Posts

Gingrich: 2020 Election is the ‘Biggest Theft Since 1824’ – But It’s Even Worse Than That

Newt Gingrich tweeted Friday:

“The more data comes out on vote anomalies that clearly are not legitimate the more it looks like 2020 may be the biggest Presidential theft since Adams and Clay robbed Andrew Jackson in 1824. State legislatures should demand recounts.”

He was right, except for one detail: the stolen election of 2020 is shaping up to be much worse than that of 1824.

Rating America’s Presidents explains that by that year, the Democratic-Republican Party, which was the party of the previous three presidents, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, now included virtually every politician of significance and had split into factions of its own. The congressional caucus that had chosen Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe bypassed the candidate whom many considered to be Monroe’s heir apparent, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. Instead, the caucus picked a candidate who stood for the old Republican principles of strict adherence to the Constitution and a weak federal government: William Crawford, who had been a senator from Georgia, minister to France, and secretary of war and secretary of the treasury in the Monroe administration.

The caucus, however, didn’t have the influence in 1824 that it had enjoyed in previous years. Those who favored the positions that had initially been identified with the moribund opposition party, the Federalists, including a strong federal government that funded internal improvements, a centralized Bank of the United States, and high tariffs to protect American industry, were Adams and the speaker of the House, Henry Clay of Kentucky. Then there was General Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 and, more recently, a senator from Tennessee. Jackson had genuine popular support, which was increasingly important, as more and more states were choosing electors by popular vote.

No one, however, knew exactly where Jackson stood on the issues. Adams, whom Jackson would soon count among his bitterest political enemies, actually supported him for vice president, albeit with a quip about Jackson’s volatile character: “The Vice-Presidency was a station in which the General could hang no one, and in which he would need to quarrel with no one.”

One reason why 2020 is worse than 1824 is that everyone in that race, like everyone for the first century and a half of the republic, had an America-first agenda. So there was nothing like the modern-day division of candidates on that score, and voters didn’t have to ask themselves which candidate was less likely to sell America’s interests to the highest international bidder.

What’s more, the positions that were truly best for America in the long run were distributed across factional lines; the Adams party held some, and the Jackson party held others. The gargantuan growth of the federal government today and its increasing interference in the daily lives of its citizens make one long for the era when politicians were determined not just to pay lip service to the idea of limiting its power. One need not acquiesce in that unrestrained and continually growing power in order to accept the Supreme Court’s declaration of the constitutionality of using federal funds for internal improvements as based on the Commerce Clause; nor does this require one to endorse the later abuse of that clause. The Bank placed control of the public funds in private hands, which was never wise, as it risked the possibility of an elected clique, rather than the people, setting the national agenda; we are seeing the consequences of that in other contexts today.

The question of Andrew Jackson’s fitness for office was a key issue in 1824, as it had been for no previous presidential candidate. Jackson was widely considered to be unsuitable to be president, as he had little political experience. Clay sneered, “I cannot believe that killing 2,500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies for the various, difficult, and complicated duties of the Chief Magistracy.”

Nevertheless, the election results had Jackson leading the field, winning ninety-nine electoral votes, with eighty-four for Adams, forty-one for Crawford, and thirty-seven for Clay. As none of the candidates had a majority, the election went to the House of Representatives, where the choice was between the three top vote-getters. Clay threw his support to Adams, who prevailed. Adams, as president, then chose Clay as the secretary of state, which was reasonable in light of their agreement on key issues. But Jackson and his supporters charged Adams and Clay with making a “corrupt bargain” to secure the presidency for Adams. Jackson raged: “So you see the Judas of the West [Clay] has closed the contract and will receive his thirty pieces of silver. Was there ever witnessed such bare faced corruption in any country before?”

So it was that the presidency of John Quincy Adams, a man who was distinguished throughout his long political career for his integrity, was tainted from beginning to end by charges of corruption and venality. Adams entered the White House under a cloud that never dissipated. In his inaugural address, Adams appealed to the goodwill of the American people: “Less possessed of your confidence in advance than any of my predecessors, I am deeply conscious of the prospect that I shall stand more and oftener in need of your indulgence.”

He didn’t get it. His victory was so tainted that his presidency was effectively crippled from the start. Of course, he didn’t have the weight of a complicit and compliant media and political establishment behind him. Compared to Donald J. Trump, John Quincy Adams had it easy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Official Palestinian Authority TV: ‘There is no force in the world that can remove the weapon from my hand’

Germany: Muslim migrant attacks synagogue, Jewish girl says she is Muslim to avoid assault by Muslim classmates

UK: Muhammed, Mohamed, and Mohammed convicted of ‘terror offences,’ cops withhold info about migration backgrounds

My Journey Out of Islam and Hate

The Death Of Fakhrizadeh, and What’s to Come

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

Trump is Right: Our Exit from Afghanistan is Long Overdue

President Trump is withdrawing a significant number of troops from Afghanistan, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is livid. According to AP, McConnell “warned against a potentially ‘humiliating’ pullout from Afghanistan that he said would be worse than President Barack Obama’s 2011 withdrawal from Iraq and reminiscent of the U.S. departure from Saigon in 1975.” Not to be outdone, Rep. Michael McCaul, Republican leader on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, insisted: “We need to ensure a residual force is maintained for the foreseeable future to protect U.S. national and homeland security interests and to help secure peace for Afghanistan.” But McConnell and McCaul are advocating for a failed policy. It is long past time to leave Afghanistan.

In his State of the Union address on February 5, 2019, President Trump stated: “As a candidate for President, I pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.” Epitomizing the need to do this was what happened when Trump first moved to end America’s longest endless war, the war in Afghanistan, with a treaty with the group that the U.S. entered Afghanistan in order to topple, the Taliban, in February 2020. The ink was still fresh on the signed document when the Taliban launched a new attack against Afghan government forces, killing twenty Afghan soldiers and police officers.

The attack was a fitting symbol of the fruitlessness of these endless wars and the bankruptcy of the assumptions and policies that had led to their being waged.

After all these years, we have little to show for all our efforts in the nation that has been ominously dubbed the “graveyard of empires.” The U.S. has sacrificed the lives of numerous heroic service members and squandered trillions for nearly two decades in the fond hope that it could remake Afghanistan into a stable, Western-style republic that would respect the human rights of all its citizens. That’s still the plan, as far as the architects of our intervention are concerned: One foreign policy establishment wonk counseled patience, saying that Afghanistan “is not going to become Switzerland overnight,” a fact that is as obvious as Joe Biden’s dementia.

Great. So we know now after almost twenty years that it isn’t going to happen overnight, but how long exactly is it going to take? To that question the advocates of endless intervention have no definite answer. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in late 2019: “We are never going to get the U.S. military out of Afghanistan unless we take care to see that there is something going on that will provide the stability that will be necessary for us to leave.”

All right, but what’s it going to take? Do Rumsfeld, McConnell, and McCaul really think that after nearly twenty years, one more year, or five more years, or ten more years, will do the job?

Afghanistan will never be a Western-style republic and will likely never be free of the Taliban without a massive transformation of Afghan society, no matter how long we stay, and such a transformation is not on the horizon. This was clear relatively early in the conflict, but the obviousness of this fact did not make successive Republican and Democratic administrations rethink the wisdom of being there.

And so after all this American expenditure of personnel, money, and materiel, there is absolutely no doubt that once we leave, the Taliban will make gains and may even regain control of the Afghan government.

Did that mean that America had to keep troops there for fifty years? A hundred years? Should we just make Afghanistan the fifty-first state and seal our commitment there forever? Or should the U.S. instead focus on what is best for America in Afghanistan, working to contain the jihad there and to ensure that the Taliban does not and cannot engage in international jihad terror activity, while otherwise leaving the Afghans to their own devices?

America’s tragic misadventure in Afghanistan makes it clear that a new foreign policy strategy is urgently needed, and that the ideas and assumptions that have governed U.S. foreign policy for nearly a century needed to be consigned to the dustbin of history. President Trump had proposed to do that. Now we are likely to see instead a retrenchment of the forces that made the tragedy of two decades of war in Afghanistan happen in the first place. President Biden, or President Harris, or President Pelosi, or whatever horror show we may be facing next, could send the troops that Trump withdraws right back into the belly of the beast.

After all, as Trump said last September, “the top people in the Pentagon…want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy. But we’re getting out of the endless wars, you know how we’re doing.” He is getting us out. Others, wanting to keep the Masters of War happy, may get us right back in.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netherlands: Muslims threaten to murder teacher over Muhammad cartoon, teacher goes into hiding

Pakistan: Five Muslims gang-rape and torture deaf-mute Christian girl for 2 months as police do nothing

Sweden: Discrimination Ombudsman rules that municipality’s ban on hijab, burqa, and niqab is illegal

Philippines: 48-year-old Muslim marries 13-year-old girl

France: Muslims write on walls of two schools ‘You are all dead, you are all dead. Samuel Paty. Allah Akbar.’

Egypt: Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar refutes claim that Islam allows Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men

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

America Was Less Divided During the Civil War Than It Is Today

My latest in PJ Media:

There is growing worry these days about whether or not we are headed for another civil war, and whether the divisions in American society are as bad as they were in the run-up to what is still the bloodiest war in American history. In fact, there is no comparison between the divisions between Americans today and in the run-up to the Civil War. The ones today are far worse. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we are headed for a shooting war, but we certainly may be.

A civil war is by definition a war between citizens of the same country, and the American Civil War was certainly that. Both sides revered Washington, Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers. Confederate spokesmen often termed the war their own war for independence, insisting that it was a new iteration of the same desire for self-determination that had led to the American war of independence against Britain.

Both sides respected the United States Constitution to the extent that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America was essentially a copy of that of the nation the Confederates were leaving, with a few minor modifications. It protected the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of religion; it allowed for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” it protected citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, and contained numerous other provisions taken from the earlier Constitution….

No less an authority than Abraham Lincoln noted the similarity of the two sides in his second inaugural address, even as he pointed out the one thing that sharply distinguished them: “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged.”…

Rating America’s Presidents shows how Abraham Lincoln’s unique and incisive articulation about what exactly was wrong about slavery, something that was not at all as clear to many of his contemporaries as it is to today’s woke mob, helped break the logjam that had existed in American politics for the previous half-century. It still took a long and bloody civil war to lead to national reconciliation and the binding up of the nation’s wounds….

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

To Know American History is To Be Armed Against Those Who Would Destroy America

A Jewish Rabbi and a Catholic Bishop Walked into a Mosque…

Germany: Muslim senator demands ban on alcohol in all Berlin pubs and bars

Brooklyn: Man converts to Islam, distributes bomb-making instructions, encourages ISIS to commit massacres in NYC

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

Trump Stands Between You and the Poverty the Democrats Have Ready for You

My latest at PJ Media:

Speaking at the Whirlpool Manufacturing Plant in Clyde, Ohio, on Thursday, President Donald Trump once again articulated the guiding principle of his administration: “The duty of a president is to put this nation’s own citizens first. That’s why my administration swears by two simple, but crucial rules, buy American and hire American.” His twilight struggle with the Democrats over the future of the nation, or whether the nation will even have a future at all, is coming down to the question of whether that principle will be upheld and defended, or consigned forever to the dustbin of history.

Trump drew the battle lines sharply at Whirlpool, charging that “on the question of foreign trade, previous leaders were guided by a shameful policy of capitulation, submission, and retreat…. For decades, you watched as politicians let foreign nations steal our jobs, loot our factories, and plunder the crown jewels of the US economy….For eight years, Whirlpool begged the Obama-Biden administration who did nothing to protect American workers from the flagrant dumping of foreign washers, dryers into America. But your cries for help fell on deaf ears. You didn’t see any action. They didn’t act, they didn’t care, and they never will.”

They didn’t care because they were among the beneficiaries of the pole-axing of American workers and the outsourcing of American industries. And it has been known for decades. That noted economist Sid Vicious sang back in 1977 about “a cheap holiday in other people’s misery,” and the leftist establishment moved quickly from cheap holidays in other people’s misery to cheap labor in other people’s misery. The labor is cheaper outside the United States, so American workers had to lose their jobs to provide low prices for rich and powerful socialist internationalists. Another farsighted economist, Bob Dylan, noticed this in 1983, singing about a woman in Brazil crafting furniture for import into the United States and “bringin’ home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve, you know, that’s a lot of money to her.”

This has been a struggle for practically as long as there has been a United States. The new book Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster details how the struggle between advocates of free trade and the supporters of high tariffs has been the key element of numerous presidential elections, including that of 1888, when the Republican platform declared: “We are uncompromisingly in favor of the American system of protection. We protest against its destruction, as proposed by the President and his party. They serve the interests of Europe; we will support the interests of America.” Republican marchers held aloft banners saying that Democratic candidate Grover “Cleveland Runs Well in England” and “We Are Not Going to Vote Away Our Wages.” They argued that lowering tariffs would mean the end of American prosperity. Although the Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison won the election, this message didn’t exactly resonate with the American voter, who was also hearing from the Democrats that low tariffs would mean low prices.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

You probably haven’t learned American history — even if you thought you had

Sorry, Brits, But Opposition to Jihad Violence and Islamic Supremacism Still Isn’t Racism

Austria: Muslim teen kicks 67-year-old Austrian, victim dies, perp gets 5 years — ‘ridiculous,’ says the widow

Pakistan: Muslim murders his 19-year-old sister in honor killing because she talked to man in the neighborhood

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

Trump Wants Boston Marathon Bomber to Get Death Penalty. Dems Want Him to Vote.

My latest in PJ Media:

Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, an Obama appointee to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, on Friday overturned the death sentence of Boston Marathon jihad bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. President Trump is unhappy. Early Sunday morning he tweeted: “Death penalty! He killed and badly wounded many. Justice!”

Democrats, in contrast, appear to be fine with Thompson’s decision, as some Democratic leaders are on record saying not only that Tsarnaev should not be put to death, but that he should vote.

As far as Trump is concerned, this is still a live issue despite Thompson’s ruling. On Sunday afternoon he followed up his initial tweet with two more, saying: “Rarely has anybody deserved the death penalty more than the Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The court agreed that this ‘was one of the worst domestic terrorist attacks since the 9/11 atrocities’. Yet the appellate court tossed out the death sentence. So many lives lost and ruined. The Federal Government must again seek the Death Penalty in a do-over of that chapter of the original trial. Our Country cannot let the appellate decision stand. Also, it is ridiculous that this process is taking so long!”

Trump also took this question right to the Democrats, saying after the ruling was announced on Friday: “They protect criminals and Biden opposes the death penalty, even for cop killers and child murderers.” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a child murderer, as one of his victims in the Marathon bombings was an eight-year-old boy named Martin Richard.

But the Democrats nevertheless want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev alive, well, and voting a straight Democrat ticket. Back in April 2019, Bernie Sanders came out for restoring voting rights for convicted felons. He was asked if he believed that even “terrible people,” including convicted murderers such as Tsarnaev, should have the right to vote. Sanders was unequivocal: “Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope.”

Vice Presidential contender Kamala Harris agreed, albeit somewhat more equivocally: “I think we should have that conversation,” she said, adding: “I have long been an advocate of making sure people formerly incarcerated are not denied the right to vote. In some states they’re permanently deprived of the right to vote.”

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

University at Buffalo to remove Millard Fillmore’s name from campus because of “systemic racism”

Philippines: Muslims ask that anti-terror law be dropped, say it’s “based in unfounded fear of Muslims”

‘They took advantage of our tolerance’: Women on Greek island of Lesvos protest inundation of illegal migrants

‘I smell Islamophobia’: Muslims in UK seethe and whine over lockdown imposed hours before Eid al-Adha

Turkey: Top Islamic religious body tells women to accept violence at the hands of their husbands

RELATED VIDEO: Robert Spencer on the significance of the conversion of Hagia Sophia and more

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

Why Isn’t Black Lives Matter Protesting the Slavery That Still Exists Today?

My latest in PJ Media:

It is, or ought to be, clear to everyone by now that Black Lives Matter is not a genuine movement for racial justice and a more equitable society, but a Marxist organization using real, exaggerated, and imagined racial injustice to try to destroy the United States. Anyone who is still in doubt about this should consider the fact that some blacks are still enslaved today, and Black Lives Matter never has and never will say a word about it, because that organization doesn’t really care about black lives.

If they did actually care about the lives of black people, Black Lives Matter would today be drawing international attention to statements made recently by the Mauritanian anti-slavery activist Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh of the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement (IRA). According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh stated in a June 18 interview: “Unfortunately, there is still slavery in Mauritania. More than 20% of people in Mauritania suffer from slavery – a situation where a person owns another person and does whatever he wants with him at any given moment. This situation exists here in Mauritania, unfortunately.”

Al-Sheikh further explained that slaves are often even “bequeathed from father to son. A person can own a slave and when that person dies, his children inherit the slave, who is later bequeathed to the grandchildren. This thing exists in Mauritania, unfortunately.” Even worse, “anyone who speaks out is considered a criminal whose natural place in in jail. Until not so long ago, [whoever spoke up] would have been killed.”

As an anti-slavery activist, Al-Sheikh has experienced this herself: “I was arrested and tortured multiple times. I was tortured both mentally and physically. The last time I was arrested, I had a 1.5-year-old baby. They separated us by force. And they weaned him. The Mauritanian state weaned my baby – a 1.5-year-old baby. He was weaned. And they prevented me from seeing him, and they wouldn’t let my husband or relatives visit me.”

Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh’s story is just one of innumerable such accounts. Why does Mauritania continually drag its feet about eradicating slavery, and persecute anti-slavery activists? The dirty little secret here is that it is because slavery is sanctioned in Islam.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ilhan Omar calls for “dismantling” of “our economy and political systems” in the US

Islamic Republic of Iran holds ceremony to unveil book on “Islamophobia” in the US

Switzerland: Muslim migrant indicted for recruiting for the Islamic State

Germany: Muslims attack Armenian Christian with knife on Berlin street

France: Man converts to Islam, becomes torturer and executioner for the Islamic State

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

The George Floyd Riots: The Leftist/Islamic Partnership in Action

The Unholy Alliance is emboldened and on the march. My latest in FrontPage:

The nationwide riots over the murder of George Floyd have offered new insight into the unholy alliance between Leftists and Islamic supremacists. Zahra Billoo, Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay Area office of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-SFBA), recently tweeted: “Non-Black POC, first and second generation immigrant Muslims friends in particular, what are you doing today to support #BlackLivesMatter?” Imraan Siddiqi of CAIR-Arizona tweeted out a video of a hijab-wearing Muslim woman kicking a tear gas canister toward police with the approving comment, “Drop-kick that tear-gas canister, sister.”

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, rioters were so grieved and angered by Floyd’s death that they spray-painted “Free Palestine” on the wall of a synagogue. And in New York City, a Muslim housing attorney is in legal trouble for tossing a Molotov cocktail at a NYPD cruiser during the recent riots in New York City. She is also a committed activist for the Palestinian jihad, having published agitprop spreading false claims of Palestinian victimhood.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CAIR vs Dr. Nicholas Damask: The Assault on Academic Freedom<

As US bishop excoriates Trump, bishops in Middle East and Nigeria applaud his executive order on religious freedom

India: Muslim mob menaces Dalits with sticks, burns down a dozen Dalit houses, causes massive damage to 14 others

“Palestinian” historical video erases Jewish presence in the land of Israel from Biblical times

Fatah names high school boys camp after jihad murderer who died in IDF shootout last year

Note to Ayatollah Khamenei: “Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.”

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

University of Florida Prof Hails Caliphate as ‘Historic Institution’ That ISIS Is ‘Hijacking’

My latest in PJ Media:

University of Florida professor Ken Chitwood wrote Wednesday in the Associated Press’ commentary section, “The Conversation,” that “the Islamic State tries to boost its legitimacy by hijacking a historic institution.” He then provided a drive-by overview of the history of various Islamic caliphates, so whitewashed as to rival the Washington Post’s famous characterization of Islamic State (ISIS) caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in misleading duplicity. Even worse, Chitwood tells us that “as a scholar of global Islam, every time I teach my ‘Introduction to Islam’ class,” he teaches this nonsense to his hapless University of Florida students. No surprise there, given the fact that most universities today are little more than Antifa recruitment centers.

“Under Umar,” Chitwood writes blandly, “the caliphate expanded to include many regions of the world such as the lands of the former Byzantine and Sassanian empires in Asia Minor, Persia and Central Asia.”

Yeah, uh, Professor Chitwood, how exactly did that “expansion” occur? In reality, beyond the pseudo-academic whitewash and fantasy that Chitwood purveys, the caliphates always behaved much like the Islamic State, because they were all working from the same playbook. The true, bloody history of the caliphates can be found, detailed from Islamic sources, in the only complete history of 1,400 years of jihad violence, The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS.

The word khalifa means “successor”; the caliph in Sunni Islamic theology is the successor of Muhammad as the military, political, and spiritual leader of the Muslims. The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS demonstrates that the great caliphates of history, from the immediate post-Muhammad period of the “Rightly Guided Caliphs” to the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Ottomans, as well as other Islamic states, all waged relentless jihad warfare against non-Muslims, subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law and denying them basic rights.

These weren’t the actions of a “tiny minority of extremists,” abhorred by the vast majority of peaceful Muslims for “hijacking” their religion, as Ken Chitwood would have you believe. This was, for fourteen centuries, mainstream, normative Islam, carried forth by the primary authorities in the Islamic world at the time. The accounts of eyewitnesses and contemporary chroniclers through the ages show that in every age and in every place where there were Muslims, some of them believed that they had a responsibility given to them by Allah to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law.

And so it is today: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi enunciated that responsibility more clearly and directly than most Muslim spokesmen do these days, but he is by no means the only one who believes that it exists.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The blood of Christ is now offensive in the UK

Turkey’s Erdogan: “Our God commands us to be violent towards the kuffar” (infidels)

Up to 4,800,000 illegal migrants in Europe in 2017, advocates of border control still vilified as “racist”

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

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God? Absolutely Not. Here’s Why.

My article in PJ Media on a much-misunderstood topic:

The Qur’an says that Christians and Muslims worship the same God (29:46), and so does the Catholic Church. The Irish Catholic newspaper recently considered this question and offered an argument from authority, which is the weakest of all arguments: Christians and Muslims worship the same God because the Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council says so in the documents Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate. But a closer examination of the evidence shows this to be false.

Besides the obvious differences regarding the Trinity, the crucifixion, and the divinity of Christ, there are deeper differences that are often overlooked.

  1. Free will. There are numerous passages of the Qur’an, as well as indications from Islamic tradition, to the effect that not only can no one believe in Allah except by his will, so also no one can disbelieve in him except by his active will. “And to whoever God assigns no light, no light has he” (24:40).

The issue of free will versus predestination has, of course, vexed Christians of various sects for centuries, as different biblical passages are given different weight in various traditions. Calvinism, of course, in its pure form is notorious for its doctrine of double predestination, the idea that God has destined people for hell as well as for salvation. But this position is largely unique to them in the Christian tradition, which generally holds that God desires all men and women to be saved, and gives them the means to attain this salvation. The idea that God would create men for hell is in total conflict with the proposition that God “desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4), and that he “takes no pleasure in the death of anyone” (Ezekiel 18:32).

The situation in Islam is, on first glance, even worse, with the Qur’an’s testimony on this, as on other matters, appearing to be hopelessly contradictory. The Qur’an, says the Qur’an, is “nothing but a reminder to all beings, for whoever of you who would go straight; but you will not do so unless Allah wills, the Lord of all Being” (81:27-29). Those who would “go straight” — follow Allah’s straight path — cannot do so “unless Allah wills.”

The Qur’an goes significantly further than that, into a more or less open determinism: “If Allah had willed, he would have made you one nation; but he leads astray those whom he wills, and guides those whom he wills; and you will surely be questioned about the things you have done” (16:93). Even though everything is in Allah’s hands, even the decision of the individual to obey him or not — for he leads astray those whom he wills, and guides to the truth whom he wills — human beings will still be held accountable for the things they have done.

Allah even sends people to hell based not on their deeds, but solely upon his fiat: “And if we had willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from me will come into effect: I will surely fill hell with jinn and people all together” (32:13).

The Qur’an repeats this idea many times: Those who have rejected Allah do so because he made it possible for them to do nothing else. And indeed, given the fact that in the Islamic scheme of creation and salvation, human beings are the slaves of Allah, not his children, the rejection of free will is not altogether surprising. Allah tells Muhammad that “some of them there are who listen to you, and we lay veils on their hearts so that they don’t understand it, and in their ears heaviness; and if they see any sign whatever, they do not believe in it, so that when they come to you they dispute with you, the unbelievers saying, ‘This is nothing but the fairy-tales of the ancient ones’” (6:25-6).

There is much, much more. Read the rest here.

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

Left-fascists at University of Buffalo shut down discussion of Radical Islamic threats

Last night I appeared at the University of Buffalo at the invitation of the courageous students of Young Americans for Freedom, who have to put up with this Left-fascist thuggery on a daily basis, while I left Buffalo this morning. I say I “appeared,” because to say “I spoke” would be exaggerating a bit. Rather, I started a few sentences, made a couple of points, in between being screamed at by Leftist and Islamic supremacist fascists who think they’re opposing fascism.

The Spectrum article below is not that bad a report from the campus newspaper, showing the Left-fascist opposition to the freedom of speech, with a few exceptions: I am not a “self-proclaimed expert on radical Islam,” as I have never proclaimed myself an expert on anything, and my work stands or falls on the basis of the evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah, history and current events. Nor do I ever speak about “radical Islam,” which is a Western construct that does not exist in the Islamic world. And I didn’t call the fascists “uninformed fascists”; although they are indeed uninformed and think they know a great deal more than they actually do, I didn’t use that word. Finally, the reporters Ashley Inkumsah and Sarah Crowley wrote that I was “unphased” by the screaming fascists, when I was actually “unfazed.”

That said, I am grateful to Ashley Inkumsah and Sarah Crowley for a generally accurate report. Note the claims of victimhood trotted out yet again by the Muslims quoted in the article. They have hoodwinked the University of Buffalo Left-fascists into thinking that it’s “Islamophobes,” rather than jihad terrorists, who are killing people around the world. And that is one thing I said last night, although it is doubtful that the fascists heard it: the guy holding the sign “Queers Against Islamophobia” and any feminists in the audience have no idea what they’re enabling. By shutting down any discussion of the motivating ideology of the jihad threat and consigning it all to the realm of “hatred” and “bigotry,” they are only enabling that threat to grow, and one day, they may very well experience the consequences of their actions firsthand.

Meanwhile, UPD Chief of Police Gerald Schoenle “wished more university staff were present at the event to contain the disruptive crowd of students who were unable to get in.” This is disingenuous in the extreme. There were hordes of disruptive students who got in with no problem. What’s more, Schoenle overruled a plan that his subordinates had agreed to with my security team, that hecklers and screamers would be asked to be quiet and then escorted out. Schoenle actively aided and abetted the Left-fascist destruction of the event. Write him, courteously and politely, and remind him of the importance of the freedom of speech as the foundation of any free society, and the dangers of aiding and abetting Left-fascist thuggery for the future of any free society, at gws3@buffalo.edu. Also Tom Tiberi from Campus Life should was supposedly there to assist in making the event successful, but just stood by and did nothing while the Left-fascists screamed their abuse. He’s at tiberi@buffalo.edu. Remember: all messages to Schoenle and Tiberi should be polite, respectful, and courteous, sticking to the facts and calling them out for their malfeasance and allowance of Left-fascist thuggery.

Below the student paper article is the article from the Buffalo News, which is worthwhile only for capturing one thing I said: “The attempt to silence someone who has a differing viewpoint was a ‘quintessentially fascist act, and you are manifesting it in a wonderful way tonight,’ said Spencer.” There is also this: “Spencer frequently discusses terrorism by Muslims as being religiously motivated, an argument that has put him in the cross-hairs of American Muslims who say his interpretation of Islam is dangerously inaccurate and perverts their faith.”

Those American Muslims have a big problem on their hands, because in reality, I have no interpretation of Islam at all, but only report on how Muslims interpret it, which all too often involves justifications of and exhortations to violence. They are avid to silence me because they don’t want Americans to know how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify hatred, violence, and supremacism.

And so the University of Buffalo Left-fascists abundantly signaled their virtue by screaming at me for an hour and a half. What have they accomplished by doing so? Will the jihad threat thereby go away? Alas, no.

“A campus divided: Robert Spencer’s visit met with chaos and opposition from UB community,” by Ashley Inkumsah and Sarah Crowley, The Spectrum (University of Buffalo), May 2, 2017:

Students and faculty piled into Knox 109 to both hear Robert Spencer’s speech and protest his appearance.

Robert Spencer couldn’t speak for more than 30 seconds without students shouting and cursing at him on Monday night.

Spencer planned to speak to students about “the dangers of jihad in today’s world” but constant heckling from the crowd made it near impossible for him to complete a full sentence. Spencer, a self-proclaimed expert on radical Islam, runs a website called Jihad Watch.

Students called Spencer things like a “Nazi, “Trump Jr.” and a “pseudo-intellectual,” and most of his hour-long speech was inaudible. Spencer seemed unphased [sic] as students shouted over him and he responded, calling the crowd “uninformed fascists.”

Students who were anti-Spencer and pro-Spencer attended the event. In the end, many students left feeling little had been accomplished for either side.

“I think what ends up happening in debates like this where there’s different people who feel very strongly about different things, instead of seeing the other side’s perspective is they strengthen their own perspective,” said Fiza Ali, senior finance major.

Hundreds of students and faculty were unable to get into Knox 109, which only fits 200 people. University Police said the room reached its full capacity and letting more people in would be a fire hazard.

Students banged on the door chanting “let us in” as UPD struggled to contain the rowdy students. The officers were flustered and visibly unprepared for the unruly crowd. Two officers searched their phones to find laws to cite to students about why they couldn’t get in.

But many people weren’t surprised with this outcome.

When Spencer’s visit was announced it immediately caused a firestorm across the university and posed questions about the implications of free speech.

Although Student Association did not pay for Spencer to speak, thousands of students and faculty petitioned for SA to remove its logo from flyers about Spencer’s visit and many demanded his visit be canceled all together. Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) invited Spencer for the club’s first official event.

Despite the outcries of discontent from the UB community, Spencer still spoke. He entered Knox 109 to a swarm of boos and middle fingers from the crowd.

Spencer held a thumbs up with a grin on his face and took his phone out to record people booing him.

“I was invited to speak whether you like that or not,” Spencer said.

When Spencer agreed to debate anyone, he was met with a roaring applause.

Students asked him a wide range of questions, such as, what the central tenets of Islam were, what measures the military should take to defend against terrorism and if white men contributed to U.S. terrorism.

Midway through every answer, someone interrupted.

YAF Chairwoman Lynn Sementilli repeatedly asked students to quiet down as they interrupted Spencer while he tried to answer questions.

Before Spencer’s speech, Muslim Student Association held a peaceful sit-in as students gathered on the ground floor of Knox Hall. Roughly 80 students and faculty members showed solidarity for Muslims while some prayed.

“This is our narrative, our voice being stripped from us, and we demand to take it back,” said MSA President Samiha Islam. “Spencer and his followers have never been impacted by Islamophobia, we have. More Muslims have been harmed and killed by ISIS than any other group in the world. We vociferously denounce terrorism at every junction, hundreds of times publicly and privately and declare this is not what Islam represents.”

Kadija Mohammed, a sophomore undecided major, said she was disappointed that the university allowed Spencer to speak.

“I was shocked that there weren’t any moves by the school to stop him from coming, considering he’s banned from the U.K., like you have to be pretty bad to be banned from the U.K., if the queen doesn’t want to see your face, that’s a bad day,” Mohammed said.

Spencer spent a large portion of his speech reading from the Quran.

He read a part of Quran about gays and lesbians that referred to them as “adulterers,” and the crowd erupted in boos and cursed at him.

Sementilli said she expected the crowd to ask “tough questions,” but didn’t expect the crowd to impede on the dialogue.

“They are responsible for their own actions obviously we can’t control what anybody does,” she said. “It would have been nice if they would’ve been more respectful to the speaker and participated in a more productive dialogue.”

Both Luciana Sena, a senior legal studies major and Jared Armitage, a junior political science major, feel conservative perspectives aren’t heard on campus.

“It’s kind of an ongoing discussion here with the more conservative or Republican groups on campus that our free speech is often suppressed and I think that we saw that here today by not allowing one side of the discussion to speak,” Sena said.

UPD Chief of Police Gerald Schoenle wished more university staff were present at the event to contain the disruptive crowd of students who were unable to get in. He said the university will try to hold future potentially chaotic events in bigger venues like the Student Union Theater or Alumni Arena.

“Overall, well nobody got hurt, the points were heard on both sides so from that perspective so from that point of view it went OK,” Schoenle said.

“Controversial speaker at UB shouted down, heckled,” by Jay Tokasz, Buffalo News, May 1, 2017:

It wasn’t Berkeley or Middlebury, by any stretch.

But controversial speaker Robert Spencer was repeatedly shouted down and heckled at the podium Monday inside a University at Buffalo lecture room, as he tried to give a talk on “Exposing Radical Islam: The Dangers of Jihad in Today’s World.”

Two hundred people, most of them clearly opposed to Spencer’s point of view on Islam, sat in on the talk, while another 100 or more people were kept outside the room by university police due to fire code limits inside.

University officials and police had been on alert for the potential for significant demonstrations, in light of recent havoc at other campuses across the country over conservative-leaning speakers like Spencer, an author whose books on terrorism have been widely criticized by Islamic groups as anti-Muslim.

Spencer used a microphone during his talk but was frequently drowned out by shouts and chants to let more students inside. Some students called him a Nazi, while others yelled for him to shut up.

Spencer at times pulled out his cellphone to record the boisterous crowd. The attempt to silence someone who has a differing viewpoint was a “quintessentially fascist act, and you are manifesting it in a wonderful way tonight,” said Spencer. “What you have in this room besides the manifestation of fascism is a very interesting phenomenon in that I would doubt that any one of you has read a single thing I’ve written.”

Students began showing up to demonstrate against Spencer nearly two hours before his talk.

Tension had been building on campus since the conservative student group Young Americans for Freedom announced Spencer’s visit in April.

One of the aims of the group, which has had a chapter at UB since February, is to bring conservative-minded speakers to campus.

Within days, graduate student Alexandra Prince circulated a petition condemning Spencer as a “notorious Islamophobe and hate monger” and urging that student fees not be used to give him a platform on campus for hate speech.

Spencer frequently discusses terrorism by Muslims as being religiously motivated, an argument that has put him in the cross-hairs of American Muslims who say his interpretation of Islam is dangerously inaccurate and perverts their faith.

Spencer is part of a speaker’s bureau organized by the national Young Americans for Freedom Foundation, and he frequently talks on college campuses at the invitation of local YAF chapters….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer heading to Iceland, Left-fascists in uproar

University of Iowa: Muslim student charged with making terrorist threat

PODCAST Herman Cain Show: Discussing the U.S. response to the Islamic State

Earlier today I was on Herman Cain’s radio show, discussing the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh), and the Obama administration’s willful ignorance regarding the jihad threat.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Homeland Security names illegal immigrant to 10 most wanted fugitives list – Washington Times

Raymond Ibrahim: U.S. Ignores the Muslim Slaughter of Over 10,000 Christians and Destruction of 13,000 Churches in Nigeria

Minnesota: Muslim in contact with Islamic State jihadis threatens to “shoot up,” “blow up” a Walgreens

How to Avoid Being Raped? Just Say No

As they circle the drain, Western societies increasingly start to seem like parodies of real civilizations. It’s as if, to twist Shakespeare’s famous line, all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players in a really bad comedy that won’t get past its first season. The latest chapter is a Finnish anti-rape video that, writes Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer, teaches women that all they “have to do to keep from being raped is turn around, hold out their hand in a ‘halt’ gesture and say ‘Stop!’”

The video, shown below, portrays a woman being approached from behind by a man who appears to be a native Finn (maybe Huck Finn?) because, as we all know, Finnish men have suddenly decided to start preying on their women. The fact that the rising rate of sexual assault and concern about it coincide with the influx of Muslims into Finland is purely coincidental, I tell ya’.

In the video, the woman holds up her hand assertively shouting “Stop!” or “No!” and the alleged rapist backs off, completely cowed. Of course, though, I can’t speak Finnish, so I’m taking Spencer’s word for it on what’s being related in the video. But other possibilities do suggest themselves. Perhaps the women is,

  • using a Jedi mind trick: “No, you don’t want to rape me. You don’t want to rape me. You don’t want to rape me,” prompting the miscreant to back off, confused and repeating trance-like, “I don’t want to rape you.”
  • is saying, “I’ve told you thrice already, I don’t have the time!”
  • is telling her boyfriend, “No, Sven, I’m not going to show this video to the authorities and back up your claim you’re a Muslim migrant just so you can get more government benefits!”
  • is stating, “I don’t care if you’re going to visit San Francisco. You can’t borrow this purse.”
  • is protesting, “Don’t tell me where to go, that I shouldn’t walk into the Arab section. That’s patriarchal and Islamophobic!”

When the woman performs her arm movements, she also reminds me of a stewardess (if this offends people who now insist on the term “flight attendant,” good!) giving the pre-flight explanation of how to use the inflatable life jacket under your seat. And, interestingly, the kind of people likely to accost a woman in Finland can also be voted most likely to bring down an airplane.

It appears that Nordic countries are competing hard for the Darwin Award. Sweden currently is the top contender, but the others aren’t giving up on the race to the bottom. And whether it’s Sweden, Norway or some other land that reaches the nadir first, it’s not unreasonable to say they’re all Finnished.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

VIDEO: On Modern Man’s Fatal Conceit

In case you missed my talk from Restoration Weekend 2015 in Charleston, South Carolina, here it is again, complete with a transcript from FrontPage:

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Robert Spencer: Good morning. This is going be very easy because the topic is, “Do we have the will to defeat ISIS or the Islamic State?” Obviously, the answer is “no.” So enjoy your breakfast. But there’re actually some reasons for that, and very simply, in the first place, in order to defeat the Islamic state, airstrikes alone are not going to do it.

In the history of air warfare, it has never been known that a country was conquered solely from the air, and the Islamic State is going to be no exception. There’re going to have to be significant ground forces. Nobody wants to send ground forces back to Iraq. And even if we did send ground forces back to Iraq, we would probably make the same mistakes we made the first time in engaging in Wilsonian nation building projects instead of actually trying to win the war and the whole thing would be foredoomed. The idea that wars are to be fought in order to aid the enemy, instead of to defeat the enemy, is actually a new concept that has come about in the last few decades and is really a core of the problem of why the west, at this point, does not have the will to defeat the Islamic State.

The core of the concept was actually summed up, I think, recently in a New York Times piece that was called 27 Ways to be a Modern Man. And it was a wonderful piece because the New York Times, of course, is the adjudicator of acceptable opinion, the arbiter of style and the guide and for the perplexed and they set it all out for us: what does it mean to be a modern man? And I thought, well, I want to be a modern man. I’m going to read this. And so, I found out actually that the modern man listens to Wu Tang at least once a week. Now, I had to look that up. I found out actually that Wu Tang is an American hip–hop group from New York City originally composed of East Coast rappers RZA, GZA, Method Man, Raekwon, Ghostface Killah, Inspectah Deck, U-God, Masta Killa and the late Ol’ Dirty Bastard. Now, of course there’re plenty of us still alive, but the late Ol’ Dirty Bastard is somebody who I think sums up a lot of the problem here that modern man doesn’t seem to care about the societal decay that his musical tastes represent.

Modern man doesn’t seem to have much of any moral compass. And one of the things that we’re also told by the New York Times about the modern man is that he has no use for a gun. He does not own one and does not need one. And I thought, well, I understand that he might not want to own one, but how does modern man know that he doesn’t ever need one? Because he even says, “the modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off so that his wife has a chance to get away.” Well, it’s interesting enough that modern man has a wife at all, but he has no use for a gun; so how, exactly, is he going to fight off this guy? Well, we understand that the modern man always has a melon baller on hand to make sure that his cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew are uniformly shaped. And so that obviously, he can use to fight off the intruder. The modern man, also, we’re told, cries. He cries often. And I think one of the reasons why there’s going to be more and more crying in the West is because modern man is in charge of the United States government at this time.

Barack Obama is a modern man. John Kerry is a modern man. And the core assumption, in all seriousness, is that they think we’re beyond all that: we’re beyond wars, we’re beyond fighting. There is no conflict in the world that cannot be solved by sitting down and negotiating because everybody else is a modern man as well. See, that’s why the modern man doesn’t need a gun, because if the guy comes in with a gun, they can just sit down and talk about it and they’ll reach some accord. And they really believe that this is true. Barack Obama and John Kerry showed that they were quintessential modern men when they thought well we have the Ayatollah Khamenei, he’s somebody just like us. Well, sure, he shouts death to America a few times but really he has the same aspirations for peace, the same desire to join the harmonious community of nations and so we can do business. And they did. The biggest obstacle that the modern man faces, however, is that there are some people in the world who are not modern men. Khamenei, of course, is one very much so and the leader of North Korea, the caliph of the Islamic State, all of them old–fashioned guys. And old–fashioned guys, they understand that there is tribalism, there are ancient hatreds, there is warfare and there are some things that you just can’t settle by means of talking things out.

Now, what’s very interesting nowadays is that we see the confrontation of the modern man with the old–fashioned man in many, many arenas nowadays. And it’s always a very interesting confrontation. For example, there is a very courageous individual, Canon Andrew White. He’s known as the vicar of Baghdad and he is an Anglican clergyman from the UK who has remained in Baghdad and in Iraq as it has become a war zone and as the Christians have been victimized by the hundreds and thousands, and he has stayed there. But Canon White showed the other day that he still has a bit of modern man in him because he contacted the leaders of ISIS as they were getting close to Baghdad and invited them to dinner. And I thought wouldn’t that be amazing if Winston Churchill had written to Hitler and said, hey, come on to dinner. But, of course, Neville Chamberlain did just that. He accepted Hitler’s invitation and went to Munich. Neville Chamberlain was a modern man. Churchill understood there’s no talking to this guy. There is no talking to him (that is going to solve anything) and we’re just going to have to go to war. But Canon White, he invited the leaders of the Islamic State to dinner and they very graciously responded, “We’ll be glad to come to dinner and we’ll cut off your head.” That’s the confrontation between modern man and the old–fashioned man.

Another one that was very interesting, just the other day, was in regard to Faisal Mohammad. Faisal Mohammad was a young man who, on the University of California Merced campus, just recently stabbed four people and seriously wounded them. And it has come out that he left a manifesto that has not yet been published in full, but we have heard that, in the manifesto, he praised Allah and he had a step–by–step plan for what he was going to do when he carried out the stabbings including to sit down and sing the praises of Allah after he’d carried out the stabbings, and that it has been further revealed by a television station in Merced itself that he was on a terror watch list and had an ISIS flag in his possession. And Vern Warnke who is a police investigator in Merced at this time said he conceded these facts and then said but this has nothing to do with his religion. This has nothing to do with Islam, whatsoever. He didn’t kill anybody. He stabbed these people because he was disgruntled about being kicked out of a study group and that’s all it’s about.

Now, that’s quintessential modern man. The modern man is not annoyed by reality. He is not troubled by reality. Reality is not something that the modern man is interested in at all. But here again, in reality keeps impinging upon who he is and what he wants to do.

Just a few days ago also in Hamtramck, Michigan near Detroit, for the first time in the history of the United States a majority Muslim City Council (8:42 in video) was elected in Hamtramck and all the while that the Muslim candidates were running, this was celebrated as something that would be a triumph of diversity in multiculturalism. So as soon as they were elected, at the celebration party, one of the new city councilmen in Hamtramck said, “We showed the Polish and, everybody else, Hamtramck having been a historically Polish city. And this sent shockwaves through the local community and a lot of the people including some of the defeated candidates said, “Well, you know he’s speaking in a way that’s not really consistent with diversity and multiculturalism. He shouldn’t be wanting to show the Polish or show them up or rebuke them in any way. We’re all working together in harmony here, aren’t we?” Well, no. But that what happens when modern man meets reality.

Now, the disjunction, I think, is society wide between reality and the modern man. You take for example Ben Carson and Barack Obama, and Ben Carson recently, of course, ignited a firestorm by saying that he wouldn’t want to see a Muslim president. And lots of people said wait a minute. He doesn’t even know the constitution. There’s no religious test for candidates in the constitution (and he ought to be aware of that). He wasn’t saying that, however. This was a misinterpretation, probably willful, of his words. What he was pointing out was that Islamic law of Sharia has numerous aspects that are incompatible with constitutional freedoms. Denies the freedom of speech, denies the freedom of conscience, denies the equality of rights of women, denies the equality of rights of non–Muslims. These things, obviously, are not compatible with constitutional principles such that, as Dr. Carson pointed out, a presidential candidate if he were a Muslim would have to either adhere to the constitution or Sharia but he couldn’t do both; and he would have to renounce aspects of Sharia in order to adhere to constitutional principles and he might be doing that honestly or dishonestly. And this is a problem that is probably going to recur. And, of course, this was a terrible thing and Dr. Carson was widely denounced as an Islamophobe. Now, on the other hand, you have Barrack Obama, who of course has said Muslims are part of the fabric of this nation and have contributed to it since its founding. And, of course, you remember all the Muslim generals in the Revolutionary War and the Muslims among the founding fathers, the Muslim signers of the Declaration of Independence, and so on.

And so, we have to admit he has a point, but here again, modern man is untroubled by reality, and the idea that Barack Obama could say that and could say the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam which is a direct attack on the First Amendment, a direct attack on the freedom of speech and on the idea that even if something considered to be slander of the prophet of Islam, Americans ought to be free to say it. That ought to have ignited the firestorm, but of course, there was nothing because modern man is in control of the mainstream media as well as in control of the government.

And so, what all this makes clear, in brief, is that what we need in the government of the United States as we approach the new election cycle are some old–fashioned men and women who understand that we’re not beyond all that at all and that modern man, going into the confrontation with the ancient old–fashioned men represented by the caliph al–Baghdadi and Ayatollah Khamenei and so on, is absolutely outmanned, is absolutely out classed and has no chance of defeating him. And as a matter of fact, of course, defeat is not even something that he’s interested in pursuing. You may recall as a matter of fact that we went into Afghanistan 13 years ago, or 12 years ago, in order to defeat the Taliban and now the Pentagon and the United States government are announcing that the Taliban are an integral part, an important aspect of the post–war situation and the new harmonious and peaceful Afghanistan. Can you imagine if we had said, “Well we have to have the Nazis in the post World War II German government.” But course, modern men weren’t in charge during World War II. And what we have to do is turn them out now and insist that we elect people who are patriotic and who are aware of reality, who are aware of the reality of the Islamic Jihad against the west, who are aware of the reality of Islamic law and the implications that that has for the American polity as well as for international relations and people who will confront these facts realistically and formulate strategy on the basis of them rather than as, Barack Obama and John Kerry and all the other modern men are trying do, reshape reality into the image that they wish it to be, the glorious multicultural future in which there’s no nationality and no boundaries and no standards for anything and we’re all just together in this one glorious mosaic. It’s unfortunately true that, when these kinds of fantasies are applied to reality, then disaster ensues and that is what we are unfortunately heading for unless we get the modern man out of office and so that should be our primary objective for 2016. Thank you.

Audience member: That was great, Robert.

Robert Spencer: Thank you, Nina.

Audience member: I wanted to ask, “Is Jihad Watch going to do a compendium of kind of, how do you say, grave missteps in the same regard as you just documented, the conflict with the First Amendment to get sort of the contrast out there?”

Robert Spencer: Yeah, that’s a good idea. Thank you. And I think absolutely so, yes. People aren’t aware of the nature of Islamic law (and it’s widely obfuscated). A few years back there were nationwide attempts to outlaw Sharia in various states and the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic advocacy group with links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, they fought fiercely against these initiatives and were able to get activist judges to overturn them where they were passed in most of the places where they were passed. Now, they said that you can’t outlaw Sharia because Sharia is simply Islamic religious law and so you would be forbidding Muslims to practice Islam. And this was taken as axiomatic by the judges who overturned the statutes. But obviously, the point needs to be made, people aren’t concerned about Sharia because Muslims are reading the Koran or getting married according to Islamic rights or something of that kind or setting out their wills in accord with Islamic law and so on. Nobody’s concerned about that. People are only concerned about Islamic law, about Sharia, insofar as it does conflict with the principles and the freedoms that are guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. And so that ought to be the focus of these anti–Sharia initiatives and I hope that they’ll be able to be revived on that basis.

Audience member: That was really brilliant, Robert. I’m wondering since all of this in this room are not modern men and women, but dinosaurs –

Robert Spencer: Neanderthals.

Audience member: – proud dinosaurs and Neanderthals, I’m wondering as a case study, since you’re one of us, you’re one of the dinosaurs and you’re a very brave one, what CAIR and other organizations have personally done to you and whether or not you have had fatwas put out on your head and how you’ve managed to deal with that.

Robert Spencer: Well, yeah, I have a lot of death threats in terms of that. I don’t know if I have any formal fatwas but a death threat is a death threat, whether it’s got an official stamp from a Muslim cleric or not. I’m not concerned about death threats. Obviously, if I’m speaking in a public place where it’s been announced and there are likely to be people who are just coming in from wherever, then I generally have security with me and the great Floyd is right here. And that’s always a consideration but I’m not really concerned about it. It’s not as if I’m going to be immortal if I don’t do this work. And so, at a certain point you just have to make a decision to go ahead. As far as CAIR goes, it’s much more important. What CAIR does is, and it’s not only with me but anybody, anyone and everyone who speaks the truth about these issues CAIR will target and try to discredit and silence and marginalize. And they have done this for years such that they tar with the charges of racism, bigotry and islamophobia. Anyone who speaks about this in any forum, and I see it all the time, I get the CAIR mailing every day and they are asking some place to cancel some speaker or asking that some city officer somewhere resign because he wrote something anti–Muslim on his Facebook page. And the anti–Muslim statement was really about how we need to resist the jihadis but of course CAIR tries to obstruct that. The idea is to intimate Americans into silence and make people afraid to speak out about this because they think, well I don’t want to be charged with racism and bigotry and so I’ll just keep quiet about this. And it’s been an extraordinarily effective campaign, the Fort Dix jihad plot. There are six Albanian Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix and shoot as many American soldiers as possible before they themselves were killed and went to the virgins. That was foiled by a 17 year old boy because he was working in a video store and the jihadis went into the video store and they asked him to transfer all their gory jihad tapes from VHS to DVD. And so he was watching all this and he was alarmed. But this is the key point. He went to his manager and he said, “Dude, I’m watching all this weird stuff on the screen. Should I go to the police or would that be racist?” Would that be racist? See, that I think sums up right there where he’s worried would it be racist to turn in some blood thirsty jihadis to the police? That shows how successful the CAIR campaign has been, that this teenager, he’s internalized all that.

Audience member: Next question’s right here, Robert.

Audience member: Thank you for your analysis of –

Robert Spencer: Thank you.

Audience member: – the character. Because this is something that our enemies always do. We always used to read about how the soviets paid so much attention to what our leaders were like and indeed Putin has done that for Obama. He is inside his head as somebody said. And we never do it.

Robert Spencer: Rent free, yeah.

Audience member: And that was a really perfect thing using that modern man.

Robert Spencer: Thank you.

Audience member: One thing I want to ask you about is tribalism, connected with that. Because one of the great achievements of not modern man, but modern civilization in America is that we have tried to overcome tribalism. We pursued integration. We broadened rights to everybody. And it seems to me that what our modern men and the left is doing is to bring back tribalism. So when those jihadis said we got the Polish (that just seems like an omen of things to come). If you were always attacked for who you are, you’re going to be tribal after a while.

Robert Spencer: Yeah, absolutely. I think, well of course, many people have observed that the multiculturalist imperative is all cultures are equal except our own and all cultures are good except Judeo–Christian western culture which is to be rejected and despised in every possible way. And so the idea of multiculturalism does encourage tribalism because it encourages you to take on your cultural identity even and especially in the west and especially in the U.S. at the expense of the mainstream culture. And so, yeah, at a certain point, it’s going to result in atomization and conflict. There’s no way that it can’t. It’s just like the Austria–Hungary empire with all its constituent nationalities and the more that they began to press for their national identities, the more it became inevitable that the empire was going to dissolve and these constituent parts would be independent. Now, in the United States, it’s going to be actually much messier and bloodier because it’s not a regional thing or a matter of different nationalities together in one, but these different cultural identities that are being reinforced and often in a manner that is quite hostile to the mainstream. So yes, it’s not going to end well.

Audience member: Question in the back, hold on, Robert.

Audience member: Thank you. Is there enough drive or purpose behind the movement to get the Muslim Brotherhood designated as a terrorist organization?

Robert Spencer: Well, the purpose is to stop the Obama administration from favoring the Muslim Brotherhood. The Obama administration solicitude for the Muslim Brotherhood is so extreme that when the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt was being toppled, by the Egyptian people, millions and millions of Egyptians out on the streets, demonstrating against the Brotherhood regime in 2013, they were holding up signs saying, “Obama stop supporting terrorists.” And it was all about Obama’s supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Even after the Brotherhood regime has been toppled, he has met with Brotherhood representatives in Washington and sent American representatives over to speak to the Brotherhood in Cairo while snubbing and giving the cold shoulder to the AsSisi regime that is against the Brotherhood. So the idea of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group would be to try to end this Muslim Brotherhood influence and they decided pro–Muslim Brotherhood slant of the Obama administration. Excuse me.

Audience member: Okay. Right here, right here Rob.

Audience member: So I was in class and I was defending Dr. Carson’s statements because the United States was founded on Judeo–Christian values and not Islamic values and I had a teacher tell me that Judeo–Christian was a term made up to get votes from republic Christians. Is that the case, which I know it’s not, but how could I defend against that in class?

Robert Spencer: Well, you can point out that there are people you can point to who were Jews and who were Christians who really were participating in the founding of the United States. And there were Jews who were participating in the American Revolution right from the beginning. As a matter of fact there was a very significant, I believe his name was Haym Salomon, a very significant figure in the political career of George Washington and the ability of the Continental Army to sustain itself was this supporter who was Jewish. And so you have Jews and Christians from the beginning of the United States. You don’t have any Muslims there (contrary to Obama’s fantasy). So the idea that there is something newly minted and manipulative or propagandistic about the Judeo–Christian is simply flying in the face of the facts. There really has been Jewish and Christian cooperation and a congruence in seeing the principles of the United States as worth founding and worth defending and a Jewish and Christian presence here, obviously, all through the history of the United States and Jews having been persecuted all over the world found this to be the most welcoming nation probably in the history of the world for the Jewish people, whereas Muslims were never present here at all. And when they came here, have been supremacist and antagonistic from the beginning, in demanding special privileges and so on that other groups are not accorded. So the claim that your professor is making is just more of this ahistorical modern man fantasy really.

Audience member: Okay. This will have to be the last question.

Robert Spencer: Okay.

Audience member: Well, it’s not a question, just an add–on to an excellent observation. There were of course synagogues during the colonial times and the first mosque in the United States was established, when? Does anybody know? Anybody in the room know? 1928 Omaha, first masque, first synagogues, George Washington Times. Thank you very much.

Robert Spencer: Thank you. Thank you, very much.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim Student Association leader calls campus police over invitation to debate

Bangladesh: Muslims text death threats to two Christian bishops

VIDEO: Muslim migration or Islamic invasion?

Jihad Watch‘s Robert Spencer addresses contentious Muslim migration issues of today. He believes that this is a Hijrah, a jihadist invasion of the West, not a migration as the media likes to interpret it.

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Hijrah as:

Hijrah, also spelled Hejira or Hijra (“Flight” or “Emigration”), Latin Hegira, the Prophet Muhammad’s migration (622 ce) from Mecca to Medina in order to escape persecution. The date represents the starting point of the Muslim era.

There are Muslim Jihadis both in Europe and on the way to America.

Map Of Radical Mosques in the U.S. According to the Clarion Project

These mosques or their leading clerics have radicalized attendees to become terrorists, supported terrorist organizations, made radical Islamist remarks or hosted others that have, or are financially backed by radical individuals or organizations.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Donald Trump Sets Off a Furor With Call to Register Muslims in the U.S.

President Obama rejects Intelligence reports on known Islamic terrorists

Muslim Migrants Are Killing Christian Migrants

Barack Obama Blocked 75% of Strikes on the Islamic State

EDITORS NOTE: This video is courtesy of DemoCast.tv.

Where Things Stand by Hugh Fitzgerald

More than 14 years have passed since Americans have had their attention forcefully fixed on the reality of Islamic terrorism. Until September 11, 2001, with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, most people in America — and in Europe — could be forgiven for assuming that they would not become the targets of Arab – and Muslim – terror attacks. That was something for Israelis to worry about. And if they had not been guilty of what the Arabs saw as “occupation of Arab lands” (for decades the mantra justifying terrorist attacks on Israel), why should they be targeted?

That comforting assumption evanesced in the face of more attacks by Muslims on targets all over Europe: in Amsterdam, Theo van Gogh was killed for the crime of making Submission, a movie about Muslim women. In 2004 in Madrid, at Atocha Station, in the same year, Muslim bombs claimed Spanish victims, though Spain’s government had taken a largely pro-Arab line; in London, in 2005, innocents on both busses and the Underground were the victims of Muslim attacks, apparently because British troops were in Iraq and Afghanistan. In France, there have been murderous attacks on French Jews, not Israelis, including the attack on the Hyper Cacher, a kosher market. And there have been attacks on cartoonists, of various nationalities, who dared to mock Muhammad – the Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris was massacred, and in Denmark attempts – fortunately unsuccessful — were made on the life of Lars Vilks. In both cases the putative crime was “blasphemy.”

Not everyone was prepared to surrender: in the United States, Pamela Geller helped to organize a Draw-Muhammad contest in Texas, and for her pains now finds it necessary to be accompanied at all times by security guards. Indeed, one could fill up pages merely listing Muslim attacks either planned or carried out within Europe and North America; still other pages would be needed to list all the Muslim attacks on non-Muslim targets in such varied places as Mumbai, Beijing, and Bali. Clearly something larger than that Arab anger over Israeli “occupation” explains these worldwide attacks.

As more and more people in the West are beginning to realize, the “root cause” of all this violence by Muslims against non-Muslims is to be sought not in a local grievance, but in the ideology of Islam itself. The personal testimony of ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina and Wafa Sultan, the analyses provided by Western students of Islam such as Robert Spencer and Bat Ye’or, have had their slow and steady effect. This small army of truth-tellers dissects the contents of the Qur’an and Sunnah (which consists, in written form, of both the Hadith and Sira), and for this have been described as “bigots,” but it becomes harder and harder to ignore or refute their evidence.

Among the learned analysts determined not to listen either to the apostates or to such people as Spencer, one comes immediately to mind. John Esposito, who created the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, associated with Georgetown, can be counted on to ignore the contents of Islam and to serve as an apologist. Alwaleed bin Talal, a Saudi prince, is now that Center’s main funder, and the Center itself was renamed the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Esposito has a long record of managing to find ways to ignore or dismiss the textual evidence that Spencer, Ibn Warraq, and others adduce from Qur’an and Hadith.

But money alone does not explain why so many people in the West have been so ready to ignore the evidence of Muslim malevolence, of widespread support for violent Jihad. Many In the West simply don’t want to see what is staring them in the face. For if Islam really does inculcate permanent hostility toward Infidels, what, then, is to be done about the tens of millions of Muslims already ensconced in Western lands? Could it really be that, as suggested by some, the adherents of Islam see the world as uncompromisingly divided between Dar al-Islam, the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the Domain of War, that part of the world which has not yet come under the sway of Islam and rule by Muslims? Could it really be that it is incumbent upon Muslims to wage Jihad, that is, the “struggle” to ensure that the whole world ultimately comes under the sway of Islam, so that Muslims rule everywhere? Even if that goal sounds fantastic to Infidels, there are enough Muslims, it seems, among the more than 1.2 billion in the world, who apparently do not agree, and are willing to keep trying. And the more their numbers increase inside Dar al-Harb, the greater the threat they pose.

Could it really be, after all, that Israel was only one target of Muslim aggression among many, in a much larger war, first to regain all the territories once in Muslim possession (Israel, Spain, the Balkans, Sicily) and then, after those re-conquests, to fulfill the duty to work to spread Islam until it everywhere dominated? And why did this explosion of violence begin not 50 or 100 years ago, but just in the last two decades?

A Saudi cleric, Dr. Nasser bin Suleiman Al-‘Omar, noted on Al-Jazeera TV on April 19, 2006:

The Islamic nation now faces a great phase of Jihad, unlike anything we knew fifty years ago. Fifty years ago, Jihad was attributed only to a few individuals in Palestine, and in some other Muslim areas.

How do things stand now, in 2015? The doctrine of Jihad wasn’t suddenly invented in the past fifty years. It’s been the same, more or less, for 1350 years. It had fallen into desuetude when Muslims felt themselves to be weak, but did not, and could not, disappear. What happened to make things so very different in recent decades? Some might point to the end of “colonialism.” They might note, for example, that the French, after forty years in Morocco and Tunisia, had withdrawn from both by the mid-1950s, and from Algeria in 1962. They might note that the British garrisons in Aden and elsewhere along the Persian Gulf had been withdrawn, largely for financial reasons, and that Saudi Arabia itself had never been subject to colonial rule. They might note the withdrawal of the British from India, and the creation of an Islam-centered state, in what was then West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The Dutch abandoned their rule over Muslims in the East Indies (what is now Indonesia). But the end of colonial rule over Muslim peoples, more than a half-century ago, is not enough to explain the current violence and threats by Muslims worldwide.

Three developments explain the explosion of Islamic aggression in the last two decades, developments which permitted the Jihad to widen in scope and no longer be merely a small-scale Lesser Jihad against Israel:

1) First, there is the money weapon provided by the OPEC oil bonanza. Inshallah-fatalism and hatred of innovation (bida)—both tend to hinder economic development in Arab and Muslim countries. You are likely to put in less effort if, in the end, Allah decides the outcome. And Muslim distrust of innovation dampens the desire of individuals to jettison age-old methods and to introduce new ways of manufacturing and distribution. Muslim Arabs have acquired fantastic sums, nonetheless, because such acquisition required no effort on their part – it merely reflects an accident of geology. Since 1973, Arab and other Muslim-dominated oil states have received close to 25 trillion dollars from the sale of oil and gas to oil-consuming nations. This constitutes the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. The Muslim recipients did nothing to deserve this. Many interpreted the oil bonanza as a deliberate sign of Allah’s beneficence, inshallah-fatalism in their favor. That money did not just save them from poverty, but made many of them fabulously wealthy. And the higher prices that the OPEC cartel for a while managed to exact could even be interpreted as a kind of Jizyah, exacted from the Infidels.

What have the Arabs done with that twenty-five trillion dollars in OPEC money that they received over the past one-third century? They did not create paradises of artistic and scientific creation. Their peoples continue to rely on armies of wage-slaves to do the real work; in Qatar, for example, one-tenth of the population, the native Qataris, are serviced by foreign workers, Arab and non-Arab, who make up the remaining nine-tenths. Arab oil states have bought hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Western arms. And this has created a network of middlemen, bribes-givers and bribes-takers, and Western hirelings involved not only in arms sales, but also in the business of supplying other goods and services to these suddenly rich oil states. And these people not unnaturally find ways to explain away or divert attention from the less pleasant aspects of the countries with which they are involved. Saudi Arabia, for example, has long enjoyed the support of powerful Western business interests for whom Saudi Arabia is a major client; these interests have a stake in continued good relations and are not about to let unpleasant truths (such as the hatred of Infidels found in Saudi schoolbooks) get too much attention. Thus has the oil money become the fabled “wealth” weapon of the Jihad, by which boycotts, and bribery, and the dangling of profitable contracts, contributed to creating a vast and loyal constituency among some influential and meretricious people in the capitals of the West.

How else have the Arabs spent that oil money? As mentioned above, on wage-slaves, those foreigners who, in Saudi or Qatar or the Emirates, arrive to do all the work. On palaces for the corrupt ruling families and their corrupt courtiers. On foreign real estate at the highest end, and luxury goods. It’s not only the ruling families who help themselves to the oil wealth – there’s so much to go around. Play your cards right and you could share that wealth, even if you are not a prince, princeling, or princelette of the Al-Saud family, but merely a lowly commoner. The original Bin Laden, founder of the clan, arrived in Saudi from Yemen, became a successful contractor, even won contracts for building in Mecca, and become fabulously rich. Courtiers such as the commoner Adnan Khashoggi began as a middleman in arms deals and made a fortune. Many started out as such fixers and middlemen in the Arab Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, and then metamorphosed into legitimate businessmen.

This creates a class of people who profit from, and support the regime. In the same way, the rich Arabs have created a lobby of Westerners, who divert attention from Islam’s tenets and teachings. The highly profitable contracts that have been given to Western businessmen for the construction of office parks, hospitals, apartment complexes, military cities have created a natural lobby in the West for Arabs and Muslims, consisting not only of those who receive such contracts, but also of others, including Western public relations experts, former government officials, journalists, academics, whose services are made available to the rich Arabs in presenting their case. Such institutions as the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, or, again, John Esposito’s Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, both in Washington and in England, such as the Arab Studies programs at Durham and Exeter and many departments of Islamic studies or Middle Eastern history, have been staffed by apologists for Islam. Columbia University offers a particularly egregious example.

Another product of the “wealth” Jihad are the thousands of mosques that Arab oil money pays for, in London and Rome and Paris, as in Niger and Pakistan and Indonesia. Much of that money comes from Saudi Arabia, whose clerics make sure that the mosques that are built, or that receive Saudi support, preach the stern Wahhabi version of Islam. It is the same for madrasas that receive Saudi subventions. And campaigns of Da’wa (the Call to Islam, particularly effective in Western prisons), too, often receive OPEC money.

2) The second development, observable at the same time as the oil money really began to flow into the countries of Western Europe, was demographic: millions of Muslim migrants have over the past four decades been allowed to enter Western Europe. These were mainly Pakistanis in England, Turks in Germany, Algerians in France, Moroccans in Spain, Indonesians in Holland, and in every country, assorted mix-‘n-match Muslims from all of these and still other places. They brought their wives; their families always became much larger than those of the non-Muslim natives. These Muslims could now enjoy Western medicine (lower rates of infant mortality), Western education, Western housing — free or greatly subsidized.

What Muslims brought undeclared in their mental baggage to the West –Islam itself — was not held up for close examination. And it was taken as an article of faith that nothing seriously prevented Muslims from integrating with the same ease as non-Muslim immigrants. Those who expressed doubts about this, who suggested that there might be special problems with Muslim immigrants — and these skeptics included both some who had been raised as Muslims (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq) and non-Muslims (Bat Ye’or, Hans Jansen, Robert Spencer) who had studied Islam — were at first dismissed as bigots. But they could not be silenced. These informed commentators insisted that the belief-system of Islam, the system that suffuses the minds of Muslims wherever they are, has taught them to be hostile to Infidels, and should not be ignored. But many non-Muslims, at a loss as to what they might do with this knowledge, have willfully ignored Islamic doctrine. The notions that first, a Muslim’s true loyalty is to fellow members of theumma al-islamiyya, and second, that Jihad to spread Islam (so that ultimately Islam will everywhere dominate) is a duty incumbent on all Muslims, have not been taken seriously by those whose duty it is to protect and instruct us.

In recent years, an older generation of Western scholars of Islam and the Middle East has died or retired (one thinks of Bernard Lewis, A.K.S. Lambton, J. B. Kelly, Elie Kedourie, P. J. Vatikiotis); these people were critical both of Islam and of its apologists in the West. They have been replaced, in academic departments, by those who are often Muslims themselves or, if not Muslim, less critical, and more admiring of both. Their background and training were received from Arabists, and they were inclined to be apologists for Islam. Ibn Warraq once said that in his experience, many of those who choose to enter the fields of Islam and Middle Eastern history possess a pre-existing animus toward Jews, or toward the West itself, and are predisposed to find Islam attractive. He calls this “self-selection.” And then there is still sympathy for peoples from the “Third World” — never mind that Qataris, Kuwaitis, Saudis, Emiratis hardly qualify, given their fabulous unearned wealth.

The flow of Muslims into Europe has consisted mainly of Pakistanis to Great Britain, Moroccans and Turks to the Netherlands, Algerians and other maghrebins to France, Turks to Germany, Egyptians and Libyans to Italy. In 2015, they are now joined by Syrians (or “Syrians,” since many so identified in fact come from elsewhere), who are being admitted in huge numbers. They will swell Muslim millions already in the West. More than 800,000 of these “Syrians” are set to be received by Germany alone this year, thanks to Angela Merkel.

Demography is destiny. The greater the number of Muslims in Europe, the greater their political power becomes. Muslims have been attempting, unsurprisingly, to limit the ability of non-Muslims in Europe to enforce laws, or to enjoy freedoms, or to fashion foreign policies, to which Muslims might object. Think of the difficulties the French government still experiences in enforcing the no-hijab rule in state schools; think of the cartoonists in France and Denmark and elsewhere in Europe who now hold back on caricatures of Muhammad, fearful of meeting the same fate as theCharlie Hebdo staff. Jews in France are worried about their future; the spate of attacks by Muslims on Jews in France suggest they are right to worry. There has been a great increase in the numbers of French Jews going to Israel.

Meanwhile, Muslims continue to push for changes in the laic state. They still have not given up, for example, attempts to challenge the ban on the hijab in schools. And when cartoonists are killed for having “blasphemed” Muhammad, too many Muslims express not abhorrence but approval. Muslims recognize and are prepared to exploit the freedoms, political and civil, created by and for the Infidels, and are ready to exploit them to further their own, Muslim, ends.

For Western man, the legitimacy of any government depends on that government reflecting, however imperfectly, the will expressed by the people through elections. Islamic political theory is based on a very different idea: the legitimacy of government depends on the ruler being a Muslim, and the will to be expressed is that of Allah, as set down in written form in the Qur’an, and an additional fleshing-out of the Qur’an’s meaning comes through study of the Sunnah, that is, the practices of the earliest Muslims, derived from the Hadith and Sira, which become a kind of gloss on the Qur’an.

Western man exalts the individual; in Islam, it is the collective, the community of Believers. And the true object of worship in Islam turns out to be Islam itself; it is Islam itself that Believers must protect from attack. Morality in Islam is determined by what Muhammad said or did; he remains the Model of Conduct, the Perfect Man, and for all time. Those who assume that the millions of Muslims who have been allowed into Europe and North America are going to “integrate” into non-Muslim societies, societies with manmade laws quite different from the Sharia, without difficulty, fail to recognize that this would mean jettisoning much of Islam. It could require seeing Muhammad in a critical light, and doing away with Muslim supremacism. Is this conceivable? And it should not be forgotten that Muslims have a duty to conduct Da’wa, the Call to Islam, to promote Islam as the Truth.

3) The OPEC trillions from oil, and the Muslim migrant millions in the West, are two of the three significant developments that explain Muslim power today. The third development consists of the appropriation and effective use, by Muslims, of technological advances originating in the Western world, and therefore made by Infidels, that made it much easier to disseminate the Call to Islam to Infidels, and the full message of Islam to Believers worldwide, to spread the message of the most austere and implacable kind of Islam — Wahhabism — and even to recruit for Al Qaeda and ISIS (who would have thought that decapitation videos could serve as recruitment tools for those luring others to actively participate in violent Jihad?).

Without audiocassettes, without those taped sermons urging violence, Khomeini might never have been able to whip up, from his distant exile in Neauphle-le-Chateau in France, so many hundreds of thousands of fanatical followers in Iran. Without videocassettes, and satellite television channels and the Internet, it would have been much harder to spread Islamic propaganda, including that put out by Al Qaeda and ISIS. Decades ago, simple pious Muslims could conduct their lives without being whipped up to violent Jihad, aware that they needed to fulfill their five canonical daily prayers, but only vaguely aware of the duty to take part in Jihad. Thanks to the Internet, they are now much more aware of the extent of their duties as Muslims.

In summary: it is these three developments — first, the OPEC trillions, that have given the Arabs such wealth to influence everything from U.N. votes to Western economic interests; second, the Muslim migrant millions in the West who have become, in 2015, many millions; and third, the appropriation of Western technological advances to spread the message of Islam — that help explain the reappearance of Islam as a fighting faith that everywhere threatens non-Muslims. Muslims who just a century ago were deploring Muslim weakness and Western strength are now able to deploy vast financial power and use it to increase their political clout and to obtain arms. Muslims by the many millions are now settled in Dar Al-Harb, behind what they regard as enemy lines.

What will happen now to the Arab use of the “wealth” weapon? Advances in renewable energy (e.g., in solar collectors and wind farms), and the growing recognition that the use of oil has to diminish if climate warming is to be slowed down, may lessen the amount of money that flows to Muslim oil states. But those states already have money stockpiled that they can still use to buy arms and influence. And as we have seen, the Muslim presence in Europe continues to increase, especially with the influx of “Syrians”; the geert-wilders and marine-le-pens bravely keep up their warnings about the Muslim invasion, but continue to go largely unheeded by the main parties. It’s still easy to affix the word “bigot.” Still, reports from Germany suggest that Merkel’s admitting so many “Syrians” is meeting with increasing opposition.

ISIS, the Islamic State, came into existence because Sunni Muslims in Iraq and Syria believed that their governments – Shi’a-dominated in Iraq, Alawite-dominated in Syria – scanted Sunni interests in the distribution of the national spoils. Those in the West who thought that ISIS was a fleeting phenomenon, that the Shia-dominated Iraqi government would retake Mosul, that ISIS could not possibly hold the territories it seized in such rapid fashion, or would not be able to run the territories it had conquered as a real state, when it has both held those territories and has begun to organize them and assume the responsibilities of rule, should recognize how formidable ISIS has become. Its appeal is wide, as the tens of thousands of recruits, including doctors and engineers, who have arrived from abroad testify.

No Western government has yet dared to broadcast any information about the connection between the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of Muslim societies and Islam itself. Indeed, one discovers that even in the West, deep behind enemy lines, in Dar al-Harb, Muslims are watching not the regular Western channels, but insisting on getting their news — in Dearborn as in the East End of London, and in the banlieues of Paris and Lyon and Marseille — from Al-Jazeera (owned by Qatar), Al-Manar (run by Hezbollah), and other Arab stations. Willingly, many Arab Muslims in the West choose to limit themselves to stations spouting Arab Muslim propaganda, for only these stations are “telling the truth.” The ability to modify the views of Muslims enjoying life in the West, so that they will no longer pose a threat to the non-Muslim order, is limited.

Islam is naturally totalitarian — a total belief-system that leaves no area of life untouched. It offers a Compleat Regulation of Life and Total Explanation of the Universe. Over many centuries when Muslims had no technological advances to appropriate from the Western world, nor the wealth with which to exploit those advances (and thus lacking the ability to spread the full doctrines of Islam throughout both Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb), Muslims were able to conduct their lives without necessarily being fully aware of, much less always following, at every step, all the teachings of Islam. But today’s technology makes things different. The full undiluted message of Islam, now easily available to those who might once have been ignorant or even unobservant Muslims, is available. Muslims everywhere know that the full teachings of Qur’an and Hadith are a mere click away, and the Internet makes the same undiluted message available to Infidels who are suffering from various degrees of disaffection with the modern world, the West, Kapitalism, The System, Amerika, call it what you will, and who may find Islam attractive.

For we have seen that Islam is a mental system that appeals to those who prefer to have a life totally regulated from above. They find it perfectly acceptable to take as a model a seventh-century Arab, who may or may not have existed (that doesn’t matter, as long as Muslims believe he existed), described in the Qur’an as uswa hasana (the Model of Conduct), and elsewhere as al-insan al-kamil (the Perfect Man). For the socially and psychically marginal among Infidels, for those yearning to suppress their own individuality in a larger group, the umma al-islamiyaa(Community of Islam) provides an instant community. Islam is just the thing. Western man, who has come to prize skepticism and individualism, may not understand its attraction. The convert to Islam, in or out of prison, does not deplore, but welcomes, his own submission to Islamic authority, is glad to be supplied with answers as to the conduct of life based on passages in the Qur’an or stories in the Hadith, and finds soothing the notion that Allah Knows Best. It makes life simpler. In other words, Western governments should not underestimate the attraction of Islam to non-Muslims, nor assume that Muslims in the West will forget their duty to conduct Jihad.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Because of Defense Spending Cuts, Navy Won’t Have Aircraft Carrier in Middle East Anymore

Pakistan: “Blasphemer” put in solitary confinement after receiving death threats

UK: Anti-Muslim hate crimes to be recorded separately, says Cameron