Lessons from Europe’s Immigrant Wave: Douglas Murray Cautions America

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
July 24, 2017

Douglas Murray has long voiced his concern about the growing influence of Muslim culture on the West. The associate editor of Britain’s Spectator, a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal, and the founder of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a think tank on radical Islam, he has built an international reputation for his opposition to the demographic changes of the West and the threats to its traditions. In his latest book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam(Bloomsbury, 2017), he attacks all of these subjects as they relate to the current crisis of migration from the Middle East.

It is a controversial book, particularly for Americans and Jews, but one which also makes important arguments against the multiculturalist ideal. That ideal, which once led much of domestic policy across Europe and the United States, has proven not only a failure, but a threat to the values and national security of Western civilization.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism recently spoke with Murray about his book and the concerns that drove him to write it.

Abigail R. Esman: As an American, a Jew, and an immigrant myself to the Netherlands, there are aspects of your arguments against immigration and asylum that are troublesome to me. I come from a country where we are all immigrants, or our parents or grandparents were likely immigrants. You talk for instance of families where “neither parent speaks English as a first language,” yet my husband is Australian and I am American and neither of us speaks Dutch as a first language. So naturally, I come at these arguments with some concern. Are you saying, basically, close the borders?

Douglas K . Murray: It’s only for me to diagnose what’s happening – to see the truth about what is going on. Policy makers will make their own decisions. I have obviously broad views on it, which is that I think you can’t continue at the rate we have now, and I think you have to be choosy about the people you bring in. But you are right, and there are two groups of people who have had trouble with some of the basic things in this book: one is people of Jewish background, and others who come from nations of immigrants, like America. But Britain isn’t a nation of immigrants – we have been a static society with all the benefits and ills that this brings. And I think it is dishonest to say it is the same thing. I realize people who are predominantly Jewish have a particular sensitivity to it, but I think that that’s a particular issue. And why do we say one migration is just like the other It’s like saying because two vehicles went down the same road they are the same vehicle.

ARE: How is it different?

DKM: In the UK, when Jewish migration happened more than a century ago, the main thing was integration, integration into the society, wanting desperately to be part of British society. Why do synagogues in the UK have a portrait of the Queen? And after services, they often sing the British national anthem. It’s very moving. It’s an effort to demonstrate this is what we are and this is what we want to be. You’d be hard pressed to find a mosque with a picture of the queen who sing the anthem.

ARE: That element of integration is crucial, I agree. In America, in fact, immigrants in the past and often even today are eager to give their children Anglicized names: “Michael,” not “Moishe,” “Henry,” not “Heinrich.” Yet you do not see the name changes in Muslims these days. Why do you think that is?

DKM: Because there is less of a feeling to integrate. They want to stay with the country they’ve left but not deal with its economics. Some people find it flattering – that people want to move to your country – they say well, it shows what a wonderful place we are. No, it shows that your economics work better.

ARE: You also write about Muslim enclaves in Europe where “the women all wear some form of head covering and life goes on much as it would if the people were in Turkey or Morocco.” How is that different than, say, Chinatowns, or Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in America and say, Belgium, where women wear wigs and men have peyas, or sidelocks?

DKM: The example of Chinatown-like places is a good comparison. These are places that are mini-Chinas, they are enjoyed and liked by people because they are a different place. Well, if people want to have a mini-Bangladesh, that’s one vision of a society. It’s not the vision we were sold in Europe. It was not meant to be the case that portions of our cities were meant to become totally different places. In the 1950s the British and other European authorities said we have to bring people into our countries and we will get a benefit in labor. But if they had said that the downside is that large portions of the area would be unrecognizable to their inhabitants, there would have been an outcry.

And the issue of them being different from Hasidic communities – you’re right, they are similar. You can go to Stamford Hill in North London and see most of the men in hats and so on and that’s because that’s an enclave that wants to keep to itself. That raises questions: one, people don’t mind that, for several reasons – one is the recognition that Orthodox men don’t cause troubles. We don’t have cases of Orthodox men going out and cutting off people’s heads. If four Jewish men from Stamford Hill had blown up buses some years back there would be concern about these enclaves.

And also those enclaves are not growing. If it was the case that these enclaves were becoming areas where all the city was hat-wearing Orthodox Jews, then people would say wait, what is that? You can applaud that or abhor it, but it’s important to mention.it.

ARE: In the Netherlands, which has some of the toughest immigration policies in the world, people from certain countries are required to take “citizenship” courses before they can even enter Dutch borders. They have to learn the language, they have to learn about Dutch values, and that no, you can’t throw stones at Jews and gay people and that gay marriage is legal and women wear short dresses. Would you recommend other countries take on the Dutch policy of citizenship courses?

DKM: I make this point in the book. You say we could have done more and better, but the fundamental thing is that none of it was ever expected in the first place. No one ever thought that we would be in the situation we are now in. We didn’t expect them to stay. That’s a very big misunderstanding. Why wouldyou ask people to become Dutch citizens if you expect them to go home in five years? Why if you only expect them to stay in Britain for only 10 years? But then we realized they would stay and then we said, “we have to let them practice their own culture.” But for us to have acted as you suggest we would have had to know [at the time].

So yes, I think it’s a bare minimum for Europe to have the Dutch policy, even at this very late stage. I’m of the inclination that this is too little too late, but I wish everyone luck with it.

ARE: What about Yazidi women, Syrian Christians?

DKM: Again, it comes down to the Jewish question – because people think that every refugee is like a Jew from Nazi Germany. But if you were to think of a group that was facing an attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth then yes, you’d have the Yazidis. But there are people on all sides of the Syrian civil war, which are a minority of people coming to Europe – these are people fleeing sectarian conflict, but none of them are fleeing an effort to wipe them out as a people. So the lazy view, and it is quite often pushed by Jewish groups which I think is a mistake – is to suggest that it is similar to Nazi Germany. And I wish more care were taken in this.

ARE: Is this in your mind a way of stopping radical Islam? Because so many of the radicalized Muslims are actually converts. How would it help?

DKM: We know that people who convert to anything tend to be fundamentalist. But the important thing is, if you were pliable to be converted, available to be converted, then it raises the question of what kind of Islam do we have in these countries? If it were people finding Sufism, rather than hardcore Salafism, maybe it would be different. I have a friend who is a Muslim who was on a trip some years ago who told me the story of introducing a Muslim woman to one of the senior clerics at Al-Azhar and she wouldn’t shake his hand. He asked her why not. She said, “Because I’m Muslim.” So he asked her how long she’d been a Muslim, and she said “Six years.” He said, “I’ve been a Muslim for eight decades.” And then he turned and said to his friend in Arabic, “What kind of Muslims are you making in Britain?”

ARE: One thing the American Muslim community seems to have over its European brethren is its successful integration into society. Yet at the same time, some of the worst of the radicals are in fact American-born. We have people like Linda Sarsour, who wears the mantle of feminism, but who is really a Trojan horse for the Islamists. She has said things like “Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community. It is not to assimilate and lease any other people in authority.” What are the dangers of that kind of message?

DKM: I once spent an evening with Linda Sarsour. She is a very unpleasant, very radical girl. Filled with hate. I was the one having to defend America to Americans in an American audience against an American opponent. What she told that night was all lies, which you would tell either because you are dumb, which she isn’t, or because you want to spread propaganda, which she does.

I just think she is of a type. There are various sides to the issue that are important. There’s an “us” question and a “them” question. The “them” question is, what do people like that believe, what are they doing and how vile are they? But in a way, the “us” question is bigger. Why do we let them do this? What is wrong with America at this time in its history that an obvious demagogue like her can end up leading a feminist march [the 2017 Women’s March]? That’s an illness of America. She’s just a symptom of that.

ARE: And similarly, the Rushdie affair was effective in quashing further expression and criticism related to Islam. And Charlie Hebdo took that to an extreme. We haven’t had anything that severe, but there were the South Park threats and the attempted attack on the Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland. You blame European politicians and media for failing to recognize that those who were shouting “fire” were in fact the arsonists. This seems to be a global challenge – that any criticism or critique of Islam gets shouted down as inherently bigoted. In the U.S., the Southern Poverty Law Center places Maajid Nawaz on a list of “anti-Muslim extremists” for criticizing some tenets of the faith and advocating modernization and reform. In Europe the facts are very pessimism-causing. At the same time, though, there was certainly support for Charlie Hebdo, though you seem to deny it in your book, after the shootings. What’s the proper response to that form of a heckler’s veto?

DKM: I agree with the point. The only ways to reject the assassin’s veto is for civil society to be stronger on the question, for governments to ensure that people deemed to have ‘blasphemed’ are protected (as in the case of Rushdie) and that those who incite violence against them (such as Cat Stevens during the Rushdie affair) are the ones who find themselves on the receiving end of prosecutions. That and – obviously – ensuring that blasphemy laws aren’t allowed in through the back door via new ‘hate speech’ laws and the like.

ARE: In the chapter on multiculturalism, you describe interest groups which “were thrown up that claimed to represent and speak for all manner of identity groups.” These self-appointed voices then become the go-to groups for government. To keep the money flowing, they make the problems facing their community appear worse than they really are.” Is that a universal behavior for interest groups? We certainly see that in the U.S. with CAIR and ISNA.

DKM: Every group is vulnerable to that. With every human rights achievement, there are always some people left on the barricades. And the ones who linger on the barricades linger on without any home to go to. And you get these people who are stranded after it’s over and they have to hustle as if everything was as bad as it once was. Sometimes they are telling the truth; sometimes they wave a warning flag, but for the moment it seems particularly in America every group is claiming that this is basically 1938. It’s a tendency of every commune or group that wants awareness raised.

But it’s true, it’s especially prevalent of Muslim groups because if you keep claiming that you are the victim, then you never have to sort out your own house. And the groups that come to Europe and America, they never have to get their house in order if they spend all their time claiming they are victims of genocide and persecution and so on. And this is a familiar story.

ARE: So what would be your lesson, then, for America, especially in a book which clearly is about Europe?

DKM: Well, it is about Europe, certainly, but it’s connected to the debate America is now beginning to have. The first is to be careful with immigration. We’ve all had the same misunderstanding, the same thought that our societies are vast, immovable, unchanging things to which you could keep bringing people of every imaginable stripe and the results will always be the same. And I think that is just not the case, depending on the people who are in them. So we must take care with what kind of immigration we encourage, and at what pace, and that is something America should be thinking of, as everyone else should.

But America will have a harder time with this, because everyone in America has this vulnerability we don’t have in Europe, which is that we are all migrants. And you have the sense of ‘who am I to keep anyone out?’

ARE: I don’t think that’s the American view. I think it’s more that we all became part of this fabric, and we expect that the new immigrants will, too. But not all of them do.

DM: The whole thing actually seems to be unraveling, more than in Europe. In Europe, we don’t like to think in terms of racial terms. But all anyone in America talks about is race.

ARE: I don’t think so….

DKM: Maybe; but your vision of original sin in America seems to have become all so overwhelming. Your leading cultural figures, like Ta-Nehisi Coates, have this image of America born in terrible sin. The Atlantic’s front cover recently was all about slavery. You would get the impression that slavery only ended about 12 months ago. You are going over and over this in America – this endless sense of original sin. You are discussing reparations for slavery in 2017. You’d be hard-pressed to find publications in the UK calling for reparations to our past. Find me a mainstream publication that runs such a thing in Europe, even of WWII reparations.

So it’s symptomatic of something badly wrong at the structure of the public discussion.

ARE: Which suggests that we should do what?

DKM: What you have to listen out for is very straightforward: are the people raising such issues raising them because they want America to improve, or because they want America to end? I think this is a very central issue. Are you speaking as a critic, or as an enemy of the society in question? If you think the society can do no good, then you are speaking as an enemy. If you think there are things that have been done, that are wrong, that should be righted, campaign for them, speak out for them. Sometimes if you’re lucky you can get a posthumous rectification. But it sounds to me like a lot of this talk is from people who hate America. They don’t want to improve it. They want to end it.

So the lesson is – be careful about immigration. Be choosy. And another is a pretty straightforward one which is to work on the people who are there not to fall into the victim narratives of their special interest groups. And to focus on the “we.” I’ve always felt more optimistic for America in this regard, for the same reason I feel more optimistic than others do about France: because I think there is a very specific identity there, which it is possible to become a part of. I think it’s something other Western European countries, have not accomplished in the same way. So basically to strengthen their own identity.

ARE: Do you consider yourself a pessimist?

DKM: I think in Europe the facts are very pessimism-causing. I think it would be a strange person who would look at 12,000 people landing in Lampedusa, all young men, all without jobs, all without futures, and think, ‘That’s going to go really well. These are going to be just like the Jews of Vienna. These are going to be the receptacles of our culture.’ I don’t see it happening.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands. Follow her at @radicalstates

If Muslims Are Honest About Jihad, They Think They’re Winning

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 16, 2017:

After 9/11/01, Americans were told Islam does not “stand for violence” and that Islam “rejects” violence, despite the fact the 19 hijackers were all muslims stating they killed nearly 3,000 Americans because it is a command from Allah.

Then we heard the “concept of jihad” was a part of Islam, but it is a muslim’s “struggle” to better himself or herself.

President Obama’s Counter-Terrorism advisor John Brennan, who became the Director of Central Intelligence, and – who we now know converted to Islam – then said “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

Mr. Brennan did not mention that Islam “purifies” the community by doing every thing necessary to impose sharia on the entire earth which includes:  giving non-muslims the option to convert to Islam, submit to sharia and pay the non-muslim poll tax (jizya), or be killed; by killing apostates – those who leave Islam; and by doing whatever else needs to be done to ensure the sharia is the law on the entire earth.

A few years ago while at my (John Guandolo) alma mater – the U.S. Naval Academy – I attended a day-long program on Islam which avoided any substantive discussion of the issues related to U.S. national security, sharia, Islam, and other related matters.  However, when asked by a midshipman what the word “jihad” means, I was surprised to hear two Islamic scholars sitting on a panel both immediately reply, “Holy war.”

The lesson for UTT readers today is this:  Muslims are more open and honest about their true intentions, the truth of what sharia commands, and the obligation upon all muslims to wage jihad (only defined in sharia as “warfare”) if they believe the Islamic Movement is close to victory.

In other words, you will know everything you need to know about sharia when Islam has you under it.  So, if members of the Islamic community openly explain their legal rights over you after sharia is imposed, it is a clear warning the muslim community believes it is winning or has won, and are simply waiting for their time to claim victory.

Two days ago I had a lengthy taxi ride with a Libyan muslim who explained Islam to me in great detail. Everything he said was in line with sharia.  He was very open, including his explanation of the time when the Islamic prophet Jesus returns to kill all the Jews and cast all Christians into hell for not converting to Islam.  His honesty was refreshing, I must say.  But it was disturbing as well, because it illuminated his belief that he can speak so openly about these matters.

At the national level, jihadis like Linda Sarsour, Nihad Awad, Mohamed Magid, Salam al Marayati and so many others lie when tough questions are asked in order to deter U.S. leaders from understanding the threat.  However, if you listen carefully to their words and filter them through sharia, they are getting closer to the truth as time goes by.

The more muslims talk about sharia and jihad honestly, the more danger we are in.  The clock is ticking.

The Islamic View of “Feminism”

Gatestone Institute, by Nonie Darwish, July 13, 2017:

  • What the West needs to know is that in the Muslim world, jihad is considered more important than women, family happiness and life itself. If we are told, as Linda Sarsour said, that Islam stands for peace and justice, what we are not told is that “peace” in Islam will come only after the whole world has converted to Islam, and that “justice” means law under Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is “justice;” whatever is not in Sharia is not“justice.”
  • Rebelling against Sharia is, sadly, for the Muslim woman, unthinkable. How can a healthy and normal feminist movement develop under an Islamic legal system that can flog, stone and behead women? That is why Sarsour’s jihadist kind of feminism is no heroic kind of feminism but the only feminism a Muslim woman can practice that will give her a degree of respect, acceptance, and even preferential treatment over other women. In Islam, that is the only kind of feminism allowed to develop.

Muslim activist and Women’s March organizer, Linda Sarsour, has helpfully exposed a side of Islam that is pro-Sharia and pro-jihad:

“I hope that … when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

Although Sarsour later protested that the word jihad literally means “struggle” or that “our beloved prophet … said… ‘A word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad,'” that is not what the word jihad means in general parlance to anyone you might ask in the Middle East. The people there know only too well that if they even tried to speak a “word of truth” to someone in power, that could possibly be the last word they would ever utter.

The word jihad is not a matter of left or right or liberal or conservative, except when it being manipulated to repackage and sell as something warm, fuzzy and non-threatening to trusting people in the West.

In Sarsour’s world, women who do this are called feminists, but, in reality, they are as dangerous to women’s rights, the peace of a nation and stability of its government as male jihadists.

At a recent Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention, Sarsour urged fellow Muslims, in an openly racist speech, to wage jihad against the “fascist” and “white supremacist” White House, be perpetually outraged, and not to assimilate. She mentioned 9/11 not as a terrorist event waged by Muslims against Americans, but as a day that triggered victimization and Islamophobia against Muslims by America.

Americans got upset just because they were murdered? As the saying goes: “It all started when he hit me back.”

Even though Sarsour later claimed her use of the word “jihad” meant non-violent dissent, that is not what the word is taken to mean in any Muslim country. There, it means only one thing: war in the service of Islam. In addition, her speech did not sound peaceful. It clearly sounded more like a call for an Islamic uprising against the White House.

Linda Sarsour’s recent speech calling to wage jihad against the “fascist” and “white supremacist” White House did not sound peaceful. It clearly sounded more like a call for an Islamic uprising. Pictured: Sarsour at the Women’s March on Washington, on January 21, 2017. (Photo by Theo Wargo/Getty Images)

Sarsour apparently identifies as a feminist. Sarsour’s kind of feminism, however, embraces the most oppressive legal system, especially for women: Islamic religious law, Sharia. Sarsour’s feminism is supposedly for empowering women, but it twists logic in a way similar to how Muslim preachers do when they claim that beating one’s wife is a husband’s way of honoring her.

Pro-Sharia feminism is a perverted kind of feminism that could not care less about the well-being of oppressed Muslim women. Sarsour’s logic concerning women does not differ much from that of Suad Saleh, an Egyptian female Islamic cleric, who recently justified on Egyptian TV the doctrine of intentional humiliation and rape of captured women in Islam. Saleh said, “One of the purposes of raping captured enemy women and young girls was to humiliate and disgrace them and that is permissible under Islamic law.” There was not even a peep in Egypt’s civil society about such a statement.

Here is an Australian Muslim woman calling beatings by husbands a “blessing from Allah”.

Muslim feminists seem to think that they must defend Sharia and “Allah” before any other consideration — including women. Musdah Mulia, a Muslim professor, who also claims to be a feminist, maintains that Islam is a religion of equality. She has said, “blame Muslims, not Islam, for gender inequity.” Muslim anthropologist Ziba Mir-Mosseini has argued “The problem [for women in Islam] has never been with the text (the Koran), but with the context.” That means, presumably, that the problem is everyone’s fault except for the sources themselves: Islam, the Koran and Sharia.

The reason Islamic feminism has been perverted is because over centuries it had to conform to Islamic law, Sharia, which regulates to a fare-thee-well all behavior of women, men and children. Many Muslims, however, seem to be in denial that the main goal of Sharia is to promote life under the bondage of Sharia as good and healthy. Sharia therefore becomes a convoluted way of coercing people to adapt to tyranny.

In London, for instance, devout Muslim women, while wearing a full black niqab, are seen carrying signs protesting British law, supporting Sharia and threatening Europe with another Holocaust and another 9/11. Here in America, the angry mother of the Tsarnaev brothers, responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing, instead of apologizing for what her sons did in a country that welcomed them, warned that “America will pay.” These are the kind of women that Arab TV places on pedestals. The message to Muslim women is that this is the only kind of feminism Islamic society will tolerate.

“Muslim feminism” is essentially the feminine form of jihad: women defend Sharia, promote jihad, and even emulate the Islamic “virtue and vice police” against other women.

Strong and assertive women do exist in Islam, but to stay strong and respected they have to sell women who want to escape the tyranny of Sharia. Because of the tremendous pressure from life under Sharia, Muslim women have developed a warped form of feminism: a kind of coping mechanism like a “Stockholm Syndrome,” where the captive believes that if he is nice to his captors they might treat him better. Like kidnap victims trying to merge with the thinking of their kidnappers in order to survive, women in the Islamic world have learned to defend Sharia and be protective of Islam’s reputation as priority number one. That is what Linda Sarsour is advocating today as “feminism.”

If such Muslim feminists truly cared about women, why are they not dedicating their work and effort against the rape and oppression of Yazidi, Christian and women of other sects who are being abused and tortured by Muslim men not only in the Middle East but also in Europe? The only women who are coming to the rescue of women being raped in the Middle East are Western women — unfortunately not Muslim “feminists.”

Most hijab-wearing Muslim women tell Western audiences that they are not oppressed and are proud of their “protection” under the hijab or the niqab.

What the West needs to know is that in the Muslim world, jihad is considered more important than women, family happiness and life itself. If we are told, as Sarsour said, that Islam stands for peace and justice, what we are not told is that “peace” in Islam will come only after the whole world has converted to Islam, and that “justice” means law under Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is “justice;” whatever is not in Sharia is not“justice.”

The cruelty of life under Sharia produces two kinds of women: the aggressive and proud, and the doormats. The aggressive Muslim “feminists” often turn their aggression not on the cruel system, but on weak women who are victims of Sharia — because it is so much easier to turn on the weak than to take on a system that has the power to harm, jail or kill you; and they hope to be praised and rewarded for supporting the system that abuses them.

The system, at its origins, was designed to please men — promising them anything and everything if they sacrificed their life on earth and their earthly wife and family for jihad. In such a system women, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness had to be sacrificed:

“But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.” (Surah Al-Baqarah [2:216] – Quran)

What Islam wants is for men to kill the enemies of Allah and get killed to expand Islam and then presumably go to paradise. Women’s welfare has therefore become an inconvenience to Sharia to say the least.

Strong Muslim women know what they should do if they are to enjoy a certain level of power and respect in Islamic society. They must never defy Sharia, but embrace it. The rewards for compliant Muslim women may explain why most of the Muslim college professors sent by Saudi Arabia to teach Americans never criticize Sharia but claim it to be harmless and even liberating.

An Islamic “Sarsour style” of feminism has to be Sharia-compliant in the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” mode. Such women have a high degree of tolerance for domestic violence and oppression of other women whom they can regard as “dissolute” or “bad.” After being indoctrinated under such a cruel legal system, Muslim feminists end up taking pride in conforming to Sharia while condemning the supposedly “bad” women who do not conform. Whatever unpleasant acts might happen to these other women, according to many Muslim “feminists,” those women brought it on themselves by not accepting Sharia.

Centuries of sacrificing family happiness for jihad have taught Muslim women that they are an inconvenience to men who supposedly would prefer to be doing jihad. Thus the “wise” Muslim woman molds herself and others to fit into Islam’s priorities. Islam calls any woman who rebels “nashiz” (“rebellious”), a derogatory term. Under Sharia, a husband could lock up his nashiz wife at home for life and get three other wives and enjoy his life while she is locked up.

Rebelling against Sharia is, sadly, for the Muslim woman, unthinkable. That is why during the “Arab Spring,” not one Muslim woman carried a sign against the oppression of Sharia in Egypt’s Tahrir Square. How can a healthy and normal feminist movement develop under an Islamic legal system that can flog, stone and behead women?

That is why Linda Sarsour’s jihadist kind of feminism is no heroic kind of feminism, but the only feminism a Muslim woman can practice that will give her a degree of respect, acceptance, and even preferential treatment over other women. In Islam, that is the only kind of feminism allowed to develop.

This Islamic oppressive view of women is now creeping into Western cultural views of feminism. Recently, USA Today celebrated the hijab as symbol of feminism.

It is important that this brand of “pride in bondage” kind of feminism that people such as Linda Sarsour are trying to “sell” not be “bought” by the good-hearted, but insufficiently informed people in the West.

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values”

Also see:

Linda Sarsour’s ‘jihad against Donald Trump’ is what it sounds like

While Sarsour may not be personally calling for violence, she can hardly be unaware of doctrinal connotations her words carry, and these connotations would be unmistakably understood by her ISNA audience or indeed anyone who has an accurate understanding of the legal understanding of jihad within Islamic law. (AP Photo/Henny Ray Abrams, File)

Washington Examiner, by Kyle Shideler | Jul 7, 2017

There’s yet another controversy involving New York-based Islamist and current Democratic cause célèbre Linda Sarsour. The poster child for the Women’s March who wished to “take away the vagina” from female genital mutilation victim, reformer and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali caught the attention of conservative journalists when she issued what appeared to be a call for jihad from the podium of the Islamic Society of North America’s annual convention.

“I hope, that when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad. We are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East but here in the United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

Countless media outlets on the left (and a handful on the right) rushed to Sarsour’s defense, allegedly claiming that conservatives took the comments out of context. In particularly they note Sarsour’s decision to cite a hadith — a documented statement by Islam’s founder Mohammed — which describes speaking truth to a tyrant as the “best form of jihad.”

It’s true that Sarsour did preface her use of the word “jihad” in this way. But it’s Sarsour’s defenders, not her critics, that are taking the speech out of its wider context.

To begin with, consider on whose platform Sarsour was speaking. Sarsour was speaking before the annual convention of a group about which a federal judge ruled, “The government has provided ample evidence to establish” their association with the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist organization Hamas. Among that evidence was the fact that ISNA’s subsidiary shared a bank account with the now-convicted Holy Land Foundation, an account that issued checks to Hamas Deputy Chairman Mousa Abu Marzook.

Far from shunning ISNA’s Muslim Brotherhood history, Sarsour overtly endorsed it. Sarsour was speaking as the keynote speaker at a luncheon honoring Dr. Sayyid Syeed, whom Sarsour praised for his role in “the infrastructure you have built for all of us.” That infrastructure can only refer to Syeed’s role in numerous Muslim American organizations, almost all of which have been identified by documents submitted as evidence in federal court as Muslim Brotherhood organizations or fronts.

Thus it cannot be ignored that Sarsour is speaking before a pro-Muslim Brotherhood audience. Given the Brotherhood’s own motto that “Jihad is our way, and dying for the sake of Allah is our highest hope,” it’s hard to believe that among this crowd the invocation of jihad doesn’t carry with it recognition of its violent meaning.

Sarsour added to this context by lauding a man she described as her “mentor,” Sirraj Wahhaj. Wahhaj, for those who do not follow U.S. counterterrorism history, is notable for his role as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj also testified as a character witness for “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, whose leadership of the 1993 WTC bombing cell would earn him a conviction for seditious conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government.

Sarsour has said she is seeking to emulate Wahhaj, whose own views on jihad are perfectly clear. Wahhaj has even raised funds for groups now designated for financing al Qaeda.

Like Wahhaj, Sarsour couches her speech in the language of responding to “oppressors.” Indeed, oppressors and oppression are the common language that binds Sarsour’s speech together. This is highly significant since the topic, combating oppression, carries with it clear connotations within Islamic legal doctrine on jihad.

Consider a fatwa published on IslamOnline, a website established by Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf Al Qaradawi. After noting that there are “various kinds” of jihad, including “jihad against oneself” and “jihad against Satan,” the spiritual sorts of struggles that Sarsour’s defenders are attempting to invoke, the text raises the question of “oppression.”

The fatwa notes, “Jihad against the leaders of oppression and innovation is of three kinds: jihad with one’s hand (i.e., physical jihad, fighting) if one is able. If that is not possible, then it should be with one’s tongue (i.e., by speaking out). If that is not possible, then it should be with one’s heart (i.e., by hating the evil and feeling that it is wrong).” [Emphasis mine]

This view is shared in the 14th century manual of Islamic law known as The Reliance of the Traveller by Shafi’i scholar Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri. Reliance is a useful choice since it was certified by the ISNA-affiliated Fiqh Council of North America, alongside many other Islamic scholars from various nations.

Reliance notes, under its index for “Oppressors, Fighting, as part of faith (iman)” [p.75.4(2)]:

“in the hadith related by Muslim concerning oppressors, [meaning Sahih Muslim, understood as the second-most authoritative compilation of hadith]:
(2) ‘Whoever fights them with his hand is a believer, whoever fights them with his tongue is a believer, whoever fights them in his heart, is a believer.”

In other words, Sarsour’s invocation of jihad of the tongue is viewed in traditional Islamic doctrine as not in opposition to violent jihad (i.e. fighting) but rather as explicitly complementary to it.

While Sarsour may not be personally calling for violence, she can hardly be unaware of doctrinal connotations her words carry, and these connotations would be unmistakably understood by her ISNA audience or indeed anyone who has an accurate understanding of the legal understanding of jihad within Islamic law.

People defending Sarsour’s words simply don’t know what she’s talking about.

Kyle Shideler is Director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy. 

Also see:

***

Paranoid Terrorist Apologism Dominates ISNA Convention in Chicago

by John Rossomando
IPT News
July 7, 2017

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) wants to be viewed as a mainstream Muslim organization, but its recent convention suggests it remains anything but moderate.

ISNA’s annual convention drew thousands of people in Chicago last weekend, spreading paranoid messages such as claiming President Trump wants to put Muslims in concentration camps, and presenting speakers who cast convicted terrorists as victims.

Invoking Japanese internment camps from World War II, speaker Zahra Billoo warned that Muslims face a similar fate despite assurances from politicians today.

“And we know from our experience that unless we have laws in place… and we [know they have done this] with other communities, that they’re going to send us to concentration camps,” she said.

Billoo is the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) San Francisco director. In the past, she has urged Muslims to “build a wall of resistance” between themselves and law enforcement, equated Americans in the Israeli army with ISIS terrorists, and accused the FBI of fabricating terrorist threats for public consumption.

ISNA saw her as an ideal person to lead a political discussion. Joining her was a former CAIR official who used the opportunity to advocate for convicted terrorists, including one whose case has been championed by al-Qaida and ISIS.

“…[Some] of them are our leaders,” Cyrus McGoldrick said. “Some of them are our youth, who were entrapped, some people were framed, I’m talking about Imam Jamil Al-Amin, I’m talking about Tarek Mehanna, I’m talking about Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. A number, hundreds, hundreds of leaders who, and Muslims who are in prison right now. And we forget them, we forget them. No one’s talking about that at this convention. We need to do more.”

Jamil Al-Amin, a Black Panther formerly known as H. Rap Brown, was convicted in 2002 for killing a Fulton County, Ga., sheriff’s deputy who tried to serve an arrest warrant.

Tarek Mehanna was convicted in 2011 for conspiring to provide material support for al-Qaida and lying to federal investigators. After traveling to Yemen seeking training in order to then fight U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Mehanna returned to the United States where he posted al-Qaida recruitment videos and other documents online.

Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT-trained neuroscientist, represents the most extreme case McGoldrick cast as “political prisoners” to his ISNA audience. Afghan security officers detained her in 2008, finding “handwritten notes that referred to a ‘mass casualty attack'” and a list of New York landmarks. During subsequent interrogation, Siddiqui, known as “Lady al-Qaida,” managed to grab a soldier’s M-4 rifle and open fire. She allegedly shouted, “I’m going to kill all you mother**kers!” and “Death to America.”

Before executing prisoners James Foley, Steven Sotloff and Kayla Mueller, ISIS offered their release in exchange for Siddiqui.

Ironically, U.S. Armed Forces recruiters set up a booth in the exhibit hall not far from where McGoldrick defended convicted terrorists.

Despite such rhetoric, ISNA remains politically influential. It played a key role in convincing former FBI Director Robert Mueller to purge FBI training materials dealing with Islam. Former ISNA President Mohamed Magid served on President Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council. During the Obama administration, ISNA representatives met with then President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, and ISNA hosted then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson at its convention last year.

ISNA’s congressional allies include people like U.S. Reps. Don Beyer, D-Va.; Keith Ellison, D-Minn.; Andre Carson, D-Ind.; U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah and U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

Another ISNA speaker, John Morrow, who teaches at Ivy Tech Community College in Indiana and directs the Covenants of the Prophet Foundation, launched into conspiratorial rhetoric accusing the U.S. of using the CIA to support jihadi groups with the intent of spreading anti-Muslim hatred.

“How do you ensure that the public continues to support the War on Terror, which is really a war on Islam and Muslims?” Morrow asked. “By means of terrorist attacks, by means of false flag operations, that way the eternal endless war of the globalist totalitarian fascists continues unabated to the pleasure of big brother, or as we know him in Islam, the one-eyed liar.

“The philosophy is clear. Keep the focus on fear.”

This is the same narrative that ISIS jihadist recruiters use to lure disaffected Muslims into becoming terrorists.

Prominent Muslim activist Linda Sarsour falsely asserted that white supremacists were a bigger terror threat in the United States than Muslims.

“I will not be on a national platform condemning terrorism as a Muslim. I will only condemn terrorism as a human being because that’s the only place that we should be condemning terrorism, because terrorism should never be framed as a conversation that should be just had with Muslims in a country where white supremacists have killed more people since 9/11 than Muslims have,” Sarsour said.

Even the liberal New America Foundation now admits that Muslim terrorists have killed more Americans since 9/11 than white supremacists.

Sarsour accused the Trump administration of being an “authoritarian racist regime” that needed to be resisted.

“I hope, that when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad,” Sarsour said. “That we are struggling against tyrants and rulers, not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America.

“You have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

The ISNA convention also featured hatred of Israel.

Several speakers promoted the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that aims to isolate Israel. Sarsour proudly proclaimed that the prominence she received due to her involvement in the Women’s March in January gave her a better platform to discuss the BDS movement.

“I have been able to have our country reckon with this conversation about what does it mean for a Muslim or a Palestinian American to be part of the resistance and to be working with allies who are now taking up the cause of BDS and supporting the Palestinian people,” Sarsour said. “So, what I am saying to you is don’t be afraid to be the center of controversy.”

Billoo repeatedly referred to the Jewish state as “apartheid Israel.”

McGoldrick attacked the Muslim Leadership Institute (MLI), which “invites North American Muslims to explore how Jews understand Judaism, Israel, and Jewish peoplehood.” MLI brings people to “occupied Palestine,” McGoldrick said, indicating he had no interest in recognizing its legitimacy. He condemned MLI for teaching Muslims about Zionism in a positive manner and for instructing them about Judaism in “so-called Israel.”

This kind of hateful rhetoric is a staple at ISNA conferences. In 2009, a speaker lamented Jewish “control of the world.”

In 1993, ISNA signed a declaration calling Israel’s creation a crime. “To recognize the legitimacy of that crime is a crime in itself and any agreement which involves such recognition is unjust and untenable. The League of Ulama in Palestine declared on Sept. 14 ’93 that no one has the authority to concede the rights of the Islamic Ummah in Palestine.”

It would seem that ISNA’s radical past still is very much part of its radical present. Politicians should think twice before working with ISNA as long it tolerates and gives a platform for narratives that enable terrorist recruiters.

Linda Sarsour Calls for ‘Jihad’ Against Trump Administration

Timothy A. Clary / AFP / Getty

Breitbart, by Joel B. Pollak, July 6, 2017:

Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American anti-Israel activist who helped organize the nationwide Women’s March the day after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, called for “jihad,” or holy war, against the Trump administration last weekend.

Sarsour was speaking in Chicago at the annual conference of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a group that the Investigative Project on Terrorism notes was an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a terror-funding prosecution, and was allegedly “created by members of the Muslim Brotherhood” in the United States in the early 1980s. (However, the group itself traces its origins to the formation of the Muslim Student Association in 1963.)

ISNA has been described as “the largest umbrella group of Muslims in North America.” President Barack Obama met with ISNA’s president in 2015, despite the group’s controversial views and alleged ties to radical movements.

Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, Sarsour said: “A word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad.” She then added:

And I hope that we, when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts us from us that as a form of jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers, not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here, in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.

The audience applauded.

Video below, via Conservative Review (6:56 – 7:44):

The context of Sarsour’s remarks indicate that she meant a jihad using words. However, the term has also been used to describe violent struggle, including terrorism, against non-Muslims or against governments described as enemies.

In her speech, Sarsour also spoke about the importance of Muslims supporting other “oppressed” groups in the U.S. in their struggles — and talked about her experience representing Palestinians in those movements. “I don’t have to choose do I not be too Palestinian this day … I have been a living example of what it means to be whole-heartedly all of me, in whatever space that I am in,” she said.

She added: “I will not be in a space where any group or any organization or any individual tells me that there’s a part of my identity that is not welcomed,” a privilege not accorded to liberal Jews or Zionists who march for the “oppressed,” as excluded Jewish lesbians recently found out (also in Chicago).

Sarsour also urged those present to divert donations away from building mosques and towards “investing in leadership, our next generation.” She said donors within the community should split their donations between assistance to Muslims abroad and support for local organizations — and “not just building masaajid [mosques].”

She also urged them to donate to Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a Democrat who is running for governor in Michigan, and would be that state’s first Muslim governor. She attacked “establishment Democrats” who, she said, had blocked Muslims from succeeding within the Democratic Party in the past, and said that El-Sayed would change that.

Sarsour concluded by warning ISNA not to stop being outraged, and not to “normalize” the Trump administration.

Update: New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Democrat who has often criticized Sarsour in the past, warned in a statement Thursday that Sarsour’s words should be taken “very seriously”: “Words matter. Attacks on the police, like the one New York suffered yesterday, are precipitated by violent slogans. Sarsour is very dangerous.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Linda Sarsour to keynote Chicago Islamic supremacist convention

Festival of Faiths | Flickr

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, June 12, 2017:

Linda Sarsour will keynote a conference held at the end of the month by a Muslim advocacy group that has countless connections to radical Islamic actors. Sarsour, who has infiltrated progressive feminist circles as a chief organizer of the Women’s March, will speak in Chicago alongside a who’s who of fringe Islamic extremists.

Sarsour has long been highlighted by the New York Times, Washington Post, and other establishment media as a supposed civil rights activist working to protect the rights of minorities. However, Sarsour’s upcoming appearance at an Islamic hard-liner event reveals that she continues to openly support Islamic supremacist movements, even as she attempts to portray herself as a crusader for minority rights.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) — which federal prosecutors have said is part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network set up to funnel money to Hamas — will feature Sarsour at its annual convention in Chicago from June 30 to July 3, 2017. She will deliver a keynote address there and speak on several panels.

The annual ISNA convention has long featured radical Islamists as its speakers. In 2001, just ten days before the September 11 attacks, the convention featured Anwar al-Awlaki (who later became the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), who delivered a lecture on “tolerance.”

But Awlaki is far from the only extremist to be featured by ISNA. The convention is often rife with overt anti-Semitism and support for U.S.-designated terrorist organizations. And the 2017 program reveals more of the same from the nation’s largest Islamic advocacy group.

Featured speaker Nihad Awad — the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood — has in the past announced that he is a supporter of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

Another featured speaker, Mazen Mokhtar, the current executive director of the Muslim American Society (MAS), was once identified in an affidavit as the man behind a website to solicit funds for the Taliban and Chechen mujahedin.

Other speakers sharing a stage with Sarsour include a Holocaust denier, multiple imams who support the death penalty for homosexuals, the daughter of a deported terrorist, and individuals who have advocated for Muslims to not cooperate with FBI terror investigations. One such speaker threatened fellow Muslims with physical violence for cooperating with police.

“There’s really only one reason why anyone would go to speak at ISNA, and that is to associate with, and validate, the efforts of Islamists in the United States,” Kyle Shideler, a counterterrorism expert at the Center For Security Policy tells Conservative Review. “If Linda Sarsour is really going to be the new face for the left, they may want to think again about attending conventions with groups that are known to have funded terrorists.”

A huge hit on the Islamic supremacist speaking circuit, Sarsour has recently addressed several extremist conferences. In 2016, she spoke at events hosted by Islamist Muslim Brotherhood offshoots ISNA, the Muslim American Society, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, among other organizations.

Also see: