shariah and the ideological impetus it provides for our enemies’ actions. We must also recognize its inherent and unalterable incompatibility with Western civilization. And we must take action to keep jihadis from threatening our lives – and our freedoms – in furtherance of their stated goal: installing shariah worldwide.

In his statement, Trump cited a poll of Muslims in America commissioned by the Center for Security Policy earlier this year, revealing the disturbing fact that large percentages of those who responded (51%) agreed that, “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  

Even more troubling, nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Those who don’t like the poll’s results have questioned its methodology. Yet, opt-in, online surveys are used routinely to gauge the views of populations like American Muslim that are relatively small and hard-to-reach. In particular, major survey organizations like SurveyMonkey & Harris Interactive that are relied upon and quoted extensively use the same approach.

For its part, the industry trade association, the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), has issued a study of online, opt-in survey panels. It states: “There are times when a nonprobability online panel is an appropriate choice, as there may be survey purposes and topics where the generally lower cost and unique properties of Web data collection is an acceptable alternative to traditional methods.”

Examples of other surveys using the same online, opt-in panel methodology include:

The AP-GfK Poll, which is widely reported on, including one finding increasing support for gay marriage and gun control.

NBC News, including a poll recently released on Americans’ divided attitudes ongovernment surveillance; and

A Cronkite News poll conducted as part of a project focused the Sikh religious community.

The Center’s poll of U.S. Muslims, however, seems to have touched a particularly sensitive nerve, perhaps because it asked questions that other polling firms seem reluctant to ask. In addition, the results could signal that a significant portion of American Muslims hold views that reflect mainstream Islam’s shariah. Such views conflict dramatically with the Constitution and concepts of civil rights, are nevertheless reflective of the way mainstream Islam is practiced in many Muslim-majority countries.

The United States govenment has every right to determine which immigrants enter this country. And the fact is that some would-be immigrant aliens present a far greater threat than others.

Here are some of the options available to try to ensure that this threat is mitigated:

Defund the Obama administration’s breathtaking decision to allow into the United States aliens who have engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism had “limited” contact with its perpetrators.

Deny any funding for the president to bring in not just refugees, but anyone coming in under any immigration program from Syria and Iraq, given that we cannot perform adequate screening on them, until such time as Congress reauthorizes such spending.

Likewise, deny any funding for the president to bring in via any immigration program from other nations whose traditions of Islamic supremacism makes the need for such vetting imperative. These would, presumably include those deemed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be “Specially Designated Countries” (notably, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Libya, and Afghanistan). An exception could be made for aliens from Israel, provided the Israeli government deems them not to be a threat.

Defund the approval of further chain migration from such countries in the name of “family reunification” – a practice that could be used to expand exponentially the 10,000 Syrians President Obama intends to bring here and that was used to bring Tashfeen Malik to the country under a K-1 visa.

Require that funds provided to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) must be used to relocate more of its charges closer to home, which it systematically refuses to do –  causing it to run a deficit unnecessarily, since it costs 12 times more to support a refugee here than there.

Provide the funds necessary for both the southern and northern border states’ governors to deploy their National Guard to secure our land frontiers unless and until other means of denying unauthorized access across them can be assured.

Include some variation of Texas Rep. Brian Babin’s Refugee Accountability National Security Act, which would place a moratorium on refugee resettlement until Congress deems the program has been adequately reviewed, as well as a Government Accountability Office audit of its costs. Even simply defunding all refugee resettlement from Syria would be a start, though the problem of jihadis posing as refugees extends far beyond Syria.

Include some version of the bill sponsored by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, which would restore control over how many refugees the U.S. admits each year to the legislative branch, where it belongs.

Eliminate funding for the so-called “voluntary agencies” (a.k.a. VolAgs) that are paid by-the-head to resettle refugees and, therefore, have become, as a practical matter, self-interested lobbies for expanding the number of refugees ad infinitum.

Restore U.S. control over whom we deem a refugee, ending the practice of allowing the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to dictate who is eligible for resettlement here. This is especially imperative in light of the extraordinary influence over the High Commissioner apparatus (and the U.N. more generally) enjoyed the proto-Caliphate, multinational Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). That influence has contributed to the fact that, by some estimates, nine out of 10 “refugees” being admitted here under the present arrangement are Muslims.

As previously recommended by then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, revoke the citizenship of those Americans who join foreign terror organizations by banning the expenditure of funds to admit such individuals back into the United States after they have traveled abroad.

Suspend funding for the Visa Waiver program unless and until the FBI designates that participant countries have given us sufficient access to the Passenger Name Record (PNR) data that the European Union has historically withheld from us.

Given the Islamist massacre in San Bernardino, not to mention the burgeoning growth of violent and stealthy jihadist activity around the world since 2011, America must admit what so many of its leaders refuse to say: Jihad and the hateful ideology of shariah that undergirds it are problems we must address, and must address now.

Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

friday prayersNational Review, by David French, Dec. 7, 2015:

It is simply false to declare that jihadists represent the “tiny few extremists” who sully the reputation of an otherwise peace-loving and tolerant Muslim faith. In reality, the truth is far more troubling — that jihadists represent the natural and inevitable outgrowth of a faith that is given over to hate on a massive scale, with hundreds of millions of believers holding views that Americans would rightly find revolting. Not all Muslims are hateful, of course, but so many are that it’s not remotely surprising that the world is wracked by wave after wave of jihadist violence.

To understand the Muslim edifice of hate, imagine it as a pyramid — with broadly-shared bigotry at the bottom, followed by stair steps of escalating radicalism — culminating in jihadist armies that in some instances represent a greater share of their respective populations than does the active-duty military in the United States.

The base of the pyramid, the most broadly held hatred in the Islamic world, is anti-Semitism, with staggering numbers of Muslims expressing anti-Jewish views. In 2014, the Anti-Defamation League released the results of polling 53,100 people in 102 countries for evidence of anti-Semitic attitudes and beliefs. The numbers from the majority-Muslim world are difficult to believe for those steeped in politically correct rhetoric about Islam. A full 74 percent of North African and Middle Eastern residents registered anti-Semitic beliefs, including 92 percent of Iraqis, a whopping 69 percent of relatively secular Turks, and 74 percent of Saudis.

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

The trend toward Muslim anti-Semitism continues even when Muslim nations are far removed from the Arab–Israeli conflict. A solid majority — 61 percent — of majority-Muslim Malays harbor anti-Semitic attitudes, while only 13 percent of neighboring majority-Buddhist Thais are anti-Jewish.

The next level of the pyramid is Muslim commitment to deadly Islamic supremacy. In multiple Muslim nations, overwhelming majorities of Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy. Collectively, this means that hundreds of millions of men and women support capital punishment for the exercise of the basic human rights of freedom of expression and free exercise of religion:

death-penalty-for-leaving-islam

Moving beyond Islamic supremacy to the next step of the pyramid, enormous numbers of Muslims are terrorist sympathizers. It is still stunning to see how popular Osama bin Laden was early last decade, and even as his popularity plunged (as he grew weaker and more isolated), his public approval remained disturbingly high:

confidence-in-osama-bin-laden

But what about ISIS — the world’s most savage and deadly terror organization? The latest polling data show that while a majority of Muslims reject ISIS, extrapolating from the populations of polled countries alone shows that roughly 50 million people express sympathy for a terrorist army that burns prisoners alive, throws gay men from buildings, and beheads political opponents. In Pakistan a horrifying 72 percent couldn’t bring themselves to express an unfavorable view of ISIS:

views-of-isis-overhelmingly-negative

But sympathy for terror is different from active support, and here’s where the numbers are difficult to pin down. I know of no reliable database that shows how many Muslims give to jihadist charities, spread jihadist propaganda on social media, support radical preachers, or otherwise take concrete actions to advance the terrorists’ cause. We do know, for example, that anti-Israel terrorism is so popular in Saudi Arabia that a telethon once raised $100 million to support the 2002 intifada. Shows of support included this charming scene:

A 6-year-old boy, with a plastic gun slung over his shoulder and fake explosives strapped around his waist, walked into a donation center and made a symbolic donation of plastic explosives, according to Al Watan daily.

It is from this fertile soil that jihadists grow. And here the numbers decisively belie the “few extremists” rhetoric. In Iran alone, the Revolutionary Guard represents a proportionate share of the population similar to the combined strength of the active-duty Army and Marines here in the United States. Between Boko Haram, the Al-Nusra front, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Yemeni militias, Libyan militias, and many others, the number of active jihadists numbers in the hundreds of thousands; some estimates indicate that 100,00 are fighting in Syria alone.

To give a sense of proportion, the United States is a nation that honors military service, respects its veterans, and engages in a massive military recruiting effort that includes offering soldiers generous salaries, pensions, benefits, and the best military equipment in the world. Even then, only about 0.4 percent of the American population engages in active-duty military service at any given time.

Jihadists, by contrast, have low life expectancies, second-rate gear, low salaries, and often have to break domestic laws and journey across battlefields to join terrorist insurgencies, but still they join. In Britain, for example, more Muslims join ISIS than join the British army.

Simply put, America’s leaders actively deceive the American people about the sheer scale of Muslim hatred and commitment to jihad. Rather than tell us the truth, the Obama administration and the media aristocracy constantly lecture Americans about discrimination, apparently believing that only their scolding keeps the great redneck masses at bay.

Telling us the truth won’t send Americans on an anti-Muslim killing spree. Instead, it will make us no more radical than Egypt’s president, who briefly made headlines earlier this year after calling for a “revolution” in Islam and decrying faith traditions that he admitted had been “sacralized over the centuries.” Telling the truth can demonstrate the scale of the problem and at least begin the process of convincing the American people that there is no quick fix, that the defense of the nation will require courage and resolve over the long term.

Islam has a problem. It is Muslims’ responsibility to reform their own faith. It is America’s responsibility to defend itself and its citizens. Neither goal is advanced by telling convenient, politically correct lies. After 14 years of war, can we finally tell the truth?

— David French is a staff writer at National Review, an attorney, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Also see:

French Muslims: ‘Jews’ Are Behind Paris Attacks’

Screen-Shot-2015-11-21-at-11.11.36.sized-770x415xt

PJ Media, by Michael Van Der Galien, Nov. 21, 2015:

After the terrorist attacks in Paris, Canadian journalist and entrepreneur Ezra Levent hopped on a plane to France. His mission? To interview French Muslims about the attacks. He wanted to know their views: who committed these horrific attacks, does it have anything to do with islam, and does this mean France is at war? If so, a war against whom?

Now, Levant published a 20-minute video with highlights of these interviews. Although the conversations are in French, his organization Rebel Media put English subtitles below them. The results are both troubling and, in some way at least, reassuring.

Let me start with the reassuring part. Most French Muslims Levant talked to condemned the attacks. They made clear they don’t want to have anything to do with ISIS and don’t share the organization’s views and goals.

This-has-nothing-to-do-with-Muslims

So far, so good.

However, many of them also said some things that are extremely troubling. For example, almost every single one of them said ISIS can’t possibly have anything to do with Islam. Muslims can’t kill innocent people, they say, so ISIS-terrorists aren’t Islamic.

religion-has-nothing-to-do-with-it

Although that may make them feel better about their faith, the problem with that attitude is that it denies reality. If Radical Islam is to be defeated, non-extremist Muslims have to be honest with themselves about the problems within their faith. Sadly, many of them clearly aren’t prepared to do so.

its-the-jews-say-muslims

What’s more, while condemning the attacks and claiming the terrorists can’t possibly be Islamic, many of the interviewees put the blame on… Jews.

Daesh-ISIS-for-me-is-Jewish

And it’s not just Jews who are responsible for ISIS, say these ‘moderate’ French Muslims. No, when push comes to shove, it’s actually an American organization:

it-is-an-american-organization

In other words, ISIS isn’t Islamic at all! Nope, as far as these enlightened adherents of the Islamic faith are concerned, the group is nothing more or less than a cabal of “really sick” Jews and their capitalist American friends:

Jews-are-really-sick

As Levant points out in his video, the most troubling part of this is that the interviewee who made this statements doesn’t look like a radical Muslim at all. He’s not wearing traditional Arabic clothes, nor does he have a long beard. “He looks like a hipster”: an average guy and active participant in French society.

Yet his views are anti-American, anti-Semitic and, dare I say it, downright fundamentalist.

It would be one thing if the man who said this was the exception, but Levant’s video proves that not to be the case. Many other French Muslims – men who appear to be completely normal – share his ideas.

The-Jews-are-terrorists

All in all, Levant says about half of the French Muslims he spoke to told him that ISIS was created by “the Jews” and America.

jews-did-it

Their reasoning is simple: Muslims don’t kill other people, and especially not fellow Muslims. ISIS kills innocent people – and especially Muslims (in their eyes) – and so the group can’t possibly be Islamic. It’s as simple as 1+1=2.

On the other hand, these people are convinced that Jews do kill innocent people – and Muslims most of all.

Muslims-are-the-real-victims

To summarize: ISIS “is an organization that follows the United States and the Jews.”

ISIS-follows-the-US-and-the-Jews

So, at best French Muslims are in denial about ISIS’ Islamic views, and at worst, they blame “the really sick Jews and Americans” for the rise of the organization and its attacks in Paris last week.

If it proves one thing it is that France has a massive Islamic problem on its hands.

Watch the video:

***

Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media talks to Marc Lebuis, who directs Point de Bascule Canada. This website investigates Muslim organizations and individuals and their terror.

Lebuis helps Ezra and his viewers understand the interviews Ezra conducted in Paris during his post-terror attack trip to France: