Posts

Tel Aviv on the Seine Flushes Out the Slithery Creatures — Part 1

It’s the 14th edition of Paris Plages, a charming operation that transforms the banks of the Seine, from the Quai du Louvre all the way to rue de Crimée, into a summer playground. From mid-July to mid-August the quais are dressed up as sandy “beaches” with deck chairs, picnic tables, fun & games, rental bikes for kids, restaurants, cafés, ice cream stands, a lending library, and—for want of a dip in the river—a stretch of cool-off mist. It’s all done in nice French taste with a pretty blue & white striped and bright yellow color scheme, t-shirted monitors, and an international crowd.

One day each summer a guest country is invited to bring an exotic accent to the Paris Plages river beach. Tomorrow, August 13th, it’s Tel Aviv sur la Seine and, don’t you know, the slithery creatures are climbing up the riverbanks, determined to strangle the very thought of Tel Aviv and the Israel that goes with it. From pseudo-intellectual analyses of the stalemate in the peace process, attributed exclusively to Israel, to ill-concealed threats to smash up the whole thing if the City Hall doesn’t cancel it, the “debate” spins around a few simplistic notions. Should Tel Aviv be coddled because it’s not really Israel, it’s more of a Levantine Paris on the Mediterranean, populated by peace-making leftist gay-friendly secular progressives who detest Netanyahu like we do, or should Tel Aviv be kicked off the river bank until it can be kicked out of the world, no less guilty than the last baby-burning Occupier on a West Bank hilltop whose army massacred all of Gaza one year ago.

The pathetic postman Olivier Besancenot, whose moribund anti-capitalist party [NPA] was revived last year by acting as straw man for Islamic protests against the Protective Border Operation, is ready to lead another rampage tomorrow. The Euro-Palestine site is in a state of volcanic anti-Zionist eruption. An anti-Tel Aviv petition boasts of 23,000 signatures. Riot police have been mobilized and no one knows how they will handle an ambulatory population of Zionists, non-Zionists, anti-Zionists, tourists, and caliphators moving along a narrow band between the river and the quais. To make things merrier, Euro-Palestine reports that the préfecture has authorized a mixed salad of Palestinian tifosi to hold a Gaza Beach demonstration on a stretch of the riverbank that runs from Châtelet, where the commuter trains roll in from the banlieue, and the Notre Dame bridge, where the Tel Aviv beach begins.

Resisting pressure from members of her governing coalition and beyond, the Socialist mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, currently vacationing in her native Spain, stands by Tel Aviv…after a fashion. The idea of inviting Tel Aviv germinated, she says, during her visit to Israel last May. I was there when our mayor, smartly dressed in black set off with a raspberry red jacket, addressed the opening ceremony of the 5th Global Forum for Combatting Antisemitism, organized in Jerusalem by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Speaking alternatively in French and English the mayor expressed her affection for Israel, its startups, its warmth, and vibrant energy. She was no less enthusiastic about French Jews, without whom France would not be France.

Indeed, that is the aim and purpose of domestic and foreign caliphators working to conquer, beyond a little stretch of riverbank, whole neighborhoods, the entire city, and turn the country into something that would not be France. The wedge of that operation is sic the Jews!

Nothing to do with antisemitism, perish the thought. Personally, I don’t ferret out antisemites, and I like to call people what they call themselves. So let’s see how and why they won’t let us enjoy a falafel on the river bank tomorrow. The general idea is that there’s something indecent about hosting Tel Aviv so soon after “an 18 month-old Palestinian baby was burned alive by Jewish extremists.” Not to mention last year’s massacres in Gaza.

Danielle Simonnet (Parti de Gauche), a member of the mayor’s coalition, denounces the “cynicism” of honoring “a festive Tel-Aviv… one year after the massacres in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli State and army while the government intensifies its policy of colonization …” Furthermore, she laments, there was nothing planned with “Israeli humanists,” no debate on the condition of the Palestinians! “Tel-Aviv is not Copacabana,” she blurted out in a radio interview. “Tel-Aviv is the capital of Israel!”

The mayor’s defense is curiously close to Simmonet’s attack. Tel-Aviv shouldn’t be confused with the State of Israel. The Paris Plages invitation is in no way a show of support for Benyamin Netanyahu’s conservative government. Tel Aviv is appreciated for its night life, it welcomes sexual minorities, it’s so progressive that all the intolerant people in Israel detest it! What’s more, the mayor congratulates Tel Aviv for the most impressive demonstrations of solidarity with the “Palestinian child burned alive by fanatics.”

Bruno Julliard, who worked his way up rather quickly from student rabble rouser to a major role on Mayor Hidalgo’s team, is more succinct: “There should be no confusion between the brutal policies of the Israeli government and the city of Tel-Aviv, whose residents and elected officials take a progressive stand on the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

A few rare voices were heard from political figures on the right. Congratulating the mayor on her refusal to give in to pressure, Eric Ciotti [Les Républicains] is outraged by the controversy fueled by the far left “with anti-Semitic undercurrents.” Claude Goasguen, unfailing friend of  Israel, goes one giant step further, asking how Tel-Aviv, which is something more than a beach, can be distinguished  from the State of Israel. “I don’t think the residents of Tel-Aviv refused to defend their country when it was victim of Hamas rockets.”

Law enforcement, apparently, is far more concerned about the possibilities of uncontrollable violence like they had to deal with last summer, than with the geopolitical niceties of Tel Aviv as opposed to Israel, the colonies, and all that. An unidentified riot policeman admits that they are all thinking about the “antisemitic climate” that raged in Sarcelles in July of last year. While the police are stalking potential troublemakers on social media and with phone taps, elected officials, political cartoonists, militants, and commentators are stoking the flames. Or gently stirring them.

In a Libération op-ed, Alexandra Schwarzbrod cautions: As important as it is to denounce the Occupation and clamor for dismantlement of the colonies that deprive Palestinians of a future, it is just as important to refrain from stigmatizing everything Israeli. The reaction to the “premeditated destruction of a Palestinian family burned alive by what some in Israel call ‘Jewish jihadists’” is understandable. One might question the wisdom of the Mayor of Paris of inviting Tel Aviv a year after a war “between the Israeli army and the Palestinians of Hamas left Gaza in ruins.” But, she concludes, contact should be maintained with secular, open-minded Israelis “revolted by the occupation and the climate of intolerance that ravages their country.”

Socialist deputy Alexis Bachelay brought the debate to incandescence. Tel Aviv on the Seine, he tweeted, is tantamount to Pretoria on the Seine in the days of apartheid South Africa. Heating up from tweet to tweet, Bachelay opined that the South African apartheid regime was probably gentler than Israel’s Far Right government with its “separate development” in the form of the separation fence and the colonies. In a last attempt to clarify his statements, Bachelay explained that he was referring to last year’s Gaza conflict; a level of force never used by the “militarization of apartheid.”

The poor guy went too far. Fellow Socialist Jérôme Guedj awarded him a gold medal for the most idiotic tweet. I too congratulate him for displaying the crude inner pyrotechnics that are feeding this controversy and driving the anti-Zionists crazy. One thinks Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel, Bachelay knows the Israeli government is worse than apartheid South Africa, another pinches his nose over Netanyahu’s “brutal politics” and most of them hug Tel Aviv as if it were an annex to the Quartier Latin.

What will tomorrow bring? A standoff, a clash, or maybe a thunderstorm. A real one, the kind nature produces.

Next year they could invite Iran. There’s nothing controversial about Tehran’s unsullied beaches and they can work out the details when President Rohani will be the guest of President Hollande this November.

Obama’s Failed Islamic State Narrative by Raymond Ibrahim

“However, when State Department spokeswoman Mary Harf appeared on live television and asserted that the best way to defeat the Islamic State was by offering its members better ‘job opportunities,’ the idea that the State Department is run by fools became increasingly plausible.”

“Critic Blasts Obama Narrative on Islam,” by F. Michael Maloof  for WND, August 8, 2015:

WASHINGTON – The persecution and slaughter of Christians throughout the Middle East has become a major humanitarian crisis, with Pope Francis warning that the atrocities border on “genocide,” according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Yet critics say the U.S. State Department just apologizes for the terror and never seems to find a good reason to go to bat for Christians.

One reason, a prominent Middle East expert explains, is that the U.S. State Department, as well as other government offices, “are infiltrated by Islamists and their sympathizers.”

But Raymond Ibrahim, author of “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians,” told G2 Bulletin in an interview there’s another reason, too.

“I believe the greatest reason is that for whatever reason the Obama government has a ‘narrative’ that it’s trying to sell to the American people, one that maintains that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance – so it’s not in the State Department’s favor to allow persecuted Christians to expose the truth about Islam.”

Ibrahim said the problem isn’t just with the State Department but exists throughout the Obama administration.

“It seems more systemic,” he said. “Again ‘The Narrative’ – that is, the lie – must prevail, and most politicians who often care little for truth and/or reality are willing to go along with the ‘Narrative’ in the hopes that they gain favor from on high, that is, the Obama administration.”

ISIS’ attacks on Christians have been horrific in recent months. They’ve included recordings of mass beheadings, crucifixions and worse. There even have videos of children under the control of ISIS firing guns point-blank into victims.

But in spite of the atrocities against Christians, Ibrahim said, he’s never received any communication from the State Department acknowledging the attacks on Christians.

“No, any criticism of Islam is not welcome by this government,” he told G2. “For example, back in February 2009, I was asked to testify about Islamist and counter strategies before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. Although my testimony was posted on the Armed Services website, it was later removed (but can be read on my website).”

At the time, the U.S. House of Representatives was run by Democrats, with Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House Speaker. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee at the time was Ike Skelton, D-Mo.

Ibrahim went on to say State won’t even acknowledge that the attacks by the Islamic State on Christians and their churches are part of an overall religious conflict between Christianity and Islam, whose leaders repeatedly have vowed to establish a worldwide caliphate and force everyone to either be Muslim or be punished.

The reason for that, Ibrahim said, is that the State Department “is either composed of fools or it is lying. There are no other alternatives.

“I generally believe that the State Department is merely lying,” he said. “However, when State Department spokeswoman Mary Harf appeared on live television and asserted that the best way to defeat the Islamic State was by offering its members better ‘job opportunities,’ the idea that the State Department is run by fools became increasingly plausible.”

A request to the State Department for comment on Ibrahim’s allegations went unanswered.

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Where do the loyalties of two current Muslim members of Congress lie?”

Iran deal “does nothing to change the fact that, in plain Farsi, Iran is committed to world conquest by Islam”

Where do the loyalties of two current Muslim members of Congress lie?

So asks the Daily Caller, and adds: “The Koran forbids allegiance to non-Muslim authority, preventing these congressmen from serving two masters at once. As the Koran dictates Islam is in a perpetual war against all infidels until a sharia-dominant world is established, which master do they then serve in this conflict?”

“With Obama’s Help, Assembling Allah’s Domestic Army Is Now Easier,” by James Zumwult for The Daily Caller, August 7, 2015:

If immigrants to the U.S. seek citizenship but are reluctant to take an oath of allegiance because it requires a commitment to help defend the country, what is the solution?

If the immigrants in question are Muslim and you have a pro-Muslim U.S. president, the solution is simple — just change the oath to accommodate them.

For years, the oath for citizenship included a requirement the declarant agree to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law. But the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) now says, “a candidate may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The quandary for U.S. citizen candidates who are Muslim is this: Just like America’s first two wars as a new nation were against Muslims, so too have its last two been. However, Islamic law — sharia — prohibits Muslims from fighting fellow Muslims. While this prohibition seems somewhat hypocritical in light of extensive Muslim-on-Muslim violence running rampant in the Middle East today, the concern of would-be U.S. citizen Muslims is that a non-Muslim U.S. could require they fight other Muslims.

To accommodate this concern, President Obama now gives Muslim immigrants wishing to become U.S. citizens a free pass: they no longer are required to undertake a responsibility which even he has relinquished — defending our nation against any Islamic threat.

Raymond Ibrahim’s August 6th article “Obama Alters U.S. Oath of Allegiance to Comply with Islamic Law” explains another important aspect of sharia that is at odds with Muslims taking an allegiance oath to America.

While sharia imposes the above prohibition upon Muslims gaining U.S. citizenship, it also prohibits them from giving fidelity to any non-Muslim government. The act of taking such an oath and not really meaning it is permissible in Islam under the concept of “taqqiya” — feigning loyalty to non-Muslims when necessary to do so to gain their confidence.

This was why naturalized U.S. citizen Faisal Shahzad — convicted of attempting the May 2010 Times Square car bombing only to have the fuse to his device, and his hope of killing infidels, fizzle—when asked by the judge about having taken an oath of allegiance to America said he swore it “but I didn’t mean it.”

As authority for taqqiya, Ibrahim cites Prophet Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”

This is why Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate in a host country. While retaining one’s identity is not a concern in and of itself, it is the Muslim’s purpose in doing so that is. His purpose is to use his increasing numbers to eventually wield enough influence to replace the host nation’s fundamental laws with those of sharia.

Among those who discourage assimilation by Muslim immigrants in order to support what is known as “creeping sharia” within a host nation is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In February 2011, he addressed thousands of Turkish immigrants in Germany, challenging them to turn Germany into Turkey by refusing to assimilate.

Years earlier, as mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan boldly proclaimed democracy was but a temporary vehicle on the journey to establish global Islam. He said: “Democracy is merely a train that we ride until we reach our goal. Mosques are our military barracks, minarets are our spears, and domes are our helmets.” The goal of Islamists, like Erdogan, is to use non-assimilation to eventually claim non-Muslim lands as Muslim.

Erdogan made the mistake of revealing his intentions at a time Turkey was still very much secular, resulting in his arrest. However, today, his efforts to take the train of democracy back to the days of the Ottoman Empire are very obvious.

Erdogan is not alone in defending non-assimilation by Muslims. As Ibrahim cites, numerous verses from the Koran support it including:

Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions;” and

Koran 58:22: True Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.”

Lest we simply ignore the above sharia mandate in the interests of political correctness, we should reflect upon incidents in which Muslims have chosen the loyalty of religion over that of country — with deadly consequences for U.S. citizens. While there are several, among them are:

– The April 2005 grenade attack by U.S. Army soldier Hasan Akbar, prompted by his concern over U.S. troops killing his fellow Muslims in Iraq. He killed two and wounded 14.

– The November 2009 Fort Hood shooting by Major Nidal Hasan, prompted by his concern he would be deploying to the Middle East. Rather than doing so, he turned his weapon upon his true enemy—fellow U.S. soldiers—killing 13 and wounding more than thirty.

Ibrahim observes of the former incident: “In short, the first loyalty of any ‘American Muslim’ who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality. It is not to American ‘infidels.’”

Of the latter incident, he adds: “Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity. According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.”

It is chilling to reflect on statements by Islamist supporters such as Tarik Shah who, residing in the U.S., sought to assist al-Qaeda establish training camps here. Arrested in 2005, he boasted, “I could be joking and smiling (with non-Muslims) and then cutting their throats in the next second.”

The two observations above by Ibrahim should cause us to ask a question which, due to political correctness, never will: Where do the loyalties of two current Muslim members of Congress lie?

The Koran forbids allegiance to non-Muslim authority, preventing these congressmen from serving two masters at once. As the Koran dictates Islam is in a perpetual war against all infidels until a sharia-dominant world is established, which master do they then serve in this conflict?

Either these two congressmen are true Muslims serving Allah and, therefore, unable to serve America, or, they are true patriots serving the U.S. and, therefore, unable to serve Allah. The latter, incidentally, would make them apostates under sharia — a crime punishable by death….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minnesota: Attorneys for Somali refugees arrested on terrorism charges say ISIS not a terror group

Obama’s failed Islam narrative

Iran: Decision Time For Democrats

The British media traditionally refers to the month of August as ‘silly season’, but apart from the blanket coverage of the sad fate of Cecil the lion, this silly season has been notable for being remarkably un-silly. Received wisdom has it that with Parliament away there are no political stories for the media to report on. But nothing could be further from the truth this year.

The migrant crisis in the Mediterranean and stretching to Calais shows no sign of letting up just because MPs are in their constituencies or on their holidays. And nor are the stories of the continuously emerging awfulness of the Iran deal slowing just because Parliament is not in session. The fact – not very surprising – is that politics goes on all the time as usual, whether Parliament is in session or not.

It must be hoped, however, that the break does some good to our political class. Standing back from the day-to-day running of Westminster can provide an opportunity to survey the real political landscape rather than getting bogged down in the procedural issues which take up so much of any politician’s day. Watching the ongoing political fight in Washington is a reminder of this.

At the time of writing a number of very significant leading Democrats look like they are going to come out against their own President’s deal with Iran. In doing so it is perfectly possible that they are performing career hara-kiri. It seems inevitable that whether Congress votes against the deal or not the President, and those around him, are unlikely to forgive or do much to support the future of those who have voted against them. Chicago politics can work just as easily in Washington.

But the Democrats in particular who choose to vote against the deal are doing so for an extraordinary and admirable reason: they are willing to put their concern for the future of their country and the future of the world ahead of concerns over the future of their careers. It is not too cynical to say that this order of priorities is not always present in politics. But this is an important moment. Even if the President gets his way with the deal, the rebellion of a large enough number of members of his own party could still succeed in signalling just what a mistake America and her allies are making.

New stories have emerged this week of the Iranian regime’s genocidal rhetoric against America and her allies. Perhaps people are so used to this that it has become background noise. But this background noise is going on whilst in the foreground the same regime is getting the biggest financial, diplomatic and military boost it could possibly ever have. If you stand back from everything else that is going on this is the big story. What would be silly would be not to recognise that.


mendozahjs

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

It is 70 years since the detonation of an atomic bomb at Hiroshima introduced the world to a terrifying new form of warfare in the form of nuclear weapons. Since that time much effort has been expended by nations seeking to obtain this technology, with Iran being but the latest example. Concurrently, equal attempts have been made to ensure further proliferation does not occur.

In recent weeks, I have spent a fair bit of time defending Britain’s own nuclear arsenal in the face of assaults from those who would wish to see us give up our independent nuclear deterrent when the time comes shortly to replace our ageing Trident capability. While no reasonable person could be against the idea of controlled multilateral disarmament – and great strides have been made in this direction since the peaking of nuclear arsenals in the 1980s – unilateral disarmament is quite a different prospect. It would strip the UK of the ultimate deterrent at a time of increasing, rather than decreasing, global instability, with any number of major threats on the horizon. Which British Prime Minister could credibly give up our nuclear weapons at a time when Mr Putin menaces Europe’s and NATO’s eastern borders, and the Middle East is at its most uncertain point in a century, for example?

I rather fear that the goal of ‘Global Zero’ – the push to physically eliminate nuclear weapons or to put them beyond possible use – is also doomed to failure. While noble in intent, the obvious flaw in this approach is that you cannot uninvent technology that has been invented and that as a consequence, the temptation to cheat and keep a small stockpile is just too great. Would we really trust Russia and China to give up all their weapons if we did, let alone Pakistan and North Korea?

Unfortunate as it may be, nuclear weapons are here to stay. The challenge remains to regulate their numbers, avoid their use and prevent dangerous states like Iran from acquiring them.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

Why doesn’t the Pope go to Syria?

A good opportunity for “Muslim-Christian dialogue”:

Let’s put the pope’s Muslim-Christian “dialogue” policy to the test. Here’s the perfect destination for the next papal trip: Raqqa, the de facto capital of the Islamic State’s caliphate.

Last Sunday, Pope Francis called for the release of Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim (the Syriac Orthodox archbishop of Aleppo), Boulos Yazigi (the Greek Orthodox bishop of Aleppo), and Italian Jesuit priest Paolo Dall’Oglio, who — if they are still alive — have all been held captive for two years now by Islamic jihadists in Syria. Said the pope:

I hope for a renewed commitment by the competent local and international authorities, so that these, our brothers, will soon be restored to freedom.

He must know that the “competent local and international authorities,” if there are any, aren’t going to do a thing to free these clerics.

If the pope wants it done right, he is going to have to do it himself – and in doing so, he can prove the value of the Church’s insistence and dependence upon “Muslim-Christian dialogue.”

The pope should go to Raqqa and appeal personally to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s Caliph Ibrahim, for the release of Ibrahim, Yazigi, and Dall’Oglio. Pope Francis has said that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” and he has assiduously called for “dialogue” and denounced violence in virtually every situation. So he should go there, and display the correctness of his recommendations by initiating an in-person “dialogue” with the caliph or other appropriate Islamic State representatives, during which he can explain to them how they are misunderstanding the Qur’an and Islam.

This will fix everything: not only will the Islamic State forthwith release the bishops and the priest, but they will lay down their arms, and distribute flowers to all the children. The power of “dialogue” over all forms of violence will be abundantly established before the eyes of a world struck with awe, yet again, at the wisdom of this pope and the compelling power of his humble, saintly personality.

As he prepares for this “dialogue” trip, however, the pope may face resistance from his own bishops.

Robert McManus, the bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, two years ago (ironically not long before Ibrahim, Yazigi, and Dall’Oglio were abducted) summed up the prevailing view of the U.S. Catholic bishops:

Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.

So what is Pope Francis doing even talking about these abducted clerics? He should keep quiet about such matters, so as to preserve the “dialogue.” Will Bishop McManus and the other American bishops, recognizing the dignity but also the limitations of his positions, humbly but unmistakably call him on the carpet and “oppose him to his face, because he stood condemned,” as St. Paul did to Francis’ first predecessor, St. Peter (Galatians 2:11)?

Of course they will say nothing, and Pope Francis will not go to Raqqa, because in both cases the concerned parties probably know full well that the sham of the “dialogue” policy would be exposed to the world.

The contemporary Catholic Church, especially in the West, has confused niceness with charity.

It may be nice to avoid unpleasant matters and to enjoy delicious hummus and pita down at the mosque, but it is not charitable to confirm Muslims in their bullying and supremacism by kowtowing to their wishes.

It is not charitable to keep silent about the atrocities they commit in the name of their religion and in accord with its teachings….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ex-Soviet army officer who converted to Islam guilty on jihad terror charges

“We are committed to being active participants in our society, but it has to be on Islam’s terms”

FBI Sending Potential Islamic State Muslim Jihadis to Counseling

The FBI is bound as a matter of policy to ignoring and denying the ideological wellsprings of the jihad terror threat in Islamic doctrine. So it is understandable that it would look for causes in other places, no matter how implausible. There is also a whiff of Soviet-era totalitarianism in this: the Soviet Communists declared their political opponents insane and put them in asylums. In Obama’s weak and declining U.S., we are just putting them in “counseling” — but the underlying assumption is the same.

“FBI Now Refers Some Potential Terror Suspects To Counseling,” by Rachel Stoltzfoos, Daily Caller, August 6, 2015:

The FBI is now referring some potential terror suspects to counseling in a new strategy to defeat homegrown Islamic State supporters.

Rather than lock up everyone in the U.S. suspected of potential terrorist activity, the FBI will refer up to 10 percent of the thousands of people under investigation to counseling, reported The Wall Street Journal.

Proponents of the plan told TheWSJ it will ease the FBI’s investigative burden, and provide a possible “off ramp” from radicalization for some of the thousands of people in the U.S. interested in ISIS, especially minors.

“Nobody wants to see a 15-year-old kid go to jail if they don’t have to,” an official working on the new plan told TheWSJ, adding that the FBI will continue monitoring potential suspects referred to counseling and stand ready to arrest them….

A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman told TheWSJ it works closely with the FBI and believes “successful interventions will be ones conducted with the appropriate participation of community leaders, educators, mental health professionals, religious leaders, parents, peers and law enforcement, depending on the specific circumstances.”

DHS is marketing citizenship to immigrants as part of its strategy to fight homegrown terror, betting potential access to shared citizenship rights will dissuade people from linking up with ISIS.

Oh yeah, that will work.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim World ‘Laughing’ at Pentagon Over Failure of Moderate Syrian Rebel Force

Mali: Jihadis storm hotels, murder 4, kidnap 6

Robert Spencer in FrontPage Mag: Malaysian Mufti Denounces Intellect and Logic as Un-Islamic

U.S. officials: Russia Hacked Pentagon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Shutdown Email for past 11 Days

Franklin Graham’s Comments about Halting Muslim Immigration has Refugee Resettlement Contractor Shaking

Could there be a little rebellion in the ranks?

I’m talking about federal refugee resettlement contractor World Relief (aka National Association of Evangelicals).  It seems that in the wake of Evangelist Franklin Graham’s call for a halt to Muslim immigration following the Chattanooga murder of four Marines and a Naval officer by an immigrant Islamist, the multi-faith folks went into defense mode.

What did they do?  They invited representatives of one of the most infamous mosques in the Washington area—All Dulles Area Muslim Society (Adams Center)—-and representatives of two leading Muslim Brotherhood front groups to join them in a multi-faith love fest in Washington (on Capitol Hill!) to send the message that they (including ‘Evangelists’) disagreed with Franklin Graham.

Here is the news at something called World Religion News (emphasis below is mine):

Denouncing Franklin Graham!

Bob_Roberts_Jr-238x300

Know the opposition! Bob Roberts Jr.

But the gathering has an even more important purpose, and that is to denounce and contradict the statements released by another Evangelic leader, launched on his public social network account. Those statements were rather sensitive, not reflecting the tolerance and acceptance promoted by the Christian church, which may have detrimental backfires on a society already tried by so much violence.

It all started when Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, a well-known Evangelic leader, said on his Facebook profile that Muslim immigrants should not be permitted to enter the USA anymore. This happened due to a violent shootout in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where five out of seven people shot by a Muslim young man died. Ever since, even the organizations that help relocate religious refugees started facing issues. Not because they were imposed to stop helping Muslims, but because people started to be afraid to accept them. Many volunteers and churches involved in resettling actions regarding religious refugees are frightened by the fact that the Muslims will turn into dangerous terrorist or even install the Shari‘ah law, once they get settled on American land.  [Gee! wonder where they got that idea!—ed]

As interesting as all that is, this (below) is the part that jumped out at me.  So, could there be a rebellion brewing?  Are there some not-so-happy Christians working with World Relief (one of the top nine resettlement contractors)?

This is so disingenuous!  What is not being reported here is that World Relief does resettle significant numbers of Muslim refugees because they must in order to get their federal contracts (read: federal cold hard cash!).

And, by the way, the federal government disallows any proselytizing by its contractors.  Some uninformed supporters of the federal contractors will tell you that they want to get the Muslims here to convert them to Christianity, don’t believe them.

World Religion News continued….

Graham’s statement is also not seen very well by World Relief, an organization based in Baltimore, which helps religious refugees to start a new life in America. Since they work mainly with church volunteers, they also faced the fear of some churches to accept Muslim refugees.World Relief mainly takes care of Christian refugees, but they never refused any person in need of help, regardless of their religion or background. Still, they know that by refusing to accept a Muslim refugee, they will also face problems with the Christian ones as well, as it will as well become harder for them to enter the resettling program.  [Huh?—ed]

Here is Franklin Graham’s website.  You might want to reach out to him and tell him you support what he said about Muslim immigration.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Frank Sharry of ‘America’s Voice’ blasts Trump, but where is the attack on Bernie?

Arabic: Most Common Language of Refugees in America

U.S. Muslim Leader: “We Must Rise Up and Kill Those Who Kill Us,” “I’m looking for 10,000… who say death is sweeter…”

EDITORS NOTE:

A reader suggested that when I write a post relating to Muslim immigration to be sure to remind you that this is the Hijra—Mohammed’s command to migrate and spread Islam across the world.  In order to succeed in building a worldwide caliphate, what do they need?  Numbers of course! And, two more things:  My first post this morning is also labeled ‘Know the opposition.’  See our category entitled ‘The Opposition’ for more such posts. Follow me on twitter!  There is so much happening that I can’t possibly post on it all, so I have been sending refugee/immigration articles to twitter.  I am @refugeewatcher.

“I Will Always Remember Where I Was When Cecil The Lion Was Killed”

This is the state of the world today. “I Will Always Remember Where I Was When Cecil The Lion Was Killed,” Duffel Blog, August 3, 2015 (thanks to David):

The following is an op-ed written by “Mohammed,” a Syrian War Refugee.

I am sorry it is taking me so long to post my outrage over Cecil the Lion. My village has been without electricity for the last week after the Americans bombed our power plant. I had to walk for two days — hiding from ISIS along the way — before I found this Internet cafe. But my anger over the death of Cecil is still hot as the desert sands.

I remember exactly what I was doing when I heard what had happened.

It started off as a normal day for my town, with the Syrian Air Force dropping barrel bombs on several neighborhoods and a local school. As I dug the bodies of several women out of the rubble, one of the other rescue workers asked if I’d heard that Cecil the Lion was killed.

I froze in shock, dropping part of what I assume was once a human arm on the ground. “Not Cecil the Lion!” I exclaimed. “Not him! Truly, is there no innocence left in this world?” I cried harder than when we discovered my brother was gay and ISIS forced us to throw him off a building.

The rest of the day was a numb blur: watching my neighbor getting beheaded by Sharia enforcers, foraging for food in bombed-out buildings, burying my daughter after she died of cholera, and registering my outrage that rich Americans can fly anywhere in the world and kill whatever they want.

My entire family — the ones not gassed to death — are also in shock. My sister was beside herself with tears from the acid that was flung in her face, but I am sure her tears were meant for poor, majestic Cecil.

It is times like this I thank Allah that my wife was kidnapped into sexual slavery last year and was spared the horror of learning what happened to this beautiful and majestic creature.

I often wonder what is wrong with America. You do not hear stories like this in Syria, partly because we already killed all our lions but also because we killed all our dentists….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Malaysian mufti: “Islam is based on faith…Don’t make any remarks based on the intellect or logic”

DHS warns: Jihadis could target airports, sensitive sites with drones

After Chattanooga: Refusing to See the Writing on the Wall by Tarek Fatah

For 15 years now the question, “How to combat Islamism” has been avoided in the West so as not to offend the powerful urban Islamist lobbyists and vote banks.

It has been almost two weeks since the Chattanooga terrorist Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez issued the equivalent of an Islamic declaration of war on the United States in a text message before killing four U.S. Marines and a Navy petty officer.

Yet there are still some Americans refusing to see the writing on the wall, and wondering about the 24-year-old jihadi terrorist’s “real” motives.

On July 15, the night before the mass murder, Abdulazeez texted a declaration on behalf of Allah, quoting from Prophet Mohammed’s sayings in the Hadith titled “The loyal friends of Allah”.

It reads: “Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, I [Allah] will indeed declare war against him.” This particular Hadith is from a collection of the 40 most important sayings of Prophet Mohammed.

The text message was not the only clue to Abdulazeez’s jihadi frame of mind. In a “manifesto” posted in early July, the mass murderer quoted Prophet Mohammed as saying for Muslims, life on earth should be seen as a life in a prison, but for non-believers (Christians, Jews, Hindus, pagans and atheists) earth is the Paradise.

This is a common call by Islamists when recruiting suicide bombers or jihadi fighters for the Islamic State, al-Qaida, the Taliban and Boko Haram.

In essence, they claim earth is merely a transit lounge in a journey that will take Muslims to eternal life in Paradise, surrounded by all things that were forbidden to them in this world. Abdulazeez mocked Muslims (like me) who separate Islam from politics, saying such a separation was contrary to Islamic practice.

He wrote in his manifesto:

“So this picture that you have in your mind that the Prophet’s companions were people being like priests living in monasteries is not true. All of them [were] leaders of an army at the frontlines … very involved in establishing Islam in the world … Every one of them fought Jihad for the sake of Allah. Every one of them had to make sacrifices in their lives.”

All of this evidence stares us in the face, yet we are now being asked to believe a statement from Abdulazeez’s family claiming that their son was a depressed youth on drugs.

The family claim they sent him to Jordan, so he could get away from the influence of the bad company he kept.

I find that hard to believe given Abdulazeez’s own declarations, plus the fact his father was investigated twice by the FBI for sending money to questionable charities in the Middle East — he was eventually cleared — and wanted to marry a second wife in the Palestinian Territories, saying this was allowed by Islamic law.

There is something wrong in America when as senior a person as Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is unwilling to conclude the mass murderer was a Muslim.

John Berman of CNN asked Fuentes “Now that we have the name (Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez) the key questions are what?” Fuentes replied, “I know … what the name sounds like, but we don’t know that it’s a Muslim name. We know it’s an Arabic name. On the opposite side are those like former Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark, who has proposed the internment of U.S. Islamists identified as anti-American.

For 15 years now the question, “How to combat Islamism” has been avoided in the West so as not to offend the powerful urban Islamist lobbyists and vote banks.

Here are three suggestions that the United States, Canada and Europe should implement:

  1. Interview and debrief every adult male arriving alone from Arab countries, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Somalia, irrespective of religion, colour or nationality.
  2. Tell every mosque in North America and Europe to end any and all derogatory references to “kufaar” (Christians, Jews, Hindus and atheists) including in ritual prayers, or lose their charitable status.
  3. End cash donations in mosques and overseas donations from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab sources.

If the West does not take these steps now, there will eventually be a very large appetite for Clark’s harsh prescription to prevent Islamist terror on Western soil.

ABOUT TAREK FATAH

Tarek Fatah, is a Canadian writer, broadcaster and anti-Islamist Muslim activist. He is the author of Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State and the founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

RECENT ARTICLES:

Exposé: Jewish Foundations That Fund Boycotts of Israel

Fight with Islamic State at ‘Stalemate’: US Intel

Life Under ISIS: Where Sexuality Marks a Women’ s Total Value

Islamists Told Teen She Could See Her Dead Mother Again

Ayatollah Khamenei Publishes Book on How to Destroy Israel

Garland, TX: Islamic State Jihadi ‘radicalized’ by UK Muslim ‘computer geek’

He hacked the Pentagon. He apparently incited one of the Muslims who attacked our free speech event in Garland, Texas to do so. This is one piously lethal individual. One thing he would almost certainly deny being, however, is “British” — contrary to the witless Mailonline headline. His citizenship with the umma and only with the umma.

“British computer geek, 21, who hacked the Pentagon after fleeing to Syria is No3 on the ‘kill list’ of ISIS militants drawn up by US forces – just after Jihadi John and group leader al-Baghdadi,” by Imogen Calderwood, Mailonline, August 2, 2015:

A young computer hacker from Birmingham has been named as Number Three on the Pentagon’s ‘kill list’ of key ISIS operatives.

Junaid Hussain, 21, fled to Syria in July 2013 and is now believed to be leading the ‘Cyber Caliphate’, ISIS’ own branch of hackers.

US officials said there is an ‘intense’ desire to assassinate Hussain, who operates under the alias Abu Hussain al-Britani and was jailed in 2012 for stealing personal information of Tony Blair.

Only Mohammed Emwazi, the hostage killer known as Jihadi John, and the group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are higher on the list, reported The Sunday Times.

After fleeing the UK, when he was on police bail for an alleged violent disorder offence, Hussain has risen rapidly through the ISIS ranks.

He married 45-year-old Sally Jones, a former punk rocker from Chatham, Kent, who converted to Islam and fled to Syria with her 10-year-old son.

Yet another convert somehow gets the idea that Islam requires treason and violence. Yet no authorities are in the least interested in studying this phenomenon.

Jones, who now uses the nomme de guerre Umm Hussain Al-Britani, is believed to have snuck into Syria at the end of last year after an online romance with Hussain.

She is suspected of leading the violent all-female ISIS contingent, known as the Khanssaa Brigade. The group imposes strict Sharia law in the de facto capital of the so-called Islamic State, Raqqa.

The couple, who have been dubbed Mr and Mr Terror, also reportedly used Twitter and the hashtag #LondonAttack in May to incite terror in Britain.

US officials believe he is behind the online radicalisation of at least one of the two gunmen who opened fire at a Prophet Mohammed cartoon competition in Garland, Texas, in May….

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s $500 million 50-man “moderate” army: half already dead, captured, out of action

Why Muslim Rapists Prefer Blondes: A History by Raymond Ibrahim

The Muslim penchant to target “white” women for sexual exploitation—an epidemic currently plaguing Europe, especially Britain and Scandinavia—is as old as Islam itself, and even traces back to Muhammad.

Much literary evidence attests to this in the context of Islam’s early predations on Byzantium (for centuries, Christendom’s easternmost bulwark against the jihad).  According to Ahmad M. H. Shboul (author of “Byzantium and the Arabs: The Image of the Byzantines as Mirrored in Arabic Literature”) Christian Byzantium was the “classic example of the house of war,” or Dar al-Harb—that is, the quintessential realm that needs to be conquered by jihad.  Moreover, Byzantium was seen “as a symbol of military and political power and as a society of great abundance.”

The similarities between pre-modern Islamic views of Byzantium and modern Islamic views of the West—powerful, affluent, desirable, and the greatest of all infidels—should be evident.  But they do not end here.  To the medieval Muslim mind, Byzantium was further representative of “white people”—fair haired/eyed Christians, or, as they were known in Arabic, Banu al-Asfar, “children of yellow” (reference to blonde hair).

Continues Shboul:

The Byzantines as a people were considered as fine examples of physical beauty, and youthful slaves and slave-girls of Byzantine origin were highly valued….  The Arab’s appreciation of the Byzantine female has a long history indeed.  For the Islamic period, the earliest literary evidence we have is a hadith (saying of the Prophet).  Muhammad is said to have addressed a newly converted [to Islam] Arab: “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?”  Not only were Byzantine slave girls sought after for caliphal and other palaces (where some became mothers of future caliphs), but they also became the epitome of physical beauty, home economy, and refined accomplishments.   The typical Byzantine maiden who captures the imagination of litterateurs and poets, had blond hair, blue or green eyes, a pure and healthy visage, lovely breasts, a delicate waist, and a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light.[1]

While the essence of the above excerpt is true, the reader should not be duped by its overly “romantic” tone. Written for a Western academic publication by an academic of Muslim background, the essay is naturally euphemistic to the point of implying that being a sex slave was desirable—as if her Arab owners were enamored devotees who merely doted over and admired her beauty from afar.[2]

Indeed, Muhammad asked a new convert “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?” as a way to entice him to join the jihad and reap its rewards—which, in this case, included the possibility of enslaving and raping blonde Byzantine women—not as some idealistic discussion on beauty.

This enticement seems to have backfired with another Muslim who refused Muhammad’s call to invade Byzantine territory (the Tabuk campaign).  “O Abu Wahb,” cajoled Muhammad, “would you not like to have scores of Byzantine women and men as concubines and servants?” Wahb responded: “O Messenger of Allah, my people know that I am very fond of women and, if I see the women of the Byzantines, I fear I will not be able to hold back. So do not tempt me by them, and allow me not to join and, instead, I will assist you with my wealth.”[3]  The prophet agreed but was apparently unimpressed—after all, Wahb could have all the Byzantine women he desired if the jihad succeeded—and a new Sura for the Koran (9:49) was promptly delivered condemning the man to hell for his reported hypocrisy and failure to join the jihad.

Thus a more critical reading of Shboul’s aforementioned excerpt finds that European slave girls were not “highly valued” or “appreciated” as if they were precious statues—they were held out as sexual trophies to entice Muslims to the jihad.

Moreover, the idea that some sex slaves became mothers to future caliphs is meaningless since in Islam’s patriarchal culture, mothers—Muslim or non-Muslim—were irrelevant in lineage and had no political status.   And talk of “litterateurs and poets” and “a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light” is further anachronistic and does a great disservice to reality:  These women were—as they still are—sex slaves, treated no differently than the many slaves of the Islamic State today.

For example, during a recent sex slave auction held by the Islamic State, blue and green eyed Yazidi girls were much coveted and fetched the highest price.  Even so, these concubines are being cruelly tortured.  In one instance, a Muslim savagely beat his Yazidi slave’s one year old child until she agreed to meet all his sexual demands.

[ … ]

Another relevant parallel between medieval and modern Islamic views exists: white women were and continue to be seen as sexually promiscuous by nature—essentially “provoking” Muslim men into lusting after them.

Much of this is discussed in Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs by Nadia Maria El Cheikh.  She writes:

Fitna, [an Islamic term] meaning disorder and chaos, refers also to the beautiful femme fatale who makes men lose their self-control.  Fitna is a key concept in defining the dangers that women, more particularly their bodies, were capable of provoking in the mental universe of the Arab Muslims.

After explaining how the fair haired/eyed Byzantine woman exemplified Islam’s femme fatale of fitna, Cheikh writes:

In our [Muslim] texts, Byzantine women are strongly associated with sexual immorality…

Our sources show not Byzantine women but [Muslim] writers’ images of these women, who served as symbols of the eternal female—constantly a potential threat, particularly due to blatant exaggerations of their sexual promiscuity….

Cheikh documents how Muslims claimed that Byzantine (or “white Christian”) females were the “most shameless women in the whole world”; that, “because they find sex more enjoyable, they are prone to adultery”; that “adultery is commonplace in the cities and markets of Byzantium”—so much so that “the nuns from the convents went out to the fortresses to offer themselves to monks.”… Keep reading

EDITORS NOTE: Nadia Maria El Cheikh makes a key observation when she states, “Fitna, [an Islamic term] meaning disorder and chaos, refers also to the beautiful femme fatale who makes men lose their self-control.  Fitna is a key concept in defining the dangers that women, more particularly their bodies, were capable of provoking in the mental universe of the Arab Muslims.”

In this case Fitna is caused by blonde women and therefore Muslim men have a duty to slaughter (rape) them to stop the Fitna. Stopping the Fitna, resistance to Islam, is the strategy of the Global Islamic Movement (GMI). To learn more visit Fitnaphobia.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK Muslim bought ricin to kill 1,400 people, faces light sentence: “no evidence that he was planning any sort of terrorist attack”

“All countries in the region can only conclude that America is indeed weak. America has capitulated to Iran.”

Refugee Resettlement Watch: Weekly Roundup

I’m late, I know, but I just got lazy this weekend.  This is my charitable work after all, so I figure I can goof off now and again. Right!

This morning I’m waking up to news that Donald Trump may have shot his campaign in the foot when he slipped into the mumbo-jumbo about pathways to citizenship for illegals last week.  See Daniel Greenfield here.  It is one thing to stand up for the American people with his broad brush approach up to now, but he must begin to understand the issues in a deeper way (pretty quickly) or his lack of understanding will show on the debate stage on August 6th.

If I could tell Mr. Trump what to do, I would tell him to consult the experts and study—morning, noon, and night—from now until August 6th!

I’m digressing.  Here are our Top Three Posts of last week:

  1. How did Chattanooga shooter’s family get here?
  2. Center for Security Policy releases ‘Red-Green Axis: the agenda to erase America!’
  3. Refugee Resettlement Fact Sheet

I’m interested to see that our Fact Sheet is back in the top three, but we really need to update it …one of these days!

Here are our Top Ten Countries from which readers arrived at Refugee Resettlement Watch (RRW) last week (excluding the US):

  1. UK
  2. Canada
  3. Germany
  4. Australia
  5. New Zealand
  6. EU
  7. India
  8. Norway
  9. Turkey*
  10. Austria

* Last week I commented about Turkey making the top ten and a reader from Turkey, who says he/she is interviewing prospective refugees to be sent to the U.S., commented saying he/she is responsible for some of those visitors from Turkey.  I think you should read the comments and my responses, here.  It became pretty clear that whoever this is working for a non-profit contractor interviewing refugees to come to America holds a low regard for Christians as he gloats:

(BTW, Christians make up about 30% of Middle Eastern refugees I currently process. Bad newz for you though: Above half are illiterate and suffer from congenital diseases observed in much higher frequencies than in rest of Iraq and Syria. Hold on to your local health budget folks! Fellow Christians are coming!)

For new readers, please visit a recent roundup here for instructions on how to make the most out of your visits to RRW.

One last thing, follow me on twitter.  I am trying to use that social media format to get stories out that are related to this issue which I don’t have time to post on, and I also tweet all of my posts if you don’t want to subscribe.  I’m here @refugeewatcher.

Latest News: The Muslim Immigrant Invasion of Europe

This is a round-up of sorts of some migration news coming out of Europe….

German refugee facilitiesDeutsche Welle tells us: Google recently pulled a controversial map showing the location of all refugee homes in Germany for fear it could fuel right-wing violence.http://www.dw.com/en/attacks-against-germanys-refugee-homes-on-the-rise/a-18604812

In Sweden, Christians harassed in group home for asylum seekers. 

From the Christian Post:

Syrian Christian refugees living in Sweden say they were forced out of their asylum house by Muslim refugees who demanded they hide their crosses and banned them from using communal areas in the home they shared.

The Christians, comprised of two families, were seeking asylum after fleeing from the Islamic State in Syria. And the place they were staying at housed around 80 people with many being Syrian Muslims.

While Swedish police said they weren’t notified about the harassment, immigration officials visited the residence to outline the government’s rules for those who continue to live in asylum housing.

[….]

The violence of ISIS against Syrian Christians and other citizens who refuse to obey Islamic law knows no bounds.

The article goes on to tell us of some of the horrors facing the remaining Christian population of Syria.

Also from Sweden, see Gatestone on the ‘unaccompanied refugee children’ situation there where everyone knows the “children” are mostly young men over 18 years old.

Denmark has no more places to house refugees!

See Breitbart News:

Denmark’s capacity to admit migrants is near breaking point. With 12,000 refugees searching for a place to live, nearly a third of the nation’s struggling municipalities say that they have little to offer newcomers.

In the Czech Republic, Syrian and North African refugees are not welcome, but more Czechs willing to take in Ukrainians. 

From Ceskenoviny:

The Czech Republic should not accept any refugees from Syria, this is the view held by 71 percent of Czechs. When it comes to the refugees from North Africa, the figure stands at 72 percent.

The view that some immigrants from Syria and North Africa should be accepted is held by 26 percent and 24 percent of Czechs, respectively.

Ireland goes along with EU plan and will double its refugee intake.

From Big News Network.com:

DUBLIN, Ireland – Ireland is to more than double its intake of refugees as part of a European Union plan to relocate up to 40,000 refugees which is being coordinated in response to the unprecedented migration crisis in the Mediterranean.

Under the EU plan, a number of ‘hotspots’ in Italy and Greece will be established where migrants will be registered and fingerprinted. Individuals who are identified as likely to be genuine refugees can be put forward for relocation to another EU country where they will be given the opportunity of protection, while irregular migrants will be returned to their home country.

Ireland has agreed to relocate 600 people over the next two years. This is in addition to the country’s previous commitment to resettle 520 refugees directly from areas affected by conflict, and the humanitarian search and rescue missions undertaken in the region by the Naval Service which saved more than 3,300 refugees.

The Slovak government: we will only take Christian refugees as permanent residents.

From the Slovak Spectator:

THE SLOVAK government remains reluctant to take in refugees within the proposed European schemes and has recently conceded to accept 100 people from Syria under the condition they are Christians, but has agreed to provide temporary shelter for migrants that have already arrived in Austria.

Based on a recent bilateral deal, some 500 refugees seeking asylum in Austria will stay in Slovakia temporarily, until their asylum process is finished and, based on the results, they will either move back to Austria or be deported from the EU.

In Germany there is more news accusing “rightwingers” of torching asylum facilities.

From Deutsche Welle:

The rate of violence perpetrated against refugee homes in Germany in 2015 has already outstripped the whole of 2014. The Interior Ministry has warned that right-wing violence is on the rise in the west of the country.

[….]

According to a statement from Germany’s Interior Ministry on Thursday, there have been more attacks on homes for asylum seekers in the first half of 2015 than in the entirety of 2014.

Read the article, there is an admission that a growing number of these cases are perpetrated by people with no known affiliation. Hmmm! Is that what happens when a government is so obviously not responsive to a large number of its citizens? By the way, the article also tells us that these arson attacks were originally confined to the Eastern parts of Germany, but have now spread into the West.  Fascinating that we hear nothing of this in the US media.

I’m sure there is much more news from Europe.  If I see something interesting as the day goes on, I’ll add it.

For our entire archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ click here.

Can Muslims be Loyal to Anything other than Allah?

A great example of the unlikely mix of Islam and civility and the conflict of allegiances is Muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s decision to blast away at his fellow military mates at fort Hood Texas in November 2009.  He chose to kill over a dozen people, because they were not Muslim. While blowing hs victims away, he yelped the Islamic slogan, “Allahu Akbar!” (“god is great”).  For a soldier to viciously turn on his fellow soldiers in arms is incomprehensible enough, especially when one considers that in order to receive his commission as an officer in the Army, Major Hasan had to sign his name to an oath requiring his name to an oath requiring him to swear allegiance to defend the Constitution.  The oath also called for Major Hasan to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion.

Nevertheless, despite swearing an oath to protect the United States and to remain loyal to his compatriots, Major Hasan, most certainly displayed glaring conflicting loyalties.  According to one of his former classmates, Major Hasan would not support the effort to defend against terrorism because he viewed such an effort as a direct war against Islam.  In a way Hasan had a point. After all even if somehow all Islamists are not terrorists, all of today’s terrorists are Islamists.  Oh well!  In fact, Hasan had energetically advocated for a conscientious-objector clause for Muslims serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.  The tug of war between his alleged allegiance to Islam and his so-called loyalty to the United States came to a snapping point, and Major Hasan went to nutsville and followed through on the murderous tradition of Islam and obeyed the tenets of his religion.  Hasan, gleefully killed twelve of his fellow soldiers, with the permission of Allah, of course.

Do you remember the Times Square bomber?  He is another sterling example of the transcendence of loyalty to Islam over loyalty to anything American.  Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born Muslim, became a naturalized United States citizen in April 2009, about one year before he attempted to detonate a bomb in the middle of New York City.  Indeed, the dialogue at trial between the presiding judge and Shahzad demonstrates this completely:

Judge: “Didn’t you swear allegiance to this country when you became an American citizen?”

Shahzad: I did swear, but I did not mean it.”

Judge:  “You took a false oath?”

Shahzad:  “Yes”

Examples like these demonstrates that, to many Muslims, Islam demands single-minded loyalty from its adherents that can admit no other allegiances.  The driving force behind Islamic unity will inevitably seek to eliminate all other contenders for allegiance and will not let the demands of American citizenship stand in its way.

One of the most obvious methods used by Muslims to demonstrate their loyalty to nothing but Islam or Allah is Jihad.  Jihad is commonly described as “to war against non-Muslims.”  The term jihad derives from the word mujahada, which signifies the use of warfare to establish religion.  Those in support of Islam claim that there are three distinct forms of jihad.  The first form is the “greater jihad” of battling against the inner-self to attain private holiness and devotion to the path of Allah.  The second form of jihad is da ’wah, or the invitation to non-Muslims to convert voluntarily to follow Islam and to follow Shari’ ah.  The third, most well-known form of jihad is the violent use of the sword in physical conflict with non-Muslims (“unbelievers” or “infidels”).  The ultimate objective of the three forms of jihad, collectively, is to convert all unbelievers to Islam (either voluntarily or forcibly) and to subject all non-Muslim territories to Islamic rule and government, i.e. shari ‘ah.

All three forms of jihad are mandated by shai ‘ah.  While violent shari ‘ah is the most commonly known form of jihad, political jihad (a type of da ‘wah) is currently the most significant threat facing Americans because it is latent and because it is imminent.  Da ‘wah literally means “call,” invitation,” or propaganda.”  It is a prerequisite to violent jihad because the Qur ‘ran states that Allah does not punish anyone until one has received the invitation to believe and an introduction to Allah’s law (shari ‘ah).   After the call or invitation to believe is extended, non-Muslims have three choices:  convert to Islam, submit to the Islamic ruler and pay a massive tax (jizyah) or fight and die.

My fellow Americans, the threat of Islam against us and our way of life is ever present.  The question is, will we be able to hold on until the imam is finally gone from the White House?  We can ill afford, nor should we tolerate any threat to our republic, including Islam, shari ‘ah, jihad, or whatever those women abusing Christian murdering gumps come up with.  Politically correct butt kissing of Muslims only strengthens their wicked resolve to kill, steal from and destroy any and every non-Muslim they can get away with harming in some way.  Many thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice for their worthy contributions to this column.

May God Bless America an May America Bless God.

President Thomas Jefferson’s Koran and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

keith ellison

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-MN, District 5.

On January 4, 2007, newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison made history. He became not only the first Muslim to be elected to the United States Congress, but he also took the ceremonial oath of office holding his hand on the Koran that had been owned by Thomas Jefferson. Dozens of television cameras, including one from the Arab network Al-Arabiya, were on hand to record this historical event.

Ellison had explained the importance of this ceremony in an interview the day before, “…in a private ceremony…I’ll put my hand on a book that is the basis of my faith, which is Islam…” (“Keith Ellison and the Jefferson Koran,”The Nation – The Beat Blog, January 3, 2007).

A few weeks after the swearing-in, Ellison said that the Koran “is the scripture that I read every day and it’s the book that I draw inspiration from” (“Rep. Keith Ellison: First Muslim in Congress,” FinalCall.com News, January 20, 2007).

The significance of this event was even recognized two years later, on June 4th, 2009, as President Obama was giving a speech in Cairo, Egypt. In the portion of the speech when Obama was talking about how Muslim-Americans had “enriched” the United States, he pointed out that Congressman Ellison had taken his oath on Jefferson’s “Holy Koran.”

So President Obama and Congressman Ellison proclaimed that Ellison had placed his hand on an actual Koran for this ceremony.

Jefferson’s Koran

The Koran Ellison used was a two volume translation of the Koran done by George Sale, a non-Muslim. It was titled The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed. It was first printed in 1734, but the two volume translation used by Ellison was from a second printing done in 1764. Digital copies of both volumes of this second printing can be located online. So let’s examine this particular Koran.

In the first volume Sale had three sections before his actual translation of the Koran began: Dedication,Introduction, and Preliminary Discourse. In the Dedication, Sale lamented the “detestation” with which the name Muhammad was laden. But then Sale contrasted the religion and laws of Muhammad to the laws of Jesus and Moses, “whose laws came really from heaven.” So according to Sale, Muhammad’s religion and laws had not come from heaven. Sale then went on to note that Muhammad used “an imposture [fraud] to set up a new religion.”

In the Introduction, Sale wrote that the Koran was a “forgery” (p. vii) and it “pretends to be the Word of God” (p. xiii). Sale criticized Muhammad for “imposing a false religion on mankind” (p. x). And Sale explained that he was providing “an impartial version of the Koran” because

it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture [fraud]… (pp. vii-viii)

In the Preliminary Discourse, Sale repeatedly pointed out that Muhammad had “pretended” to be a messenger from God (pp. 52-53, 93, and 96). Sale stated that Muhammad had “pretended” to receive the “revelations…which compose his Koran” (p. 55). And on numerous pages Sale repeated his assertion that Muhammad had “pretended” to receive those revelations (pp. 56, 64, 66, 82, 84, 100, 143, 190, and 192).

Sale addresses Muhammad’s “Night Journey” on pp. 61-62 of the Preliminary Discourse. In this journey Muhammad claimed to have traveled from Mecca to the seven levels of Heaven. He claimed he was accompanied by the angel Jibril (Gabriel) and rode on Al-Buraq, a white, horse-like animal, smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey. Muhammad claimed that he had visited the first six levels of Heaven, meeting one or more of the earlier prophets on each level. On the seventh level he had met Abraham and Allah, and received certain instructions from Allah. Sale wrote that Muhammad “feigns to have made a journey to heaven,” and only pretended that he had spoken with Allah. Sale summed up his feelings about Muhammad’s “Night Journey”:

And I am apt to think this fiction, notwithstanding its extravagance, was one of the most artful contrivances Mohammed ever put in practice…

And Sale believed that Islam was simply a “human invention” based on violence:

It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Mohammedism was no other than a human invention, that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword…

(Preliminary Discourse, p. 65)

Questions Sent to Congressman Ellison

There had been much excitement over Congressman Ellison using Jefferson’s Koran for his ceremonial swearing-in. Jefferson’s Koran had been declared an official Koran by Ellison and President Obama. Yet this translation of the Koran had been done by a non-Muslim who not only considered Islam to be a manmade religion “that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword,” but who also considered Muhammad to be a charlatan, and the Koran itself to be false and a forgery.

With this in mind, on March 13, 2015, I sent an e-mail to Congressman Ellison in Washington DC, in care of his Communications Director, Mike Casca. The e-mail summarized the information above with regard to Sale’s beliefs about Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran, and I presented the following two questions for the Congressman’s consideration:

  1. Do you think Sale’s negative beliefs about Islam affected the accuracy of his translation of the meaning of each of the verses in the Koran? If they did, how might they have affected that translation, and can his translated work then be accurately referred to as a Koran?
  1. If you consider his work to be an accurate translation of the meaning of the verses in the Koran, how would you explain to your Christian and Jewish constituents verses such as these found in this work:

They are infidels, who say, Verily God is Christ, the son of Mary.

Vol. 1, p. 133  (Koran 5:17)

(So Christians are infidels.)

War is injoined [sic] you against the Infidels…

Vol. 1, p. 38    (Koran 2: 216)

…for the infidels are your open enemies.

Vol. 1, p. 114  (Koran 4:101)

Take not the Jews, or Christians for your friends; they are friends one to the other…

Vol.1, p. 141   (Koran 5:51)

Thou shalt surely find the most violent of all men in enmity against the true believers [Muslims], to be the Jews, and the idolators…

Vol. 1, p. 147  (Koran 5:82)

My first e-mail to the Congressman went unanswered. After I had sent a second e-mail on March 19th, Casca responded that same day asking when I needed the answers. I replied that with the Congressman’s busy schedule, one or two weeks would be fine.

Now, four weeks, and two unanswered e-mails to Casca later, it appears that the Congressman has decided not to respond.

Based on the available evidence, Congressman Ellison apparently considers Sale’s work to be an accurate translation of the meaning of the verses in the Koran, and to also be a legitimate Koran. Consequently, it might be worthwhile for the congressman’s Jewish and Christian constituents to ask him why he has such high esteem for a book that speaks ill of Jews and Christians, and specifically calls Christians the “open enemies” of Muslims.

So let’s close with some verses from the book upon which Congressman Ellison placed his hand, and from which he said he draws inspiration:

As for the infidels…they shall be the fewel [fuel] of hell fire.

Vol. 1, p. 55    (Koran 3:10)

O true believers [Muslims]! wage war against such of the infidels as are near you; and let them find severity in you…

Vol. 1, p. 265  (Koran 9:123)

When ye encounter the unbelievers [non-Muslims], strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them…

Vol. 2, p. 376  (Koran 47:4)

Mohammed is the apostle of God: and those who are with him are fierce against the unbelievers, but compassionate towards one another.

Vol. 2, p. 387  (Koran 48:29)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. The featured image of a Koran is courtesy of Shutterstock.