5 Things to Learn from the Latest 3 Jihadist Attacks in Germany

Ansbach-terror-attack-germany-678x381

It is okay to wonder when the madness will end, but it is not okay to do nothing about it.

CounterJihad, by Immanuel Al-Manteeqi, July 28, 2016:

The past few days have been pretty rough for Germans, who witnessed a spate of three violent terrorist attacks over a short span of three days.

On July 22nd, David Ali Sonboly, a 18-year-old holding dual nationalities in both Germany and Iran, opened gunfire and killed nine people at a McDonald’s mall location in Munich, leaving nine dead and more than fifteen injured. Two days later, on July 23rd, a 21-year-old bearded Syrian refugee, who was known to authorities for previous acts of violence, stabbed and killed a pregnant Polish woman with a machete and injured two others in the southwestern German city of Reutlingen (and the human baby in her womb also died). That same night, a 27-year-old Syrian who was denied asylum by German authorities blew himself up outside of a music festival in Ansbach, injuring fifteen people. And these attacks only come about a week after a 17-year-old Afghani refugee, Muhammad Riyad—who we now know was incontrovertibly inspired by ISIS—went on a bloody knife rampage that left eighteen people injured on a train in Würzburg.

The following are some points to bear in mind regarding these recent events:

There is a trend of Muslims of foreign descent committing high-profile crimes in Germany. At least two of the above attacks (the Wurzburg and Ansbach attacks) were indisputably Islamist attacks that were inspired by ISIS. It is not yet clear whether the Syrian refugee responsible for the machete attack was an Islamist, nor is it is clear that the Iranian-German Munich shooter was; though it is not implausible that these two attackers also turn out to be Islamists.

1. There is a trend of false or misleading information being disseminated about recent high-profile Islamist-perpetrated attacks.

One is reminded of, for example, the Omar Mateen Orlando nightclub shootings, which left forty-nine people dead and about fifty people injured. Reports that Mateen was a closet homosexual were widely circulated; indeed, the mainstream (liberal) media flirted with the idea that he may have perpetrated the attack because he was a self-loathing closet homosexual. But the story later turned out to be false, with the FBI stating that, contrary to all the reports, there was no good evidence that he was a homosexual.[1]

Regarding the Munich shooting, it was initially reported on the authority of the German police that David Ali Sonboly did not have a connection with Islamist militants and may have been inspired by Anders Brevik (the far-right terrorist who, in 2011,  killed 77 people and injured more than 300 others in Oslo, Norway). However, recent reports specify that on Monday, Bavarian officials announced that the 18-year-old gunman had been in touch with the Afghan knife attacker over the smartphone application, “WhatsApp.” Also, the BBC apparently scrubbed “Ali” out of the name of the Munich attacker in its reporting.

Perhaps the relevant BBC authority behind this scrubbing believed that disclosing his name would precipitate unnecessary animus towards Muslim refugees.[2] Furthermore, in regards to the Ansbach bombing, the BBC published a headline that read “Syrian migrant killed in German Blast.” Although the headline is technically true, it seems to insufficiently credit the Syrian migrant with the attack. One would think a more apt title would have been something like “Syrian migrant injures fifteen (or many) people in German Blast,” with the active voice being used, not the passive.

2. European authorities may be suppressing some evidence of Islamist ties or motivations in these recent (and even future) attacks.

They have a motivation for doing so, and it is to reduce the amount of violent (and perhaps non-violent) backlash against Muslim refugees in Germany. Furthermore, we also have proof that German authorities did suppress evidence vis-a-vis the actions of Muslim refugees; leaks revealed that German police had greatly underreported the sexual harassment that took place in Cologne, Germany during the last New Year’s celebrations. So it is not implausible that they would choose to suppress the amount of evidence that they release to the public if such evidence points to Islamist motivations.

As three of the above mentioned attacks prove, some of the Muslim refugees seeking asylum are either Islamists or homicidal maniacs.

If, for example, the machete attacker with a previous history of violence turns out to have been a homicidal maniac and not an Islamist, this would be more evidence that the refugee vetting process is faulty, and cannot adequately  screen people with nefarious motives. After all, one would think that homicidal maniacs should be screened off. But in any case, we know that there are more Islamist refugees in Europe operating at the moment. Indeed, Angelika Merkel admitted that Islamist terrorists had been “smuggled” in with the massive influx of refugees. Europe has been infiltrated by Islamists.

3. These recent attacks show the crucial value of profiling.

It can no longer be denied that young and single male-Muslim refugees are at the greatest risk of committing such crimes than other members of the refugee population. Because of this, greater scrutiny should be applied to such refugees. This is a commonsensical position that one can only hope that European authorities are implementing. It is simply silly to give the same level of scrutiny to an elderly Jewish, Christian or Yazidi female refugee as to a young and single Muslim male refugee. Profiling needs to be done. Israel, e.g., profiles and its security forces are the most skilled at dealing with Islamic terrorism in the world. Profiling for high-risk groups would definitely decrease the probability of Islamist terrorist attacks on European soil.

German authorities are not very efficient at containing refugee violence. Why did German authorities not deport or keep under heavy scrutiny the Syrian Muslim migrant who perpetrated the machete attack? After all, he not only fits the profile outlined in the above point, but he has a history of known violence. This should have been a red flag for the German authorities. Commonsense legislation needs to be enacted here, if it is not already enacted—refugees who have been recently given asylum and who perform well-evidenced acts of violence should be quickly deported from Germany. This should be a rule all across Europe.

4. Guns, machetes, trucks, or knives are not the problem—it is the individuals who use them for nefarious purposes.

After all, Germany has one of the strictest gun laws in the world. But that did not stop some in the German legislature from proposing even stricter gun control legislation after the Munich shooting. Just like some American officials after the Orlando shooting, some German officials do not want to face the realities of the situation—and one of those realities—the primary reality—consists of radical Islam, a destructive ideology which disproportionately affects young Muslim males and which teaches the forceful subjugation of non-Muslims.

5. Although Merkel and her fellow multiculturalists in power are not personally responsible for these savage attacks, they do hold responsibility for opening the refugee floodgates.

Germany is clearly feeling the effects of its “open-door policy,” which has turned out to be a national security disaster. The refugee populations contain a significant amount of latent Islamist sentiment, sentiment that is fueling the anti-assimilation and violence that we are now witnessing across Germany and Europe. The multicultural enterprise has failed, and the evidence of this failure is all across Europe, in plain sight for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. But a sizable amount of Europeans have yet to acquire eyes to see and ears to hear, as they still want to continue the refugee flow, even if it is marginally stemmed. Such is the insanity of those who would welcome the very people in their homes who would, if given the power, be the first to exterminate their caretakers.  It is a frustrating and melancholic form of naïveté.

Germans are rightly getting tired of all the Islamic terrorist attacks on their soil. The spate of recent attacks has caused many to come out with the slogan “Merkel Must Go.” Regardless of whether she must go or not, as I mentioned in my article on the Islamist infiltration of Europe, there are some practical steps that Germany and other European countries can take in counteracting the jihadist threat. They bear repeating.

Europeans should severely limit the number of refugees to whom they grant asylum. They should aggressively pressure the refugee populations already residing in their territories to assimilate to their native Western cultures.

In addition, Europeans, especially European lawmakers, need to realize that not all cultures are created equal, and that the German culture is superior to an Islamic culture like that of Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, as suggested above, profiling of asylum seekers should be actively implemented. Non-Muslim refugees from places like Iraq and Syria should be given priority over Muslim refugees from these regions—this is for the simple probabilistic reason that a Muslim is more likely to pose a terrorist threat than a non-Muslim. In addition, refugees who are approved for European citizenship should first be granted probationary European citizenship for a certain period of time; if during that period of time they commit crimes, then their application for permanent citizenship should be revoked.

As I write this today images of an 86-year-old French Catholic priest in Normandy are plastered all over the news—he had just been brutally beheaded and filmed by two ISIS supporters, both of whom were known to authorities and who had previously tried to travel to Syria to join ISIS.

It is okay to wonder when the madness will end, but it is not okay to do nothing about it.

The very least one can do is to educate oneself about the threat of radical Islam and how Islamic law, the Sharia, is not compatible with Western Civilization. Remember that as the late great Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Christian pastor who was executed by the Nazis for refusing to bow to their ideology and actively working to bring about their fall, once said: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

So let us not remain silent, let us speak, and let us act.


[1] The narrative never made much sense from the beginning, as Mateen had been married to women twice.

[2] Note that ‘Sonboly’ still gives information about the attacker’s background, since Sonbol is a city in the Iranian province of Khurusan; but this would be lost on most of BBC’s readership.

Islam and the Free World (part two)

f028aa9496fa3ddc3ff41813ed2863c7_LModern Diplomacy, by David Bukay, July 25, 2016:

(see part one here)

What must be done as an imperative to survival.

The following steps must be taken with deep efforts, seriously and effectively:

1) No more the twisted mirror image. To view Islam through Western inclusive pluralistic lenses means not only never understanding Islam but also it may produce disastrous results. What if the struggle is between two polar opposite cultural conceptions, between a society that aspires to modernity and progress, as against totalitarianism of thought, traditional tribal values and religious extremism?

What if Islamic approaches do not play by the Western rules of the game, by the Judeo-Christian morality? What if Islamic behavior is deeply rooted in the hearts of the Muslims as a norm of social behavior, as a cultural reflection of their society? What if Muslims are devoted to implementing their values out of profound hatred and hostility?

Psychologist Norman Dixon has defined the issue aptly: We are busy performing two things: first, denying reality, and second, when the catastrophe happens, rationalizing our mistaken behavior. This is the reason why the Free World is flattering, appeasing, and serving as useful idiots to Islam and Muslims. If we do not know why the Muslims hate us so deeply and they shamelessly continue pushing for concessions, is there any hope for us to prevail? One Jew of the Holocaust survivors, who was asked what he had learned from the Second World War, replied: “When somebody says he wants to kill you, you should believe him.” Everything is so clear and obvious, yet, we do not want to learn.

Let us take, for example, the issue of language, which represents Orwell’s 1984. There is a heated debate concerning the difference between Islam and Islamism. As if Islamism is a political ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is Jihad and conquests, while Islam is a peaceful religion. However, this is the Western debate, the Western language and a twisted formula to evade reality. There is absolutely nothing on that matter in the Islamic vocabulary.

Moreover, what if the terms ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ are totally opposite in Western and Arab-Islamic political culture? What if we all use the same terms — peace, political arrangements, negotiations, coexistence, etc. — while we translate them operationally and understand them conceptually totally differently? What if for Islam “good” is only whatever advances the cause of Islam to control the world, and “evil” is whatever resists the cause of Islam and enables the existence of the Kuffār? What if Islam teaches war in the name of peace, and hate in the name of love? What if, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are the moderate true believers, since they strictly follow the orders and commandments of the Sharī’ah, and those whom we relate to as moderates are in fact the extremists, even infidels, in the Islamic perspective?

There is another perspective, which is Theodor Adorno’s idea of the authoritarian personality. Scholars had determined that social conservatives suffer from ‘mental rigidity,’ ‘dogmatism,’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance,’ together with associated indicators for mental illness. This is a Machiavellian psychological command and control device. Its purpose is the imposition of uniformity in thought, speech, and behavior.

This is exactly the Arab-Islamic personality that leads to cultural terrorism. Obedience is the result of force. Force is the antithesis of humanizing actions. It is synonymous in human mind with savageness, lawlessness, brutality, and barbarism displayed in an inhuman attitude toward the other. Consequently, it rejects, for example, the first principles of the US Declaration of Independence of “unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is rejected by Islam as its uppermost characteristics is submission to Allah.

According to Ali Sina’s paraphrasing, there are three categories of Muslims residing in the Free World: the good, the bad, and the ugly. However, this division is not according to Western definitions. The good are in fact the bad; the bad are in fact the good and the ugly are in fact the good face of the Islamic propagators introduced to the Free World’s public opinion, in order to deceive and mislead. So, in fact, nothing in Islam is what it is because everything is what it is not. Each and every group has its role in the world game of Islam to occupy the world and subdue humanity to Islamic rule.

What if the terrorists are actually good Muslims, practicing the commandments of the Sharī’ah? Muhammad raided and butchered people merely because they were not his followers. The good Muslims do the same. Bombing and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims are replicas of Muhammad’s raids, Ghazawāt, for booty (Ghanā’im) sanctioned in the Qur’an. Muhammad ordered the assassination of his critics, killing the apostates, slaughtering the infidels and decapitating their heads, and imposing terror on them. It is all written in the Qur’an.

What if the bad Muslims are those who do not practice their religion and do not follow its ordinances? What if the ugly Muslims actually appear beautiful? They are eloquent, articulate, intelligent, attractive, and highly manipulative. They know what to say to gain the Muslim majority’s approval and applause. They are charming. Their words are reassuring and their faces are reliable and authentic. They act efficiently in diplomacy of deceit; they use propaganda in order to make you believe that Islam is not only peaceful and poses no threat to you, but in fact is cooperative and dialogue-oriented. These are wolves in sheep clothing proving that deception is as deadly as terror.

Muslims that practice and support the ideology and doctrine of Islam are all part of the problem. That is, they wish to occupy the world and to subdue humanity. Some use terrorism and violence; some use Da’wah and good words of propagation; and some, perhaps the majority, push forward, by charity money of Zakāt, by demography and birth-rate, and by being the silent majority, that is refraining from denouncing and alienating the terrorists. The result: Islam acts firmly and steadily to take over the world. This goal is rooted deep in every Muslim, the good, the bad and the ugly, each with its own strategy and tactics, but all with the same objective.

There are also good people, in Western terms, among the Muslims. But they are, unfortunately, a very small minority. They really wish to reform and democratize Islam, and to take away all Islamic signs of hatred and incitement to the other. However, the belief that Islam can be reformed from within is something impossible. The Qur’an is the heavenly book given by Allah. One cannot change the words of Allah, as it means blasphemy and it leads to punishment by death. There are verses in the Qur’an and Ahadīth that clearly state, he who changes even one word of the Qur’an must be killed. It is even forbidden to wonder or ask questions about it, let alone to criticize it. Islam is not adaptable with the times and cannot adapt itself to modernization. The gates of innovations (Ijtihād) have been closed since the 12th century. The mountain of Islam has not changed as what is written in the Qur’an cannot be changed.

In a revealing, perhaps surprising, analysis, the Jerusalem Post editorial, took a bold step by criticizing the media in the US:

The irony, of course, is that our postmodern media analysts, while preaching the gospel of cultural relativism, are themselves entirely blind to the moral values, cultural underpinnings and ethical standards of those who adhere to different sets of guiding principles. Rather, their search for answers are steeped in their own narrow mindsets, nurtured at the universities they attended and reinforced in the scholarly journals they read and in the social circles they embrace. The attempt by the media elites to paint a portrait of these men as alienated, disaffected youths is symptomatic of such a mindset. Their faux sophistication is belied by the narrow Western lens with which they view the motivations of these Islamists living in the West.

In essence, they are guilty of the analytic omission which they accuse others of: an honest attempt to understand events beyond the context of their own cultural biases and narrow frames of reference. If they did, they might find the anger and alienation of these young jihadists have nothing whatsoever to do with the familiar narrative of youthful rebelliousness depicted in iconic American cinematic and literary touchstones such as Rebel without a Cause or The Catcher in the Rye. Hence, the multiculturalist thinkers, plagued by Western guilt, seek conflict resolution through understanding and compromise. For the jihadist (lone wolf or otherwise) those are alien notions. They have already determined that there is no place in the worldwide caliphate to come for those who do not submit to the laws of Allah – Western commentators included.

Read more

Sharia’s Incompatibility with Western Values, Explained

gtdg4vst-1411368664

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Sharia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

Islam and the Free World

94ea69ba6d138bccade59f45aa6f86ca_L

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. –  Winston Churchill

What must be done as an imperative to survival.

Modern Diplomacy, by David Bukay, July 22, 2016:

Islam has been, from its very beginning, not only a religion but a political community (Ummat al-Islām), and Muhammad was not merely a prophet, but a political leader and military commander whose aim is occupying the world. Therefore, Islam is more politics than a religion. Since Allah promised the Muslims victory and superiority over all other religions worldwide, it is sanctioned for all Muslims to occupy the world. Humanity is divided into two groups: the followers of Islam who are called “believers,” as compare to all the others, who, being not Muslims, are infidels or apostates by definition and deserve death.

It is the duty of the Muslims to propagate the only one true faith, Islam, throughout the world. It is the duty of the Muslim to invade, by force, to the lands of the infidels. Should the infidels refuse to embrace Islam, jihad is the means to vanquish them. These are the three main arms of Islam, the Muslims use at will and according to the circumstances.

A brief glance to world situation today clearly reveals what Western leaders refuse to utter; and Western media refuses to display; and what Western academia refuses to teach and to investigate – that Islam is the main source of all humanity’s troubles. 95 percent of world terrorism and more than 70 percent of world violence are purely Islamic. There are political, religious and ethnic minorities all over the world. In our global world, there is not even one country that has not minorities. However, there are three salient facts:

First, and of critical importance, Muslims are the only minority that do not want to integrate and assimilate. On the contrary, they have come to change and transform. Muslim minorities are almost the only cause of turbulence, agitation, hatred, rage and violence. This fact is one of the main reasons to the mired situation in most states globally.

Second, In the US, they have exacerbated the rage of Blacks and Hispanics, large parts of them converted to Islam, and part of them have deteriorated their upheavals to more radical-violent spectrum. In other states Muslims are the cause violence takes so high level of societies’ situation.

Third, in Arab-Islamic states, minorities are extinct species. They are persecuted, butchered, massacred, and slaughtered. This fact shows the true face of Islam. While demanding (by force of violence!) civilian rights in the West without accepting and recognizing any civility or loyalty, they treat other minorities savagely and deadly.

We have clearly to understand and declare that only one religion today regularly motivates large numbers of its followers to murder, behead, terrorize, rape, butcher, and enslave all other peoples across the globe. It is Islam; not Christianity; not Judaism; not Buddhism; not others. Islam. Only Islam. We know it, and still run away; we see it, and still we close our eyes; it is so clear and obvious, and still we deny it. It is one of the unfortunate facts that we all ignore this unprecedented evil in history and continue to pay protection money out of deep intimidation and ignorance. We all whitewash this horrific situation, as we are in deep mental and willful blindness.

Contrary to the Free World’s beliefs and conceptions, Muslims take Islam’s doctrine and teachings seriously and take it a must to follow. The Qur’an explicitly and repeatedly commands Muslims to engage in Jihad: “Jihad is ordained for you Muslims.” It explicitly and repeatedly commands Muslims to “kill the infidels wherever you find them;” “strike off their heads,” enslave and make sex slaves of their wives and daughters, and continue this Jihad “until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

As is clearly seen from current history, Muslim terrorists across the globe are murdering, beheading, enslaving, and raping infidels wherever and whenever they can. There is not even one state around the world that is not influenced and/or inflicted by Jihad, Da’wah and Hijrah. These Jihadists are encouraged by Islamic exegetes and Imāms’ preaching; are directly supported by many Muslim sponsor states, like Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, and Iran; and by terrorist exporting states, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan.

The Qur’an explicitly and repeatedly commands Muslims to use all means of propagation to accomplish Islam’s targets and Muslim exegetes. Travelling Imāms, who are the uppermost enemy as preachers of evil, legalize the immigration, Hijrah, as a strategy to occupy the world. There is a perpetual Islamic political and religious encroachment into the deep fabrics of the non-Muslim states, perpetuated by Da’wah and Hijrah. This new kind of invasion, unknown in the record of history, happens since the Free World is voluntarily conceding to Islamic whims.

The strategy is simple but brilliant: Muslims consistently suppress any criticism of Islam by all means, from intimidation and riots to butchering and slaughtering. They immediately cry out, ‘racism,’ even though Islam is not a race; or ‘Islamophobia,’ even though it is absolutely not a phobia to fear Islam as it is founded upon a concrete reality. Indeed, this horrific situation is due to the fact that Islam is a political religion with political goals and political means to achieve its political strategy. It is a political system meant to impose its political ideological teachings on the entire universe.

The fact is that Muslims present their sensibilities and cry out they are insulted as a tactic and a strategy at the same time. When they do it, they are successful in imposing their will and censoring the Free World’s freedoms. With Western stupidity, ignorance, and intimidation, Muslims aim at bringing the world into submission.

The last example of continuing stupidity that motivates and drives Islamic atrocities is the media’s idiotic, retarded, unprecedented stupidity, detached from reality, as if, Muslim grievances, poverty and lack of education, is responsible for the terrorism. We have already referred to this in one of the articles in Modern Diplomacy. The fact is it is exactly the opposite. But the media continue to spread Islamic Da’wah, propagation, and the result is blaming the West and defending Islam.

Read more

How to Defeat Terrorism

isis_trojan_horse_america_article_banner_4-4-16-1.sized-770x415xbPJ MEDIA, BY DAVID SOLWAY, JULY 22, 2016

I admit at the outset that my title is partially misleading. Terrorism cannot be defeated, it can only be significantly reduced if the right measures are adopted. We are engaged in a war without end, a war that has gone on for fourteen centuries, a war that cannot be decisively won—but it is a war that we need not lose. We can limit the enemy’s ability to strike, keep him on the defensive, degrade his arsenal and confine him as far as possible to the peripheries of our world.

The necessary measures are not difficult to discern, but unlikely to be applied so long as our leaders are either weak or suborned, the media circulate their usual obfuscations, the academy persists in its ideological corruption, the talking heads keep talking before repairing to the security of their gated communities and tony neighborhoods, and the general populace remains mired in its habitual lassitude and fear of sounding politically incorrect.

The measures and policies that would need to be put in place are so obvious that the failure to implement them is nothing but a sign of lethal complacency and moral cowardice. What are these measures? The list is not unduly long and, as I say, entirely obvious.

  • Islamic immigration must be drastically curtailed if not completely stopped. As Donald Trump has cogently warned, “We are allowing people into our country who we have no idea where they are, where they’re from, who they are, they have no paperwork, they have no documentation, in many cases.” This, as the proverb goes, is like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. But there are many more horses in the barn to be confined to their stalls. It’s a start.
  • Since large Muslim populations are already settled within our borders, surveillance must be intensive, methodical and ongoing. No-Go Zones must be pacified by whatever means, and must be made Go Zones. Self-regulated ghettoes have to be opened up and rigorously policed. Islamic law must be ruled in contravention of common law and legally prohibited. Vigorous action is required. As Andrew Bieszad, one of Walid Shoebat’s co-bloggers, reported at com, the mayor of Calais has now decided to act, to dismantle the so-called refugee “jungle” that has disfigured the town and to displace or deport thousands of its characteristically violent denizens. As Bieszad says, “It has taken a long time, but the French are finally pushing back against the Muslims in Calais.” But nowhere else, it appears.
  • All mosques, which are effectively command centers, must be stringently investigated and many must be closed down.
  • Every imam in the country should be thoroughly vetted and many should be de-licensed and restricted from preaching.
  • Jihadi suspects clearly and unequivocally known to law enforcement agencies should not be so readily allowed, as is far too often the case, to mix freely among the people. As has often been said, lone wolves are usually known wolves. Moreover, it is a mistake to consider them as “lone”; they are really part of a vast ideological pack. Of course, we would need to protect ourselves against abuse of authority where anyone in disfavor with policing agencies or political administrations can be randomly detained. Wolves may be responsibly “tagged,” so to speak, and monitored, whether digitally or in propia persona, by the intelligence community, with a reasonable prospect of interception before yet another outrage is committed—those like the Nice jihadist Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who, as The Washington Post reports, “had been connected to assault and theft since 2010” and sentenced to a six month prison term (though “[i]t was not clear whether Bouhlel served any of that sentence”). Admittedly, there is a fine line between liberty and security, the issue will always remain moot, and safeguards will have to be agreed upon even if we lose some battles along the way.
  • Muslims and non-Muslims who leave the country to fight alongside terrorist entities must not be repatriated, even if they are passport-holding citizens. They are accessories to those who would destroy us and are therefore enemy combatants.
  • Muslim organizations with ties to terror-sponsoring organizations or that lobby for Sharia or for cultural and political influence must be disbanded and outlawed, no matter how powerful and widespread.
  • No less important, indeed, perhaps the most crucial of the measures I am proposing, has to do with terminology and the concepts it signifies. We keep hearing that the enemy we are facing is “Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam.” Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the most serious in its consequences of the evasions we practice and one that ensures our eventual destruction. The enemy is not radical Islam but Islam pure and simple. The terrorists, their enablers and the “entry” cohort take their warrant from their holy scriptures—the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, the schools of jurisprudence, and centuries of political and religious commentary.

As Jeff Sanders writes in an article for PJ Media, “The ‘holy war’ in the Bible is limited to only one set of passages in the Old Testament… [and to a particular] piece of geography and that particular time period….God did not ever tell the Israelites to go conquer and take the land of the Egyptians or the Syrians or the Greeks or the Babylonians or anyone else. And they didn’t.…However, the commands in the Quran to make war on all unbelievers have no ‘sunset clause.’ All of these commands are open-ended. They are not limited in any way to any geographical boundaries or to a time period. They are for all faithful Muslims for all time.”

As for the smattering of peaceful and tolerant passages, “the Quran also teaches something called the ‘law of abrogation,’ [in which] a later revelation, if it contradicts an earlier one, must be obeyed (Surah 2:106)…So, those few peaceful and tolerant passages in the Quran [are] replaced with other, newer commands, [which are] not so peaceful and tolerant.” Few “experts,” commentators, intellectuals and lay people are ready to endorse so unpalatable a truth. It is far easier for them to accept the conventional pieties, to regard themselves as correct-thinking and enlightened beings, and to redefine pusillanimity as courage.

In summation, until we recognize that Islam itself—not only its presumably “radical” variants—is incompatible with pluralistic Western democracies, we will not be able to save our countries. Pushback is unlikely for some time yet, if ever. Notwithstanding, peaceful Muslims must be pressured by informed opinion to undertake a thoroughgoing transformation of their faith even if the result has little affinity with millennial orthodoxy. The liberal argument that, in so doing, we will drive the moderates into the arms of the radicals is a reductio ad absurdum and, as Milo Yiannopoulos pointed out in an interview with a typical mealy-mouthed British journalist, is actually a threat. Must we keep assuring these putative moderates that Islam is demonstrably a religion of peace in order to keep them moderate? “Be nice to us or we’ll kill more of you,” as Yiannopoulos puts it. Must we refrain from fighting an implacable foe at the risk of finding ever more of them? Is this how we respond to Christians, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs? Such an argument is patently a confession of defeat and guarantees yet more of the same.

Should the measures I and others are recommending be instituted, Islam will not go away, and innocent people will still die in terrorist attacks or find their everyday lives to some extent imperiled by Islamic social and cultural incursions, although to a much diminished degree. Nevertheless, there is no other resolution to our dilemma, failing which the sequel is eminently predictable: the grizzly march of terrorist atrocities like those we have seen since 9/11 (and before) up to the latest carnage in Nice, dramatic Muslim inroads into the culture, eventual civil conflict and armed skirmishes on the streets of our cities, the rise of fascist parties profiting from the general malaise, and the inevitable disintegration of a way of life that we have ignorantly taken for granted.

“There needs to be an admission that we are in a full-scale war—not just lip-service,” Robert Spencer writes, “but a genuine acknowledgment, followed by a genuine war footing, and an end to the weepy memorials, empty condemnations, and po-faced get-nowhere investigations. This is not crime. This is war.”

We are now at the inflexion point. Either we are prepared to continue being slaughtered like sheep and to lose our ancestral traditions of rights and freedoms, or we are determined to preserve our Judeo-Christian heritage and the best the West has to offer.

Choose.

Islam at war with a delusional, suicidal West

Obama_CairoWND, by Matt Barber, July 16, 2016:

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

– Barack Hussein Obama

Isn’t it about time we crusade for self-defense?

I’ll say it again. Political correctness is a barrier to truth and a pathway to tyranny.

It’s also deadly.

As I beheld across my social media feeds last night, the horrific, blood-bathed images of 84-plus slaughtered innocents on the streets of Nice, France (at the hands of yet another Muslim named Mohamed), I was reminded of a quote by the great Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”

I was also reminded of a statement by Hillary Clinton: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

At best, this woman is an appeaser. Apart from Barack Obama, she has proven chief chumming chump to the crocs of the caliphate. This level of willful self-delusion requires suspension of disbelief stimulated by strong medicine indeed. That medicine is multiculturalism – the global “progressive” left’s pet project, save cultural Marxism, in a disastrously failed globalist public policy.

While Hillary is an appeaser, an apologist for Islam (or “dhimmi”), President Obama, I fear, is something far worse.

Tears welled in my eyes as I viewed the now viral image of a child sprawled lifeless on the streets of Nice, covered by a body blanket and flanked by her doll. As I stared at this image, a ghastly metaphor for modern multiculturalism, an ember of rage burst aflame within me. I reflected upon how Obama once described the Muslim call to prayer as, “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

And I felt disgust for the man.

That call to prayer asserts, among other things:

Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet

Standing before the United Nations General Assembly in 2012, Obama uttered these chilling words: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Indeed. The dead of Nice have no future at all.

Will we?

We know where Barack Obama’s sympathies, if not his loyalties, lie. But what of his would-be successor, Hillary Clinton?

The answer requires little speculation. Ms. Clinton has indicated her intention to resettle at least one million Muslim refugees in the U.S during her first term alone.

She plans to house the hounds in the hen house.

And hounds many will be.

Consider, for instance, that according to a 2015 Center for Security Policy poll, 51 percent of American Muslims desire that Islamic Shariah law be made the law of the land. Moreover, nearly 30 percent say that violence is appropriate against Americans who “insult” Islam or its “prophet” Muhammad.

Both Islam and the Quran, among many other such atrocities, explicitly require worldwide caliphate (global domination and the violent imposition of Islamic Shariah law). It treats women as chattel, stones them to death if they are raped (or not properly attired) and, in even the most “civilized” Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, executes practitioners of homosexuality as a matter of law.

These facts are not open for serious debate and are available for all to read, hear, see and, tragically, experience. Islam, therefore, is inherently at odds with freedom, democracy and the United States Constitution. While devout followers of Muhammad readily admit this reality, the suicidal left yet remains hellbent, head in the sand, on “tolerating” itself, and the rest of us, to death.

Writing last year in Investor’s Business Daily, investigative journalist Paul Sperry noted that “60 percent of Muslim-Americans under 30 … told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”

A treasonous heart leads to treasonous acts.

And that’s just the tip of the scimitar. Consider these terrifying numbers:

  • 83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll (2009).
  • 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
  • Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
  • 45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
  • 38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
  • 78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
  • 80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
  • 68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
  • 81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeera poll (2015).

Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that elusive, perpetually mute category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels or “idolaters.” They’re bad Muslims and, so, according to the Quran, not Muslims at all. “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” commands Surah 9:5. “Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Faithful Muslims, true followers of Muhammad, “slay the idolaters wherever [they] find them.”

Brigitte Gabriel is a world-renown national security expert. Her concentration is on the – ahem – explosive rise in Islamic terrorism. She notes that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Of them, intelligence agencies estimate that 15-25 percent are orthodox Muslims, meaning they actually follow the teachings of the Quran.

“That leaves 75 percent of [Muslims being] peaceful people,” observes Gabriel. “But when you look at 15-25 percent of the world’s Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big as the United States,” she concludes.

Hillary Clinton’s delusional, PC-poisoned and bat-guano-crazy words here bear repeating: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Some are and some don’t.

Yet hundreds of millions do.

The best thing Donald Trump has going for him is that he’s not Hillary Clinton.

***

Muslims Celebrate Bastille Day: 80 Dead, 68 Injured

rs

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 15, 2016:

The truck was loaded with explosives and hand grenades as it plowed into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France, Thursday night. It was no accident: Nice authorities emphasized that it was a terror attack, which was fairly clear already from the fact that the driver exchanged gunfire with police after he rammed into the crowd.

At least eighty people are dead and 68 wounded, and Nice Mayor Christian Estrosi calls it “the worst tragedy in the history of Nice.” But given the harsh realities of the contemporary world, it probably won’t be the worst for long.

Jihadis have had their eyes on France for quite some time. The Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:

So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….

Yes, “run him over with your car.”

Then again from the Islamic State in May 2016:

“The French must die by the thousands…. Towards paradise, that is the path….Come, brother, let’s go to paradise, our women are waiting for us there, with angels as servants. You will have a palace, a winged horse of gold and rubies….With a little rocket-launcher, you can easily get one of them… you do something like that in the name of Dawla (Islamic State), and France will be traumatised for a century.”

The French are already traumatized. The BBC reported last week that “more than 5,000 French police will be deployed at key venues in and around Paris ahead of the Euro 2016 football final between France and Portugal,” and that “there will be no victory parade if France win.” Why not? For fear of jihad terror attacks.

The Bastille Day jihad massacre demonstrates that the answer to jihad attacks is not to curtail one’s activities and cower in fear. Even if free people do that, the jihadis will strike anyway. Even without a victory parade, the jihadis struck yet again in France. The response should not be to cower in fear, but to recognize that this is a war and act accordingly. France has just suffered a fresh attack in a war that is being fought by people in service of an ideology that France, like other Western countries, refuses to acknowledge even exists.

France, even as it is under serious attack by the warriors of jihad, continues to pursue policies that will only result in the arrival of still more Muslims to France – and with them will come jihad terrorists, and many, many more jihad massacres like the one on Bastille Day in Nice. French curtailing their activities for fear of being struck by jihadis did not save them. The Bastille Day jihad attack should be the last to take place under the regime of politically correct fantasy that forces law enforcement and intelligence officials to pretend that the threat is other than what it is, and that the remedy is to apply, one more time, policies that have failed again and again and again.

Bastille Day should be a day for the releasing of prisoners. In the war against the global jihad, the truth has been prisoner for too long. It is time to set it free – before it, too, becomes irrevocably a casualty of this war against an enemy no one dares name.

“On behalf of the American people, I condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be a horrific terrorist attack in Nice, France, which killed and wounded dozens of innocent civilians,” Obama said.

Question: did Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on behalf of the American people, condemn in the strongest terms every German and Japanese strike during World War II? Did he add that the U.S. administration was in touch with Hawaiian or Polish or French or Midway etc. officials and was ready to offer any assistance in the investigation?

The answer is no, because there was no need to offer such condemnations. The world was at war, and the world knew it was at war. The fact was obvious, as was which side each combatant was on. Nor was there any need for an investigation after each battle. Everyone knew what was going on, and why.

The reason why Obama offers these condemnations now after each jihad massacre is because he treats each as if it were an isolated incident, not as if it were one more battle in a long war. And he offers help in an investigation for the same reason: if U.S. officials do end up helping the French with an investigation of this latest jihad massacre, they will like come back with a characteristically Obamoid conclusion: they’re unable to determine the motive of the perpetrator.

In reality, there is no need for an investigation, because the jihadi’s motive is obvious. There needs to be an admission that we are in a full-scale war — not just lip-service as French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve offers, but a genuine acknowledgment, followed by a genuine war footing, and an end to the weepy memorials, empty condemnations, and po-faced get-nowhere investigations. This is not crime. This is war.

***

Gen. Flynn: I Want Muslim Leaders to Stand Up Tonight and Condemn This Madness

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn sounded off on the terror attack in Nice, France, tonight, saying that he wants to see the leaders of Muslim-majority nations stand up against “this radical form of this ideology in their bloodstream and declare that this thing cannot exist on this planet.”

The former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency said he doesn’t know who exactly carried out the attack, but said there’s been a lot of “chatter” by jihadist soldiers praising what happened.

“I want these leaders in this Muslim world that have this radical Islamic ideology festering, metastasizing, to stand up, and stand up tonight and be counted, and say something to condemn this attack that we have just seen.”

Flynn said “we have not set up an international set of strategic objectives to go after this very vicious, very barbaric enemy.”

He also called the current situation a “world war,” though not like one anyone has read about in history books.

***

Gingrich calls for deportation of those who ‘believe in Sharia’

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House and talked-about pick for Donald Trump’s vice presidential slot, said on Fox News while discussing the Nice, France, terrorist attack that the United States ought to implement a testing system to root out Shariah-compliant Muslims and deport them.

On “Hannity,” Gingrich said the country “should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”

***

Gorka: Greatest Number of ISIS Foreign Fighters Are from Tunisia

“This isn’t about workplace violence or some other label. This is again an instance of the jihadis taking the war to the infidel on their home territory,” said Gorka.

Islamic State Claims Ramadan ‘Victory’ Praising Month’s Jihadi attacks

REUTERS/STRINGER

REUTERS/STRINGER

Breitbart, by John Hayward, July 13, 2016:

The Islamic State has prepared an infographic celebrating its “victory” over the month-long Muslim holiday of Ramadan. The terror state claims to have killed and injured 5,200 people during the month.

Foreign Desk News reports the infographic touts Ramadan atrocities such as the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida; the bakery massacre in Dhaka, Bangladesh; a suicide bomb attack on the Canadian embassy in Afghanistan that killed 14 Nepalese soldiers; and the stabbing of a police officer and his wife in France.

al-Naba magazine

al-Naba magazine

“Recent attacks against Nigerian, Jordanian and Somali troops as well as the downing of six drones and demolition of 440 tanks are also among their listed successes,” adds Foreign Desk.

The UK Independent finds the infographic boasting of one of the most deadly ISIS attacks to date, the murder of 300 in Baghdad when a truck bomb was detonated in a market during shopping for the Eid al-Fitr feast that concludes Ramadan.

Curiously, the infographic does not mention the attack on Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, which was blamed on ISIS by Turkish authorities, including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

ISIS gleefully divides its victims into 1,988 Shiite Muslims, 965 Kurdish soldiers, 752 Libyan militia fighters, 580 Alawite Muslims in Syria, 285 Christians (described as “Crusaders”), 100 Yemeni soldiers, 50 Egyptian troops, 74 troops from Pakistan and Afghanistan, and 50 troops from Iraq.

It is unclear who the dead counted in these numbers are or whether the number is accurate or inflated. An assessment of all jihadist attacks during Ramadan, not just those claimed by the Islamic State, finds only 421 killed and 729 injured worldwide, including the Istanbul airport attack and documented Taliban bombings.

Also see:

Robert Spencer: ‘Iran Is What ISIS Wants to Be When It Grows Up’

Hassan-Rouhani-getty-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, July 12, 2016:

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch joined SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon on Tuesday to discuss his new book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran.

When Bannon surveyed the current state of Sunni-Shiite tensions in the Middle East, coalescing into a regional conflict with Saudi Arabia and Iran as the respective leaders, and wondered if Western powers might be best advised to just let them slug it out, Spencer replied, “I don’t see why not.”

“In the 1980s, Iran and Iraq fought a war for eight years,” he recalled, describing it as “essentially a stalemate” akin to World War I trench warfare, with “immense casualties for both sides.”

“The Islamic Republic almost fell. Saddam Hussein had his own troubles. And the thing is, during that time, neither one of those were causing trouble for the West,” Spencer pointed out. “So, what’s the downside? We cannot prevent Sunnis and Shia from hating each other. Western leaders need to recover a sense that their primary responsibility is to protect their own citizens.”

Spencer said the arrogance Iran displays toward the West is a fusion of ancient Persian culture and Islamic supremacy. “It’s both. They’ve reinforced each other.”

“There’s no doubt that the Persians had a great civilization, long before Islam, long before they fell to Islam,” he said, adding:

That was a culture and a civilization that was always at odds with the West, always fighting the Roman Empire. So it’s really just a continuation of that ancient conflict. But Islam then reinforces that by giving the idea that Muslims have a responsibility to wage war against non-Muslims, and of course this is the basis on which Khomeini built the Islamic Revolution, and has kept Iran on a war footing against the U.S. ever since 1979, on Islamic principles.

In his book, Spencer makes the case that Iran is a far more dangerous and persistent adversary for the West than ISIS or al-Qaeda.

“Iran is what ISIS wants to be when it grows up,” he said. He continued:

Iran has a global network of terrorist organizations under its control – not only Shiite, but also Sunni Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is also Sunni. And those groups, Hezbollah most notably, have a presence in the West. Hezbollah is working actively in Mexico with the drug cartels, teaching them to behead, teaching them their tactics, and that’s all aimed at getting into the United States.

“They already have sleeper cells in the United States,” he warned. He elaborated:

Nine years ago, there was an FBI report that said there are Hezbollah sleeper cells in the United States – that’s Iran, essentially – and that they were waiting for a time to strike, but right now, they were making so much progress without striking that they were going to lay low because, of course, they didn’t want the police attention that would come from the strikes. Those cells are still in place, and there’s nothing but more of them now.

Spencer said the danger from these long-term terrorist plans is largely ignored by the U.S. government and media, even though it’s a “central” agenda for Iran and its proxies.

“Every week, in the mosques, they chant, ‘Death to America’ during the Friday prayers,” he said. “It is central to them to hate the United States, and to consider themselves to be at war with the United States.”

“Americans don’t know this,” Spencer said, “because it hasn’t been taken seriously by the U.S. military because the Iranian military doesn’t have anything near the capability of ours.” He added that “the idea that they would go to war with us, in an actual shooting war, is something that would just set them up for destruction, and so the military and the political establishment have not taken it seriously.”

He worried that the intelligence community does not take the asymmetrical threat of Iranian terrorist warfare seriously enough, either.

“I think that the Obama administration has made a conscious decision to empower Iran to be the stabilizing force in the Middle East,” Spencer said, adding:

I think they don’t take seriously the Islamic Republic’s ideological basis. They refuse to understand that Islam is not a “religion of peace,” that it is on a war footing with non-Muslims. And so a whole country that’s based on that proposition? They can’t even see it. They refuse to acknowledge the existence of such a possibility.

He described this mindset as a “period of irrationality” regarding Iran, in which the political establishment of the United States has become effectively insane because “they refuse to accept the fundamental premise, which is that this is a religion that counsels war, and that this is a state which is based on those religious teachings.”

Spencer said:

In 1979, when Khomeinei took over, nobody in the State Department had read a single book that he had written. Nobody knew anything about what he was all about. They just thought he was a religious fanatic. Nobody understands, or takes seriously, the depth and the power of the Islamic ideology, whether Shiite or Sunni.

He speculated that since the U.S. government has become ideologically incapable of seeing Islam, it looks at Iran and sees only the faded glory of the Persian Empire. Obama Administration strategic planners view Iran as “a powerful state, the only powerful state left with Saddam gone, in that region, and so if they are kind to it, it will be kind to us, and bring stability to that region.”

“They’re basing their principles on the way Western people think, and thinking we can sit down, and talk out all our differences, and figure this all out,” he said. “The idea that there’s this implacable ideology that will never compromise, never come to terms and be friends with us – they refuse to admit that as a possibility. They think we’re way beyond that stage in the world.”

Spencer found the Saudis, and other Sunni allies of the United States, unsurprisingly “appalled” by the Obama administration’s pivot to Iran – prompting the Saudis, and perhaps Egypt as well, to consider securing their own nuclear weapons as a check against nuclear Iran.

“What was intended to be a stabilizing force for the Middle East is essentially going to set the region even more on fire than it already is,” he predicted.

Read  more

Also see:

Must Watch: In 7 Minutes Learn How Islamic Demographics Are Changing the World

hijra2

Constitution, by Bethany Blankley, July 11, 2016:

By fertility rates alone, Islam is poised to conquer the world.

For every one child born in a Western country, eight are born in an Islamic one. But those numbers escalate when taking into account that Westerners aren’t having enough children to even maintain their population.

Because Westerners have not even maintained the minimum fertility rate needed to survive, their civilizations will face extinction simply because of numbers. Based on current demographics, it would take 100 years to be corrected.

But in a few short years nearly 50 percent of those born in Europe will be Islamic. By 2027, most Western countries will be Islamic– France will most likely be the first.  And, 40 percent of the Russian army will be Islamic.

Immigration and procreation is the most effective way for Islam to advance– it’s part of Hijrah.

As Muammar al-Gaddafi famously remarked:

“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Bethany Blankley is a political analyst for Fox News Radio and has appeared on television and radio programs nationwide. She writes about political, cultural, and religious issues in America from the perspective of an evangelical and former communications staffer. She was a communications strategist for four U.S. Senators, one U.S. Congressman, a former New York governor, and several non-profits. She earned her MA in Theology from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland and her BA in Political Science from the University of Maryland. Follow her @bethanyblankley facebook.com/BlankleyBethany/ & BethanyBlankley.com.

Dallas and the Leftist/Islamic Alliance

cair-terrorist-organization-hp_3

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 11, 2016:

Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said it plainly at the 14th Annual MAS-ICNA (Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America) Convention in December 2015: “Black Lives Matter is our matter. Black Lives Matter is our campaign.” Khalilah Sabra, another Muslim activist, told the Muslim conference: “Basically, you are the new black people of America….We are the community that staged a revolution across the world. If we could do that, why can’t we have that revolution in America?” With the murder of five policemen in Dallas by a sniper during a Black Lives Matter protest, that revolution may be upon us – the revolution of hatred and violence that Islamic supremacists and race hustlers have worked so long to bring about.

Awad and Sabra were by no means the first to identify their own efforts with those of the people who want to bring about a race war in the United States. The far-Left Counter Current News reported in January 2015: “Recently, a number of representatives from the Dream Defenders, Black Lives Matter and various Ferguson anti-police brutality protesters made history through a solidarity trip to Palestine.”

This merry little group toured the West Bank in order to see for themselves the purported “link between oppression emanating from the Israeli State as well as that which victims of police brutality are experiencing in America.” Ahmad Abuznaid of Dream Defenders explained: “The goals were primarily to allow for the group members to experience and see first hand the occupation, ethnic cleansing and brutality Israel has levied against Palestinians, but also to build real relationships with those on the ground leading the fight for liberation.”

What was the purpose of building such relationship? Abuznaid continued: “In the spirit of Malcolm X, Angela Davis, Stokely Carmichael and many others, we thought the connections between the African American leadership of the movement in the US and those on the ground in Palestine needed to be reestablished and fortified. As a Palestinian who has learned a great deal about struggle, movement, militancy and liberation from African Americans in the US, I dreamt of the day where I could bring that power back to my people in Palestine. This trip is a part of that process.”

Another activist on the trip, Cherrell Brown, delved deep into Leftist conspiratorial fantasy as she claimed: “So many parallels exist between how the US polices, incarcerates, and perpetuates violence on the black community and how the Zionist state that exists in Israel perpetuates the same on Palestinians. This is not to say there aren’t vast differences and nuances that need to always be named, but our oppressors are literally collaborating together, learning from one another – and as oppressed people we have to do the same.” So expect the same tactics to be employed in both wars by those who wish to kill and destroy.

The New York University chapter of the radical Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) group repeated Brown’s equation of police forces in the U.S. with the “Zionist state” just this past week:

In the past 48 hours another two black men have been lynched by the police. The total number of black people lynched by cops in 2016 now totals 136. We must remember that many US police departments train with the #‎IsraeliDefenseForces. The same forces behind the genocide of black people in America are behind the genocide of Palestinians. What this means is that Palestinians must stand with our black comrades. We must struggle for their liberation. It is as important as our own. #‎AltonSterling is as important as #‎AliDawabsheh. Palestinian liberation and black liberation go together. We must recognize this and commit to building for it.

After getting criticized for this, the SJP issued a clarification:

Our statement regarding the murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile—and the rampant murders of Black Americans by the police—was not a suggestion that their deaths are part of an Israeli conspiracy. Israel did not literally kill either of these men: that much is obvious. What is also clear is that American police departments and the IDF train together. The IDF assists the NYPD and other American police departments in their oppression and murder of black people. These groups share a common logic that manifests in several types of oppression, white supremacist racism among them.

If we in SJP and in the Palestine solidarity movement more generally are serious about ending Israeli oppression then we must stand with black americans [sic]. We need to be in the streets with them and we need to organize against police brutality.

Counterterror investigator Kyle Shideler noted in Townhall last March that “this merging ‘revolutionary’ alliance goes back as far as the first outbreak of disorder in Ferguson. Few may recall the attendance at Michael Brown’s funeral of CAIR executive director Nihad Awad….In November of 2014, Fox News reported on an effort by CAIR Michigan Director Dawud Walid to link the death of Michael Brown at the hands of police and the death of Luqman Abdullah, a Detroit imam shot during an FBI raid. Abdullah was described by the FBI as a leader of a nationwide Islamic organization known as ‘The Ummah,’ run by convicted cop-killer Jamil Abdullah Amin. Abdullah’s group engaged in criminal activity in order to raise funds in order for an effort to establish Sharia law in opposition to the U.S. government.”

CAIR and the SJP have clearly hitched their star to the Black Lives Matter movement; in Dallas, they saw what they’re backing. Both Leftists and Islamic supremacists want to destroy the existing order and replace it with a system that they believe will be more just and free of racism; both Leftists and Muslims have resorted to violence in service of this goal, and both will again. CAIR itself does not openly advocate violence, but it shares the goal of every violent jihad group in the world: to impose Islamic law (Sharia) wherever it can be imposed, and ultimately over the whole world – as CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper said back in 1993: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Whether Black Lives Matter and its allies will accept Sharia is an open question, but in the meantime, subversion of the existing order, by both violent and peaceful means, proceeds apace. The murders in Dallas (regardless of the cosmetic condemnations from Black Lives Matter, which fly in the face of its incendiary rhetoric) reveal how all these allied groups will manifest their hatred and accomplish their goal of destruction. Did Nihad Awad have five dead police officers on his mind when he told the MAS-ICNA conference that “Black Lives Matter is our campaign”? Would Awad, who has publicly expressed support for the murderous jihad terror group Hamas, have stopped short of saying this if he had?

Obama Whistleblower: Terror-Linked Muslim Groups Helping Set Policy, Costing Lives

afp_aa7f06a8330b07696642533fa94b8dde01ef3bc8-e1467775376996-640x480Breitbart, by Philip Haney, July 6, 2016:

Last week I testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts at a hearing entitled, “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

I am a recently retired Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agent. I was named a Founding Member of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at its inception on March 01, 2003. During my 12 years serving inside DHS under two administrations, I witnessed a series of events which ultimately prompted me to become a whistleblower, releasing critical documents to Members of Congress as I felt necessary to comply with my oath to the Constitution.

First, in January of 2008, I received what is now known as the “Words Matter Memo,” which was circulated internally by the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) division of DHS. The full title of the document was “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims,” and it read in part:

 [T]he experts counseled caution in using terms such as, “jihadist,” “Islamic terrorist,” “Islamist,” and “holy warrior” as grandiose descriptions.

Collapsing all terrorist organizations into a single enemy feeds the narrative that al-Qaeda represents Muslims worldwide.

We should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam. Therefore, when using the word [Islamic], it may be strategic to emphasize that many so-called “Islamic” terrorist groups twist and exploit the tenets of Islam to justify violence and to serve their own selfish political aims.

Regarding jihad, even if it is accurate to reference the term (putting aside polemics on its true nature), it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have, and damages relations with Muslims around the globe.

I submitted a seven-point response listing serious substantive concerns about this memo, but received no response.

On November 24, 2008, a decision came down in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, the largest terror financing case in American history. During that trial, the federal government had established that a number of organizations were appropriately named as unindicted co-conspirators along with HLF, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Specifically, the judge ruled that federal prosecutors had “produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF… and with Hamas.” In addition, the judge ruled that that these organizations had direct links to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest and largest Islamic fundamentalist organizations in the world, founded in 1928 in Egypt to reestablish the Caliphate, whose motto includes “Jihadis our way, and death in the service of Allah is the loftiest of our wishes.”

I made note of the decision, and explored links between these groups and potential extremist and terrorist activity. But on October 15, 2009, I was ordered by DHS to ‘modify’ linking information in about 820 subject records in the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, or “TECS records” to remove ‘unauthorized references to terrorism.’ I was further ordered not to input any more Memoranda of Information Received, or MOIRs, to create no more TECS records, and to do no further research on the topics I was exploring.

On November 5, 2009, at Ft. Hood, Texas, Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 people, including one who was pregnant, and wounded 32 others, while calling out “Allahu akbar!” meaning “God is great” in Arabic.

Hassan was a U.S. Army major who had exchanged emails with leading al Qaeda figure Anwar Awlaki – which the FBI had seen and decided not to take action – in which heasked whether those attacking fellow U.S. soldiers were martyrs. He had also given a presentation to Army doctors discussing Islam and suicide bombers during which he argued Muslims should be allowed to leave the armed forces as conscientious objectors to avoid “adverse events.” The Pentagon refused for five years to grant victims Purple Hearts, designating the attack “workplace violence.”

On January 27-28, 2010 an ‘Inaugural Meeting’ occurred between American Muslim leaders and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, hosted by DHS CRCL. The Inaugural Meeting created controversy because it included a number of Islamic fundamentalist individuals and organizations.

For instance, the meeting included at least one organization that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 HLF Trial and established to have associations with the now-shuttered HLF and with Hamas, namely ISNA. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), the group’s representative who attended the meeting, Ingrid Mattson, has “an established pattern of minimizing the nature of extremist forms of Islam and rationalizing the actions of Islamist terrorist movements.” Another invited group, the Muslim American Society (MAS), was actually formed as the United States chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1993.

Likewise, in the Spring of 2010, the Administration convened the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group under the authority of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), again raising questions because of those named to it.

They included Omar Alomari, who once wrote that jihad was “the benign pursuit of personal betterment. It may be applied to physical conflict for Muslims, but only in the arena of Muslims defending themselves when attacked or when attempting to overthrow oppression and occupation,” asserting further that “”Jihad as a holy war is a European invention, spread in the West”; Mohamed Elibiary, who has asserted that it was “inevitable that [the] ‘Caliphate’ returns” and ultimately was let go from the HSAC amid charges he misused classified documents; and Dahlia Mogahed, who has decried “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” and holds that “Islamic terrorism’ is really a contradiction in terms” to mainstream Muslims “because terrorism is not Islamic by definition.”

So by the Spring of 2010, we had come to the point that a CBP Officer was literally removing information connecting the dots on individuals with ties to known terror-linked groups from TECS, while the Administration was bringing the same individuals into positions of influence, to help create and implement our counter-terror policy, in the context of actual terror attacks taking place.

On August 30, 2011, the DHS Chief Council approved a project I initiated looking into Islamic fundamentalist group Tablighi Jamaat (TJ). On November 15, 2011, I began a temporary duty assignment at the National Targeting Center (NTC). A short time later, I was assigned to the Advanced Targeting Team, where I worked exclusively on the TJ Project, which was quickly upgraded to a global-level case.

On March 15, 2012, seven lawyers and three senior executive service (SES) administrators met with management personnel at the NTC to express concern for our focus on TJ, because it is not a designated terrorist group, and therefore the project might be “discriminating” against its members because they are Muslim. On June-July, 2012, the TJ Initiative was ‘taken in another direction,’ (i.e. shut down). The Administration took this action despite the fact that [1] in nine months, we had conducted 1,200 law enforcement actions, [2] I was formally commended for finding 300 individuals with possible connections to terrorism, and [3] 25% of the individuals in Guantanamo Bay had known links to Tablighi Jamaat.

On August 22, 2012, The Institute of Islamic Education (IIE) case that today links both the Darul Uloom Al-Islamiya mosque attended by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino shooters, and the Fort Pierce mosque attended by Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, was entered into TECS. But once again, on September 21, 2012, all 67 records in the IIE case were completely deleted (not just ‘modified’) from TECS.

On September 21, 2014, I was relieved of my service weapon, all access to TECS and other programs was suspended, my Secret Clearance was revoked, and I was sequestered for the last 11 months of my career with no assigned duties.

On December 2, 2015, the San Bernardino shootings occurred, and I immediately linked the mosque in San Bernardino to the IIE case (with the 67 deleted records), and to the Tablighi Jamaat case (which was shut down).

On June 09, 2016, the Homeland Security Advisory Council Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee issued an Interim Report and Recommendations. The report recommended in part using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir” or “umma.”

On June 12, 2016, the shootings in Orlando occurred, and I linked Omar Mateen’s mosque in Fort Pierce, FL to the IIE & TJ case. And on June 19, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that her Department of Justice would release redacted 9-11 calltranscripts for Mr. Mateen.

The threat of Islamic terrorism does not just come from a network of armed organizations such as Hamas and ISIS, who are operating ‘over there’ in the Middle East. In fact, branches of the same global network have been established here in America, and they are operating in plain sight, at least to those of us who have been charged with the duty of protecting our country from threats, both foreign and domestic.

The threat we face today, which continues growing despite the willful blindness of those who insist on pretending otherwise, is not “violent extremism,” “terrorism,” or even “Jihad” alone, but rather, the historical and universally recognized Islamic strategic goal of implementing Shariah law everywhere in the world, so that no other form of government (including the U.S. Constitution) is able to oppose its influence over the lives of those who must either submit to its authority, become second-class citizens, or perish.

Ignoring that reality has arguably cost at least the lives of those in Ft. Hood, San Bernardino and Orlando, and will cost many, many more if it is allowed to continue.

Philip B. Haney is a recently retired Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agent. He was named a Founding Member of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at its inception on March 01, 2003, and is the author of See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad (2016). 

Does Islam Belong to Germany?

In a speech on October 22, 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that she agreed with the statement of former German President Christian Wulff, that "Islam belongs to Germany."

In a speech on October 22, 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that she agreed with the statement of former German President Christian Wulff, that “Islam belongs to Germany.”

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, July 5, 2016

  • “Former German President Christian Wulff said: ‘Islam belongs to Germany.’ That is true. This is also my opinion.” — Chancellor Angela Merkel, January 12, 2015.
  • “Angela Merkel’s statement obscures the real problem: A growing proportion of Muslim citizens in Europe does not share the Western system of values, does not want to culturally integrate and seals itself off in parallel societies.” — Thilo Sarrazin, renowned former central banker and a member of the Social Democrats, January 20, 2015.
  • “Islam is not a religion like Catholicism or Protestantism. Intellectually, Islam is always linked to the overthrow of the state. Therefore, the Islamization of Germany poses a threat.” — Alexander Gauland, AfD party leader for Brandenburg, April 17, 2016.
  • “An Islam that does not respect our legal system and even fights against it and claims to be the only valid religion is incompatible with our legal system and culture. Many Muslims live according to our laws and are integrated and are accepted as valued members of our society. However, the AfD wants to prevent the emergence of Islamic parallel societies with Sharia judges.” — AfD Manifesto.
  • “Anyone who believes Islam belongs to Germany should not hesitate to go one step further and declare: Sharia law belongs to Germany. Without Sharia law, there is no authentic Islam.” — Henryk Broder, German journalist, May 16, 2016.

Nearly two-thirds of Germans believe that Islam does not belong to Germany, according to a recent opinion poll, which also found that only 22% of Germans consider Islam to be an integral part of German society.

In a similar poll conducted in January 2015, 37% of Germans said that Islam belongs to Germany, 15% more than now. The results indicate that German attitudes toward Islam are hardening after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow more than 1.1 million mostly Muslim migrants to enter Germany in 2015.

The poll has opened yet another chapter in the decade-long debate over the phrase, “Islam belongs to Germany.” The words were first uttered in September 2006 — at the time there were 3.5 million Muslims in Germany, compared to nearly six million today — by then Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.

Speaking ahead of the first-ever German-Islam Conference, the first institutionalized dialogue between representatives of the German government and of Muslims in Germany, Schäuble said: “Islam is a part of Germany and a part of Europe. Islam is a part of our present and a part of our future. Muslims are welcome in Germany.”

The phrase was repeated in October 2010 by Germany’s then president, Christian Wulff, during a keynote speech to mark the 20th anniversary of German reunification. Wulff proclaimed that “Islam belongs to Germany” because millions of Muslims now live there:

“Christianity doubtless belongs Germany. Judaism belongs unequivocally to Germany. This is our Judeo-Christian history. But now Islam also belongs to Germany (Der Islam gehört inzwischen auch zu Deutschland).”

Wulff then quoted the German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who in his West-Eastern Diwan (West–östlicher Divan, 1819) wrote: “He who knows himself and others will understand: East and West are no longer separable.”

Since then, a debate has raged over the increasingly contentious question of Muslim immigration, integration and the role of Islam in German society. The University of Bonn launched a research project entitled, “How much Islam belongs to Germany?” The Konrad Adenauer Foundation published a paper: “Which Islam belongs to Germany?” According to the head of the Lutheran Church in Germany, Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, only “Democratic Islam” belongs to Germany.

What follows is an abridged historical review of the phrase “Islam belongs to Germany.”

March 3, 2011. In his first press conference as German Interior Minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich said that Islam does not belong to Germany: “To say that Islam belongs in Germany is not a fact supported by history at any point.” He added that Muslim immigrants should respect the “Western Christian origin of our culture.” His comments set off a firestorm of criticism from the guardians of German multiculturalism.

March 4, 2011. Wolfgang Bosbach, of the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU), defended Friedrich: “I like politicians who say what they think. Islam is part of the reality of Germany, but it is not part of German identity.”

March 5, 2011. Alexander Dobrindt, the General Secretary of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel’s CDU, said: “Of course there are Muslims in Germany. But Islam is not part of the German mainstream culture (Leitkultur).” CDU parliamentary leader Volker Kauder said: “Islam has not shaped our society in the past and it does not do so today. Therefore, Islam does not belong to Germany.”

May 31, 2012. The new German President, Joachim Gauck, distanced himself from Wulff’s comments: “The reality is that many Muslims live in our country. I would have simply said that the Muslims who live here belong to Germany.” He added: “Where has Islam shaped Europe? Did Islam experience the Enlightenment, or even a Reformation?”

January 12, 2015. Chancellor Angela Merkel, during a meeting in Berlin with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, declared: “Former German President Christian Wulff said: ‘Islam belongs to Germany.’ That is true. This is also my opinion.” She stressed the need to “strengthen the dialogue between religions because there is still too much ignorance.”

January 13, 2015. Hans-Peter Friedrich, the former interior minister, challenged Merkel’s claim that Islam belongs to Germany:

“The Muslims who live in this country, who are committed to this country, belong to Germany, no question. There is nothing to deny and nothing to relativize. But I can see nowhere that Islam belongs to Germany. Islam is not a formative, constitutive element of the identity of our country.

“The issue revolves around the question of what is constitutive, of what makes the identity of this country. And the identity of this country, developed over centuries, is not Islam but a Christian culture, based on Christian and Jewish roots.

“Islam is not a defining element of the identity of this country. Anyone who travels through Germany can see this. They can see churches and paintings, they can listen to music that comes from many centuries of ecclesial roots; they can see art and architecture which are marked by Christianity.

“Whether Islam will be a defining element of Europe or Germany in centuries from now, only time will tell.”

January 20, 2015. Thilo Sarrazin, a renowned former German central banker and a member of the Social Democrats (SPD) who has been warning Germans for years about the consequences of mass migration, criticized Merkel:

“When the Chancellor says she is of the opinion that Islam is part of Europe’s tradition and culture, she is mistaken. When Angela Merkel says that Muslims should enjoy full citizenship in Germany and will be welcome if they integrate, her statement is true, although banal.”

He said that Islam “with all its radical, violent manifestations” arrived in Germany only in the last 40 years due to “unplanned and uncontrolled mass immigration into German society.” He added: “In addition, Angela Merkel’s statement obscures the real problem: A growing proportion of Muslim citizens in Europe does not share the Western system of values, does not want to culturally integrate and seals itself off in parallel societies.”

June 30, 2015. Merkel, speaking in Berlin after an Iftar, an evening meal that breaks the daily fast during Ramadan, declared: “It is indisputably obvious that Islam now belongs to Germany.”

September 21, 2015. Edmund Stoiber, the Honorary Chairman of Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) said: “I cannot accept the phrase, ‘Islam belongs to Germany.’ Muslims belong to Germany, but Islam does not. Islam is not a core element of German culture and has not shaped our intellectual history and tradition.”

April 17, 2016. Beatrix von Storch, the Deputy Chairperson of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), now the third-most popular political party in Germany, said: “Many Muslims belong to Germany, but Islam does not belong to Germany. Islam is at base a political ideology that is not compatible with the German Constitution.”

Alexander Gauland, the leader of the AfD in Brandenburg, elaborated: “Islam is not a religion like Catholicism or Protestantism. Intellectually, Islam is always linked to the overthrow of the state. Therefore, the Islamization of Germany poses a threat.”

May 1, 2016. The AfD adopted a manifesto calling for curbs to migration and restrictions on Islam. The document calls for a ban on minarets, Muslim calls to prayer and full-face veils:

“Islam does not belong to Germany. The AfD views the spread of Islam and the growing number of Muslims in Germany as a great danger for our country, our society and our system of values. An Islam that does not respect our legal system and even fights against it and claims to be the only valid religion is incompatible with our legal system and culture. Many Muslims live according to our laws and are integrated and are accepted as valued members of our society. However, the AfD wants to prevent the emergence of Islamic parallel societies with sharia judges. The AfD wants to prevent Muslims from radicalizing and turning to violent Salafism and religious terrorism.”

May 5, 2016. CDU parliamentary leader Volker Kauder said that Christian Wulff’s choice of words in 2010 were “well-intentioned but imprecise.” He said that while Muslims belong to Germany, Islam certainly does not: “Germany has not been historically or culturally shaped by Islam.” According to Kauder, Islam has many manifestations, “some of which we can never accept in Germany.” He added: “For us, religion is never above the state.” He said that religious freedom is not unlimited, but is restrained by the German Constitution.

May 16, 2016. The German journalist Henryk Broder wrote:

“Anyone who believes Islam belongs to Germany should not hesitate to go one step further and declare: Sharia law belongs to Germany. Without Sharia law, there is no authentic Islam. The ‘Euro-Islam’ desired by many is a chimera, as was ‘Euro-communism’ during the Cold War.

“This would significantly facilitate peaceful coexistence on a firm foundation. It would also be the end of all debates — about the equality of men and women, marriage for all, headscarves in the civil service, the separation of power in politics, separation of church and state, caricatures and satires. We would save a lot of time and could turn to the really relevant questions. For example: Was Jesus the first Muslim?”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

The Qur’an Test in Dhaka

bangla-2

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 4, 2016:

As Ramadan draws to a merciful close, we have in Bangladesh yet another Islamic jihad massacre, followed by the now drearily familiar attempts to obscure the Islamic character of the massacre, and to keep the public ignorant and complacent regarding the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. But with this particular mass killing it will be harder for the political and media elites to cover up the attackers’ motives and goals, since they subjected their victims to an increasingly familiar feature of jihad attacks: the Qur’an test.

After Islamic State jihadists screaming “Allahu akbar” murdered twenty hostages at the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka on the night of July 1, the serially deceptive Islamic apologist Qasim Rashid tweeted: “In #Ramadan’s final 10 days, Daesh has mass murdered dozens in three Muslim majority nations Please tell me more about how Islamic they are.” In another tweet, he included a photo captioned: “So you’re telling me they killed Muslims during Ramadan and you still blame Islam? Are you that incompetent or that bigoted?” To that, Rashid added: “Likewise, how I feel when I hear Islamophobes claim Islam was somehow behind the #DhakaAttack.”

Echoing Rashid was no less illustrious a personage than Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who insisted: “Anyone who believes in religion cannot do such act. They do not have any religion, their only religion is terrorism.”

Unfortunately for Hasina and Rashid, however, the killers themselves made it abundantly clear what they were all about. According to Rezaul Karim, the father of a young man who was held hostage inside the Holey Artisan Bakery for more than ten hours, “The gunmen were doing a background check on religion by asking everyone to recite from the Quran. Those who could recite a verse or two were spared. The others were tortured.”

A Qur’an test for determining who was tortured and who wasn’t? That certainly seems to have something to do with Islam. Nor is this the first time that Islamic jihadis have employed this tactic. In September 2013, Islamic jihadis murdered 68 people at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. According to the Daily Mail, “the attack saw men, women and children slaughtered if they could not recite the Koran or name the mother of the [Islamic] Prophet Mohammed.”

In June 2014, again in Kenya, in the coastal town of Mpeketoni, Muslims murdered people who could not pass an Islam quiz. In November 2014, Muslims hijacked a Kenyan bus and murdered 28 non-Muslims who couldn’t recite Qur’an verses.

Then in April 2015, Islamic jihadists murdered 147 people at Garissa University College, once again in Kenya. The jihadis here again ordered their captives to recite passages from the Qur’an. Then, screaming “Allahu akbar,” they gunned down those who could not.

The practice wasn’t limited to Kenya. In November 2015, Muslims firing guns and screaming “Allahu akbar” stormed the luxury Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, the capital of Mali, and took 170 people hostage. Those hostages who could recite Qur’an verses were freed. Around 27 others who could not expatiate on the glories of Allah and the torments awaiting unbelievers were massacred.

And now this test has come to Dhaka, and its import is plain. Those who insist that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that we must look elsewhere to discover the terrorists’ motives and goals, should kindly explain why the textbook for this sinister and murderous little exam is always and everywhere the Qur’an. Terrorists never demand that their captives recite, on pain of death, passages from the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita, or Das Kapital.

Not coincidentally, the Qur’an is singular among books that are by some considered holy in containing clear, open-ended and universal commands to believers to kill unbelievers wherever they are found (cf. 2:191, 4:89, 9:5; see also 9:29, 47:4, 8:60, 8:39, 8:12, etc.). What the political and media elites would have us believe is that Islamic jihadis misunderstand the clear import of those passages, foolishly assuming that “kill the idolaters” means something like, say, “kill the idolaters,” when every right-thinking person knows that if only one understands the nuances of classical Arabic, it really means “give the idolaters a hug.” They would further have us believe that any Muslim who actually goes out to kill those whom he deems to be idolaters is gravely misunderstanding the message of the Qur’an and Islam.

The time for these comforting fictions is long past. Sheikh Hasina and Qasim Rashid (to whom Megyn Kelly recently accorded a platform for his slick falsehoods) are just two exponents of a years-long campaign of deception and lies that now must be decisively repudiated. If authorities don’t drop their politically correct fantasies and address the jihad threat realistically, we will be seeing the Qur’an test administered inside the U.S. before too long. Instead of studying to pass, Americans should be making it abundantly clear to those administering such tests, and to the deceivers running interference for them in government and media, that their days of perpetrating their evils unchallenged are rapidly drawing to a close.

***

Also see:

Cruz Tears Into DHS Chief Over ‘Systematic Scrubbing’ of Radical Islam During Contentious Exchange

C-SPAN 2 Screengrab

C-SPAN 2 Screengrab

The Blaze, by Jason Howerton, June 30, 2016:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) grilled Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson Thursday over the “systematic scrubbing of law enforcement and intelligence materials,” connecting the issue to the 2014 Fort Hood shooting and other attacks.

Cruz began by comparing the number of references to “Jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam” found in the 9/11 commission report to the number found in several of the Obama administration’s intelligence and counterterrorism materials.

“The word ‘jihad’ appears in that report 126 times, the world ‘Muslim’ appears in that report 145 times, the world ‘Islam’ appears in that report 322 times,” he said sternly. “And yet since that 9/11 commission report, different policies have come into effect. And as a matter of systematic policy, those terms are no longer allowed to be used in this administration.”

Johnson told Cruz repeatedly that he has no knowledge efforts to “purge” DHS material of references to radical Islam. The DHS chief went on to claim that conceding the Islamic State is connected to Islam only gives the terrorist group what it wants.

Cruz ultimately cut off Johnson to reclaim his speaking time.

“You’re entitled to give speeches other times,” Cruz said. “My question was if you were aware that the information has been scrubbed.”

Watch the entire contentious exchange below:

Cruz also pushed back against Johnson’s assertion that removing references to radical Islam is merely a “semantic difference.”

“When you erase references to radical jihad, it impacts the behavior of law enforcement and national security to respond to red flags and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur,” Cruz said.

The Texas senator suggested the Fort Hood shooting may have been one of those instances. When bluntly asked by Cruz if it was a “mistake” not to respond to the “red flags” in regards to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, Johnson accused Cruz of citing incorrect information.

“In one minute, I couldn’t begin to answer your question,” he said.

“Pick anything,” Cruz shot back. “Pick one thing, sir.”

“You’re assuming that the federal government in advance of the attack on Fort Hood saw all these different red flags. That’s not correct,” Johnson said.

That’s when Cruz got specific.

“Is it true or false that the Obama administration knew before the attack that Nidal Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki?” Cruz asked.

“How are you defining the ‘Obama administration,’ sir?” Johnson said.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Cruz responded.

“The entire Federal Bureau of Investigation? I can’t answer that question sitting here,” Johnson answered.

“The answer is ‘yes’ and it’s public record, sir,” Cruz retorted.

Cruz went on to cite “red flags” missed in the Boston bombings and San Bernardino attack.