Canada Condemns Islamophobia as 2nd Mosque Hosts Imam Calling for Murdering Jews

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, March 24, 2017:

Keeping your eyes on the great big shiny ball of Muslim victimhood.

The House of Commons voted Thursday afternoon to condemn “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination” but the vote for the controversial M-103 was not unanimous.

Liberals, New Democrats, and Green Party MP Elizabeth May were in favour; most Conservative and all Bloc Quebecois MPs were opposed. The vote was 201 for and 91 against…

The motion was proposed by Iqra Khalid, a first-time MP representing a Mississauga, Ont. riding.

Meanwhile Islamobigotry continues its glorious reign.

A second Montreal mosque hosted an imam offering a speech demonizing Jews and quoting from the Quran to kill them.

In a speech last December at the Dar al-Arkam mosque, Muhammad bin Musa al Nasr described Jews as “the most evil of mankind” and as “human demons,” the CIJNews reported Monday. He then quote from the Quran: at “the end of time … the stone and the tree will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me – come and kill him!’”

The mosque allowed the West Bank-born imam, a prominent member of the hard-line Salafist movement in Jordan, where he lectures at the al-Ahliyya University in Amman, to deliver more than a dozen other speeches as well.

I’m sure this Imam and his Islamic teachings have nothing to do with Islam. Also the second mosque had no problem hosting him despite the controversy over his first appearance. But we’re focusing on what’s important. Not Islamomurderism, but Islamophobia. It might be more tolerant if the House of Commons condemned Islamophilia.

***

Also see:

UTT Throwback Thursday: Britsh Leaders’ Inability to Speak Truth About Islam

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, March  23, 2017:

See UTT’s new video entitled “British Appeasement to Islam” HERE.

Where is Winston Churchill when you need him?

Since 9/11/01, Britain’s leaders have been unable to see the reality of the Islamic threat which is overwhelming them, and, in the face of their own destruction, have been incapable of letting the light of truth in to see the problem they face lies with Islam and it’s destructive and barbaric sharia.

In October 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair held a press conference where he stated:  “This is not a war with Islam. It angers me as it angers the vast majority of Muslims to hear bin Laden and his associates described as Islamic terrorists. They are terrorists pure and simple. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, and the acts of these people are wholly contrary to the teachings of the Koran.”

After British Army soldier Lee Rigby was run over and beheaded on the streets of Woolwich, England in May 2013 by two Muslims, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated:  “This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and on the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.  There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”

After British aid worker David Haines was beheaded by Muslims in ISIS on video in September 2014, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated:  “They claim to do this in the name of Islam.  That is nonsense.  Islam is a religion of peace.  They are not Muslims.  They are monsters.”

What will Prime Minister Theresa May say about Islam after the jihadi attack in Westminster?

Is she aware “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them” (Koran 9:5) is a permanent command from Allah for Muslims until the world is under sharia (Islamic Law)?  Is she aware this is taught in Islamic schools all over Britain?

What will London’s jihadi mayor say?

Here is what Sir Winston Churchill said:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men…Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
[Winston Churchill, The River War (Volume II, 1st edition), pages 248-250]

Turkey rallies row: Germany and Netherlands harden stance

President Erdogan’s supporters held protests after two Turkish ministers were barred from attending rallies in the Netherlands

BBC, March 12, 2017:

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Germany and the Netherlands of “Nazism” after officials blocked rallies there.

Dutch PM Mark Rutte called his comments “unacceptable”, while Germany’s foreign minister said he hoped Turkey would “return to its senses”.

Denmark’s leader said he was postponing a meeting with Turkey’s prime minister.

Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was concerned that “democratic principles are under great pressure” in Turkey.

He added that he had postponed the meeting later this month Binali Yildirim because: “With the current Turkish attacks on Holland the meeting cannot be seen separated from that.”

The rallies aim to encourage a large number of Turks living in Europe to vote yes in a referendum expanding the president’s powers.

However, planned rallies in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands were blocked after officials cited security concerns or said the rallies could stoke tensions.

A gathering in France however went ahead after local officials said it did not pose a threat.

Ties between the Turkish and Dutch leaders became particularly strained at the weekend after two Turkish ministers were barred from addressing rallies in Rotterdam, with one of them escorted to the German border.

Mr Erdogan likened the Netherlands to “a banana republic”, demanded international organisations impose sanctions on the Netherlands, and accused countries in the West of “Islamophobia”.

“I have said that I had thought that Nazism was over, but I was wrong. Nazism is alive in the West,” he added.



On Sunday, Mr Rutte demanded Mr Erdogan apologise for likening the Dutch to “Nazi fascists”.

“This country was bombed during the Second World War by Nazis. It’s totally unacceptable to talk in this way.”

The Netherlands would have to consider its response if Turkey continued on its current path, he added.

On Sunday a protester outside the Dutch consulate in Istanbul briefly replaced the Dutch flag with a Turkish one

Meanwhile, German ministers also appeared to harden their rhetoric against Turkey.

Despite Chancellor Angela Merkel saying her government was not opposed to Turkish ministers attending rallies in Germany, as long as they are “duly announced”, her interior minister said he was opposed to Turkish political gatherings in Germany.

“A Turkish campaign has no business being here in Germany,” Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told local media.

Angela Merkel said it was “depressing” and “unacceptable” that Mr Erdogan likened the rally bans to “Nazi practices”

Separately, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said Turkey had “destroyed the basis for further progress in co-operation”.

Reports say the owner of a venue in the Swedish capital, Stockholm, also cancelled a pro-Erdogan rally on Sunday that was to have been attended by Turkey’s agriculture minister.

Sweden’s foreign ministry said it was not involved in the decision and that the event could take place elsewhere.

What is the row about?

Turkey is holding a referendum on 16 April on whether to turn from a parliamentary to a presidential republic.

If successful, it would give sweeping new powers to the president, allowing him or her to appoint ministers, prepare the budget, choose the majority of senior judges and enact certain laws by decree.

President Erdogan is hoping to win sweeping new powers

What’s more, the president alone would be able to announce a state of emergency and dismiss parliament.

There are 5.5 million Turks living outside the country, with 1.4 million eligible voters in Germany alone – and the Yes campaign is keen to get them on side.

So a number of rallies have been planned for countries with large numbers of eligible voters, including Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.

Why are countries trying to prevent the rallies?

Many of the countries, including Germany, have cited security concerns as the official reason.

Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz said Mr Erdogan was not welcome to hold rallies as this could increase friction and hinder integration.

A rally did go ahead in Metz in France on Sunday (AFP)

Many European nations have also expressed deep disquiet about Turkey’s response to the July coup attempt and the country’s perceived slide towards authoritarianism under President Erdogan.

Germany in particular has been critical of the mass arrests and purges that followed – with nearly 100,000 civil servants removed from their posts.

***

Also see:

Nonie Darwish: Wholly Different — Why I Chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values

The Geller Report, by Nonie Darwish, March 8, 2017:

Many in the West assume that the Islamic threat is only in the form of terrorism, and if only ISIS is destroyed, then the real peaceful Islam will emerge ready to coexist in harmony with Western and Biblical values. That is false. The West is building its entire policy regarding Islam on a false premise. And that is why I have written my fourth book, Wholly Different: Why I Chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values: to lay out the full scope of the threat of Islam to Western civilization.

After I moved to the US 38 years ago, I discovered that Islamic values are totally opposite to Biblical/Western values. The first Muslim sermon I heard when I visited a mosque in the US in 1979 was on how we, Muslims, must never assimilate in America. I felt that this dangerous advice was paving the way to divide America into the “house of Islam” and the non-Muslim “house of war.” I stopped going to the mosque and lived without a faith for 17 years in America.

But after I started hearing Biblical values in churches and synagogues, I discovered why Islam is afraid of assimilation. If Muslims assimilate in the West, Islam will cease to exist, and that is because its values are opposite in everything about life, human rights, family, and government.

The Original Culture Clash

The original culture clash, or clash of civilization, between Muslims and Bible believers did not start between Europe and the Islamic Middle East. It first erupted inside the Middle East, in the 7th century, when Muhammad led a ferocious bloody rebellion in the Arabian Peninsula against “the people of the book” — Jews and Christians, their values and what they stood for. In a nutshell, Islam came 600 years after Christ, not to confirm the Bible, but to discredit it. Islam was a bloody rebellion against the Bible and its values. All of the Ten Commandments were in fact violated by Muhammad for the sake of making Islam rule supreme.

The Jews and Christians of the Middle East lost the first culture clash, and were forced to submit to Islam and live in humiliation under sharia as dhimmis. Christianity and many Jews were pushed further back Northwest towards Europe. Gradually Europe were left alone holding the banner of the Bible after the Christian Byzantine Empire was decimated by Islam. That was when a second culture clash started between Islam and the Bible, Europe and the Middle East.

These are facts of history that Teddy Roosevelt warned us of when he said that if we do not fight we will lose to Islam, the same way the People of the Book in the Middle East lost to Islam in the seventh century: “Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight. Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, and on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equal with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated….”

Western Biblical theologians believe that the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, brought an ethics revolution to the world. Islam came to rebel against such a revolution with a counter-revolution that was uniquely Muhammadan.

Everything that Jews and Christian held dear to their heart, Islam sets out to destroy. Below are some of the differences between Biblical and Islamic values mentioned in the book:

  • We are all sinners vs. They are all sinners.
  • Life is sacred vs. Death is worship.
  • Jesus died for us vs. We must die for Allah.
  • Jesus came to save us vs. We must save Muhammad’s  reputation.
  • Judge the sin, not the sinner vs. Judge the sinner not the sin.
  • God the redeemer vs. Allah the Humiliator.
  • Confession of Sin vs. Concealment of Sin.
  • At war with the Devil vs. At war with flesh and blood, the enemies of Allah.
  • Truth will set you Free vs. Lying and slander are an obligation.
  • Changing oneself vs Changing others.
  • Self-Control vs. Controlling others.
  • Vengeance is the Lord’s vs. Vengeance is prescribed to Muslims.
  • Love your enemies vs. Hate Allah’s Enemies (non-Muslims).
  • Work Ethics vs. Wealth through conquest.
  • Kingdom of God is not of this world vs. Allah and the Islamic State are one.

Nonie Darwish is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values”

Also see:

Understanding Jihad

9% of Koran, 21% of the Hadith, 67% of the Sira is devoted to jihad. Before jihad, Islam only grew at the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when Mohammed turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year. – Bill Warner

Holy War in the Cause of Allah

The Tribune Papers, by Mike Scruggs, March 9, 2017:

Jihad is one of the foundational doctrines of Islam—not “Radical Islam” or “Radical Islamic Terrorism,” just Islam. President Recip Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey told us the simple truth, when he said, “Islam is Islam.” There are many “moderate” (secular and cultural) Muslims, but there is no “moderate” Islam that is not considered heretical by mainstream Sunni and Shia clerics and scholars. Jihad is second only to the Shahada, the testimony of Muslim faith in Islamic doctrine: “La ilaha illa Allah wa-Muhammad rasul Allah,” rendered in English as “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Prophet (or Messenger) of Allah.” Jihad constitutes a whopping 31 percent of the combined sacred texts of the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad found in the Hadith (traditions) and Sira (biography) of Muhammad.

Jihad is defined in the Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law [Sharia], in Book O, Section 9.0: “Jihad is war against non-Muslims…to establish the religion [of Islam].” All of Section 9 of Book O, of this classic Sharia manual is about Jihad, including its obligatory nature for all Muslims. Muhammad also spoke of a spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs) when returning from a battle: “We have returned from the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad.” But this inner struggle with the self only represents about two percent of the total text on Jihad in Islam’s three foundational texts. The other 98 percent is about the necessity, obligations, conduct, and forms of support for Holy War against all who resist Islam. It is clear from the Koran and the words of Muhammad in the Hadith(s) that the “lesser” Jihad of the sword against all non-Muslims is actually the most emphasized and esteemed part of Jihad. The “greater spiritual” Jihad turns out to be spiritual preparation for the Jihad of the sword. Muslim clerics and apologists speaking to non-Muslim audiences frequently refer to Jihad as spiritual struggle, but this is 98 percent deception. As Muhammad himself said, “Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords.”

Following below are seven of the clearest of 109 war verses in the Koran and three short hadiths, which are valuable explanatory passages on Jihad.

Koran 8:12: Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: “I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels [non-Muslims]. Strike off their heads; strike off the very tips of their fingers.”

Koran 9:5: When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Koran 9:29: Fight such of those to whom the Scriptures were given [Christians and Jews] as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay the tribute by hand with abject submission.

Koran 9:123: Believers, make war on the infidels [non-Muslims] who dwell around you. Deal firmly with then. Know that Allah is with the righteous.

Koran 3:28: Let not believers make friends with infidels [non-Muslims] in preference to the faithful—he that does this has nothing to hope for from Allah—except in self-defense. Allah admonishes you to fear Him: for to Allah shall all return.

Koran 48:29: Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to unbelievers but merciful to one another.

Koran 4:74: Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah, whether he dies or triumphs, on him We [Allah] shall bestow a rich recompense.

Bukari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44: A man came to Allah’s Apostle

and said, “Instruct me in such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”

Bukari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73: Allah’s Apostle said, “Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords.”

Abu Muslim Hadith (001, 0031): Muhammad said, “I have been ordered to wage war against mankind until they accept that there is no god but Allah and that they believe I am His prophet and accept all revelations through me.”

Twenty-one percent of the Hadith(s) text is about Jihad, a good bit higher than in the Koran with nine percent. The most revelatory, however, is the Sira, the biography of Muhammad, with 67 percent. Follow the money. Muslim Brotherhood, Qatari, and Saudi Arabian funded departments of religious studies and U.S. and UK political and media apologists for Islam are not credible authorities on Islam or Jihad. Muhammad, the subject or author of most of Islam’s doctrinal texts and the inventor of Jihad, is the true authority on Islam and Jihad. Ninety-one times the Koran calls Muhammad the perfect Muslim example.

The Islam of Muhammad is inherently Jihadist. The counterfactual propaganda narrative that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance is an extremely dangerous lie that is being used to bring down Western Civilization and replace it with totalitarian Islamic government, law, and culture. We must fully understand the threat and develop the will to defeat it before it is too late. The Saracens are already within our gates.

The Truth Behind Media’s New Favorite Euphemism: ‘Muslim-Majority Countries’

Breitbart, by John Hayward, March 9, 2017:

Both versions of President Trump’s executive order have been caricatured as a “Muslim ban,” even though they applied to only six or seven specific countries, leaving 90 percent of the world’s population out of the mix.

The fallback euphemism is to say that Trump is “banning” immigration (they never say it is conditional and temporary) from several “Muslim-majority” countries. This is also misleading because those countries are not merely inhabited by a majority of Muslims. They are Muslim countries, period. They all have some form of Islamic law written into their legal codes.

With Iraq removed from the equation, the remaining nations affected by the order are Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. The original executive order did not list the affected nations; it merely referred to Obama-era legislation that named them as nations of particular concern. The revised version of the order does name the affected nations because it explains why each of them is on the list.

The first version of the order did not mention Islam at all. The revised version does, but only to explain why the first order did not because this is not a “Muslim ban”:

Executive Order 13769 did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion. While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion. That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities — whoever they are and wherever they reside — to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances.

Islam is not a “minority religion” in any of the six countries named by the order. In fact, all six of them officially incorporate Islamic sharia law into their legal codes.

Of the six, Iran is an outright Islamic theocracy. Its Supreme Leader is the Ayatollah, a top-ranking Muslim cleric. Iran’s legal code is explicitly based on sharia, with a smattering of civil ordinances thrown in. Iranian courts have been known to invoke sharia for such judgments as requiring a woman to be blinded in retribution for throwing acid in a victim’s face.

Iranian law nominally has some protections for religious minorities, but the absolute supremacy of Islam is not questioned. Observers have reported that religious freedom is growing steadily worse in the theocracy.

Libya is the most complex of the six nations to classify, because it does not have a functioning central government at all, following Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s disastrous intervention – a fact the mainstream media prefers not to dwell on. “Libya’s post-revolution legal system is in flux and driven by state and non-state entities,” as the CIA World Factbook tactfully puts it.

The capital city of Tripoli was seized by an Islamist coalition, with the Muslim Brotherhood a major player. Another is Ansar al-Sharia, a Salafist Islamic militia. The presence of “sharia” in its name is not a coincidence; they declared Libya an Islamic “caliphate” in 2014.

There has been success in the battle against Libyan ISIS, but al-Qaeda is still a major player. U.N.-backed unity governments tend to include a lot of people from the more extreme wings of Libyan politics. They have to because Islamists are a powerful political force in the country.

Another major force in chaotic Libya is widely described as a “secularist,” General Khalifa Haftar. Some observers wonder just how “secularist” he really is, especially if he gains control of the country and has to make deals with the powerful Islamist elements he is currently fighting.

Haftar is an old Qaddafi hand, and while the late dictator is remembered as a brutal and mercurial secularist loathed by hardline Islamists in Libya, he was sometimes given to Islamist sentiments of his own. For instance, Qaddafi once declared Islam was the only universal human religion and said, “all those believers who do not follow Islam are losers.” He named his son and once-presumed successor Saif al-Islam.

Libya’s future is a question mark, but it is highly disingenuous to describe even its present state as merely “Muslim-majority.” The interim Libyan constitution of 2011 begins with the invocation of “Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” states that Islam is the official religion of the country, and declares “sharia shall be the main source of legislation.” Until and unless a different constitution is put into effect by an internationally-recognized national government, Libya is a Muslim nation.

Somalia officially imposed sharia law through its Cabinet in 2009. “Islamic Sharia is the only option to get solutions for the problems in this country,” one minister declared. Less than 0.1% of the population follows a religion other than Islam.

The Somali government banned Christmas celebrations in December 2015, because “having Muslims celebrate Christmas is not the right thing,” as a top official put it. He likened Christmas celebrations to apostasy and said they are “not in any way related to Islam.” Foreigners were graciously allowed to celebrate Christmas in their homes, but even hotels were instructed to prevent guests from holding celebrations.

The al-Shabaab terrorist organization thinks the central government is not Islamist enough and imposes an even harsher sharia code on the sizable portions of the country it effectively controls. Many of the people living under al-Shabaab control have told interviewers they support its legal code.

Sudan is officially an Islamic state with a sharia legal code. Even the leaders of breakaway South Sudan, which want to return to a common-law system on the British model, have been struggling to purge sharia from the legal system.

Sudan, like Somalia, is not “majority Muslim” – it is about 96% Muslim, and the 3% Christian minority is brutally persecuted, despite some nominal legal protection for other religions. World Atlas notes that “some interpretations of the Muslim Law in the country fail to recognize or accept apostasy and marriages to non-Muslims,” and concludes that “Sudan leads the world as the most difficult country for Christians since freedom of religion or belief is systematically ignored.”

Syria is an uncomfortable case, as some religious minorities say they fared much better under the Assad dictatorship. Some Syrian Christians bluntly refer to Bashar Assad as their “protector” and have similar hopes for the intervening Russians. Of course, critics of the brutal Syrian regime argue that Assad’s alliance with Christians is purely cynical, and even accuse him of inflaming the Christian fear of Muslims for political gain.

Assad’s government is nominally secular, while even most of the “good guy” rebels supported by Western powers practice Islamic law through sharia courts. Syrians in contested areas complain that different sharia courts loyal to various factions, from “moderates” to hardcore al-Qaeda Islamists, issue conflicting verdicts.

At the height of the rebellion, many Syrians expressed a desire to replace the Syrian Arab Republic with an Islamic state. Then they found themselves saddled with the Islamic State, which may have led some of them to reconsider. However, there are still calls to impose sharia across Syria, portraying it as an instrument of peace and justice.

Having said that, the constitution of the “secular” Syrian Arab Republic explicitly requires the president to be a Muslim, and requires that “Islamic jurisprudence shall be a major source of legislation.” This was true of both the older constitution and the revised document prepared in 2012.

The same article declares “the State shall respect all religions, and ensure the freedom to perform all the rituals that do not prejudice public order,” but there is no question: Syria is a Muslim nation, not a “Muslim-majority nation.” Islam enjoys a privileged position in its legal code that Western liberals would not tolerate without comment from any other religion.

Yemen practices a mixture of sharia law and common law in what passes for its central government – which, of course, was overthrown by the Houthis, a Shiite Muslim insurgency supported by the Iranian theocracy. The internationally recognized Yemeni government has said the Houthis want to transform Yemen into a caliphate ruled by lineal descendants of Mohammed.

Even Houthi spokesmen who strongly disagree with that characterization have said they think “sharia should be one of the main sources of the law in Yemen, not the only source.”

The large portions of Yemen controlled by al-Qaeda are noted for the strict rule of Islamic law, including the oppression of women. Al-Qaeda regards the failure to strictly obey sharia as “debauchery.”

The Constitution of the Republic of Yemen explicitly declares it to be an Islamic state, and stipulates “sharia is the source of all legislation.” Islam is unambiguously named as the official state religion. Denouncing Islam is a crime punishable by death. Over 99% of the population is Muslim.

Iraq: Even though it is no longer listed in Trump’s executive order, it should be noted that Iraq is an explicitly Islamic nation, according to its 2005 constitution. “Islam is the official religion of the State and is a fundamental source of legislation,” Article 2 declares. “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.”

Religious freedom is nominally protected, as long as the supremacy of Islam is acknowledged by all: “This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans.”

Some Iraqi clerics agitate for stricter adherence to sharia law, which introduces the dangerous question of whether Sunni or Shiite law should reign supreme.

The incorporation of Sharia law into the legal codes of these countries occurs to a degree that would revolt the American Left, if any religion except Islam was involved. Rest assured that no one in today’s mainstream media would describe, say, 15th-century Spain as a “majority Catholic” nation.

For that matter, they do not seem inclined to describe Israel as “majority Jewish”; they simply refer to it as a “Jewish state.” Israel is, in fact, only about 75% Jewish. A recent effort supported by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party to formally define Israel as a Jewish state failed, in part due to concerns that it could lead to discriminatory policies against the Arab population.

Its legal code includes extensive protection for religious minorities, and there are Muslim and Druze members of its parliament. Last November, one of them staged the Muslim call to prayer during a parliamentary session to protest a bill that would prevent all places of worship from using loudspeakers to summon their worshipers, because it was seen as unfairly targeting mosques.

Equivalent stunts are unwise for members of religious minorities in “Muslim-majority nations,” including the six listed in President Trump’s executive order.

In conclusion: all of the nations mentioned in both versions of President Trump’s executive order are Muslim countries, period. Every single one of them has Islam as the state religion and bases its legal code on sharia. Not a single one of these countries is a “Muslim-majority” nation that practices full and complete religious pluralism under a secular government.

Finnish ISIS Convert Takes Aim at ‘Foolish’ Muslims Who Have Adapted to West

A mosque in Roihuvuori, Helsinki, seen on May 15, 2015. (The Visual Explorer/Shutterstock.com)

PJ MEDIA, BY BRIDGET JOHNSON, MARCH 7, 2017:

The new issue of ISIS’ Rumiyah magazine concentrates once again on Finnish recruits as a convert to Islam directs Muslims to fight against Muslims in their community who embrace democracy, run for public office or fight in the military.

A woman writing under the name Umm Khalid al-Finlandiyyah said in an issue of ISIS’ Dabiq magazine last year that she was drawn to Islam by living in “a ‘Christian’ nation where people do not strongly adhere to their corrupted religion.”

The Rumiyah issue, released today in English and several other languages, features another writer purportedly from Finland going by the name Umm Musa al-Finlandiyyah. “Umm” means “mother of,” indicating the writer is female.

She said that after converting in her home country she was aghast at “the lack of religious adherence by so-called ‘Muslims’ – those whom I had thought to be Muslims – who didn’t pray, possibly fasted during Ramadan, and whose extent of following the Shari’ah was restricted to the avoidance of eating pork.”

She added that “what is most dangerous” in Finland’s Muslim community “is that most of them don’t even know that there are actions that take people out of Islam, so many people think they are still Muslims, while in reality they have fallen into kufr [disbelief] and riddah [apostasy].”

“Many people think Islam is like a citizenship – once you get it, it remains with you until the end of your life. But Islam doesn’t work with the same principle. It has conditions by which one enters it and nullifiers by which can leave it – even without knowing it.”

The writer said “participating in government elections and voting in them, as well as military service, working as a lawyer, and criticizing the Shari’ah of Allah, are only a few of the many things which can nullify one’s Islam, and all of them are easy to perpetrate” living in non-Muslim countries.

The convert accused other Muslims of being “foolish” by criticizing ISIS when media began “spreading the news about the mass executions conducted by the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham.”

“The ignorant ‘Muslims’ are blaming the Islamic State for spreading fitnah [unrest] and ‘spoiling the jihad,’ though the only true jihad for Allah’s cause is what the Islamic State is actually conducting – for all of its enemies do nothing to support the establishment of Allah’s rule on earth,” she wrote.

She vowed that ISIS’ “fight against kufr and its supporters will continue on the true frontline,” without explicitly mentioning the terror group’s increasing loss of territory in Iraq and Syria.

“Anyone who denies that a so-called ‘Muslim’ Member of Parliament is a murtadd [apostate] kafir – as he has committed shirk with Allah in legislation – is himself a murtadd. And anyone who denies that a so-called ‘Muslim’ in the military service of the kuffar is a murtadd kafir – as he has supported the cause of taghut – is himself a murtadd,” she wrote. “And anyone who refuses to make takfir [excommunication] of those who consider the Shari’ah of Allah to be unsuitable for this era, or refuses to make takfir of those who are fighting to establish democracy, is himself a murtadd.”

In its 2015 year-end report, the Finnish Security Intelligence Service said “at least 70 adults and dozens of children” had traveled to the Islamic State. “This jihadist travel concerns even a much larger group of people in Finland, if the sphere of influence of those having remained in the conflict zone for a long time is taken into account,” the report added.

“The conflict will continue to affect Finland’s security for a long time. A new generation of Jihadists, among them also Finnish nationals, is growing up on the areas controlled by terrorist organisations in Syria and Iraq. Due to terrorist fighters originating from Finland, also foreign radical Islamists know Finland better than before.”

A November study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that “Finland has the largest number of ISIS foreign fighters relative to the size of its Muslim population, followed by Ireland, Belgium, Sweden, and Austria,” and “inequality and poverty are unlikely to be root causes of recruits joining ISIS” as Finland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

***

Jihadology: Click the following link for a safe PDF copy: Rome Magazine #7

Donald Trump’s Executive Order: Officials Must Identify Immigration Applicants Who Support ‘Acts of Violence’

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, March 6, 2017:

President Donald Trump’s immigration Executive Order directs federal officials to set new immigration rules that will identify and exclude people who support the use of violence, and also hints at the exclusion of people who embrace orthodox Islam’s “violent extremism.”

Senior officials “shall implement a program, as part of the process for [immigration] adjudications, to identify individuals who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis, who support terrorism, violent extremism, acts of violence toward any group or class of people within the United States, or who present a risk of causing harm subsequent to their entry,” said Section 5 of the new Executive Order, which likely will reverse President Barack Obama’s open-door policies to foreign migrants. 

The anti-extremist language in the new March 6 Executive Order is narrower and more legalistic than the pro-American language in the judge-blocked Jan. 27 Executive Order, which said:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Allied left-wing and Islamic advocates, including Democratic activist Khizr Khan, complained that Trump’s “hostile attitudes” language was intended to exclude immigrants with Islamic beliefs.

The language bolsters the often-ignored language in the current N-400 citizenship application document, which asks applicants if they have “EVER advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence? Have you EVER persecuted (either directly or indirectly) any person because of race, religion, national origin, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion?”

The new memo also directs officials to collect and share information about immigrants and refugees who commit crimes, including the terror and anti-women crimes associated with people from Islamic-majority countries.  Section 11 of the new order declares officials should collect information about:

(i)    information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation with or provision of material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national-security-related reasons;

(ii)   information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and who have engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States;

(iii)  information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called “honor killings,” in the United States by foreign nationals.

 (iv)   any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

The new Executive Order says it does not “discriminate” against any particular religion, which is likely meant to rebut progressive claims that opposition to Islam’s combined religious and political ideology is similar to legal curbs on the practice of Christianity and other religions which do accept the separation of church from state.

Executive Order 13769 did not provide a basis for discriminating for or against members of any particular religion.  While that order allowed for prioritization of refugee claims from members of persecuted religious minority groups, that priority applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion, and it applied to minority sects within a religion.  That order was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities — whoever they are and wherever they reside — to avail themselves of the USRAP in light of their particular challenges and circumstances.

The Executive order directs agency heads to quickly establish the new entry rules, saying:

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the program described in subsection (a) of this section within 60 days of the effective date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the effective date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the effective date of this order.

The president also directs the agencies to toughen routine screening of legal visitors, such as tourists or business executives. “In the first 20 days, [the Department of Homeland Security] will perform a global, country-by-country review of the identity and security information that each country provides to the U.S. Government to support U.S. visa and other immigration benefit determinations. Countries will then have 50 days to comply with requests from the U.S. Government to update or improve the quality of the information they provide.” 

Trump’s immigration and visitor rules will likely be very different from former President Obama’s open-door policies. Obama described his globalist policy in a Nov. 2014 speech to Democratic supporters in Chicago:

Sometimes we get attached to our particular tribe, our particular race, our particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently. And that, sometimes, has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration.  If you look at the history of immigration in this country, each successive wave, there have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks’ — even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans.

Obama made the same diversity-first claim in September 2015:

When I hear folks talking as if somehow these [foreign] kids are different than my kids or less worthy in the eyes of God, that somehow that they are less worthy of our respect and consideration and care, I think that’s un-American. I don’t believe that, I think it is wrong and I think we should do better, because that’s how America was made.

Obama’s outside policy is expressed more crudely by the alliance of Islamic and left-wing groups which are protesting Trump’s pro-America immigration policies.

What If Islam Really Is Different?

By Citizen Warrior, March 3, 2017:

The following is the “About Us” page on TheReligionOfPeace.com. It was so good I gained permission to republish it here (and on Inquiry Into Islam).

TheReligionofPeace.com (TROP) is a pluralistic, non-partisan site concerned with Islam’s true political and religious teachings according to its own texts. The purpose is to underscore the threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom, part of which includes documenting the violence and dysfunction that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion’s supremacist teachings.

TROP is not associated with any organization. The site does not promote any religion, but it is not hostile to religion. We generally support the rights of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, homosexuals, women, Muslims and anyone else on the planet to live as they wish without violating the rights of others.

TheReligionofPeace.com strongly condemns any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world because of their religion. Every human being is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds. (see About Muslims).

We also denounce any act of vandalism against mosques or other property, including juvenile attempts to offend Muslims by desecrating copies of the Quran. (The best way of discrediting the Quran is to tell non-Muslims what it actually says about them).

At the same time, we see no use in pretending that Islam is just another religion – which always seems to be the assumption of those preferring not to look too closely.

In fact, Islam is dreadfully unique — and it should be OK to say so.

What other religion’s most devoted members videotape themselves cutting people’s throats while screaming praises to their god? What other faith has tens of thousands of terrorists across the globe united by an explicit commitment to advance the cause of their religion by pursuing horrific mass murder and mutilation?

What other religion has clerics lauded as ‘moderates’, ‘bridge-builders’, and advocates of ‘peace and tolerance‘ who, at best cannot even bring themselves to condemn suicide bombers or denounce Islamist terror organizations, or at worst actually supportterrorism, wife-beating, female genital mutilation, praise Islamist assassins and justify the killing of apostates and homosexuals?

What other religion kills innocent people over cartoons and teddy bears, burns poets and intellectuals alive and murders humanitarian workers of other faiths who are merely trying to help them?

What other religion childishly brags about its growth while at the same time openly denies other religions equal opportunity to evangelize — and even endorses killing those who leave?

What other religion has prominent PR organizations and charities so closely tied to terrorism – organizations like CAIR, which whine about dress codes and rubber ducks in the West while ignoring the Jihad genocide of thousands in Darfur?

What other religion has verses in its holy book that remind men of their divine permission to beat their wives and rape their slaves?

The list could go on (and does — each day on TheReligionofPeace.com). Islam so routinely produces horrible atrocities in the name of Allah that no one is all that surprised when…

Adults are tied to a tree or planted in the ground and bludgeoned to death by fundamentalists for engaging in consensual sex…

A New York woman trying to file for divorce is beheaded by her husband, who also happens to be the founder of a Muslim-American TV channel dedicated to combating “misconceptions” and “stereotypes” about Islam…

One of Europe’s largest mosques publicly eulogizes a terrorist who killed for the cause of persecuting Christians…

Religious leaders are charged by authorities with plotting spectacular acts of mass murder in the name of their god…

A Christian woman is arrested, raped and tortured by police who also starve her children in an explicit effort to get her to return to Islam…

Gunmen take time out to pray to Allah in amidst shooting and torturing dozens of innocent people at a shopping mall because they are not true believers as a clericapplauds

Clerics advocate raping virgins prior to executing them for verbal crimes and political dissent…

Pollsters admit that about 1 out of 3 Muslims worldwide (450 million) view the terrorism of 9/11 as justified…

The most prominent self-proclaimed Muslim “civil rights” group in America (CAIR) bluntly refuses to condemn an organization (Hamas) that kills innocent people specifically in the name of Islam…

A Christian is murdered in front of his own family for leaving Islam, and his children are then kidnapped and ‘conscripted‘ by his killers…Muslims express no outrage when an admitted terrorist is assigned by a government to oversee “Islamic Affairs”, nor even when unrepentant child killers are invited to make the holy pilgrimage with VIP treatment… 80% of all federal terror prosecutions involve a religion that is practiced by only 1% of all Americans…Each of the top 10 global terrorists in the world happens to share a devout commitment to the same religion

How shocking any of this would be if it didn’t involve the Islamic religion. As it is, much of it barely registers in the media. The very fact that the bar of expectation is set so low for “the Religion of Peace” underscores just how different it really is.

No other religion has to attach “phobia” on the end of its name in order to bully others into silence – lest they be accused of harboring irrational fear for suggesting that Islam is different. Yet, all other religions combined do not account for even a fraction of terrorism in the name of their god that Islam produces each day. No religion is so demanding of respect while doing so little to earn it.

In fact, Islam is more than a religion. It is a rigid political and cultural system with a mandate to conquer and govern the lives of others via necessary force “until religion is only for Allah.” Violence is sanctioned by the Quran, a book which not once tells Muslims to love those outside the faith.

The enemy of this orthodoxy is not just intellectual dissent and free speech, but human freedom. The divine charter of Islam is to impose itself and thus prevent the individual from discovering a different meaning for their own lives.

Islam breeds arrogance and self-absorption, which accounts for the collective petulance and perpetual grievance that characterizes Muslim populations in general — along with the astonishing unwillingness to extend equal moral consideration to those outside the religion.

This disregard for others is rooted in the supremacist ideology of the Quran and Islamic law, which unashamedly draws the sharpest distinction between those within the group of believers and those without – towards whom arbitrary denigration is cast and hatred, harsh treatment and eternal punishment is prescribed.

As a consequence, not a day goes by without someone, somewhere in the world being horribly murdered by devout Muslims in the name of this religion – over ten thousand persons each year. More innocent lives were snuffed out in just two hours by devout Muslims on 9/11 than by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire 145-year history (source). Yet, there was never one massed protest against Osama bin Laden in the entire Muslim world (although many condemned his killing).

Where Islam dominates, there is systematic discrimination and oppression of those of other faiths. Where Muslims are a minority, there is a trend toward peevish self-interest, disloyalty and eventual rebellion and terror when demands for special privilege and entitlements are not met – all part of the eternal jihad to bring about the rule of Islam as Muhammad instructed.

It isn’t the victims who need lessons in tolerance and understanding — it is the Islamic world.

Can one name a single country in the West in which the significant influx of Muslims has not been accompanied by severe social strain? Can one name any country affected in the same way by Hindu immigration?

Those willing to open their minds will find that, regardless of the excuse-du-jour, the remarkably wide-spread level of narcissism, repression and violence is deeply ingrained in the teachings, double standards and early history of the Islamic religion. While there is not a single verse in the Quran that commands love for those outside Islam, there are nearly 500 that either promote violence or allude to Allah’s hatred for unbelievers – in a book that is largely about how to think of and deal harshly with those outside the “true” faith.

Why rely on rosy platitudes and carefully-edited fragments of Quran verses from apologists when Islam speaks so well for itself? Beyond the whitewashing are obvious reasons why so many devotees do horrible things in the name of Allah, while most of the rest never seem to get terribly upset by it – busy as they are throwing tantrums and demanding for themselves what they explicitly deny others.

How much favor are we really doing Muslims by not challenging them to the sort of self-critique necessary for moral progress? How much favor are we doing ourselves by desperately trying to accommodate that which has no intention of accommodating us, or by continuing to sacrifice blood and budgets for those who hate us in return? Is it really in our best interests to assist the expansion within our own borders of a religion that is consistently incapable of building countries in which even Muslims themselves want to live?

Tolerance is a good thing, but not when we allow it to be used cynically against us by those who have no use for it once they obtain power. We need to back away from the altar of political correctness and throw out our preconceptions. We need to embrace critical thinking.

The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace and it is not like other religion. Sometimes the truth isn’t comfortable. Sometimes the truth offends. But it is far better that we offend others than lose our own freedom.

See also:

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions
How We Feel about Muslims
Our Case Against Race
What to Do about the Islamic Threat

UTT: Real Truth About Real Threats

guandolo3Understanding theThreat, by John Guandolo, March 6, 2016:

Last week’s UTT article entitled “Unfit for Duty” makes the point that two of the men professionally responsible to the President of the United States for speaking truthfully about national security threats – LtGen HR McMaster and Sebastian Gorka – are not doing so, specifically as it relates to the Islamic threat.

In response to the article, UTT received numerous communications from individuals, groups, and the media.  Many of the comments came from people with a clear understanding of the threat to the United States from the Global Islamic Movement, and the article was referenced and republished in several places including here and here.

Some, however, are still having a hard time understanding the true nature of the threat from Islam.  Many are simply not capable of believing such a grave threat exists in such a real and immediate way.  Some people are still ignorant about what Islam actually teaches because they have been subject to years of Islamic leaders and elected officials in the West telling them Islam is not part of the problem, but is part of the solution.  See the UTT video on this HERE.

Many media outlets appear disinterested in the truth.  Despite the fact Islam – at the doctrinal level at Al-Azhar University in Egypt to Islamic elementary schools – teaches jihad is an obligation until the world is under Islamic rule, the media continues to gobble up whatever the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leaders tell them and dutifully regurgitate it.

So when organizations like UTT speak factually about Islam and what Muslims are taught at Islamic schools across the globe, the media stands with terrorists and anti-American terrorist supporters like the Souther Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and levels personal attacks without ever discussing the facts of the matter.  This is because they cannot win the argument on the facts.

SPLC’s President Richard Cohen must remember he sat next to UTT’s Vice President Chris Gaubatz in the summer of 2016 while Mr. Gaubatz – who went undercover at CAIR for six months and retrieved over 12,000 documents from their headquarters revealing Hamas (doing business as CAIR) is involved in fraud, sedition, terrorism, and other offenses – testified before Senator Cruz’s hearing.  Mr. Cohen cannot honestly say he is not aware CAIR is a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood entity.  We do have photographic and video evidence Mr. Cohen was seated approximately 18 inches away from Mr. Gaubatz as he testified.

gaubatz-testifying

See the coverage of UTT’s rebuttal of SPLC’s attempt to slander UTT and its founder John Guandolo here and Chris Gaubatz’s testimony in front of a U.S. Senate hearing detailing the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamic threat while seated next to SPLC President Richard Cohen here.

A day is fast coming where attorneys and leaders at SPLC, as well as members of the media, will have to account for their direct and material support for terrorist groups, especially since it is a violation of federal law.

So what is it UTT teaches that causes such spasms among hard-left marxists and jihadists?

Its called “The Truth.”  Here is a small taste of it.

“An Introduction to Hadith and Fiqh” published in Uganda for children and adults new to Islam states: “Sharia basically means Islamic Law…Therefore the law is basically a users’ manual (for Muslims)…The Sharia is composite in that Islam is a complete way of life.  In an Islamic state ideology, law and religious faith are interrelated…Sharia is the ideal code of conduct.”

What Islam is All About is a widely used text book for junior high school students in Islamic schools in America.  It says “The law of the land is the sharia of Allah” and also says “The duty of the Muslim citizen is to be loyal to the Islamic state.”

Reliance of the Traveller, a 14th century book of Islamic Law certified as good law by Al Azhar and the Muslim Brotherhood (IIIT & Fiqh Council of North America) states:  “The good is not what reason considers good, nor the bad what reason considers bad.  The measure of good and bad according to this school of thought is the Sacred Law, not reason.”

Reliance of the Traveller is the book of sharia the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) says should be in the home of every Muslim in America, and was widely available at the Muslim Brotherhood’s last few national MAS-ICNA conferences.  It defines jihad as:  “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims” and is “obligatory” until the world is under sharia.  Reliance also includes “There is no indemnity for killing an apostate since it is killing someone who deserves to die.”

The last fatwa issued by a sitting Caliph was clear about the duties of Muslims with regard to jihad and fighting non-Muslims:  “Those who, at a time when all Moslems are summoned to fight, avoid the struggle and refuse to join in the Holy War, are they exposed to the wrath of God, to great misfortunes, and to the deserved punishment?  Yes.”  (Caliph Mehmed V, November 15, 1914)

The Muslim community voted the Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar the number 1 most influential Muslim on the planet demonstrating how Muslims view the authority of Al Azhar.  The Chairman of Al Azhar, Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris states:  “This is jihad, when a Muslim fights an infidel without treaty to make the word of Allah Most High supreme, forcing him to fight or invading his land, this is a permissible matter according to the consensus of the jurists.  Indeed, it is an obligation for all Muslims.  Now, if the deeds of jihad — including fighting the infidels and breaking their spine through all possible means — are permissible according to the Sharia, then it is impossible to define those acts as terrorism.”

Islamic scholars identify Sura (chapter) 9, verse 5 of the Koran as “the verse of the sword” and it reads: “Fight the unbelievers wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.”  The Tafsir, which legally defines every verse in the Koran (because this is a LEGAL system), defines the phrase “and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush” to mean:  “Do not wait until you find them.  Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks even smaller to them.  This way, they will have no choice but to die or embrace Islam.

The most authoritative hadith scholar in Islam is Bukhari who quotes the Islamic prophet Mohammad as saying (2926, Book 56, Hadith 139):  “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.”

This would naturally lead to Islamic schools in America teaching:  “Jihad in the path of God – which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it – is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God.” (Hadith and Islamic Culture: Management, Social Studies, Natural History, and Technical Studies)

The question is not “Why would they teach this in Islamic schools in America?”  The question is “Why wouldn’t they teach this?”  It is what Islam is.

Why are Anwar al Awlaki’s CDs and books sold in mosque bookstores across America?  Why was Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”) a revered Islamic scholar around the world?  Why did a prominent scholar and teacher at Al Azhar, Abdullah Azzam, join Osama bin Laden to create Al Qaeda?  These men were teaching and acting on authentic and authoritative Islamic doctrine.

The Law of Apostasy states acts that entail leaving Islam include:  “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law” and carries the death penalty. [Reliance, o8.7 (19)]

It is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim something about Islam that is not true, and it is obligatory for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims when the goal is obligatory (Reliance, r8.0) – like in jihad.

So, for national security strategists, intelligence professionals, media people, elected officials, university presidents, and others – if you want to learn about Islam, and your path to learning includes talking to the local Imam or your friend who is a Muslim, that is unprofessional.  Read books written for Muslim audiences by Islamic authorities and you will always get the “version” of Islam ISIS and Al Qaeda teach and propagate.

There is one Islam and one Sharia.

Come take a class with UTT and learn the truth.

***

Go to UTT YouTube channel for more of the truth

“Can I criticize Islam without fearing for my life”?

Sandra Solomon at Masjid Toronto mosque. Photo: screenshot video VladTepesBlog

Sandra Solomon at Masjid Toronto mosque. Photo: screenshot video VladTepesBlog

CIJ News, February 26, 2017:

A week after she protested against the “Islamization” of Canada outside of Masjid Toronto Mosque, Sandra Solomon, an ex-Muslim who became a human rights activist, took advantage of the mosque’s open house on Saturday, February 25, 2017 to deliver a direct message to the Imam Ahmed Shihab and the Muslim community.

Police are investigating possible hate crimes by the protesters who called for banning Islam and an imam at the mosque who recited supplications for the annihilation of the enemies of Islam and purification of al-Aqsa Mosque from the “filth of Jews.”

The following is the message that Sandra Solomon read in Masjid Toronto Mosque (February 25, 2017):

My name is Sandra Solomon. I am an ex Muslim who lived in the Saudi Arabian society governed by 100% Sharia law.

I suffered a lot in Saudi Arabia from the teachings of Islam because of the lack of women rights.

I was neglected, ignored and forbidden to sharing my thoughts on Islam to the point where I was always under risk of being murdered by honor killing from my brother, who attempted to kill me just because I refused to wear the hijab [head scarf].

They forced me into a marriage. Islamic forced marriage is nothing less than institutionalized rape. Do not dare to think otherwise.

I took my child and escaped Saudi Arabia because of the imminent threat of my execution for not following Islamic Sharia [Islamic Law] without question and came to Canada for its freedom.

I came to Canada to live under secular and Constitution Democratic system of law. A law that respects me as a free human being that has the right to live and think and be critical of anyone and anything without living in fear for my life and my child’s life .That is why I am in Canada. I am a subject of Canadian law. Not Sharia [Islamic] law.

I am a victim of Islam and it is my duty to warn others of its true nature. But unfortunately Sharia law is not leaving me. I was surprised when I found that it has followed us here to Canada. There are three Canadian imams on Canadian soil calling for my execution. Their names are, Shahryar Shiakh [“Punishment for apostasy is death”], Ahmad Abdul Qader Kandil [who said that enemies of Islam to be killed, crucified or their limbs cut off] and Said Rageah [who said that person who insults Mohammad may face execution in Islamic State]. All three of them in Canada are openly calling for my execution. Relying solely on the teaching of Quran and Hadith plus the book called human right in Islam distributed at Dundas square [“Islamic Shari’ah decrees execution for the person who apostatizes”]. [For more information on “Quebec, Ontario imams say apostates to be executed by The Islamic State” click HERE].

Ladies and gentlemen, criticism of an ideology and political authority is the most important aspect of free democracy. And for this, the imams all call for my death they do so on the Islamic grounds that I speak truths about Islam, its founder, Mohammad, and that I no longer accept the Islamic ideology, all of which are death penalty crimes under Islamic law, and which Islamic States like Iran, Saudi Arabia, The Islamic State, Afghanistan, Pakistan and dozens of more convict and execute. We see it here in Canada when Muslim girls refuse the hijab like the Shafia girls.

I am standing here in your mosque today, asking for you to show me the tolerance you ask of all Canadians. To accept me for whom I am and the free choices I made to be something other than Muslim. My God, is a God of love and mercy. I offer it to you, and ask you for it in return .My criticism of Islam are [sic] of the ideology, the teachings and scriptures. Not any individual Muslim. Criticizing ideology is not just legal in Canada; it’s the foundation of democracy. Whether it is a religious authority, or political, no person, book, or ideas are above criticism and scrutiny.

I want to thank the Mayor of Mississauga Bonnie Crombie for her answer when she comforted me about my concern regarding M-103, when she said to me, “this is Canada. We have one set of laws there is no Sharia law. The beauty of Canada is that we are free to openly criticize anyone and anytime. We have one set of laws and there is no Sharia law in Canada and there will not be Sharia law in Canada.” [click HERE]

When I asked her if I’m I allowed to criticize Islam and Muhammad the founder of Islam without fearing for my life, she said “this is your right. This is Canada “.

Therefore I’m here to ask you the same question. Can I criticize the Quran and Muhammad the founder of Islam, without fearing for my life and my child’s life?

And I would love to get the answer form the Imam [Ahmed Shihab] and it’s really, I’m here with the message of love and peace. I don’t hate Muslims. I’m here to deliver these flowers to you with all respect and I’ll continue my journey in Canada. I have concern about my life and I would love to get an answer from you Muslims to tell me: Am I going to be killed, or my child is going to be killed or harmed by anyway for me openly criticizing Islam? I want to be comforted.

A member of the mosque congregation said to Sandra that she is free to choose her faith emphasizing that her problem is not with Islam but with the Saudi regime.

Sandra Solomon is planning a tour across Canada (click HERE) to tell her personal story and encourage women from all communities to speak up and fight for their right to live free from religious or cultural oppression.

Published on Feb 16, 2017 by Vlad Tepesblog

The use of the three short clips by imams in Canada are 100% WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF FAIR USE. Furthermore, exposing the crime of these imams calling for the deaths of law abiding Canadians who left the Islamic religion is not just legal, but is a moral obligation. To know about this, and not inform others is a moral crime, if not a defacto one.

And in fact it may be one. It could be aiding a conspiracy to murder to NOT expose what these men are saying once you know about it.

John Guandolo outlines his disagreement with Trump advisors on CT policy – plus my take

CJR: There is a fierce debate going on among counter-jihad activists right now over what the Trump administration’s official counterterrorism policy towards Islamic jihad should be. One positive development is the likely end of the disastrous Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) policy that de-linked Islam from terrorism and led to both domestic and foreign policy which placed Muslims “feelings” above the safety of our own people. Now the debate is focused on whether ISIS is Islamic. I have no doubt that both Lt General H. R. McMaster and Dr. Sebastian Gorka know that it is. I believe that they are using disinformation strategy to de-legitimize the enemy and gain Muslim allies. However, I believe that now is the time to make clear that Islamic doctrine is the enemy threat doctrine and Muslims who are not following that doctrine to the letter are technically apostates. Muslim reformers must acknowledge this. The Muslims we wish to ally with understand this very well and will not be “driven to radicalize” by an official U. S. policy that states the truth.

I would not impune the character and motives of Lt General H. R. McMaster or Dr. Sebastian Gorka as John Guandolo does in the following article but I do agree with his position that there is only one Islamic doctrine. I would just point out that Muslim belief and practice of that doctrine varies. I see no problem allying with Muslim reformers as long as we are all clear on what Islamic doctrine actually says. There needs to be a complete overhaul of CT training as well as public education on the matter so that we can begin to “orient on the enemy”.

I will continue to post opposing views on this important debate and encourage respectful comments. Perhaps Dr. Gorka should invite John Guandolo to the White House for a friendly chat over coffee like he did with that self-important, weasel attack dog Michael S. Smith II. That would probably be a much more productive meeting!

***

mcmaster-and-gorka

“Unfit for Duty” by John Guandolo at Understanding the Threat, Feb. 26, 2017:

The New York Times, Guardian, and CNN all report Lt General McMaster told members of the National Security Council Thursday he felt “radical Islamic terrorism” was an unhelpful way to describe terrorism because becoming a terrorist is actually “un-Islamic” in the first place.

In a talk he gave at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in May 2016, LtGen McMaster said, “There is a cycle going on where groups like ISIL, who use this irreligious ideology, you know, this perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence, they depend on ignorance and the ability to recruit vulnerable segments of populations to foment hatred, then use that hatred to justify violence against innocents.”

This is incoherent and factually wrong.  LtGen McMaster wrote a book entitled “Dereliction of Duty.”  He may want to look in the mirror to see if he is doing the same thing in this war he accused President Johnson of doing in Vietnam.

100% of all Islamic doctrine, from elementary, junior high, and high school Islamic text books as well as the highest authorities in Islamic jurisprudence, to include Al Azhar University in Egypt, all clearly and doctrinally state Islam is a “complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)” governed by sharia (Islamic Law).  100% of all sharia mandates jihad until the world is under Islamic rule, and 100% of sharia only defines “jihad” as warfare against non-Muslims.

“The duty of the Muslim citizen is to be loyal to the Islamic state.”

What Islam is All About  (most widely used junior high text book in U.S. Islamic schools)

The violence Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Boston bombers, the attackers in Paris, the Fort Lauderdale shooter, and all the jihadis we have faced over the past 20 years quote authoritative Islamic doctrine in support of what they do.  Al Qaeda and ISIS have never misquoted sharia in furtherance of their actions.

In the last 15 years it has been made clear – the more muslims study Islam and sharia, the more likely they are to support and participate in jihad.

So the questions remains…what the hell is Lieutenant General McMaster talking about because he is not talking truthfully about a real and present danger to these United States?  He is doing exactly what our enemy wants him to do – creating an imaginary target for us to chase while our real enemy prepares to defeat us.

Nearly 16 years after 9/11, the Global Islamic Movement has taken down nations, expanded its power, and defeated the United States in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because leaders like McMaster decided they were too busy to stop and learn the enemy threat doctrine – Sharia – and instead have been given a counterfactual understanding of our enemy by Islamic advisors who are all batting for the other team.

The President’s Counterterrorism advisor, Sebastian Gorka, is “over the moon” LtGen McMaster is the new National Security Advisor.  However, Gorka’s lack of honesty about the Islamic threat raises much more serious questions.

Some have been lulled into believing he is on the right track because he uttered the word “jihad” but defeating this enemy takes more than pretending to know what you are talking about.

Speaking at CPAC this past weekend, Gorka stated:  “Zuhdi (Jasser) knows it better than anybody because he understands that this isn’t about poverty or lack of education. It’s about people who are fighting for the soul of Islam – not a war with Islam, but a war inside Islam; as King Abdullah, as General Sisi has said, for which version is going to win.”

Utter nonsense.  There is one version of Islam and one Sharia.  To say otherwise is to be factually wrong, but also dangerous when national strategies are being built off that utter nonsense.

When one’s duties include national security responsibilities, one has a professional duty to know the enemy or do due diligence to know the enemy.  To fail to do so makes one professionally negligent in one’s duties.  When people die (Ft Lauderdale, Boston, Orlando, Ft Hood…) because a person is unprofessional in his/her duties it is called “criminal negligence” and doctors and lawyers go to jail for such behavior.

Several years ago at a town hall presentation hosted by Washington, D.C. radio station WMAL, Sebastian Gorka stated “99.9% of muslims do not support terrorism (jihad)” despite a mountain of evidence and polling data proving this comment untrue, and the fact the entire purpose of Islam is to wage jihad until the world is dominated by Islamic rule (sharia).

Dr. Gorka also writes in his book, Defeating Jihad, we are not at war with Islam (p.129) but our enemy is “the ideology of takfiri jihad” (p.123).

No muslim jihadi who fought on the battlefields of Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else, nor any of the jihadis who have died in Europe in the United States attacking us nor the jihadis we have arrested have said they are “takfiri jihadis.”  They have said they are “Muslims” waging “Jihad in the cause of Allah” to “establish a caliphate under sharia.”

This is what Islamic doctrine commands them to do.

erdogan-moderate-islam-capture

On page 144 of his book, Gorka ends with the call for the United States to spend billions of dollars supporting “Muslim reformers” in their “ideological war to delegitimize the message of holy war against the infidel and bolster modern interpretations of Islam.”  This demonstrates Sebastian Gorka is either completely free of any clue of Islamic doctrine or is intentionally lying about what Islam actually teaches.
Since these ideas and strategies to use “moderate Muslims” to ensure the “other version” of Islam wins are based in fantasy not reality, these policies will necessarily fail – and have failed the United States for 15 years.
Is that Dr. Gorka’s intention?  Does he not know that strategies to win a war must be based in the reality of who the enemy is?  Why would Sebastian Gorka put forth such and idea when he knows what he is saying is untrue?
Is it possible Dr. Gorka has remained strategically incoherent for 15 years during this global war?  Is he working on behalf of some outside entity to intentionally mislead the President of the United States, or is he is simply putting his paycheck ahead of the American people and his duty.
The United States will lose this war against the Global Islamic Movement if we do not clearly define the enemy and target the enemy.  We cannot hit a target we do not identify and cannot defeat an enemy we do not target.
Our warfighting doctrine calls for an analysis of our enemy based on how the enemy defines itself.  We begin our analysis there.  Something we have not done since 9/11/01.  If we did, our entire national security apparatus, including our military, would have been studying and teaching authoritative sharia and more of our soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen would be alive today because of it.
Keeping LtGen McMaster and Sebastian Gorka in their current positions will ensure America remains strategically incoherent and will guarantee our defeat in this war against the Global Islamic Movement.
As always, this war will be won or lost at the local level because our federal government is still failing us.

H.R. McMaster is wrong about radical Islamic terrorism

ar-150409218Family Security Mattters, by Lawrence Sellins, Feb. 25, 2017:

According to the New York Times, in his first “all hands” staff meeting on February 23rd, President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster “told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion” and “that the label ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ was not helpful because terrorists are ‘un-Islamic,'” thereby rejecting the viewpoint of President Trump and many of his senior advisors.

It is indeed ironic that McMaster, who often quotes ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz, 19th century military theorist, should now ignore their advice, both of whom stressed the importance of knowing your enemy.

As Schmuel Bar, writing for the Hoover Institute, notes “to treat Islamic terrorism as the consequence of political and socioeconomic factors alone would not do justice to the significance of the religious culture in which this phenomenon is rooted and nurtured” and “the problems addressed may be social or political: inequality, corruption, and oppression. But in traditional Islam – and certainly in the worldview of the Islamic fundamentalist – there is no separation between the political and the religious. Islam is, in essence, both religion and regime (din wa-dawla) and no area of human activity is outside its remit.”

Bar concludes: “Attempts to deal with the terrorist threat as if it were divorced from its intellectual, cultural, and religious fountainheads are doomed to failure. Counterterrorism begins on the religious-ideological level and must adopt appropriate methods. The cultural and religious sources of radical Islamic ideology must be addressed in order to develop a long-range strategy for coping with the terrorist threat to which they give birth.”

Although McMaster has not yet made it clear why he dissociates Islam from terrorism, he may be taking a practical approach, one which Daniel Pipes describes as “not wanting to offend Muslims” because “those who would otherwise help fight terrorism feel insulted (‘a true Muslim can never be a terrorist‘) and so do not step forward while those who would be uninvolved become radicalized, some even becoming terrorists.”

In addition, explicit phrases like radical Islamic terrorism, some claim, ‘bolsters our enemy’s propaganda claim that the West is at war with Islam.'”

Thus, by sparing alleged Muslim sensitivities, adherents to that approach fail to fulfill that fundamental maxim of military strategy – knowing your enemy.

It also can be counterproductive.

I agree with Dr. Sebastian Gorka and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, it is “not a war with Islam, but a war inside Islam,” and that aggressive and violent part of Islam has declared war on us.

By not accurately defining who the enemy is, you can actually set back the efforts of potential Muslim reformists such as President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt and Jordanian King Abdullah.

Dr. Jasser explains that such ambiguity plays into the hands of the Saudi regime, the Iranian Khomeinists and the Muslim Brotherhood, who “want to dominate what Islam means.”

“If you don’t call it political Islam or Islamism as the threat”, he says, “you’re not going to be able to figure out who to engage.”

In the final analysis, you cannot address the problem without a comprehensive strategy to combat Islamic terrorism at its ideological roots, as Schmuel Bar states:

“Such a strategy must be based on an acceptance of the fact that for the first time since the Crusades, Western civilization finds itself involved in a religious war; the conflict has been defined by the attacking side as such with the eschatological goal of the destruction of Western civilization. The goal of the West cannot be defense alone or military offense or democratization of the Middle East as a panacea. It must include a religious-ideological dimension: active pressure for religious reform in the Muslim world and pressure on the orthodox Islamic establishment in the West and the Middle East not only to disengage itself clearly from any justification of violence, but also to pit itself against the radical camp in a clear demarcation of boundaries.”

Clausewitz supplies an appropriate quote:

“The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgement that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.”

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

Also see:

Keith Ellison Risks Legitimizing Extremists

Keith Ellison (Getty Images)

Keith Ellison (Getty Images)

Daily Caller, by Sam Westrop, Feb. 23, 2017:

The Democratic National Committee recently banned a candidate from the chairmanship race, after he claimed that fellow-candidate Keith Ellison, a Muslim Congressman, was unfit to lead the party because of his religion’s opposition to homosexuality. There is no evidence that Ellison himself is anti-gay, and it was unfair to suggest as such. Ellison does have a history, however, of sharing platforms with some of the most extreme anti-gay preachers in America.

In April, Ellison is billed to speak at a conference organized by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS). Ellison will be sharing the stage with an assortment of clerics known for their extremist rhetoric – including Siraj Wahhaj, who cites the death penalty for homosexuality, which he describes as a “disease,” and labels non-Muslims as “foul” and “corrupting.”

Under a Trump administration, some Democrats may feel particularly drawn to declaring solidarity with American Muslim communities. Islamist groups know this, and will seek to exploit the company of politicians who are keen to broadcast their anti-Trump credentials. Political patronage gives credence to the claim of Islamists to be community leaders – to be legitimate representatives of ordinary Muslims (who are given little say on the matter). It serves to distract attention away from their extremist ideas and links to terror. And it gives them an opportunity for influence that, as a minority group of extreme political operatives, they would otherwise never wield.

If all goes well in February’s DNC leadership elections, Representative Ellison could be addressing the ICNA-MAS conference in Baltimore as the newly-minted DNC chairman. For ICNA-MAS and its conference speakers, Ellison’s presence means the support of the liberal anti-Trump establishment. It means the whitewash of illiberal Islamism.

In December, Ellison withdrew from a similar conference, also organized by MAS and ICNA, after the Middle East Forum and its allies published research showing that almost half of the speakers had made comments advocating for jihad, promoting anti-Semitic and homophobic ideas, or praising terrorist groups such as Hamas. Several of those same extremist speakers are now also listed to speak at the conference in April.

Has Ellison agreed to attend the ICNA-MAS conference because the DNC election campaign will be over? Or perhaps it is simply because he is not aware some of the same extremists he distanced himself from in December will be again sharing his platform in April. In case Representative Ellison is simply uninformed, he should know a little more about at least one of his fellow speakers.

Siraj Wahhaj is a preacher with a long history of involvement in extremist causes. In 1995, the U.S. Attorney for New York named Wahhaj as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing. Wahhaj also served as a character witness for Omar Abdel Rahman, the notorious terrorist operative, whose group was responsible for the attack.

Newly-discovered sermons now reveal the full extent of Wahhaj’s extremist ideas. Wahhaj has advocated for jihad in America, and fundraised for the Benevolence International Foundation, a prominent front group for Al Qaeda, now banned. Elsewhere, he describes American society as “satanic”, supports “chopping off the hands” of thieves, advocates “death by stoning” for “adultery or fornication”, and labels non-Muslims as “dirty” and “corrupting.”

Wahhaj reserves quite a bit of his hatred for homosexuality. “The Prophet,” Wahhaj claims, “cursed the feminine man and the masculine women. …  Brothers and sisters, I don’t believe any of you are homosexual. This is a disease of this society.” Feminist movements, he adds, “are headed by lesbians.”

Although Wahhaj advises his audience not to “beat up homosexuals,” he nevertheless reminds them: “You know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad … said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to: kill them both.

Wahhaj is not the only extremist advertised to speak in April. Others include Yusuf Islahi, who claims that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks, as part of a conspiracy to defame Islam; and Yasir Qadhi, who incites hatred against Shia Muslims, and has described the Holocaust as “false propaganda.”

The hosting organizations have their own history of extremism. In 2014, MAS was designated by the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist organization. And ICNA is the American arm of Jamaat-e-Islami, a violent South Asian Islamist group that carried out mass-killings of civilians during the 1971 Liberation War in Bangladesh.

As a congressman, Keith Ellison is perhaps just another liberal politician being exploited by illiberal Islamist groups. But as a possible DNC chair, he would be lending the legitimacy of the Democratic Party to some of the most abhorrent Islamist clerics and activists in America today, and betraying the trust of moderate American Muslims.

Politicians who oppose the Trump administration must take care not be so anti-Trump that they ignore the danger of Islamism. If politicians across the spectrum are serious about tackling extremism, radicalization and terror, they must deny Islamists the liberal stamp of approval. Keith Ellison, whether as Chairman or Congressman, must withdraw from this conference.

Sam Westrop is a writer for Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum

Also see:

KLEIN – New York Times in Full Panic Mode Over Reports Trump May Designate Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization

AWAD AWAD/AFP/Getty Images

AWAD AWAD/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Feb. 23, 2017:

TEL AVIV – The New York Times this week continued its month-long campaign against designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization amid reports the Trump administration is debating the possibility of issuing an executive order making such a designation.

Declaring the Brotherhood a terrorist organization would add the U.S. to the growing list of nations to do so, including Muslim countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The Times’ crusade culminated in the newspaper’s publication on Wednesday of an oped written from Egyptian prison by Gehad el-Haddad, the official spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood.  The oped was splashed on the cover of Thursday’s international edition of the newspaper.

In the piece, Haddad whitewashed the Brotherhood as inspired by an “understanding of Islam that emphasizes the values of social justice, equality and the rule of law.”

“We remain committed to our ideals of community development, social justice and nonviolence,” wrote Haddad.

While many Brotherhood wings indeed reject the use of violence as a strategic tactic, preferring instead a sophisticated gradualist strategy to achieve their aims, Haddad failed to mention that the Brotherhood has spawned terrorist organizations – most notably Hamas – that adhere to its philosophy of a world order based on Islam.

Al-Qaeda was founded in part on Brotherhood ideology. The Brotherhood was also a central player in the so-called Arab Spring, revolutions punctuated by violence across the Arab world.

Haddad’s claim that the Brotherhood espouses an understanding of Islam that pushes for “equality and the rule of law” is contradicted by the very nature of the Brotherhood itself, which is openly committed to the establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on Sharia law.

Sharia does not propagate “equality and the rule of law.” Sharia is explicitly anti-democratic and advocates Islamic supremacy over non-Muslims. For example, under Sharia non-Muslims cannot rule over Muslims; a woman inherits half that of a man; non-Muslims cannot inherit from Muslims or marry Muslim women; and churches and synagogues cannot be built taller than mosques.

These Islamic dictates were scrubbed from Haddad’s airy descriptions of the Brotherhood in the Times oped:

We are a morally conservative, socially aware grassroots movement that has dedicated its resources to public service for the past nine decades. Our idea is very simple: We believe that faith must translate into action. That the test of faith is the good you want to do in the lives of others, and that people working together is the only way to develop a nation, meet the aspirations of its youth and engage the world constructively. We believe that our faith is inherently pluralistic and comprehensive and that no one has a divine mandate or the right to impose a single vision on society. …

We remain committed to our ideals of community development, social justice and nonviolence.

Haddad’s propaganda piece was preceded on Monday by a Times article reporting on the alleged dangers of the Trump administration labeling the Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

That article, titled, “Trump Talk of Terror Listing for Muslim Brotherhood Alarms Some Arab Allies,” warned that “of all the initiatives of the Trump administration that have set the Arab world on edge, none has as much potential to disrupt the internal politics of American partners in the region as the proposal to criminalize the Muslim Brotherhood, the preeminent Islamist movement with millions of followers.”

The piece continued:

In Morocco, it would tip a delicate political balance. In Jordan, it could prevent American diplomats from meeting with opposition leaders. In Tunisia, it could make criminals of a political party seen as a model of democracy after the Arab Spring.

The Times article quoted Issandr El Amrani, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, warning that designating the Brotherhood a terrorist organization “could destabilize countries where anti-Islamist forces would be encouraged to double down. It would increase polarization.”

The International Crisis Group is funded by billionaire George Soros and his son, Alexander Soros. Both George and Alexander Soros sit on the group’s board of trustees.

Toward the end of the piece, Times reporter Delcan Walsh briefly mentions the Brotherhood’s ties to violence.

He writes:

By nature secretive, the Brotherhood takes different forms around the world. In some places, its members have condoned or committed violent acts. Its Palestinian offshoot, Hamas, carries out suicide bombings; in Egypt, angry young supporters have been accused of attacking Mr. Sisi’s security forces.

However, that paragraph was followed by the following disclaimer: “But that does not make terrorists of the many millions of people who support the Brotherhood’s political ideology across many countries.”

The Times advocacy this week on behalf of the Brotherhood is part of a larger lobbying effort that has in recent weeks included numerous pro-Brotherhood articles and an editorial board piece published earlier this month, “All of Islam Isn’t the Enemy.”

In the editorial, the newspaper warned designating the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization “would be seen by many Muslims as another attempt to vilify adherents of Islam.”  The paper claimed that the possible designation “appears to be part of a mission by the president and his closest advisers to heighten fears by promoting a dangerously exaggerated vision of an America under siege by what they call radical Islam.”

A February 7 article warned, “Officially designating the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization would roil American relations in the Middle East. The leaders of some American allies — like Egypt, where the military forced the Brotherhood from power in 2013, and the United Arab Emirates — have pressed Mr. Trump to do so to quash internal enemies, but the group remains a pillar of society in parts of the region.”

“Critics said they feared that Mr. Trump’s team wanted to create a legal justification to crack down on Muslim charities, mosques and other groups in the United States,” added the Times. “A terrorist designation would freeze assets, block visas and ban financial interactions.”

A Times article on February 1 was titled, “Trump Pushes Dark View of Islam to Center of U.S. Policy-Making.”

The article lamented a worldview that “conflates terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State with largely nonviolent groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots and, at times, with the 1.7 billion Muslims around the world.”

A January 26 editorial titled “‘I Think Islam Hates Us’” informed readers the Trump administration “reportedly is considering designating the Muslim Brotherhood, which is involved in Muslim politics in a number of countries, as a terrorist organization. Some experts see the move as a chance for the Trump administration to limit Muslim political activity in the United States.”

The Times’ advocacy for the Brotherhood is particularly noteworthy since it separately posted a full Arabic document from 1991 in which an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood member set forth a strategy for “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” with emphasis on operations inside the U.S.

Addressing the Brotherhood’s support for the electoral process and purportedly becoming a political organization, an extensive report on the Brotherhood by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at Israel’s Center for Special Studies explained the group’s use of some tools of democracy to advance the aim of achieving a world ruled by Sharia law, which is by definition anti-democratic.

Drawing from founding Brotherhood documents and original literature by Brotherhood leaders, the Center explained:

Unlike the militant factions of other Islamist movements, which completely rule out democracy on the basis of it being a Western, pagan, and ignorant idea, the Muslim Brotherhood does use the term “democracy.” In its view, however, it has two main connotations: a tactical, instrumental means of taking over countries through the use of the democratic process, and an “Islamic democracy” based on Sharia law (i.e., Islamic religious law) and a model of internal consultation within the leadership.

[Brotherhood Founder Sheikh Hassan] Al-Banna listed seven stages to achieve these objectives, each to be carried out in a gradual fashion. The stages are divided into social and political: the first three are based on educating the individual, the family, and the entire society of the Muslim world to implement Sharia laws in every aspect of daily life. The next four stages are political in nature, and include assuming power through elections, shaping a Sharia state, liberating Islamic countries from the burden of (physical and ideological) foreign occupation, uniting them into one Islamic entity (“new caliphate”), and spreading Islamic values throughout the world.

The defining works of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader, ideologue and theorist Sayyid Qutb, considered the Brotherhood’s intellectual godfather, greatly influenced Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda doctrine.

An extensive March 23, 2003, article in the New York Times magazine by Paul Berman dissected Qutb’s writings as they relate to terrorist ideology.

In the article titled “The Philosopher of Islamic Terror,” Berman documented the centrality of Qutb’s influence on al-Qaeda:

The organization (al-Qaeda) was created in the late 1980’s by an affiliation of three armed factions – bin Laden’s circle of ”Afghan” Arabs, together with two factions from Egypt, the Islamic Group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the latter led by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s top theoretician. The Egyptian factions emerged from an older current, a school of thought from within Egypt’s fundamentalist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, in the 1950’s and 60’s. And at the heart of that single school of thought stood, until his execution in 1966, a philosopher named Sayyid Qutb – the intellectual hero of every one of the groups that eventually went into Al Qaeda, their Karl Marx (to put it that way), their guide.

 Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

With additional research by Joshua Klein.