On the Civilizational Struggle With Islam

Crisis Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, April 4, 2017:

In February, female members of an official Swedish delegation to Iran donned headscarves and long coats so as not to offend their Iranian counterparts. At about the same time, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front Party, cancelled a meeting with Lebanon’s Grand Mufti after he insisted that she wear a headscarf. “You can pass on my respects to the Grand Mufti,” said Le Pen, “but I will not cover myself up.”

The contrast neatly captures two different responses to the ongoing Islamization of Europe. Le Pen represents resistance, and the Swedish delegation represents appeasement. So far, the party of appeasement holds the upper hand. Shortly after her gesture of defiance, the European Parliament voted to lift Le Pen’s immunity from prosecution (as a Member of Parliament) for tweeting images of Islamic State violence. Like the Swedish delegates’ gesture of obeisance, this too is an act of appeasement. It signals to the Muslim world that Europeans will take it upon themselves to punish those who criticize Islam.

There may be cases where appeasement works to placate an enemy, but it never seems to work against an implacable foe. In May, 1938, while competing in Berlin, the English national football team gave the Nazi salute when the German national anthem was played. They did this, reluctantly, on orders from their own foreign office. It was one of numerous futile gestures of appeasement offered up to Hitler.

Some historians have suggested that Hitler could have been stopped if the Allied Powers had confronted him earlier before he had time to build up the Wehrmacht. That’s probably true. The best time to fight a war is while you still have a good chance of winning it. This applies also to the ideological struggle now going on between the West and Islam. Of course, “struggle” might not be the best way to describe a conflict in which only one side is fighting. Indeed, Western authorities often join in Islam’s war against the West. By passing laws against “Islamophobia” (Canada) and by prosecuting critics of Islam (as in Europe), the West is strengthening the hand of its foe.

Instead of appeasement, what is needed is an ideological counter-attack. And the best time to launch it is now—now while it is still possible to make one’s case without being fined or jailed. Now is the right time from another perspective, as well. The sheer volume of Islamic violence is difficult to ignore. As a result, more and more people now realize that criticism and challenge of Islam is fully justified. They realize that it should be Muslims who are put on the defensive, not the so-called “Islamophobes.”

Imagine if Catholics were committing violence on the same scale as Muslims, and doing it in the name of Jesus. Would the Catholic Church be afforded the kind of kid-glove treatment now given to Islam? Would Catholic clergy be let off the hook for the crimes of tens of thousands of Catholics who cited Catholicism as their motive? Not likely. The Catholic Church would be put on the defensive—and rightly so if, indeed, the Church had a well-developed doctrine of jihad as does Islam.

In a sane society, Islam and its representatives would be put on the defensive, not critics of Islam. Instead of exonerating Islam of responsibility for Islamic terror, non-Muslims should pressure Muslims to justify the tenets of Islam that call for violence. Islamic authorities should be pushed back on their heels and kept there.

Just as non-Muslims can no longer deny the immensity of Islamic violence, neither can Muslims. Yet, absent any outside pressure, they can ignore it. This is a good time for Muslims to do some soul-searching about the beliefs that, in the words of Egyptian president El-Sisi, “make the entire umma [Muslim community] a source of concern, danger, killing and destruction for the whole world.” But if no one (with a few exceptions such as El-Sisi) asks them to question themselves, whatever doubts Muslims may have about their faith will be brushed aside. If Western leaders persist in lauding Islam as a great religion, it will be taken as confirmation that Islam is indeed the supreme religion that the imams say it is.

Muslims won’t attempt to reform Islam unless they believe there is something wrong with it. If we want to see reform, we need to drop the “great faith” pretense, and confront Muslims with the troubling realities of their beliefs. Now is the time to put Islam on the defensive because the window of opportunity for doing so will soon close. It is already dangerous to question or challenge the Islamic belief system. The time is coming when it will be supremely dangerous to do so.

Right now, the West is worried about the danger of provoking Islam. But there is a greater danger. By refusing to confront and challenge Islam’s ideology, we allow an already confident Islam to grow more confident and stronger—two characteristics that make it all the more attractive to lukewarm Muslims and potential convents. The West’s walking-on-eggshells strategy is aimed at preventing a confrontation with Islam, but it may only serve to delay a confrontation to a point in time when the West is too weak to stand up to Islam.

The West will continue to have the military edge for a good time to come, but possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether. The West is strong militarily, but weak ideologically. It lacks civilizational confidence. It is not sure if it has anything worth defending. While Islamic countries have been busy raising a generation of devout warriors, the West has raised a generation of social justice warriors who are convinced that their own civilization deserves to be eliminated.

Conviction and confidence are potent weapons. Soldiers need them, but so also do civilians. They need them all the more today because much of the campaign against the non-Muslim world is being conducted on the civilian level—through stealth jihad and lone-wolf terrorism. If that twin-pronged campaign is successful then war may not be necessary. Western citizens will simply go quietly into the long night of dhimmitude.

It’s a loss of civilizational confidence that causes the West to crumple whenever Muslims press for another concession. Burqas in public? Well, OK. Muslim prayer rooms in public schools? It would be insensitive not to allow it. Laws to prevent criticism of Islam? That’s only reasonable. Polygamy? If you insist. Taken one by one, these mini-conquests are not decisive, but cumulatively they work to remake the culture. And one day you wake up to realize that it’s too late to do anything about it.

In a way, this culture war with Islam is more difficult to fight than a battlefield war. The whole direction of our culture in recent decades presses us to yield to the multicultural other, and to assume that in any dispute, he is right and we are wrong. If Islam’s cultural jihad is to be halted, that mindset must be rejected, and Islam must be put on the defensive. Apostasy laws. Blasphemy laws. Cruel and unusual punishments. Harsh discrimination against women. Child marriage. There’s something very wrong here. And Muslims should be made to know it, and made to feel ashamed of it. We should want Muslims to be uncomfortable with their faith—uncomfortable to the point that they begin to doubt it. As Mark Steyn put it, “There is no market for a faith that has no faith in itself.”

The reason that the apostasy laws and the blasphemy laws are there in the first place is because Islam is a fragile belief system. It rests on the uncorroborated testimony of one man. The system cannot stand up to questioning and, thus, questioning is not allowed. The West should take advantage of this fragility and raise the questions Muslims will not ask of themselves. Why don’t we? Is it out of respect for another religion? Yes, there’s some of that, but increasingly, it seems, we remain silent out of simple fear. We fear that ideological war will lead to real war. But it’s worth remembering that in the 1930s a similar reluctance to challenge a similar ideology did not prevent war. On the contrary, the reluctance to face up to Nazi ideology only guaranteed that war would come.

A new analysis by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) concludes that the Trump administration’s get tough policy is already having a pacifying effect on Iran. After its failed missile launch on January 29, Iran was “put on notice” by the administration. According to the MEMRI analysis, the effect on Iran was almost immediate: “a halt to long-range missile tests,” “a halt to provocations against US Navy vessels,” “a halt to public threats to burn and sink U.S. Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf,” and “a near total moratorium on hostile anti-U.S. statements” such as the slogan “death to America.”

The get-tough attitude seems to have—temporarily at least—made Iran less belligerent, not more. Could a get-tough attitude improve our chances of winning the civilizational struggle with Islam? Perhaps some of the slogans that apply to real war also apply to ideological war: “weakness is provocative,” “if you want peace, prepare for war,” and, as Osama bin Laden said, “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

One of the chief reasons for waging a war of ideas is to avoid real war. The Cold War was in large part an ideological war. And Western success in establishing the superiority of its ideas and beliefs did much to prevent the Cold War from turning into a hot war. The Cold War analogy, by the way, is not a stretch. The communists pursued their objective with a religious fervor worthy of today’s Islamists. Indeed, the chief twentieth-century exponents of jihad such as Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Maududi borrowed heavily from the Marxist-Leninist playbook. While they rejected the atheism, they found the idea of an all-encompassing state to be very much in line with the goals of Islam. Like communism and Nazism, Islam is meant to be a system of total control. Keep that in mind the next time a priest or politician declares his solidarity with the Muslim faith. Don’t let the fact that Islam is a religion keep you from realizing that it is also an ideological opponent every bit as oppressive and determined as were the Nazis and the Soviet communists.

One more thing. The point of ideological warfare is not only to cast doubts in the mind of the enemy, but also to convince your own citizens that they possess a valuable heritage worth defending. To a large extent, that conviction has been lost in the West. And no amount of armaments can replace it. If it ever comes to actual war or to daily attacks by lone wolves, or to a combination of both, Western citizens had better know what they believe, why they believe it, and why it is worth defending. Islam has a mission. We must have one too.

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

Interfaith Forum Ignores Islamic Immigration Questions

unnamed (4)

Juicy Ecumenism, by Andrew Harrod, March 10, 2016:

“Just using that expression ‘illegal immigrants’ is a form of oppressing the stranger,” a “very painful…inappropriate language biblically,” stated Rabbi Gerald Serotta at a Fairfax, Virginia, February 25 panel before about 50 listeners. Like him, “Welcoming the Stranger: Refugees and Immigrants in Our Midst,” a presentation of the controversial Islamic Gülen movement‘s Rumi Forum, was uniformly uncritical towards current Middle Eastern refugee issues.

Serotta, an advisory board member of the leftwing rabbinical organization Truah, began the panel’s presentation of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theological perspectives on immigrants and refugees.  Love for the stranger “suffuses the Hebrew Bible” with 36 corresponding scriptural passages, he stated while repeating the talking point that “people are not illegal, they may be undocumented.” He noted Judaism’s forefathers like Abraham migrating in the Old Testament and concluded that the “reason why we are commanded to love the immigrant is because the immigrant is us. We have moved in history.”

Patricia S. Maloof, former United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Director of Refugee Programs, reinforced Serotta’s Old Testament teachings with references to the New Testament.  Hebrews 13:2 admonition to welcome strangers recalled Abraham’s meeting with angels in Genesis while the Holy Family itself fled to Egypt when King Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents threatened infant Jesus. His discussion of any charity shown to the “least of these” being like loving Himself taught that “by helping the stranger we are seeing Christ in the stranger,” she said.

Pakistani-American researcher Naseem Rizvi completed the discussion of immigration in the context of “three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam” as “cousin religions.” Parallel to Moses and Jesus, Islam’s scriptures record the faith’s prophet Muhammad and his followers fleeing Mecca for Medina after an earlier group of about 80 Meccan Muslims had found refuge in Abyssinia’s Christian kingdom. “The Quran speaks of oppressed and weak people on Earth and suggests that they could migrate from their oppressed positions to another land of God,” she stated.

As Maloof herself once wrote in a 2003 book on Muslim refugees in the United States, “Muslim refugees share a fundamental understanding of hijra, or migration.” The “Islamic calendar begins, not at the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s birth or the first revelation from Allah, but at the time of hijra when he migrated from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution.” “In Islam, asylum is a right of anyone seeking protection,” she correspondingly claimed.

Yet the hijra understanding of Maloof and Rizvi misinterprets as a mere flight to freedom a migration remembered in Islamic orthodoxy precisely as the origin of an Islamic state that gave rise to a conquering civilization. As Indian-American Islamic commentator Dr. Ibrahim B. Syed notes, this “migration was a transitional line…from the position of weakness…to the position of strength” and exemplifies an understanding of migration serving Islam, not just individuals. While Rizvi’s presentation cited Quran 4:97‘s reference to migration, Quran commentaries describes this verse as addressing “those who wronged themselves by residing with the non-Muslims” and “acquiesced to living under an un-Islamic order.” She also quoted Quran 9:6, but this verse appears in context of, and immediately after, the Quran’s Verse of the Sword (9:5) with its notorious command to “kill the polytheists wherever you find them.”

Such Islamic canons raise the specter of Muslims migrating in the name of furthering a supremacist faith in a process called “settlement” or “civilization jihad.” As Maloof wrote in 2003, the “word Muslim literally means ‘submitter'” and “[f]or many of its adherents, Islam is a total way of life.” Yet her writing simultaneously argued that “Islam emphasizes the equality of all people” completely overlooking Islamic law or sharia doctrines of non-Muslims as second-class dhimmis subjugated by jihad, a concept whitewashed by the book. Rizvi’s statement that “Islam embraces people of different races, nationalities, and ethnicities” likewise did not address this religious repression.

Contradicting Maloof, Musab Hayatli, an Arab analyst of refugee rights, notes that it is “difficult, if not impossible, for countries wishing to adopt a shari’a legal system to adopt the UDHR” or 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Given Quran 4:11, he writes that under sharia a “woman can expect to be provided for, while men expect to inherit twice as much as the woman.” Concerning “restitution of property to refugees, for example, this would raise questions, such as what the implications are for the many female-headed households.”

Such critical inquiry apparently makes no impression upon Serotta, whose comments attributed concerns about Islam and its adherents to the “Islamophobia” previously condemned by him. What he deemed an irrational fear demonstrated the “tremendous need to counteract that xenophobia that gets stirred up every so often in American culture.” In an erroneous equation, he stated that the “Syrian crisis evokes very painful memories for the Jewish community” of past anti-Semitic influenced international denials of refuge from Nazism. Yet his concern for Jews conflicted with his past slander of Israel as a malicious destroyer of Palestinian olive trees while heading Truah’s predecessor organization that he founded.

“Some are giving in to fear, some are very misinformed,” Maloof similarly stated when discussing American opposition to Syrian refugee resettlement, a process she questionably asserted would entail strict security safeguards. Yet the Middle East’s oil-rich Gulf Stateshave refused to accept any Syrian refugees, citing precisely security concerns, a fact noted in an audience question, even though asylum in the region would be cheaper than abroad. Expressing her own embarrassment, Rizvi responded that Muslim-majority Middle East states “should be the prime states to welcome the refugees,” but “do not adhere to Quran as much as they should.” Yet Hayatli has written that, contrary to any individual asylum claim recognized by Islam, “there is no overtly stated obligation on the part of Islamic states, in shari’a at least, to provide asylum.”

Contrary to the naïve Islamophilia of Serotta and Maloof, Jews, Christians, and others wishing to exemplify Biblical precepts of welcoming strangers should temper humanitarianism with caution when approaching Islam. Unlike her fellow panelists, Rizvi actually cited no canonical references in Islam of Muslims welcoming strangers, but rather spoke of Muslims receiving refuge from non-Muslims, to the ultimate subordination of the latter. Even the Abyssinian episode cited by her denigrates Christianity, for in the Islamic account the ultimately not-so-Christian king professes an Islamic understanding of a Jesus who is not divine. As this indicates, a supremacist Islam claims to correct Judaism and Christianity’s corruption, notwithstanding Serotta’s previous claim that not just Christianity, but Islam as well, “are the daughter religions of Judaism.” As Europe is discovering, Muslim refugees might not just see themselves as supplicants, but also as religious missionaries waging various forms of nonviolent or even violent jihad.

Marco Rubio: Our issue is not with Islam

Rubio-Speaks-Out-of-Both-Sides-of-His-Mouth-640x480Atlas Shrugs, by Pamela Geller, Feb. 25, 2016:

This is one very excellent reason (among many) why  Marco Rubio (aka Jeb 2.0) should not be our nominee. The fact is that the Islamic doctrine of jihad (holy war) is very much the problem.

And as for his asinine response on the gun-range — here is the back story on that: Muslim Who Is Suing Gun Range Demanded CAIR Float for Veteran’s Day Parade.

In his response, he shows an astonishing ignorance that is unforgivable considering the danger jihad presents and the human toll it has taken

“Marco Rubio: It Is ‘Wrong’ And ‘Immoral’ To Ban Muslim-Americans From Gun Ranges,” by Charlie Spiering, Breitbart, 25 Feb 2016:

Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) condemned a recreational gun range that banned Muslims from their facility, during a presidential forum with Fox News host Megyn Kelly.

One member of the audience asked Rubio about the incident, where a Muslim-American army reservist was denied access to the facility in Oklahoma, and asked for his reaction to the incident.

“The story you just told me is wrong. It’s immoral. We should not be doing that to people,” Rubio said. “The bottom line is there are millions of patriotic Muslim Americans.”

A lawsuit against the gun range was filed by 29-year-old Raja’ee Fatihah, a board member of the Oklahoma chapter of the Muslim Council on American-Islamic Relations. The gun range owner argues that Fatihah was denied service because he was “belligerent” and that the “Muslim free” signage in his business was protected by free speech.

Rubio told the audience that patriotic Muslims had died defending the country in the Armed forces, separating them from the dangerous radical Islamists that were threatening America.

“Our issue is not with patriotic Muslim Americans. It’s not even with Islam. It is with radical jihadis. It with radical Islam, which is a politicization and a radical ideology that threatens Islam,” he said.

Rubio cited ISIS as a threat to not only Americans, but to Muslims who refused to practice their radical form of the religion.

Also incorrect. ISIS kills no-Sunni and secular Muslims because they are considered heretics all in accordance with Islamic law.

“I think we are capable of recognizing the threat of radical Islam without having to demonize an entire religion, especially those Americans here that are so loyal to America.”

Also see:

Yale University: Weighed and Found Wanting

Study of Islamic Law and Civilization at Yale Law School, left, and Muslims in New Delhi in 2006 protesting publication in the West of cartoons of Muhammad, right. (Photos: PPD/ Saurabh Das/AP)

Study of Islamic Law and Civilization at Yale Law School, left, and Muslims in New Delhi in 2006 protesting publication in the West of cartoons of Muhammad, right. (Photos: PPD/ Saurabh Das/AP)

People’s Pundit Daily, OCTOBER 26, 2015 BY

In 2008 Basak Otus, a writer for Yale Daily News, the leading news source for Yale University wrote an article that started:

English majors getting tired of Shakespeare and Wordsworth will soon be able to turn to Yale’s libraries for a poet of a different kind altogether: Osama bin Laden.

The backlash to this article should have been taken as a prophetic warning of what was to come, akin to the handwriting on the wall of King Belshazzar of Babylon in the Book of Daniel. In that story, the fingers of a man’s hand appeared and wrote on the wall an ominous warning that the Prophet Daniel interpreted as meaning:

1) God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it.

2) You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting.

3) Your kingdom has been divided, and given away.

Basak Otis’ article in 2008 pointed out that Yale University no longer had America’s best interests at heart, but was in a love affair with one of the most notorious men of the modern era: Osama bin Laden. Perhaps the article would have faded into the background and remained forgotten if Yale woke up when it was attacked that June by a jihadist firebombing, which was intended to destroy their power plant.

But the wake-up call was ignored.

Yale University reverted to its love affair with Osama bin Laden in September 2009 and published a sharia compliant version of a book about Muhammad cartoons, by censoring the illustrations from being printed. This was less than three months after the attempted fire-bombing.

It was Yale University’s overt attempt to display “dhimmitude”–submission to Muslims–rather than show their heritage as great defenders of the First Amendment. Yale had the opportunity to take a strong stand for America and her beliefs in liberty for all of her citizens! It was a chance to be seen as the University that defends the First Amendment. Yale, however chose to become an example of “being weighed and found wanting” in their defense of the US Constitution.

In 2014 Yale Law School hosted Rachid Al-Ghannouchi to speak to its students and thecommunity as well. Rachid is a member of the Ennahda Party in Tunisia. Ennahda is the Muslim Brotherhood entity in Tunisia. Osam bin Laden was and is still counted as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yale University has people that vet public speakers. How is it possible they did not know that Al-Ghannouchi was a staunch defender of Hamas, a US declared terrorist entity?

Yale’s last act of dhimmitude was their receipt of $10 million dollars from the son of Saleh Abdallah Kamel, a documented financer of al-Qaeda with banking ties with Osama bin Laden, himself. Yale has agreed to place an Islamic Law Center in their Law School, but refuses to acknowledge that Islamic law is sharia. This act equates Sharia with the US Constitution.

The act of placing an Islamic Law Center at Yale forces the university to fight itself. Those studying at Yale to earn degrees in its seminary must take a stand, it is their Christian duty. The Music School also must fight this as Sharia requires the destruction of musical instruments and the very concept of a Music School.

The writing was on the wall in 2008. It seems 2015 is the year that Yale becomes divided against itself and will soon no longer exist as the great educational institution it once was.

Can Yale survive its Dhimmitude? I think not.

Paul Sutliff is an educator and research writer particularly focused on Islam, whose work has been recognized by Ryan Mauro of Clarion Project and FOX News. His latest book is Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam.

Why Sharia Should Have No Place in America

20150301_shariawilldominatetheworldsign (1)Family Security Matters, by Eileen F. Topansky, June 22, 2015:

There are still far too many Americans who do not perceive the terrifying Nazi-like intentions of Islamic jihadists either through their outright destruction of the infidel and/or the implementation of sharia law as Allah has ordained it to be.

The alphabet-soup-named groups’ ultimate goal of extermination of Jews, Christians and any others deemed infidels has still not penetrated the consciousness of the media or academia.  And no matter how many ardent efforts are made to educate and raise awareness of the Islamists’ goals, people either ignore or minimize the dangers.

And, yet, like Churchill, there are those of us who feel a moral obligation to continue the clarion call and not bend, dhimmi-like, to the whims and wishes of those who deliberately abuse the freedoms of this country in order to abolish those very freedoms for the rest of us.

Which is why, freedom loving Americans need to support Pamela Geller, Ayanna Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Nonie Darwish and other courageous souls who refuse to cower before the appalling attacks on freedom of speech.  Given the opportunity, Islam swallows the whole body politic. Thus it has been in the past and thus it will be going forward.  After all, “Hijab Day was imposed on citizens in Minneapolis” in 2014.

Author/neuroscientist Sam Harris in his article entitled “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks” asserts that “[t]he position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you.”  Furthermore,” [o]nly Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century.”

Contrary to Muslims’ oft-repeated assertions of victimization, it is interesting to note that the latest FBI statistics indicate that Muslims are the least discriminated among groups in the United States.  In fact, “[t]here were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish” as compared to “anti-Islamic ones [which] constituted just 13.1 percent.”  Yet Muslims play the victim game with the result that “Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying ‘respect’ to the glaring pathologies in their culture.”

How many Americans understand the true import of the word “dhimmitude?”  Victor Sharpe describes it as the “parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second-class citizens in order to avoid death.”

Secularists from India to Indiana must understand that “by being silent about the horrendous practices in Islam, they only help toward further subjugation of women.” The veil is but one of the many symbols of “a totalitarian political system and an ideology which declares war on the non-Muslims.”  It is as clear and potent as the Nazi swastika was in its declaration of war against civilization.  Yet, when Muslim women activists speak out against sharia and Islamic gender apartheid, they are ignored by the majority of so-called Western feminists.

One need only read the March 2015 report by Baroness Cox entitled “A Parallel World: Confronting the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today” to see what jihadist ideology is doing to the land of Churchill who, in 1897, wrote “western civilization is face to face with militant Mohammedanism.”  Baroness Cox has written that the “suffering of women oppressed by religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all” would “make the suffragettes turn in their graves.”

In 2014 in their publication entitled Sharia Law: Britain’s Blind Spot, Sharia Watch warned about the encroaching sharia law that was affecting “the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.”

Yet the West continues to contort itself to ban Islamophobia, that completely false narrative that disguises and whitewashes the true intentions of the jihadists.  What every freedom-loving individual should be doing is demanding an “Islamist Apartheid Week” to show the “genocidal, totalitarian and racist states that operate under Islamic rule.”  In fact, it isChristianophobia and Judenphobia which are endemic across the Muslim world.

Is sharia law America’s blind spot as Joanne Moudy asserts? In her June 2014 article, Moudy explains that “. . . many states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of foreign religious law in their courts. Yet despite strong voter support for these measures, the ACLU is fighting to get them all overturned. Oklahoma was one such state and – sure enough – in 2013 a federal court struck down their efforts, ignoring 70% of the population’s wishes that the U.S. Constitution take precedence.”  Moreover, “[t]he ACLU claims it is necessary to consider religious law (Shari’a) when negotiating adoptions, custody of children, executing a will and/or settling disputes over private property rights, to name a few. What the ACLU fails to mention is that within Shari’a law, women are considered property and thus have no rights, which means they have no say in court.”

In addition, Bethany Blankley in her article entitled “What America Would Look Like Under Sharia Law” notes the disingenuousness and double standards that define Islamic organizations as they stealthily infiltrate American organizations.

Blankley’s most cogent point is that since Islamists say there is no conflict between sharia law and constitutional law, “why then [do these same Islamic groups] vigilantly advertise, lobby, award ‘educational grants,’ and fund political campaigns, to implement sharia compliant American law?”

In fact, one need only look at Saudi Arabia and other sharia-ordered countries to see that Jews and gays have no civil rights in Islam.  Thus, “like everyone else, they must either submit to Islam or die.  But they are especially forbidden and targeted for death — because the Qur’an instructs it.”  According to Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, “[t]he Muslim regimes, which do not know even the definition of liberty–and their systematic criminalization of free speech; their suppression of inquiry and creativity; and their unending intertribal fights–are the reason their people have remained in the seventh century.”

Amendment VIII in the Constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”  Yet, in sharp contrast, “every day, arrests, trials, floggings, torture and the murder of journalists, poets, students and human rights activists are a routine practice” in the world of sharia law.

In fact, “[i]n Islamic Sharia law, a free mind is the most inexcusable crime in the Muslim world.”

Under “sharia, no free exercise of religion exists, especially for Muslims who choose to leave Islam.”  Additionally, “blasphemy laws exist worldwide to criminalize offensive speech or actions related to the Qur’an, Allah, and Muhammad.” Thus, anything that is deemed “offensive” is illegal.  And finally, “inequality, slavery and murder are enforced through the Islamic construct of dhimmitude.”

To further understand what life would actually be like for women under an Islamic state, it behooves readers to study the manifesto on women by the Al-Khanssaa Brigade in the February 2015 piece entitled Women of the Islamic State. A propaganda piece to recruit young girls to ISIS, some highlights include a “lengthy rebuttal of the ills of Western civilisation [.]”  ISIS has proposed a curriculum that would ‘begin when [girls] are seven years old and end when they are fifteen, or sometimes a little earlier.'” In essence, “the role of women is inherently ‘sedentary’, and her responsibilities lie first and foremost in the house [.] This role begins at the point of marriage which, . . . can be as young as nine years old. From this point on, it is women’s ‘appointed role [to] remain hidden and veiled and maintain society from behind.'” In actuality, “the ideal Islamic community should refrain from becoming caught up in exploring [science], the depths of matter, trying to uncover the secrets of nature and reaching the peaks of architectural sophistication.”  Consequently, “the implementation of sharia,” and doing “jihad” is paramount.

In Wisconsin and Ohio public school female students are now being asked to pretend to be Muslims.  This subtle propaganda is a first step to indoctrinating American youth.  In fact, much of American life is now being tainted with militant and violent Islamic ideology, be it in public schools, hospitals, and mosques.

Concerning actual sharia incursions into American life, on the one hand, Elizabeth K. Dorminey in her March 2012 article entitled “Sharia Law in American Courts” asserts that “[s]o long as U.S. courts and the federal and state legislatures adhere to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, Sharia’s proscriptions and prohibitions cannot displace constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the United States.”  Likewise Eugene Volokh believes American jurists will halt sharia-like incursions.

But in reality, American courts are already using sharia to adjudicate cases; this is highlighted in the December 2014 booklet entitled Shariah in American Courts, which pdf is available here and whose blurb states that “[t]his monograph also suggests that the effort to invoke shariah in U.S. courts is expanding. Worse yet, the total number of such cases is surely far larger in light of the fact that the proceedings of the vast majority of them are not published.”

In fact, Frank Gaffney emphatically asserts the “need for state legislators to clearly define public policy related to foreign law and Shariah.”  Consequently, . . .  in every case where foreign law and Shariah emerge in the court of a state that has yet to define clearly this policy, it creates one more advance in the Islamists’ determined campaign to have us destroy ‘our house’ by ‘our own hands.'”

Moreover, Gaffney underscores that “Shariah is distinctly different from other religious laws, like Jewish law and Catholic Canon, and distinctly different from other secular foreign laws” because of the “fundamental Shariah doctrine that Islamic law must rule supreme in any jurisdiction where Muslims reside.”  This three minute you-tube is a short version of the article entitled “Shariah vs. Jewish Law and encapsulates the stark differences.

Most alarming is that in “146 cases found, the court upheld the use of Shariah in 27 cases. This means that, statistically, one out of five American judges fail[ed] to reject foreign law that violates U.S. and state public policy.”  Consequently, there is an “increasing effort to insinuate Shariah into American civilization.”  Multi-cultural tolerance is being turned on us. Being paralyzed by political correctness eliminates what self-preservation demands.

In the June 2014 booklet entitled “Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left” published by One Law for All, the authors explain that “[f]undamentalist terror is predicated on “. . . controlling all aspects of society in the name of religion, including education, the legal system, youth services, etc. When fundamentalists come to power, they silence the people — they physically eliminate dissidents, writers, journalists, poets, musicians, painters – like fascists do. Like fascists, they physically eliminate the ‘untermensch’ – the subhumans -, among them ‘inferior races’, gays, mentally or physically disabled people. And they lock women ‘in their place [.]'”he Campaign La All

Why would we want to import any part of this to our shores?

Eileen has been a medical librarian, an Emergency Medical Technician and a Hebrew School teacher.  She is currently an adjunct college instructor of English composition and literature.  Active in the 1970’s Soviet Jewry Refusenik movement, she continues to speak out against tyranny.  Eileen is also a regular contributor to American Thinker. She can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

Dhimmitude: Get to know what it is

20130603_ISLAM_MOSQUE_CRESCENT_LARGEFamily security Matters, by Victor Sharp, April 27, 2015:

Ask people in the United States what a dhimmi is and perhaps a handful might know. In Europe, and as far as India and the far east, the number would be higher because of latent memories of battles fought against invading Moslem armies across the span of centuries.

For a while there was the specter of triumphant Islam building a giant mosque mere yards from Ground Zero in New York City where Islamic fanatics, in the name of Allah, destroyed the World Trade Center and brought the two magnificent towers down in a cascade of horror.

The mosque would have risen to thirteen or more stories and overlooked the blasted hole in the ground that was once a symbol of America’s freedom and technical ingenuity.

If this outrage had been built, it would not have been a symbol of Muslim outreach to non-Moslems; it would have been a sickening insult to the victims of Islamic barbarism and a tangible rallying cry to millions more jihadists who would see it as Islam’s victory over a vanquished United States of America.

This would have been the 21st century revenge of resurgent Islam over those who centuries ago beat back the many previous Islamic invasions and attempted Muslim conquests of non-Muslim lands.

In 732, Charles Martel led his Frankish forces at Tours to victory against an Islamic invasion of France, which nearly destroyed Christian Europe. Similarly, Islam was ousted from Spain in 1492 after an occupation of the Iberian Peninsula by the Moslems for hundreds of years.

In Italy, Islamic power was brought to an end when the heavy Turkish galleys were defeated by Venetian galleasses at the great naval battle of Lepanto in 1571. And the Moslem Ottoman power, which at its height again threatened Europe, was barely turned back at the gates of Vienna on 11 September 1683 by a coalition of European armies. A previous 9/11.

These were four major defeats by Europe of Islamic attempts of conquest and subjugation set against a history of victorious Moslem invasions and conquests that has been the hallmark of Islam since its founding in the seventh century.

But what of the peoples and nations that fell under Islamic occupation? For them the story was one of forced conversions to Islam, slavery, death, and the Islamic institution of dhimmitude.

This is the word that describes the parlous state of those who refused to convert to Islam and became the subjugated non-Muslims who were forced to accept a restrictive and humiliating subordination to a superior Islamic power and live as second-class citizens in order to avoid death.

These peoples and populations were known as dhimmis, and if such a status was not humiliating enough, a special tax or tribute, called the jizya, was imposed upon them and upon all dhimmis.

Dhimmitude and Shariah law are the direct outcomes of jihad, which is the conquest of non-Islamic territory mandated by Allah as a spiritual obligation for every individual Moslem and Moslem nation.

From its beginnings in the seventh century, Islam spread through violent conquest of non-Moslem lands. In the eighth century, a formal set of rules to govern relationships between Moslems and non-Moslems was created based upon Moslem conquests of non-Moslem peoples. These rules were based upon jihad, which established how the Moslems would treat the conquered non-Moslems in terms of their submission to Islam.

Jihad can be pursued through force or other means such as propaganda, writing, or subversion through Shariah law against the perceived enemy. The so-called enemies are those who oppose the establishment of Islamic law or its spread, mission, or sovereignty over them and their land. The building of mosques on or near the site of an Islamic victory against non-Moslems is a tangible expression of Islamic triumphalism.

The Al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem – built upon the very site of the two ancient Jewish Temples – is a stark example. The great Haggai Sophia church in Constantinople was converted into a mosque when the Ottoman Turks destroyed the city, renaming it Istanbul. It is now a museum.

Similarly, the Greek Catholic cathedral in Nicosia, Cyprus, was converted into a mosque after the Turks invaded northern Cyprus in 1974. They still remain in illegal occupation having driven out the Greek Cypriots and turned churches into mosques. And Obama is the close friend of Turkey’s Islamist leader, Tayip Recip Erdogan.

These are just three examples of the thousands of churches, synagogues, as well as Hindu, Buddhist and Bahai temples, converted into mosques over the centuries by victorious and triumphal Islam.

Propaganda and subversion are the very means now being employed against the West and Judeo-Christian civilization, and Islamists have shown themselves to be brilliantly adept at manipulating the gullible West in pursuit of their aims of world domination.

As I have written in previous articles, non-Islamic lands are considered the dar al-harb, the “house of war,” until they submit to Islamic rule and enter the dar al-Islam, the “house of Islam.”

Moslem authorities perceive enemies of Islam fall into three categories: those who resist Islam with force, those living in a country that has a temporary truce with Islam, and those who have surrendered to Islam through the ultimate foolishness of exchanging land for a so-called peace.

The belief that Moslem Arab powers respond to overtures of peace by ending their aggression is but a mirage in the desert. This is proven time and again to be a delusion and is, in fact, a classic example of the mindset and behavior of the dhimmi.

A non-Moslem community forced to accept dhimmitude is condemned to live in a system that will only protect it from jihad if it is subservient to the Moslem master. In return, it is guaranteed limited rights under a system of discriminations that it must accept, or face forced conversion or death.

In the early years of the Islamic conquests, the “tribute” or jizya was paid as a yearly poll tax, which symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi. Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of oppressive regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi.

Jews and Christians were awarded a different status than other faiths. They were considered to be under protection as ‘people of the book.’ People of non-monotheistic faiths, pagans, or atheists were simply to be exterminated.

According to Mitchell G. Bard, who has written extensively on the subject and produced the excellent rebuttal to Arab and pro-Arab propaganda in his book Myths and Facts writes: ” … dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman (though a Moslem man could take a non-Moslem as a wife).”

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices as that might offend the Moslems.

The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Moslems, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Moslem, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Moslem witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Moslem.

Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad’s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting an odious  precedent that would be followed centuries later by Nazi Germany.

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Moslem lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice-Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:

“The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.”

The concept of jihad is not something now discarded by Islam as a quaint belief appropriate to the distant past. On the contrary, it is a cardinal belief in the 21st century for Moslems based upon Koranic injunctions.

The extermination and genocide of Christians in the Middle East – just like the Turkish genocide against the Christian Armenians in 1915 – is happening now: even as you read this.

Jihad is believed in by millions of Moslems around the Third world, as much as by Moslems living in America, Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. It is a belief, passionately held, that one day the entire world will be forced to accept Islam and the will of Allah.

It is vital, therefore, that the general public in every non-Moslem country be made aware that Moslems consider themselves in a perpetual state of war, however outwardly peaceful they may sometimes appear to their non-Moslem neighbors.

If Islamic armies are unable to defeat what they consider the so-called infidels, then a period of “truce” exists, which has several conditions. These include allowing Islam to be propagated, the building of numerous mosques, and the requirement of Shariah law co-equal with civil law. If a non-Moslem nation forbids it, then that nation will be considered subject to violence through “holy” jihad.

It is nearly impossible for sophisticated and secularized Western elites to understand or accept such medieval concepts, let alone the idea that a 7th century religious war is being waged against them.

But their dismissal and amused disregard of what is taking place is as calamitous as that exemplified by myopic politicians in Britain and America before the Second World War.

The lone voice in the wilderness at that time, Winston Churchill, appealed in vain to the British political leaders who had not the ears to hear or the eyes to see the growing fascist menace during the 1930s posed by Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.

Western notions of peaceful co-existence between states, human rights and democracy, are all alien to the imams, mullahs and assorted tyrants of the Islamic world.

Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei, ad nauseum, all consider Judeo-Christian civilization as being in theological error.

For them, the entire human race must embrace Allah’s pre-eminence, and the Moslem believer is the divine instrument to bring about the “Umma” (worldwide Moslem community) in whatever way possible, including warfare and nuclear terror.

Jihad has reappeared as a way of wiping out the humiliation the Arab and Moslem world has felt as Western power became ascendant, especially after the defeat of the Ottoman Turkish Caliphate at the end of the First World War.

With a fabulous and never ending flow of petrodollars pouring into Arab and Moslem coffers, the belief among Moslems is that the time is now right for Islam to reassert itself in dominating the world and bringing it to Allah through all-out war, including nuclear war, if necessary.

The corollary to jihad is dhimmitude. This is what appeasement by non-Moslems to Islamist threats, demands, and terror leads to. Winston Churchill would have been shocked but not surprised at today’s craven appeasement or even empathy towards Islam displayed by  elitists in the Western political echelons – not least by Barack Hussein Obama.

Today, America is seduced by the unholy trinity of political correctness, multiculturalism, and diversity. These idiocies hobble the minds of too many officials and politicians so that they are incapable or unwilling to prevent the pernicious introduction into America of stealth Islamic Sharia law or win effectively on the battlefield against jihadists in the Middle East, Afghanistan, or wherever this terrifying struggle may take us.

It is in marked contrast to the manner in which an earlier existential Islamic threat to Europe hundreds of years ago was defeated decisively at Tours, Sicily, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), Lepanto, Vienna, Greece and in the Balkans.

But without a similarly decisive defeat of present day Islamo-Nazi aggression, we may all be faced, sooner than we might think, with the choice of forced conversion to Islam or subservience and wretchedness as dhimmis.

Better, therefore, for us all to be aware of the facts and not be dummies.

Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of several books including The Blue Hour, a collection of short stories, and Volumes One and Two of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.

The Muslim as Dhimmi

 

Political Islam, by Bill Warner:

I would like to speak with you today about the Muslim as a Dhimmi.  (Dhimmis are Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims (defined by Muslims as Kafirs) living in Islamic countries as second-class subjects with virtually no rights as citizens.)  I’ve given several talks in which I try to show people that it is the Sharia and the status of “Dhimmi” (D-H-I-M-M-I) that is the root cause of the disappearance of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism in Islamic countries.  And usually what I do is this:  I go through something called the Dhimma, which was a “treaty granted by . . .  Muhammad to the Jewish and Christian populations whom he had subjected,” which included other “peoples vanquished by the Muslims and considered to be protected by their treaty of surrender,” [See The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam From Jihad to Dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or, page 472]  i.e., horrible rules that the conquered Kafirs were coerced into obeying.  But in order to really drive the point home I would like to pretend that the Moslems have signed a Dhimmi Treaty with our culture, with our civilization, and let’s see what it feels like to put the shoe on the other foot.  What would it be like if the Muslim were a Dhimmi in America today?

Every one of the following examples I’m going to give you were the conditions under which Christians in Islamic countries were subjugated.  To start off with:  Muslims are forbidden to build new mosques.   Muslims are prohibited from issuing their call to prayer any louder than can be heard from the sidewalk of the mosque.  (This is a corollary of the prohibition of Christians’ freedom to ring church bells loud enough to be heard by their congregation.)  A minaret shall not be higher than 15 feet.  Muslims cannot build houses greater in height than the height of houses owned by Christians.  Muslims are forbidden from attaining any position of authority over Christians.  Muslims shall not vote nor will they be recognized as citizens in any Kafir nation.  Muslims are prohibited from serving in the military, police force nor hold any government position.  Muslims shall not testify in Kafir courts nor will they be permitted to sue any Kafir.  Muslims shall not give shelter in their mosque or homes to any jihadi.  Muslims shall not teach Islam to any Kafir.  Muslims shall not manifest Islam publicly and they shall not attempt to convert any Kafir and they will not prevent any Mohammedan from leaving the religion of Islam if they so wish.  Muslims shall not own or carry any weapons.  Muslims shall not drive cars, although they will be able to operate mopeds and ride bicycles.  Muslims shall not display their books in the marketplace and Muslims will pay the Islamic tax (Jizya) of 50% of their income.  Once a year they will shave their heads and kneel before the Kafir to present the Jizya.  Any act of disobedience by an individual Muslim could result in collective punishment and nullify the Dhimma and cause the Kafirs to riot, murder and burn down the homes and mosques of the Muslims.

Now as you hear these rules, and it should be absolutely clear that if these laws were enacted and enforced in America Muslims would leave or they would apostatize and convert, which is exactly what Christians did in Turkey, the Balkans, North Africa and the Middle East.  The same thing happened to the Buddhists and the Hindus when they were forcibly subjected to rules just like these and so, after a while, in utter desperation, they converted.  It may have taken centuries, but they converted or escaped from the totalitarian Islamic countries.  Now that you’ve seen how the Dhimma treats the Muslim as a Dhimmi, you can see that no Muslim would ever volunteer to immigrate to a Kafir country and allow themselves to be subjected to the same treatment to which Islamic countries subjected Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.

The enforcement of the Dhimma is a good example of the dualism of Islamic supremacist countries.  In other words a Weltanschauung of “us versus them” or the Muslim over the Kafir.

Utterly lacking in Islamic culture is The Golden Rule:  “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

This exercise of the Muslim as a Dhimmi is a juxtaposition of Dualism and The Golden Rule in reverse (i.e., we will now do unto you, what you have done unto us for centuries).

If you would like to learn more about life as a Christian, Jew or Hindu living in an Islamic totalitarian country I recommend two more fascinating books, in addition to the book cited in the footnote:  The Dhimmi:  Jews and Christians under Islam and Understanding Dhimmitude:  Twenty-one Lectures and Talks on the Position of Non-Muslims in Islamic Societies, both by Bat Ye’or.