Father Samir: Egypt’s Palm Sunday Terror Reflects a Sickness Within Islam

The Egyptian priest, who is an authority on Islam, discusses the factors driving the murderous attacks on Christians and what he hopes the Pope will say when he visits Egypt this month.

National Catholic Register, by Edward Pentin, April 13, 2017: (h/t Christopher Holton)

VATICAN CITY — Oil money, Wahhabi extremism and an Islam unwilling to reform itself are the principal reasons for the terrorist attacks on two Egyptian churches on Palm Sunday and the rise of Islamism over the past 100 years.

This is according to Jesuit Father Samir Khalil Samir, professor of Islamic studies at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, who says it is false when people say such attacks have nothing to do with Islam. “ISIS is not doing anything which is neither in the Quran nor in the Mohammedan tradition,” he says.

In this April 10 interview with the Register, Father Samir — who is Egyptian himself — discusses the main motivations behind Islamic violence, why it’s important to say exactly how things are within Islam and help reform it, and his hopes for Pope Francis’ April 28-29 visit to Egypt.

What are the primary causes of these attacks? What’s behind them? Is it primarily to do with Islam, politics or something else?

For a year or more, the Muslim Brotherhood were attacking regularly during the presidency of Mohamed Morsi (2012-2013); they were attacking Christians, for any reason. For instance, they alleged a Christian who was building a house for his two children was in fact not building a house, but a church, so they are trying to make problems for the Christians. This happens regularly, but it became much more intense.

Now this time, what we hear from Egypt is that ISIS is saying they are behind these attacks, but there’s also support from the Muslim Brotherhood because they were ejected from the political system. The feeling is that the attacks against Christians in Egypt are becoming more frequent and violent. This has never happened before, that they attack so many churches and precisely on such a great Christian feast. The last ones took place before Christmas, and now these two attacks during Holy Week. The intent is probably to attack the president indirectly, through the Christians, to say he’s not able to govern or control the situation. In north Sinai, they attacked Christians and so the government moved them. Now they’ve come back under the protection of the army. In the past month, we’ve had three big attacks, and four months ago we had the attack near the Coptic cathedral.

Is attacking Christians, therefore, really about attracting negative attention against the government more than it is against Christians per se?

It’s both because they attack Christians without reason, in different situations — this year, last year and so on. Christians and Jews are their enemies, but there are no more Jews in Egypt. Christians are 10% of the population, 9 million people. So this Islamic movement, for six years now, has simply wanted to create a new caliphate, by all means possible, because there’s a great crisis within the Islamic world, and the crisis is turning into violence.

What is precipitating this crisis?

In Islam they are not prepared nor able to renew themselves, as [Egypt’s] President [Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil] el-Sisi said in December 2014 when he took power. He spoke to Al-Azhar University and gave a beautiful speech, in which he said we need to make a revolution in Islam, to rethink the whole system. The scholars all applauded, said, “Yes, Yes,” but they haven’t changed anything in the teaching. Many intellectuals on Egyptian television came and developed this argument and said Al-Azhar is unable to make the reform we need. Nothing has changed.

Are you of the view that Islamism is the true Islam?

ISIS is the application of what is taught. It’s not outside Islam, or something invented. No, they are applying Islam. When we hear it has nothing to do with Islam — that it means salaam; that it means peace — this is all false. It’s not true. ISIS is not doing anything which is neither in the Quran nor in the Mohammedan tradition. Everything is taken after a decision taken by an imam. A mufti and imam will say this is or is not allowed.

This isn’t just a problem in Egypt, but Egypt represents the greatest and strongest country, and also where you have the most important school of Islamic learning — just as we have Rome for the Catholic Church, Islam has Al-Azhar University.

Given this fact, what do you think about the Pope’s visit to Cairo? Should he say this hard truth about Islam, but in a diplomatic way?

Yes. He should certainly be very diplomatic. He wants to be more than diplomatic, to foster good relations with them, this is sure. He is avoiding hard words. He never said Islam is also a religion of violence — he said the opposite. He said there’s no violence in religion and so on, because this is his aim: to help Muslims, who are the second-most important group in the world, to have a dialogue and understanding.

Is that an acceptable way of approaching the issue, in your view?

Well, it’s not my way. I think it’s important to say things with charity, with friendship, but to say things as they are: that it cannot continue like this; we have to rethink Islam. This is my vision. They cannot take the texts of the seventh century literally as they are in the Quran. He [the Pope] does not dare to say something like that because he doesn’t know the Quran well enough, and so on. So I understand his position, but it would be better to have a clearer and more frank discussion — with openness, but also with some realism.

The Pope called for the hearts of the terrorists to be converted and for the conversion of the hearts of those who traffic weapons. Is that a fair point, or is that not going to the root cause?

Certainly, in Egypt everyone says the whole structure of ISIS is something elaborated by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the Wahhabi countries, against the Shia. It’s also my opinion. What does ISIS mean? It’s “Islamic State for Iraq and Syria.” This is the name they have chosen, taken from the Arabic Daesh, which means exactly that.

Now why Iraq and Syria? Because in Iraq we have a Shia government after the death of Saddam Hussein. The U.S.A. organized the country like that; they said the Shia are a small majority so the government should be led by Shia, with Sunni. In Syria the government is Alawite, which is a branch of Shia, although they are at most 15% of the population. This has been the case for 50 years now, with the father, Hafez al-Assad, and now his son, Bashar al-Assad. So the Sunni — who are 70%-75% — organized the protest against the government because they want to take power.

The question is religious, too, and supported by the rich countries of Arabia. And the rich buy the weapons from the U.S. principally, but also England, France, Italy and Germany to a smaller degree. So there is in fact an international war going on, but it is not clear. It seems to be they’re using this revolutionary Islamic State, which was partly formed by the U.S., from Iraq, after the occupation of Iraq, after the death of Saddam Hussein, because the U.S. formed a group of well-trained military. The so-called caliph, Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi, was one of these people trained by the U.S.

So all the conditions were there, but no one was thinking it would be so savage, that it would be absolutely inhuman. They killed and tortured people; they took women and people as slaves and turned children into bombs.

This was unprecedented?

We had never seen something like that, so the reaction of official Islam is that this has nothing to do with Islam, but this is in fact a lie. It has 100% to do with Islam, with chosen texts from the Quran and sharia [Islamic law]. They’re not doing anything against Islamic law.

How much is Islamism primarily due to Islam rather than, perhaps, Arab culture? Why, for instance, does Islamism appear much less prominent in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, than in the Middle East? 

Everything comes from the Middle East in Islam, this is sure, but, unfortunately, even in Indonesia, where there are 220 million people, they are now no longer as they were 15 years ago. There was a Protestant who was elected to parliament, and they wanted to put him in prison simply because he said something against Muhammad. This was once unthinkable in Indonesia.

Then you have Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are much worse than what we see in the Arab world. The propaganda coming from the Wahhabi countries is organized to go everywhere — to Asia and Africa. You have Boko Haram [in Nigeria] and others in Sudan. This is the general movement of this Wahhabi thinking and for the imams. It’s organized by Al-Azhar, whether they want it to be or not.

Do you think Al-Azhar is also partly responsible for Islamism?

I don’t think Al-Azhar has wanted to create something like that, but the teaching they are giving, as a consequence, is a radical Islam. President el-Sisi some weeks ago proposed that, from now on, a man is not allowed to say to his wife: “You are repudiated” (I divorce you). The repudiation by words, as it is practiced today, means you just had to say three times you are repudiated in the presence of two Muslim men. He said no, from now on, all should go through a tribunal, but Al-Azhar refused with the argument that this was already in force in the time of Muhammad and we cannot touch it.

So the conflict is within Islam, and the solution is within Islam. We have to reform Islam and our understanding of Islam.

Why is it that 50-60 years ago, there wasn’t this level of violence?

Through the influence of the Wahhabi. And how did this influence come? Through oil, through money. The heart of the matter is that they buy the conscience of the people. Al-Azhar is partly financed by the Wahhabi, and all the mosques they’re building, the big mosque in Rome, is funded by the Wahhabi. They put in the imam, they pay and command what to do, and so they’re creating thousands of schools for boys and girls throughout the world, everywhere, also in China. In the Islamic part of China, the Chinese government is reacting very strongly and bringing non-Muslims to this part of the country just to change the mentality. So the question is the money.

Could it, therefore, possibly be argued that it’s more to do with the money — that it is money that is perverting Islam?

Friends from Lebanon now living in Paris said they’d had enough of this Bedouin religion — by that, they meant from Arabia. They said, “We are not Bedouins, and this is not our Islam.” That’s the point: There is a conjunction between people who are very radical because they adopted, at the end of 19th century, the most radical vision of Islam, and you cannot discuss anything.

In the Middle Ages, you had discussions: The fact that the Quran is divine — this was not the teaching of the first five centuries of Islam, but there was a discussion, with part saying it was divine and another that it was human, that it is created and uncreated. The discussion went on until the 11th and 12th century, and only then it became uncreated, divine. And being divine means that every word and comma is divine, and this is what people think today — the official Islam is saying that. That means that if I find a verse — “Kill them wherever you find them” — for instance, then you have to do it. And for Christians and Jews, it’s clear they have to pay the jizya and be humiliated, says the Quran. So they say: “They can live with us, but they first have to pay and, second, to be humiliated.” This is impossible today, so what they do is attack Christians, and nobody is protesting seriously.

How are Christians currently being discriminated against in Egypt?

There’s no jizya, but you cannot have an important post in the government, not like it was until the 1960s. We didn’t have a president, but a king, until 1954, and Christians had very important positions. Egyptian radio recently broadcast a magnificent program showing that the best schools for more than a century were the Christian schools, the ecclesiastical schools, as they say in Arabic, run by the Jesuits, the Anglicans, and so on. They formed all the best people of the state, and this is true. Until today we had in our Jesuit school in Cairo at least 40% Muslims. It was another atmosphere. Christians had a very important part to play in the 19th century, what we called our renaissance in Egypt, and it was achieved through the Christians. You cannot have that now, because they don’t give them their rightful place.

How bad is daily life now for Christians compared to 20-30 years ago, and why has it gotten worse?

Because of this Wahhabi movement, the Salafists also, and the Muslim Brotherhood. It was under control in the time of Nasser and also after that, but not in the time of [Anwar] Sadat. Now they have come back, and especially with the financing of Saudi Arabia, we had the Wahhabi tendency in universities and daily life. For instance, a few years ago, during Ramadan and other periods, they started forbidding beer. It was produced in Upper Egypt, but now it’s forbidden. So they are corrupting people with their money and ideology.

Much has to do with the oil money of the past 100 years.

Yes, and maybe change will come now, because the oil price is going down, and there is a conference now with the advent of fracking [fracking is negatively affecting the price of oil]. The question is the financing. Saudi Arabia is now using up its financial reserves, and the economy is now worsening.

Should we expect Islamism to worsen?

What we expect is that the situation will be more open-minded. This is what we want, not to be against Islam, but for it, for open-mindedness. We, as Christians, have to help Muslims and say: “Look, we’ve been through something similar in other centuries.” We have a mission to work together, to find a way to come out from this. Note that, at the moment, the government says there’s only 40% literacy, but certainly it’s higher. This is Egypt in the 21st century. The education of the 60% is also almost zero.

What are your hopes for the Pope’s visit?

The visit will certainly be positive. He is supposed to speak first with President el-Sisi, which is very important, as he’s open-minded, and he wants to build a modern state and not a religious state. Then he [the Pope] will visit Al-Azhar, which is also very important, and also the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is the great Church in Egypt, with 9 million people and with an open-minded patriarch. So this is important. The second day will be for the Catholic Church, which will also involve positive decisions and orientations.

Also see:

GABRIEL: The Muslim Brotherhood: Know Thy Enemy

AFP

Breitbart, by Brigitte Gabriel, April 17, 2017:

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s recent visit to the White House was of paramount importance to combatting radical Islamic terrorism.

As evidenced by the recent Palm Sunday church bombings by radical Islamists, Egypt finds itself on the front lines in the battle against Islamic radicalism, and more specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood.

It was Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood that started an Islamic revolution in 2011, which created a domino effect, extending into Syria and across the globe.

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, empowered by the revolution in Egypt, rose to establish an Islamic order in Syria, attempting to eliminate Assad, as their counterpart did to Mubarak in Egypt.

Assad’s loyal ally Russia came to his defense, while our shameful government under President Barack Obama threw Mubarak under the bus.

After President Obama disgracefully endorsed Mohamed Morsi, the MB leader during the Egyptian uprising of 2011, he went even further to destroying an ally in the fight against Islamic extremism when he blocked billions in aid to Egypt after El-Sisi rightfully deposed Morsi in 2014.

Time and time again, our former President stood shoulder to shoulder with Islamic radicals and threw our allies who stood with us in our fight against terrorism under the bus.

Today, President Donald Trump must make it clear to foreign leaders that there is a new sheriff in town, and we will not tolerate those who engage in, or support, Islamic terrorism.

El-Sisi understands the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the threat it poses to both Egypt and the United States.

It was the Muslim Brotherhood that assassinated Anwar Sadat, the former Egyptian president who signed a peace treaty with Israel.

They killed him in cold blood because he was a peacemaker.

Osama Bin Laden, 9/11 ringleader Muhammad Atta, the head of Al-Qaeda Ayman al- Zawahiri, and Islamic State head Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi were all members of the Brotherhood.

The two most powerful countries in the Middle East – Egypt and Saudi Arabia – have designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

Egypt is the largest Islamic country in the Middle East, with 80 million Muslim, and the most powerful Arabic army.

Saudi Arabia is the most revered Islamic country in the world, not only because of its religious significance, being the home of Islamic Prophet Mohammed, but also because it is a global oil player.

They both understand the existential threat the Brotherhood pose. Yet disgracefully, our government still has not designated this organization as the terrorist entity that it is. A refusal to designate the MB as a terrorist organization leaves us fighting the war on terror with not only an arm tied behind our backs, but blindfolded.

This would be like trying to combat fascism in the 1930’s without naming the Nazis as a target.

How frustrating it must be for allies in the middle east like El-Sisi, whose country has been plagued by the Brotherhood for almost a century, to see such reluctance on the part of the United States to properly identify our enemies.

It is critical for both restoring relations with those willing to fight this enemy with us, that we stop wasting time, and call a spade a spade.

There is simply too much at stake with the Brotherhood running wild.

What makes the Brotherhood particularly dangerous is that, in addition to being the most influential Islamic terrorist organization, it is also the most educated.

Bin Laden was an engineer, and al-Zawahiri a Surgeon, Al-Baghdadi is a Doctor of Philosophy. So we are not dealing with your average rent a jihadist when it comes to the Brotherhood.

In 1982, the Brotherhood wrote a 100-year plan for radical Islam to infiltrate and dominate the West, and establish an Islamic government on the earth. In counter-terrorism circles, it became known as “The Project.” This outlines in crystal clarity, Brotherhood intentions to destroy America from within. They endeavor to do this by infiltrating the media, government, and educational system.

The Brotherhood have already established successful front groups within the U.S, posing as moderate Islamic advocacy groups, such as CAIR and ISNA. This has allowed them access to our elected officials such as President Obama and his cabinet. Consequently, they have influenced public policies that left us vulnerable.

Now is the time to reverse the damage done under Obama’s administration.

The enemy is no longer at our doorstep, but in our house.

We must heed the guidance of President El- Sisi and other middle eastern allies, and designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization once and for all. Every day that passes without such a designation, the tentacles of Islamic terror wrap tighter around us. President Trump, the time is now. For the sake of our country, and protection of Western civilization, please designate this organization as the mothership of jihad that it is.

Brigitte Gabriel is a terrorism analyst and a two times New York Times best-selling author of “Because They Hate” and “They Must Be Stopped”. She is the Founder and Chairman of ACT for America, the nation’s largest grassroots organization devoted to promoting national security and defeating terrorism.

Should Western Governments Empower Reformist Muslims?

My friend Dan Miller has written a thought provoking piece making the case for supporting Reformist Muslims. His argument rests on this main assertion:

I believe that we should help the Muslim reformation to enhance the ability of American Muslims to accept the parts of Islam they want and to reject the parts they don’t want.

This is an issue that I have been grappling with for some time. I have watched many debates and listened to the opinions of ex-Muslims versus Reformist Muslims, most recently in Gaad Saad interviews which I find very informative. I have studied Islamic Doctrine contained in the trilogy as well as the important and influential works by Sayyid Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, S. K. Malik and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. One of my main areas of focus has been the Muslim Brotherhood and their insidious ciilization jihad.

While I usually limit my comments on this blog, having made the decision early on to maintain a “just the facts, Ma’am” approach to a counter jihad news aggregation site, I feel it is time to lay out my position on reform of Islam and the political considerations in official government support of reformists.

First of all, I think we need to be careful with our terminology. I will refer to Islamic Doctrine instead of “Islam” because when people hear the word Islam they automatically think we are referring to the doctrine as well as all Muslims. Second, I do not believe it is helpful to add qualifiers such as “radical” before the words Islam or jihad. Individual Muslims may be “moderate” but Islamic Doctrine is radical. Qualifiers are used in order to not offend Muslims. The terms Islamism, Islamist and political Islam are okay with me because in my mind they denote orthodox Islamic activism.

We must not conflate what indvidual Muslims believe with what Islamic Doctrine says. Islamic Doctrine is fixed. There are many passages in the Quran that warn Muslims against using critical thought to reinterpret the word of Allah. The Sunnah of  Mohammad (Hadith and Sira) also warns against this and Muslims scholars have declared  the “gates of ijtihad” to be closed. Therefore, I consider reformists to actually be “rejectionists” who will have to somehow abrogate all of the content they deem to be incompatible with modernity. This is probably an impossible undertaking since Al-Azhar, the only central authority on Islam, will never agree to it. And it would take generations to achieve the type of cultural and political changes that would be required to effect a reform that the majority of Muslims could agree on. My personal wish is that more Muslims will leave Islam as they learn more about the misogyny, jihad and bigotry in their doctrine.

Most Muslims are not well versed on Islamic Doctrine and rely on their Imams to inform them. This includes some reformers. Westernized Muslims are loathe to confront the ugly truth inherent in their religion. But a public awareness campaign is absolutely necessary and reformers must be held to account on what Islamic Doctrine actually says. This includes sharia. So far, I have not been convinced that reformers like Zhudi Jasser, Raheel Razza and Majid Nawaz are being totally honest about it. But they are at least trying. And to the extent that their efforts are publicized, the worldwide debate advances. More debate is a good thing!

I agree with Dan that we should not judge who is a real Muslim or not. Muslims themselves do enough of that with violent consequences. Rather, we should recognize that some self-identifying Muslims do not adhere strictly to Islamic Doctrine. With support in the West, their numbers may grow.  There are probably many Muslims who are secret apostates.

This brings me to the central question I am pondering here. Should Western governments empower Reformist Muslims? Would their numbers increase enough to make a difference with government sponsorship? Would this be a waste of taxpayer money? Whether you believe that Islamic Doctrine can be reformed or not, should we at least support those who are  willing to try? Should we try to help create a safe space for Muslims to criticize their religion? Can reformist Muslims help with counterterrrorism efforts? If the Muslim Brotherhood is declared a terrorist organization, could we transfer control of American Mosques to reform minded Muslims? As long as we are strictly honest about what Islamic Doctrine says, I am inclined to say yes.

What do you think?

***

CAIR’s Shibly Defends Islamic Apostasy Death Laws

Africa Security, April 16, 2017

CAIR’s Hassan Shibly is the ‘Boy Terrorist’ because the UAE declared CAIR a terrorist organization and a Federal Judge declared CAIR an un-indicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist funding trial in US History.

This video exposes the duplicity of Hassan Shibly, CAIR, and most importantly the true insidious nature of Islamic apostasy laws.

Hassan Shibly after hearing the gut wrenching story of how a young Dr. Masood was nearly killed by his parents and neighbors for converting from Islam to Christianity was handed a softball question by Mr. Kornman.

Hassan Shibly had the opportunity to condemn the Islamic apostasy laws that have brought much pain and suffering to millions over the last 1400 years. Instead, Mr. Shibly chose to imply that Dr. Masood was a liar and confirmed this by running away from Dr. Masood rather than engaging him in honest dialogue for the world to see.

I have heard Hassan Shibly and many other followers of Islam tell Western audiences that Islam is a religion of peace because the Qur’an says there is no compulsion in religion.

In an Egyptian TV interview Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most respected leaders in Sunni Islam said, ” If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today. Islam would have ended since the death of the prophet, peace be upon him. Opposing apostasy is what kept Islam to this day.”

It is these very same Islamic apostasy laws that hold Islam together through fear.

If the apostate is not killed for his apostasy, it is likely his/her family will disown them severing every familial and business lifeline the individual has ever known inside their community.

The fear of death for apostasy is a very strong motivator to keep the the followers of Islam in line to this day.

It is time for people of conscience to publicly condemn Islamic apostasy laws.

Codified Islamic texts, Umdat al-Salik aka Reliance Of The Traveller page 595 has Ijma or Consensus among Islamic scholars states, “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”

o8.4 Reliance of the Traveller, p. 596 states, “There is no indemnity for killing an apostate, or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die.”

o8.4 says that there is no punishment for any Muslim who kills an apostate because that is killing someone who deserves to die.

If a Muslim leaves Islam it falls on that apostates family to kill the offender. If the family does not uphold their honor and kill the apostate then the responsibility falls on the immediate family, cousins, and then the community at large.

According to Islamic law there is no time limit for the execution order to be carried out, by anyone.

Now that you know the context of Islamic Apostasy Laws it becomes easier to understand why Hassan Shibly behaved as he did in this video.

Hassan Shibly and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) understand the severity and importance of Islamic apostasy laws, causing Mr. Shibly to ‘run away’ from talking with Dr. Masood on camera.

Islamic apostasy laws are Not compatible with our man made laws.

This is why Hassan Shibly’s gut reaction was to deny Dr. Masood’s story and requiring “verification”. Yet with Dr. Masood being no less than 20 feet from where this video was filmed, Mr. Shibly’s only safe play was to run away rather than confront and defend Islamic apostasy laws by engaging one on one with a man who nearly lost his life because of those same Islamic apostasy laws.

When I called Shibly a liar to his face he had two options. Most men would turn around and deny the charge of being called a liar with righteous indignation defending his honor, or run away.

Hassan Shibly, in this video, is the perfect object lesson of how a Muslim leader acts when being put in the position of having to defend his own words and the draconian Islamic apostasy laws.

Dr. Masood is 100% right when he says at 2:54 that the true nature of Islamic apostasy laws, “…paints not a good picture in the Western mind.”

It is time for individuals living in the West to condemn Islamic Apostasy Laws. More importantly, it is time for devout Muslims of conscience to render these archaic and horrific apostasy laws to the dustbin of history where they belong.

This topic is so important it doesn’t matter if you are liberal, conservative, communist, marxist, or even an anarchist – Islamic apostasy laws apply to each equally.

I hate to tell all you non-Muslims out there this but – Islamic Law is applicable to you as well especially when it comes to Islamic blasphemy laws.

God Bless America and God Bless Our Troops.

Jihad in South Dakota – Muslims Threaten, Officials Do Nothing

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, April 17, 2017:

Last Sunday evening, April 9, 2017, over 500 people gathered for the Worldview Weekend Rally in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  The Muslim Brotherhood threatened, a Muslim showed up in what was a possible thwarted attack, and local officials did nothing.

This is how America will lose this war if it does not change course immediately at the local level.

The Sioux Falls Police Department notified the speakers, radio personality Brannon House and Shahram Hadian, a former Iranian muslim who is now a Christian pastor, that the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls filed a permit to protest the Worldview Weekend Rally event because they viewed the event as bigoted and Islamophobic.

The property for the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), meaning it is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in America waging “Civilization Jihad.”

At the event on April 9th, a muslim man entered the event while filming on Facebook Live.  He filmed a Koran he was holding in his hand, scanned/filmed the audience with his phone, and was then stopped by security/police because filming was not permitted.  He told them he was leaving, and then lied to them and said his name is “John Smith.”  In fact, the man’s name is Ehab Jaber.

On Jaber’s facebook page it is clear he is anti-police and pro-sharia (Islamic Law).  During his video of the event in question, he made very derogatory remarks about those in attending.

On video, Jaber proceeded to his car where he filmed several weapons including  3 pistols and two rifles.  While brandishing the weapons Jaber commented, “be terrified.”

It should be noted two South Dakota legislators were in attendance at the event.

The good news is that within hours of the event, Jaber was visited by two FBI agents.  The problem, he is still free on the streets of Sioux Falls.

The other problem is the FBI has interviewed nearly all of the jihadis who have killed Americans in the last several years declaring them “not a threat.”

Organizers of this event have been told the local prosecutors are refusing to charge Jaber with any crime.

Stay updated on this ongoing incident by checking out Worldview Radio’s website.

These incidents are occurring all over the United States with similar results.  This comes from a lack of training of police officers, prosecutors, and judges at the state and local level.

As a direct result of UTT training, terrorism cases have been opened and in one case – only a couple weeks ago – an Al Qaeda operative was identified and is now under investigation.

This is the value of UTT’s training and the importance and immediate need for it in every state in the U.S. UTT is the only organization in America providing this training to law enforcement.

We will win this war at the local level.

Do your part to bring UTT to your town today!

Gad Saad interviews Cynthia Farahat

Published on April 14, 2017 by Gad Saad

Topics covered include living as a Copt in Egypt, Egyptian politics, the Muslim Brotherhood, Barack Obama’s Islamophilia, Islamic reformation and immigration, Canada’s M103 motion to combat “Islamophobia,” and the regressive mindset, among other topics.

Note: Apologies for the few seconds when the connection froze during the taping of our chat. I did not edit out those few seconds as I could not remember where this occurred exactly.

Cynthia’s website: http://cynthiafarahat.com

Cynthia’s Twitter account: @cynthia_farahat

The NYT’s Ignores Jihad AND Protects the Muslim Brotherhood in Coverage of Egypt Palm Sunday Bombings

FILE — In this Monday, April 10, 2017 file photo, women cry during the funeral for those killed in a Palm Sunday church attack, in Alexandria Egypt. (AP Photo/Samer Abdallah, File)

PJ Media, by Benjamin Weingarten, April 13, 2017:

The lengths to which the left is willing to dissemble to protect its narratives in the face of jihadist savagery were on full display in the New York Times’ coverage of the Islamic State’s Palm Sunday church bombings in Egypt.

Primary among these narratives is the idea that Islam has nothing to do with jihadism, even when carried out by the jihadists of the Islamic State (IS) who explicitly target nonbelievers and indeed base all their actions on Islamic doctrine.

The Times gives the following context for the IS bombings that left almost 50 dead:

Routed from its stronghold on the coast of Libya, besieged in Iraq and wilting under intense pressure in Syria, the militant extremist group urgently needs to find a new battleground where it can start to proclaim victory again. The devastating suicide attacks on Sunday in the heart of the Middle East’s largest Christian community suggested it has found a solution: the cities of mainland  Egypt.

Since December, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has signaled its intent to wage a sectarian war in Egypt by slaughtering Christians in their homes, businesses and places of worship. Several factors lie behind the vicious campaign, experts say: a desire to weaken Egypt’s authoritarian leader, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi; a need to gain a foothold in Egypt beyond the remote Sinai deserts where jihadists have been battling the army for years; and a desire to foment a vicious sectarian conflict that would tear at Egypt’s delicate social fabric and destabilize the state.

“The Gray Lady” thus casts the Islamic State’s actions in purely political terms: With IS supposedly on the ropes, it must show it can project power and expand its sphere of influence by taking on Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

This interpretation fails to address the reality that the church bombings were aimed squarely at Egypt’s Coptic Christians, including Pope Tawadros II, who was attending services at one of the churches bombed — a fact not revealed until several paragraphs into the article.

One might think that an Islamic State attack on the leader of the Coptic church on Palm Sunday would draw more emphasis than a narrative about IS’ struggles, or later in the piece General Sisi’s crackdown on civil society in response to the attack.

Why is the ignored religious component so critical?

Islamic supremacists are persecuting Christians in the Middle East and throughout the world.

IS in particular has been engaged in a genocide against Christians and other religious minorities throughout the region, as Congress recognized in a unanimous 393-0 vote in March 2016, and even jihadist coddling then-Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged.

IS bases these attacks on Islamic doctrine, including the imperative to kill nonbelievers who refuse to submit to Islamic rule.

IS provides the rationale for its war on Christians and others in the 15th issue of IS’ official publication, Dabiq, titled “Breaking the Cross.” It reads in part:

We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone’” (Al-Mumtahanah 4). Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims. Thus, even if you were to stop fighting us, your best-case scenario in a state of war would be that we would suspend our attacks against you – if we deemed it necessary – in order to focus on the closer and more immediate threats, before eventually resuming our campaigns against you. Apart from the option of a temporary truce, this is the only likely scenario that would bring you fleeting respite from our attacks. So in the end, you cannot bring an indefinite halt to our war against you. At most, you could only delay it temporarily. “And fight them until there is no fitnah [paganism] and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (Al-Baqarah 193). [Emphasis mine]

To neglect this context is to obscure the true nature of the attacks in Egypt.

But the Times’ sins of omission are not to be outdone by its sins of commission.

For while the Times de-emphasizes the targeting of Coptic Christians based on their religion by IS, it outright lies about the history of persecution to which these very Christians have been subjected by other Islamic supremacists in recent years:

The Christian minority [in Egypt] has long suffered from casual bigotry that, its members say, hinders their access to jobs and universities and has frequently erupted into mob violence in some rural areas. But concerted violence of the kind perpetrated by the Islamic State on Sunday was unknown. [Emphasis mine]

Perhaps the New York Times missed its own reporting.

In an article dated September 4, 2016, titled “Egypt’s Christians Say They Are at a ‘Breaking Point,’” the Times wrote:

Houses have been burned, Copts attacked on the streets and hate graffiti written on the walls of some churches. In all, Coptic officials have counted  37 attacks in the past three years, not including some 300 others right after Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were ousted from power in 2013.

… In July in the Minya village of Tahna El-Jabal, a Christian was stabbed to death by a mob, he said. A month earlier, in Sinai, a Christian priest was killed by Islamic State extremists, making him the Islamic State’s ninth victim among Copts in the northern Sinai.

… Three years ago, the situation was much worse, after the military violently put down Muslim Brotherhood protests against its taking power, killing hundreds and possibly thousands of protesters. Islamic extremists responded by burning down an estimated 76 churches around the country, including four in this city.

In fact, a December 2016 piece co-authored by the very reporter who covered the Palm Sunday attacks notes that “…Copts [have been] a target for elements of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Islamists attacked hundreds of Coptic churches and homes in 2013…”

Indeed, as PJ Media national security analyst Patrick Poole has diligently documented, the Coptic Christian community in Egypt – one of the oldest and largest Christian populations in the Middle East representing more than half of all Christians in the region – has been under attack at the hands of Islamic supremacists for years. The most acute attacks have come from the Muslim Brotherhood, in particular under the Obama administration-supported reign of Mohamed Morsi.

Such Muslim Brotherhood targeting actually predates the “Arab Spring.” As the 2003 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom noted, “Coptic Christians face ongoing violence from vigilante Muslim extremists, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood, many of whom act with impunity.”

What explains the Times’ contradiction of its own reporting?

As I noted in a recent piece, the Times recently opened its pages to defenders of the Muslim Brotherhood during what appears to have been a successful concerted information operation designed to thwart the Trump administration’s plan to designate of the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization.

Most brazenly, it allowed Gehad El-Haddad, the official propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to publish an op-ed defending the group.

Instead of focusing on religious-based violence towards Christians in Egypt perpetrated by the Islamic State and Muslim Brotherhood, the Times pivots to the reaction of President Sisi, who has been waging war on these very jihadist elements.

Sisi declared a three-month state of emergency in reaction to the Palm Sunday attacks, entailing a crackdown on various freedoms.

As the Times notes:

Mr. Sisi already has  vast powers that have led to the imprisonment of his rivals, mass trials and unfettered surveillance of enemies.

This state of emergency, due to be approved by the rubber-stamp Parliament on Tuesday, will probably entrench his autocratic tendencies.

In making Sisi’s response essential to the story, while claiming that “concerted violence of the kind perpetrated by the Islamic State on Sunday was unknown,” the Times in effect provides further cover for the Muslim Brotherhood, casting it in a more favorable light than Sisi by ignoring its actions altogether.

Sisi’s actions certainly merit coverage as news. But real news also ought to provide balance in terms of a discussion of ALL players on the ground, something the Times piece appears to have been written to avoid.

Narrative trumps truth once again.

Also see: