Tag Archive for: shariah law

American Muslim Leaders Shocked, Shocked to Find that Terrorism Is Going On Here!

/in , , , /by

Over at PJ Media, I ask why authorities are still taking mosque leaders’ statements after terror arrests at face value.

It’s an iconic moment in American cinema, from Casablanca: Captain Renault tells Rick Blaine that he is “shocked! shocked!” to discover that gambling is going on in his establishment, and that it will be immediately closed — just as a clerk approaches and hands Renault his winnings. Muslims aren’t generally known for cinematic tributes, but mosque leaders around the country deserve Oscars for how they reenact this scene every time a jihadi is apprehended. For how long are law enforcement officials going to fall for the act?

The latest example comes courtesy of Arafat Nagi of Lackawanna, New York, who was arrested last week for recruiting for the Islamic State. According to WIVB, the local Muslim community is “devastated and in shock.”

In shock, eh? Dr. Khalid Qazi, President of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said that Nagi “had withdrawn from the community about three years ago. He had some domestic issues, some family issues.” Ah, that does explain it. Qazi is implying that Nagi was a bit unbalanced, leading to his involvement with the Islamic State, and that if he hadn’t withdrawn from the peaceful Muslim community three years ago, this wouldn’t have happened.

But wait: back in 2002, Nagi had wanted to join the Lackawanna Six – six local Muslims who attended an al-Qaeda training camp.

According to Qazi, Nagi only withdrew — he wasn’t expelled for his “extremism,” but withdrew — from the local Muslim community only three years ago. That means that for ten years after trying to join an al-Qaeda group, Nagi was presumably a member in good standing of the local Muslim community.

Clearly his recent arrest shows that he hadn’t given up his “extremism.” Yet when Nagi is arrested, the local community is “in shock”? They knew for at least thirteen yearsthat Nagi was a supporter of the violent jihad doctrine they supposedly reject and abhor. What was shocking about his arrest?

Qazi was, of course, posturing for the media and law enforcement authorities, and there is no indication that either didn’t wholly swallow his act. Indeed, despite the fact that this same act has played all over the country, it always gets rave reviews.

It played in Birmingham, Alabama, last April, when a young Muslim woman fled to the Islamic State. A spokesman for the girl’s parents — why did they need a spokesman? — said:

For them this is worse than losing the life of a child, to have them join such a horrible, horrible gang of violent extremists. Nothing can describe the pain they are facing.

The spokesman was none other than Hassan Shibly, a lawyer and the chief executive director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group with established ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Shibly claimed that the woman had withdrawn from the local Muslim community a year before joining the Islamic State, and added:

The reason she withdrew from the community is because the Muslim community is very vocal against groups like ISIS … she made the decision based on her communication online with them that she wanted to join them.

He didn’t bother to explain why the peaceful Islam the young woman presumably learned from the community and her shocked and devastated parents wasn’t able to withstand the appeal of a supposedly twisted, hijacked version of the religion. He didn’t have to: he could be secure in the knowledge that no one would ask him to do so.

And so it goes. After the July 16 jihad massacre of U.S. Marines in Chattanooga by Mohammod Abdulazeez, the Times Free Press reported that Bassam Issa, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga:

… has said how shocked he was to find out that a young man who went to his mosque harbored radical ideas. He doesn’t see how anything Abdulazeez learned locally could have led to such thinking or to such a tragic plan.

And last April, a Muslim woman named Noelle Valentzas was arrested for plotting, along with another Muslim woman, a jihad bombing on U.S. soil. Valentzas’ husband, Abu Bakr, said of his wife’s arrest:

I don’t believe any of it, period. We are all shocked, the whole community. That’s not who she is.

But back in 2007, Abu Bakr was photographed at the Muslim Day Parade in New York City with the black flag of jihad. He carried it at other parades as well.

A particularly hammy version of this play-acting came in Rochester, New York in June 2014, when Mufid Elfgeeh, a Muslim local restaurant owner, was arrested for plotting to murder American soldiers. Sareer Fazili, President of the Islamic Center of Rochester, said:

Our religion is one of peace and one of submission and I think all of our friends in the faith based community know that. … I’m very shocked, I’m very upset, very disappointed that somebody who claims they follow Islam, the same religion that has been taught for so many years would think that he is within the bounds of our teachings because nothing could be further from the truth.

He was shocked to hear that someone who professes to be a Muslim would commit an act of violence? Really?

Had Sareer Fazili never heard of 9/11? 7/7? The Bali bombing? The Boston Marathon bombing? The Fort Hood massacre? Or any of the thousands of other jihad attacks perpetrated by people who not only profess to be Muslim, but say that when they bomb and kill they are following the teachings of Islam?

Fazili also said, according to WHEC, that he “does not believe Elfgeeh has ever been a member of the Islamic Center.” That may be, but it is noteworthy how so many devout Muslims who turn to violent jihad — Elfgeeh had tweeted “about the prophet Muhammad and terrorist groups fighting in the name of Allah” — never seem to go to mosque.

Every time there is a jihad attack or plot in the U.S., local Muslims say that no one knew him, he never went to mosque. Yet by their own words, these people are fanatically devout and observant….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iraqi archbishop: US more concerned about image of Islam than victims of persecution

New Jersey Muslim charged with conspiring to support the Islamic State

Arming Children: The Islamic State and Mexico’s Gulf Cartel

/in , , , /by

There is much talk about disarming law abiding American citizens by the Obama administration but little done to stop the use of children as hit-men by Mexican drug cartels  and soldiers by the Islamic State.

This is the worst form of child abuse – using children to kill, slaughter, behead, assassinate.

child soldier of Islamic StatePamela Geller in her column “Generation Kill: The Child Soldiers of the Islamic State” writes:

Look at this child [right]. Remember him. This is your children’s future.

This is who your children will face in the future. These children are being trained to kill. These children are being schooled in the sharia and jihad. Our children are being disarmed and misled about the genocidal ideology behind this war. Sheeps to slaughter.

The below video, called “The Cubs of Dijla” in a reference to the young boys being indoctrinated and groomed to fight, shows children as the clip’s primary speakers. They deliver monologues and recite verses of the Quran, marking the first time the Islamic State has depicted boys—one as young as three—speaking at length directly into the camera.

gulf drug cartel child killerMia De Graff writing for the Daily Mail reports:

These are the baby-faced members of Mexico’s menacing Gulf Cartel [right].

In an unprecedented series of photos, scores of hitmen have unmasked themselves to apparently prove: ‘We aren’t afraid to show our faces, we want you to see nothing but the Gulf Cartel.’

Shockingly, some look as young as 12.

The Gulf Cartel is one of Mexico’s oldest, dating back to the Prohibition era.

With roots in the United States, Europe, West Africa, Asia, Central America, and South America, the organization wields significant power over the drug-trafficking trade – despite losing ground to rivals in recent years.

Read more.

Here is a video about Mexican drug cartels:

The use of children as killers is as bad as using children as sex slaves. Evil is evil. Not to call this evil is a travesty. Sadly the Gulf Cartel and Islamic State continue to recruit, train and use children to kill — these are the baby-faced hit men of the 21st Century.

Why doesn’t the Pope go to Syria?

/in , , /by

A good opportunity for “Muslim-Christian dialogue”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

Former DIA Director: Obama made “willful decision” to support al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood in Syria

/in , , /by

Mehdi Hasan is a highly suspect analyst and Foreign Policy Journal appears to be a pro-jihad paleocon publication, and Al Jazeera is certainly a pro-jihad propaganda outlet. All that is noted, but if this transcript is accurate, former DIA director Michael Flynn is confirming that the Obama Administration knowingly decided to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and directly enabled the rise of the Islamic State. And given the Obama Administration’s general stance toward the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, what would be unbelievable about that?

In a sane political atmosphere, this would be enough to bring down the Obama presidency. Instead, it will get little notice and no action whatsoever.

“Rise of Islamic State was ‘a willful decision’: Former DIA Chief Michal [sic] Flynn,” by Brad Hoff, Foreign Policy Journal, August 7, 2015 (thanks to Joshua):

In Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.” [Lengthy discussion of the DIA memo begins at the 8:50 mark.]

Amazingly, Flynn actually took issue with the way interviewer Mehdi Hasan posed the question—Flynn seemed to want to make it clear that the policies that led to the rise of ISIL were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making:

Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

Flynn: I think the administration.

Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.

Hasan himself expresses surprise at Flynn’s frankness during this portion of the interview. While holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan reads aloud key passages such as, “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did the State Department soon after its release, Flynn does the opposite: he confirms that while acting DIA chief he “paid very close attention” to this report in particular and later adds that “the intelligence was very clear.”

Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on the Syrian regime:

Hasan: In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you’re worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?

Flynn: I hate to say it’s not my job…but that…my job was to…was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be….

As Michael Flynn also previously served as director of intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda, his honest admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature….

RELATED ARTICLE: Iraqi Christian: Islamic State jihadis blinded me after I refused to convert to Islam

VIDEO: Preventing Prevent? Challenges to Counter-Radicalisation Policy On-Campus

/in , , , , , /by

The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) heard from Lloyd Randle, Former Prevent Engagement Officer, Hampshire Constabulary, Dr Usama Hasan, Senior Researcher at the Quilliam Foundation, and Rupert Sutton, Director of Student Rights at The Henry Jackson Society.

The speakers discussed the findings of the recent Student Rights report ‘Preventing Prevent: Challenges to Counter-Radicalisation Policy On-Campus’, on-the-ground experiences counter-radicalisation efforts, including the challenges posed by student opposition, and the narratives used by extremists to undermine efforts to challenge extremism on our campuses.

RELATED VIDEO: A team of Highbury College Media students produced this documentary into the world of radicalisation as a global concern and, more concerning, on our doorstep.

Proselytizing of Islam At Chautauqua

/in , , , /by

The Chautauqua Institution, deemed an adult education center, is less education than it is indoctrination to the world of The Left. In the month of July, in an idyllic setting, the Institution invited Islamists who speak of “Love and Justice in a World of Suffering,” hiding the truths about the suffering caused by Islam – both the harsh Sharia law already in effect for its adherents and to establish it in Dar Al-Harb (House of War), the countries not yet under Sharia – until the entire world will writhe under Islamic oppression.

Omid Safi, appointed director of Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center  in July, 2014, spoke in terms to please the under informed.  He and they would prefer that hideous acts of violence, such as perpetrated by ISIS, ISIL, Boko Haram, Hamas, and countless others with like purpose, be removed from the news media and replaced with stories of compassion.  In so doing, of course, he would silence the reporters and critics and destroy our freedom to speak, report, and inform the masses about the evils perpetrated by Muslims, so that we would remain oblivious to Islam’s stealth control over our media and our minds. He would then pursue and obtain legal accommodations without obstacle, force Sharia law over our Constitutional laws without hindrance, and threaten all our freedoms through influence, treachery, and force.

The “pain and suffering” he referenced in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Staten Island, have been shown to be largely incitement encouraged by outsiders who represent Islam and the Left; conquest is best accomplished during turmoil and disorder. The mayhem forces the unprepared, unarmed victims into appeasement mode, to cede their rights and ability to speak and defend in favor of assuaging the unmanageable horde that cries “victimhood.”  Peace at any cost.  The chaos allows the aggressive to dominate and, under the guise of “love and justice,” impose its law on all nations – thus implementing the laws of Allah through jihad.

Safi was also sure to remind that there was insufficient money for social issues but a glut for our military – an absolute inverted fabrication to which the unaware nod in assent because Chautauqua provides no discussions, no debates, no visitors to provide an opposing view. The rhetoric that passes for intellect remains unchallenged; the audience is never encouraged to analyze and grasp that the narrative undermines their very survival.

In fact, the growth in national health spending and welfare programs have accelerated to levels that, unchecked, will bring our country to bankruptcy. The federal government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have expanded to cover additional and improved services for 200 million people; and an average of 46+ million people received food stamps on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during 2012, with more illegal aliens and “new Americans” still coming to our shores – unvetted for physical and mental illnesses, crime, or productivity. The programs thwart incentive to strive, inhibit growth and achievements, and cut back funds for investments, new jobs and opportunities for the many – a future of prosperity.

He advocates cuts to our military budget, already at a pre-World War II low, when the threat to our national security is at an all-time high. Severe cuts in defense spending have already subjected our nation to accumulating strategic risks to such as crisis-readiness, sustaining pilot skills with sufficient flying hours, and maintaining a Naval presence in key regions.  Our military must continue diplomatic, economic and intelligence elements for preserving trade routes and stability in vital regions, and serving global interests. Financial support is crucial for military infrastructure and civilian and contractor defense workforce.  Safi instigates his audience to desire further increases in social expenditures (higher taxation and prices, shrinking wealth, increased poverty, and compounded national debt) and to diminish our self-defense and military superiority against Islamic or any tyrannical expansionism. Disarmed, submissive subjects are easier to rule and more likely to provide the revenue and manpower needed for further conquest.

Safi reminded his audience of the human condition, always to plead for Muslim suffering, as though they are the eternal victim rather than the perpetual offender.  As I mentioned in my previous essay, Mosquitoes in the Mosque,  Islam is guilty of jihadi expansionism and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of victims since its inception in 824 A.D., unparalleled by any other people, and ongoing.  The FBI has reported that ISIS exists in “every single state,” and Chautauqua has its numerous visitors from the Muslim Brotherhood, including the notorious Imam Rauf, who failed to develop his Cordoba Mosque on Ground Zero but is planning one for this vacation spot in southwestern New York state.

While Safi urged his audience to love and empathize with “the human condition everywhere,” he fails to address those who have fallen prey to Islam. An ardent champion for the end of a Jewish Israel, this corrupt jihadist has written fallacious articles that blamed Israel of atrocities against Arabs, using Holocaust-era photos of bodies from Buchenwald concentration camp!  Who invites these speakers to so misinform those who presumably come to learn?  How are they vetted and allowed these opportunities to propagandize against our liberties, our nation, and against Israel?

The Chautauqua Institution, originally designed to bring culture, hope, and promise during the Great Depression, now presents a façade of scholarship, intellect, and critical thinking, its attendees duped at a critical time in American history.  Alas, idealism does not protect one from ignorance, dogmatism, and foolishness.

EDITORS NOTE. To contact Tabitha click here, this column originally appeared on TPATH. To read Mosquitoes in the Mosque referenced above click here.

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

/in , , , , /by

Could there be a little rebellion in the ranks?

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

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

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

Denouncing Franklin Graham!

Bob_Roberts_Jr-238x300

Know the opposition! Bob Roberts Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

World Religion News continued….

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Arabic: Most Common Language of Refugees in America

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

EDITORS NOTE:

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

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

/in , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

In Defense of The Center for Security Policy 2015 Poll on American Muslims

/in , , , /by

On June 23, 2015 the Center for Security Policy (CSP) released the results of a survey of 600 American Muslims entitled Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad.  Three days later, the Bridge Initiative released a response to the CSP study entitled New Poll on American Muslims Is Grounded in Bias, Riddled with Flaws.  Two weeks later (July 07, 2015), the Bridge Initiative article was re-posted in the Religion section of the Huffington Post, under the title Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Trust the Latest Poll on American Muslims.

According to the Bridge Initiative, the findings of the CSP survey, which ‘cast doubt upon American Muslims’ loyalty to their country,’ included the following three takeaway points:

  1. “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”
  2. “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”
  3. “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

In addition, the Bridge Initiative article asserted that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously,’ while citing the following four critiques:

  1. It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and “studies” about the threat of shariah, and
  2. Was administered using an unreliable methodology.
  3. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and
  4. Falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this article is to objectively evaluate whether the three takeaway points in the 2015 CSP survey are accurate (or not).

Note: It follows that if such an objective evaluation provides adequate proof that the three takeaway points in the CSP survey are accurate, then the Bridge Initiative’s assertions that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously’ must be considered invalid (irrelevant).

Analysis Methodology

To accomplish this, I followed the premise that the most reliable approach would be to compare the findings in the 2015 CSP survey with the results of as many other similar independent surveys (and/or statistical reviews) as possible. Thus, a comprehensive search for such surveys provided the following dates and titles (all URL’s accessed July 17, 2015):

February 19, 2006       Poll Reveals 40% Of Muslims Want Shariah Law In UK

August 14, 2006          Many British Muslims Put Islam First

March 16, 2008           Why Shariah?

July 07, 2008               Iranians, Egyptians, Turks: Contrasting Views on Sharia

May 25, 2009              Public Opinion In The Islamic World On Terrorism, Al Qaeda & US Policies

August 13, 2009          New Poll Shows 78% of Pakistanis Support Death Penalty for Leaving Islam

December 02, 2010     Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah

December 22, 2010     1 In 3 British Muslim Students Back Killing For Islam & 40% Want Sharia Law

August 30, 2011          Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism

November 02, 2011     62% Of Muslims In Canada Want Some Form Of Sharia

October 30, 3012         Guess Who U.S. Muslims Are Voting For?

April 30, 2013             The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

May 01, 2013              Seventy-Two Percent of Indonesian Muslims Favor Shariah Law

September 10, 2013     Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups

December 13, 2013     Europe: Islamic Fundamentalism is Widespread

April 07, 2014             The Support for Sharia Law Around the World

October 14, 2014         Arab Public Opinion & The Fight Against ISIS

November 12, 2014     The Military Campaign Against The Islamic State In Iraq And The Levant

November 28, 2014     Support For ISIS Stronger In Arabic Social Media In Europe Than In Syria

March 04, 2015            Public Opinion Towards Terrorist Organizations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen & Libya

June 28, 2015               ISIS Has Up To 42 Million Supporters in the Arab World

Results

After a careful review and comparison of these 21 published surveys with the 2015 CSP survey’s three takeaway points, we arrive at the following conclusions:

1.  “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”

Overall, an average of at least 64% of Muslims in more than 50 countries worldwide would prefer to be governed by shariah law.  At 51%, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

2.  “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”

Overall, more than 20% of Muslims around the world support the use of violence to defend Islam from its enemies. In some parts of the Islamic world, this number is consistently higher than 20%.  However, as with Point [1], the American Muslim community falls well within the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

3.  “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

The use of violence [Jihad] to make shariah the law of the land is the stated goal of groups such as Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, & etc., as well as the Quran itself (i.e., see 2.191-193 & 8.59-60).  Support for these Islamist groups varies from a low of 13% to a high of 52%, depending on the particular group and/or country in question.  Once again, as with the two points above, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

Conclusion

An analysis of 21 surveys conducted over a 10-year period reveals that the spectrum of opinions within the American Muslim community on shariah law and the use of violence either to punish the enemies of Islam, or to make shariah the law of the land, are exactly the same as the spectrum of opinions held by Muslims in the rest of the world.  Muslims in America are not an anomaly within the greater Islamic community (Ummah), nor do they depart significantly from the beliefs on shariah and/or Jihad that are held by Muslims in the rest of the Islamic world.  In other words, the CSP survey not only represents the views of Muslims nationwide, but globally as well.

Rather than habitually recycling ad hominem attacks against their opponents, while emphatically asserting that the results of the 2015 CSP survey were ‘riddled with flaws,’ the Bridge Initiative should:

  1. Provide an acceptable working definition of Shariah law (which dictates every aspect of an observant Muslim’s moral life),
  2. Conduct their own statistically valid survey, based on this acceptable working definition, and then
  3. Publish the results for the world to see.

Perhaps then, we could begin to build trust, and reduce some of the ‘generalizations about American Muslims ricocheting across the Internet and social media.’  Perhaps then, we could also begin dispelling some of the ‘misunderstanding of Islam’ among the poorly informed and non-equipped general public…that we hear about, so often, and so loudly.

Meanwhile, rather than ignoring an extensive 10-year archive of surveys documenting historical trends within the global Islamic community – trends that fully support the results of the 2015 CSP survey – it seems reasonable that we should expect a much higher level of scholastic integrity from such a prominent and well-endowed institution as the Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  As per its stated purpose, an improvement in professional integrity would be a much more effective way to build bridges, ‘improve relations’ and ‘enhance understanding of Muslims in the West.’

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

/in , , /by
keith ellison

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jefferson’s Koran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Preliminary Discourse, p. 65)

Questions Sent to Congressman Ellison

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

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

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

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

Vol. 1, p. 133  (Koran 5:17)

(So Christians are infidels.)

War is injoined [sic] you against the Infidels…

Vol. 1, p. 38    (Koran 2: 216)

…for the infidels are your open enemies.

Vol. 1, p. 114  (Koran 4:101)

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

Vol.1, p. 141   (Koran 5:51)

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

Vol. 1, p. 147  (Koran 5:82)

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

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

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

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

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

Vol. 1, p. 55    (Koran 3:10)

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

Vol. 1, p. 265  (Koran 9:123)

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

Vol. 2, p. 376  (Koran 47:4)

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

Vol. 2, p. 387  (Koran 48:29)

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

Islamic Shari’ah Law: The Threat to Western Civilization

/in , , , /by

The differences between shari’ah law and United States law is as separate as night is from day.  Contrary to the overbearing all-consuming nature of shari’ah and the Muslim’s efforts to force it upon everyone worldwide. U.S. law is fundamentally territorial and is mostly contained within it’s geographic boundaries.  Laws created in the United States (until more recent years) are positive laws (as opposed to divine laws), enacted by Congress or other United States authorities.

Further, it is a longstanding principle of legal construction that positive law is territorial in nature.  As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., wrote, “The general and almost universal rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where the act is done.”  This principle is axiomatic to the American legal system.

Therefore, while shari’ah travels with a Muslim wherever he goes and is expected to be enforced universally over the law of any other nation.  That is why bigoted Muslims try to take over wherever they move to.  For example, Dearbornistan,MI.  U.S. law is generally limited to the United States and does not apply in other nations.

Unlike here in the west, where separate nation-states are the political norm, Islam “assumes that all people are to be subject or bound to one giant Muslim community, bound by the brutal law of one ruler.  Because Islam asserts that Allah revealed all laws, both religious and secular (in a Western sense), through his prophet Muhammad to the entire ummah community of Islamic believers), Islam is a divine, universal “Nomocracy” meaning a universal state governed by divine law.  Thus, every Muslim is bound by shari’ah, which “binds individuals, not territorial groups.”

As a result, to Muslims, shari’ah supersedes all other law.   Americans can forget the concept of Muslims ever respecting the national sovereignty of the United States, or truthfully pledging allegiance to our republic and what she should be standing for.  While they want to take over the world and abuse non-Muslims throughout the Middle East and Europe, Muslims are calling the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq crusades against Islam.  Funny thing, Muslims desecrate Christian symbols and destroy ancient Christian and Jewish sites and artifacts with regularity.  All in the name of Allah. Mind you, these are the same holy people who marry and sexually abuse nine year old undeveloped little girls.  That alone discredits their peaceful holy religion concept they proclaim to the world.

In the legal context, the loyalty to the Islamic ummah (community of believers) can be seen in the “active international grouping at the United Nations and elsewhere, [by fifty-seven] Muslim governments, which together constitute the so-called Islamic states have joined together to defend and spread Islam universality and require every Muslim to safeguard the “binding divine commands… of Allah.”  Moreover, Islam divides the planet into two territories:  dar al-isla, the territory of islam and dar al-harb, the territory of war.  The dar al-Islam consists of all territories under Muslim rule.  These two territories will always be in strife until (in the eyes of Muslims) Islam conquers the entire world.  (So they believe)

Although the necessary exclusivity of the uhmah (community of believers) distinguishes the “infidels” of the outside world from the community of believers, the ultimate goal of the Islamists is to forcibly bring the entire world into obedience to Allah and his law.

Because Islam grew out of belief in complete world domination, by the sword, every dedicated Muslim is obligated to labor in his own way toward achieving that goal.  It does not matter where he lives or who claims his allegiance.  That is why, it is impossible for a Muslim (not radical, but dedicated) adhering strictly to shari’ah to honestly swear no loyalty to anyone besides Allah.  At the very heart of Islam is the existence of a single Islamic state, which is “entirely exclusive” of all other gods.

Consequently, every Muslim’s obligatory allegiance to the global Islamic state is inherently incompatible with any other oath of allegiance.  That includes an oath of allegiance to the United States of America.  So it was no surprise to witness thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets of Dearbornistan, MI when their Muslim brothers slammed airliners into the World Trade Center on September eleventh 2001.  The Muslims have vowed to bring down America and to force shariah law upon all of us.  In my opinion, that is a declaration of war and “we the People” of America must pray to the same and real God who blessed the founding fathers and the patriots who defeated the British Empire.  Hopefully His wisdom and Providential guidance will once again be sought and utilized. If not, The United States will simply be, one nation gone under.  Many thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice for their contributions.

EDITORS NOTE: The threat doctrine of the enemy of the free world is Islam. The overarching strategy of the Global Islamic Movement (GIM) is Fitna. To understand more about Islam, shariah laws, the threat and why Muslims slaughter visit Fitnaphobia.com.

The Muslim Brotherhood, American Institutions and the BDS Campaign against Israel

/in , , , , /by

While the American people witness unthinkable atrocities against primarily Christians throughout the Middle East and the African Maghreb at the hands of Islamic terrorists, many of their church governing bodies and other institutions have decided to boycott Israel. That’s correct, Israel; America’s long-time ally and the only true democracy in the Middle East.

The Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement of Israel, known as BDS, has its origins in 2001, in South Africa at The World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR). At this NGO conference the Palestinian Solidarity Committee of S.A. distributed copies of anti-Semitic literature that was determined to be extremely offensive and toxic to many of the attendees.

In the U.S., the BDS movement against Israel has been an ‘influence operation’ by the Left and Brotherhood offshoots, such as C.A.I.R., the Muslim Student Assoc., Students for Justice in Palestine, ISNA and others groups. On college campuses throughout the country massive demonstrations against Israel have taken place in the form of “Anti-Israel Apartheid Week” and “Anti-Israeli Apartheid Week,” even in Florida at Florida Atlantic University.

The penetration of the hierarchy of U.S. religious institutions encouraging anti-Israel bias has come from many fronts, the U.N. based World Council On Churches, which many believe espouses pro-Russian, anti-Western stances and The Interfaith Boycott Coalition, described as “a faith based wing of the U.S. campaign to end the Israeli occupation;” supported by Brotherhood front groups. (Perhaps this was the real intention of the Muslim push for ‘Interfaith Dialog’ with our churches.)

Unfortunately, many of our church leadership have succumbed to this stealth campaign, including the Presbyterian, Methodist, Unitarian and other Churches. Moreover, U.S. companies that conduct business with Israel have been targeted as well such as Caterpillar and Hewlett Packard.

Natan Shcharansky, founding member of the Helsinki Group, uniting Soviet dissidents has established a “Three D Test” for legitimate criticism of Israel, when criticism crosses the line into anti-Semitism:

First: Double Standard- singling out Israel for criticism while ignoring the more egregious behavior of major human rights abusers in the Arab and Muslim world and beyond.

Second: Demonization of Israel- distorting the Jewish State’s actions by means of insidious and false comparisons with Nazis and/or South Africa’s Apartheid regime.

Third: Delegitimization- when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied-alone among all nations in the world- this too is anti-Semitism.

Laurie Cardoza-Moore, Special Envoy to the U.N. on Middle Eastern Affairs, president and founder of PJTN, serving in the capacity as the World Council of Independent Christian Churches, spoke recently at the Fort Lauderdale Tea Party and Broward Executive Republican Committee. Ms. Cardoza-Moore’s organization, PJTN, is focused on educating Christians about their Biblical responsibility to stand with their Jewish Brethren and defend the State of Israel.

Propaganda that the Jews ‘never inhabited the Middle East’ has been perpetuated despite the Biblical, Archaeological and Historical evidence, states David Horowitz. In 1402 B.C. Jews organized the Kingdom of Israel. Artifacts, coins and menorahs on buildings found in archaeological digs coincide with Biblical and historic records of Jewish ancestry in the land of Israel.

Historically, Jewish tribes have been present in the Middle East since 4000 B.C., even once occupying Saudi Arabia, until driven out and annihilated under the arm of Islam, which was founded in 613 A.D.

SOURCES:

EDITORS NOTE:

san francisco state university anti-bds petiton

Those readers who are concerned that pro-Israel speakers are being silenced may add their name to demand California stop anti-Israel hate mobs.