Where Are the Moderate Muslims?

Published on Apr 27, 2017 by PragerU

After every terrorist attack, politicians and pundits reassure us that the atrocity does not represent mainstream Islam and certainly doesn’t reflect the true beliefs of the “moderate Muslim majority.” But how many moderate Muslims are there? And what exactly does “moderate” mean? Hussein Aboubakr, who was raised as a Muslim in Egypt, explains, and asks an important question: where are all the moderate Muslims that politicians and the media talk about?

***

Published on Jun 15, 2016 by Acts17Apologetics

http://www.answeringmuslims.com
Islam is in the headlines almost every day now, and it’s rarely for something positive. Moderate Muslims are distancing themselves from the actions and teachings of those who commit violence in the name of Allah. In this video, David Wood has three questions for moderate Muslims.

On the Civilizational Struggle With Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOLTON: Why All The Jihadi Attacks Around The World? Why Now?

The Hayride, by Christopher Holton, April 21, 2017:

Way back in February of 1998, Osama Bin Laden declared a Jihad against Jews and Crusaders in a written document entitled the “World Islamic Front Statement.”

In that document he specifically stated:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it

Despite this, with just a few notable exceptions over the years, few Muslims answered Bin Laden’s call to kill Americans.

Bin Laden was of course killed by U.S. Special Operations forces in May 2011.

Since then, we have seen many more attacks here in the U.S.

Why? If Osama Bin Laden was not able to inspire Muslims to attack and kill Americans, why are we seeing so many such attacks in recent years? Such as:

  • The 15 April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.
  • The Orlando night club massacre on 12 June 2016.
  • The San Bernardino massacre on 2 December 2015
  • The Chattanooga massacre on 16 July 2015
  • The failed Garland, Texas attack on 3 May 2015.
  • The Queens, New York hatchet attack on police officers standing on a street corner on 23 October 2014.
  • The Philadelphia attack on a police officer sitting in his squad car on 7 January 2016
  • The Moore, Oklahoma beheading of a grandmother at the hands of a Muslim co-worker on 26 September 2014
  • The 28 November 2016 terrorist vehicle attack on Ohio State University campus.
  • The September 17-19 2016 bombings in New York and New Jersey.
  • The Fresno, California shooting on 18 April 2017.

These are just a few of the incidents in recent years, here in the United States, that have, unfortunately, been categorized as “lone wolf” terrorist attacks by our recalcitrant news media.

In fact, the term “lone wolf” does not exist in Islamic doctrine. What DOES exist in Islamic doctrine is the fact that Jihad is an individual as well as a collective obligation.

What we are seeing are in fact individual acts of Jihad–acts of war, not criminal acts. We continue to deny this at our peril. There is a doctrinal basis for the enemy that is waging war against us. This form of warfare does not require formal ties between fighters or units (organizations) waging the war.

The concept of Jihad being an individual obligation is longstanding and has its basis in mainstream Islamic law (Shariah). We can see this from a widely-read and used text of Shariah sold annually at the convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Muslim organization in the United States, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing prosecution in U.S. history: the U.S. v the Holy Land Foundation. In that trial, ISNA was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group. Interestingly, ISNA’s Canadian wing was shut down in 2013 for funneling money to a Jihadist terrorist group in Kashmir.

The name of the Shariah text is A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence by Dr. Salih Al-Fawzan and published by Al-Maiman Publishing House in Saudi Arabia. Al-Fawzan is a member of the Board of Senior Ulema in Saudi Arabia and also a member of the Permanent Committee for Fatwa and Research in the kingdom.

Volume One of this work has a chapter devoted to Jihad. On page 473, the basis in Shariah for individual Jihad is explained in detail and reveals for us why we are seeing this escalation of attacks:

For a Muslim, there are certain cases in which jihad is an individual duty:

1) When a Muslim is present at the battlefield, it is obligatory for him to fight and he is prohibited to leave the battlefield and flee.

2) When enemies attack a Muslim country…

3) When a Muslim is needed to help his fellow Muslims fight their enemies.

4) When a Muslim is called by the ruler (or the one in authority) to fight in the Cause of Allah, for the Prophet (PBUH) said:

Whenever you are called for fighting in the cause of Allah, you should go immediately.

As you can see, these four circumstances are quite broad and all could be interpreted as existing right now. But numbers 2, 3 and 4 are particularly relevant right now and serve as the doctrinal basis for why Muslims have suddenly begun rising up in violent Jihad in the West:

  • The Islamic State has called on Muslims to wage Jihad because the Islamic State is under attack. This applies to 2 and 3 above.
  • Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State has issued calls on Muslims in the West to rise up in Jihad. This applies to 4 above and is the key difference between the days of Bin Laden and today.

Bin Laden may have been admired by many Muslims, but he never declared himself as a Caliph and his calls for Jihad were mostly ignored. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s calls are being answered because he has declared himself as the Caliph and many Muslims recognize him as such. That is why were are seeing acts of individual Jihad that we mostly did not see before.

And that is why the U.S. and the West cannot tolerate the existence of the Islamic State over the long-term. It has become the flame attracting moths. It will only gain more legitimacy and strength if it is allowed to persist. In short, it must be destroyed.

HERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT PASSAGES THAT APPLY TO WHAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY. The news media and our elected officials seem to take comfort when an attacker was “merely inspired” by the Islamic State (ISIS) and were not directed by the Islamic State. The opposite should actually be the case, as reflected by the two remaining passages below from two important Jihadi ideologues:

Individual jihad has recurred throughout Islamic history. In the time of the Crusades…groups of mujahideen responded to the crisis. Many isolated expeditions and groups carried out the obligation of jihad.

Individual jihad using the method of urban or rural guerilla warfare is the foundation for sapping the enemy and bringing him to a state of collapse and withdrawal. It will pave the way for the desired strategic goal.

What mandates these methods as a strategic opinion is the imbalance of forces between the resistance and the large invading alliance of unbelievers, apostates and hypocrites.

We fight them for the sake of incidents to cause political pressure and psychological collapse, so that they leave our lands. Carrying out a small operation every month against the enemy will have more of an impact on him than a big operation every year or two.

Toward a New Strategy in Resisting the Occupier
Muhammad Khalil al-Hakaymah
Al Qaeda Chief of External Operations
Killed by US air strike in Pakistan in 2008

Successful jihad will only happen within an ummah [Islamic nation or community] in which the fighting creed is firmly established and clarified. This must happen in order to attain the “Revolutionary Jihadist Climate” that will spontaneously give rise to instruments of resistance.

Violent jihad is as an individual duty obligatory upon every Muslim. All the ulema have said this…”

The Call to Global Islamic Resistance
Abu Musab al-Suri
Al Qaeda propagandist
Captured in Pakistan 2005

These two passages reflect what we are seeing today, not just in the USA, but even more so in Europe, as evidenced by the March 2017 London parliament shooting and the 20 April 2017 police shooting on the Champs Elysees.

Over a decade ago Al-Hakaymah called for frequent, small-scale attacks rather than big 9/11 type attacks. What we are seeing today was clearly part of the Jihadists’ plans.

Again, well over a decade ago, Al-Suri foresaw an environment in which individual Jihadis would rise up spontaneously in resistance without specific direction and planning from a higher, central authority. Again, that is clearly what we are seeing today.

This “Revolutionary Jihadist Climate” spontaneously giving rise to instruments of resistance is NOT something to take comfort in at all. It is problematic for law enforcement and the intelligence community and dangerous for Americans.

A terrorist cell connected directly in some way to Al Qaeda leadership can be detected, infiltrated and taken down as it communicates with and receives orders from commanders overseas. But individual Jihadis or Jihadi couples who have the intention of carrying out attacks are much more difficult to detect and are very nearly impossible to infiltrate.

The “Revolutionary Jihadist Climate” spontaneously giving rise to instruments of resistance is a relatively new, dangerous phase in the global Jihadist movement.

***

France Identifies 39-Year-Old Suspected Islamist Who Had Shot Officers Before as Paris Attacker

THOMAS SAMSON/AFP/Getty

Breitbart, by Oliver Lane April 21, 2017:

French media have identified a French citizen as the dead suspect after his attack on a police patrol on the Champs Élysées which saw one police officer killed and two others injured.

A so-called ‘suspected Islamist’ went on a rampage in Paris Thursday evening, the third terror attack in France in 2017 so far. Local media has identified 39-year-old Karim Cheurfi as the man who was shot dead by police after a running attack against officers with a Kalashnikov-style rifle.

French newspaper Le Monde reports that whilst the identity has not yet been officially confirmed, the individual named is a native of the riot-hit migrant suburb of Seine-Saint-Denis and was considered by the security services as an “excessively dangerous” individual.

Already jailed for 15 years in 2005 for attempted murder after shooting at police officers, Cheurfi had come under investigation again in March 2017 for using social media apps to communicate his desire to kill officers. In addition to his previous conviction for attacking police, he was also known to the force for other criminality including theft and violence.

Three relatives of the suspected killer were arrested by French security services immediately after the attack. A search of the perpetrator’s car, from which he disembarked before opening fire, revealed knives and a pump-action shotgun.

A second suspect handed himself over to police in Belgium on Friday morning. Described as “very dangerous”, police discovered firearms in a search of the man’s domestic address.

The victim of Thursday’s attack has also been identified in French media as 37-year-old Xavier Jugele. Le Parisien reports the officer, who was assigned to the public order and traffic division of Paris police, had been present at the re-opening concert of the Bataclan theatre in 2016, which had itself been the target of a significant terror attack in November 2015 in which 137 died across the city.

Speaking to People magazine at the time, the Jugele said: “I’m happy to be here… glad the Bataclan is re-opening. It’s symbolic. We’re here tonight as witnesses. Here to defend our civil values. This concert is to celebrate life, to say no to terrorists.”

Many commentators have already remarked that the proximity of the attack to Sunday’s presidential election in France will likely influence the vote, with some remarking it could boost support for law and order and pro-border candidates. Not least amongst those is U.S. President Donald J. Trump, who was moved to remark: “The people of France will not take much more of this.”

***

Also see:

Weaponization of Political Correctness

Secure Freedom Radio, Jim Hanson interview with Dr. James Mitchell, April 19, 2017:

Dr. JAMES MITCHELL, Key architect of the CIA’s Enhanced Interrogation Program, author of Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds of the Islamic Terrorists Trying to Destroy America:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Effectiveness of enhanced interrogation
  • Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s prediction that America would defeat itself

(PART TWO):

Podcast (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • The obligation to jihad
  • Terrorism funding through zakat

(PART THREE):

Podcast (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Islamic reform

(PART FOUR):

Podcast (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Three ways to vet immigrants
  • Social media factor analysis

The purge of a report on radical Islam has put NYC at risk

Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, April 15, 2017:

The NYPD has had a stellar track record of protecting the city from another 9/11, foiling more than 20 planned terrorist attacks since 2001. But some worry the department is losing its terror-fighting edge as it tries to please Muslim grievance groups.

Last year, for instance, it censored an anti-terror handbook to appease offended Muslims, even though it has accurately predicted radicalization patterns in recent “homegrown” terror cases. Rank-and-file NYPD officers, detectives and even intelligence and counterterrorism units are officially barred now from referring to the handbook or the scientific study on which it was based.

Former law-enforcement officials fear its removal as a training tool may be hurting efforts to prevent terrorist activity, such as the vehicle-ramming attacks plaguing European cities.

“The report was extremely accurate on how the radicalization process works and what indicators to look for,” said Patrick Dunleavy, former deputy inspector general of the New York state prisons’ criminal-intelligence division, who also worked with the NYPD’s intelligence division for several years.

Mayor de Blasio agreed in January 2016 to purge the remarkably prescient police training guide “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat” to help settle a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Muslim groups who claimed the NYPD’s anti-terror training discriminated against Muslims.

Written 10 years ago, the seminal NYPD report detailing the religious steps homegrown terrorists take toward radicalization is now more relevant than ever, with recent terror suspects closely following those steps. But in 2007, the same year the study was released, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) organized a protest against it, complaining it “casts suspicion on all US Muslims.” Even though federal law enforcement has long-shunned CAIR as a suspected terrorist front organization, “groups like CAIR were insistent on having it removed, and de Blasio caved into them,” Dunleavy said.

Under the city’s unusual settlement agreement, the NYPD as well as New York state agencies were forced to remove its 90-page anti-terror study — described by plaintiffs as “deeply flawed” and “inflammatory” — from databases and no longer rely on it “to open or extend investigations” into terrorist activities. Also, police must now commit to “mitigating the potential impact” of any counterterrorism investigation on the Muslim community.

The deal has had a chilling effect on other city police forces’ ability to use fact-based, trend analysis to develop terrorism cases, experts say. They warn that purging such studies deprives local law enforcement of the ability to understand how ISIS and other jihadists recruit, organize and operate — which is critical to disrupting terrorism plots.

“The FBI has its hands full with over 1,000 open cases on ISIS terrorist suspects already in the US,” former FBI Agent John Guandolo said, “and it needs the help of well-trained eyes and ears on the ground at the local and state level.”

“The bad guys know if police don’t know this stuff at the ground level, they win,” added Guandolo, who trains sheriffs departments across the country to ID local jihadi networks through his consulting firm, Understanding the Threat LLC.

The authors of the report, led by Mitch Silber, former NYPD director of intelligence analysis, examined hundreds of “homegrown” terrorism cases and found that suspects followed the same “radicalization” path. Key indicators include: alienating themselves from their former lives and friends; giving up cigarettes, drinking and partying; wearing traditional Islamic clothing; growing a beard; becoming obsessed with Mideast politics and jihad; and regularly attending a hardline mosque. In other words, the more they immersed themselves in their faith, the more radical they grew.

“You can take all the terrorist cases since that report and compare the information on the subject and the case and see stark similarities to what Mitch laid out,” Dunleavy noted.

The terrorists who carried out recent attacks in Boston; Fort Hood, Texas; Little Rock, Ark.; Chattanooga, Tenn.; San Bernardino, Fla.; Orlando; Philadelphia and at Ohio State University, among others, followed a similar pattern of radicalization. In each case, the Muslim attacker was influenced through “incubators of extremism” within the Muslim community, including Islamic student associations, schools, bookstores and mosques. Jihadi websites also played a role, but what unifies them all is Islamic doctrine. As the NYPD study found, “The ultimate objective for any attack is always the same — to punish the West, overthrow the democratic order, re-establish the caliphate, and institute Sharia,” or Islamic law.

“The radicalizer is Sharia, not the Internet,” said Philip Haney, a former Homeland Security counterterrorism analyst. Haney says the feds are plagued by their own PC censorship. Bowing to pressure from CAIR and other Muslim groups, Homeland Security and the Justice Department have purged anti-terrorism training materials and fired instructors deemed offensive to Muslims. CAIR-launched protests also helped convince the FBI to recently suspend an Internet program aimed at preventing the radicalization of Muslim youth.

“If we fail to correct this situation, it is inevitable that more attacks will occur,” warned Haney, author of “See Something, Say Nothing.”

The NYPD did not respond to requests for comment.

Paul Sperry, a former Hoover Institution media fellow, is the author of several books on terrorism including the best-seller “Infiltration.”

***

The report is available on Amazon in paperback:

 

The Jihad Files: April 13, 2017

Family Security Matters, by JIHAD FILES, April 12, 2017:

The last three weeks in jihad: 

** In Egypt, upwards of 3,000 fatwas have recently been issued by various Islamist clerics.  These fatwas encouraged the destruction of churches throughout the country.  It should come as little surprise, then, that jihadists chose Palm Sunday to bomb two Coptic churches, killing 44 people and wounding 126.  Islamists and jihadists have all but declared war on Christianity throughout Egypt.  President Sisi certainly has his work cut out for him; hundreds of Egyptian soldiers and policemen have already been killed by ISIS-linked terrorists since 2013.

** Elsewhere in Egypt, Islamic militants connected with ISIS beheaded two elderly men accused of “apostasy” (practicing a faith other than Islam).  In a video released to the public, the two victims “appear in orange jumpsuits and are taken out of a black van and led to the desert, where they are beheaded.”  And people wonder why Egypt’s tourism industry has plummeted by more than 60%.

** In Somalia, five people were killed by a car bomb in Mogadishu.  Al-Shabaab, the Somali-wing of al-Qaeda, is considered the culprit.  Also in Mogadishu, 15 people were killed by a separate car bombing believed to be targeting the new Somali military chief, Ahmed Mohamed Irfid.  And on the other side of town, Somali jihadists killed three innocent women via mortar shells like the cowards we know them to be.

** In Iraq, ISIS continues to commit unimaginable crimes.  Approximately 200 Iraqis have been kidnapped to be used as human shields against U.S. airstrikes.  Homosexuals continue to get murdered in large quantities and for public display.  Mentally-handicapped Iraqis are being rounded up by ISIS and used against their will as suicide bombers.  And mass executions against civilians accused of “blasphemy” continue unabated.

** ISIS is also making civilians dress like fighters in order to deter U.S. drone strikes.  Such a strategy of intentionally using human shields is a war crime in and of itself.  It also underscores the uniquely asymmetrical nature of the conflict in which we are engaged.  ISIS almost seems aware of our moral superiority with this tacit acknowledgement that the U.S. goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties.  Of course, in the event that American drones were to unintentionally kill these civilians (by mistaking them as combatants), America would receive the bulk of the international condemnation.  Such is the state of our morally-dilapidated world.  The Israelis know this dilemma all too well.  It is a thankless job to risk the lives of our own countrymen in order to avoid civilian casualties on the other side of the battle, particularly when the other side is attempting to maximize its own civilian casualties in order to cause a political backlash against our own humanitarian sensibilities!

** Elsewhere in Iraq, 1,646 Yezidi corpses were recently discovered in 31 different mass graves.  Sober estimates conclude that there might be upwards of 15,000 more Yezidi bodies buried throughout Iraqi Kurdistan.  For some historical context, that means ISIS killed between three-and-five times as many Yezidis in just three years – to say nothing of their other victims – than the number of “heretics” killed by the Spanish during the 700-year Inquisition.  So by conservative estimates, ISIS has caused 300% more death and carnage as the Spanish Inquisition in just 0.004% of the time.  And people wonder why veterans remain furious at Barack Obama for withdrawing all U.S. forces in 2011.  The withdrawal squandered all of the U.S. military’s strategic gains from the 2007-08 “surge” and led to regional calamity.  It turned an American war victory into an American war defeat and should forever be considered Obama’s greatest disgrace.

** In Syria, aside from the continuous chemical warfare and mass destruction of innocent civilians throughout the country, particularly evil atrocities can be found in the details.  An Australian baby was recently executed in retaliation after the baby’s father, an Australian-Muslim that went to Syria to join ISIS, had decided he had enough fighting and aimed to return to Australia.  Once word of his pending departure got out, ISIS killed his infant child.

** For all the global talk about Donald Trump’s immigration policies, an actual migrant slave market has begun in Libya.  It seems not much has changed in North Africa since Thomas Jefferson confronted the Islamic slave trade in the First Barbary War.

** The United Nations has released a statement declaring 20 million people are in danger of starvation in the Islamist-plagued nations of Nigeria, South Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia.  In Nigeria specifically, the country’s first sharia-based state is now the most impoverished.

** In the Islamic Republic of Iran, a 21-year-old man named Sina Dehghan has been sentenced to death for “insulting Islam” after he was promised by government officials he would be released if he confessed.  The officials lied and Mr. Dehghan stands to die.  Keep in mind: these are the same Iranian officials America is negotiating with regarding atomic bombs.

** In “moderate” Indonesia, homosexuals are receiving 100 public lashes for being gay.

** In “moderate” Malaysia, the practice of child marriage – for some girls, even as young as 9-years-old – has been upheld.

** In Russia, 14 people were killed when a jihadist attacked the St. Petersburg subway system.

** Turning to Europe now.  Following the latest terrorist truck attack, this one in Stockholm that killed four, including a young woman committed to helping migrants, the Swedes are now contemplating banning cars altogether as a response.  I cannot think of a more pathetic disposition toward radical Islamic terrorism than the one we are seeing from the nation of Sweden.  The Swedish postal service has been told to avoid migrant-heavy neighborhoods due to safety concerns.  The Swedish Interior Ministry is showing more belligerence toward local police chiefs calling for stricter immigration policies than toward the jihadists themselves.  While investigating the Stockholm attack, Swedish anti-terror police were even reportedly pelted with stones.

** Elsewhere in Sweden, groups of migrants continue to commit rape in historic numbers.  In one particular instance, two Arab migrants that raped a Swedish woman throughout an entire night still managed to avoid deportation from Swedish authorities.

** In Germany, the Federal Crime Police Office has released a report which describes a three-fold increase in migrant-related crimes in 2016, as compared to 2015.  Additionally, the German Central Register of Foreign Nationals has documented more than 1,500 cases of migrant minors being married off to adult spouses, including 361 migrants under the age of 14.  The majority of these child brides came from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

** Elsewhere in Germany, multiple bombs targeted a soccer club’s travel bus.  One of the players was seriously injured.  In a separate instance, a terrorist plot to attack Berlin was thwarted by police.  A “man in his mid-twenties from North Africa” was arrested in a refugee home in Borsdorf.  Surprised?

** Speaking of refugee homes, Somali migrants in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, who have only been in Germany for two weeks, demolished their German-provided living quarters due to a shortage of German-provided PlayStations and German-provided spending money.

Next week beckons.

This week in jihad history: 

** The April 14, 2014 Nyanya bombing in Nigeria, killing 88 people and wounding more than 200.

** The April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, killing three people and wounding more than 260.

** The April 12, 2002 Mahane Yehuda market bombing in Israel, killing six people and wounding more than 100.

** One day prior: the April 11, 2002 Ghriba synagogue bombing in Tunisia, killing 19 people and wounding 30.

** One day prior: the April 10, 2002 Yagur Junction bombing, also in Israel, killing six Israeli soldiers, one Israeli civilian, and wounding 19 more.

The Jihad Files is a newsletter that tracks and consolidates the brutal crimes committed in the name of Radical Islam.