Robert Spencer Defends the West: ‘The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech’

FILE – DECEMBER 25, 2013: The Egyptian interim goverment has declared the Mohammed Morsi led ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ a terrorist organisation. The action was taken in response to the bombing of the police station in Mansoura earlier this week, which the government has stated was the responsibility of the Brotherhood, despite denials from the group itself. CAIRO, EGYPT – DECEMBER 14: Supporters of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and members of the Muslim Brotherhood chant slogans during a rally on December 14, 2012 in Cairo, Egypt. Opponents and supporters of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi staged final rallies in Cairo ahead of tomorrow’s referendum vote on the country’s draft constitution that was rushed through parliament in an overnight session on November 29. The country’s new draft constitution, passed by a constitutional assembly dominated by Islamists, will go to a referendum vote on December 15. (Photo by Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images)

PJ Media, by Andrew Bostom, July 31, 2017:

A review of The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), by Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, 2017, 274 pp.

———-

Twenty-four years ago, the late Mervyn Hiskett, renowned British scholar of the history of jihad and Islamization in sub-Saharan Africa, turned his attention to the looming impact of Islam on his own Britain and Western societies more broadly, including the United States. In his 1993 Some to Mecca Turn To Pray, he articulated presciently the Islamic conundrum now enveloping us, which requires an immediate response if we still cherish individual liberty:

 As is so often the case when considering Islam, one has to concede the power of certain of its ideas. But when it comes to having these ideas advocated within our own shores, and as alternatives to our own insti­tutions, one must then ask oneself: Which does one prefer? Western secular, pluralist institutions, imperfect as these are? Or the Islamic theo­cratic alternative?

And if one decides in favor of one’s own institutions, warts and all, one then has to ask again: How far may the advocacy of Islamic alternatives go, before this becomes downright subversive? And at that point, what should be done about it? Finally, do liberal, demo­cratic politicians have the political and moral guts to do what is needed, or will they simply give way, bit by bit and point by point, to insistent and sustained pressure from the Muslim “Parliament” and other Muslim special-interest lobbies like it?

Robert Spencer’s concise, lucid analysis, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), validates Hiskett’s gravest concerns about Islamic subversion: the relentless campaign to abrogate our most basic, unique Western liberty — free expression. With characteristic erudition, attention to detail, and wit (see text box on p. 28, “Did Any Of Them Have Eating Disorders? Those Can Make You Crazy,” from this video), Spencer chronicles how free speech in Western societies has been dangerously eroded by what Hiskett aptly termed “the Muslim ‘Parliament’ and other Muslim special interest lobbies,” in full collaboration with statist Left cultural relativists.

The grotesque harmonic convergence between mainstream, totalitarian Islam — epitomized by Sharia “blasphemy” law — and the “democratic” totalitarianism of the Left, derived from Robespierre and the Jacobins through Communist ideologues and leaders Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, is an underlying, recurrent theme of Spencer’s urgent presentation. Indeed the latter, “Dr. Crankley’s Children” (per Whittaker Chambers’ acid 1948 discussion of the Communist legacy on the 100th anniversary of the publication of Marx’s manifesto), and their “softer” statist minions of our era, bear at least as much responsibility for the erosion of Western free speech as institutional Islam and its pious Muslim votaries. Spencer elucidates how, despite superficial appearances of being oddly conjoined:

… endeavoring to weaken and destroy the freedom of speech, leftists in the United States have found ready allies in the Muslim community. Many observers have remarked that the Left and Islamic supremacists make strange bedfellows: the former advocate a moral libertinism; the latter are attempting to impose a repressive moral code. What binds these unlikely allies is a shared taste for authoritarianism. Both parties want to stifle dissent, and in doing so both find themselves fighting the same foes. Why not join forces?

All 13 of Spencer’s carefully arranged, remarkably compendious chapters have germane (even pathognomonic!) titles, including 10 epigrams:

Chapter 1, “Just Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay”

Chapter 2, “Tailored in an Appropriate Way”: Can Free Speech Really Be Restricted in the United States?

Chapter 3, “Now Obviously This is a Country That is Based on Free Speech, but…,”: The U.S. Government vs. Free Speech

Chapter 4, The “Hate Speech” Scam

Chapter 5, “Peer Pressure and Shaming” to Rein in Free Speech

Chapter 6, “Is That Being Racist?”: Americans Learn Self-Censorship

Chapter 7, “Irresponsibly Provocative”: The Erosion of Free Speech From Rushdie to Geller

Chapter 8, “Can’t We Talk about This?”: The Death of Free Speech in Europe

Chapter 9, Catholics Against Free Speech

Chapter 10, “Not Conducive to the Public Good”: Free Speech Dies in Britain and Canada

Chapter 11, The New Brownshirts

Chapter 12, “The University Prides Itself on Diversity”: Administrators vs. Free Speech Chapter 13, “Facing the New Totalitarianism”: Fighting Back for the Freedom of Speech

Spencer traces the living Islamic law imperative to brook no criticism of the Muslim faith, or its prophet founder, to both canonical traditions of Muhammad and the Koran (9:14-15) itself, which exhorts Muslims to wage jihad to punish the “offending” infidels. Muhammad in effect created his own “Dead Poets Society” comprised of victims (men and women, elderly and young) slain at his behest by his most ardent early Muslim followers, for perceived “insults” to Islam’s prophet. Citing the contemporary example of the Islamic State of Pakistan (and the plight of Pakistani Christian, Asia Bibi), Spencer asks: to assure a “future free of offense to Islam,” what exactions will “our leftist politicians, media elites, and much of the Western intelligentsia” be willing to impose upon their own citizens?

For saying, “I believe in Jesus Christ who died on the cross for the sins of mankind. What did your prophet Muhammad ever do to save mankind?”, a Christian woman named Asia Bibi is on death row in Pakistan, where “wounding [Muslims’] religious feelings” is a crime and blaspheming Muhammad is punishable by death. Pakistan doesn’t have the First Amendment. Americans in the United States are in no danger of execution for testifying to their religious beliefs. But the Asia Bibi case illustrates the utter futility of attempting to keep Muslims from ever being offended — unless we are willing to give up our right to freedom of speech entirely.

Americans should not be complacent about First Amendment protections. Reminding readers that the divide separating “treasonous and seditious speech and speech that is simply unwelcome to the government” has proven controversial throughout U.S. history, Spencer avers:

The Sedition Act [of 1791] and the Espionage Act [of 1917] demonstrate the U.S. government has placed severe restrictions on the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech in the past, and indicate that it could do so again in the future. This history also shows that the First Amendment protections of free speech are most likely to be curtailed in a time of serious and imminent threats to the nation. That time may be upon us now.

Spencer emphasizes one particularly alarming Obama administration reaction to the 9/11/2012 jihad massacre at Benghazi — “scapegoating a video [and subsequently the videographer] criticizing Muhammad” — which illustrates such curtailment, “placing the onus on freedom of speech.” He adds: “The unmistakable implication was that if only Americans would not criticize Muhammad, attacks of this kind wouldn’t happen.” Worse still, two days following Barack Obama’s surreal Islamic blasphemy law-compliant pronouncement to the United Nations General Assembly on September 25, 2012, that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” America’s first Sharia blasphemy law victim, Egyptian Coptic Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the Innocence of Muslimsvideo, was arrested, declared a “danger to the community,” and imprisoned without bail. He was incarcerated for 12 months.

Devoid of First Amendment equivalent laws, governed by Left statists marinated for decades in cultural relativist claptrap ideology, and subject to the same forces of Islamization by Muslim immigrant populations, Western Europe, as Spencer demonstrates, including Britain as well as Canada, is even further along the trajectory towards self-inflicted full compliance with Sharia blasphemy law.

Perhaps the most illuminating and disheartening chapter of The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies) chronicles progressive Western supplication to Islam since Ayatollah Khomeini’s February 14, 1989 fatwa condemning novelist Salman Rushdie to death for his The Satanic Verses, and its perceived insults to the Muslim creed and Islam’s prophet. Spencer provides an especially astute observation regarding a follow-up Khomeini fatwa denying Rushdie any leniency for repenting, and offering a reward for any non-Muslim willing to execute the beleaguered author:

The invitation to non-Muslims to murder Rushdie was significant: Khomeini was inviting non-Muslims to share Muslim sensibilities regarding Rushdie’s alleged offense, and trying to induce them to do so by the prospect of financial reward. It would take years for this invitation and foreigners and non-Muslims to kill Rushdie to evolve into the “shaming,” as Hillary Clinton would put it, of those who dared to decline to participate in the de facto implementation of Islamic blasphemy laws. Clinton’s “peer pressure an shaming” imperative demonstrated that, in the two decades between the Rushdie fatwa and her endorsement of UNHRC 16/18 [i.e., the United Nations Human Rights Commission’s “defamation of religion” resolution which riveted upon Islam and was aggressively lobbied for by the UN’s Muslims nation members], non-Muslims had become the principal enforcers of Sharia blasphemy law in the West.

Drawing upon his shared experience with journalist and activist Pamela Geller in the wake of the May 3, 2015 Garland, Texas, jihadist attack on a staid exhibit of historical and contemporary depictions of Muhammad, Spencer concludes:

It is not an offensive act, but ultimately an act in defense of Western civilization to show Islamic jihadists that their violent threats will not cow me and that I will not allow violent intimidation to rule the day, and that I will not offend them in any larger sense by treating them as if they were demented children who cannot control their actions and must necessarily kill in the face of being offended. It was the murderous jihadis who made drawing Muhammad the flash point of the defense of free speech, not Pamela Geller, and I.

It is they who, by their determination to murder non-Muslims who violate their religious law on this point, have made it imperative that free people signal that they will not submit to them. If we give in to that demand that we conform to this Sharia principle, there will be further demands that we adhere to additional Sharia principles. It is ultimately a question of whether we will submit to Sharia or stand up for freedom. At Garland we were standing. In the aftermath, it is clear a huge segment of the Western political and media elites are ready, if not eager to kneel, daring not to “provoked” their new masters.

A quarter century after Hiskett’s Cassandra-like warning about the liberty-crushing peril of acquiescing to Islam within Western societies, Robert Spencer has meticulously documented its most dire consequences: de facto elimination of free speech criticism of the Muslim creed — and, ultimately, free expression, overall. Spencer’s courageous and irrefragable analysis is simultaneously a tocsin of imminent calamity, and a clarion call to action in defense of free speech, our most fundamental, keystone liberty. Western freedom-loving citizens must help bring his message to American political and religious leaders before our liberties are transmogrified by the global Muslim “umma,” seeking unabashedly (since 1981) to impose “The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights,” i.e., Sharia totalitarianism.

Germany: Chechen Sharia Police Terrorize Berlin

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, July 8, 2017:

  • Threats of violence against “errant” women are viewed as “acts of patriotism.”
  • “They have come to Germany because they wanted to live in Germany, but they keep trying to turn it into Chechnya with its medieval ways.” — Social worker interviewed by Meduza.
  • “Everyone’s attention is fixed on the Syrians, but the Chechens are the most dangerous group. We are not paying sufficient attention to this.” — Police in Frankfurt (Oder).

A hundred Islamists are now openly enforcing Sharia law on the streets of Berlin, according to local police who are investigating a recent string of violent assaults in the German capital.

The self-appointed morality police involve Salafists from Chechnya, a predominantly Sunni Muslim region in Russia. The vigilantes are using threats of violence to discourage Chechen migrants from integrating into German society; they are also promoting the establishment of a parallel Islamic legal system in Germany. German authorities appear unable to stop them.

The Sharia patrol came to public light in May 2017, when Chechen Salafists released a video warning other Chechens in Germany that those who fail to comply with Islamic law and adat, a traditional Chechen code of behavior, will be killed. The video’s existence was reported by Meduza, a Russian-language independent media organization based in Latvia. The video, which circulated through WhatsApp, an online messaging service, showed a hooded man aiming a pistol at the camera. Speaking in Chechen, he declared:

“Muslim brothers and sisters. Here, in Europe, certain Chechen women and men who look like women do unspeakable things. You know it; I know it; everybody knows it. This is why we hereby declare: For now, there are about 80 of us. More people are willing to join. Those who have lost their national identity, who flirt with men of other ethnic groups and marry them, Chechen women who have chosen the wrong path and those creatures who call themselves Chechen men — given half a chance, we will set all of them straight. Having sworn on the Koran, we go out onto the streets. This is our declaration of intent; do not say that you were not warned; do not say that you did not know. May Allah grant us peace and set our feet on the path towards justice.”

According to Meduza, the declaration was read by a representative of a Berlin-based gang of about one hundred members, headed by former henchmen of Dzhokhar Dudayev, the late Chechen separatist leader. All Berliners of Chechen origin who were interviewed by Meduza said they were aware of the gang’s existence.

The video surfaced after nude images of a 20-year-old Chechen woman who lives in Berlin were sent en masse from her stolen cellphone to every person on her contact list. Within an hour, the woman’s uncle demanded to speak with her parents. According to Meduza, they agreed to “resolve the issue” within the family by sending the woman back to Chechnya, where she would be killed to restore the family’s honor. German police intervened just hours before the woman was to board a plane bound for Russia.

After the woman was placed in protective police custody, her circumstance went from being a family issue to a communal one. According to Meduza, it is now the duty of any Chechen man, regardless of his ties to her or her family, to find and punish her. “It is none of their business, but it is an unwritten code of conduct,” said the woman, who has since cut her hair and now wears colored contact lenses in an effort to hide her identity. She said that she intends to change her name and undergo plastic surgery. “If you don’t change your name and your face, they will hunt you down and kill you,” she said. Although the woman graduated from a German high school, she hardly ever leaves her apartment because it is too dangerous. “I don’t want to be Chechen anymore,” she said.

According to Meduza, at least half of the population of single Chechen girls in Germany have enough compromising information on their cellphones to be considered guilty of violating adat:

“Associating with men of other nationalities, smoking, drinking alcohol, visiting hookah lounges, discotheques or even public swimming pools can cause communal wrath. A single photograph in a public WhatsApp chat can outcast an entire family and the rest of the community would be obliged to cease all communication with them. With everyone under suspicion and everyone responsible for one another, Chechen girls say they are sometimes approached by strangers in the street who chastise them for their appearance, including for wearing bright lipstick. The theft of a cellphone and the subsequent posting of compromising material is a hard blow; the dishonored person has no one to turn to and the one who posted the victim’s photos does not risk anything.”

Chechens interviewed by Meduza said that expectations for behavior are more rigid and strict in among Chechen emigrants in Germany than in Chechnya itself. This situation has been described as “a competition in righteousness” between Chechens living abroad and those in Chechnya who are loyal to Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov: each party is seeking to prove that they are the better Chechens, and threats of violence against “errant” women are viewed as “acts of patriotism.”

Chechens have said in interviews that expectations for behavior are more rigid and strict in among Chechen emigrants in Germany than in Chechnya itself — “a competition in righteousness.” Threats of violence against “errant” women are viewed as “acts of patriotism.” Pictured above: A volunteer tutor (left) instructs an asylum-applicant from Chechnya in a German-language class, on November 10, 2015, in Berlin, Germany. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

In one instance, a young Chechen woman was recorded on video while walking down a street in Berlin and conversing with a non-Chechen man. That same evening, a few dozen unknown Chechen men drove to her house in northern Berlin. The man she had been seen with was brutally beaten; almost all of his teeth were knocked out. The young woman managed to hide.

On July 4, the Berlin newspaper Tagesspiegel reported that several other women and men have been assaulted by the Sharia gang in recent weeks, and that the Berlin Criminal Police Office has now launched an investigation. A police spokesperson said that the investigation is being hampered by the fact that so far no victim has publicly dared to bring formal accusations against the gang. The victims are all, apparently, afraid of retribution.

According to Tagesspiegel, some members of the gang, which has grown to around a hundred members, are armed and many have combat experience from the Chechen wars with Russia. The gang members, who also come from Dagestan and Ingushetia, have attacked Muslims as well as non-Muslims, including Christian asylum seekers at migrant shelters in Berlin.

The gang is linked to several Salafist mosques in the German capital, including Fussilet 33, which once served as the headquarters of the so-called Berlin Caliphate. The mosque was shuttered by German authorities in February 2017, after they learned that Anis Amri, the Tunisian jihadist who carried out the suicide attack on a Berlin Christmas market, had sheltered there.

Around 60,000 Chechens live in Germany, according to official statistics, although the actual number is believed to be much higher. Nearly 40,000 Chechens have applied for asylum in Germany during just the past five years; many have crossed the border illegally from Poland.

An internal paper produced by the Federal Audit Office (Bundesrechnungshofesrevealed that “the majority of the unauthorized persons in Germany are Russian citizens of Chechen ethnicity, some of whom have been linked to the Islamic terrorist environment.”

The Chechen community in Germany is primarily based in Brandenburg and Berlin, where they are firmly entrenched in a parallel society. A social worker interviewed by Meduza said that the main obstacle to Chechen integration is their ultra-conservative moral code, the adat:

“They have come to Germany because they wanted to live in Germany, but they keep trying to turn it into Chechnya with its medieval ways. This inability and reluctance to integrate is extremely frustrating and typical of all migrants, not just Chechens. The only difference is that most other migrants come from the 20th century, not the times of feudalism.”

In an interview with Radio Berlin-Brandenburg, Maciej Falkowski, a Polish political scientist specializing in the Caucuses, said that many younger members of the Chechen diaspora are embracing radical Islam:

“The Chechen people are a very self-contained, homogenous nation. They resolve all problems among themselves. You will hardly find a Chechen, for example, who will seek remedy from a German court. Religion, of course, also plays an important role in the younger generation. Moreover, the Chechens have not had their own country for hundreds of years and therefore are not acquainted with the legal state (Rechtsstaat) in our sense of the concept.

“We are increasingly seeing a generational conflict among the Chechens. The elderly are rather skeptical of Salafism and radical Islam, while the younger ones are embracing it. They believe Salafism offers answers with regard to their identity. Here they find community and charismatic leaders. Salafism is now their dominant current.”

Heiko Homburg, an official at Ministry of the Interior of Brandenburg, the German federal state that encircles Berlin, said that most of the known Islamic extremists there are from Chechnya:

“Our problem in Brandenburg is that the Caucasian Emirate [a militant jihadist organization active in southwestern Russia], to which many Chechens feel committed, has submitted to the Islamic State. So, whether we want it or not, we have de facto Islamic State structures here in Brandenburg.”

German security officials estimate that 1,500 to 2,000 Chechens are currently fighting in Iraq and Syria. As the Islamic State nears its end, it is feared that many of those fighters will travel to Europe, through Ukraine and Poland with the help of pan-European, Chechen clan relations.

In Frankfurt (Oder), a German city on the border with Poland, police are warning that Chechen migration is a ticking time bomb:

“We have a serious and ever-growing problem with radical Chechens who are constantly traveling back and forth across the German-Polish border. Their families are building Europe-wide structures which they are using to finance the Islamic State with the proceeds of organized crime. Everyone’s attention is fixed on the Syrians, but the Chechens are the most dangerous group. We are not paying sufficient attention to this.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

Also see:

Why Did the US Senate Ignore Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani?

Asra Nomani (L) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali testimy before the Senate. (Photo: Twitter)

Clarion Project, by Elliot Friedman, June 19, 2017:

Islamist ideology was discussed as a root cause driving extremist terrorism in a Senate hearing on Wednesday, but you wouldn’t know it from the questions asked by the committee.

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a hearing to discuss “Ideology and Terror: Understanding the Tools, Tactics, and Techniques of Violent Extremism.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani, two brave female activists who have been at the forefront of the struggle against the dangerous ideology of Islamism, were invited to speak. Both women are from Muslim backgrounds and have extensive personal and academic experience with the intricacies of Islamism.

They told Congress that unless the political ideology of Islamism is called out, targeted and eliminated, terrorism will continue both in general and, more specifically, as a national security threat to the United States of America.

“We face an ideology of extremism from within the House of Islam,” Nomani stated. “Why, 15 years after the 9/11 attack, haven’t we found victory against terrorism? Why, after the killing of Osama bin Laden, haven’t we declared Islamic terror dead? It is because terrorism is fueled by Islamism, an ideology of political Islam, and we have wasted millions of dollars to design counter narratives without dealing with a very simple and fundamental truth. We must destroy and eliminate the narrative of Islamism.”

Hirsi Ali was just as blunt. “Political Islam is not just a religion as most Western citizens recognize the term ‘religion,’ a faith; it is also a political ideology, a legal order and, in many ways, also a military doctrine associated with the campaigns of the Prophet Mohammed,” she said.

Political Islam rejects any kind of distinction between religion and politics, mosque and state. Political Islam even rejects the modern state in favor of a caliphate. My central argument is that political Islamimplies a constitutional order fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. constitution and with the ‘constitution of liberty’ that is the foundation of the American way of life.”

She went on to make it even clearer, adding, “There is no point in denying that political Islam as an ideology has its foundation in Islamic doctrine.”

But Democratic senators on the committee didn’t want to hear it.

“Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule,” simpered Senator Claire McCaskill. “We should not focus on religion.”

Yet neither Nomani nor Asra made their testimony about religion. Both made it abundantly clear they were talking about the political ideology of theocracy, something that is by no means unique to Islam, although it is of course a particular problem “within the House of Islam” (as Nomani put it) at the moment.

Theocracy, self-evidently, has something to do with religion, since it seeks to impose religion as a system of government. But it is still a political ideology, the existence of which does not tar the non-theocratic members of the same faith (in this case Islam) with the same brush of involvement.

None of these plainly obvious facts impacted the hysteria which greeted the testimony.

Rather than ask Hirsi Ali and Nomani any questions, Democrats on the committee preferred to focus their discussion on questioning the former director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, who, coincidentally, had been invited by Democrats on the committee.

“Muslims honoring of sharia is not inherently in tangent with living in constitutional democracies anymore than it would be for Christians or Jews who also seek to honor their religious traditions while still complying with civil authority,” he said.

Clearly it isn’t. But it certainly is unconstitutional to seek to impose sharia as a system of government, which is what Islamists want.

In general, the continual denial of the existence of Islamist political ideology, which has something (but not everything) to do with religion is utterly baffling. If it were some harmless issue, like an obscure rule in golf which had incorrectly fallen into abeyance, or steadfastly insisting that “irregardless” is a word, then we could all laugh and then forget about the folly.

But this isn’t a harmless misunderstanding. It’s a very serious category error which misdiagnoses a huge and global problem. We saw the chilling effects yesterday in London. A man screaming, “I want to kill all the Muslims” rammed his van into a crowd outside a mosque, killing two.

Clearly people aren’t going to wait for the outcome of lengthy committee hearings to make a decision about what is responsible. If politicians can’t clearly delineate exactly what the ideology driving global terrorism is and explain how it is related to but distinct from Islam, fools and fanatics will assume it’s Islam in general and take the law into their own hands.

If you’re really interested in preventing that, then we have to be honest about the situation and start working to diffuse it, instead of trying to protect Islam’s reputation.

Ex-Muslim activist Yasmine Muhammed said it best on Twitter. Addressing Michael Leiter she said, “No disrespect, but you’ve been at the job a long time, and things are only worse. Maybe listen to @AsraNomani and@Ayaan.”

Indeed. As the poet and songwriter Bob Dylan said, “Your old road is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand, for the times they are a-changin’.”

***

Asra Nomani talks with Tucker Carlson who was moved by the NYT article she wrote with Ayaan Hirsi Ali: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/opinion/kamala-harris-islamism-senate-hearing.html

Also see:

Texas Enacts ‘Anti-Sharia’ Law

Photo: Breitbart Texas/Lana Shadwick

Breitbart, by Merrill Hope, June 16, 2017:

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law House Bill 45, more commonly known as “American Laws for American Courts,” or ALAC. It prohibits the use of any foreign law in the state’s courts, specifically in family cases that involve marriage or parent-child relationship matters.

One of the bill’s co-authors Representative Jeff Leach (R-Plano) thanked the governor, who signed HB 45 on Wednesday. Leach called the law “vitally important bill to further safeguard and protect our Constitutional rights!” In the last legislative session, Leach authored the comparable yet unsuccessful ALAC measure, House Bill 562.

HB 45 lead author Representative Dan Flynn (R-Canton) also introduced similar past legislation that failed. In a recent press release, Flynn noted foreign law is often applied in Texas cases concerning divorce orders, child support, property settlements and sometime even, spouses enter into agreements to have foreign law applied to their disputes.

“My colleagues and I here at the Texas Legislature want to make sure Texas judges never apply foreign law in Texas courts in violation of constitutional rights and the public policy of our state,” said Flynn.

Under HB 45, Texas and U.S. law supersede all other laws. It prevents state judges from applying any foreign law because, in doing so, it infringes upon U.S. and Texas constitutional rights. The bill shields litigants in family law cases “against violations of constitutional rights and public policy in the application of foreign law” under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, federal and judicial precedent, the Texas Family Code, and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, among other protections.

HB 45 makes no mention of any particular foreign nation, religion, or cultural practice but clarifies that “foreign law” means a rule, law, or code from a jurisdiction outside of the United States and it shall not override U.S and Texas law or their respective constitutions. It specifies that a “foreign judgment” means a ruling from a court, tribunal, or administrative adjudicator outside U.S. states and territories. The bill underscores that, in the event of any legal conflicts, “federal or state law prevails.”

In January 2015, Breitbart Texas confirmed in a report that an Islamic tribunal using Sharia law operated in Dallas. Dr. Taher El-badawi, one of four attorneys who called themselves “judges” and not arbitrators, claimed the tribunal and its decisions were “voluntary.” El-badawi said the tribunal operated under Sharia as a form of “non-binding dispute resolution” in civil disputes in family and business cases but also admitted that when in conflict between Sharia and Texas law, “we follow Sharia law.”

In December 2015, Flynn asked Attorney General Ken Paxton “the extent to which current law authorizes or requires a judge of a state court to apply foreign law in certain family law disputes.” Last year, Paxton ruled in a seven-page nonbinding legal opinion: “Under Texas law, a court is not required in family law disputes to enforce a foreign law if enforcement would be contrary to Texas public policy or if it would violate a party’s basic right to due process.” However, according to the Attorney General’s office, Paxton’s opinion only constituted a written interpretation of existing law and did not decide any law.

The Texas chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called HB 45 anti-Sharia law and lobbied for the state’s Muslim community to oppose the bill. “We believe it prevents Muslims from practicing their faith in areas such as Islamic marriage, divorce, funeral procedures, and civil agreements, they said in a press release.

HB 45 requires the Texas Supreme Court adopt its rules by January 1, 2018. The law goes into effect on September 1, making Texas the 12th state to enact ALAC. The other states are Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington, according to ACT for America.

Follow Merrill Hope, a member of the original Breitbart Texas team, on Twitter.

Also see:

What Are Muslims Taught About Non-Muslims?

“(Unbelievers/Non-Muslims) are the worst of all creatures.”  Koran 98:6

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 18, 2017:

Why is it obligatory for muslims to lie to non-muslims?  Why is it obligatory for muslims to kill non-muslims who do not convert to Islam or submit to sharia in an Islamic State?

The reason is simple.  Allah commanded his law (sharia) to be the law of the entire earth.  All people must convert to Islam or submit to Allah’s law (sharia).  Islam’s prophet Mohammad said he was commanded by Allah to fight the non-muslims until they testify there is no god but Allah and then Mohammad went out and waged war on non-muslims.

Therefore, muslims can do whatever needs to be done to advance Islam, including lying, terrorizing, and killing.

In the most authoritative reports about what Islam’ prophet Mohammad said, we get:  “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya.’” [Bukhari 2222: Book 34, Hadith 169]  Islam teaches the Islamic prophet Jesus will return and cast all Christians into hell for not converting to Islam, and he will kill all the Jews so muslims can enter paradise.

How do we do “interfaith outreach” from a place of “mutual respect” when we actually understand these things?

The Tafsir legally defines every verse in the Koran.  Koran 9:29 states:  “Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor the last day…even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”

The Islamic legal definition of “with willing submission” is “in defeat and subservience” and “feel themselves subdued” legally means “disgraced, humiliated, and belittled.  Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.”

This is how Islam views the non-Islamic world.

Please help your pastors, local elected officials, and others – who still have some semblance of common sense – become aware of this information so they can stop falling over themselves to appease the “religion of peace.”

Islam enslaves its adherents to a system which obliges them to view everyone outside of Islam as people to be killed or conquered.  There is very little “common ground.”

***

UNDERSTANDING THE THREAT RADIO: JUNE 19, 2017

This week’s UTT radio show comes to you from South Dakota where the UTT team spoke with nearly 600 citizens in Rapid City and Aberdeen.  Citizens were given evidence Hamas doing business as CAIR has a presence in South Dakota, the Islamic Society of Sioux Falls is a jihadi organization, and much more.  Get perspectives from UTT’s radio broadcast you cannot get anywhere else.  UTT is putting freedom back on the offensive where it belongs!

Download File Here

Brigitte Gabriel: FGM and Honor Killings Downplayed Because ‘Islamists Have Perfected the Public Relations War’

AFP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, June 7, 2017:

Brigitte Gabriel, president ofACT for America and author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, was a guest on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam.

Kassam asked Gabriel to expand on the article she wrote for Breitbart News on Monday, “The War on Girls.” The piece includes the harrowing account of a 16-year-old girl stabbed to death by her Palestinian father in a 1989 honor killing. A recording made of the incident captures the girl screaming and begging for her life while both father and mother order her to die quickly and quietly. The murder occurred not in the Middle East, but in Missouri; the girl was killed because her father thought she had become too “Americanized.”

“This is ‘honorable’ in Islamic societies, unfortunately, in many places around the world,” Gabriel said. “It is so sad that we in the West are starting to see such a rise in honor killings due to the rise of Islamic immigration into our countries.”

“I believe it is our duty to stand up for girls who are born in America, or England, or anywhere else in the world because they are Western girls,” she urged. “They want to adopt Western lives. They want to wear makeup. They want to get a job. They want to be able to drive a car and get out of the house with their friends to a coffee shop. But these are the sins that in some cases parents are killing their daughters for. That’s why this killed Tina, his daughter, because she got a job, she wanted to wear makeup, and he thought she was becoming too Westernized.”

Gabriel noted that in Europe, in 2004, “all European police associations held a meeting at the Hague to discuss the rise of honor killing in Europe.”

“The situation has gotten worse,” she said. “I know that in 2005, in London, in England, the British police reopened 1500 cases where originally they had thought it was just killing, just murder. 1500 cases were all reopened because they believed they were all honor killings, and the situation has just gotten worse.”

Kassam asked why the political Left seems to believe the defense of Islam takes priority over “the rights, and freedoms, and liberties, and lives of young women.”

“This is the perplexing question that we all are asking, and trying to figure out,” Gabriel replied. “I can understand why they’re not going to line up and say, ‘Oh my gosh, I don’t think we need to stop immigration, or we should be able to welcome refugees,’ et cetera. That’s fine. But when it comes to women’s rights, when it comes to genitally mutilating young girls – as young as six or seven years old – when it comes to killing women in the name of honor, you would think that the women’s movement at least would stand with us shoulder-to-shoulder to say this is not acceptable.”

“These are young girls – in the case of female genital mutilation, you are literally damaging the girl’s life for the rest of her life until the day she dies. The psychological effects, the medical effects, for years and years of misery to come. But they are not doing it,” she observed.

Gabriel suggested this was because “in order for them to admit that we’ve got to stand up for this, they’re going to have to shine the light or put the cause of this under the microscope.”

“People say well, it’s cultural. I say to them, if it is cultural – honor killing or female genital mutilation – how come we do not see Jews from North Africa or the Middle East genitally mutilating their daughters, or killing their daughter in the name of honor? How come we don’t see Christians from North Africa and the Middle East genitally mutilating their daughters or killing their daughters?” she said.

“The statistics speak for themselves. This is done almost 99 percent on Muslims by Muslims. It’s an Islamic practice, sanctioned in the Islamic code, for an Islamic religion,” she declared.

“For the lefties to basically say, ‘We need to stop this, what is causing this?’ to march against it will be literally standing up against and having to shine a light on the cause du jour for them, which is the Islamic cause, because they feel that Muslims are the underdog, and the oppressed, and we need to stand for them,” said Gabriel.

“What they call the right wing, or what they call wealthy business owners, they’re not poor. In the minds of the Left, you’ve got to be poor and downtrodden in order for you to be worthy of standing up for. This is why they are siding with the Islamic side instead of us,” she said.

Kassam suggested the Left pay attention to “the hard data that there is one case of female genital mutilation reported every hour in the United Kingdom,” and between 12 and 15 honor killings in the U.K. just last year. He said they should also be disturbed by the difficulty of obtaining solid numbers about such incidents in the United States.

Gabriel said the Left refuses to understand the problem, in part because “the Islamists in our countries, whether in Europe or whether in the United States, have perfected the public relations war.”

“They have perfected manipulating the media, which was already halfway there because, because as you know the Saudis and all the other money flowing from the Middle East into our universities has done an incredible job in brainwashing students in our political science departments and Middle East studies departments. By the time they graduate, they’re completely lock, stock, and barrel bought into the Islamic propaganda machine and ideas. They are today the news anchors, the news writers, the newsmakers, the policy shapers, the foreign policy makers. That’s why we’re seeing the attitudes and the resistance we’re seeing right now to our messages,” she said.

“However, we don’t have to stand back and wonder and watch them demonstrate, with us sitting on the sidelines talking about it and wondering why they’re doing this. We are organizing on our own. I can tell you that we in America, my organization ActForAmerica.org, this Saturday in just three days we are having rallies nationwide in the United States, in 29 major cities across the country, in 21 states,” Gabriel announced.

She said participants would “march against sharia, march for human rights, march for national security.”

“People can go to our website, ActForAmerica.org, click on ‘March Against Sharia,’ and find a rally near you,” she said. “We are the resistance movement that Europe did not have. America is not going to roll over and let the Islamists walk all over us, like what they have done in Europe. Here we are very organized, we are very passionate. We stand strongly behind our Second Amendment right, and we will defend ourselves.”

“We are applying pressure on our elected officials to do the right thing,” she added. “We have passed laws stopping sharia law from being instituted in many states in America. We have a bill called ALAC, American Love for American Courts, which has now passed in 12 states and is now introduced in another 10.”

***

On Saturday, June 10, 2017, ACT for America is having March Against Sharia events in cities across the nation.

Also see:

No, the Problem in London Is Not ‘Islamist Extremism’

Prime Minister Theresa May speaks outside 10 Downing Street, June 4, 2017. (Reuters photo: Kevin Coombs)

Islamists want to impose sharia law on the West — which means all Islamists are ‘extremists.’

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, June 5, 2017:

The Western schizophrenia about radical Islam is on full display in Britain, in the aftermath of the latest jihadist atrocity, the third in just the past three months.

Three terrorists rammed a van into a crowd on London Bridge and then went on a stabbing rampage, brutally assaulting pedestrians while braying that each blow was struck “for Allah.” A duly outraged Theresa May donned her prime-minister hat to announce that her government is “leading international efforts to take on and defeat the ideology of Islamist extremism around the world.” She also slipped on her amateur-imam cap, adjusted her rose-tinted glasses, and proclaimed that “Islamist extremism” is an ideology

that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy, and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam.

And what right-thinking Western politico’s post-mass-murder speech would be complete without May’s insistence that this ideology is — all together now! — “a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.”

Sigh.

What does Theresa May know about Islam such that she can decide what is a perversion of it? Precious little, I’d wager. Otherwise, she’d not babble on about “Islamist extremism,” a term right out of the Department of Redundancy Department.

If you are an Islamist in the West, you are, by definition, an extremist. An Islamist is a Muslim who believes Islam requires the imposition of sharia, Islam’s ancient, totalitarian societal system and legal code.

“Islamist” is a term we in the West use in the hope that, because there are Muslims who are tolerant, pro-Western people, it must not be inevitable that Islam itself — or at least some interpretations of Islam — will breed the fundamentalist, literalist, supremacist construction of Islam.

It may be a grave error to adopt this hope, especially since it has been elevated into seemingly incorrigible policy. Does the incontestable existence of moderate Muslim individuals necessarily translate into a coherent, viable doctrine of moderate Islam? Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to take just one very influential Muslim leader, says no: The West’s invocation of “moderate Islam” is “ugly,” he counters, because “Islam is Islam, and that’s it.” Erdogan is a close ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamist organization. If he’s right that there’s just one true Islam, rest assured that it’s not friendly to the West. Erdogan describes the Western call for Muslim migrants to assimilate in their new European societies as “a crime against humanity.”

Meanwhile, many students of Islam observe that its aggressiveness, intolerance of non-Muslims, and subjugation of women are indisputably rooted in Islamic scripture. Wherever there is Islam, they maintain, there will inevitably be Islamists; and when those Islamists reach a critical mass of population (which can be considerably less than 50 percent), there will inevitably be sharia activism.

They may be right. I don’t want them to be . . . but hope is not a national-security strategy — even if it has been the West’s national-security strategy for a quarter-century.

Obviously, there are gradations of extremism. Some Islamists are violent jihadists. Some support violent jihadists but eschew violence themselves. Some may reject violence (or at least say they do) and claim to seek sharia imposition only by peaceful persuasion. Some may lie about their intentions, pretending to oppose both violence and the imposition of sharia, or pretending that sharia is really moderate, peaceful, and perfectly compatible with Western notions of freedom, democracy, and human rights. But they all want sharia. If you are a Muslim who wants British law supplanted by Islamic law, that is not a moderate position, even if you’re not prepared to drive a van into a crowd of infidels over it. If that’s where you’re coming from, you are a Muslim extremist — an Islamist.

To speak of “Islamist extremists” is either gibberish or a form of political correctness designed to conceal a position one knows makes no sense but feels compelled to take anyway. Since I believe Prime Minister May is no dolt, I am betting on the latter: She is using “Islamist extremist” as code for “terrorist,” even though she knows, deep down, that this makes no sense — i.e., it is inconsistent with her correct insistence that the violence that aggrieves Britain is ideologically motivated.

Jihadist terrorists do not kill wantonly. They kill for a purpose: namely, to impose sharia. The ideology that motivates them does not endorse violence for its own sake. It reflects what Islam takes as the divine imperative that life be lived under the strictures of sharia. That is the ideology.

The problem that Mrs. May has is that it is an ideology shared by many Muslims who are not terrorists. Britain, like many in America, wants to embrace these Muslims as “moderates,” notwithstanding their hostility to Western society and law. May would prefer not to connect the dots that tell us these Muslims, even if not jihadists themselves, are pillars of the ideological support system in which jihadism thrives — they are, as some have aptly put it, the sea in which the jihadist sharks swim, and without which the sharks could not survive.

It is not merely al-Qaeda or the Islamic State that says Islam is incompatible with the Western understanding of human rights. In 1990, the 57 member-governments of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) issued the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. These representatives of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims took this action precisely because Islam could not be content with the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgated in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. The latter is incompatible with the two key provisions of the Cairo Declaration: Articles 24, which states: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah”; and Article 25, which adds: “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

The Western understanding of freedom and democracy holds that people have a right to govern themselves. We draw a line between the secular and the sacred, rejecting the establishment of a state religion. To the contrary, as explained by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, perhaps the world’s most influential Sunni sharia scholar, “secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society,” because “the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions.” Qaradawi elaborated (in his book, How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah), “Islam is a comprehensive system of workship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah).” Thus: “The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy.”

Lest we forget, apostasy from Islam is a capital offense in Islamic law. It is punished as such not just by terrorist organizations but by governments in Muslim-majority countries. In the Middle East, at least, sharia is not extremist Islam. It is Islam.

Pace Prime Minister May, it is not “Islamist extremism” that “claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam.” This is a conceit of leading Islamic scholars and governments. One need not agree with them or concede that theirs is the only interpretation of Islam. But one should grant that their interpretation is no perversion — and that they just might know a lot more about the subject than non-Muslim politicians in the West.

Mrs. May is half right. We are confronted by an ideology. But it is sharia supremacism, the belief that Islamic law must be imposed on society. To limit our attention to violent jihadists is to remain willfully blind to what inspires the jihadists. That is what has to be confronted, if we have the stomach for it.