UTT Storms Nebraska & Iowa Leaving Hamas/CAIR in Its Wake

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 18, 2017:

Understanding the Threat (UTT) stormed Nebraska and Iowa last week speaking to several audiences and educating them about the threat of the Islamic Movement in the United States.

The multi-day trip, hosted by the Global Faith Institute of Omaha, culminated in an event in front of 150 citizens in the rural town of Oakland, Iowa (Pottawattamie County) where a dozen or so Marxists and jihadis (“terrorists”) sat in the front row during the event holding up newspapers in protest, while outside the venue protesters mingled with some holding signs professionally printed by “socialistworkers.org.”

A protester at the UTT presentation holds a sign printed by SocialistWorkers.org

Hamas officials, including Miriam Amer – the Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Iowa, were present along with those supporting the terrorist group, including democrat Glenn Hurst, a candidate for the Board of Supervisors.

Pottawattamie County (IA) GOP Chairman Jeff Jorgensen introduces UTT while Hamas leaders and Marxists look on

Democrat candidate for Board of Supervisors Glenn Hurst attempts to disrupt UTT event

The discredited anti-American Marxist group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) also made attempts to have the event canceled.

The overwhelming majority of the crowd came to listen and learn more about real threats to the community, but Marxists and jihadists are not about free speech, they are about controlling the message.

Local officials working with Hamas and Marxists/subversive groups like SPLC is exactly what UTT means when it discusses the “Red-Green Axis.”

Hamas/CAIR affiliated jihadi tried to create disruptions at the event with no success

Understanding the Threat was filming the event for a professional upcoming DVD, so the exchanges between Hamas (dba CAIR) and UTT is well-documented.  For a snippet of the event, watch a 2 minute video HERE.

The Chairman of the Pottawattamie County GOP, Jeff Jorgensen, strongly supported the Understanding the Threat (UTT) presentation and demonstrated great courage.  The rest of the county GOP, however, as well as the Iowa State GOP shied away from the event and went to great lengths to make sure they were not in support of what Mr. Jorgensen was doing.

Through all of this, as usual, none of the detractors – including the local media – mentioned the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was identified by the U.S. government as being created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in the United States.  Nor was it mentioned by the media or others – besides UTT – that UTT’s Vice President Chris Gaubatz spent several months undercover at CAIR’s office in MD/VA and its headquarters in Washington, D.C. pulling over 12,000 documents out of their offices revealing CAIR is involved in criminal activity including fraud, sedition, and terrorism, among others.

Those in attendance did come to learn that many of the Islamic centers/mosques and organizations around Nebraska and Iowa – the Islamic Center of Omaha and the Islamic Foundation of Lincoln for instance – are owned/controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Why, you might ask, would the Islamic and Marxist Movements care UTT is speaking to crowds in rural Iowa?  Because the enemy is currently working in Iowa to influence Presidential elections and is not pleased UTT is spreading truth!

The Global Faith Institute was founded by Dr. Mark Christian, a former muslim Imam who became a Christian and speaks frankly about the dangers of Islam.  Dr. Christian made it clear the information UTT teaches about Islam is right on the mark.  Pun intended.

Another victory in this long battle.  Many more to come.

John Guandolo is a US Naval Academy graduate, served as an Infantry/Reconnaissance officer in the United States Marines and is a combat veteran, served as a Special Agent in the FBI from 1996-2008, and was recruited out of the FBI by the Department of Defense to conduct strategic analysis of the Islamic threat. He is the President and Founder of Understanding the Threat (UTT).

Also see:

Brigitte Gabriel: ‘Something Has Happened in the Trump Presidency’ Regarding Radical Islam

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Dan Rhiehl, Sept. 12, 2017:

Brigitte Gabriel, president of Act for America and author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, spoke with Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam regarding her Breitbart News piece on 9/11 and President Trump’s failure to mention “radical Islamic terrorism” in his speech Monday.

Citing the speech, Gabriel said, “Yesterday, it was obvious that something has happened in the Trump presidency that has changed and changed dramatically. When I listened to the speeches yesterday – like you mentioned – by all the leaders in the administration – by Trump, by Mattis, by Pence – it was literally a speech that could have been uttered by President Obama himself.”

Gabriel went on to discuss the Saudis and their funding of mosques in America that she claims are linked to preaching hate.

LISTEN:

HOW CAN WE DEFEAT AN ENEMY WE CAN’T IDENTIFY?

aliven | Getty Images

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, Sept, 11, 2017:

Sixteen years after 9/11, Washington is still afraid to the name the enemy.

It continues to be painfully difficult for our leaders to utter the words “radical Islam” or any substitute meant to connote that there is a religious element to the global jihad being waged upon us. As with Voldemort in the Harry Potter series, presidents since 9/11 have chosen not to name the enemy, instead referring to our jihadi adversaries as “extremists” or “terrorists” and countless other boilerplate terms determined by our representatives in government as politically appropriate.

The whitewashing of the very Islamic nature of jihadi terror not only misleads the public, but makes it impossible for government and military officials to focus on what is motivating our enemies and how to stop them from continuing to threaten us. What is it that connects the ISIS leader in Raqqa to the hate-preaching U.S.-born Imam in California to the Uighur militants in western China? To our 21st century leadership, it’s not radical Islamic doctrine, but some kind of widespread mental disorder without a name.

From Presidents Bush 43 to Obama and now President Trump, the leader of the free world since 9/11 has pointedly refused to name the enemy that seeks our demise.

And although Osama bin Laden justified the killings of Americans in the name of Islam (through religious declarations known as fatwas), discussion about the radical Islamic component of 9/11 were immediately quashed. We were told there are no issues with Islam whatsoever, even as millions and millions took up arms against the West, citing Islam’s call for war against infidels.

Everyone had their excuses for failing to define the enemy.

To Presidents Bush and Obama, groups like al-Qaeda and other jihadist entities were merely a bunch of deranged, bloodthirsty maniacs who were not linked by any particular doctrine.

President Bush took pains to ignore the dangerous components of Islam and define it wholly as a “religion of peace.”

Just six days after the attacks, Bush remarked at the Islamic Center of Washington: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”

Bush 43’s gross abdication of responsibility in defining our enemies continued into the Obama era.

President Obama became famously known for making sure to censor language that could possibly be interpreted as connecting our Islamic enemies (such as the terror state in Iran and the Islamic State terror group) to the Muslim faith.

“ISIL is not Islamic … ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple, and it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way, ” President Obama said in a 2014 speech.

To both Obama and Bush, jihadist groups killed for the sake of killing, and nothing more, at least according to their public messaging.

“There is no doubt, and I’ve said repeatedly, where we see terrorist organizations like al Qaeda or ISIL — They have perverted and distorted and tried to claim the mantle of Islam for an excuse for basically barbarism and death,” Obama said in a 2016 town hall.

And then came President Trump.

On the campaign trail, Trump ran as a candidate who had no issue with defining our enemy as “radical Islamic terrorists.” But since becoming president, he has fallen prey to the D.C. Swamp’s way of thinking on the issue.

Comparable to his predecessors, Trump has largely refrained from addressing the ideology that motivated the 9/11 hijackers. In his most recent speech on Afghanistan, Trump did not once discuss radical Islam, but only the “evil ideology” of our enemies. Like Bush and Obama, Trump has taken to understanding global jihadists as just a bunch of random lowlives.

“Terrorists who slaughter innocent people will find no glory in this life or the next. They are nothing but thugs and criminals and predators and — that’s right — losers,” Trump said in his Afghanistan speech.

We must never forget that the 9/11 hijackers were not poor, delusional individuals, as previous administrations tried to frame them. They were motivated by a specific doctrine. It wasn’t a coincidence that they used the Islamic war cry “Allahu Akbar” as they carried out by far the deadliest terror attack in American history.

But you can’t begin to defeat an enemy when you refuse to identify what it stands for. Even our Arab Muslim partners have come to determine and point out that there is a branch of Islamic doctrine that is growing at an exponential rate. Now is the time for our leaders to stand with them and take on this ideological enemy.

Sixteen years after 9/11, our leaders continue to pretend that there is no interconnectedness to the global threat of radical Islamic terror. If the politically correct policies of shielding Islam from the implications of terror continue, America’s long war will become its forever war.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

On This September 11th UTT Calls on American Leaders to Do Their Duty

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 10, 2017:

It has been 16 years since 19 jihadis from Saudi Arabia flew airplanes into the Twin Towers in New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and tried to reach the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. but failed because of the heroic efforts of American citizens.

Since that day, America has fought and lost two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not because of a failure of Marines, soldiers, sailors, or airmen, but because American political and military leaders failed to do their legal duty to KNOW the enemy.

Since that day, many American pastors and rabbis have misinformed their flocks and told them the god of Islam – allah – is the same as the God of Israel and the Father of Jesus the Christ of Nazareth.

Since that day, American political leaders have attacked and derided citizens who speak truthfully about the threat of the Global Islamic Movement, defended known suit-wearing jihadis, and even awarded these “terrorists” for being “helpful” in the “Global War on Terror.”

Since that day, U.S. government analysts across the board have attempted to identify the threat without including Islam in the analysis because Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama told them the threat comes from “Violent Extremism” not from Islam.

Since that day, many American citizens have come to understand the core doctrine of Islam – sharia (Islamic Law) – commands muslims to wage jihad (warfare) until the entire world is under Islamic rule.

Americans are realizing Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, Iran, Saudi Arabia, other Islamic nations and jihadi groups as well as the pinnacle of Islamic jurisprudence – Al Azhar (Egypt) – are all correct in their doctrinal understanding of Islam.

Americans are also coming to realize their leaders are catastrophically clueless about this enemy.

Sixteen years after 9/11/01, the United States government has not identified the threat nor the enemy threat doctrine (sharia), and has no coherent strategy for victory.

If we want to honor the nearly 3,000 Americans who perished on 9/11/01 and all of the servicemen and women killed and wounded in combat, we must not rest until our leaders at the local, state, and federal level do their duty to protect America against “all enemies foreign and domestic” and identify and obliterate the jihadi network in the United States, and all of those Aiding and Abetting them.

To read UTT’s 9/11/2016 blog entitled  “This 9/11 Anniversary is a Call to Action” click HERE

To hear UTT’s Special Edition 9/11/17 Radio Broadcast click HERE and then click “Listen” under “John Guandolo”

To read about UTT President John Guandolo’s 9/11/01 experiences as an FBI Special Agent click HERE

UTT Throwback Thursday: US Already Apologizing to the Enemy in Afghanistan – Again

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 7, 2017:

At what point do American citizens call for our military generals to be tried for criminal negligence as well as Aiding and Abetting the enemy for continuing their grossly unprofessional conduct and failure to make the slightest effort to understand the enemy 16 years after 9/11?

In February 2012, General John Allen apologized to muslims because allied forces “improperly disposed of Qurans.”

This week U.S. Major General James Linder apologized to muslims in Afghanistan for offending them by dropping leaflets containing the image of a dog with the Islamic shahada on it – “there is no god but allah and Mohammad is his messenger.”

Americans have just redeployed to Afghanistan and the United States is already apologizing to Islamic leaders.

Why don’t U.S. leaders man-up and  begin speaking to the Islamic world in language they understand?

How about our leaders tell the Islamic world to end the global jihad or we will obliterate it.

How about our leaders tell Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, and all the other Islamic countries funding the global jihad that if they do not turn the money spigot off immediately, the U.S. will turn their countries into parking lots – and keep their money.

How about our leaders shut down every Islamic school, mosque and organization that teaches jihad, seize the property, and arrest their leaders.

What if, and this is a big IF, U.S. generals actually read sharia and come to understand the enemy so they will realize that apologies from them endanger U.S. troops and emboldens the enemy.

The United States is again surrendering to an enemy we should be decimating.

What’s the Difference Between a Habit and a Headscarf?

Citizen Warrior, Sept. 3, 2017:

Why are some people vehemently against a Muslim headscarf but have no objection to a nun’s habit? What’s the difference?

The main difference is the ideology represented by the clothing. Islam’s ideology is 61 percentpolitical and only 39 percent religious. That is, 61 percent of the Koran is about what Muslims should do with non-Muslims.

A Muslim is obligated to strive to establish the law of Allah in all nations, imposing it against the will of non-Muslims if necessary. Islamic law is very detailed and specific, and includes the death penalty for apostatesand gays, women are legally only worth a half a man, etc. The Muslim headscarf is one of the few visible signs of a commitment to the fundamental principles of Islam. That’s why people are bothered by it.

But aren’t Christians are obliged to “establish the rule of Christ in all nations?” Isn’t a nun’s habit a visible sign of commitment to the fundamental principles of Christianity?

That’s seems like a legitimate counter-argument, but are there “Christian countries?” That is, a country where the “laws of Christianity” are imposed on everyone in that country?

So far, there are 58 Muslim countries, and orthodox Muslims are dedicated to expanding that. These countries have joined together to form the largest global organization outside the UN, and they form the largest voting bloc in the UN. They have been pushing to legally impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the entire world, which means legally nobody would be able to have this conversation, even in “free nations.” It would be illegal to criticize Islamic doctrine. It is already illegal in many countries.

Islam is having a huge and growing influence on world affairs. Everyone should learn more about this ideology. It isn’t like other religions. The closest religion to it is Scientology, and it’s not even close.

The assumptions people make about Islam are mostly wrong. But those assumptions are guiding our legal policies, and that is dangerous.

But wait a minute. Doesn’t all this only apply to the most extreme and fundamentalist followers of Islam? Wouldn’t the views of extreme and fundamentalist Christians be just as disturbing? It isn’t fair to paint all Muslims with this same brush, is it? We could say all Scientologists are bad people, but that isn’t the case either.

First of all, we’re not talking about Muslims. We’re talking about Islam, which is a set of written documents. It is a written ideology. When we say “orthodox Muslim,” we mean someone who follows the principles written in Islamic doctrine. Yes, of course, there are many Muslims who do not follow the doctrine, just as there are Christians who don’t follow the written doctrine in the Bible.

But what this argument obscures is that the orthodox Muslims are not misguided. They are doing what it says they must do in their written holy book. It says in the Koran 91 times that a Muslim should follow the example of Muhammad in every aspect. And Muhammad (according to biographies of Muhammad written by Muslims for Muslims) raided caravans, led battles, tortured people, ordered assassinations, and personally oversaw the beheading of 800 Jews. He captured and held slaves. He raped women. He started having sex with his favorite wife when she was nine years old. This is not horrible, slanderous rumor aimed to discredit Muhammad. This is taught with a straight face in Islamic universities, without any hint of embarrassment. This was the messenger of Allah and he could do no wrong.

A fundamentalist is one who follows the teachings closely. So the actual teachings make a big difference. And all we’re saying is that the teachings of Islam are dangerous to non-Muslims. In Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of creatures. This is not a conspiracy theory. This stuff is very easy to find out. You don’t have to trust anyone’s opinion. Just read the Koran. The Muslims who are true believers (orthodox) are counting on people not wanting to know.

In a conversation about this, the other day, someone brought up a good example: the Amish. They have special dress and customs but they don’t seek to impose it on anyone else. That’s the difference. And it’s a big difference.

Look up the Holy Land Foundation trial. The FBI raided the house of a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and found a document laying out their plan for our country. So far they have 73 legal organizations in America bent on replacing our laws with Islamic law. One organization has been altering the way Islam is portrayed in school textbooks. One organization puts pressure on Hollywood to make sure Islam is portrayed positively in movies. One organization sues people who try to educate others about what Islam is, or gets them fired from their jobs.

Scientologists aren’t bad people, by the way. Most people who read the statements above would think I was slandering Scientologists. But I was talking about Scientology, the ideology. Specifically, I was referring to the “fair game” policy of Scientology. Again, it is a written document, and followed by the true believers. It says that if someone leaves Scientology (becomes an apostate), they are fair game. They can be tricked, lied to, sued, harassed.

But that’s not as bad as Islamic doctrine. Islam says the penalty for apostasy is death.

Think about something for a minute. If someone says they’re a member of a group that has a written ideology, would you assume they believe in at least some of the tenets of that ideology? Of course. Otherwise, why claim your membership? It’s not always the case, of course. Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party, after all.

But if you could choose who would be your next door neighbor or who would date your daughter, would you voluntarily choose someone who claims membership in a dangerous ideology? They might not be “true believers.” But on the other hand, many Muslims who were perfectly nice people and not true believers were reached by the more orthodox who educated them on their obligations as a Muslim. They said, “You say you’re a Muslim, but have you read the Koran? Do you know what you should be doing?” And they are “radicalized” which is a politically correct way of saying they began following the written doctrine and the example of the founder of Islam.

By the way, I’m not a Christian. I’m’ not any religion. And I’m not out to slander any particular religion. All I did was read Islamic doctrine and biographies of Muhammad. I wasn’t trying to find out that Islam is evil. I just wanted to know what was really true because we’ve got some people saying it’s a religion of peace and some people saying it’s a religion of violence. I wanted to know for myself rather than listen to the opinions of others.

I went on a decade-long program of reading, including lots of pro-Islam books and the Koran, which I read twice from beginning to end. It’s a fascinating subject to study. Especially the life story of Muhammad. It is completely mind blowing that someone like that founded a religion. And that the religion (the doctrine, not the people) reflects his personality. I would never have believed it, and I can tell many people don’t believe it and don’t want to believe it. But if they want to be well-rounded, if they want to be an educated member of the modern world, it seems to me that one of the things they should really know about is Islam as it is, and not how they wish it was or how others want them to think about it. They should find out for themselves.

Oh yeah, back to the headscarf. The reason people don’t like it is that the headscarf says, “I believe in the tenets of Islam” and any non-Muslim who knows what those tenets are will not like them. Also, researchers have discovered that when the women in an area with a high Muslim population begin wearing headscarves, it is a signal that the Muslims in the area are becoming more devout (more “extreme,” more fundamentalist). It is a visible sign of increasing devotion to the fundamental principles of Islamic doctrine, which includes an intolerance for non-Muslims and non-Islamic laws, and usually foreshadows violence to non-Muslims and those Muslims who are “insufficiently Islamic.” That’s why people make such a big deal about Islamic head and face coverings. That’s why France and other countries have banned them and many are considering it. 

I personally think it’s foolish. If you have a  visible sign of growing fundamentalism, why would you ban it? To blind yourself? On the other hand, maybe it would help weaken the fundamentalism. And it would certainly help women be free of the obligation to do it in those countries.

What about the nun’s habit? Being a nun is voluntary. Catholic men are not likely to beat nuns if they don’t wear their habits, but orthodox Muslims have been known to beat Muslim and non-Muslim women who don’t cover up, and I have yet to read a report of a Catholic man throwing acid into the face of a woman because she was not wearing her habit. Orthodox Muslim men have done that in many places in the world.

People who are relatively ignorant of Islam are puzzled by the push toward banning headscarves, and would like to write it off as just ignorant bigotry. But if they looked a little deeper, they might find sensible reasons for it.

Twitter Flags Saying ‘Islam Is NOT a Religion of Peace’ as Possible ‘Hateful Conduct’

The logo of social network site Twitter reflected in a pair of glasses. Twitter says it suspended more than 375,000 accounts for violations linked to the promotion of terrorism in the last six months of 2016. Dominic Lipinski/PA Wire URN: 30627884

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, Sept. 6, 2017:

A few weeks ago I noticed that the hashtag #ConfessYourUnpopularOpinion was trending on Twitter. So I thought I would have a little fun, posted the tweet below, and forgot about it — until this weekend, when I received this email warning me that the tweet was being evaluated for possible violation of Twitter’s “hateful conduct policy”:

Dear Twitter user,

We are writing to inform you that certain content on your Twitter account @jihadwatchRS has been flagged, for possible violation of Twitter’s hateful conduct policy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175054), specifically:

We are sending you this notification to allow you to evaluate it.

If it is determined that the flagged content does not violate our hateful conduct policy, Twitter may still withhold content in France if the content appears to violate the laws of France.

For more information on our Country Withheld Content policy please see this page: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222

If you believe we have contacted you in error, please reply to this email and let us know.

Sincerely,

Twitter

“We are sending you this notification to allow you to evaluate it,” said Twitter.

All right. Let’s do that.

I could quote violent passages from the Qur’an, but those might be waved away with the dismissive and erroneous claim that the Bible contains similar exhortations to violence. Let’s focus instead on what Islamic authorities say — because one should get the impression that Islam is not a religion of peace from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib).

Shafi’i school

A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University — one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world — as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy stipulates about jihad that:

[T]he caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.

It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only:

… provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) … while remaining in their ancestral religions. ( ‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that ISIS, et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked.

The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that?

“ [N]othing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school

A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons. From the call to Islam:

… the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.

However:

“[I]f the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes:

[I]n the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.

In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school

The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed:

[S]ince lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam.

Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice,sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. … The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee is an assistant professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes 12th century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd:

Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book … is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.

Nyazee concludes:

This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation [of non-Muslims].

All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent.

It would be illuminating if Twitter produced some quotations from Muslim authorities they consider “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslims who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent and not a “Religion of Peace.”

Are they all hateful “Islamophobes”?

Is Twitter going to drop this tweet, and probably soon enough ban me altogether, for telling unwelcome truths? Have at it, you simpering millennial totalitarians with your horn-rimmed glasses and your lattes. Before too long, the evil that you are enabling will turn its attention to you.