Tag Archive for: Fitna

Defeating ISIS: A Biblical View of America’s Role

/in , , , /by

PART ONE:

In order to preserve civilization, decisive action against ISIS and affiliated terror organizations is not optional.  Can we forgive our enemies, as Jesus mandated, and crush them at the same time?  What is the best possible role that America can play in the war against ISIS and its comrades in cruelty?  What would be the consequences of non-action?  Is this a war that involves only Arab nations?  Would Jesus go to war against Satan’s representatives?  This article attempts to answer these questions from a biblical and common sense perspective.

CONTEXT

None of the 21 Coptic Christians who were beheaded by ISIS denied Christ.  Neither did any of the 30 Ethiopian Christians who were just executed.  The last words of one of the Coptic Christians was a loud, “Jesus!”  This is quite a different stance than that taken by ISIS deserters who disguise themselves as women in order to escape the cult.

We’ve witnessed Americans beheaded by ISIS on television.  Tens of thousands of Christians and those of other faiths have been beheaded, sold into slavery and burned alive, killed and had their organs harvested, buried alive, and have been otherwise tortured to death by those who proclaim themselves to be followers of Muhammad.  We’re even talking children’s heads on sticks and children buried alive.

Increasingly, the focus is on Christians.  Over 200 Christians were kidnapped not too long ago from northern Syria.  Their destiny on this earth is not a mystery.  A female American missionary is now awaiting her fate.  Perhaps, she has already met it, but the video has not yet been edited to maximize recruitment potential.  Hundreds just drowned in the Mediterranean, trying to flee Libya and ISIS.  Every day we hear of new atrocities that are unimaginable to any civilized person.

As with members of other cults, the ISIS terrorists hold beliefs that defy rationality.  Most recruits lack education and are desperate for employment.  They are easy conduits of extreme Islamic ideological nonsense.  Here’s an example of the nonsense: the barbarians believe that they are ushering in Armageddon and a new kingdom in which Muslim men and burka covered, uneducated, and mutilated women will be the only inhabitants.   Although Arab opposition is thankfully increasing, ISIS is still “purifying” North Africa, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and parts of other nations; and we see the advancing darkness in Europe and England, as well.  Little light presently shines in Europe.   There are over 600 “no-go” zones in France.  These are neighborhoods that administer Sharia law and don’t allow non-Muslims to enter.  England also has such zones.  According to our own State Dept. and other sources, even in America, terrorist cells exist in all 50 states.  CNN reports that the FBI has just warned of possible imminent terrorist attacks in Southern California.  Of course, most terrorists have entered America through our porous southern border.  Some are now returning Americans who have trained with the terrorists.  Of course, there are countless ways to enter our country.  And as baffling as this may be, Americans are not even allowed to venture into some terrorist training areas in the United States.  Why aren’t we destroying the compounds and imprisoning the terrorists?

The stated mission of the Islamic terrorists is to “cleanse” the world and establish what they call a “caliphate,” or a government ruled by a “caliph,” which is a successor to Muhammad.  If they were ever successful, there would be no one left to kill except themselves.  This could – and probably would – be accomplished through the continued enforcement of Sharia.  What a blessing to the world it would be if the terrorists did this now, as they are doing now to some degree to their own men and women.

WHAT ARE AMERICA AND THE CIVILIZED WORLD DOING ABOUT TERRORISM?    

With a tidal wave of barbarism crashing against the shores of civilization, the civilized world has erected few tetrahedrons, pretending that our oceans and ghost soldiers from the past can protect us.  As Germany was in 1932 and 1933, so is now the occupied territory of ISIS.   However, without the intervention of righteous men and women, 1938 and 1939 will likely be upon us soon, even coming to a mall near you.  There’s a saying, “Don’t stumble over what’s behind you.”  Is America doing that?  While our president courts a relationship with the biggest sponsor of terror in the world, Iran, it would seem so.

Every year, women are killed in the U.S. by a relative in the name of family honor.   Though these murderers have not bought into our cultural values, or even into our laws to maintain order, we have accepted their right to live and believe as they wish.  In the Old Testament, God allowed “aliens” (non-Jews) to become Jews, but he also required that they live and believe as Jews (Exodus 12:48).  All other nations of the world presently require, or have required until now, that immigrants pledge to abide by the laws of their new country.  Considering that ISIS and its affiliates could be defeated relatively quickly by a united front of civilized nations, it’s surprising that this isn’t happening.  So the answer to the question, “What are America and the civilized nations of the world doing about the advancing evil?” is “not much.”

HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS RESPOND?

Concerning the slaughter of tens of thousands and potentially millions of innocents, what should followers of Christ do?  Our State Department stated that the answer is to give more jobs to terrorists and potential terrorists.   Is a worldwide jobs program the answer?  Osama bin Laden was a multi-millionaire, and his followers were not interested in gainful employment.  And “Jihad John” comes from a rich family in England, graduated from a university in London, and claims that he was discriminated against for being a Muslim (he’s the man in the black costume that speaks to the camera before he beheads someone).  Therefore, a jobs program is not the answer.   How incredible that a representative of our own State Dept. would make such a suggestion.

There is precedent for Christians uniting against darkness that seeks the destruction of Christianity, all Christians, and the rest of a population.  Alfred the Great was a Christian who inspired professing Christian warriors to push back the Viking rebels who had destroyed monasteries and killed priests. And Charlemagne was a Christian who also united professing Christian soldiers to stop France and the rest of Europe from being taken over by Islamic terrorists who were invading their lands.  Even now a small band of Christians have formed an army to fight and kill jihadists who attack the holy sites of Syria.

Fortunately, many of the Arab nations have begun to fight back.  Jordan struck hard after a Jordanian pilot was burned alive, as seen on a You Tube video.  Egypt joined the fray when the 21 were martyred on the set of what was made to look like an ocean shore.  Now an Arab coalition is forming with Saudi Arabia taking point.  Saudi Arabia has been striking hard at munitions targets in Yemen.

America has been giving token support to the fight in a “blue room” coalition of 60 nations.  America provides minimal air support to these Arab nations.  Just as America did not back the millions of Iranian demonstrators who longed for democracy, so now America does not provide even small arms to the only Christian hold-outs in Iraq, the Kurds.  America is involved in the fight, but only at a “containment” level, which is not working.

BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

More to the biblical point: What is the mind of Christ in this situation?  Is there a difference between how a nation should respond and how an individual should respond?  Jesus said to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43).  Are we to love and forgive the ISIS terrorists?  As our enemies increasingly focus their efforts on Christians in general and on the “little Satan,” Israel, with the long range view (and delivery system) to the “great Satan,” the United States, we might want to keep in mind that there is a difference between loving our enemies and allowing them to destroy all that is noble and good.  Both Parts I and II will address these issues.

As Christians should we forgive the savages?  Should we fight against evil?  Should we do both at the same time and forgive evil of this level of degradation?  Perhaps, there is a difference between our responsibility as individuals and as a nation.  Jesus always stood strongly against the kingdom of Satan.  In Matthew 11:12 Jesus said, “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.”  It appears that Jesus wants us to stand against Satan and do our best to establish His kingdom here on earth, as He “draws all men to him” (John 12:32).  As the terrorists would have it, there will be no men or women to be drawn to Him.  That time will come eventually, of course, but such timing is not in our hands.  What’s in our hands is to press forward to establish His kingdom.

Part 2 will examine the importance of hating evil while loving people and will begin to expand upon the necessary response of righteous men and women, as a nation and as individuals.

“Let Your Blood Be [The Caliphate’s] Fuel”

/in , , , /by

On Wednesday, April 29th, 2015, a photocopy of a printed statement allegedly distributed by the Aleppo Center of Preaching and Mosques of the Islamic State (IS) began circulating online on unofficial Twitter accounts of IS members/supporters (documents available on CTC website). Dated Monday, April 27th, 2015, this statement was issued under the authority of the Caliph, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, and called for the emirs and fighters within IS’s Syrian provinces to volunteer to fight in the ongoing battles in Al-Anbar and Salāh ad Dīn provinces in Iraq. While we have not seen a similar statement posted online from other Syrian provinces, the opening sentence of this statement made clear that it was intended for all Syrian provinces under IS control, not just Aleppo.

While the fact that the IS is seeking reinforcements to send to the frontlines in Iraq is not surprising, this statement has several noteworthy features, including a brief view into how the Caliph is thinking about the way forward as he prosecutes a multiple-front war and how he interacts with local leaders in regards to troop mobilizations and deployments.

The first potential take away from the statement is that it included an injunction for those who wanted to volunteer to report within 48 hours. The short temporal expiration date on this order suggests a certain urgency in the request. Given the time it will take to organize and deploy fighters, this suggests that IS sees the next several weeks in both Al-Anbar and Salāh ad Dīn as critical.

But a quick response was not the only thing the Caliph wanted. The statement also contains a call for a specific type of fighter: suicide bombers and soldiers willing to sacrifice themselves in assaults/battles (suicide fighters). The “single-use” nature of these forces potentially suggests that a shortage of such fighters exists in Al-Anbar and Salāh ad Dīn or that IS is preparing for a counteroffensive. And what is more, the call clearly wants those who are the best of the best: “religiously dedicated, patient ones, and war experts who don’t look back, fight and don’t lay down their weapons until they get killed or God grants them victory.” The statement conveys not just a need for fighters, but a need for the best and most committed fighters.

And there already appears to have been some response to this kind of call in the recent past. Almost three weeks ago, on April 11, 2015, a video surfaced from Al-Raqqah that showed a group of individuals dressed in combat fatigues pledging allegiance to the Caliph. The pledge itself was relatively similar to a previous pledge, except that it included a general pledge to the death, with the fighters stating “There is no return after today.” The video then proceeds to show the fighters allegedly traveling from Al-Raqqah to Salāh ad Dīn.

Additionally, there is an important corollary from this latest statement to the Caliph’s view of the current fight and the value he places on Iraq relative to Syria. If he is willing to call for the best of the best out of Syria and push them to Iraq, what does this mean about the value he places on Iraq relative to Syria? What is more, how do the local leaders feel about this call? It seems unlikely that governors in Aleppo and Raqqa enthusiastically send their best fighters away, never to return. It is certainly plausible that the Caliph feels that his governors in Syria can bear sending away some of their troops to Iraq, but the dynamic nature of the conflict both in Iraq and Syria is forcing the Caliph into a delicate balancing act regarding which front of the conflict is more important and how to avoid alienating local leadership.

Another point worth noting is the fact that although Al-Anbar and Salāh ad Dīn are mentioned together in the statement, this does not suggest that they are considered of similar importance to IS. The fighting in Salāh ad Dīn has been intense (particularly around and inside the Baji oil refinery), but is most likely viewed as a stalling action by IS to prevent / prepare for an eventual campaign against Mosul. Al-Anbar, on the other hand, with its large Sunni population and critical geographic location, is a territory that is essential to the IS’s strategy in Iraq.

Finally, there is a curious matter within the statement that asks for volunteers among already existing IS forces to go fight in Al-Anbar and Salāh ad Dīn. The Caliph presumably has the authority to order such individuals, who have already joined the military side of the IS, to mobilize and deploy. In thinking about why the statement is asking for volunteers, there are two important sub-points.

First, it may be that the Caliph is less sure of his control over individuals and events in Syria. It is possible that he is concerned about undermining his own leadership by giving an order that may not be obeyed by emirs and fighters in Syria. Nevertheless, there is a pressing need for additional fighters, so the compromise approach appears to be asking for volunteers rather than ordering them.

Second, the statement specifically says that volunteers are to report to the local office of “Preaching and Mosques.” This creates a mechanism for the local governor (wali) to exercise oversight over the process of sending fighters from Aleppo to Iraq. Again, presumably the Caliph does not need to defer to local leaders on this issue, but such deference provides insight into the calculations of the Caliph in managing local issues with the broader needs of his “state”…a classic governance challenge.

Some of these inferences are reinforced by the IS’s own self-reported attack data over the past week. IS has been conducting a daily news rollup of military activities within its Caliphate using the Al-Bayan radio station. Of course, one should accept those numbers cautiously as they are self-reported.

With that understanding, from April 21 – April 29, there were a total of 229 news items detailed in Al-Bayan daily reports. Over 28% of these (64 in total) reported on military activities in Al-Anbar and Salāh ad Dīn. When one considers that the reports contained news from approximately 14 provinces during this period of time, the fact that such a high number came from two provinces alone is telling.

This number of attacks greatly increases if one takes three other areas bordering Al-Anbar and Salāh ad Dīn provinces into account: Diyala, Northern Baghdad, and al-Janub (south of Baghdad and north of Wasit and Babil provinces). This number certainly stands in contrast to the 35 (15%) news items coming out of Syrian provinces of the IS. While there are still important developments going on in Syria, IS sees the battles in Iraq as critical.

To support the idea that particular types of fighters are seen as valuable to the campaigns in Al-Anbar and Salāh ad Dīn, consider the fact that of the 8 suicide bombings claimed by the IS in the Al-Bayan reports over the past week, all 8 occurred in Al-Anbar (7) and Salāh ad Dīn (1).

The past several weeks of conflict in Iraq have been characterized by advances and setbacks for both sides. In response, both IS and the Iraqi government have been adjusting their strategy and forces as needed.  However, while the responses of the Iraqi government have been subject to public scrutiny, the responses of IS have not been transparent. In that sense, this statement, taken together with the video showing the death pledge by fighters moving from Al-Raqqah to Iraq, sheds light on the current and future challenges of IS.

ABOUT MUHAMMED AL-UBAYDI AND DANIEL MILTON

Muhammad al-`Ubaydi is a research assistant at the Combating Terrorism Center and monitors Arabic jihadist websites. Daniel Milton is an Assistant Professor at the Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy at West Point. Muhammad and Daniel would like to thank Nelly Lahoud, Bryan Price, and Krissy Hummel for their insights and assistance in preparing this piece. The views presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or any of its subordinate commands.

VIDEO: A message to the Islamic State from The People of the Cross

/in , , , , /by

Slowly but in a deliberate and steady manner evidence mounts that ISIS squads are slipping into America unchallenged. This exceptional nation that once heard church bells ring in just about every community from sea to shining sea now hears foreign sounds emanating from Mosques smack dab in the middle of town squares. With these cries calling an increasing number of Muslims to pray several times a day, comes still others with Islamic backgrounds and guns meant to subdue and even kill those who will not submit to the god of Islam.

While atheists and God-less people from a variety of political and social persuasions shout “separation of church and state,” there is no shout, much less a murmur, about separation of mosque and state.

In multiple communities and big cities the push to establish Sharia Law is well underway; even aggressive and not forgiving to any who stand and object. Islamic training camps exist within the borders of the United States, but authorities stumble all over themselves defending these sites teaching various courses on domestic armed conflict. These camps are dedicated to Islamic Jihad directed at the Christian community, the Judeo-Christian governmental foundation which established America, and the very culture, values, and heritage which makes the United States of America the exceptional nation the world has known, and Americans seemingly have taken for granted all these years. Those who openly and brazenly shout to “kill Americans” and take this nation for their Islamic beliefs are convinced they can accomplish their aggressive war, and more Islamic soldiers are on their way into this country that once shined as a light for the world to see and be guided by.

The above statements of fact are sobering and disturbing on many levels. Conversely the simple reality is that Jesus Christ’s true followers can stand openly and proclaim with full knowledge and belief; while Jihadists will die for their god; our God died for us! This is absolutely, powerfully, magnificently true! Furthermore the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the true church of Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18).

So where is this church of power but grace; magnificent strength in love and forgiveness; life changing and healing balm that covers and then penetrates the hardest of hearts, the meanest of souls, the most despicable of behavior?

You are about to watch and listen to such a message delivered by such a Remnant Church reserved for this day and time. The YouTube video below carries a message the Lord Himself spoke some two thousand years ago for you and for me, and even for Jihadists who would just as soon kill The People of the Cross…and have. It is difficult for a “sheep dog” like myself who stands to protect the flock from the wolf who is just waiting to devour members of the flock to recognize that the Lord Jesus Christ freely went to the Cross to shed His blood and surrendered Himself so that none should perish, but that all could have eternal life with Him and our Heavenly Father. But this message must be delivered – even to those who intend to kill and destroy Christians, and the very belief system we stand under.

A whirlwind is coming to America, and has already begun to blow and twist its’ way through the land. There will be destruction. There will be stunned silence at the tremendous force deliberately loosed on this once strong Christian Nation. But through it all there will be a separating of the wheat from the chaff; a separating of the Remnant Church that can and will deliver a message like the one you are about to see and hear from a church that is effeminate and social, filled with compromise and correctness. A whirlwind is coming, and has already begun to blow so a clear division will be available for all to see; a division of those who choose to pick-up their cross daily and walk with it as true followers of Christ, versus those who are too embarrassed, too busy, too invested in their own agenda, even within the church that has become more reflective of society than demonstrative of Christ and His teachings. Come out of the lazy and compromised groups who meet all over this country for “feel good sessions” on Sundays, but who will not get into the trench and witness for the Lord of lords and King of kings, Jesus the Messiah, next to you on Monday.

Come out and stand with the People of the Cross so all may see to whom you belong.

VIDEO: Mosque Obama hails as “model” tied to 12 jihad terrorists

/in , , /by

Video thanks to Creeping Sharia.

The President touts the Islamic Society of Boston as a model for his Countering Violent Extremism program. Then why are there at least 12 jihadis associated with it?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas graffiti: “Allah Akbar,” bomb image

Colorado: Muslim who kept sex slave refuses sex offender course as against Islam

Mohammed cartoons: If you’re not publishing, you’re pretending

Islamic State: “Our goal is killing Obama and the worshipers of the cross”

Meet the bravest woman in America

/in , , , , /by

The Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that Pamela Geller and I organized and hosted in Garland, Texas on May 3, along with the jihad attack upon it, has become a defining issue. It has led to a national conversation about the nature of the freedom of speech, its importance, and what should or should not be its limits. It has exposed many people who appeared to be strong defenders of freedom to be cowards and appeasers. It has revealed that many key media players and people in powerful positions of authority have no idea of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and no awareness of the war on free speech — much less any understanding of why the freedom of speech matters at all. It has demonstrated that many important opinion-makers neither appreciate nor value the freedom of speech, and don’t even really grasp what it is. It has likewise revealed others to be unexpectedly strong defenders of freedom. Some people I had thought were strong-minded and open-eyed have proved to be cowardly and blinkered. Other people I had suspected were trimmers and appeasers have shone brightly in their honesty and courage on this issue.

Those who have defended free speech in the wake of the jihad attack while heaping scorn upon Pamela Geller, and those who have fastidiously tried to protect themselves from the Left’s inevitable guilt-by-association smears by throwing in a line like, “Now mind you, I don’t agree with everything Pamela Geller says,” or “Now of course Pamela Geller’s approach is not something I agree with” or some such, quite simply disgust me. Pamela Geller has more clear-sighted awareness of the threat this nation faces, and more courage and resoluteness in facing it, thananyone in America today — especially those who are sitting in their armchairs today and sniffing at her for being “outrageous” and “provocative” while she has to live the rest of her life knowing that at any moment some jihadi maniac will try to get to his virgins by killing her. Yet people are acting these days as if she was the one with the AK-47 outside our event, or as if there would be no jihad threat against America were it not for her and for our Muhammad cartoon contest.

They won’t be able to keep up this denial much longer. It simply won’t be possible. The Islamic State has issued a detailed manual for jihad terror attacks and regular bloodshed in the streets of the United States and the nations of Western Europe. That is coming. To cower and say, “We won’t draw cartoons, we won’t do anything to offend you” not only will not stop this from coming, but it will embolden the jihadis, who always step up their game when they see weakness in their prey.

They see weakness in the U.S. That’s because the U.S. is weak. Not militarily, but societally. Culturally. Fewer and fewer people understand and value the principles upon which a free society is based. Fewer and fewer people are willing to stand to defend those principles. Cowards, trimmers, appeasers and open allies of the enemies of freedom abound.

Pamela Geller is standing for freedoms upon which the free world depends. That so few of power and influence are standing with her shows how severe the crisis really is.

These days are revealing many who were thought to be true to be false, and many who were thought to be false to be true. As a defender of freedom, Pamela Geller is the truest of the true. It is my immense honor to work with her, and to call her my friend.

“Meet the bravest woman in America,” by Joseph Farah, WND, May 15, 2015:

She’s been caricatured.

She’s been verbally tarred and feathered.

She’s been vilified, reviled, smeared, defamed and disparaged.

But something keeps Pam Geller going. Do you know what it is? It’s her love for her country and her passion for liberty.

For weeks now, I’ve been watching my friend Pam Geller taking media punches from the left and right for her private event in Garland, Texas, featuring Geert Wilders, another freedom fighter – an event attacked by armed jihadists who have determined to “slaughter” Pam Geller for her campaign to expose radical Islam’s vicious worldwide crusade against freedom, against women, against Jews, against Christians, against life and against everything but its own peculiar seventh-century view of the world.

Bill O’Reilly had the audacity to accuse Geller of “spurring” the attack with her event promoting freedom of speech.

Really?

So by criticizing a worldwide movement responsible for the ongoing genocide against Christians in the Middle East, the subjugation of women, a pattern of female genital mutilation, the ruthless beheading and crucifying and burning alive of its victims, she was spurring the attack? She was inviting it? She was goading them? Her motivation was to serve as a catalyst to an attack on her and her event?

Donald Trump said essentially the same thing, as did the New York Times and most of the handwringing media elite.

Others were satisfied to call Geller an Islamophobe.

That’s a good one. That’s rich.

This made-up word denotes someone who fears Islam. That’s hardly the case with Geller. It’s probably much more true of Geller’s most vocal critics, who, I suggest, think they buy cover from the violent Islamic radicals by bashing their enemies.

Join Pamela Geller in her fight to retain free-speech rights and the uniquely American culture — read “Stop The Islamization Of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance”

Have you ever wondered by so many leftists are soft on Shariah? Leftists say they support everything that Islam detests – “gay rights,” women’s rights, free expression, peace on earth. But they watch tacitly as Islam runs roughshod over their entire agenda. What gives?

Ultimately, it comes down to the left’s ideological commitment to “multiculturalism,” which began as a back-door assault against Western values and morphed into a war with Judeo-Christian ethics, America and Israel. Suddenly, they found common ground with the barbarians who behead anyone doesn’t lie prostrate before Allah five times a day.

Geller is no Islamophobe, a term which suggests cowardice. That’s a laugh. She’s probably the bravest women in America today.

It’s her critics who are the cowards.

Some of them, I am convinced, are even motivated to criticize her because they fear being associated with her strong stand against hatred, against murder, against torture, against rape and against their unholy war. Perhaps they believe they might be spared the kind of abuse and attacks she has experienced by creating a little space between Geller and themselves. Good luck with that! Radical Islam makes no distinctions between courageous enemies and cowardly ones. It doesn’t discriminate in its scorched-earth policies. They even murder Muslims who disagree with them about the chain of command after Muhammad died.

So throw out the Islamophobe term. It has lost its usefulness, if, indeed, it ever had any.

I’m with Pam Geller. I’m no Islamophobe. It’s just that when I see murder and torture and rape and genocide, I feel compelled to speak out about it, to resist it and to call evil what it is. I don’t know any other way. And neither does Pam Geller.

And that’s why I’m proud to call her my friend.

That’s why she’s the bravest woman in America.

And that’s why she needs and deserves the support of all freedom-loving Americans.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Spencer, PJM: Some Christians Object to Our Muhammad Cartoon Contest. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.

Australia: “Ordinary everyday teenager” converts to Islam, joins the Islamic State

EXCLUSIVE: Actual Video of the Garland, Texas Jihad Attack!

/in , , , /by

WARNING – THIS VIDEO CONTAINS EXTREMELY OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

When I first saw this amazing piece of video that was taped during the actual jihad attack in Garland Texas, I knew I was looking at an important piece of forensic evidence in an Islamic attack and a significant piece of law enforcement history. Therefore I wanted to be sure that a public release of this material in no way, shape or form would endanger any brave law enforcement officer or violate any laws of withholding evidence.

I gathered my team and we discussed the pros and cons of releasing this vital information and determined to make sure law enforcement had a copy and released it back to its owner with no restrictions on its use but then we took it a step further. We decided to blur out the police car and the police officers so that there would not be any chance of exposing any information, slight as it may be, which could be used in any way against the Garland Police Department or any of its officers.

From there, a phone conference was set up so that a few of us could actually speak with the men who taped the shooting. After about an hour phone conference with the two gentlemen I was even further impressed with the value of this video and more importantly, the story of the apparently only civilian eyewitnesses and their frightening experiences.

The moral of this story is that some very brave police officers killed two evil, hell-bent Muslim terrorists, thus potentially saving the innocent lives of those who were inside the convention center, including my team and me! But, the epilogue to this story is that two very brave men who stumbled on the scene of this Islamic State attack have stepped forward to show their video and tell their story so that all freedom loving people can get a better understanding of this epic battle between good and evil.

The United Kingdom: Towards a Counter-Extremism Strategy

/in , , /by

And now the hard work of government begins. The release of the government’s counter-extremism strategy is a very promising start. This strategy lay in a drawer in the final months of the last coalition government, blocked by objections from the Liberal Democrats. But now the much-needed full strategy has been released and it reveals a comprehensive method for tackling violent and non-violent extremism.

One of the challenges of this area has always been to ensure that no department or other sector of government fails in its duty. There have been cases in the past of government departments effectively having different policies on violent and non-violent extremism, and other government bodies having different policies again. That is why a comprehensive strategy, to be implemented across government, is so needed. Today counter-extremism is as much a matter for the Department of Education as it is for the Foreign or Home Offices.

The Henry Jackson Society has of course followed this whole process carefully, and we are delighted to see the adoption of a number of policies we have urged on successive governments. For instance we are pleased that the strategy will give a greater remit to the Charity Commission to seek out charities which misappropriate funds and use them for terrorist purposes. The possibilities for charitable status to be abused in such a way is something which we have long highlighted, and it is to the great benefit of the entire country that the Commission now has a leadership which is actively chasing such offenders and that the government is willing to give them even greater capacity for doing so.

The strategy also gives additional regulatory powers to Ofcom – the television licensing authority – in a demonstration that the strategy genuinely sees this problem in the round and understands the nature of the threat. In recent years propaganda stations like the Iranian-government funded Press TV consistently flouted broadcasting regulations, giving partial, biased and misleading information to its viewers. It was not until Press TV broadcast forced confessions from within an Iranian jail after the 2009 student uprisings in Iran, that Ofcom stepped in and took away the station’s ability to broadcast in the UK. But this should have been possible at a far earlier stage. Today there are still Islamist-linked television stations in the UK which pump out divisive and extremist opinion while presenting it as wholly mainstream. Again this is something which needs to be assiduously addressed.

The new strategy will be announced in the Queen’s Speech and be voted on in the House of Commons after that. It could not come at a more important time. Just this week the Metropolitan police said that arrests on terrorism-related offences have hit an all-time high. There will be reasons to quibble with portions of the government’s new strategy – as we have ourselves – but the need for such a strategy can hardly be doubted.

Islamic State issues new “Message to America,” threatening massive hacking and cyber attacks

/in , , , , , /by

Stop drawing Muhammad cartoons, people, and these good folks will be mollified and hold a barbecue for us.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Media rushes to abandon the principle of freedom of speech

The ISIS death fatwa

You Will Become Muslims When We Rape You, ISIS Told Yazidi Girls

Raymond Ibrahim: U.S. State Dept. Invites Muslim Leaders, Denies Christians

Raymond Ibrahim: Islamic Supremacism — the True Source of Muslim ‘Grievances’

BBC likens jihad preacher Anjem Choudary to Gandhi and Mandela

Israeli Ambassador on Iran Deal: ‘We Cannot Roll the Dice’ on Survival of Jewish State

Video: Media rushes to abandon the principle of freedom of speech

/in , , , /by

Here is a terrific video showing the mainstream media rushing to abandon the principle of the freedom of speech and to establish and reinforce the principle that in the face of violent threats, we should surrender and give those doing the threatening what they want.

This only means that we will get more violent threats. After all, they work.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State releases audio message purportedly from the caliph

You Will Become Muslims When We Rape You, ISIS Told Yazidi Girls

Video: Islamic State issues new “Message to America,” threatening massive hacking and cyber attacks

Video: Media rushes to abandon the principle of freedom of speech

The ISIS death fatwa

Raymond Ibrahim: U.S. State Dept. Invites Muslim Leaders, Denies Christians

Raymond Ibrahim: Islamic Supremacism — the True Source of Muslim ‘Grievances’

BBC likens jihad preacher Anjem Choudary to Gandhi and Mandela

Israeli Ambassador on Iran Deal: ‘We Cannot Roll the Dice’ on Survival of Jewish State

Israeli Druze, News and Hezbollah Blues

/in , , /by

WOW, what a full report we have that covers a variety of important developments by our reporters in Israel.

The first part of the show features Mendi Safadi, a Druze leader who explains exactly who the Druze Israelis are and what they do.

Then of course we get reports filed by Arie Egozi on the military build-up of the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Jerusalem Jane in the Knesset and Michael Ganoe in the middle of an anti-Semitism conference.

You will not believe all the good stuff we pack into this one hour show. Enjoy

RELATED ARTICLES:

Opinion: The Catholic Church Has Gone Socialist

Pope Continues his Leftward March, Will Officially Recognize Palestinian Statehood

VDH: Jihadists have “already cut a huge swath out of American free speech”

Jeffrey Tayler in Salon: “The left has Islam all wrong”

Hearing ‘Under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance Does Not Violate Rights of Atheist Students, Judge Rules

Ex-Nat’l Guardsman Given 20 Years for Trying to Join ISIS

Where Did the Islamic State Come From?

From Insurgency to Caliphate…

Vatican officially recognizes the “State of Palestine”

/in , , , , , , /by

There is no “State of Palestine” at this time. This is part of the ongoing pressure upon Israel to create one. Creating one will be a great victory for the global jihad force, as a “State of Palestine” will inevitably be a new jihad base for renewed attacks against what remains of Israel. Events will unfold just as they did when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza: while the international media hailed a new era of peace, the “Palestinians” gutted installations and prepared for jihad.

This recognition could end up being as large a blot on the Catholic Church’s record as the Inquisition and the many Catholic clerics all over Europe who went along with the Nazi program against Jews during World War II. The “Palestinians” make no secret on official PA TV of the fact that they share that same genocidal antisemitic bloodlust. This recognition only validates that bloodlust, and enables it.

For shame: “Vatican Officially Recognizes ‘State of Palestine’ in New Treaty,” Associated Press, May 13, 2015:

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Vatican officially recognizes ‘state of Palestine’ in new treaty.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Opinion: The Catholic Church Has Gone Socialist

Pope Continues his Leftward March, Will Officially Recognize Palestinian Statehood

VDH: Jihadists have “already cut a huge swath out of American free speech”

Jeffrey Tayler in Salon: “The left has Islam all wrong”

Hearing ‘Under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance Does Not Violate Rights of Atheist Students, Judge Rules

Ex-Nat’l Guardsman Given 20 Years for Trying to Join ISIS

Where Did the Islamic State Come From?

From Insurgency to Caliphate…

Pamela Geller “following in the steps of those Sons of Liberty in the Boston Tea Party of 1773″

/in , , , , /by

Brilliant piece, and no doubt provocative to the cowards who control the public discourse today — not that they will do anything but heap more opprobrium upon Pamela Geller and others who are fighting to defend freedom. Those who say “Yours was a gratuitous event that was needlessly provocative” don’t realize that Islamic supremacists are endlessly offended, endlessly provoked, and endlessly demanding, and those who think that if we just don’t draw cartoons of Muhammad, all will be well, are ignorant (willfully or not) of what Muslims are forcing non-Muslims to stop doing in other countries around the world today, because these actions offend them. Those new demands are coming, lemmings. Get ready to bow down again.

“In Defense of Pamela Geller,” by Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator, May 7, 2015:

The backlash has been considerable.

Pam Geller, whose American Freedom Defense Initiative organized the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that sparked an armed assault by two self-appointed jihadis in Garland, Texas, has come under a withering assault for her actions. From Donald Trump to a crew at Fox that includes Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Greta Van Susteren, Martha McCallum, Alan Colmes, ex-Bush aide and Fox contributor Brad Blakeman as well as liberal radio host Richard Fowler and doubtless more, Geller has been subjected to a firestorm of criticism.

I respectfully dissent.

According to Newsmax, Ms. Geller has now received an ISIS death threat. Or, as they say in the world of Islam, a “fatwa”:

“The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy,” the message reads. “Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.”

Note well the word “khanzeer.” The translation is “swine” — as used in the Islamic world when Jews are called “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Geller has been making the necessary media rounds to defend herself, including this post in Time magazine. Sean Hannity has come to her defense, saying: “You can’t draw a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad without expecting this violence? Is this how far we have sunk? That we’ve got to capitulate in this way?” Rush Limbaugh has leapt to her defense.

Megyn Kelly was blunt in her defense. “Even if you hate her message, she was promoting free speech,” Kelly said and told a guest critical of Geller that he was “fundamentally confused and wrong” and that “I’m concerned about the America you would have us live in.”

Me too.

The notion that any American anywhere should restrict their own freedom of speech because to do otherwise would provoke violence is a certain path to ending freedom of speech. Let’s go with one of the favorite criticisms of Geller — that what Ms. Geller did holding that conference in Garland, Texas, was the work of a “provocateur.” OK. And?

American history is littered with “provocateurs” whose words or actions “provoked” violence. From the Boston Tea Partiers in 1773 to the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, time after time after time words and actions provoked violence. The Declaration of Independence, in fact, didn’t just provoke a little violence — it provoked a seven-year-long war with Great Britain that was said to have produced 25,000 American casualties. That’s before one gets to the estimated 4,000 British soldiers who were killed. Not to mention that the mere election of Abraham Lincoln provoked a string of events which in turn launched the Civil War. Killing some 600,000-plus Americans. Now there’s a provocation.

Just two months ago President Obama and former President Bush joined together in Selma, Alabama, to celebrate the work of “provocateurs” who knew — and were warned — not to march across Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge in support of black voting rights in 1965. As history records, Selma’s Sheriff Jim Clark faced the protesters at the head of a collection of billy-club wielding, horseback-riding troopers and used a bull horn to warn that the protesters “are ordered” to return to their homes or churches. Thus warned — quite specifically warned — that they were in danger of provoking violence, the marchers refused to turn back and kept coming. At Clark’s signal the troopers launched — and so ruthlessly inflicted violent beatings on the protesters that the event became known as “Bloody Sunday.”

In the aftermath of Bloody Sunday, a Geller-esque white Detroit housewife named Viola Liuzzo heard the call of Dr. Martin Luther King for Americans to come to Alabama and join the fight for voting rights. Liuzzo did so. And on the night of March 25, 1965, Liuzzo was driving a fellow marcher — a 19-year old black youth named Leroy Morton. Liuzzo’s car was spotted by the Ku Klux Klan. They were white racists who saw the fact of a white woman driving a black man as a provocation that violated the social mores of segregation and white supremacy. In response to this “provocation,” Liuzzo’s car was overtaken by a car filled with Klan members. They fired at Viola Liuzzo, shooting her twice in the head and killing her instantly. The car crashed, Morton played dead and once the Klan had departed went for help. This same white woman-black man combination was exactly the same social provocation cited in the killing of Emmett Till, the young black teenager who was murdered in Mississippi for allegedly whistling at a white woman.

Today Viola Liuzzo and the marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge are seen as heroes. In fact, during his visit to Selma for that fiftieth anniversary tribute the President specifically said: “If Selma taught us anything, it’s that our work is never done.” Really? Is the President saying he wants more racial provocations around America? Was he himself acting as a Geller-style “provocateur”?

Should Viola Liuzzo have not gone to Alabama? Should she not have protested for voting rights or had a black man in her car — because what she was doing was “provocative” to the white supremacist view of society and would provoke violence? To listen to today’s chorus of critics of Pamela Geller, apparently the answer is no, Viola Liuzzo should never have gone, and yes, in the end she provoked her own death.

The entirety of the civil rights movement and quite specifically the words and actions of its leaders — most prominently including Dr. King himself — were seen in the day as provocative of violence. In fact, King himself would pay for all those words and actions with his life, shot to death while in Memphis for a 1968 march. Should Dr. King never have marched, spoken, and protested? Should the Civil Rights Act of 1964 never been enacted because it was the result of provocative, violence-inciting Freedom Riders and marches across the South?

There’s another fact here that is ignored. Forget the threat of Islamic radicalism. Take the issue off the table entirely. The uncomfortable fact of life today in a 21st century America drenched in television, films, and social media is that people of prominence, whether they are candidates for office or simply media figures or celebrities, are all too frequently targeted by those who are provoked by their words and actions.

Bill O’Reilly — and I’m not picking on him here but since he has raised the subject himself — is a case in point. Mr. O’Reilly, famously, is the host of Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor, a show with a huge popular following. Five nights a week for 19 years O’Reilly has been delivering a show that is filled with controversial views and frequently controversial people. To his credit, he never holds back in saying what he thinks.

Is what Bill O’Reilly does every night “provocative”? Does Bill O’Reilly invite violence? Well, catch this 2008 CBS interview with O’Reilly himself, as reported by CBS:

“My life is dangerous now,” he said. “You know, I have bodyguards and security. I can’t go many places. I can’t be in certain crowd situations. When I do a book signing, I gotta have a phalanx of state troopers there because there are crazy people. And then there’re the Web sites and all of that, which are just totally out of control.

“They encourage these nuts. You know, I was thinking about John Lennon, you know, and John Lennon was tryin’ to be a nice guy, signing the guy’s thing and [Chapman] pops him. So, that is the worst part of the whole ‘Factor’ experience.”

Got that? What Bill O’Reilly does on his television show is so provocative to some people that his life “is dangerous now” and he has to have “bodyguards and security.” What O’Reilly is saying here is that yes, he too is a “provocateur” — just like Pam Geller. Should O’Reilly quit his show? Should he be seen not as a television host with an interesting show but rather condemned as a deliberately provocative public danger whose very presence anywhere in public could result in violence to innocent bystanders? Should he curtail his First Amendment right to say what he wants on his own television show? Should he be condemned for nightly doing something that is, to use O’Reilly’s description of Geller’s actions, “dumb”?

Absolutely not. That would be dumb.

The disturbing reality here is that, as mentioned, this “provocateur’ phenomenon isn’t limited to Bill O’Reilly or Pam Geller. All kinds of people in the public eye who are not the President of the United States with a retinue of Secret Service agents are targeted by someone Out There as a “provocateur.” As O’Reilly himself mentioned, former Beatle John Lennon’s celebrity alone was enough to provoke a killer. Just the other week, the news brought a recording of a 911 call from a frantic actress, Sandra Bullock. Bullock was locked in a closet in her own home — while a crazed stalker prowled though her home looking for her. Why? For no other reason than Bullock’s movie celebrity had provoked this nut into violently breaking into her home. Should Bullock halt her acting career because it has provoked violence?

What Pamela Geller is about — courageously and boldly — is standing up for freedom. That’s it. That’s all. “My country is in danger,” she said to Sean Hannity on his radio show yesterday — and she is right. When O’Reilly says “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid… It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad,” he is, as Megyn Kelly said, confused. It isn’t Geller’s job to defeat ISIS. That’s the President’s job. It isn’t her job to provoke — or not provoke. It isn’t her job to be smart — or stupid. It is her God-given, constitutional right to stand up for freedom of speech — and she exercises that right. It is her job, as it is that of every American, to work to see that our country is not endangered by gradually giving up our freedoms one by one in a constant backsliding down the slippery slope of tyranny.

What concerns with all this criticism? In effect what the critics are saying is that we should start curtailing American freedoms — the Constitution — to avoid “provoking” or offending someone. Muslims today, gays yesterday, rioting Baltimoreans last week. And so on through some catechism of political correctness.

Where does this stop? Just as Islam forbids images of The Prophet, so too does it forbid homosexuality. If Americans are not supposed to “provoke” Muslims by doing something that offends their religion, does this mean the push that is on now for gay marriage should come to a screeching halt? Should the Supreme Court make gay marriage illegal because to recognize gay marriage would deliberately provoke Muslims across America and around the world? Indeed, isn’t an American approval of any gay “right” a deliberate provocation of Muslim sensibilities?

This is, I would suggest, an untenable place for conservatives to be. It’s an untenable place for liberals to be. It’s an untenable place for Americans to be. It isn’t enough to say some version of “oh sure Pam Geller has the right to do it but she’s provocative and what she did is dumb.” As Sean Hannity has said, Americans cannot slip into the habit of saying “I’m for free speech…but…”

What Pam Geller is doing is bravely standing where so many Americans celebrated today once stood. She is following in the steps of those Sons of Liberty in the Boston Tea Party of 1773 or the signers of the Declaration in 1776 Philadelphia or the civil rights marchers on that Edmund Pettus Bridge or Viola Liuzzo in 1965….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Geller, Wilders, Spencer “fighting the West’s battle for freedom”

VDH: Jihadists have “already cut a huge swath out of American free speech”

Dom: The Conservative Lady Warrior

/in , , , /by

dom the conservativeMeet, Dom -The Conservative, blogger, wife, Mom, counter-jihad warrior! Sometimes it’s funny how life provides positive developments from extremely bizarre situations.

On May 3, 2015, Dom was one of the attendees at the Pamela Geller – Muhammad Art Exhibit and was there to support the American doctrine of freedom to speak and freedom to assemble. Little did she realize how her life would be changed by being one of the people under attack from Muslim terrorists who were intent on killing the participants simple because they were at the event?

In the midst of the “controlled” confusion of the evening our United West team met Dom, interviewed her and became friends with a very serious, very intelligent woman who has a critically important message for all freedom-loving Americans.

Listen to what Dom has to say and then, JOIN THE FIGHT!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Catholic University Investigated for Offending Muslims by Having Too Many Crosses

Saudi Arabia Shows Its Displeasure With Washington

Anti-Israel Intruders arrested for invading IDF Presentation at Temple Israel in Westport, Connecticut

Trojan House: U.S. State Dept. Program Brings Refugee Jihadis to America costing Billion $

/in , , , , , /by

Refugee Resettlement and Hijra jpgMike Bates and I interviewed Ann Corcoran, editor of the Refugee Resettlement Watch  blog on 1330 AM WEBY’s “Your Turn’ program, Tuesday, May 12, 2015. Corcoran is the author of “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America .“ We noted  early in the interview the importance of Hijra (immigration in Arabic) as a doctrinal imperative for Muslims in one of the Hadith (sayings of Mohammed) according to a reliable commentator, Bukhari:

There can be no Hijra (migration) after the conquest but Jihad and a desire or an intention, and if you settle then spread out.

For more see: Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, the Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam?  By Sam Solomon and E. Al Maqdisi.

The focus of our discussion was on  rising concerns over Muslim refugee resettlement  under the billion dollar secretive US Refugee Admission Program that has operated under the virtual radar screen for 35 years. These concerns have arisen since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed and signed into law by former President  Jimmy Carter. The law was introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and then Senator, and now Obama Vice President, Joe Biden. Based on the interview, Corcoran believes that it is overdue for a major overhaul and reform. By virtue of admitting thousands of  potential Jihadis among refugees from Muslims lands, the program constitutes a significant national security risk.

Watch Corcoran’s Center for Security Policy You Tube video which has gone viral since its posting on April 20, 2015 with  236,748 hits at last count.

Here are some takeaways from the 1330 AM WEBY interview with Corcoran:

  • The UN High Commissioner for Refugees  “calls the shots”  on the annual allotment of 70,000 refugees that the State Department sends a Presidential Directive  to Capitol Hill in Washington, DC to be ‘rubber stamped’ by Senate and House Subcommittees on Immigration and Border Security.
  • The Congress has never exercised effective oversight of the Refugee Admissions program through hearings and recommendations leading to changes in countries of origin under UN allotments.
  • The Refugee Admissions Program has been used punitively against  political critics. One example is the assignment  of  large  numbers of Somali refugees to the Congressional District of former US Rep. Michelle Bachmann in St. Cloud, Minnesota
  • Nearly 400,000 refugees admitted to the US under this State Department program funded by taxpayers came from “countries that hate us”: Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia and soon, Syria;
  • Hundreds of terrorists have entered the US as refugees, many fraudulently, whose backgrounds are impossible  to run background checks as their countries of origin are virtual failed states;
  • Among examples of refugee Jihads caught are:

Dozens of Somaliémigré youths arrested and charged with material support for terrorism by attempting or leaving to join Al Shabaab in war torn Somalia or the Islamic State in Syria;

Iraqi Al Qaeda operatives admitted because of fraudulent representations who were convicted of trying to attemptingto ship weapons and funds to Al Qaeda and only caught when fingerprints were found on shards of an IED that killed four Pennsylvania National Guardsmen in Iraq;

The Brothers Tsarneav who perpetrated the Boston Marathon Bombing that killed three and one MIT police officer, injuring over 263, some maimed for life.

  • Rampant fraud was detected  from DNA samples among Somali applicants under the State Department Family Reunification P-3 Visa Program  resulting in the shutdown of the program for three years.  20,000 fraudulently admitted Somali refugees were never pursued to eject them.
  • Given the world’s attention on the problem of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean, the State Department  Refugee program let in to the US  thousands of Somalis who fled to the Island of Malta without any clearances.
  • Endangered Middle East Christians are effectively discriminated against for refugee status, because  they do not reside in UNHCR camps, dominated by Sunni Muslims. Of  the initial group of  Syrian refugees brought into the US, 92 percent were Muslims, with the balance Christian.
  • There are upwards of  17,000 Syrians refugees  in the UNHCR pipeline awaiting processing for admission to the US.
  • The State Department contracts with 9 religious and special interest NGOs who place refugees through a network of 350 contractors and compete for significant processing fees and grants for obtaining citizenship.
  • Refugees are legal immigrants and thus have access to a smorgasbord of cash assistance, Medicaid, educational support that run into billions of costs all funded by US taxpayers.
  • The  Federal  Office of Refugee Resettlement  has a contract with a Soros-backed immigration advocacy group, “Welcoming America,” to go into ‘pockets of resistance’ in local communities targeted for refugee allotments.
  • Local communities have virtually no say or review of refugee placements to assess local burden on schools, medical facilities or assisted housing. That has led Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to write Secretary Kerry to put a hold on refugees slated for his district until resettlement questions are answered.

For more, listen to the 1330 AM WEBY interview with Ann Corcoran, here and here.  An article based on this interview will appear in the June edition of the NER.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Islam’s ‘Reformation’ Is Already Here—and It’s Called ‘ISIS’ by Raymond Ibrahim

/in , , , , /by

The idea that Islam needs to reform is again in the spotlight following the recent publication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now.  While Hirsi Ali makes the argument that Islam can reform—and is in desperate need of taking the extreme measures she suggests to do so—many of her critics offer a plethora of opposing claims, including that Islam need not reform at all.

The one argument not being made, however, is the one I make below—namely, that Islam has already “reformed.”  And violence, intolerance, and extremism—typified by the Islamic State (“ISIS”)—are the net result of this “reformation.”

Such a claim only sounds absurd due to our understanding of the word “reform.”  Yet despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply means to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”

Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve”—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western connotations.

Muslim notions of “improving” society can include purging it of “infidels” and “apostates,” and segregating Muslim men from women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home. Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—is an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society from a strictly Islamic point of view.

In short, an Islamic reformation will not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society—simply because “we” are not Muslims and do not share their first premises and reference points.  “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they naturally attribute Western connotations to the word.

Historical Parallels: Islam’s Reformation and the Protestant Reformation

At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible.  With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching.  So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura.

Islam’s current reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.

As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.  Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”
In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands…  [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears.  The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet—including every atrocity ISIS commits, such as beheading, crucifying, and burning “infidels,” even mocking their corpses—is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists.  Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished.  Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white teachings of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it exclusively with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it” (Bernard Lewis,The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the “reformists,” with ISIS at their head.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty).  This is an important point to be revisited later.  Muslims who do not become disaffected after becoming better acquainted with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures, and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.

Christianity and Islam: Antithetical Teachings, Antithetical Results

How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another.   This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):

  • The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike.  Instead of combating and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic).  Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
  • The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity.  Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
  • The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman.  The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves.  More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.
  • The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9).  The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

The Islamic Reformation Is Here—and It’s ISIS

Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) But because the core teachings of the founders and scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation is producing something markedly different.

Put differently, those in the West calling for an “Islamic reformation” need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity; the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society.  That is precisely what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is doing.  Some of her reforms as outlined in Heretic call for Muslims to begin doubting Muhammad (whose words and deeds are in the Hadith) and the Koran—the very two foundations of Islam.

That would not be a “reformation”—certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation.

Habitually overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal.

Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular—or any—state.  Christ called on believers to “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar [temporal] and unto God the things of God [spiritual]” (Matt. 22:21).  For the “kingdom of God” is “not of this world” (John 18:36).  Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how “man is not justified by the works of the law… for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16).

On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law; and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law—Sharia—and the state.   Allah decrees in the Koran that “It is not fitting for true believers—men or women—to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!” (33:36).   Allah tells the prophet of Islam, “We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant” (45:18).

Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and the example of Muhammad as laid out in the Hadith—in a word, Sharia.

And Sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib).

Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception).

Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law—without Sharia—becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.”  Submit to what?  Allah’s laws as codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith—the very three things Ali is asking Muslims to start doubting.

The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are calling for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history.

Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures and history in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UCLA Prof Khaled Abou El Fadl Condemns ISIS, But Does He Condemn Stealth Jihad?

Virginia Muslima, Islamic State supporter, gets 4 1/2 years prison for lying to FBI