Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pensacola Jihad Massacre Victim Families Sue Saudi Arabia

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

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

Nigeria: Muslims murder church elder and abduct three other Christians

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

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

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

The Nation of Islam’s Revealing History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like those launched at the USS Mason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murphy had been among the loudest voices against the designation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also promised to send terrorists to fight against Israel.

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

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

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

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

Daniel Pearl’s Widow Highlights Message She Got About His Murder: ‘This is Not Islam’

Suicidal self-hatred continues to sweep the West. Mariane Pearl, the widow of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped and beheaded by Islamic jihadis in Pakistan in 2002, has suffered a great deal, and it is perhaps churlish and uncharitable to venture any critical word at all. But it isn’t she I am criticizing. It is the general tendency, the felt need or the unspoken imperative, to take all possible opportunities to exonerate Islam of all connection to crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings. One can never solve a problem by pretending it doesn’t exist. But that is exactly what we are doing.

The 19th anniversary of Daniel Pearl’s murder was Monday, and on Wednesday, Mariane Pearl published an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled “My husband’s killer could go free in Pakistan. Despite the injustice, I still have hope.” It began: “Almost two decades ago, the people of Pakistan sent me messages expressing sadness and anger at the murder of my husband, Daniel Pearl, in their beloved country. Danny was 38 years old and the Wall Street Journal’s bureau chief for South Asia. “I am a Muslim and this, my friend, is not Islam,” one wrote. My favorite message read: “Your husband had a great smile . . . a happy mixture of Pope John Paul and Dean Martin.”

It is certain that Mariane Pearl received numerous messages after the murder of her husband. The one that she and/or the Post chose to give first mention, however, was “I am a Muslim and this, my friend, is not Islam.”

The first question that springs to mind about this is: Why this message? Why is cleansing Islam’s image the number one priority?

The second question is: Why is this always asserted but never explained? Daniel Pearl was made to state that he was a Jew in a video, where he likely read a statement the jihadis had prepared for him: “My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California USA. I come from, uh, on my father’s side the family is Zionist. My father’s Jewish, my mother’s Jewish, I’m Jewish. My family follows Judaism. We’ve made numerous family visits to Israel. Back in the town of Bnei Brak there is a street named after my great grandfather Chaim Pearl who is one of the founders of the town.” Then he was beheaded.

In a hadith that Muslims consider authentic, Muhammad is depicted as saying:

“The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Sahih Muslim 6985)

And the Qur’an says:

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” (47:4)

In light of all that, it is unfortunate that Mariane Pearl’s interlocutor apparently did not explain how the killing of Daniel Pearl was not Islam, how the jihadis who killed him were transgressing Islamic tenets, or how the passages of the Qur’an and Hadith that seem to allow for such behavior actually have some other meaning or can be interpreted in a benign manner.

In the article, Mariane Pearl describes how it all happened, and how a Muslim who was the chief of the counter-terrorism unit in Karachi offered his help. Mariane Pearl jokes in response to kindness from this man and his wife: “Stop being so nice. How am I ever going to hate you guys?” That is the choice as most people see it today: one must either hate Muslims, or pretend that Islam is a religion of peace. But in reality, the fact that Islam teaches warfare against unbelievers does not mean that every Muslim will believe this to be an imperative or practice it. It doesn’t mean that no Muslims will be kind to unbelievers. But to believe that such kindness precludes the possibility that Islam does teach this warfare is to be willfully blind. And that’s where we are as a society.

The third and easiest question to answer is: Would the Washington Post ever print an explanation of the Islamic justification for the murder of Daniel Pearl, even if such a story included statements by Muslim spokesmen in the West offering differing interpretations of the passages in question? And the answer is, Not on your life! Not only is the Post, and all the rest of the establishment media as well, dedicated indefatigably to whitewashing and obfuscating the ideological roots of jihad terrorism; it is also determined to pretend that there isn’t even a question about those roots: they lay, according to the Post and its colleagues, in “racism” and “Islamophobia,” not in Islamic texts and teachings, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a racist “Islamophobe” himself.

The victory of “Islamophobia” propaganda has been so complete that the elites don’t even consider it remotely necessary even to address the arguments of those whom they smear as “Islamophobes,” or to acknowledge that they have any arguments at all. The only problem with all this is that the jihad, motivated by Islamic texts and teachings according to numerous statements of jihadis themselves, is not going to go away for all this pretending that it doesn’t exist.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Khamenei: ‘Enemies cannot do a damn thing against the Islamic Republic and that Islam’s power is growing’

Professor says he’s ‘struggling’ with his Christian faith because of Trump, beheadings shouldn’t reflect on Islam

Universities get billions from Islamic entities, Biden drops rule forcing revelation of cash from propaganda centers

Pakistan’s Khan: ‘West associated Islam with terrorism. Muslims should have made it clear that there is no link.’

Nigeria’s military executes 6 Christian soldiers framed by a Muslim colonel for a crime they didn’t commit

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

Muslim Brotherhood Supporter Named Veterans Administration Secretary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Steve Harvey: ‘Islam is a religion of peace’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not exactly a surprise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIDEO: Georgetown Professor — Islamic Slavery is Freedom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wife of Hamas-linked CAIR top dog Hassan Shibly accuses him of beating her, he resigns, may be disbarred


No surprise here in Shibly’s behavior. He is clearly a true believer, a Sharia-adherent Muslim. What is surprising is that Imane Sadrati actually has dared to complain. The Qur’an teaches that men are superior to women and should beat those from whom they “fear disobedience”: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34

Muhammad’s child bride, Aisha, says in a hadith that Muhammad “struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: ‘Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?’” — Sahih Muslim 2127

It will be interesting now to see if Shibly attempts a religious freedom defense, as did doctors in Michigan who were accused of practicing female genital mutilation. They succeeded with this defense. Maybe he will, too.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government. CAIR’s national outreach manager is an open supporter of Hamas.

“CAIR Executive Shibley [sic] Beats Wife, Resigns, and Could Get Disbarred,” by Javier Manjarres, The Floridian, January 24, 2021:

Former Executive Director of the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Florida, Hassan Shibly (pictured) has literally taken what the Qur’an says about beating your wife and applied it to his own family.

Verse 4:34 in the Qu’ran allows for Muslim men to “strike” their wives, and that is exactly what Hassan Shibly did to his wife Imane Sadrati, who has accused him in a fundraising video of beating her in front of her children, causing her living situation with Shibly as “unbearable.”

“My children and I are in desperate need of your help,” stated Sadrati. “For years I’ve been in an abusive relationship, and the situation at home has become unbearable. I’ve finally decided to build the courage to start over.”

This is the same Syria-born Shibly that hosted Rep. Ilhan Omar at a CAIR fundraiser in California, where he infamously stated, “some people did something” about the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks against the U.S….

Shibly is a devout Islamists [sic] that defended the “ISIS bride”, has called the terror group Hezbollah a “resistance movement,” tweeted that “Israel and its supporters are enemies of God,” and praised Palestinian terrorist Marvan [sic] Barghouti as a “hero.”

In addition, Hassan Shibly for the last two years has engaged in a high-profile spat with Conservative journalist and former Republican nominee for Congress, Laura Loomer.

Loomer sued Hassan Shibly and CAIR FL in a Florida court for tortious interference for their role in getting her banned from Twitter and other social media sites.

In a statement to The Floridian, Loomer stated that she had long sounded the alarm about Shibly.

“I’ve been warning people about the national security threat Hassan Shibly poses to Florida and our nation for years. I’m happy to see that the leader of  CAIR- FL, CAIR’s largest branch in the country, which has been designated as a terrorist organization by the UAE, has resigned over a domestic violence dispute. His resignation should have been submitted in 2019 when he advocated for Hoda Muthana, an ISIS bride who fled to Syria to be readmitted to the US despite her Murderous threats against Americans. fled to Syria to be readmitted to the US despite her Murderous threats against Americans.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York Times: “The ‘Muslim Ban’ Is Over. The Harm Lives On.”

Turkey: Pro-Erdogan ‘journalist’ says Biden’s ‘Jewish-majority’ cabinet is a cause for concern

An Arab Israeli Asks ‘What Apartheid’?

Hamas-linked CAIR files appeal to decision to dismiss case against professor for criticizing Islam

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

CALIFORNIA: Muslim Lawyer Praises Hitler, Calls for New Genocide of the Jews

Will he be disbarred? Of course not. That would be “Islamophobic.” “The California bar investigated him and unbelievably found no actionable conduct.”

There is so much corruption these days, you need wings to stay above it.

The Jews in the Qur’an are called 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).

“California Lawyer Farhad Khorasani Calls for Genocide of Jews,” Israellycool, January 19, 2021 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Farhad Khorasani is an Iranian-American international lawyer who has his own law firm Khorasani Law.

He is also is the founder and chair of the Iranian American Sport Association (IASA),  a Los-Angeles based 501c3 nonprofit organization, “to help save his family sport, Olympic wrestling, and to bridge the sports gap between the two nations and support USA-Iran Sports Diplomacy.” As such, he appears on Persian TV to comment on Iran-US sports relations.

[CLICK HERE AND HERE TO SEE HIS SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS]

He’s also acted.

Sounds like quite the guy.

Except he’s not. He is a vile Jew hater.

After these posts were exposed – including by a former classmate of his who had no idea he was like this – the California bar investigated him and unbelievably found no actionable conduct….

RELATED ARTICLES:

The New York Times Loves Iran, and Wants You to Love It, Too

NBC’s Mehdi Hasan: ‘Far-Right Domestic Terror Threat More Dangerous Than Al Qaeda After 9/11’

Sweden: Three Molotov cocktails thrown at church in Islam-dominated Stockholm suburb

Back to the endless wars: US military convoy enters northeast Syria

Iraq: Muslims murder at least 32 in crowded Baghdad market in first big jihad suicide attack in three years

Jailed for life over plot to behead cop, UK’s youngest convicted jihad terrorist is now ‘suitable for release’

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

Iran Overplays Its Hand

It is still unclear what the Biden Administration will do about the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Biden has at times expressed a willingness to rejoin the JCPOA, without any change to the agreement, and at other times, he has suggested that he would join the deal only if it were modified to include limits on Iran’s development of ballistic missiles and its regional aggression, through a network of proxies and allies — from the Houthis in Yemen, to Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq, to the Alawite-led army In Syria, to Hezbollah in Lebanon – to create a “Shi’a crescent” from the Gulf to the Mediterranean. Now Iran, has apparently given Washington a deadline to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal. In so doing, it appears to have overplayed its hand.

The latest report, on the time table that Iran now demands be met by Washington, is here: “Will Iran overplaying its hand force Biden to call its bluff – analysis,” by Yonah Jeremy Bob, Jerusalem Post, January 14, 2021:

Israel and Iran have both been maneuvering to influence the incoming Biden administration regarding the nuclear standoff. But only the Islamic Republic has given a deadline.

Iran has said that if sanctions are not dropped by February 21 it would kick out IAEA inspectors, a most dramatic nuclear violation since it would make it impossible for the world to follow the status of its nuclear program, absent clandestine efforts.

Iran has thus given Biden exactly one month to remove the sanctions that the Trump Administration had placed on it; otherwise, Iran will expel the IAEA nuclear inspectors, leaving it able, without that monitoring, to go for broke on its nuclear program.

Along with Tehran’s recent jump-starting the enrichment of its uranium to the 20% level, this could signal to Israel, moderate Sunni states and even the West that the ayatollahs are moving toward a nuclear weapon. Iran also demanded this week the dropping of the 2015 deal’s snapback sanctions mechanism.

Given that Iran has violated many parts of the 2015 deal, one wonders why the Biden Administration thinks that this time will be different, and if the Americans lift the sanctions, Tehran will now adhere scrupulously to the agreement, which it has never done in the past.

Though the incoming Biden administration has signaled that it wants to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal and roll back sanctions, there is no way sanctions can be removed in the administration’s first month in office.

Even if it wanted to roll back the sanctions in only 30 days, there is a complex sanctions machinery that may take longer to remove. Moreover, Joe Biden has made it clear that his first priority is the coronavirus pandemic, followed by addressing other domestic priorities, including the fallout from the rioters’ attacks on the Capitol, racial justice issues, and the environment.

In foreign policy, his first priorities are dealing with China and Russia. Biden will not want to waste significant political capital in the first stage of his presidency looking too weak on Iran, even if his general goal is to rejoin the deal. Moreover, having a Democratic majority in the US Senate does not mean that he will avoid a vote against a quick rejoining of the Iran deal, given that some Democrats oppose rejoining….

In insisting that sanctions be lifted by one month after Biden’s inauguration, the Iranians have made an error: they assume that the Biden Administration regards its relations with Iran as the most important issue, the very first thing, it needs to address. But the Biden Administration is of a different opinion: there are many other matters that it believes must be deal with first. The Administration has clearly spoken about those other priorities; they’ve been published in the press. One begins to wonder: don’t the Iranians read our papers? If so, they would discover that even those in the administration who might most favor lifting the sanctions know that it can’t possibly happen during that first month .It is going to happen only after a long political fight; Biden will not want to use up capital on Iran relations that he might want to save for other battles. Biden has listed his other, much more important priorities during his first months n office. First, there is the conronavirus pandemic, and his stated determination to “vaccinate 100 million Americans in the first 100 days.” That will be a complicated effort, involving both logistics and psychology – convincing millions of anti-vaxxers that the vaccines are safe — that will require a great deal of his administration’s attention. And assuming that initial goal is met, Biden will need to continue the breakneck pace of the vaccination effort, to have another 210 million Americans (20 million will have been vaccinated before January 20) vaccinated before the end of 2021.

Then there are the other issues Biden and Harris have promised to immediately address, including racial justice (one wonders just what that means, in the current heated environment) and police reform. And for the Administration the most important issue, over the long term, is climate change. Biden has said he wants to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. But there are many related undertakings that will occupy his administration in its first months. These include providing tax credits to encourage people to buy electric vehicles, and allocating the billions necessary to build out a national network of roadside recharging stations. It will also include greatly increasing residential and commercial use of solar energy through tax credits, and halting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It will no doubt pain Tehran to realize that the Biden administration has many other matters on its To-Do List before reaching “Iran, Sanctions and Paris Deal.”

Another consideration for the Biden administration is that it cannot be seen to yielding to an ultimatum from Iran (“ lift those sanctions by Feb. 21 or we kick out all the IAEA inspectors at once”); it would make Biden look weak. That’s a perception he cannot afford. The Islamic Republic believes it was successful using brinkmanship to corner the Obama administration into dropping certain issues. It appears that the ayatollahs have seized on the multiple statements by incoming Biden administration officials of their desire to rejoin the deal in order to make additional demands. Of course, it is possible that this could work, and Biden could announce in principle his rejoining of the deal by February 21, with actual sanctions relief applied afterward.

While his domestic agenda – his To-Do List – will keep Biden from dealing with Iran’s demands in the first few months of his administration, the Islamic Republic itself will also need time – three to four months – to fullfil its part of a possible bargain, by undoing all of its violations of the Paris deal, including giving up the stocks of uranium it has enriched, to a level of 20%, well beyond what the JCPOA permits. How long will it take Iran to gather that uranium and ship it out of the country to the IAEA headquarters?

The Iranians have badly misplayed their hand. Above all there is: the coronavirus vaccine rollout, which will be the main focus for many months, followed by attempts to “deal with police reform and “racial justice” measures, and — what is likely for the Bidenites to be the most important task of all — passing  environmental legislation. After the country returns to the Paris Agreement on climate, legislative battles will follow, as the Administration tries to meet its commitments under that agreement to lessen its dependence on fossil fuels and to encourage the transition to renewables. The Administration will push for a massive increase, through tax credits, in the use of electric vehicles, and will also push for a government-funded national network of charging stations along our highways. The government can similarly promote – with subsidies or tax credits—a great increase in the use of residential and commercial solar energy. Only then will the Biden administration turn its attention to what deal with Iran it may be willing to consider, and according to its own timetable, rather than to an Iranian ultimatum. I suspect that Iran will be in for a shock; members of Biden’s national security team have been discussing modifications — concerning ballistic missiles and Iran’s regional aggression — they now want to have included in a Paris Deal 2.0.

What should Iran have done? Had it understood Biden’s fear of appearing weak, it would never have issued an ultimatum. Instead, it could have said, striking a conciliatory note, that it “welcomes a more reasonable administration in Washington, has high hopes of collaborating with Washington and other members of the JCPOA, and is prepared, without delay, to immediately renew its full cooperation with the IAEA’s inspectors, just as soon as American sanctions are lifted.”

That’s all lies, of course: Iran will continue to violate its solemn commitments under the Paris Agreement.. It will continue to enrich uranium to a level beyond what was agreed, will continue to work on the nuclear facilities inside a mountain at Fordo, will continue to mislead inspectors about other nuclear sites it still has not revealed. It’s Iran’s modus operandi; it was only thanks to Mosssad’s seizure of Iran’s nuclear archive in 2018 that the world learned of several nuclear sites that Iran had kept secret from inspectors. Why wouldn’t it continue the same kinds of deceptions it had practiced before?

Not only will the new administration not be willing, nor able, to meet Iran’s February 21 deadline, but this display of attempted bullying by Iran will strengthen the hand of those in the Administration who want the sanctions lifted only after Iran has agreed to a more comprehensive treaty, one that includes, as mentioned above, limits on ballistic missiles, and curbs on Iran’s regional aggression, through Shi’a proxies and allies in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Iran will be chagrinned, disabused, angry, when it had been expecting a very different result, but in the end, it will have to give in, if it ever hopes to emerge from its current economic collapse.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLE: Report: Biden Already in Talks with World’s Largest State Sponsor of Terror Iran over Return to Nuclear Weapons Pact

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

VIRGINIA: Muslim professing love for Allah murders two, county attorney says we ‘may never know’ his motive

Ivan Maertens Aramayo is Ayanna Maertens Griffin’s father. In this Washington Post report, consistent with the establishment media’s never-ending mission to exonerate Islam from all crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings, he offers two quotations from the Qur’an, apparently in order to establish that what Mohamed Aly did was completely inconsistent with his “professed love for Allah.”

The first one (“And do not kill one another…”) is Qur’an 4:29. The full verse is: “O you who believe, do not squander your wealth among yourselves in vanity, except in a trade by mutual consent, and do not kill yourselves [or one another]. Indeed, Allah is always merciful to you.” It is thus clearly addressed to “you who believe,” and does not override the Qur’an’s thrice-repeated imperative to kill unbelievers (2:191, 4:89, 9:5).

The other quote is Qur’an 5:32, which is one of the most oft-quoted verses of the Qur’an, the one that Western non-Muslim leaders refer to frequently in order to establish that Islam is a religion of peace. There is, however, less to it than Western leaders and Islamic apologists claim. It is not a general prohibition of killing: there are big exceptions to the prohibition on killing, for “manslaughter or corruption on the earth.” Also, this prohibition is not a general command, but is specifically directed at the children of Israel. After it was given, “many of them committed excesses on earth,” so all this passage is really saying is that Allah gave a command to the children of Israel and they transgressed against it. Some Islamic authorities interpret this passage in a supremacist manner, as applying only to Muslims. The eighth-century Muslim jurist Sa’id bin Jubayr is said to have explained: “He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.” Then 5:33 continues from 5:32 and makes clear the dire punishments that are prescribed for the corruption and transgressions of the children of Israel, and a warning to the Jews to stop their bad behavior. Seen in its light, this celebrated passage, Qur’an 5:32, is explaining what must be done with Jews who reject the messenger and commit the vague sin of spreading corruption on earth. Contrary to popular belief in the West, the passage is not dictating lofty moral principles.

Meanwhile, is anyone even looking into the possibility that Mohamed Aly’s murders of Ayanna Maertens Griffin and Ntombo Joel Bianda may be tied to his “love for Allah”? Or has such an investigation been dismissed out of hand as “Islamophobic”?

“Nearly a year after a young couple were killed, a guilty plea provides few answers,” by Rachel Weiner, Washington Post, January 4, 2021 (thanks to Darcy):

…Ayanna Maertens Griffin, 18, and her boyfriend, Ntombo Joel Bianda, 21, were shot to death in southern Halifax County nearly a year ago. An 18-year-old student at Alexandria’s T.C. Williams High School was quickly arrested and confessed. Mohamed Aly pleaded guilty in December to first-degree murder counts and sentenced to four life terms, but his reasons for killing two acquaintances remain a mystery.

“One of the most painful aspects of this case is that the family may never know Aly’s motive to murder their loved ones. We are all left asking, why?” Halifax Commonwealth’s Attorney Tracy Quackenbush Martin said in a statement. “We may never have an answer to that question.”…

After the arrest, Maertens Aramayo had looked at Aly’s social media pages and saw that the teenager professed love for Allah. A Roman Catholic himself, he studied theology, and what he knew about Islam gave him an opening. He offered two quotes from the Koran:

“And do not kill one another, for God is indeed merciful unto you” and “Whoever kills an innocent life, it is as if he has killed all of humanity.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran’s Rouhani on Trump: ‘In a Few Days, the Life of This Criminal Will End’

Muslim Former US Professor and Leftist Media Darling Renews Call for Israel’s Destruction

Islamic State jihadi bought sex slaves with welfare money he got from France

Emboldened Iran’s parliament approves mandate ‘to destroy the usurping Zionist regime’

UK: Muslim migrant screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ murders 3, court trying to determine if he had religious motive

Baghdad: Iran-backed militia breaks coronavirus restrictions to hold ‘million person march’ honoring Soleimani

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

How an ISIS Member Got Past Immigration and Became a U.S. Citizen

Over a thousand Iraqi refugees have been resettled in Portland.

The year that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s Islamic terror state travel ban, an Iraqi member of ISIS applied for American citizenship.

Hawazen Sameer Mothafar didn’t have much to worry about. Not only was he already living in the United States, but under political pressure, Iraq had been taken off the travel ban list.

And no one would have suspected Mothafar of being an ISIS terrorist. He was in a wheelchair.

When Mothafar was asked at his immigration interview this year whether he was involved with a terrorist organization, he must have thought it was a formality. But three months later, Mothafar was under arrest, charged with lying to a government agency, and aiding ISIS.

Mothafar not only managed to get through an immigration interview while denying any terrorist ties, but he spoke in court through an Arabic translator, suggesting a poor grasp of English.

Not only did our immigration system make an alleged ISIS member a citizen, but took an immigrant with nothing to offer this country, who doesn’t even speak the language, and who, according to his lawyer, has to be cared for by his family, and welcomed him in.

Over a thousand Iraqi refugees have been resettled in Portland, Oregon. The small city of Troutdale near Portland, once an all-American locale perfect for picture postcards, has absorbed some of the spillover. And there was nothing all-American about Mothafar.

Mothafar hadn’t come to Troutdale for the annual summerfest parade (cancelled this year because of the pandemic) or hiking past waterfalls. When he came into town under the great ‘Gateway to the Gorge’ arch that’s Troutdale’s claim to fame, he was coming for Jihad.

While Mothafar is disabled, he could still use a computer. And that’s what he did.

A senior ISIS official said that when the Islamic terrorist group needed new email and social media accounts, it was Mothafar’s job to get “new accounts when we needed new accounts as soon as possible.”

But Mothafar was allegedly doing a lot more than just providing tech support for the Jihad.

Mothafar claimed that he had been an ISIS supporter since 2014 when the Islamic terror group first gained worldwide attention. Last year, he made the ba’yat pledge, an oath of allegiance to the Caliph of ISIS, who would be caught hiding out and killed by the Trump administration later that same year, binding him to full unquestioning obedience to ISIS and to its leader. Such oaths are often taken before its members make some larger commitment to the terror group.

Earlier that year, Mothafar had ambiguously told an ISIS supporter that he wouldn’t use his real name because, “if published for the foundation, it could mean 4 terror.”

But in 2015, Mothafar had already been working on the ISIS media operation. He initially ran ISIS chat rooms and channels, but he later began working on Al-Anfal’s Jihadist propaganda.

Al-Anfal is an ISIS online media outlet, but literally means the spoils of war. That chapter of the Koran has been used as code for campaigns of extermination against non-Muslims and different Islamic sects and populations. ISIS, many of whose members and leaders had come out of the ranks of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party, embraced Al-Anfal as a promise that its Jihad would echo the brutal Al-Anfal of Mohammed and of Saddam Hussein in his Anfal massacres.

The Koranic chapter of Al-Anfal contains some of the most brutal verses in the Koran, including its call for beheading,

“I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads,” one verse declares.

When Al-Anfal launched in the fall of 2017, Mothafar “edited, produced, published, and disseminated” the Jihadist publication with its call for the mass murder of non-Muslims.

That included Americans.

The first issue featured a chart of the best places to stab victims in the “sensitive areas of the body”. “Effective Stabbing Techniques,” like the other Al-Anfal Jihadist propaganda, was coming through a publishing process that took it, not through Baghdad, but through Oregon.

The December issue featured an article titled, “How Does a Detonator Work”, and a picture of a burning Statue of Liberty with the caption, “Soon in the Heart of Your Lands.”

Next year, Mothafar was assembling pictures of explosives and western cities, messaging, “the images of destroyed infidel cities will be useful.” Propaganda like this played a crucial role in the alarmed responses to sophisticated ISIS posters threatening attacks on America.

Some of these posters warned that the ISIS terrorists were among us. What they did not mention was that one of these terrorists was in a wheelchair and living near Portland.

And was waiting to apply for American citizenship.

Right after the hearing, Mothafar was set free on the condition that he doesn’t “disseminate any information in support of any designated terrorist organization”, or leave Oregon.

And so the same system that allowed Mothafar to spread his hate set him loose again.

Removing Iraq from the list of travel ban countries was made for political reasons to avoid offending its government. Iraq is the epicenter of ISIS and of Islamic terrorism. The countries with the most Muslim refugees are also generally the ones with the worst terrorist problems.

Mothafar’s immigration paperwork, mentioned in the indictment, meant filling out a form that asks prospective citizens whether they’ve ever been associated with the Communist Party (to my knowledge, no one has recently been indicted for lying about this), any “totalitarian party” (a dubious category), or a “terrorist organization”.

There are repeated mentions of Nazi Germany: a laudable if belated move that began long after most of the Nazi war criminals were already living here, and one that is no longer relevant because few Nazi war criminals are likely to be moving to America at this late date.

There is still no mention of ISIS or any Islamic terrorist group. The immigration paperwork hardly required Mothafar to lie because its questions are dated, some to the 40s or 50s, others with their obsession with guerrillas and paramilitary units to the Latin America of the 80s.

A generation that has made Islamic terrorism into the scourge of the free world is hardly reflected in our immigration system which is still screening for Communists, Nazis, and Latin American guerrilas and paramilitary units. It’s a failure that sums up our failed response to 9/11.

There is only one single mention of terrorism in the form and it doesn’t reference Islam.

The only reason Mothafar got nailed for, among other things, making false statements in his immigration form and his citizenship interview, is that the authorities were already watching him. And based on the use of FISA surveillance in his case, it’s likely that he was accidentally swept up while the United States was monitoring ISIS members operating in Iraq and Syria.

Our immigration system hasn’t adapted to dealing with Islamic terrorism. And it’s not acting in the best interests of Americans. If it were, Mothafar, in a wheelchair, cared for by his parents, would never have been a candidate for immigration or citizenship in the United States.

Americans felt sorry for Mothafar. And, as usual, they paid the price.

Now, after, no doubt, spending a small fortune on caring for Mothafar over the years, the taxpayers will spend an even larger fortune on his trial, and then, probably, on his imprisonment, at which point he’ll become a full-time burden on the taxpayers, and then on his life after prison.

None of this would have been necessary if the United States would stop taking in Muslim refugees from terror states and then putting them through an immigration process that hardly even recognizes that we’ve spent a generation fighting Islamic terrorism from abroad.

“This defendant is a legal permanent resident of the United States who abandoned the country that took him in and instead pledged allegiance to ISIS and repeatedly and diligently promoted its violent objectives” US Attorney Billy Williams declared.

Were we really expecting anything else?

In the previous decade, Samir Khan, a Pakistani, had been churning out Jihadist propaganda for Al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine from Queens, New York, and then Charlotte, North Carolina. Inspire’s fare included, “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom”, which may have been used by the Boston Marathon bombers.

One of his articles was titled, “I Am Proud to Be a Traitor to America.”

When he was taken out alongside Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Obama administration offered a condolence call to the Khan family, and, along with Al-Awlaki, Khan became a cause celebre for lefties and libertarians, and his family who accused the United States of “assassinating” him. The Mothafar case shows how little we’ve learned since then.

They can’t take pride in being traitors to America if we don’t let them in.

COLUMN BY

Wonder Woman 1984: ‘I didn’t pick up on the blatant Islamophobia during my initial viewing’

Trailer WW84:


Maybe Farid-ul-Haq initially missed the “Islamophobia” in “Wonder Woman 1984” because one has to strain so hard to see it at all. What exactly constitutes “Islamophobia” is never defined in this article; it is taken for granted that everyone knows what it is, and it appears that Farid-ul-Haq thinks of it as an irrational prejudice against Muslims. He bases his case that “Wonder Woman 1984” (which I haven’t seen and have no intention of seeing) is “Islamophobic” on its “featuring a Muslim character as one of the bad guys” while not having “a single Muslim character playing the role of a good guy.”

Farid-ul-Haq thus takes for granted that Hollywood must never portray Muslims as “bad guys,” despite the existence of Islamic jihad terrorists all over the world, or at least must not do so without a balancing Muslim “good guy.” Why must Hollywood act as a PR service for Islam? Farid-ul-Haq would likely say that it is because Muslims are particular targets of “hate and discrimination in the real world,” but this is actually not true. The FBI listed 995 anti-Jewish “offenses” in 2019, and 219 anti-Muslim “offenses.” Even one is too many, but 219 offenses against Muslims in a year in a country of 330 million actually shows that such offenses are quite rare, as they should be. Would Farid-ul-Haq agree that Hollywood should show four and a half times more Jewish “good guys” than Muslim “good guys,” so as to combat “hate and discrimination” against Jews? Must Hollywood always balance portrayals of “bad guys” who really exist in the world with “good guys” from the same group? Would Farid-ul-Haq want every movie that features a neo-Nazi to feature also a good German for balance?

Farid-ul-Haq is also enraged at “Wonder Woman 1984” because a character was depicted as “swatting away a pendant, inside a taxi, with the name Allah and Muhammad (P.B.U.H) written on it.” However, a commenter on his article states: “Thanks to this article, I’ve re-watched this scene over and over, and it looks to me that Steve is swatting the rear-view mirror to get it out of the way so he can climb out of the taxi after crashing it into the armored vehicle. Watching it frame-by-frame, it’s obvious he’s aiming for the mirror and not the pendant. The other issues brought up I can see, but I don’t see the pendant one.” Even if the character were swatting away the pendant, must Hollywood also abide by Sharia provisions mandating absolute reverence for Islamic religious objects? Has Hollywood ever shown similar deference toward Christianity, the cross, the Bible, the name of Jesus, etc.? Here again, why should Muslims and Islam be singled out for special consideration?

“Addressing the Islamophobia in ‘Wonder Woman 1984,’” by Farid-ul-Haq, The Geekiary, December 27, 2020:

Turns out, along with being problematic when it comes to consent, Wonder Woman 1984 also features Islamophobia. Sigh! At this point, if you’re out there supporting Wonder Woman 1984 while ignoring or excusing certain narrative issues, I don’t know what to say to you.

This piece contains minor spoilers for Wonder Woman 1984. Consider yourself warned. 

Full disclaimer, while I rolled my eyes at Wonder Woman 1984 featuring a Muslim character as one of the bad guys, I didn’t pick up on the blatant Islamophobia during my initial viewing. I got to know about the implications of the scene in question after I decided to head on over to the Muslim side of Twitter.

An action sequence during Wonder Woman 2 occurs in Cairo. Maxwell Lord goes to meet Emir Said Bin Abydos and take over his oil empire. The Muslim character’s wish is to construct a wall and regain control of his ancestral land.

During the final moments, the movie also had a character in mujahideen-looking garb wishing for nuclear weapons.

Yes, it felt weird this movie didn’t have a single Muslim character playing the role of a good guy, especially after the first Wonder Woman had a Muslim character be one of Diana’s friends. But it is what it is. I would like Hollywood to do better, of course.

Now, coming to the most problematic and Islamophobic scene that involved Steve Trevor (Chris Pine). I was surprised when I saw tweets about said scene and how blatantly Islamophobic it was to show Steve swatting away a pendant, inside a taxi, with the name Allah and Muhammad (P.B.U.H) written on it.

Turns out, my mind didn’t even register such a moment. Instead of realizing what had transpired onscreen, apparently, my brain did something and I thought Steve had quickly placed the pendant on the dashboard before crawling out of the taxi to help Diana.

I rewatched the scene and was quite disappointed to see the scene for it was. In my opinion, there was no reason for such a scene to exist. It served no narrative purpose other than Steve being shown throwing away the names of two beings held in high regard in the Muslim community.

Such artistic content uses fictional Muslim characters to challenge the “interpretations” of Islam that continue to be used to encourage hate and discrimination in the real world….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim former US professor who was darling of the American Left renews call for Israel’s destruction

Iranian news agency: ‘Muslims love Jesus, too’

France: Muslim migrant with ‘visible psychiatric disorders’ gets six months for sexual assault of 15-year-old girl

Iran’s Rouhani: ‘We are nullifying sanctions on both exports and imports’

Yemen: Houthi jihadis beat woman to death in front of her two children

Nigeria: Muslims murder three loggers, kidnap dozens more

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