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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America at War: Let Us Reclaim Our Independence Day

Understanding theThreat, by John Guandolo, July 3, 2017:

Tomorrow – Tuesday – is July 4, 2017.  It is America’s anniversary of declaring its independence from tyranny and oppression.

The first war America fought after the Revolutionary War was the war against the muslim states – the Barbary States.  Now, in 2017, America is again at war with Islam.  Unlike when President Thomas Jefferson sent Marines to Tripoli, today the enemy is not only on some far off shore.  The Islamic Movement operates inside the United States and has insinuated itself into our power structure.  It infects our education system, blinds our clergy, walks hand in hand with our willingly seditious media, and wages war in many ways in which average Americans remain unaware.

As the former manager at the Combatting Terrorism & Technical Support Office (CTTSO) inside the Pentagon said on national radio last July (2016):  “When you look at the deliberate decision-making process inside the U.S. government as it relates to radical Islam, that deliberate decision-making process is control by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

In UTT’s interactions we have experienced:  law enforcement leaders who ask us if there is a way to host our training “under the radar” so they do not have to deal with static from the Souther Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other anti-American Marxist organizations, as well as their local media;  citizens involved in grass roots movements who want to spread the message about the Islamic movement’s activities in the U.S. and the danger they pose, but do not like confrontation; elected officials who want to avoid all controversy, but know the Islamic Movement is operating in their local communities; and state and local officials who are sure “someone else is taking care of this problem.”

UTT (Understanding the Threat) would like to state, emphasize, and clarify two critical points:

  1.  We are in a war for the soul and survival of our Republic against the Islamic Movement and their collaborators in the hard-left Marxist movement.
  2. This war will be won or lost at the local level because no one else is “taking care of this problem,” and no one else is coming to our rescue.

When point (1) is understood, that means enduring minor hardships and inconveniences, being called names, encountering nasty/ignorant neighbors giving us grief, engaging family members who don’t understand and simply want peace, and dealing with friction thrust on us by the media or others are all a part of this war.

This is the leading edge of the war, but this is where a preponderance of the war will be fought, and is especially difficult when those who stand against us are those we expect to be allied with us in this war.

The enemy wants all of us to tire of these attacks, grow weary of the public slanderous comments made about us, and fear for the safety of our families.  The enemy want us to throw in the towel and cry “enough.”

The enemy wants us to latch onto the lie that all of this is simply not worth it.

The enemy wants us to quit.

But we will not quit.  The “WE” is all of us linked together in this war who understand the threat, see it for what it is, and refuse to be beaten.  We don’t want to NOT lose.  We want to win.  We want our nation back.

We will not surrender.  We will stand and fight.  We will take back ground from the enemy.

We will not tire.  We will pray for greater strength, step back onto the battlefield, and give the enemy all we have and then some.

We will fight the enemy in our schools.  We will fight them in town hall meetings.  We will fight them at our State Capitals.

We will name names, identify collaborators with the enemy, and deal with them appropriately.

We will give the enemy no quarter and we will expect none.

We will remember we are at war for the heart and soul of this great Republic.

We will realize there is no easy way out of this dangerous situation our national leaders put us in.

We will remember this war will be won or lost at the local level.

It will be won or lost with the men and women in our neighborhoods.  It will be won or lost with our local police and our local officials.  It will be won with the help of our state legislators or by having them stay out of the way.

It will be won or lost by our veterans who we ask to step up one more time.

This nation – at every local level – needs a sense of urgency to set a fire under every community in America.

This war will be won at the local level.

Or…this war will be lost.

Let us reclaim our Independence Day and fight for liberty once again.

Let us take the fight to the enemy at every level, and put freedom back on the offensive where it belongs.

UTT Throwback Thursday: Are You Still Listening to the Imam?

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 15, 2017:

Monday’s UTT article entitled “The Path to Victory Begins with Knowing the Threat” made one important point:  the threat America faces from the Global Islamic Movement has EVERYTHING to do with Islam.

One more time:  it is a capital crime in Islam (sharia) for a muslim to teach another muslim anything about Islam that is incorrect AND it is obligatory for a muslim to lie to non-muslims when the goal is obligatory – like advancing Islam.

Which means to understand Islam, a person must study the authoritative books of sharia muslims teach each other when non-muslims are not around.  That is what UTT does.

Therefore, it is unprofessional for U.S. political leaders, intelligence professionals, pastors, and our military leaders to use “Islamic scholars/experts or Imams” to tell them about Islam.

Yet, for years America’s leaders have used Al Qaeda operatives like Abdurahman Alamoudi and IMAM Anwar al Awlaki or Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas operatives like Nihad Awad, IMAM Mohamed Magid, Sayeed Syed, Muzammil Siddiqi, Salam al Marayati, and others to tell them about Islam.  This is one of the main reasons our leaders lack an understanding of the true nature of the threats we face.

Two glaring examples reared their heads this week just in time for this article to be published.

First, Dr. Qanta Ahmed is a jihadist in a pant-suit who is an expert in verbal oragami.  In UTT’s recent videos, Qanta Ahmed discusses the difference between “Islamism” – the violent ideology according to her – and “Islam” – the peaceful religion that has nothing to do with Islamism.  In military-speak we call this an “Information Operation.”  For the layman, its called a LIE with the purpose of keeping you from understanding the threat until its too late.  See the UTT videos HERE and HERE.  As always, the media is a willing accomplice.

This week Qanta Ahmed has now separated “sharia” from “sharia law.”  In this incredibly obvious propaganda effort, Fox News swallows and regurgitates this nonsense.  See UTT’s video HERE.

The second example comes to us from evangelical minister James White who publicly states he learned everything he knows about Islam from Muslim Brother Sheikh Yasir Qadhi, leader of the Memphis (TN) Islamic Center.  The New York Times calls Qadhi  “one of the most influential conservative clerics in American Islam.”  By “conservative” they must mean “jihadi-like.”

Qadhi is a sharia scholar and works inside the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement calling for the implementation of sharia and an Islamic state here in America.

Specifically, Qadhi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA).  Qadhi is also the Dean of Academic Affairs and an instructor at the al Maghrib Institute, which has produced a large number of jihadis over the years including Tarek Mehanna, Ramy Zam Zam – the leader of the “Virginia 5,” Daniel Maldonado, Nuradin Abdi (founder of the Al Maghrib’s Ohio Chapter), and others.

Yasir Qadhi has been the keynote speaker at numerous prominent Muslim Brotherhood organizations (eg ICNA), works closely with terrorist organizations like Hamas and its leaders and has a long track record of publicly defending known terrorists such as:  convicted terrorist leader Sami al Aria, convicted terrorist Ali al-Timimi, American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh, convicted Al Qaeda terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, Tarek Mehanna, and others.

Yasir Qadhi was a trustee at the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas’ Islamic Society of Boston founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi.  This is the same ISB which nurtured the Boston Marathon bombers.

Yet, James White publicly stands with Qadhi and lashes out at anyone who brings these facts to light.  It appears Mr. White has not read MB doctrine…

“The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah (gross ignorance/unbelief) is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.” [Milestones, Sayyid Qutb]

UTT continues to encourage all readers to know, digest, and understand that there is no “version” of Islam which does not mandate war against non-muslims (jihad) until the entire world is under Islamic rule.

There is no such thing as “radical Islamic extremism” nor is there a difference between “sharia” and “sharia law.”

All of this is a crafted campaign meant to buy time and keep people from focusing on the threat we face – Islam.

UTT Throwback Thursday: Nurture Jihadis & Get Jihad

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 7, 2017:

Jihadi is total warfare.

The kinetic jihad is most effective when the target community is softened up before violence is brought upon them and then driven into the arms of the suit-wearing jihadis after an attack.

On April 15, 2013 two muslims, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, remotely-detonated two bombs they placed at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.  Three people were killed, including an eight year old boy, and 260 people were wounded including 16 who lost limbs as a result of the attack.  Three days later, MIT police officer Sean Collier was assassinated by the Tsarnaev’s while on duty in his vehicle on campus. Later that night, the Tsarnaevs carjacked a vehicle and kidnapped the driver.  The driver escaped and helped police track the car to Watertown, Massachusetts where an extensive firefight took place in the early morning hours (12:30 AM) of April 19th between police and the Tsarnaevs.  During the assault, the Tsarnaevs used homemade grenades against the police.  Tamerlan was killed after he was shot and run over with the vehicle his brother was driving to escape.  Later in the day on the 19th, Dzhokhar was discovered hiding in a boat in a yard in Watertown.  After a confrontation, Dzhokhar was shot and then taken into custody.  He was found guilty and sentenced to death.

During this episode, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick literally shut much of the Boston area down during the manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and, from all accounts, he and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino earnestly wanted him caught.

Yet, these are the same men – Patrick and Menino – who, prior to the bombing, defended and publicly lauded leaders in the Islamic community who called for this type of behavior (jihad), and who represent known jihadi/Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

One clear example:  The Islamic Society of Boston’s (ISB) Cultural Center, also known as the Roxbury Mosque, officially opened in 2009. The ISB was founded by convicted and imprisoned Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi, and had as a founding trustee Yusuf al Qaradawi, the International Muslim Brotherhood’s most revered Islamic scholar and jurist.  Currently, renowned Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Badawi is a trustee of the ISB.  Badawi is listed on Muslim Brotherhood documents, declassified FBI documents, and other evidence as a senior Muslim Brotherhood leader who has served in leadership positions in numerous Brotherhood organizations, including as President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

One more note, the ISB’s Cultural Center is operated by the Muslim American Society (MAS), identified by the U.S. government as the “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.”

A seven minute video, available HERE, was produced by the Americans for Peace and Tolerance detailing the links between the ISB’s Cultural Center and the support given by the Governor and the Mayor to one prominent Islamic/Jihadi leader, Imam Abdullah Faarooq.

This video is an excellent tutorial in how leaders like Governor Patrick and Mayor Menino collaborate with jihadis, wittingly or unwittingly, to make communities like Boston significantly more dangerous for its citizens.

Money to build the ISB’s Cultural Center came from Saudi Arabia, but support also came from the Boston Mayor’s Offfice when Mayor Menino sold the land to the Center – valued at over $2 million – for only $175,000.  Governor Patrick had a close relationship with several jihadi leaders in the Boston area, but none more noticable than Imam Faarooq, whom he publicly hugs in the video.

Former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick hugging Jihadi Imam Abdullah Faarooq

This is the same Imam Faarooq who said, while defending captured Al Qaeda operative Aafia Siddiqui (a friend of the Imam):  “Grab on to the shovel, grab on to the gun and the sword.  Don’t be afraid to step out into this world and do your job.”

Yet, after the Boston Marathon bombing, suit-wearing jihadis conned Massachusetts officials to draw even closer so muslim leaders can work more closely to them.  The muslims objective, to continue to control the narrative.  “Islam is peace, and if you don’t regurgitate that we will blow up your city.”  Using the violent jihadis to push U.S. officials and leaders into the arms of suit-wearing jihadis.

Oddly, the Islamic leaders have yet to share the truth with their local/state/federal “friends” that jihad is an obligation for all muslims until the entire world is under sharia (Islamic Law).

And so the cycle goes.  The Muslim Brotherhood organizations across the United States have been the “birthplace” of jihadis in Chattanooga, Little Rock, Seattle, Ft Hood, Denver, BOSTON, and so many others, yet they are still operating.

And why do they do this?  Because this is what Islam is and this is what Islam requires.

This war will be won – or lost – at the local level.  Citizens must know the enemy and know who we are as Americans.  Know our founding principles and defend them.

The people of Boston have historically been strong and closely knitted together, especially in times of trouble.  Now they must come together to identify and crush the enemy in their midst.

Citizens in many towns around the nation need to do the same.  Yet, sadly, we are losing this war that most Americans do not even know we are fighting.

UTT Special Report: U.S. Submits to Islam

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, May 25, 2017:

Not understanding the Global Islamic Movement and what drives its actions is the reason America lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Since 9/11, military generals, Presidents, National Security Advisors, Members of Congress, and others have been too busy to stop and actually do what the law and their Oath of Office require them to do – know all enemies or do due diligence to know all enemies.  You cannot “protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic” if you do not do this.

Last weekend, May 21, 2017, the President of the United States participated in a “Summit” in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia speaking to the leaders of every muslim nation on earth, except Iran, about how to deal with the growing threat of “terrorism.”

When this event is viewed from the perspective of the Islam, the United States submitted to the objectives of the Global Islamic Movement in this current phase of their efforts.

In order to understand the magnitude of this, the language used in this summit must be understood the way the muslim world understands it through the filter of sharia – which is the only source through which Islamic leaders understand anything.

We know this because Kings and Heads of State of all OIC nations were present at the summit when the King of Saudi Arabia spoke.  The OIC – Organisation (sic) of Islamic Cooperation – is the largest international organization in the world second only to the UN, consists of all muslim nations on earth, and is the largest voting block in the UN. The OIC holds Extraordinary Summits every three (3) years at which the Heads of State and Kings of every muslim nation meet and decide strategic directions for the muslim world. In 1990, the OIC Extraordinary Summit approved the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.”  It states, in part, life cannot be taken “except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason,” and goes on to say in Article 19, “There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for a in the Shari’ah.”

Finally, the last two articles of the Cairo Declaration, Articles 24 and 25 state:

“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.” (Article 24)

“The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.” (Article 25)

The Cairo Declaration was officially served to the UN by the OIC in 1993. This means the entire world was put on notice in 1993 that when leaders of the muslim world use the phrase “Human Rights” they mean “the imposition of sharia law,” and sharia is the only filter through which they understand the language they use when discussing any issues.

In his speech, which preceded President Trump’s comments, Saudi King Salman made many references to “terrorism” and “extremism” and the need to eradicate it from the planet.  Specifically, he said the world must  “stand united to fight the forces of evil and extremism whatever their sources are in response to the dictates of our Islamic religion…Terrorism is a result of extremism.”

When muslim leaders use words, those words must be understood as they are defined in Islam, not as they are understood in the West.  “Terrorism” is defined in Islam as “killing a muslim without right.” Under sharia muslims may be killed if they apostasize from Islam, kill another muslim without right, or if they violate any other law under sharia for which there is a capital crime. Otherwise, to kill a muslim is to be a “terrorist.”  “Extremism” in Islam is to exceed ones ability – to move the Islamic Movement ahead too quickly, thus putting the muslim ummah (global muslim community) in danger because this risks losing muslims who do not understand their duties under sharia and exposing Islam’s true intentions to the non-muslim community thus bringing violence upon muslims – terrorism.

Saudi King Salman spoke at the summit yet he sent two messages:  one for the muslims and one for the non-muslims.  Americans and the rest of the non-muslim world heard the King say he is going to eradicate “terrorists” from the planet and thought he was talking about ISIS and Al Qaeda.  The muslim world heard that the United States was providing hundreds of millions of dollars and weapons to support the Islamic world’s effort to destroy anything on the planet that stands in the way of the complete implementation of sharia – a command from Allah in the command and reflected in the words and actions of Islam’s prophet Mohammad.

Therefore, since President Trump has already killed muslims without right under sharia by ordering the U.S. military to launch strikes against Syria and elsewhere, Islam views him as a “terrorist,” and the Saudi King is speaking about the U.S. President and the United States when he says “Terrorism” must be eradicated.  The Saudi King was not referring to muslims who bomb an arena in Manchester, England or kill Americans in an Orlando, Florida bar or muslims who fight on battlefields in Iraq or Afghanistan when he uses the word “terrorist.”

Understanding this necessarily completely changes America’s perspective of what took place in Saudi Arabia last weekend.  The President of the United States is being given counsel and advice from U.S. officials who appear to lack any understanding of any of this, which will lead America’s to defeat.

Exactly the Islamic world’s objective.

For UTT’s complete analysis of the speeches by King Salman and President Trump please click HERE.

***

Also see: UTT Victory in Arizona and help to bring this training to your town.

***

Stealth jihadists use language deceptively. Learn the definitions of Islamic terms here: Islam’s Deceptive Use of Western Terminology

Vox Voxplains Radical Islam As No Threat To Americans Or The West

Photo U.S. Department of Defense / Public Domain

The Federalist, by  Megan G. Oprea, May 12, 2017:

Will Wilkinson at Vox wants to warn us about the strange men influencing President Trump’s White House and pushing for the Muslim ban. But instead of settling for a reasonable critique of their beliefs—and there is certainly much to criticize—he opts for a full-throated insistence that there are no reasonable arguments to be made that radical Islam poses any threat to the United States or Western civilization.

Wilkinson begins by attacking the idea that there’s going to be an all-out war with Islam. Here, he focuses on Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart executive and Trump’s advisor, who has said, “We’re in a world war against a messianic mass movement of evil people, most of them inspired by a totalitarian ideology: Radical Islam.” I won’t defend Bannon’s views, because I don’t agree with many, but I will point out the confused assertions Wilkinson makes, showing his limited knowledge not only of Islam but of international affairs.

Wilkinson compares the military budgets and economic strengths of the United States and its NATO allies with those of the nine top-spending Muslim-majority countries, pointing out that the West has the obvious advantage. He’s right that radical Islam can’t really pose a threat to the United States or its NATO allies in military capacity to conduct traditional warfare. Then again, no one is really arguing that point.

Wilkinson goes on to dismiss Iran as a threat by simply saying it “spends less on its military than Canada.” Never mind the danger Iran poses throughout the Middle East, most specifically to our ally Israel, and the questionable status of its nuclear program. He also argues that Pakistan, the only Muslim nuclear power, is of no concern because we’re allies.

Yes, Lots of Muslims Support Hostile and Radical Policies

Finally, he acknowledges that “this is an exceedingly silly exercise. It shows only that even if the entire Muslim world were hostile to the United States, and unified in that hostility, it would not pose much of a threat. But how many radical anti-US Muslims are there? Not many. Again, the vast majority of the world’s 1.7 billion Muslims live in countries with which the US is friendly.”

He’s right that it’s a silly exercise. One of the reasons it’s silly is because he conflates the official position of a Muslim country’s government toward the United States with the number of “radical anti-US Muslims” in that country. Wilkinson apparently thinks that because Pakistan is officially a U.S. ally, its population must not adhere to a fundamentally anti-liberal interpretation of Islam, and the number of Pakistanis who do have those beliefs must be inconsequential.

In fact, vast numbers of Pakistanis inside and outside their government do have radical beliefs about Islam, which certainly made a difference in sheltering Osama bin Laden for ten years.

Wilkinson can barely bring himself to acknowledge that “Muslims in countries in which Islam is already recognized as the official religion do tend to support the integration of sharia into their countries’ legal codes.” In the Pew study he cites, this “tendency” is overwhelming in the largest Muslim-majority countries. He can’t come to terms with this because he doesn’t understand that in most of the Muslim world, although certainly not all, the integration of government and religion isn’t radical. It’s simply what Islam calls for, because Islam is a fundamentally political religion.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t alternative interpretations of Islam that reject that notion. There certainly are, especially among Muslims living in the West. But they aren’t even close to the majority in the Muslim world.

So why should we care whether Muslims outside the West want Sharia law or ascribe to fundamentalist views if it’s not an “existential threat,” as Wilkinson points out? We should care when it involves human rights, like equality for women and the LGBT community, or when it threatens our allies, like Israel, or promotes instability in a region, like in Syria and Iraq, or when it means sheltering terrorists who are plotting attacks against America. We should care, for example, when Jakarta’s Christian governor is imprisoned for insulting the Quran.

All Who Notice Radical Islam Are Not Steve Bannon

Wilkinson sets up a straw-man argument in which Bannon supposedly represents anyone who argues that there are real and threatening trends in the Muslim world that could not only affect Western liberal values but threaten the growth of peace, equality, and democracy around the world. Since Bannon is such an easy target, and has many oversized, sometimes hysterical, opinions about Islam, it’s easy to knock him down.

Although Wilkinson does acknowledge the existence of al-Qaeda and ISIS, he argues that “from the perspective of empirically grounded risk assessment, this barely ranks as a minor threat to American or Western life and limb. The threat to European or American civilization is zilch.” Again, another handy conflation, this time between the risk of a wholesale military defeat and the wearing away at the Western values of freedom, democracy, and the separation of church and state.

Here, Wilkinson shifts gear to attack the proposition that there’s a threat from “stealth jihad,” what he calls an intellectual “retreat” for those bested by his arguments against the all-out war theory.

A key assumption of stealth jihad propaganda is that something like ISIS’s fundamentalist vision of Islam — the medieval elements, the torture, the beheadings, the obsession with building a caliphate — is indeed the genuine article. On this view, Islam is essentially committed to the imposition of religious law, or sharia, on believers and nonbelievers alike.

In their heart of hearts, therefore, all Muslims are committed to replacing secular political authority with Islamic religious law. This makes Islam an inherently seditious doctrine impossible to square with loyalty to a secular liberal-democratic regime.

First, most of the people who are worried about stealth jihad are not concerned that we are going to begin seeing torture and beheadings in the West. As for the concept of building a caliphate and the implementation of Islamic law, as noted earlier Wilkinson is apparently unaware of some very basic concepts within Islam, not to mention beliefs held by the majority of Muslims around the world. But let’s just look at Muslims in the West.

There Is Good Data on Western Muslims, Lots of It Scary

Wilkinson claims that “There’s no good data on Muslim support for the incorporation of sharia into the official law of Western liberal democracies, because it’s irrelevant. Muslims are very small minorities throughout Europe and North America.” Offering only the example of German Muslims of Turkish descent as proof of how un-radical Muslims living in Western countries are, he points out that only 12 percent of Turks want to replace German law with Islamic law.

What he fails to note is that young Muslims in Western countries tend to hold far more radical views than the older generation does. A BBC poll from 2007 found that 36 percent of Muslims in the United Kingdom aged 16 to 24 think Muslims should be killed if they convert to another religion. Seventy-four percent think women should wear a veil. Eighty percent of young Turks in the Netherlands don’t think it’s wrong to commit jihad against a non-believer.

If there is no problem with integration, and if so few Muslims in the West believe in sharia, jihad, or any other number of fundamentalist values, then why is it that after the Bataclan massacre in Paris, it took police months to find the prime suspect because he was being hidden and sheltered in the largely Muslim Molenbeek neighborhood in Belgium?

Wilkinson thinks it’s crazy to believe that Muslims “seek to replace secular, democratic government with sharia,” but he’s willing to grant it to make the point that, even so, there are so few Muslims in the West that it doesn’t matter. “The means by which such tiny minorities could assert control in strong states dominated by other religions and robust liberal norms remains utterly mysterious.” Yet we’ve seen both here in the United States and in Europe the extent to which the Left bends over backward to accommodate Muslim communities and push back against any criticism of them whatsoever.

Whenever the topic of women’s rights in the Muslim world is brought up, there’s always a backlash from the Left, which prefers its multiculturalism to its feminism. Or take the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, in which city officials didn’t pursue evidence of a child sex ring because the perpetrators were of Pakistani origin and they were afraid of being accused of Islamophobia. Or the fact that whenever there’s a terrorist attack in the West perpetrated by a Muslim, there’s a stampede to insist it has nothing to do with Islam, despite the avowal of the attacker himself.

These efforts are significantly supported by Islamist organizations in the United States like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has taken upon itself to be the spokesman for American Muslims, pushing out more moderate voices, and which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, a terrorist organization. It would seem, contra Wilkinson, that fundamentalist interpretations of Islam do, indeed, have a strong influence in the West, despite being a small minority.

The Truth Is, the Muslim World Is Largely Illiberal

Unlike Wilkinson, I am not interested in making radical and absolutist claims. I don’t think we’re at war with Islam; I don’t think we’re about to see beheadings codified into law; and I don’t anticipate an imminent global battle between Western countries and Muslim countries.

I do, however, think that the Muslim world, while home to many kind and charitable people, is also largely illiberal—and that in itself is a problem that we should care about. The majority of Muslims in the West, especially in the United States, tend to be a self-selecting group of people open to moderate interpretations of Islam, which is one reason they have settled in the West to begin with.

But they are not all like that, and their voice is not as weak as Wilkinson would have us believe. What is most worrisome is the increasing de facto censorship of any criticism of Islam, even in its most extremist manifestations. That, not roving bands of machete-wielding mujahedeen, is what threatens Western civilization and liberal values.

Wilkinson concludes with an obtuse declaration that “In the real world…the idea that anything at all about the West could be threatened by ‘stealth jihad’ is either an expression of studied ignorance or a form of malicious religious intolerance.” His reductive argument would have been infinitely stronger had he understood the issue not as black and white, as a choice between believing the armies of Islam are marching on the West or denying there’s any reason for concern.

But Wilkinson made no real effort to persuade, which is why he’ll fail to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with him. Then again, maybe his purpose was not to persuade, but merely to signal his own virtue.

Megan G. Oprea is editor of the foreign policy newsletter INBOUND. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.

New Film Documents Muslim Genocide on Christians in the Middle East (Video)

Creeping Sharia, May 7, 2017:

Source: Faithkeepers: New Roma Downey Film Documents Christian Genocide in the Middle East | The Stream

“We want to say ‘never again,’” said Paula Kweskin, film producer, of genocide, “but in the last two decades we’ve seen so many instances of it. Why haven’t we changed?” she asked during an interview with The Stream. Kweskin has just produced a new documentary that details the horror of genocide, kidnappings and rape in the Middle East.

Documenting Genocide

Faithkeepers is a documentary of the Christian, Yadizi and other minorities genocide. Witnesses and victims of violence tell the story of how Christians and other minorities are literally being wiped out in the Middle East by ISIS and Muslim infighting. According to Kweskin, it’s a story that needed to be told.

Kweskin met Juliana Taimoorazy, an Assyrian-Christian activist, and learned of her harrowing story of escaping the Middle East. It was then that she decided to do the human rights project. Kweskin teamed up with Roma Downey (Touched by an Angel, among others) and Clarion Project to produce the film.

Protecting Those Who Bear Witness

But it wasn’t easy to get people to speak on camera. Some of those interviewed were glad to tell their story. Others were hesitant and wanted to be filmed in shadow. “It depend[ed] on how people responded to the trauma,” said Kweskin. Those interviewed saw beheadings of family members or experienced torture, kidnapping and rape. Others may have relatives still living in dangerous areas.

‘If I die, I die as a Christian’

It isn’t random violence. Christians, Yadizis and other faith minorities are tortured and killed because they won’t convert to Islam. Their churches and places of worship are destroyed. One woman described how she and her son watched his father be beheaded. Her son stopped talking. Another woman described how women drank rat poison to avoid the torture at ISIS’ hands. ISIS said they wouldn’t let the women die so easily. ISIS took them to the hospital where their stomachs were pumped. Another woman who was raped and tortured explained why she endured the horror. “My only wish was that if I die … I die as a Christian.”

Those who want to help can visit Faithkeepers‘ website. Screenings will also be held in churches nationwide beginning on May 23 for one month.

Also  see: