Bazian Uses Islamist Convention to Push “Islamophobia” Scare

by John Rossomando
IPT News
May 5, 2017

University of California, Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian has made a career out of demonizing critics as Islamophobes and flipping the script, arguing jihad is not the problem, but its critics are. He accuses opponents of promoting a type of McCarthyism and a racist clash of civilizations against Muslims.

“…Islamophobia comes in as a way to rationalize a clash of civilizations, using cultural markers as a way of constructing difference,” Bazian said in a speech last month at the Muslim American Society’s  (MAS) joint conference with the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) held in Baltimore. “Let me say the following: Cultural racism is another signpost for biological racism.”

Bazian’s anti-Semitism runs deep. As a San Francisco State University (SFSU) student in the late 1980s and early 1990s he campaigned against Hillel, the student Jewish organization. He allegedly participated in an assault on the SFSU campus newspaper, The Golden Gator, claiming it was filled with “Jewish spies,” a 2011 Campus Watch report said. Bazian also allegedly worked to prevent a Jewish student from being appointed to the Student Judicial Council. He also served as president of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS), which was aligned with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Bazian has a long association with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to isolate Israel. He helped found Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in 2001 as an outgrowth of GUPS; SJP is known for its pro-Hamas stance and anti-Semitic acts such as disrupting an on-campus Holocaust remembrance event at Northwestern University. In recent years, Bazian has served as chairman of the national board of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). It is closely connected with groups that comprised the Muslim Brotherhood’s defunct anti-Israel network in the United States called the Palestine Committee. Bazian also raised money for KindHearts, a Hamas front whose assets were frozen by the U.S. government in 2006.

Bazian’s Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project that he founded in 2009 churns out academic papers through its Islamophobia Studies Journal that blames the West for terrorism. He also helped found Zaytuna College, the first Muslim liberal arts college in America.

For Bazian, screaming “Islamophobia” is a way to build a smokescreen against inconvenient truths when debating the facts about Islamist aggression.

Some in the Islamic community, such as California Imam Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad, contend the entire concept of Islamophobia is about shirking responsibility.

“By declaring [Islamophobia], the number one threat to Islam and Muslims in the United States, we effectively bypass the central doctrines of self accountability, and moral fortitude; principles upon which our faith is founded,” Ahmad wrote in The Lotus Tree Blog in 2010. “The sooner we wake up and take an intrepid and honest look at ourselves, the better.”

Bazian’s hosts for his recent speech have their own ties to international Islamist movements.

Prosecutors describe MAS as the “overt arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., and it has been alleged to have financial ties to Hamas. ICNA retains a strong spiritual connection with Islamist pioneer Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, founder of the radical South Asian Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. In his book Jihad in Islam, Maududi argues that Muslims should destroy “all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it.” ICNA’s 2010 Member’s Hand Book advocates the “struggle for Iqamat-ad-Deen,” or the establishment of Islam in its totality, “in this land.”

In his MAS-ICNA remarks, Bazian specifically named Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes as drivers of the “Islamophobic industry” dedicated to preserving Israel’s interests.

Playing off the foundations of Islam, Bazian defined the “five pillars of Islamophobia” starting with the government’s “constant war on terrorism that defines it as a war on Islamic terrorism.” He misleadingly cited data to argue that Muslims are responsible for only 4 percent of terrorism in the United States and Europe. He did not cite a source for his data, but did note that it covered a period ending in 1995 – before al-Qaida, ISIS, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and other Islamist terrorist movements that have recruited westerners and attacked Western targets.

Other “pillars” Bazian mentioned include the counter-jihad movement, neo-conservatives and liberal interventionists. But Bazian’s emphasis on “Islamophobes” is to be expected. One cannot expect to attract funding for an Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project without concocting the frightening specter of “Islamophobes.”

Bazian similarly denounced Emerson, Pipes and Geller following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings for connecting the bombings to jihad before the Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the attacks were identified.

“…[The] crime of the terrorist is immediate, while that of the Islamophobes is long-lasting, for it creates and impresses on our collective public mind the logic of hate and racism …,” Bazian wrote in an academic paper called “Boston Bombing, Islamophobia and Sudden Ignorance Syndrome.”

But this was no wild leap of logic. The pressure-cooker bombs used in Boston were just like those recommended by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula’s English language magazine, Inspire. Dhzokhar Tsarnaev later told investigators he and his brother, Tamerlan, got their idea for the bombs from the magazine.

In Bazian’s world, however, it’s Islamophobic and racist to connect violent and imperialistic interpretations of Islam to acts of terrorism today. The Tsarnaevs, indeed, were the bombers, he acknowledged. “But the Islamophobic machine committed crimes against our collective consciousness by exploiting the suffering and pain of our fellow citizens.”

Much of his MAS-ICNA speech was spent attacking Samuel Huntington’s 1993 essay, “The Clash of Civilizations?” which predicted global conflict would be driven more by cultural differences than ideology and economics.

Bazian dismisses this as a “clash of ignorance,” arguing that the past sins of white Western Christians are more important to discuss than jihadist terror.

“Bernard Lewis’ question about Islam of ‘What Went Wrong?’ should be asked in relation to European history with emphasis on the Inquisition, genocide of the Natives in the Americas, the European Trans-Atlantic slave trade, colonization, 8 Apartheid South Africa, WWI and WWII, with the good White Aryan Christian Europeans responsible for the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons against civilians recorded in history to this day,” Bazian wrote.

Then as now, Bazian charged that “Islamophobes” relished in a clash of civilizations.

“It’s interesting that repeated aggressions by Islamists, both violent and non-violent [including Bazian’s speech] don’t count for anything, while criticism of Islamists is used to say that the Bill of Rights is being rescinded,” Pipes told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “That’s highly untenable considering that we’re not the cause of jihad.”

Islamophobia has nothing to do with misunderstanding Islam or Muslims integrating into Western societies, Bazian said at the MAS-ICNA convention. It’s about protecting Western dominance over the rest of the world.

“So often [what] you get with debate and discussion, immediately the Islamophobes who jumps in – ‘well Islam is not a race.’ Well, again, race is a socially constructed category, but the directions of how people are racialized could be for a number of areas,” Bazian said. “You could be racialized because of your language; you could be racialized because of your skin tone; you could be racialized because of your religion.”

Bazian’s cultural racism concept is a flawed one, said American Islamic Forum for Democracy founder and President Zuhdi Jasser. Islam is a belief system. It cannot be treated as a monolithic entity  exempt from criticism.

“If you are going to believe that Islam cannot be debated and cannot be reformed, and cannot be changed, the bottom line is you have to make it into a racial identity,” Jasser said. “That’s why Islamists are wedded … to the idea of Islam as a single tribal identity that is defined by the leaders of that tribe who are imams, clerics or theocrats.”

Islamists then use this tribal identity to depict Christians, Israeli Jews and the West as the enemy, Jasser said.

Fellow Muslims also can be “Islamophobes” if they disagree with Bazian. That’s the word he used to slur Muslims who supported the ouster of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, which ended the Muslim Brotherhood’s brief rule. Presumably this included Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the grand sheikh of Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s most important clerical institution, who blessed Morsi’s ouster.

When it comes to aggressive clash of civilizations rhetoric coming from Islamists, Bazian turns a blind eye. He chose to write for UCLA’s newsmagazine Al-Talib in the late 1990s and early 2000s despite the fact that Al-Talib regularly featured pro-jihadist articles. For example, an article he wrote in the March 1999 issue appeared along with a piece praising Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini.

The July 1999 edition contained an editorial titled “Jihad in America” that criticized calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist. Bin Laden, it said, was a “freedom fighter” who spoke out against oppressors.

By that time, bin Laden had publicly declared war on the United States, “Jews and Crusaders.” That fatwa invoked the Quran to declare that killing Americans “an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…” The al-Qaida suicide bombing attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania took place the year before Bazian’s Al-Talib article.

Bazian could have opted to stop writing for the newsmagazine after the pro-terrorist articles were published, yet he chose to submit articles in Al-Talib’s September 1999 issue and again in Al-Talib‘s March 2000 issue.

“I think he is a classical civilizational Islamist supremacist,” Jasser said, “meaning that until he is caught and exposed on various positions he’ll do whatever possible to advance the concept that where Muslims are a majority that an Islamic state is the best avenue for governance.”

Islamists love clash of civilizations rhetoric because they view the world in terms of the Land of Islam and the Land of War ruled by non-Muslims,  Jasser said.

Bazian’s effort to accuse “Islamophobes” of a racist clash of civilizations at the MAS-ICNA conference and on other occasions distracts from the Islamists’ stated desire to supplant Western civilization.

Sharia’s Incompatibility with Western Values, Explained

gtdg4vst-1411368664

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Sharia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

The ISIS Threat Represents a Clash of Civilizations, and Hillary Won’t Admit It

Clinton at cfrNational Review, by Fred Fleitz — November 30, 2015:

Has Hillary Clinton separated herself from President Obama by taking a tougher and more realistic position on the threat from ISIS? That’s what many in the news media are saying based on some of her recent foreign-policy statements, such as her remarks in a November 19 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

ISIS operates across three mutually reinforcing dimensions: a physical enclave in Iraq and Syria; an international terrorist network that includes affiliates across the region and beyond; and an ideological movement of radical jihadism. We have to target and defeat all three, and time is of the essence.

This portrayal of the ISIS threat sounds like an improvement over the awkward rhetoric used by President Obama to discuss what he insists on calling ISIL or Daesh, and his refusal to use words such as “jihad” and “jihadism.” But Hillary’s rhetorical improvements were offset by caveats indicating that she actually has not moved very far from the president and has a worldview that is just as incoherent.

For example, Clinton criticized “the obsession in some quarters [meaning Republicans] with a clash of civilizations.” Clinton also echoed Obama’s frequent claims that the United States is not at war with Islam when she said, “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists.”

RELATED: Why Does the Left Continue to Insist that Islamic Terrorism Has Nothing to Do with Islam?

Clinton’s dismissal that the threat from jihadist groups represents a clash of civilizations is troubling because it indicates that while she says ISIS is motivated by a radical ideology, she does not understand what this ideology is. Its adherents — including many authorities of Islam — believe in sharia, which amounts to a global operating system for jihad, a holy war with infidel societies explicitly seeking to impose, by violent or stealthy means, an Islamic caliphate worldwide.

Clinton also apparently does not realize that the clash-of-civilizations concept is not a Republican talking point but a well-known theory developed by two giants in the history of the Middle East and political science, Drs. Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington.

RELATED: After Paris, Obama Refuses to Lead

This term, first used by Lewis in a 1990 Atlantic Monthly article and then by Huntington in a famous 1993 Foreign Affairs article, exactly describes sharia ideology. Believing that this ideology is a war being waged against the West by Islamic fundamentalists in retaliation for purported efforts to undermine Islam and the Muslim world through secularism and modernity, Lewis concluded that:

We are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies of governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations — the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both.

Huntington discussed several coming clashes of civilizations in his Foreign Affairs article but highlighted a potential clash between the West and the Muslim world as the most serious. According to Huntington:

The centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent.

President Obama’s approach to the threat posed by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other jihadist groups — including the Muslim Brotherhood — is doomed to fail to protect this country and its interests insofar as it refuses to recognize that they are all based on a global ideology at war with Western civilization.

Clinton’s dismissal of the clash-of-civilizations concept indicates she is also adhering to Obama’s erroneous view and that her reference to an “ideological movement of radical jihadism” is as meaningless as “violent extremism,” the euphemism the president uses to lump together perceived threats from veterans, Constitutionalists, Tea Party members, anti-abortion activists, conservatives, and foreign or domestic Islamist terrorists.

Clinton’s statement, “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists,” is similar to President Obama’s claims that global jihadist groups and their ideologies have very little support in the Muslim world. Last week, the president said 99.9 percent of Muslims reject terrorism.

Obviously the U.S. is not at war with all Muslims. But by making this false argument, Obama and Clinton are ignoring the reality that the global jihad movement is such a difficult threat to counter because it has the support of more than a small minority of the world’s Muslims.

Josh Gelernter addressed this in an excellent November 21, 2015, National Review article in which he debunked President Obama’s “99.9 percent” claim. Citing Pew Research polling figures, Gelernter wrote:

In surveys of the Muslim populations of nine majority-Muslim countries, plus Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, an average of 57 percent have an unfavorable view of al-Qaeda, not 99.9 percent. Thirteen percent have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, not 0.1 percent.

There also are disturbingly high levels of support for the global jihadist ideology among Muslims in the United States. According to a June 2015 online survey conducted by The Polling Company and sponsored by my organization, the Center for Security Policy, a majority (51 percent) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah” and nearly a quarter believe “it is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.” The survey also found that 25 percent agreed fully or in part that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”

RELATED: Obama’s Increasingly Surreal War on ISIS

By claiming the United States is at war only with jihadists, Clinton is making the same mistake as President Obama by ignoring the sizeable number of the world’s Muslims who sympathize with them and their ideology. They are ignoring how this reality is a clash of civilizations and that the real war is an ideological one.

To win the war against the global jihad movement, the United States needs to combine military, diplomatic, and intelligence measures with aggressive efforts to challenge and discredit the jihadist ideology worldwide. This must include embracing and empowering Muslim moderates who want to reform Islam, such as Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sissi as well as Muslims and former Muslims who have been persecuted by jihadists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

It is outrageous that President Obama has never invited President Sissi, Dr. Jasser, or Ms. Hirsi Ali to the White House to discuss the threat from ISIS and the global jihad movement. Instead, he relies on counsel from American Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with connections to Hamas that has, according to Daniel Pipes, a “malign, terroristic quality.”

At the last Democratic presidential debate and in recent foreign-policy speeches, Clinton defended her decision not to use the term “radical Islam” because she does not want to offend Muslim societies or make it appear the United States is at war with Islam. This was the wrong answer, since defeating ISIS and the jihadist ideology requires risking offending some in the Muslim world by pressing for reform of Islam and promoting Muslim reformers.

Moreover, given that this is a problem within Islam, it’s absurd to avoid using terms that label it as such, a point Senator Marco Rubio made in this brilliant retort to Clinton:

That would be like saying we weren’t at war with the Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi party but weren’t violent themselves.

Repairing the damage done to international security and America’s global security interests by President Obama’s feckless “leading from behind” foreign policy will take a new president with leadership, vision, and an understanding of global threats. Defeating ISIS will require a new president who will acknowledge that ISIS is simply one manifestation of the larger problem we face from Islamic supremacism, a sharia-driven movement that is very much at war with Western civilization, and who will fight it on that basis.

Hillary Clinton’s recent statements about the ISIS threat fall far short of these requirements and suggest that, although Clinton wants to sound tough on how she would deal with ISIS, her approach would be just as dangerously ineffective as President Obama’s.

 — Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs for the Center for Security Policy. He followed the Iranian nuclear issue for the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee during his 25-year government career. Follow him on Twitter @fredfleitz.

ISIS Targets City that Inspired Washington, D.C. for Destruction

Palmyra (wikipedia)

Palmyra (wikipedia)

Frontpage, May 22, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield:

The great columns and pediments of Washington, D.C. that give it a Roman and Greek air have their origins in a lost city in the Syrian desert. After Robert Wood and James Dawkins visited the ruins of Palmyra in the eighteenth century, the illustrations of the bare columns and broken arches helped inspire neoclassical architecture. Now the city that helped inspire Washington is occupied by ISIS.

It is a historical irony that the classical architecture of our national capital where Islamic terrorists are appeased owes a good deal to a forgotten Christian outpost that surrendered to the armies of Islam.

Some would even say that history is repeating itself.

Palmyra fell when it was besieged by the savage horde of Khalid ibn al-Walid; the Sword of Allah. The Sword of Allah was known for numerous atrocities. One particularly gruesome account describes how he murdered the Arab poet and chieftain Malik ibn Nuweira for returning taxes demanded by Mohammed to his people, telling them, “Your wealth is now your own.” The Islamic IRS was even nastier than ours.

The Sword of Allah cut off Malik’s head and used it to cook dinner before raping his wife. Through such atrocities, that helped inspire the modern crimes of ISIS, the Sword of Allah was able to keep Mohammed’s conquests together after his death. When he came to Palmyra, the Sword swore by Allah that he would conquer it even if it were in heaven and capture its sons and daughters.

Hoping to save their lives, the people of Palmyra surrendered and became dhimmis. Arabic replaced Aramaic, Islam replaced Christianity and the city once founded by King Solomon mostly vanished from history. Those inhabitants who survived the terrible centuries of Islamic occupation, lost their identity, their religion and any knowledge that they were of a nobler kind than their brutal conquerors.

Palmyra falls again with its capture by ISIS. This fall may be its final one. If ISIS has its way, the ruins of the city that helped inspire the rebirth of classical architecture in England and America will be destroyed.

Like the old armies of Islam that destroyed the Library of Alexandria because its books were a threat to the totalitarian writ of the Koran, ISIS destroys the remains of the civilizations that predated Islam. It is not alone in seeking to destroy the histories of more civilized times so that none of the peoples under its rule can ever seek to better themselves by reaching for something higher and better than the Koran.

America found inspiration in ancient civilizations to reach higher. ISIS wants a world where no one can ever know that there were better men than Mohammed and the Sword of Allah, so that its followers will aspire to be nothing better than murderers and rapists, destroying the past to kill the future.

While the archeological mass destruction practiced by ISIS and the Taliban is well known, “moderate” Muslim kingdoms like Saudi Arabia engage in the same practice. Wahhabism began with the destruction of relics. While Europeans were marveling over Palmyra, the House of Saud was massacring thousands and destroying historical artifacts across Iraq and Syria in a manner indistinguishable from ISIS.

The Islamic State’s Caliph has vowed that “After Ramadi, will come Baghdad and Karbala.” ISIS is retracing the path of the House of Saud, which had declared, “We took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah… and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”

That horrid event took place in the same year that Washington D.C. was incorporated as a city and the Library of Congress was founded. There could hardly be a better contrast between Islam and America.

That is what we are up against, not only in the fight against ISIS, but in the Clash of Civilizations.

Islamists in Libya and Timbuktu, after Obama’s illegal regime change destabilized the region, were left free to destroy mausoleums and shrines. When UNESCO protested, the Jihadists of Ansar Dine, the Defenders of Islam, responded by mocking the helpless international organization, “We are all Muslims. UNESCO is what? [We are acting] in the name of Allah.”

Now UNESCO is appealing to protect Palmyra from the modern Swords of Allah, but it’s equally helpless to do so. The Swords of Allah and Defenders of Islam are savages who thrive on terror. They destroy everything that reminds them of their own cultural inferiority. They cannot be reasoned with.

UNESCO chief Irina Bokova calls the potential destruction of Palmyra, a UNESCO world heritage site, “an enormous loss to humanity.” But we cannot save the ruins of Palmyra until we recognize that the forces threatening it today are the same as those that left it a forgotten ruin in the desert.

The enormous loss to humanity started when the warlords of Islam began the destruction of thousands of years of civilization. ISIS is only finishing what the armies of Mohammed began.

When it burns manuscripts in the Mosul Library, ISIS is following up Caliph Omar’s destruction of the Library of Alexandria. When the Jihad conquered Persia and found “innumerable quantity of books and scientific treatises”, Omar commanded, “Throw them into the water.”

Until we recognize that ISIS is the extension of the Islamic imperative of cultural mass destruction, we will continue losing cultural heritage sites, not only in the Middle East, but in Europe as well, where churches are being turned into mosques, Georg Engelhard Schröder’s Juno is covered up in the Swedish Legislature to avoid offending Muslims and a Mozart opera is shut down in Berlin.

Palmyra is likely to meet the same fate as Aleppo and Nimrud. As have Hatra and Khorsabad.

The ruins of Nimrud were bulldozed and blown up. In Mosul, ISIS savages rampaged through the museum smashing artifacts. Dabiq, the ISIS magazine, explained that, “The kuffar (non-Muslims) had unearthed these statues and ruins in recent generations and attempted to portray them as part of a cultural heritage and identity that the Muslims of Iraq should embrace and be proud of.”

ISIS, like the armies of Islam dating back to Mohammed, has as its core mission the destruction of the pre-Islamic cultures that might inspire people living under Islam to better themselves, to look beyond the black veil of Islam to the past and the future. There is nothing savages hate more than civilization.

What is at stake in the Clash of Civilizations is the destruction of civilization. The ruins of Palmyra inspired our civilization. Their threatened destruction should inspire us to protect our own civilization from the Swords of Allah before all that remains of our cities is the ruins of a lost greatness.

***

Also see:

42% of Canadian Muslims Admit Islam and West ‘Irreconcilable’

Female-Madrassa_Reuters-640x480Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, April 14, 2014:

Two recently-released polls found that 42 percent of Canadian Muslims agree that Islam is “irreconcilable” with Western society.

The surveys also found that over 60 percent of Jewish and Christian Canadians believe that Islam is incompatible with the West. Among secular Canadians, 46 percent shared the “irreconcilable” viewpoint, the Vancouver Sun reported.

The polls asked 2,000 individuals and its surveying took place in 2013 and 2014.

Jack Jedwab, who’s Association for Canadian Studies commissioned the poll, said of its results: “It’s quite disconcerting that our poll results consistently show about 60 percent of Canadians see the West and Islamic society as ‘irreconcilable.’ It puts you up against a dead end.”

“It’s a huge blow to interfaith dialogue,” he added.

Jedwab discussed the “Clash of Civilizations” that occurs when people from Islamic cultures have to blend into Western society, citing Koranic mandates that require women to cover themselves. “Some people say the niqab reflects the oppression of women. Others say it’s just a piece of clothing. My view is it does represent the oppression of women,” he said.

Ezra Levant of Rebel Media said that the poll was important because it discussed a “sensitive subject” matter that is largely avoided by “politically correct journalists.”

The polls were conducted before a series of Islamic terror attacks against Canadian officials in late October. The first attack was carried out by an Islamic State supporter, who proceeded to run over two police officers with his vehicle before police shot the jihadi dead. The second attack targeted Canada’s Parliament Hill in Ottawa. The jihadi gunman, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, killed a Canadian soldier before being shot dead by the House of Commons Sergeant-at-Arms.

THE ANCIENT WAR BETWEEN THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WEST AND ISLAM

Steuben_-_Bataille_de_PoitiersBreitbart, By JAMES P. PINKERTON:

Note from Senior Management: Jim Pinkerton outlines the central issues in the 1500-year struggle between competing cultural visions several years ago in this article, which first appeared in The American Conservative.

In one of the great epics of Western literature, the hero, confronted by numerous and powerful enemies, temporarily gives in to weakness and self-pity. “I wish,” he sighs, “none of this had happened.” The hero’s wise adviser responds, “So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide.” The old man continues, “There are other forces at work in this world … besides the will of evil.” Some events, he adds, are “meant” to be, “And that is an encouraging thought.”

Indeed it is. Perhaps, today, we are meant to live in these times. Perhaps right here, right now, we are meant to be tested. Maybe we are meant to have faith that other forces are at work in this world, that we are meant to rediscover our strength and our survival skills.

And so the question: can we, the people of the West, be brought to failure despite our enormous cultural and spiritual legacy? Three thousand years of history look down upon us: does this generation wish to be remembered for not having had the strength to look danger squarely in the eye? For having failed to harness our latent strength in our own defense?

With apologies to the frankenfood-fearers and polar bear-sentimentalizers, the biggest danger we face is the Clash of Civilizations, especially as we rub against the “bloody borders” of Islam.

What if, in the coming century, we lose that clash—and the source of our civilization? What if Muslims take over Europe? What if “Eurabia” indeed comes to pass? Would Islamic invaders demolish the Vatican, as the Taliban dynamited Afghanistan’s Buddhas of Bamyan in 2001? Or would they settle merely for stripping the great cathedrals of Europe of all their Christian adornment, rendering them into mosques? And what if the surviving non-Muslim population of Europe is reduced to subservient “dhimmitude”?

It could happen. Many think it will. In July 2004, Princeton historian Bernard Lewis told Germany’s Die Welt that Europe would be Islamic by the end of this century, “at the very latest.” Other observers, too, have spoken out: Melanie Phillips in ;Londonistan, Bruce Bawer in While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, and Mark Steyn in America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. Admittedly, these writers share a mostly neoconservative perspective, but such can’t be said for Patrick Buchanan, author of the book that out-Spenglers Spengler, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization.

On the other side of the great divide, militant Muslims are feeling the wind at their backs. Last November, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, leader of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, released an audiotape in which he vowed, “We will not rest from our jihad until we are under the olive trees of the Roman Empire”—which is to say, much of Europe. This August, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, traveling to Afghanistan, declared, “There is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind.” To be sure, there’s no shortage of Christians who speak this way, but none of them are currently heads of state.

If demography is the author of destiny, then the danger of Europe falling within dar al-Islamis real. And in addition to the teeming Muslim lumpen already within the gates, plenty more are coming. According to United Nations data, the population of the Arab world will increase from 321 million in 2004 to 598 million in 2050. Are those swarming masses really going to hang back in Egypt and Yemen when Europe beckons? And of course, over the horizon, just past Araby, abide the Muslim multitudes of Central Asia and Africa, where tens of millions more would love to make the secular hajj to, say, Rome or Berlin.

In other words, if present trends continue, the green flag of Islam—bearing the shahada, the declaration of faith, “There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God”—could be fluttering above Athens and Rotterdam in the lifespan of a youngster today. If so, then the glory of Europe as the hub of Greco-Roman and Christian civilization would be extinguished forever.

If this Muslimization befalls Europe, the consequences would be catastrophic for Americans as well. Although some neoconservatives, bitter at Old European “surrender monkeys,” might be quietly pleased at the prospect, the fact is that a Salafist Surge into the heart of Europe—destroying the civilization that bequeathed to us Aesop and Aristotle, Voltaire and the Victorians—would be a psychic wound that would never heal, not across the great sward of America, not even in the carpeted think-warrens of the American Enterprise Institute. A dolorous bell would toll for all of us, scattered as we might be in the European Diaspora.

Read the rest of the article here.

Tens of thousands demand Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia be turned into a mosque

1299668013-z9ura808IPT, by John Rossomando

Tens of thousands of Turkish Islamists held a triumphalist gathering outside Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia museum on Saturday. Originally built as a cathedral in 537 by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian, it was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans following the fall of Constantinople in 1453.The former religious site was re-opened as a museum in 1935. The Islamists who prayed at the site on Saturday did so with the hope that it would be converted back into a mosque by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The protest also coincided with the anniversary of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople on May 29, 1453, an event for which Erdogan has encouraged the celebration.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish republic, converted the massive structure into a museum in 1935.

For Turkey’s Islamists, Hagia Sophia serves as a symbol of Islam’s triumph over Christianity.

“Ayasofya is a symbol for the Islamic world and the symbol of Istanbul’s conquest. Without it, the conquest is incomplete, we have failed to honor Sultan Mehmet’s trust,”Reuters quoted Salih Turan, head of the Anatolia Youth Association, as saying. The association claims it has collected 15 million signatures asking for Hagia Sophia to reopen as a mosque.

Details of the conquest and Hagia Sophia’s conversion from being a church into a mosque stand in stark contrast to the picture of Islam that Islamists want to portray – that of a tolerant and ethical faith. Islamic law might forbid the slaughter of innocent non-combatants during times of war, but that was not what happened in Hagia Sophia the day Constantinople fell.

The late Sir Steven Runicman, widely regarded as one of the greatest scholars of Byzantine history, noted that Ottoman soldiers under Sultan Mehmet’s command entered the cathedral and indiscriminately slaughtered men, women, children and the elderly. Mehmet’s personal imam then climbed into the pulpit to proclaim the shahada, transforming Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

Sheik Abdullah Basfar, the imam of the Ka’aba in Mecca, who led Saturday’s prayer gathering outside Hagia Sophia, has a history of extremist rhetoric. In a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), he notably stated in September 2005 that funding the Palestinian jihad against Israel was a religious “duty” of all Muslims.

Erdogan’s government, however, says no plans currently exist to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

The world’s 350 million Eastern Orthodox Christians still look to Hagia Sophia as one of the most sacred places in their faith – a reminder of the Christian Byzantine Empire that stood for over 1,000 years.

Hagia Sophia’s place in the Orthodox consciousness was such that a group of American Greek Orthodox Christians similarly and unsuccessfully tried to hold services there in 2010. Talk about converting Hagia Sophia into a mosque has provoked strong condemnation from the Greek government, which issued a statement in November 2013, saying talk about “converting Byzantine Christian churches into mosques [is] offending the religious feeling of millions of Christians.”

The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I, the world’s most senior Orthodox bishop, similarly condemned the effort, saying it should remain a museum or be reopened as a church.

Transforming Hagia Sophia back into a mosque would necessitate the whitewashing of priceless treasures of Byzantine iconography.

Turning Hagia Sophia into a mosque reinforces the narrative that Muslims seek to subordinate other religions to Islam, and it reinforces the idea of a clash of civilizations.

“It would strengthen the mutual suspicion and polarization between the West and the Muslim world,” Sahin Alpay, professor of political science at Bahcesehir University,told Reuters. “All hell breaking loose is a high price to pay.”