Huma Abedin’s mom linked to shocking anti-women book

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a "town hall" meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin's mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is second from right, standing next to Clinton. Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a “town hall” meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is second from right, standing next to Clinton. Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 28, 2016:

As secretary of state, women’s-rights champ Hillary Clinton not only spoke at a Saudi girls school run by her top aide Huma Abedin’s ­anti-feminist mother, but Clinton invited the elder Abedin to participate in a State Department event for “leading thinkers” on women’s issues.

This happened despite ­evidence at the time that Saleha M. Abedin had explored the religious merits of sexual submissiveness, child marriage, lashings and stonings for adulterous women, and even the ­circumcision of girls.

The elder Abedin, whose daughter helps run Clinton’s presidential campaign, did take a pro-gender-equality stance on at least one issue: Muslim women’s right to participate in violent jihad alongside men.

As The Post first reported, Huma’s mom edits the Journal of Muslim Minority ­Affairs, which has suggested that America had 9/11 coming to it, because of “sanctions” and “injustices” the US allegedly imposed on the Muslim world.

The journal also opposed women’s rights as un-Islamic, arguing that “ ‘empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit.”

But that’s not all.

In 1999, Saleha translated and edited a book titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations,”  published by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Written by her Saudi colleague Fatima Naseef, the book explains that the stoning and lashing of adulterers, the killing of apostates, sexual submissiveness and even female genital mutilation are all permissible practices ­under Sharia law.

“The wife should satisfy her husband’s desire for sexual intercourse,” the book states on Page 202, even if she is not in the mood. “She has no right to abstain except for a reasonable cause or legal prohibition.”

But getting in the mood may be difficult. The book says female genital mutilation is permissible: ­“Cir­cumcision for women is ­allowed.”

Laws promoting feminist equality, moreover, are ineffectual, since “man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”

And forget about working in a position of authority: “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam,” the book says.

Huma Abedin on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton.Photo: Getty Images

Huma Abedin on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton.Photo: Getty Images

“Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations,” it explained. “Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”

There is one exception to the sexual division of roles: “Women can also participate in fighting when jihad ­becomes an individual duty.”

On the back cover, Saleha says she is “pleased to launch” the book as part of a series on the study of women’s rights in Islam sponsored by the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), for which she is listed as chairperson.

Founded by Huma’s mom, the Cairo-based IICWC has advocated for the repeal of Egypt’s Mubarak-era laws in favor of implementing Sharia law, which could allow female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape.

Saleha is paid by the Saudi government to advocate and spread Sharia in non-Muslim countries like America.

In 1995, less than three weeks before Clinton gave her famous women’s-rights speech in Beijing, Saleha headlined an unusual Washington conference organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to lobby against the UN platform drafted by Clinton and other feminists. Visibly angry, she argued it runs counter to Islam and was a “conspiracy” against Muslims.

Specifically, she called into question provisions in the platform that condemned domestic battery of women, apparently expressing sympathy for men who commit abuse.

Pakistan-born Saleha main­tained that men who serially beat women tend to be unemployed, making their abuse somehow more understandable. “They are victims of a different kind,” she claimed. “And they are simply taking [their frustrations] out on women.”

Despite all this, Huma Abedin in 2010 arranged for Clinton, then the secretary of state, to travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to meet with her mother and speak at a girls school she founded and helps run as dean. Speaking to a roomful of girls, Clinton said Americans have to stop stereotyping Saudi women as oppressed, before assuring the audience that not all American women go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”

While there, Clinton formed a partnership with Saleha’s Dar al-Hekma college called the US-Saudi Women’s Forum on Social Entrepreneurship, and prom­ised to reverse post-9/11 curbs on Saudi student visas to America.

The next year, Clinton invited Saleha and the president of the Saudi school to Washington to participate in a State Department colloquium on women, as revealed by internal emails released in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill told the Post that while Huma Abedin was in fact listed as an editorial staffer of her mother’s radical journal from 1996 to 2008, she didn’t really do anything for the publication in her long tenure there.

Asked if Clinton regrets honoring the Islamist mother and bestowing ­legitimacy on her extreme views, Merrill had no comment.

Paul Sperry is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.

The Problem Isn’t Nation-Building. It’s Islam-Building

war-helicopter

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Aug. 19, 2016:

Nation-building has become a very controversial term. And with good reason. Our conviction that we can reconstruct any society into another America is unrealistic. It ignores our own exceptionalism and overlooks the cultural causes of many conflicts. It assumes that a change of government and open elections can transform a tribal Islamic society into America. They can’t and won’t.

But it’s also important to recognize that what we have been doing isn’t nation-building, but Islam-building.

Nation-building in Germany and Japan meant identifying a totalitarian ideology, isolating its proponents from political power and recreating a formerly totalitarian state as an open society. That is the opposite of what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, never mind Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and all the rest.

We did temporarily pursue de-Baathification in Iraq. But the Baathists were just Saddam’s cult of personality. Saddam was a problem in Iraq. But he wasn’t the problem in Iraq. His rule was a symptom of the real problem which was the divide between Sunnis and Shiites. The real problem was Islam.

Because we failed to recognize that, de-Baathification failed. The Baathists just folded themselves into ISIS. The Sunni-Shiite war went on even without Saddam. Today Sunnis and Shiites are still killing each other in Iraq much as they had for a long time. We have boiled this war down to ISIS, but ISIS, like Saddam is just another symptom of the political violence and divisiveness inherent in Islam.

Instead of secularizing Iraq, our efforts at democracy only heightened divisions along religious lines. The “Lebanon” model for Iraq with power sharing arrangements between Sunnis and Shiites was doomed.

Iraq’s first election was dominated by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. If that name rings a bell, it should. It came out of Iran. You know, the original Islamic Revolution. The “free” election had given a boost to an Islamic terror group whose goal was the creation of an Islamic State in Iraq.

The bloodiest days of the Iraq War actually came when two sets of Islamic terror groups fighting to create an Islamic State began killing each other… and us. We know one of those groups today as ISIS. The other group is the Iraqi government. And a decade later, they’re still killing each other.

Instead of nation-building in Iraq, we practiced Islam-building. Iraq’s constitution made Islam the official religion and the fundamental source of legislation. Its first real law was that, “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.” The new Iraq we had built was an Islamic State.

We did no better in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan whose constitution declared much the same thing. Its first parliamentary elections saw victories for the National Islamic Movement of Afghanistan and the Islamic Society. As in Iraq and Syria, the distinctions between the bad Islamists and the good Islamists were often fuzzy at best. We had replaced the bad Islamist warlords who raped and murdered their enemies with the good Islamist warlords who raped and murdered their enemies.

Our nation-building had created an Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and an Islamic State in Iraq. It was no wonder that the fighting never stopped.

Matters grew much worse with the Arab Spring when Obama and Hillary’s Islam-building project flipped countries that had been democratic and secular in the loosest sense into the tar pit of political Islam.

Coptic Christians were massacred and churches were burned in Egypt. The Christian communities in Iraq and Syria were threatened with annihilation.  The Jewish community in Yemen may be close to disappearing entirely. The Yazidis were raped and murdered on a genocidal scale by the Islamic State.

But in many cases they were just collateral damage from fighting between Sunni and Shiite Islamists, and among Sunni Islamists battling each other for dominance.

The ugliest part of Islam-building was that the resulting conflicts between Islamists and secularists in Egypt and Tunisia highlighted starkly just how wrong our policy was. Instead of backing secular and democratic forces, Obama had thrown in with Islamists. And even after the Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown in Egypt, his administration continued advocating on behalf of its Islamic reign of terror.

If we had practiced actual nation-building, then we would have identified Islamic tribalism as the central corrosive force in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Islamic political movements as the totalitarian threat in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Our efforts would have been directed at isolating them and keeping them out of power while working to democratize and secularize these countries on the old Turkish model. It might not have worked, but at least it would have been nation-building, not Islam-building.

Nation-building might very well have failed. America doesn’t have infinite resources and the lives of our soldiers are precious. Assuming that we can upend radically different societies is excessively optimistic.

But we didn’t even try.

What we have been doing in this century isn’t nation building. Instead we’ve been empowering our enemies. We’ve been sticking our hands into Islamist snake pits and playing, “Find the Muslim moderate” and refusing to learn any better no matter how many times we get bitten.

We have been perfectly happy to help the Islamic terrorists that our soldiers were shooting at last week so long as their leader signed some sort of accord paying lip service to equality yesterday. We didn’t just get into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, but with former affiliates of Al Qaeda and current proxies of Iran. We allied with the Sunni and Shiite Islamist murderers of American soldiers in Iraq.

And all we got for it was more violence, chaos and death.

Even without Islam, ethnic and tribal divisions would have made nation-building into a difficult challenge. But Islam-building didn’t just leave wrecked societies, but terror threats. Tensions between Arabs, Turkmen and Kurds wouldn’t have led to massacres in Paris and Nice. Only Islam could do that.

Islam takes local conflicts and makes them global. That’s why disputes over the authority of the House of Saud led to the mass murder of thousands of people in New York or why Arab attacks on Israel became a burning international issue. Or why Sunni and Shiite feuds in Iraq and Syria led to a massacre of attendees at a rock concert in Paris.

That is also why the combination of Islam and politics in any form is an existential threat to us.

Not only should we not be subsidizing it in any way, shape or form, but we should be doing our best to stamp it out. If we must have any form of nation-building, it should be the building of secular nations in which Islam is isolated and detached from any political involvement.

We have two options for preventing the spread of Islamic political violence into our countries. The first is a ban on Muslim immigration. The second is a ban on Muslim politics. The former has been dubbed isolationism and the latter nation-building. Neither term is truly accurate, but they capture the essence of the choice.

We however have chosen a choice that is far worse than either. We have opened our doors to Muslim migration while opening Muslim countries to further Islamic political involvement. We have Islamized terror states and ourselves. Is it any wonder that we suffer from a severe Islamic terror threat?

Open borders for Islamic terror and Islam-building have led to our current state of national insecurity. We have made the world more dangerous by backing Islamic politics and we have made our countries more dangerous by welcoming in Muslim migrants to be indoctrinated into terror by Islamist organizations. The more we build up Islam, the more we destroy ourselves.

Also see:

Preview of Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech (video)

donald-trumpTrump to deliver foreign policy speech, focusing on fighting ISIS (Fox News)

Donald Trump will declare an end to nation building if elected president, replacing it with what aides described as “foreign policy realism” focused on destroying the Islamic State group and other extremist organizations.

In a speech the Republican presidential nominee will deliver on Monday in Ohio, Trump will argue that the country needs to work with anyone that shares that mission, regardless of other ideological and strategic disagreements. Any country that wants to work with the U.S. to defeat “radical Islamic terrorism” will be a U.S. ally, he is expected to say.

“Mr. Trump’s speech will explain that while we can’t choose our friends, we must always recognize our enemies,” Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller said Sunday.

On the eve of the speech, the Clinton campaign slammed Trump’s campaign manager for ties to Russia and pro-Kremlin interests, an apparent reference to a New York Times story published Sunday night. The story alleges Paul Manafort received $12.7 million from Ukraine’s former pro-Russia president and his political party for consultant work over a five-year period. The newspaper says Manafort’s lawyer denied his client received any such payments.

Trump on Monday is also expected to outline a new immigration policy proposal under which the U.S. would stop issuing visas in any case where it cannot perform adequate screenings.

It will be the latest version of a policy that began with Trump’s unprecedented call to temporarily bar foreign Muslims from entering the country — a religious test that was criticized across party lines as un-American. Following a massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in June, Trump introduced a new standard.

“As he laid out in his Orlando remarks, Mr. Trump will describe the need to temporarily suspend visa issuances to geographic regions with a history of exporting terrorism and where adequate checks and background vetting cannot occur,” Miller said.

Trump is also expected to propose creating a new, ideological test for admission to the country that would assess a candidate’s stances on issues like religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights. Through questionnaires, searching social media, interviewing friends and family or other means, applicants would be vetted to see whether they support American values like tolerance and pluralism.

The candidate is also expected to call in the speech for declaring in explicit terms that, like during the Cold War, the nation is in an ideological conflict with radical Islam.

Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and top U.S. government officials have warned of the dangers of using that kind of language to describe the conflict, arguing that it plays into militants’ hands.

While Trump has been criticized in the past for failing to lay out specific policy solutions, aides say that Monday’s speech will again focus on his broader vision. Additional speeches with more details are expected in the weeks ahead, they said.

Trump is also expected to spend significant time going after President Barack Obama and Clinton, the former secretary of state, blaming them for enacting policies he argues allowed the Islamic State group to spread. Obama has made ending nation building a central part of his foreign policy argument for years.

“Mr. Trump will outline his vision for defeating radical Islamic terrorism, and explain how the policies of Obama-Clinton are responsible for the rise of ISIS and the spread of barbarism that has taken the lives of so many,” Miller said Sunday in an email, using an alternative acronym for the Islamic State group.

The speech comes as Trump has struggled to stay on message. Last week, an economic policy speech he delivered calling for lower corporate taxes and rolling back federal regulations was overshadowed by a series of provocative statements, including falsely declaring that Obama was the “founder” of the Islamic State group.

Trump’s allies said Sunday they’re confident that this time, the billionaire developer will stay on track.

“Stay tuned, it’s very early in this campaign. This coming Monday, you’re going to see a vision for confronting radical Islamic terrorism,” his vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence, said on Fox News Sunday.

Trump and his top advisers, meanwhile, have blamed the media for failing to focus on his proposals.

“If the disgusting and corrupt media covered me honestly and didn’t put false meaning into the words I say, I would be beating Hillary by 20 percent,” he tweeted Sunday.

***

pdf of Donald Trumps speech: Understanding The Threat: Radical Islam And The Age Of Terror

***

Michael Del Rosso, author of ‘Shariah: The Threat to America,’ previews the Republican presidential nominee’s major policy speech. Del Rosso packs a lot of information into this interview. A must watch and share!

Muslim Flight Attendant Sues For Refusing Passengers THIS

Capture

CAIR immediately takes up her cause.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 11, 2016:

Flight attendants have a number of duties and one of them is providing customers with food and beverages – including drinks containing alcohol. However, for one Muslim flight attendant working for ExpressJet serving alcohol has come into conflict with her religious beliefs. The Muslim woman, Charee Stanley, is now on unpaid leave and suing “the airline of wrongly suspending her because she refused to serve alcohol to passengers.” The Detroit News reports the chain of events leading up to the lawsuit:

According the lawsuit, Stanley converted to Islam in January 2013 and began work with the airline that month.

She served alcohol to passengers and was “not aware” that Islamic proscriptions on alcohol consumption extend to the act of serving alcohol to others, the complaint says.

In June 2015, Stanley learned of the proscription and the following work day asked ExpressJet to grant her a religious accommodations [sic] in which she did not have to personally serve alcohol to passengers.

The company accommodated her by having her ask other flight attendants to serve alcohol to passengers.

Around August 2015, Stanley alleges she was told to either resign or serve alcohol. She made another request for the accommodation and was denied, according to the complaint.

Stanley was placed on unpaid leave on Aug. 25, 2015, for 12 months, after which her employment would be terminated.

The federal court case follows a discrimination complaint filed last year with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which dismissed it without determining whether the airline violated the law.

Stanley alleges ExpressJet didn’t provide a reasonable religious accommodation and seeks back pay and other damages.

So, Stanley essentially served alcohol for over two years for the airline as a Muslim woman, then decides it conflicts with Sharia and now refuses to serve the intoxicant. How is it fair to make other flight attendants and staff take over her duties in that area all because she changed her mind on what’s halal (permitted) and haram (forbidden) in Islam? Is this about a reasonable religious accommodation or Sharia? Furthermore, what happens if Stanley decides that she can’t serve pork products since “the flesh of swine” is haram (Quran 2:173, Quran 6:145) or serve passengers with seeing eye dogs because dog saliva is impure in Islam? Would these religious accommodations as well as many others be reasonable? Stanley’s case is still pending but it’s important to note that religious accommodations cannot be made for a totalitarian ideology like Sharia which lacks moderation.

Of course, the one filing the lawsuit is none other than the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR (Michigan chapter). As highlighted in this video CAIR is notorious for filing these alleged religious discrimination complaints – using them as a way to advance their Islamist agenda by pressuring companies and government agencies to give into their demands.

Also  see:

HuffPo Columnist Lies, Downplays Sharia Law to Make It Acceptable

GettyImages-72166261-640x418Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Aug. 9, 2016:

Maryam Khan Ansari, who is identified as an “attorney and writer,” published a ridiculous piece in the Huffington Post Saturday: “What Is Sharia Law And Should You Be Scared? Why is Sharia such a scary word?”

Sharia is a scary word because sharia is scary.

The supremacist tenets of sharia law inform the creed apartheid, gender apartheid, Islamic Jew-hatred, codified bigotry, misogyny, free speech prohibitions and homophobia inherent in Islamic law. Sharia is scary because it is punitive, supremacist, racist and misogynist.

But Ansari says it’s scary because “for starters, it’s short and easy to pronounce. When you add the word ‘creeping’ in front of it, it starts to look even creepier. Especially since American people know very little, or nothing, about Islam, according to a Pew Research Poll.” She adds: “The word ‘Sharia Law’ has Americans conjure up images of guys with turbans.”

No, sharia law conjures up the images of girls murdered in honor killings, beheadings, slaughters of gays, non-Muslims, apostates, and secular Muslims, whippings, floggings, amputations, and public hangings commanded in Islamic law. “Guys with turbans”? Hardly.

It further erodes Ansari’s argument that she evokes the Sikhs. Sikhs have been brutally persecuted under the boot of Islam. Her article includes a picture of the actor and fashion designer Waris Ahluwalia, who is not a Muslim and follows a different religion called Sikhism. Waris is Sikh. I repeat, Waris is not Muslim, he is Sikh. But he wears a turban, so for Ansari’s purposes he must be Muslim, and he probably follows Sharia Law. Except that again, he is Sikh, not Muslim.

It gets worse. Ansari goes on: “But wait a minute― does anyone actually know what Sharia Law even is? I’m a lawyer and I’m Muslim, so people think I’m supposed to know Sharia Law. I bet many people probably think I follow it, simply because I’m a Muslim.

So, I thought I’d take the opportunity to set the record straight on Sharia Law. After all, who better to explain it than a Muslim lawyer?”

After that build-up, you would expect her to do what she promised to do: “set the record straight on Sharia Law.” Instead, she says: “I don’t know squat about Sharia Law. I don’t think many Muslims do. Yeah, you heard me. I’m a lawyer, I’m Muslim… And I still couldn’t tell you what Sharia law is all about.”

A Muslim who doesn’t “know squat about Sharia Law” is hardly fit to write about it, let alone attack those who oppose the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth. Muslims who don’t practice or “know squat” about sharia law are not the problem. Muslims who seek to impose it are the problem. Muslim countries that enforce are the problem.

Maryam Khan Ansari defending Khzir Khan puts her foot in her mouth, because Khan is a longtime proponent of sharia law and knows a lot about it. Journalist Paul Sperry reports:

In 1983, for example, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book compiled from a seminar held in Kuwait called “Human Rights In Islam” in which he singles out for praise the keynote address of fellow Pakistani Allah K. Brohi, a pro-jihad Islamic jurist who was one of the closest advisers to late Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement.

Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to “beat” wives who act “unseemly.”

Ansari keeps piling it on: “Sharia Law is a very complicated body of law (imagine, like, a very difficult to understand Tax Code) and it isn’t something that the average Muslim can understand in depth. And like American law, it doesn’t come from just one book. It comes from many different sources. So like American law, only (some) properly trained legal people can make sense of it.”

Nonsense. Everywhere sharia law is practiced, the penalties are the same: stoning for adultery, death for apostasy, amputation of the hand for theft, death for criticism of Islam. Everywhere sharia is implemented. It really isn’t complicated.

Ansari’s second “myth” is: “All Muslims believe in Sharia Law.”

No one believes all Muslims believe in sharia law. If that were the case, no Muslim who sought to impose it should be admitted into the USA. But we do see sharia being imposed here in America – with speech restrictions (under the guise of restrictions on “hate speech”), the Islamization of the public square, the Islamization of the public school, the Islamization of the workplace, and the Islamization/mosqueing of the neighborhood.

Islamic scholars know what sharia is. Islamic theologians know. And when they don’t, they consult Al Azhar scholars – Sunni Islam’s most prestigious institution. One principal English-language source for the content of Islamic law is Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Dr. Alan Godlas, Associate Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia, calls it a “carefully translated manual of the proper practice of Islam (shari’a) according to the Shafi’i mad’hab. It has been an essential book in the library of any serious English speaking Muslim or scholar of Islam since its publication in 1991.”

Ansari also insists that Muslims don’t want to impose sharia in the U.S.:

Now, I’m sure there are some crazies out there who want to impose Sharia Law on everyone. There are a lot of crazy people of all races and religions. But just because they’re nuts, it doesn’t mean that they can actually make it happen. In fact, anyone who thinks that Sharia Law will ever take over the U.S. Constitution is a different kind of crazy. And crazy people, while scary, really can’t make the leadership of a country change.

More lies. Muslims fiercely work to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia. The Muhammad cartoons are the most obvious example. All over the Muslim world, secular thinkers, poets, writers, journalists, bloggers, and cartoonists have been targeted for death because they were critical of Islam. How many Muslims stood with us in Garland, Texas? Zero.

As a modern Muslim woman, Maryam Khan Ansari should work to oppose the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth and free the millions oppressed, subjugated and slaughtered under the boot of sharia. Instead, she is a slave to it, advancing gruesome, unforgivable lies in order to disarm the American people in the face of the gravest threat to our freedom that we have ever faced.

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

Pamela has more here

Information Dominance: A Snapshot of the War

“I say to you that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.”

2005 Letter from Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri, current leader of Al Qaeda

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug. 7, 2016:

As UTT has reported on numerous occasions, for both the Global Islamic Movement and the Marxist/Socialist movement, the primary focus is in the information domain (propaganda, deception operations, etc).

For the Global Islamic Movement’s leading edge – the Muslim Brotherhood – their methodology is “Civilization Jihad” by OUR hands. They get our leaders and key organizations to do their work for them.

Getting the U.S. State Department to write the constitutions for Iraq and Afghanistan (2005) which created Islamic states under sharia – thus fulfilling Al Qaeda’s objectives in those nations – and getting a four-star U.S. general (Petraeus) to go on international television to condemn a U.S. citizen for exercising his First Amendment rights to burn a book (the Koran) – thus enforcing the Islamic law of “Slander” – are two simple examples.

At the Democratic National Convention, Khizr Khan played his role knowing full well there would be a predictable response from Mr. Trump.  A response for which our enemies were prepared.

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Republican leadership and people in the Trump campaign did not even have fore-knowledge of Mr. Khan’s participation in the convention and, thus, did not do their due diligence or conduct a basic background investigation on Mr. Khan to prepare for a response.

They were operationally blind.

Mr. Trump made statements regarding Mr. Khan and his wife, and the trap was sprung.  It was not Hillary Clinton nor the Democrat Party that fired the first salvo at Trump Headquarters.

Mr. Trump was hammered by Gold Star mothers, the VFW, Republican leaders, and others.  This was a home run for the enemy.

This is warfare in the information domain.  This is “political warfare,” and is never done willy nilly.  It has purpose, and is a part of a larger strategy.

There is also an abundance of evidence Mr. Khan is an agent of a foreign power (Pakistan) who just conducted an extremely well-executed information operation against a U.S. Presidential candidate.

All the players responded as predicted, and all patriotic Americans should be gravely concerned.

If the Trump campaign does not figure this out quickly, his supporters will be separated, pitted against each other, and dissipated.  The enemy is engaging in the information warfare battlespace, and the Trump campaign appears oblivious to it.

In 2012, Michele Bachmann courageously led the charge in Congress and put forth evidence from the largest terrorism trials in American history revealing massive Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the federal government.  She called for key Inspector Generals offices to investigate.

The attack on her came from Senators Marco Rubio and John McCain, and other prominent Republican leaders.

Civilization Jihad by OUR hands.

Khizr Khan is a suit-wearing jihadi.  He adheres to sharia, and believes in submitting the world to sharia (Islamic law).  Mr. Khan has written clearly that sharia must be followed to the letter and the Koran “is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.”

This is, by the way, in direct contradiction of American law and government, the foundation of which are the “Law of Nature” and “Nature’s God,” not sharia.  Americans should know this the next time Mr. Khan waves a copy of our Constitution in our faces.

For more on “Sharia” see the UTT article HERE.

If we are to truly understand the threat we face from the Global Islamic Movement and the Marxist/Socialist movement, we must know their primary battlefield is in the media, not on a piece of open ground on which tanks and troops engage each other.

UK government to tackle slavery – Barnabas Fund calls on it not to ignore shari’a based slavery

Barnabas Fund, Aug. 4, 2016:

In one of her first acts as Prime Minister Theresa May has announced a major policy on tackling slavery both in the UK and overseas. Mrs May has a longstanding commitment to tackling this issue. A year ago while Home Secretary she introduced a modern slavery bill that established the UK’s first ever Anti-Slavery Commissioner. The new initiative announced this week involves 1. Mrs May personally chairing a new cabinet committee to tackle slavery; 2. Creating a £33 million fund to tackle the enslavement overseas of an estimated 45 million people; 3. Careful monitoring of UK police forces to ensure that they are properly investigating reports of modern day slavery of which there are an estimated 10-13,000 victims in the UK.

Launching the initiative last Sunday Mrs May invoked the anti-slavery campaign two centuries ago led by Christian MP William Wilberforce saying: “This is the great human rights issue of our time and as Prime Minister I am determined that we will make it a national and international mission to rid our world of this barbaric evil. Just as it was Britain that took an historic stand to ban slavery two centuries ago, so Britain will once again lead the way in defeating modern slavery and preserving the freedoms and values that have defined our country for generations.”

modern-slavery-4X3

We warmly welcome this approach. However, we would respectfully point out to the Prime Minister that it is not just modern slavery that is a problem in the world. We are also seeing a resurgence in older forms of slavery. Much of the slavery Wilberforce fought against began with Arab traders capturing black Africans who were subsequently sold to white slave traders. Crucially it was shari’a that legitimised the enslavement of non-Muslims. The Sokoto Caliphate that encompassed a vast area of West Africa including what is now Northern Nigeria provided a high proportion of those slaves. It is precisely because shari’a permitted slavery that the last countries in the world to formally abolish slavery were  predominantly Islamic ones: Morocco (1922), Afghanistan (1923), Iraq (1924), Iran (1928), Qatar (1952), Niger (1960), Saudi Arabia (1962), Yemen (1962), UAE (1964), Oman (1970) – culminating in Mauritania in 1981 – a country where slavery is still rampant with reports suggesting that between 10 and 20 percent of its population are enslaved.

However, in 2014 Boko Haram which controls parts of the old Sokoto Caliphate in Northern Nigeria announced that it had reintroduced slavery with its leader Abubakar Shekau announcing shortly after it had abducted 270 Christian school girls: “Allah instructed me to sell them…I will carry out his instructions… slavery is allowed in my religion and I shall capture people and make them slaves.” Boko Haram’s reintroduction of slavery was copied a few months later by Islamic State which has now enslaved thousands of Yazidi and Christian women in Syria and Iraq.

This is why it is very disappointing that the UK Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s strategic plan makes absolutely no reference at all to the resurrection of this older form of slavery, but wholly concentrates on more modern forms. Strikingly, it identifies Nigeria as one of the major countries of concern for modern slavery, but only focuses on the south east of the country. That may well be where most of those trafficked to the UK come from, but it ignores the most significant event since the abolition of slavery in Nigeria under British rule – its reintroduction two years ago by Boko Haram. Nor is shari’a based slavery an issue that affects only countries such as Nigeria, Iraq and Syria. In March this year a US based Qatari couple accused of slavery defended themselves in a Texas court by claiming that their actions were permitted by shari’a.

If the UK’s new Prime Minister is as serious as she appears to be about tackling slavery worldwide – then her government must also tackle the spread of shari’a based slavery just as William Wilberforce did.

slaveryislam

Also see:

Bill Clinton Got Millions From World’s Biggest Sharia Law Education Firm

Bill Clinton gives a thumbs up to attendees on the fourth day of the Democratic National Convention (Getty Images)

Bill Clinton gives a thumbs up to attendees on the fourth day of the Democratic National Convention (Getty Images)

Daily Caller, by Richard Pollock, Aug. 3, 2016:

Former President Bill Clinton collected $5.6 million in fees from GEMS Education, a Dubai-based company that teaches Sharia Law through its network of more than 100 schools in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

The company’s finances strictly adhere to “Sharia Finance,” which includes giving “zakat,” a religious tax of which one-eighth of the proceeds is dedicated to funding Islamic jihad.

The company also contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

The former president served as honorary chairman for GEMS Education from 2011 to 2014, according to federal tax returns he filed with his wife, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

His biggest paycheck from the closely-held company — which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands — was in 2014 when he pocketed $2.1 million. It is unclear if Bill received income from the Middle Eastern firm in 2015, since Hillary has not yet released her tax return for that year.

Sharia law is the Islamic religious legal system that many in the West see as intolerant of human rights and other religions, as well as violating the rights of women and gays. Sharia law is considered by Muslims to be superior to all secular authorities. Islamic jihadis regularly call for the imposition of Sharia law and want to impose it on the West.

GEMS boasted in a 2013 bond prospectus that it is the “only foreign group approved for educational services in Saudi Arabia.” The GEMS facilities in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, taught 1,600 students in 2013.

Saudi Arabia is where Wahabism, the strictest form of Sharia, is observed. The Middle Eastern kingdom bars women from driving cars, requires women to wear the strictest form of the hijab, which covers everything but the eyes and hands. Gay men and women are persecuted in Saudi Arabia.

GEMS distributed a job notice in 2014 for a director of “Islamic and Cultural Studies” for its campuses in the Saudi Kingdom. The skills for the position included proficiency in Sharia to help develop a curriculum. The company also acts as an educational consultant in Egypt, Jordan, and Libya.

Clinton’s relationship with the Sharia-oriented education firm drew critical reviews from anti-terrorism experts.

“Why would Bill Clinton be participating in programs that teach Sharia in foreign countries where that is the specific objective of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and al-Qaeda,” asked counter-terror analyst Stephen Coughlin in an interview with TheDCNF.

Read  more

Sharia – Muslims Cannot “Show the Way to Police” Against Other Muslims

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, August 2, 2016:

Why haven’t Muslims in America and Europe come out of the woodwork by the thousands to provide the identities of jihadis at their mosques, Islamic schools, and neighborhoods to law enforcement?

The reason is the same as it always is:  it is a violation of Sharia (Islamic Law) – the guiding doctrine which drives Islam and the Muslims who submit to it.

Islamic Sacred Law (Sharia) specifically makes Apostasy (“Leaving Islam”) a capital crime stating…

quote from Reliance oftheTraveler

Sharia goes on to say:  “There is no indemnity for killing an apostate since it is killing someone who deserves to die.” (o8.4)

But Apostasy is not simply “converting out” of Islam.  It is much more than that.

According to authoritative Sharia, “Acts That Entail Leaving Islam” (Apostasy) include:

“To be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law (Sharia) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message to be the religion followed by the entire world.” [Ibid, o8.7 (19-20)]

It is a capital crime in Islam for Muslims to deny Sharia in any way.  Islam is Sharia and Sharia is Islam.

In the West there is a reason why the Muslim community is not helping law enforcement at the local and federal level.  It is because it is unlawful under Sharia.

It is all about Sharia.

Specifically, the Islamic Laws of SLANDER and TALEBEARING are clear and make it impossible for Muslims to help law enforcement officials against other Muslims without putting themselves at risk.

“Slander and talebearing are two of the ugliest and most frequently met with qualities among men…Slander means to mention anything concerning a person (Muslim) he would dislike.”                         (Um Dat al Salik, r2.1-2.2)

This is why people who draw cartoons or make movies about Islam are at risk of being killed.

Theo Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim in 2004 for making a film about women in Islam

Theo Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim in 2004 for making a film about women in Islam

Koran 49:12 specifically states “Do not slander (spy on) one another” and “Woe to whomever disparages others behind their back or in their face.” (Koran 104:1)

Mohammad said “The talebearer will not enter paradise” and “The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim. He does not betray him, lie to him, or hang back from coming to his aid.”

Sharia defines “talebearing” as follows:  “The reality of talebearing lies in divulging a secret, in revealing something confidential whose disclosure is resented.” (Ibid, r3.1)

Sharia specifically identifies that (r7.0) “Giving Directions to Someone Who Wants to Do Wrong” is considered “Talebearing,” and includes “showing the way to policemen.”

Any questions?

Muslims follow sharia because that is what being a Muslim means – someone who submits to Islam. Submitting to Islam means obeying the Sharia of Allah.

Muslims risk their lives under sharia if they help non-Muslims against the Muslim community.  The threat of death makes many people comply – as evidenced by the fact the Muslim community is silent in the face of a global holocaust except when it is to attack the non-Muslim world.

Khan-flict: Freedom Fighter Son, Sharia Supremacist Father

khizr-khan.sized-770x415xcPJ Media, by Andrew Bostom, August 2, 2016:

Army Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in action during an extended tour in Iraq. Deployed at Baquabah, Khan served in a force protection role and oversaw a unit securing and maintaining his base.

On June 8, 2004, Khan died after ordering his soldiers to stay back, and “hit the dirt,” when he approached a suspicious taxi. While Khan was moving towards the vehicle and motioning for it to stop, two men in the taxi detonated their explosives, killing themselves, Khan, and two Iraqi soldiers. Because of his heroic sacrifice, none of Khan’s soldiers were killed in the blast.

When Khan was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery, he received full military honors at the burial, and his commanding officer observed in a letter:

He died selflessly and courageously, tackling the enemy head on. We will not forget him and the noble ideas he stood for.

Simply put, Humayun Khan died defending the uniquely Western conceptions of freedom articulated in the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

All Americans must acknowledge and honor the Khan family’s grief as parents of a heroic soldier killed in action. Their anguished perspective requires special deference. But we should also take seriously the assertions made by Khizr Khan, Humayun’s father, and a lawyer, about the Constitution, at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), which are contradicted by his own earlier published opinions.

Many Americans have their own copies of the Constitution (readers can get your own pocket Constitution here, for free, via Hillsdale College), and they know that Khizr Khan egregiously misrepresented what our founding document states regarding immigration in the 14th Amendment, as discussed recently by Byron York.

It was no doubt unintentional on Khizr Khan’s part that he appeared to attack the large majority of ordinary Americans who are concerned about the DNC’s support for admitting immigrants into the U.S. without background checks — even from countries with known risks for harboring jihad terrorists (i.e., like Syria). As a prime example, adequate databases for vetting Syrian Muslim refugees don’t exist.

Americans want to disagree without being disagreeable, and being hectored that we have “black souls” or lack compassion. We can have genuine, deep sympathy for the Khan family’s loss, and still disagree with Khizr Khan’s misrepresentation of the Constitution.

With all due respect for his deprivation, we must review Mr. Khan’s published articles asserting the supremacy of Sharia over other politico-legal systems. His opinions are antithetical to the principles in the Constitution that he waved at Americans during his DNC convention address, and that his own son died fighting to preserve.

Read more

Also see:

“Fireman Sam” Cartoon Character Steps on a Page from the Qur’an, Outrage Ensues

2256

Outraged Tweeters ask, “Why are there Quran pages on the floor & flying over the place?”

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, July 28, 2016:

Don’t dishonor Islam or you will be punished – that is a resounding message emanating from the Islamic world. For example, In Islam, when one ‘desecrates’ the Quran it is a form of blasphemy that can carry a death sentence according to Sharia law. Punishment for insulting Islam or its Prophet can be inferred from the following Islamic passages, including:

And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about Allah or says, “It has been inspired to me,” while nothing has been inspired to him, and one who says, “I will reveal [something] like what Allah revealed.” And if you could but see when the wrongdoers are in the overwhelming pangs of death while the angels extend their hands, [saying], “Discharge your souls! Today you will be awarded the punishment of [extreme] humiliation for what you used to say against Allah other than the truth and [that] you were, toward His verses, being arrogant.” –Quran 6:93

Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment. –Quran 33:57

Narrated ‘Ali: The Prophet said, “Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire.” –Sahih Bukhari 1.3.106

As well as other verses such as Sahih Bukhari 1.4.241,Sahih Bukhari 5.59.369, etc.

We have seen this played out as individuals have been slaughtered or had near death experiences for allegedly insulting Islam such as producing film and artworkdeemed offensive by some Muslims as well as many others acts. So, taking this Muslim hypersensitivity toward offensive behavior into account, one can expect the most ridiculous accusations of blasphemy from the Islamic world. Let’s take a look at a recent example involving a children’s cartoon that reveals de-facto blasphemy laws in the West.

The U.K. children’s show named Fireman Sam is facing Muslim backlash after it was discovered that an episode called Troubled Waters which originally aired back in October of 2014, has a character slipping on some pages of the Quran. One of the sheets of paper that shoots in the air when shown in slow motion supposedly reveals a Quranic page “dealing with punishments for non-believers[,]” says London’s Evening Standard. The Evening Standard captured some of the outrage on social media:

Miqdaad Versi, from the Muslim Council of Britain, tweeted: “Have no idea what went through the producers’ minds when they thought this was a good idea #baffled.”

Twitter user BirdsOfJannah wrote: “Islamophobia in @FiremanSamUK? Why are there Quran pages on the floor & flying over the place?”

Another wrote: “Children’s program Fireman Sam stepping on the Quran. SHAME on this program for promoting hatred against Muslims!”

Muslim Reformer and Counterjihad.com Shireen Qudosi points out how the Quran is essentially being idolized by some Muslims, tweeting:

Of course, caving into pressure from de-facto blasphemy laws (ex. Muslim anger and fear of reprisal) the company responsible for the show issued an apology, said they are going to eliminate that particular episode from circulation, promised they are cutting ties with the animation studio involved in the incident, etc.

All of this for a cartoon character accidently stepping on the Quran? People in the West cannot keep conceding to this Sharia mindset that says any perceived negative thoughts or actions against Islam cannot be tolerated, whether intentional or not. Western freedoms are receding while Sharia is advancing.

Sharia’s Incompatibility with Western Values, Explained

gtdg4vst-1411368664

CounterJihad, by Immanuel Al-Manteeqi · @Al_Manteeqi | July 25, 2016

The idea that the West is in a clash of civilizations with the Islamic world is one that has been propounded by well established scholars. Indeed, a scholar no less than Bernard Lewis, the widely regarded doyen of Islamic studies, is the progenitor of the idea that Western civilization is in a clash with Islamic civilization (he seems to have first used the phrase in an article published in 1990 by the Atlantic, entitled, “The Roots of Muslim Rage.”

The late Samuel Huntington, a professor of Political Science at Colombia University, acknowledging his indebtedness to Lewis, later popularized the idea in his famous book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Making of the New World Order.[2] The clash thesis has had sophisticated defenders; it cannot simply be dismissed as a byproduct of Islamophobic bigotry perpetuated by ignorance—at least not without argument.

In what follows, I will argue that there is indeed a clash between Islamic and Western civilization, between plausibly Islamic principles (and not just ‘radical’ Islamic principles) and Western principles.[3]

Evaluating whether or not mainstream Islam, as represented by the earliest Islamic source texts, is incompatible with Western values, almost invariably elicits passionate responses—especially if the evaluator(s) conclude(s) that the two value systems are indeed incompatible. Words like “Islamophobic” and “xenophobe,” “bigot,” and “racist” are subsequently thrown around; emotions fly high. However, this topic, of vital importance for national security, requires a dispassionate analysis of the evidence. As the well-known conservative pundit Ben Shapiro is fond of saying: facts don’t care about your feelings.

We must set aside our passions and look at the historical evidence as objectively as we can– of course, all the while bearing in mind that no historical researcher can attain complete objectivity.

The ancient books of antiquity say what they say. No modern scholar, no matter what his/her agenda or desires, can go back in time and change what is contained in the early Islamic sources. As the saying goes, the past is history. So let us look at the past, specifically the medieval past, to discern whether Islam really is incompatible with the liberal democratic principles of the West.

What is Sharia?

But prior to doing so, some preliminary remarks are in order.

First, because of the flurry of recent Islamist terror attacks, the term “sharia” is frequently bandied about in the media today. It is therefore necessary to get clear on what is meant by the term. Contrary to what Islamic law professor Quraishi-Landes has stated, the Arabic word “sharia” (شريعة) does mean Islamic law; it comes from the triliteral root, sh-r-a (شرع), which means “to legislate.” This can be readily gleaned from a quick consultation of the most renowned Modern and Classical Arabic-English dictionaries and lexicons.[4]

Sharia has incontrovertibly been understood to mean Islamic law by Muslim ulema(religious scholars) for centuries. So what exactly is sharia or Islamic law?

Well, although definitions vary and we cannot hope for precision here, it is basically the Muslim jurisprudents’ reasoned and regimented codification of what is found in the Qur’an and the Sunna (the way of Muhammad). The sources for the latter include ahadeeth (purported sayings of Muhammed), the earliest tafaseer (Qur’anic exegetical works), andsiyar (biographies of Muhammad). The sharia more or less represents what Muslim fuqaha(jurisprudents) have achieved a consensus on vis-a-vis the mandates that are found in the Qur’an and the Sunna.[5] In other words, sharia or Islamic law is merely the regimentation of the voluminous material that is found in the Qur’an and the relatively early ahadeeth,tafaseer, and siyar.

Second, sharia is different from many laws in so far as it legislates a comprehensive way of life. It is not to be compared with something like Catholic canon law, a comparison Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan, makes. Catholic canon is not meant to govern all the occurrences of daily life; it is largely relegated to what we Westerners would normally think of as the religious sphere.

Sharia, on the other hand, is meant to encompass all aspects of life, that is, the religious as well as the secular spheres. Umdat as-Salik, or The Reliance of the Traveller, an authoritative manual of Shafi’i jurisprudence written in the 14th century by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, is unequivocal here,[6] pointing out that “the source of legal rulings for allacts of those who are morally responsible is Allah [emphasis added].”[7]

Sharia is supposed to be an architectonic system comprising all ways of life. That this is so is evident from a cursory perusal of the canonical ahadeeth, which cover everything from usury, to how you are supposed to greet someone, to what you should say before copulation, to which foot one is supposed to enter the restroom with first. As Sharia: The Threat to America concludes, “the sharia system is totalitarian. It imposes itself on all aspects of civil society and human life, both public and private.[8]” The late Abu A’la Maududi, an influential 20th century Pakistani and Islamist thinker, concurs, stating that sharia’s rulings encompass

family relationships, social and economic affairs, administration, rights and duties of citizens, judicial system, laws of war and peace and international relations. In short, it embraces all the various departments of human life … The Sharia is a complete scheme of life and an all-embracing social order where nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking.[9]

Third, Sharia is not infinitely malleable. Of course, there  is a wide variety of different regimentations of what is found in the early Islamic source texts,  hence different interpretations of what constitutes authentic sharia. However, the plausibility of interpretations are naturally bound by the contents of the early Islamic sources, which function as the basis of sharia. So contrary to what some apologists of Islam say, sharia is not so fluid and multifaceted that it defies categorization.

Fourth, what is represented in the early Islamic source texts is Islam as it is traditionally understood. Henceforth, by “Islam” I mean those sets of doctrines that are expressed in the early Islamic sources mentioned earlier. Furthermore, when one is talking about what Islam teaches, one is a-fortiori talking about what Sharia teaches (since the latter is rooted in the former).

There are many doctrines and teachings in Sharia that are incompatible with the cherished values of Western egalitarian society. Constructing anything near a comprehensive list of incompatibilities would be outside the scope of this article. However, the following are some notable incompatibilities.

Read more

Time for political elites to stand up to sharia

AP Photo | Francois Mori

AP Photo | Francois Mori

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, July 15, 016:

Our political class, which includes both parties, spent an entire month debating gun control and turning a blind eye to the combatants behind those guns and how we have willfully allowed them into our country and have promoted their Muslim Brotherhood lobbyists at the highest levels of government. Last night, in Nice, France, a Tunisian-Muslim immigrant murdered 84 people in a Jihad attack that mainly involved a truck. He also reportedly got out of the car, shouted “Allah Akbar,” and began shooting into the crowd with a firearm he took from the truck, which was loaded with grenades and firearms. France has stricter gun laws than even what Democrats [publicly] want implemented in our country, yet they are suffering even more at the hands of Islamic jihad. What will it take to end the willful blindness on the part of political elites?

The willful blindness of sharia-based Islam – the glue that binds together all jihadists – is endemic of both political parties. Here is the preamble of the “counter-terrorism” legislation Republicans wanted to pass before conservatives rebelled against the effort:

The preeminent terrorist threats to the United States are radical Islamist terrorist networks such as al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and their allies and affiliate networks, as well as lone-wolf supporters and sympathizers in the United States and around the world.

 

This is beyond tone-deaf. It’s willful blindness. The Islamic State was created in 2013, long after the modern era of Islamic jihad. We are not at war with networks or tactics; there is a clash of civilization and it is rooted in Sharia-Islam and the dictates of the Hadith, as practiced by millions of Muslims and rooted in a number of nation-states from Iran to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and even the government we established in Afghanistan. It is that motivation that has inspired so many Muslims living in the West to either support jihad or, worse, actually pursue it.

Our contemporary guiding principle is to admit anyone and everyone – in large numbers over short periods of time – from cultures that clash with ours unless they have a card identifying them up front as a member of a known terror group.

Western leaders have always sought to isolate and decompartmentalize the problem. The jihadists in the Caucuses were “Chechnyians,” the savages in Israel were “Palestinians.” The West sought to legitimize and validate their grievances as rooted in geographical political disputes. In fact, they were all rooted in Jihad as dictated by the Hadith. The West blamed Israel for suffering from suicide bombings and vehicular attacks for years. Tragically, we now see that those tactics have made their way to the West – tactics employed by the same enemy with the same ideology.

This willful blindness of focusing myopically on ISIS and Al Qaeda while downright promoting the Islamic supremacist ideology behind it affects our immigration, homeland security, and national security/military policies. For if we are unwilling to acknowledge the enemy and its threatening doctrine, we will pursue dyslexic policies in those three realms.

It is this willful blindness that has led CIA Director John Brennan to conclude this week that “Saudi Arabia is among our closest counterterrorism partners.”

It is this willful blindness that has allowed our military leadership to throw our soldiers into Islamic civil wars to fight one sharia-adherent group of Muslims on behalf of other sharia-adherent Muslims, while shunning true reformist leaders in places like Egypt and Libya who would actually fight Islamic supremacism.

It is this willful blindness that has allowed Islamic supremacist groups with ties to Hamas to become the leaders of American Muslims, obtain security clearances and meet with Congress 325 times in one year.

It is this willful blindness that has allowed countries like France to bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East who subscribe to the underlying ideology shared by Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the Nice terrorist. And it is this appalling willful blindness that has caused our political leaders to learn nothing from the mistakes of Europe and instead, follow blindly in their footsteps.

What paves the road for endless numbers of Muslims in the West who make the ultimate decision to engage in violent Jihad is the climate of civilization jihad that is rooted in the mosques, schools, and political organizations, mainly run by Muslim Brotherhood groups. The notion that we would allow more individuals into our country who subscribe to this ideology is maniacal and suicidal. There are certainly no constitutional mandates on prospectively bringing in any group of immigrants, and as I explore in two chapters of Stolen Sovereignty, our Founders and early political leaders up until just two generations ago all agreed to only admit those who completely shared our political values. This was the essence of Teddy Roosevelt’s message right before he passed away:

But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . .We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

 

The guiding principle of our immigration policy was to only admit those who unquestionably adhered to our values system. Our contemporary guiding principle is to admit anyone and everyone – in large numbers over short periods of time – from cultures that clash with ours unless they have a card identifying them up front as a member of a known terror group. When our early political leaders in both parties promoted policies that weeded out those immigrants who didn’t share our values, they were dealing with Europeans from Western Civilization. They could have never imagined an ideology that is the complete antithesis of constitutional republicanism being invited in and championed by the political elites on such a large scale. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was the famed Nuremberg prosecutor, best encapsulated the incompatibility of Sharia with western civilization in a statement published in 1955:

In any broad sense, Islamic Law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge — all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire — reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law [i.e., Islamic Law, Sharia] of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western Law…Islamic law, on the contrary, finds its chief source in the will of Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It contemplates one community of the faithful, though they may be of various tribes and in widely separated locations. Religion, not nationalism or geography, is the proper cohesive force. The state itself is subordinate to the Qur’an, which leaves little room for additional legislation, none for criticism or dissent. This world is viewed as but the vestibule to another and a better one for the faithful, and the Qur’an lays down rules of behavior towards others and toward society to assure a safe transition. It is not possible to separate political or juristic theories from the teachings of the Prophet, which establish rules of conduct concerning religious, domestic, social, and political life. This results in a law of duties, rather than rights…

 

In the irony of all ironies, this very statement from Justice Jackson has been purged from our counterterrorism training for federal law enforcement, at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood’s CVE agenda.

As it states in the Bible, the truth is not in the heaven or in a far off land; it “is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it [Deuteronomy 30:14].  We don’t need to conjure up unconstitutional or novel ideas or focus on trucks, guns, and tactics in order to secure this nation. We need to simply recognize the incontrovertible truth and employ basic common sense and stop self-immolating.

cr audio

Newt livechat on Nice

Minnesota ‘sharia law’ billboard causing a stir

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran July 13, 2016:

I suppose the question it asks could easily be answered in Minnesota!

That roving gang of Somali refugee youths in an upscale suburb of Minnesota two weeks ago told a homeowner that they could kidnap and rape her because Sharia law said they could.  Why aren’t we believing the believers?

“Do you know Shariah law?” one of the older men in robes yelled at Penskey.

[…]

“We can kidnap you and rape you!” the men shouted back at her.

Here is the billboad, see the story, here at Alpha News.

minn-billboard

It is a billboard contracted through the month of July by the Center for Security Policy.

I love these alternative ways of reaching people when the national media isn’t telling the public the truth!

Heck, have you seen any of these three recent stories on the national news—Idaho rape, Somali roving gangs, and now the Massachusetts Syrian alleged perv?

By the way, some people prefer spelling ‘sharia’ with an ‘h’ at the end, I don’t know if there is a correct spelling or whether you can spell it either way and be correct.

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.