The Incomprehensible Argument

Understanding the Threat, June 20, 2018:

When U.S. federal courts side with a terrorist group (Hamas/CAIR) making a legal argument that muslims must be given the opportunity to abide by foreign law (sharia), it is dangerous and absurd.  When “freedom of religion” is sited as the reason, the argument becomes incomprehensible.

While there have been many judicial rulings surrendering liberty to jihadis in the U.S., last week’s ruling by a federal judge forcing the state of Washington to serve special meals at special times during Ramadan to muslims in the state prisons is an exemplar of how sharia gets imposed in Western nations by ignorant government officials.

The most widely used text book in U.S. Islamic schools – What Islam is All About – states “Islam is not a religion, however, but a complete way of life.”

All of Islam defines Islam as a “complete way of life” governed by sharia (Islamic law).

Yet, an organization – the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – representing the terrorist group Hamas, pushes the narrative that America must make way for sharia (Islamic law) because it is a “religious right” for muslims.

In fact, sharia is a legal system that is obligatory for muslims to obey and commands how they dress, interact with their family, how they govern, how they wage war, and includes “every field of law – public and private, national and international, together with enormous amounts of material that Westerners would not regard as law at all.” (Islam: A Sacred Law, Feisal Abdul Rauf)

For any muslim to make the argument in a U.S. federal court that muslims must be granted “privileges” because it is their “religious right” when in fact they are seeking compliance with sharia (foreign law) is an absurd legal argument.  When the argument is made by a proxy for a terrorist group and American courts rule in favor of the jihadis/terrorists, the result is the forceful compliance of sharia upon U.S. citizens inside the U.S. legal system.

UTT Answers the Critics

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 12, 2018:

Many jihadi and Marxist organizations frequently publish overtly defamatory and false comments about Understanding the Threat (UTT) and its President John Guandolo.

UTT would like to inject some truth into this situation.

The following is a list of the common attacks UTT endures, followed by UTT’s responses:

“Guandolo has made a career out of…promoting ludicrous Islamophobic conspiracy theories.”

In fact, UTT offers $1000 cash and the removal of relevant material we teach and publish to anyone who can bring something to our attention that is not true about sharia’s authority in Islam and what it says, or about the Muslim Brotherhood’s Jihadi Movement in the United States and their modus operandi.

UTT has made this offer on TV, radio, and in direct emails to U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leadership for over 3 years.

So far…no takers.

“Guandolo has made a career out of demonizing Muslims…”

UTT believes speaking truth about the evil and barbaric system that is Islam’s sharia brings light to muslims trapped in this system and who are enslaved by it.  This, to us, seems the best way to demonstrate love and compassion to the muslim community, as opposed to calling a barbaric system “good” and “peaceful.”

“Guandolo’s trainings are little more than anti-Muslim witch-hunts.”

In fact, sheriffs, police chiefs, and prosecutors have opened cases as a direct result of UTT’s 3-day “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Threat” for police, intelligence professionals, and military personnel.  One police officer who attended UTT’s 3-day program identified a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist wanted by the FBI less than one week after the training, and stated UTT’s training was the reason he was able to do so.

“At an event in 2011, Guandolo claimed mosques were fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Property records, leadership at U.S. Islamic centers/mosques, investigation by UTT, and testimony in federal courts reveal approximately 80% of the over 3000 mosques in all 50 United States are controlled by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood calls Islamic centers/mosques the “axis” of their Movement, and their stated objective is to wage jihad to establish an Islamic State under sharia – the same objective as ISIS and Al Qaeda.

“Guandolo was dismissed from the FBI.”

John Guandolo left the FBI on 1 December 2008 after being recruited out of the FBI by the Department of Defense for a significant pay increase and significantly more responsibility.  His departure from the FBI was voluntary and honorable.

“Among his many bizarre and Islamophobic claims…that former CIA Director John Brennan was a secret Muslim…”

In fact, in February 2013, UTT’s John Guandolo was the first to break the story on a TV show hosted by The United West’s Tom Trento discussing U.S. government personnel with direct knowledge of John Brennan’s conversion to Islam when Mr. Brennan was the CIA Station Chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990’s.  In June 2017, former CIA Station Chief Brad Johnson publicly stated on the Glazov Gang TV show that many people in the CIA told him they heard and knew of John Brennan’s conversion to Islam.

See the video HERE.

“Among his many bizarre and Islamophobic claims…that Muslims are “obligated” to lie, and that it is “unprofessional” for officials to seek information about Islam from Islamic religious leaders (imams).”

Authoritative Islamic law – sharia – mandates lying by muslims to non-muslims when the objective is obligatory.  In Islamic law, jihad is obligatory.

The Um dat al Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) is authoritative sharia approved by the highest authority in Islam – Al Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt.  It states:   “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives…it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

Islamic scholars and all sharia mandate lying by muslims to non-muslims when the goal is obligatory.  Advancing Islam is obligatory.  Jihad is obligatory.  Islamic leaders who know and understand sharia lie to non-muslims to advance Islam and have been caught doing so on numerous occasions.

Therefore, it is unprofessional for a non-muslim to use an Islamic scholar or Imam as the source of understanding of Islam because Islamic scholars and Imams know sharia and, therefore, understand their duty under sharia to lie to police chiefs, pastors, Members of Congress, Presidents, school board officials, and others in order to advance Islam.

Guandolo claims most Islamic organizations in America are a threat.

The largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas 2008 – was the culmination of a 15 year FBI investigation.  The evidence in this case reveals there is an “Islamic Movement” in the United States primarily led by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The evidence also reveals the most prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are a part of this Muslim Brotherhood network whose stated objective is to wage “civilization jihad” until they establish an Islamic state (caliphate) under sharia (Islamic law).

The Muslim Brotherhood’s published By-Laws also reaffirm this.

Evidence in the US v HLF trial reveals the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood was ordered by MB headquarters in Egypt to create a Palestine Committee to be a node for the terrorist group Hamas in the United States.  The USMB created four (4) organizations to fulfill this mission, including the HLF and CAIR.

US v HLF and other evidence reveals MB groups in America include, but are not limited to:

Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)

Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)

North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)

Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)

Muslim Students Association (MSA)

Muslim American Society (MAS)

Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA)

International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)

Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)

Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA)

It is UTT’s hope the reader will read and study these responses so he/she can boldly speak truth using these responses as a guide.

UTT encourages our readers and followers not to be angry with our adversaries.  They are doing what they do.  We should pity them that all they have are lies and ad hominem attacks.

They certainly do not have the truth.

Also see: 

Robert Spencer: The History of Jihad from Muhammad to ISIS

The Rebel, by Jon Cardillo, May 1, 2018:

On last night’s episode of Off The Cuff Declassified, Author and Director of JihadWatch.org Robert Spencer joined me to discuss his newest book The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS.

Using eyewitness accounts from people on the scene, Robert addresses the claim that Christians, Jews, and Muslims once coexisted in peace.

Topics explored in this book include the Ottoman invasion of Europe, the fracturing of Christianity during the Protestant Reformation, and the temporary alliance of the British and Ottomans.

WATCH my interview with Robert to hear more about the popular myths surrounding Islam that he seeks to debunk.

Geller: Who Is Behind the Internet Thought Police?

Graeme Robertson/Getty

Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, June 8 2018:

Just who is behind the policing of our thought online?

An article, “What the Red Pill Means for Radicals,” published on June 7 in the ironically named publication Fair Observer might have passed unnoticed as yet another uninformed, biased and ideologically motivated attack on all who ever get labeled “extremists.” The piece is so riddled with non-sequiturs and wild generalizations that it seems almost cruel to rip it to shreds.

But the author is Bharath Ganesh. A little online research reveals that Ganesh is currently working at the Oxford Internet Institute — at the esteemed Oxford University — on a research project funded by the European Union to devise ways to disrupt the “far right” online. The project in question is under the banner of the Vox-Pol Network of Excellence, which “is designed to comprehensively research, analyse, debate, and critique issues surrounding violent online political extremism (VOPE).”

This research group is only interested in violent extremism – according to their website. “The qualifier ‘violent’ is therefore employed here to describe VOX-Pol’s interest, which is in those that employ or advocate physical violence against other individuals and groups to forward their political objectives. The extremist nature of the politics in which VOX-Pol is interested is thus not decided upon by project participants, but by the decision of those involved in particular types of politics to advocate or employ violence to advance their goals.”

Note the claims – utterly disingenuous, as it turns out – that the labeling of certain people or groups as “violent extremists” is entirely due to their own behavior; in other words, don’t worry, folks, it’s all scientifically objective.

This research is being used to advise companies who host online platforms, such as Facebook, as well as governments, on how to stamp out online radicalization – using strategies such as working out ways of preventing people from seeing material posted that is deemed unsuitable in some way, or offering them alternative “nice” things to look at. This is a seriously important issue. The people and political powers behind such initiatives are manipulating behavior online and literally controlling how people think and get information. They are the appointed guardians of the online hoi polloi.

But who guards the guardians?

For if Dr. Ganesh is in charge, we have some very worrying questions to ask. One could start from the observation that the article is certainly not an academic piece, and gives no concrete evidence for any of the sweeping claims it makes about the so-called “alt-right” and the “manosphere”; nor does it, as any academic should do, attempt to test ideas and consider alternative explanations. (Oddly enough, this makes it rather like the groups it claims to criticize.)

And the label of “violent extremist” turns out to be used very generously. Ganesh makes wild leaps and inferences. He talks of Darren Osborne, the perpetrator of the vehicular attack on Finsbury Park Mosque. This was a heinous crime, and should rightly be condemned. But why did Osborne do this, according to Ganesh? The attack “was executed after he had become indignant after watching a BBC broadcast on child sexual exploitation and turned to social media to make sense of it. He found a narrative from British counter-jihad groups closely aligned with the alt-right, such as Britain First and the founder of the English Defence League Tommy Robinson.” The British counter-jihad movement is thus swept into the same group of violent extremists as Osborne, because Ganesh “knows” they encouraged him.

The BBC broadcast was the drama based on real life, Three Girls, which showed real-life events of three of the (very many) victims of the Rochdale Muslim rape gangs. Ganesh somehow knows precisely what went on in Osborne’s mind. Rather than thinking that it was outrage at the behavior of the gangs of Muslim men of Pakistani background who abused the girls portrayed in Three Girls that caused Osborne to lose his mind and commit his terrible crime, Ganesh blames Obsorne’s act on the likes of Tommy Robinson. Yet Robinson explicitly fights AGAINST political violence. What “narrative from British counter-jihad groups” can one find which suggests driving vehicles into innocent Muslims standing outside a mosque? I’m sure if there was any, Ganesh would, as a researcher at an elite institution, be able to find it. But there is none offered – only surmise and Ganesh’s mindreading techniques. I suppose if you’re paid to fight online extremism, you’d better find it, or you’re out of a job and short of academic publication.

We have also the ridiculous idea that Tommy Robinson is “alt-right.” He, in fact, describes himself as a centrist – he’s said he agrees with Labour on some things, the Tories on other things, and he left the EDL precisely because he didn’t like the infiltration by the far right. He shows no hint of racism or of white supremacism.

The writer of this shoddy article is working at one of the most elite universities in the world, on research funded by the European Union, and giving advice based on this sloppy thinking to those who are in charge of manipulating and policing the communications and information we have online.

We have to ask. Is it simply a coincidence that Tommy Robinson is now in prison, and that a “researcher” who presents such a misleading account of Robinson is currently actively engaged in consultation with Oxford University and the European Union in advising how to disrupt Robinson’s activities, reinforcing the lies and misrepresentations about him to those in power?

There’s more. Bharath Ganesh’s profile tells us this: “During his Ph.D., Bharath was also a Senior Researcher at Tell MAMA, a national project dedicated to mapping and monitoring anti-Muslim hate in the United Kingdom. He has given evidence in the Houses of Parliament on governance, extremism, gender, and hate crime and authored a number of reports in this area.”

Is it simply a coincidence that this “researcher,” prior to coming to Oxford University, worked for Tell Mama, that factory for the production of bogus claims about Islamophobia?

Who runs the Internet runs the world. Is this a partnership between Europe’s governments, the Internet giants, and Islamic influence?

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report and author of the bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.

***

Trump Excludes Brotherhood-Tied Groups from Iftar Dinner

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, June 7,  2018:

President Donald Trump excluded a variety of domestic Islamic groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood from his first White House annual Islamic ‘Iftar’ dinner.

The exclusion is a sharp change from former President Barack Obama, who put the Brotherhood-linked groups front-and-center in his Iftar dinners and his Middle East strategy. His regional strategy crashed once the Brotherhood groups in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, and other countries were unable to restrain their Islamic radicalism during the so-called “Arab Spring.”

Reports show that most of the invitees at the dinner were the ambassadors of Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Morocco. The dinner marks the end of the Islamic Ramadan season of fasting.

Among the excluded political groups were the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Also excluded were the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), which cater to Muslim immigrants from Arab countries and from the Indian sub-continent.

CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation. MPAC was “established in 1988 by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood and admirers of Hezbollah… [and]  is yet another Islamist wolf in the ‘social justice’ clothing of the hard Left,” said Andrew McCarthy, a prosecutor who convicted several Muslims for the New York jihad attacks.

Exclusion is a financial hit for various groups, some of which rely on domestic — or even foreign — donors who support them because of the groups’ claimed ability to advance Islamic goals in U.S. politics.

The exclusion also shows that the White House rejects the groups’ unproven claim to be legitimate and popular political representatives of Muslims in America. Polls show these groups have little sway among the Muslims who live in America. Also, Muslims in America are already represented in Washington by their local congressional representatives.

The White House did not say if it invited representatives of Islam reform groups which who reject Islam’s demand that government should follow Islamic dictates. For example, Trump did not publicly announce an invite to the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which is led by Zuhdi Jasser.

Also, Trump has not announced any replacement for Obama’s anti-terrorism policy, which gave these Muslim groups taxpayer funding and political legitimacy in exchange for their promise to quietly suppress political violence by Muslims. Trump’s deputies have abandoned that policy but have not announced a replacement policy.

While the White House did not publish an official invite list before the dinner, the excluded groups protested in remarks to the media.

“I wouldn’t anticipate that any credible mainstream American Muslim organizations or leaders would be invited or agree to attend, given the administration’s Islamophobic and white supremacist positions and policies,” Ibrahim Hooper, the CAIR spokesman, told the Guardian newspaper.

The “Islamophobic” claim suggests that opponents of CAIR’s political agenda have a mental disease, akin to a phobia.

“There has been no real engagement, no real effort to even invite members of our faith communities, to have conversations with the White House or administration,” said Hoda Hawa, MPAC policy director, told the Guardian newspaper.

The MPAC group maintains a strong anti-Israel policy and has close ties to Islamic radicals in Libya and Egypt. In June 2012, for example, MPAC applauded the Brotherhood-backed President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi:

Less than one week ago, Dr. Mohamed Morsi became the first democratically elected president in Egypt’s thousands of years of history … Indeed, the transition to a sustainable democracy does not come after one election — it will be a continuous effort and will need the support and hard work of the Egyptian people and the international community.

Morsi and other Egyptian Islamic radicals won an initial election in 2012 but were removed by the military in a 2013 coup, despite quiet support from Obama. MPAC opposed the coup.

MPAC also complained that Trump has left them with little or no influence in the White House. “With the Trump administration, we have seen no effort by them, by the president himself, his senior officials, who are noted anti-Muslim extremists, Cabinet officials, towards engaging in a productive dialogue with the American Muslim community,” Omar Noureldin, MPAC’s vice president, told an NPR interviewer. Trump, not Islamic political activists, must change, he said:

I believe it’s incumbent on the president and his Cabinet and senior White House officials to extend those olive branches genuinely. And until they do so, we don’t believe that there’s going to be a meaningful dialogue or ability to move the needle on the issues that affect our communities.

Linda Sarsour, a jihad advocate who was welcome in Obama’s White House, also was excluded from the dinner.

Obama’s support for the Brotherhood-linked groups proved futile because they were unable to moderate their peers’ Islamic revolutionary zeal in Egypt, Libya, or Syria.

In September 2012, for example, four Americans were killed by Islamic gunmen in Benghazi while other Islamic radicals surrounded the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In Syria, the Brotherhood-linked Islamic groups were unable to build any political alliances with any moderate or non-Muslim communities, ensuring a bloody civil war that continues in 2018.

***

The Coming Caliphate

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, 2018:

The Organisation (sic) of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the largest voting block in the United Nations and is comprised of every Islamic nation on earth – 57 states.

The OIC’s Charter states one of its goals is to “promote human rights.”  What does the OIC mean by “human rights?”

We need to look no further than the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, approved by the OIC in 1990 in an Extraordinary Session of Kings and Heads of State of every Islamic nation on earth, and submitted to the United Nations in 1993 as an official document from the entire muslim world at the leadership level.

Article 2 of the Cairo Declaration states:  “…it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason…it is the duty of the state to safeguard (life) and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.”

Article 19 of the Cairo Declaration states:  “There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.”

The last two articles in the Cairo Declaration read:  “All rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah (Article 24)…The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration (Article 25).”

This means the official legal definition of “human rights” for the entire Islamic world is “the imposition of Sharia.”

Therefore, the entire Islamic world at the Head of State and King level defines “human rights” as:  killing homosexuals; killing those who leave Islam; forcing non-muslims to convert to Islam or submit to Islam/sharia and pay the non-muslim poll tax (jizya) or be killed; allowing sex slaves to be taken by muslims; and everything else that comes with sharia.

The Islamophobia campaign is married to the Islamic Law of Slander.  Islamophobia was created by the Muslim Brotherhood’s International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) to silence all honest discussion of Islam in the West.

In sharia, “Slander” is defined as saying anything about Islam a muslim would “dislike” and it is a capital crime.

In the OIC’s 10-year plan (2005-2010) it states:

“Call upon the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers to consider the possibility of establishing an independent and permanent body to promote human rights in Member states, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration.”

It goes on to say:

“Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia through the establishment of an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia…Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”

So, the OIC wants to criminalize all offensive speech against Islam.

The entire leadership of the Islamic world is pursuing a line of operation that stands in direct conflict with U.S. founding principles and law.

The purpose of the Islamophobia campaign is to keep U.S. leaders from discussing sharia and its direct support for actions which are unlawful under U.S. law and to put police and investigators at the state and federal level on their heels when it comes to Islam.

One could argue this campaign has been wildly successful.

The overall objective of the OIC and its member nations is to establish an Islamic State (caliphate) under sharia (Islamic Law) – which also happens to be the same objective as Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and every other main line Islamic organization on the planet.

Currently, Turkey is leading the effort to establish the caliphate under the banner of the OIC which, as some have said, is operating as the pseudo-caliphate.

Turkey’s Erdogan is positioning himself to be the Caliph with Turkey as the seat of the caliphate as it was when the last caliphate was dissolved in the 1920’s.

Why is it important for Americans to know all this?

The Global Islamic Movement is readying itself at all levels to re-establish the caliphate and, through the Islamophobia campaign, keeping the United States strategically heeled while they do it.

When the Islamic Movement establishes the caliphate, Europe will be it the crosshairs of the Caliph to be conquered and the United States will be the platform through which that goal is achieved.

The way to turn this around is to understand the threat at the local and state level so the Islamic/jihadi network inside the United States can be dismantled and defeated.

Also see:

Are UK Officials More Worried About Muslim Rape Gangs OR Those Who Speak About Them

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 1, 2018:

Tommy Robinson has been following, filming and reporting on muslim rape gangs for years.  He was arrested in the United Kingdom (UK) May 25, 2018 for breaching the peace after live-streaming video outside the courtroom of a trial of 26 men and 2 women charged with offenses including rape, trafficking, sexual activity with a child, child neglect, child abduction, supplying drugs and making of indecent images of children.

Robinson founded the English Defense League (EDL), an organization he developed to protect soldiers from violent muslims.  He left this group soon after its development, and is now a reporter and activist.

He exposes information about rape gangs, yet the British government works to silence free speech on the issue out of fear of being labeled “Islamophobic.”

The perpetrators of the UK Rape Gangs are muslims.

The judge in the case ordered a media blackout after Robinson’s arrest.  He is now in prison for 13 months.

Let’s understand the history of rape in Islam.

The Koran states Mohammad is an “exalted standard of character” (68:4) and a “beautiful pattern of conduct” (33:21) for Muslims to follow for all times.

The hadith is the collection of all the practices, sayings and traditions of Mohammad.  The most authoritative hadith scholar in all of Islam is a man named Bukhari, who lived in the 9th century.

Bukhari records Islam’s prophet Mohammad married Aisha when she was 6 years old, and consummated the relationship when Aisha was 9 (Bukhari 3894).

This means it is lawful under sharia for a 60 or 70 year old man to marry a 10 year old, for instance, because of the example of Islam’s Prophet.

Mohammed – the perfect example of a man in Islam – slaughtered two Jewish tribes and the remnants of a third at Khaybar, and instructed Muslims to wage jihad until the world is under Islamic rule.

After the assault on the Jews of Khaybar, Mohammad ordered Kinana bin al-Rabi be tortured until he disclosed the location of the group’s treasure.  A fire was lit on Kinana’s chest to force him to do so, and then Mohammad had him beheaded.  Mohammad then took Kinana’s wife Safiya for his own.  (Life of the Prophet, Ishaq, p. 515)

“We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected.  Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai.”  (Bukhari volume 1, book 8, Hadith 367).

Does this mean taking captives and having sex with a nine year old is “a beautiful pattern of conduct”?

Muslim rape gangs involve teenage girls and girls as young as 9.  These girls are raped, passed around to members of a gang or family, and often sold into sex trafficking.  These girls might also be made to “recruit” other victims.

Today the “rape gangs” are often called “grooming gangs.”

The term “groomed” refers to the different types of coercion that might be used to entice the girls.  Suspects gain the girls’ cooperation by giving them drugs or alcohol, and force drugs on the girls to get them addicted so they will stay around without a fight.

Children can also be lured into a gathering where older men offer them nice things.  Sometimes older men will use young boys to lure female victims to them, and then rape the girls after they are in their control.

Peer on peer abuse is also prolific.  Younger boys will rape younger girls.  Many times victims are told if they don’t cooperate their family members will be harmed and family homes will be torched in an arson attack.  Victims are physically assaulted, and many report being raped by over 20 men at a time.

Suspects will often justify their behavior by saying the young girls are “prostitutes.”

The UK’s official response to this barbarism is to have a media blackout and underreport these crimes by ignoring the fact these assaults are perpetrated by muslims.

In the past, the U.S. response has been to regurgitate the lie that “Islam is a religion of peace” or that “Islam does not condone such behavior,” and work with the very Islamic leaders driving the jihadi network fostering barbaric behavior like child-rape.

Hollywood and the media give the rapists a soft place to land and refuse to speak truth boldly about these and other horrors coming from the Islamic community.  They instead attack those speaking truth by launching ad hominem attacks and invoking “Islamophobia” towards all who dare mention Islam in any way regarding these matters.

“I have been made victorious through terror.” – Mohammed (Bukhari, Vol 4, Book 52, 220)

Tommy Robinson sits in prison in the UK for reporting on Muslim rape gangs.

Will the United States allow the same thing to happen here?  Is it happening already?

***

****

Recording of a presentation by Dr Mark Durie at the Q Society of Australia in Melbourne on 18 July 2013: From Pakistan to the Streets of Oxford – Understanding the Ideological Foundation of Sexual Abuse in Islam.