How to do Dawah – A Guide

d642b0_70ec316a6f78445f918e867394e136fc-mv2

We Need to Talk About Islam, by Harriet Taylor, August 1, 2016:

Having studied the methods of those operating Dawah stalls, I have compiled a short training manual of Handy Hints for those who wish to ‘Do Dawah’. It also acts as a self-defence manual for those interacting with their friendly neighbourhood High Street Dawah stall.

1. Have large banners proclaiming in massive letters that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with any violence, with terrorism, with suicide bombings. This will draw people in, especially those anxious to believe that stuff about Islam being a religion of peace.

2. However, your main goal is to convert people. So, have one leaflet about terrorism, but make sure that all your other leaflets and books are just all about Islam. It’s just a bait-and-switch to get them hooked.

3. When a person approaches the stall, quickly establish what religious faith they are, if any. You can use this base from which to argue. For added impact, if they say they are atheist, say you used to be an atheist, if they say they are Christian, say you used to be Christian. Then, if the person is Christian or Jewish, you can say that Moses and Jesus are prophets in Islam, and claim that Islam is just a continuation of their religion, only better. If the person is an atheist or agnostic, simply throw any accusation you like at Christianity, and say that Islam has the perfect solution. They will eagerly believe whatever crap you tell them about how awful Christianity is.

4. If the person knows little about the origins of Islam, explain that Islam is a peaceful religion and that Mohammed only fought the occasional skirmish after being attacked and persecuted viciously by marauding and jealous Jews. You can litter your spiel with references to ‘pagans’ and ‘Jews’ at random, because most people won’t know enough about the history to be able to call you out on that.

5. If the person is ignorant of the Quran and other Islamic texts, you can tell them more or less anything – they came over because they were eager to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, so say that the Quran gives rights for women, that it prohibits the taking of innocent life, that Allah is merciful, that Islam tolerates other religions, and so on and forth.

6. If the person seems to know something of the historical origins of Islam, then any time they bring up a relevant fact, cast scorn upon it. Helpful strategies include, ‘I never heard of that battle’, ‘Mohammed was persecuted by the pagans,’ ‘What year did that battle take place?’ ‘What are your sources for that?’ ‘That’s not in Islamic history you must be reading it somewhere else’. (NB, we’ve found from experience that ‘You must agree the pagans deserved to be punished’ does not work terribly well with contemporary Westerners.) If the person mentions sex slavery, say, ‘but there were no battles prior to Medina so how could there have been sex slaves then?’, distracting your questioner by completely ignoring the obvious point that this implies that there were sex slaves later and does not actually answer the question about sex slaves at all.

7. If the person refers to facts about the life of Mohammed, offer them a booklet you have handy purporting to be a biography of Mohammed. If the person proclaims, ‘That’s not a full biography of Mohammed, it’s really short, what’s been left out?’, then look stunned, and say repeatedly, ‘This is Mohammed’s biography’, pointing to the chapter headings which all refer to how peaceful he was.

8. If the person seems to have read the Quran, tell them that ‘I never heard of that in the Quran, what chapter and verse is that?’, or ask, ‘What translation of the Quran do you use?’, recoil at their reply and snort, ‘That is a terrible translation, full of errors.’

9. If the person mentions abrogation, deny there is such a doctrine. If they do not mention abrogation, then claim that any awkward verses they mention are abrogated.

10. If, worse still, they have read more about Islam, and mention the hadith, reel backwards in surprise and (a) either deny that what they claim is in the hadith is really there, asking them for the precise reference; or (b) deny that the hadith is reliable; or (c) brazen it out and say, ‘yes, of course you go to hell for splashing urine on your clothes, Allah demands basic cleanliness’.

11. If a woman complains that Mohammed said that most of the inhabitants of hell are women, reply, ‘Yes, and do you know why they are there?’ If she correctly replies, ‘because they were disobedient’, just nod gravely and look at her meaningfully. She should get the message.

12. This strategy is multi-purpose for Christians, Jews, and atheists. Explain how the Bible’s prophets behaved appallingly, so how can they be examples to follow, unlike Mohammed who was perfect. Use the example of King David, who behaved atrociously. In an emergency situation where a know-it-all type replies that, ‘Actually, David isn’t held up by Jews and Christians as perfect, in fact, the story of the prophet Nathan shows the reverse: that David’s adultery with Bathsheba was an example NOT to follow’, then either a) cast doubt on their account or b) wave it to one side and insist that Jews and Christians consider David perfect, since he was a prophet. Be vague about whether you think David really was perfect and the Biblical story about his improper conduct is false, or whether you think David really was imperfect and Jews and Christians are wrong to aspire to emulate his conduct. After all, you never heard the story of Nathan before so you are getting confused. Don’t let them see your confusion.

13. Insist that the Bible has to be interpreted literally as absolutely true, so that all episodes of violence are problematic, whereas any tricky passages in the Quran are to be interpreted carefully and in a modern context, and none are actually violent. If the person points out that the Quran is meant to be eternal and for all time, so how can it be interpreted for the modern day, just wave your hand sneeringly and make out like they are dim.

14. You may find Christians and Jews trying to say ‘No, Abraham did not take Ishmael out to the mountain to sacrifice, he took Isaac’. Raise your eyebrows in complete surprise, and say that this is because the Bible is full of error. (Your surprise may be either feigned or real, depending on how ignorant you actually are about the Bible.) Don’t pause to consider how a few moments ago you were insisting that the Bible passages referring to violence be taken as literal truth, in case the person spots the inconsistency.

15. If the person asks about connections with Islam and violence, then deny that there has ever been any link with violence and claim that ISIS and Al Quaeda are abominations. If the person says, ‘But how come there are so many terror groups who “misunderstand Islam”, what about Boko Haram, Al Nusra Front, Al Shabab, the Taliban, Hezbollah, etc, etc,’, just shake your head and start talking about violence in the Bible. If need be, in extreme cases, mention the Crusades.

16. If the person goes on to ask how come Mohammed himself committed so many acts of violence, including having people murdered and tortured, shout loudly and insistently that they are insulting your prophet who did no such actions.

17. Lastly, if the person is still arguing with you, just carry on winding them up until they get exasperated. Then you can literally turn your back on them, and say that you refuse to talk to them if they are ‘going to be like that’.

Your training is complete.

The First Commandments in Combating World Jihad

0d3097c18b3f4a6374929da2a3d660f5_L

Modern Diplomacy, by David Bukay, March 27, 2016:

The international situation proves we are losing the war on terror, by failing to define the enemy and ignoring the battle ground. Western leader must acknowledge reality. Indeed, one of the wonders of human nature is how leaders transform information into knowledge, or perhaps better, how they disregard the hazards by ignoring, using mental agnosia, and appeasing. This politicians’ illness, the oblivion of reality, is pervasive, and “war on terrorism” has become a favorite slogan.

However, it is not only naïve, but also stupid as much as criminal to declare ‘we are at war with terrorism,” “we must fight terrorism.” We are not. We are at war with Islamic ideology, because Muslim groups and organizations has declared war against all other civilizations. Terrorism is a tactic, a means; one cannot be at war with a tactic, as if during WWII, the US went to war against the ‘Blitzkrieg’ or ‘Kamikaze.’

Those days, the free world was not afraid to clearly declare it is at war against Nazi Germany and Japan. Nowadays our leaders are afraid, terrorized, and intimidated, and that is why they even do not say ‘Islamic terrorism.’ Oddly enough they immediately reiterate that Islam is a peaceful and compassionate religion, and even that al-Qaeda and the Islamic Caliphate State are not Islamic. However, Islamic ideology is the only reason, the incentive, the motivation, and the only cause of the free world’s severe hazardous situation.

It is ridiculous to define the enemy as ‘al-Qaeda’ or ‘Islamic Caliphate State’ or ‘Taliban’ or ‘Hamas’ or ‘Hezbollah’ – and at the same time to “set free” the motivational force, the political drive of Islamic ideology to occupy the world. It is illogical let alone futile, not to courageously define the enemy, the rival you fight against. In World War II the Free World fought Nazi Germany and Japan on the international level. The aim was not the 16th German Armor Division or the 45th Japanese Regiment. Our leaders should loud and clear declare that we are fighting against Islamic ideology, Islamic ambitions to occupy the world. Our leaders must clearly assert that we are fighting against the ideology of Islam manifested in a tactical level as terrorism, Jihad, which knows no country and recognizes no borders. Our leaders must clearly establish that we are fighting against a world political movement, an imperialist colonialist political religion that seeks to submit and subdue us all and bring us to their 7th century desert.

In his Art of War, Sun Tzu remarks, “He who knows neither self nor enemy will fail in every battle.” This is exactly the contemporary Western world situation. It exhibits a catastrophic failure because it knows neither self nor enemy and stands as helpless as a kitten against the onslaught of Islam’s aggressive, political, ideological and territorial offensive. Where is the problem? It is exactly our leaders, our media, and academia. One can never awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep. One can never arouse a man who lives in utopian wishful world, and clearly denies the situation, and it is even unfortunate that one cannot bring knowledge to those who are in mental agnosia and ignorance. It is no less important to note that the conclusions we reach reflect the assumptions we make. Start with false assumptions and you reach false conclusions. Start with euphoric assumptions and you reach false peaceful conclusions.

However, data assembled from all reliable sources show that more than 70 percent of world violence and more than 90 Percent of world terrorism is connected directly to Muslims and Islamic ideology. Horrific data taken for more than twenty years also show that every minute there is at least one victim from the Muslims worldwide, most of them are Muslims by themselves. In 2015 there were 452 homicide bombings; all of them were Islamic. This date is crystal clear: the issue at stake is the Islamic ideology, and from here stem the targets and the means.

However, do our leaders really intend to combat Islamic terrorism to eliminating it, or perhaps they intentionally evade the issues by not truly defining it correctly? It is unfortunate to realize that the most salient characteristics of our generation is the deep crisis of leadership and the lake of statesmanship. It is pervasive and cut across all over the world. An accumulation of President Bush’s declarations show that he has never added the word “Arab” to terrorism, and when he said “Islamic terrorism,” he immediately adds that Islam is a peace-loving compassionate religion. Is it only a politically correctness? A denial? An ignorance? President Obama has adopted a worse policy: it is forbidden to put together “Islamic” with “terrorism;” it is imposed to utter that Islam is a “religion of peace;” and it is coerced to declare that al-Qaeda or the Islamic Caliphate State are nor Islamic movements, in fact they are anti Islam.

After London blasts of July 2005, British Prime Minister, and in many declarations, Tony Blair denounced “terrorism” and not “Islamic ideology. He persistently accused poverty, wretchedness and Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the causes of terrorism, while systematically said Islam is a religion of peace and the Qur’an is the book of wisdom. Almost the same ritual was reiterated by British Prime Minister David Cameron, the new elected Canadian Prime Minister, Trudeau, and even by the current Pope who declared that Islam “exemplifies shared belief of Christianity.”

The riots that erupted in France from the beginning of the 21st century, gives another example to the politics of oblivion and mental agnosia so characterizes Western leadership. Even the terrorist attacks in Paris, in 2015 and 2016, has not caused a strategic change in the operational code of the ideology and policy of France. Experts who watched closely these phenomena are amazed by the fact that also the reality of Muslims’ character and nature is distinct and obvious, there was consensus in France as much as in other states, among political leader and parties, the media and public opinion to deny the true reality that there was religious and cultural dimensions.

However, The folly of mental blindness and appeasement prevails, and hypocrisy combined with ignorance and political correctness, runs rampant: indeed, there are extreme verses as much as there are mild in the Qur’an, and this duality is found in every religion; and indeed, there are radicals among the Muslims just as in all societies, but they are just a minority, even weeds. The Muslim majority is different. However, this is the problem with all its severity, to be investigated by the following questions:

If that is the true situation – how do we know this? Are there any corroborating studies and data to substantiate this view? Or we only believe this is the reality? Even if a different peace-loving majority exists, is its voice heard? Does it have any influence in the decision-making processes and the policies adopted by the leaders? Or is it only in our mirror imaged personality? Where is public opinion voice, the political parties, the media, the leaders which prove there are other voices and policies? Or we just assume this is the situation?

How many peace movements, demonstrations and masses marching and rolling for peace and against terrorist perpetrators can be identified? Was any terrorist attack stopped or even just even denounced by the so-called majority? Or is it our own imagination alone? How many pressure and interest groups are there which actively function against Islamic fanaticism and Jihad terrorism? And if they do, to what extent do they influence? Or we just ignore reality out of politically correctness? How many NGO’s are there acting against the terrorist organizations and preventing aid from their reach? Do they even try to stop terrorism and convince it is act against humanity? Or we just want to believe that there are such? If there are moderate peace-loving political leaders, where are they? What influence do they have? Is their voice heard? What do they declare after the horrible acts of terrorism perpetuated, except of blaming the US and Israel? Or is it all our mental blindness and political denial?

Indeed, there are intellectuals and liberals, unfortunately very few, condemning the atrocious terrorist acts. However, who controls the Islamic communities and in the streets? Which voice is heard and is written in the communication Media? Who is more influential and admired by the youth; in the Madaris (school system)? In the mosques and in the media? Who are the heroes of the masses? And the biggest wonder of all, why do we always supply excuses and explanations to the horrific phenomenon we don’t understand culturally and ignorant religiously, and at the same time we do not demand from the others to apologize and act? Or we just have a death wish? Do we ignore reality out of confusion or the Stockholm syndrome is the cause, or the threatening lethal situation that frightens and horrifies us so deeply?

And if there is a silent majority, Nonie Darwish is correct by putting the blame on their silent which in fact means aiding and abetting the culture of hate, terror and beheadings. Moreover, Western and public opinion leaders dismiss the role of the religion and its deep influence on the Muslims. This situation is much worse, since our leaders totally deny what the Islamic terrorist organization clearly utter: that we are in a third world war, and it is a religious war. The latest example among the huge pile of Western denial declarations was the State Department spokesman, John Kirby that the terrorist attack in Brussels in March 2016, “was not about a religion… we don’t believe that it is indicative in any way of the Muslim faith or the people who practice Islam as a religion.”

Although the Qur’an is written in parables and vague; in a language full of contradictions, so that different people can choose passages to justify anything they want, the Qur’anic religious, ideological and political passages are clear and its targets are laid down clearly, and it commands its believers to accomplish them by all means. The aim is to occupy the world and to make Islam the only legitimate religion. Still, Western and public opinion leaders are unintentionally assisting Islamic victory by failing to know how to fight the enemy; by the politics of denial and ignorance of postponing decisions and activity to eliminate the threat by the media and the legal system; and by using mental blindness and mirror image instead of courageous policy.

Republican Senator, Allen West, is correct by insisting that the U.S. must understand 21st-century combat.

Today’s paradigm of battle and combat operations is completely different and more complicated. The conventional wars we knew have completely disappeared for an asymmetrical battlefield with non-uniformed, non-state belligerents, using unconventional weapons and tactics. Every nation that wishes to succeed in protecting its citizens and interests must quickly understand and adapt to the new battlefield. For the sake of our nation, and of all nations who seek freedom for their citizens, we must clearly identify the 21st century battlefield and ensure we are victorious on it.

Therefore, it is a must to deny the enemy sanctuary. Because this enemy has no respect for borders or boundaries, we must be willing to take the fight directly to him. It means to cut off the enemy’s flow of men, material and resources, and cordon off the enemy to reduce his sphere of influence, by denying immigration, expelling the radical Imams, and demanding the Muslims’ assimilation and integration. Above all, it is a must to win the information war. Unfortunately, the enemy is far more adept at exploiting the power of the Internet, broadcast media and dissemination of powerful imagery. It is exacerbated by Western media, seeing itself as an ideological political wing or at best as a neutral body.

Until the Free World nations are able to correctly and openly identify the enemy, we will continue to stumble and fail, and Islam continues to prevail. Once we have identified the enemy and the specific strategic level objectives, we must effectively fight. We have to be mindful of the wise words compiled by Sun Tzu in his “The Art of War” more than 25 centuries ago: “to know your enemy and to know yourself and to know the environment and countless amounts of battles, you will always be victorious.” However, the Free World leaders’ ‘war on terrorism’ has been exactly the opposite, as one cannot fight the means, but must fight by all means the perpetrator. There are still those who declare “the only way to defeat terrorism is to ignore it; as if it will disappear by itself. However, it is so crazy, meaning exactly to dance with death.

With Obama’s administration the situation has even worsen, as it is impossible to formally utter ‘Islamic terrorism’ together. There is Islam which is a religion of peace and compassion, and terrorism, which is al-Qaeda. Even the Taliban, the richest terrorist organization, is not completely a terrorist. It is even forbidden to use terms like ‘fighting jihadists,’ because ‘Jihad’ means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.’ Those who do not agree with the administration show ‘inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness.’

Continuing these lines, John Kasich said after the Brussels massacre: “We are not at war with Islam; we’re at war with radical Islam.” This is really a willful blindness that goes on after the Paris and Brussels Islamic terrorist attacks. Daniel Benjamin, former State Department’s counterterrorism coordinator, has essentially declared, what happened in Brussels is really just about Europe. It has nothing to do with the US; it can’t happen here. With all due respect any logical assessment must emphatically disagree. He is absolutely mistaken. Americans should fear exactly that.

Richard Perle said that the US administration “should keep eye on radical mosques,” and he two is wrong. All over the Free World’s governments should keep thousands of eyes on each and every mosque and directly monitor all Muslim Imams. It is a must. Everything begins with them, from radicalization to legitimization, and at the end of the continuum, the performance and execution of terrorist attacks.

There is also the case of Western media, its agenda is unfortunately different from the best interests of Western security. Perhaps it is the right time to demand the media just to tell the truth. After reporting the Brussels massacre, the media in the US was very busy with the probability of the “rise of the right wing in Europe.” The cover story was “terrorism;” not Islamic terrorism. The debates on the TV’s did not deal with the issues of Islam, they have given the audience an ample time to listen to Islamic and Western propagandists to exhibit a peaceful compassionate Islam. For the media, ‘the right wing’ is the problem and not Islamic atrocities.

There are so many issues to consider: the coercive terrorism-Jihad, exhibited as homicide bombings, beheadings, lynching. Hatred Terrorism, exhibited by violent demonstrations, Western women rapes, and rioting. Demography terrorism, mass immigration of young and able Muslims representing the arrow-head and forefront of Muslims to occupy and inherit. Deceiving terrorism–Da’wah: exhibited by NGO’s and organization acting legally and politically as interest and pressure groups. They use the ignorance of Western world public opinion to market totally different kind of Islam, as if it is a peaceful, tolerant, and compassionate.

There are more: Judicial terrorism. Through the NGO’s and other organizations, Muslims excel in suing and bringing to court according to Western legal system and laws anyone they blame of insulting them or insulting Islam according to their own judgment. This is very articulate and beneficial strategy: on the one hand they use hideous terrorism, and on the other, anyone who calls the spade, a spade is harassed and summoned to court. “Legal Jihad” is exploiting every provision of the law in free societies to promote Islam and to silence its critics through expensive exhausting lawsuits. There is also cultural terrorism: Western peoples wish to appear liberals, and not to be called racists or fascists. This is the course mainly in Europe, especially after its colonial past and the horrors of the two World Wars of the 20th century. Therefore, by violently intimidating and accusing all those who say anything against Islam, Muslims define him a racist, an Islamophobe, and a liar. They highly succeed in silencing out of intimidation, even forcing Western politicians to apologize and to make concessions.

There is also the academic terrorism. The most important case belongs to Edward Said, and his so-called “research,” Orientalism. He deliberately used West’s guilt remorse of the colonialist-imperialist era to produce a full of twisted ideas book, which is promoted by the leftist’s ignorant in the academia to dance on Western sensibilities. Reality shows: accuse the Europeans with anything, just don’t call them racists or fascists. The Muslims have taken the advantage and yield concessions and appeasement from Westerners by using their historic cultural invention of victimology and misery. This has also a direct link to displacement-transference terrorism, accusing Israel with all Muslims’ evil, describing it as a danger to world peace.

However, Arab-Muslims commit all these atrocities. This is exactly Islamic history represented by two words: Ghazawat (raids) on the infidels’ lands and Ghana’em (taking booty) from them. But it is washed away from world public opinion and attention by ignorance, promoted by the media in association with the academia. Indeed, the Middle East is an unprecedented greenhouse of conspicuous vicious trends, exemplifying the epitome of evil: politically, dictatorship of Arab-Islamic authoritarian regimes and corrupt patrimonial leadership; socially, poverty, wretchedness, and coercion of the miserable population (being the main reason for the huge mass-immigration to the Western countries); morally-ethically, murderous regimes that brutalize its peoples, with politics of mass-murder, genocide; abuse of human and civil rights; oppression of women and honor killings; lynching and beheadings that still exists and pervasive.

It is highly recommended to change our perceptions of Islamic ideology and practice: that the Free World is already engaged in the Third World War declared by Islam more than twenty years ago, That it is an existential civilization threat, no less hazardous than the enemies of World War II, but Western leaders do not yet grasp this to fight back. That although this is not a declared war between states, its consequences are no less lethal to the Free World’s existence. That terrorism perpetrators are perhaps not the tyrants of the past, but the new tyranny World Jihad much more lethal. That not like the ideological wars of the past, World Jihad’s ideology is religiously fanatic being without compromise and appeasement. That we are witnessing raids of terrorism and slaughter by fanatics determined to destroy Western culture and intended to bring our civilization back to their 7th century.

Oriana Fallaci, the late Italian intellectual, one of the earlier prophets concerning Islam, has put the mired lethal situation of the Western World perhaps the best in context. Her words were a warning signpost, a wake-up call, Western leaders did not want to listen even to notice:

Wake up people, wake up. Paralyzed by the fear of appearing racist, you do not understand that the reverse crusade has commenced. Drugged by the stupidity or by shortsightedness of the adherents of political correctness, you do not internalize that a religious war is transpiring here. A war, whose objective is to conquer our souls and rob our freedoms. A war conducted with the goal of destroying our civilization and our way of life.

Stunned by the preponderance of false propaganda, you do not want to get it into your heads that if we do not defend ourselves, if we do not battle, jihad will win. It will win and destroy the world which we were able to build. It will make our culture and identity disappear.

Debating them is pointless; conducting a dialogue with them is useless; and demonstrating tolerance towards them is suicide. How is it that leftists never open their mouths against the Muslim world’s primitive, theocratic regimes, which have no democracy, no freedoms and no individual rights? Why were we killed and die in wars declared against the enemies of freedom and civilization? Are these principles invalid to the despotic Islamic regimes?

Enough of your double standards of morality; enough of your opacity; enough of your hypocrisy. Crickets of all countries and languages stop the confusion and start along the path to sobriety. The mountain of Islam has not moved for 1400 years; a mountain that consciously opts for primitiveness and ignorance and is ruled by fanatics. Europe is becoming a province of Islam.

Which Muhammad Rules?

unnamed (5)

NPR ignores a powerful question in Islamic law.

By Counter Jihad, March 11, 2016:

It is not every day that Islam’s Muhammad gets such good press as he did from America’s National Public Radio today.  The author, Tom Gjelten, wants you to know what a wonderful person Muhammad was.  He liked cucumbers, dying his hair, cool drinks, and clean fingernails.  He cites a Knoxville imam’s method as useful:

Even what seems like the most trivial detail — what kind of sandal he wore, for instance — serves a purpose: humanizing Muhammad, making it easier for Muslims to emulate him.

Hassan argues that if Muslims had more knowledge of how the Prophet Muhammad actually lived and what he taught, they would be less vulnerable to extremist propaganda….

He cites the abundance of examples from the Hadith that emphasize charity and respect for other faiths.

The tradition associated with the Prophet Muhammad, Hassan says, “has never been radicalized and has always produced beauty, always produced involvement in the community, always produced tolerance.”

The danger of speaking this way is partly that it ignores the other example left by the very same man, the example of murderous war against non-believers.  The other danger is that it ignores a well-established tradition in sharia law about how to understand Muhammad’s instructions.  The tradition uses the principle of naskh, an Arabic word that is often translated as “abrogation.”  Under this principle, what Muhammad said last governs in the case of a conflict between verses said by Muhammad.  The violent verses came last, because Muhammad’s wars were waged toward the end of his life.

This is an old and well-established standard of Islamic law.  “[T]he principle of abrogation of an older verse by a new verse of Quran, or within the Hadiths became a well established principle in Sharia at least by the 9th century.[3][4][5”  

This tradition of Islamic law has thus held firm for many centuries.  It could change, of course, and there are some within the Islamic world who would like to change it.  The Herald of Malaysia recently interviewed one Muslim scholar who would like to reverse the principle of naskh, interpreting Muhammad’s earlier and more peaceful verses as being the ones that govern.  Islam will not survive if it fails to do this, he argues.  His arguments are worth quoting at length, because they are the arguments of a real scholar from the Islamic world engaged in the problems that NPR paints over.

[E]xtremism has been endemic in Islam, present almost from the beginning of Islamic history. Muslims fought among themselves and quite vehemently even before the collection of Hadith and codification of [sharia], over a hundred to up to 300 years after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh), but they now consider them divine.Muslims have still not found an antidote to militant verses in the Quran that are now available to anyone with access to internet….  Saying that it is a Muslim’s primary religious duty to help establish God’s sovereignty on earth and impose “divine” [sharia] Laws is only a way to deepen extremism…  Muslims will just have to abandon the generally accepted current theology that leads to violence and supremacism and evolve a new theology, a coherent theology of peace and pluralism, consistent in all respects with the teachings of Islam, and suitable for contemporary and future societies….

ISIS may be militarily defeated tomorrow and even go out of existence. But this will not solve the problem of Muslim radicalisation. If our madrasas and educational institutions continue to prepare the ground for self-segregation and militancy, expounding the current theology… Muslims will continue to struggle to fit in the way of life in the contemporary world.

Unfortunately, the task is not so easy. For hundreds of years now, major Muslim theologians have been engaged in creating a coherent theology of intolerance and violence in order to expand the Islamic reach. They have conclusively made the lower form of Jihad, i.e., warfare, compulsory for all able-bodied Muslims.

That is the real work that has to be done if Islam and the West are to live together.  Being honest about the challenge is the first step.

Also  see:

Da’wah in the West: Islamic “Just War”

70eaefc5bc6bfbfdd6ffa7ba31cfa7c1_LModern Diplomacy, by David Bukay, March 8, 2016:

In a research under the title “The Qur’an and War: Observations on Islamic Just War,” from 2012, Dr. Joel Hayward says that his purpose is to analyze the holy text which underpins Islam and articulates its mandatory codes of conduct in order to determine what that text, the Qur’an, actually requires or permits Muslims to do in terms of military violence….

This article is intended to be useful — sufficient to dispel any assumptions that the Qur’an advocates the punishment, subjugation or even killing of “infidels” as well as to reveal its key concepts governing justice during wartime…

Even a cursory reading of the Qur’an will draw the reader’s eyes to hundreds of scriptures extolling tolerance, conciliation, inclusiveness and peace, but also to a few scriptures that seem to be more aggressive…

“my conclusion (and that of every authoritative Islamic scholar) that the Qur’an is unambiguous: Muslims are prohibited from aggressive violence and are compelled, should war prove unavoidable, always to act within a code of ethical behavior that is closely akin to, and compatible with, the western warrior code embedded within Just War.

Hayward chooses to confirm his above-written assertions by trying to analyze verses that are used as warmongering by the “enemies of Islam.” He claims that “many critics assert that verses 9:29 and 2:190-194 directs Muslims to wage war against any and all disbelievers anywhere who refuse to embrace Islam or at least to submit to Islamic rule.” However, he says “they do not mandate Muslims to wage aggressive war or to inflict disproportionate or indiscriminate brutality.”

Then surprisingly he turns to analyze the abrogation doctrine. He claims that “The Qur’an itself states in several Surah that Allâh’s words constitute a universally applicable message sent down for ‘all of mankind’ and that it was a ‘reminder’ (with both ‘glad tidings and warnings’) to ‘all’ of humanity (Surah 34:28, Surah 39:41 and Surah 81:27). But what is the connection between abrogation and Islamic just war?

Hayward tries to prove the abrogation doctrine is non-existent. How he does so? Very simple: he just dismisses all Islamic classical exegetes and totally relies on the fresh new Islamic propagators in the West. Here is the main problem: the disqualification of Islamic classic and most important exegetes. In his words: “certainly most Islamic authorities on the Qur’an and Muhammad today, as opposed to scholars from, say, the more ambiguous medieval period (author’s emphasis), are firm in their judgement that the most warlike verses in the Qur’an, even those revealed very late in Muhammad’s mission, do not cancel out the overwhelming number of verses (author’s emphasis) that extol tolerance, reconciliation, inclusiveness and peace.

Who are the exegetes that cancel these most important doctrine? Well, the oracles of Hayward are three, in fact four:

The British scholar Dr Zakaria Bashier (War and Peace), who claims that “all the beautiful verses throughout the Qur’an which instruct Muslims to be peaceful, tolerant and non-aggressive are No reason exists at all to think that they have been overruled.”

The “Prolific British scholar Louay Fatoohi (Jihad in the Qur’an: The Truth from the Source), arguing that “overwhelming number’ of Muslim scholars reject the abrogation thesis regarding war (author’s emphasis). Fatoohi highlights the fact that throughout history the Islamic world has never acted in accordance with this extreme view, that Muslims have co-existed very well with other faith communities and that the 1600 million peaceable Muslims in the world today clearly do not accept the view otherwise, if they did, they would be at war as we speak.”

Muhammad Abu Zahra (Concept of War in Islam), an important and influential Egyptian intellectual and expert on Islamic law, summed up the mainstream Islamic view by rejecting any abrogation thesis pertaining to conflict and stating that “War is not justified… to impose Islam as a religion on unbelievers or to support a particular social regime. The prophet Muhammad fought only to repulse aggression.”

Sohaib Nazeer Sultan (The Koran for Dummies) makes the same point that the martial verse and the sword and those like it do not abrogate the more numerous peaceful, tolerant and inclusive verses.

However, not only we do not have any corroboration for these claims, we just have to believe they know better than Ibn Salama, al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh; al-Nahhas, al-Nasikh Wal-Mansukh; al-Baydawi, Anwar at-Tanzil wa-Asrar at-Ta’wil; al-Zarkasi, al-Burhan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an; al-Suyuti, al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an; and Lubab an-Nuqul fi Asbab an-Nuzul; Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir; Ibn Hazm, al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh; al-Zamakhshari, al-Kashshaf; al-Tabari, Tafsir; al-Wahidi, Kitab Asbab Nuzul al-Qur’an; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir.

You see, all these esteemed exegetes, biographers of Muhammad, highly acclaimed interpreters of Qur’an in Islamic religious history are put aside and thrown away by the new scholars of the 21st century, who use Da’wah as a diplomacy of deceit to mislead the infidels. It is as if James Madison and Thomas Jefferson have not written the US constitution, or that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay have not written the “Federalist.” Even better say, it is as if these personalities have nothing to do with the US constitutional and political establishment, and they all must be null and void compare to new propagators claiming totally the opposite about the history of the US.

Then, Hayward turns “the so-called ‘verse of the sword of Surah 9:5.” He claims

“Bin Laden certainly did draw upon the verse of the sword and other seemingly militant Qur’anic scriptures in his August 1996 ‘Declaration of War against the Americans occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places’ as well as in his February 1998 fatwâ.”

However, Bin Laden “is not representative of Islamic belief or behaviour.” For Hayward

“It is quite true that, taken in isolation, Surah 9:5 seems an unusually violent pronouncement for a prophet who had for twenty years preached tolerance, peace and reconciliation (my emphasis). Yet it is equally true that, when read in the context of the verses above and below Surah 9:5, and when the circumstances of its pronouncement by Muhammad are considered, it is not difficult for readers without preconceptions and bias to understand it more fully… It is thus not as bloodthirsty as Robert Spencer and his colleagues portray it… it would only nowadays have any relevance and applicability if polytheists and idolaters ever tried to undertake and re-establish pagan practices in the Saudi Arabian cities devoted only to Allâh: Mecca and Medina. In other words, in today’s world it is not relevant or applicable (author’s emphasis and double emphasis).

Moreover, Hayward says Ibn Kathir said no such thing that the verse of the sword abrogates all peaceful verses ever previously uttered by the prophet, as Spencer claim: “Spencer mistakenly extrapolates this to claim, baselessly.”

Well, the reader in Arabic and in English who reads Ibn Kathir classical Tafsir, is sure Ibn Kathir said verse 9:5 abrogates all the so-called peaceful verses. If one wonders how Hayward misunderstands what Ibn Kathir said, well here is Hayward’s interpretation to another warmongering verse (4:89), which clearly claim to “seize and slay the infidels wherever you find them.” This verse, Hayward says,

“is surrounded by so many other explanatory and qualifying verses that its superficially violent meaning is immediately moderated by its context of tolerance and understanding. First, it threatened violence in self defence only … Secondly, it stated that, if those aggressors left the Muslims alone and free to practice their faith, and if they did not attack them, but offered them peaceful co-existence, then Allâh would not allow Muslims to harm them in any way… The verse not only offered peaceful co-existence to those who formally made peace with the Muslims, but also to anyone…”

Well, this is indeed an interesting interpretation, yet it has nothing to do with the reality. What ridicule the situation is Hayward own words: first, there is a war against the infidels, but it is only “self-defense.” Second, “if those aggressors left the Muslims alone and free to practice their faith, and if they did not attack them, but offered them peaceful co-existence, then Allâh would not allow Muslims to harm them in any way” (my emphases). In other words, if those “aggressors” yield to the Muslim demands, than peace prevails according to the Muslims’ terms. This “coexistence” has one meaning: a total defeat and surrender to Islam, as those aggressors must to live under Muslims’ terms. This is not exactly a peaceful coexistence.

Read more

What is the Muslim Brotherhood doing in your state?

CAIR2

By Cheri Nocita Berens

You’d better find out before it’s too late.

I follow most Muslim Brotherhood (MB) organizations in America on social media. I follow MB mosques, CAIR National, as well as CAIR state branches, and I follow ICNA, ISNA and MPAC — all powerful MB groups that recruit activists for the pro-Muslim agenda in America. I also follow several of the Muslim Student Associations in our top universities — MIT, Harvard, Georgetown, Yale and others. There are thousands of activist groups, with thousands of members, who are actively promoting an anti-America, pro-Muslim agenda both nationally and in your state.

All of these organizations have powerful “media” campaigns, some even have “journalist guides” for your local TV stations and newspapers. The guides instruct the media on political correctness; i.e. never use the words terrorist, Islam or Muslim when reporting crimes, or possible terror attacks, even when these acts are committed by Muslims.

Most all mosques in America have programs that promote conversions to Islam in poor neighborhoods, prisons, and also, many mosque communities target women at homeless shelters or battered wife facilities.

At first glance, you think these mosques are helping the poor, the homeless, the battered, but on closer look, when you follow the progress of these programs as I have, you see Islamic classes being given in the poorer neighborhoods and at homeless shelters and recognize that vulnerable sectors of our society are being targeted for conversions to Islam.

Many of these social media sites not only support Black Lives Matter but they create events for Black Lives Matter in coordination with Muslim events. Racial division is very important to CAIR.

Monthly, some times weekly visits to prisons are organized by many mosques to convert blacks and Hispanics in prisons. The numbers of converts in prisons are astronomical, thanks to the hundreds of mosques promoting this endeavor. Many of these converts are in prison for violent behavior. There are at least 22 known jihadi training camps in America. My guess is that many of the more violent recruits will be funneled into various training camps when they are released from prison.

CAIR and the other MB organizations know people look at their websites, therefore they do a lot of deceptive tactics. Many are pushing the word “Love”. Islam has no concept of love in its ideology. On the contrary, hatred and violence towards Christians and Jews is taught throughout the Quran – this hatred towards non-Muslims is a major foundation of Islamic ideology.

Using the word “Love” fools many Americans. It is a large part of the Interfaith scam. The Interfaith concept was started by Muslim Brotherhood members and is used incessantly by CAIR. When CAIR wants signatures on petitions that take away your rights or cause changes in our society—CAIR obtains the backing of Christian and Jewish groups—via the Interfaith scam.

Last year CAIR asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate gun shop owners who declared their shops a Muslim Free Zone. CAIR got 50 signatures, all from Christian and Jewish groups, to sign these petitions. The Christian and Jewish groups that belong to these Interfaith groups think they are fighting “discrimination”, but they are being used. The people who will be “discriminated” against via these petition drives will be the American people.

One of the biggest deceptions on these websites, Interfaith organizations, and mosque websites, is Quran verse 5:35. If they use this verse you know they are practicing the art of deception and radicalization:

Whoever kills a person, it is as if he has killed all mankind.

Whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

You are led to believe the word “person” and “mankind” applies to all people. But what the verse says in its entirety is that if a Jew kills a Muslim, the crime must be treated as if that Jew has killed all Muslims. In other words, a Jew killing a Muslim is a crime of the largest magnitude (hint: think about Israel). This verse is used in mosques worldwide to promote hatred towards Jews and Israel.

These two lines were used as the opening “prayer” for Obama’s Conference on Counterterrorism last year. Counterterrorism? This verse is used in mosques to promote acts of terrorism!

Our US Congress has opened their sessions with this verse — as an opening payer! A prayer! This verse is a threat directly aimed at Jews and all non-Muslims. And since Islamic ideology does not consider Jews or Christians to be equal to “humans” (the Quran calls them apes to designate their lower status), this verse should not be used as a “prayer” by our Congress. This verse is stating that people are not equal. That Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims, as outlined in the Quran (women have ½ the rights as men; non-Muslims have no rights, are considered slave status, etc.)

Muslim groups have tremendous power and often enact this power via activism and lawsuits, usually based on “human rights” or accusations of “racism”.

For example, a woman applies for a job. When she applied she did not wear a hijab. But as soon as she is hired she shows up at work wearing a hijab and begins taking personal breaks at prayer times. When the employer says no to the extra “breaks”, she files a lawsuit via CAIR. Then CAIR, using various social media campaigns, rallies Muslims to protest and sign petitions against this act of “racism” and “prejudice” against Muslims. And since employers can’t afford these expensive lawsuits, and because they often do not want the negative press (banks and universities do not want this type of press), they kowtow. Muslim employees are then allowed to take longer and more frequent breaks. They are often allowed special rooms set aside as prayer rooms.
You’ve probably seen the lawsuits brought against supermarkets. Throughout America, Muslims are allowed special check out lanes because they don’t want to touch a bottle that contains alcohol, or touch a container that contains pork.

Muslims are not supposed to “consume” alcohol or pork, but there is nothing that says they cannot touch a bottle, container or package containing those substances. The “separate checkout lanes” are orchestrated to give Muslims special rights. Muslim Supremacy is mandated by Islamic Law. This “Supremacy” is mentioned throughout the Quran and is a foundation of Islamic ideology. It is against Islamic Law for non-Muslims to be treated equal to Muslims. Muslims are to be “distinct and separate”. The Quran states very clearly that Muslims are to have more rights than non-Muslims.

CAIR is also creating “hate crimes”. Every year the FBI’s “hate crime” list shows that crimes against Muslims is lower than any other group. Crimes against Jews, blacks and homosexuals always rank much, much higher than crimes against Muslims. Hate crimes against Muslims are few and always rank lowest on the list. My opinion, after monitoring CAIR for over a year, is that the majority of these recent “hate crimes” against Muslims were created by CAIR to implement new laws regarding “discrimination against Muslims”.

CAIR desperately wants the number of hate crimes to rise. CAIR will use hate crimes to promote their agenda, to take away our basic freedoms, and to make more changes to our Homeland Security and Law Enforcement policies.

These groups claim there is prejudice and hatred towards Muslims and therefore mosques and Muslims must not be monitored. CAIR declares that our suspicions of possible radical behavior, even when valid, are “Islamophobia”, and that “hate” and “prejudice” are the cause of our suspicions. CAIR wants “hate crimes” against Muslims to show up in police reports, which will make hate crimes against Muslims show up in the next FBI hate crime statistics. Once they achieve this new statistic, more Homeland Security and Law Enforcement policies will change yet again to “protect” them.

CAIR is the main group behind Hijab Day at your child’s school or university, and also National Hijab Day. Why are we allowing this to happen? Because schools and universities are afraid of being called Islamophobic. This word was created by CAIR and implemented by various MB groups in universities, and now is a word that is used incessantly by every Muslim activist group.

In January, CAIR National announced the following regarding their affiliate, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC): “MPAC’s Hollywood Bureau will meet with entertainment executives regularly and often, and attend all events, such as the Sundance Film Festival, to further help move our cause forward.”

Not long after this announcement, the Sundance Film Festival was held, and various movie stars, directors and producers made statements to the press, that America was racist. One example was Danny DeVito, who said this in an interview at the Sundance Festival: “The entire country is a racist country … We’re living in a country that discriminates … generally speaking, we’re a bunch of racists.”

Not long after the Sundance Festival, Obama visited a Muslim Brotherhood mosque and made a press conference. Obama said that Americans form a “hugely distorted impression” against Muslims based on TV, film and negative news reporting. He said that the film industry must start promoting a good image of Muslims. Obama called for “writers and producers to create more rounded Muslim characters on television”. Within a few days after Obama made those statements, Secretary of State John Kerry met with film industry heads and said that ISIS should be battled by using the film industry.

We will soon see changes in children’s shows, TV programming and movies. The Muslim agenda will soon be seen in a vast array of film media. And it won’t be about “fighting ISIS”. No, instead there will be a noticeable promotion of head-scarfed girls and other pro-Muslim agendas to make Islam seem desirable and harmless. Our children and grandchildren will be slowly brainwashed.

CAIR state branches constantly announce “events”. They have petition campaigns, rallies at courthouses, and they invite Islamic speakers to speak about “Muslim Issues”. Following your local CAIR branch is informative. For example, in Oklahoma they just hosted “Muslim Day at the Capitol”. Guest speakers discussed these topics:

* Oklahoma’s Public Education (they want to make changes that are more pro-Islam)

* The 10 Commandments, Sharia Law, and the Separation of Church and State (they want to insert Islamic Law into government)

* I Stand With Ahmed and Black Lives Matter: How Social Media Helps Achieve Cultural Change

A key word used in one of the topics above was “Cultural Change”. This is one of their main goals: changing western culture to an Islamic culture.

Do you want to participate in ending this slow progression of “take-over”? Then follow CAIR social media sites. At the bottom of the attached webpage I’ve listed state by state info. Also, on the link is additional Islamic terms used to fool Americans so you will know what Muslim groups really mean when they use certain terms. For example, Terrorism: Terrorism is only when a Muslim is killed (see how you can be misled by their terminology?).

Knowledge is power. Know what the Muslim Brotherhood is doing in your state.

Also see:

Fantasy Islam (Kafir Edition): Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota

1280px-quran_tunisia-1024x768Fantasy Islam (Kafir Edition): A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Kafir (non-Muslim) strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.

Frontpage, by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby, March 4, 2016:

In 2015 the Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota produced a 61 page booklet titled My Neighbor is Muslim, Exploring the Muslim Faith.  The purpose of the booklet was to enable Lutherans to learn about Islam in order to better understand their “new neighbors” who were arriving as refugees.

On p. 3 of the booklet we find an endorsement by, and a picture of, Imam Hassan Ali Mohamud, the founder, Imam, and Director of the Minnesota Da’wah Institute.  A brief biography of Mohamud can be found at the Institute’s site.  But there are a few additional items in Mohamud’s background that are of particular interest and make him a curious choice as the endorser of a book welcoming Muslims into non-Muslim communities.

Hassan Ali Mohamud praised Hamas

The United States government declared Hamas a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997.  On March 22, 2004, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (Yaasin), the founder of Hamas, was killed in an Israeli airstrike.  On March 26, 2004, Mohamud wrote an article in Somalitalk – Minneapolis expressing his condolences for Yassin’s death.  The article was titled Hambalyo Shahiid Sh. Ahmed Yaasin, (Congratulations to Sheikh Ahmed Yaasin, the Shahiid). Shahiid is the term used for those who achieve martyrdom by being killed in the cause of Allah.

Mohamud noted that Yassin had founded Hamas and referred to the Hamas mujahidin (mujaahidiinta), who were fighting for the liberation of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and of Palestine (mujahidin are those fighting in the Cause of Allah).  Mohamud hoped that Allah would consider Yassin a martyr, and he referred to Yassin as the Sheikh of the Mujahidin (Sheikhul

Mujaahidiin).  Mohamud referred to the Israelis as terrorists.

This article had the following byline: “Sh. Xasan Jaamici, xasanjaamici@yahoo.com, Minneapolis, MN, USA.”  How do we know this is our Hassan Ali Mohamud?  An internet search of this name and e-mail address will show the connection to Mohamud (e.g., here, here, here and here (both of which also include a telephone number), here, and here.  The aforementioned telephone number is also connected to Mohamud (e.g., here, here, here(on the page titled Expert Resources Available To Media), and here (on p. 15 of the slide presentation).

Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

For a number of years some Muslim cab drivers had refused to pick up passengers at the airport if those passengers were carrying sealed bottles of wine and/or liquor, even if those bottles were in the passenger’s luggage.  Controversy grew, and on June 6, 2006 the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS) stepped in and issued a religious ruling (fatwa) stating that it violated Islamic law for the cab drivers to be involved in the transportation of alcohol.  Hassan Ali Mohamud was one of the four members of the committee that issued thisfatwa.

A few weeks later, when interviewed by NPR, Mohamud stated:

Islamic identity is important because it is like keeping the faith. For that reason, Muslims here believe – Somalis are the majority of the Muslims in Minnesota- they believe it’s important to have, like, our own village, what you can call like Muslim village.

And what would this Muslim-majority “village” in the United States be like?  Here is an excerpt from an articlepublished later that year; this excerpt starts off with comments from Omar Jamal, a Muslim cab driver, and ends with comments from Mohamud:

Jamal..says MAS is an organization of Middle Eastern Muslims attempting to fold Minnesota’s large population of Somali Muslims into its divisive political campaign…“They’ve been driving the taxis for the last 20 years. How come it became an issue now all of a sudden? Were all the Muslims born again?”

MAS leader Mohamud, who is Somali, contends that just such a revival occurred, that nominal Muslims began practicing their faith. He says that as more Muslims do the same, similar issues will continue to spring up throughout the country. Asked if he believes local governments should enforce Shariah law in communities dominated by Muslim immigrants, Mohamud replied, “I believe in American democracy, which is majority rules.”

So according to Mohamud, as more Muslims return to their faith there will be more conflicts springing up between Shariah Law and American law.  And if localities have a Muslim majority, then he believes that Shariah Law should be enforced, even in the United States.

This approach by Mohamud should not be surprising, because of what he wrote for his law school student newspaper in 2000; the article was titled Law in the Islamic Perspective:

Law, both as jurisprudence and as a normative system is an articulation and an expression of God’s will. As a consequence, within the Islamic outlook, it is difficult to conceive of a secular state or a secular legal system.

If one cannot conceive of a “secular legal system” then it is only natural to come to the defense of Muslim cab drivers who are trying to impose Allah’s law on non-Muslims.

Omar Jamal would later state:

“They have a political agenda, and they want to hijack the faith of Islam,” he said of MAS leaders. “They’re looking for an issue to get Muslims to rally behind to drive a wedge in the community between Muslims and non-Muslims.”

Somali youth leaving Minneapolis to fight with al-Shabab

For many years there has been concern within the Somali community in Minneapolis, and among federal government officials, about Somali youth going overseas to fight for the jihadist terror group al-Shabab.  In late 2008 and early 2009 there were two articles that mentioned Muhamud and his mosque.

On December 19, 2008 USA Today had an article that included an interview with a former jihadist living in Minneapolis.  Below he describes how jihadists recruit new members at one particular mosque, and he stated that similar activities were occurring at Mohamud’s mosque, the Minnesota Da’wah Institute:

Yusuf Shaba…says he decided to speak out about what he considers Islamic indoctrination at Minneapolis mosques because he doesn’t want his sons to follow the same path he did.

Shaba, 34, joined Al Ittihad Al-Islami (Islamic Union) at age 16 and was wounded at age 19 in Somalia.  Al Ittihad was Somalia’s largest Islamic terrorist group in the 1990s…

Shaba says he and his three teenage sons attended a program two months ago at Abubaker As-Saddique Islamic Center, where a former Somali warrior sat in a circle with other young people and delivered a passionate recitation of his experiences during the Somali civil war.

Some mosques also screen videos about the war in Afghanistan and about Muslim victims of perceived injustices… “They give them all the grievances that Osama Bin Laden has,” Shaba says. “They talk about nothing but jihad and it’s the best thing that can happen to a Muslim.”…

Shaba says similar activities occur at Minnesota Da’wah Institute in St. Paul, another mosque.  Sheik Mahamud Hassan [sic], the institute’s imam, says nothing like that is happening as his mosque. “It’s liars,” he says. “I’m not missing any members.”

In February 2009 NPR did a similar report.  The report noted this about the missing youth:

All of them were reared by single mothers, and all of them were particularly devout Muslims.  They all prayed and signed up for youth programs at two local mosques…

Mohamud was the imam of one of those two mosques.  And it was in Mohamud’s mosque where the parents said their missing boys spent a lot of time, and even spent the night.  In reply to the NPR interviewer, Mohamud stated, “We are not missing any single student who is connected to the mosque and the Dawah Islamic center.”  The interviewer pointed out that when Mohamud and his mosque’s youth director were being interviewed, they were both “defensive.”

Mohamud was refused clearance for an airport tour

In January 2016 Mohamud and other community leaders were invited to tour the Minneapolis – St. Paul International Airport and review its operations and screening procedures.  Each had to be cleared in advance to access the secure areas of the airport.  But a few hours before the tour started on February 18th, Mohamud was notified that he had not been cleared to access the secure areas.  Government officials would not discuss the matter.

Conclusion

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota created a booklet seeking to educate non-Muslims about Islam and encouraging them to have a welcoming attitude toward Muslim refugees coming into their neighborhoods.  Ironically, the Muslim imam selected to endorse this booklet appears to be a Hamas supporter, believes that Shariah Law should be enforced in American communities where Muslims are the majority, heads one of two mosques that have been the focus of articles about Somali youth leaving Minneapolis to fight for a terrorist organization, and was recently refused a government security clearance.  Welcome to the neighborhood!

Part 2 will look at how Islam is presented in this booklet.

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of three books about Islam.  His latest book is Islam According to Muhammad, Not Your Neighbor.

U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops to Meet With Muslim Brotherhood

20120315_bishops_CATHOLIC_RELIGIONFamily Security Matters, Feb. 15, 2016:

The latest group of religious leaders to succumb to the interfaith web of deception are the Catholics, but that isn’t even the real problem.  On February 17, at the University of San Diego, The U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops is participating in a panel discussion with the Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Islamic Society of North America.

So what does this mean? Essentially, the leaders of the Catholic church are throwing their congregations to the wolves. The Muslim Brotherhood has been designated a terrorist organization throughout the Middle East, but because their presence within the United States has been non-violent, they have been legitimized by the current administration, and even been looked upon by many as moderate. Make no mistake, they are not moderate, and certainly not peaceful.

These meetings aren’t new, but what is, is the aggression by which the Muslims are advancing their Dawa, (proselytizing of Islam) and the message it contains. Are the bishops within the Catholic church so politically correct they feel they must embrace the enemy or is it truly ignorance? Dawa is a strategic game played by Muslims to diminish and dismantle not only all other religions, but the societies and cultures as well. The Catholic leadership is a pawn in a game they will not win.

Strategy is of utmost importance to the Muslims conducting Dawa, especially when it comes to convincing the leaders of Christianity and Judaism that Allah is the only god. In a book called the Methodology of Dawah the author reveals their plan for America to become an Islamic State, which includes ridiculing the Trinity, the belief that Jesus is the son of God.

Chapter VII Page 85:

Making partners with God is totally in-conceivable and wrong. The concept of Trinity appears to be unreasonable and self- contradictory. We have to advance convincing arguments both verbally and in writing to fight against the dogma of the “Human-God” of Christendom, innovated by the Jewish conspiracy against Prophet Jesus. If a proper movement is launched on positive lines for propagating and presenting the concept of Tawheed, (oneness, unity) pinpointing the inherent fallacies of Christian belief about Jesus, opening dialogues with priests and pastors and enlightening them with the evil consequences of their misconstrued convictions about the life Hereafter, there is no reason why positive response will not be forthcoming, at least from the moderate Christians and make others shaky in their beliefs. The concept of Tawheed will make inroads to their minds and hearts only when the centuries-old dogma of the “human- God” is shattered and demolished.”

Not only are the Bishops of the Catholic church meeting with terrorist organizations, they are meeting with those that wish to destroy the beliefs of millions, and usurp the foundation with which America itself was founded upon.

Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”  – Omar Ahmad Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, is a sister organization to ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA Dossier) with who Catholic bishops will be sitting next to in this conference. They have one goal. The return of an Islamic Caliphate: One god, One religion, and one government.  The notion any men of true faith would consider Islam to be peaceful, or willing to co-exist is frightening, but according to Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski of Springfield, Massachusetts “As the national conversation around Islam grows increasingly fraught, coarse and driven by fear and often willful misinformation, the Catholic Church must help to model real dialogue and good will,” said Bishop Rozanski. “Our current dialogues have advanced the goals of greater understanding, mutual esteem and collaboration between Muslims and Catholics, and the members have established lasting ties of friendship and a deep sense of trust.”

Fear and willful misinformation?  Muslims assaulting the beliefs of millions of Christians throughout the United States by insisting Allah is the same god, is willful misinformation. Knowing our leaders trust the enemy is the fear.

The profession of faith in the Catholic church in part states:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,

and became man.

In chapter VII page 87 of the Islamic Methodology of Dawa (MethodologyofDawah) it states:

The Christian community of America will need a special approach to make them understand their misguided concept about Jesus (PBUH). Prophet Jesus (PBUH) was also a messenger of God, as others were. He was born without a father as a miracle of God. There is nothing spectacular in it, if we believe in God, in His absolute power and in His total control over the natural phenomenon. He can create anything just by ordering “Be” and “it is done.” He created Jesus without a father. He created Adam without a father or a mother, and Eve without a mother. They do not ascribe the attributes of God to either one of them. How then, can they profess Jesus to be the Son of God. It is illogical and quite absurd. Jesus was a Prophet and a man. He had all the human needs and weaknesses. He ate food for his existence, slept for rest and did all the other things a human being needs for his survival. By their misconstrued conception innovated by St. Paul, Christians have made Jesus (PBUH) into a “Human-God.” This is clear idolatry. Making partners with God is a sin. He will never forgive this sin”

How does one gain a “deep sense of trust” from those whose writings reveal their true feelings and intent? How can Bishops believe that have formed “lasting ties of friendship” with Muslims when their doctrine, their holy book the Quran has at least 14 verses that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir (non- believer)

Sura 5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them.

One of the Hadiths, the traditions of Mohammed’s life states:

May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians . . . for they make places of worship out of the prophet’s graves”

The only willful misinformation comes from the mouths of the Islamists which is known as Taqiyyah, the art of deception, permissible in Islamic law. Perhaps leaders of all faiths should trust and believe those in their own flock before embracing the enemy.

Cathy Hinners is a decorated, retired police officer of 20 years.  While active, she developed a course on Middle Eastern Crime, Culture and Community and delivered it to thousands of law enforcement officers across the country.  Hinners was also a contract instructor with the U. S. Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Domestic Preparedness, delivering training to the National Guard, New York Police Dept. and other law enforcement agencies on Weapons of Mass Destruction and bomb recognition.  In June of 2015, Cathy was named by the Southern Poverty Law Center, along with 11 other women, who speak out against the implementation of Sharia law in the United States. Cathy is the founder of dailyrollcall.com

REPORT: Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror

UA-Report-2Unconstrained Analytics, by Stephen Coughlin, Jan. 27, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin has written a new Unconstrained Analysis report entitled, Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror.”

This strategic overview argues for how the War on Terror should be visualized alongside the processes that seek to obscure it and reflects analyses undertaken over the years to explain the nature of the threat in light of emerging Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) protocols, how the enemy envisions the war, and how he understands victory.

The metaphor is a house engulfed in a crucible of flames. Where the people burning in the house see three players, it is long overdue to understand them as one. Where people see civilization jihad disassociated from assaults from the left, it is time to recognize alliance. The enemy believes he has enjoyed success in the war and, indeed, believes he is winning. This view has merit.

The strategic picture painted by this overview is based on the enemy’s self-identified threat doctrine when mapped against the authorities he relies on to legitimize his activities and guide his operations. For this analysis, a decision was made to exclude all bureaucratic programmatics and academic models.

It is based on who the enemy in the War on Terror says he is, not on how others define him. The enemy states repeatedly that he fights jihad to impose Islamic law (shariah) and to re-establish the Caliphate. He does not say he fights jihad to force conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. He never states that he fights in furtherance of “root” or “underlying” causes.

From a legal perspective, the threat’s stated fidelity to shariah as the law of the land suggests that the threat does not raise First Amendment issues so much as it raises concerns regarding Article VI of the Constitution (“This Constitution shall be … the supreme law of the land”). It turns out that Islamic law, with unsettling precision, supports “violent extremists” to a degree that true moderates cannot match and that faux moderates seek to suppress.

This explains why “moderates” of all stripes avoid talking about Islamic law when discussing Islamic terrorism. This overview does not delve into defining doctrines when discussing the threat’s strategic reality. However, it is hoped that the concepts identified here, viewed as a whole, will offer clarity and shed important light on the most serious threat facing the United States today.

While all elements of U.S. national power are engaged in kinetic operations against “violent extremists” in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the primary threat actually defines itself as mujahids, views kinetic operations as a support activity tasked with either sustaining strategic distractions or supporting narratives, and seeks victory against the United States through ideological subversion directed against senior leadership and media elites. This analysis challenges the current conceptual and operational framework and calls for its dramatic reconsideration.

A diagram (see page 3) is used to illustrate the three lines of operation along which the United States has come under sustained assault in the War on Terror in much the way that a house can be engulfed in flames. All of these lines of operation, only one of which is kinetic, will be associated with a real-world entity to show how it orients on the objective.

diagram of threat

This strategic overview is the product of extensive research that in recent years has informed and supported numerous papers, presentations, a thesis (To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad), and the book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Its purpose is to explain how the enemy understands and orients to his universe.

A further objective is to advocate a return to true intelligence analysis and urge the abandonment of current analytical processes that sustain the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) narrative at the expense of a real threat-focused fact-based analysis.

Read the Report:

Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror (pdf)

Islam, Jihad, and our Ignorance

mosqueinabujaPolitically Short, by Nick Short on Nov. 28, 2015:

“Ignorance kills. In war, ignorance brings defeat, especially for those who are sworn to support and defend us,” writes Stephen Coughlin in his latest book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Coughlin continues, “While ignorance is not a crime for the average person, it is for professionals concerning subject matter that is the object of their professions. Why shouldn’t this hold true for national security professionals? For them, one requirement is that they know the enemy by undertaking real threat identification of entities that constitute actual threats to the Constitution and people of the United States.”

The refusal to account for the doctrinal elements of Islam in our national security analyses constitutes the professional malpractice that Coughlin was alluding to as our threat doctrine has been reduced to strategic incomprehension and incoherence. In wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris that took the lives of 130 and injured 350 others, Coughlin ominously warned back in April that this strategic incoherence in the War on Terror “will increasingly be measured by news stories that reveal senior leaders’ inability to answer basic questions about the nature of the enemy and his environment. It will also manifest itself in official responses to terrorist attacks that become progressively less reality-based.” Yet, as Americans, Parisians, and virtually every citizen living within Western society grows more outraged by yet another failure of intelligence in stopping the latest jihadist attack, “those professionally and constitutionally tasked with keeping them safe continue to lack awareness, understanding, and even professional curiosity about the doctrines that drive the enemy to action,” notes Coughlin.

For our enemies, the implementation of Islamic law known as sharia is both the objective and the basis in which they routinely states their justification for attack. Our enemy openly declares that they are engaged in a global jihad as Islamic law serves as their doctrinal driver to commit murder in order to establish an “Islamic state”, or Caliphate, governed by Islamic law.  Osama bin Laden stated the following in 2002:

Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread Shari’a law to the world — that and nothing else. Not laws under the “umbrella of justice, morality, and rights” as understood by the masses. No, the Shari’a of Islam is the foundation. … In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their system of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts Shari’a from being publicly voiced among the people, as was the case in the dawn of Islam. … They say that our Shari’a does not impose our particular beliefs upon others; this is a false assertion. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others. … Thus whoever refuses the principle of terror[ism] against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His Shari’a.

“Jihad in the cause of Allah” is what the enemy claims it is doing, whether it be the now deceased leader of al-Qaeda or the current leader of ISIS Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. To the exclusion of all other reasons, including “underlying causes” such as economic deprivation, “climate change”, or poverty, the root cause always traces back to Islam itself and the enemy doesn’t just make this claim. What the jihadis say they will do tracks exactly with what they do.

The concepts of jihad given expression by so called “extremists” can be found in the body of Islamic law as defined by recognized authorities and authoritative sources as the legal description has remained consistent across the 1400 year span that incorporates today’s recognized authorities. Defined as “warfare against non-muslims to establish the religion,” the rules of Islamic law pertaining to jihad have remained consistent regardless of whether it was defined by an eighth century Arab, a ninth century Uzebki, a 12th century Spaniard, a 14th century North African, or even a 20th century Arab, Pakistani, Indian, Malaysian or American. “All conformed to the idea that jihad does not end until the world has been made the dar al-Islam,” notes Coughlin, adding “because there is agreement among the scholars on the status of jihad, it belongs to the fixed inner sphere of Islamic law that can never be changed.

“Yet, the requirement of jihad neither begins nor ends with the kinetic aspects of warfare. Coughlin notes that Islamic law divides the world into two states, dar al-Islam (the house of Islam and peace) and dar al-harb (the house of War, which is the world of the infidel and the region of perpetual warfare) with jihad being an unabrogable obligation for Muslims until the dar al-harb is eliminated and the people of the book ‘pay the jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (Qur’an 9: 29).” Anyone who comes from the dar al-harb has the status under Islamic law of harbi (enemy). As a country not governed by Islamic law, the United States resides in the dar al-harb, therefore we Americans are harbi.

To elaborate on this concept, Coughlin cites Majid Khadduri, a professor at John Hopkins University who wrote War and Peace in the Law of Islam (1955) and published his translation of the classic 8th-century treatise Shaybani’s Siyar (1966). The Siyar is among the oldest testaments on international relations and the law of war in Islamic law. Khadduri in War and Peace in the Law of Islam writes:

It follows that the existence of a dar al-Harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-Harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.

It’s imperative to understand this concept for even when a fighting jihad is not underway, a “continuous process of warfare” is waged at the psychological and political levels. Khadduri states this as a matter of doctrine— because the “dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; … the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence.” It is from this context that those who believe, as our current adminstration repeatedly reminds us, that we are “not at war with Islam” can be refuted as Islam has and will continue to remain at war with us as a continuous process of psychological, political, and kinetic warfare.

Through this concept of Islamic warfare, a substantial effort is placed on the “preparation stage”, the object of which is to induce a collapse of faith in the cultural, political, and religious institutions underpinning the target. A very clear example of this doctrine is Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik’s The Quranic Concept of War. As Coughlin explains, “In the Quranic Concept of War, Malik emphasized the importance of laying the groundwork for successful military operations. He explained this preparatory stage as a ‘dislocation of faith’ in the target nation’s sense of security and in the capability of its leaders to defend its territory. The inability of the target population’s leadership to protect its citizens in the face of a terror campaign signals the beginning of kinetic operations in earnest. At some point, dawah (issuing of summons) transitions to jihad.” Elaborating on the concept of dawah, Coughlin highlights that it is “often defined as the ‘invitation’ or ‘call to Islam,” the meaning and purpose of which is more extensive and closely associated with jihad. In fact, much of what is popularly called “stealth jihad” are actions taken in preparation for jihad in the dawah phase of operations as explained by Malik when he states the following:

The Quranic strategy comes into to play from the preparation stage, and aims at imposing a direct decision upon the enemy. Other things remaining the same, our preparation for war is the true index of our performance during war. We must aim at creating a wholesome respect for our Cause and our will and determination to attain it, in the minds of the enemies, well before facing them on the field of battle. So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles’ having already won the ‘war of will’. Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart’s dream into a reality. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror. A weak faith offers inroads to terror.

In the early phases of dawah, one should expect to see an emphasis on penetration and subversion campaigns directed at cultural, political, media, and religious institutions. Actions taken in the early dawah phase are aimed at compromising a community’s core beliefs which substantially contributes to the sense of hopelessness that is exponentially magnified when a jihadist finally commits an act of terrorism. From this perspective and contrary to Western notions of “separation of church and state,” Islam in general defines itself in unitary terms as a complete way of life governed by a single body of law that comes from Allah who retains sole sovereignty. Thus, Islamic law is the legal system “extremists” emulate and seek to impose when fighting jihad both kinetically and non-kinetically.

The refusal to understand the enemy’s doctrine, which tells him not to strike until he has assessed that we are already defeated in our own minds, lends credence to the notion of why we are so routinely caught of guard when a jihadist strikes. Judging by the fact that the FBI currently has nearly 1,000 ongoing ISIS probes in the United States with 82 individuals affiliated with ISIS having been interdicted by law enforcement since March of 2014, the enemy has assessed that the time has come to unleash kinetic attacks as we have already been defeated within our own minds.

“Most importantly,” notes Dr. Sebastian Gorka in his latest ThreatKnowldgeGroup special report on ISIS: The Threat to the United States, “nearly one third of the domestic ISIS cases in the past 18 months involved people who planned to carry out attacks against Americans on U.S. soil. In other words, one third of those interdicted calculated that the best way to serve the new Islamic State and its Caliph, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, is to wage jihad here on the soil of the infidel.” The primary reason that we have seen a 300 percent increase in terrorist arrests in the United States beginning in 2014 compared to the average monthly arrests of al Qaeda suspects since the 9/11 attacks of 2001 is because of the proclaimed caliphate established on June 29, 2014.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch explains that “the Islamic State’s June 29, 2014, proclamation of itself as the caliphate, which in Islamic theology is the Islamic nation, embodying the supranational unity of the Muslim community worldwide under a single leader, the caliph, is the key to [understanding] its appeal to so many Muslims worldwide.” Spencer elaborates, “the caliph is the symbol of the unity of Muslims worldwide, in traditional Islamic theology, Muslims worldwide constitute a single community [known as an umma] and are rightfully citizens of the Islamic Caliphate.” Moreover, if we look to the book Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law that has the imprimatur of Al-Azhar University in Cairo which is the intellectual heartbeat of Islam, we find that it certifies as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community” in which only the caliph is authorized to declare “offensive jihad” in order to “make war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians.” The caliphate, this Sharia manual says, is “both obligatory in itself and the necessary precondition for hundreds of rulings established by Allah Most High to govern and guide Islamic community life.” It quotes the Islamic scholar Abul Hasan Mawardi explaining that the caliph’s role is “preserving the religion and managing this-worldly affairs.”

As Spencer notes, “since the caliph is obligated to wage offensive jihad, we can expect that with the coming of the Islamic State caliphate there will be even more jihad in the wold than here has been recently.” This is because of the appeal that the Caliphate has upon Muslims who are devoutly religious and since the Islamic States’ theology is straightforward with the Qur’anic justifications for their actions being based on the plain words of the text, the appeal will continue as the tens of thousands of Muslims who have already joined ISIS from all over the world testifies to the resonance of their literal reading of Islam’s holy book.

In closing, since adherents to sharia and a strict interpretation of Islam have sworn to destroy us, it is their doctrine that we are required to know. Whether that doctrine is judged by us or this adminstration to be accurate with “genuine” Islam is wholly irrelevant. If it can be demonstrated, which it has been, that the enemy that attacks and kills Americans and seeks to subvert our Constitution refers to and relies on the implementation of sharia to guide and justify his actions, then that is all that matters in terms of the enemy threat doctrine U.S. civilian and military leaders must thoroughly understand and orient upon for the purpose of defeating such foes. As Coughlin concludes, “failing to orient on an enemy’s self-identified doctrines not only violates our own doctrine on threat analysis but renders us unable to defeat the enemy because we have failed properly to identify him.” Such a catastrophic failure of intelligence defies the rules of warfare reaching back to Sun Tzu on the requirement to “know the enemy.” It also completely defies common sense and the canons of professional conduct of our leadership.

We are at war and it’s time we as a nation orient our strategy to reflect it.

Nick Short, a graduate of Northern Arizona University with a Bachelors in Criminal Justice. Politically Short offers a millennials perspective over today’s news outside the beltway of Washington D.C.

Nick is also a contributor to Western Free Press and Western Journalism 

Follow Nick on Twitter , LinkedIn and Google+ 

Email him at Nds56@nau.edu

BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

3673405460 (2)

Center for Security Policy, Nov. 23, 2015:

In this new monograph, adapted from Annex 1 of his superb recent book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy Stephen Coughlin explains what’s really behind the so-called ‘interfaith dialogue movement’ and how the Muslim Brotherhood has co-opted the well-meaning but misguided intentions of the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Coughlin’s expertise in the nexus between Islamic Law (shariah) and Islamic terrorism informs his exposure of the manipulative Brotherhood strategy to use the interfaith dialogue arena as an opportunity to edge Catholics toward a dislocation of faith so as to pave the way for the insinuation of shariah into American faith communities and society in general.

At a time when Vatican policy seems to many to have become unmoored from the traditional doctrinal teachings of the Church in ways advanced by the permissive environment of the interfaith dialogue movement, including tolerance of anti-Constitutional, anti-Western, shariah-based Islamic principles as well as those who promote them, this publication hits home hard. As Mr. Coughlin points out, it is intellectually impossible to adhere faithfully to Church doctrine and yet grant acceptance to principles that are fundamentally opposed to such precepts at the same time. Only a dislocation of Catholic faith could allow such moral equivalence. Ultimately, as he argues, the objective of Islamic supremacists is the prioritization of interfaith relationships over advocacy on behalf of fellow Christians being slaughtered elsewhere by the co-religionists of their Muslim interfaith partners—in other words, the neutralization of the Catholic faith community as a serious obstacle to the encroachment of shariah.

In praise of this new Center publication, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said,

While the interfaith dialogue movement presents itself as a laudable effort to ‘bridge’ the distance between faiths, those more familiar with the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood know that the actual agenda of too many such efforts is, in fact, modeled after the well-known dictum of Sayyid Qutb, who candidly reminded Muslims that such a ‘bridge’ is ‘only so that the people of Jahiliyyah [society of unbelievers] may come over to Islam.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere: The Catholic Church’s Case Study in Interfaith Delusion is available for purchase in kindle andpaperback format on Amazon.com.

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in Kindle format.

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in paperback format.

Click here to download a PDF of this monograph in its entirety.

Bridge_Building_to_Nowhere

***

Bradley Hooper, a fellow counterjihad activist, posted this very insightful comment on his facebook page:

Does your pastor or priest value their relationship with the local imam more than their relationship with you? If you spoke up for persecuted Christians in the Islamic world and said Islamic law was the main cause of persecution, do you think he or she would encourage you to continue or try to silence you?

When the local pastor meets with the imam they smile, joke, drink coffee and eat cake. (Who doesn’t like drinking coffee, eating cake and talking about pleasant things?) It’s wonderful. The imam is a nice guy. He tells your pastor that Jews, Christians and Muslims used to live in peace and that he is saddened that his religion has been hijacked. The worse things get in the world, the more your pastor holds on to the hope that Jews, Christians and Muslims will one day enjoy the same kind of relationship he enjoys with the local imam. They say it’s important in interfaith dialogue to emphasis similarities, not to talk about differences, and not to talk about the awful things in the Islamic world. But what your pastor or priest probably doesn’t know is that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the interfaith movement and they want pastors, priests and rabbis to value their relationship with their local imam so much, that he or she is willing to speak out against any Christian or Jew who would interfere with the interfaith dialogue by talking about uncomfortable truths. Brotherhood members do not want you or anyone else speaking up for persecuted minorities in the Islamic world and they want your pastor, priest or rabbi to do their dirty work for them by shutting you up. (Some people literally can get away with murder if they’re nice.) A real shepherd does not feed the sheep to the wolves. Please get informed and speak up.

If you’d like to go deeper read Stephen Coughlin’s book “Catastrophic Failure” and Mark Durie’s book “The Third Choice.”

Bradley Hooper is a huge fan of Mark Durie and recommends viewing the following:

 Understanding Islam (video)
 Other faiths under Islam (video)
Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood: what is the difference? (article)

E-BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

3673405460Center for Security Policy, PRESS RELEASE September 22, 2015:

In this new monograph, adapted from Annex 1 of his superb recent book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy Stephen Coughlin explains what’s really behind the so-called ‘interfaith dialogue movement’ and how the Muslim Brotherhood has co-opted the well-meaning but misguided intentions of the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Coughlin’s expertise in the nexus between Islamic Law (shariah) and Islamic terrorism informs his exposure of the manipulative Brotherhood strategy to use the interfaith dialogue arena as an opportunity to edge Catholics toward a dislocation of faith so as to pave the way for the insinuation of shariah into American faith communities and society in general.

At a time when Vatican policy seems to many to have become unmoored from the traditional doctrinal teachings of the Church in ways advanced by the permissive environment of the interfaith dialogue movement, including tolerance of anti-Constitutional, anti-Western, shariah-based Islamic principles as well as those who promote them, this publication hits home hard. As Mr. Coughlin points out, it is intellectually impossible to adhere faithfully to Church doctrine and yet grant acceptance to principles that are fundamentally opposed to such precepts at the same time. Only a dislocation of Catholic faith could allow such moral equivalence. Ultimately, as he argues, the objective of Islamic supremacists is the prioritization of interfaith relationships over advocacy on behalf of fellow Christians being slaughtered elsewhere by the co-religionists of their Muslim interfaith partners—in other words, the neutralization of the Catholic faith community as a serious obstacle to the encroachment of shariah.

In praise of this new Center publication, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said,

While the interfaith dialogue movement presents itself as a laudable effort to ‘bridge’ the distance between faiths, those more familiar with the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood know that the actual agenda of too many such efforts is, in fact, modeled after the well-known dictum of Sayyid Qutb, who candidly reminded Muslims that such a ‘bridge’ is ‘only so that the people of Jahiliyyah [society of unbelievers] may come over to Islam.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere: The Catholic Church’s Case Study in Interfaith Delusion is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

 

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in Kindle format.

Click here for a full PDF of the monograph.

Watch: Gohmert Speaks Out On Islamic Prayer Service Held at the National Cathedral

100 YEARS AGO: Last Caliph Publicly Calls for War Against Infidels

Published on Nov 14, 2014 by GohmertTX01

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor today about the DC’s National Cathedral hosting of a Muslim prayer service on the anniversary of when the last Caliph declared war against the infidel.

***

Gates of Vienna – The ECUSA Joins the Ummah:

washnatmasjidShortly after this post goes up, the live stream will begin for the first-ever Friday prayers at the brand-new National Masjid in Washington D.C.

Allahu Akhbar, y’all!

 

Defensive or offensive Jihad: History, exegesis vs. contemporary propagation

ShowImage (8)Jerusalem Post, Feb. 13, 2014, By David Bukay: (h/t Bill Warner)

Part one: the religious aspect.

The issue at stake is the deep gap between the horrific acts of terrorism coming from the World Jihad groups, and, at the same time, the propagation emanating from Islamists, Muslims and Westerners; firstly, that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, hijacked by extremists; secondly, that there is only one Jihād, the spiritual, that means to worship Allah; and thirdly that the Muslims are ordered to fight their enemies only defensively.

The stunned Free World witnesses atrocious acts of terror, such as slaughters and beheadings, yet is simultaneously being told that this is only a retaliation towards the Western colonialism and neo-imperialism, or, that these groups are outliers, a small minority; that the threats of demolishing modernity and bringing it back to the 7th century are only because World Jihad wished to defend its land, its lives and its honor against Western aggression.

Hence, the question that arises here is whether Jihād is defensive or offensive? The answer to this will become apparent through analyzing Islamic sources and Muslim exegetes in comparison to contemporary Islamists propagators of the West.

The Arab-Islamic terrorist organization’s strategy against the Free World is comprised of two parallel but coordinated arms: Jihād – a holy war against the infidels, and Da`wah – the persuasive methods used to convince people to join Islam. Both arms are intended to achieve the same objectives, yet both are used at the same time by different activists and are aimed against different targets. However, between both, Da`wah is more dangerous to the Free World. Jihād appears 41 times in 18 Suwar (plural of Sûrah) in the Qur’ān, mostly coupled with fi-Sabīlillah (in the way of Allah; for the sake of Allah), which transforms it into a religious sanction. Da’wah is the Islamic concept of missionary activity, aimed at persuading all human beings to believe in Allâh. Da`wah is the moderate and graceful opening address used to approach non-believers and convince them to submit to Islam, and if it fails, it is the duty of Jihād to achieve the Islamic goals.

According to a Muslim exegete, there are seven major features of the superiority of Arab-Muslims over others, based on the Qur’ān. Firstly, they are the best Ummah ever brought forth to men, bidding good (Ma’rûf) and forbidding evil (Munkar). Secondly, the Muslims are the last of all nations in history and the first on the day of resurrection. Thirdly, their Scriptures are in their breasts (they know it by heart). Furthermore, they take their own alms, yet are rewarded as if they give them away. In addition to this, they have the privilege of intercession (Shafā’ah), which is a pillar of the superiority of the Islamic community over all other communities. Moreover, they answer and are answered, which means that they are distinguished from other communities in their obedience to Allah, as well as in having invocation answered by Allah. Lastly, they will wage war on the people of error and the Anti-Christ.

As the Muslims see it, Islam is for everyone within the human race and should be expanded as a leading religion, until all human beings proclaim that “there is no God but Allâh and Muhammad is his messenger.”Jihād is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam, and its merits are described copiously in many well-respected Islamic religious works. It is called “the neglected duty” or “the forgotten obligation,” and regarded as the sixth pillar of Islam. Professor Bernard Lewis finds that an “overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists… understood the obligation of Jihād in a military sense.”

All four Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence and most of Islamic exegetes agree that the aims of Jihad are to remove the infidel’s oppression and injustice, to eliminate the barriers to the spread of Allah’s truth, and, to establish Islamic justice universally. There are four different ways in which the believer may fulfill his obligations: a) by his heart; b) by his tongue; c) by his hands; d) by the sword. This demonstrates the close connection between Jihād and Da’wah, as well as the fact that they are aimed at establishing Allah’s rule on earth, until either the non-believers embrace Islam (as a result of Da’wah), or submit to Islamic rule and agree to pay the tax poll, the Jizyah; or be killed in the battleground (as a result of Jihad war).

From the Islamic viewpoint, all wars in Islam are religious; the concept of “secular war” does not exist; and Jihād is the only just war known. So, even according to Islamic Jurisdiction, one can wage the most aggressive war using atrocious evil deeds and still see it as a defensive war. The Muslim legal theory states that Islam cannot exist in conjunction with idolatry. This is Shirk, meaning association of other gods and idols with Allah. According to a Hadīth related to Muhammad, he declared: “I am ordered to fight polytheists until they say there is no God but Allah.” Muslims are under the Qur’ān Commandments’ obligation to slay the idolaters. Hence, terrorizing Islamic enemies is Allah’s commandment.

There are four Qur’ān “sword verses” relating to different types of people against whom the believers are obliged to fight: a) Sûrah 9 (verse 5): Fighting the Idolaters; b) Sûrah 9 (verse 29): Fighting the People of the Book, Ahl al-Kitāb; c) Sûrah 9 (verse 73): Fighting the Hypocrites and the infidels; and d) Surah 47 (verse 4): Fighting the Enemies of Islam whoever they are and whenever they can be found. Of these, Sûrah 9 (verse 5) is considered to be the most important. Most Islamic exegetes claim that this verse abrogates 114 or 124 other non-militant verses from Mecca.

The Shahīd is one who is killed and has achieved martyrdom in the battle of Jihād. Islamic exegetes claim that the Shahīd is granted seven glorious gifts: a) He is forgiven at the first drop of his blood; b) He is dressed in the clothes of Imām and sees his status in paradise; c) He is protected from the punishment of the grave; d) He will be safe from the great fear of the Day of Judgment; e) A crown of glory will be placed on his head; f) He will intercede on behalf of 70 members of his family; g) He will be married to 72 Houris. Islamic exegetes take the Qur’ān statements that the Shuhadā’ are alive living beside Allah and enjoying all his grace.

According to Majid Khadduri, Muslims view peace as a tactical means for achieving their strategic objective, by defeating the enemy. Peace constitutes a temporary break in the ongoing war against the enemy, until Islam controls the whole world. They might come to terms with the enemy, provided that they resume the Jihād after the expiration of the treaty. Defeated Muslims maintained that their battle with the enemy would resume, however long they had to wait for the second round. By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but war-like.

Khadduri states that Muhammad has set the classic example by concluding the Khudaybiyah Treaty, in 628 with the Meccans: a peace treaty with the enemy is a valid instrument. That is, if it serves Muslim interests. Muhammad and his successors always reserved their right to repudiate any treaty or arrangement which they considered as harmful to Islam. Muslim authorities might have come to terms with the enemy, provided it was only for a temporary period. In practice, however, Jihād underwent certain changes in its meaning to suit the changing circumstances of life. This change, did not imply an abandonment of the Jihād duty; it only meant the entry of the obligation into a period of suspension – it assumed a dormant status, from which the leader may revive it at any time he deems necessary.

Also see:

US Government Promoting Islam in Czech Republic

by Soeren Kern:

Critics say the project’s underlying objective is to convert non-Muslim children to Islam by bringing proselytizing messages into public schools under the guise of promoting multiculturalism and fighting “Islamophobia.”

The group recently ran an advertisement promising to pay 250 Czech korunas ($13 dollars) to any student aged 15 to 18 years who would attend a two hour presentation about Islam.

More recently, Muslims in the Czech Republic have tried to ban a book they say is Islamophobic, and have filed a ten-page criminal complaint against its formerly-Muslim author.

The Czech government has approved a new project aimed at promoting Islam in public elementary and secondary schools across the country.

The project—Muslims in the Eyes of Czech Schoolchildren—is being spearheaded by a Muslim advocacy group and is being financed by American taxpayers through a grant from the US Embassy in Prague. (The US State Department is also promoting Islam in other European countries.)

The group says the Czech Ministry of Education has authorized it to organize lectures and seminars aimed at “teaching Czech schoolchildren about Islamic beliefs and practices” and at “fighting stereotypes and prejudices about Muslims.”

But critics—there are many—say the project’s underlying objective is to convert non-Muslim children to Islam by bringing proselytizing messages into public schools under the guise of promoting multiculturalism and fighting “Islamophobia.”

 

Image source: Website of “Muslims in the Eyes of Czech Schoolchildren”.

The group’s website says the first phase of the project involves “analyzing the accuracy of the information about Islam in Czech textbooks on history, geography and social sciences, and mapping the level of teaching about Islam in Czech grammar schools and other secondary schools.”

The second phase of the project involves the implementation of a three-level program that will “acquaint both pupils and teachers with Islam and Muslims” and help them to develop better “critical reception skills” when analyzing supposedly Islamophobic information.

According to the group’s website:

“The first level acquaints the reader with the history of Islam, the basic religious concepts of tradition and contemporary issues such as family [Sharia] law, the veiling of women and Islamophobia.”

“The second level offers a deeper look at the issues and puts more emphasis on the involvement of the pupils.… Pupils will be divided into three groups within which they will study any of the following topics: the veiling of women, media coverage of Islam and Muslims in the Czech Republic. Each group will be led by an experienced tutor, who will acquaint students with the problems by means of prepared materials and subsequent debate.”

“The third level provides schools with artistically oriented projects or discussions with Muslims and professionals dealing with Islam. Artistic activities would involve making a film or taking photographs focused on a day in the life of a Muslim or art workshops and competitions focused on the possibility of integrating Muslims into Czech society.”

The group also organizes thematic lectures, workshops and debates for schools or groups of students, many of which are held at the Municipal Library in Prague—and which are more openly geared toward converting Czech youth to Islam.

One such lecture entitled “Paths of Young Czech Women to Islam” answers questions such as: What makes a young Czech woman want to become a Muslim? It is the main motive always falling in love with a Muslim man or are there other reasons? How does one convert to Islam? How can new Muslims cope with non-Muslim relatives?

Another lecture entitled “Koran, Sunna and the Internet: Where to Do Muslims Get Their Information?” answers questions such as: Where can one get information about the Muslim faith? Is the Koran the only source of information about Islam or are there other sources? Where can one find information that is not mentioned directly in the Koran? The lecture is supplemented by providing students with hands-on opportunities to work with various Islamic texts, including the Koran and the Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet Mohammed].

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Islam “Awareness” in Wyoming

download (93)By Cultural Jihad, April 9, 2014:

The Morocco World News and Wyoming Public Media have reported that the Muslim Student’s Association (MSA) at the University of Wyoming  is organizing it’s Annual Islam Awareness Week April 7-13, 2014.

The scheduled featured speaker is Prof. Muhammad Shakir, Co-Imam of the Islamic Center of Fort Collins, Colorado:

  • The Islamic Center of Fort Collins (ICFC) was named in a 2010 New York Times article about Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Muslim convert who later became an Al-Qaeda leader in Yemen:

    ” … Meanwhile, at the Islamic Center of Fort Collins, the little mosque where volunteers took turns giving the Friday sermon, Mr. Awlaki discovered a knack for preaching. If he could boast of no deep scholarship, he knew the Koran and the sayings of the prophet, spoke fluent English and had a light touch.”

The MSA at the University of Wyoming bylaws clearly spell out its affiliations with the national MSA as well as the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) andIslamic Society of North America (ISNA). The chapter has hosted a number of controversial Islamist speakers in the past.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

COMMENT/ANALYSIS:  This type of open house style function is typical among many of the MSA organizations across the country. We highlighted one last year in Maine, “Islamic Center features Islam and terrorism – Bangor Maine“.  This year the Maine group’s featured speaker was Corey Saylor, from the Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR.

As we reported in Muslim Students Assoc at LSU — connecting the dots on the Gulf Coast, several MSA members and leaders have been linked to jihadist and terror related activities.

The overall mission behind most of these awareness campaigns is to facilitate Da’wah, the proselytizing or preaching of Islam.  It is one of the roles of MSA but reason behind the campaigns is seldom promoted that way.

Also see:

Commending Muslims for… Being Muslim? (chersonandmolschky.com)