The Psychopathic and Insincere Jihad

lp_1Front Page Magazine, by Raymond  Ibrahim, October 28, 2016:

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Whenever Muslims engage in behavior that ostensibly contradicts Islam—from taking drugs and watching porn to killing fellow Muslims—Islam’s apologists loudly proclaim “Aha, see, they’re not true Muslims!”  Or, in the words of CIA head John Brennan on the Islamic State: “They are terrorists, they’re criminals.  Most—many—of them are psychopathic thugs, murderers who use a religious concept and masquerade and mask themselves in that religious construct.”

Overlooked is that many self-styled jihadis are indeed “psychopathic thugs, murderers”; some may not even believe in Allah at all.  Yet this does not exonerate Islam, for its “religious construct” was designed to entice such men.

As usual, this traces back to the prophet, Muhammad.  After telling his followers that Allah had permitted Muslims four wives and limitless concubines (Koran 4:3), he later claimed that Allah had delivered a new revelation (Koran 33.51) permitting him, Muhammad alone, to marry and sleep with as many women as he wanted.  In response, his young wife Aisha quipped: “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”  (Apostates from Islam regularly cite this episode as especially disenchanting them with the prophet.)

But it is the concept of jihad that especially comports with those who seek to indulge their carnal appetites.  For whoever fights in the name of Allah and/or seeks to empower Islam—that is, jihadis/terrorists—is exonerated of all blame and, if he dies fighting, guaranteed the highest levels of paradise (where more sex awaits).

That’s because Allah made a “pact” with them.  According to Koran 9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them Paradise: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain….  Rejoice then in the bargain you have struck, for that is the supreme triumph.”   Muhammad elaborated: “Lining up for battle in the path of Allah [jihad to empower Islam] is worthier than 60 years of worship.”  Moreover,

The martyr is special to Allah. He is forgiven from the first drop of blood [that he sheds]. He sees his throne in paradise…. He will wed the ‘aynhour [supernatural, celestial women designed exclusively for sexual purposes] and will not know the torments of the grave and safeguards against the greater horror [hell]. Fixed atop his head will be a crown of honor, a ruby that is greater than the world and all it contains. And he will copulate with seventy-two ‘aynhour.

As for those Muslims who reject jihad, Muhammad said “they will be tortured like no other sinful human.”  (For many more Islamic scriptures depicting jihad as the greatest undertaking, one that earns unconditional forgiveness and paradise, see here.)

There is no denying that the historic growth of Islam is related to its carnal incentives.  After more than a decade of preaching in Mecca, Muhammad had about 100 followers, mostly relatives.  It was only when he became a successful warlord and caravan raider that his followers grew and multiplied.  So long as such fighters helped spread the banner of Islam into infidel lands, they were deemed good and pious Muslims—regardless of their true intentions, priorities, or even faith.

Many of the original jihadis now revered in Islamic hagiography were by modern standards little more than mass killing psychotics.   Consider Khalid bin al-Walid: a Meccan pagan, he opposed Muhammad for years; but when the prophet seized Mecca, Khalid—like many of Muhammad’s foes, such as his archenemy, Abu Sufyan—expediently converted, proclaimed the shahada, joined the winning team, and then went a-jihading—mutilating, plundering, raping, enslaving, crucifying, and setting people on fire in the process.  But because he did so under the banner of jihad, this serial killer and rapist is today one of Islam’s most revered heroes.

The reason for this is that nowhere in Islam is there talk about the “condition” of the jihadis’ “heart,” or if he’s “right” with God.  Allah is not God: he is not interested in “hearts and minds” but in fighters and swords.  So long as his fighters proclaim the shahada—“There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”—and fight under the banner of Islam, they can take, plunder, murder, and rape the infidels; and if they die doing so, they go to paradise.

Such was the genius of Muhammad: in the Arabian society he lived in, members of one’s tribe were as inviolable as non-members were free game, to be plundered, enslaved, or killed with impunity.  Muhammad took this idea and infused it with a pious rationale.  Henceforth there would be only two tribes in the world: the umma—which consists of all Muslims, regardless of race—and the “infidels,” who deserve to be plundered, enslaved, or killed with impunity for rejecting Allah.

This explains why other tribal/nomadic societies—Turks and Mongols/Tatars, whose way of life consisted of preying on everyone outside their tribe—also converted to Islam and, under the banner of jihad, continued preying on the other, the infidel, but now as venerated “champions of the faith.”

Christian Europe was aware of Islam’s true appeal from the very beginning.  Theophanes the Byzantine scholar (d. 818) wrote the following about Muhammad in his chronicles:

He taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy—or being slain by the enemy—entered into paradise [see Koran 9:111].  And he said paradise was carnal and sensual—orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the women were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., Koran 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77].  And all sorts of other nonsense.

Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) made similar observations:

He [Muhamad] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine…. Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.  Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms.

There is, finally, another group of Muslims who should not be overlooked.  These do not give a fig for Allah nor wish to be “martyred” in exchange for paradise, but they rely on Islam to justify robbing, enslaving, raping, and killing non-Muslims, as many Christian minorities in nations like Pakistan and Egypt will attest.  Because their victims are just “infidels”—and it’s a sin to aid a non-Muslim against a Muslim (that is, a non-tribal member against a tribal member)—Muslim criminals target non-Muslim minorities precisely because they know Muslim authorities will not do a thing on behalf of the victimized infidels.

In short, enough of these claims that this or that jihadi is, in the words of the CIA’s Brennan, “terrorists,” “criminals,” “psychopathic thugs,” and “murderers.”  Yes, they are.  But that doesn’t change the fact that one group of them is convinced that no matter how immoral or perverse their behavior is, as long as they continue fighting and dying in the name of jihad, paradise is assured them; and another group doesn’t care a bit about the afterlife, but knows that, as long as they only victimize “infidels,” no Muslim will hold them accountable.  In both cases, Islam aids and abets their behavior.

Islam’s Will to Power

ds_1

An Interview with Shillman Fellow Raymond Ibrahim.

Front Page Magazine, by October 21, 2016

Reprinted from Linformale.eu.

Of Egyptian Coptic parents and fluent in Arabic, Raymond Ibrahim is among those scholars and commentators who, like Robert Spencer and David Horowitz, is not afraid of calling a spade a spade. In this times of ours poisoned by politically correctness it comes like a breath of fresh air.

He will not talk of Islam as “the religion of peace” pretending that it is something that it never was. On the contrary, he will emphasize that contemporary jihadists just follow a strict application of the Koran, much alike the Protestant Reformers with their concept of sola scriptura (scripture by itself). The main difference is that the latter usually do not make themselves explode, or behead “infidels” or are committed to a permanent strife with the West to subjugate it.

The reason for this is that in the Koran, jihad is prescriptive and Mohammed, the perfect example for every Muslim, was  a prophet but also a warlord.

A regular contributor to the David Horowitz Freedom Center and previously associate director of The Middle East Forum, Raymond Ibrahim is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians and editor of the seminal The Al Qaeda Reader: The Essential Texts of Osama Bin Laden’s Terrorist Organization.

He has kindly accepted to answer our questions.

The first issue I would like to address is the widespread notion that ISIS is the facto a product of the U.S.A intervention in Iraq. The implication is very clear. If the U.S.A wouldn’t have invaded Iraq there would be no ISIS around. How would you comment on this?

Facts are facts.  Before the US invaded, Saddam Hussein was renowned for suppressing Islamist movements.  Indeed, one of the reasons for his later human rights abusing reputation was that he was brutally stomping out the jihadis, a label Western media regular omit when talking about secular Arab dictators using brutal means, such as Assad and his efforts against jihadis.  A decade after Saddam was ousted, killed, and the U.S. proclaimed victory for having brought “freedom and democracy” to Iraq, all we have to show is the emergence of ISIS, which, when it comes to human rights abuses, makes Saddam look like Santa Claus.

I usually look to the situation of Christian minorities in Muslim countries to understand the nature of those who rule.  Under Saddam, they and their churches were protected; the year America brought “freedom and democracy” to Iraq, Christians were savagely persecuted and dozens of their churches bombed.   Incidentally, it’s not just in Iraq that American intervention gave rise to ISIS.  Libya and Syria are also part of ISIS’ caliphate, again, thanks to the U.S. paving the way by ousting Gaddafi and trying to oust Assad.  I don’t claim to know the reason behind this phenomenon, but the facts speak for themselves: where the U.S. ousts secular Arab strongmen—whose human rights abuses were often in the context of fighting even worse human rights abusing jihadis—ISIS follows.

Anti-Americanism is still strong among the left both in Europe and in the States. The likes of people like Noam Chomsky have spread the notion that the U.S.A is evil incarnate together with Israel viewed as its proxy in the Middle East. Which are the main factors, according to you, behind this attitude?

Ultimately, I believe these views are based less on objective facts and more on subjective distortions of history.  The mainstream view today is that, at least historically, white, Christian men are the source of all evil on planet earth;  therefore, the least they can do by way of reparations is to be passive while the Muslim and other third worlds experience their growing pangs—which manifest themselves as atrocities against non-Muslims, including Westerners.  So whenever the US or Israel do anything for their interest and security that would be deemed absolutely normal and standard for other, especially non-Western nations, the left cries foul, racism, etc.

The apologists of Islam tells us that Islam is very much part of the West as it helped shaping our culture with its innovations when it was still an empire. Here in Italy a renowned historian, Franco Cardini, recently said that “Islam is at the base of modernity”. What is your personal view?

This view is just another example of how the true history of Islam and Europe has been so thoroughly distorted and warped in a way to glorify Islam and humble formerly Christian Europe.  Reality and history—as recorded by Islam’s most renowned historians—has a very different tale to tell, one that was known by the average European child but which is now “taboo” to acknowledge: war—or jihad—on Europe is the true history of Islam and the West.  Consider some facts for a moment: A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia.  Two-thirds of what was then Christendom was permanently conquered and much of its population put to the sword and/or pressured to convert, so that almost no one today realizes that Syria, Egypt, and all of North Africa were once the centers of Christianity.  Then it was Europe’s turn.  Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are, to give them their modern names in no particular order,: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, etc.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 600 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.  The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany.  That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” As late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island seizing four hundred captives, selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.  Nor did America escape.  A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs.  The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s “right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.”  In short, for roughly one millennium—punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing—Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.  In this context, what use is there in highlighting aberrations?   Even that one peripheral exception that so many Western academics tried to make the rule—Islamic Spain—has recently been debunked as a fraud in Darío Fernández-Morera’s The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise.

khalid_ibn_al-waleed_battle_warrior_islam_sword_of_allah

Islam presents itself as the true and definitive religion of humanity. Judaism and Christianity in the Islamic view are seen as deeply defective and corrupted. As a matter of fact for Islam, the Muslim prophet Jesus will come on Judgement Day to destroy all the crosses and expose the falsehood of Christianity itself. Notwithstanding this, the Pope keeps calling Islam a religion of peace and presents it only in a very favorable light. According to you it is just political prudence or something else?

This pope sees himself as a diplomat and politician, not a spiritual leader, and certainly not as a defender of Christians.  More’s the pity since of all Europeans, historically it was the Catholic popes who most understood the dangers of Islam—physical and spiritual—especially to fellow Christians. Yet he staunchly refuses to associate Islam with violence.  Even when a journalist asked him if the recently slaughtered 85-year-old French priest Fr. Jacques was “killed in the name of Islam,” Francis adamantly disagreed; he argued that he hears of Christians committing violence every day in Italy: “this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law… and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics!  If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence.”  Apparently for Pope Francis, violence done in accordance with Allah’s commandments is no more troubling than violence done in contradiction of the Judeo-Christian God’s commandments.

Papa Francesco in viaggio in Turchia

By this perverse logic, if we hold Islam accountable, so must we hold Christianity accountable—regardless of the fact that Islam does justify violence while Christianity condemns it.  And when he met with the grieving relatives and survivors of France’s Bastille Day attack—another Islamic attack that claimed the lives of 86 and injured hundreds—he told them: “We need to start a sincere dialogue and have fraternal relations between everybody, especially those who believe in a sole God who is merciful,” a reference to monotheistic Muslims.  He added that this was “an urgent priority….  We can only respond to the Devil’s attacks with God’s works which are forgiveness, love and respect for the other, even if they are different.” This is certainly a different approach than that of his courageous namesake.  Its also futile vis-a-vis Islam and will only be taken advantage of.  How does one have “fraternal relations” with adherents of a religion that calls on them to hate all non-Muslims, including  family members and wives?  Even Koran 60:4 calls on Muslims to have “eternal hate” for all non-Muslims.

Do you think that there is any chance that Islam can accommodate with Western values, and if this is possible on what grounds?

For Islam to accommodate Western values it would first have to cease being Islam.  Countless forms of behavior that directly contradict Western values are called for in the Koran and/or hadith, and the ulema, are agreed to them: death to apostates and blasphemers, subjugation of Muslim women, sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women, polygamy, child-marriage, ban on and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship and scriptures, and enmity for non-Muslims—are all no less Islamic than are prayer and fasting.

Even Islamic State atrocities—such as triumphing over the mutilated corpses of “infidels” and smiling while posing with their decapitated heads—find support in the Koran and stories of the prophet.  To fully appreciate how much of Islam directly contradicts Western values, consider the findings of one Arabic language article by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr.  It lists a number of things that mainstream Muslims support even though they directly contradict Western values.  These include (unsurprisingly): demands for a caliphate that rules according to Sharia and expands into “infidel” territory through jihad; death for anyone vocally critical of Islam or Muhammad; persecution of Muslims who try to leave Islam; rejection of equality for Christians and Jews in a Muslim state; rejection of equality for women with men; and so forth (read entire article).

Anyone who understands how Islam is actually articulated knows that the assertion that it is “possible to be a Western liberal and mainstream Muslim,” as London’s Muslim mayor recently said, is a grotesque oxymoron.  It’s akin to saying that it’s possible to fit a square peg through a round hole.  It’s not—unless, of course, one forcefully hammers it through, breaking portions of the peg,  that is to say, the Muslim and or cracking the surface of the hole, that is to say, Western society.

Islam is a political religious system from its inception. Would you subscribe to the notion that it is truly an ideology with a religious coating to it, or is there something really religious about it? I am thinking about Islamic mystics and the Sufis, for example.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter: even if it has a religious coating to it, it is most certainly a political ideology, especially its early origins.  This is simply clear looking at the life of its founder prophet Muhammad.  When he was merely a powerless preacher in Mecca, he only had a very small following; when he went to Medina and became a warlord and caravan bandit—and when his followers started to grow rich from plunder—his ranks began to swell.

Many are the worldly rewards, incentives, and privileges—to say nothing of the “worldly” rewards (sex with supernatural women) in the hereafter— that come with being Muslim:  if you fight for the empowerment of Islam against non-Muslims and you can lie, cheat, kill, steal, enslave and rape.  Countless are the Muslims, past and present, who joined the Islamic bandwagon precisely for these prerogatives.  That said, I do believe that some Muslims try to turn Islam into a more spiritual thing for their own sake.  But that doesn’t change the fact that others use it for its original purpose of conquest and plunder

One of the most repeated statements about Islamic terrorism is that it is the product of various groups of fanatics. Most Muslims are moderates and will never go around beheading people or having themselves exploded. Is this evidence conclusive?

Yes and no.  It may be true that many Muslims would not want to behead people or detonate themselves, but that is because they are not committed to or interested in Islam beyond the bare basics of survival.  However, it is wrong to think that “Islamic terrorism is … the product of various groups of fanatics.”  Terrorism is actually the product of the Koran and example of the prophet—the two things all Muslims are enjoined to follow.  And so long as these two pillars of Islam stand, so will they have adherents, even if a majority of nominal Muslims—who dare not apostatize due to Islam’s death penalty—do not literally follow them.

Islam has been deeply divided in itself from the death of Muhammad in 632. It seems that warfare and strife are inbreed in the Muslim world. Do you agree?

Yes.  Perhaps the most defining aspect of Islam is the search for absolute power—power over all others whether they be infidels, women, the wrong kinds of Muslims, ad infinitum.  Accordingly, and despite some of its injunctions against for example killing fellow Muslims, Muslims have been and continue to slaughter each other, in the name of Islam.

Can we say that Wahhabism is at the core of Islamic contemporary jihadism, or is this a reductionist point of view?

We can say this, but it would be much more accurate to say a literal reading of Islam’s core texts “is at the core of Islamic contemporary jihadism.”  After all, that is what “Wahhabism” is all about.  Incidentally, no Wahhabi calls or sees himself as a Wahhabi-—a word often used in the West to distance Islam from violence and intolerance—and see themselves simply as Muslims who literally pattern their lives after the teachings of Mohammed and Koran.

What is your opinion about the longtime alliance between the U.S.A and Saudi Arabia, which is among the strictest Wahhabi states. Does realpolitik justify everything?

I think it is a sickening and disgraceful alliance that turns everything that the US stands for into a joke.  Nor is realpolitik the root source. After all, the US and the entire free world could easily put Saudi Arabia on its knees and force it to reform or else.  Its oil could be seized—and actually should, since, with that revenue, Saudi Arabia spends 100 billion annually to radicalize Muslims around the world, such as their brainchild, ISIS.  Saudi Arabia knowledge of all this is one of the main reasons it gives many millions to Western politicians and others, who in exchange stand before Western people and speak of Saudi Arabia as a “ staunch ally,” whose help in “fighting terrorism” is “indispensable”.

Do Islam and the West Share the ‘Same Values?’

bnm

The lies of Londonistan’s first Muslim mayor against Trump.

Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, Sept. 30, 2016:

Recently while touring the U.S. and Canada, London’s first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, “attacked anti-Muslim views and policies and argued that what is needed is to build ‘bridges rather than walls’—a reference to Mr. Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.”

He specifically and repeatedly criticized the notion “that it is not possible to hold Western values and to be a Muslim.”  This notion, which he attributed to Trump, plays “into the hands of Daesh and so-called ISIS because it implies it’s not possible to be a Western liberal and mainstream Muslim, said Khan”

Can Muslims hold to Western liberal values and still be true to mainstream Islam?

This pivotal question is easily answered by determining what is and is not Islamic.  Muslims have traditionally accomplished this by asking the following questions:

What do the core texts of Islam say about the thing in question, call it “X”?  Does the Koran, believed by Muslims to contain the literal commands of Allah, call for or justify X?  Do the hadith and sira texts—which purport to record the sayings and deeds of Allah’s prophet, whom the Koran (e.g., 33:21) exhorts Muslims to emulate in all ways—call for or justify X?

If any ambiguity still remains concerning X, the next question becomes: what is the consensus (ijma‘) of the Islamic world’s leading authorities concerning X?  Here one must often turn to the tafsirs, or exegeses of Islam’s most learned men—the ulema—and consider their conclusions.   Muhammad himself reportedly said that “My umma [Islamic nation] will never be in agreement over an error.”

For example, the Koran commands believers to uphold prayers; accordingly, all Muslims are agreed that Muslims need to pray.  Yet the Koran does not specify how many times.  In the hadith and sira, however, Muhammad makes clear believers should pray five times.  And the ulema, having considered all these texts, are agreed that Muslims are to pray five times a day.

Thus, it is most certainly Islamic for Muslims to pray five times a day.

While both Muslim and Western scholars of Islam readily accept the aforementioned methodology (in Arabic known as usul al-fiqh) as foundational to determining what is Islamic—prayer is in the Koran, Muhammad clarified its implementation in the hadith, and the ulema are agreed to it—whenever the thing in question goes against Western values, then this standard approach to ascertaining what is and is not Islamic is wholly ignored.

In reality, however, countless forms of behavior that directly contradict Western values are called for in the Koran and/or hadith, and the ulema, are agreed to them: death to apostates and blasphemers, subjugation of Muslim women, sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women, polygamy, child-marriage, ban on and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship and scriptures, and enmity for non-Muslims—are all no less Islamic than prayer is.

Even Islamic State atrocities—such as triumphing over the mutilated corpses of “infidels” and smiling while posing with their decapitated heads—find support in the Koran and stories of the prophet.

To fully appreciate how much of Islam directly contradicts Western values, consider the findings of one Arabic language article by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr.  It lists a number of things that mainstream Muslims support even though they directly contradict Western values.  These include (unsurprisingly): demands for a caliphate that rules according to Sharia and expands into “infidel” territory through jihad; death for anyone vocally critical of Islam or Muhammad; persecution of Muslims who try to leave Islam; rejection of equality for Christians and Jews in a Muslim state; rejection of equality for women with men; and so forth (read entire article).

Anyone who understands how Islam is actually articulated—such as presumably London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan—knows that the assertion that it is “possible to be a Western liberal and mainstream Muslim” is a grotesque oxymoron.  It’s akin to saying that it’s possible to fit a square peg through a round hole.  It’s not—unless, of course, one forcefully hammers it through, breaking portions of the peg (the Muslim) and/or cracking the surface of the hole (Western society).

It is disingenuous to accept the well-known methodology of Islamic jurisprudence—is X part of the Koran, hadithsira, and does it have consensus among the ulema?—but then to reject this same methodology whenever X is something that clearly contradicts Western values, as much of Islam is so wont to do.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007). 

Also by Ibrahim:

Here is an in depth interview with Raymond Ibrahim:

Is Obama’s ‘Narrative Battle’ with ISIS or Reality?

xc

Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, Sept. 23, 2016:

According to White House press secretary Josh Earnest, “When it comes to ISIL, we are in a fight—a narrative fight with them. A narrative battle.”  Earnest said this the day after two separate bombings occurred in New York, and an ISIS-linked Muslim went on a stabbing spree in Minnesota.  Obama’ spokesman later elaborated:

What is important in the context of political debate is to remember ISIL is trying to assert a narrative, that they represent the religion of Islam in a war against the west and in a war against the United States. That is mythology. That is falsehood. That is not true. That is bankrupt ideology they are trying to wrap in the cloak of Islam.

This, of course, is a strawman argument: the real question isn’t whether ISIS “represents” Islam, but whether ISIS is a byproduct of Islam.  And this question can easily be answered by looking not to ISIS but Islam.  One can point to Islamic doctrines that unequivocally justify ISIS behavior; one can point to the whole of Islamic history, nearly 14 centuries of ISIS precedents.

Or, if these two options are deemed too abstract, one can simply point to the fact that everyday Muslims all around the world are behaving just like ISIS.

For example, Muslims—of all races, nationalities, languages, and socio-political and economic circumstances, in Arab, African, Central and East Asian nations—claim the lions’ share of Christian persecution; 41 of the 50 worst nations to be Christian in are Islamic.  In these countries, Muslim individuals, mobs, clerics, politicians, police, soldiers, judges, even family members—none of whom are affiliated with ISIS (other than by religion)—abuse and sometimes slaughter Christians, abduct, enslave and rape their women and children, ban or bomb churches, and kill blasphemers and apostates.

Anyone who doubts this can access my monthly “Muslim Persecution of Christians” reports and review the nonstop persecution and carnage committed by “everyday” Muslims—not ISIS—against Christians.  Each monthly report (there are currently 60, stretching back to July 2011) contains dozens of atrocities, most of which if committed by Christians against Muslims would receive nonstop media coverage in America.

Or consider a Pew poll which found that, in 11 countries alone, at least 63 million and as many as 287 million Muslims support ISIS.  Similarly, 81% of respondents to an Arabic language Al Jazeera poll supported the Islamic State.

Do all these hundreds of millions of Muslims support the Islamic State because they’ve been suckered into its “narrative”—or even more silly, because we have—or do they support ISIS because it reflects the same supremacist Islam that they know and practice, one that preaches hate and violence for all infidels, as America’s good friends and allies, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar—not ISIS—are on record proclaiming?

It is this phenomenon, that Muslims the world over—and not just this or that terrorist group that “has nothing to do with Islam”—are exhibiting hostility for and terrorizing non-Muslims that the Obama administration and its mainstream media allies are committed to suppressing.  Otherwise the unthinkable could happen: people might connect the dots and understand that ISIS isn’t mangling Islam but rather Islam is mangling the minds of Muslims all over the world.

Hence why White House spokesman Josh Earnest can adamantly dismiss 14 centuries of Islamic history, doctrine, and behavior that mirrors ISIS: “That is mythology. That is falsehood. That is not true.” Hence why U.S. media coverage for one dead gorilla was six times greater than media coverage for 21 Christians whose heads were carved off for refusing to recant their faith.

The powers-that-be prefer that the debate—the “narrative”—be restricted to ISIS, so that the group appears as an aberration to Islam.  Acknowledging that untold millions of Muslims are engaged in similar behavior leads to a much more troubling narrative with vast implications.

Even so, until this ugly truth is accepted, countless more innocents—including born Muslims who seek to break free from Islam—will continue to suffer.

The Connection between Al-Qaeda and Black Lives Matter

o-ayman-zawahiri-facebook

Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, Sept. 15, 2016:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri made a new video that appeared on September 9.  It offers little that is new:  9/11 is again praised and portrayed as a product of Muslim grievances and payback for Western crimes; he vows a “thousand more” 9/11s; and warns against apostates being more dangerous than original infidels.

Only one angle stands out—again, not because it is new, but because it sheds light on a growing phenomenon: black violence against police in general, in the context of Black Lives Matter in particular.   In last week’s video, Zawahiri called on American blacks to convert to Islam, asserting that they will never receive justice and will always live in “humiliation” until they convert to Islam and rebel against the “white majority.”  He even showed footage of the Nation of Islam’s Malcolm X preaching.

While many conclude that al-Qaeda is opportunistically trying to exploit groups like BLM, the reality may be that BLM has from the start long been influenced by al-Qaeda’s rhetoric and propaganda (which, as usual, is quietly disseminated on the ground, not by al-Qaeda, but by its many Muslim sympathizers in America).  For Zawahiri has in fact for years been calling on American blacks to turn against whites and quoting Malcolm X.

Nearly a decade ago, Zawahiri issued a similar message:

That’s why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world, to know that when we wage jihad in Allah’s path, we aren’t waging jihad to lift oppression from Muslims only; we are waging jihad to lift oppression from all mankind, because Allah has ordered us never to accept oppression, whatever it may be…This is why I want every oppressed one on the face of the earth to know that our victory over America and the Crusading West — with Allah’s permission — is a victory for them, because they shall be freed from the most powerful tyrannical force in the history of mankind.

American blacks, however, were Zawahiri’s primary targets. He again praised and quoted from Malcolm X: “Anytime you beg another man to set you free, you will never be free. Freedom is something you have to do for yourself. The price of freedom is death.”

Surely it’s not a coincidence that, a decade after this theme started to be hammered out by al-Qaeda and America’s Nation of Islam—who are ever telling blacks that Christianity is the “white man’s religion,” made to keep blacks passive, whereas Islam is the religion of equality, strength and dignity—that blacks, many associated or even converted to Islam, have begun to engage in violence and murder, including in the context of Black Lives Matter, that is, in the so-called name of “social justice”?

Sounding like Malcolm X, just last year Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan spoke words that would make Zawahiri proud:

I’m looking for 10,000 in the midst of a million. Ten thousand fearless men who say death is sweeter than continued life under tyranny. Death is sweeter than continuing to live and bury our children while the white folks give our killers hamburgers. Death is sweeter than watching us slaughter each other to the joy of a 400-year-old enemy. Death is sweeter. The Quran teaches persecution is worse than slaughter. Then it says retaliation is prescribed in matters of the slain. Retaliation is a prescription from God to calm the breasts of those whose children have been slain. So if the federal government won’t intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!

Apparently police are meant by “those who kill us.”  Unsurprisingly, then, Muslims and the Nation of Islam—even ISIS apparently—were “on the Ground [in Ferguson] and Active Since Day One.”  Likewise, Gavin Eugene Long, a self-styled “social justice warrior,” who murdered three Baton Rouge police officers last July, was a member of the Nation of Islam.  Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, the original Black Lives Matter cop killer, who gunned down two NYPD officers while eating lunch in their patrol car in December 2014 posted on his Facebook an image of Koran verse 8:60, where Allah calls on Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah.” Edward Archer, another black convert to Islam, shot a Philadelphia police officer and later cited “following Allah” as his motive.

The aftereffects of al-Qaeda’s propaganda—which, right after September 11, 2001, was regularly disseminated by Western media far and wide—are still with us.  Such propaganda always had several faces: if it was meant to make liberal Americans feel guilty and try to appease “aggrieved” Muslims, it was simultaneously always inciting blacks to violence against whites.  And it worked, even if its rationale is often hidden beneath the surface.

Impervious Hubris: How U.S. Intelligence Failures Led to ISIS

michael-scheuer-sized-770x415xcMEF, by Raymond Ibrahim
PJ Media
September 15, 2016

Over a decade after U.S. leadership declared a “war on terror,” all it has to show for it is the creation of the Islamic State—an Islamic body that has taken terror and atrocities to a whole new level.

How did this happen?

A key factor often overlooked is the intelligence community’s failures concerning what fuels the jihadis.

Consider Michael Scheuer, author of the 2004 national bestsellerImperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. Scheuer’s credentials as described in that book are impressive: “For the past seventeen years, my career has focused exclusively on terrorism, Islamic insurgencies, militant Islam… I have earned my keep and am able to speak with some authority and confidence about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, [and] the dangers they pose and symbolize for the Unites States…” Indeed, Scheuer also served as senior adviser for the Osama Bin Laden Department of the CIA and chief of the Sunni Militant Unit.

15 years after 9/11, all we have to show for the ‘war on terror’ is the creation of the Islamic State.

The fundamental thesis of his book was that al-Qaeda’s terrorism is a reaction to U.S. foreign policies: “Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world,” wrote Scheuer.

As proof, he regularly quoted bin Laden’s messages to the West, which did in fact validate Scheuer’s assessment. He went on to compare bin Laden, that jihadi terrorist, to heroes like Robin Hood and even Saint Francis of Assisi, and concluded that al-Qaeda’s war revolves around “love”:

Bin Laden and most militant Islamists, therefore, can be said to be motivated by their love for Allah and their hatred for a few, specific, U.S. policies and actions they believe are damaging—and threatening to destroy—the things they love. Theirs is a war against a specific target, and for specific, limited purposes. While they will use whatever weapon comes to hand—including weapons of mass destruction—their goal is not to wipe out our secular democracy, but to deter us by military means from attacking the things they love. Bin Laden et al are not eternal warriors.

American liberals, academics, politically correct media, politicians, and government—in a word, the establishment—willingly embraced and regurgitated this Muslim grievance thesis which, while not original to Scheuer, certainly received a boost thanks to his book.

American academics, media, and politicians, have embraced the Muslim grievance thesis.

It was in this context that I sought to translate al-Qaeda’s Arabic writings that I discovered in 2004 while working at the Library of Congress. As opposed to the carefully crafted communiques al-Qaeda was sending to the West—which were presented without context and accepted hook, line, and sinker by many so-called “experts”—these arcane writings were directed to fellow Muslims. They made perfectly clear al-Qaeda’s ultimate motive in attacking the West: Islam’s commands for Muslims to hate and subjugate the non-Muslim, or “infidel.”

Here’s a sampling of what bin Laden was writing to fellow Muslims, even as he was duping Western analysts with talk of “grievances”:

As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone.” So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [in which case, bin Laden later clarifies, they should dissemble (taqiyya) before the infidels by, say, portraying their violence as a product of “grievances”]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).

Bin Laden also asked and answered the pivotal question:

Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya [tribute], through physical though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword—for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live.

How does one square such clear assertions with Scheuer’s claims that “None of the reasons [for al-Qaeda’s antipathy] have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy”? I raised this question in a 2008 article criticizing Scheuer’s claims about al-Qaeda’s motivations.

In response, Scheuer lashed out in the comments section of the article (see my full response to himhere). Instead of acknowledging that al-Qaeda’s own words damned his thesis, the man who insisted Islamic terrorism was a product of “imperial hubris” exhibited a sort of impervious hubris—impervious to facts and reality, that is. He sarcastically wrote:

Mr. Ibrahim’s Al Qaeda Reader is an excellent example of what passes for solid analysis and intellectual honesty among Neo-conservatives…. In this highly selective collection, Mr. Ibrahim picks and chooses from the enormous corpus of writings, statements, and interviews by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to produce a slim volume which he claims will once and for all prove that Al Qaeda and its allies are bent on imposing a worldwide Caliphate to be governed by what the Necons are pleased to call Islamo-fascism… [T]he book deliberately misleads an America public…

For the record, my “slim volume” is 320 pages long. As for it being a “highly selective collection,” the book is actually the most balanced of its kind, as it presents al-Qaeda’s releases to the West and its exhortations to its Muslim followers. For example, whereas Bruce Lawrence’s Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden (2005), complemented Scheuer’s grievance paradigm by only presenting al-Qaeda’s propaganda communiques to the West, The Al Qaeda Readerjuxtaposes both the terrorist group’s doctrinal writings to fellow Muslims (as quoted above) and its grievance claims to the West, giving the reader a more complete picture.

At any rate, now, a decade later, the “why do they hate us” question has been settled by those best positioned to settle it: the Islamic State, or al-Qaeda 2.0. In a recent article titled “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You,” the Islamic State gives six reasons. Reason number one says it all:

We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son [Christ], you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone'” (Al-Mumtahanah 4 [i.e., Koran 60:4, the same verse bin Laden quoted above]). Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option [“People of the Book”] – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims [per Koran 9:29].

It is only in reasons five and six that ISIS finally mentions “grievances” against Western foreign policies—only to quickly clarify:

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. […] The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you [emphasis added].

It is this unrelenting hatred that many Westerners cannot comprehend; a hate that compels Muslim husbands to hate their non-Muslim wives and America’s “friends and allies,” such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to publish government sanctioned decrees openly proclaiming their hate for America, because it is not Islamic.

And it was always this hate that fueled al-Qaeda’s jihad—not grievances.

Incidentally, it’s worth noting that in Scheuer’s response to me, he mocked the idea that the caliphate would be resurrected (which I had predicted) claiming that “the Islamists know that it is as unlikely to appear in their or their grandsons’ lifetimes as Christians know that a uniform world of turning-of-the-cheek or loving-thy-neighbor is at best light years over the horizon.” Likewise in Imperial Hubrishe wrote: “At this point in history, we need worry little about the threat of an offensive and expansionist jihad meant to conquer new lands for Islam and convert new peoples to the faith” (page 7).

Really? Tell that to the many non-Muslims and non-Sunnis—Christians, Yazidis, Druze, Shia—who have been enslaved, raped, slaughtered, burned and buried alive, as the caliphate expanded into their territories over the last couple of years.

Muslim hostility to the West is a product of Islamic teachings, not grievances.

All of this was enabled by the West’s embrace of the “grievance” theory, championed not created by the likes of Scheuer. It ran its course and was behind abysmal policies meant to pacify supposedly aggrieved Muslims—such as wholesale support for the “Arab Spring,” which saw the Obama administration turn its back on 30-year-long allies such as Egypt’s secular Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. The grievance theory is partially responsible for why, a decade after the U.S. started bringing “freedom and democracy” to this and that Muslim nation—Iraq, Egypt, Libya, ongoing in Syria—specifically by ousting secular dictators long experienced at suppressing jihadis, all that the most powerful and freedom loving nation in the world has to show for it is the creation of the Islamic State.

Even so, the impervious hubris continues. Instead of accepting the hard facts—Islamic hostility is a product of Islamic teachings—the Obama administration, including the CIA, continue invoking the “grievance” and related memes concerning ISIS. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clintonsaid that it’s important to be “showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view,” that is, empathize with their grievances?

Clinton said this at Georgetown University, which is fitting. For, you may ask, where is Michael Scheuer now—this man who didn’t have to wait till our “grandsons’ lifetimes” to see just how much he got wrong? He’s where all who excel at denying Islam has any connection to violence for the other: teaching a future generation of “terrorism experts” at Georgetown University.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Are Nonstop Muslim Atrocities the ‘New Norm’?

mn

Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, Aug. 25, 2016:

As hardly a few days pass without some Islamic terror attack in the West—recently and as of this writing an “Allahu Akbar” shouting Muslim man stabbed a Jew in France and an “Allahu Akbar” screaming Muslim woman ran over two policemen in Canada—the West risks becoming desensitized to and seeing Islamic violence as “just another part of life.”

The words and deeds of Western leaders are not helping.  After the Islamic terror attack in Nice, France, where 84 were killed, counterterrorism chief Patrick Calvar said: “Today, France is clearly the most threatened country.  The question about the threat is not to know ‘if’ but ‘when’ and ‘where’.” Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared that “Terrorism … is a threat that weighs heavily on France and will continue doing so for a long time.”

As if such resignation wasn’t bad enough, at the memorial event for the 84 Nice victims, Valls declared, “Times have changed and we should learn to live with terrorism.”

Actually, the main thing to change with time in France is its demography.  The largest Muslim population of Europe resides there and, in accordance’s with Islam’s Rule of Numbers, is the real reason why France “should learn to live with terrorism.”

More apathy was in the air during the Munich massacre, where a Muslim gunman killed nine.

While somberly addressing the massacre still in progress—with the usual boilerplate “our hearts go out to [X victim of terror]”—U.S. President Obama managed to crack a joke, grin, chuckle, and draw laughter from his audience.

After all, what is the big deal?  Shouldn’t we be used to Muslims rampaging and killing by now?  And really, what’s nine dead compared to the many hundreds killed by Islamic terrorists around the world in recent weeks?

As for the leader of the nation where the attack took place, Angela Merkel waited almost 24 hours before she delivered yet another perfunctory speech containing all the usual words, condolences, and platitudes.

Then again, what was the hurry? Muslims abusing, raping, and killing Germans in Germany is old hat.  A new poll by ZDF found that a record 75 percent of Germans “expect—which is not unlike accept—more terror attacks in their nation.  Must a statement be made after every single one?!

Needless to say, lesser Islamic terror attacks which once would’ve been extremely newsworthy and received condemnation from the highest echelons of the political wrung now receive perfunctory or no media coverage and little comment.

On July 18 in Germany, another “Allahu Akbar” shouting, axe-waving Muslim attacked train passengers and critically injured five.  The next day, on July 19 in France, a Muslim man stabbed a woman and her three daughters—the eight-year-old was left with a punctured lung and in critical condition—for being “scantily dressed.”

No immediate comments from Merkel and Valls.  (See here for numerous other examples of “minor” and “everyday” Muslim “disturbances” in Europe—such as vandalizing churches and urinating on St. Mary statues—that get little or no coverage or comment.)

Western people had better wise up: in the field of behavioral psychology, “systematic desensitization” is a well-known and effective form of graduated exposure therapy used “to help effectively overcome phobias and other anxiety disorders.”  Consider the following succinct definition with my relevant examples in brackets:

Systematic desensitization is when the client [the West] is exposed to the anxiety-producing stimulus [Islamic violence] at a low level [reports and images of Islamic violence “over there” in the Mideast], and once no anxiety is present a stronger version of the anxiety-producing stimulus is given [reports of violence closer to home, in the West]. This continues until the individual client [the West] no longer feels any anxiety towards the stimulus [Islamic violence].

Is this the plan?  Are the “global elite” producing situations, such as the manufactured “migrant crisis,” that cause the West to experience incrementally worse forms of Islamic violence, until it becomes desensitized, loses its “phobia”—in this case, “Islamophobia”—and simply “learns to live with terrorism,” in the words of France’s prime minister?

Indeed, if the attacks were to fall back to, say, just once a month, many might accept that as a “positive step” they can live with—at least in comparison to what they’ve been seeing, including four savage Islamic attacks in one recent week in Germany alone.

“Conspiracy theories” aside, a much better way exists.  Acknowledge the truth—Islam is inherently violent and intolerant—and build policies on this truth.  A ban on or serious vetting of Muslim immigration—which a majority of Americans support—and close monitoring of already existing mosques and Islamic centers would virtually eliminate Islamic terror from America.

For the fact remains: unlike natural disasters—earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and the like—we actually do not need to live with Islam.

Also see:

Confirmed: Islam, Not ‘Grievances,’ Fuels Muslim Hate for the West

isis (3)ISIS settles the debate—but will Western leaders still disseminate lies?

Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, Aug. 19, 2016:

An old (and tiresome) debate appears to have been settled by those best positioned to settle it.  According to Andrew Gripp, a former political science professor:

Since 9/11, one of the defining fault lines in American and Western politics has concerned whether jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS are motivated by their religion or by politics – or more specifically, by grievances against Western foreign policy. Some insist that Islamic doctrine is the basis of their violence, while others insist that such groups are not truly Islamic, but are instead using the guise of religion to lash out against Western influence and intervention.

After indicating how “jihadist groups’ political behavior is consistently traceable to their beliefs about what the Quran, hadith, and respected commentaries say they have a divine injunction to do,” Gripp writes:

For years, however, making this case has been a challenge. This is in part because al-Qaeda was intentionally speaking to both sides in this debate. As the scholar Raymond Ibrahim demonstrates in The Al Qaeda Reader, the terrorist group would regularly frame its grievances in political terms when broadcasting its message to the West (so as to insinuate that once the West withdrew, peace would come). Yet when speaking to the Muslim world, the group would make highly sophisticated religious arguments, explaining why its actions, however reprehensible on their face, were in fact justified by a close reading of the holy texts.

This was indeed the main reason I sought to translate and publish al-Qaeda’s internal communiques to fellow Muslims side-by-side with al-Qaeda’s communiques to the West: to show the stark differences in tone and purpose.  As I wrote in the book’s preface ten years ago:

This volume of translations [The Al Qaeda Reader], taken as a whole, proves once and for all that, despite the propaganda of al-Qaeda and its sympathizers, radical Islam’s war with the West is not finite and limited to political grievances—real or imagined—but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in faith.

Now, however, the world need not rely on my translations and can get it straight from the horse’s mouth:  In a recent article titled “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You,” the Islamic State gives six reasons.   Reason number one says it all:

We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son [Christ], you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone’” (Al-Mumtahanah 4 [i.e., Koran 60:4]). Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option [“People of the Book”] – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims [per Koran 9:29].

This is as plain as it gets, not to mention wholly grounded in Islam’s traditional worldview.  As has been repeatedly pointed out, if Muslims are persecuting their fellow country men and women—people who share their nationality, ethnicity, culture, and language—on the simple basis that they are Christians, why should there be any surprise, or excuses of “grievances,” when Muslims terrorize the “infidels” of the West?

Reasons two and three of why ISIS hates and fights the West are essentially the same as reason one: Western secularists and atheists are hated and attacked for disbelieving in and living against Allah.  Although reason four cites “crimes against Islam,” this is a reference to the “crime” of refusing to submit to Islam’s authority and sensibilities, also known as “Islam’s How Dare You?!” phenomenon.

It is only in reasons five and six that ISIS finally mentions “grievances” against Western foreign policies—only to quickly explain:

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. […]  The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you [emphasis added].

It is this unrelenting hatred that Westerners cannot comprehend; a hate that compels Muslim husbands to hate their non-Muslim wives, and compels America’s great “friends and allies” Saudi Arabia and Qatar to publish government sanctioned decrees proclaiming their hate for America.

And it was always this hate that fueled al-Qaeda’s jihad—not grievances.  All of the Koran verses that call for hate against non-Muslims have been repeatedly cited by al-Qaeda in its Arabic writings to Muslims.  (Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s current leader, wrote a 60 page treatise devoted to delineating how Islam commands Muslims to hate non-Muslims, see “Loyalty and Enmity,” The Al Qaeda Readerp. 63-115.)

Osama bin Laden once wrote

As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone” [Qur’an 60:4 referenced above in ISIS’s recent publication]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [in which case, bin Laden later clarifies, they should dissemble (taqiyya) before the infidels by, say, insisting the conflict is about “foreign policy,” nothing more]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion.  (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).

Yet, in every communique he issued to the West, bin Laden stressed that al-Qaeda’s war was entirely based on Western foreign policies detrimental to Islam: eliminate these and terrorism would cease.  This rhetoric was accepted at face value by many so-called “experts” (such as ex-CIA agent Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris) and became the default answer to the tired question, “why do they hate us?”  As late as 2014 U.S. President Obama invoked the “grievance” meme concerning ISIS.

Of course, it was one thing for Western leaders to accept and disseminate al-Qaeda’s lies concerning “grievances,” and another thing for them to continue doing so now, in light of ISIS’ recent and open confessions concerning the true nature of the jihad.  Any Western leader, analyst, or “expert” who at this late hour continues peddling the “grievance” narrative falls within the ever growing ranks of fools and liars.

Also see:

Huffington Post: All Islamic Violence Comes From Hadith, NOT Quran

hadith.sized-770x415xc

PJ MEDIA, BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM, AUGUST 12, 2016:

The Huffington Post recently published an article titled “The Source of Muslim Extremism” authored by Mike Ghouse. He is described as “a speaker, thinker, and a writer” who “offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day.”

Ghouse argues that all violence and intolerance committed under the banner of Islam is not due to the Quran:

[Islamic violence and intolerance is] coming from a single source; the secondary books. The Quran is the only authentic book and we cannot go wrong with it. Until we reject those other books, we don’t have a prayer.

Among these “secondary books,” Ghouse identifies the Hadith. The Hadith contains the words and deeds of Muhammad:

As a first step towards fixing our problems, we need to rehabilitate the Hadith.

By “rehabilitate,” Ghouse wants to expunge … :

 … [any hadith not] compatible with the statements that God is just and the Prophet is a mercy to the mankind.

Concludes Ghouse:

Let’s stick to the Quran, we simply cannot go wrong.

What to make of this argument?

Unfortunately, its thesis is built on a faulty premise. Even if every single Muslim was to reject the Hadith and other “secondary books,” that wouldn’t change the fact that the Quran is saturated with violent and intolerant teachings that need no clarification from supplemental literature.

First, it should be noted that Quranism is not original to Ghouse. This position belongs to a small sect of reformist/heretical (depending on who you ask) Muslims known as “Quranists.” Their movement, Quranism, traces back decades, with echoes even earlier. Quranism holds:

… the Qur’an to be the only authentic source of Islamic faith. Quranists generally reject, therefore, the religious authority and authenticity of hadith, Sunnah, and reject traditional Sharia Law, with the assertion that they are false attributes to the Islamic Prophet Muhammed. This is in contrast to the Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi doctrines, which consider hadith necessary for Islamic faith.

The benefits of rejecting all textual sources but the Quran should be obvious. The corpus of Hadith literature is immense, and seems to have something to say about every conceivable topic. Sahih Bukhari — the most authoritative collection of Hadith, which Sunni Muslims hold second to the Quran in legislative importance – consists of nine volumes of Muhammad’s words and deeds on countless minutiae.

(For example: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘When you drink (water), do not breathe in the vessel; and when you urinate, do not touch your penis with your right hand. And when you cleanse yourself after defecation, do not use your right hand.’”)

Many forms of appalling behavior — from drinking camel urine to “adult breastfeeding” — are justified by finding some reference in the Hadith.

Although the Quran suggests that only Allah may torture with fire, a Sahih Bukhari hadith documents Muhammad using fire as a form of torture. Accordingly, the Islamic State referenced this hadith in their fatwa to justify burning a Jordanian pilot alive.

While Quranism resonates with the Western mentality — it’s simply the Islamic version of Protestantism’s sola scriptura — it is heresy in the Muslim world. Mainstream Muslim scholars, including so-called “moderates,” regularly and often denounce Quranists as apostates from Islam. They point out that Quran 33:2 commands Muslims to follow Muhammad’s example. And his example — his sunna, which 90 percent of the world’s Muslims are named after — is derived from the Hadith.

Of course, this is precisely why many lackadaisical Muslims (quietly) favor the elimination of the Hadith. As one more fervent cleric put it:

[M]uch of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith.

Surely then, Quranism is welcome news to lukewarm Muslims? Unsurprisingly, Quranists are regularly persecuted and killed for their position:

— Rashad Khalifa, an eccentric Quranist, was found stabbed to death in Tucson, Arizona in 1990.– India’s Chekannur Maulavi disappeared in 1993 under “mysterious circumstances” and is believed to be dead.

— Egypt’s Ahmed Subhy Mansour was denounced by and fired from Al Azhar University (The world’s most influential Islamic university), imprisoned, and finally exiled.

Of all strategies dedicated to creating a “moderate Islam” — most of which have no theological basis, and are simply built on Western projections of itself onto Islam — Quranism is commendable in that it is at least methodologically viable.

But it rests on an immediately negated claim about the Quran.

Well over one hundred verses within the Quran itself call for nonstop war, or jihad, on non-Muslims. If “infidels” are beaten and still refuse to convert to Islam, they must live as third class subjects and pay tribute “while feelingly humbled” (e.g., 9:29).

The Quran itself prescribes draconian measures — crucifixions, whippings, amputations, stonings, and beheadings — as punishments.

The Quran itself requires the absolute subjugation of women (e.g., 4:34), with particularly devastating results for non-Muslim women.

In short, the first premise of Quranism — that “The Quran is the only authentic book and we cannot go wrong with it,” to quote Ghouse — may only ease the daily life of the Muslim.

But Quranism brings no solace at all to the “infidel.”

Forget Motivation, Focus on Reason Why West is Losing against Islam

1280px-quran_tunisia-1280x575

Yes, there are only fools and liars defending Islam.

Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, Aug. 11, 2016:

The most efficient way of solving a problem is to first break it down to its simplest parts—its bare-bone elements.

This was the ultimate point of a recent article where I asserted that:

When it comes to the connection between Islam and violence against non-Muslims, one fact must be embraced: the majority of those in positions of leadership and authority in the West are either liars or fools, or both.

No other alternative exists.

Both in the comments section on my site as well as those of other websites that carried the article, and through emails, many begged to differ.  They argued that there are other alternatives and my distinction—fool, liar, or both—is too simple.

Some argue that those Western leaders who refuse to connect Islam to violence and terrorism are simply being “politically correct,” or are “cowards,” or are bought-and-paid-for “traitors,” or are worried about their careers, or are intentionally trying to defuse a potential world conflict, i.e., “clash of civilizations.”

Others argue that many Western leaders sincerely believe that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism because they cannot think outside the box—because they cannot transcend their own Western epistemology; or because they are “delusional,” or overly “optimistic,” etc., etc.

Now, here’s the thing:  Depending on which Western leader and/or talking head is claiming that Islam has no connection to violence—that is, on a case by case basis—all of these explanations may be true.

Even so, they are only just that—explanations as to why they are claiming what they are claiming about Islam.   None of these explanations change the fact that what they end up saying is either a direct lie, or a product of a soft brain.

Whether it’s due to “political correctness,” “cowardice,” “treason,” or even sincere fear of international conflict, those who claim Islam is free of violence are, in the end, still liars.

Likewise, whether it’s due to mistaken “optimism,” or the inability to think out of the Western epistemic box, or simple delusional thinking, those who cannot accept that Islam is connected to violence are, in the end, still fools.

Incidentally, others argue that “Damage done by deceit is worse than damage done by stupidity, because it is done deliberately.”  I beg to differ: damage is damage, irrespective of cause.  If someone intentionally runs you over, or if someone accidentally runs you over, the end result is one: you’re dead.

It’s important to understand these distinctions to see through the fog.  Whatever their motivations or reasons, anyone who claims Islam does not teach violence and intolerance against non-Muslims is ultimately a liar or a fool, or a little bit of both—and nothing else.

Once the issue is boiled down to this simple explanation, it becomes clear how and why an intrinsically weak Islam has become such a threat to the West.  How to remedy the situation becomes even clearer: simply oust the liars and fools from power.  The rest is details.

Is Islam Violent? Forget the Koran, Let’s Talk About Islam’s PROVEN Historical Record

Islamic-history1.sized-770x415xtPJ MEDIA, BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM, AUGUST 3, 2016:

Too often, the debate around Islamic violence centers around doctrine — around what the Koran and other scriptures (such as the Hadith — the words and deeds of Muhammad) really say and mean. Forgotten in this debate is that Islamic scriptures are unnecessary in determining whether Islam teaches violence and war against non-Muslims.

History suffices. Consider the facts, which have been attested to by both Muslim and non-Muslim primary historic sources.

A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. In just a few decades, Muslims had permanently conquered what was then two-thirds of the Christian world. The heart of the Muslim world today — nations like Egypt, Syria, all of North Africa, Turkey and more later — had been, in the 7th century, the heart of Christendom.

Thereafter, it was a continuous war on Christian Europe.

That “Religion of Peace”? Ask Obama: If Islam is peaceful, shouldn’t Islam have been peaceful during and immediately following its founding?

Less than three decades after the traditional date of Islam’s founding (622), three of the five original Christian centers (“sees”) founded by the apostles — Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — were forever swallowed up by Islam. The fourth, Constantinople, valiantly resisted the Islamic onslaught for centuries, but was finally conquered in the name of Islam in 1453.

Though sacked and burned by Muslims as early as 846, only distant Rome — the Vatican, fifth of the ancient Christian sees — remained unconquered.

Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination throughout the centuries are (to give them their modern names, and in no particular order):

Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.

The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. This of course, does not mean that these regions were not attacked by Islam.

Indeed, in the furthest northwest land of Europe – Iceland — Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” This was not mere paranoia. As late as 1627, Muslim corsairs raided Iceland.

They seized four hundred captives and sold them in the slave markets of Algiers.

Nor did America escape Islamic attack. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs.

The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s right and duty to make war upon non-Muslims wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.

There was no mystery, no politically correct debate about Islam in those days.

As early as the 8th century, the Byzantine chronicler Theophanes wrote in hisChrongraphia:

He [Muhammad] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy — or being slain by the enemy — entered into paradise [e.g., Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual — orgies of eating, drinking, and women.Also, there was a river of wine … and the woman were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense.

Six hundred years later, in the 14th century, Byzantine emperor Paleologus II told a Muslim scholar:

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman — such as the command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

Such was the honesty of interfaith dialogue in former times.

It deserves repeating, by the standards of historiography, that the aforementioned historical outline is unassailable, and attested to by both Muslim and European historians, from the traditional beginning of Islam till the modern era.

In short, regardless of what the Koran and other Islamic scriptures really “mean,” for roughly one millennium — punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern world is obsessed with demonizing — Muslims waged unrelenting war on the West.

They did this, and continue doing this, in the name of Islam.

Today? Whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians.

(Watch my response to a Fox News host wondering why Christians have always persecuted Muslims.)

Now we are paying the price of being an ahistorical society. A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11 — merely the latest strikes in the centuries-long, continents-wide jihad on the West — Americans elected (twice) a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president; a man who openly empowers the same Islamic ideology that Western warriors fought for centuries.

Surely the United States’ European forebears — who at one time or another either fought off or were conquered by Islam — must be turning in their graves.

But all this is history, you say? Why rehash it? Why not let it be and move on, begin a new chapter of mutual tolerance and respect, even if history must be “touched up” a bit?

This would be a somewhat plausible position — if not for the fact that this conquering stage of Islamic history never ended.

All around the globe, Muslims are still exhibiting the same imperial impulse and intolerant supremacism that their conquering forbears did. The only difference now is that the Muslim world is currently incapable of defeating the West through a conventional war.

Yet this may not even be necessary. Thanks to the West’s ignorance of history, Muslims are allowed to flood Europe, so that hardly a day now passes without headlines of unspeakable Muslim on non-Muslim violence. Most recently — or at least as of this writing — Muslims invaded a church in France, forced the priest on his knees, and slit his throat.

All this leads to another, equally important point: If the true history of the West and Islam is being turned upside down, what other historical “truths” being peddled today are equally false? The narrative concerning Islam’s alleged peacefulness is only being questioned because the world sees Muslims committing violence on a daily basis. But surely there are other nefarious and seditious forces that are intelligent enough not to expose themselves?

In the future (whatever one there may be), the histories written about our times will likely stress how our era, ironically called the “information age,” was not an age when people were well-informed. Ours will rather have been an age when disinformation was so widespread and unquestioned that generation lived in bubbles of alternate realities, comfortable in their ignorance, until the bubbles were finally popped.

***

Pope Francis: A Fool or Liar for Islam?

fvfv-888x500

Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, August 2, 2016:

At a time when Muslims all around the world are terrorizing and slaughtering non-Muslims in the name of Islam,Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church, continues trying to distance Islam from violence.

Last Sunday a journalist asked him about the recent and “barbarous assassination of Fr. Jacques Hamel” in France, and how the priest was clearly “killed in the name of Islam.” To this Francis

replied that he doesn’t like speaking about Islamic violence because there is plenty of Christian violence as well… [He] said that every day when he browses the newspapers, he sees violence in Italy perpetrated by Christians: “this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law… and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics!  If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence.  And no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything.”

Is the Pope really that dense?  Is he incapable of distinguishing between violence committed in the name of a religion, and violence committed in contradiction of a religion?

Yes, Catholics—and people of all religions, sects, creeds—commit violence.  That is because humans are prone to violence (or, to use Christian language that some—maybe not Francis—might understand, humans are fallen creatures).   And yes, the Catholics that Francis’ cites do not commit crimes—murdering girlfriends and mother-in-law—because of any teaching contained in Christianity or Catholicism; on the contrary, Christian teachings of mercy and forgiveness are meant to counter such impulses.

On the other hand, the violence that Muslims are committing around the world—the beheadings, the sex slavery, the church burnings—are indeed contained in and a product of Islam, and they have been from day one.

Francis continued offering half-truths in the interview.  After he acknowledged that there are “violent persons of this religion [Islam],” he immediately added that “in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them.”

This is another sloppy generalization.  Sure, “in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists,” but that which is “fundamental” to them widely differs.  One may say that Muslim and Christian fundamentalists adhere to a literalist/strict reading of their scriptures.  While that statement may be true, left unsaid by those who think the issue is settled right there is: what do the Bible and Koran actually teach?

The long and short of it is, the Christian fundamentalist will find himself compelled to pray for his persecutors, and, depending on the situation, maybe even turning the other cheek; conversely, the Muslim fundamentalist will find himself attacking, subjugating, plundering, raping, enslaving, and slaughtering non-Muslims.  In both cases, the scriptures—Bible and Koran—say so.

Not for Francis.  Poverty is supposedly the real reason behind all the Islamic violence plaguing the world:

Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person — men and women — this is already the first terrorism! You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!

This has got to be one of the silliest arguments ever devised to justify terrorism.  So the Muslims screaming “Allahu Akbar!” while slaughtering a priest or driving a truck into people in France were suffering from poverty?  What about the fact that one of the richest nations in the world—Saudi Arabia—is violent to and intolerant of non-Muslims?  What about the fact that there are billions of impoverished non-Muslims—yet, strangely, they do not engage in wanton acts of terror against “infidels” in the name of their religion.  What to make of these facts?

But apparently none of these questions about scriptures and demographics matter; after all, Francis “knows how Muslims think”:

I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think.  They [Muslims] seek peace, encounter.”

This is just plain sad.  Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, arguably the most authoritative Islamic institution in the world, did indeed recently visit Francis and inform him of how Muslims desire peace and harmony with the world.

But back home in Egypt, the grand imam and Al Azhar promote an Islam that is virtually indistinguishable from that of ISIS.  Indeed, days before he went to take pictures hugging the pope, Tayeb said that it is a criminal offense to apostatize from Islam, and the punishment is death.

In response, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies blasted the grand imam and Al Azhar.  After accusing them of being twofaced—preaching a moderate Islam in the West and a radical one in Egypt—the statement concluded with some words that people like Francis should take to heart: http:

Combating terrorism and radical religious ideologies will not be accomplished by directing at the West and its international institutions religious dialogues that are open, support international peace and respect freedoms and rights, while internally promoting ideas that contribute to the dissemination of violent extremism through the media and educational curricula of Al Azhar and the mosques.

In the end, and when it comes to the question of whether Islam promotes violence against non-Muslims, Pope Francis falls within the ranks of those Western leaders who are either liars or fools, or a little bit of both.

***

Also see:

Hungary Blasts EU with Common Sense on Muslim Migration

orbanMEF, by Raymond Ibrahim  •  Jul 29, 2016
Cross-posted from RaymondIbrahim.com

In “an astonishingly savage tirade”—to quote from the UK’s Express—Hungary’s Prime Minister Victor Orban recently tore into the European Union “over migration and taunted Angela Merkel for failing to protect German people from Islamist terror.” (Click here to learn why central and eastern European nations, Hungary chief among them, are wary of Islam.)

In the course of his speech, Orban made two important points that I habitually make, and which explain the true reasons behind the unprecedented rise of terrorism in EU nations: 1) Islam’s Rule of Numbers; 2) Western enablement of Islam.

In regards to the first point, Orban

issued a stunning rebuke to Mrs Merkel on migration, blaming recent terror attacks on the mas[s] influx of refugees… Migration, he argued, “increases terrorism and crime” and “destroys national culture” in a thinly-veiled swipe at Mrs Merkel’s decision to roll out the red carpet to millions of people from the Middle East.

This is as simple as it gets. Over three years ago, in May 2013, a Muslim man decapitated a British solider with a meat cleaver in the middle of a busy London street. I explained it as follows:

It reflects what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers,” a rule that expresses itself with remarkable consistency: The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, brazen violence against “infidels”—appear….

Thus as Muslim populations continue growing in Western nations, count on growing, and brazen, numbers of attacks on infidels—beheadings and such.

And so it has been. While EU leaders and Western media scurry to find pretexts to explain the rise of terrorism—from “Muslim grievances” to wars for “money” and “natural resources,” as Pope Francis recently claimed after Muslims slaughtered a priest in France—reality is much simpler: Islam promotes hate for and violence against non-Muslims.

Accordingly, wherever Islam is in power, such as the Muslim world for example, non-Muslims are grossly persecuted—and not just by ISIS, but by “regular Muslims“—from heads of state, to police, to educators, down to the mob.

If Muslims persecute non-Muslims where they are strong, is it any wonder that, as Muslim numbers grow in Europe, as they have in recent times, attacks on non-Muslims grow with them? Or, as Orban put it, Muslim immigration “increases terrorism and crime.”

The Hungarian prime minister’s second important point agrees with another point I’ve been repeatedly making, most recently last week in an article titled, “Eject Western Traitors, Beat Islamic Terrorists“:

Those who seek to reverse this situation [growing Islamic terrorism] must begin by embracing a simple fact: Islam is not terrorizing the West because it can but because it is being allowed to….

Today [as opposed to historically], Muslim terrorists, rapists, and criminals are not entering the West against its will but because of it….

Orban agrees:

We must make it clear that our problem is not in Mecca, but in Brussels [capital of the EU]. The obstacle for us is not Islam, but the bureaucrats in Brussels. We would be able to deal with Islam if we were allowed to deal with it in the way we think we should.

Simply put, whatever Islam is or teaches—whether it is violent or not, whatever it does “over there” in Mecca and elsewhere—is not the immediate problem.

Rather, the immediate problem is that EU “bureaucrats in Brussels” are imposing Islam “over here,” or, as I had more bluntly concluded:

Western policymakers who insist that Islam is peaceful (despite all evidence otherwise) and that the West is “obligated” to receive Muslim migrants, are 100% responsible for the daily victims of jihad, most recently an octogenarian priest…. The war begins with them. Kick them and their suicidal policies out, and watch Islamic terror on Western soil fizzle out.

It’s all very simple: More Muslims equals more violence against non-Muslims. This formula acknowledges that not all Muslims, or even the majority, are inclined to acts of terrorism. However, as Muslim numbers grow in general, it’s only natural that the numbers of “radicals” grow with them (e.g., 10 % of 100 is only 10, but 10% of a 1,000 is 100).

And the immediate issue isn’t whether or why Islam is violent; the immediate issue is that Western leaders are the ones enabling and importing it into the West.

It still remains to be seen if Orban is right “that other European nations would come around to Hungary’s no-nonsense way of thinking as the reality of regular terror attacks set in.”

Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

When It Comes to Islam, Western Leaders Are Liars or Idiots

obama-merkel-germany-islam.sized-770x415xtPJ MEDIA, BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM, JULY 22, 2016:

When it comes to the connection between Islam and violence against non-Muslims, one fact must be understood: the majority of those in positions of leadership and authority in the West are either liars or fools, or both.

No other alternative exists.

The reason for this uncharitable assertion is simple: If Islam was once a faraway, exotic religion, today we hear calls for, and see acts of, violence committed in its name every day. And many of us still have “ears that hear and eyes that see,” so it’s no secret: Muslims from all around the world and from all walks of life — not just “terrorists” or “ISIS” — unequivocally and unapologetically proclaim that Islam commands them to hate, subjugate, and kill all who resist it, including all non-Muslims.

This is the official position of several Muslim governments, including America’s closest “friends and allies” like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

It’s the official position of Islamic institutions of lower and higher learning: from Bangladeshi high schools to Egypt’s Al Azhar, the world’s most prestigious Islamic university.

It’s the official position broadcast in numerous languages on Islamic satellite stations that air in Muslim homes around the world.

In short, there’s no excuse today for anyone to still be ignorant about Islam, and especially for those in positions of leadership or authority. Yet it is precisely this group that most vehemently denies any connection between Islam and violence.

Why?

On July 18 in Germany, an axe-waving Muslim refugee attacked a number of train passengers and critically injured three. Although an ISIS flag was found in his room, although he called for the slaughter of any Muslim who dares leave Islam, although he yelled “Allahu Akbar” — Islam’s unequivocal war cry — authorities claimed “it was too early to speculate about the motives of the attacker.”

Catholic Bishop Friedhelm Hofmann of Wuerzburg, where the axe attack took place, was bewildered: “One is speechless at such a moment. This fact can not be understood.”

Instead of being vigilant around Muslim migrants, he said: “Maybe we need to help the unaccompanied young refugees even more and help them to overcome their own traumas.”

About a month earlier in Germany, this same scene played out. While screaming “Allahu Akbar” and “infidels must die,” another Muslim man in another train station stabbed to death one man and injured three others. Still, German authorities “found no evidence of Islamist motive.”

In neighboring France — which has “Europe’s largest Muslim minority” and is also (coincidentally?) the “most threatened country” — this sequence of events (a Muslim attacks in the name of Islam, authorities claim difficulty in finding “motive”) is becoming endemic.

On July 19, a Muslim man vacationing with his pregnant wife and children stabbed a neighboring woman and her three daughters for being “scantily dressed.” The youngest girl, 8, was in critical condition with a punctured lung.

Although this is a common occurrence throughout the Muslim world — many Muslim women wear the hijab because they know the consequences of not in public — and although French television was brave enough to say that the man, named Mohamed B, 37, “may have acted out of religious motives,” Mayor Edmond Francou said he preferred “not to speculate about the motive of the attack.”

A few days earlier, another “Allahu Akbar”-screaming Muslim killed 84 people in Nice.

Yet according to French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, the killer’s “motives [were] not yet established.” Asked if he could at least confirm the attacker’s motives were linked to jihadism, he said, “No.”

Reuters went so far as to write an article blaming France for its own terrorization.

Turning to the United States, one finds the same pattern. Most recently, a Muslim man entered a gay nightclub in Orlando and killed 49. Despite the fact that ISIS regularly kills homosexuals and that the killer — who “recited prayers to Allah during the attack” — pledged his allegiance to ISIS, “Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that the investigation is still ongoing, and a motive has yet to be established,” while “the FBI was confused about [his] motive.”

Read more

Once Again, Al-Qaeda Brands Itself as Social Justice Warriors

ShababFlag.svg_.sized-770x415xc

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, July 14, 2016:

After the Orlando massacre, when an armed Muslim murdered 49 people in a gay nightclub, al-Qaeda published a guide urging more such “lone wolf” attacks – with the added caveat that jihadists should exclusively target mainstream white Americans.

According to the jihadi group’s online publication “Inspire guide: Orlando operation,” killing homosexuals is “the most binding duty.” However, would-be jihadis are advised to “avoid targeting places and crowds where minorities are generally found in America,” and instead to target “areas where the Anglo-Saxon community is generally concentrated.”

In response, several pundits warned that al-Qaeda is shifting gears, somehow trying to portray itself as a “social justice warrior.”

In fact, al-Qaeda has long presented itself to the West in this manner. These latest instructions are hardly new. Further, they help explain the real differences between al-Qaeda and ISIS, and which stage of jihad they see themselves in.

Although The Al Qaeda Reader documents al-Qaeda’s dual approach — preach unrelenting jihad to Muslims, whine about grievances to Westerners — a nearly decade-old communique from al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri is sufficient to understand the strategy behind these latest instructions. In that letter, as-Zawahiri spoke to the many “under-privileged” of the world:

That’s why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world, to know that when we wage jihad in Allah’s path, we aren’t waging jihad to lift oppression from Muslims only; we are waging jihad to lift oppression from all mankind, because Allah has ordered us never to accept oppression, whatever it may be …This is why I want every oppressed one on the face of the earth to know that our victory over America and the Crusading West — with Allah’s permission — is a victory for them, because they shall be freed from the most powerful tyrannical force in the history of mankind.

American blacks, however, were Zawahiri’s primary targets. Zawahiri praised and quoted from the convert to Islam, Malcolm X:

Anytime you beg another man to set you free, you will never be free. Freedom is something you have to do for yourself. The price of freedom is death.

The al-Qaeda leader also appealed to another potentially sympathetic population — environmentalists:

[The U.S.] went out and ruined for the entire world, the atmosphere and climate with the gases emitted by its factories.

Years earlier, Osama bin Laden himself complained about the U.S. not signing the Kyoto protocols:

You [the U.S.] have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history.

What does this ostensibly disparate group of people — “third-worlders,” environmentalists, and disaffected American blacks — have in common? They all harbor anti-Western sentiments that can be appealed to for purposes of exonerating al-Qaeda’s jihad.

Now, al-Qaeda is again reaffirming that killing homosexuals is “the most binding duty,” but it’s still best to continue targeting non-minorities in America — “Anglo-Saxons” — because they are so easy to demonize.

Al-Zawahiri used the same strategy in Egypt in 2014. During a particularly brutal period of Christian persecution — dozens of churches were burned — he counseled Egypt’s Muslims to stop attacking Coptic Christians. The al-Qaeda leader, who on numerous occasions had exhibited his antipathy for Christians, made clear that his directive was purely for PR purposes; he was concerned about jihad’s image in the West.

While agreeing to the most draconian of Sharia’s tenets, al-Qaeda also knows that many of these — for example, the destruction of churches and subjugation of “infidel” Christians — needs to be curtailed or hidden from the Western world.  Otherwise, al-Qaeda’s efforts of portraying jihadis as “freedom fighters” resisting an oppressive West risk being undermined.

On the other hand, ISIS represents the unapologetic jihad, indifferent to Western opinion.

By widely broadcasting its savage triumphalism in the name of Islam, ISIS forfeits the “social warrior” card and instead plays the “strength” card. In this manner ISIS has inspired hundreds of millions of Muslims, according to some disturbing polls.

Al-Qaeda was born at a time when deceiving the West about the aims of the jihad was deemed necessary; ISIS was been born at a time when deceiving an already passive West is no longer deemed important.

Time will tell which strategy works better.