Tag Archive for: jihad

The West Must Not Appease the Iranian Regime!

As part of the Nuclear deal the Iranian regime will receive over $150 billion in unfrozen funds, senior level Iranian Revolutionary Guards officials and entities who waged terror attacks, assassinating Iranians both inside and outside Iran, imprisoning, torturing, raping and executing thousands of Iranians, will no longer be listed on the EU’s and UN’s terrorism list. In addition, the arms and ballistic missiles embargoes will be lifted.

A few years ago,Iran’s foreign Minister Javad Zarif wrote in his book, “We have a fundamental problem with the West, and especially with America. This is because we are heirs to a global mission, which is tied to our raison d’être … a global mission which is tied to our very reason of being …”

Terrorist regimes use infiltration as a means to achieve their goals; the Iranian regime is no exception. Since Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad’s first term as Iran’s president, we have experienced how this criminal regime has been long preparing to infiltrate through their lobbies in Western world and their mainstream media.

When we look at the map of the Middle East, we don’t need to be an expert in geopolitics to realize that Iran’s influence has increased over the last few years while the United States’ role has diminished. Islamic Republic of Iran has created over 48 Shiite sleeper cell groups in Iraq under the Quds Forces to take over the country’s army and to spread throughout the Middle East. Now the Islamic revolutionary model is being reproduced in Iraq, Syria and Yemen as well, by setting up those same structures. The “Army,People (Basij), Resistance” formula was never just a mere slogan, it’s an Iranian regime blueprint dating back to the birth of the Islamic Revolution. Islamic Republic of Iran’s global terror campaign, and its subversion of countries throughout and beyond the Middle East, is their ultimate goal to export their Islamic Revolution.

Each week during Friday prayers in Tehran, the regime openly and regularly utters death threats against the United States, Israel, United Kingdom, and their Western allies. Given Iran’s history, it would be wise not to take these threats slightly.

Those who are appeasing the Iran deal and advocating for it must not forget that the Iranian regime is a dictatorial regime with a constitution base on medieval Islamic Sharia law and does not represent the will of the Iranian people—but rather the radical and hidden agenda of its leaders. Iran also executes more people per capita than all other countries. According to the reports from the human rights groups, the human rights situation in Iran has worsened since Rouhani became president and Iran has increased legal restraints and persecutions of dissidents, human rights activists and journalists. The overall situation has worsened; as indicated by the surge in executions.” Citing a rise in executions from 580 in 2012, to 753 in 2014. and over 694 people have been executed by hanging in the last six months, nearly matching the toll for the whole of 2014. According to a report by Amnesty international, Executions in Iran could rise to 1,000 this year.

The West must not be fooled by Iran regime’s manipulative charm. For 36 years, the Islamic regime of Iran has relentlessly pursued a global Islamic mission which was engineered by jihadis Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s founding dictator. Khomeini said in his own words, “We will export our revolution to the entire world.” And, as I just explained, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards,and Quds Forces have been resolutely dedicated to that end. Iran’s IRGC commander, Mohammad Ali Ja’afari, clearly stated this goal. He said, “Our Imam did not limit the Islamic Revolution to this country … Our duty is to prepare the way for an Islamic world government.”

In 1994, US President, Bill Clinton said “This is a good deal for the United States. North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. International inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments.” And in 2015, US President, Barack Hussein Obama said: “It’s a good deal – a deal that meets our core objectives, including strict limitations on Iran’s program and cutting off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.”

In 2006, North Korea detonated its first nuclear device.

In 2015, far from having any interest in challenging the Iranian regime, on the nuclear deal, Iran’s terrorist activities in the region and the human rights violations by Iran, 5+1 with president Obama’s leadership are accommodating and empowering the world’s most dangerous state in the world’s most dangerous region, which would obtain the world’s most dangerous weapons.

We are not advocating for war; we want peace and the rule of law and human rights for Iran which cannot be possible under the Islamic republic of Iran.There is only one alternative: cancel the Nuclear agreement with Iran, apply stronger sanctions on Iran regime and their officials and free Iran from this regime, so the whole world will be a safer place.

Multiculturalism and the Rise of Islamic Terrorism by Ralph Sidway

William Kilpatrick offers a broad analysis of how “the multicultural experiment of elevating other cultures by denigrating our own” fosters widespread detachment from our civilizational identity, and breeds allies for Islamic supremacism:  “As befits two movements with global ambitions, the leftist-Islamist alliances are cropping up all over the planet… Sometimes the alliance goes beyond moral and financial support and manifests itself in actual violence.”

“Multiculturalism and the Rise of Domestic Terrorism,” by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, August 18, 2015:

In a speech launching a five-year plan to combat homegrown terrorism, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said that “Many people born in Britain have little attachment to the country and that makes them vulnerable to radicalization.”

It’s not as though Muslims who live in Britain don’t eat fish and chips or root for their local football club. But, apparently, a not insignificant number can indulge in British pastimes and still feel unconnected to the country they live in. In her 2006 bookLondonistan, Melanie Phillips described how a separate and alien culture had developed in England as a result of Britain’s experiment in multiculturalism—an experiment that had been fostered by British elites in media, government, and even in churches.

The problem was, said Phillips, that in order to make room for other cultures, the elites had hollowed out their own culture so that “British society presented a moral and philosophical vacuum that was ripe for colonization by predatory Islamism.” She laid much of the blame on educators:

The British education system simply ceased transmitting either the values or the story of the nation to successive generations, delivering instead the message that truth was an illusion and that the nation and its values were whatever anyone wanted them to be.

A similar process has been underway for a long time in the U.S. For many years, America has been deeply invested in the same multicultural experiment of elevating other cultures by denigrating its own. Our educational, media, and entertainment establishments have subjected young people to decades of anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Christian conditioning. As it turned out, the flip side of “tolerance for diversity” was intolerance for one’s own culture and the things that make it distinctive.

The result? As Robert Spencer observed, “people who are ashamed of their culture will not defend it.” Such people might even feel that attacks on our country are justified by our history of slavery, racism, colonialism, and imperialism. Still others will feel justified in carrying out the attacks. In England, the police are now uncovering on average one jihadist plot per day.

The situation is not yet as desperate in America, but we seem nevertheless to be generating a steady supply of homegrown terrorists. On the surface, they blend in with the culture. Major Nidal Hasan was an Army psychiatrist, the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston were into sports and school, and Mohammod Abdulazeez, the Chattanooga shooter, seemed in many respects to be the all-American boy. On the outside, they appeared to be ordinary Americans. On the inside they were more like the pod people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers—aliens with alien ambitions.

The worrisome thing is, our educational system, along with other institutions of cultural formation, seems to be on course to creating a whole nation of pod people—people with little attachment to their country or countrymen.

This detachment can take three forms. In some cases, individuals turn away from involvement in their culture to self-absorption. To assuage the loneliness of the unconnected self, they might turn to drugs or pornography or serial sex. Except for the world of pop entertainment, they are unconscious of the larger world. Like the clueless young people interviewed on the Watters’ World segment of the O’Reilly Factor, they might be unsure who the first president was, in which century the Civil War was fought, or who John Kerry is. None of that seems important to them. If a group of bearded men wearing long robes and speaking Arabic moved into the apartment above, they’d probably think, “that’s cool” and light up another joint.

The second form that the detachment takes is a transfer of allegiance from one’s own history and culture to a neo-Marxist perspective. Thanks in large part to our educational system, a growing segment of our population has come to look upon its own culture as the root of all the world’s evils. Unlike the self-absorbed detachers, they are politically engaged, but their political aims have to do with undermining traditional society and radically transforming it. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement is representative of this group.

The third group, the one that Prime Minister Cameron is primarily concerned about, is composed of those whose first loyalty is to the ummah—the worldwide community of Muslim believers. They may live in the UK, France, or the U.S., but their allegiance lies elsewhere. They may have always felt this way, or they may have undergone a conversion. The majority in this category pose no direct threat to the larger society; they simply prefer to lead their lives separate from it. These separate communities do, however, provide the soil in which the radicals take root. They are, to use another metaphor, the sea in which the jihadis swim. The radical Muslims themselves are in some ways similar to the anti-Western Westerners who repudiate the Western tradition. The radicals not only reject Western culture, they see it as evil and they want to bring it down.

Because they have the same goals—the destruction of Western and Christian civilization—the members of the second group often act as enablers of Muslim radicals. I’ve written before about the leftist-Islamist alliance—the leftist professors who support the cause of Hamas, the left-leaning foundations which finance the “Islamophobia” campaign, and the left-leaning politicians who support the Muslim Brotherhood. But sometimes the alliance goes beyond moral and financial support and manifests itself in actual violence. The best example of this are the antifa or “antifascist” gangs in Europe who use brownshirt tactics to suppress any protest against Islamization or the leftist policies—such as mass immigration—which promote Islamization. Numerous anti-Islamization rallies and marches in Europe have been broken up by much larger groups of young antifas throwing punches and sometimes bricks and bottles.

As befits two movements with global ambitions, the leftist-Islamist alliances are cropping up all over the planet. In Australia recently, an organization called Reclaim Australia held a series of rallies to protest Islamization. They were met by violent “anti-racist” counter-demonstrators, some of them wearing face coverings. Here’s an account of one such encounter in Melbourne:

I made my way onto Spring Street, where there was an even larger mob, maybe 500 or 600 people, some with megaphones… There were a few late comers or stragglers attempting to get through to the ‘Reclaim Australia’ section. It was futile. As soon as anyone in the mob identified a person as a Reclaimer, a large horde of 20 or 40 of the mob would rush to them, and in many incidents I witnessed, assault them, knock them to the ground, and kick them on the ground. It became a mob mentality. Anyone with an Australian flag had it stolen from them and was assaulted. Almost every assault I witnessed was by twenty or more on one.

So if you’re worried about the advance of global jihad, it’s not just the young Muslim browsing radical sites on the Internet that you need to worry about. You also have to worry about all those college grads who majored in Marxism and Peace Studies, and are dead set on ridding the world of “racists” and “fascists.”

By comparison, the first group of detachers—those who are mainly into themselves—seems the least dangerous of the three. That’s generally true. On the other hand, the self-absorbed sometimes become disenchanted with the pursuit of self and seek to find their identity in a larger cause. Sometimes they end up in church, sometimes in the radical left, and sometimes in radical Islam. Judging by his blog posts, the Chattanooga jihadist, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez seems to have traveled this route. Having tried out drugs, drink, fast cars, and other vain pursuits, he finally found a purpose in jihad.

However, the main threat posed by those who seek constant diversion is that they are too distracted to notice the larger world and the dangers lurking in it. They are oblivious to anything outside their own pleasure zone. Thus, they can be of little help in resisting the twin threat posed by leftism and Islamism. The same can be said to a lesser degree of those we might call the semi-detached (or semi-attached, if you prefer). Such people don’t reject Western and Christian values, but they are not actively engaged in promoting or defending them. They don’t hate America, but they are too busy earning a living or raising a family to think much about existential threats to their society. Thanks to years of relentless indoctrination from the schools and the media, their links to core cultural principles are tenuous. The result is a certain passivity concerning events over which they supposedly have no control: “Ho-hum, I see there’s been another jihad attack. I hope the authorities will do something about it.”

An individual’s will to resist tyranny, whether of the leftist or Islamic variety, depends to a large extent on the strength of his attachments—particularly attachments to family, church, and country. But the liberal state does everything it can to weaken those ties. And once the ties that bind are slackened sufficiently, it’s difficult to care strongly about anything. If the current attacks on marriage, family, religion, and patriotism—up until recently the main glue of society—are as successful as the social engineers hope, there will soon be nothing left worth fighting for.

Which raises a question: What happens when the leaders of a society are themselves detached from that society? What happens, for instance, when the leaders of the U.S. government begin to see themselves not as representatives of the American people but as members of a worldwide order of global elites—a sort of non-religious “ummah”?…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi Muslim leaders oppose extradition of murderer: “He is an Islamic missionary”

West Virginia: “Support ISIS & The Taliban” sign left at war memorial

A Strange Turn of History: The ‘Risk of a Nuclear Attack has gone up’ by Michael Devolin

“In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.” –President Barack Obama, 2009

While reading Philip Taubman’s book The Partnership, a story about “five Cold Warriors and their quest to ban the bomb,” I was amazed by how he mentions President Obama in glowing terms—as a politician concerned and speaking out about the dangers nuclear weapons pose to the world at large—but refers to Iran as a one of those countries whose “nuclear program” the same world should regard as suspect and a veritable kindle stick to what has always been a volatile and preponderantly Muslim Middle East. He quotes President Obama who, during a visit to Prague in 2009, remarked, “In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”

Surprisingly, in light of the “Iran deal” recently orchestrated by Obama’s shamelessly sycophantic John Kerry, Taubman tells that it was the view of William Perry (one of the Cold Warriors) way back when that, “the intersection of terrorism and the weapons programs in North Korea and Iran will push nuclear threats out of control. ‘If Iran and North Korea cannot be stopped from building nuclear arsenals,’ he said, ‘I believe that we will cross that tipping point, with consequences that will be dangerous beyond most people’s imagination.’ ” He recounts that in 2008, during a presidential debate, Obama said that “…the biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons.” So, I am not so perplexed by Philip Taubman’s blind and salivating support of Barack Obama as I am by President Obama’s complete repudiation of his professed convictions then about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the absence of what should have been, to date, a corresponding foreign policy as regards Iran. His recent imbecility, or, as it has become known, “the Iran deal,” has not only evoked the choler of his Republican opponents but also that of some of his fellow Democrats, including Robert Menendez and Chuck Schumer.

What kind of leader wilfully enables a professed enemy of the USA to produce nuclear weapons? Certainly not a leader known for patriotic rhetoric, and certainly not a leader known for telling the truth. This is the same Barack Obama who, during his first term as President, condemned Iran unreservedly, as though there was never any doubt that Iran was a rogue nation and a danger to the security of the entire world, let alone the Middle East: “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” But now he’s given the green light to Iran to continue its “nuclear program,” as though Iran were a trusted friend and not a sworn enemy of the United States of America—as though the Republic of Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. “I’m not naïve,” said President Obama back in 2009. Oh, but yes you are, Mr. President.

In his book World War IV, Norman Podhoretz pointed out back in 2007 that many members of the “foreign-policy elites” were coming to the conclusion that making compromises with the Republic of Iran was not a viable option simply because of the fact that this regime, even then, showed nothing but contempt for Western diplomacy and goodwill. “You can’t piss through an Ironwood tree,” as they say up here in Canada, and you can’t expect an Islamist regime like Iran to give up its enthralling dream of hegemony over all other nations in the Middle East when that same dream can only be realized by means of nuclear weapons capability. And you can’t expect Iran’s religious madmen to give up their lust for killing Jews when they’ve proudly ingeminated their public support of terrorists bent on the annihilation of the State of Israel for so many years now that it’s become an Islamic custom. Think Al Quds Day. Podhoretz recounts that even his unflattering political opponents eventually had to acknowledge his astute ascertainment about the religious madmen of Iran: “As one who had long since rejected the faith in diplomacy and sanctions, and who had been excoriated for my heretical views by more than one member of the foreign-policy elites, I never thought I would live to see the day when these very elites would come to admit that the carrot-and-stick approach would not and could not succeed in preventing Iran from getting the bomb.”

Mr. Podhoretz goes on to tell that, even though his opponents acknowledged his wisdom and foresight regarding Iran, “the lesson they drew from this new revelation was, however, a different matter.” Instead of “drawing the logical conclusion—namely that military action had now become necessary,” they opted for the “complacent idea that we could live with an Iranian bomb.” Promoting military action against Iran, Podhoretz argued that “deterrence could not be relied upon with a regime ruled by Islamofascist revolutionaries who not only were ready to die for their beliefs but cared less about protecting their people than about the spread of their ideology and their power. If the mullahs got the bomb, I said, it is not them who would be deterred, but us.”

And this, alas, this reversal of roles, from having some measure of control over our destiny to placing our destiny into the hands of our sworn enemies—is the irremissible fate foisted on us (and our children) by President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry. I am very distressed by the fact that the present government of the greatest superpower in the world (USA) has now given legitimacy (cheap though it may be) to a vicious regime whose mullahs have had ties to what Neil Kressel referred to as “worldwide holy war network,” to such Islamist savages as Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and Ramzi Yousef, and all because President Barack Obama obdurately insists that the West can “live with an Iranian bomb.”

This certainly is a strange turn of history, President Obama, but not because the “threat of global nuclear war has gone down,” nor because “the risk of nuclear attack has gone up,” but because you, in every grandiloquent speech you gave back in 2009, promised you would work toward creating a world free of the threat of nuclear war. Instead, because of your underhanded dealings with Iran, beyond the gaze of those who actually love and cherish the freedoms and security we enjoy here in the Western hemisphere, have made the world a much more dangerous place.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State ‘beheading, raping, and selling’ Christians, Obama does nothing

UK Islamic State supporters groomed their teen daughter to be jihadi bride

California: Santa Cruz Muslim Threatened to Bomb Two Colleges

“University of California Santa Cruz police officers arrested a 25-year-old Santa Cruz man in connection to an anonymous social media post that referenced homicide, suicide, explosives, and a past university shooting.” “The post didn’t target any individuals, though it included general threats against two campus colleges, Oakes and Porter.” Hawari doesn’t seem to have actually had any explosives; he may have simply been trying to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60).

AYMAN-KAREEM-HAWARI

Ayman Kareem Hawari

An update on this story. “Man accused of making terrorist threats against UC Santa Cruz,” KSBW, August 21, 2015:

SANTA CRUZ, Calif. —University of California Santa Cruz police officers arrested a 25-year-old Santa Cruz man in connection to an anonymous social media post that referenced homicide, suicide, explosives, and a past university shooting.

A concerned parent called UCSC police at 7 p.m. Wednesday after he discovered the post.

Investigators identified Ayman Kareem Hawari as the post’s creator, UCSC Police Chief Nader Oweis said.

Officers arrested Hawari on a suspicion of making terrorist threats and resisting arrest. He was booked into the Santa Cruz County Jail Thursday.

So far, officers have found no connections between Hawari and the university.

“The post didn’t target any individuals, though it included general threats against two campus colleges, Oakes and Porter,” Oweis said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

France train jihadi trained in Islamic State, was being watched by police

A Strange Turn of History

Germany: Violent Protests Erupt over Muslim Refugees

More ‘Invasion of Europe’ news…..

From the UK Independent:

Asylum-Seekers-in-Germany-01

This chart gives some idea of what Germany is faced with as the government tries to find relocation sites for tens of thousands of refugees.

Up to 1,000 protesters have clashed with police in eastern Germany in riots reportedly sparked by the arrival of 250 migrants.

Police said protesters shouting “foreigners out” and carrying banners against the “asylum flood” threw bottles and stones at busloads of asylum seekers arriving in Heidenau, near Dresden.

At least 31 officers were hurt in violent scuffles as police used tear gas to disperse crowds.

Peaceful demonstrations began after news spread that the town was welcoming a large number of refugees who are set to be housed in an empty building. (then they turned violent)

[….]

Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the influx of asylum seekers is the biggest problem Europe currently faces. Germany, which has relatively liberal asylum laws, is taking in more refugees than any other European country, many from war-torn countries like Syria and Iraq.

There is also another bit of news from the UK.  It seems that immigration has surpassed concern for the economy as the number one issue on peoples’ minds there.

More ‘Invasion of Europe’ news here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Macedonia: Syrian refugee “…tell Brussels we are coming, no matter what” as thousands break through the border

IBD Opinion: Trump would crack down on Muslim immigration

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of riots in Dresden, Germany is courtesy of the Associated Press.

Boston University Professor Defends Islamic State Sex Slavery

“In focusing on current abuses in the Middle East, perpetrated by those claiming the mantle of Islam, Americans — whose Constitution continues to permit enslavement as punishment for crime — deflect attention from partial U.S. responsibility for the current crisis in Iraq. Sanctions followed by military invasion and its brutal aftermath laid the groundwork for the situation Callimachi describes.” See, the Islamic State doesn’t practice sex slavery because it is sanctioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah, but because the U.S. did bad things in Iraq. This is what passes for analysis on most university campuses these days. Much more below.

“The Truth About Islam and Sex Slavery History Is More Complicated Than You Think,” by Kecia Ali, Huffington Post, August 19, 2015 (thanks to David):

…Others scholars point out that just because the Quran acknowledges slavery and early Muslims, including the Prophet, practiced it doesn’t mean Muslims must always do so; indeed, the fact that slavery is illegal and no longer practiced in nearly all majority-Muslim societies would seem to settle the point. It is one thing for committed religious thinkers to insist that scripture must always and everywhere apply literally, but it is ludicrous for purportedly objective scholars to do so. Anyone making that argument about biblical slavery would be ridiculed.

The disingenuous reasoning here is appalling. Can’t anyone in academia deal with a topic honestly anymore? I know Kecia Ali is a university professor, and university professors today are mostly muddle-headed ideologues more interested in pushing their far-Left agenda than having rational discussion or searching for the truth, but this is ridiculous. There are so many things wrong with that paragraph that it is a breathtakingly compact example of how contemporary academics obscure, rather than expose, the truth. Here are a few of the ways Kecia Ali outrages the truth in that paragraph:

“Others scholars point out that just because the Quran acknowledges slavery and early Muslims, including the Prophet, practiced it doesn’t mean Muslims must always do so.”

Actually, the Qur’an tells Muslims that Muhammad is uswa hasana, an “excellent example” (33:21), which in Islamic theology has amounted to the proposition that if Muhammad did it, it is right and worthy of emulation. The fact that “the Quran acknowledges slavery and early Muslims, including the Prophet, practiced it” actually inhibited the development of abolitionist movements within Islam, because of the absolute prohibition on declaring something to be wrong that Muhammad considered to be right.

“…indeed, the fact that slavery is illegal and no longer practiced in nearly all majority-Muslim societies would seem to settle the point.”

Actually, it would settle the point if those majority-Muslim societies had outlawed slavery on the basis of Islamic principles, but they didn’t. They abolished slavery under pressure from the West. There was never an indigenous Muslim abolitionist movement, and to this day, slavery is practicedsub rosa in North Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc., and justified precisely on the contention that if the Qur’an assumes it and Muhammad practiced it, it cannot be wrong.

“It is one thing for committed religious thinkers to insist that scripture must always and everywhere apply literally, but it is ludicrous for purportedly objective scholars to do so.”

Here again, this point is only valid if there were some mainstream Qur’anic case against slavery, reinterpreting the pro-slavery passages in a different way. But there isn’t. “Objective scholars” — as if Kecia Ali were one — may not find slavery in the Qur’an or Islamic law, but note that Kecia Ali is writing for an audience of Leftist non-Muslims in the Huffington Post: she is not trying to convince Islamic State slave owners that slavery is wrong on Islamic grounds. It is, in other words, far easier to lull non-Muslims into complacency about a human rights abuse that Muslims justify on Islamic grounds than it is to convince the Muslims who are perpetrating it to stop doing so.

“Anyone making that argument about biblical slavery would be ridiculed.”

Kecia Ali here assumes that the Bible and Qur’an are equivalent in their teachings and mainstream interpretation. In reality, the abolitionist movement arose in the UK and US among Christian clergymen who argued against the ongoing applicability of the Biblical passages justifying slavery on the basis of the idea that all human beings are created in the image of God and equal in dignity on that basis. The Qur’an and Islam, by contrast, make a sharp dichotomy between believers (“the best of people,” Qur’an 3:110) and unbelievers (“the most vile of created beings,” Qur’an 98:6), and consequently there was no teaching of the equal dignity of all human beings upon which an abolitionist movement could be based.

Kecia Ali probably knows all this, or should if she doesn’t. But she doesn’t tell her hapless HuffPo marks, that is, her readers.

Slavery was pervasive in the late antique world in which the Quran arose. Early Muslims were part of societies in which various unfree statuses existed, including capture, purchase, inherited slave status and debt peonage. Thus, it is no surprise that the Quran, the Prophet’s normative practice and Islamic jurisprudence accepted slavery. What is known of Muhammad’s life is disputed, but his biographies uniformly report that slaves and freed slaves were part of his household. One was Mariyya the Copt. A gift from the Byzantine governor of Alexandria, she reportedly bore Muhammad a son; he freed her. Whatever the factual accuracy of this tale, its presence attests to a shared presumption that one leader could send another an enslaved female for sexual use.

What she leaves out (again) of all this is the normative character of the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example for Muslims. That normative character is not some crazy literalist subsect of Islam. It is mainstream Islamic theology among all sects and madhahib.

Like their earlier counterparts in Greece and Rome, jurists formulating Islamic law in the eighth to 10th centuries took slavery as a given. They formalized certain protections for slaves, including eventual freedom for women like Mariyya who bore children to their masters; such children were free and legitimate. Jurists sought to circumscribe slavery, prohibiting the enslavement of foundlings and prescribing automatic manumission for slaves beaten too harshly. But the idea that some people should dominate others was central to their conceptual world; they used slavery-related concepts to structure their increasingly hierarchical norms for marriage.

Yet again: Kecia Ali doesn’t tell her unfortunate readers that Islamic law is not considered to be some man-made document like the U.S. Constitution; on the contrary, in Islamic theology Sharia is considered to be the unchangeable and perfect law of Allah himself. As such, its allowance for slavery is considered to be as divinely inspired and unalterable as the rest of it.

Still, early Muslim slavery (like early Muslim marriage) wasn’t particularly a religious institution, and jurists’ ideas about the superiority of free over slave (and male over female) were widely shared across religious boundaries.

“Still, early Muslim slavery (like early Muslim marriage) wasn’t particularly a religious institution” — an unsupported and false claim. “Jurists’ ideas about the superiority of free over slave (and male over female) were widely shared across religious boundaries” — everyone did it, you see, so it must be OK. This tu quoque argument might hold water if theologically-justified slavery persisted in religious contexts other than Islam today, but it doesn’t.

To say this is not to present an apologetic defense of Islam;

Don’t kid yourself, professor.

to the contrary, effective Muslim ethical thinking requires honesty and transparency about the lasting impact on Muslim thought on slavery and non-consensual sex.

Honesty and transparency on this issue would be refreshing, but it isn’t forthcoming in this article.

However, singling out slavery or rules governing marriage or punishments for a handful of crimes as constituting the enactment of “authentic” Islamic law surely reflects a distorted notion of a Muslim polity.

The Islamic State’s attempt to create an imagined pristine community relies on a superficial and selective enactment of certain provisions from scripture and law, an extreme case of a wider phenomenon.

Once again, an assertion without evidence. How is the Islamic State being superficial and selective in its interpretation of the Qur’an and Sharia? Kecia Ali doesn’t tell us. She just wants us to take her word for it.

Religious studies scholars, of course, must analyze their doctrines.

I’m all for that.

What beliefs do they express? How do they formulate them? What one mustn’t do is take them at face value, as the legitimate expression of a timeless Islamic truth.

And why mustn’t one do this? Because above all, Kecia Ali and the Huffington Post don’t want you to have a negative view of Islam. But why should one not think that the Islamic State’s practices are the “legitimate expression of a timeless Islamic truth”? Yet again, we just have to take Kecia Ali’s word for it.

In fact, the stress they put on the errors of their Muslim opponents, who actively dispute their interpretations of many things including slavery, makes very clear that there is no one self-evident interpretation of Islam on these points.

Note that Kecia Ali doesn’t actually offer an alternative interpretation of the Qur’an passages that the Islamic State adduces in order to justify slavery. She just tells us that some unnamed “Muslim opponents” of the Islamic State have offered this. Who? When? Where? She doesn’t tell us. Why not? Could it be that this Muslim challenge to the Islamic State hasn’t actually happened at all?

…In the thousand-plus years in which Muslims and non-Muslims, including Christians, actively engaged in slaving, they cooperated and competed, enslaving and being enslaved, buying, selling and setting free. This complex history, which has generated scores of publications on Muslims and slavery in European languages alone, cannot be reduced to a simplistic proclamation of religious doctrine. The fact that the Islamic State must preface its collections of rulings for slaveholding by defining terms such as captive and concubine illustrates that it is drawing on archaic terms and rules, ones that no longer reflect anything like the current reality of the world.

I doubt that even the Islamic State jihadis would deny that these are old terms and rules that have fallen into desuetude. But they would argue that they are part of the law of Allah; the fact that they’re old and long unused doesn’t change that, and actually only increases the urgency of reviving them, so as to bring the practice of Muslims back in line with the commands of Allah. Here yet again, Kecia Ali is attempting a sleight-of-hand, pretending that this issue is all about human law, not about the law that Muslims consider to be that of Allah himself.

By focusing on religious doctrine as an explanation for rape, Americans ignore the presence of sexual abuse and torture in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and in Assad’s Syria by the regime and other factions in its vicious ongoing war. None of this is to deny the horror of the systematic rapes Callimachi reports or the revolting nature of the theology she describes. It is to point out that there are reasons why the story of enslaved Yazidis is one that captures the front page of the New York Times: it fits into familiar narratives of Muslim barbarity.

The idea that the New York Times is interesting in retailing “familiar narratives of Muslim barbarity” is beyond ludicrous. For years, the Times has again and again obscured and whitewashed numerous incidents of barbarity committed by Muslims and justified by their perpetrators by reference to Islamic texts and teachings. Rukmini Callimachi’s piece was highly anomalous in acknowledging, even in a slight and incomplete manner, that the Islamic State justifies its practices by referring to teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. But to admit that fact would be to expose as false and manipulative the ever-present narrative of Muslim victimhood, and Kecia Ali is not going to do that.

In focusing on current abuses in the Middle East, perpetrated by those claiming the mantle of Islam, Americans — whose Constitution continues to permit enslavement as punishment for crime — deflect attention from partial U.S. responsibility for the current crisis in Iraq. Sanctions followed by military invasion and its brutal aftermath laid the groundwork for the situation Callimachi describes. Moral high ground is in short supply. The core idea animating enslavement is that some lives matter more than others. As any American who has been paying attention knows, this idea has not perished from the earth.

“Moral high ground is in short supply.” Because the U.S. Constitution “continues to permit enslavement as punishment for crime” (the 13th Amendment says: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”), we shouldn’t judge the Islamic State’s barbaric practice of sex slavery.

Kecia Ali’s moral equivalence here is nothing short of monstrous. But for her efforts, she will no doubt be hailed in Leftist circles and laden with honors, while the Islamic State’s sex slaves, for whose rights and human dignity she could have and should have spoken out instead of engaging in this gruesome apologetic for their enslavement, continue to suffer daily torture.

This is American academia today.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bangkok bombing that murdered 20 people at Hindu shrine was an Islamic jihad attack

Islamic State bulldozes 1,500-year-old Syrian monastery

‘Sandboxing’ Islam: How to Protect America from Jihad Terrorism by Ralph Sidway

Enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) can give us the legal and tactical edge in countering the threat from Islamic supremacism.

Background

It should be obvious for anyone with eyes to see that Islam — its scriptures, the example of Muhammad, its doctrines, and its overall ideology — is behind the spread of most terrorism and unrest in the world today.

From the Islamic State (ISIS), Boko Haram, al-Nusra and al-Shabaab, to slightly older groups such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood, to lesser known jihadi organizations throughout Central Asia, India, Southeast Asia, the Pacific Rim, and China, a survey of terrorist attacks reveals Muslim involvement throughout the entire world.

Here in the United States, we are seeing a dramatic rise in Muslim “lone wolf” jihad terrorist attacks (and, as some have described them, known wolves”). Further, from all points of the compass, we are seeing literally tens of thousands of Muslims flocking to the Middle East to join the Islamic State caliphate and support the jihad with their very lives.

The scenario gets worse. Some analysts argue that we are seriously underestimating the numbers of Western Muslims joining the Islamic State.

Here at home, we have a “ full blown insurgency.” The FBI has already arrested seventy IS-inspired Muslim terrorists, and has active investigations of IS-inspired jihad plots in all 56 of its field offices. NewsMax reports “the government’s terrorist watch list carries 700,000 to a million names.”

The Challenge: Jihad-Linked Mosques

This is all indisputable fact. The threat is real and growing. Even worse, the threat is specifically from devout, observant Muslims who attend mosque. Behind every lone-or-known-wolf jihadi and every Islamic State recruit there is a mosque where they are receiving instruction in Islam.

That should give us pause, as four separate studies in recent years show that 80% of mosques in the U.S. teach, preach or advocate for jihad and the imposition of sharia law in America. 

Confirming these mosque studies are proven links between mosques and terrorists.  For example, one of the two Mississippi Muslims recently arrested for trying to join the Islamic State is the son of the imam at the local mosque. Many terror-linked mosques have spawned multiple jihadis. The Phoenix mosque attended by the Garland TX jihadis is notorious for having two other members in federal prison on terrorism-related convictions. Perhaps most infamous is the Islamic Society of Boston, which was attended not only by the Boston Marathon Bombers, but by numerous other jihad-terror-linked Muslims. The list goes on and on.

For many people, especially in our political class and certainly among the 2016 field of presidential candidates, there seems to be no solution to this national security nightmare of terror-linked mosques and known wolf jihadis. To date, there is no coherent, principle-based policy to address Islamic terrorism in the United States.

The Solution: ‘Sandboxing’ Islam in America

This is where I believe the simple analogy of “Sandboxing” can help us.

You’ve probably heard the term, even if you’re not a computer geek. One tech source offers this definition:

A “sandbox” is a play area for young children: it is supposed to be safe for them (they cannot hurt themselves) and safe from them (it is sand, they cannot break it). In the context of IT security, “sandboxing” means isolating some piece of software in such a way that whatever it does, it will not spread havoc elsewhere.

If we think of America as being, ideally, a safe and free place for its citizens, within which we should be able to live, work, play, and, as the ubiquitous bumper sticker says, “Coexist,” then when it comes to Islam and Muslims, we need a solution analogous to the IT security process of “sandboxing.” We need to isolate malicious jihadi forces, “in such a way that whatever they do, they will not spread havoc elsewhere.”

What would “sandboxing” look like when it comes to Muslims in America? In practice, it could include the following policies:

  • A moratorium — a complete freeze — on Muslim immigration. Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul expressed a similar policy concept following the Chattanooga jihad murders of five US servicemen, proposing a halt to immigration from Muslim countries with known jihad activity. Going one step further, Franklin Graham wrote at the same time that “We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled.
  • All mosques must be classified and treated as “agents of foreign power,” in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a U.S. law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938.

The law presciently allows for application in gray areas such as Islam presents, as it states that any entity with a “political or quasi-political capacity” disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances. The purpose is to facilitate “evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons.” [Source]

Islam certainly thinks and behaves like a foreign power, is guided in America by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis and other foreign Islamic groups, and has a definite political dimension. (See also here.)

  • Any and all mosques associated with Muslim terrorists must be investigated, and if found to be advancing jihad doctrine, sharia law, and Islamic supremacism over the United States, they should be prosecuted and closed, in accordance with the FARA act referenced above.
  • Stop all foreign funding of mosques, whether by FARA, new legislation, or executive power. We already know that Saudi Arabia is providing extensive funding to advance its extremist Wahhabi strain of Islam worldwide, including of mosques in America, as is Turkey. There already exist covert lobbying groups for Muslim nations, including Iran.

These are just some starting points to aid in getting this conversation going. The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has an 18-point platform with similar policy proposals which may be considered as well.

We must have hope that, just as illegal immigration has become a major issue in the presidential race, so also we may be successful in elevating public awareness of the clear and present danger from Islam and Muslim jihad terrorists. This is a generational if not century-long struggle ahead of us, and should resonate with voters.

The concept of “sandboxing” is, I believe, the most helpful image in making our case to not only the American people, but also to the political elite and the 2016 candidates.

We must publicly challenge the Republican presidential candidates to take the initiative, and to fearlessly raise the issue of Islam up to the same level as Immigration. We must demand of them to be bold and daring when it comes to defeating jihad. The defense of our nation, our freedoms, and the lives of our fellow citizens and men-and-women in uniform should be paramount for whoever would be Commander-in-Chief. This issue will be topmost on that person’s desk in the Oval Office from Day One. Better to tackle it now with a strong and visionary policy, than to be knocked back on our heels by a surprise attack in 2017.

Now is the time to put misbehaving Muslims and their terror-linked-mosques on time-out. Islam is at war with us. More and more Muslims are heeding the summons from Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, taking up arms against us in this war, and killing American citizens right here at home. Denying the reality and threat of Islamic jihad is not a valid policy, it is civilizational suicide.

It is time to “sandbox” Islam in America, and use decisive, legal means to counter its threat to our freedoms and our way of life.

ABOUT RALPH SIDWAY

Ralph Sidway is an Orthodox Christian researcher and writer, and author of Facing Islam: What the Ancient Church has to say about the Religion of Muhammad. He operates the Facing Islam blog.

RELATED ARTICLES:

West Virginia: “Support ISIS & The Taliban” sign left at war memorial

Childhood in the caliphate: toddler happily beheads teddy bear

France: Two U.S. Marines overpower Muslim who opened fire on train

“The man had a Kalashnikov, an automatic pistol, ammunition and a box cutter in his luggage.” Clearly he was intending to commit mass murder for his bloodthirsty god.

“US passengers overpower gunman who fired in Amsterdam-Paris train,” by Benjamin Massot, AFP, August 21, 2015:

Arras (France) (AFP) – A heavily-armed man opened fire in a “terrorist attack” on a high-speed train travelling from Amsterdam to Paris on Friday, injuring at least two people before he was overpowered by two American passengers.

The suspect, who was arrested at a railway station in the northern French town of Arras, was a 26-year-old from Morocco or of Moroccan origin who was known to the intelligence services, French investigators said.

The man had a Kalashnikov, an automatic pistol, ammunition and a box cutter in his luggage, one police source told AFP.

The motives for the shooting were not immediately known, although French prosecutors said counter-terrorism investigators had taken over the probe.

A jihadi could scream, “Allahu akbar! I am a Muslim and I am killing in accord with Islamic texts and teachings mandating jihad warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers!,” and authorities and the media would still be saying the motives were unknown.

…According to initial unconfirmed information from investigators, the two men who tackled the gunman were American soldiers who had apparently heard him loading his weapons in a toilet cubicle and confronted him when he came out.

The incident occurred at 5.50 pm (1550 GMT), the train operator said.

The gunman was arrested ten minutes later when the train with 554 passengers on board stopped at Arras station where armed police were waiting, a spokesman for the French state rail company SNCF told AFP.

One of the Americans who confronted the gunmen was injured, sources said. Media reports said a British man was also hurt, but the Foreign Office in London said there were no reports of any British casualties.

One victim was hit by a bullet but his life was not in danger, while the second suffered cuts to his elbow caused by a box cutter….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chattanooga woman fired for criticizing jihad murderer and his family

Childhood in the caliphate: toddler happily beheads teddy bear

Hollywood Filmmaker says Iran Nuke Deal a Very Bad Deal

dan gordon

Captain Dan Gordon, IDF.

Dan Gordon, a Hollywood screen writer and IDF Reserves Captain, is our featured guest on today’s short promotional for the “DAY OF ACTION” in Santa Barbara, California on Sunday Aug 30, 2015.

Dan Gordon is also a successful Hollywood filmmaker and award-winning author. with the unique perspective of living in two countries, America and Israel, has much to say about the very bad Iran nuke deal made by the Obama Administration.

Join us in STOPPING THE IRAN DEAL!

We have TWO amazing events on August 30th!

The first is a Roundtable Luncheon featuring a panel of national and local experts on the Iran Treaty, on the U.S. and Israel and how it will affect Santa Barbara County. Tickets are $60. Sponsorships are available at different levels. A ticket to the lunch gets you a VIP seat at the rally (details below). If you are not able to attend but would like to donate (100% tax-deductible) to help offset to costs of this grassroots effort, it would be appreciated. To purchase tickets, to sponsor or to donate, go to: StopIran.eventbrite.com

After the lunch, there will be a Stop Iran NOW Rally at the Santa Barbara Courthouse Sunken Gardens co-hosted by Stand With Us, The Clarion Project, The United West and other local groups. The rally is FREE and we need as many people as possible to attend. Please forward to your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers. It’s up to US to stop this deal! Signs and flags will be provided.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Obama’s Wrong: Iran Deal Would Make War More Likely

U.S. State Department: 8,000 Syrian Muslims to arrive in FY 2016

That is according to Breitbart (hat tip: Rosemary).   It is a huge number, but I think they will go for even greater numbers since their contractor friends and 14 U.S. Senators are recommending 65,000!

Here is Breitbart:

The State Department is anticipating that the U.S. will admit up to 8,000 Syrian refugees in Fiscal Year 2016.

In written responses to the Senate Judiciary Immigration and the National Interest Subcommittee Republicans obtained by Breitbart News, the State Department reveals that it is expecting the U.S. will accelerate its acceptance of Syrian refugees next year.

“As of July 30, the United States has admitted 1,042 Syrian refugees in FY 2015 and anticipates admitting a total of 1,500-1,800 Syrians this fiscal year. We anticipate admitting 5,000-8,000 Syrian refugees in FY 2016,” the State Department wrote.

The Obama administration’s effort to resettle thousands of Syrian refugees into the U.S. has come under fire as a potential national security risk.

Here is David Miliband, CEO of U.S. resettlement contractor the International Rescue Committee, pushing for 65,000 (mostly Muslim) Syrians to be sent to your towns and cities before Obama leaves office.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Muslim ‘Refugees’ riot, stone police over torn Qur’an, 15 wounded

The Debate Over Birthright Citizenship, Explained in 90 Seconds

West Virginia Muslim arrested for threatening to blow up Statue of Liberty

Jason-Paul-Smith-Abdul-Yasin

Jason Paul Smith Abdul Yasin

The [bomb] threat turned out to be a hoax. Abdul Yasin, another convert to Islam who somehow has gotten the crazy idea that his Religion of Peace mandates violence against unbelievers, was apparently trying to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60).

“Man accused of threatening to blow up Statue of Liberty arrested,” by Ray Sanchez, CNN, August 19, 2015:

New York (CNN) He’s accused of using his iPad and a phone service for the hearing impaired to call in a bomb threat that resulted in the evacuation of more than 3,200 people from Liberty Island in New York Harbor.

On Wednesday, Jason Paul Smith, 42, of Harts, West Virginia, was charged in federal court with a count of conveying false and misleading information and hoaxes, according to the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York….

On April 24, Smith allegedly made a 911 call from his iPad using a service that helps hearing-impaired people make and receive telephone calls, according to federal prosecutors.In the call, Smith identified himself as “Abdul Yasin,” described himself as an “ISI terrorist” and conveyed a threat to “blow up” the Statue of Liberty, Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement.

The Statue of Liberty and Liberty Island were evacuated and closed to the public until the threat was declared unfounded. The New York Police Department bomb squad examined a locker thought to contain a suspicious package and found it was empty, a law enforcement official said at the time.

The statement from prosecutors said the iPad registered to Smith was allegedly used to make other 911 calls, including at least two in May from a user who identified himself as “Isis allah Bomb maker.” The caller threatened to attack Times Square and kill police officers at the Brooklyn Bridge.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Slovakia refuses EU plan to resettle Muslim refugees, ‘will only accept Christians’

UN to let Iran inspect its own alleged nuke site

Germany: ‘Refugees’ riot, stone police over torn Qur’an, 15 wounded

These people are going to be a marvelous addition to German society.

“Riot over disrespect to Holy Quran left 15 wounded in Germany,” Khaama Press, August 20 2015 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A riot erupted among asylum seekers at a refugee center in Germany leaving 15 people wounded including Afghans.

The riot reportedly erupted after a refugee tore pages from the Holy Quran prompting anger of some 20 other residents in the refugee center in Suhl city of Thuringen State on Wednesday evening.

Police say the confrontation escalated into a riot and around 100 refugees took part in it.

125 police officers were dispatched to the area to break the brawl but they also came under the attack from refugees and were pelted with sticks and stones.

Four police officers, two badly, and 11 refugees were wounded in the clash.

Seven police vehicles were also damaged during the riot that took around four hours to come under control.

According to the officials, the person who tore pages from the Holy Quran had arrived from Afghanistan. Police took him into custody for his own safety.

In other words, they arrested the one who violated Sharia blasphemy law, not the rioters.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pakistan Muslim leader exhorted Muslims to kill Hindus

UK: Jihadi free to roam streets as interpreters are abandoned to Taliban

U.S. Set to Block Aid to Pakistan for Failing to Crack Down on Terrorist Group

Saudi Arabia on Religious Freedom: Butt out. Stay out. Keep out. Got it?

blasphemy lawsSaudi Arabia shows its jaw-dropping hypocrisy as it moves to impose “anti-blasphemy” laws on the non-Muslim world.

That’s the message from Saudi Arabia. Do not meddle in their internal affairs.

If they want to lop off heads, leave them alone. If they want to flog their apostates, what’s that to you? And if they want to shred the hands of people reading the Bible, at least they’re not your hands.

So shut up.

Canadian officials heard that message loudly when they decided to criticize Saudi Arabia for torturing a blogger, Raif Badawi, with 1,000 lashes for criticizing the kingdom’s religious clerics.

The Saudi ambassador told Canada’s National Assembly that his country “does not accept any form of interference in its internal affairs.”

Sweden tried the same thing. Its foreign minister described the flogging of Badawi as a “cruel attempt to silence modern forms of expression.”

Sweden got the same royal treatment. Saudi Arabia stomped its feet in the sand and called the criticism a “flagrant interference in internal affairs.”

But just try building a church there.

We out here in the free world should all get it. Don’t try swimming in the sands of Saudi Arabia.

Then why should we pay any attention to a Saudi attempt to meddle in our affairs?

Last month the Saudi director-general for external relations called on all nations – yes, all nations – to adopt laws banning “blasphemy.”

In a wordy statement, Director-General Sheikh Abdul Majeed Al-Omari declared:

“We have made it clear that freedom of expression without limits or restrictions would lead to violation and abuse of religious and ideological rights. This requires everyone to criminalize insulting heavenly religions, prophets, holy books, religious symbols and places of worship.”

This is stupid on so many levels that the Kingdom should be renamed the King-dumb.

First, they voice concern that freedom of expression could somehow lead to the abuse of religious and ideological rights. They need to get down off their high camels and examine the stupidity of this statement.

Saudi Arabia doesn’t need to look “outside” to find freedom of expression leading to the abuse of religious and ideological rights.

It only needs to look inside. It can start by pointing its camel-nose directly at Raif Badawi, whose only crime was to write insulting blog posts about Saudi religious clerics.

So here’s the thinking, in all its Saudi logic. It’s the only way their statement could possibly make sense:

Raif Badawi wrote blog material that King-dumb authorities say involved “ridiculing Islamic religious figures” and “going beyond the realm of disobedience.”

For this crime of expressing himself freely, Badawi was sentenced to 1,000 lashes, to be meted out 50 lashes per week for 20 weeks. This is abuse – no doubt. So do you see? Freedom of expression can lead to the “abuse of religious and ideological rights.”

It’s twisted logic, but what else can we expect from the twisted minds of the Saudis, who still believe that Christians are “swine” and that Jews are “apes”?

In his demand that all nations adopt blasphemy laws, the director-general also wants to “criminalize insulting heavenly religions, prophets, holy books, religious symbols and places of worship.”

What? Noble? A girl?

This bold statement comes from a nation that criminalizes apostasy, carrying a Bible, building churches and – get this – naming a child Alice, Sandy or Lauren. These are “blasphemous names” in Saudi Arabia, which means that to bestow one of them on your offspring is to risk a date with the swordsman.

Alice is forbidden because it means “noble.” Only the Saudi royalty is noble, you understand, not some pipsqueak baby girl. Sandy means “defender of men.” So it’s obvious why that name is banned. Lauren means “crowned with laurels.” When’s the last time you’ve seen the Saudis crown a girl?

In fact, there are 50 “blasphemous” names in Saudi Arabia.

Should the Saudis really be in charge of leading the world on criminalizing blasphemy? This is a country that still will not let women drive. It’s punishable by up to 10 lashes.

Imagine what a Saudi-like, anti-blasphemy police force would be like:

“Ms. Patterson you are hereby guilty of carrying a Bible into a church while holding a baby named Sandy. That’s three strikes. And oh, by the way, are those car keys in your hand?”

In 2012, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.”

Does that not sound a little blasphemous to you? If I were to say that all mosques should be destroyed, I would be lined up right behind Ms. Patterson at the block in Chop-Chop Square.

So, to be clear, Saudi Arabia isn’t about criminalizing insults to all “places of worship.” It is only about criminalizing blasphemy against the places of Islamicworship. For in the twisted minds of the King-dumb, there is only one “place of worship,” which is the abode of Allah – not Jesus Christ, the Heavenly Father or the Holy Spirit.

Christian and Jewish places of worship? Have at it. These other “places of worship” do not exist and are therefore impossible to blaspheme.

Understanding the religious logic of the Saudis is not easy, unless you accept that “logic,” to them, is only that which benefits Islam. What might appear to be an edict protecting all religions is, in reality, only a deaf-dumb-and-blind safeguard for their own religion.

The King-dumb doesn’t want anyone meddling in their affairs, but they want to freely meddle in the affairs of others, and even dictate them.

I would like to call the Saudi royalty a bunch of yo-yos, but that would be an insult to the beloved child’s toy. A yo-yo at least knows how to stay on its own string.

Exiled Iranian Activist Amir Fakhravar says Stop the Iran Nuke Deal

amir fakhravar small

Amir Fakhravar

Amir Fakhravar is an exiled Iranian activist, award winning writer and recipient of the Annie Taylor Award. Amir is our featured guest on today’s short promotional for the “DAY OF ACTION” in Santa Barbara, California on Sunday Aug 30, 2015.

Amir Fakhravar is the Founder and President of the Iranian Freedom Institute.

You MUST listening to his frightening story of being imprisoned in Iran!

Join us in STOPPING THE IRAN DEAL!

We have TWO amazing events on August 30th!

The first is a Roundtable Luncheon featuring a panel of national and local experts on the Iran Treaty, on the U.S. and Israel and how it will affect Santa Barbara County. Tickets are $60. Sponsorships are available at different levels. A ticket to the lunch gets you a VIP seat at the rally (details below). If you are not able to attend but would like to donate (100% tax-deductible) to help offset to costs of this grassroots effort, it would be appreciated. To purchase tickets, to sponsor or to donate, go to: StopIran.eventbrite.com

After the lunch, there will be a Stop Iran NOW Rally at the Santa Barbara Courthouse Sunken Gardens co-hosted by Stand With Us, The Clarion Project, The United West and other local groups. The rally is FREE and we need as many people as possible to attend. Please forward to your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers. It’s up to US to stop this deal! Signs and flags will be provided.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Obama’s Wrong: Iran Deal Would Make War More Likely

Did You Know that on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list 9 are Muslims and one is a Black Woman?

fbi most crime causes by gangs graphicHave you ever wondered why the bad guys in movies, on TV and in the daily news are white Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Do you wonder why the Obama administrations Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) policy does not mention Muslims, jihad or Islam. Are you frustrated by what you see happening in places like Ferguson, Missouri where blacks are allowed to loot and burn, and the police get all of the blame?

The Department of Homeland Security defines Domestic Terrorism as:

Any act of violence that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources committed by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group. [Emphasis added]

Well, perhaps it is time to look at the facts as listed on the FBI’s own website to learn who the terrorists really are.

joanne deborah chesimard

Joanne Chesimard

The FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list consists of 9 Muslims and one black woman. We all know that it is Muslims who are predominantly terrorists, except in Hollywood movies. The 9 Muslims listed were definitely inspired by foreign terrorist groups.

However, it was the black woman who caught my attention. Her name is Joanne Deborah Chesimard. She is wanted for: an act of terrorism, domestic terrorism, unlawful flight to avoid confinement and murder. There is a reward: The FBI is offering a reward of up to $1,000,000 for information directly leading to the apprehension of Joanne Chesimard. Here is her description according to the FBI:

Joanne Chesimard is wanted for escaping from prison in Clinton, New Jersey, while serving a life sentence for murder. On May 2, 1973, Chesimard, who was part of a revolutionary extremist organization known as the Black Liberation Army, and two accomplices were stopped for a motor vehicle violation on the New Jersey Turnpike by two troopers with the New Jersey State Police. At the time, Chesimard was wanted for her involvement in several felonies, including bank robbery. Chesimard and her accomplices opened fire on the troopers. One trooper was wounded and the other was shot and killed execution-style at point-blank range. Chesimard fled the scene, but was subsequently apprehended. One of her accomplices was killed in the shoot-out and the other was also apprehended and remains in jail.

In 1977, Chesimard was found guilty of first degree murder, assault and battery of a police officer, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to kill, illegal possession of a weapon, and armed robbery. She was sentenced to life in prison. On November 2, 1979, Chesimard escaped from prison and lived underground before being located in Cuba in 1984. She is thought to currently still be living in Cuba.

She may wear her hair in a variety of styles and dress in African tribal clothing.

Black_Liberation_Army_(emblem)The Black Liberation Army is an off shoot of the Black Panthers. According to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium:

The Black Liberation Army (BLA) was an underground, black nationalist militant organization that operated from 1970 to 1981. Composed largely of former Black Panthers, the organization’s program was one of armed struggle for the “liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States.”  The Black Liberation Army developed as a splinter group of the Black Panther Party. Founded by followers of Eldridge Cleaver, as a response to what the more violent factions of the Black Panthers perceived as “selling out” the “armed struggle”  under the leadership of Huey Newton.The BLA carried out a series of bombings, murders, robberies, and prison breaks.

[ … ]

Black Liberation Army (BLA) – United States, also known as Afro-American Liberation Army is an inactive group formed c. 1970.

Perhaps Hollywood, TV producers, the media and President Obama need to understand who is, and who is not, a terrorist. They aren’t white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

RELATED ARTICLE: Muslim U.S. Navy Engineer Busted Red-Handed in Major Act of Treason