Big Brotherhood is Watching You


Why is the U.S. government only interested in partnering with the most radical Islamic groups?

Front Page Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, October 19, 2016:

According to pollster Frank Luntz’s audience meter, one of Hillary Clinton’s best moments in the first presidential debate was when she asserted that we need to cooperate with the Muslim community and not alienate them.

That makes sense, but only if you’re cooperating with the right people in the Muslim community. The trouble is, we’ve been cooperating with all the wrong people—namely, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). These are not moderate Muslim groups. They are stealth jihad organizations whose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood were established in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial.

The Muslim Brotherhood, in turn, has been designated as a terrorist group by Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. And the UAE has also named CAIR—whose representatives are frequent visitors to the White House—as a terrorist group.

Our government has been doing community outreach to groups that ought to be highly suspect. In their bookMuslim Mafia, authors Paul Sperry and David Gaubatz contend that CAIR operates like…well, like the Mafia. Instead of urging the Muslim community to cooperate with the authorities, CAIR has been instructing them not to cooperate. According to Jihad Watch, on two occasions CAIR chapters actually printed posters urging Muslims not to talk to the FBI. Like the Mafia, CAIR and similar Islamic organizations have worked to impose the omerta code on their fellow Muslims.

It sounds enlightened to say that we should be cooperating with the Muslim community, but what’s so enlightened about organizations that want to transport the Muslim community back to the Dark Ages via sharia law? There are enlightened, moderate Muslim groups in the U.S., but our government studiously ignores them. Where’s the outreach to Zudhi Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy? Where’s the outreach to the moderate Muslim groups and individuals listed on the Clarion Project’s website?

It seems that our government is more interested in cooperating and consulting with Muslims of a more radical stripe. For example, Jeh Johnson, the director of Homeland Security, recently addressed the annual conference of the Islamic Society of North America. He told them that theirs was “the quintessential American story,” and he apologized profusely for the “discrimination,” “vilification,” and “suspicion” they had been subjected to. That’s all very nice, but isn’t it the main job of Homeland Security to be suspicious—especially of groups like ISNA which are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Johnson’s boss, President Obama, has shown remarkable sympathy not only for Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups, but also for the Brotherhood itself. His administration did everything it could to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, and everything it could to keep them in power. By contrast, the Obama administration has been reluctant to cooperate with Egypt’s new government under President El-Sisi—a genuine moderate.

Hillary Clinton herself was involved in the machinations to keep Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi in power. And, although it wasn’t widely reported, many members of the Muslim community were not happy with her. When she visited Egypt in 2012, her motorcade was pelted with shoes and tomatoes.

Another, not-so-widely-known feature of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State was her collaboration with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in their efforts to find ways to silence criticism of Islam and even to criminalize such criticism. For many years the OIC’s chief ambition has been to impose omerta on the whole non-Muslim world.

Indeed, on one occasion, Clinton was instrumental in enforcing Islam’s blasphemy penalty on an American citizen. Like others in the administration, Clinton claimed that the spark for Benghazi and the Arab Spring riots was a fifteen-minute trailer spoofing Muhammad that was made by an obscure California filmmaker. She promised that he would be punished for this outrage, and, sure enough, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was sentenced to a year in prison shortly thereafter.

Even more troubling is Secretary Clinton’s close relationship with her longtime assistant and advisor, Huma Abedin. Abedin’s late father had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and her mother, sister, and brother still do. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood, her mother has been a strong advocate for sharia law—even to the point of opposing a proposed ban on female genital mutilation.

Huma Abedin herself was for twelve years the assistant editor of a Muslim Brotherhood publication—The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Interestingly, one of JMMA’s top priorities is to encourage Muslim minority communities not to assimilate with their host cultures. Its policy, as Andrew McCarthy observes, is “to grow an unassimilated aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”

Huma Abedin stopped working for the cause of Muslim separatism just before she started working at the State Department. Or did she? We may never know. In 2012, Congress blocked a request by five House members for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the government. The request specifically named Abedin.

Huma Abedin may be completely innocent of any subversive activities, but her family associations and her own background would seem to disqualify her for the sensitive positions she has held. In other, more commonsensical times, it’s unlikely that Abedin would have been hired as a receptionist at the State Department, let alone as deputy chief of staff. And, should Clinton be elected, Abedin might well serve as White House chief of staff, or—as some have suggested—as our next Secretary of State.

It’s important to understand that when Hillary Clinton talks about the need for close cooperation with the Muslim community, she doesn’t have Zuhdi Jasser in mind, or any other genuinely moderate Muslim. She’s thinking instead of groups like CAIR, the OIC, and the Muslim Brotherhood—and of individuals like Huma Abedin.

William Kilpatrick is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad (Regnery Publishing). For more on his work and writings, visit his website,

London Counterterrorism Officer Quits Over Double Standard For Muslims


Political correctness causes London police to protect Muslim extremists within their ranks and discount reports of crimes they’ve committed, says former counterterrorism officer Javaria Saaed.

The Spectator, by M. G. Oprea, Sept. 19, 2016:

When Javaria Saaed, a member of the counterterrorism division at Scotland Yard, reported extremist behavior and comments from fellow Muslim officers, she expected her concerns to be taken seriously. Several Muslims in the London police force were expressing views consistent with extremist interpretations of Islam, something she assumed would interest her superiors. But she was wrong. She hadn’t counted on the double standard applied to Muslims in the West, or government officials’ intense fear of being labeled Islamaphobic.

According to Saeed, herself a practicing Muslim, a Muslim constable told her that female genital mutilation—a sickening practice that has been outlawed in Britain since 1985—ought to be legal. Another said women should report domestic violence to sharia courts instead of police (except in cases of extreme violence). Yet another Muslim officer said that what Pakistan needs is a “strict religious solution… like the Taliban” to resolve its security problems.

Political Correctness Creates Massive Injustices

Naturally concerned about these radical comments from law enforcement officials, Saeed reported them to her superiors. They told her she shouldn’t pursue any complaints about the beliefs or comments of these Muslim officers because it would hurt her “career progression and tarnish [her] reputation.”

In Saeed’s opinion, her superiors were afraid to punish Muslims in their departments out of fear of being called Islamaphobic or racist. Based on their comments about her career, it seems this fear runs up the chain of command. Eventually, Saeed resigned over what she saw as Scotland Yard’s “political correctness” and the “sickening views and behaviour of some Muslim officers.”

This isn’t the first time Britain has turned a blind eye to actions within the Muslim community for fear of accusations of bigotry. In the English city of Rotherham, city officials, police, and social workers looked the other way for decades while a child sex ring groomed and prostituted more than 1,400 young white girls and women. Why? Because the men running the ring were of Pakistani descent, and no one wanted to be accused of racism for prosecuting them. The horrifying story broke in 2014 and received tremendous attention, but recently it was revealed that the problem persists.

The situation with Scotland Yard, in addition to the Rotherham scandal, points to the double standard applied to Muslims in the West, who get away with behavior that would otherwise be considered offensive or inappropriate—or criminal.

Saeed claims Muslim officers working for London’s Metropolitan Police were often racist toward white officers. But few people take seriously the claim that a minority can be racist against a non-minority. What’s often called “reverse racism” is dismissed as being racist itself. The conversation, it would seem, is closed on this issue. Only whites can be racist. If minorities have negative views of whites, it must be because of their history of oppression.

The Double Standard for Muslims in the West

Saeed also reported that many of her fellow Muslim officers were sexist toward women. They called her a “bad Muslim” because she didn’t wear a head covering, a common practice for Muslim women that’s considered a sign of purity and propriety. She was also told that she was “better off at home looking after [her] husband.”

Compare this to how sensitive we are in the West to even the slightest whiff of sexism in the workplace. We’ve taken the real need to protect women from sexual harassment and turned it into a witch-hunt of sorts, so all a woman has to do is feel uncomfortable, with little producible proof or discrimination, and the man in question is assumed guilty. Yet a Muslim police officer can come out and tell a woman how to dress and that she ought not to be working at all, and face no consequences.

Imagine the outrage if Christians went around telling women they belong at home, not in the workplace. But a Muslim man’s view that a woman should live like a 1940s American housewife, something that today is anathema in the West, is just accepted as part of his culture?

Or take attitudes toward homosexuality. An American baker who won’t design a special-order cake for a gay wedding has his life turned upside down and is painted as the worst kind of bigot. Meanwhile, the mainstream media bends over backwards to avoid talking about homophobia in Islam in the wake of the Orlando shooting in a gay night club, which a Muslim carried out in the name of ISIS.

As Saeed herself pointed out, if a white officer had behaved as her Muslim co-workers had, he would have most definitely been fired. Instead, Scotland Yard gave the officer who made the comment about female genital mutilation “management action,” which usually means some type of training course. It’s no wonder Saeed describes some Muslim officers as feeling like they’re above the law. They essentially are.

Lately there’s been much talk about tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe and America, especially during the ongoing migrant crisis. Many in the West have decided the solution is to carve out special exceptions for Muslims and treat them with kid gloves.

This is wrong-headed and condescending. The best hope Europe and the United States has for peaceably co-existing with Muslims and inviting them to participate in our society is to hold them to the very same standards to which we hold everyone else. They deserve that much from us.

M. G. Oprea is a writer based in Austin, Texas. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.

Wafa Sultan: ‘ISIS is Walking in the Footsteps of Muhammad’

Adelle Nazarian / Breitbart News

Adelle Nazarian / Breitbart News

Breitbart, by Adelle Nazarian, Aug. 26, 2016:

LOS ANGELES — Renowned Syrian-born psychiatrist and activist Dr. Wafa Sultan delivered one of her first public speeches in five years on Sunday, during which she implored the Western world to wake up and realize that “all Islam is radical.”

Addressing the crowd that had gathered for the American Freedom Alliance’s conference, titled “Islam and Western Civilization: Can They Coexist?”, Sultan said: “Don’t you dare tell me ISIS is not Islam or Islam is not ISIS. ISIS is walking in the footsteps of Muhammad and the teachings of Islam.”

She added that “the world is in denial” and argued that “Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology that imposes itself by force and fear.”

Sultan rose to prominence in 2006, when she faced off against host Faisal al-Qassem of Al Jazeera’s weekly program, The Opposite Direction. She sparred with Egyptian professor Ibrahim Al-Khouli about Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory, and she criticized — among other things — women’s lack of rights in Muslim countries.

During Sunday’s conference, Sultan said her goal is to “penetrate the mindset of those in the world who do not understand Islam and show them that there is no such thing as Islam and radical Islam; all Islam is radical.” She added, “Millions of Islamists throughout the world are ready to act out their ideology: to kill or to be killed in order to be divine, have their next meal with Muhammad and to sleep with 72 virgins for a year. They are indoctrinated to believe Islam is here to take over the world.”

In 2009, Sultan published the book A God Who Hates, where she detailed what she called the “evils of Islam” through her personal lens. She argued: “They believe that the louder they shriek, the more they prove they are right. Their conversation consists of shouting, their talk is a screech, and he who shouts loudest and screeches longest is, they believe, the strongest.” She also wrote that “the way the world has retreated, and continues to retreat, in the face of the Muslims’ screams and shouts, has played a major role in encouraging the them to continue to behave the way they do. When others remain silent or worse, retreat, Muslims get the impression that they are right.”

On Sunday, Sultan seemed to reiterate those arguments, pointing out the dangers inherent in America’s adopted culture of political correctness:

When they find weak governments that are more interested in political correctness rather than protecting their country, they will seize the opportunity to destroy that country’s religion and to replace them with Islam. They practice Islam, not as a religion, but as a weapon. They understand the need to integrate and destruct from within… Islam justifies hatred and violence as well as encourages it.

Sultan said the Pope had stated that “‘the Qur’an is a book of peace and Islam is a peaceful religion.’” To which she replied: “Wrong. Absolutely wrong. On the contrary, it is also psychologically and spiritually damaging to people like myself who have suffered under Sharia.”

She said she was shocked that someone as holy as the Bishop of Rome could “fall victim” to the falsehood that Islam is peaceful. “We all must wake up. Their actions exemplify their goals of destruction throughout the world.”

To demonstrate this, Sultan explained that the concept of Waqf in Islam means “whatever Islam can take over and own is reserved solely for Muslims. One of the goals of Waqf is to destroy churches.” She said that the destruction of Christian churches carried out by the Islamic State had been an example.

Finally, with tears in her eyes, an impassioned Sultan explained that “it pains me deeply to lose my beloved first country [Syria] to ISIS and Islam. But more so, I cannot stand the thought of losing my adopted country, the United States of America, to the same thing. That’s why we must unite and protect this great land from evil.”

Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter @AdelleNaz

Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

Greg Nash

Greg Nash

The Hill, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Aug. 23, 2016:

The Clinton campaign is attempting once again to sweep important questions under the rug about top aide Huma Abedin, her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia, and her role in the ballooning Clinton email scandal.

The New York Post ran a detailed investigative piece over the weekend about Ms. Abedin’s work at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1995 through 2008, a Sharia law journal whose editor in chief was Abedin’s own mother.

This is not some accidental association. Ms. Abedin was, for many years, listed as an associate editor of the London-based publication and wrote for the journal while working as an intern in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s.

Her mother, Saleha Abedin, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Perhaps recognizing how offensive such ties will be to voters concerned over future terrorist attacks on this country by radical Muslims professing allegiance to Sharia law, the Clinton campaign on Monday tried to downplay Ms. Abedin’s involvement in the Journal and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Clinton surrogate group Media Matters claimed predictably there was “no evidence” that Ms. Abedin or her family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Trump campaign staffers who spoke of these ties were conspiracy theorists.

To debunk the evidence, Media Matters pointed to a “fact-check” piece that cited as its sole source… Senator John McCain. This is the same John McCain who met Libyan militia leader Abdelkarim Belhaj, a known al Qaeda associate, and saluted him as “my hero” during a 2011 visit to Benghazi.

Senator McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.

In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.

The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.

Her father, Syed Zaynul Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the Government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League.

The Muslim World League was “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world,” according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. Its then-General Secretary, Umar Nasif, founded the Rabita Trust, “which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al Qaeda,” he wrote.

That is not guilt by association but what federal prosecutors would call a “nexus” of like-minded people who shared the same goals.

A Saudi government document inspired by Ms. Abedin’s father explains the concept of “Muslim Minority Affairs,” the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to “establish a global Sharia in our modern times.”

Simply put, Huma Abedin worked for thirteen years as part of an enterprise whose explicit goal was to conquer the West in the name of Islam. No wonder the Clinton campaign wants to sweep this issue under the rug.

Mrs. Clinton has sometimes referred to Huma Abedin as her “second daughter.” Whether it was because of their close relationship or for some other reason, Mrs. Clinton has done much to further the Muslim Brotherhood agenda while Secretary of State, and can be counted on doing more as president.

As Secretary of State, she relentlessly pushed the overthrow of Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi, a dire enemy of the Brotherhood, even when President Obama and his Secretary of Defense were reluctant to go to war.

Along with Obama, she pushed for the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and his replacement by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi.

She pushed for direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including the arming of Syrian rebels allied with al Qaeda.

As I reveal in my new book, she worked side by side with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the umbrella group where 57 majority Muslim states pushed their agenda of imposing Sharia law on the non-Muslim world, to use hate crime laws in the United States to criminalize speech critical of Islam, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 16/18.

Their first victim in the United States was a Coptic Christian named Nakoula Bassiley Nakoula, the maker of the YouTube video Hillary and Obama blamed for Benghazi.

New Abedin emails released to Judicial Watch this week show that Huma Abedin served as liaison between Clinton Foundation donors, including foreign governments, and the State Department.

When foreign donors had difficult in getting appointments with Mrs. Clinton through normal State Department channels, Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band would email Huma Abedin, and poof! the doors would open as if by magic.

Donald Trump has criticized this as “pay for play.” But it also raises questions as to whether Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton were in fact serving as unregistered agents for foreign powers who sought to impose their anti-freedom agenda on the United States.

The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014. But by then, the damage had been done.

Do Americans want eight years of a President Clinton, who will do even more to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and impose its agenda on America?

Timmerman is a Donald Trump supporter. He was the 2012 Republican Congressional nominee for MD-8 and is the author of Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary & Obama Blamed for Benghazi, published by Post Hill Press.

HuffPo Columnist Lies, Downplays Sharia Law to Make It Acceptable

GettyImages-72166261-640x418Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Aug. 9, 2016:

Maryam Khan Ansari, who is identified as an “attorney and writer,” published a ridiculous piece in the Huffington Post Saturday: “What Is Sharia Law And Should You Be Scared? Why is Sharia such a scary word?”

Sharia is a scary word because sharia is scary.

The supremacist tenets of sharia law inform the creed apartheid, gender apartheid, Islamic Jew-hatred, codified bigotry, misogyny, free speech prohibitions and homophobia inherent in Islamic law. Sharia is scary because it is punitive, supremacist, racist and misogynist.

But Ansari says it’s scary because “for starters, it’s short and easy to pronounce. When you add the word ‘creeping’ in front of it, it starts to look even creepier. Especially since American people know very little, or nothing, about Islam, according to a Pew Research Poll.” She adds: “The word ‘Sharia Law’ has Americans conjure up images of guys with turbans.”

No, sharia law conjures up the images of girls murdered in honor killings, beheadings, slaughters of gays, non-Muslims, apostates, and secular Muslims, whippings, floggings, amputations, and public hangings commanded in Islamic law. “Guys with turbans”? Hardly.

It further erodes Ansari’s argument that she evokes the Sikhs. Sikhs have been brutally persecuted under the boot of Islam. Her article includes a picture of the actor and fashion designer Waris Ahluwalia, who is not a Muslim and follows a different religion called Sikhism. Waris is Sikh. I repeat, Waris is not Muslim, he is Sikh. But he wears a turban, so for Ansari’s purposes he must be Muslim, and he probably follows Sharia Law. Except that again, he is Sikh, not Muslim.

It gets worse. Ansari goes on: “But wait a minute― does anyone actually know what Sharia Law even is? I’m a lawyer and I’m Muslim, so people think I’m supposed to know Sharia Law. I bet many people probably think I follow it, simply because I’m a Muslim.

So, I thought I’d take the opportunity to set the record straight on Sharia Law. After all, who better to explain it than a Muslim lawyer?”

After that build-up, you would expect her to do what she promised to do: “set the record straight on Sharia Law.” Instead, she says: “I don’t know squat about Sharia Law. I don’t think many Muslims do. Yeah, you heard me. I’m a lawyer, I’m Muslim… And I still couldn’t tell you what Sharia law is all about.”

A Muslim who doesn’t “know squat about Sharia Law” is hardly fit to write about it, let alone attack those who oppose the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth. Muslims who don’t practice or “know squat” about sharia law are not the problem. Muslims who seek to impose it are the problem. Muslim countries that enforce are the problem.

Maryam Khan Ansari defending Khzir Khan puts her foot in her mouth, because Khan is a longtime proponent of sharia law and knows a lot about it. Journalist Paul Sperry reports:

In 1983, for example, Khan wrote a glowing review of a book compiled from a seminar held in Kuwait called “Human Rights In Islam” in which he singles out for praise the keynote address of fellow Pakistani Allah K. Brohi, a pro-jihad Islamic jurist who was one of the closest advisers to late Pakistani dictator Gen. Zia ul-Haq, the father of the Taliban movement.

Khan speaks admiringly of Brohi’s interpretation of human rights, even though it included the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to “beat” wives who act “unseemly.”

Ansari keeps piling it on: “Sharia Law is a very complicated body of law (imagine, like, a very difficult to understand Tax Code) and it isn’t something that the average Muslim can understand in depth. And like American law, it doesn’t come from just one book. It comes from many different sources. So like American law, only (some) properly trained legal people can make sense of it.”

Nonsense. Everywhere sharia law is practiced, the penalties are the same: stoning for adultery, death for apostasy, amputation of the hand for theft, death for criticism of Islam. Everywhere sharia is implemented. It really isn’t complicated.

Ansari’s second “myth” is: “All Muslims believe in Sharia Law.”

No one believes all Muslims believe in sharia law. If that were the case, no Muslim who sought to impose it should be admitted into the USA. But we do see sharia being imposed here in America – with speech restrictions (under the guise of restrictions on “hate speech”), the Islamization of the public square, the Islamization of the public school, the Islamization of the workplace, and the Islamization/mosqueing of the neighborhood.

Islamic scholars know what sharia is. Islamic theologians know. And when they don’t, they consult Al Azhar scholars – Sunni Islam’s most prestigious institution. One principal English-language source for the content of Islamic law is Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Dr. Alan Godlas, Associate Professor of Religion at the University of Georgia, calls it a “carefully translated manual of the proper practice of Islam (shari’a) according to the Shafi’i mad’hab. It has been an essential book in the library of any serious English speaking Muslim or scholar of Islam since its publication in 1991.”

Ansari also insists that Muslims don’t want to impose sharia in the U.S.:

Now, I’m sure there are some crazies out there who want to impose Sharia Law on everyone. There are a lot of crazy people of all races and religions. But just because they’re nuts, it doesn’t mean that they can actually make it happen. In fact, anyone who thinks that Sharia Law will ever take over the U.S. Constitution is a different kind of crazy. And crazy people, while scary, really can’t make the leadership of a country change.

More lies. Muslims fiercely work to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia. The Muhammad cartoons are the most obvious example. All over the Muslim world, secular thinkers, poets, writers, journalists, bloggers, and cartoonists have been targeted for death because they were critical of Islam. How many Muslims stood with us in Garland, Texas? Zero.

As a modern Muslim woman, Maryam Khan Ansari should work to oppose the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth and free the millions oppressed, subjugated and slaughtered under the boot of sharia. Instead, she is a slave to it, advancing gruesome, unforgivable lies in order to disarm the American people in the face of the gravest threat to our freedom that we have ever faced.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Pamela has more here

Paul Sperry: Khzir Khan Is a ‘World-Renowned Expert on Sharia, Not the Constitution’

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Aug. 3, 2016:

New York Post columnist and former Hoover Institution media fellow Paul Sperry appeared on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon to discuss his column for Breitbart News, “Khizr Khan Believes the Constitution ‘Must Always Be Subordinated to the Sharia.’”

“It turns out that we were conned by Khan,” Perry quipped. “His past Islamic writings reveal his support for sharia, and extreme sharia enforcers, which totally contradicts his support for the Constitution he waved in all our faces at the Democratic convention.”

“Specifically, in a book review I unearthed from the ’80s, Khan praises a Pakistani mullah — of course, Khan is an immigrant from Pakistan — he praises this Pakistani mullah who advocates for the enforcement of barbaric sharia punishments, like floggings, amputations, and beheadings, for those who violate Islamic laws,” Sperry said.

“In another paper he wrote, ‘Defining Sharia Law,’ Khan gratefully cites the notorious Muslim Brotherhood radicals who called for installing Islamic regimes in the West through ‘civilization jihad,’ which is what you’re talking about in terms of the infiltration of this fifth column that the Muslim Brotherhood has built up with their infrastructure in the United States, this terrorist support network too,” Sperry continued.

“If I can just say, it was an absolute mistake, the more we learn about Khan, to assume that the father was just as patriotic as his war-hero son,” he argued. “And Republicans were stupid to create a no-fire zone around him. I mean, this guy is not the champion of the Constitution and Western principles we were told he was. It turns out he’s not an expert on the Constitution, he’s an expert on sharia law, which makes an absolute mockery of the Constitution.”

Bannon noted that some Republicans, even previously dedicated Trump supporters like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, insist that Khan should be given unlimited deference as a Gold Star father.

“I don’t honor anybody higher than Gold Star mothers and fathers, people that have lost their sons and daughters in combat, in defense of their country,” Bannon said. “I haven’t heard any question at all that the son was an absolute hero, in fact walked toward the danger, in protection of his men, and gave his life for his country and his men. His son’s an absolute hero.”

‘However, Chris Christie’s just dead wrong,” Bannon continued. “It doesn’t give you a free shot on goal to say anything.

Sperry agreed, and also supported Bannon’s characterization of Khizr Khan as “one of the biggest proponents in this country of sharia law.”

“He’s got dozens of citations in Islamic law journals, and syllabi, teaching sharia law. He is a world-renowned expert on sharia, not the Constitution,” Sperry said. “He’s a devout Muslim, this is what he believes in. I think you’re right – you have to separate both the son and the mother from the scrutiny, but the father deserves a lot of scrutiny. He’s clearly got an agenda. He’s an angry political activist up there, in a non-stop parade on the cable networks, haranguing and wagging his finger at Trump and all of us, lecturing us.”

“Speaking of the mother, I think it was Monday night, on Don Lemon of CNN, he hectored Trump for having, quote, ‘no respect of women.’ And then last night, on Anderson Cooper, Khan said, wagging that finger at Trump, quote, ‘You have disrespected women.’ Yet, this is the same guy who admires, from his writings — and this goes back to the ’80s – he admires a Pakistani mullah who says it’s the right of men to beat their wives,” Sperry said.

He also mentioned the sharia standards for women to prove charges of sexual assault against men, noting that “she’ll get charged, because she’s not good enough, as a witness” unless she has multiple male witnesses to back up her claims.

“That’s doctrinal,” Sperry noted. “That’s not something anybody is making up. That’s doctrinal. But this is what this Khan evidently believes as well. I mean, he’s praising the guy who blatantly said, you know, this is a right for men to have.”

Bannon pointed out that during his Anderson Cooper interview, Khan claimed, “I do not stand for any sharia law, because there is no such thing.”

Sperry said that was a “howling lie.”

“I mean, you go through all his writings, he clearly goes into great detail about what sharia is, and is a strong proponent of it,” he pointed out.

“Did he lie on national TV?” Bannon asked.

“It appears that way,” Sperry replied. “The bloom is really coming off the rose here on this guy.”

He further questioned the veracity of some of the claims in Khzir Khan’s bio: “In his background, there’s some serious questions, so I’m digging into that. There’s probably going to be a lot more coming out on this guy, as he continues wagging his finger.”

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.


Also see:

“Fireman Sam” Cartoon Character Steps on a Page from the Qur’an, Outrage Ensues


Outraged Tweeters ask, “Why are there Quran pages on the floor & flying over the place?”

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, July 28, 2016:

Don’t dishonor Islam or you will be punished – that is a resounding message emanating from the Islamic world. For example, In Islam, when one ‘desecrates’ the Quran it is a form of blasphemy that can carry a death sentence according to Sharia law. Punishment for insulting Islam or its Prophet can be inferred from the following Islamic passages, including:

And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about Allah or says, “It has been inspired to me,” while nothing has been inspired to him, and one who says, “I will reveal [something] like what Allah revealed.” And if you could but see when the wrongdoers are in the overwhelming pangs of death while the angels extend their hands, [saying], “Discharge your souls! Today you will be awarded the punishment of [extreme] humiliation for what you used to say against Allah other than the truth and [that] you were, toward His verses, being arrogant.” –Quran 6:93

Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment. –Quran 33:57

Narrated ‘Ali: The Prophet said, “Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire.” –Sahih Bukhari 1.3.106

As well as other verses such as Sahih Bukhari 1.4.241,Sahih Bukhari 5.59.369, etc.

We have seen this played out as individuals have been slaughtered or had near death experiences for allegedly insulting Islam such as producing film and artworkdeemed offensive by some Muslims as well as many others acts. So, taking this Muslim hypersensitivity toward offensive behavior into account, one can expect the most ridiculous accusations of blasphemy from the Islamic world. Let’s take a look at a recent example involving a children’s cartoon that reveals de-facto blasphemy laws in the West.

The U.K. children’s show named Fireman Sam is facing Muslim backlash after it was discovered that an episode called Troubled Waters which originally aired back in October of 2014, has a character slipping on some pages of the Quran. One of the sheets of paper that shoots in the air when shown in slow motion supposedly reveals a Quranic page “dealing with punishments for non-believers[,]” says London’s Evening Standard. The Evening Standard captured some of the outrage on social media:

Miqdaad Versi, from the Muslim Council of Britain, tweeted: “Have no idea what went through the producers’ minds when they thought this was a good idea #baffled.”

Twitter user BirdsOfJannah wrote: “Islamophobia in @FiremanSamUK? Why are there Quran pages on the floor & flying over the place?”

Another wrote: “Children’s program Fireman Sam stepping on the Quran. SHAME on this program for promoting hatred against Muslims!”

Muslim Reformer and Shireen Qudosi points out how the Quran is essentially being idolized by some Muslims, tweeting:

Of course, caving into pressure from de-facto blasphemy laws (ex. Muslim anger and fear of reprisal) the company responsible for the show issued an apology, said they are going to eliminate that particular episode from circulation, promised they are cutting ties with the animation studio involved in the incident, etc.

All of this for a cartoon character accidently stepping on the Quran? People in the West cannot keep conceding to this Sharia mindset that says any perceived negative thoughts or actions against Islam cannot be tolerated, whether intentional or not. Western freedoms are receding while Sharia is advancing.

It’s Sharia, Stupid!

STR/AFP/Getty Images

STR/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Steve Hantler, June 21, 2016:

I am not now and have never been a gun owner. I would support a ban on assault weapons if constitutional and depending on the definition of “assault weapon.” I do not, however, support and vehemently oppose the blatant cover-up of the cause of the tragedy in Orlando.

Hillary Clinton tells us lax gun control laws are the root cause of the Orlando tragedy in which 50 of America’s young adults and children were barbarically murdered. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Blaming lax gun control laws is not only dead wrong, it will cost more American lives because it hides the real cause of the Orlando tragedy from the American people.

The real cause of the loss of so many promising lives is a barbaric legal, “moral,” political, and “ethical” code called SHARIA. Sharia commands its adherents to kill gays and lesbians. Andrew McCarthy writes in the National Review (June 12, 2016) that “wherever sharia is the law, homosexuals are persecuted and killed.” McCarthy cites in that article a 2014 Washington Post report listing ten Muslim countries where homosexuality may be punished by death (Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Iraq).

Sharia is not a religion. So, this is not about Islam nor all Muslims. And, not all Muslims are sharia-adherent. Perhaps only 25% to 40% of Muslims worldwide are sharia-adherent. Unfortunately, this works out to a few hundred million people who would prefer to live in the 6th Century — where women are treated like property and gays and lesbians must be killed. Sharia is the evil that separates Medieval Islam from Modern Islam.

Sharia is the root cause of the Orlando tragedy, yet Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media, and the anti-gun crowd go to great lengths to cover this up. Why?

Some people, including Hillary Clinton, abhor guns so much that they instinctively default to lax gun laws as the cause of everything they find wrong with America. Give them enough time and they will find that lax gun laws cause global climate change.

Mrs. Clinton has additional reasons for participating in, actually leading, the cover-up. First, her family foundation has accepted tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in donations from sharia-adherent countries. These are countries where gays and lesbians are routinely killed on account of their sexual preference. These are countries where women are treated, at best, as second-class citizens and, at worst, as property.

Second, accepting the truth – sharia is the root cause – proves that bringing more Syrian refugees to America and opening our borders is a suicide pact. She cannot be seen as campaigning for a suicide pact, but that is exactly what she is doing.

Third, accepting sharia as the root cause prevents her from falsely casting Donald Trump as anti-Muslim or as calling for a permanent ban on Muslim immigration to America. Let’s set the record straight; Donald Trump never called for a permanent ban on Muslim immigration. Instead, he called for a temporary pause in immigration until the government could ensure those entering the country did not come here to kill gays and lesbians and Christians and Jews who refuse to submit to sharia.

I want a president who cares more about protecting my life than praying at the altar of political correctness. A growing number of my gay and lesbian friends feel the same way. In fact, one friend told me that she was “weighing the scales” with Hillary Clinton on one scale and Donald Trump on the other scale. Hilary, my friend said, would preserve her right to marry her partner, but not save her life. Donald would preserve her safety and save her life. Not a close call.

She is voting for Donald Trump because he understands the existential threat to our way of life in America and will make the tough decisions to protect Americans from this threat. Hillary Clinton will go out of her way not to offend the very people who are here to kill us.

My friend does not like the way that Donald Trump sometimes says things. She cares far less about how people say things than what they do. She wants a president who will protect her safety and America’s security rather than one who does not want to offend the people who want to kill us.

Paraphrasing James Carville – It’s sharia, stupid!

Steven Hantler is a retired auto industry executive and frequent contributor to Breitbart.


Also see:

Pamela Geller: Trump Is Right, and He Must Win

Branden Camp/Getty Images

Branden Camp/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, June 15, 2016:

The post-jihad denial that we see in the wake of every Islamic attack since 9/11 has made possible the wild successes of Islamic groups that are waging jihad in the cause of Islam.

After every jihad terror attack, Islamic supremacists and their paid shills in the media unleash relentless, vicious attacks upon those of us who oppose jihad. Never do we hear or see them go after the Islamic texts and teachings that fuel this war.

A case in point was a Salon article published Tuesday: “Donald Trump’s war with Islam: A campaign rooted in pernicious religious discrimination,” by Simon Maloy. Maloy said that the Orlando jihad massacre gave Trump “the opportunity he needed to define the campaign he intends to run: a campaign that casts the Muslim faith and its practitioners – both inside and outside the U.S. – as antagonistic to American interests.”

He accused Trump of running a campaign “that casts the Muslim faith and its practitioners – both inside and outside the U.S. – as antagonistic to American interests.” Trump’s speech in the wake of the Orlando jihad massacre was, according to Maloy, “a relentlessly ugly diatribe that unambiguously embraced the pernicious and anti-American idea that a person’s religious faith makes them a threat to national security.”

The idea that the depraved left sees the murdered nightclub-goers as an “opportunity” for Trump is as vicious as the attack itself. Trump sounded a warning, and he was right to do so. It was not Donald Trump who made Islamic jihad “antagonistic to American interests”; the jihad doctrine itself is antagonistic to American interest and freedoms. How many thousands have to die in the cause of Islam?

In his speech, Trump said that he would “suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.” He is right. After the Boston Marathon jihad bombing, my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), called for the following:

— AFDI calls for immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal.
— AFDI calls for surveillance of mosques and regular inspections of mosques in the U.S. and other non-Muslim nations to look for pro-violence materials. Any mosque advocating jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections should be closed.
— AFDI calls for curriculum and Islam-related materials in textbooks and museums to describe the Islamic doctrine and history accurately, including its violent doctrines and 1,400-year war against unbelievers.
— AFDI calls for a halt of foreign aid to Islamic nations with Sharia-based constitutions and/or governments.
— AFDI denounces the use of Sharia law in any Western court or nation.
— AFDI advocates deportation hearings against non-citizens who promote jihad in our nations.
— AFDI calls for an immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into nations that do not currently have a Muslim majority population.
— AFDI calls for laws providing that anyone seeking citizenship in the United States should be asked if he or she supports Sharia law, and investigated for ties to pro-Sharia groups. If so, citizenship should not be granted.
— AFDI calls for the cancellation of citizenship or permanent residency status for anyone who leaves the country of his residence to travel for the purpose of engaging in jihad activity, and for the refusal of reentry into his country of residence after that jihad activity.
— AFDI calls careful investigation of Muslims resident in non-Muslim country who have obtained naturalized citizenship or permanent residency status, to ensure that that status was not obtained under false pretenses.
— AFDI calls for the designation of the following as grounds for immediate deportation: fomenting, plotting, financing, attempting or carrying out jihad attacks; encouraging or threatening or attempting to carry out the punishments Islamic law mandates for apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, fornication or theft; threatening or attempting or carrying out honor murders, forced marriage, underage marriage, female genital mutilation, or polygamy.
— AFDI calls for the U.S. and other free nations to have jihad, as it is traditionally understood in Islamic jurisprudence to involve warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, declared a crime against humanity at the U.N., or to withdraw from the U.N. and have its headquarters moved to a Muslim nation.
— AFDI calls for legislating making illegal the foreign funding of Islamic Studies departments and faculty positions in our universities.

How many people would be alive today had American politicians heeded our calls? Instead, we are blacklisted, smeared, libeled, and defamed, while pro-jihad groups are feted on Capital Hill.

But Maloy complained that Trump’s focus was “on Muslims exclusively – not radicalized Muslims, but every Muslim person outside the U.S. He referred to the expanded admittance of refugees from Syria as potentially ‘a better, bigger version of the legendary Trojan Horse.’ Per Trump, Hillary Clinton, as president, would ‘be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of their children.’ It’s all fearmongering based on lies and prejudice.”

Such idiocy is without peer. ISIS has vowed to send jihad killers to the west via migration. They are coming — why let them in? No, not all migrants are Muslim soldiers, but enough are to cause unimaginable death and destruction. Would you eat from a bowl of M & M’s if you knew two of them were laced with cyanide?

Muslims groups such as the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have urged Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. Muslim groups have demanded that law enforcement agencies dismantle counterterror programs. Muslim groups demand adherence to sharia in the language used in counterterror training material: the Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines just days before the Orlando jihad massacre forbidding agents from using the words “jihad” and “sharia” in connection with terrorism because doing so offended Muslims.

Maloy is likewise interested in policing language to avoid offending Muslims, saying of Trump’s immigration proposal: “It’s reprehensible, and it’s the kind of language that results in people getting hurt… If your goal is to promote the radicalization of a population within your own borders, having a major party presidential candidate talk about them all as if they’re criminals is an excellent way to go about it.”

No. What is reprehensible is how viciously the lapdogs for jihad blame the victim — led by the scrubber-in-chief in the White House. They call upon the targets to change their behavior, to subjugate themselves to Islam. Maloy is saying that Trump has to change his language or else Muslims will become “radicalized.” Last year, the mainstream media likewise said that the jihad assassination attempt on my free speech event in Garland, Texas was my fault, that I was taunting Muslims. Were the gay revelers in the Pulse nightclub last Saturday night taunting Muslims? Based on that flawed logic, yes. Our very way of life taunts sharia-adherent Muslims.

Jihad terror attacks present a unique opportunity for Islamic supremacists and jihadis. First, the kill, which is a great victory in the cause of Islam. The successful jihad attack attracts more Muslims and converts to the cause.

Secondly and most importantly, terror-tied groups like CAIR, their lapdogs in the enemedia, and pro-Islamic politicians like President Obama use the slaughter to push, proselytize, lie, deceive, and talk, talk, talk up Islam (while denigrating all other religions) on every major media news channel.

Trump is right. He was wrong about Garland, but he surely gets it now. And this is why he is so wildly popular — because finally, someone with a huge platform is calling out the enemedia and the dhimmi press, and giving them the long overdue, much-needed middle finger they so richly deserve.

Trump must win in order for this nation to survive. Trump must win if we are to prevail in this worldwide war against freedom.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Also see:

Dr. Sebastian Gorka on Secure Freedom Radio: Understanding the Ideology


Secure Freedom Radio, April 20, 2016:

Dr. SEBASTIAN GORKA, author of the recently-released “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War”, Maj. Gen. Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, Adjunct Professor at the Institute of World Politics:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Changing concept of ‘Jihad’
  • Ideological underpinnings behind the war against radical, totalitarian Islam


Podcast (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood’s global influence on the faith
  • Some using the ‘hijra’ to undermine European society
  • Muslim Brotherhood practicing civilization jihad


Podcast (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Soviet model of state security exported to the Middle East in the 1950s
  • Extensive jihadist networks in European cities due to the political elite’s obsessions with ‘multiculturalism’


Podcast (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Forces of subversion already present inside the US
  • CAIR giving Obama advice concerning law enforcement training
  • Need to disband the terms, ‘counter violent extremism’ and ‘lone-wolf terrorist’


Podcast (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • Using Cold War methodology to defeat today’s Global Jihad Movement
  • Institutional changes needed to effectively wage information operations
  • What should US policy towards Saudi Arabia consist of?
  • Declassifying the 9/11 papers

Breaking Down Jihad

Frank Gaffney had Dr. Sebastian Gorka on Secure Freedom radio yesterday. Gorka is the author of “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War.” He is also the Maj. General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and an adjunct professor at the Institute of World Politics.

Gaffney kicked off their discussion by noting that there are different understandings of the term Jihad. He asked Gorka to define the term as he sees it:

“The blunt truth is that it’s a concept which has changed over time and has been redefined by men through the centuries so if you look at the original Koran you find that there is an expression of Jihad as inner striving or trying to resist temptation but that’s a fraction of the times that it is used. By far and away, the majority of instances where the word Jihad is used it is used to mean martial warfare, so physical warfare.”

Gorka suggests in this sense, Jihad was even sometimes used against Muslim leaders who were considered insufficiently Muslim. In the 20th century, Gorka suggests that Jihad took on a very specific meaning:

“The war a Muslim must engage in for the glory of Allah to reestablish and to expand the theocratic empire of the caliphate.”

Gorka suggested that groups like ISIS and others are practicing a form of religious totalitarianism and points out that when they take over a territory, they enslave the people. The imposition of Shariah Law takes place and it is not an option.

Gaffney asked Gorka to break this idea down in a historical sense and Gorka reminds us that Mohammed was not only a prophet for Islam but the final prophet as well as a head of state and head of military. Tribes of people who opposed him were essentially wiped out.

“Either you agree with the prophet and the new religion or you will be subjugated or you will be killed. That is not something which can be parsed, or interpreted or contextualized and anybody who says that’s not in the Koran simply hasn’t read it.”

Female Air France Union Refuses Hijabs

Capture-2by CounterJihad, April 5, 2016:

France has a striking legal attitude against religion in the public space.  Taking pride in its Enlightenment heritage, French law requires that certain public spaces be free of “ostentatious religious symbols.”  The law effectively bars some religious sects from public office, as no one can wear such symbols in government buildings.  It also imposes a serious limitation on such sects in ordinary life, as their children may not wear such symbols to school.  In this way, the secular state in France forces all religions to acknowledge the supremacy of the state in daily life.  No religion is singled out, and the original policy dates to a 1905 law aimed at Roman Catholics, but today Muslims in France are the ones who are most obviously affected by the bans.  The full-face veils of the strictest sects of Islam are forbidden anywhere in France outside the home.

So when the sanctions against Iran lifted recently, Air France found itself with a problem.  The airline intends to begin regular flights between Paris and Tehran.  However, its flight attendants union is made up largely of French women who have lived their whole lives with legal protection against being forced to veil themselves.  They are arguing that French law forbids the airline from insisting that they don the hijab.  They are also arguing that they cannot be forced by their employer to fly into a country that would require it of them by law.

Unions are very powerful in France, so Air France appears to be caving in rather than facing a court challenge they would probably lose.  They seem prepared to offer the concession that the union asked by making the Tehran flights optional duty for volunteers only.  However, Air France does have a counterargument:  they already require female crew flying into Saudi Arabia to wear abayas.  German carrier Lufthansa also requires female staff to wear the fuller abaya when flying into Islamic countries including Iran.  Thus, it is industry standard practice to force European women to submit to sharia law when flying into these countries.

Recently, an all-female aircrew from Royal Brunei Airlines landed a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  Their flight was the first into the Kingdom that was crewed entirely by women.  It made international headlines because of the fact that, on landing, the women who had flown a major long-range aircraft were suddenly forbidden from driving themselves to their hotel.


Air France Stewardesses Reject Wearing Hijabs in Iran…

South Carolina House Passes Bill Excluding Sharia Law From State Courts



Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 28, 2016:

The South Carolina House has passed a bill blocking Islamic sharia law from being recognized or approved in the state, after years of debate over similar legislation.

The legislation voted upon was explained as “A bill to amend the code of laws of South Carolina … so as to prevent a court or other enforcement authority from enforcing foreign law including, but not limited to, Sharia Law in this state from a forum outside of the United States or its territories under certain circumstances.”

On Thursday, the legislation passed with 68 for the bill and 42 opposed.

Sharia law is the legal and political system mandated in the Koran and other Islamic texts. It include laws governing religious practice, such as praying and ritual washing. But sharia also rules what Westerners see as non-government social practices — divorce, child-rearing, free-speech, clothing or sexual behavior, for example — and it also rules government responses to crimes, such as theft and murder.

Sharia law relegates women and non-Muslims to a lesser status, and grants men enormous authority over wives, daughters and sons. It allows for the primitive treatment of women and non-Muslims, and allows fierce punishment — sometimes, “honor killings” by fathers — for refusing to complying with sharia mandates.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Chip Limehouse. He told Breitbart News following the bill’s passage:

“This goes to demonstrate that the South Carolina House of Representatives is committed to preserving and protecting the American way of life here in South Carolina.”

“Sharia Law has been used as a defense in American courtrooms,” he adds. “We are working towards making that defense not an option for radical extremists from any country.”

“In South Carolina, we’ve had cases where people have tried to use [the rules of] Sharia Law as a defense, and we are speaking very clearly from the South Carolina House,” Limehouse said. “Shariah Law can not and will not be used as a legal defense in the state of South Carolina.”

Because the bill was passed at the beginning of the current legislative session, Rep. Limehouse said he was optimistic that the Senate would have enough time to pass the bill. In order for the bill to become law, it must now be passed by the South Carolina State Senate and signed by Governor Nikki Haley.

Tea Party and conservative grassroots organizations are credited with initiating the movement to ban sharia rules through the state legislatures. Conservative leaders Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann have publicly advocated for the need to enact nation-wide legislation against the threat of sharia.

Underground sharia courts operate in Muslim communities throughout Europe and alsoin the United States. Last year, Breitbart Texas reported that a “voluntary” sharia court had already been established in Texas.

Several countries in Europe, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, have many underground sharia courts within migrant communities. In the U.K, the government has formally deputized at least one sharia court to decide non-criminal issues among people who agree to use the court, even as public concerns rise that immigrant women are socially pressured to accept the courts’ authority

U.S. opponents of sharia courts point to Europe for evidence that western democracies can gradually cede more de-facto legal authority to self-segregating Muslim communities, so enabling the self-segregation of Muslim communities into no-go zones within cities.

Several states–including Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina South Dakota, and Tennessee–have passed “foreign law” bans against sharia. More than a dozen other states are currently considering similar legislation.

U.S. to Give $5 Million to Fund Multi-National Anti-Boko Haram Task Force

Sola West Africa/screenshot

Sola West Africa/screenshot

Breitbart, by John Hayward, June 18, 2015:

The United States will contribute $5 million to fund a multi-national, anti-Boko Haram task force, based in Chad but led by Nigeria, according to Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Linda Thomas-Greenfield.

“The multi-national force is expected to be made up of troops from Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Benin,” reports the BBC. The African Union has long supported such a “collective, effective, and decisive response.”

As the BBC explains, there were some steep political and diplomatic hurdles to overcome, including a pronounced lack of faith in the administration of previous Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan. The human rights record of Nigeria’s military made an infusion of American weapons problematic.

For his part, Jonathan accused the U.S. of failing to give him needed support against the Boko Haram terrorists, and was reluctant to embrace a multi-national force because he feared it would jeopardize Nigerian sovereignty. It was not unusual to hear the Nigerian elite express fears that peacekeepers from other African nations would use the Boko Haram threat as an excuse to annex Nigerian territory. Some even expressed conspiracy theories that Boko Haram was a proxy army for rival nations.

The growing menace of the ISIS-aligned terror gang seems to have pushed such concerns aside, along with Goodluck Jonathan’s replacement last month by President Muhammadu Buhari. Buhari expressed more openness to international assistance against the terrorists, who the BBC estimates have killed 13,000 people and displaced 1.5 million.

Boko Haram killed at least 23 people and wounded 100 more in the capital city of Chad with suicide-bomb attacks, prompting airstrikes from Chad against six Boko Haram bases in Nigeria, according to CNN. Although Boko Haram has not officially claimed responsibility for the bomb attack, it is thought to have been an act of retaliation against Chad for participating in anti-Boko Haram operations.

Chad’s government also decided to ban the burqa, going so far as sending security forces to rummage through markets and burn every burqa they can find, evidently because burqas can so easily be used to conceal bombs and guns.

Another Boko Haram cross-border attack on Wednesday reportedly killed at least 38 people in raids on two villages in Niger.

Also see:

Counter Jihad is about HUMAN RIGHTS

islam-violates-human-rights (1)

Published on May 1, 2015 by Eric Allen Bell

Liberty and Islam cannot coexist. Free Speech and Islam cannot coexist. Women’s Rights and Islam cannot coexist. Human Rights and Islam cannot coexist. Critical Thinking and Islam cannot coexist. Weapons of Mass Destruction and Islam cannot coexist. The future and Islam cannot coexist.

ISIS: End of Times Prophecies Justify Beheading of Copts

Screenshot from the Islamic State's latest video in which they beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians who were working in Libya

Screenshot from the Islamic State’s latest video in which they beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians who were working in Libya

By Ryan Mauro:

The Islamic State has released a video of it beheading 21 kidnapped Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya. The film is the most prophecy-centric one yet and comes one day after a suspected Islamic State supporter killed two people in a terrorist attack in Denmark.

Justifying the Execution of Christians

The video is titled “A Message Signed With Blood to the Nation of the Cross.” These Christians were working in Libya. They committed no crime. They are not known to have personally done anything against any Islamists. They were punished for, as the Islamic State put it, being “followers of the hostile Egyptian church.”

The Islamic State seems to be referring to the Coptic Christians’ support for the Egyptian government led by President El-Sisi that is fighting an Islamic State affiliate in the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt also banned the Muslim Brotherhood and repeatedly emphasizes that the Islamic State and the Brotherhood are different manifestations of the same Islamist enemy.

The video states that the beheadings are retaliation for the Coptic Church’s treatment of Camellia Shehata, the wife of a Coptic priest who disappeared in 2010. She was rumored to have converted to Islam and afterwards to have been kidnapped by the Church. Deadly sectarian clashes followed.

She later resurfaced and appeared on video stating that she did not convert and remains a Christian. She denied that her statement came under pressure or torture by the church. The Copts say she briefly disappeared because she left her husband.

The objective of the Islamic State is to justify murdering Copts by claiming that the church is waging a war on Muslims, making this atrocity a defensive action. The Islamic State may also be trying to undermine international support for Egyptian Copts by drawing a moral equivalence between the church’s treatment of those who leave the faith and Islamic (sharia) law’s own death penalty for apostates.

The captives were guilty of no crime themselves. Take a look at the terminology of the “nation of the cross.” Islamists like the Islamic State view all Muslims as part of a single nation called the ummah. The Islamic State likewise views Christians as part of a single nation, the “nation of the cross.” To be at war with any Christian is to be at war with all Christians.

Dawah and the End Times

As the Islamic State beheads the Christians, text appears in English saying that they “die upon their paganism.” This sentence has two purposes: to justify killing Christians under sharia law and to criticize Christianity as being polytheistic by believing in the Trinity.

A centerpiece of the video is to position the Islamic State as pro-Jesus even as it kills Christians. The Islamic State says it is fulfilling prophecies to trigger the “second coming” of Jesus, a prophetic event commonly held in both Christianity and Islam, though with widely varying interpretations.

“Jesus, peace be upon him, will descend, breaking the cross, killing the swine and abolishing the jizya [tax on non-Muslims],” the English-speaking Islamic State member says to the camera.

Here, the Islamic State is citing an apocalyptic Islamic prophecy about Jesus appearing with the Mahdi, the Islamic messiah, to vanquish Islam’s enemies. According to this prophecy, Jesus will authenticate the validity of Islam and disprove Christianity by destroying a cross. Sometime after he reappears, the entire world will become Muslim, and so the jizya tax on non-Muslims will no longer be needed.

This is not a fringe interpretation of the prophecy only held by Islamic State. Other Islamists like Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood also refer to it.

The Islamic State narrator’s statement about the group taking over Dabiq in Syria is another way of saying the group is fulfilling prophecy. There is an Islamic prophecy about a final apocalyptic war that says that the “Romans”—which Islamists say are the Americans and Europeans of today—will land in Dabiq to avenge the capturing of Romans. That is why the Islamic State beheaded Peter Kassig there.

The prophecy says a ferocious battle will begin at Dabiq and, after heavy casualties, Muslims will come together behind the jihadists at Dabiq and defeat the “Romans.” Turkey is then conquered by these Islamic forces. Shortly thereafter,  the Mahdi and Jesus will arrive on the scene.

Read more at Clarion Project