Islam Archives - Page 89 of 100

Tag Archive for: Islam

Why Obama Won’t Call the Jihadis Islamic

February 25, 2015/in Must Read, National Security, News/by Jihad Watch

An attempt to explain the mystery, over at FrontPage:

Barack Obama aroused controversy over his affinity with Islam yet again in February 2015, when a photo surfaced from the U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in August 2014, showing Obama passing by a group of African delegates with his right index finger raised in a gesture strongly reminiscent of the Islamic State’s now notorious one-finger salute.

For the Islamic State and other Muslims, this gesture signifies allegiance to Islam’s absolute monotheism. Whatever Obama may have meant by it, the revelation that he had made the gesture — coming so soon after his renewed refusal at his “Countering Violent Extremism” summit to identify Islamic jihadists as Islamic — raised new questions about Obama’s relationship with Islam. Why won’t Obama identify Islam as having anything to do with the jihadis, when they themselves consistently explain and justify their actions solely in Islamic terms? Why won’t he do anything about mosques in the U.S. with ties to jihad terror? Why does he coddle the Muslim Brotherhood? Why, in sum, does he seem to love Islam so much, even if he isn’t a practicing Muslim?

And it does seem most likely that Obama is indeed not a practicing Muslim, despite the remarkable persistence of rumors and suspicions to the contrary. It is extremely unlikely that a Muslim would publicly proclaim himself a Christian over and over, as Obama has. While it is possible that this would be justified under Islam’s doctrines of deception, there is no evidence that Muslims have ever behaved this way. Ground Zero Mosque imam Faisal Abdul Rauf did say several years ago, “I am a Jew,” but he only said it once, in the context of ecumenical generosity; he didn’t try to pass himself off as one. There is a way in which a Muslim could say he is a true Jew or true Christian because he follows the true teachings of the Torah and the Gospel, but there is no known case of a Muslim behaving this way in a sustained manner. If Obama were a secret Muslim, he would be the first Muslim to carry out such a sustained deception of claiming not to be a Muslim.

There is little doubt, however, given his consistent policies throughout his presidency, that Obama holds Islam in high regard, for whatever mix of personal affection (his father and stepfather were both Muslims) and political calculation (he may believe that calling the jihadis Islamic will alienate Muslim allies of the U.S., such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, however unreliable those alliances have been). His Administration backed the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt with such loyalty that Egyptian protesters held signs accusing Obama of supporting terrorism. He aided Islamic jihadis to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and continues to aid those trying to overthrow Assad in Syria. (He insists that those he is backing in Syria are “vetted moderates,” but they have ransacked churches, terrorized Christians, and collaborated with the Islamic State too often for that to ring true.) He has repeatedly called for self-censorship to conform with Islamic blasphemy laws, most memorably declaring at the United Nations, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

And while his Justice Department aggressively pursues businesses and educational institutions to compel them to grant special privileges and accommodations to Muslims, it has shown no similar energy regarding terror-tied mosques in the U.S. Not only do these mosques remain open and their leaders uninvestigated and unprosecuted, but all too often the only contact law enforcement officials have with them is for “outreach.”

Only Obama knows what he may be thinking in all this, but a few conclusions seem obvious: he is afraid that speaking honestly about the jihadis’ motives and goals will alienate actual and potential Muslim allies. Since he believes Islam to be a peaceful religion, he doesn’t accept the idea that Muslims become jihadis because the Qur’an and Sunnah exhort them to do so. That leaves only the grievances that Islamic advocacy groups (and jihad groups) endlessly retail as the fundamental engine of the “radicalization” of Muslims – so Obama apparently sees redressing those grievances as the primary means of preventing Muslims from becoming terrorists.

This has led to foreign and domestic policies of accommodation and appeasement, along with an ominously cavalier stance at best toward the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech. Coupled with a dogmatic refusal to identify properly those who have vowed to destroy the United States and address their belief system and ideology, Obama’s stance toward Islam is a recipe for catastrophe. The United States is weaker and more vulnerable for it.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Daily Caller: “The U.S. Constitution is in fact the most Shariah compliant constitution on Earth”

Nigeria: Jihad-martyrdom suicide bombers murder 24 at two bus stations

Ohio: Muslim charged with aiding jihadis, laundering money for jihad

ISIS Is Back With A Super-Duper Scary Training Video To Intimidate Western Infidels

‘Right Wing’: Obama Says You, not Radical Islam, are Real Terror Threat

February 24, 2015/in Culture War, Featured, News, Policy/by Dan Bongino

If you needed more proof of just how out of touch and politicized our federal government has become under this president, consider the Department of Homeland Security’s recent report on the dangers from “right-wing extremism.”

According to CNN:

A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism.

We should never dismiss any threat of violence or terror, but don’t you find it a bit odd that President Obama absolutely refuses to call Islamic extremism by name, yet is completely comfortable demanding that Christians atone for the sins of their 11th century brothers and sisters? It’s also perplexing that during my time as a Secret Service agent reading through reams of intelligence data, I do not recall more than a few isolated cases of these types of groups presenting a clear and present danger on par with ISIS, Al Qaeda, AQAP, and other Islamic radical terror groups.

President Obama is more than content with labeling the “right-wing” when discussing potential terror attacks, despite the fact that there is NO conservative, libertarian, or Republican unifying ideology that advocates acts of violence to advance a political cause. The President shamefully advocates this approach while refusing to even call the “Islamic State” by the name they have GIVEN THEMSELVES.

I’m tired of being lectured by this failed president. I’m tired of having his finger waved at us, cautioning us against stereotyping Muslims. I’m well aware of the fact that every child of God is entitled to be judged on their own merits and character. I’m also tired of the infantilization of America on the world stage in front of the world’s bad actors by this constant presidential verbal assault on our collective character.

The constant “America did this” and “America screwed this up” approach by this president is tiresome and holds America to a fictional standard that no country on earth has ever achieved. It also ignorantly disregards all of the selfless good America has done. All of the sacrifices, all of the blood shed, and all of the hard-earned tax dollars of America’s men and women given to defend the liberty and land of others, are consistently ignored by this president until he is politically cornered and embarrassed by those from the left and right.

A final thought; we should always question authority and government at all levels. Patriotism, unlike justice, is not blind. But patriotism does require a careful consideration of more than just a few politically correct and left-wing-vetted sound bites. When you consider the long human history of war, destruction, and plunder, it is remarkable what America has accomplished without seeking an Empire. Despite the claims of delusional far-leftists, we are neither a colonial power, nor an Empire. Any rational person would think that the absence of U.S. “colonies” in the world, despite our many military victories, would serve as an indicator but when you’re convinced that America is the disease in the world, as opposed to the cure, reason goes out of the window. When reason goes out the window so does your credibility, as President Obama’s has displayed on the domestic and world stage.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Conservative Review.

Quran-Quran: Glam Band puts a Face to the Muslim Invasion

February 23, 2015/in Commentary, News, Satire/by The Peoples Cube

The boy band craze has come and gone, like new wave, disco, and the Second British Invasion led by Duran Duran. It’s time for the Muslim Invasion, with bands like Quran-Quran and a slew of other acts that came over to the States with their polished Sharia-driven performance, charisma and stylish fashion sensibilities. For a young person somewhere in the West, it must have been both shocking and fascinating to see these audacious-looking groups invade their television screens.

“I don’t know why that was,” says Aludra, one of the three teenage girls from Colorado caught leaving the U.S. in order to become Quran-Quran’s groupies. “It was kind of an explosion that came out after Obama swung through America – a whole new generation that was interested in a flamboyant act over content.”

It would not be an exaggeration to describe these acts as a “Muslim Invasion” reminiscent of the “British Invasion” back in the 1960s led by the Beatles.

“I must say that I had no sense of being part of any invasion,” said Mahmud, Quran-Quran’s front man, featured in the group’s latest beheading video. “We were just extremely style-conscious while killing, raping, and beheading infidels, but had no real sense of how important the U.S. news market was and how central to our story it has become.”

Their origins can be traced to the 7th century AD – a hybrid of retro, glam and gore, pioneered by such acts as Mohammed and the Assassins.

“I remember sitting in McDonalds with my friends and we would talk about Mohammed, Charles Manson, Jack the Ripper, Vlad the Impaler, Mordor… Our idea was to blend all these different styles into one band. Our videos contain all these acts, but it’s unmistakably our style.”

“We felt that slaughtering infidels the old way had becoming stagnant and boring,” said Mahmud. “There were some great gangs around, but there wasn’t a lot happening. We started to use video in a different way, stumbled onto a new style, and boom! Young kids from all over the West were rushing to Syria, wanting to become our groupies. I guess we were just in the right place at the right time.”

Besides the mass killings, a huge factor to these Islamic bands’ appeal is their appearance with the big hairstyles and sleek outfits. “I remember watching them and thinking, what do they put in the water over there? These guys are so beautiful!” said Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. “And they all know how to apply make-up better than most women I know.”

However, their act might have been ignored in America had it not been for YouTube. “YouTube gave us a foot in the door,” said Mahmud. “We weren’t touring and YouTube got us into everybody’s living room. Americans invented all the technology we needed – iPhones, computers, the Internet, YouTube… So we got lucky there.”

“But there’s also a danger in it,” Mahmud added. “Oftentimes the style of the video overwhelms the actual act of killing. As a mass murder enthusiast, I prefer to spend more time and resources beheading infidels and less on promotional stuff like videos, but it’s becoming the other way around. For most Islamic groups we know it’s now less about the killing and more about those really pompous intros, with floating animated logos and other Hollywood-style nonsense.”

“Success went to their heads; they got bloated egos and no sense of perspective,” says Mahmud about some of his fellow band leaders. “They’ve burnt out and are on their way to become one-hit wonders. That’s our biggest fear and it forces us to work harder. We have serious competition, too. No other video personality has enjoyed more attention than Barack Obama, but we can also stake a claim of dominance on the American news cycle. Breaking America is what everyone wants to do. Not just for the money, though that’s most of it, but also because if you made it in America then you made it.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Islamic jihadists threaten Mall of America in new video

February 23, 2015/in National Security, News, Video/by Jihad Watch

Even the threat serves the purpose of fulfilling the command to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60).

“Mall of America threatened in purported al-Shabaab video,” by Mary Divine, Pioneer Press, February 21, 2015:

A masked man in a purported al-Shabaab video urges followers to use the 2013 Nairobi, Kenya, mall attack as inspiration for attacks on malls around the world including the Mall of America in Bloomington.

Mall of America officials increased security on Saturday after a terror group linked to al-Qaida released an online video that appears to call for an attack on the popular shopping destination.

Islamic terrorist group al-Shabaab specifically named the Mall of America, the West Edmonton Mall in Alberta and London’s Oxford Street in the more than hourlong video that was being circulated on Twitter.

Federal law enforcement officials told CBS News that they are investigating the video.

Mall of America officials released a statement Saturday saying that they were aware of the video that mentions the megamall and shows an image of it and its GPS coordinates.

On Sunday, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson urged visitors to the Mall of America to be “particularly careful.”

“I would say that if anyone is planning to go to the Mall of America today, they’ve got to be particularly careful,” he told host Gloria Borger on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“We will continue to monitor events with the help of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies,” according to the statement. “As always, we take any potential threat seriously and respond appropriately.

Mall of America has implemented extra security precautions, some may be noticeable to guests, and others won’t be.”

In 2013, al-Shabaab claimed responsibility for an attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya; more than 60 people were killed in the four-day siege.

The video posted Saturday shows six minutes of graphic images celebrating the Westgate Mall attack. Near the end of the video, a masked man wearing a camouflage jacket appears on screen.

“If just a handful of mujahedeen fighters could bring Kenya to a complete standstill for nearly a week then imagine what a dedicated mujahedeen in the West could do to the American or Jewish-owned shopping centers across the world?” he asks. “What if such an attack were to occur in the Mall of America in Minnesota? Or the West Edmonton Mall in Canada? Or in London’s Oxford Street? … What would be the implications of such an attack? One could only imagine. And all it takes is a man with firm determination … so hurry up, hasten towards heaven and do not hesitate.”

On Friday, the Somali-based group claimed responsibility for suicide attacks at a hotel in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, that left 25 people dead and 40 wounded.

RELATED ARTICLES:

As Somali jihadis threaten Mall of America, U.S. importing 800 Somalis a month

Authorities got 18 warning calls about Sydney jihadist before his attack

Islamic State expands beyond Syria, Iraq as recruits create global network of terror cells

There Will Always Be War

February 22, 2015/in Must Read, National Security, News/by Alan Caruba

We begin with the reality that the United States and many other nations are at war with militant Islamists. They are a growing army of religious zealots murdering Christians, Jews, others who are not Muslim, and even other Muslims.

In my youth America knew how to win wars. In Europe it bombed Germany into submission, leading its allies in an invasion that left Germany divided for decades until the Soviet Union collapsed. In Asia Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Japan because they didn’t get the message when Hiroshima was destroyed on August 6, 1945. It took a second bomb on Nagasaki on August 9 to bring about Japan’s surrender.

Millions died in World War II but the alternative would have been the loss of freedom for millions worldwide.

If one spends any time learning history, the primary lesson is that war has been a constant factor from the beginning of what we call civilization about five thousand years ago.

The Bronze Age introduced new weapons that gave the residents of the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East a distinct advantage over invading nomadic people, but the invaders introduced chariots and it took the Egyptians and Babylonians a while to catch up. War has always been about new, more lethal weaponry.

Why would we be surprised to learn that the Assyrians who originated in what is now northern Iraq or the Islamic State (ISIS) were the most violent and bloodthirsty of the ancient world’s peoples? Known to all their neighbors by 1300 B.C.E., their army become a source of terror for the Middle East during the ninth century. They destroyed the Kingdom of Israel around 732 B.C.E., but the southern part of the Kingdom of Judah survived. In time the Babylonians would defeat the Assyrians.

Not all wars involved religion. The Greeks fought each other and then fought the Persians. Alexander the Great, a Macedonian, loved waging war and was very successful. The constant factor, however, was war and, of course, Rome would become the greatest empire of its time, beginning around 509 B.C.E., fighting three Punic wars with Carthage, but losing an estimated 400,000 in the first war and 150,000 in the second.

Eventually, Rome was so powerful it imposed a “Pax Romana” on the entire Mediterranean area it controlled. In time, Rome would be destroyed by the “barbarians”, Visigoths, Vandals, Ostrogoth’s, and Burgundians. By 476 C.E., the Roman Empire was history.

After establishing a group of followers in the Arabian Peninsula as the “last prophet”, proclaiming Islam as the one, true faith, Muhammad died in 632 C.E. Within ten years, the Arabs had conquered Jerusalem and were taking aim at Damascus and Cairo. Baghdad and the Libyan Desert were the next to be conquered. They moved on to Spain and Central Asia.

During his lifetime, Ali, Mohammad’s son-in-law, was the leader of the Arab forces. As noted in Samuel Willard Crompton’s ‘The Handy Military History Answer Book’, by the time the Arabs fought the Byzantines and the Persians they had also initiated the great split that remains today between the Sunnis and the Shiites.” Shiite means “follower of Ali.” The Sunnis wanted to elect their own caliph.

After taking the southern half of Spain, the Muslim army was poised to take all of Europe, but their 732 C.E. defeat in the Battle of Tours put an end to further expansion. Their momentum in Asia was stopped in 751 C.E. with a defeat in the Battle of Talas. As Crompton notes, “in the century that followed the Prophet’s death, the Arabs took over ninety percent of all the urban centers in the Western world, and their conquests equaled those of ancient Rome.”

The Crusades

Which brings us to the first Crusade; it began when Pope Urban II in 1095 told a gathering of 10,000, mostly French and German knights, that a “new accursed group”, the Muslims, had taken control of the holy land were preventing pilgrims from visiting holy sites. The knights responded to his call to liberate Jerusalem by chanting “Deus Volt! Deus Volt!”—God wills it.

They were joined by a “Peasants Crusade” between 1095 and 1096. By June 1099 the knights arrived outside Jerusalem and what followed was a wholesale murder of everyone there. In 1185, Saladin, the emir of Cairo and Lord of Damascus, proclaimed a jihad—a holy war—against the Christians in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The knights defending it were defeated.

A Second Crusade followed in 1147 C.E. but accomplished little and the Third Crusade had the same result. A Fourth Crusade resulted in the Europeans taking control of Constantinople in August 1204 C.E. They would rule it for the next fifty years. Years later, in 1489, a war drove the Muslims from Spain.

For a larger view click on the image.

The spokeswoman from our Department of State who said that the present generation of Muslim holy warriors can’t all be killed doesn’t know that this is the way wars are won. You kill the enemy until the enemy decides that dying for their cause is not worth it.

If ISIS is insane enough to bring the war to our homeland (and even if it doesn’t), a war of total destruction will be the only way to end the present conflict. Currently, the Jordanians and the Egyptians are doing what they can to resist ISIS, but recent polls confirm that Americans are beginning to conclude that our active boots-on-the-ground participation is the only way this will end.

Obama is merely going through the motions of conducting a war against ISIS, but retired generals and diplomats have told Congress that only full-scale war will end the threat they represent.

Meanwhile, ISIS is committing genocide against the Christians of the Middle East while Boko Haram is doing the same in Africa. Hezbollah would do the same against Israel if it could. Given nuclear arms, Iran will assert control over all of the Muslim warriors, threatening both Israel and the U.S.

Our next President will have to commit to destroying ISIS. There is no alternative. That is history’s primary lesson.

EDITORS NOTE: The Handy Military History Answer Book is published by Visible Ink, $21.95, softcover.

Is Allah the worst communicator ever?

February 22, 2015/in National Security, News, Religion, Video/by Jihad Watch

A tragic tale of a stuttering, stammering, feeble deity. Another superb video by the great David Wood of Answering Muslims.

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Scottish woman” may have helped recruit 3 missing UK teen Muslimas for the Islamic State

Austin, Texas: Bomb threats against mosque turn out to have come from a Muslim

Minnesota: Muslim teen indicted for attempting to join the Islamic State

The Fallacy of the Innocent Muslim

February 20, 2015/in Commentary, National Security, News, Religion/by Dave Gaubatz

There is no nice or politically correct way to write this article without offending Muslims, the media, liberals, Allah’s Muslim Terrorist, people who skim the article instead of reading it completely line by line, or our Sunni Muslim President Obama.

To put it as polite as humanly possible there are no innocent Muslims. Continue reading before you judge. Many readers are saying to themselves that they know good Muslims they work with, have as neighbors, or have met
at school. If they are indeed good people then they are not Pure Muslims.

Islam does not allow anyone to be a good person. Meaning, if you follow Islam as the Prophet Mohammed intended, you must have in your heart everything he demanded and represented. You must adhere to ALL aspects of Sharia law, good or bad. If a Muslim decides he/she does not want war with non believers, or does not want to educate his/her children that a Muslim must endorse physical Jihad against oppressors, Christians, or Jews, then this person is doing a good deed, but has become an apostate of Islam as mandated by the Islamic ideology. These are some of the good people Obama and the media (including FOX) falsely describe as innocent Muslims. Again they may be good people but they have turned their backs on the Islamic faith.

The people who are practicing Islam and are the type people Mohammed wanted describes as a good Muslim are the members of Allah’s Muslim terrorists such as, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other acronyms. They are following Islam and Sharia exactly as Mohammed and the Quran demands.

Many people are led to believe the people who attend one of the 2300 mosques in America are for the most part innocent Muslims. This is false. I have been to hundreds of mosques. The people in the mosque are being taught from the same material as ISIS. Year after year they continue to attend the mosque that advocates violence and the hatred of non believers. These people are not innocent Muslims. These are people who desire to live their lives as the violent child rapist Mohammed. No easier way to put it. Just as Obama attended Jerimiah Wright’s church for 20 years, that on a regular basis preached the hatred for America, Obama is no more innocent than Wright is. The people who attend Wright’s church on a regular basis are not innocent Christians or Americans. These people are supporters of hate.

People need to compare Nazi’s to Pure Muslims. If a German citizen or others who followed to the letter Hitler’s ideology, they are not innocent Nazi’s. They are 100% Nazi. No in between. they are followers of a violent and dangerous ideology. The same is for people who practice Islam or are supporters of the Islamic ideology.

The son (Franklin) of Billy Graham tells it straight to the liberal conservatives of Fox News. There is no such thing as radical Islam. It is Islam pure and simple and should be referred to as Islamic terrorism and not radical terrorism.

The ONLY way to defeat Islamic terrorism is to defeat and demonize the ideology of Islam itself. Ponder that,my friends.

Obama appoints Muslim Brotherhood-linked Muslim to head “Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications”

February 20, 2015/in Must Read, National Security, News/by Jihad Watch

Rashad Hussain was previously the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the thuggish international organization that is engaged in a full-scale campaign to intimidate Western governments into adopting hate speech codes that will effectively quash criticism of Islam – including jihad violence perpetrated in its name. Rashad Hussain is an apposite choice for this position, since several years ago he defended a notorious U.S.-based leader of a jihad terrorist group.

But someone doesn’t want you to know that, and made a clumsy attempt to cover it up.

In 2004, Rashad Hussain, then a Yale law student, declared that the investigation and prosecution of University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian, who ultimately pled guilty to charges involving his activities as a leader of the terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad and was recently deported, was a “politically motivated persecution” designed “to squash dissent.”

Hussain’s remarks in support of Al-Arian were published in the jihad-enabling Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in November 2004. But now all that has gone down the memory hole. The Washington Report’s archived version of this November 2004 article lacks two paragraphs that were included in the original version: the ones quoting Rashad Hussain. Otherwise the article is unchanged.

The Washington Report editors, caught red-handed, decided to brazen it out, and blame their accusers – a tried-and-true tactic that is also frequently employed by jihadists in the West. They insist that there was no cover-up, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a venomous Islamophobe: according to CNS News, “WRMEA news editor and executive director Delinda Hanley denied there was a ‘cover-up,’ and implied that anti-Muslim discrimination was behind the fact this was now being raised.”

Sure. It’s just “anti-Muslim discrimination” to be concerned about Rashad Hussain’s support for Al-Arian, a vicious suicide-bombing supporter who chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and clearly meant it. When two Islamic Jihad suicide bombers killed eighteen people in Israel in 1995, Al-Arian called them “two mujahidin martyred for the sake of God.”

But there was no cover-up! It was all a mistake, you see: according to the Washington Report now, Sami Al-Arian’s daughter, Laila Al-Arian, actually said the words that were attributed to Rashad Hussain.

But this explanation doesn’t make sense, since the article was altered just to remove the quotes, not to change the name of the person quoted. Also, the author of the original story, Shereen Kandil, contradicts the Washington Report’s explanation, telling Patrick Goodenough of CNS:

“When I worked as a reporter at WRMEA, I understood how important it was to quote the right person, and accurately. I have never mixed my sources and wouldn’t have quoted Rashad Hussain if it came from Laila al-Arian. If the editors from WRMEA felt they wanted to remove Rashad Hussain from the article, my assumption is that they did it for reasons other than what you’re saying. They never once contacted me about an ‘error’ they claim I made.’”

Was the Washington Report covering for Rashad Hussain at its own discretion, or at the behest of someone else? Did Barack Obama himself know about this cover-up? Did someone in the White House or the State Department find out about Hussain’s defense of Al-Arian, and act to cover for the bright young special envoy before this defense was discovered and he became known as a terror apologist? We will probably never know. And now Rashad Hussain heads up a key center supposedly devoted to “countering violent extremism.” What could possibly go wrong?

“Report: Obama’s New Anti-ISIS Propaganda Head Tied to Muslim Brotherhood,” by Edwin Mora,Breitbart, February 17, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

The Obama administration is revamping its efforts to combat Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) propaganda. ISIS and its supporters produce “as many as 90,000 tweets and other social media responses every day,” reports The New York Times.

An empowered Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, currently a small component of the U.S. State Department, will spearhead the new campaign to fight the ISIS propaganda machine.

Rashad Hussain, a Muslim American with close ties to the White House, will replace Alberto Fernandez, the center’s director, according to The Times.

Hussain, who has reportedly participated in events linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, currently serves as Obama’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. He will take over when Fernandez retires in April.

“Hussain, a devout Muslim, has a history of participating in events connected with the Muslim Brotherhood,” reported Cal Thomas in an article published by Townhall.

Citing Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine, The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported that Hussain “maintained close ties with people and groups that [the magazine] says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America.”

Some critics describe Hussain as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. He is not a confirmed member of the group.

An added component called the Information Coordination Cell will be part of the newly revamped center.

It will be “staffed by intelligence and Pentagon analysts among others” and “will be responsible for the broader coordination functions.”

“Skeptics of the new [anti-propaganda] campaign voiced concerns that the program is an attempt by the White House to end a long-simmering turf war with the counterterrorism center’s director, Alberto Fernandez, and exercise more control over the kinds of messages that are produced and coordinated with domestic and international partners,” notes The Times.

“Other officials questioned whether even a newly empowered center at the State Department would be up to the task. Operating the center on a shoestring budget of about $5 million a year, Mr. Fernandez, a respected Middle East specialist and career Foreign Service officer, and his supporters have long complained that neither the State Department nor the White House fully supported or properly financed the center’s activities,” the article adds.

The Obama administration plans “to harness all the existing attempts at counter-messaging by much larger federal departments, including the Pentagon, Homeland Security and intelligence agencies,” explains The Times.

The Times added:

The center would also coordinate and amplify similar messaging by foreign allies and nongovernment agencies, as well as by prominent Muslim academics, community leaders and religious scholars who oppose the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL, and who may have more credibility with ISIS’ target audience of young men and women than the American government.

About 80 people will staff the newly-empowered center.

“We’re getting beaten on volume, so the only way to compete is by aggregating, curating and amplifying existing content,” Richard A. Stengel, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, said on Monday, NYT reports.

He admitted that anti-ISIS propaganda efforts by the Obama administration “could have been better coordinated,” adds the article.

In its arsenal, the U.S. government has “more than 350 State Department Twitter accounts, combining embassies, consulates, media hubs, bureaus and individuals, as well as similar accounts operated by the Pentagon, the Homeland Security Department and foreign allies,” points out The Times….

Twitter accounts! I bet the Islamic State jihadis are shivering with fear.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

Kyrgyzstan: Imam arrested for urging Muslims to fight for Islamic State

Living and Dying by the Sword of Jihad by Raymond Ibrahim

February 20, 2015/in Must Read, National Security, News, Policy, Religion/by Jihad Watch

[PJ Media via RaymondIbrahim.com]

In a move reminiscent of “ancient history,” Saudi Arabia is building a 600-mile-long “Great Wall”—a combined fence and ditch—to separate itself from the Islamic State to the north in Iraq:

Plans for the 600-mile wall and ditch Saudi Arabia will build with Iraq in an effort to insulate itself from the chaos engulfing its neighbors.

Much of the area on the Iraqi side is now controlled by Isil [the Islamic State], which regards the ultimate capture of Saudi Arabia, home to the “Two Holy Mosques” of Mecca and Medina, as a key goal….

The irony here is that those Muslims that Saudi Arabia is trying to keep out are the very same Muslims most nurtured and influenced by a Saudi — or “Wahabbi,” or “Salafi” — worldview.

Put differently, Saudi Arabia is again appreciating how jihad is a volatile instrument of war that can easily backfire on those who support it. “Holy war” is hardly limited to fighting and subjugating “infidels” — whether the West in general, Israel in particular, or the millions of non-Muslim minorities under Islam — but also justifies fighting “apostates,” that is, Muslims accused of not being Islamic enough.

Indeed, the first grand jihad was against Muslim “apostates” — the Ridda [“apostasy”] Wars. After Muhammad died in 632, many Arab tribes were willing to remain Muslim but without paying zakat (“charity” or extortion) money to the first caliph, Abu Bakr. That was enough to declare jihad on them as apostates; tens of thousands of Arabs were burned, beheaded, dismembered, or crucified, according to Islamic history.

Accordingly, the Islamic State justifies burning people alive, such as the Jordanian pilot, precisely because the first caliph and his Muslim lieutenants burned apostates alive, and is even on record saying that “false Muslims” are its first target, then Israel.

This is the problem all Muslim nations and rulers risk: no one — not even Sharia-advocating Islamist leaders — are immune to the all-accusing sword tip of the jihad. If non-Muslims are, as “infidels,” de facto enemies, any Muslim can be accused of “apostasy,” instantly becoming an enemy of Allah and his prophet.

A saying attributed to the Muslim prophet Muhammad validates this perspective: “This umma [Islamic nation] of mine will split into seventy-three sects; one will be in paradise and seventy-two will be in hell.” When asked which sect was the true one, the prophet replied, “al–jama‘a,” that is, the group which most literally follows the example or “sunna” of Muhammad.

This saying perfectly sums up the history of Islam: to be deemed legitimate, authorities must uphold the teachings of Islam — including jihad; but it is never long before another claimant accuses existing leadership of not being “Islamic enough.”

Enter the Saudi/Islamic State relationship. From the start, the Arabian kingdom has been a supporter of the Islamic State. It was not long, however, before IS made clear that Saudi Arabia was one of its primary targets, calling on its allies and supporters in the kingdom to kill and drive out the Saud tribe.

Nor is this the first time the Saudis see those whom they nurtured — ideologically and logistically — turn on them… Keep reading

RELATED ARTICLES:

Salon: “If you want to know why ISIS exists, don’t bother searching Islamic texts, or examining Islamic traditions”

Muslim cleric rejects that Earth revolves around the Sun

Obama: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

VIDEO: Now We Have a Bad Islam

February 20, 2015/in National Security, News, Religion, Video/by Bill Warner

For years our leaders have told us that Islam is wonderful in all ways. But we are seeing some changed minds.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Salon: “If you want to know why ISIS exists, don’t bother searching Islamic texts, or examining Islamic traditions”

Muslim cleric rejects that Earth revolves around the Sun

Obama: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

Jihadist: ‘I view porn for the articles’

February 19, 2015/in Commentary, News, Satire/by The Peoples Cube

Having read Phyllis Chesler’s article in today’s New York Post, titled “Why are jihadis so obsessed with porn?” we decided to give voice to the other side, by interviewing Rabid Habibi, a self-described jihad addict, whom we found browsing the magazine rack at the local adult novelty shop, Sex Toys’R’Us.Cube: Mr. Habibi, we at the People’s Cube are dedicated to airing diverse opinions for the sake of fairness. You must be familiar with this concept from reading articles in these magazines behind you.

Rabid Habibi: Yes, I read them for the articles.

Cube: Of course. How do you respond to the allegation that according to NSA documents made public by Edward Snowden, countless “radicals” have called for jihad by day but watched porn by night?

Rabid Habibi: Like you said, they viewed it for the articles.

Cube: I can see that. Still, how do you explain that with all this obsession with porn, most Muslims surveyed by Gallup say they disapprove of porn and castigate the West for producing it?

Rabid Habibi: What do you mean, “most”? All Muslims disapprove of porn! Otherwise they are apostates and must be beheaded.

Cube: Right. Then what are you doing here with the porn magazines?

Rabid Habibi: Like you said, I read them for the articles.

Cube: But the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden also found a big stash of modern porn in his possession. How do you explain that?

Rabid Habibi: That’s easy. He read them for the articles.

Cube: But the 9/11 jihadists also visited strip clubs, requested lap dances, and paid for prostitutes in their motel rooms in Boston, Las Vegas and Florida. And so did the “holy man” imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, who had mentored some of them and other would-be jihadis. The story says he ate a lot of pizza and visited a lot of prostitutes.

Rabid Habibi: So what? I also buy a lot of pizza and visit prostitutes. We read these magazines, eat pizza, and discuss the articles.

Cube: The story also says that police raids of terrorist cells in Britain, Italy and Spain have yielded countless images of hard-core child pornography.

Rabid Habibi: Yes, children are a blessing. We must reach their souls before they reach puberty.

Cube: It also says that jihadis often embed secret coded messages into shared pornography and onto pedophile websites. And German police has found more than 100 al Qaeda documents concerning terrorist plots embedded within a porn video hidden in a suspect’s underwear.

Rabid Habibi: This only proves they view it for the articles.

Cube: How do you respond to London Mayor Boris Johnson’s description of jihadis as “porn driven losers” who have “low self-esteem and are unsuccessful with women”?

Rabid Habibi: Now, that’s stupid. How can he say that a man who owns several wives and sex slaves is unsuccessful with women? I call it very successful! It’s the London Mayor who has low self-esteem because he doesn’t own several wives and sex slaves. I call it a “sore loser.” He’s jealous of other people’s success and wants to deny this opportunity to others.

Cube: Speaking of which, the story also says ISIS fighters are buying frilly underwear for their wives and sex slaves – and subjecting them to abnormal and sadistic sexual practices. Could they have learned this perversity from viewing porn?

Rabid Habibi: One man’s “abnormal” is another man’s misunderstood cultural tradition. ISIS is only trying to build an ideal society as envisioned by Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), so who are you to call it perverse and abnormal? I find such talk extremely offensive. I bet you’re one of those extremists Obama is talking about.

Cube: I’m not, but I see how you can get confused, since Obama never defines who the extremists are or what motivates them – jihad or maybe collecting stamps. By the way, the article also suggests we stop calling jihadis “Islamic terrorists” and rather describe them as “porn hounds.” Would you find that less offensive?

Rabid Habibi: Now, that’s a step in the right direction. Nobody sends drones against porn addicts. One man’s porno flick is another man’s documentary about his future life in paradise with pizza and prostitutes. Maybe Obama will give us money for treatment and tells his troops in Iraq to build clinics for porn addicts.

Cube: That’s not what The New York Post means. Have you read that article?

Rabid Habibi: Not really. I find The New York Post articles abnormal. I’m very particular about what articles I read.

Cube: Thank you, and good luck with your article-driven endeavors.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Fitna Is Worse Than Slaughter

February 18, 2015/in Featured, National Security, News, Religion/by Philip B. Haney

First, a note from the author to the reading audience: None of the terms or phrases used in this article are of my own invention; every term or phrase (including the title itself) is derived exclusively from primary Islamic sources (i.e., the Quran, Hadith, Tafsir and Sharia Law). I encourage everyone to access the hyperlinked references, then evaluate each statement in this article for accuracy and completeness.

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to introduce the complex, abstract concept of Fitnah to those in the West (i.e., the non-Islamic world) who are concerned about the apparent rising tide of global violence associated with Islam. After several years of intense study and discussion with colleagues, I have come to believe that Fitnah is the most essential motivational component of Islamic theology, i.e., it is the cornerstone of an adversarial, confrontational worldview that inevitably leads to a state of perpetual conflict with the non-Islamic world.

In fact, fighting against the multi-faceted threat of Fitnah is such an essential part of a Quran-based worldview, that it is both the Strategy & Tactics and the ‘BeatingHeart’ of the Global Islamic Movement (GIM). Removing Fitnah from the world is so fundamental to Islamic ideology that every primary source contains extensive references to this concept.

It also follows, that if overcoming Fitnah is the gravitational force behind the GIM, then some essential Tactical elements (aka ‘Operative Verbs’) must also be involved. For this reason, two of these key tactical verbs (Qital and Kharaj, or ‘Kill/Slaughter/Slay’ and ‘Displace/Drive Out/Expel,’ respectively) are discussed in this article.

You will also notice that, except for brief references within a discussion of Quran 2.217 and several major Fatwas (see Five Major Fatwas below), this article does not include an analysis of the word Jihad. My three-fold reason for this is that the verbs Qital and Kharaj are not only [1] much more graphic and violent than the word Jihad, and [2] occur several times more frequently in the Quran than Jihad, but they are [3] much more revealing, in terms of gaining a Quran-based perspective of the Strategy & Tactics of the GIM.

Another assertion I will present here is that Fitnah, as defined in Quran and Hadith, etc., has been re-formatted into what I call a ‘Secular-Political Narrative,’ which has gained a remarkable (ominous) level of international influence. Those who are concerned about growing threats against free speech have probably already guessed that I’m referring to the term ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA.’ According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) homepage, ‘Islamophobia is a closed-minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims. An Islamophobe is an individual who holds a closed-minded view of Islam and promotes prejudice against or hatred of Muslims.’ Putting aside this highly subjective definition, Islamophobia is really just another ‘non-religious’ word for Fitnah.

Can We Hope To Ever Understand The ‘Global Islamic Movement’?

On December 28, 2014, Major General Michael K. Nagata, commander of American Special Operations forces in the Middle East, made the following public statement: ‘We do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it. We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.’

Retired Admiral James A. Lyons made a similar observation on August 29, 2014, when he wrote ‘America’s inconsistent response to the current Islamic State atrocities indicates that we are failing to understand, or deliberately ignoring, the facts that drive the terrorist organization’s ideology…As a result, our warfighters and law enforcement agencies have been denied critical information on combating the Islamic jihadists we are fighting today.’

At this point in time, more than thirteen years post-9/11, is it possible for those of us in the non-Islamic world to ever ‘understand the movement’ and/or ‘the facts that drive the terrorist organization’s ideology’? My firm assertion is that the answer is ‘Yes.’ We may not like the answer, but if we go to the primary sources of Islamic theology/ideology (as highlighted just above), we can ‘understand the movement’ with absolute clarity. However, once we do begin to comprehend what really ‘drives the terrorist organization’s ideology,’ the next challenge becomes ‘What then shall we do’?

Fitnah In The Quran

The Arabic root of Fitnah (Fa Ta Nun / ن ت ف) occurs 60 times in the Quran, in five derivative forms, sometimes as a noun, and other times as a verb. Fitnah can be translated in a variety of ways, using many different descriptive adjectives. In my experience, one of the most insightful translations of Fitnah is the word ‘Opposition,’ so for the sake of simplicity and continuity, I will use the word ‘Opposition’ throughout this article.

For additional clarity and brevity, I have summarized 16 of the most commonly encountered renditions of Fitnah in Table 1 below. In addition, the right-hand column of Table 1 includes a list of non-Islamic activities and/or responses that, from a Muslim perspective, are seen as Fitnah. For example, what those in the non-Islamic world see as a legitimate effort to resist the implementation of Shariah Law is seen as resistance, aggression or even incitement to violence (aka Islamophobia) by multitudes of Muslims who support and promote the world-wide expansion of Islam.

Strategy of the Global Islamic Movement – The Religion of Allah Will Prevail in the Earth

Going back to the earlier remarks by Major General Michael K. Nagata and Admiral James A. Lyons, I would now like to address the question, ‘What is the Strategy of the GIM’? According the Quran, the Strategy of the GIM comes from the phrase Wayakuna Al-Dinu Lillahi, which means ‘The religion should all be for Allah.’

Although this concept (The religion should all be for Allah) is emphasized repeatedly in the Quran, it is most clearly summarized in verses 2.193 & 8.39, which are nearly identical in content and say ‘And fight them until there is no more Fitnah, and the religion should all be for Allah.’

Note: In just these two verses (2.193 & 8.39), different respected Muslim scholars translate Fitnah as either Disbelief, Hostility, Idolatry, Mischief, Opposition, Oppression, Persecution, Polytheism, Temptation, Tumult, Unbelief, and/or Worshiping of Others (also see Table I below).

Dr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain, the host of a popular television program in Pakistan called Alim Online, put it into more modern terms in August of 2010, when he paraphrased verse 2.193 as follows: ‘Fight those who interfere with establishing the rule of Allah.’ Of course, the ‘rule of Allah’ he mentions here is Shariah Law.

This tactical approach (‘Fighting until there is no more Fitnah’) so that ‘the religion should all be for Allah,’ is so essential that it forms the ideological foundation for the Muslim Brotherhood and other macro-groups like Boko Haram, the Global Jihad Front (aka Al-Qaeda) and ISIS – along with virtually every other Islamic organization in the world today (and in the past).

Note: For additional detail, see the section below entitled Five Major Fatwas

Meanwhile, according to another well-known Islamic scholar, the mission [Strategy] of Islam…is to ‘Shine with the light of Allah, and gather all the people that have taken the wrong turns, and have gone out in the darkness of the lost paths, and show them where the straight line, where the straight path of light is, that will take them to Allah.’

This scholar also states that the US [and the West] is becoming a ‘fertile ground for Islam, in spite of all the opposition by Zionists and secularists.’ The ‘Opposition’ that he mentions here is just another way to describe Fitnah, which in this case comes from ‘Zionists and secularists.’

In one sense, the dominant theme that emerges here is remarkably simple: The Strategy of the GIM is to continue fighting against Fitnah (Opposition) until Islam becomes the dominant religion in the world. According to the Quran, this fighting remains obligatory for all Muslims until the non-Muslim world finally stops opposing the advance of Islam. This deliberate and intentional opposition from the non-Islamic world is just another description of Fitnah, as well as another way of defining Islamophobia.

Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement – Elimination of Fitnah

Now we come to the question, ‘What are the Tactics of the GIM.’? According to the Quran, once Fitnah (Opposition) is encountered by members of the global Islamic community (aka the Ummah), the Quran provides explicit tactical instructions for Muslims to continue fighting against the Fitnah, until it is finally eliminated. I refer to these explicit instructions as ‘Operative Verbs.’ The two most dominant operative verbs are [1] Qital (Qaf Ta Lam / ل ت ق), which means ‘Kill/Slaughter/Slay’ and occurs at least 170 times in the Quran, and [2] Kharaj(Kha Ra Jim / ج ر خ), which means ‘Displace/Drive Out/Expel’ and occurs at least 182 times in the Quran. In contrast, Jihad occurs only about 40 times in the Quran.

Qital is an obscenely violent word that implies abject, utter humiliation, desecration and debasement, while Kharaj, which is no less violent, implies forceful, merciless expulsion of any- and every-one who does not submit to Islam. We see real-life examples of this every night on the news – think of Boko Haram slaughtering more than 2,000 people in 16 villages on January of 2015, or ISIS relentlessly driving the Yazidis from their homes in August of 2014. The tactics of Qital and Kharaj are also the underlying force behind the Palestinian group Fatah vis-à-vis Israel (for more on this subject, see the article entitled If Abbas Is A ‘Moderate,’ What’s A ‘Radical’?).

In other words, these are not just two obscure words that are rare exceptions in a list of otherwise benign, peaceful Quranic verbs and nouns. It is also important to note that these two Operative Verbs occur frequently in the imperative tense, which is a ‘grammatical form that commands, demands attention or action, implying an unavoidable obligation or requirement.’ Simply put, these verbs are seen as absolute commandments to the Islamic Ummah to never stop fighting against Fitnah, whenever and wherever it is encountered, until the world as we know comes to an end. It is a call to perpetual warfare, often by cadres of otherwise peace-loving Muslims who are nonetheless ‘provoked by uncontrollable, irresponsible incidents.’

I use the allegory of a chemical reaction to help explain the relationship between Fitnah and the Operative Verbs of Qital and Kharaj. If you put pure, elemental chlorine into a flask with pure sodium, they will not react. However, when a catalyst is added (in this case, water), the two elements combine violently in what is called an exothermic reaction (light- and/or heat-releasing). The by-product of this particular reaction is NaCl, aka common salt, which has an entirely different nature than the original inert elements. In this allegory, the catalyst (water) is Fitnah, while the otherwise inert elements (chlorine and sodium) are Qital and Kharaj. In other words, Islam exists as a religion of peace (‘inert’)…until it encounters the catalyst of Fitnah, and then it becomes suddenly, violently explosive.

As with the Strategy of the GIM, these Tactical verbs are discussed extensively in the Quran, Hadith, Tafsir and Sharia Law, but are perhaps best summarized in verse 2.191, which says ‘And kill/slaughter/slay them wherever ye find them, and displace/drive out/expel them out of the places whence they drove you out, for Fitnah is worse than slaughter.’ Put another way, no punishment is too great for the crime of Fitnah, including the devastating loss of property (Kharaj), and life itself (Qital). Also notice that this verse commands Muslims to ‘slaughter them wherever you find them,’ thus advocating intentional planning and forethought. The Muslim conquest of India, and the Armenian Genocide, are two among many examples of the global advance of Islam based on these doctrines.

Ibn Kathir Tafsir (Commentary) For Quran 2.217

Quran 2.217 is similar to verse 2.191, but the Tafsir (Commentary) for verse 2.217 includes some very revealing insight vis-à-vis the concept of Fitnah. In his introduction to this Tafsir, a famous Islamic scholar known as Ibn Kathir wrote the following: ‘Allah made it obligatory for Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress [=Fitnah] against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, ‘Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind.’

Next, Ibn Kathir adds the following comments to verse 2.217: ‘Fighting [Qital] therein [during the Sacred Months] is a great (sin) but a greater (sin)…is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him…and to drive out [Kharaj] its inhabitants, and Fitnah is worse than killing.’ In this case, the ‘great sin’ of Fitnah is caused by those who would prevent mankind from following the way of Allah.

Every Islamic group in the world today agrees with Ibn Kathir, thus claiming that both secular rulers in Muslim countries, and non-Muslim leaders in western countries, ‘prevent mankind from following Allah’ with malicious intent. Therefore, it is obligatory for all Muslims to fight against such Fitnah, using whatever means possible. As mentioned earlier, the shorthand term for such ‘malicious intent’ has become known as Islamophobia.

Five Major Fatwas

Have modern leaders of the GIM followed the Strategy & Tactics of warfare, as authorized in the Quran? Absolutely. Here is a summary of five of the most significant Fatwas issued in the last 17-plus years. Several of them were released to coincide with the Arab Spring, and each one is solidly based on the imperative command to fight against Fitnah, using the operative verbs of Qital and Kharaj, as found in Quran 2.193, 2.217, 8.39 & etc.

[1] On February 23, 1998, Osama Bin Laden (along with a coalition of four renowned Sheikhs and the leaders of 12 other Islamic caliphates) issued a now-infamous Fatwa, calling for perpetual global Jihad against ‘The Jews and the People of the Cross.’ The introductory paragraph includes the following statement: ‘The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim…This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, ‘Fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression [Fitnah], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.’ In this case, the phrase Al-Dinu Lillahi (‘the religion of Allah’) is translated as ‘justice and faith in Allah’ (see earlier discussion of verses 2.193 & 8.39 above). This is because the Arabic word ‘Din’ can be translated interchangeably as either Religion, Law, or Justice.

[2] On September 10, 2010, Mohammed Badie, who was the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood at the time, made the following declaration: ‘Resistance [Jihad] is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance & tyranny…Islam is capable of confronting Oppression & Tyranny [Fitnah]…the outcome of the confrontation has been predetermined by Allah.’ Remarkably, this Fatwa was issued right in the middle of the Arab Spring movement, which was promoted as a popular pro-democracy revolution in support of ‘Freedom and Justice.’

[3] On January 08, 2011, Imad Mustafa, a prominent scholar at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, issued the following Fatwa: ‘Fighting against non-Muslims is…a prescribed duty in cases of aggression [Fitna] from the infidels against Muslims, for we must resist them, make Jihad against them, and defend against them. This is according to the Quran, for Almighty God has said ‘Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress.’ This Fatwa cites Quran 2.190, which is similar to Quran 2.191, 2.193, 8.39 & etc.

[4] On January 17, 2011, Anwar Al-Awlaki issued a Fatwa based on Kharaj (Displace/Drive Out/Expel), which stated: ‘Not only was Jihad financed by war booty, but also throughout our early history, when the Islamic treasury itself was mostly dependent on income generated from Jihad. A tax called Kharaj was placed on land opened [stolen] by Muslims, enslaved POW’s would be sold, and the people of the book paid Jizyah [i.e., a protection tax].’

[5] On July 05, 2014, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi gave his first public sermon at the Grand Masjid of Mosul City, Iraq. During the course of his message, Al-Baghdadi quoted directly from Quran 8.39, saying that ‘He the Most High says, And fight them until there is no Fitnah, and the religion, all of it, is for Allah.’

Note: Quran 8.39 is one of ISIS’ ‘favorite’ verses; it is usually narrated in the background of their official anthem, as well as in the execution (beheading) videos they produce. According to ISIS, all the Fitnah in the world is caused by the Kufarin (Non-believers). This means that all of the violence and suffering such non-believers endure at the hands of ISIS is their fault, not the fault of the soldiers of Allah.

Summary

Now we come to the heart of the matter. Apologists for Islam, or advocates of the current political narrative, will insist that the premise for this article is wrong, maybe even dangerous, and that I have misinterpreted the Quran. My answer would be, ‘Absolutely not. It may be unpleasant, but it is not wrong.’

The interpretations of the verses included in this article have been established for hundreds of years; the authorized Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement have not changed in nearly 1,400 years. It is only in relatively recent times – post WWII – that modern technology has made it possible for the Islamic world to promote the global spread of Islam and/or fight the non-Islamic West at near-parity.

According to the Quran, any effort by non-Muslims to oppose the advancement of Islam is considered a flagrant, abhorrent crime. Also known as Fitnah, such crimes are seen as so egregious that people can be slaughtered, honor-killed, beheaded or crucified (and yes, all of these punishments are found in the Quran, with added endorsements and insights in the Hadith & Tafsir).

Compared to the Fitnah (Islamophobia) of dishonoring Mohammed, or opposing Shariah Law, or calling Jihadists ‘terrorists,’ or any of a hundred other outrageous offenses, the loss of life and property is considered as less than inconsequential. For proof, just run an internet query of Charlie Hebdo Cartoon Protests, and you’ll see how violent and widespread these demonstrations have been. Enraged crowds in Islamic countries around the world have screamed obscene threats, destroyed property, burned churches [Kharaj] and killed people [Qital]. And this is just the latest episode.

Concluding Observations – Where Do We Stand?

On January 27, 2015, retired former DIA Chief Michael Flynn said that the Obama administration is ‘paralyzed and playing defense in the fight against Islamic militancy,’ adding that ‘you cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,’ that the ‘administration is unwilling to admit the scope of the problem,’ and that ‘there are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity,’ so they ‘accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies.’

On September 19, 2014, retired Marine General James Conway, who served as the 34^th Commandant of the Marine Corps, publicly stated that President Barack Obama’s strategy to defeat ISIS didn’t have ‘a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.’

President Obama could hardly argue with General Conway’s assessment of ISIS, because on August 28, 2014, he said, ‘I don’t want to put the cart before the horse: we don’t have a strategy yet. I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.’

During the same interview, President Obama also said: ‘This should be a wake-up call to Sunni, to [Shi‘ite], to everybody, that a group like ISIS is beyond the pale; that they have no vision or ideology beyond violence and chaos and the slaughter of innocent people.’

The problem is, groups like ISIS, Hamas and Boko Haram et al., do have a vision, and an ideology, that goes well beyond the initial spasms of violence, chaos and slaughter (ironically, these are all adjectives describing Fitnah). However, we in the non-Islamic world will remain ‘paralyzed and playing defense,’ as long as we fail to acknowledge the Quranic origin of their strategic vision, and the true nature of the tactical threat we face.

Adding further irony, Congressional hearings on ISIS were held in September of 2014, sandwiched right in between the comments by President Obama and General Conway. During the hearings, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both tried to explain some of the apparent contradictions of our ever-evolving policy vis-à-vis the threat from ISIS. In the end, it became very apparent ‘that there is, and will continue to be, a gaping hole at the heart of our ISIS strategy.’

We’ll close with a final observation: The word ‘Phobia’ has two meanings – either to hate something intensely, or to fear something intensely. Using these two meanings, it could be said that Muslims and non-Muslims both have ‘Fitnaphobia’ – Muslims because they hate Fitnah, and non-Muslims because they fear it.

However, in the case of the non-Muslim world, it appears that we are much more concerned about causing Fitnah (by Opposing the Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement), than we are about protecting our western civilization from the increasingly aggressive promoters of Shariah Law.

Rudy Giuliani and Marco Rubio on the dangers of Iran and Islam

February 17, 2015/in National Security, News, Policy, Video/by Dr. Rich Swier

Rudy Giuliani asks, “What is wrong with him [Obama]”? Rudy Giuliani on President Obama’s Policies on Islamism and Iran, Part 1 of 2 – Published on Feb 13, 2015. At times screaming with rage, Rudy Giuliani excoriates Barack Obama for his weak and feckless policies toward the global threats of radical Islam and a nuclear-armed Iran. This speech was delivered at the Iranian-American Community symposium “Countering Islamic Fundamentalism, and a Nuclear-Iran”:

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) states that we need to make sure that the term “Never Again!” is more than a mere slogan. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio – Senate Floor Speech – February 12, 2015:

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. ambassador to Denmark: Jihadi was “a Dane, born and bred in Denmark”

Islamic State: “Great reward” for killing Coptic Christians

Two More Jihadis Charged in Islamic Slaughter in Copenhagen Shooting

White House Refuses to Call 21 BEHEADING Victims Christians while Egypt launches airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Libya for savage beheading of Christians killed for their faith

Islamism: If You Can’t Say it, You Can’t Fight it

February 16, 2015/in Featured, National Security, News, Policy, Politics/by Matthew Hausman, J.D.

The left seems to have no problem accusing Republicans of fascism, racism or any other malignant “isms” that come to mind, but they simply cannot speak the truth regarding radical Islam.

While the world was reeling from last month’s terror attacks in Paris, there was finally some acknowledgment of the one-sided religious war being waged against the West, as French officials identified the perpetrators as radical Muslims and called for international solidarity against Islamist extremism.

After turning a blind eye for so long – and after enabling extremist organizations such as Hamas and facilitating resurgent anti-Semitism – Europeans finally spoke truth over political correctness. Whether they have the fortitude for sustained confrontation with theological totalitarianism is another matter, but for at least a brief moment in time they recognized the threat for what it is.

In contrast, the Obama administration continued to ignore any connection between terrorism and radical Islam, instead referring to the perpetrators as extremists without identifying their motivating beliefs. In a recent interview the president actually referred to the attack on the kosher market in Paris as “random.”

This refusal to acknowledge the obvious may be political, but it is also myopic – and it undercuts any serious effort to combat global terrorism. Just as the government’s characterization of the Fort Hoot shootings and Oklahoma beheading as “workplace violence” ignored the national ramifications of the terror threat, the president’s refusal to concede the doctrinal roots of the Paris tragedy showed an astonishing failure of world leadership.

This refusal to acknowledge the obvious may be political, but it is also myopic – and it undercuts any serious effort to combat global terrorism.

The left seems to have no problem accusing Republicans of fascism, racism or any other malignant “isms” that come to mind, but they simply cannot speak the truth regarding radical Islam. And by dialoguing with organizations suspected of having extremist ties, by treating the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas as political organizations, by supporting those who delegitimize Israel, and by providing safe harbor for progressive anti-Semites, the left has actually helped advance the Islamist agenda.

Progressives seem compelled to excuse Islamism or pretend it doesn’t exist, even when doing so compromises their commitment to constitutional principles. Whenever radical Islamists strike, the progressive impulse seems to be to defend Islam before comforting the victims. In response to beheadings of westerners in Syria, Mr. Obama lectured the American public that ISIS was not Islamic, and after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish market in Paris, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the perpetrators were not Muslim. On what exactly do they base such assertions?

They are misinformed at best and disingenuous at worst. Though certainly not all Muslims support ISIS, it does represent a militant form of Islam similar to that which sparked an era of jihad across the Mideast, Asia, Africa and Europe starting in the eighth century. Moreover, the Paris attacks were motivated by a fundamentalism that endorses violence against blasphemers and infidels.

While ISIS, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood do not represent the views of all Muslims, their beliefs are certainly grounded in scripture and theology. It defies logic to say that such groups are not Islamic simply because other Muslims think differently or disagree with them. The same people who hold thus seem to have no problem blaming all conservative Christians for the acts of a minority of anti-abortion zealots. The inconsistency is glaring.

This is not to say that all Muslims condone the actions of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, or that all supported the terror attacks in Paris, the massacre at Fort Hood or the attacks of 9/11. Many Muslims, particularly those acculturated to western democratic values, publicly condemn attacks against non-Muslims. But the question remains whether the wider Arab-Muslim world is philosophically or morally opposed to religious extremism.

Although millions, including Muslim clerics, turned out for the French solidarity march, it remains to be seen whether the event signaled an organic rejection of all forms of terrorism or instead was limited in time and scope. The question hangs heavy in the air amid reports that members of the French government attempted to dissuade Binyamin Netanyahu from attending, but thought it appropriate to invite Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas’s attendance at the rally received front-page coverage, but the press failed to discuss his unity government with Hamas, whose charter calls for jihad and genocide, or to mention that the Palestinian National Covenant continues to delegitimize Israel and the Jewish People. Likewise, the media did not discuss the PA’s continuing support of terrorism, anti-Semitic incitement, and glorification of those who kill Jews. The image of Abbas lauding free speech was surreal considering that the PA and Hamas routinely stifle expression and quash dissent in territories under their control. That Abbas was invited at all suggests a failure to recognize or acknowledge these incongruities. He subsequently praised Hezbollah after its recent terror attacks in the north of Israel.

Those who understand the concept of taqiyya (deception of the infidel) have to wonder how much of the anti-terror sentiment expressed by clerics in Paris was genuine. It does not matter what they say in public before the western media; what matters only is whether they intend to preach tolerance, respect and acceptance in their schools and mosques, and whether reformative change will be reflected in the streets.

The desire for true reformation will only be impeded by those in the west who are more concerned about protecting the sensitivities of a global religious community that numbers more than a billion strong and characterizes outsiders as infidels. Change will not be motivated by those who blame all friction between the West and Muslim society on western chauvinism, but who ignore the historical role of jihad and Islamist supremacism. Neither will it be facilitated by politicians who reflexively deny any connection between radical Islam and terrorism, but who nevertheless accuse their domestic political opponents of the worst kinds of fanatical excesses and malign Israel as a colonial occupier.

Democrats are not all in the leftist camp, but their party has been tilting that way since Barack Obama was first endorsed in 2008. The party’s more progressive elements seem compelled to empathize with nonwestern ideologies they consider to be expressions of indigeneity, but to disparage political opponents who advocate freedom of speech, belief and worship. It is ironic that some progressives accuse Republicans of fascism while giving political cover to extremists whose ideology is truly thuggish and totalitarian. This hypocrisy stems from a traditional affinity for radical ideologies and statism, whether expressed as fascism in the early to mid-twentieth century, or communism until well into the Cold War.

Indeed, as well-documented by author Jonah Goldberg in his book, “Liberal Fascism,” there were many progressive admirers of fascism before Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and Germany attacked Poland four years later. Mussolini’s supporters included H. G. Wells, who in the 1930s exhorted fellow progressives to be “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis,” and who wrote of being struck by fascism’s “relentless logic.” Muckraking journalists adored Mussolini, among them Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell. So did influential publishers, such as Samuel McClure, who described Italian fascism as “a great step forward,” and George Soule, editor of the New Republic, who commended the Roosevelt administration for “trying out the economics of fascism.”

Other progressives expressed admiration for Hitler, including W. E. B. DuBois, co-founder of the NAACP, who described the rise of Nazism in Germany as “absolutely necessary to get the state in order” and who asserted that the Nazi rise to power afforded more democracy than Germany had seen in years.

If statism can be defined as the belief that economic and/or social policy should be left in the exclusive control of government, then the left’s affinity for any kind of totalitarianism should not be terribly surprising. When progressive anti-Semitism and hatred for Israel are factored into the mix, the left-wing’s reluctance to condemn Islamists whose world outlook is totalitarian, or to acknowledge their connection to terrorism, seems quite logical.

Those who preach empathy for Islamists never hesitate to condemn conservative Christians for their views or traditional Jews for their adherence to observance. Yet, they refuse to challenge a supremacist theology that is antithetical to the liberal ideals they claim to hold dear. Liberals often cite the U.S. Constitution to justify perverse political correctness, but the First Amendment does not mandate acquiescence to religious extremism or the acceptance of pernicious dogmas. Though freedom of belief is absolute under the Constitution, freedom of practice may not be when it infringes on the rights and liberties of others. Government has a legitimate interest in monitoring ideological movements that threaten public safety and order, whether comprised of white supremacists who preach racial hatred or radical Islamists who believe in jihad and genocide.

Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama’s media acolytes have drawn false comparisons between activist conservatives and Islamists, implying that the former are just as prone to violent terrorism as the latter, and perhaps even more so. Such comparisons, however, are dishonest and purely partisan.

A common ploy for minimizing the peril of Islamism is to claim that Christian fundamentalism is a greater threat in the United States. But if Christian radicalism can be measured by opposition to abortion, a review of law enforcement statistics shows that it simply is not comparable. Although there has been occasional violence against abortion providers and clinics in the U.S., including arson and a few murders since 1993, such acts – reprehensible though they are – pale in frequency and severity to those of Islamist terrorists, who have attacked and killed tens of thousands of Jews, Israelis, westerners, and even their own people.

Moreover, extreme anti-abortion violence is generally condemned by mainstream Christians, who prefer to express themselves through the political process. In contrast, terrorism against infidels and blasphemers is often celebrated in the Muslim world. It seems ironic that progressives prefer to tarnish all conservative Christians for the acts of a very few, but refuse to condemn supporters of real terrorism.

If President Obama were serious about confronting global terrorism, he would acknowledge the ideology motivating much of it and the historical antecedents that make it possible. This can certainly be done without impugning all Muslims, particularly those who wish to eliminate extremism in their own communities. The president’s failure to do so, and his apparent willingness to appease extremist sensitivities, does not auger well for the war on terror or the continued relevance of American foreign policy.

A Christian Woman Stands Against the Enemy Within by Monica Morrill

February 16, 2015/in Culture War, Featured, National Security, News, Religion/by Selous Foundation For Public Policy Research

“Jesus Christ died on that cross. He is the reason we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior,” Christine Weick declared at the Washington National Cathedral. “We have built …allowed you your mosques in this country. Why don’t you worship in your mosques and leave our churches alone? We are a country founded on Christian principles.”

The complex interworking of Islam inside the West has already established itself. It should be familiar, particularly because much of the same tactics and ideology can be compared to Communism during the Cold War. Communist infiltration during the Cold War has been mirrored and amplified by Muslim infiltration even before the declared War on Terror in 2001. The impact of the Islamic infiltration has been especially insidious, relying on the social paralysis created by political correctness and the misplaced desire to not be seen as discriminating. Entire communities, public spaces, even Christian churches and our nation’s capitol have been infected.

Muslims invaded the Washington National Cathedral, a monument to Christianity, this time under the guise of “prayer” on Friday, November 14, 2014. Disguised as an ecumenical Muslim prayer service, it was being planned in the Cathedral for 12 to 18 months. Whether the Dean of the Washington National Cathedral, Reverend Gary Hall of the Episcopal Church, knew it or not he was actually hosting the precise 100th anniversary of the declaration of Holy War by the Ottoman Empire as the Muslim Caliphate had done on November 14, 1914. It was a bold declaration of Holy War by the Ottomans against the most powerful Christian nations of that time.

It is crucial to highlight history and specific dates, which are significant by the Ottoman tradition of Holy War. The 100th anniversary marked a deliberately disrespectful act by Mohammedan followers to the God of Abraham, Jacob and Moses – Jehovah God. Much to the chagrin of the interfaith leaders, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. Muslims view the God of Moses as inferior to the god of Mohammed.

A Christian Woman Rises

For this 100th anniversary, Muslims began planning to push the boundaries to denigrate Christianity in America’s capital. However, unlike the event of 1914 when the Ottoman Empire declared a Holy War against the great powers of the day: Britain, France, Russia and so on, there was the lone voice of a woman 100 years later in America’s Washington National Cathedral who was not as silent as the mosaics in the church of Santa Sophia. So it was that Christine Weick stood, with her hair down, without a head covering, and made a declaration to honor her Christian faith.

“Jesus Christ died on that cross. He is the reason we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior,” she said. “We have built …allowed you your mosques in this country. Why don’t you worship in your mosques and leave our churches alone? We are a country founded on Christian principles.”

The Muslims weren’t expecting a reaction from anyone, and certainly not a woman, which is quite profound as the “woman” in the Bible symbolically represents God’s anointed ones as a bride to the Lamb of God (Revelation 19: 7, 8). This sole woman, Ms. Weick, scolded Muslims along with their leader in the Cathedral. She threw a spanner into the plans of “Holy War” in America. Not surprisingly, the prayers by the Muslims in the National Cathedral insulted both Jews and Christians just as it did when an imam was praying over the dead bodies of men from the U.S. Military in 2011 at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

When retelling her story Ms. Weick says that she let God direct her path to finally speak out the words that God wanted her to proclaim. One reaction to Ms. Weick’s stance was from another woman who knows well the trickery of Islam in Africa, particularly Sudan and South Sudan. She is Pastor Lynn Childers, the wife of Sam Childers. With the assistance of fellow Christians for the past 18 years, both have been saving thousands of Christian orphans from Muslims who are murdering African Christians and their families.

The Profound Symbolism of the Woman in Christianity

In an exclusive interview, Pastor Lynn remarked, “It was disappointing to know that we Christians had no men to stand up for our faith at that moment. It had to be a woman.” Ms. Weick has inspired people like Pastor Lynn who is now inviting people to join her at Shekinah Fellowship in Central City, Pennsylvania to organize groups to visit mosques nationwide and peacefully pray to the Almighty God in Jesus’ name for Muslims to be enlightened with the truth about Christ. The notion of interfaith worship is inconceivable to both women. For Christians, Jesus is God’s Son and God has anointed Jesus as Lord and King in heaven. This belief is anathema to the Muslims.

That women are standing up for the Christian faith would be a reason to rejoice for other Christians. In the Bible, it was Mary who was chosen to be the mother of Jesus the Messiah, it was Mary Magdalene and a group of other women who first learned that Jesus had been resurrected – Christian women have been abundantly blessed by God. Christian women in turn have blessed others, for example they played an imperative role in ending slavery in the United States, pioneered the way for women’s suffrage, and continue to do so today. Decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus, the aristocratic women of Rome were also among the first Romans to convert, leading eventually to the end of Roman persecution of Christians by Constantine the Great, and to his conversion as the first Christian Roman Emperor.

Unlike women in the Muslim faith, Christian women have been elevated to positions of leadership in both the public and private sphere from the founding of Christianity and even prior to that among the Israelites. Hence, the woman in Christianity is symbolically profound. Jesus Christ is the male figure of Christianity and his anointed ones are the female figure, married in spiritual unity as a husband and wife. Therefore to defile the Christian “woman” of Christ is a desecration against the Father and the Son.

The Lack of American Preparedness

The prayers on that Friday, November 14 by the Muslims in Washington, DC are in reality a desperate attempt by a failed ideological path to rewrite history. In fact, just hours prior to the prayer at the Washington National Cathedral, Hamad Chebli an imam from the Islamic Center of Central Jersey was also praying on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, where Allah was worshipped and praised as supreme.

Observers are astounded at the lack of American preparedness for Muslim manipulations by both alleged Christian leaders and political leaders in Washington, DC. Indeed, a Muslim imam was allowed to pray on the Congressional floor the day before the 100th anniversary of the Ottoman Empire’s declaration of a Holy War against Christian nations under the presence of America’s naive elected public servants. But the imam hurriedly prayed out of despair under the U.S. Congressional roof because the hour of glory will never come for Muslims amidst their willful lies and deceptions (taqiyya) against true Christians in America.

Others remain steadfast and righteous. Christine Weick, a servant of Jesus Christ, stood with the Wisdom of God like the church of the Santa Sophia, and the Washington National Cathedral when they were first built, anchored with God. But it was the people, the custodians entrusted with the Cathedral and U.S. Congress who had vacillated and trembled toward the Mohammedan seductions. Jesus Christ as the figurehead of the Christian world continues to be rejected as the King of Kings and God’s Only Begotten Son by the Islamic world – that is another unwavering truth, and always will be.

Monica Morrill, is the co-author of BETRAYED: The shocking true story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL’s father. She is an Economic Geographer and has taught as an adjunct at the Institute of World Politics. Ms. Morrill is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.