‘We’re All Muslims Deep Down,’ Says … Boston Police Commissioner

Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans

Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, March 1, 2016:

Politicians insisting that the latest Islamic jihad attack has nothing to do with Islam have become a familiar feature of the mainstream media landscape, but last Saturday, Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans went them all one better.

Speaking at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, Evans declared:

We’re all Muslims deep down. We all yearn for peace.

Evans thus went farther than Barack Obama, John Kerry, David Cameron, and all the other Western politicians who insist that Islam is a religion of peace. For Evans, Islam is not just a religion of peace, but the religion of peace: to be a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or an atheist would not make one yearn for peace.

This is taking pandering to dizzying new heights, and that wasn’t all: this wasn’t the police commissioner’s first visit to the Islamic Society of Boston. He went there last December — right after two Muslims murdered fourteen people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino. He made that visit in order to make sure that the local Muslims weren’t jittery after that attack:

I don’t think we can tolerate bigotry toward the Muslim population. They’re an important part of our city. I just want to reassure them that we’re here for them.

Muslims acting avowedly in the name of Islam and jihad committed mass murder of non-Muslims, and in the wake of that attack, the Boston police commissioner took it upon himself to reassure … Muslims. However he went about doing this reassuring, it is certain that he never asked members of the Islamic Society of Boston why so many Muslims don’t yearn for peace at all, but seem instead to relish war.

Nor is he likely to have asked Islamic Society of Boston members what they were doing about that, and why they had no program designed to teach young Muslims why they should reject the understanding of Islam held by the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other jihad groups.

And there is clear need for such a program at the Islamic Society of Boston. Worshippers there have included:

— The Boston Marathon jihad murderers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev– Aafia Siddiqui, who is serving an 86-year sentence for trying to kill American soldiers

— Tarek Mehanna, who is serving seventeen years for aiding al-Qaeda

— Ahmad Abousamra, who before he was killed in an American airstrike was thought to be a principal architect of the Islamic State’s social media presence

— The Islamic Society of Boston’s founder, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, was once a major player in Washington and the nation’s most prominent moderate Muslim. Now he is serving a twenty-three year sentence for charges including fundraising for al-Qaeda.

ISB leaders insist, of course, that the Islam they teach there is as peaceful and benign as William Evans imagines it to be, and that the Tsarnaevs and Siddiqui and Mehanna and Abousamra misunderstood these soft and cuddly teachings and fell victim to “extremists” who “radicalized” them on the Internet.

Were Evans to have the wit, unwillingness to be fooled, and investigative persistence that should be required to get the job of Boston police commissioner, he might ask his friends at the ISB to explain why the true, peaceful Islam they supposedly teach there couldn’t withstand a challenge from the twisted, hijacked violent Islam that allegedly snares Muslims left and right as soon as they open their browser.

Instead, he told them that we are all Muslims deep down. To that, his Muslim audience must have happily agreed, since a hadith depicts Muhammad saying:

Every child is born on Islam, but his parents make him a Jew and a Christian, just as a beast is born whole (Sunan Abu Dawud 4714).

This belief that all people are born Muslim leads to the common practice of referring to converts to Islam as “reverts”: they are not adopting a new religion, but simply returning to their true and original religion.

Evans’ ISB audience must have wondered why the commissioner, if he really believes that yearning for peace makes one a Muslim deep down, doesn’t follow through, convert to Islam, and join the ISB himself. But whether he does or not, they can rest assured that he will not be watching out all that closely for any new Tsarnaevs or Mehannas or Abousamras who may be active there.

He knows that the only thing going on in the Islamic Society of Boston is a lot of yearning for peace. What could be more wonderful?

Also see:

Police in Rotherham Turned Blind Eye to Islamic Child Rape Ring

rotherham-sign-640x481Police protected the rapists, but they in return were protected from on high

Counter Jihad, Feb. 25, 2016:

The Times of London reports on new evidence of police complicity in a child rape ring being run by Pakistani Muslims in Rotherham, England.  The ring groomed and then raped children for a decade and a half before it was broken up.  The authorities were repeatedly informed, as early as 2002, but agents did not want to risk their careers in an environment of intense pressure not to seem racist or critical of Islam.  There was a Home Office investigation into charges that Tony Blair’s government had known of the ring as early as 2001, but did nothing because it conflicted with “his government’s efforts to pacify Muslim communities.”  Some 1,400 children were raped over the ensuing 16 years.

Now the Times tells us that the police hadn’t just been warned, they knew and were sometimes complicit.

“Corrupt police and an influential politician fuelled a culture of impunity that allowed three brothers to ‘own’ the town of Rotherham and abuse children until their crimes were exposed by The Times. One officer had sex with under-age girls, passed drugs to the sex-grooming gang and tipped them off when colleagues were searching for missing children, a court was told. Another helped to broker a deal in which one brother returned an abused girl to police after receiving an assurance that he ‘wouldn’t get done’. The jury was told that Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of Rotherham council, also took part in the handover at a petrol station. Mr Akhtar, the former deputy chairman of South Yorkshire police and crime panel, was a relative of Arshid, Basharat and Bannaras Hussain, who behaved for years ‘like a pack of animals’ to pursue dozens of young girls before demanding sex, often with threats of violence.”

This sounds like a story of intense local corruption, and it is.  It sounds like a story of the failure of the police to uphold their most basic oath, and it is that too.  But it is also a story of the ways in which these criminals could rely upon protection from the highest levels of the British government.

The former Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, is being investigated for having known about the ring as early as 2001.  Blair’s administration suppressed investigations into the ring because it would conflict with his Muslim outreach efforts — outreach efforts being advised by Muslim Brotherhood affiliate groups.  Even today, Tony Blair’s religious charity is accused of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  The culture of not questioning Islam or Muslims from on high made possible these corrupt police, who in turn made possible a child rape ring in the heart of England.

Follow the links.  They are links to the most famous newspapers in Britain:  the Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the Daily Mail.  Believe your eyes.

Fmr. FBI Counterterrorism Agent: We’ve Received ‘Nearly Zero Help’ from U.S. Muslim Community Since 9/11

farook_malik_ohare-e1449500020660Breitbart, by Tony Lee, Dec. 7, 2015:

Though President Barack Obama claimed that America must “enlist Muslim communities” to combat terrorism in his Sunday evening Oval Office address, former FBI Counterterrorism Agent John Guandolo said on Monday’s Breitbart News Daily (6AM-9AM EST on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125) that since 9/11, “we collectively have received nearly zero help from the Muslim Community.”

Guandolo, who pointed out on Friday’s Breitbart News Daily that a “vast majority” of U.S. mosques and Islamic centers are a part of a much larger “jihadi network,” told host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon that though Muslim community leaders “certainly give the air as if they are helping,” if one looks at the “major Islamic organizations, the major Islamic centers in the United States,” they have “condemned all of the counter-terrorism policies and they’ve gotten the government to kowtow to them, to turn only to them for advice.”

“And what advice do they give them?” Guandolo asked. “That Islam doesn’t stand for this and that everything you’re doing is the reason for what happened—9/11 is your fault because of your policies.”

As Breitbart News reported, Los Angeles CAIR director Hussam Ayloush said last week just days after the San Bernardino terrorist attacks that America is “partly responsible” for the San Bernardino terrorist attacks because “some of our foreign policy” is “fueling extremism.”

Last night, Obama said that “if we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.”

Guandolo said he doesn’t necessarily agree with the idea that “we have to work with the Muslim community in order to solve this problem here in the United States,” but “if you are going to work with the Muslim community, the U.S. government” should not be “exclusively working with Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood entities without exception” like it is doing now. Guandolo named the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Muslim American Society.

“Those are who they’re working with and others that are Muslim Brotherhood or ideologically directly aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood,” he added, pointing out that Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke at the Muslim Advocates—another such organization—last Thursday.

Guandolo said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is speaking about Muslim civil rights on Monday evening at The Adams Center in Sterling, Virginia, which is associated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). He said evidence presented at the Holy Land terrorism-funding trial revealed that ISNA is “the nucleus of the Muslim Brotherhood here” and “directly funds Hamas leaders and organizations overseas.” He also pointed out that the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Islamic charity in America, was a “Hamas organization at the time it was indicted and Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He said it will be nearly impossible to so successfully combat terrorists “so long as the U.S. government… emboldens and empowers Muslim Brotherhood organizations here.”

“If you expect FBI and others to aggressively pursue them, it’s not going to happen because our leaders — President, Secretary of State, national security adivsers, generals at the Pentagon—are are turning to their advisers who in fact are Muslim Brotherhood leaders to say what should we and what shouldn’t we do,” he said.

Guandolo said “it gets down to the local ground level where our behavior becomes insane and we do things like” tell FBI agents to take their socks off while arresting people at mosques so “you’re arresting somebody in your socks. It’s not only insane but there’s an officer-safety issue as well.” He added there was absolutely “no real logic about what happened in San Bernardino” when the F.B.I. allowed the media to rummage through the home of the San Bernardino terrorists and said “this kind of mindset” entered the FBI because of Muslim leaders who are advising the federal government on Islam and terrorism.

Bannon mentioned that this mindset dates back to the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and Guandolo said during the Clinton administration in the early 1990s, the Muslim Brotherhood published their “strategic plan for North America and then their implementation manual which implements the plan” in order to start “the real forward push to get their plan implemented.” He said those documents were discovered in a 2004 raid of a Hamas leaders’s home in Annandale, Virginia.

Guandolo also informed listeners that the Muslim Brotherhood has been in the United States since the 1960s because the “very first Islamic organization in America”—the Muslim Students Association—was created by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s in order to “recruit Jihadis on college campuses and on every major college campus in America.”

According to Guandolo, “if you even hint at shutting them down, then you’re immediately a racist or an Islamophobe.”

“The story that is told in between is the story of an Islamic network in the U.S. that was not just established by random Muslims coming here,” he said.

He also called out Saudi Arabia for being the top financier of Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and al-Qaeda projects in the United States. Guandolo said these organizations build lavish mosques that can hold thousands of people in areas where there are only 12 Muslims because their strategy is to claim ground “up to three miles around the mosque.” He said the Saudis help these organizations purchase homes in the area at substantially above-market prices in order to “occupy that space around that mosque.”

Guandolo runs the understandingthethreat.com site and is the author of Raising a Jihadi Generation.

Listen to the interview below:

Maine city recruiting Somalis as cops

Somali community in Lewiston, Maine.

Somali community in Lewiston, Maine.

WND, By Leo Hohmann, 06/10/2015:

One of smallest cities that has received thousands of Somali refugees over the years is Lewiston, Maine. But, unlike the Minnesota Muslims from Somalia, this group appears to fly under the radar.

Minnesota’s U.S. attorney, Andrew Luger, publicly declared in April that the state has a “terror recruitment problem,” as hundreds of young Somalis have been investigated for ties to terrorist organizations overseas.

But in Lewiston, there is a recruitment of a different sort going on.

Lewiston’s police chief, Michael Bussiere, made news this week when he told Reuters he was focused on recruiting Somalis to work as cops in his department.

It’s part of his “diversity” program to make the local police force look more like the community it serves, he said.

And, with the help of the U.S. State Department’s refugee resettlement program, Lewiston has gone from one of the whitest cities in America to an increasingly diverse one.

“One place in Lewiston where that growing diversity is not evident is the city’s 82-member police force, but Chief Michael Bussiere aims to change that amid an intense national debate over race and policing,” Reuters reports.

The Lewiston-Auburn area now has a Somali population of 7,000, which accounts for nearly 10 percent of its total population. They arrived in the U.S. either as refugees or were born in the U.S. as children of refugees.

About a quarter of Bussiere’s officers will become eligible to retire in the next few years, so he figures to have quite a few openings.

“We have to think about who is living here now and who’s going to live here 10 years from now,” he told Reuters reporter Scott Malone. “We need a department that is reflective of the demographics of the community it serves.”

Lewiston, a city of 36,000 people that spent decades struggling through job losses from mill closings and a shrinking population, may seem an unlikely place for such a rebirth given that Maine is among the whitest U.S. states, Malone reports.

But, according to U.S. Census data, 8.7 percent of Lewiston’s population identifies as black or African-American, a rate higher than any other city in the state and more than seven times the 1.2 percent state average.

And the Somali population is exploding not just in Lewiston. It has spread to nearby Auburn and Portland.

Many Somalis originally came as refugees to larger cities, Atlanta in particular, but then moved to Maine after hearing that it had a wider array of subsidized housing available and also was easier to get on the welfare rolls. This is called “secondary migration” when a refugee is assigned to one city but then moves elsewhere after arrival in the U.S.

The Somali influence in Lewiston is visible along the city’s main downtown corridor, Lisbon Street. Shops offer Halal meat and brightly colored African clothing.

Muhidin Libah, head of a local Somali Bantu community organization, is among those Somalis who moved to Lewiston and attended one of the Lewiston Police Department’s recruiting meetings last month. He told Reuters he was surprised by the outreach effort.

“People were thinking, to be a police officer, you have to be born in the U.S. … you have to be white,” Libah told the news agency. “They never thought they could be a police officer.”

The diversity program takes on heightened meaning in light of race riots in U.S. cities such as Ferguson, Missouri, Baltimore and Cleveland after police killings of unarmed black men. All of the cities where violence has flared have been criticized by activists for having police forces that are “too white.”

Reuters followed that theme in its article.

“Right now America is trying to reconnect with the idea of police,” John DeCarlo, an associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a former chief of police in Branford, Connecticut, told the news agency. “When we look like our communities, when we embrace the values of our communities, it increases the legitimacy of the police department.”

“When you’re trying to live in a place, then you need to look like that place,” Zam Zam Mohamud, who serves on Lewiston’s school board, told Reuters. “If we have Somali police officers, Somali lawyers, Somali judges … That is a sign the community is assimilating, people are feeling comfortable.”

Mohamud, 40, said she would encourage her children, in their early 20s, to consider a career in law enforcement.

Read more

Also see:

US Embassy in Indonesia Makes Independence Day Sharia Compliant

390717_2102228974583_2036546133_nCSP, by Jim Hanson, June 10, 2015:

In the world at large, perception is reality. Moving our national holiday out of misplaced deference to a month long Islamic holiday gives the world a perception of US weakness. It was totally unnecessary since Muslims fast sunrise to sunset, and we could have simply held the event after dark. Some people see this as respectful and wonder what the bother is. But honor cultures, like Islam, see things differently and this appears as submission to them. Not a good thing when we are negotiating with Iran and losing a war to ISIS.

Also see:

 

The Failed Tactic of Flattering Islam Won’t Go Away

Palestinian_militant_with_rifle-450x338Frontpage, May 11, 2015 by Bruce Thornton:

The recent attack in Texas against a “draw Mohammed” event ended up with two dead jihadis and widespread criticism of event organizer Pamela Geller for “inciting” or “provoking” the assault on our First Amendment right to free speech. The hypocrisies and ignorance behind such criticism have been amply documented, including by some on the left. But there’s another argument against actions and events like Geller’s that needs dismantling. This is the received wisdom that we should avoid criticizing Islamic doctrine or Mohammed because it will alienate moderate Muslims who otherwise would help us against the so-called “extremist” jihadists.

Geraldo Rivera on Fox News invoked this rationale in his hysterical attack on Geller for “spewing her hatred and making us all look like the intolerant jerks they are saying we are in the Middle East and elsewhere.” In other words, most Muslims dislike the jihadis, who have “hijacked” and “distorted” their faith, and want to support our efforts against them. But they are put off by our “insults” of Mohammed and our “intolerance” of the wonderful “religion of peace,” all of which serve to “recruit” new jihadists. Even Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham skirted this notion, advising against making any image of Mohammed, and thus in effect ratifying the legitimacy of the shari’a law against any representation of Mohammed, good or bad.

Consistent with this notion that flattery and respect can change Muslim behavior, many in the foreign policy establishment, including conservatives, have for decades counseled flattering “outreach” to Muslims as a tactic in winning the “hearts and minds” of the supposed large majority of Muslims angry at the jihadists’ “distortions” of their faith. Even before 9/11, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, called Islam “a faith that honors consultation, cherishes peace, and has as one of its fundamental principles the inherent equality of all who embrace it.” Even after 9/11 confirmed Islam’s traditional theologized violence and intolerance, George Bush claimed in his first address after 9/11 that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” In 2005, administration officials encouraged this tactic of false flattery as a way “to support the courageous Muslims who are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends.”

Of course Obama, who has serially groveled before Muslims and praised Islam, has continued this sorry practice. After his administration blamed the Benghazi murders on an obscure Internet video, he lectured that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” The 2 gunmen in Garland Texas obviously agreed.  His quondam Secretary of State and now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is on record extolling Islam’s “deepest yearning of all––to live in peace.” How is that going in Nigeria, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan? Worse of all, training materials used by our military and security services have excised any mention of jihad, which Western infidels have redefined as “a quest to find one’s faith in an external fight for justice,” as the New York Times put it in 2008. So Obama identifies the 13 slaughtered at Fort Hood to the traditional jihadist cry of “Allahu Akbar” as victims of “workplace violence.” Never mind the Koranic command to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush”––exactly what various jihadi outfits are doing today across the Middle East, and tried to do in Garland Texas.

Two decades of such flattery and admiration have failed to prevent nearly 26,000 violent jihadist attacks since 9/11, for they are based on Western bad ideas rather than on an accurate understanding of Islamic doctrine and the Muslim mentality. Behind our delusions is the peculiarly arrogant assumption that traditionalist Muslims––by which I mean those who take seriously the doctrines and precepts of their faith has practiced for 14 centuries––do not have their own motives and aims, but can only react to our bad behavior. Besotted by our own materialist superstitions and failure to take religion seriously, we reduce jihadist behavior to material and psychological causes: wounded self-esteem, resentment of “colonial” and “imperial” crimes, disrespect of Islam, or the lack of jobs, political freedom, or even sexual access to women.

Thus despite consistent polling data showing widespread Muslim support of illiberal shari’a law and its draconian penalties like death for blasphemy, we won’t accept that millions of Muslims actually believe what the Koran, Hadith, and 14 centuries of jurisprudence teach about the superiority of Islam and their right to use violence in order to bring the whole world under the sway of the superior social, economic, and political order that shari’a represents. In the guise of “respecting” Muslims, then, we patronize them as little more than children who can only “act out” violently in the face of injustice instead of “using their words.” Having reduced our own faith to holidays and comforting slogans, we simply can’t believe that Islam endorses violence and cruelty in the name of Allah, or that otherwise loving and kind people, as bin Laden was said to have been by all who knew him, can at the same time slaughter and brutalize innocents in pursuit of spiritual aims. No, either they are “crazy” or “evil,” or they are traumatized by our bad behavior.

This dubious pop-psychological assumption is usually accompanied by a catalogue of the historical crimes against Muslims perpetrated by the West, from the Crusades to the wars against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. These depredations, so the story goes, also fuel anger and resentment, and help to incentivize otherwise peaceful Muslims into turning jihadist. But this narrative is belied by the facts of history. For what history tells us is that the record of Muslim conquest, occupation, colonizing, slaving, raiding, and killing of Christians far surpasses the alleged crimes of the West against Islam. We recently marked the centenary of the Ottoman genocide against the Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, a crime being duplicated today by ISIS in northern Iraq. Recently our historically challenged president whined about the Crusades and the Inquisition, with nary a word about the centuries of Muslim invasion, occupation, colonization, and brutal suppression in Christian Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, and Greece.

Or what about the 1066 pogrom in Granada, the alleged paradise of “pan-confessional humanism,” as an ignorant Wall Street Journal editorial claimed a few years back. Those tolerant, humanist Muslims slaughtered 5000 Jews, equaling the toll of dead during the whole existence of the Inquisition. But can anyone name one Muslim religious leader in the Middle East who has publicly and consistently apologized in Obama fashion for these 14 centuries of slaughter? Who has justified our defensive wars in the region as an understandable reaction to that history? Who has chastised Muslims for destroying and desecrating churches, and blamed them for inviting violent reactions? Muslim Turkey won’t even own up to its copiously documented slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians. If anyone has a historical grievance that justifies payback, it is Christians and Jews.

Finally, if Western insults and crimes against Muslims are really the reason jihadists want to kill us, why do they let Russia off the hook? No Christian power has killed more Muslims or occupied more Muslim lands than has Russia, from the siege of Izmail in 1790, when 40,000 Muslim men, women, and children were slaughtered, to the invasion of Afghanistan, which killed a million, to the brutal wars against Muslim Chechnyans, which killed at least 100,000. Or how about the 10 million Muslim Uighurs oppressed by China and forbidden to fully practice their faith?  Is Russia or China the “Great Satan”? Are they the constant targets of jihadist attack and thundering denunciations by the mullahs of Iran? Are “moderate” Muslims “alienated” by their behavior and rushing to join the jihad against them?

The obvious answer is no, for the simple reason that Russia and China are contemptuous of such juvenile psychological blackmail, pursue their national interests without regard for criticism by the “Muslim community,” and respond with brutal force to violent attacks. Meanwhile the U.S. has rescued millions of Muslims in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan from brutal dictators, ethnic cleansing, and psychotic autocrats, yet is deemed “Islamophobic” because we exercise our Constitutional rights in our own country. Worse yet, we grovel and apologize and demonize those like Pamela Geller who practice their right to free expression at a private function, and we vainly believe despite all evidence that if we just act nice to Muslims and join them in demonizing their critics, they’ll ignore their spiritual beliefs, the traditions of their faith, and the model of Mohammed and his credo to “fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah.”

To paraphrase Cicero and Orwell, there are some things so stupid that only rich, arrogant Westerners will believe them. If we let this president continue to predicate his dealings with Iran on this same delusional belief in the power of flattering engagement and “mutual respect,” we will soon find out the high cost of this stupidity.

Terrorism expert Patrick Poole discusses the latest on threats from ISIS and other extremist groups operating in the American heartland

 

Also see Poole’s latest at PJ Media: The Lies Behind #FreeSoltan: No, Mohamed Soltan Is NOT a ‘Humanitarian Activist’

Defeat Jihad Summit panel debates the use of ‘qualifiers’ when referring to Islam

moderate_radical-islam

CJR: The perennial debate over use of qualifiers such as radical, extremist or even fundamentalist to describe Islam is brought up by the intrepid Diana West at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit. Diana West believes that we are in fact abiding by Islamic blasphemy laws when we say “radical” Islam rather then just Islam.

Stephen Coughlin comes at this from a military intelligence perspective which seeks to define just what the Islamic threat doctrine is so that we can “orient on the enemy”.  He explains that he chooses to refer to The Reliance of the Traveller shariah manual because it represents the sanctioned views of A Azhar, the OIC and the American Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore it represents the prevailing view of Sunni Islam and can be said to be Islam…not radical Islam. Coughlin then says something very interesting that needs to be highlighted. He refers to the tactic of using qualifiers in order to “bring people along”. In other words, some counter jihadists, especially those who are working in the political arena, choose to use qualifiers in order to soften the message for politically correct ears, including moderate Muslims.

Following Coughlin, David Yerushalmi speaks to the legal issues of trying to reform shariah law with an explanation of Fiqh and what it would take to overturn articles of Islamic jurisprudence developed over thousands of years as Islamic reformers such as Zuhdi Jasser and Egyptian President Al Sissi are advocating.

Debra Burlingame then speaks to the quandry of Moderate Muslims who have no safe place to express their views. Andrew McCarthy and Fred Fleitz believe it is important to reach out to Moderate Muslims and enlist their help.

I think a general consensus was reached that it is not necessary to address what the true Islam is if you can identify as the enemy those Muslims who subscribe to the Islamic Threat Doctrine of Shariah. John Guandolo gets down to law enforcement brass tacks and asserts that we need to start prosecuting those in high positions who are aiding and abetting terrorists. While John Guandolo did not agree that moderate Muslim outreach is producing results, he asserted that counter jihadists do not have to agree on everything in order to work together. I heartily agree.

Watch the debate which goes from 5:03 to about 5:38 in the video.  I’ve set the video to begin with Diana West  but if for some reason that changes just move the progress bar with your cursor:

 

***

Here are some clips of the Summit now available at securefreedom:

Michael Mukasey at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Gen. Jerry Boykin at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Gov. Bobby JIndal at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Scott Perry at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Mike Pompeo at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Steve King at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Andrew McCarthy at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Pete Hoekstra at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Newt Gingrich at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Nonie Darwish

 

 

Muslims need truth and love

Middle East Forum:

by Mark Durie
Eternity
September 26, 2014

658The past few weeks have been hard ones for Australians, not least for Australian Muslims. Various alleged plots by Islamic State supporters to slaughter Australians has Islam in the news. Even as I write, five out of ten of the “most popular” articles onThe Australian‘s website are about Islamic jihad and national security.

What are ordinary Australians to make of conspiracy theories aired by Muslims on the ABC’s Q&A program, implying that recent police raids were staged as a cynical act to manipulate public opinion? Are Muslims being unfairly victimised by all these security measures?

How are we to evaluate Senator Jacqui Lambie’s claim that sharia law “obviously involves terrorism”? Or the Prime Minister’s decision to mobilise Australian troops against the Islamic State?

What about the Islamic State’s grandiose claim that “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.” Or [Prime Minister Tony] Abbott’s declaration that the balance between freedom and security needs to be adjusted in favour of greater security and less freedom?

Earlier this month, an 18-year-old Melbourne man, Numan Haider, was shot dead by police after he stabbed two officers outside a suburban police station. At the time of writing, news was breaking that authorities believed he intended to behead a police officer and post the photos online.

Prison officers in Goulburn jail have struggled to contain the worst riot in ten years, during which rampaging prisoners were heard to be crying “Allahu Akbar.”

A Christian woman who works in a church close by an Islamic centre has asked her employer to install security measures to protect her and others at the church. Someone else, a convert from Islam to Christianity, reports that his personal sense of being under threat has risen, because he feels that people he knew from his earlier life as a radical Muslim are more likely to be activated to violence after the successes of the Islamic State and their global call to arms. Are such responses reasonable? Or are they Islamophobic?

Many young Muslims have been using the hashtag #NotInMyName on social media. Many are insisting that IS does not speak for them: as Anne Aly put it “This isn’t in my name, this isn’t what Islam is about, I am against it and they don’t have my allegiance, they don’t have my support.” How then can we know the truth about Islam?

What is a Christian response to all this? How can we find our way through these crises: does protecting national security mean we risk losing some part of our soul?

A truly Christian response to the multi-faceted challenge of “Muslims behaving badly” must embrace both truth and love in equal measure.

Truth will acknowledge that the Islamic State ideologues do claim to speak for Islam, and that they justify their actions from the Koran and Muhammad’s example. Truth will acknowledge that IS has recruited tens of thousands of Muslims to fight for their cause, but apparently not a single Christian, Jew or Buddhist. As Brother Rachid, a Moroccan convert to Christianity put it in a widely distributed letter to President Obama “ISIL’s 10,000 members are all Muslims. None of them are from any other religion. They come from different countries and have one common denominator: Islam.”

Truth will recognise that the self-declared “caliph” of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic studies: he is not ignorant of Islam. It will also acknowledge that the very idea of a caliphate – a supra-national Islamic state – is a religious ideal widely shared by many Muslims. However this ideal bodes ill for any non-Muslims who fall under its power.

Truth will accept that there is a price to pay for increased security. Since 9/11 we wait in queues at airports because of the actions of jihadis. As the level of threat increases, it is inevitable that our need for increased security measures will only grow.

Truth will also acknowledge that many Muslims vehemently reject the methods and goals of the Islamic state, and that the #NotInMyName hashtag campaign is genuine and heartfelt. But this begs the question: “What is the real Islam?”

Love on the other hand, will reject stereotyping Muslims or denigrating them with labels of hatred and suspicion. Love will reach out a hand of friendship. It will show grace instead of fear, kindness instead of rejection or indifference. Love demands that we emphatically reject speech which dehumanises Muslims or pins labels on them. It will honour those Muslims who reject the Islamic State’s ideology. Love will find new friends even on the blackest of days.

It can be tempting at times such as this to chose between love and truth. Love without truth can be gullible, opening the door to many threats. I am reminded of a Persian fable. A Fox met a Heron and said “My, what lovely feathers you have, dear Heron. May I have one?” The Heron obliged. The next day they met again. Day after day the Fox’s question was repeated, and day after the day the Heron’s response was the same. One day they met for the last time. The Heron had been plucked bare, so the Fox said “Heron, you look delicious. Now I will eat you. And he did.”

Love without boundaries, at the cost of truth, can wreak incredible havoc on innocent lives. In the end, such love is false, and will prove profoundly unloving. Genuine love does not fear the truth. True love will not deny or obscure the damaging effect of sharia law upon Christians living in Islamic societies, or the atrocities being perpetrated in the name of Islam against Christians and others by the “caliphate”. It will be mindful of the words in Proverbs 24:11-12: “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering towards slaughter. If you say ‘But we knew nothing about this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it.”

On the other hand, truth without love can become merciless, excluding and cruel. Love counts the cost of aggressive argument and rejects rhetoric. It takes pains to understand the other; it seeks to see the world through another’s eyes and to hear words through another’s ears. Love nurtures life-giving relationships. It reaches out to enmity and answers it with grace. It does not jump to conclusions, but is patient and careful. It delights to partner with and nurture truth and does not fear it.

Professor Peter Leahy, former Army Chief and leading defence strategist has warned Australians that we face a war that is “likely to last for the rest of the century”. If he is right, then the troubles we are facing now as a nation are only the beginning, and dealing with the potential horrors ahead will stretch our humanity to its limits.

As Christians we are called to be salt and light in the world. If this means anything, it means staying true to Jesus’ two great statements “the truth shall set you free” and “love your enemies, and do good to those who hate you”. This is no time for circling the wagons and cowering behind them in fear.

This is a time for Australians to reach out to our Muslim neighbours, to show and receive grace. In the present difficulties many Muslims will agree with Melbourne lawyer Shabnum Cassim who stated that “the everyday Muslim just wants to get on with their day.” As a nation the fact that we need to respond realistically to genuine threats to our peace, and seek a true understanding of the religious beliefs that generate these threats, should not deflect us from the everyday task of getting on with our lives together, graciously, inclusively and generously.

Mark Durie is the pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Founder of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. His book The Third Choice explains the implications for Christians of living under Islamic rule.

Into The Fire…

130514151816-holder-0514-story-top
Center For Security Policy, By Kyle Shideler:

The Department of Justice has announced its new strategy for dealing with the threat of recruitment by the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS).  This threat of ISIS recruitment in the Homeland took center stage recently, when Fox News’ Megan Kelly and Greta Van Susteren, highlighted the  activities of Egyptian ISIS recruiter at a Minnesota mosque.

Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, that strategy will be yet more “community outreach” in an effort to “counter violent extremism.” According to Attorney General Eric Holder:

Today, I am announcing that the Department of Justice is partnering with the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center to launch a new series of pilot programs in cities across the nation. These programs will bring together community representatives, public safety officials, religious leaders, and United States Attorneys to improve local engagement; to counter violent extremism; and – ultimately – to build a broad network of community partnerships to keep our nation safe. Under President Obama’s leadership, along with our interagency affiliates, we will work closely with community representatives to develop comprehensive local strategies, to raise awareness about important issues, to share information on best practices, and to expand and improve training in every area of the country.

Time and time again, our government has shown that when it chooses community partners from the Muslim community in the United States, they almost invariably choose those who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This sad fact is bipartisan, evidenced in the Clinton, and Bush Administrations, but made the center piece of all Counterterrorism efforts by the Obama Administration and the Countering Violent Extremism strategy. This is policy announcement appears to be an expansion, a doubling down, on the CVE policy which has already failed dramatically.  That said, the focus on an effort to “expand and improve training in every area of the country” is particularly worrisome, as it appears to echo a letter sent to the Obama administration’s counterterrorism czar by Muslim Brotherhood-aligned groups, and their allies, to target federal, state and local law enforcement for “reeducation.” As I noted in a piece at Breitbart News warning of this coming policy extension:

In the letter, the organizations call for an auditing of all intelligence and law enforcement training materials, and mandatory retraining for any federal, state or local law enforcement official who has ever received the training the group finds objectionable. They also seek to extend the training purge to any federal, state or local law enforcement organization which has receives federal money.

This reeducation program, if enacted by the Obama Administration, will represent a final victory for Islamists seeking to control U.S. policy on dealing with the jihadist threats.

You cannot defeat terrorism by running from ISIS into the waiting arms of the Muslim Brotherhood. That has always been the inherent strategic logic in the division of labor between Jihad (conducted by Al Qaeda, and now ISIS), and Dawah (preaching) carried out principly by the Brotherhood. This is shariah’s one-two punch, where the terrorism and violence of ISIS and Al Qaeda represents only the jab. As Sayyid Qutb, the infamous Muslim Brotherhood ideologue remarked,

This movement uses the methods of preaching and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs and it uses physical power and Jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili (ed. ignorant, non-believing) system.”

The Obama Administration strategy for dealing with homegrown recruitment appears to be to send us from the ISIS frying pan into the Ikhwan fire.

The Wages of Outreach…

cair-poster--239x300Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler:

The New York Post’s Paul Sperry  reported Sunday that the media director of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) maybe a former Boston resident named Ahmad Abousamra. Abousamra was an attendee at the same infamous Boston-area mosque that played host to Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  Not only that but Abousamra’s father, was a board member at the mosque, according to Sperry.

The Islamic Society of Boston, founded by self-identified Muslim Brother and convicted Al Qaeda financier Abdulrahman Alamoudi featured Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, famous for authorizing the use of Hamas suicide bombings and the killing of American civilians in Iraq, as a trustee. Other terrorist alum from ISB include Tarek Mehenna, a long time friend of Abousamra, and “Lady Al Qaeda” Aafia Siddiqui, whose release ISIS demanded as part of their negotiations over the fate of executed American journalist James Foley.

The ISB mosque was the same one that U.S. Representative from Texas Louie Gohmert questioned then FBI director Robert Mueller over in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, which led Mueller to admit that while he was unaware that the elder Tsarnaev attended the mosque, the FBI had done “outreach” there.

 

This preference for outreach to, rather than investigation of,  groups (and mosques) associated with the Muslim Brotherhood will only worsen if efforts to hamper U.S. government’s use of informants in and around mosques are successful. This campaign, called the Safe Spaces Initiative, is led by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, but has received assistance from a wide variety of Islamic and left-wing organizations, including Human Right’s Watch (HRW). HRW recently launched a major campaign to prohibit the use of informants in tandem to the MPAC effort. The HRW’s poster boy for that campaign was convicted terrorist James Cromitie, who was the center of a terrorist plot given a recent whitewashing by the HBO documentary “The Newburgh Sting.” As CSP has documented elsewhere, Cromitie was a man committed to the doctrine of shariah, who desired to engage in jihad. The fact that defense allegations of entrapment were demolished by a court has not stopped HRW from attempting to re-characterize the case as one of FBI malfeasance. Like the false allegations of illegal surveillance of Muslim suspects, these campaigns seek to use public opinion to force law enforcement and national security officials from engaging in the necessary, and legally authorized, work of protecting the country.

How many Abousamaras, Mehennas, Tsarnaevs, and Siddiquis are out there, who will not be uncovered until it is to late because the hands of law enforcement have been tied to a failed strategy of outreach?

FBI Recruiting From Islamic Terrorist Supporting Organization. Why?

PHOTOGRAPHS BY CALLIE SHELL / AURORA FOR TIME "...The bureau has come under fire from hard-line pundits, who charge that it is reaching out to American Muslim leaders sympathetic to extremists. "They are providing an endorsement of these individuals, which enhances their credibility," says Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank in Philadelphia.

PHOTOGRAPHS BY CALLIE SHELL / AURORA FOR TIME
“…The bureau has come under fire from hard-line pundits, who charge that it is reaching out to American Muslim leaders sympathetic to extremists. “They are providing an endorsement of these individuals, which enhances their credibility,” says Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank in Philadelphia.

By Dave Gaubatz:

I receive internal emails from the ADAMS Center, ADAMS CENTER ISLAMIC ORGANIZATION SITE  The Executives of the ADAMS Center are very closely aligned with CAIR National.  CAIR Executives often flip flop and join one another’s terrorist supporting organization.  The ADAMS Center and CAIR National have previously been investigated and/or raided by the FBI.  Why would the FBI recruit from Islamic terror organzations for sensitive positions, such as FBI Special Agents and FBI Analysts.  The positions require a Top Secret clearance.
The answer is there is no good reason to recruit from terrorist organizations and supporters of terrorist.  FBI Special Agent Amylynn Errera, Washington Field Office sent the email to Farooq Syed, ADAMS Center.  Farooq then forwarded the email about FBI positions to members of their internal group of supporters.  I was provided a copy by a source.
The FBI sends these job opening to Islamic terror supporters, yet I would make a multi-million dollar bet that no one from the Tea Party, ACT For America, and dozens of other conservative groups are provided an up front notice of sensitive job positions in the FBI.  There are good people within the FBI, but the majority are not properly trained in regards to Islamic terrorism issues.  Then there are some who knowingly have relationships with organizations that pose a threat to our national security.
The ADAMS Center has previously been raided for their support of terrorism (RAID ON ADAMS CENTER).  I encourage readers to contact Special Agent Amylynn Errera and ask her why Islamic terror supporters (per the FBI’s own allegations) are being recruited for TOP SECRET positions within the FBI.  Her contact information is at the bottom of the email she sent to the ADAMS Center.
U.S. government employees are paid their salaries by American taxpayers.  They are not above the law and must answer to the American people.  Dave Gaubatz

Farooq Syed farooq_syed@yahoo.com [adams1] adams1-noreply@yahoogroups.com via returns.groups.yahoo.com 

Jul 17 (3 days ago)

to adams1
AsSalaamualaikum WaRahmatullahi WaBarakatahu,
—– Forwarded Message —–

The FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO) has several immediate vacancies for full-time computer scientists (CS) working directly with our cyber squads.  The positions would be located ONLY at the Northern Virginia Resident Agency in Manassas, Virginia.

WFO’s cyber program is one of the most extensive and advanced within the FBI.  WFO CSs work alongside investigators to directly impact critical criminal and national security computer intrusion investigations.  Additional background details on the position are available at http://www.fbijobs.gov/cs.

The minimum requirements for this position are:

– Applicant must be a United States citizen
– Applicant must be able to obtain a Top Secret/SCI security clearance
– A bachelor’s degree in computer science
– Or any degree with 30 semester hours in a combination of mathematics, statistics, and computer science. Fifteen of those hours must include differential and integral calculus.

More competitive applicants may have some of the following training/work experience:

– Computer forensics/investigations
– Computer security
– Internetworking (firewalls, gateways, routers, hubs, WANS, etc.)
– Computer networking administration
– Computer programming
– Computer network architecture/design
– Computer technical support
– Operating system administration
– Other high-tech computer experience

The starting GS level will depend heavily on the applicant’s educational and work experience, and can range from GS 7-12.

If interested, please email your resume to FBI-WFO SSA Matthew Braverman,matthew.braverman@ic.fbi.gov, by July 31.  If you have already submitted your resume for a CS position via USAJobs and not heard a response, please re-send your resume to SSA Braverman.

– Amy
SA Amylynn Errera
InfraGard co-coordinator, National Capital Region chapter
FBI / Washington Field Office / Northern Virginia Resident Agency

 

DHS Secretly Allowed Suspects with Terror Ties Into Country

 

U.S. Homeland Security police officers / AP

U.S. Homeland Security police officers / AP

BY: Adam Kredo:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretly assembled a terrorist “hands off” list that permitted individuals with terrorist ties unfettered entrance into the United States, according to document released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa).

The existence of a “hands off” list that permitted easy entrance for suspect individuals into the United States has drawn concern from Grassley, who released a cache of internal DHS emails detailing the list’s existence and discussion about permitting an alleged member of the Muslim Brotherhood to enter the United States.

The emails—sent between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—reveal a row over the admittance of one alleged Muslim Brotherhood official tied to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror groups.

While the individual in question is not named in the heavily redacted emails, the Washington Free Beacon has learned that the person referenced is Jamal Badawi, a Canadian Islamist leader who has praised suicide bombing and is close to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Additionally, the emails reveal a larger campaign by DHS and its former head Janet Napolitano to purge internal records of hundreds of terror suspects, including Badawi, who had his records purged in December 2010.

Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon and had reviewed unredacted versions of the emails indicated that many files pertaining to foreign terror suspects may have been purged by DHS. The sources said congressional investigators are currently looking into the matter.

The emails between ICE and CBP that were released by Grassley show confusion as to why Badawi was being permitted entrance into the United States.

“I’m puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, be an associate of [redacted], say that the U.S. is staging car bombings in Iraq and that [it] is ok for men to beat their wives, question who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and be afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de-watchlisted,” one official wrote in the May 2012 emails released by Grassley.

“It doesn’t appear that we’ll be successful with denying him entry tomorrow but maybe we could re-evaluate the matter in the future since the decision to de-watchlist him was made 17 months ago,” the email states.

One of the unnamed officials goes on to state: “Based on a review of the statements of the subject, I think it is clear that he [Badawi] meets the definition of endorsing and inciting.”

Grassley, in his initial letter to DHS on the matter, asked that officials explain why Badawi was removed from the terror watch list and to “describe the nature, extent, and reasons for the involvement of the DHS secretary or her staff in the removal of the individual from the watchlist.”

Read more at Free Beacon