VIDEO of Bostom’s AFA Speech, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’”

black-sword-.sized-770x415xtBy Dr. Andrew Bostom, Aug. 28, 2016:

Many thanks to Scott Jacobs for uploading the video of my speech last Sunday 8/21/16 at the American Freedom Alliance conference in Los Angeles entitled,Islam and Western Civilization: Can They Co-Exist?”

The text in its entirety was posted at PJ Media last Monday 8/22/16, with the title, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’.” I was able to present about ~70% of the full text provided below the embedded video.

2000 ‘ticking time bombs’ in US – and counting

New American mosque opens every week and many preach jihad.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, April 3, 2016:

  • In Germany, following a wave of Islamic immigration, one political party is considering a call for shutting down all of the country’s mosques in a desperate bid to prevent terrorist attacks, rape sprees and other acts of violence and Muslim domination.
  • In the U.S., President Obama marked the new year by visiting a mosque and has invested a great deal of effort to downplay the connection between Islam and terrorism, while leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed temporarily halting all Muslim immigration.
  • A growing chorus of U.S. politicians, pundits and scholars are calling for closer monitoring of U.S. mosques, the number of which has grown exponentially since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on U.S. soil.

Experts on Islamic terrorism are calling the estimated 2,500 to 3,100 mosques in America “ticking time bombs.”

Every state now has at least one. California and New York lead the way, each with more than 500 mosques, followed by Texas with just over 300.

As the number of mosques increase, so do acts of Islamic terror in the U.S.

FBI Director James Comey told Congress recently that his agency is stretched to the limit trying to keep up with nearly 1,000 active ISIS investigations in all 50 states, and that does not include probes tied to al-Qaida, al-Shabab or other Islamic groups.

While the FBI is able to foil the vast majority of Islamic terror plots, last year was particularly bloody with jihadist shootings in Chattanooga that killed five U.S. servicemen and another attack that took 14 lives at a Christmas party in San Bernardino.

Jihadist knife attacks at a restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, and on the campus of University of California at Merced have recently injured at least a dozen others, some critically.

And everyone is jittery after what happened in Brussels, Belgium, last month.

Of the thousands of mosques in America, nearly 80 percent of them have been opened since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

There are now as many as 3,000 mosques in America and nearly 80 percent of them have been opened since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

There are now as many as 3,000 mosques in America and nearly 80 percent of them
have been opened since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Listening to politicians in Congress and on presidential stump speeches, Americans might get the idea that ISIS is to blame for all of this violence. It uses the Internet to “poison the minds” of young Muslims, they say. But seven Islam experts and former Muslims contacted by WND say it’s not that simple and the problem goes beyond ISIS.

The root of the problem, they all agree, lies in the mosque.

Dr. Mark Christian, president and founder of the Global Faith Institute, which seeks to educate Americans about the true nature of mainstream Islam, says about 80 percent of the roughly 2,800 U.S. mosques are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose stated goal is to bring the nations into compliance with Shariah law.

“You have a new mosque opening every week in America,” says Christian, a former child imam who grew up in Egypt the son of a Muslim Brotherhood operative before fleeing his homeland and converting to Christianity as a young adult.

Christian, now 44 and living in Nebraska under the threat of a fatwa, said the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies don’t understand the source of Islamic violence. They have focused for years on learning about the ties of individual Muslims to groups like al-Qaida or ISIS when in fact they should be going to mosques and learning about the Quran and hadiths. All the answers are there, in the texts and in the mainstream Islamic interpretations of the texts, if they would only look.

So what are people being taught in the overwhelming majority of mosques?

Read more with quotes from Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom and John Guandolo

‘There is No God and Karl Marx is His Prophet’: The Links Between Communism, Islam, and Slavery

Screen-Shot-2016-01-28-at-8.21.37-PM-640x480Breitbart, by Andrew G. Bostom, Jan. 29, 2016″

The following is the text of a speech delivered Friday, January 29, 2016 at The Education Policy Conference, St. Louis, MO.

Sociologist Jules Monnerot’s 1949 book, Sociology of Communism, made very explicit connections between Islamic and 20th-century Communist totalitarianism. The title of his first chapter, dubbed Communism as “The Twentieth-Century Islam.” Monnerot elucidates these two primary shared characteristics of Islam and Communism: “conversion”—followed by subversion—from within, and the fusion of “religion” and state. He argued, “Communism takes the field both as a secular religion and as a universal State; it is therefore… comparable to Islam…,” while each also “…work[s] outside the[ir] imperial frontiers to undermine the social structure of neighboring States.”

Indeed, a humorist contemporary of Monnerot had cogently highlighted the striking similarities between Islam and Communism, referring to the Communist creed with this aphorism: “There is no G-d, and Karl Marx is his prophet.”

Sadly, in our present stultifying era, which increasingly demands only a hagiographic view of Islam, even such witty, illuminating aphorisms may become verboten. Witness President Obama’s stern warning during his Tuesday, September 25, 2012, speech to the UN General Assembly, when he proclaimed: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The late Islamologist Maxime Rodinson warned in 1974 of a broad academic campaign—which has clearly infected policymakers across the politico-ideological spectrum“to sanctify Islam and the contemporary ideologies of the Muslim world.” A pervasive phenomenon, Rodinson ruefully described the profundity of its deleterious consequences:  “Understanding [of Islam] has given way to apologetics pure and simple.”

An ex-Communist himself, Maxime Rodinson (d. 2004), reaffirmed the essential validity of Monnerot’s 1949 comparison between Islam and Communism. During a September 28, 2001, interview with Le Figaro, Rodinson acknowledged that, while still a Communist, he had taken umbrage with Monnerot’s assessment. But having long since renounced the Communist Party, Rodinson (circa September, 2001) conceded that there were “striking similarities” between Communism and Islam, noting that like Communism, traditional Islam promulgated “an ideology that claims to explain everything, drawing on a vision of the world that is fiercely paranoid [and] conspiratorial.”

Well, the only Marxist intellectual of any ilk that I fully appreciate—Groucho—once observed, “Beside a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside a dog, it is too dark to read.”

Today I will penetrate the fog of Islamic apologetics and cast light on subject matter relegated to silent darkness.

Our host Donna Hearne made a plaintive appeal that I redress the bowdlerization of Islamic slavery in secondary school textbooks, juxtaposed to their unsparing discussions of slavery as practiced by Western Europeans, and Americans. For example I discovered this thoroughly uninformative, mere 28 words dedicated to an alleged characterization of slavery, across space and time, in Islamdom, from the textbook, “World History – Patterns of Interaction,” 2007, Chapter 10, “The Muslim World, 600-1250 A.D.”:

The lowest class was composed of slaves. Many slaves were prisoners of war, and all were non-Muslims. Slaves most frequently performed household work or fought in the military.

Is it any wonder such indoctrination begets disorientation, if not outright disbelief, when nearly 8 centuries after 1250 A.D., these students are confronted by present day ugly manifestations of the uninterrupted historical continuum of Islamic slavery—vividly illustrated by the Islamic State’s practice of jihad sexual slavery in Iraq and Syria, or, in far removed Mauritania, mass, ongoing chattel slavery of blacks by the ruling Arabo-Berber Muslim minority?

A Reuters story about an ISIS “fatwa”, a religious edict, regarding female sex slaves was published online December 29, 2015. The fatwa in question is part of a cache of documents captured during a May, 2015 raid on a leading ISIS official in Syria. These materials are now being made public, rather piecemeal. Dated January 29, 2015, the ruling firstpresents a straightforward rationale for jihad enslavement, entirely consistent with the classical Islamic jurisprudence of jihad war: “one of the inevitable consequences of the jihad of establishment [of the Caliphate] is that women and children will become captives of Muslims.” 

A Muslim “owner” (8 mentions), non-Muslim female “captive” (13 mentions) master-slave relationship is made unabashedly clear in the fatwa. The fatwa’s hollow invocation to “show compassion towards her,” i.e. the female sex slave and serial rape victim, such as refraining from anal intercourse, is itself consistent with a prohibition in Koran 2:223, which otherwise states that women are “tilth” to be “plowed” as men please. Regardless, testimonies of freed Yazidi and Christian ISIS sex slaves reveal the horrific reality of such captivity.



 ISIS’s practice of jihad sex slavery, persistent large scale chattel slavery in Mauritania, and even the mass acts of sexual assault just committed New Year’s Eve by Muslim males in Cologne, Germany, and elsewhere across Western Europe, all fit squarely within a normative doctrinal, and historical Islamic context, patterned after the behaviors of Muhammad, and the nascent Muslim community. Thus defiant Cologne imam Sami Abu-Yusuf insisted “the events of New Year’s Eve were the girls own fault, because they were half naked and wearing perfume.” Ominously, the good imam Yusuf’s words mirror attitudes captured by 2008 polling data from 9000 Western European Muslims, 65% of whom acknowledged, “The rules of the Koran are more important to me than the laws of [my country].”

Those who aspire to our political leadership, in particular, must be compelled to shed their cultural relativist blinders and consider Islam as the conquering, totalitarian political ideology, with religious trappings, it has remained for almost 14 centuries.

Read more

Deobandi Butchery in San Bernardino: 1977 Roots of the Jihad Carnage

san_bernadino_terrorists_article_banner_12-13-15-1.sized-770x415xcPJ Media, by Andrew Bostom, Dec.13, 2015:

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower Philip Haney made a startling series of revelations Thursday evening (12/10/15) on Fox News’ The Kelly File. Haney described how he began investigating scores of individuals with links to the traditionalist Islamic Indo-Pakistani Deobandi movement, and its related offshoots, prominently, Tablighi Jamaat. He maintained the groups were exploiting the visa waiver program to transport suspected jihadist operatives in and out of the U.S., thus he started tracking them, and recording these findings within a DHS database. Haney’s efforts (as summarized by Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller) were eventually noticed by the National Targeting Center (NTC), which operates as an umbrella organization in U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Haney was subsequently asked to work for the NTC and rivet his attention on these Deobandi-related organizations. Over the course of his investigation, Haney received an award for identifying more than 300 potential jihad terrorists with links to the Deobandi affiliates.

Tablighi Jamaat certainly merited the attention Haney was giving it, having been connected to a series of jihad terrorist attacks, which included targeting the U.S.: the October, 2002 Portland (Oregon) Seven, and September, 2002 Lackawanna (New York) Six cases; an Aug. 2006 plot to bomb airliners en route from London to the U.S.; attempted bombings in London and Glasgow, Scotland, in July 2007; and involvement in the July 7, 2005, London bombings, which killed 52 and injured more than 700. French investigators have further estimated Tablighi Jamaat ideological indoctrination was associated with 80% of their jihad terror cases.

Haney’s fastidious investigations raised serious concerns about the San Bernardino Deobandi movement-affiliated Darul-Uloom al-Islamia mosque—attended by jihad-waging killer Syed Farook. In addition, Farook’s jihadist accomplice wife, Tashfeen Malik, attended a traditionalist Islamic education center in Pakistan, also connected with the Deobandi movement. Notwithstanding his patriotic, yeoman efforts, DHS shut down Haney’s probe, and revoked both his security clearance and access to the databases he compiled. Retributive investigations against Haney by DHS and the Obama Justice Department, however, revealed no wrongdoing on his part. Tragically, as Haney explained, had his probe not been terminated for alleged “civil rights violations” of jihad-indoctrinated Muslim followers of the Deobandi movement:

Either Syed would have been put on the no-fly list because association with that mosque, and/or the K-1 visa that his wife was given may have been denied because of his association with a known organization.

The Deobandi-linked jihad carnage that transpired in San Bernardino has much deeper roots, not only on the Indian subcontinent, but dating from at least 1977, within North America, as well.

The traditionalist Islamic Darul Uloom Deoband school was founded in conjunction with the mid-19th century Indian Muslim jihad against British colonial rule, becoming a hub of the broader global Caliphate revival movement centered in India after the humiliating Ottoman defeat during the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War. Mahmood Hasan (1851-1920), the first graduate of the Darul Uloom Deoband, was active in early 20th century jihadist activities against British colonial India, and he was also an accomplished Koranic scholar whose seminal 20th century commentary on the Koran (via his pupil S.A. Usmani) remains an influential work for Indo-Pakistani Muslims. Moreover, per a reverent biography of Muhammad Ilyas (1885-1944), founder of the Tablighi Jamaat, who was “infused with the spirit of Jihad,” Ilyas “took the pledge of Jihad at the hands of the Maulana Mahmood Hasan for that very reason.” Muhammad Ilyas in turn, formally mentored Abul Hasan Ali Hasani Nadwi (1914-99)

Nadwi was a founding member of the Muslim World League, a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now Cooperation), a member of the World Supreme Council for Mosques, and a member of the Fiqh Council of Rabita. He participated in a host of other activities under the umbrella of these, and other Islamic supremacist organizations and institutions, including, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). In India, during his “formative years,” Nadwi was associated with Maudoodi’s Jamaat Islami, in addition to Tablighi Jamaat founder Muhammad Ilyas. Nadwi later became president of the Academy of Islamic Research and Publications, which published his own 1983 hagiography of Muhammad Ilyas, who had written directly to Nadwi “perhaps the most detailed letters concerning the aims and principles of the [Tablighi Jamaat] Movement.” Most significantly, Nadwi served as rector of Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama [“Organization of Scholars”], sister institute of Darul Uloom Deoband, and a major disseminator of traditionalist Islamic, Deobandi teachings.

Read more

Discussion with Sam Sorbo of the Paris Jihad Carnage, Trump, US Mosque Data, & US Policy etc..

By Andrew Bostom, Nov. 19, 2015:

Thanks to Sam Sorbo for a wide-ranging discussion of the ISIS-orchestrated Paris jihad carnage, the merits of Trump’s populist commentary in the aftermath of that jihadist barbarity, and related policy questions on our “Muslim allies,” i.e., perfidious, ISIS-abetting Neo-Ottoman Turkey; US-hating masses of Jordanians celebrating a jihad murderer of US workers as a “martyr,” while chanting “Death to America” in the streets, or “despicable America” at the “martyr’s” burial; and Sisi’s Egypt prosecuting Copts for mocking ISIS.

.We also discussed US mosque, and Muslim-attitude data, vis-à-vis Sharia and jihadism (see here; here; here), and Obama’s morally cretinous abandonment of the bona fide Yazidi and Christians refugees, the former whom his own Administration admits are being subjected to a “designated” genocide, the latter, the Obama Administration grudgingly acknowledges, is suffering from mass killings.

Most importantly, I quoted (just the bold) from this recent interview (blogged and transcribed by Diana West; who added an additional query) of a real 1991 Iraq war fighting hero, then tank commander Col. Douglas MacGregor.

If we commit large ground forces to the Middle East with the goal of defeating or destroying ISIL (the Islamic State)” the results will include all of the following:

“First, it would provide a temporary, rather than a permanent setback to Sunni Islamism. Sunni Islamist fighters will retreat into Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa. We forget that without the tacit and active support of Turkish President Erdogan and his supporters in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, ISIL could not exist.

 “Second, we will yet again ensure the expansion and consolidation of Iranian-Shiite strategic power and influence from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Our intervention in Iraq created an Iranian Satellite in Baghdad. This time we would end up working with the Russians to ensure Iran controls all of Mesopotamia.

 “Third, like the French, our first action should involve the closing of our borders, not the invasion of the Middle East. Given that our borders are open, immigration (legal and illegal) is uncontrolled and (if) unchecked no change will occur in the conditions inside the United States that foster criminality and terrorism.”

Macgregor continued: “As long as Sunni Islamist leaders in Turkey, KSA and Qatar provide the support and pathways for recruits that brought ISIL to life in the first place, nothing will fundamentally change. Moreover, if we do intervene on the ground, assuming we find anything before it flees into neighboring Arab states and Anatolia, we stand an excellent chance of securing Mesopotamia for Iran and its strategic partner Russia. Since we did accomplish that already in Baghdad, I am unconvinced we should repeat the mistake in the rest of the region.”

Channel 6 wrote: “Instead, Col Macgregor thinks America should secure its borders, enforce Federal immigration law, and halt immigration (legal and illegal) until US Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) can find out who is in the United States.”

“Right now, we just don’t know,” Macgregor said. “We have at least 30 million illegals including large numbers of Muslims and Chinese. How many are agents that wish to steal intellectual property or pursue cyber terrorism? How many Chinese and Latino girls are in brothels managed by organized crime? What we do know is that we now have Muslim communities inside the US where the population wants to substitute Muslim holidays for Federal Holidays and Sharia law for the Constitution. I strongly suggest we deal with these internal problems first.”’

I asked Col. Macgregor if he had anything to add. He replied:   “For some reason, we forget that Tsarnaev and his brother, the Sunni Muslims who attacked and killed Americans in Boston, were Turks from the Caucasus, not the Middle East.  Before we march into vast wastelands of the Middle East we had better secure Americans at home first. Marching into the Middle East the last time made matters worse, not better.” 

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ” (Prometheus, November, 2008) You can contact Dr. Bostom at

Andrew Bostom on Iranian Nuke Deal Fiasco and Muslim Hijra Jihad Invasion of Europe/Eurabia

By Andrew Bostom, Nov. 3, 2015:

Friday October 30th I had an informative ~25-minute discussion (embedded below) with Janet Mefferd regarding the disastrous Iranian nuke deal (see here;here; here; and here) ramifications, and the equally dire Muslim jihad hijra invasion of Europe, the latter being a fulfillment of yet another dystopian Western European totalitarian ideology, i.e., Eurabia (see here; here; and here).

Eurabia-300x226Eurabian dhimm­itude illustrated—Cover art for the Report by the High-Level Advisory Group established at the initiative of the President of the European Commission,Dialogue between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Region,” Brussels, October 2003, As the report observed, “The orientation of this map corresponds to the world view of the Arab cartographers [i.e., Idrisi, from 1154 C.E.] of the Middle Ages”—that is, reinforcing Islamic jihad supremacism, and reversing the true geographical orientation of the Mediterranean Sea, with the North African Mediterranean littoral on top of the Southern European Mediterranean littoral.

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ” (Prometheus, November, 2008) You can contact Dr. Bostom at

Chris Cuomo’s Sharia Folly

PJ Media by Andrew Bostom, June 5, 2015:

In the wake of CNN’s Wednesday revelation that journalist/activist Pamela Geller was targeted for beheading by slain Boston area jihadist Usaama Rahim, CNN’s Chris Cuomo interviewed Ms. Geller Thursday. Most attention to the interview has been focused on Geller’s understandable reaction to Cuomo’s suggestion that non-profane, free-speech cartoons of Muhammad — for example, ex-Muslim artist Bosch Fawstin’s thoughtful drawing below, which was awarded first prize at the recent Garland, TX exhibit – were somehow too provocative.

Fawstin_Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-small-1024x814 (1)

Said Geller to Cuomo:

Drawing a cartoon … warrants chopping my head off? That’s too far? I just don’t understand this. They’re going to come for you, too, Chris. They’re coming for everybody and the media should be standing with me.

But the most illuminating — and in Cuomo’s case, pathognomonic — segment of the interview (starts at 6:57 of the below clip) was when Geller asked Cuomo:

Where are the mainstream Muslims teaching in the mosques against the [Islamic] blasphemy laws, against Islamic law, the Sharia, the jihadist doctrine?

Geller’s query elicited this breathtakingly ignorant though commonly reiterated media falsehood, here asserted by Cuomo with supreme confidence:

Sharia is not mainstream Muslim thought.

Mr. Cuomo and other media figures across the political spectrum would do well — before issuing such embarrassing, factually challenged pontifications — to study the serious work of Joseph Schacht (d. 1969), who was the most authoritative modern Western Islamic legal scholar.

The sharia, or “clear path to be followed,” as Schacht demonstrated, is the “canon law of Islam,” which “denotes all the individual prescriptions composing it.”

Schacht traced the use of the term “sharia” to Koranic verses such as 45:18, 42:13, 42:21, and 5:48, noting an “old definition” of the sharia by the seminal Koranic commentator and early Muslim historian Tabari (d. 923) as comprising the law of inheritance, various commandments and prohibitions, and the so-called hadd punishments.

These latter draconian punishments, defined by the Muslim prophet Muhammad either in the Koran or in the hadith (the canonical collections of Muhammad’s deeds and pronouncements), included:

(Lethal) stoning for adultery; death for apostasy; death for highway robbery when accompanied by murder of the robbery victim; for simple highway robbery, the loss of hands and feet; for simple theft, cutting off of the right hand; for “fornication,” a hundred lashes; for drinking wine, eighty lashes.

As Schacht further noted, sharia ultimately evolved to become “understood [as] the totality of Allah’s commandments relating to the activities of man.”

The holistic sharia, he continues, is nothing less than Islam’s quintessence:

The Sharia is the most characteristic phenomenon of Islamic thought and forms the nucleus of Islam itself.

Schacht also delineated additional characteristics of the sharia which have created historically insurmountable obstacles to its reform:

Allah’s law is not to be penetrated by the intelligence . . . i.e., man has to accept it without criticism, with its apparent inconsistencies and its incomprehen­sible decrees, as wisdom into which it is impossible to enquire [inquire].

One must not look in it for causes in our sense, nor for principles; it is based on the will of Allah which is bound by no principles, therefore evasions are consid­ered as a permissible means put at one’s disposal by Allah himself.

Muslim law . . . has always been considered by its followers as some­thing elevated, high above human wisdom, and as a matter of fact human logic or system has little share in it. For this very reason, the Sharia is not “law” in the modern sense of the word, any more than it is on account of its subject matter.

It comprises without restriction, as an infallible doctrine of duties the whole of the religious, political, social, domestic and private life of those who profess Islam, and the activities of the tolerated members of other faiths so far as they may not be detrimental to Islam.

Most importantly, Schacht elucidated how sharia — via the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad war – regulated the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. These regulations make explicit the sacralized vulnerability of unvanquished non-Muslims to jihad depredations, and the permanent, deliberately humiliating legal inferiority for those who survive their jihad conquest, and incorporation into an Islamic polity governed by sharia.

Consistent with the doctrine of jihad, in accord with the Sunna (the traditions of Muhammad and the early Muslim community), by using foul language against the Muslim prophet Muhammad, Allah, or Islam, the non-Muslim transgressors put themselves on a war footing against Muslims, and their lives became licit (such as the poet Kaab b. al-Ashraf, who composed poems denigrating Muhammad, and was assassinated). (See herehere, and here.)

This “offense” was then constructed and legitimated by Muslim jurists when Islam was politically, militarily, and economically dominant, so that it was expected that the non-Muslims under Islamic rule would not denigrate the religion of Islam, nor cast aspersions on its major figures or institutions. (See herehere, and here.) The jurists saw any such denigration as an unacceptable hostile act, punishable by death, automatically, as per three of the main Sunni schools of Islamic Law (Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali), and the major Shiite schools.

According to the fourth major school of Sunni Islamic law, the Hanafi, the punishment of a non-Muslim guilty of blasphemy is left to the discretion of a Muslim judge. The death penalty was in fact most often applied by the Hanafis. (See here and here.)

Read more

Mary, Muhammad, and Hypocritical Media Dhimmitude, From The New York Times, to Fox News

By Andrew Bostom, May 30, 2015:

Clay Waters of Newsbusters (h/t Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch) underscores the rank “free expression” hypocrisy, and sheer dhimmitude, of the New York Times, resplendent once again, in its Thursday, May 28, 2015 “Arts” section. A prominent photographic reproduction of the 1996 Ofili painting, “The Holy Virgin Mary”, which accompanied the story about its sale, included an accuratedescription of the painting’s contents. The Times report also made a rathercontemptuous assessment of then New York Mayor Giuliani’s reaction to Ofili’s deliberately insulting work, an unabashed “artistic” exercise in scatology and pornography.

The Australian collector David Walsh is selling Chris Ofili’s 1996 painting “The Holy Virgin Mary,” which caused a furor when it was shown at the Brooklyn Museum in October 1999 as part of Charles Saatchi’s touring “Sensation” exhibition of works by Young British Artists (YBAs). The eight-foot-high depiction of a black Virgin Mary, encrusted with a lump of elephant dung and collaged bottoms [i.e., naked buttocks] from pornographic magazines, outraged religious leaders and Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who described Mr. Ofili’s painting and other works in the show as “sick stuff.” Mr. Giuliani’s attempts to close the exhibition by withholding public funds were rejected by a federal judge.

Yet the Times remains steadfast in its refusal to show any drawings of Muhammad, despite their obvious centrality to—wait for it—the news, given the very recent mass murderous Muslim reactions to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in Paris, and the failed attempt at similar jihadist carnage in Garland, Texas. The latter occurred following an educational conference which displayed historical and contemporary Muhammad images, produced by Muslims and non-Muslims, alike, and also included a contextual discussion of Islamic “blasphemy law,”which is antithetical to free speech as enshrined in the first amendment to our U.S. Constitution.

It must be emphasized, however, that The New York Times’ acquiescent dhimmitude, vis-à-vis its self-imposed “ban” on displays of any images of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, is shared uniformly by all our major television media,notably Fox News (see here; here; here; here; and here). The abject dhimmitude of Fox News is particularly egregious given the network’s continuous preening verbal support for free speech, and its history of appropriately condemning the hypocrisy of displaying works like Ofili’s Virgin Mary, but not artistic images of Muhammad.

I have included both the Ofili painting, and. just below it, Muslim “apostate” artist Bosch Fawstin’s drawing of Muhammad—a pure free speech political cartoon, which garnered first prize at the Garland conference exhibition—for juxtaposition.

Any rational, honest, objective human being should discern—and acknowledge—the stark contrast between these images.

How profound is our media dhimmitude that even “alternative” Fox News, by its repeated actions— i.e. refusing to display Fawstin’s sober, thoughtful Muhammad drawing, not Fox’s empty “free speech support” rhetoric—has effectively conflated Ofili’s dung-clotted, pornographic buttocks-collaged Virgin Mary, an “artistic” exercise in gratuitous profanity, with a brave ex-Muslim’s plaintive, non-profane image extolling our bedrock liberty, freedom of expression?


My Winning Mohammad Contest Drawing

Iraq Fiasco: Jihad Denial, “Surge” Mythology, & Abandonment of Iraq’s Non-Muslim Minorities. Discussion With Sam Sorbo

bolgerAndrew Bostom, May 28, 2015:

We are now in the middle of a full-blown Jihad, that is to say we have against us the fiercest prejudices of a people in a primeval state of civilization.—Gertrude Bell, Baghdad, Iraq, September 5, 1920

Sam Sorbo was kind enough to allow me to address, in brief, some of the crucial, if willfully ignored matters which have created the Iraq morass, rooted in denial of Islam’s Sharia-based doctrine of “international” (and domestic) relations”: jihad.

During our interview (embedded below) earlier today (Thursday 5/28/15), we touched upon the following:

  • General Daniel P. Bolger’s “Why We Lost—A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars,” is a sobering read. Bolger went from a 1 to 3 star General in Iraq, and then Afghanistan, and once commanded 20,000 troops in Baghdad. He served 8-years in these war zones, between 2005 to 2013. Bolger characterized (on 256) the much ballyhooed 2007 Iraq “surge,” at its tactical conclusion, thusly: “The casualty and hostile attack rates went down in the fall of 2007, never again to rise to their previous heights, at least during the remaining years of the American campaign.But the fighting never stopped either. It lingered, a third of the previous rate, but that was no comfort to those who fell, killed or wounded, or to their families. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, unrepentant Sunni rejectionists, surly Sadrists [Shiite followers of Muqtada al-Sadr], and Iranian handlers all kept their pieces on the board. As long as the occupiers remained, there would be attacks. As long as Iraq was Iraq, violence remained part of the picture.” Gen. Bolger elaborated on these sentiments in a November 2014 op-ed, while exploding the standard mythical trope about how the alleged “decisively victorious” troop surge—with irony, repeatedly dubbed “fragile and reversible” by its putative architect, General Petraeus—was “squandered” by the Obama Administration’s policies. …
  • When President George W. Bush announced the “surge,” during 2007, he maintained the overall objectives for this great expenditure of precious U.S. blood and treasure were to establish a “…unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror.” Any rational post-mortem indicates none of those goals were achieved, from either an Iraqi or U.S. perspective, even in the near term, let alone chronically.
  • Born of sheer willful ignorance about living Islamic doctrine, and history, this deficient mindset begot a corollary dangerous absurdity: embrace of the General David Petraeus “COIN” theory, a see no jihad, see no Islam military strategy designed, perversely, to somehow “defeat” the ancient-cum-modern forces of global Islamic jihadism.
  • The current predicament of Iraq’s Yazidis, and Christians, past as prologue, also illustrates, starkly, mainstream conservative ignorance and dishonesty about Islam, and the creed’s timeless sine qua non institution, jihad. Post-surge Iraq — the paragon of Petraeus’ counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine “triumph” — rapidly deteriorated, well-before the emergence of thetraditionalist Islamic Caliphate movement IS/IL, per se, into a hotbed of anti-Christian, and anti-Yazidi, Islamic brutality.
  • Pew survey results reported in 2013 have confirmed the abject failure of the U.S. midwifed Iraqi and Afghan “democracies” to fulfill the utopian aspirations of the (Bernard) Lewis doctrine. The negative prognostications, epitomized by my colleague Diana West’s evocative description “Making the world safe for Sharia,” have instead, been realized. Specifically, the Pew data indicated 91% of Iraqi Muslims and 99% of Afghan Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies.Hurriyya, the Arabic term for “freedom,” but meaning “perfect slavery to Allah and his Sharia”—Islamic religious totalitarianism—has triumphed over the diametrically opposed Western, Judeo-Christian conception of individual liberty, founded upon the bedrock freedoms of conscience and expression.
  • We have a moral obligation to oppose Sharia which is antithetical to the core beliefs for which hundreds of thousands of brave Americans have died, including, between 2001 and the end of 2014, over 6800 in Iraq, and Afghanistan. There has never been a Sharia state in history that has not discriminated (often violently) against the non-Muslims (and Muslim women) under its suzerainty. Moreover, such states have invariably taught (starting with Muslim children) the aggressive jihad ideology which leads to predatory jihad “razzias” on neighboring “infidels”—even when certain of those “infidels” happened to consider themselves Muslims, let alone if those infidels were clearly non-Muslims. That is the ultimate danger and geopolitical absurdity of a policy that ignores or whitewashes basic Islamic doctrine and history, while however inadvertently, making or re-making these societies “safe for Sharia.”

Also see:

Fox News Lets Sharia (Donald) Trump Freedom of Expression

My Winning Mohammad Contest Drawing

By Andrew Bostom, May 14, 2015:

Last week Fox News’s Sean Hannity was uniquely supportive of journalist/activist Pamela Geller, hosting her on his show 5 nights in a row (including one evening with guest host, Eric Bolling). Ms. Geller remains underISIS death threat for conducting a thoughtful Garland, Texas event upholding freedom of expression in defiance of Islamic Sharia totalitarianism, enforced by would be mass murderous jihadist attackers, who were fortunately slain by an intrepid policeman. (The Garland event can be viewed in full here; and its 30 minute highlights, here). Earlier this week, Hannity courteously provided Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, featured at the Garland free speech conference, aforum to explain his views.

Sadly, Hannity’s humane behavior was the exception at Fox News, and he was apparently forced to abide Fox News’s Sharia-complaint ban on actually showing the Garland conference’s liberty-affirming symbol—courageous ex-Muslim artist Bosch Fawstin’s brilliant drawing (shown above), which garnered first prize at the exhibit. Megyn Kelly, who conspicuously distanced herself from the conference organizers, also towed the Sharia-complaint line. Despite Kelly’s “passionate” rhetorical endorsement of free expression, she never displayed Fawstin’s drawing, emblematic of the craven hypocrisy decried in Robert Tracinski’s cogently entitled analysis, “Mohammed Cartoons: If You’re Not Publishing, You’re Pretending.” Jeanine Pirro stepped all over her Saturday evening (5/9/15) monologue warning of the threat of Sharia supremacism by concluding that the Garland event was a “dumb move,” segueing into an utterly uninformed, rather hostile interview of Geller, and kowtowing to Fox’s interdiction on display of the Fawstin drawing.

Worse still were Fox News’s “sorry seven” (a composite of hosts/guests), whose sniping, ignorant, and cowardly commentary was summarized in a series of extracts by Brendan James. The Fox News statements of Donald Trump best illustrate this toxic genre of sheer idiocy and cowardice—the latter made all the more despicable by the phony bravado with which it was conveyed.

I watched Pam Prior [sic], and it looks like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing? Drawing Muhammad and it looks like she’s taunting people…what are they doing drawing Muhammad? Isn’t there something else they can draw? They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas and on Muhammad? You know, I’m one that believes in free speech, probably more than she does. What’s the purpose of this? She’s taunting them…I don’t know, maybe she likes risk. What the hell is she doing?

Overall, Fox News’s coverage of the Garland free speech conference was appalling—it amounted to journalistic dereliction of duty, indeed malpractice, for willful sins of commission and omission. I have elaborated on this depressing phenomenon at these blogs (here; here; and here), and yesterday (5/13/15) in an interview with Tom Trento, who attended and scrupulously recorded the entire Garland event. Please watch our interview embedded below, starting at 13:40.

See more videos with Tom Trento here: theunitedwest

Educating CNN and Fox News About Pamela Geller and the Sharia Assault on Free Speech in Garland, Texas

Fawstin_Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-small-1024x814By Andrew Bostom, May 5, 2015:

Today we are getting confirmation (here; here) of potential direct ISIS involvement in the jihad terror attack on a Garland, TX free speech gathering, Sunday May 3, 2015. Mercifully, the jihadist assault-weapons wielding attackers were slain by an intrepid handgun-wielding policeman before they could complete their Sharia (Islamic Law)-compliant act of carnage.

Veteran journalist, author, and brave activist par excellence, Pamela Geller, organized the Garland event which featured artistic cartoon depictions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad. The conference was assembled in direct defiance of the Sharia’s First Amendment/ free speech-crushing blasphemy law—a form of medieval cum modern Islamic obscurantism, “enforced” by murderous violence, or non-violent coercion.

Geller’s courageous and informative effort (view the full 3-hour event here)—nearly terminated via jihadists desirous of mass-murdering “blasphemous” innocents—has been ignorantly misrepresented not only by the likes of Alisyn Camerota on CNN, but also Martha MacCallum, and even to a lesser extent, Megyn Kelly, of Fox News. More egregiously, neither of these networks have displayed the thoughtful Muhammad cartoon drawn by artist Bosch Fawstin, a former Muslim freethinker of Albanian descent, whose depiction (above) was awarded first prize at the free speech exhibition. Indeed, Mr. Fawstin was told specifically not to show his cartoon drawing, prior to his interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren (see my twitter exchanges here, here, and here with Fawstin and Van Susteren).

Sam Sorbo graciously provided me a radio forum to attempt to educate news media talking heads Camerota, MacCallum, Kelly, Van Susteren, and their ilk. Over 13-years after the murderous jihad cataclysm of 9/11/2001, these news intermediaries evidence a woefully deficient understanding of the living Islamic doctrinal and historical basis for behaviors such as the thwarted Garland, TX attack. They are equally oblivious to hard contemporary data on both global, and U.S. Muslim attitudes toward such critically relevant matters as “blasphemy,” as well as what a preeminent, mainstream North American Muslim jurists association opines about “punishment” for criticism of Islam’s prophet. This professional knowledge deficit—a dereliction of journalistic duty—is manifest in their coverage of the free speech event, and/or their interactions with Ms. Geller.

The yawning gaps in Camerota’s, MacCallum’s, Kelly’s, and Van Susteren’s understanding are summarized in the following bullets, and within the Sam Sorbo interview (embedded below), and elaborated here, and here:

  • Muhammad’s prototype behaviors which sanction violent jihadism, non-Muslim (especially Jew)-hatred, misogyny, and lethal attacks on his—and Islam’s—critics.
  • Sharia, and Sharia-based blasphemy law, per Muhammad’s example, and its contemporary manifestations, include: widespread application in Islamic societies; the ominous support for Islamic blasphemy amongst U.S. Muslims—58% rejecting free speech criticism of Islam 45% wanting such “blasphemers” prosecuted, and 12% supporting lethal punishment for “blasphemy”; and sanction, i.e., a formal fatwa (Islamic legal ruling) by the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America that killing blasphemers remains valid for North American Muslims.

Finally, Sam Sorbo and I also discussed the issue of so-called “provocation,” versus rational, informed assessment of Muhammad’s pious Muslim biography, and the intimately related Sharia. This concluding exchange riveted upon demonstrable facts, not wishful, defensive, and accusatory ignorance.


See more videos here

Jihad, Still: “100 Years On, Armenians in the Middle East Are Still On the Run”

Barack Obama speaks to members of congress and guests in the Rose Garden of the White House on Tuesday. The administration revealed that Obama will once again stop short of calling the 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide. Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Barack Obama speaks to members of congress and guests in the Rose Garden of the White House on Tuesday. The administration revealed that Obama will once again stop short of calling the 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide. Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

By Andrew Bostom, April 22, 2015:

From this April 21, 2015, report, “100 Years On, Armenians in the Middle East Are Still On the Run”:

As Armenians this week mark 100 years since the massacres that killed more than one million people, the fear and persecution faced by their ancestors remains alive today. With Syria and Iraq in chaos, Armenians in the Middle East are once again homeless and on the run. “We are having the same destiny as our grandfathers, as our ancestors, we are just like them,” said Annoush Garabadian, a 53-year-old Armenian woman who fled Mosul when ISIL captured the city last June. “We saw everything with our eyes like history was repeating itself.”… Not long after, neighbours sent them a picture showing their old house with ISIL’s logo painted on it. Their house and car now belonged to the so-called “caliphate”, and her son received a threatening phone call from ISIL militants saying if they ever returned, they would be beheaded.

These jihad depredations against today’s Middle Eastern Armenians illustrate an unchanged dynamic I described yesterday (3/21/15) at PJ Media. Such ongoing horrors, as I explained, are Why Congress Must Recognize the Jihad Genocide of the Armenians. The essay opens with a reference to my brief exchange with Fox News’s Sean Hannity, September 12, 2014, embedded just below, and elaborated in the extracts which follow:

During a Fox News Hannity panel appearance on Friday September 12, 2014, I alluded to the 1915-19 jihad genocide of the Armenian, Assyro-Chaldean, andSyrian Orthodox Christian communities of Anatolia, and northern “Mesopotamia,” i.e., modern Iraq, by the last Caliphate—the Ottoman Caliphate.

Notwithstanding the recent horrific spate of atrocities committed against the Christian communities of northern Iraq by the Islamic State (IS) jihadists, the Ottoman jihad ravages were equally barbaric, depraved, and far more extensive. Occurring, primarily between 1915-16 (although continuing through at least 1918), some 1 to 1.5 million Armenian, and 250,000 Assyro-Chaldean and Syrian Orthodox Christians were brutally slaughtered, or starved to death during forced deportations through desert wastelands. The identical gruesome means used by IS to humiliate and massacre its hapless Christian victims, were employed on a scale that was an order of magnitude greater by the Ottoman Muslim Turks, often abetted by local Muslim collaborators (the latter being another phenomenon which also happened during the IS jihad campaign against Iraq’s Christians).

I concluded my brief comments September 12, 2014 by noting, “we are only coming up on the 100th anniversary next year (i.e., 2015) of the Armenian Jihad Genocide.”

That solemn centennial commemoration will take place this Friday, April 24, 2015. Failure to formally recognize the genocidal anti-Christian jihad depredations of the World War I era, and its immediate aftermathpunctuated by the Armenian genocide—is a lingering moral stain on the U.S. body politic.

…The geo-political consequences of this profound ethical and intellectual delinquency—rooted in jihad appeasement, and denial—are once again manifest. Vestigial remnant Eastern Christian populations who barely survived those 20th century jihad depredations, may now face their final liquidation, wrought by contemporary jihadists.

Majority approval of H. Res 154 (the Armenian Genocide Truth and JusticeResolution) would mark a necessary, albeit very limited, first step in rectifying the continued tragic impact of this state of denial

The historical record of the jihad genocide of the Armenians a century ago, through the present day jihadist atrocities against Christian communities in the Middle East, and beyond, demonstrates that ancient Islamic jihad war theorycontinues to be acted upon by Muslims, regularly, across the globe, till now.  What remains is for the Muslim religious and political leaders to acknowledge, and then eliminate this genocidal practice.

A long overdue, mea culpa-based Muslim self-examination will never begin if the non-Muslim, especially Christian, targets of jihad genocide, remain in their own abject state of jihad denial.

U.S. politicians could help facilitate that Muslim re-evaluation process by not only demanding recognition of the Armenian genocide, but further identifying those mass killings as a jihad genocide, specifically

The essay includes background discussions defined by these subheadings: Why The Armenian Genocide Was a Jihad, and April 24th is an Appropriate Commemoration Day; American Witnesses to the Armenian Genocide: Observations from U.S. Diplomats, 1915-1917; and From the Armenian Jihad Genocide to The Holocaust.

Please read the essay in full, here.


Also see:

Update: Just came across this!

Uploaded on Jan 30, 2008 by hyebiz

Sen. Barack Obama Discusses Armenian Genocide

Shameful Corker “Compromise” Is a Triumph For The Obama Administration’s Iran Negotiations Strategy

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Corker talks to reporters before meeting with Secretary of State Kerry on Iran nuclear negotiations in WashingtonBy Andrew Bostom, April 15, 2015:

Yesterday, April 14, 2015 a much ballyhooed “compromise” regarding S.615, “Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.” was unanimously agreed upon within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Independent, and Washington Post assessments of critical aspects of the lauded compromise brokered by Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, and Democrat Ben Cardin helped eliminate my own cautious optimism about what in fact transpired.

Politico noted:

Though it gives Congress an avenue to reject the lifting of legislative sanctions that will be a key part of any deal with Iran, it explicitly states that Congress does not have to approve the diplomatic deal struck by Iran, the United States and other world powers… nor does it treat an Iran agreement like a treaty

This claim is substantiated on p. 32 of the updated bill, under a section entitled, “EFFECT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION WITH RESPECT TO NUCLEAR AGREEMENTS WITH IRAN,”which states in lines 16-19,

16‘‘(C) this section does not require a vote by

17 Congress for the agreement to commence;

18 ‘‘(D) this section provides for congressional

19 review,

Moreover, as Karen DeYoung and Mike DeBonis added in their Washington Postreport:

Obama retains the right to veto any action to scuttle an Iran pact. To override, a veto would require a two-thirds majority of both House and Senate.

Accordingly, the Corker-Cardin compromise validates the Obama Administration’s negotiations strategy. That “strategy” is contrary to almost all past arms control agreements of consequence, which have been Senate Advice and Consent Treaties, whose approval requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The Obama Administration, in contrast, is hell-bent on giving legitimacy to Iran’s uranium enrichment program, and waiving economic sanctions on Iran, while not submitting the fruits of its masterful negotiations to a Congressional vote for initial approval, prior to implementing the agreement. These developments should be a tocsin of looming calamity given that the framework fiasco for this pending deal includes an inadequate/“hotly contested” inspections process, while also fully ignoring Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear weaponization programs.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) commented wistfully that although the bill “created” the role of post-hoc “congressional review,” it remained “a long way from advice and consent” for an agreement which “rises to the level of a treaty.” But Iran—a self-proclaimed jihadist state with global hegemonic aspirations—remains in an open-ended, “fierce” jihad war with the U.S. “at all levels,” as one “moderate” Iranian adviser to former moderate Iranian President Khatami recently explained. Notwithstanding Sen. Johnson’s rueful acknowledgment, Senate Republicans have shirked their Constitutional, and moral responsibility, rather than confront the implications of Iran’s religiously-inspired bellicosity. With the exception of a gimlet-eyed young Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)—who speaks candidly about tactical destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which is the only rational way to thwart Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons capability—Senate Republicans have cravenly acquiesced to cynical, perverse Obama Administration bullying so as not to be labeled “warmongers.”


A Formula for Rubber-stamping Obama’s Iran Deal by Frank Gaffney

On the surface, yesterday’s insistence by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Congress get a vote on a nuclear deal with Iran appears to be a victory for what is left of our constitutional republic.

Two clues suggest otherwise: First, the panel’s legislation was adopted unanimously. And second, the White House says Mr. Obama is willing to sign such a bill.

The President and his partisans on Capitol Hill are on board for a simple reason: Instead of this deal facing the high hurdle the Constitution requires for treaties – in which the executive branch must persuade two-thirds of the Senate to approve it, the mechanism set up by the proposed legislation will require opponents to come up with that super-majorityin both houses of Congress.

This arrangement serves Iran’s interests, not America’s.


Obama’s One-Man Nuclear Deal – WSJ

President Obama says he wants Congress to play a role in approving a nuclear deal with Iran, but his every action suggests the opposite. After months of resistance, the White House said Tuesday the President would finally sign a bill requiring a Senate vote on any deal—and why not since it still gives him nearly a free hand.

Modern Presidents have typically sought a Congressional majority vote, and usually a two-thirds majority, to ratify a major nuclear agreement. Mr. Obama has maneuvered to make Congress irrelevant, though bipartisan majorities passed the economic sanctions that even he now concedes drove Iran to the negotiating table.

The Republican Congress has been trying to reclaim a modest role in foreign affairs over Mr. Obama’s furious resistance. And on Tuesday afternoon the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed a measure that authorizes Congress to vote on an Iran deal within 30 days of Mr. Obama submitting it for review.

As late as Tuesday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry was still railing in private against the bill. But the White House finally conceded when passage with a veto-proof majority seemed inevitable. The bill will now pass easily on the floor, and if Mr. Obama’s follows his form, he will soon talk about the bill as if it was his idea.

Mr. Obama can still do whatever he wants on Iran as long as he maintains Democratic support. A majority could offer a resolution of disapproval, but that could be filibustered by Democrats and vetoed by the President. As few as 41 Senate Democrats could thus vote to prevent it from ever getting to President Obama’s desk—and 34 could sustain a veto. Mr. Obama could then declare that Congress had its say and “approved” the Iran deal even if a majority in the House and Senate voted to oppose it.

Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker deserves credit for trying, but in the end he had to agree to Democratic changes watering down the measure if he wanted 67 votes to override an Obama veto. Twice the Tennessee Republican delayed a vote in deference to Democrats, though his bill merely requires a vote after the negotiations are over.

His latest concessions shorten the review period to 30 days, which Mr. Obama wanted, perhaps to mollify the mullahs in Tehran who want sanctions lifted immediately. After 52 days Mr. Obama could unilaterally ease sanctions without Congressional approval. Mr. Obama has said that under the “framework” accord sanctions relief is intended to be gradual. But don’t be surprised if his final concession to Ayatollah Khamenei is to lift sanctions after 52 days.

Mr. Corker also removed a requirement that the Administration certify to Congress that Iran is no longer supporting terrorism. This sends an especially bad signal to Iran that Congress agrees with Mr. Obama that the nuclear deal is divorced from its behavior as a rogue state. One of Mr. Obama’s least plausible justifications for the nuclear deal is that it would help to make Iran a “normal” nation. But if Tehran is still sponsoring terrorism around the world, how can it be trusted as a nuclear partner?


Our own view of all this is closer to that of Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who spoke for (but didn’t offer) an amendment in committee Tuesday to require that Mr. Obama submit the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty. Under the Constitution, ratification would require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Senate.

Committing the U.S. to a deal of this magnitude—concerning proliferation of the world’s most destructive weapons—should require treaty ratification. Previous Presidents fromJFK to Nixon to Reagan and George H.W. Bush submitted nuclear pacts as treaties. Even Mr. Obama submitted the U.S.-Russian New Start accord as a treaty.

The Founders required two-thirds approval on treaties because they wanted major national commitments overseas to have a national political consensus. Mr. Obama should want the same kind of consensus on Iran.

But instead he is giving more authority over American commitments to the United Nations than to the U.S. Congress. By making the accord an executive agreement as opposed to a treaty, and perhaps relying on a filibuster or veto to overcome Congressional opposition, he’s turning the deal into a one-man presidential compact with Iran. This will make it vulnerable to being rejected by the next President, as some of the GOP candidates are already promising.

The case for the Corker bill is that at least it guarantees some debate and a vote in Congress on an Iran deal. Mr. Obama can probably do what he wants anyway, but the Iranians are on notice that the United States isn’t run by a single Supreme Leader.


Ignatius: WH Left Kerry Like a ‘Beached Whale’ When They Realized They’d ‘Get Clobbered’ on Iran Washington Free Beacon


Also see:

The Iranian Nuke Weapons Threat & Fox News: Islamic Jihad is Iran’s Animating Ideology, NOT “Persian Merchant Culture”

!cid_image014_jpg@01D075CAy Andrew Bostom, April 13, 2015:

Yesterday (Sunday 4/12/15) I discussed the Iranian nuclear weapons threat with Lisa Benson. Her spontaneous opening reference (which I had not seen till I went to the catalogued Fox news video clip online this morning) was to a thoroughly uninformed Friday April 10, 2015 Fox News O’Reilly Factor (with affable guest host Eric Bolling) discussion of Iran. During the segment, the invited analyst, Ralph Peters, invoked an alleged “Persian merchant culture” [note: I am not jesting; go to 2:25 to 2:40 of the interview], devoid of any mention of Shiite Iran’s explicit guiding Islamic ideology—deeply rooted in jihad.

[relevant comments on this video at 1:13]

I have analyzed the three pillars of Iran’s Islamic motivations—jihad, Islamic Jew- and broader infidel-hatred, and the related doctrine of infidel physical and spiritual impurity, or “najis,”—at great length in my book “Iran’s Final Solution For Israel,” as well as this recent Breitbart essay (especially part 2). In a print media interview with Leo Hohmann published last week, I elucidated the Islamic law jihad doctrine of tactical treaties/armistices (based on Islam’s prophet Muhammad’s so-called “Treaty of Hudaybiyyah”) critically relevant to understanding the Iran negotiations, and even openly acknowledged by an Iranian “moderate” Middle East expert and former adviser to “moderate” Iranian President Khatami, the Iranian expert literally blurting out, regarding the nuke negotiations process, that it was “a Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, to be followed by a conquest of Mecca”. Consistent with all such rather bland and superficial discussions of Iran on Fox News, this key Islamic jihad war doctrinal concept was not mentioned by the under informed Fox News analyst, but “Persian merchant culture” was discussed.

My interview with Lisa Benson is embedded below.

The Iran Nuke “Deal” and Islamic “Treaties”

Secretary of State John Kerry talks with President Barack Obama. The two have led the way in getting Iran to sign a treaty on nuclear weapons in return for elimination of sactions.

Secretary of State John Kerry talks with President Barack Obama. The two have led the way in getting Iran to sign a treaty on nuclear weapons in return for elimination of sactions.

By Andrew Bostom, April 10, 2015:

Below are extracts from a report by WND’s Leo Hohmann on the Iran nuke negotiations. Leo asked me to provide background on the Islamic Law “principles” which must be understood when examining such negotiations.

It has become axiomatic in our sad era that such Islamic principles—based on the military behaviors of Islam’s prophet, and prototype jihadist, Muhammad—will be ignored. As I point out, even a clear Iranian statement of these Islamic principles regarding the proposed “nuke deal,” less than three weeks after the original November 24, 2013 “framework” announcement, never registered with our policymaking “expert classes.” Issued by an Iranian analyst and former adviser to “moderate” President Khatami, the statement referred to the negotiations with the U.S., as “a Treaty of al-Hudaybiyyah, to be followed by a conquest of Mecca.” Hudaybiyyah refers to the treaty/armistice brokered by Muhammad, and then unilaterally broken by him, when his Muslim forces had achieved the tactical advantage.

Such willful ignorance didn’t always hold sway within our State Department. I highlighted an 1880 U.S. State Department monograph written to educate diplomats and other personnel assigned to areas controlled by the then Ottoman Empire. These didactic materials described Islam’s “international relations law,” i.e., the doctrine of jihad, and included specific information about “treaties,” from an Islamic, jihad war perspective.

From Hohmann’s analysis:

Ingrained in Islamic legal teaching

Dr. Andrew Bostom has studied Islamic jurisprudence for years and written five books about the history of jihad and Shariah, including “The Legacy of Jihad” and “Sharia Versus Freedom.”

indexBostom addresses the principle of Hudaibiya as it relates to the current nuclear deal in his new book, “Iran’s Final Solution for Israel.” 

“It is a principle of Islamic law, that as a Muslim leader, as a Muslim society, you’re not supposed to sign a treaty for longer than 10 years. It is based on Muhammad,” Bostom told WND. “It’s a well-enshrined doctrine, and you are to enter into a deal like this only when you’re in a position of weakness.” The deal the Obama administration negotiated with Iran expires after 10 years. Iran has been under harsh economic sanctions for decades, and oil prices have fallen to the lowest level in a decade.

Bostom says all the classical Islamic jurists have accepted Hudaibiya as a binding principle. In fact, in December 2013, Iranian leaders talking about the negotiations with the six world powers were openly referring to Hudaibiyah. “In my book is a very pertinent example: Within three weeks of when the initial announcement was made in December 2013 about the plan to reach an agreement an adviser to former Iranian President Khatami actually invoked the treaty of Hudaibiyah,” he said. “So you can see how it’s used to illustrate exactly this deal.”

Bostom also documents in his book that the U.S. State Department has been aware of the Islamic view of treaties with non-Muslim countries since 1880: “Edward A. Van Dyck, then U.S. Consular Clerk at Cairo, Egypt, prepared a detailed report in August, 1880 on the history of the treaty arrangements (so-called ‘capitulations’) between the Muslim Ottoman Empire, European nations, and the much briefer U.S.-Ottoman experience. Van Dyck’s report – written specifically as a tool for State Department diplomats – opens with an informed, clear, and remarkably concise explanation of jihad and Islamic law.” (“Iran’s Final Solution for Israel,” Page 74) “The Muslim jurists teach that Muslim rulers are never to make a lasting peace with unbelievers but can only make temporary truces, ‘to be broken at the pleasure by the prince and in the interest of the believers,’” Van Dyck wrote in 1880, quoting from the works of Abu al-Hussein el-Quduri of the Hanafite School of doctors, who died in 1037 A.D.

“This is a cardinal principle of Islamic law, not just something from Muhammad’s lore or Muhammad’s past,” Bostom told WND. “This is Islamic law. Muhammad is just cited as the precedent for it, but it’s embedded in their law that you don’t engage in any sort of negotiation or treaty unless you’re in some position of weakness; otherwise, you just keep waging jihad.”

The 1880 State Department document “lays it all out there, all the facts,” Bostom said. “But that was back when we still had knowledgeable people, actually educated people, handling things in our government.”

Also see: