Why Did Marco Rubio Submit an Islamist MPAC Resolution Against Islamophobia?

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 20, 2017:

The Senate can’t seem to repeal ObamaCare. Or get much of anything done. But it found time for important matters like this… as Judith Bergman at Gatestone reveals.

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”. The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The resolution includes the claim that…

Whereas, in 2015, hate crimes targeting Muslims in the United States increased by 67 percent, reaching a level of violence targeting Muslim Americans that the United States had not experienced since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

There’s also boilerplate language about anti-Semitism and hate crimes in general.

Kamala Harris, Feinstein, Susan Collins and Rubio introduced it. And the Islamists credited them.

“Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA.”

Emerge USA is exactly what you would expect from Islamists.

Over the years, EMERGE has held a number of events at terror-linked mosques, like: (a) Masjid Al-Qassam (a.k.a. Islamic Community of Tampa), which was founded by Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian, and (b) Masjid Darul Uloom (based in Pembroke Pines, Florida), where “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student and the late al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a prayer leader. EMERGE has also sponsored speeches made by various Muslim extremists, such as Sayed Ammar Nakshawani, who has called for the destruction of Israel.

EMERGE’s executive director, Nauman Sabit Abbasi, is the president of public relations for the Islamic Foundation of South Florida (IFSF), a radical mosque that seeks to “establish a powerful base for the growth of Islam in North America,” and whose youth leader once wrote on the Internet: “[Y]es, Allah … has Decreed that we will over-take the World in numbers…” Abbasi’s Facebook page urged to people to “support the true leadership of the world who are at war with Zoinists.”

So why introduce the resolution and what is the agenda? Judith Bergman asks.

 Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including “hate speech”?

And she notes that…

On May 6, EmgageUSA published the following on its Facebook page: “Representative Barbara Comstock, second term Republican from Virginia’s 10thDistrict is teaming up with EmergeUSA and MPAC to successfully pass a House Resolution which condemns ethnic, religious and racial hate crimes.”

The Senate unanimously passed its version. And this shows once again that Islamist groups are still managing to get their claws into Republicans.

Meanwhile an MPAC piece credits ADL involvement. And that would figure.

The Term “Islamophobia” is Enemy Propaganda

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton, June 7, 2017:

The global Jihadist movement relies heavily on information operations to advance their cause–to establish rule under sharia worldwide.

They have become very adept at conducting information operations, to the point that some experts have determined that they have information dominance over the West, and America’s bureaucratized countertterror apparatus in particular.

One of their key weapons in the information battle space is a term that has gained currency with the Left and the media in the West: Islamophobia.

Before we begin our commentary on the subject of Islamophobia, we must draw your attention to an excellent video on the subject just posted by the indispensable Robert Spencer of http://www.jihadwatch.com:

Spencer covers the history and use of the term Islamophobia with brevity and authority.

We’d like to focus a little more on the organization that hatched this misleading and outright damaging term.

Islamophobia was coined by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a northern Virginia-based Muslim Brotherhood think tank with a history of ties to terrorism. Here some facts about IIIT:

• IIIT was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization in the largest terrorism financing prosecution in US history, the US v the Holy Land Foundation.

• IIIT was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a prosecution in which all defendants were convicted on all counts for providing material support to Jihadist terrorists. It was the intention of the Dallas US attorney’s office to prosecute the unindicted co-conspirators in that trial, but the then-new attorney general, Eric Holder shut it down.

• IIIT was a major financial supporter–the largest donor in fact–of the Islamic Committee for Palestine, a front group for the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Islamic Committee for Palestine was founded by Sami al-Arian, who was convicted on terrorism charges and deported. The organization itself was shut down by the US government.

• According to terrorism financing expert Matthew Levitt, “Tarik Hamdi, an IIIT employee, personally provided bin Laden with the battery for the satellite phone prosecutors at the New York trial of the East Africa Embassy bombers described at the time as the phone bin Laden and others will use to carry out their war against the United States.”

• IIIT employed Bashir Musa Nafi, one of the original founders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Nafi was deported in 1996.

What all of this adds up to is that the term Islamophobia was invented as a weapon of Jihadist propaganda.

So, when you see a journalist, blogger, television network or politician in the West start accusing people of Islamophobia, they are in fact parroting enemy propaganda, helping the terrorists with their overall war effort.

‘Islamophobia’ as Murder Weapon

PJ MEDIA, BY ROGER L SIMON, JUNE 5, 2017:

If you’re looking for what’s behind the killing and wounding of all those people in London last Saturday night, why it was able to happen in one of the most modern and powerful cities in the West, the cradle of many of the founding principles of the free world, I can tell you the depressing answer — Islamophobia.

Or, to be more precise, Islamophobiaphobia — fear of being called an Islamophobe.

As has occurred so many times before, so often that it has become, as Patrick Poole has shown us, all too predictable,  some of the culprits were “known wolves.” Friends and neighbors knew they had radical thoughts or worse.  In this instance they had known it for some time.  They even told the police about it, who had evidence, but nothing happened.  And not just because, as is well known, the UK is close to overwhelmed with such people. Difficult as that is, that is no excuse and no doubt could have been dealt with except…

There was a more powerful motivation to stop, to do nothing — Islamophobia.  No one wants to be accused of being a racist, after all. Oh, no. That’s humanity’s biggest faux pas — worse than pederasty. I mean these were nice people who played ping-pong with kids, right?  Well, maybe, but they were also religiously motivated and homicidal maniacs.  And worrying about being called an Islamophobe ended with people getting their throats cut.

So Islamophobia was effectively a murder weapon just as it was in San Bernardino, where people didn’t want to report the bomb-makers next door lest they offend someone (or get their own throats cut in the process). They saw something, but fear of being called an Islamophobe prevented them from saying something.

We think of  Islamophobia as something invented by CAIR or some similar Hamas-tainted organization, but, ironically, in reality it has its provenance in the UK. To quote someone… well… me, from page 74 of my most recent book:

Roughly at the same time (1997), the term Islamophobia was coined.  Commonplace as this neologism is today, it came through the back door via an obscure report by the Runnymede Trust, a left-wing British think tank.  Six years before 9/11 someone in that group thought to apply the phobia (irrational fear) suffix to Islam.  Whoever did it was something of an evil genius, equating criticism of Islam to a clinical neurosis.

So Islamophobia was a construct of the left.  That shouldn’t be a surprise. The alliance of the left with extreme Islamic causes is an old story.

Are we at a point when this could possibly break apart?  That Qatar — the great supporter of Hamas — is under fire from other Sunni powers because of its alliance with Iran is promising. We are at a moment when forces are beginning to spin in different directions for the first time in decades.  This is a propitious moment to discard Islamophobia once and for all.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt, at least at the leadership levels, probably have no use for it.  Islamophobia is being kept alive largely by an unlikely alliance of the liberal/left media in the U.S. and Europe coupled with the political parties they represent and the more reactionary forces of the Islamic world (Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies).  Strange alliance indeed, but that is what has happened.  What next?  An alliance of the “American street” with the “Arab street”?  Saudi Arabia and Israel together against Iran?  That already seems to be happening.  Pretty soon the only people who will be promoting the nonsense of Islamophobia will be CNN and the mayor of London. Well, we can hope anyway.

Roger L. Simon is an award-winning novelist, Academy Award-nominated screenwriter and co-founder of PJ Media.  His latest book is I Know Best:  How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If  It Hasn’t Already.

***

***

CAIR Flyer Spread: Does CAIR Oppose Law Enforcement Efforts to Counter Jihad Terrorism?

Jihad Watch, by Johanna Markind, May 12, 2017:

Imagine if Italian-American organizations had responded to mob violence, as exemplified by the 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, by claiming that police efforts to fight mob violence unfairly harassed Italians, and that the violence resulted from discrimination like law enforcement investigation of the Italian community. Imagine further that such organizations urged Italians not to cooperate with law enforcement but to call them for legal representation if the FBI asked for information.

Would anyone who heard that response have believed the organizations offering it were trying to help curb violence? Or would they have believed these groups were in the pocket of the Italian mafia and using any and every excuse possible to do nothing to oppose it?

Incredibly, the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) does exactly this sort of thing to combat law enforcement efforts aimed at preventing and fighting Islamist violence. The organization seems never to have found counter-extremism steps it likes. CAIR has not come out and said it opposes law enforcement. Instead, it offers nothing but criticism of government efforts to detect and counter radicalization. “The government’s CVE [countering violent extremism] initiative raises many issues” is a common CAIR refrain. Instead of trying to help prevent radicalization within the Muslim community, CAIR accuses the non-Muslim community of stirring up hostility against Muslims and reiterates the trope of Muslims-as-victims. For instance, CAIR-MN has consistently opposed a federal pilot counter-terrorism program focusing on Somali-Americans in Minneapolis, labeling it discriminatory.

On May 9, 2017, CAIR issued its most recent salvo, “Civil Rights Report 2017: The Empowerment of Hate.” Among other things, CAIR identifies FBI information/intelligence-gathering efforts as a type of “anti-Muslim bias incident.” As the picture spread below shows, this is no outlier, but typifies CAIR’s obstructionism toward counter-terrorism. What makes CAIR’s attitude so hypocritical is that in the same document, CAIR repeatedly complains about what it says is a toxic atmosphere fostered by President Trump and others who are supposedly inciting violence against Muslims. Yet, when the FBI or others seek to uncover information about toxic environments possibly inciting American Muslims to jihadi violence (incitement which, Freedom House has documented, has existed in some US mosques), CAIR consistently opposed such conduct as “fishing expeditions” that harass and discriminate against Muslims.

From page 21 of CAIR’s “Civil Rights Report 2017: The Empowerment of Hate,” released May 9, 2017. CAIR considers FBI questioning of Muslims seeking information about Islamist terrorists to be a form of harassment.

“What to Do If You Are Approached by Law Enforcement or the FBI

“[Step out of your home or workspace] Call or e-mail CAIR-MN for free legal assistance: 612-206-3360 info@mn.cair.com. Then politely say: ‘I want to remain silent. My attorney will contact you.’”

CAIR-Minnesota posted this image on its website. Members of Minneapolis’ Muslim community previously reported that CAIR-MN openly discouraged community members from cooperating with an FBI probe into the disappearance of several Somali-Americans youths. The youths were eventually found to have joined al-Shabaab, an Islamist terrorist group overseas.

Read more

Bazian Uses Islamist Convention to Push “Islamophobia” Scare

by John Rossomando
IPT News
May 5, 2017

University of California, Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian has made a career out of demonizing critics as Islamophobes and flipping the script, arguing jihad is not the problem, but its critics are. He accuses opponents of promoting a type of McCarthyism and a racist clash of civilizations against Muslims.

“…Islamophobia comes in as a way to rationalize a clash of civilizations, using cultural markers as a way of constructing difference,” Bazian said in a speech last month at the Muslim American Society’s  (MAS) joint conference with the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) held in Baltimore. “Let me say the following: Cultural racism is another signpost for biological racism.”

Bazian’s anti-Semitism runs deep. As a San Francisco State University (SFSU) student in the late 1980s and early 1990s he campaigned against Hillel, the student Jewish organization. He allegedly participated in an assault on the SFSU campus newspaper, The Golden Gator, claiming it was filled with “Jewish spies,” a 2011 Campus Watch report said. Bazian also allegedly worked to prevent a Jewish student from being appointed to the Student Judicial Council. He also served as president of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS), which was aligned with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Bazian has a long association with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to isolate Israel. He helped found Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in 2001 as an outgrowth of GUPS; SJP is known for its pro-Hamas stance and anti-Semitic acts such as disrupting an on-campus Holocaust remembrance event at Northwestern University. In recent years, Bazian has served as chairman of the national board of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). It is closely connected with groups that comprised the Muslim Brotherhood’s defunct anti-Israel network in the United States called the Palestine Committee. Bazian also raised money for KindHearts, a Hamas front whose assets were frozen by the U.S. government in 2006.

Bazian’s Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project that he founded in 2009 churns out academic papers through its Islamophobia Studies Journal that blames the West for terrorism. He also helped found Zaytuna College, the first Muslim liberal arts college in America.

For Bazian, screaming “Islamophobia” is a way to build a smokescreen against inconvenient truths when debating the facts about Islamist aggression.

Some in the Islamic community, such as California Imam Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad, contend the entire concept of Islamophobia is about shirking responsibility.

“By declaring [Islamophobia], the number one threat to Islam and Muslims in the United States, we effectively bypass the central doctrines of self accountability, and moral fortitude; principles upon which our faith is founded,” Ahmad wrote in The Lotus Tree Blog in 2010. “The sooner we wake up and take an intrepid and honest look at ourselves, the better.”

Bazian’s hosts for his recent speech have their own ties to international Islamist movements.

Prosecutors describe MAS as the “overt arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., and it has been alleged to have financial ties to Hamas. ICNA retains a strong spiritual connection with Islamist pioneer Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, founder of the radical South Asian Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. In his book Jihad in Islam, Maududi argues that Muslims should destroy “all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it.” ICNA’s 2010 Member’s Hand Book advocates the “struggle for Iqamat-ad-Deen,” or the establishment of Islam in its totality, “in this land.”

In his MAS-ICNA remarks, Bazian specifically named Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes as drivers of the “Islamophobic industry” dedicated to preserving Israel’s interests.

Playing off the foundations of Islam, Bazian defined the “five pillars of Islamophobia” starting with the government’s “constant war on terrorism that defines it as a war on Islamic terrorism.” He misleadingly cited data to argue that Muslims are responsible for only 4 percent of terrorism in the United States and Europe. He did not cite a source for his data, but did note that it covered a period ending in 1995 – before al-Qaida, ISIS, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and other Islamist terrorist movements that have recruited westerners and attacked Western targets.

Other “pillars” Bazian mentioned include the counter-jihad movement, neo-conservatives and liberal interventionists. But Bazian’s emphasis on “Islamophobes” is to be expected. One cannot expect to attract funding for an Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project without concocting the frightening specter of “Islamophobes.”

Bazian similarly denounced Emerson, Pipes and Geller following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings for connecting the bombings to jihad before the Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the attacks were identified.

“…[The] crime of the terrorist is immediate, while that of the Islamophobes is long-lasting, for it creates and impresses on our collective public mind the logic of hate and racism …,” Bazian wrote in an academic paper called “Boston Bombing, Islamophobia and Sudden Ignorance Syndrome.”

But this was no wild leap of logic. The pressure-cooker bombs used in Boston were just like those recommended by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula’s English language magazine, Inspire. Dhzokhar Tsarnaev later told investigators he and his brother, Tamerlan, got their idea for the bombs from the magazine.

In Bazian’s world, however, it’s Islamophobic and racist to connect violent and imperialistic interpretations of Islam to acts of terrorism today. The Tsarnaevs, indeed, were the bombers, he acknowledged. “But the Islamophobic machine committed crimes against our collective consciousness by exploiting the suffering and pain of our fellow citizens.”

Much of his MAS-ICNA speech was spent attacking Samuel Huntington’s 1993 essay, “The Clash of Civilizations?” which predicted global conflict would be driven more by cultural differences than ideology and economics.

Bazian dismisses this as a “clash of ignorance,” arguing that the past sins of white Western Christians are more important to discuss than jihadist terror.

“Bernard Lewis’ question about Islam of ‘What Went Wrong?’ should be asked in relation to European history with emphasis on the Inquisition, genocide of the Natives in the Americas, the European Trans-Atlantic slave trade, colonization, 8 Apartheid South Africa, WWI and WWII, with the good White Aryan Christian Europeans responsible for the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons against civilians recorded in history to this day,” Bazian wrote.

Then as now, Bazian charged that “Islamophobes” relished in a clash of civilizations.

“It’s interesting that repeated aggressions by Islamists, both violent and non-violent [including Bazian’s speech] don’t count for anything, while criticism of Islamists is used to say that the Bill of Rights is being rescinded,” Pipes told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “That’s highly untenable considering that we’re not the cause of jihad.”

Islamophobia has nothing to do with misunderstanding Islam or Muslims integrating into Western societies, Bazian said at the MAS-ICNA convention. It’s about protecting Western dominance over the rest of the world.

“So often [what] you get with debate and discussion, immediately the Islamophobes who jumps in – ‘well Islam is not a race.’ Well, again, race is a socially constructed category, but the directions of how people are racialized could be for a number of areas,” Bazian said. “You could be racialized because of your language; you could be racialized because of your skin tone; you could be racialized because of your religion.”

Bazian’s cultural racism concept is a flawed one, said American Islamic Forum for Democracy founder and President Zuhdi Jasser. Islam is a belief system. It cannot be treated as a monolithic entity  exempt from criticism.

“If you are going to believe that Islam cannot be debated and cannot be reformed, and cannot be changed, the bottom line is you have to make it into a racial identity,” Jasser said. “That’s why Islamists are wedded … to the idea of Islam as a single tribal identity that is defined by the leaders of that tribe who are imams, clerics or theocrats.”

Islamists then use this tribal identity to depict Christians, Israeli Jews and the West as the enemy, Jasser said.

Fellow Muslims also can be “Islamophobes” if they disagree with Bazian. That’s the word he used to slur Muslims who supported the ouster of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, which ended the Muslim Brotherhood’s brief rule. Presumably this included Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the grand sheikh of Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s most important clerical institution, who blessed Morsi’s ouster.

When it comes to aggressive clash of civilizations rhetoric coming from Islamists, Bazian turns a blind eye. He chose to write for UCLA’s newsmagazine Al-Talib in the late 1990s and early 2000s despite the fact that Al-Talib regularly featured pro-jihadist articles. For example, an article he wrote in the March 1999 issue appeared along with a piece praising Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini.

The July 1999 edition contained an editorial titled “Jihad in America” that criticized calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist. Bin Laden, it said, was a “freedom fighter” who spoke out against oppressors.

By that time, bin Laden had publicly declared war on the United States, “Jews and Crusaders.” That fatwa invoked the Quran to declare that killing Americans “an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…” The al-Qaida suicide bombing attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania took place the year before Bazian’s Al-Talib article.

Bazian could have opted to stop writing for the newsmagazine after the pro-terrorist articles were published, yet he chose to submit articles in Al-Talib’s September 1999 issue and again in Al-Talib‘s March 2000 issue.

“I think he is a classical civilizational Islamist supremacist,” Jasser said, “meaning that until he is caught and exposed on various positions he’ll do whatever possible to advance the concept that where Muslims are a majority that an Islamic state is the best avenue for governance.”

Islamists love clash of civilizations rhetoric because they view the world in terms of the Land of Islam and the Land of War ruled by non-Muslims,  Jasser said.

Bazian’s effort to accuse “Islamophobes” of a racist clash of civilizations at the MAS-ICNA conference and on other occasions distracts from the Islamists’ stated desire to supplant Western civilization.

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

How ‘Islamophobia’ Endangers Us All

Vigil in memory of the terror attack outside Parliament in London, UK – 24 Mar 2017. (Rex Features via AP Images)

PJ MEDIA, BY ROBERT SPENCER, APRIL 18, 2017:

Counterterror analyst Paul Sperry reported in the New York Post last Saturday:

[The New York Police Department] censored an anti-terror handbook to appease offended Muslims, even though it has accurately predicted radicalization patterns in recent ‘homegrown’ terror cases.”

So it is demonstrated yet again: Islamophobia endangers us all.

To clarify: “Islamophobia” is a propaganda neologism with no fixed meaning.

Nowadays, it is frequently used to refer to two phenomena that are actually quite disparate: vigilante attacks and harassment of innocent Muslims, which are never justifiable; and honest examination of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify hatred, violence, and oppression. Both are called “Islamophobia,” and held to be beyond the pale in polite society.

When I say that “Islamophobia endangers us all,” I am referring to the application of the label “Islamophobia” to realistic appraisals of jihad terrorists’ motivating ideology. The stigmatization and marginalization of such analysis is endangering Americans, and will continue to do so.

Here’s how. Patrick Dunleavy, former deputy inspector general of the New York state prisons’ criminal intelligence division, noted:

[The discarded NYPD report] was extremely accurate on how the radicalization process works and what indicators to look for.

Former FBI agent John Guandolo explains the facts on the ground:

The FBI has its hands full with over 1,000 open cases on ISIS terrorist suspects already in the U.S., 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.

In December 2015 in San Bernardino, when the Islamic jihadist couple Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered fourteen people at a Christmas party, a friend of one of their neighbors recalled that the neighbor had told him about suspicious activity at the couple’s home. Said the friend:

Sounds like she didn’t do anything about it … She didn’t want to do any kind of racial profiling. She’s like, “I didn’t call it in … maybe it was just me thinking something that’s not there.”

For years, this neighbor had been force-fed the value that noticing suspicious behavior by Muslims amounts to “bigotry” and “racial profiling,” or “Islamophobia.” Fourteen people are now dead because politically correct niceties were preserved; because hurt feelings were placed ahead of objectivity.

This wasn’t a singular incident. The fear of “Islamophobia” charges has overridden, or threatened to override, concern about jihad terrorism for years. On December 22, 2008, five Muslims were convicted of plotting to enter the U.S. Army base in Fort Dix, New Jersey to murder as many soldiers as they could. A sixth received five years in prison for weapons offenses. The plot was uncovered in January 2006 when two of the terrorists entered a Circuit City in New Jersey and asked a clerk to convert a videotape to DVD. The video showed men shooting automatic weapons and screaming “Allahu akbar.”

Although the clerk was alarmed, he hesitated over what to do.

Years of politically correct indoctrination from the establishment media made him wonder if it would be wrong to stop these men. Finally, he asked a coworker:

Dude, I just saw some really weird s—. I don’t know what to do. Should I call someone or is that being racist?

His concern was ironic, given that the Fort Dix plotters were all white European Muslims from the former Yugoslavia. In any case, his coworker urged him to contact police, and he ultimately did.

His hesitation is yet another indication of how successful American Muslim advocacy groups have been in portraying resistance to the global jihad as “racism” and “Islamophobia.” We can be grateful that this young man came forward eventually. Because, as with the San Bernardino attack, we know what may happen if the next young person in his position decides that it is better to keep silent than to do anything that might appear to be “racist” or “Islamophobic.”

Islamophobia: it endangers us all. But not in the way the establishment media would have you believe.