Posts

Biden’s Handlers Get the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict They Wanted

Once again, the Dems embolden – and enable – evil. My latest in FrontPage:

On his new Save America website, former President Trump stated the obvious that the elites wish us to overlook: “When I was in office we were known as the Peace Presidency, because Israel’s adversaries knew that the United States stood strongly with Israel and there would be swift retribution if Israel was attacked. Under Biden, the world is getting more violent and more unstable because Biden’s weakness and lack of support for Israel is leading to new attacks on our allies.”

Weakness and lack of support for Israel, and open support for the Palestinian jihad. The Washington Free Beacon reported last March that “the Biden administration privately confirmed to Congress last week that the Palestinian Authority has continued to use international aid money to reward terrorists but said the finding won’t impact its plans to restart funding.”

And it didn’t. Biden’s handlers gave $235 million to the Palestinians in April. So now you can see your taxpayer dollars at work, funding the bloody Palestinian jihad against Israel, thanks to Biden’s handlers. Meanwhile, in an example of a frequent leftist tactic, the complete inversion of reality, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Ramallah) tweeted: “American taxpayer money is being used to commit human rights violations. Congress must condition the aid we send to Israel, and end it altogether if those conditions are not followed. Statements aren’t working @SecBlinken. Enough is enough.” American taxpayer money is indeed being used to commit human rights violations, but not in the way Tlaib has in mind.

The kind of people that Tlaib and her colleagues in the American left are fronting for are epitomized by Hamas Political Bureau Member and former Minister of the Interior Fathi Hammad. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Hammad said on Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV Friday: “People of Jerusalem, we want you to cut off the heads of the Jews with knives. With your hand, cut their artery from here. A knife costs five shekels. Buy a knife, sharpen it, put it there, and just cut off [their heads]. It costs just five shekels. With those five shekels, you will humiliate the Jewish state.”

Hammad continued with a quotation from the Qur’an: “‘You shall find the strongest in enmity towards the believers to be the Jews and the polytheists.’” That’s Qur’an 5:82. Hammad added: “The Jews have spread corruption and acted with arrogance, and their moment of reckoning has come. The moment of destruction at your hands has arrived.” Palestinian Arab leaders and their allies around the Islamic world routinely frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Islamic terms. Western Middle East “experts” just as routinely ignore or downplay the role of Islam in the conflict. This foredooms all their peace-processing to failure. The Palestinian Delusion explains why in detail.

But Biden’s handlers are not interested in learning the lessons of history or the clear evidence regarding the motivating ideology underlying the conflict that can be found in the texts and teachings of Islam. They are committed instead to adhering to the left’s claims to stand for the oppressed and downtrodden, no matter how much Palestinian jihad propaganda they have to swallow in order to enable themselves to see the Palestinian jihadis as innocent victims of the rapacious Israeli war machine. And ultimately, they’ve gotten Israel and the world into this mess by the overarching determination to undo everything Donald Trump did as president. John Kerry had said with the confidence of someone who is ignorant, arrogant and half-educated that no peace was possible between Israel and the Muslim countries of the region without first making peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Trump proved Kerry wrong, so now Kerry and the rest of the foreign policy establishment have to wipe the egg off their face by undoing Trump’s achievements and reasserting the status quo they created.

Now they have done so, and the Middle East is on the brink of all-out war.

In his message about this imbroglio, Trump enunciated more unwelcome truths as well: “America must always stand with Israel and make clear that the Palestinians must end the violence, terror, and rocket attacks, and make clear that the U.S. will always strongly support Israel’s right to defend itself. Unbelievably, Democrats also continue to stand by crazed anti-American Rep. Ilhan Omar, and others, who savagely attack Israel while they are under terrorist assault.”

Needless to say, if he were still president, none of this would be happening. Strength engenders respect.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Sends Pro-Hamas Envoy ‘Inspired by Intifada’ to Mediate Between Israel and Jihad Terrorists

Muslim Brotherhood praises Democrats for siding with jihad terrorists against ‘Zionist attacks’

Australia: Islamic State recruiter is allowed to return to the country

Germany: Man converts to Islam, beheads his wife

Long Island University Prof’s Rant: An ‘Islamophobe’ Behind Every Bush

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

STUDY: Religious Scriptures that Legitimize Violence Cause More Believers to Support Terrorism

“Study authors suspect the reason for this dramatic difference between the faiths is because a large number of Muslims adhere to a ‘fundamentalist interpretation’ of their faith.”

It’s actually because of the contents of the Islamic scriptures, which contain direct exhortations to do violence against unbelievers. Jewish and Christian scriptures contain some violent passages, but no open-ended, universal command for believers to make war against unbelievers.

Religious scriptures that legitimize violence cause more believers to support deadly extremist acts

by Chris Melore, Study Finds, April 23, 2021 (thanks to R):

BERLIN, Germany — Religious texts provide the faithful with the guiding principles to live, what their cultures consider, the best lives. Some of these ancient texts, however, come from times when violence against non-believers was an accepted practice. Although these spiritual scriptures are typically a motivating force for good, a new study finds verses which legitimize violence do cause people to support deadly extremism in today’s society.

From America, to Europe, to regions throughout the world, violent extremist incidents have been a modern plague in recent years. Researchers from the Berlin Social Science Center (WZB) note many of these perpetrators quote verses from their religion’s holy scriptures during their deadly crimes.

Abdullah H., a Syrian standing trial for allegedly stabbing a homosexual couple and killing another man in Dresden, Germany last year, reportedly testified that he was inspired to commit the crime by a Quranic sura. Despite incidents like this, study authors say experts continue to doubt that religion can truly motivate people to do violence.

Dangerous influences in scripture?

Researchers Ruud Koopmans and Eylem Kanol gathered 8,000 Christians, Muslims, and Jews to determine whether or not certain scriptures can lead believers to support killing enemies of the faith. Study authors included participants from the U.S., Germany, Cyprus, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories, and Kenya in this experiment.

For half of the group, researchers asked if they thought lethal force against their faith’s non-believers was justified without any introduction or setup to the question. For the other half however, the team first presented them with a quote from the Bible, Koran, or Torah. These quotes endorse violence against those who allegedly do not believe in those religions.

Results reveal that referencing scriptural passages which legitimize violence noticeably increases support for deadly acts among all three faiths. The impact also remained constant across all seven countries as well. However, researchers find support of deadly extremism was weaker among Jews and Christians than among Muslims.

Specifically, nine percent of the Christians supported violence without reading any scriptures beforehand. That number rose to 12 percent among Christians seeing such a quote before hearing the question. For Jews, three percent supported violence without reading quotes and seven percent supported it after seeing such a passage.

Among Muslims, the study finds 29 percent supported violence against non-believers without any extra influence. For those referencing a Quranic quote first, 47 percent said they supported violence against religious enemies.

Fundamentalism can lead to rationalizing violence

Study authors suspect the reason for this dramatic difference between the faiths is because a large number of Muslims adhere to a “fundamentalist interpretation” of their faith. Fundamentalists typically view the holy scriptures of their religion literally. They consider the teachings and principles of their faith to still be completely valid in present day society….

The study appears in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.

REALTED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslims demand Muslim official resign for saying she’d ‘welcome’ teacher who showed Muhammad cartoon

UK: Muslim migrant family has two brothers who fought for ISIS, four other jailed jihadis

Islamic scholar: European women used to wear hijab, but then Jews spread Darwinism and ‘culture of nudity’

France: Imam supports niqab ban, Muslims threaten to kill him, put a bounty on his head

Pope Francis denounces deaths of illegal Muslim migrants in Mediterranean as ‘shameful’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

NEW YORK CITY: Muslim migrant gets life in prison for jihad bombing on subway in 2017

“Akayed Ullah, 31, of Brooklyn, New York, and a lawful permanent resident of Bangladesh…”

Why was he here at all? Why did vetting procedures, if any, fail? What is being done to make sure this doesn’t happen again? Why, nothing, of course. Just the opposite.

Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for ISIS-inspired Bombing in New York City Subway Station in 2017

Department of Justice, April 22, 2021:

WASHINGTON – A New York man was sentenced today to life in prison for detonating a bomb in a New York City subway station. He admitted that he conducted the terrorist attack on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Akayed Ullah, 31, of Brooklyn, New York, and a lawful permanent resident of Bangladesh, was convicted by a federal jury of offenses related to the detonation and attempted detonation of a bomb in a subway station near the New York Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City on Dec. 11, 2017. According to court documents, on Dec. 11, 2017, at approximately 7:20 a.m., Ullah detonated a pipe bomb strapped to his chest in a subway station near the Port Authority Bus Terminal in midtown Manhattan. Shortly after the blast, first responders located Ullah lying on the ground in the station where he had detonated the improvised explosive device, and he was taken into custody. Surveillance footage captured Ullah walking through the station immediately prior to the explosion and then detonating the bomb.

“Ullah constructed a pipe bomb and detonated it in a mass transit hub in the heart of New York City to harm and terrorize as many people as possible – and he admitted that he did it on behalf of ISIS,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers for the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “This case reminds us that the threat of ISIS-inspired terrorism remains real. This sentence holds Ullah accountable, as he will spend the rest of his life in federal prison for his crimes. I want to thank all of the agents, analysts, and prosecutors whose outstanding work made this result possible.”

“Akayed Ullah, previously convicted in a New York federal court of carrying out a lone-wolf bombing attack on behalf of ISIS at the Port Authority Bus Terminal, a bustling transit artery in New York City, admittedly intended to murder as many innocent Americans as possible,” said U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss for the Southern District of New York. “Ullah’s motive was clear and unambiguous: a deeply held ideological hatred for America. Ironically, Ullah’s actions resulted only in reaffirming the greatness of America by displaying the fairness and impartiality for which our justice system stands. Ullah received a speedy, fair, public trial, and was convicted by a jury of his peers. Akayed Ullah’s message of hatred clearly backfired; his just sentence of life in prison only exemplifies that cowardly acts of terrorism will be met with law enforcement’s unwavering resolve to protect our core values of freedom and democracy.”

“The defendant sought to attack innocent Americans who were going about their daily lives,” said Acting Assistant Director Patrick Reddan for Counterterrorism at the FBI. “He will now spend the rest of his life in prison, where he will not be in a position to attempt another attack. While the terrorism threat continues to evolve in this country, groups like ISIS remain committed to attacking America, and the FBI will continue to work with our JTTF partners across the country in our commitment to track down and disrupt terrorists who seek to harm our homeland.”

According to court documents and the evidence presented at trial, Ullah began radicalizing in approximately 2014. Ullah disagreed with U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and began seeking out online materials promoting radical Islamic terrorist ideology. In particular, Ullah was inspired by ISIS propaganda, including a video in which ISIS instructed supporters to carry out attacks in their homelands if they were unable to travel overseas to join ISIS. Ullah began researching how to build a bomb about a year prior to his attack. He built his pipe bomb in the weeks leading up to the attack at his Brooklyn apartment.

Following the attack on Dec. 11, 2017, law enforcement located remnants of the pipe bomb on Ullah’s person and strewn across the attack site in the subway station. Law enforcement found, among other things: (i) a nine-volt battery inside Ullah’s pants pocket, which he used as the power source for triggering the bomb; (ii) wires connected to the battery and running underneath Ullah’s jacket; (iii) plastic zip ties underneath Ullah’s jacket, which he used to strap the bomb to his body; (iv) several fragments of a metal pipe, which Ullah had filled with an explosive substance that he made using sugar and match heads; (v) fragments of Christmas tree lightbulbs attached to wires, which Ullah used to ignite the explosion; and (vi) numerous metal screws. Ullah filled his pipe bomb with dozens of metal screws to function as shrapnel, for the purpose of causing maximum damage.

On the morning of the attack, shortly before detonating his bomb, Ullah posted a statement on Facebook referring to the then-President of the United States, stating: “Trump you failed to protect your nation.” Ullah also posted an ISIS slogan so that ISIS would know that he had carried out the attack on behalf of the foreign terrorist organization.

After Ullah was taken into custody following the attack, he waived his Miranda rights and spoke to law enforcement. Ullah was inspired by ISIS to carry out the Dec. 11 attack, and stated, among other things, “I did it for the Islamic State.” He also said that he chose a busy weekday morning for the attack in order to “terrorize as many people as possible.” One commuter who was inside the station when Ullah detonated the pipe bomb suffered a shrapnel wound to his leg, and two other victims partly lost their hearing as a result of the blast. Ullah’s attack caused the Port Authority subway station and bus terminal to shut down temporarily, disrupting the lives of commuters across the New York City area.

After the attack, law enforcement searched Ullah’s apartment pursuant to a search warrant. Agents recovered, among other things, Ullah’s passport, which contained the handwritten statement, “O AMERICA, DIE IN YOUR RAGE.” Less than two weeks before carrying out the attack, Ullah had watched and drawn inspiration from a particular ISIS propaganda video that proclaimed, “die in your rage, America,” with an image of the U.S. Capitol in the background.

Later in December 2017, while in custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the charges in this case, Ullah began chanting “more is coming” at a correctional officer, and then told the officer: “You started this war, we will finish it. More is coming, you’ll see.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Muslim migrant who murdered police officer had Qur’an and prayer rug in his scooter

Turkey’s foreign ministry summons US Ambassador to protest recognition of Armenian Genocide

France: Muslim migrant who murdered police officer watched videos glorifying jihad before attack

France: Muslim migrant who stabbed police officer to death was screaming ‘Allahu akbar’

Finland: Muslim migrant gets four years in prison for bringing his 13-year-old wife to the country

Bangladesh: Muslim mob tears down newspaper office, attacks Hindu homes

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Arizona community college must pay $155,000 to professor it forced to apologize for criticizing Islam

A slight pause on American academia’s out-of-control-freight-train rush to submit to Sharia. But the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is still flogging this case in court, hoping to use it to destroy the freedom of speech and criminalize criticism of Islam.

Arizona community college to pay $155K settlement for directing professor to apologize for Islamic terrorism quiz question

by Katlyn Patton, FIRE, April 13, 2021:

Maricopa County Community College District will pay professor Nicholas Damask $155,000 in exchange for his agreement not to sue district personnel, who last year violated his expressive rights in an attempt to quell criticism of his quiz questions on social media. The district also pledged to strengthen its commitment to academic freedom.

Damask, who teaches political science at Scottsdale Community College, came under fire on social media last May after a student complained that quiz questions in Damask’s world politics course were offensive to the student’s religious beliefs. Damask said the college suggested it would require him to meet with an Islamic religious leader to review the content of his course because a student complained that three of Damask’s quiz questions about Islamic terrorism were “in distaste of Islam.”

In response, the college directed Damask to issue an apology — pre-written for him by a communications staff member — and implied that he would be investigated. The college ultimately backed down after an urgent letter from FIRE.

Now, the district is finally paying for SCC’s unconstitutional knee-jerk reaction to online criticism….

lawsuit brought by the Council on American-Islamic Relations remains pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (A district court judge dismissed the lawsuit in August for failure to state a claim, and CAIR appealed.)…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Quotes ‘Holy Qur’an’ in Ramadan Greeting, says ‘Muslim Americans Have Enriched Our Country Since Our Founding’

UK: Muslim migrant rape gang members who were ordered deported six years ago launch another appeal to stay

Sweden: Almost 700,000 migrants are receiving state benefits

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Teen Vogue Presents ‘Queer Muslim Heroes to Celebrate This Muslim Women’s Day’

Fresh from its racism controversy, the hard-left propaganda organ Teen Vogue (“Get ’em while they’re young” is apparently the motto) appears to be going for a death fatwa, publishing an article Friday entitled “Queer Muslim Heroes to Celebrate This Muslim Women’s Day,” by Zainab Almatwari. Almatwari is a Muslim, but clearly one with views so heterodox that she could easily arouse the murderous ire of many of her coreligionists around the globe. Teen Vogue is doubtless oblivious to the risk it is taking in publishing such an article; the chance to advance “Islamophobia” victimhood propaganda was just too good to pass up.

“Many people,” Almatwari informs us, “might not think to put ‘queer’ and ‘Muslim’ in the same sentence. The two identities, some think, are like water and oil.” She doesn’t explain why this perception exists but gives the strong impression that the problem comes from “Islamophobes” who misunderstand the truly benign and progressive teachings of the cuddly Religion of Peace: “But despite being left unrecognized, queer Muslims exist, and I am proof. In my journey to better understanding my identity, seeing and learning from other queer Muslims have been incredibly validating and reassuring. So, just to remind you that we’re here, we’re queer, and we’re not going anywhere, I compiled a list of queer Muslim heroes.”

“We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re not going anywhere” is sloganeering that gay individuals and groups have used in the West to rebuke and defy alleged “homophobia.” Few, if any, have ever dared to chant this slogan on the streets of Riyadh or Tehran or Lahore, not because those cities and others in the Islamic world are welcoming and accepting of “queer Muslims,” but because those who would do such a thing would be putting themselves immediate danger of death.

Almatwari is also writing in Teen Vogue, where “Islamophobia” in the U.S. is a much larger concern than Sharia-inspired violence against gays in Islamic states. She is not writing in a publication with wide distribution among Muslims, or that is devoted to issues of concern to Muslims. All this makes it likely that the people she thinks need reminding of the “queer Muslim” presence are non-Muslim Americans, not doctrinaire imams and their followers.

Almatwari also complains that “being a queer Muslim seems too complex for the world to handle.” But is it, really? Here again, she doesn’t specify exactly what part of “the world” she has in mind. Would anyone in America really care if Zainab Almatwari informed them that she was a “queer Muslim”? Some Christians would likely try to explain to her that she was on the wrong path; some might even be rude about it. But it is very unlikely that any of them would threaten her. In the Muslim community, however, that likelihood is far greater. Now, why is that?

“Tayah,” writes Almatwari, “is another Queer Muslim woman whose fight against societal standards is far from conventional. Our friendship started with a compliment of each other’s Hijabs and grew quickly to deep discussions about how Queer Muslim figures existed in all Muslim spaces thousands of years ago.” And what happened to them?

Because the left has deemed it “Islamophobia” to discuss the motivating ideology behind jihad violence and Sharia oppression, Teen Vogue wouldn’t dream of telling you that the primary reason why “queer Muslims” are threatened is because of the Islamic holy book: “As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify, then confine them to their houses until death takes them, or Allah finds another way for them.” (Qur’an 4:15)

This explanation of that passage is attributed to Muhammad’s companion Ibn Abbas: “The early ruling was confinement, until Allah sent down Surat An-Nur (sura 24) which abrogated that ruling with the ruling of flogging (for fornication) or stoning to death (for adultery).” If a woman is found guilty of adultery, she is to be stoned to death; if she is found guilty of fornication, she gets 100 lashes (cf. 24:2).”

A later tradition has one of the people who are identified as Muhammad’s companions observing, “When the revelation descended upon the Messenger of Allah, it would affect him and his face would show signs of strain. One day, Allah sent down a revelation to him, and when the Messenger was relieved of its strain, he said, ‘Take from me: Allah has made some other way for them. The married with the married, the unmarried with the unmarried. The married gets a hundred lashes and stoning to death, while the unmarried gets a hundred lashes then banishment for a year.’”

Teen Vogue would never dare tell you any of this, for fear of being considered “Islamophobic.” Instead, it implies that the only problems “queer Muslims” face are from racist, redneck, “Islamophobic” yahoos in the U.S. As such, they are leading both non-Muslim and Muslim girls down a very risky path. Risky in innumerable ways.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ricky Gervais on Muhammad cartoon controversy: ‘Blasphemy? F***ing Blasphemy? It’s 2021 for f***s sake.’

UK: Teacher suspended for showing Muhammad cartoon fears he’ll be murdered, says school threw him under the bus

Iran: Play depicts Jew, American, Brit and Saudi conspiring to destroy Shi’ite Islam

Mozambique: Government confirms dozens dead in jihad massacre, witnesses describe beheaded bodies in the streets

Yemen: Iran-backed Houthis deport the nation’s last three Jewish families, only four elderly Jews left

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

After 9/11, Bush Let the Al Issa Family Into America. Now 10 Americans are Dead.

Two years ago, Ahmad Al Issa shared a post entitled, “Why refugees and immigrants are good for America.” On Monday, the Syrian Muslim immigrant shot up a supermarket, killing ten Americans.

Biden declared that he was “still waiting for more information regarding the shooter, his motive, the weapons he used. The guns, the magazines, the weapons, the modifications that have apparently taken place to those weapons that are involved here.”

Why do the modifications to the Syrian immigrant’s weapons matter more than his motive?

Obama joined in, demanding that it is, “long past time for those with the power to fight this epidemic of gun violence to do so.”

Guns don’t kill people. Muslim terrorists do.

Ahmad Al Issa spent much of his time in America accusing his classmates and everyone around him of being “Islamophobes.” He repeatedly got into furious confrontations with the Americans whom he claimed were disrespecting his Islamic religion.

The media is spinning this as a mental illness, but if hating non-Muslims is a mental illness, then it’s a common one in his home country.

While Ahmad Al Issa came to America at a young age with his family, the Al Issa clan originated from Raqqa. The name of the Syrian city may not mean much to most Americans, but it was the former capital of the Caliphate of the Islamic State.

Or ISIS.

And that was after it had been previously taken over by the Al Nusra Front, linked to Al Qaeda, and by Ahrar al-Sham, which had coordinated with ISIS. Multiple Jihadist units and groups used the name “Raqqa” to symbolize their determination to stake a claim to the Syrian city and region.

Raqqa has a sizable Sunni Islamist base even beyond ISIS.

While Al Issa grew up in America, his family would have likely maintained an extensive network of family connections with Raqqa. Family members insist that Ahmad Al Issa was not a radical, but he was clearly a committed Muslim and his Facebook page, since taken down, is filled with Islamic content, and with attacks on President Trump and on America over “Islamophobia.”

Colorado took in a sizable number of migrants with multiple charities, religious and secular, springing up to help the alleged refugees. And once again Americans are reeling from a terror attack because Democrats and some Republicans refuse to secure our immigration system.

There were plenty of warnings that Ahmad Al Issa’s hatred for America and obsession with Islamophobia could turn violent. In 2017, he assaulted a fellow student claiming that he had made fun of his identity. The Syrian immigrant got off with a misdemeanor, probation, and community service. Just imagine if the system had done its job and locked him up instead.

The angry outbursts and claims of Islamophobia are now being spun as mental illness.

But the most obvious explanation for why a Syrian Muslim immigrant whose family comes from the capital of ISIS would shoot up an American supermarket isn’t mental illness.

Nor is the solution gun control.

Democrats and the media had attacked President Trump for suspending the migration of Syrians into America. When Biden overturned the suspension, the media cheered.

“Beyond contravening our values, these Executive Orders and Proclamations have undermined our national security,” Biden had falsely declared.

The bodies of ten dead Americans show what national security with terror migration looks like.

In 2016, Judge Posner had prevented Governor Pence from blocking Syrian refugees. Posner bizarrely claimed that Pence’s attempt to protect Americans from Islamic terrorists was the equivalent of forbidding “black people to settle in Indiana.”

The Trump administration’s moves would not have stopped the Al-Issa clan from coming here in 2002, but it would have prevented future terrorists from taking more American lives.

Biden and the Democrats responded to the King Sooper shootings by preaching “common sense gun control.” But their gun control has yet to work in Chicago or New York. Meanwhile what Americans need isn’t fewer guns, but fewer immigrant and refugee terrorists.

The tragedy of the Al Issa family arriving here in 2002, after September 11, is a case study in the obstinate refusal of our political elites to reckon with even the worst terror attacks.

President George W. Bush had postponed the Presidential Determination for the number of refugees imported into America because of the September 11 attacks. But he nevertheless went ahead and issued it in November 2001 which allocated 70,000 refugee slots.

And, insanely, boosted the Near East/South Asia category from 10,000 to 15,000 which had been set at 4,000 under Clinton. In 2001, some 3,000 had already been referred to through Syria, Jordan and Turkey. These numbers may sound technical, but they show the terrible policy decisions that led directly to the brutal murder of ten Americans in an ordinary supermarket.

The American victims of Ahmad Al Issa’s rampage included grandparents and employees, an actress, and a police officer who charged the Muslim shooter and paid for it with his life.

Colorado Democrats clamor that this shooting didn’t have to happen. They’re right, but not because of gun control. It didn’t have to happen if we just reformed our immigration system.

Ahmad Al-Issa grew up in America and hated every minute of it. He hated his host country, his classmates and his peers. Over the years, his hatred grew until it consumed him. Then it consumed in his victims in a murderous rampage aimed at non-Muslim Coloradans.

In 2019, Al Issa had fashionably tweeted “#istandwithrefugees.” It’s the sort of thing that many in Boulder, in Colorado, and across America have irresponsibly tweeted.

And it’s a hashtag that kills.

Bush’s decision to let in the Al Issa family after September 11 killed ten Americans. It was a tragic decision that he might not have seen buried in the numbers. But it happened anyway.

There’s really no excuse for it today after two decades of continuous Islamic terrorism.

Every day that we keep our border open, that we welcome in more migrants from terror states, we are pointing a loaded gun at our own heads and pulling the trigger. Most of the time the chamber is empty, but every now and then, the immigration gun fires and people die.

Biden and the Democrats would like to talk about Al Issa’s weapon modifications after opening the border to gang members and terrorists. They want to push restrictions on Americans owning guns, instead of restrictions on their own resettlement agencies bringing in terrorists.

The problem is not that a Syrian immigrant from the capital of ISIS had a gun. The problem was that a Syrian immigrant from the capital of ISIS was in Colorado and in America.

The authorities and the media will go on lying to Americans. They will blame mental illness, as they do with every Muslim terrorist, and depict Al Issa as the victim of Islamophobic bigots. The Democrats will turn the killer into the victim and his victims into the perpetrators as they have done so many times. They will tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Al Issa’s religion and his family origins in the capital of the ISIS Caliphate should be ignored.

And even in the midst of so many burning issues, we must not give up the fight on this one.

There are hard, cold truths about Islamic terrorism that decades after September 11 we seem to be no closer to understanding than Bush was in November 2001.

We can stand with the terror refugees killing us. Or we can stand with their American victims.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ilhan Omar decries reporting on identity of Boulder jihadi: ‘Shooter’s race front and center when they aren’t white’

Biden Admin: Yeah We Know the Terrorists We Want to Fund, Fund the Murder of Jews

Colorado Governor: ‘There’s no reason to suspect any connection to terrorism’ in Boulder massacre

Niger: Muslims murder 30 civilians in series of jihad attacks on villages

Muhammad removed from a new Dutch translation of Dante’s Inferno, to avoid ‘unnecessary offense’

Michael Moore: Boulder shooting shows gunman assimilated into American culture. What about his real culture?

EDITORS NOTE:  This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden’s handlers say visa applicants denied under Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ can now reapply

What could possibly go wrong? Here’s a hint: Somali Muslim migrant Mohammad Barry in February 2016 stabbed multiple patrons at a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab Christian; Ahmad Khan Rahami, an Afghan Muslim migrant, in September 2016 set off bombs in New York City and New Jersey; Arcan Cetin, a Turkish Muslim migrant, in September 2016 murdered five people in a mall in Burlington, Washington; Dahir Adan, another Somali Muslim migrant, in October 2016 stabbed mall shoppers in St. Cloud while screaming “Allahu akbar”; and Abdul Razak Artan, yet another Somali Muslim migrant, in November 2016 injured nine people with car and knife attacks at Ohio State University.

Seventy-two jihad terrorists had entered the U.S. from the countries listed in Trump’s initial immigration ban before it was instituted. But once the travel bans came into effect, suddenly we didn’t see as much of this as we had before. Yes, this was no coincidence.

There are warning signs from Europe as well. All of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. Numerous other Muslim migrants since then have committed “lone wolf” jihad attacks on the streets of several European countries.

But to consider such matters is now officially “racist” and “Islamophobic.” The problem with virtue-signaling by our moral superiors in Washington, however, is that they never have to deal with the consequences of their actions; ordinary Americans do.

“U.S. says visa applicants denied due to Trump ‘Muslim ban’ can reapply,” Reuters, March 8, 2021:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Most U.S. visa applicants who were denied because of former President Donald Trump’s travel ban on 13 mostly Muslim-majority and African countries can seek new decisions or submit new applications, the State Department said on Monday.

President Joe Biden overturned Trump’s so-called Muslim ban on Jan. 20, his first day in office, calling it “a stain on our national conscience” in his proclamation.

State Department spokesman Ned Price said applicants who were refused visas prior to Jan. 20, 2020, must submit new applications and pay a new application fee. Those who were denied on or after Jan. 20, 2020, may seek reconsideration without re-submitting their applications and do not have to pay additional fees, Price said….

Since December 2017, after a revised version of the original travel ban was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, some 40,000 people have been barred from entering the United States under the ban, according to State Department data.

During the Trump administration some countries were added and others dropped from the list. At the end of Trump’s presidency it comprised Myanmar, Eritrea, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Venezuela and Yemen.

RELATED VIDEO: Governor Kristi Noem SLAMS Biden’s DISASTROUS First Month | Huckabee

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rutgers defends anti-Hindu prof Audrey Truschke’s whitewashing of jihad genocide of Hindus: ‘academic freedom’

Robert Spencer Talks Islam on Truth In Politics with Andrew Bernstein and Bosch Fawstin

Belgium: Migrant Muslima fights ‘hate and lies,’ says ‘it’s important I speak out about how Islam empowers me’

In Iraq, pope views mosques and churches destroyed by the Islamic State, laments ‘our cruelty’

Iran says Biden’s handlers approve release of $3 billion in Iranian funds frozen in Iraq, Oman, and South Korea

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Orlando Weekly and Hamas-linked CAIR hit CPAC for speaker who opposes jihad violence and Sharia oppression

First, smear opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression as “anti-Muslim.” Invoke the discredited far-Left smear propaganda organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center as if it were an infallible and impartial authority on what constitutes a “hate group.” Present the SPLC’s smears without any substantiating evidence, as if they were unquestionable fact. Throw in the word “extreme,” so as to abet the growing campaign to portray all dissent from the far-left agenda as terrorism.

Then drag in the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), identifying it only as a “civil rights organization,” without bothering to inform your readers that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government. CAIR’s national outreach manager is an open supporter of Hamas.

Note also that Presler isn’t even set to speak about anything related to Islam or jihad. Hamas-linked CAIR and far-left organs such as Orlando Weekly, or at least its reliably fascist writer Matthew Moyer, want to hound anyone who stands against them to their deaths. If you oppose jihad terrorism, Hamas-linked CAIR won’t just come after you if you ever speak about this in a public forum. It will come after you no matter what you’re doing, and try to intimidate event organizers, in this case CPAC, to drop you for your transgression of Sharia blasphemy provisions. If it were up to the left and Islamic supremacists, their critics would all be unemployed and unemployable, starving to death on the streets (at best). A few years ago I was invited to address an education conference in California that had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam; the hate-filled fascist “Islamophobia” propagandist-turned-real estate agent Nathan Lean got the weak and ignorant Catholic bishop Jaime Soto, under whose auspices the conference was being held, to cancel my appearance. (I spoke at the conference as scheduled, in a venue outside the bishop’s purview.) And also a few years ago, the Washington Post discovered that the Qur’an-burning pastor Terry Jones was driving for Uber; they duly got him fired. I don’t approve of book-burning, but it is not illegal in the United States, and the idea that a man must be hounded forever and prevented from making a living for views that dissent from the left’s reveals what Leftists really are.

So it has been clear for years that if you dissent from leftist orthodoxy, you must be destroyed. Not just “debunked” or “discredited” in your field, but also prevented from doing everything else, so that the only option you have is to die.

This smear of Presler is also ironic in light of the fact that when it comes to the jihad threat, CPAC, like all establishment conservative organizations, left the building years ago, barring all discussion of the actual nature and magnitude of the threat, and opting instead for comforting religion-of-peace fictions. This hit piece on Presler must have the cowardly Matt Schlapp quivering under his desk.

“CPAC speaker called out for anti-Muslim sentiments, and that’s only scratching the surface of this year’s spectacle,”

by Matthew Moyer, Orlando Weekly, February 25, 2021:

Another speaker on the lineup for the conservative mega-gathering CPAC is getting some unwelcome spotlight for anti-Muslim statements and activity, and this is only scratching the surface of the extreme ideologies being trotted out at this week’s event in Orlando.

On Tuesday, civil rights organization the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on CPAC organizers to remove Scott Presler from their conference lineup.

CAIR points out that Presler had been involved with “ACT for America” from 2017-2018 as an organizer. The Southern Poverty Law Center has characterized that organization as “an anti-Muslim hate group because it pushes wild anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, denigrates American Muslims and deliberately conflates mainstream and radical Islam.”

More recently, Presler was in Washington, D.C., for the Stop the Steal rally and even called the Jan. 6 insurrection the “largest civil rights protest in American history.”

Preslar is scheduled to participate in a group session on Saturday afternoon titled, ironically, “Front Porch Politics: How to Talk About Issues Without Starting a Back Alley Brawl.”

“CPAC organizers should immediately drop anti-Muslim activist Scott Presler, who has actively worked to promote conspiracy theories about American Muslims and Islam,” said CAIR Director of Government Affairs Department Robert S. McCaw. “Presler’s reported role in supporting the January 6 insurrection is enough to disqualify him from being offered a credible speaking platform.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pensacola Jihad Massacre Victim Families Sue Saudi Arabia

UK’s Mirror claims decision not to allow ISIS bride to return means ‘if you’re brown you’re not really British’

New al-Qaeda top dog is former Egyptian general who wants to make the group as dangerous as it was under Osama

Nigeria: Muslims murder church elder and abduct three other Christians

Turkey: Yazidi slave girl rescued during raid to arrest senior Islamic State member in Ankara

India: Muslims who murdered Hindu activist scream ‘Allahu akbar’ inside police station

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Nation of Islam’s Revealing History

February 21 marked 56 years since the 1965 New York City assassination of the former Nation of Islam (NOI) leader Malcolm X by NOI members. The anniversary offers an occasion to reflect upon the bizarre, hateful history of this African-American cult and its disturbing implications for Islamic politics globally.

A valuable study resource on the NOI is the 2001 book The Nation of Islam: Understanding the “Black Muslims” by the Christian seminary professor Steven Tsoukalas. He examined the NOI’s “counterracist anthropology” that emerged under the shadowy Wallace D. Fard, who founded the NOI in 1930 in Detroit amidst a viciously racist American society. Fard only briefly led the NOI before disappearing in 1934, whereupon his “Messenger” Elijah Muhammad assumed NOI leadership until his death in 1975.

Under Muhammad, Tsoukalas explained, the NOI developed into what civil rights leader Martin Luther King in 1959 listed among America’s “black supremacist hate groups.” The NOI has the “basic premise that anything black is good and anything white is evil,” including Christianity, slandered by the NOI as the “white man’s religion.” The NOI’s “central myth” is that millennia ago the “infamous evil scientist Yakub” created the white race.

NOI racial separatism meant that Muhammad advocated the creation of a blacks-only state in America, Tsoukalas noted. To this end he, like Fard previously, organized planning meetings with Ku Klux Klan leaders, white supremacists who ironically shared Muhammad’s goal, albeit from opposed racist premises. Muhammad additionally had a “strange relationship” with American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell, whom Muhammad invited along with other Rockwell followers to attend NOI temple services.

If all this is not weird enough, Tsoukalas examined how the “NOI’s doctrine of God is confusing and contradictory, fluctuating between monotheism and polytheism.” Accordingly, a “string of finite gods who each exist for about one to two hundred years” followed the first black god who created himself from an atom. Fard is the “present god of this cycle” who is still alive, a claim supposedly substantiated by NOI members who asserted to have seen him in the 1970s and 1980s.

The NOI’s theological farrago presents all manner of contradictions with Islamic beliefs and realities, as Muhammad’s 1959 tour of the Middle East and North Africa with his two sons revealed. With great public fanfare, the trio toured Islamic sites in Istanbul, Damascus, Beirut, Jerusalem, and Khartoum. In Cairo, President Gamal Abdel Nasser invited the Muhammad family to stay in his palace.

Yet Muhammad’s travels upended the NOI’s black/white dichotomy of Africans and other non-white people such as Arabs struggling against a “devil white race,” as Tsoukalas noted. What Muhammad

found was not the history Fard taught him. Africans exploiting other Africans for wealth and power, the fruits of the Arab slave trade of the nineteenth century; and Ethiopia’s slavery system all threatened Muhammad’s idealistic views. Muhammad was also unaware of Saudi Arabia’s enslavement of more than one hundred thousand Africans.

Shortly preceding Muhammad with his consent to the Middle East that same year, his NOI deputy Malcolm X had similar experiences, Tsoukalas observed. As with Muhammad, Nasser’s deputy Anwar Sadat and his entourage hosted Malcolm X as a dignitary at several social gatherings. But with Saudi Arabia’s legal enslavement of Africans, he “was rudely awakened to the first seeds of contradiction” with “Fardian Islam.”

Perhaps out of deference to Muhammad, Malcolm X refrained from traveling to Mecca. This allowed the “Messenger” to be the first NOI leader to enter Islam’s holy city, for he had announced before embarking that he and his sons would pilgrim to Mecca. However this travel would occur outside Islam’s hajj season and therefore qualify only as the al-umrah “lesser pilgrimage.”

Muhammad’s intentions to visit Mecca, a city closed to non-Muslims, raised grave theological questions, Tsoukalas noted. “After all, a most central, if not the central tenet, of traditional Islam was treaded upon and kicked in the waste bucket by Elijah Muhammad.” Contrary to all Islamic doctrine about a distant god beyond human comprehension and incarnation, he believed that “Fard is Allah in the flesh.”

Yet Muhammad entered Mecca without hindrance. Tsoukalas wondered why the “world of orthodox Islam would welcome someone whom it considers a blasphemer to make the sacred pilgrimage to the holy city.” Given the desire of Muslim state leaders to promote the anti-American NOI, “politics seems to have overruled the sacred.”

Muhammad and Malcolm X likewise suppressed any criticism upon returning to America, Tsoukalas noted. “Elijah made sure that major magazines and newspapers throughout the United States picked upon the successful trip, emphasizing his acceptance by the Muslim world.” Meanwhile “Malcolm X returned to America with glowing news from his excursion to the East” and, despite Saudi enslavement of Africans, “boasted about the lack of racial prejudice.”

Muhammad returned in 1972 to Islamic countries, this time accompanied by boxing star Muhammad Ali and several NOI leaders, Tsoukalas observed. A trip highlight was a personal invitation to visit Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gadhafi, whose regime, along with other Islamic countries, had financed NOI with millions of interest-free dollars. Despite the NOI’s “stark contradiction” to Islamic doctrine, Muslim leaders once again promoted NOI radicalism.

The NOI reception in the broader Muslim world, despite numerous NOI heresies such as its exclusion of whites, stands in stark contrast to mainstream Muslim treatment of the Ahmadis. Orthodox Muslims denounce this fringe group for claiming that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) is an additional prophet after Islam’s prophet Muhammad, a violation of Islamic doctrine concerning Muhammad’s prophetic finality. Ahmadis must conceal their beliefs in order to avoid a Saudi prohibition on Ahmadis in Mecca.

The NOI encounter with the wider Muslim world in turn has helped dispel myths that Islam is a more natural faith for non-whites than Christianity. Notwithstanding universal doctrines in both Christianity and Islam, sins of bigotry can occur among all faiths, not just in Jim Crow America. Indeed, Christianity provided the main impetus to abolish slavery around the world, from which Africans suffered so dearly, while Islamic doctrine perpetuated human bondage.

Nonetheless, NOI’s amicable relationship with self-professed orthodox Muslim regimes and individuals continues. American political activist Linda Sarsour has heaped praise upon the current NOI leader, Louis Farrakhan, a fellow anti-Semite. Dictatorships in Muslim countries such as Libya and Iran’s Islamic Republic have also welcomed Farrakhan on several occasions.

The NOI and its Muslim fellow travelers can only provoke cynicism among objective observers. Theological axioms and historical realities seem to matter little when various haters of Western societies make common cause. May the truth set NOI’s duped followers free.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamophobia: BBC Under Fire for ‘Hostile’ Interview of Muslim Leader

Victim families of 2019 Pensacola jihad massacre sue Saudi Arabia, say it knew Muslim airman was a jihadi

Bangladesh: Muslims attack and severely injure Hindu families, vandalize their homes

Henry Louis Gates claims the atrocities of Armenian Genocide were ‘exaggerated’ because of ‘Islamophobia’

Iran’s Foreign Minister: Islamic Republic lost $1 trillion to Trump’s sanctions, ‘expects’ Biden will pay it in full

Canada: Leftist government staffers investigated Jihad Watch writer who was later fired for criticizing Islam

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Takes ‘Death to America’ Terrorists Off Terror List, Replaces Them With Republicans

Democrats say Muslim terrorists aren’t terrorists, but their political opponents are.

The Biden administration responded to protests against its stolen election by embedding a domestic extremism office into the National Security Council. The man in charge of making it happen, Joshua Geltzer, had previously denied that Black Lives Matter was a terrorist threat and had attacked the Trump administration’s response to Antifa and BLM violence in Portland.

That means that the only domestic extremists the NSC will be fighting are Republicans.

Even while the Biden administration is preparing to double down on Obama’s abuse of the national security state to target his political opponents, it’s also giving real terrorists a pass.

Joe Biden, whose biggest bundlers included the Iran Lobby, announced he was ending support for American allies fighting the Houthis, and then went even further by preparing to remove the terrorist organization whose motto is, “Death to America”, which took American hostages and tried to kill American sailors, from the list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The motto of Iran’s Houthi Jihadis is, “Allahu Akbar, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam.” The Houthis took over parts of Yemen as a result of the chaos unleashed by Obama’s pro-Islamist Arab Spring. Since then they’ve been engaged in a protracted war while causing a local famine by confiscating food from the local population.

Last year, the Trump administration had finally secured the release of three American hostages, Sandra Loli, an American aid worker who had been held for 3 years, another American who had been held for a year, and the body of a third American, in exchange for 240 Houthis, including three dozen Islamic terrorists who had been trained in the use of missiles and drones by Iran.

Like those launched at the USS Mason.

The Houthis lived up to their “Death to America” slogan by repeatedly launching cruise missiles at the USS Mason which had been protecting shipping in the area. And they lived up to the second half of their slogan by ethnically cleansing the remaining local Jewish population, locking them up, and confiscating their homes and land. Local reports stated that the Houthis were “cutting off water & electricity to Jewish homes and preventing Jews from purchasing food.”

“No Jew would be allowed to stay here,” one of the Jewish refugees said.

The Iran-backed Islamic terrorists fight using 18,000 child soldiers. The soldiers, many abducted, some as young as 10, are taught to hate America and to kill enemies of Iran.

None of this stopped Biden’s State Department from taking the Houthis off the terror list.

“Secretary Blinken has been clear about undertaking an expeditious review of the designations of Ansarallah,” the State Department claimed. “After a comprehensive review, we can confirm that the Secretary intends to revoke the Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist designations of Ansarallah.”

‘Ansarallah’ or ‘Defenders of Allah’ is what the Houthis call themselves. Blinken had only been confirmed on Tuesday. By next Friday, he had already somehow completed the “comprehensive review”, amid all the other minor business like China, Russia, and a global pandemic, and decided that the Islamic terrorists whose motto is “Death to America” aren’t really terrorists.

How can the Biden administration deny that Islamic Jihadis backed by Iran who attacked Americans are terrorists? The State Department claimed that this, “has nothing to do with our view of the Houthis and their reprehensible conduct, including attacks against civilians and the kidnapping of American citizens.” Not to mention the attacks on the USS Mason.

But the Biden administration isn’t even going to pretend to care about attacks on our military.

The Bidenites are claiming that they’re taking the Houthis, whom they don’t deny are terrorists, off the list of designated terrorist groups because of the “humanitarian consequences”.

That’s a lie, no matter how often you hear it in the media, because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States would be providing licenses to “humanitarian activities conducted by non-governmental organizations in Yemen and to certain transactions and activities related to exports to Yemen of critical commodities like food and medicine.”

That’s despite the fact that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen was caused by the Houthis.

Nevertheless the media, echoing propaganda from the Iran Lobby and Qatar, a close terrorist ally of Iran, has falsely claimed that the Houthis are the victims of the Yemen famine. A number of politicians, mostly Democrats, but some Republicans, as well as various aid groups, have pushed this same disinformation campaign about the causes of the Yemen famine.

America and its allies have spent billions providing food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid to Yemen. That aid has been seized by the Houthis who have used it for their own troops or to resell on the black market. This is a familiar problem from Syria to Somalia, and aid groups have refused to honestly address their complicity in aiding the terrorists who caused the crisis.

There’s no money in admitting that the aid an organization is providing is being seized by the terrorists, prolonging the conflict and worsening the humanitarian crisis. Some aid organizations share the same goal as the Houthis of worsening the crisis because it boosts their donations.

That’s why international aid organizations don’t want to talk about the Houthis taking their food donations, or about their use of child soldiers. “It’s a taboo,” an anonymous aid official had said.

When Secretary Pompeo announced that the United States was finally designating the Houthis a foreign terrorist organization, the United Nations took the lead in claiming that it would cause a humanitarian crisis. But the UN’s World Food Program had already admitted that its food shipments weren’t getting to the starving people because the Houthis were intercepting them.

The Middle East director for UNICEF also admitted that the Houthis were seizing food.

An Associated Press investigation found entire stores seling “cooking oil and flour displaying the U.N. food program’s WFP logo.” The former Houthi education minister said that 15,000 food baskets that were supposed to go to hungry families instead went to the Houthi terrorists whom the Biden administration is defending. Massive amounts of aid have been pumped into Yemen, and the famine has only grown worse because the Houthis have used starvation as a weapon.

The only way to end the famine is to end Iran’s grip on Yemen through its Houthi terrorists.

That’s obviously not what Biden or the Democrats have in mind. The loudest Democrat voices against designating the Houthis as a terrorist group have a troubling history with Iran.

“Reversing the designation is an important decision that will save lives and, combined with the appointment of a Special Envoy, offers hope that President Biden is committed to bringing the war to an end,” Senator Chris Murphy tweeted.

Murphy had been among the loudest voices against the designation.

And Murphy had met with Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif last year. That same year, he had advocated lowering sanctions on Iran for “humanitarian reasons”. Biden had also joined the push to use the pandemic as a pretext for reducing sanctions on the terror state.

That same year, the Left succeeded in forcing out Rep. Elliot Engel, one of the few remaining pro-Israel Democrats, and replaced him with the militantly anti-Israel Rep. Jamaal Bowman, whose election was backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her antisemitic ‘Squad’.

Engel, who had served as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was replaced by Rep. Gregory Meeks, a strong backer of the Iran Deal. Meeks’ position was cheered by Iran Lobby groups. As far back as 2009, Meeks had declared at a hearing, “I have developed a tremendous appreciation for the work of the National Iranian American Council. I am pleased that we will hear the perspective of NIAC’s President, Mr. Trita Parsi.”

Emails released allegedly showed Parsi telling Iran’s Foreign Minister, “I am having a meeting with Gilchrest and Meeks, and they asked for our assistance in getting some communication going between the parliamentarians.”

Speaking to the Islamic Republic News Agency, the official state news agency of the Islamic terrorist state, Chairman Meeks allegedly stated that he was willing to travel to Iran and had been engaged in dialogue with Iranian legislators.

Meeks took the lead in attacking the designation of the Houthi Islamic terrorists as terrorists, arguing that, “No solution in Yemen will be sustainable unless the Houthis are involved.”

And that gets at the real reason why Biden and Democrats oppose the designation.

It’s not about humanitarian aid, which would have kept on going anyway, only to be stolen by the Houthis. It’s about supporting Iran’s bid to take over parts of Yemen in order to control shipping and tighten the grip of the Islamic terrorist regime over the entire region.

The ‘diplomatic’ solution advocated by Biden and the Democrats would finalize Iran’s grip over parts of Yemen. Designating the Houthis as terrorists would get in the way of another in a series of Islamist dirty deals with Iran that began with Obama and that will continue on under Biden.

Even while the Democrats insist loudly that the Houthis must be part of the solution in Yemen, they just as vocally cry that the Republicans must be isolated and eliminated in America.

The Democrats militarized D.C. with an armed occupation and are criminalizing political dissent. They have claimed that one riot, after a year full of them by their own activist wing, requires a permanent state of emergency that will be run through the National Security Council.

The Biden administration is not only taking the Houthis, and likely other Islamic terrorist groups, off the terror list, it’s putting the domestic political opposition on its terror list. This is an extension of the same Obama policy that illegally shipped foreign cash to Iran even while it was using the NSA to spy on pro-Israel members of Congress and on the Trump campaign.

The Democrats are happy to fight terrorism by designating their domestic political opponents as terrorists while removing the “Death to America” Houthis who have kidnapped and killed Americans, who fired on the USS Mason, and ethnically cleansed Jews, from the terror list.

And what do the Houthis plan to do with their newfound support from the Biden administration?

In addition to sanctioning the Houthis, the Trump administration sanctioned three of their leaders, beginning with Abdul Malik al-Houthi. The Houthi leader has made it clear that he intends to build up the same missile program that was used to attack the USS Mason.

“To have rockets that could reach far beyond Riyadh, this is a great achievement,” he said, referring to the Saudi capital.

He also promised to send terrorists to fight against Israel.

“Many of Yemen’s tribesmen are ambitious to fight against Israel, and they are looking for the day to participate along with the freemen of the Islamic nation against the Israeli enemy,”

This is the terrorist group that the Biden administration and the Democrats are bailing out even while they’re criminalizing the Republican political opposition as terrorists.

“Death to America” is something that the Houthis and their Democrat supporters can agree on.

COLUMN BY

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ilhan Omar named Vice-Chair of House subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Muslim Brotherhood Supporter Named Veterans Administration Secretary

The U.S. Senate just confirmed Denis McDonough to be the new Secretary of the Veterans Administration.

McDonough has a long history of openly supporting jihadis while in public office.

The counter-terrorism policies and strategies created under his watch as Deputy National Security Advisor and Chief of Staff under President Obama demonstrate his overt support for individuals and entities who openly call for the overthrow of the U.S. government and the destruction of liberty and innocent life.

McDonough’s seditious and unlawful actions are unprecedented in their brazenness and blatant violation of his oath and the law.

For instance, as the Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama, McDonough went to the Muslim Brotherhood’s mosque, the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) in Sterling, Virginia with senior U.S. leaders including FBI, DHS, NSC, etc. to PRAISE its imam.

The ADAMS Center imam is Mohamed Magid, a Muslim Brotherhood leader.

See the video of McDonough’s speech at ADAMS HERE. (By the way, Denis McDonough lied when he said Thomas Jefferson held “the first Iftar dinner at the White House.”)

For years, Muslim Brother Imam Mohamed Magid served as the Vice President and then President of one of North America’s largest Muslim Brotherhood organizations, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

ISNA was identified by the Department of Justice as a Muslim Brotherhood organization which directly funded Hamas leaders and organizations overseas.

The evidence was revealed in the largest terrorism financing trials ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Northern District of Texas (Dallas), 2008.

You can see ISNA’s financial transactions sending money to the designated Foreign Terrorist Organization Hamas, entered into evidence at the HLF trial HERE.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a designated terrorist organization in several nations, and the U.S. House and Senate both have bills pending to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group in America.  See the bill HERE.

So either Denis McDonough is grossly ignorant and incompetent, as well as criminally negligent for not knowing/understanding basic facts in evidence about ISNA and the Muslim Brotherhood, or he was and is wittingly complicit in aiding and abetting enemies of the United States in violation of his Oath and federal law.

COLUMN BY

John Guandolo is a US Naval Academy graduate, served as an Infantry/Reconnaissance officer in the United States Marines and is a combat veteran, served as a Special Agent in the FBI from 1996-2008, and was recruited out of the FBI by the Department of Defense to conduct strategic analysis of the Islamic threat. He is the President and Founder of Understanding the Threat (UTT).

RELATED ARTICLES:

11 Iranian Muslims arrested for illegally crossing from Mexican border into U.S.

Steve Harvey: ‘Islam is a religion of peace’

Spain: Leftist politician praises Islamic al-Andalus, accuses Spanish monarchy of ‘genocide’

Indonesia detains Muslim woman from UK on terror suspect list, plans to deport her back to Britain

This just in: ‘Islam does not support terrorism, it condemns it’

The use of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to exonerate Islam from any connection to ISIS

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Surrenders to Iran’s ‘Death to America’ Jihadis in Yemen Who Attacked USS Mason

Not exactly a surprise.

The Biden foreign policy team is crawling with Obama’s pro-Iranian echo chamber foreign policy trolls and the Iran Lobby was among his biggest bundlers.

Iran’s expansion into Yemen via the Houthis, a Jihadist group whose motto is “Death to America, Death to Israel,  A Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam”, has been backed by the media and the foreign policy establishment which falsely kept blaming the Saudi campaign against the Houthis for the famine when in fact it was the Houthis who had caused the famine by stealing humanitarian aid. This didn’t stop Islamists and the media from keeping the famine lie going anyway.

Or the Biden campaign from adopting it as a talking point.

The Houthis had meanwhile fired on the USS Mason (“Death to America” is right in their motto) and were ethnically cleansing Yemen’s Jewish population.

Despite all that, the Biden administration is now very predictably dropping support for the Saudi campaign against the Houthis, calling for a diplomatic solution, and dispatching a special emissary.

In other words, they’re surrendering to Iran and the Houthis.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, had pushed a terrorist designation for the Houthis on the way out the door, leading to outrage from the Democrats, their media, and even some Republicans. The Biden team is going the other way by rolling over for the, “Death to America” Jihadis leading to another of Obama’s “Victories for Islam”.

The Yemen mess spilled over due to Obama’s Arab Spring. Just wait for the Biden Islamist Winter.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s New Asst Sec of State Worked for Islamic Terror State That Funds Hamas

Nigeria: Sharia police arrested barber for giving haircuts that offend Islam

‘Don’t let her escape. Beat her. Why did you speak of our religion? Rub your nose on the ground. Repent from Allah.’

Former Iranian diplomat: ‘If Americans and Zionists act in a dangerous manner,’ anti-nuke fatwa ‘might be changed’

Spain: 23,000 migrants arrive in Canary Islands in a year, Morocco may be deliberately loosening migration controls

Pakistan: Supreme Court orders Muslim convicted of beheading Daniel Pearl to be moved to government ‘safe house’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Georgetown Professor — Islamic Slavery is Freedom?

“Slavery cannot be intrinsically evil in Islamic law,” Georgetown University professor Jonathan Brown stated during a July 20, 2020 webinar. This disturbing assessment came during a 2019-2020 series of presentations on his 2019 bookSlavery & Islam, whose theses have hardly improved upon this Muslim convert’s past scandalous comments on slavery.

On February 7, 2017, Brown had caused furor while presenting a paper on slavery and Islam at the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). Thereby he noted the traditional Islamic doctrine expressed in Quran 33:21 that Islam’s prophet Muhammad is an “excellent pattern” of behavior. Therefore this example sanctified the slavery practiced by him and his companions, including sex slavery, a doctrine that had justified slavery throughout Islamic history.

Once public, such views completely negated Brown’s disclaimer at the presentation’s beginning. “I always make some hyperbolic statement that really makes sense in the context,” he noted, such that he would face accusations of “calling for slavery.” Given such concern over criticism, he expelled this author from the presentation before it started.

Brown’s elaboration of his views during his subsequent book tour has been hardly more reassuring, for slavery is “simply a fact of life in the Quran” and perhaps even “part of the DNA of Islam.” “Every area of Islamic law is permeated by slavery,” something that “sharia, without exception until the 20th-century, validated.” Muslim scholars have even speculated about a “time when the laws of slavery will actually be needed again,” such as in a post-apocalyptic Mad Max-like world, he has noted.

For centuries, “Muslims were neck-deep in the trade of slaves,” Brown has observed. As others have estimated, this trade included 17 million black Africans, more than the 12 million taken to the Western Hemisphere in the transatlantic slave trade. As the Ghanaian historian John Azumah has noted, while the transatlantic trade enslaved mostly men for labor, Muslim slavers favored seizing women for use as sex slave concubines.

In this regard, Brown has unsettlingly reprised his 2017 comments on sex slavery. Thus any norm that sex be consensual “is fairly unusual in world history.” This corresponds to Islamic doctrine’s proprietary understanding of female sexuality, which, he has noted, denies any recognition of rape in marriage.

Slavery in Islam is faith-based, Brown has explained. Under sharia the “only way that someone can lose their freedom is if they are a non-Muslim who lives outside the Muslim state and is then captured by Muslims.” Slavery therefore “is a reduction in legal status that is caused by unbelief,” whose “vestigial effect” can remain even for an enslaved convert to Islam or a child born into slavery.

Yet Brown has argued that Islam is “obsessed with emancipation.” Islamic doctrine’s numerous biases towards freeing slaves, such as a means to expiate sin, means that Islam “does not have an equal in any religious or philosophical tradition” from the premodern world. “The Quran and Sunna are unprecedently adamant about emancipation.”

However this emancipation should not help a slave return to unbelief in Islam. “Freedom is not the most important thing in Islamic law,” Brown has noted, although Muslim scholars have historically argued that “slavery is intrinsically harmful.” Rather, true freedom comes from submission to Islam, an “emancipatory force.” Seventh-century Arab Muslim conquerors, for example, before subjugating the Persians, announced that they would be free only as “slaves of God alone.”

Correspondingly, Brown has described Islamic civilization as a “vacuum cleaner, just sucking in people.” Muslim scholars have historically advocated enslavement of non-Muslims as a means of introducing them to Islam. Then “Muslims are always manumitting slaves, which means they need new slaves,” in an “emancipation turbine.”

Brown has correctly described how Christians led the revolutionary movement against a once universal acceptance of slavery to create the “abolitionist consensus that is held worldwide today.” “Muslims talking about the issue of slavery and abolition of slavery doesn’t happen until they encounter essentially Western abolitionism,” a development true of the Westerners themselves. In his assessment, Christians had in the process to “desacralize scripture” in the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament with its numerous references to forms of servitude.

Jewish rabbis and scholars would beg to differ with Brown, for as McGill University Professor David Aberbach has written, “Judaism is intrinsically an abolitionist religion.” “In Jewish belief, every human life matters.” Contrary to superficial readings, Rabbi Dov Linzer has noted, the “Torah only accepts slavery as a deeply entrenched societal institution.”

The late Jewish sage Rabbi Jonathan Sacks delved into this deeper understanding of the Torah’s position of slavery. God’s intends “slavery is to be abolished, but it is a fundamental principle of God’s relationship with us that he does not force us to change faster than we are able to do so of our own free will.” Nonetheless, in the “Torah’s value system the exercise of power by one person over another, without their consent, is a fundamental assault against human dignity.”

This analysis requires that non-Jews such as Brown properly understand Jewish scripture. “Jews have always read the Torah through a rabbinic interpretive lens and not simply on the plain meaning of its words,” the website My Jewish Learning has observed. Thus Jews cannot “read every mitzvah as an ideal” that allows for no further development, Linzer has cautioned.

Accordingly, in various stipulations the “Torah indeed sees slavery as a problematic phenomenon,” Shmuel Rabinowitz, rabbi of Jerusalem’s Western Wall and holy sites has noted. “Although it sanctions the institution of slavery, biblical law begins the process toward abolition,” University of Waterloo Professor James A. Diamond has observed. “Rules limiting slavery challenged the way society was built and prompted Jews to question an institution perhaps so natural it was invisible,” Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner has confirmed.

The Torah’s restrictive regulation of slavery indeed manifested a Jewish “light to the Gentiles” in the ancient slave-holding world. As the Chabad-Lubavitch organization has noted:

At a time when Romans had literally thousands of slaves per citizen, even the wealthiest Jews held very modest numbers of servants. And those servants, the Talmud tells us, were treated better by their masters than foreign kings would treat their own subjects.

Particularly the Bible’s Exodus narrative of Jews escaping bondage in Egypt imprints upon Jewish consciousness emancipation’s value. Diamond has noted that the Passover “commemorates the exodus, anchoring the relationship between God and Israel as Liberator and slave.” As Sacks commented, “Jews were the people commanded never to forget the bitter taste of slavery so that they would never take freedom for granted.”

Tellingly, Brown has noted that Islamic tradition rejects the Torah’s narrative of a gracious God emancipating Jews in ancient Egypt and equates them with Muhammad’s early Muslim followers in pagan Mecca. “The Muslims in Mecca are like the Jews in Egypt, but they are not slaves, they are oppressed.” Thus the Israelite exodus “is not a story of emancipation, it’s a story of victory over oppression,” symbolizing Islam’s triumph.

The contrast between beliefs held by Muslims such as Brown and the Judeo-Christian tradition clearly indicates why Muslims have struggled to reject slavery. Confronted with this moral evil, Muslim reformers have argued that slavery is an artifact of jihadist doctrines inapplicable in modernity, or that rulers have discretionary power to prohibit human bondage. Nonetheless, Brown has recalled that jihadists going to Muslims’ defense during Bosnia’s 1990s sectarian carnage had asked Saudi clerics about taking slaves, only to hear warnings that this would create bad publicity.

These Islamic realities reflect Brown’s moral relativism. Although the Ottoman Empire’s slave trade “was undeniably brutal,” he has argued that slavery and other often onerous labor relations such as indentured servitude have widely varied across human history. Following therefore his dubious claim that slavery is not really objectively definable, any slavery-induced “disgust is a cultural construct” and “just custom; it’s just urf.” By analogy, he has noted that China’s brutal dog meat trade horrifies many non-Chinese, although increasing domestic opposition to dog meat consumption undermines his cultural relativism arguments.

Despite grappling with slavery’s moral problems for Islam’s legitimacy, Brown has failed to find a solution. In recent years Islamic State jihadists in their mercifully brief caliphate have “really caused a crisis for young Muslims” by piously invoking Islamic canons to justify the enslavement of Mesopotamia’s non-Muslims. But as the foregoing analysis has proven, he is wrong to claim in Islam’s tu quoque defense that slavery’s abolition “is not indigenous to any religion or any philosophy.”

Contrary to traditional Islamic understandings of an aloof, arbitrary Allah, the biblical God’s natural law ultimately revealed slavery’s injustice to Jews, Christians, and the wider world. Church historian John B. Carpenter has noted as much in the relationship of America’s famed escaped slave and 19th-century abolitionist Frederick Douglas to the Jew Jesus Christ:

Christianity’s commitment to freedom was so pronounced that Frederick Douglass, who decried the hypocrisy of slave-holding religion vividly, did not convert to Islam and become “Frederick X,” but professed, “I love the religion of our blessed Savior.”

While Brown’s exculpation for slavery in Islamic doctrine is unconvincing, he has nonetheless provided valuable insight into this previously “taboo subject.” As Azumah has written, a “critical approach is reserved for the Christian past but forbidden for the Muslim past.” However inadvertently and awkwardly, Brown has helped uncover Islam’s dark slavery legacy.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

US condemns beheading of two women by the Islamic State in Syria

Turkey: Islamic State jihadis from Russia, China and elsewhere were trained in Istanbul Islamic school

Foreign Policy calls for adopting definition of ‘Islamophobia’ as ‘rooted in racism’

Pope Francis set to travel to Iraq to meet with Ayatollah Sistani, who called unbelievers unclean

Pakistan: Muslim falsely accuses Christian nurse of blasphemy, hospital staff tortures her, turns her over to police

Will Biden increase Palestinian rigidity, pushing them even further into the abyss?

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column and video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New York Times Details Horrors of Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban,’ Ignores Victims of Jihad Attacks

The New York Times story opens with a scene of unmitigated horror: “On May 30, 2019, Mohamed Abdulrahman Ahmed should have been in class preparing for exams. Instead, neighbors found the gifted high school senior hanging lifeless from a beam in his home in the Dadaab refugee camp in northeastern Kenya. He had taken his own life.” Since this is the New York Times, it comes as no surprise that the ultimate culprit is none other than Donald J. Trump, and his nefarious “Muslim Ban” that his wise successor’s handlers have now consigned to the dustbin of history.

Times author Ty McCormick does his best to tug at our heartstrings as he describes Dadaab, “a sea of sand and thorn scrub and makeshift tarpaulin dwellings” that is “home to more than 200,000 people — a city the size of Richmond, Va., or Spokane, Wash., except without electricity or running water.”

It’s a place absolutely mired in despair, but “over the years, refugees in Dadaab have clung to one hope: resettlement overseas, sometimes in Europe or Canada but mostly in the United States. Tens of thousands of Dadaab’s residents have come to the United States; in 2015, for instance, more than 3,000 people from the camp were resettled there.”

But then came the reign of the Evil One: “Those hopes of a better life were dashed on Jan. 27, 2017, when on his eighth day as president, Donald Trump suspended all refugee admissions and banned entry to citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including Somalia. (Restrictions were eventually applied to 13 countries in all.)”

It’s a predictable sob story about how hard the residents of Dadaab have had it since they have been unable to come to America. One is moved to tears, but when one begins to consider the issue rationally, other considerations inevitably intrude: there are people who are having hard times all over the world. In fact, there are even people who are having hard times in the United States of America. There are people who are suffering economically, like the people in Dadaab. There are people who are suffering physically, emotionally, mentally, and in other ways. All over the world, there is suffering and pain. Why, then, is it the moral responsibility of the United States of America to alleviate the suffering of the people of Dadaab? No one in Kenya or Somalia or France or China or Australia or anywhere else is doing a thing to alleviate the sufferings of Americans; why is it up to Americans, all of whom are suffering in various ways themselves, to alleviate the suffering of everyone else?

Meanwhile, what about the suffering of those whose lives were destroyed by Somali migrants who came into the country before Trump’s travel ban came into effect? Can we get a New York Times article on them? Somali Muslim migrant Mohammad Barry in February 2016 stabbed multiple patrons at a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab Christian. When is the New York Times going to interview the people whom Barry stabbed, and publish a piece about how they have suffered, and how their lives forever changed that day? When is the New York Times going to write a piece about the other people who were in the restaurant that day, and explore their trauma, their horror, their terror, and the nightmares and anxiety they have experienced since then?

When does the New York Times plan to profile the victims of Dahir Adan, another Somali Muslim migrant, who in October 2016 stabbed mall shoppers in St. Cloud while screaming “Allahu akbar”? Do Adan’s victims get a New York Times article about their injuries, their healing processes, any operations they may have had to undergo, and their own ongoing trauma and fear?

How about the victims of Abdul Razak Artan, yet another Somali Muslim migrant, who in November 2016 injured nine people with car and knife attacks at Ohio State University? Does the New York Times plan to explain to us how the victims whom Artan tried to run down with his car (in an instance of the common phenomenon of vehicular jihad) now find their hearts racing at the prospect of having to cross the street?

Of course, the New York Times is not going to publish even a single line about the suffering of those people and others like them, or even consider the possibility that Trump’s travel bans did anything but harm. Only the suffering of the people of Dadaab and others like them, not the suffering of victims of jihad attacks, matters to the Times. The suffering of the people of Dadaab is very real, and should be addressed, but is the only solution, or the best solution, really the resettlement in the United States of large numbers of people among whom is an unknowable number of jihad terrorists, who will enter undetected since any vetting to try to discover them will be deemed “Islamophobic”?

There will soon be new victims of Biden’s handlers’ marvelous, multicultural discarding of the “Muslim Ban.” The New York Times will ignore them, while congratulating themselves on how they helped install a president who strikes back against “racism” and “xenophobia.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Puts Anti-Israel BDS Activist in Charge of NSC Intel

Texas: Man converts to Islam, plots jihad massacres at CIA, FBI and DEA headquarters

Polish Catholic Church holds ‘Day of Islam’ to ‘overcome prejudices’

Islamic Republic of Iran strengthening ties with Communist China, both denounce US sanctions

Turkey: 284 women killed in domestic violence in 2020, 56 because they wanted a divorce

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Grab the Popcorn: Free Speech Foe Gets Threatened with Prison for ‘Blasphemy’

The threat is not surprising, given the authoritarian Islamic character of Pakistan’s government and its vicious hostility to the Ahmadiyya movement, as it forbids Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims and persecutes them in numerous ways. The TrueIslam.com website presents Ahmadi Islam as the pure and genuine form of the religion, despite the fact that the Ahmadiyya movement is regarded as heretical by mainstream Muslims and represents an infinitesimal percentage of the worldwide Muslim population. Zafar and his colleague Amjad Mahmood Khan, who was also threatened, must have known that such a site would ruffle the Pakistani government’s feathers.

But what made this more than just another story about the repressive Pakistani government is the fact that back in January 2013, Zafar published an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled, “Making Islamic Sense of Free Speech.” In it, Zafar offered a manifesto for the destruction of the freedom of speech worthy of a true totalitarian.

“The difference between Islam’s view on free speech and the view promoted by free speech advocates these days,” Zafar asserted, “is the intention and ultimate goal each seeks to promote. Whereas many secularists champion individual privileges, Islam promotes the principle of uniting mankind and cultivating love and understanding among people. Both endorse freedom for people to express themselves, but Islam promotes unity, whereas modern-day free speech advocates promote individualism.”

The unity Zafar envisioned involved restrictions on the freedom of speech: “In order to unite mankind, Islam instructs to only use speech to be truthful, do good to others, and be fair and respectful. It attempts to pre-empt [sic] frictions by prescribing rules of conduct which guarantee for all people not only freedom of speech but also fairness, absolute justice, and the right of disagreement.”

So we can have the freedom of speech as long as “fairness” is ensured by Islamic “rules of conduct.” With evident distaste, Zafar continued by claiming that “the most vocal proponents of freedom of speech, however, call us towards a different path, where people can say anything and everything on their mind. With no restraint on speech at all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating confrontation and antagonism. They insist this freedom entitles them the legal privilege to insult others. This is neither democracy nor freedom of speech. It fosters animosity, resentment and disorder.”

Note the sleight of hand: “With no restraint on speech at all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating confrontation and antagonism.” Zafar was implying that the Muslims who riot and kill because of perceived affronts to Islam were not responsible for their own actions, but that those who supposedly provoked them were.

This is an increasingly widespread confusion in the West, willfully spread by people such as Zafar. In reality, the only person responsible for his actions is the person who is acting, not anyone else. You may provoke me in a hundred ways, but my response is my own, which I choose from a range of possible responses, and only I am responsible for it.

But having established that if someone riots and kills in response to someone else’s speech, the fault lies with the speaker, not the rioter, Zafar drove his point home: speech must be restricted in the interests of “world peace”: “Treating speech as supreme at the expense of world peace and harmony is an incredibly flawed concept. No matter how important the cause of free speech, it still pales in comparison to the cause of world peace and unity.”

And who will decide what speech accords with “world peace and harmony,” and what speech does not? Why, Zafar and his friends, of course. But what if the Pakistani government claimed that right for itself, and decided that what Zafar himself was saying did not accord with “world peace and harmony”?

Harris Zafar could well become the Nikolai Yezhov of our age. Yezhov was the Soviet secret police chief who sent innumerable people to their deaths in the gulag before Stalin decided it was his turn. Nowadays, Zafar has become the first advocate of restrictions on the freedom of speech to run afoul of people who want to take his own freedom of speech away. But as the silencing continues, he will by no means be the last.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.