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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Islamic View of “Feminism”

Gatestone Institute, by Nonie Darwish, July 13, 2017:

  • What the West needs to know is that in the Muslim world, jihad is considered more important than women, family happiness and life itself. If we are told, as Linda Sarsour said, that Islam stands for peace and justice, what we are not told is that “peace” in Islam will come only after the whole world has converted to Islam, and that “justice” means law under Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is “justice;” whatever is not in Sharia is not“justice.”
  • Rebelling against Sharia is, sadly, for the Muslim woman, unthinkable. How can a healthy and normal feminist movement develop under an Islamic legal system that can flog, stone and behead women? That is why Sarsour’s jihadist kind of feminism is no heroic kind of feminism but the only feminism a Muslim woman can practice that will give her a degree of respect, acceptance, and even preferential treatment over other women. In Islam, that is the only kind of feminism allowed to develop.

Muslim activist and Women’s March organizer, Linda Sarsour, has helpfully exposed a side of Islam that is pro-Sharia and pro-jihad:

“I hope that … when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

Although Sarsour later protested that the word jihad literally means “struggle” or that “our beloved prophet … said… ‘A word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad,'” that is not what the word jihad means in general parlance to anyone you might ask in the Middle East. The people there know only too well that if they even tried to speak a “word of truth” to someone in power, that could possibly be the last word they would ever utter.

The word jihad is not a matter of left or right or liberal or conservative, except when it being manipulated to repackage and sell as something warm, fuzzy and non-threatening to trusting people in the West.

In Sarsour’s world, women who do this are called feminists, but, in reality, they are as dangerous to women’s rights, the peace of a nation and stability of its government as male jihadists.

At a recent Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention, Sarsour urged fellow Muslims, in an openly racist speech, to wage jihad against the “fascist” and “white supremacist” White House, be perpetually outraged, and not to assimilate. She mentioned 9/11 not as a terrorist event waged by Muslims against Americans, but as a day that triggered victimization and Islamophobia against Muslims by America.

Americans got upset just because they were murdered? As the saying goes: “It all started when he hit me back.”

Even though Sarsour later claimed her use of the word “jihad” meant non-violent dissent, that is not what the word is taken to mean in any Muslim country. There, it means only one thing: war in the service of Islam. In addition, her speech did not sound peaceful. It clearly sounded more like a call for an Islamic uprising against the White House.

Linda Sarsour’s recent speech calling to wage jihad against the “fascist” and “white supremacist” White House did not sound peaceful. It clearly sounded more like a call for an Islamic uprising. Pictured: Sarsour at the Women’s March on Washington, on January 21, 2017. (Photo by Theo Wargo/Getty Images)

Sarsour apparently identifies as a feminist. Sarsour’s kind of feminism, however, embraces the most oppressive legal system, especially for women: Islamic religious law, Sharia. Sarsour’s feminism is supposedly for empowering women, but it twists logic in a way similar to how Muslim preachers do when they claim that beating one’s wife is a husband’s way of honoring her.

Pro-Sharia feminism is a perverted kind of feminism that could not care less about the well-being of oppressed Muslim women. Sarsour’s logic concerning women does not differ much from that of Suad Saleh, an Egyptian female Islamic cleric, who recently justified on Egyptian TV the doctrine of intentional humiliation and rape of captured women in Islam. Saleh said, “One of the purposes of raping captured enemy women and young girls was to humiliate and disgrace them and that is permissible under Islamic law.” There was not even a peep in Egypt’s civil society about such a statement.

Here is an Australian Muslim woman calling beatings by husbands a “blessing from Allah”.

Muslim feminists seem to think that they must defend Sharia and “Allah” before any other consideration — including women. Musdah Mulia, a Muslim professor, who also claims to be a feminist, maintains that Islam is a religion of equality. She has said, “blame Muslims, not Islam, for gender inequity.” Muslim anthropologist Ziba Mir-Mosseini has argued “The problem [for women in Islam] has never been with the text (the Koran), but with the context.” That means, presumably, that the problem is everyone’s fault except for the sources themselves: Islam, the Koran and Sharia.

The reason Islamic feminism has been perverted is because over centuries it had to conform to Islamic law, Sharia, which regulates to a fare-thee-well all behavior of women, men and children. Many Muslims, however, seem to be in denial that the main goal of Sharia is to promote life under the bondage of Sharia as good and healthy. Sharia therefore becomes a convoluted way of coercing people to adapt to tyranny.

In London, for instance, devout Muslim women, while wearing a full black niqab, are seen carrying signs protesting British law, supporting Sharia and threatening Europe with another Holocaust and another 9/11. Here in America, the angry mother of the Tsarnaev brothers, responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing, instead of apologizing for what her sons did in a country that welcomed them, warned that “America will pay.” These are the kind of women that Arab TV places on pedestals. The message to Muslim women is that this is the only kind of feminism Islamic society will tolerate.

“Muslim feminism” is essentially the feminine form of jihad: women defend Sharia, promote jihad, and even emulate the Islamic “virtue and vice police” against other women.

Strong and assertive women do exist in Islam, but to stay strong and respected they have to sell women who want to escape the tyranny of Sharia. Because of the tremendous pressure from life under Sharia, Muslim women have developed a warped form of feminism: a kind of coping mechanism like a “Stockholm Syndrome,” where the captive believes that if he is nice to his captors they might treat him better. Like kidnap victims trying to merge with the thinking of their kidnappers in order to survive, women in the Islamic world have learned to defend Sharia and be protective of Islam’s reputation as priority number one. That is what Linda Sarsour is advocating today as “feminism.”

If such Muslim feminists truly cared about women, why are they not dedicating their work and effort against the rape and oppression of Yazidi, Christian and women of other sects who are being abused and tortured by Muslim men not only in the Middle East but also in Europe? The only women who are coming to the rescue of women being raped in the Middle East are Western women — unfortunately not Muslim “feminists.”

Most hijab-wearing Muslim women tell Western audiences that they are not oppressed and are proud of their “protection” under the hijab or the niqab.

What the West needs to know is that in the Muslim world, jihad is considered more important than women, family happiness and life itself. If we are told, as Sarsour said, that Islam stands for peace and justice, what we are not told is that “peace” in Islam will come only after the whole world has converted to Islam, and that “justice” means law under Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is “justice;” whatever is not in Sharia is not“justice.”

The cruelty of life under Sharia produces two kinds of women: the aggressive and proud, and the doormats. The aggressive Muslim “feminists” often turn their aggression not on the cruel system, but on weak women who are victims of Sharia — because it is so much easier to turn on the weak than to take on a system that has the power to harm, jail or kill you; and they hope to be praised and rewarded for supporting the system that abuses them.

The system, at its origins, was designed to please men — promising them anything and everything if they sacrificed their life on earth and their earthly wife and family for jihad. In such a system women, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness had to be sacrificed:

“But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.” (Surah Al-Baqarah [2:216] – Quran)

What Islam wants is for men to kill the enemies of Allah and get killed to expand Islam and then presumably go to paradise. Women’s welfare has therefore become an inconvenience to Sharia to say the least.

Strong Muslim women know what they should do if they are to enjoy a certain level of power and respect in Islamic society. They must never defy Sharia, but embrace it. The rewards for compliant Muslim women may explain why most of the Muslim college professors sent by Saudi Arabia to teach Americans never criticize Sharia but claim it to be harmless and even liberating.

An Islamic “Sarsour style” of feminism has to be Sharia-compliant in the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” mode. Such women have a high degree of tolerance for domestic violence and oppression of other women whom they can regard as “dissolute” or “bad.” After being indoctrinated under such a cruel legal system, Muslim feminists end up taking pride in conforming to Sharia while condemning the supposedly “bad” women who do not conform. Whatever unpleasant acts might happen to these other women, according to many Muslim “feminists,” those women brought it on themselves by not accepting Sharia.

Centuries of sacrificing family happiness for jihad have taught Muslim women that they are an inconvenience to men who supposedly would prefer to be doing jihad. Thus the “wise” Muslim woman molds herself and others to fit into Islam’s priorities. Islam calls any woman who rebels “nashiz” (“rebellious”), a derogatory term. Under Sharia, a husband could lock up his nashiz wife at home for life and get three other wives and enjoy his life while she is locked up.

Rebelling against Sharia is, sadly, for the Muslim woman, unthinkable. That is why during the “Arab Spring,” not one Muslim woman carried a sign against the oppression of Sharia in Egypt’s Tahrir Square. How can a healthy and normal feminist movement develop under an Islamic legal system that can flog, stone and behead women?

That is why Linda Sarsour’s jihadist kind of feminism is no heroic kind of feminism, but the only feminism a Muslim woman can practice that will give her a degree of respect, acceptance, and even preferential treatment over other women. In Islam, that is the only kind of feminism allowed to develop.

This Islamic oppressive view of women is now creeping into Western cultural views of feminism. Recently, USA Today celebrated the hijab as symbol of feminism.

It is important that this brand of “pride in bondage” kind of feminism that people such as Linda Sarsour are trying to “sell” not be “bought” by the good-hearted, but insufficiently informed people in the West.

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values”

Also see:

New Center Monograph Shows Continuity of Islamic Warfare

Center for Security Policy, July 13, 2017:

The Islamic State may be on its way to defeat, but the brutal savagery of Islamic warfare, which has been with us for nearly fourteen centuries, is not about to exit the world stage just yet. Because the commandment to global conquest by jihad is obligatory for all Muslims today just as for those of the 7th century—until the world ‘be all for Allah’ (Q 8:39)—Islamic warfare of both the violent and stealthy kind will never cease unless forcibly defeated. Until now, however, few had delved deeply into the merciless, systematic, and ongoing methods of classic Islamic warfare that date back to medieval times to understand the nature, the concepts, and the philosophy that combined with such deadly effectiveness to defeat brilliant civilization after brilliant civilization, from the Byzantines to the Hindus to the Persians.

We of Western Civilization (along with the Han Chinese) remain among the only peoples on earth ever targeted by Islam for conquest but not yet subjugated. If we are going to prolong that happy circumstance, we will need to examine the cultural, military, political, and religious currents within Islam that inspire its relentless drive for supremacy. Only by understanding what compels Islam to conquest and the means employed to achieve it will we have a chance to avoid the fate of myriad lost civilizations gone before us which were crushed under the onslaught of Islamic forces. Nor did the Amazigh, Byzantines, Copts, and so many others fall only to Muslim warriors on the field of battle: then as now, asymmetric means, deceit, and guile played their part. 21st century jihad in the Dar al-Harb—the non-Islamic West—is being fought as often as not with asymmetrical means: airliners brought down with explosives secreted in a laptop; the individual jihadi suicide bomber; the car, the gun, the knife.

[Modern Islamic Warfare is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com.]

To help us recall these lessons of the past and understand their relevance for societies fighting to remain free today, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present the newest monograph in its “Terror Jihad Reader Series”: Modern Islamic Warfare, by Dr. Harold Rhode. This publication explains how the deep Islamic faith and implacable ruthlessness of this enemy shape his tactics and strategy on both the kinetic and civilizational jihad battlefields. Dr. Rhode, who earned a Ph.D. in Islamic History, specializing in the history of the Turks, Arabs, and Iranian peoples, also studied in universities in Iran, Egypt, and Israel. He speaks Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew, and Turkish, and served as an advisor in the U.S. Department of Defense for many years.

He brings to this new monograph a breadth and quality of scholarship that is increasingly rare these days.

Dr. Rhode joined Center President Frank Gaffney for a lively discussion on the eve of the book’s release:

Modern Islamic Warfare is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with all of the Center’s other publications, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

CLICK BELOW FOR A FREE PDF COPY OF THE MONOGRAPH:

Modern_Islamic_Warfare

Germany: Chechen Sharia Police Terrorize Berlin

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, July 8, 2017:

  • Threats of violence against “errant” women are viewed as “acts of patriotism.”
  • “They have come to Germany because they wanted to live in Germany, but they keep trying to turn it into Chechnya with its medieval ways.” — Social worker interviewed by Meduza.
  • “Everyone’s attention is fixed on the Syrians, but the Chechens are the most dangerous group. We are not paying sufficient attention to this.” — Police in Frankfurt (Oder).

A hundred Islamists are now openly enforcing Sharia law on the streets of Berlin, according to local police who are investigating a recent string of violent assaults in the German capital.

The self-appointed morality police involve Salafists from Chechnya, a predominantly Sunni Muslim region in Russia. The vigilantes are using threats of violence to discourage Chechen migrants from integrating into German society; they are also promoting the establishment of a parallel Islamic legal system in Germany. German authorities appear unable to stop them.

The Sharia patrol came to public light in May 2017, when Chechen Salafists released a video warning other Chechens in Germany that those who fail to comply with Islamic law and adat, a traditional Chechen code of behavior, will be killed. The video’s existence was reported by Meduza, a Russian-language independent media organization based in Latvia. The video, which circulated through WhatsApp, an online messaging service, showed a hooded man aiming a pistol at the camera. Speaking in Chechen, he declared:

“Muslim brothers and sisters. Here, in Europe, certain Chechen women and men who look like women do unspeakable things. You know it; I know it; everybody knows it. This is why we hereby declare: For now, there are about 80 of us. More people are willing to join. Those who have lost their national identity, who flirt with men of other ethnic groups and marry them, Chechen women who have chosen the wrong path and those creatures who call themselves Chechen men — given half a chance, we will set all of them straight. Having sworn on the Koran, we go out onto the streets. This is our declaration of intent; do not say that you were not warned; do not say that you did not know. May Allah grant us peace and set our feet on the path towards justice.”

According to Meduza, the declaration was read by a representative of a Berlin-based gang of about one hundred members, headed by former henchmen of Dzhokhar Dudayev, the late Chechen separatist leader. All Berliners of Chechen origin who were interviewed by Meduza said they were aware of the gang’s existence.

The video surfaced after nude images of a 20-year-old Chechen woman who lives in Berlin were sent en masse from her stolen cellphone to every person on her contact list. Within an hour, the woman’s uncle demanded to speak with her parents. According to Meduza, they agreed to “resolve the issue” within the family by sending the woman back to Chechnya, where she would be killed to restore the family’s honor. German police intervened just hours before the woman was to board a plane bound for Russia.

After the woman was placed in protective police custody, her circumstance went from being a family issue to a communal one. According to Meduza, it is now the duty of any Chechen man, regardless of his ties to her or her family, to find and punish her. “It is none of their business, but it is an unwritten code of conduct,” said the woman, who has since cut her hair and now wears colored contact lenses in an effort to hide her identity. She said that she intends to change her name and undergo plastic surgery. “If you don’t change your name and your face, they will hunt you down and kill you,” she said. Although the woman graduated from a German high school, she hardly ever leaves her apartment because it is too dangerous. “I don’t want to be Chechen anymore,” she said.

According to Meduza, at least half of the population of single Chechen girls in Germany have enough compromising information on their cellphones to be considered guilty of violating adat:

“Associating with men of other nationalities, smoking, drinking alcohol, visiting hookah lounges, discotheques or even public swimming pools can cause communal wrath. A single photograph in a public WhatsApp chat can outcast an entire family and the rest of the community would be obliged to cease all communication with them. With everyone under suspicion and everyone responsible for one another, Chechen girls say they are sometimes approached by strangers in the street who chastise them for their appearance, including for wearing bright lipstick. The theft of a cellphone and the subsequent posting of compromising material is a hard blow; the dishonored person has no one to turn to and the one who posted the victim’s photos does not risk anything.”

Chechens interviewed by Meduza said that expectations for behavior are more rigid and strict in among Chechen emigrants in Germany than in Chechnya itself. This situation has been described as “a competition in righteousness” between Chechens living abroad and those in Chechnya who are loyal to Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov: each party is seeking to prove that they are the better Chechens, and threats of violence against “errant” women are viewed as “acts of patriotism.”

Chechens have said in interviews that expectations for behavior are more rigid and strict in among Chechen emigrants in Germany than in Chechnya itself — “a competition in righteousness.” Threats of violence against “errant” women are viewed as “acts of patriotism.” Pictured above: A volunteer tutor (left) instructs an asylum-applicant from Chechnya in a German-language class, on November 10, 2015, in Berlin, Germany. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

In one instance, a young Chechen woman was recorded on video while walking down a street in Berlin and conversing with a non-Chechen man. That same evening, a few dozen unknown Chechen men drove to her house in northern Berlin. The man she had been seen with was brutally beaten; almost all of his teeth were knocked out. The young woman managed to hide.

On July 4, the Berlin newspaper Tagesspiegel reported that several other women and men have been assaulted by the Sharia gang in recent weeks, and that the Berlin Criminal Police Office has now launched an investigation. A police spokesperson said that the investigation is being hampered by the fact that so far no victim has publicly dared to bring formal accusations against the gang. The victims are all, apparently, afraid of retribution.

According to Tagesspiegel, some members of the gang, which has grown to around a hundred members, are armed and many have combat experience from the Chechen wars with Russia. The gang members, who also come from Dagestan and Ingushetia, have attacked Muslims as well as non-Muslims, including Christian asylum seekers at migrant shelters in Berlin.

The gang is linked to several Salafist mosques in the German capital, including Fussilet 33, which once served as the headquarters of the so-called Berlin Caliphate. The mosque was shuttered by German authorities in February 2017, after they learned that Anis Amri, the Tunisian jihadist who carried out the suicide attack on a Berlin Christmas market, had sheltered there.

Around 60,000 Chechens live in Germany, according to official statistics, although the actual number is believed to be much higher. Nearly 40,000 Chechens have applied for asylum in Germany during just the past five years; many have crossed the border illegally from Poland.

An internal paper produced by the Federal Audit Office (Bundesrechnungshofesrevealed that “the majority of the unauthorized persons in Germany are Russian citizens of Chechen ethnicity, some of whom have been linked to the Islamic terrorist environment.”

The Chechen community in Germany is primarily based in Brandenburg and Berlin, where they are firmly entrenched in a parallel society. A social worker interviewed by Meduza said that the main obstacle to Chechen integration is their ultra-conservative moral code, the adat:

“They have come to Germany because they wanted to live in Germany, but they keep trying to turn it into Chechnya with its medieval ways. This inability and reluctance to integrate is extremely frustrating and typical of all migrants, not just Chechens. The only difference is that most other migrants come from the 20th century, not the times of feudalism.”

In an interview with Radio Berlin-Brandenburg, Maciej Falkowski, a Polish political scientist specializing in the Caucuses, said that many younger members of the Chechen diaspora are embracing radical Islam:

“The Chechen people are a very self-contained, homogenous nation. They resolve all problems among themselves. You will hardly find a Chechen, for example, who will seek remedy from a German court. Religion, of course, also plays an important role in the younger generation. Moreover, the Chechens have not had their own country for hundreds of years and therefore are not acquainted with the legal state (Rechtsstaat) in our sense of the concept.

“We are increasingly seeing a generational conflict among the Chechens. The elderly are rather skeptical of Salafism and radical Islam, while the younger ones are embracing it. They believe Salafism offers answers with regard to their identity. Here they find community and charismatic leaders. Salafism is now their dominant current.”

Heiko Homburg, an official at Ministry of the Interior of Brandenburg, the German federal state that encircles Berlin, said that most of the known Islamic extremists there are from Chechnya:

“Our problem in Brandenburg is that the Caucasian Emirate [a militant jihadist organization active in southwestern Russia], to which many Chechens feel committed, has submitted to the Islamic State. So, whether we want it or not, we have de facto Islamic State structures here in Brandenburg.”

German security officials estimate that 1,500 to 2,000 Chechens are currently fighting in Iraq and Syria. As the Islamic State nears its end, it is feared that many of those fighters will travel to Europe, through Ukraine and Poland with the help of pan-European, Chechen clan relations.

In Frankfurt (Oder), a German city on the border with Poland, police are warning that Chechen migration is a ticking time bomb:

“We have a serious and ever-growing problem with radical Chechens who are constantly traveling back and forth across the German-Polish border. Their families are building Europe-wide structures which they are using to finance the Islamic State with the proceeds of organized crime. Everyone’s attention is fixed on the Syrians, but the Chechens are the most dangerous group. We are not paying sufficient attention to this.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

Also see:

U.S. city installs Shariah hotline for ‘hate speech’ snitches

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges shown here at a meeting with Somali Muslims wearing a hijab in April 2014.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, June 21, 2017:

The city of Minneapolis has set up a hotline for residents to report suspected hate crimes, including “speech and actions,” according to statements on the city’s website.

The city, which will operate the “service” through its 3-1-1 helpline, is targeting any “harassing behaviors motivated by prejudice,” according to a press release. Those wishing to report a hate crime from outside the city may dial 612-673-3000.

According to the local newspaper, the Star-Tribune, “the announcement comes amid signs of a recent surge of such incidents affecting Muslims and Jews across the country, many of which go unreported.”

The city’s Department of Civil Rights clearly states on its website that it only enforces hate crimes against certain “protected classes.”

A city official further indicated the impetus for the hate-crimes hotline was the election of President Trump and that the targets would be his supporters.

“Since the general election, many of us have experienced, witnessed firsthand or heard of actions of: racism, xenophobia, sexism and bigotry directed at people here and in cities across the United States,” Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights Director Velma Korbel wrote in a statement posted on the city’s website. “In no uncertain terms, hate-motivated speech and actions have no place in Minneapolis nor will they be tolerated.”

Korbel said the city’s tough stance on “hate” is reflected in the views of its mayor, Betsy Hodges. Korbel states on the city website:

This department echoes Minneapolis mayor, Betsy Hodges’ resolve and commitment when she stated: “I will not compromise the public safety of the people of Minneapolis to satisfy Trump’s desire to put politics before public safety. Minneapolis is being built and strengthened by people from all over the world and I am grateful for their commitment to our city. I stand with them today and will continue to take that stand as the President-elect prepares to take office.”

Michele Bachmann, former congresswoman from Minnesota, decried the new hotline as a form of fascism in which citizens are encouraged to turn in their neighbors for holding opinions deemed forbidden by the state.

She said such prior restraints are not allowed under the U.S. Constitution and would not hold up in court.

“Hate speech hotlines operate as government enforcement of fascism,” she said in an email to WND. “They are a denial of free speech and the very definition of government censorship.

“Looking for government informants to rat out speech the government forbids goes to the heart of denying American citizens our inalienable rights. Governments CAN NOT do this under our constitution.”

Bachmann said the hate-crime hotline is a stealth move by Hodges and the city council to impose Islamic anti-blasphemy laws on non-Muslims.

“By installing Islamic anti-blasphemy hotlines and advertising for informants, Minneapolis is violating the doctrine of separation of church and state,” she added. “What difference is there between the Minneapolis City Council action and United Nations resolution 16/18 advanced by former Secretary Hillary Clinton?”

U.N Resolution 16/18 encouraged nations to criminalize speech that defames a person’s religious views.

Pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the only speech the resolution sought to criminalized was speech critical of Islam, Bachmann said. After years of failure, the resolution only passed after the language was somewhat watered down.

“Which is interesting, since the OIC continually proclaims death to the Jews, death to Israel,” she said. “The citizens of Minneapolis surely can’t be that easily bamboozled into giving away their First Amendment rights to free of speech.”

The press release announcing the new hotline gives a broad definition of “discrimination,” citing any “action or a decision that treats a person or a group negatively for reasons such as their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or gender identity.”

The release also places local police on notice, stating:

If you, your family or someone you know experiences discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, sex, LGBT status or other protected classes, or has been the victim of police misconduct, please call 612-673-3012 or visit http://www.minneapolismn.gov/civilrights.

Shahram Hadian, whose family fled Iran in the run-up to the Islamic revolution in 1978, said he was aghast at the Minneapolis hotline.

“This is ultimately what they got passed up in Canada. But this is the backdoor approach to eventually setting up hate speech laws … hate crimes morph into hate speech,” said Hadian, a former law enforcement officer turned pastor who heads Truth In Love Ministries.

“It’s crazy to think my family left Iran because of the impending Islamic State to come to this nation because of its freedom – and what other freedom is more precious than your freedom of speech? – and now to see this backdoor attempt to try to impose hate speech laws.”

Hadian said there would be no logical need for a special hate hotline because the federal government already has hate-crime laws on the books.

“This is trying to normalize the concept of trying to turn people in, and if that doesn’t send shivers down your spine when you think of 1930s Germany, nothing will,” Hadian said.

The Minneapolis City Council last fall passed a resolution condemning violence and hate speech against Muslims.

Hadian said he has no doubt that the Minneapolis officials will seek to target Christians with the new snitch line.

“Obviously it’s moving toward Shariah compliance. This is what Europe has done,” he said. “You have people arrested there, various examples of it, and charged with crimes for something they said about Islam. So this is a back-door attempt to get hate speech laws on the books and to create the environment of normalcy where you’re going to see Christians turned in to the government because we are either speaking about Christianity or because we’re speaking factually about Islam.

“It’s a violation of our fundamental rights under the First Amendment. That’s chilling, and it’s so disturbing and underhanded what they’re doing, to say, ‘Let’s start turning people in whom we don’t agree with.’”

Hadian said the hotline will have a chilling effect on pastors and lecturers in Minnesota.

“So what, the next time I give a presentation, if someone gets offended, are they going to report me?” he said. “That’s where we’re headed with this.”

Outside of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Duluth, every county in Minnesota voted for Trump in the November general election.

The people of Minnesota are growing tired of the coercive rule of intolerant Democrats like Hodges and Gov. Mark Dayton, said Debra Anderson, who chairs the state’s ACT! For America chapter.

“Communities throughout Minnesota are suffering greatly from the never-ending demands of Muslims and their civilization jihad, and there is growing alarm about the increasing threats of and acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims against non-Muslims (jihad terrorism),” Anderson wrote in an email.

“This resolution and the hate-speech hotline serves to not only invalidate the legitimate concerns of indigenous Minnesotans, but also to silence them,” she said. “I find myself thinking, ‘While our government leaders’ fundamentally transform our communities (destroy America),’ they command, ‘Don’t you dare utter a peep … or else!’

“Unfortunately, this is only one of many examples of how our ‘captured’ government is striving to fundamentally transform the Land of 10,000 Lakes into Marxist/Islamist utopia that does not tolerate dissidents or infidels.”

Bob Enos, another Minnesotan, who recently ran for city council in Willmar, said he believes the hotline is patently unconstitutional if it bans or seeks to chill any type of speech.

“Free speech has never been a crime under the U.S. Constitution, hateful or otherwise,” he said.

A search of the Star-Tribune’s stories printed since Jan. 1, 2017, lists only one alleged hate crime against Muslims.

“This new hotline is nothing but a red herring, designed to ingratiate Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges to the growing Somali voting bloc. Hence, her photos donning the Muslim hijab,” Enos said.

Enos said it was significant that Islamic preachers are exempt from the hate crimes prosecuted by Minneapolis, because they are regarded as a “protected class.”

“After all, the Quran contains at least 109 verses which promote graphic violence against all non-believers; most especially Jews,” he said. “So, is not any cleric who promotes the teachings of the Quran also promoting hate speech?

“This enforcement of standards of speech that Minneapolis’ Democratic leadership finds acceptable is Minneapolis’ version of an intellectual Taliban.”

Also see:

Why Did the US Senate Ignore Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani?

Asra Nomani (L) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali testimy before the Senate. (Photo: Twitter)

Clarion Project, by Elliot Friedman, June 19, 2017:

Islamist ideology was discussed as a root cause driving extremist terrorism in a Senate hearing on Wednesday, but you wouldn’t know it from the questions asked by the committee.

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a hearing to discuss “Ideology and Terror: Understanding the Tools, Tactics, and Techniques of Violent Extremism.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Nomani, two brave female activists who have been at the forefront of the struggle against the dangerous ideology of Islamism, were invited to speak. Both women are from Muslim backgrounds and have extensive personal and academic experience with the intricacies of Islamism.

They told Congress that unless the political ideology of Islamism is called out, targeted and eliminated, terrorism will continue both in general and, more specifically, as a national security threat to the United States of America.

“We face an ideology of extremism from within the House of Islam,” Nomani stated. “Why, 15 years after the 9/11 attack, haven’t we found victory against terrorism? Why, after the killing of Osama bin Laden, haven’t we declared Islamic terror dead? It is because terrorism is fueled by Islamism, an ideology of political Islam, and we have wasted millions of dollars to design counter narratives without dealing with a very simple and fundamental truth. We must destroy and eliminate the narrative of Islamism.”

Hirsi Ali was just as blunt. “Political Islam is not just a religion as most Western citizens recognize the term ‘religion,’ a faith; it is also a political ideology, a legal order and, in many ways, also a military doctrine associated with the campaigns of the Prophet Mohammed,” she said.

Political Islam rejects any kind of distinction between religion and politics, mosque and state. Political Islam even rejects the modern state in favor of a caliphate. My central argument is that political Islamimplies a constitutional order fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. constitution and with the ‘constitution of liberty’ that is the foundation of the American way of life.”

She went on to make it even clearer, adding, “There is no point in denying that political Islam as an ideology has its foundation in Islamic doctrine.”

But Democratic senators on the committee didn’t want to hear it.

“Anyone who twists or distorts religion to a place of evil is an exception to the rule,” simpered Senator Claire McCaskill. “We should not focus on religion.”

Yet neither Nomani nor Asra made their testimony about religion. Both made it abundantly clear they were talking about the political ideology of theocracy, something that is by no means unique to Islam, although it is of course a particular problem “within the House of Islam” (as Nomani put it) at the moment.

Theocracy, self-evidently, has something to do with religion, since it seeks to impose religion as a system of government. But it is still a political ideology, the existence of which does not tar the non-theocratic members of the same faith (in this case Islam) with the same brush of involvement.

None of these plainly obvious facts impacted the hysteria which greeted the testimony.

Rather than ask Hirsi Ali and Nomani any questions, Democrats on the committee preferred to focus their discussion on questioning the former director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, who, coincidentally, had been invited by Democrats on the committee.

“Muslims honoring of sharia is not inherently in tangent with living in constitutional democracies anymore than it would be for Christians or Jews who also seek to honor their religious traditions while still complying with civil authority,” he said.

Clearly it isn’t. But it certainly is unconstitutional to seek to impose sharia as a system of government, which is what Islamists want.

In general, the continual denial of the existence of Islamist political ideology, which has something (but not everything) to do with religion is utterly baffling. If it were some harmless issue, like an obscure rule in golf which had incorrectly fallen into abeyance, or steadfastly insisting that “irregardless” is a word, then we could all laugh and then forget about the folly.

But this isn’t a harmless misunderstanding. It’s a very serious category error which misdiagnoses a huge and global problem. We saw the chilling effects yesterday in London. A man screaming, “I want to kill all the Muslims” rammed his van into a crowd outside a mosque, killing two.

Clearly people aren’t going to wait for the outcome of lengthy committee hearings to make a decision about what is responsible. If politicians can’t clearly delineate exactly what the ideology driving global terrorism is and explain how it is related to but distinct from Islam, fools and fanatics will assume it’s Islam in general and take the law into their own hands.

If you’re really interested in preventing that, then we have to be honest about the situation and start working to diffuse it, instead of trying to protect Islam’s reputation.

Ex-Muslim activist Yasmine Muhammed said it best on Twitter. Addressing Michael Leiter she said, “No disrespect, but you’ve been at the job a long time, and things are only worse. Maybe listen to @AsraNomani and@Ayaan.”

Indeed. As the poet and songwriter Bob Dylan said, “Your old road is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand, for the times they are a-changin’.”

***

Asra Nomani talks with Tucker Carlson who was moved by the NYT article she wrote with Ayaan Hirsi Ali: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/opinion/kamala-harris-islamism-senate-hearing.html

Also see:

UTT Throwback Thursday: No Wider Plot?

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 22, 2017:

If a Special Forces soldier was captured in a foreign land with which America was at war, would our enemy consider him a “lone wolf” disconnected from any “wider plot” or larger army?

On March 11, 2004, 10 bombs were detonated on four trains by Islamic jihadis in Madrid, Spain killing 191 people and injuring nearly 2000 others.  In analyzing the attacks, American academic Scott Atran, who investigated numerous Islamic jihadi attacks, said, “We’ve been looking at it closely for years and we’ve been briefed by everybody under the sun and … nothing connects them.”  Apparently, this was an “isolated” event conducted by “self-radicalized lone wolves.”

On November 5, 2009, muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a table on base at Fort Hood, Texas, shouted “Allah u akbar,” and began shooting anyone he could.  When it was over, 14 were dead and over 40 people were wounded/injured.  Before the FBI even reached Fort Hood they publicly stated this was not an act of terrorism.  The extensive DoD after action report entitled “Protecting the Force” was chaired by VA Secretary Togo West and Admiral Vernon Clark (USN, ret) and made no mention of Islam, jihad, sharia, or anything which Major Hasan said were the reasons he did what he did.  The DoD assessed this was a case of  “workplace violence” with no wider plot connected to anyone else.  Apparently, Hasan was a “lone wolf.”

Soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas treat their fellow soldiers wounded by jihadi Major Nidal Hasan

On June 13, 2013, muslim Omar Mir Seddique Mateen killed 49 people and wounded over 50 others in a nightclub in Orlando, Florida.  As the attack was unfolding, Mateen let officials know he was associating himself with ISIS.  Mateen’s father was involved in Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations in the United States and declared his support for the Taliban.  FBI Special Agent Ron Hopper stated the FBI interviewed Mateen three times beginning in 2013.  An investigation was opened, but was closed after the FBI was unable to tie Mateen to a wider plot. Apparently, Mateen was a “self-radicalized lone wolf.”

On Wednesday June 21, 2017, Canadian-muslim Amor Ftouhi yelled “Allah u akbar” and stabbed a police officer in the neck.  FBI Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Detroit office, David Gelios, said there is “nothing to suggest a wider plot.”

And so it goes.  Nearly 16 years after 9/11 and with all of America’s technology and bloated federal intelligence and law enforcement resources, there is not one ounce of logic nor an understanding of the threat.

In fact, the individuals who perpetrated these acts were not “lone wolves” who “self-radicalized.”  Like the Special Forces soldier mentioned in the opening sentence of this article, these men are a part of a large army, guided by doctrine, supported by nation-states, and dedicated to their focused singular objective.

Our enemy identifies itself as the “Global Islamic Movement” and tells us they are “muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State under sharia.”  All the jihadi organizations on the planet from ISIS to the Muslim Brotherhood say it.  100% of authoritative Islamic doctrine and the highest authorities in Islam, like Al Azhar University, say it.

Their paths to the objective may differ, but they all have the same objective.

There is a WIDER PLOT.  It is called the Global Islamic Movement.

It is the same Islam the West had to deal with at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD.

It is the same Islam from 1095 when the Crusades were launched in answer to over 450 years of muslim violence and incursion into Western lands.

It is the same Islam defeated at the miraculous Christian victory at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.

It is the same Islam pushed back at the Gates of Vienna on September 11, 1683.

It is the same Islam America fought in our first war after the Revolution – the war against the muslims of the Barbary (Islamic) States.

Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon at Derna.

American is at war with this adversary again.  All of these muslim jihadis are not “lone wolves” but soldiers for Allah.

They are part of the wider plot called Islam.