I wrote it in 2016, but I could have written it yesterday. The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran details the Islamic Republic’s militaristic aims, its support for global terrorism, its oppression of its own people, and much, much more, including exactly why Barack Obama’s late and much-lamented nuclear deal was so disastrous.
Here is the publisher’s statement about the book from 2016. This sentence jumped out at me: “The Islamic Republic is already at war with America. If we refuse to recognize that fact, we are only falling prey to the mullahs’ campaign of duplicity.”
Our Most Dangerous Enemy
Think it’s ISIS? Think again.
Iran is the terrorist powerhouse of the world—made all the more dangerous by the disastrous “nuclear deal” that restricts Iran’s nuclear ambitions hardly at all.
The Iranian government is an open enemy of the United States—and of anyone who dissents from Shia Islam.
Iran confronts U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf “on a near daily basis.”
It executes more of its citizens than any other nation.
It is a country torn by hypocrisy—lectured by mullahs, and with brutally enforced Islamic religious laws, but rife with alcoholism.
Once America’s ally, Iran now claims leadership of the global jihad, and the ayatollahs’ aim is nothing less than world conquest for Islam.
How the Iranian “nuclear deal” is sheer capitulation to the mullahs, allowing Iran to inspect its own facilities and pursue nuclear weapons
Iran’s long-standing support for terrorists—including shocking evidence that Iran helped plan the 9/11 attacks
Why Iran wants nuclear weapons—clue: it’s not about deterrence
American diplomatic folly—why the Obama administration has grossly underestimated the Iranian threat
A new grand strategy: how Iran’s Shi’ite terrorism might be contained and its threat to the United States reduced
The Islamic Republic is already at war with America. If we refuse to recognize that fact, we are only falling prey to the mullahs’ campaign of duplicity.
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran exposes the true nature of the threat, lays out what America must do to defeat it, and gives you all the information you need about America’s least understood yet potentially most lethal foe.
“The brilliant and courageous Robert Spencer rips to shreds the claim that the Iran nuclear deal will bring peace to the world, and shows the truly shocking extent to which Iran is a threat to the stability not just of the Middle East, but of the entire world — and has been for decades while all too many American leaders have dithered, temporized and appeased it. The Islamic Revolution (enabled by Jimmy Carter), the hostage crisis, the Green Movement — it’s all here, including little-known facts about Iran’s role in 9/11 and its sponsorship of terror around the globe. Here is the one book that will put to rest forever the idea that the Islamic Republic will ever be a peaceful member of the family of nations, and shows what’s at stake if our leaders continue to pretend otherwise.” (Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (2002-2007))
“Robert Spencer has succeeded where many fail, sweeping through Iran’s history with a sure touch and an eye for the essential. He has also understood the monumental significance of Iran’s material contribution to the September 11, 2001 plot. Despite sectarian enmity, Sunnis and Shia can get along just fine when it comes to killing Jews and Americans.” (Kenneth R. Timmerman, President, Foundation for Democracy in Iran)
“Robert Spencer is arguably the most knowledgeable, authoritative and prolific of American infidels with respect to sharia, jihad and their most dangerous state sponsor: the Islamic Republic of Iran. Naturally, his is the complete guide for what all of us — Muslim and non-Muslim alike — need to know about Iran.” (Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy)
“Simultaneously, Iran is the modern iteration of one of human history’s richest civilizations and a paranoid jihadist state bent on global conquest, the destruction of Israel, and ‘Death to America.’ It is our most immediate threat, yet one strangely remote from our understanding. In The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, Robert Spencer punctures our common misconceptions and Washington’s dangerous delusions about Iran, bringing to bear his unique blend of fearlessness, erudition, and clear-eyed analysis. All Americans, and most especially the political class, would do well to read this highly accessible book and grasp the challenge that confronts us.” (Andrew C. McCarthy, bestselling author, National Review contributing editor, and former federal prosecutor)
“Iran is the gravest threat to world peace today, and in this essential new book, Robert Spencer explains why. From all the astonishing details of just how disastrous Obama’s nuke deal is to Iran’s continuing war footing toward the U.S. and Israel and the shocking beliefs that may lead the Iranians to decide to nuke Israel, it’s all here. The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran should be placed on the desk of every official in Washington — especially in the Oval Office.” (Steve Emerson, Investigative Project)
“This masterpiece illuminates the most lethal threats against America and civilization today. Iran aims at global and hegemonic control through its terror networks, which are widely dispersed over the planet. Robert Spencer’s vivid, lucid and comprehensive record of Iran’s genocidal apocalyptic nuclear program gives us an invaluable and perspicuous tool for understanding current crucial topics. Essential reading to prevent mass extermination.” (Bat Ye’or, author of Eurabia : the Euro-Arab Axis)
“Eye-opening. Sobering. Informative. Gripping. The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran is a comprehensive and unique look at the world’s foremost and most dangerous rogue state. It’s what every American needs to know about the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Robert Spencer makes it all clear: Iran’s magnificent history and terrible present, the full horror of the Obama/Kerry nuclear deal, Iran’s global anti-U.S. and anti-Israel adventurism, its role in 9/11, and the warped theology that makes it so eager to destroy Israel. No one who cares about America’s future and the survival of the free world should miss this book.” (Pamela Geller, President, American Freedom Defense Initiative)
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2020-01-09 07:42:562020-01-13 07:08:43The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran told you all this was coming
This vote was a foregone conclusion, since Iraq has had a weak Shi’ite government dominated by the Islamic Republic of Iran ever since the toppling of Saddam Hussein. And the MPs are right: we should leave Iraq and everywhere our troops are without any defined mission or goal.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2020-01-06 04:39:452020-01-06 04:46:32Iraq: MPs scream “Allahu akbar” after voting to expel US forces from the country
The Islamic Republic of Iran, facing demonstrations at home that threaten its very existence and more in Iraq that threaten that country’s Shi’ite proxy government, is resorting to a tested and true strategy. Fox News reports that “crowds of angry Iraqis protesting America’s recent airstrikes against an Iran-backed militia have laid siege to the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad Tuesday, chanting ‘Down, Down USA!’ and storming through a main gate, prompting troops to fire back tear gas in response.”
President Trump tweeted: “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”
Whether the pro-Iranian Shi’ite regime will take any serious steps to protect the embassy is an open question, and the Iranian mullahs may be assuming that Trump will talk tough and then let the whole thing blow over. After all, as The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran explains in detail, there is a significant precedent for this that occurred right at the time the Islamic Republic was founded.
On January 16, 1979, a tearful Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and his family left Iran after being betrayed and abandoned by Jimmy Carter. Two weeks later, on February 1, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, returned to Iran after fourteen years of exile and set out to establish the Islamic Republic of Iran. Khomeini had made abundantly clear that the Islamic Republic would consider the United States a mortal enemy when he enabled the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979. American diplomats would be held hostage for well over a year.
The immediate pretext for the invasion of the Embassy was Jimmy Carter’s reluctant decision to allow the gravely ill Shah to enter the United States on October 23, 1979, for medical treatment. Carter asked his advisers, “What are you guys going to advise me to do if they overrun our embassy and take our people hostage?” Nonetheless, he had no plan when a group calling itself Muslim Students Following the Imam’s Line (that is, Khomeini’s line) entered the embassy compound and took hostage the skeleton staff of sixty-six that was still serving there after the fall of the Shah.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2020-01-02 06:57:232020-01-02 06:58:49The Baghdad Embassy Siege: Did the Iranian Mullahs Think Donald Trump Would React Like Jimmy Carter?
At the Freedom Center’s Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, Florida on November 17, 2019, I unveiled the duplicity and deception at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” and explained, among other things, why Anwar Sadat should not be revered as a man of peace.
Thank you very much. I thought by way of transition I would tell all of you that I wouldn’t be here tonight, today, if it were not for Peter Collier. In the ‘90s, well actually going back further, in the early ‘80s, I worked at Revolution Books, which was the bookstore of the Revolutionary Communist party, and I was very hardcore leftist. And along the course of things, I read Destructive Generation, which had an explosive effect on me, as it had on so many people. Then some years later, I was working as an ad writer, a copywriter and ghostwriter, who read the Qur’an for fun, and after 9/11, was asked to write a book by somebody who knew me and I worked with — to write a book explaining what had happened and why. And I said, “Well, I’m nobody. Why would anybody pay attention to what I think about any of this?,” and the guy said, “Just write it, and if it’s quality work and if it explains the material, then I will get somebody to publish it,” and, of course, the person he got to publish it was Peter Collier.
My first book, Islam Unveiled, came out in 2002 from Encounter Books, and I remember talking to him on the phone after he read the manuscripts and being sort of staggered and amazed when he said that he liked it. And you can hear all these people saying that he completely rewrote — he did rewrite about half of it, but still he liked it. I’m still thrilled. In any case, the other part of that story is that the gentleman who asked me to write the book and encouraged me to do so worked for a different publishing house, a rival publishing house to Encounter, and they were going to publish the book, but then the head of the publishing house, who was a leading conservative publisher, he said in a meeting while I was there that he had visited Gaza and the Palestinians were wonderful people, and he didn’t want to offend them by publishing this book — and that’s a lot of the fix that we’re in, and what I address in this new book, The Palestinian Delusion, which you all got in the bags when you registered.
You may remember Jimmy Carter standing there beaming happily with Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin, the Prime Minister of Israel, at Camp David in the late ‘70s, and there was going to be peace. And you may remember Bill Clinton standing there with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, and they’re shaking hands and Clinton is beaming, and there’s going to be peace. And you may remember George W. Bush standing there with Mahmoud Abbas and Ariel Sharon and beaming as they shake hands, and there’s going to be peace. And you may remember Obama standing there with Abbas again and Benjamin Netanyahu, same thing. And the one thing we’ve never had is peace. We’ve had 40 years of peace process and no peace. The reason why is revealed in many of the things that took place in the first and most celebrated aspect of that peace process and that, of course, is the Camp David summit and Anwar Sadat’s overtures to Israel after the 1973 war. This is, of course, very important in world history. If you go to Jerusalem, you can go to the Begin Sadat Center that studies ways to bring about peace and so on, and Sadat is a revered figure around the world, but I would expect that many of you will be surprised to know why exactly it was that he reached out to the Israelis and began the peace process. He is a great saint now. He’s a Gandhi figure and so on, but the real story is a little bit different, as is always the case.
Anwar Sadat, of course, was President of Egypt, and in the Yom Kippur war he was one of the Muslim Arab countries that attacked Israel gratuitously and without cause, and they were, of course, making great inroads, because it was Yom Kippur. They were making great inroads at the beginning, and then the Israelis began to regroup and to beat them back, and then the ceasefire was concluded, and so on. And shortly after this, there was a Politburo meeting, a meeting of the high command of the Soviet Union. Now of course at this time, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was part of the Cold War, with the Israelis on the American side and the Palestinians on the Soviet side, and everything was binary, not like it is now, and you had Gromyko, the foreign minister of the Soviet Union, speaking with Leonid Brezhnev, the Premier of the Soviet Union, about what to do about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and he actually asked them at this Politburo meeting. I’ve got the minutes in the book. “Leonid, what are going to do about the Israelis and the Palestinians?” And Brezhnev says, “We’re going to participate in negotiations. At the appropriate time, we will restore diplomatic relations with Israel.”
And everybody, the whole Politburo was shocked, and Gromyko says, “But the Arabs will get angry.” Well, the sun will come up, but anyway, the Arabs will get angry, and this is what Brezhnev responded, and this is very important. Brezhnev says, “They can go to hell. We have offered them a sensible way for so many years, but no, they wanted to fight. Fine. We gave them technology, the latest, the kind even Vietnam didn’t have. They had double superiority in tanks and aircraft, triple in artillery and in air defense and anti-tank weapons, they had absolute supremacy. And what? Once again they were beaten. Once again they scrammed. Once again they screamed for us to come and save them. Sadat woke me up in the middle of the night twice over the phone, Save me. He demanded we send Soviet troops immediately. No, we’re not going to fight for them. The people would not understand that and especially we will not start a world war over them. So, that’s that. We will do what I said.”
You notice that he said Sadat pleaded for help after he had given them all the best weaponry, and they still lost. And so what did Sadat do? He was very astute. He realized okay, the Soviets want me to make peace with Israel, but who really has the leverage over Israel to get them to make concessions? Not the Soviets, but the Unite States. So Sadat took Brezhnev’s advice, but he switched sides, and that was when Sadat, you may recall those of you who are as old as I am, you may recall that in the early ‘70s Sadat broke with the Soviets and approached the United States and made an accord with the United States, and it was considered to be a great Cold War breakthrough. But Sadat himself explained, when he was asked why he was doing this, he said, “What other country can force Israel to withdraw?” That’s what it was all about, and that’s what the peace process was all about.
Sadat, very famously, offered to go to Israel, and of course Israel, being besieged and battered and excoriated in world opinion and everything else for so many decades, they were thrilled, and the Israelis greeted Sadat rapturously when he went to Jerusalem, and he addressed the Knesset and was received as a tremendous hero. But if you actually look at what he said, it’s astonishing. What he was saying essentially in his speech in the Knesset was “Let’s negotiate. You give me everything I want, and our negotiations will be concluded.” Because what he said was, “Let me tell you without the slightest hesitation,” this is Sadat in the Knesset, “that I did not come to you under this dome to make a request that your troops evacuate the occupied territories. Complete withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied in 1967 is a logical and undisputed fact. Nobody should plead for that.” And he talked about permanent peace based on justice, and then he said that moves to ensure our coexistence and peace and security in this part of the world would become meaningless “while you occupy Arab territories by force of arms.”
Now, he’s talking about the 1967 borders, which of course is still a very hot issue, and was demanding that Israel withdraw completely from the so-called occupied territories, but the fact is that, of course, it is a staple of the Muslim Arab rhetoric about Israel that Israel actually is entirely occupying land that belongs rightly to the Muslim Arabs, and thus, none of it has any legitimacy. So, when he’s saying that there can be no peace until all the Arab territories that you occupy by force of arms are cleared out, he’s saying Israel has to stop existing, and then we’ll be friends. And yet nobody really paid attention to this. Nobody pondered the implications at the time, and of course, most famously, Jimmy Carter invited Sadat and Begin to Camp David a few years after that, about a year after this, rather, and there was going to be peace. It was going to be great. But the thing was, Carter was entranced by Sadat. Carter did think that Sadat was some extraordinary, magnanimous Gandhi-like world figure for peace, and so he told him essentially that he would give him anything he wanted. He called him a great and good man, and Carter said to Sadat, “I will represent your interests as if they were my own. You are my brother.”
Now, contrast that to Carter’s national security advisor, you remember Zbigniew Brzezinski. Yeah, you remember him. And he said in his memoirs that Carter’s relationship with Begin was “icy” and even mutual praise was formalistic and devoid of any personal feeling. But meanwhile Carter’s telling Sadat, “I hope I’ll never let you down.” And what’s really ironic about his is that Sadat went back to Mohamed Kamel, his foreign minister, and the rest of his entourage, and he’s telling them all this with great hilarity and talking to them about the person he called “poor naïve Carter.” And it was really sort of ludicrous how he took advantage of Carter at Camp David, and what happened essentially is Begin caught on very quickly. He went back to his own group, and he said the Americans have adopted the Egyptian program. That’s that, and that’s essentially what was forced upon the Israelis at the time. I mean it was really an unfair conflict. It was two against one, and so there wasn’t really any chance.
Begin actually brought along Samuel Katz, who’s the author of a great book called Battleground about the case, essentially the case for Israel, and he had Katz talking to Carter to try to explain to him why Israel had a just case that ought to be respected. And Carter just got more and more impatient until he cut him off entirely. He had no interest in listening to this at all. In any case, what happened was that Sadat is walking, and this is an indication of what his true mindset was, Sadat is walking in the woods in Camp David with Kamel, his foreign minister, and some others, and he’s saying this: “We are dealing with the lowest and meanest of enemies, the Jews. The Jews even tormented their prophet Moses and exasperated their God. I pity poor Carter and his dealings with Begin with his stilted mentality.” And so, then Kamel asks him, “Well, do you think that Carter is going to pressure Begin to give us what we want?,” and Sadat says, “Oh yeah, of course he will.” It was in the bag.
Now, what’s really interesting about this story is that moments after this, or as they’re having this conversation, who walks up to them but Ezer Weizman, the Israeli foreign minister who is also walking in the woods, and he says to Sadat, “Can we talk face to face later on today?,” and Sadat suddenly changes. Seconds ago, he’s talking about “the lowest and meanest of enemies, the Jews,” and now he says, “Oh, of course. It’s always a pleasure to talk to you.” He was completely duplicitous. And really, actually it’s been extraordinarily effective. His historical memory is a monument of duplicity. Now, in any case, you know what happened, that the Israelis were made to give up the Sinai, which they had occupied, and make other concessions.
Now, remember that we’re talking about what happened after a defensive war. Why did Israel take the Sinai? Did it have imperialistic design on Egypt? Did it want to colonize the entire Middle East, as a lot of the paranoid Palestinian propaganda says? Obviously not. What you have is the same thing that happened if you look at a map of Germany before World War II and a map of Germany after World War II, and one thing that you’ll notice is that Germany is smaller after World War II. Why is that? Did Poland and the Soviet Union and the rest of them, well, the Soviet Union may have, but Poland was not working from some imperialist project. The entire continent of Europe had been victimized by the Germans, and it was considered to be entirely just that they lose some territory, and that the surrounding nations gain some territory as a matter of protecting their own security. And this is a law of human history, really, that you find multiple examples of throughout history that the victorious nation can expand its territory at the expense of the defeated nation so as to protect itself more effectively from future attacks of the same kind. Only when it comes to Israel was this not allowed.
But Sadat and Carter compelled Begin to give up the Sinai, which had been taken for security purposes, and to make various concessions. One of the extraordinary concessions that Begin made or was forced to make was the recognition of an entity called the Palestinian people. And I’m sure that you all know that there is no such thing as the Palestinian people. The Arabs of the region — in the first place the name. “Palestine” was a name given by the Romans to the land of Judea after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 134 of the Common Era. In the year 134, there was a Jewish leader, Bar Kokhba, who led a revolt against the Romans, and they lost. And so the Romans had had enough. This was not the first revolt, and they expelled the Jews from the area, and they renamed Jerusalem “Aelia Capitolina,” and they renamed Judea “Palestine.” Where did they get the name Palestine? They went into the Bible, and they saw that the Jews’ enemies were the Philistines, and they named the region accordingly. But at that point, it was just a region’s name. It was like Brooklyn. To say that there’s a Palestinian people that is distinct from the other Arabs of the region is as silly as saying that Brooklynites are ethnically or culturally different and are a separate nation unto themselves. Well, maybe they are.
And when it comes to Palestine, there were always Jews living there, because the Romans had expelled the Jews from the area, but the expulsion decree was not universally enforced, and there was a Jewish presence in Palestine from that moment, 134, up to the present day, uninterrupted. Meanwhile, after the seventh century conquest of the area by the Muslim Arabs, then Arabs moved into the area, and were there intermittently. They were conquered by the Turks, and so on. The people who lived there were Arabs. The Arabs were not differently linguistically, culturally or religiously from Arabs anywhere else in that area. There was no distinct Palestinian people. There never was. And as far as the legal right to the land was concerned, you have various conquests, and the right of conquest is something else that’s always been recognized in human history. So, we can say the land belonged to the Arab Muslim caliphates and that it belonged to the Turkish caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, and then what happened? The Ottoman Empire fell at the end of World War I, and the Turks ceded their right to that area to the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations. And the League of Nations gave Brittan what is known as the Mandate for Palestine, which was intended to allow for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. That was what it was explicitly for.
So there is nobody else who has any legal claim to that land other than the Jews, other than the State of Israel. And even more than this, you have an unbroken historical record of Jewish presence there. You have the fact that nobody else has any claim to that territory. I’m speaking about the fact that people say nowadays that Israel exists on stolen land. Who was it stolen from? If I pick up a wallet on the street, it belongs to somebody, but nobody owns this wallet. It’s the land that was set aside for the Jewish Mandate for Palestine, and remember, that includes what is known as the West Bank for Judea and Samaria and Gaza, and as a matter of fact it includes Jordan as well, although Jordan was detached from the land dedicated to the Mandate for Palestine by the British early on.
You know the phrase “Perfidious Albion? “Perfidious Albion” is a phrase used for Britain, and I’m sorry if Katie’s here, sorry. But anyway, but there’s no doubt that Albion was perfidious in this case, because, of course, you have the Zionist project beginning in the nineteenth century. In the background of everything that I’m saying, you have the Zionists beginning to say, “This is our land, this is our historic homeland, we need to return to this place so that we have our own nation and are not subject to persecution by everybody else.” And so, Jews from Europe, Jews from all over begin to move into the land of Palestine, and the British are supposed to be behind this. The British are supposed to be saying, “This is what is supposed to happen,” but after it started to happen, the Arabs started to complain, and the Arabs started to complain very simply because of a Qur’an verse. If you open your Qur’an to chapter 2, verse 191, you’ll see it. “Drive them out from where they drove you out.” Now, it is a historical myth in several stages that the Israelis drove anybody out. There was nobody driven out. It was the Jews who were driven out by the Romans in the first place, most of them, although many stayed, as I said.
But anyway, once the Arabs started complaining on this very basic principle, you see, “Drive them out from where they drove you out,” if you think about that for a minute, it means no Jews should be here. This is land that belongs to Muslims because Muslims once ruled it, and if Muslims once ruled it, they have the responsibility before Allah to drive out those who rule it now. So they had to drive out the Jews from the area, and the British, there was a British colonel, Colonel Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor, and he spoke to them. He went to the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, some of you may have heard of him — and I’m sorry, Douglas Murray couldn’t make it, so I had to do it. Colonel Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor went to Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and the Mufti of Jerusalem is somebody you may be familiar with because he lived in Berlin during World War II, was friends with Himmler and Eichmann and encouraged the final solution, the genocide of the Jews. But this is in 1920. This is before all that, and Colonel Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor told him we’ve got a bit of a sticky wicket here because we encouraged the settlement, but now you are complaining, and we want to make you happy. So, what we need to do is if you commit a few terror attacks, then the British government will see that the Zionist project is not viable and will withdraw.
Yes, the British government encouraged the Arab Muslims of Palestine to commit terror attacks against the Jews, and told them they would be rewarded for doing so. Now, you see, if you think about that, if that is the beginning of all this, then you see why in a microcosm, world opinion is so crazy nowadays, because this is something that the seeds of were planted years ago, that intimidation will work. They were told that if they were bullying and if they were violent, then they would be rewarded, and they have been. Sadat’s overture for peace was just another way to go about the principle, attaining the principle to “drive them out from where they drove you out.” And they have worked on the basis of intimidation ever since. Ever since until one thing happened: Donald Trump was elected president.
Now, you’ll notice intimidation has been the basis of American foreign policy regarding Israel and the Palestinians really ever since the State of Israel was founded. After the State of Israel was founded, with very few exceptions, we have bowed to Arab Muslim intimidation and allowed them to dictate exactly what we would do regarding Israel. Sadat and Carter is one example of that, and pretty much every other peace process initiative, as you’ll see in the book, are more examples of it. And one of the most egregious examples of it came when the U.S. Congress in the ‘90s recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but added a caveat that Jerusalem would not be recognized as Israel’s capital if the president thought it an expedient, for whatever reason, to postpone that recognition. And Bill Clinton postponed it. George W. Bush postponed it. Obama postponed it. On what grounds? Because the Palestinians would riot, because of intimidation. They had been taught from the beginning, they had been told by the British, if you’re violent, if you commit acts of terror, you’ll be rewarded. Trump changed all that. Trump said, “I’m moving the capital. I’m not going to bow to your bullying and intimidation.”
And so finally we have a chance to achieve some sanity in this conflict, but for the rest of the story, for a record of insanity, you have the book all in your bags, and thank you very much for being here this morning.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-12-31 06:03:402019-12-31 06:04:43VIDEO: Clearing Away the Delusions about the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict
If this turns out to be accurate, will investigators try to determine if his reading of the Islamic scriptures led him to carry out this attack? The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).
Or will this possibility be ignored, as investigating it would be “Islamophobic”?
REACAP [sic]: A knife-wielding man stormed into the Monsey home of the Kossoner Rebbe (Rabbi Rottenberg) and stabbed five people as they celebrated Chanukah, an ambush the governor said Sunday was an act of domestic terrorism fueled by intolerance and a “cancer” of growing hatred in America.
Police tracked a fleeing suspect to Manhattan and made an arrest within hours of the attack Saturday night in Monsey. Grafton E. Thomas had blood all over his clothing and smelled of bleach when officers stopped him, prosecutors said.
Thomas, 37, was arraigned Sunday and pleaded not guilty to five counts of attempted murder and one count of burglary. Bail was set at $5 million and he remains jailed.
UPDATE 6:35PM: The suspect sccused [sic] of going on a stabbing rampage in Monsey is “not a terrorist” – he’s just “mentally ill”. This is according to family which spoke to the NY Post.
Grafton Thimas [sic]- is “not a violent person,” according to his pastor of 10 years, Reverend Wendy Paige of the Hudson Highlands Cooperative Parish.
“Grafton is not a terrorist, he is a man who has mental illness in America and the systems that be have not served him well,” Paige said.
“I have been his pastor for a long time and I have seen him, he is not a violent person, he is a confused person.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-12-30 05:29:302019-12-30 05:34:05NY: “Highly credible law-enforcement source” says man who stabbed Jews celebrating Chanukah is convert to Islam
At the recent debate among Democrats running for President, Bernie Sanders was predictably the most anti-Israel of the candidates. He said he would not, hesitate, this “proud Jewish person,” to withhold aid from Israel to force it to do American bidding, which in Sanders’ view includes removing Jewish settlements from the West Bank. After all, he has previously said that “Jewish settlements in occupied territory are illegal.” He called Netanyahu a “racist,” though he provided no examples of such “racism.” Sanders explained, in his contribution to the squaring-the-circle problem, that “the US should craft a foreign policy that is favorable to both Israel and Palestine.” Sorry, can’t be done. “Israel has the right not only to exist, but to exist in peace and security,” said Sanders, who spent time on a kibbutz in Israel as a young man.
It’s nice of big-hearted Bernie Sanders to grant Israel “the right to exist.” He even grants it the right to exist “in peace and security.” But what if Israel cannot exist in “peace and security” unless it holds onto those supposedly “illegal settlements” in the West Bank, which provide it with the necessary strategic depth against invasion from the East? What if every military man who has studied the matter, beginning with the American military men sent by the Joint Chiefs to Israel in 1967, on President Johnson’s orders, and produced a report on the territory which, as a matter of military necessity, Israel would have to retain. They included most of the West Bank, and all of the Jordan Valley and the Judean Hills. We all know that Bernie Sanders spent time on a kibbutz; too bad he didn’t spend time in the IDF. Military matters are not his strong suit.
Given the vast buildup in Arab militaries since 1967, to expect that Israel could once again pull off its victory in the Six-Day War is to ask that country to entrust its security to another such miracle. Israel could not reasonably expect to survive if it were squeezed back into something like the pre-1967 lines – that is, the 1949 Armistice Lines – which Foreign Minister Abba Eban, a famous dove, correctly defined as the “lines of Auschwitz.”
On what evidence does Sanders think that the Muslim Arabs have given up their desire to eliminate Israel? Did Hamas change its charter, or the views expressed every day by its leading members, fighters, clerics? Has Mahmoud Abbas shown a sincere willingness to engage in peace talks with Israel, or has he repeatedly turned down the offer of such talks, as he does even today? Why would Sanders expect him to behave any differently in the future? Abbas is a Slow Jihadist, willing to use the salami-tactics of creating an ever-smaller Israel through “peace agreements,” but his ultimate aim is the same as that of the Fast Jihadists of Hamas: no more Israel.
If Sanders, who refers constantly to his Jewish heritage and the fact that he once spent time on an Israeli kibbutz, a transparent way to defend himself against charges of being anti-Israel, had taken the time to study the history of the Mandate, he might be surprised to learn that the entire West Bank was part of the territory assigned to the future Jewish National Home, and that Israel’s legal claim to that territory never lapsed; when Jordan managed to possess the West Bank from 1949 to 1967, it did so as the military “occupier.” When Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of the Six-Day War, this did not create Israel’s legal claim; that already existed. It merely put Israel in a position to exercise that pre-existing legal claim to the territory.
Sanders not only has little sympathy for, but also no understanding of, the plight of the Israelis who have to secure their tiny state against many would-be aggressors. There is Hamas, sending hundreds of rockets into southern Israel from Gaza, and constantly attempting to breach, with Molotov cocktails, grenades, and incendiary kites, Israel’s security fence. There are Islamic State elements that have regrouped in Sinai; for now their main target is Egypt, but at any time they might attempt to send terrorists into Israel. There is Hezbollah, with its terror tunnels snaking into the Galilee, and its 140,000 rockets stockpiled in southern Lebanon. There is Jordan, where King Abdullah has to keep the lid on his own people, who increasingly demand that the peace treaty with Israel be ended. There is Turkey, where President Erdogan has published a plan for a pan-Islamic military force capable of overwhelming the Israelis and destroying their country.
And most menacing of all is the powerful Islamic Republic of Iran, which never fails to remind Israel, and the world, that it can destroy the Jewish State. To this end, it has already supplied Hezbollah with those 140,000 rockets ready to be loosed upon Israel.
Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg have joined Sanders in leaving the door open to using US aid to Israel as a means to leverage Israel to change its policies on the Palestinians.
But one Democratic candidate does not think aid to Israel should be used as a weapon. Joe Biden, alone among the major candidates, has said he would not use aid as a weapon to force Israel to change its policies. Some have hailed him, not quite accurately I’m afraid, as a “pro-Israel” candidate. The bar for being “pro-Israel” has been set very low this year. He may not call Netanyahu a “racist” as Sanders does, but he has described his behavior as “outrageous.” What does he mean? Is it outrageous for Netanyahu to have the Israeli military prevent Hamas from breaching the security fence on the border with Gaza? Has it been “outrageous” for him to have those soldiers first use tear gas and rubber bullets to stop the participants in the Great March of Return, and if the fence is about to be breached, by those throwing Molotov cocktails and grenades, then to allow those soldiers to use live fire? Was it “outrageous” for Netanyahu to allow the IDF to kill the northern leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Abu Al-Ata, as he was planning a major terrorist operation against Israel? Was it “outrageous,” after PIJ fired 450 rockets into Israel, disrupting life in southern Israel, with everyone having repeatedly to rush to shelters, for Netanyahu to have the IDF retaliate against PIJ offices, launching pads, and weapons storehouses? What should he have done? Was it “outrageous” for Netanyahu to welcome the move of the American Embassy to Jerusalem? Is it perhaps his muscular policy of replying promptly to every Palestinian attack that Biden founds “outrageous,” though he does not explain, because he cannot, what he would have had Netanyahu do instead? It would have been good, in the face of Sanders’ absurd claim that Netanyahu is a “racist,” if Joe Biden had gone on the offensive, and said “Bernie has called Netanyahu a ‘racist.” This is a preposterous charge, and he knows it. I’ve known Bibi for a long time. We have our policy differences, but he hasn’t a racist bone in his body.”
Joe Biden did distinguish himself from Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg during the debate on the subject of aid to Israel. Unlike them, he has repeatedly said he would never use the withholding of aid as a weapon with which to force Israel to do America’s bidding. Biden has, however, repeated the phrase, the formula, the mantra, of what he and many others s call a “two-state solution.” This already assumes what needs to be proved: is there a “solution” to the Arab war on Israel? And if there isn’t, should that be cause for endless doom and gloom, or is there another way to see things?
Let’s state what those who have studied Islam already know: it is impossible for the Muslim Arabs to permanently accept the existence of Israel, whatever its borders. It is unacceptable for Unbelievers to possess land that was once possessed by Muslims; such land must forever belong to Muslims. It is especially maddening when those Unbelievers are the much-despised Jews, who have managed to stave off repeated attempts by Muslims, the “best of peoples,” to snuff out the Jewish state’s young life. And Israel exists, just as maddeningly, smack in the middle of the Arab world, separating North African Arabs from those in the Middle East. Israel is likened by the Arabs, because of its shape, to a “dagger” thrust into their heart; another favorite metaphor is that Israel is a “cancer.” You don’t pull a dagger only part-way out of your body; you deal with cancer by removing every last cell of it.
Of course those who believe in the “two-state solution” assume that there is some giving up of territory by Israel that will sufficiently placate the Arabs so that they will beat their swords into plowshares. The reverse is true: any further withdrawal by Israel, which in returning the entire Sinai to Egypt has already given back 95% of the land it had won by force of arms in the Six-Day War, will merely whet, not sate, Palestinian and other Arab appetites. Were Israel to give up the West Bank, it would again have an eight-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea. It would have the highest length-of-border-to-enclosed-territory ratio of any country on earth – hellishly difficult to police all of that long border. The “Palestinians” see any future agreement with Israel as a way station on the path toward their final goal, which remains, for both the Fast Jihadists of Hamas and the Slow Jihadists of the Palestinian Authority, the end of the Jewish state.
And the “Palestinians” have powerful allies to help them in this task. There is Iran, whose leaders never fail to claim they are quite capable of destroying the Zionists. There is Turkey, which if President Erdogan has his way, would also participate in some kind of pan-Islamic attack on Israel. The “Palestinians” of the “moderate” PA speak among themselves about the destruction of the Zionist state; to the outside world, Saeb Erekat, Hanan Ashrawi, and Mahmoud Abbas soothingly refer to the “two-state solution.” They find it goes over quite well.
Let’s replace that word “solution” and speak, more realistically, of how this Arab war on Israel can be “managed.” The answer is that it can be managed in exactly the same way that the United States “managed” the threat from the Soviet Union: deterrence. The U.S. remained sufficiently, and obviously strong, so as to deter Soviet aggression. We – Israel, America, the entire West — cannot change the Qur’an, with its commands to wage violent Jihad against Infidels. But by helping to ensure that Israel remains overwhelmingly stronger than its enemies, America can promote a very long peace.
Three trends should be noted that will only improve Israel’s ability to deter its enemies in the future. First, Israel’s technological superiority over the Arabs will continue to widen, as it has been doing for the past several decades. Second, the most important weapon of the Arabs and Iran remains their revenues from oil. But oil demand is static, and may soon decrease: electric vehicles, and the increasing use of solar and wind power, are steadily reducing oil’s share of the energy market. This means less financial support for the Palestinians, affecting their ability to wage war. Third, demography is not, as everyone seems to assume, on the side of the Arabs. With an average of 3.1 children per woman, Israel has the highest fertility rate in the OECD by a considerable margin and much higher than the OECD average of 1.7. Over the past decade, the annual population growth among Muslims in Israel has fallen significantly, from around 3% to less than 2.2% by 2013, and continues inexorably to decrease, while the overall Jewish growth rate rose from around 1.4% to 1.7% in 2013 and continues, just as inexorably, to increase. If present trends continue, fears about a “Muslim population bomb” in Israel can be laid to rest.
Say it a dozen times a day: there is no “solution” – whether one-state, two-state, or n-state — to the Arab war on Israel. But Israel will be able to manage that conflict, while it goes from strength to strength, technologically, financially, demographically, through deterrence. “Peace Through Strength” — remember? That is good enough. That’s more than good enough. Now let’s try to get that message to Joe Biden.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-12-28 05:44:512019-12-28 05:48:36Joe Biden, the “Two-State Solution,” and Peace Through Strength by Hugh Fitzgerald
Ilhan Omar has been much in evidence this past week — Dec. 14 to 20 — in Washington. During the impeachment hearings, when Congressman Kevin McCarthy, at the podium on December 18, quoted, as an example of the level of discourse to which some of his opponents had sunk, Rashida Tlaib’s call to “impeach the motherf—–,” Omar immediately began, and continued repeatedly, to scream out from the back of the chamber, “Stop it! Stop it!,” even though McCarthy had not repeated the phrase, but gone on to other matters. Apparently Ilhan Omar didn’t think that Congressman McCarthy had a right to remind the American people of the crudity to which Rashida Tlaib routinely sinks, and to protect her BFF, tried to shout down, in the House of Representatives itself, the freedom of speech of a fellow Congressman. McCarthy, of course, was not maligning Tlaib, only quoting her verbatim – but that was enough to spur Ilhan Omar into hysterical action.
In another example of Omar’s making her indelible mark in Washington, she joined 16 other Congressmen in a letter deploring the Trump Administration’s sanctions on Iran as “economic warfare.” But why is that wrong? That’s exactly what those sanctions are meant to be – “economic warfare” – in order to persuade the Iranians to modify their aggressive behavior, across the Middle East (in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon), and to slow down their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Why should the Trump Administration not be heartened by the effectiveness of those sanctions rather than, as Ilhan Omar and her 16 colleagues seem to think, be apologetic for their effect? The Administration’s reimposition of sanctions have reduced Iranian oil sales by 90%, from 2.46 mbd to .26 mbd. This has made it harder for the mullahcracy to continue to support the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon; Hezbollah has had to greatly reduce salaries for its members as a result of Iran’s cutting of aid. Nor can Iran offer its previous level of financial support to the Shi’a militias in Iraq. The Iranian rial has sunk in value; Iran’s GDP has actually decreased, the price of gas has had to be increased to raise government revenues; Iran’s people have suffered – that’s exactly what economic sanctions are intended to do.The letter Ilhan signed claims that the sanctions have increased anti-American feeling in Iran. There is no evidence for this; the popular protests in Iran have been directed solely at the Iranian government itself, for its mismanagement, choice of spending priorities, and corruption. Ilhan Omar and her colleagues apparently want those sanctions, that are working so well, to be dramatically reduced, but they offer nothing to take their place. What alternative way to modify the Islamic Republic’s behavior would Ilhan Omar suggest? How would she prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons? Or keep Iran from its foreign aggression?
The report on the letter Ilhan Omar signed is here:
In a letter issued on Tuesday to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the lawmakers wrote that the hefty sanctions the US has imposed on the country was tantamount to “economic warfare.”
The sanctions put in place by this Administration against Iran are nothing less than economic warfare. After years of improving relations between the United States and Iran, the sanctions have devastated that country’s middle class, increased hostility toward the United States, and led to a humanitarian catastrophe. One dire effect has been an entirely preventable shortage of lifesaving medicine.
“This Administration must answer for their attacks on Iranians’ basic human right to affordable medicine,” Rep. Omar said in a statement.
The letter explains that while Iran manufactures 97% of its medicine domestically, the country relies on obtaining the rest through foreign imports.
First, Iran itself makes 97% of all the medicine it needs. That hardly suggests that there is a “humanitarian catastrophe” because of a lack of medicine, unless the remaining 3%, that must be imported, includes medicines that are absolutely critical to the survival of patients, and can be obtained nowhere else. We are not told what those medicines are that need to be imported. Nor is there evidence presented that those imports cannot be obtained from countries other than the U.S., including the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, and China. Ilhan Omar’s letter does not address these other potential sources for these imports. But finally, the main point of the letter – that there is a supposed “humanitarian catastrophe” because of that 3% of Iran’s medicines that the U.S. withholds – is fatally vitiated by the fact that the Department of the Treasury on October 25, 2019 announced a new “humanitarian mechanism” to allow medicine imports into Iran. That didn’t stop Ilhan Omar and her colleagues, nearly two months later, to send their letter to Secretary Mnuchin, ignoring the Treasury’s October 25 announcement. The signatories didn’t want anyone to be confused with facts. Their minds were made up, that “economic warfare” against Iran is a Bad Thing, and they were willing to continue to complain about the withholding of medicine that, if it had ever occurred, now occurred no longer.
The third event of Ilhan Omar’s Washington week in review didn’t require her presence, but she was indispensable to the story. I am thinking of the proceedings in the divorce court, where Dr. Beth Jordan, the wife of her political consultant and lover Tim Mynett, obtained her final decree. The story is here:
It took all of fifteen minutes, but Rep. Ilhan Omar was slammed as an adulteress in a Washington, DC, divorce court on Dec. 19 as her political consultant/alleged lover formally split from his wife, a report said.
Dr. Beth Jordan accused the Minnesota Democrat of having an affair with her now-ex-husband, political consultant Tim Mynett, during a 16-minute hearing before a judge cut her off, the Daily Mail reported.
“I have a statement to make,” Jordan, 55, said, adding that Mynett “had an affair with Ilhan Omar.”
The allegation was first reported by The Post in August, when Jordan claimed in a divorce filing that Mynett confessed to the affair in a “shocking declaration of love” for Omar in April before ditching his wife.
Mynett, 38, a DC-based political consultant who has worked for Omar’s campaign, laughed and clapped his hands with glee as his left the court on Thursday but was tight-lipped when confronted by media.
So her lover “laughed and clapped his hands with glee.” He left his wife and his child for Ilhan Omar, the outspokenly anti-Israel antisemitic Congresswoman, who famously described 9/11 as a place where “some people did something,” who is in all kinds of trouble with the law for failing to correctly report her campaign contributions, and may or may not have married her brother in order to ensure that he could enter the U.S. and receive student loans.
As for Tim Mynett, his relationship with Omar has been disturbing in every sense. She has paid him, as a political consultant, between January and mid-October of 2019, a “consulting fee” of $310,000. That’s $34,444 a month. He must be a very good consultant. The unusually large amounts he has received from her campaign have raised questions, given Omar’s extramarital affair with him, that remain to be answered.
When Beth Jordan charged Ilhan Omar for being an “adulteress,” it seems not to have fazed Omar. Has she, the great Defender of Islam, forgotten what would happen were she living in a Muslim country such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, where the Sharia is fully enforced, and convicted of adultery? One hundred lashes, then death by lapidation. Does she approve? It would be nice if some reporter were to ask her that very question. Consistency is not her strong suit.
There has always been so much going on in Omar’s busy life.
There’s still the question of her brother, as mentioned above. Omar is credibly accused of marrying her brother, Nur Said Elmi, in order to commit immigration and student-loan fraud, and even filed fraudulent tax returns. While married to Elmi, she filed a joint return with another man, Ahmed Hirsi, to whom she was not married at the time.
She is also accused of using campaign money not for political purposes, but on personal travel with Tim Mynett. This is still being investigated by the FEC.
She has already been required by the Minnesota Campaign Board to reimburse her own campaign for money she spent on personal matters, including travel and lawyer’s fees, and to pay a fine as well.
There’s much for an intrepid investigative team to look into.
But just now, let’s limit ourselves to summing up Ilhan Omar’s Washington Week in Review.
She’s been accused of being an adulteress by the wife of her lover and “political consultant” Tim Mynett, to whom she has given unusually large sums from her campaign funds. On the floor of the House, she tried to drown out, by shouting “Stop It! Stop It!,” a Congressman trying to be heard – there is no “free speech” as far as Ilhan Omar is concerned — all because he did nothing more than repeat verbatim a crude remark by her ally and fellow Muslim, Rashida Tlaib. Finally, she signed a letter denouncing the Administration for its “economic warfare” against Iran, deploring the very thing that most of us agree has been a smashing success both in curbing Iranian aggression through proxies (Houthis, Hezbollah, Shi’a militias), and in weakening popular support in Iran for the monstrous regime in Tehran. She thus joined in deploring a supposed “humanitarian catastrophe” in Iran because, although that country produces domestically 97% of all the medicines it needs, that remaining 3% was, the letter falsely implied, cannot be obtained except from the U.S. But even if that were true, two months before Omar’s letter was sent, the Treasury had already announced that it was ending all sanctions on medicine for Iran. It was no longer an issue. But what do facts matter when it’s such fun to bash the Administration?
That was Ilhan Omar’s Washington Week In Review. Let’s hope there are not too many more such weeks featuring the deplorable Omar and her cast of characters – those two Somali husbands, one a possible brother, the consultant/ lover who may yet become her third husband – all part of her scandalous entourage. We can’t take too much more of this. Minnesotans, next November, you will be able to right this wrong. Don’t miss the chance. Do your stuff.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-12-23 04:03:272019-12-23 04:08:26Ilhan Omar: Her Washington Week In Review by Hugh Fitzgerald
Anwar Khan “has been doing outreach to the Jewish community on behalf of the Muslim community for decades,” stated former American Jewish Committee (AJC) official Robert Silverman at Washington, DC’s Newseum on December 3. His praise for Khan, the director of the Hamas ally Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), typified the unsettling leftist Jewish ignorance of jihadist threats at this launch event for the Inter Jewish Muslim Alliance (IJMA).
Silverman addressed an audience that ultimately grew during the daylong conference to about 50. This included his fellow IJMA organizer, Microsoft External Affairs Director Suhail Khan, a “conservative” political operative with deep, longstanding personal Muslim Brotherhood (MB) ties. Other faces familiar to this author included the Gülenist Rumi Forum’s public relations director, Jena Luedtke, and the Iraqi-American co-founder of the American Islamic Congress, Zainab al-Suwaij.
Silverman’s association with the dubious Khan replicated Silverman’s experience as the first director of the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, previously rightly mocked as the “Wolf-Sheep Advisory Council.” Therein the left-leaning American Jewish Committee (AJC) had joined with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a nefarious MB-legacy organization, supposedly to combat hate crimes and other manifestations of bigotry. An IJMA statement distributed among the conference handouts and now available at IJMA’s new website proclaimed that IJMA members wanted, “as a Muslim-Jewish alliance, to counter voices of hatred and bigotry within our own communities.”
Yet the day’s proceedings demonstrated a decidedly one-sided view of prejudice among Jews and Muslims, as indicated by the seminar’s first presentation by Elana Hain from the Shalom Hartman Institute (SHI) of North America. “Antisemitism is converging on Jews from both the right and the left,” she correctly noted, but while “everybody in this room knows about antisemitism on the right,” leftist antisemitism “is much harder to talk about.” Today “what we are seeing on the progressive left is a type of conversionist antisemitism that says, ‘Jew, we will accept you if you disavow your commitment to the state of Israel.’” She noted particularly that “my spouse works on a college campus, and I have seen how Jewish students are increasingly unwelcome in progressive spaces.”
However true, Hain’s remarks surprisingly contained not a single reference to antisemitism involving Muslims or Islam. Excerpts from three publications (see here, here, and here) in her handout included several dubious allegations of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy and administration inciting antisemitism. By contrast, “Muslims” appeared only once in a Tablet article’s reference to hate crimes, even though the American Interest article she quoted briefly discussed “Islamic antisemitism” in an uncited paragraph. Meanwhile, internet searches of the Tablet for “Islamic antisemitism” find numerous articles (e.g. here).
Hain’s blind spot seemed particularly disturbing given the annual conference in Chicago of the viciously anti-Semitic American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) just days before (November 28-30). The conference featured inflammatory condemnations of Israel’s right to exist from prominent American Muslims. This included former Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad, and CAIR San Francisco chapter leader Zahra Billoo.
This author accordingly presented to Hain an audience question noting the AMP conference and that AJC CEO David Harris has previously called for “trifocal lenses” to confront antisemitism from the “far left, the far right, and the jihadists.” She responded that she was “including in progressive antisemitism” the “antisemitism that comes from the Muslim community around Israel.” She added that she had not devoted particular study to Islamic antisemitism and suggested that Muslim conference attendees might be better qualified to discuss this topic.
Just as Hain only circuitously referenced Islamic antisemitism, she similarly indulged questionable tropes commonplace among many Muslims. For example, without any indication of whether Jews or others had any valid objections to Islamic beliefs and/or behaviors she used the Orwellian phrase “Islamophobia.” Conflicts between Israel and Palestinians should not “lead to antisemitism or ‘Islamophobia,’” she said, as if irrational Jew-hatred were the same as critical inquiry into Islam.
Audience member Imam Abdullah Antepli, a leader of SHI’s Muslim Leadership Initiative (MLI), reflected Hain’s remarks with questions about “Islamophobic elements within the Jewish community.” “Within this organized anti-Muslim campaign in the United States, there are so many visible Jews,” he stated. Jews have a “fear of losing the state of Israel” and “when many Jews meet Muslims, that fear is all that they see,” she responded while again not explaining why such perceptions are meritless (consider Israel, Muslims, and Britain’s Labour Party).
Hain also equated Jewish national liberation in Israel with baseless claims that “Palestinians” represent a unique, historical nation and not merely a local collection of Levantine Arab communities. The statement “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people” is equally false as “Jews don’t have a history in that region” of Israel, she said. This is “mutual denial of peoples’ actual historical experiences,” notwithstanding numerous modern “Palestinian” fictions.
A veiled female Muslim audience member from the Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom, a group obsessed with all real and imagined “white supremacy,” prompted more historical revisionism from Hain. The Muslim claimed that historically the term “antisemitism” encompassed prejudice against both Jews and Muslims, and Hain suggested that antisemitism could include both “Judeophobia” and “Islamophobia.” In reality, the German publicist Wilhelm Marr invented the word “antisemitism” in 1879 in order to impart a scientific veneer to his rabid Jew-hatred.
The appeasing Hain, who called the leftist American rabbi Jill Jacobs a “colleague and a friend,” paralleled the reaction to Islamic antisemitism of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an IJMA sponsor. As Islamic antisemitism scholar Andrew Bostom has documented, ADL global surveys of antisemitism in recent years have identified Muslims as world leaders in prejudice against Jews. Yet the ADL has minimized such facts.
While Hain acted conciliatory towards Muslims, they often show little reciprocity, as a following article will analyze. Conference speakers after her like the radical “Islamophobia” expert Wajahat Ali were far more direct in their accusations of bigotry against various Jews while exhibiting little interest in the anti-Semitic milieus of conference participants like ISNA members.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. The views are those solely of the author.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-12-15 04:44:372019-12-15 04:45:46Leftist Jews Ally with Suit-Wearing Jihadists in New Group [Part One] by Andrew Harrod
“Defense attorney Susan Kellman said Alimehmeti had struggled to fit in after moving to the US aged six from Albania.”
Yeah, that explains it. Doesn’t everyone who struggles to fit in as a child stockpile weapons and try to join a terrorist group?
“ISIS fanatic dubbed ‘The Dentist’ who hoped to behead people and stockpiled knives and a pocket chainsaw in his Bronx apartment is jailed for 22 years as judge brands him a ‘ticking time bomb,’” by Isabella Nikolic, Mailonline, December 9, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
An ISIS fanatic who was dubbed ‘The Dentist’ and hoped to behead people with a pocket chainsaw has been jailed for 22 years after a judge branded him a ‘ticking time bomb’.
Sajmir Alimehmeti, 26, who lived in an apartment in the Bronx, was sentenced by US district judge Paul Englemayer, who listed the terrifying stash of weapons he amassed.
They included a military-grade survival knife with a five-inch blade, three tactical knives with four-inch blades, two credit-card-sized folding knives, a commando wire pocket saw, a 24-inch pocket chainsaw, a rucksack designed for tactical combat, a tactical ski mask and handcuffs.
Judge Englemayer said it was impossible to conceive of a ‘benign reason’ for Alimehmeti to ‘stockpile weapons that would be used to restrain, gut, or decapitate a human body’, according to the New York Post.
Alimehmeti reportedly used coded language when referring to places he wanted to travel to ‘brush his teeth’.
Prosecutors also said that he claimed he watched ISIS beheading videos to keep himself motivated while exercising.
He allegedly initially tried to travel to the Middle East to join ISIS twice in 2014 but was stopped by British authorities both times.
He is accused of being stopped at Manchester Airport in October 2014 when security found nunchucks and camouflage clothing in his luggage.
And he is accused of trying to get to the Middle East again in December that year but was stopped by security at Heathrow Airport in London when they found images of ISIS fighters and improvised explosive devices on his cellphone….
Defense attorney Susan Kellman said Alimehmeti had struggled to fit in after moving to the US aged six from Albania.
She claimed he was radicalized as a teenager during a stint for robbery in the Fishkill Correctional Facility by Mohamed Mamdouh, one of the masterminds behind a foiled plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue in 2011.
In addition to 22 years in prison, Alimehmeti also was sentenced to five years supervised release.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-12-11 06:58:082019-12-14 05:47:50Bronx: Muslim migrant plotted to behead people with chainsaw, amassed large stash of weapons
King Salman of Saudi Arabia just called to express his sincere condolences and give his sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed and wounded in the attack that took place in Pensacola, Florida….
Does Trump himself believe this? Does he actually think that “the Saudi people…love the American people”? Or is he calculating that he needs to take this line because he wants to keep the Saudis on his side against Iran?
Either way, the Saudi problem is not going to go away, and is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. This is a regime that has spent billions, if not trillions, to spread Wahhabi Islam — a form of the religion that is even more virulent and violent than the others — around the world. Its schools are routinely found to teach hatred of Jews and Christians, despite repeated promises of textbook reform. Even if Trump thinks the Saudi regime is reforming, a claim that has been made but for which there is scant evidence, he should realize that “the Saudi people” are mostly doctrinaire Muslims (as they have been taught to be and threatened into remaining) who therefore have no love for the kuffar of America.
For years I have called for an end to our sham alliance with Saudi Arabia. The Pensacola shooting only shows yet again why this is needed.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-12-09 06:46:402019-12-09 07:00:57Trump: “The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter”
There is no reason why this couldn’t be so; the Islamic State has many times called upon Muslims to murder random civilians in Western countries. If they didn’t do this one, they’ll keep trying.
“Islamic State claims responsibility for London Bridge attack,” Reuters, November 30, 2019:
Islamic State said the London Bridge attack on Friday was carried out by one of its fighters, the group’s Amaq news agency reported on Saturday. The group did not provide any evidence.
It added that the attack was made in response to Islamic State calls to target countries that have been part of a coalition fighting the jihadist group.
British police on Friday shot dead a man wearing a fake suicide vest who stabbed two people to death in London and wounded three more before being wrestled to the ground by bystanders, in what the authorities called a terrorist attack.
The attacker went on the rampage just before 2 p.m., attacking people at a premises near London Bridge in the heart of the city’s financial district – the scene of a deadly attack by Islamist militants two years ago.
Half a dozen bystanders tackled the suspect to the ground and grabbed his knife. A video posted on Twitter showed police dragging one man off the suspect before an officer took careful aim. Two shots rang out. The man stopped moving….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-12-01 03:51:112019-12-02 07:45:55Islamic State claims responsibility for London Bridge jihad massacre
Oh, the Islamophobia! See what the poor lamb was driven to by the racism and bigotry he encountered?
Yes, I’m being sarcastic. Yes, there are many people who actually believe that sort of nonsense.
Note also Rashid’s support for the “Palestinian” jihad, as seen in the photo. That must have made him a popular man among Leftists on campus.
“‘We need to take our revenge now.’ South Florida man wanted ISIS to bomb colleges, feds say,” by David Ovalle, Miami Herald, November 25, 2019:
A North Miami Beach man who wanted the “establishment of Islamic law” plotted to bomb deans at two of his former colleges, federal authorities said Monday.
Salman Rashid, 23, appeared in Miami federal court on Monday charged with soliciting another person to commit a violent crime.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office said Rashid targeted unnamed deans at Miami Dade College and Broward College, schools from which he had been expelled. Rashid told a confidential source working with the FBI that he wanted the explosives to be “as big as possible,” according to a press release….
According to the FBI, agents began investigating Rashid in approximately April 2018 after he made a slew of public Facebook posts about overthrowing democracy and establishing Islamic law.
He exhibited a “growing hatred of America, democracy, non-Muslims and secular Muslims,” according to a criminal complaint by FBI Agent Kim McGreevy….
By the fall, Rashid also ran afoul of Miami Dade College administrators after a fellow student reported to campus authorities that he was sending her “threatening text messages,” according to the criminal complaint.
In one series of messages, Rashid detailed his growing obsession with the woman and threatened, “you will not have excuses, will not be given a choice and will have to come close to me.”…
In May 2019, that woman contacted the FBI because Rashid had posted a video that showed a man “grieving over his murdered girlfriend” — and Rashid posted he would soon “leave his world.” The woman feared Rashid might kill himself and her too, agents said.
The complaint said Rashid’s Facebook account was awash with grievances against feminists, Jews and people who mistreated Muslims. He also declared himself “the next rightful Caliph” — the leader of the Muslim world, according to the FBI.
That month, Rashid “solicited” one of the confidential sources to get in touch with members of the Middle Eastern terrorist group known as ISIS, or the Islamic State.
He complained that Muslims in Miami had been attacked and he wanted revenge. He wanted ISIS to conduct a “terrorist attack” on his behalf, preferably on a religious building or a nightclub, according to the press release….
Rashid urged the supposed ISIS member to target “arrogant men and woman who refuse to recognize our authority and hate Islam,” according to the FBI…
“Rashid indicated the Miami dean and the Broward dean were not just Rashid’s enemies but also ‘enemies of Islam, enemies of Allah,’ ” the complaint said.
He also “provided information about the locations to place the devices and his assessment of security that might be present at the colleges,” according to the press release.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-11-27 03:33:362019-11-27 03:37:42Florida: Muslim who wanted “establishment of Islamic law” plotted jihad massacres of “enemies of Islam”
“Pope Francis trotted out a scene from the 11th-century French epic poem La Chanson de Roland this week to prove Christians have tried to convert Muslims by the sword, just as Muslims have done to Christians.”
The Pope’s moral equivalence is obscene at best. He also stated: “Beware of the fundamentalist groups: everyone has his own.”
True, but no religion but Islam has a history of aggression and an imperative — supported by religious texts — to conquer the world and subjugate unbelievers as inferiors, while murdering those who leave the faith.
Nowhere in Christian tenets is there a command to conquer by the sword; however, this is prescribed in Islamic texts and law, and has been steadily followed in varying degrees for 1,400 years.
Christians also defended themselves against expansionary Islamic marauders from the 7th century onward, as the latter rampaged through the Middle East and Africa, murdering far more Christians than Christians killed Muslims in all the Crusades combined.
The Pope has been a powerful promoter of Islam, going so far as advance theological reforms in Catholic schools to promote a “common mission of peace” with Islam. He largely ignores the gross human rights violations against Christians, women, minorities and apostates that are justified by normative Islam. He has not called on the leaders of Islamic states and mainstream Islamic leaders to condemn the Islamic texts that sanction such abuses. Instead, he has stated that “Christianity and Islam have more in common than people think…and the two religions defend common values that are necessary for the future of civilization.”
“Hours before Pope Francis called for the abolition of capital punishment” last Friday, he warmly embraced the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb — the revered Islamic scholar and cleric who has endorsed jihad suicide attacks against Jews and wants converts to Christianity to be killed. Pope Francis and el-Tayeb early this year published “A Document On Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.”
Then last month, Pope Francis installed new cardinals who “share his vision for social justice, rights of immigrants and dialogue with Islam.”
Regarding La Chanson de Roland, “the French themselves to cry foul, reproaching the pontiff both for besmirching one of their most beloved pieces of epic literature and for using a fictional narrative to illustrate a point about how Christians supposedly behave.”
“Pope Cites Fictional French Epic to Prove Christians Are Violent,” by Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, November 21, 2019:
ROME — Pope Francis trotted out a scene from the 11th-century French epic poem La Chanson de Roland this week to prove Christians have tried to convert Muslims by the sword, just as Muslims have done to Christians.
“A scene from The Song of Roland comes to me as a symbol, when the Christians defeat the Muslims and line them up in front of the baptismal font, with one holding a sword,” the pope told an Argentinian interreligious dialogue group Monday.
“And the Muslims had to choose between baptism or the sword. That is what we Christians did,” he declared.
It did not take long for the French themselves to cry foul, reproaching the pontiff both for besmirching one of their most beloved pieces of epic literature and for using a fictional narrative to illustrate a point about how Christians supposedly behave.
“La Chanson de Roland is obviously not a historical chronicle of events, but an epic poem, a chanson de geste, the oldest and most complete manuscript, written in Anglo-Norman, and dates back to the early twelfth century, four centuries after the facts it is supposed to recount,” wrote Vini Ganimara Thursday for the French Catholic news site Riposte Catholique.
The Song of Roland was indeed inspired in part by a historical event, namely Charlemagne’s expedition to Spain in 778, Ganimara observes, but this expedition to Spain was actually undertaken at the request of several Muslim governors of Spain, in rebellion against the Emir of Cordova.
Moreover, the invasion was unsuccessful, and is recounted as such in the poem.
“The memory of Pope Francis evoking the victory of the Franks over Muslims is therefore confused, because the expedition was not a victory,” Ganimara observes.
“The fictitious case of the forced baptism of Muslims supposedly defeated after the capture of Zaragoza — which did not take place — is not historical, but is a pure imagination of the poet,” he adds, noting that contrary to the pope’s account, there is not even a Christian holding a sword in the original work.
“How then can he affirm that ‘this is what we Christians did’?” he concludes.
In his address, Pope Francis was attempting to show that it is not just Islamic extremists who practice violent fanaticism, but that Christians are equally guilty of religiously motivated violence….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-11-24 04:56:332019-11-24 05:22:14Pope cites French epic poem to “prove” Christianity is as violent as Islam
University of Florida professor Ken Chitwood wrote Wednesday in the Associated Press’ commentary section, “The Conversation,” that “the Islamic State tries to boost its legitimacy by hijacking a historic institution.” He then provided a drive-by overview of the history of various Islamic caliphates, so whitewashed as to rival the Washington Post’s famous characterization of Islamic State (ISIS) caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in misleading duplicity. Even worse, Chitwood tells us that “as a scholar of global Islam, every time I teach my ‘Introduction to Islam’ class,” he teaches this nonsense to his hapless University of Florida students. No surprise there, given the fact that most universities today are little more than Antifa recruitment centers.
“Under Umar,” Chitwood writes blandly, “the caliphate expanded to include many regions of the world such as the lands of the former Byzantine and Sassanian empires in Asia Minor, Persia and Central Asia.”
Yeah, uh, Professor Chitwood, how exactly did that “expansion” occur? In reality, beyond the pseudo-academic whitewash and fantasy that Chitwood purveys, the caliphates always behaved much like the Islamic State, because they were all working from the same playbook. The true, bloody history of the caliphates can be found, detailed from Islamic sources, in the only complete history of 1,400 years of jihad violence, The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS.
The word khalifa means “successor”; the caliph in Sunni Islamic theology is the successor of Muhammad as the military, political, and spiritual leader of the Muslims. The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS demonstrates that the great caliphates of history, from the immediate post-Muhammad period of the “Rightly Guided Caliphs” to the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Ottomans, as well as other Islamic states, all waged relentless jihad warfare against non-Muslims, subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law and denying them basic rights.
These weren’t the actions of a “tiny minority of extremists,” abhorred by the vast majority of peaceful Muslims for “hijacking” their religion, as Ken Chitwood would have you believe. This was, for fourteen centuries, mainstream, normative Islam, carried forth by the primary authorities in the Islamic world at the time. The accounts of eyewitnesses and contemporary chroniclers through the ages show that in every age and in every place where there were Muslims, some of them believed that they had a responsibility given to them by Allah to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law.
And so it is today: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi enunciated that responsibility more clearly and directly than most Muslim spokesmen do these days, but he is by no means the only one who believes that it exists.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-11-21 06:58:102019-11-21 07:01:24University of Florida Prof Hails Caliphate as ‘Historic Institution’ That ISIS Is ‘Hijacking’
Pope Francis and the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb, early this year published “A Document On Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” and it’s as filled with falsehoods and wishful thinking as one would expect coming from a practiced deceiver such as el-Tayeb and someone so eager to be deceived as Pope Francis. Here’s one:
Terrorism is deplorable and threatens the security of people, be they in the East or the West, the North or the South, and disseminates panic, terror and pessimism, but this is not due to religion, even when terrorists instrumentalize it. It is due, rather, to an accumulation of incorrect interpretations of religious texts and to policies linked to hunger, poverty, injustice, oppression and pride. This is why it is so necessary to stop supporting terrorist movements fuelled by financing, the provision of weapons and strategy, and by attempts to justify these movements even using the media. All these must be regarded as international crimes that threaten security and world peace. Such terrorism must be condemned in all its forms and expressions…
Terrorism is due to “an accumulation of incorrect interpretations of religious texts and to policies linked to hunger, poverty, injustice, oppression and pride.”
So are the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib), all incorrect in their interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunnah? Here is what they say about jihad warfare against non-Muslims:
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
“Pope Embraces Anti-Semitic Imam Who Wants Christian Converts Killed,” by Jules Gomes, Church Militant, November 18, 2019:
Hours before Pope Francis called for the abolition of capital punishment on Friday, he warmly embraced Grand Imam Al-Tayeb, who has expressed his desire that Muslims who convert to Christianity should be executed.
The world’s best-known Muslim leader has also called homosexuality a disease, dismissed the idea of human rights as “ticking time-bombs” and has endorsed suicide attacks against Jewish men, women and children.
Earlier that day in the pontiff’s address to the International Association of Penal Law, Pope Francis compared the rhetoric of conservative politicians who oppose the homosexual agenda to speeches made by Adolf Hitler.
“These are actions that are typical of Nazism, that with its persecution of Jews, gypsies, people with homosexual orientation, represent an excellent model of the throwaway culture and culture of hatred,” he said.
The two religious leaders engaged in “cordial discussions,” according to the Vatican, talking about the protection of minors in the digital world and goals achieved since Pope Francis’ recent visit to the United Arab Emirates.
In 2016, Al-Tayeb called for “unrepentant apostates” from Islam to be killed. “The four schools of law all concur that apostasy is a crime, that an apostate should be asked to repent, and that if he does not, he should be killed,” he said in an interview in Arabic on television, explaining:
There are two verses in the Quran that clearly mention apostasy, but they did not define a specific punishment. They left the punishment for the Hereafter, for Allah to punish them as He sees fit. But there are two hadiths [on apostasy]. According to the more reliable of the two, a Muslim can only be killed in one of three cases, one of which is abandoning his religion and leaving the community.
We must examine these two expressions: “Abandoning religion” is described as “leaving the community.” All the early jurisprudents understood that this applies to someone who leaves his religion, regardless of whether he left and opposed his community or not. All the early jurisprudents said that such a person should be killed, regardless of whether it is a man or a woman — with the exception of the Hanafi School, which says that a female apostate should not be killed.
Asked about the exception for the female apostate, the Muslim theologian responded: “Because it is inconceivable that a woman would rebel against her community.”
The global leader of Sunni Islam, which constitutes the majority of the world’s Muslim population, also dismissed the concept of human rights as “full of ticking time-bombs” and insisted that “the [Islamic and Western] civilizations are different.”
“Our civilization is based on religion and moral values, whereas their [Western] civilization is based more on personal liberties and some moral values,” he told his interviewer.
The Grand Imam’s most severe condemnation was reserved for homosexuality: “My opinion was — and I said this [in the West] — that no Muslim society could ever consider sexual liberty, homosexuality and so on to be a personal right. Muslim societies consider these things to be diseases, which must be fought and treated.”…
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2019-11-20 06:01:552019-11-23 05:42:58VIDEO: Pope embraces imam who has endorsed jihad suicide attacks against Jews and wants converts to Christianity killed