Tag Archive for: shariah

U.S. prison was ‘terrorist university’ for Islamic State

/in , , , /by

This is because the U.S. does nothing in these prisons to try to change the mindset of the prisoners. The guards treat the Qur’an, which is of course distributed to all the prisoners, with exaggerated reverence. Any attempt to change their way of thinking would immediately be denounced by groups such as the terrorist organization CAIR as “Islamophobic.”

“U.S. prison was ‘terrorist university’ for Islamic State,” by Terrence McCoy, Waterloo Region Record, November 16, 2014:

WASHINGTON — In March 2009, in a windswept sliver of Iraq, a sense of uncertainty befell the southern town of Garma, home to one of the Iraq War’s most notorious prisons.

The sprawling detention centre called Camp Bucca, which had detained some of the Iraq War’s most radical jihadists, had just freed hundreds of inhabitants. Families rejoiced, anxiously awaiting their sons, brothers and fathers who had been lost to Bucca for years. But a local official fretted.

“These men weren’t planting flowers in a garden,” police chief Saad Abbas Mahmoud told The Washington Post’s Anthony Shadid, estimating 90 per cent of the freed prisoners would soon resume fighting. “They weren’t strolling down the street. This problem is both big and dangerous. And regrettably, the Iraqi government and the authorities don’t know how big the problem has become.”

Mahmoud’s assessment of Camp Bucca, which funnelled 100,000 detainees through its barracks and closed months later, would prove prescient. The camp now represents an opening chapter in the history of Islamic State — many of its leaders, including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, were incarcerated and likely met there.

According to former prison commanders, analysts and soldiers, Camp Bucca provided a unique setting for both prisoner radicalization and inmate collaboration — and it was formative in the development today’s most potent jihadist force.

In all, nine members of the Islamic State’s top command did time at Bucca, according to the terrorist analyst organization Soufan Group. Baghdadi spent five years there; the leader’s No. 2, Abu Muslim al-Turkmani, as well as senior military leader Haji Bakr, now deceased, and the leader of foreign fighters, Abu Qasim, were also incarcerated at Bucca, Soufan said. Though it’s likely the men were extremists when they entered the detention centre, the group added, it’s certain they were when they left.

“Before their detention, Mr. al-Baghdadi and others were violent radicals, intent on attacking America,” wrote military veteran Andrew Thompson and academic Jeremi Suri in the New York Times last month. “Their time in prison deepened their extremism and gave them opportunities to broaden their following … The prisons became virtual terrorist universities: The hardened radicals were the professors, the other detainees were the students, and the prison authorities played the role of absent custodian.”

It’s a scenario that’s long confounded law enforcement: How do you crack down on extremism without creating more of it? From the radicalization of white supremacists in U.S. prisons to the United Kingdom’s disastrous bid in the 1970s to incarcerate Irish Republican Army members, the problem is nothing new: prisons are pools of explosive extremism awaiting a spark….

RELATED ARTICLES:

PJ Media: 6 Failed Policies Obama Won’t Stop Pushing

Iran TV airs Muslim cleric’s threats to raze Tel Aviv, target US bases

Mehdi Hasan goes full fascist, calls for sanctions for criticism of Muslims

Islamic State richest jihad terror group, Hamas second

/in , , /by

The Islamic State has money from oil sales. Hamas has money from you and me, taxpayers in the West forking over money at the command of our governments, money that is given to Gaza for “humanitarian aid” — money that goes to the jihad against Israel.

“ISIS Richest Terrorist Group, Hamas Comes in 2nd,” by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, Jewish Press, November 12th, 2014:

Terrorist groups frequently operate as criminal organizations, engaging in activities such as drug trafficking, robberies and extortion, in order to finance their terrorist operations.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the most notorious, barbaric terrorist group at the moment, ISIS, is now officially the richest terrorist group of all time, according to Forbes Israel. Hamas, another Islamist terrorist organization, is in second place.

In addition to their criminal activities, the terrorist groups also raise substantial funds through “charities,” donations, and, incredibly, in some cases by government agencies.

As surreal as it is to be discussing ISIS in terms of a typical business model, the Forbes report also discussed how ISIS acquires and pays for various tasks similar to most other large organizations, including maintenance, salaries, training, acquisition of weapons and vehicles.

Not content with listing the richest men or women in the world, Forbes also provided a ranking of the ten richest terrorist organizations, including their net worth and rankings.

ISIS has an annual income of $2 billion. The terrorists in second place is Hamas, which takes in $1 billion annually. In third place is a non-Middle Eastern terrorist organization, one that has been around for a long time: the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – the People’s Army (FARC), which rakes in $600 million annually.

In fourth through sixth place are more Middle Eastern Islamic terrorist groups: Hezbollah ($500 million), the Taliban ($400 million), and Al-Qaeda and affiliates ($150 million).

In 7th place is another Islamic group, the Pakistan-based Lashkar e-taiba ($100 million). This group was behind the deadly Mombai bombings in late fall of 2008.

In eighth and tenth places are two more Islamist groups, both based in Africa. In eighth place is Al-Shabab ($70 million), and tenth place is Boko Haram ($25 million)….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State teen jihadi: “This is jihad that all of us must do”

Islamic State giving shopkeepers 80 lashes for selling cigarettes

Jihad on its way to India

UK Muslim: “I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe”

Pakistan’s Hindus: Muslims “want us to give up the faith or leave the country”

“Too many Muslims have a group loyalty and inflamed sense of victimhood”

/in , , /by

Clearly, Muslims in Australia are working from the same playbook that Muslims in the U.S. are using: claims that anti-terror measures unfairly target Muslims and were the real problem, complaints about the freedom of speech, exaggerated claims of victimhood, etc. Who is coordinating all this? In any case, it is good to see that at least some people are beginning to see through it.

“Jihadists not the only problem,” by Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, November 5, 2014:

THE ABC’s plan: confront Attorney-General George Brandis with an audience stacked with “moderate” Muslims and make him hop.

It took precautions. It did not select extremists to ask questions — no jihadists who’d illustrate the danger the Abbott Government is battling. Despite that, last Monday’s Q&A backfired spectacularly.

It simply confirmed concerns that too many Muslims have a group loyalty and inflamed sense of victimhood that made them the sea in which jihadists swim.

One reason it backfired was that Brandis was brilliant in defending the Government’s anti-terrorism strategy. But what really undid the exercise was the audience which grabbed the ABC’s microphone.

Bilal Raulf warned that the big anti-terrorism raids should stop … or else: “This gung-ho approach” against suspected jihadists would just “drive them in a particular direction”. Sheik Wesam Charkawi suggested we should instead give “young, angry Muslim men” what they wanted: “There are legitimate grievances that people have.”

Charkawi implied our anti-terror laws, rather than Islamic terrorism, were the problem: “Given that these new laws create the atmosphere of such a major divide in the hearts and minds of all concerned, isn’t it time the Government changed its approach?”

Sayed Hussainizada falsely claimed we now had “a new anti-terror law that is specifically targeting the Muslim community”.

Lydia Shelley, in a hijab, suggested the Government was just picking on Muslims as an excuse for stripping Australians of freedoms: “Don’t use the Muslim people, don’t use the issue of radicalisation, to really sell these laws, which is really about a sustained attack on civil liberties in this country.”…

May Fahmi even accused Brandis of hurting Muslims by defending free speech: “Do you think your comment that people have a right to be bigots has given mandate for some to verbally accost Australian Muslims …?”…

When protecting ourselves is denounced by even Muslim “moderates” as a hostile act, it’s clear that extremists are not our only problem.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State murders five journalists in Mosul

NY Daily News: Islamic State’s rise has fueled “Islamophobia”

Raymond Ibrahim: Christians ‘Losing Everything’ to Islam

Chairman of Joint Chiefs praises Israel, Obama State Dept contradicts him

Berkeley Muslim students defend their attempt to get Bill Maher canceled

Little Muslim girls raped at Florida ‘Light of Islam’ Academy

/in , , , /by

The Nur ul Islam Academy (NUIA) is a Florida accredited Pre-K, Elementary, Middle and High School. Nur ul Islam is the Arabic phrase for “Light of Islam.”

According to its website the NUIA “[F]ocuses on a complete education that emphasizes excellence in academics and Islamic morals and values. Students can pursue their interests and learn to balance a rich variety of activities along with traditional Islamic values.” Located in Cooper City, Florida the NUIA was founded in 1996 and enrolls more than 335 students.

tariq ahmad

Tariq Ahmad, 35, who worked at Nur-Ul-Islam Academy, Florida, has been accused of the sexual abuse and rape of two middle school female pupils. Photo courtesy of Creeping Shariah.

Creeping Shariah reports:

Police are hunting the former head teacher of a private Islamic school accused of the sexual abuse and rape of two middle school female students.

Tariq Ahmad, 35, who worked at Nur-Ul-Islam Academy, Florida, has been charged with five first degree counts after the alleged abuse which left one student needing ‘substantial surgical repair’.

The girls were aged 14 and 15 when Ahmad allegedly forced them into sexual relationships, according to a lawsuit.

Their attorneys said Ahmed would use text messages, social media and even code on the chalk boards in the classroom to set up meetings with the girls.

They also claim the Academy officials knew of Ahmed’s illegal conduct for years and did nothing until now.

[ … ]

The attorneys for the two students are asking anyone who may have information as to where Ahmed might be to contact Pembroke Pines Police immediately.

A LinkedIn profile in Ahmad’s name said he most recently served as the ‘head of high school’ at the academy, where he started working in August 2006.

Robert Spencer in an October 31st, 2014 Front Page Magazine article writes:

The UK’s Guardian reported Wednesday that “sexual exploitation of vulnerable children has become the social norm in some parts of Greater Manchester,” and the denial and obfuscation about what is really causing this problem is thicker than ever.

In the very same sentence in which it broke this terrible news, the Guardian stated that this phenomenon is “fuelled by explicit music videos and quasi-pornographic selfies, an MP has warned.” The MP in question, former social worker Ann Coffey, has issued a report on the sexual exploitation of children in Britain that she said would “make painful reading for those who hoped that Rochdale was an isolated case.”

It was in Rochdale that a group of Muslims were involved in a large-scale sex trafficking ring involving young non-Muslim girls. Coffey is right: there is already abundant evidence that it was not an isolated case, as 1,400 British non-Muslim children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in the British city of Rotherham alone, and there are numerous other documented cases in Britain of Muslim sex trafficking and rape gangs, of which the victims were non-Muslim girls.

Read more.

140512-boko-haram-girls-615a_95a5aaaabe54356e927c52230e8da198

Young girls converted to Islam and then married to Boko Haram fighters.

The treatment of women by Islam has become front page news in the Middle East. News Nigeria reports on Boko Haram converting captured little girls to Islam and then marrying them off to their fighters.

Quran 4:3 –

“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then one or those your right hand possesses.”

There is growing concern that Mohammedans, like Tariq Ahmad, are doing what is ordered by Allah. Muslim women and Muslim little girls are treated like objects rather than human beings.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘I Have to Check Her Teeth’: Chilling Footage Shows ISIS Fighters at Slave Girl ‘Market’ Bartering for Young Women…

RELATED VIDEO: Minimal Muslim – What does it mean if a Muslim says that they are not extremist, but just practice the Five Pillars?

Qatar’s Insidious Influence on the Brookings Institution

/in , , /by

Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism has for years been at the forefront of alerting America to the threat from Jihad. Their latest work is an absolute must-read. In an ongoing investigation, IPT’s investigators have exposed a troubling alliance between Qatar, a foreign country with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, ISIS and other Jihadists, and an American left-of-center think tank…

Qatar’s Insidious Influence on the Brookings Institution

A Four Part Investigative Series: Brookings Sells Soul to Qatar’s Terror Agenda by Steven Emerson, John Rossomando and Dave Yonkman

IPT News October 28, 2014
Part 1 of a 4-part series.

The Brookings Institution bills itself as “the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank in the world,” but should it be?

Brookings’ long-term relationship with the Qatari government – a notorious supporter of terror in the Middle East – casts a dark cloud over such a lofty claim to credibility.

A September New York Times exposé revealed Qatar’s status as the single largest foreign donor to the Brookings Institution. Qatar gave Brookings $14.8 million in 2013, $100,000 in 2012 and $2.9 million in 2011. In 2002, Qatar started subsidizing the Brookings outreach program to the Muslim World which has continues today. Between 2002 and 2010, Brookings never disclosed the annual amount of funds provided by the Government of Qatar.

Sources of funding should not automatically discredit an organization, but critical facts and claims about Brookings should be examined in light of them, starting with a harsh indictment by a former scholar.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has reviewed the proceedings of 12 annual conferences co-sponsored by Brookings and the government of Qatar comprising more than 125 speeches, interviews, lectures and symposia; a dozen Brookings-based programs that were linked to the Qatari financed outreach to the Muslim world; and analyzed 27 papers sponsored and issued by the Brookings Institution and scholars based in Washington and at the Brookings Doha Center since 2002.

Our review, which will be detailed in a four-part series beginning with this story, finds an organization that routinely hosts Islamists who justify terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and American troops, who advocate blasphemy laws which would criminalize criticism of Islam, and which never scrutinizes or criticizes the government of Qatar, its largest benefactor.

Read more…

CAIR publishes list of American ‘Islamophobes’ — Will it become a ‘hit list’ for Islamic State ‘lone wolves’?

/in , , /by

There is a growing concern that converts to Islam in America and Canada are ready, ideologically willing and certainly able to conduct individual attacks against soldiers, police and innocent civilians. This week the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has called for increased security at some federal buildings. The Associated Press reports:

Security will be increased at various federal government buildings in Washington and other major American cities, the Homeland Security Department announced Tuesday in what it described as a “precautionary step.” The move came one week after a gunman in Ottawa fatally shot a soldier as he stood as a ceremonial guard at Ottawa’s National War Memorial, then stormed the Parliament building. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the shooting a terrorist attack.

As Mohammedans wage jihad against U.S. and Canadian citizens, in the name of Allah, the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has published a list of American individuals and organizations it considers to be “Islamophobic.” The new CAIR website is Islamophobia.org.

The purpose of the CAIR website is, “[T]o monitor and challenge the growing anti-Muslim bigotry in American society. CAIR’s Islamophobia.org site presents detailed profiles of a number of individuals and institutions involved in the American Islamophobia network.” CAIR is characterize by some as a “moderate” Islamic organization. An anonymous quote on the internet states:

A radical Muslim wants to behead you. A moderate Muslim wants a radical Muslim to behead you.

On the list are Floridians Allen West, Guy Rogers, USF Professor Jonathan Matusitz, Dr. Rich Swier, Sam Kharoba and Tom Trento. The Islamic State has called for attacks against the United States targeting those who defame Mohammed. Are these men, women and organizations on the CAIR list designed to evoke the deadly passions of those who have joined the Islamic State in the U.S.?

Question: Will the Islamic State use the CAIR list of Islamophobes to attack these individuals?

Those individuals and organizations listed by CAIR as Islamophobic, with descriptions taken directly from the Islamaphobia.org website, include:

soin logo

Stop Islamization of Nations logo.

Ali Sina A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations, Sina believes, “there is NOTHING good in Islam and that it is all evil.”

Allen West A former Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Allen believes, ” Islam does not coexist.”

Anders Gravers A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of Nations who also heads Stop Islamization of Europe.

Ann Coulter A conservative commentator who suggested that “we should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

Ashraf Rameleh A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. When speaking about the September 11th attacks he said “they are not terrorists, they are jihad. They are for the Quran.”

Babu Suseelani a member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. In 2012 Suseelan told an audience “If we do not kill the bacteria, the bacteria will kill us. Muslims will breed like rats and they will be a majority.”

bill-maher-overtime-post-show2Bill Maher Bill Maher hosts a political satire program, Real Time with Bill Maher, on HBO. Despite his claim to hold progressive opinions, Maher consistently demonizes and stigmatizes the Muslim community.

Brian Kilmeade A Fox News Channel commentator. In June 2013, Kilmeade told a leader of the English Defence League, an anti-Muslim group known for violent protests, “We got your back.”

Brigitte Gabriel The head of Act for America. Gabriel has said, “America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam.”

Bryan Fischer The director of issues analysis at the American Family Association. According to Fischer, “Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam.”

Carl Goldberg A member of the Arizona chapter of Act for America. According to an announcement for an October 2013 event, Goldberg can prove that “Islam is not just a religion but also a totalitarian and imperialistic ideology.”

Clare Lopez Lopez is the vice president for issues and analysis at the Center for Security Policy. She also a board member at the Clarion Project. In 2013, Lopez told an audience, “When people in other bona fide religions follow their doctrines they become better people — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews. When Muslims follow their doctrine, they become jihadists.”

Cliff Kincaid A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. In 2013, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups in the United States, listed Kincad among the “30 new activists heading up the radical right.”

Constance Gavras The director of the Illinois chapter of Act for America.

Daniel Pipes The founder and director of the Middle East Forum. Pipes is also connected to the National Review, Clarion Project, and Washington Times. Pipes is the grandfather of Islamophobia in the United States. In 1990 he wrote, “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene…All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

Dave Agema A former Michigan state legislator, Agema now represents his state as a national committeeman of the Republican National Committee. In early 2014, Agema made anti-Muslim comments on his Facebook account: “Have you ever seen a Muslim do anything that contributes positively to the American way of life?

David Horowitz The founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that tracks hate in the United States, names Horowitz “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.”

David Yerushalmi A co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center and employee of the Center for Security Policy. Yerushalmi beleives, “Our greatest enemy today is Islam.”

Debbie Anderson The leader of the Minneapolis chapter of ACT for America.

Debbie Robinson A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of Nations. Robinson’s Q Society of Australia asserts, “Islam is not just another religion, but also a totalitarian ideology with a global agenda.”

Dorrie O’Brien O’Brien acts as a national mentor for ACT for America. According to O’Brien “Islam…is a poisoned well.”

Frank Gaffney The founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. Gaffney is also connected to the Washington Times, and Clarion Project. Gaffney has advocated renewing the House Un-American Activities Committee, a discredited McCarthy-era congressional committee that President Truman once described as “the most un-American thing in the country today.”

Glenn Beck Beck hosts the Glenn Beck show on the Blaze. In February, 2011, Beck hosted anti-Muslim speaker Joel Richardson on his Fox News program and the two “tied Islam to the Antichrist in the new testament.”

Guy Rodgers The executive director of ACT for America. In 2010, Rodgers “contended that Muslims should be treated differently because their legal system is inherently flawed.”

James Lafferty Originally known for his work with the Virginia Anti-Shariah Taskforce, Lafferty is now with both the American Freedom Defense Initiative and Jihad Watch.

State Rep. John Bennett of Oklahoma (R-Sallisaw) According to Bennett, Islam is “a cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out.”

John Guandolo The founder of Understanding the Threat. Guandolo is a former FBI agent who trains law enforcement officers to believe in conspiracy theories such as his beleif that CIA Director Brennan is a secret Muslim.

Jonathan Matusitz The membership director for the central Florida chapter of Act for America and a professor at the University of Central Florida. Matusitz claims that Muslims “procreate like mushrooms after the rain” and that “the problem is Islam.”

Kamal Saleem A board member of Former Muslims United. In October 2012, Right Wing Watch posted a video of Saleem and noted that in that video, “Saleem alleged that Obama’s top speech writer and Sasha and Malia’s babysitter are both Islamic fundamentalists that are wielding secret power.”

Kevin Carroll A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of Nations.

Lauren Green An anchor on the Fox News Channel.

Mano Bakh A key individual with the California group Concerned American Citizens. On its website, the group asserts, “The real source of the devastating 9/11 attack is the Islamic Ideology as prescribed in Quran.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) A Minnesota Republican, Bachmann is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. In June 2012, Bachmann led a group of House Republicans on a series of five letters to federal inspectors alleging that the Muslim Brotherhood was infiltrating the U.S. government. The allegations primarily centered on an aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and were soundly rejected by Republican leadership.

Mike Huckabee A host on the Fox News Channel and former governor of Arkansas. Huckabee referred to Islam as the “antithesis of the gospel of Christ.” He also seemed to compare Muslim prayer being allowed in a church to the showing of pornographic films.

Nina Cunningham Cunningham serves on the boards of many anti-Islam organizations, including the Center for Security Policy, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and also the Clarion Project.

Nonie Darwish A founder of Former Muslims United. Darwish asserts that “Islam should be fought and should be conquered and defeated and annihilated.”

Oskar Freysinger A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. He played a leading role in the movement to ban Islamic minarets in Switzerland.

Pamela Geller The cautic mouthpiece of the U.S. Islamophobia network, Geller believes, “Hitler was inspired by Islam.”She blogs atAtlas Shrugs and is a leader with the American Freedom Defense Initiative, Jihad Watch, and Stop the Islamization of Nations. Note: Geller also heads Stop Islamization of America, but this entity is identified as an AFDI project.

Rep. Peter King (R-.N.Y.) Peter King represents a district centered in New York’s, Long Island. He served as chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee from 2010-2012. King has maintained that “80%, 85% of the mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists,” and that average Muslims “are loyal,” but “don’t come forward, they don’t tell the police what they know”. Additionally in 2007, Representative King said, “Unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country.”

Richard Swier Swier is the director of the Sarasota, Fla. chapter of ACT for America. (EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Rich Swier has not been the Director of the Sarasota ACT for America chapter for 8 years.)

Rick Joyner Joyner is the president of the Oak Initiative. He is also the founder/director of Morningstar Ministries and the founder/director of Heritage National Ministries. He has authored more than forty books. His book The Harvest lays out some of his views on Islam: “Islamic terrorists will permeate the West with teams that target Christian organizations and leaders. This is in preparation for an Islamic assault upon the entire world. They will compile computer data on every Christian leader who has any kind of extra-local influence (i.e. newsletters, television or radio outreach).

Robert “Raphael” Shore A member of Clarion Project’s board of directors.

Robert Spencer A prolific member of the U.S. Islamophobia network, Spencer runs the Jihad Watch web site and is also connected with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, and Stop Islamization of Nations.Spencer has referred to Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as a “con man. Someone who is knowing [sic] that what he is saying is false, but is fooling his followers.” In the same video he asserts, “From a historical standpoint, it is not even clear that Muhammad existed.”

Roger Ailes Ailes is the president and CEO of Fox News Channel. According to a source who spoke to Rolling Stone, “He has a personal paranoia about people who are Muslim — which is consistent with the ideology of his network.”

Ryan Mauro Mauro is a staff member at the Clarion Project.

Sam Kharoba Kharoba is the founder of the Counter Terrorism Operations Center. He claims to have trained “over 20,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers. Kharoba has no formal academic degrees in Islamic studies and no experience in law enforcement. His only claim of any qualification is that he has a pre-university level certificate in Arabic culture, but Arabic culture is not Islam; in fact, only 20 percent of the world’s Muslims are Arabs. Upon review, it was found that large sections of Kharoba’s training manual were word-for-word identical to unreliable web-based sources. The investigation found his most common source was Wikipedia.

Scott Saunders Saunders is affilliated with the Virginia Beach, Va. chapter of Act for America.

Shalom Lewis Shalom Lewis is a cleric at the Congregation Etz Chaim synagogue in Marietta, Georgia. Etz Chaim’s website states Lewis “generates a caring warmth”, but his hateful speech about Islam is alarming and barbaric.

Stephanie Reis Reis is the Virginia State Director for Act for America. In 2010, as part of her welcome message for ACT’s Oklahoma chapter, Reis wrote, “The ideology, politics and religion of Islam has one purpose – to bring the world into submission to Islam and under its laws.”

Stephen Coughlin Now a fellow at the Center for Security Policy, Coughlin holds the beleif that belief that Islam “obligates Muslims to use violence in the name of spreading or defending the faith.”

Steven Crowder A Fox News Channel commentator, Crowder alleges “the real problem is the Quran.”

Steven Emerson The founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Upon reviewing a book he wrote, the New York Times determined that Emerson has “an unfamiliarity with the Middle East and a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias”.

Timothy Wildmon The president of the American Family Association, Wildmon has said, “[Islam] is, in fact, a religion of war, violence, intolerance, and physical persecution of non-Muslims.”

Tommy Robinson A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of America. Founder of the English Defence League (EDL), Robinson was jailed in 2013 for “having entered the United States illegally using someone else’s passport” and again in 2014 for mortgage fraud.

Tom Trento Trento is the founder and director of The United West. He believes mosques exist to wage a “cultural jihad” against America.

Usama Dakdok According to the web site of Dakdok’s Straight Way of Grace Ministry one of the group’s goals is to “expose Islam for what it is, and yes it is worse than a cancer, and this can be shown clearly in the reading of the Qur’an and theHadith.”

Wafa Sultan Sultan is connected to both Former Muslims United and Stop Islamization of Nations. She says, “I don`t see any difference between radical Islam and regular Islam…You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time.”

Walid Shoebat The founder of the Forum for Middle East Understanding, Shoebat is the author of “The case for Islamophobia,’ a book published in March 2013. Shoebat’s training and speaking events are promoted using his credentials and his “background” as a former PLO terrorist who converted to Christianity. In 2011, CNN researchers “found no evidence” to support Shoebat’s trademark claim of being a “former PLO terrorist.”

Former Lieutenant General William Boykin A board member of the Oak Initiative. Boykin asserts that “[Islam] should not be protected under the First Amendment,” that there should be “no mosques in America,” that Islam is a “totalitarian way of life,” and that there can be no interfaith dialogue or cooperation between Muslims and Christians.

Zuhdi Jasser Jasser is founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a board member of the Clarion Project Under Jasser’s leadership, AIFD is embedded with groups that are dedicated to spreading false information, fear, and distrust of Islam and Muslims.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Rep. Michele Bachmann under 24-hour guard after Islamic State threat

Denver teen Muslimas talked for almost a year with Islamic State jihadis

Islamic State announces beheadings for all who insult Allah

CBC laments that online “Islamophobia” goes unprosecuted

Call it Jihad: ‘Terrorism’ Just Doesn’t Define This Threat

/in , , , , /by

2014’s spate of Islamic terror attacks against Western targets leaves observers grasping for words to describe what’s happening. President Obama doesn’t want to deal with it at all, so after a Muslim convert beheaded a woman in Oklahoma, he thought it appropriate to send the beheader’s mosque (the Islamic Center of Greater Oklahoma City) warm greetings about “shared peace” and “a sense of justice.” (The occasion was the Muslim feast of Eid Ul-Adh, but the timing was awful.) U.S. national security agencies are no help either—under the tutelage of the Muslim Brotherhood, they were purged long ago of any vocabulary useful for dealing with jihad. “Lone wolf” gets a lot of play with the media, but as Michael Ledeen, Andrew McCarthy, and Patrick Poole (here, here, and here) have all pointed out, there’s nothing ‘lone’ about Muslim warriors, self-selected or otherwise, engaging in fard ‘ayn (individual jihad) in obedience to the doctrine of their shared faith.

Nor are these attacks simply “terrorism” in any way that is uniquely descriptive. As Ledeen noted, the Unabomber was a domestic terrorist. The FBI calls the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) terrorist. The Black Liberation Army was accused of murdering more than a dozen police officers in its day. But none of these operates today in obedience to a 1400-year-old ideology that claims a divine commandment to conquer the earth. Nor is any of these other ‘domestic terrorists’ the 21st century embodiment of a force that already has overrun many powerful civilizations, including the Buddhist, Byzantine, Middle East Christian, Hindu, and Persian ones.

It’s time to call this what it is: Jihad.

Jihad is a unique descriptor: it is motivated solely by one ideology—an Islamic one. It encompasses any and all tactics of war, be they the kinetic violence of terrorism, the stealthy influence operations of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian intelligence agencies, or funding, speaking, teaching, and writing. Importantly, the term ‘jihad’ is the one used by its own practitioners—the clerics, scholars, and warriors of Islam. Arguably the most valid qualification of all is that Islamic Law (shariah) defines jihad as “warfare to spread the religion [Islam].” Warfare encompasses many things, though, and not all of them are violent.

Katharine Gorka, President of The Council on Global Security, has an astute new essay entitled “The Flawed Science Behind America’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy” in which she skewers the Obama administration’s misguided policy it calls “Countering Violent Extremism.” She explains how America’s counter-terrorism ‘experts’ have tried haplessly to apply Social Movement Theory to what actually is a totalitarian ideology cloaked loosely in a handful of religious practices. A decade or more of attempting to apply the language of grievance, poverty, and unemployment laid at the door of Western colonialism or secular modernity has achieved little but the neutering of America’s national security defenses. Yet, even this dead-on analysis doesn’t quite get us where we need to be.

Just as Obama’s bland “violent extremism,” deliberately devoid of meaning identifies neither the enemy nor the ideology that animates him, so in its way, ‘terrorism” likewise falls short. For if “terrorist” can and does mean anyone from a nut job like Ted Kaczynsky to assorted tree huggers, neo-Nazi skinheads, as well as Islamic warriors committing atrocities in the name of Allah, then its scope is just too broad to define precisely the paramount threat to global stability in the 21st century: jihad.

The magnitude of the jihad threat demands its own category. Neither Kaczynsky nor animal and environmental activists nor neo-Nazis could threaten the very existence of our Republic. Certain 20th century totalitarian ideologies arguably did, though, and that’s why the U.S. marshaled every resource at its disposal to fight them to defeat. Islamic totalitarianism is such an ideology, albeit one that has survived cyclical periods of defeat and resurgence for many centuries. We constrain ourselves both conceptually and legally, however, when the only way to label an act of violence ‘terrorism’ is when it is carried out against civilians for a political purpose and the perpetrator(s) can be tied to a designated terrorist organization, with no consideration for the ideology that so many of them—and others not on such lists—share.

Islamic terror attacks of recent decades typically involved identifiable Islamic terror groups such as al-Qa’eda, Ansar al-Shariah, HAMAS, Hizballah, and the PLO, but were often funded and supported by jihadist nation states such as Iran, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. As Katharine Gorka described in her white paper, though, the Obama administration’s willfully amorphous term, “violent extremism,” ensured that no enemy threat doctrine called ‘jihad’ that unifies these diverse yet similarly-motivated actors and that actually may threaten the Republic, was ever permitted to be articulated—or confronted.

Now, after the overwhelming post-9/11 Western retaliatory offensives, both al-Qa’eda and more recently, the Islamic State, increasingly have called for acts of ‘individual jihad’ (fard ‘ayn, according to Islamic doctrine). Such attacks by Islamic true believers against armed service members, civilians, and law enforcement officers as well as ordinary citizens duly are proliferating across the West, but the U.S. national security establishment grasps for any term—lone wolf, violent extremist, workplace violence—to avoid saying either ‘terrorism’ or ‘jihadist.’ Granted, as Daniel Pipes noted in his 24 October 2014 essay, “Terrorism Defies Definition,” there are legal consequences under the U.S. Legal Code for “formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist.” But as we see, it’s more than that – and it’s why we need to use “jihad” more often and “terrorism” less.

To properly identify individual jihad attacks is to acknowledge that there is an established ideology behind them that derives its inspiration from Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture. To acknowledge that would mean the threat actually is existential, at a minimum in its objective: universal conquest and enforcement of shariah. Until and unless the entire American citizenry, federal bureaucracy, Intelligence Community, law enforcement, and the U.S. military understand that failing to acknowledge, confront, and defeat the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah indeed do endanger the very existence of our Republic as we know it, and mobilize to meet this challenge, the inexorable advance of shariah will continue. As Pipes notes with some understatement, the current “lack of clarity presents a significant public policy challenge.“

The term “terrorism” will continue to provide useful applications in security categories and lists. But it is much too inclusive and yet restrictive to offer a precise definition of the Islamic threat. The forces of Islamic jihad and shariah are mounting a whole of civilization assault against liberal, modern, representative, secular civil society. Nation states, sub-national terror organizations, transnational alliances, academics and scholars, media conglomerates, networks of mosques and Islamic Centers, so-called ‘charitable foundations’ and their donors, battlefield fighters, and too many individual Muslims are united in a jihad that is not only violent but insidious, inexorable, and sophisticated. Unless we learn to resist in the same way—a whole of civilization way—that list of subjugated civilizations may yet include one more: ours.

New York Daily News: “The hijab is hot!”

/in , , , /by

This fatuous New York Daily News puff piece and the even more repulsive project it covers both glorify a primary vehicle for the oppression of women. It’s also remarkably ignorant: there are three photos accompanying the article, and all three show women wearing niqabs, not hijabs, yet the article and the project organizers speak only of hijabs. The article also sounds the predictable victimhood chords, as we’re told that one of the project organizers got yelled at as soon as she donned a hijab.

But what about the women who have not just been yelled at, but threatened and even murdered for not wearing one? Women and girls such as:

  1. Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it;
  2. and Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab;
  3. and the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab;
  4. and Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain;
  5. and Amira Osman Hamid, who faces whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab;
  6. and the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized for her family for refusing to wear the hijab;
  7. and the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told that they had to wear the hijab or be fired;
  8. and the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab;
  9. and the women also in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab;
  10. and the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab;
  11. and the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab;
  12. and the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab;
  13. and the women in Iran who protested against the regime by daring to take off their legally-required hijab;
  14. and the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab;
  15. and the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents,
  16. and all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab.

When is the New York Daily News going to run a piece on them?

“The covered-girl look is great, say two Upper West Side artists who think NYC women should give the hijab a try,” by Justin Rocket Silverman, New York Daily News, October 13, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Hall):

The hijab is hot!

That’s the message two Upper West Side artists want to spread by encouraging women around the city to put on the veil and snap a selfie.

“Women who wear a hijab by choice are in complete control of their sexuality,” says Saks Afridi, who started the #DamnILookGood campaign with project partner Qinza Najm. “Here in New York, it’s very brave for a woman to wear one out in public.”

Najm had started wearing a hijab around New York City as an experiment, just to see what it would be like. Though she was raised in Pakistan, she and her family members do not wear the traditional head covering worn by some Muslim women. But one day she put on a hijab in her Lower East Side art studio and went for a walk around the neighborhood.

“Someone started screaming at me to ‘Go home!’ ” Najm recalls. “I was surprised because I figured people in New York would have more tolerance.”

She spent the next week wearing the hijab around town, and encountered more angry New Yorkers on the streets and subways. This aggressive reaction to a garment that’s quite common in many Muslim cultures prompted Najm and Afridi to do the project.

They launched it at the DUMBO Arts Festival last month, where hundreds of women put on the head covering and posed for selfies, posting them to sites like Twitter, Instagram and Facebook with the hashtag #damnilookgood.

“A selfie suggests you are feeling confident and good about yourself,” says Najm, who put her hijab back on for the project and posed with the other women.

The hijab project is called ‘an exercise in tolerance,’ aiming to help people see what it’s like to wear one. #DamnILookGood The hijab project is called ‘an exercise in tolerance,’ aiming to help people see what it’s like to wear one.

Almost none of the women who participated in the #DamnILookGood project had ever worn a hijab before.

Some, like Erin Zeitler, 25, from the Upper West Side, had always assumed that women in hijabs were being forced to wear one, and not doing it as a fashion statement.

“It was mind-opening to put one on,” she says. “It was like looking at the world through someone else’s eyes.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Beheadings, Amputations, Eye Gouging, Sharia, Jihad: Witnesses Describe Horrors As ISIS Seeks To Overtake Kobane

Islamic State (ISIS) states its Quranic justification for the enslavement of women and sex slavery

The UK has effectively given up trying to stop jihadists from being created

FrontPage Mag: The Diversity of Islam? A Response to Nicholas Kristof

Centers for Islamic Studies: Cold-War-Style Influence Operations?

/in , , /by

The launch of a new Center for Global Islamic Studies at the extremely leftist University of Florida in Gainesville may have been planned as a purely academic affair, but the announcements in the local and national media, including AP and Fox News, exhibited more than a purely academic interest in this event. To compare, one doesn’t often see national media announcements about, let’s say, a local center for the study of viruses — unless the virus is Ebola. And just like with any news about Ebola studies, any news about studies of Islam attracts attention from the general public, who want to know if there’s a hope for the cure, containment, and safety from danger.

Unfortunately, these may not be the kind of Islamic Studies that answer those hopes. The Center opened on September 18th with a conference on “Global Islam and the Quest for Public Space,” headlined by none other than Georgetown professor John Esposito, a known apologist for radical Islam and founding director of the Saudi-sponsored Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in the Walsh School of Foreign Service.

A small group of protesters picketed the event outside the Pugh Hall on the university campus, with a dozen creative posters and a vinyl banner pointing out that John Esposito and the leader of ISIS both hold PhDs in Islamic Studies: “Same goal, different tactics.” The video of the protest can be seen below.

The protest organizer, Randy McDaniels of ACT for America and the Counter-Terrorism Advisory Group, stated that our students certainly need to study Islam, as long as such studies are based on scientific objectivity and critical analysis. But the presence of John Esposito as the keynote speaker indicated that the new Global Islamic Studies Center was likely to go the way of many other universities, opening their doors and exposing our children to political Islam under the guise of education, with programs funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other state sponsors of Islamic fundamentalism.

While many among the leftist faculty and the students were visibly upset with the protest, complete with occasional angry obscenities, a few others were interested in the message and asked for a flyer. Some of them asked, “What’s wrong with having an Islamic Studies Center, even if it’s financed by foreign money?”

The short answer would have been to compare such a project to active measures undertaken in America by the KGB during the Cold War — except that, unfortunately, most American students aren’t familiar with this term. Their knowledge of the Cold War has been thoroughly sanitized by the leftist faculty, especially if the professors are Marxists who used to root for the other side. The resulting perceived absence of the Soviet subversion, propaganda, disinformation, and other influence operations inside the U.S. and around the world creates the impression of an ideologically neutral world, in which America’s response to protect liberty can very easily be misconstrued as imperialist aggression against the innocent.

Ignorance about the enemy leads to confusion about one’s own nation’s role in the world, regardless of the historical era or the current adversary. Whether we admit it or not, we are now in a new global conflict that has many parallels with the Cold War; it is often fought by similar means and sometimes even by the same actors.

Now, just as it was then, we’re up against a supremacist collectivist ideology whose goal is to establish a totalitarian utopian society on a global scale. The two deadly pipe dreams — global communism and the global caliphate — may have their differences, but in practical terms they both view the United States as the main obstacle in their quest of world domination. There is no reason why one can’t learn from the other’s vast experience in subverting this country.

Both foes have made claims that they stand for peace. The problem is that Marxists understand peace as the absence of opposition to socialism, just as the Islamist supremacists understand peace as the absence of opposition to Islam. Eventual peace will theoretically ensue once they subjugate the rest of the world to their totalitarian rule.

In both cases, tolerance is a one-way street: everyone must be tolerant of their“superior” views, while they retain the right to self-righteous intolerance of the “inferiors.” Both ideologies generate a variety of wild-eyed conspiracy theories as a means to retain loyalty, boost morale, recruit new members, and demoralize their opponents.

The Soviets didn’t necessarily hate Americans or wanted to kill them off; they only wanted to “convert” our economic and political system for our own good. Likewise, the Islamists feel morally justified: they don’t view terrorism as the murder of innocents, but rather as a collective punishment for being foolish in resisting Islam. This makes mass murder a moral virtue, absolving them of all sins and encouraging them to keep punishing us, “the inferior fools,” until we see the light and either convert or accept their supremacy. They’d rather convert than kill, so if we force their hand, it’s “our own fault.”

Now, just as it was then, the U.S. is being drawn into fighting regional proxy wars while maintaining a semblance of dialogue with the main instigator, who remains visibly uninvolved but is pulling the strings of a vast network of loosely affiliated non-governmental groups, from registered non-profits to armed gangs of cutthroats. The seeming lack of affiliations, in both cases, is usually a cover for a centralized, coordinated effort.

Cold War spy thrillers may show some exciting action, but the fact is that espionage wasn’t even the main focus of the KGB operations in the U.S. According to retired KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin, the heart and soul of Soviet intelligence was “not intelligence collection, but subversion: active measures to weaken the West.”

The KGB maintained an extensive, sophisticated network of agents in the media, academia, government, and the cultural establishment. Acting on strategies designed in Moscow, they led a relentless, coordinated attack on this country’s institutions, often quite effectively demoralizing the population, undermining people’s confidence in America’s political and economic systems, spreading rumors, falsehoods, and conspiracy theories, influencing politicians, swaying public opinion, promoting some public figures and discrediting others, creating a positive image of the USSR, and so on.

Fast forward to the fall of the USSR. What happened to these strategies, this system, its networks, and its methods? Did they just disappear? Not really. The KGB was never dismantled; it was renamed into FSB and one of its former lieutenant colonels, Vladimir Putin, is now running the country, using the old KGB network just as effectively to spread disinformation and to promote his imperial agenda.

Even more disturbingly, this system has now replicated itself, producing an even more dangerous and aggressive clone.

In 1960, the Soviet government had set up the so-called Patrice Lumumba People’s Friendship University in Moscow, offering free higher education to students from the Third World, many of them from Muslim countries. In addition to regular student curriculum, the goal was to train and recruit agents who would then spread the ideas of Marxism in their home countries, and if possible, conduct active measures designed by their Moscow handlers.

To be exact, the university received its African name in 1961. Patrice Lumumba was a pro-Soviet Congolese prime minister who earlier that year was removed from power in a coup d’état and shot by a firing squad. The international Left quickly made Lumumba into a martyr of anti-imperialist struggle; what they won’t mention is that the coup and the execution were a drastic response to Lumumba’s plans of bringing the Soviet troops to the Congo and potentially staging a major military conflict in Africa, similar to the wars that the USSR fought in Korea, Vietnam, and later in Afghanistan. In this regard, the school’s name was rather symbolic.

According to KGB Major Vasili Mitrokhin, who defected to the West, “The University’s first vice-rector and a number of its staff were KGB officers who used the student body as a recruiting ground for Third World agents.” The students were trained in the art of propaganda, infiltration, and influence operations. More specialized training, such as terrorist activities, was provided at locations in Baku, Odessa, Simferopol, and Tashkent.

Carlos the Jackal, the notorious Marxist terrorist from Venezuela, who joined Palestinian terrorists and later converted to Islam, was one of the graduates, even though the school insists that he was expelled. A BBC News article titled Carlos the Jackal — three decades of crime puts it this way:

He began acting in the name of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine after leaving Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, a notorious hotbed for recruiting foreign communists to the Soviet Union.

Grand Ayatollah and the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, is listed among notable graduates on the University’s Wikipedia page, although he vehemently denies it. Another graduate is Timoleón Jiménez, the leader of FARC — a communist guerrilla army in Colombia, which is funded by drugs, kidnappings and extortion.

Other notables include the President of Honduras, the President of Namibia, the President of the Central African Republic, a former President of Guyana, a former Jamaican MP, a leader of the Sudanese Socialist Democratic Union, and — of all people — Anna Chapman, a Russian intelligence officer.

Most importantly, the list of graduates includes today’s Palestinian leaderMahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the PLO and President of the Palestinian National Authority, who received his Ph.D. in Moscow in 1982 after completing a thesis partly based on Holocaust denial.

In a 2004 interview with FrontPage Magazine, Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service, described the KGB role in setting up terrorist networks around the world and particularly in the Middle East, as well as persuading Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi to join the terrorist war against the US, with the added benefit of using Iraq’s and Libya’s huge intelligence services that were being run by the KGB advisers and extended their tentacles to every corner of the earth.

Says Pacepa:

The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for “liberation” organizations. There was the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Then there was the National Liberation Army of Colombia, created by the KGB in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro, which was soon deeply involved in kidnappings, hijackings, bombings and guerrilla warfare. In later years the KGB also created the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out numerous bombing attacks on the “Palestinian territories” occupied by Israel.

“In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter — a document that had been drafted in Moscow,” Pacepa continues.

The Palestinian National Covenant and the Palestinian Constitution were also born in Moscow, with the help of Ahmed Shuqairy, a KGB influence agent who became the first PLO chairman.

The entire story of the Palestinian “liberation,” which has provoked a tidal wave of global Islamic extremism, has recognizable marks of a manufactured influence operation. That includes media coverage in the Western press, which regurgitates regularly produced and coordinated disinformation. A lot of this dirty work was done initially by the Middle Eastern graduates of Patrice Lumumba People’s Friendship University in Moscow, many of whom are still active in the field.

The school still functions today, having dropped Lumumba from its name and calling itself The Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Its page claims that as of now, more than 97,000 of its graduates work in approximately 170 countries around the world.

Granted, not all of the graduating engineers, doctors, or agricultural experts have become KGB agents or even Marxists, but how many of them have? Even a small percentage of the total 97,000 means that thousands of agents with the knowledge of propaganda, infiltration and influence operations are currently active in the world today, particularly in the Middle East. If in the past some Muslim students may have embraced Marxism, they no longer do now. Even Carlos the Jackal has now converted to Islam. Today’s Next Big Thing is the Muslim Brotherhood, and that’s where all the action is.

The astounding sophistication and effectiveness of the Muslim Brotherhood in setting up networks of various front groups, infiltrating the Western establishment, spreading disinformation, swaying public opinion, promoting some public figures and discrediting others, creating a positive image of their ideology, and other influence operations are the evidence that the thousands of trained experts in these fields didn’t just disappear. Even if they aren’t being run from Moscow today (some may still be), they are still using their knowledge and skills, as well as teaching a new generation of Islamic supremacists the intricacies of active measures. If the methods and techniques are effective, they don’t get abandoned.

Given the history, what are the chances that the new Center for Global Islamic Studies at the Florida University, “christened” by a Saudi-financed, PLO-loving Georgetown professor, won’t be turned into yet another center for the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence operations on American soil?

Remember when the New York Times said ‘Americans Should Embrace Shariah Law’?

/in , , /by

In 2011 I wrote a column raising concerns about an op-ed in the New York Times saying America should embrace Islamic shariah law. Fast forward to today and the emergence of the Islamic State (IS), which is based, by its own admission, on shariah law. I have decided to republish my original column for all to reflect upon.

New York Times: Americans Should Embrace Shariah Law

Originally published September 4, 2011

An op-ed piece titled “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America” appears in the New York Times. The column is written by Eliyahu Stern, Assistant Professor of Modern Jewish Intellectual and Cultural History at Yale University. Professor Stern states, “Today, we need an Abrahamic ethic that welcomes Islam into the religious tapestry of American life.”

Professor Stern goes on to say, “The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.”

The New York Times editorial board, by publishing this column, endorses Professor Stern’s premise – shariah law must be embraced by America.

First, I would like to briefly show how Professor Stern misunderstands Jewish law (Halacha) and projects that misunderstanding to support his premise that we should embrace shariah law, which calls for his own death as a Jew.

Second, I would like to present how Professor Stern makes a fatal assumption – that shariah compliant individuals easily and over time fully assimilate into non-Islamic societies.

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman in the New English Review regarding differences between Halacha and Sharia in an article, “Halacha, Sharia and the Religious Acceptance of Constitutional Governance”, states:

“Simply stated, there is a basic Rabbinic principle that has operated since roughly the year 226 CE. That principle is known as Dina d’malchuta Dina; the law of the country is binding and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law/Halacha.

[…]

Samuel, the leader of the Babylonian Jewish community in 241 CE, specifically imbued his community with the consciousness that one must be reconciled to changed circumstances regarding government, and that civil law is necessary for the functioning of the greater society. The result was an internal recognition of Judaism’s non-supercessionist and non-conversionary character. According to the Prophet Nehemiah, Jews should obey the laws of their rulers (Nehemiah 9:37).”

This Rabbinic principle is embedded in Christian principles and attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

So both Jewish and Christian principles recognize “civil law is necessary for the functioning of the greater society.”

Does shariah law have the same principle of “render unto Caesar”?

According to Rabbi Hausman, who is trained in both Halacha and studied doctrinal Islam as a graduate student in Egypt, the answer is no! Rabbi Hausman points out, “Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the direct word of Allah delivered to the last and greatest prophet Muhammad. Therefore, it is immutable, perfect, unchangeable, static, and unchanging. What can’t be derived from the Qur’an may be gleaned from the Sunna, which relates how Muhammad conducted his life in practice, and is considered by Muslims to be immutable for all time.”

Rabbi Hausman finds in shariah Islam: Religion is the State and the State is the Religion. Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as “the supreme law of the land.” This is compatible with both Jewish and Christian principles. The Supremacy Clause flies in the face of shariah law.

Therefore Professor Stern’s historical comparison of the treatment of Jews and Jewish law in America and shariah law is at best misleading and at worse patently false.

Now for the issue of assimilation.

Historically, have Christians, Jews and Muslims fully and completely assimilated into other societies? The answer is yes for Christians and Jews. We find that while Christians and Jews have been subjected to unspeakable persecution by a variety of societies from the time of Pharaoh, to ancient Rome, to Nazi Germany to Arab countries in the Middle East, they have worked to assimilate.

The opposite is true of those who adhere to shariah Islamic law. As shariah law spreads in non-Islamic societies it demands seperate but equal status. Additionally, in predominately shariah compliant nations Jews, Christians and all other non-believers are categorized as infidels, a term of derision. They are forced to assimilate or are persecuted. But what says this? The Qur’an, specifically the following verses 2:190-193:

[2:190] Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

[2-191] And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

[2-192] And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

[2-193] Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

Fitnah refers to the First Islamic civil war, in 656–661 AD, a prolonged struggle for the caliphate after the 656 assassination of the caliph Uthman ibn Affan. The Second Fitna, or Second Islamic civil war, is usually identified as the 683–685 AD conflict among the Umayyads for control of the caliphate. The third one refers to the taifas in the end of the Caliph of Córdoba’s rule.

Professor Stern misses the practical application of shariah Islam in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, etc. For Americans to embrace shariah law requires embracing Fitnah against America.

Professor Stern is asking Americans to sell the rope to shariah Islamists, that will be used to hang us.

ACT for America Defeats CAIR and Government Bureaucrats in Court

/in , , , , /by

In February an ACT! For America chapter in Knoxville, Tennessee, was wrongfully denied the use of public facilities for a counter-sharia event due to the improper actions of CAIR and local school district bureaucrats. Our ACT! Chapter pursued litigation aggressively and this week won a settlement in its suit against the school district. Below are the details from Freedom X, the fine legal team who successfully litigated the case.

This should serve as a warning to government officials everywhere not to take legal advice from, or ally with, CAIR, an organization that openly promotes sharia and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest successful terrorism financing prosecution in US history, the U.S. vs. the Holy Land Foundation.

Lawsuit forces Tennessee school district to allow after-school speech critical of Sharia

KNOXVILLE – After canceling a town hall meeting at the request of Muslim activists, a Tennessee school district and two school officials have settled a lawsuit over the public’s right to voice concerns about the growing acceptance of Islamic law, known as Sharia law, spreading through American communities. The settlement was finalized Wednesday evening when the district approved a policy barring school officials from selectively determining which subjects can be discussed by members of the public using school facilities.

In February, the Knoxville chapter of ACT! for America, an organization opposed to Sharia, planned an after-hours town hall meeting at a local area high school.

John Peach, president of the Knoxville chapter of ACT! for America, and Bill French sued the school district in U.S. District Court on August 4, 2014, for violating their First Amendment right of free speech and their Fourteenth Amendment rights of equal protection and due process. The county agreed to settle the lawsuit [Peach vs. Knox County Schools] just 21 days after it was filed. In addition to revising its facility use policy, the county will pay attorney’s fees and costs.

The new facility use policy states in part that “[a]pproval for use of school buildings and property will not be withheld based upon the content of the message or viewpoint of the applicant.”

“This is a victory for free speech,” said Bill Becker, president of Freedom X, a non-profit legal organization fighting discrimination against conservatives and Christians. “Sharia is incompatible with our constitutional and legal protections. That was the message Knox County school officials tried to censor. It is unfortunate we have to educate the educators about our freedoms, but we are thankful that Knox county attorneys recognized litigation would have been futile for the district.”

Knox County Schools superintendent James P. McIntyre, Jr., agreed to cancellation of ACT’s event after receiving letters from Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council for American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) and Abdul Raman Murphy, a Muslim youth chaplain at the University of Tennessee. The activists falsely labeled ACT! a “hate group” and falsely characterized French as a bigot. They speculated the town hall meeting would encourage violence at the school and would disrupt the school environment.

After receiving the letters, Farragut High School’s principal at the time, Michael F. Reynolds, contacted McIntyre fearing that allowing the town hall meeting to take place would convert the school into “a public forum for harassment and bullying practices that contradict the open-minded, academic discussion we seek to teach and foster.”

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Tinker v. Des Moines Sch. Dist. that “in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.”

Beheading in the U.S.: Will we see more ‘work place Islam’?

/in , , , , /by

I interview Robert Spencer on the Oklahoma beheading and all the implications for increased violent activity coming from jihad mosques here in the United States.

Do not miss this amazing analysis by Robert Spencer, one of the world’s top experts on Islamic jihad.

RELATED ARTICLES:

White House official flies to Oklahoma City to read special thank-you note from Obama to beheader’s mosque

Boko Haram top dog: “We follow the Koran…in the land of Allah”

“Love”: The Islamic State’s Source of Strength

Raymond Ibrahim: Is the Islamic State a Good Thing?

Oklahoma beheader’s city: Man with “thick Arabic accent” enters high school unauthorized, asks “suspicious questions”

UK Home Secretary’s renewed commitment to fighting extremists welcome news [+Video]

/in , , /by

In 2010, HJS Associate Director Douglas Murray wrote an article summing up our objections to the problematic components of the government’s Prevent strategy – its flagship anti-terror policy, as it was then.  Writing in theTelegraph he said:

‘Barking Mosque received more than £5,000 to provide rap “workshops” and lunches. Something called “Bedford: Faith in Queens Park” received £9,000 for its basketball club, another £10,000 for its cricket club and £11,000 for “fusion youth singing”. It received £1,350 for a talk on “prophetic medicine”. The Cherwell “Banbury Fair Trade Society” was paid by Prevent to deliver a “multicultural food festival”. Across the country Prevent money went to boxing, karate, judo and five-a-side football clubs, while the 1st Bristol Muslim Scout Group bafflingly received £3,180 of Prevent money for camping equipment.’

With the advent of the new British government we continued to push for reform of the Prevent policy and achieved a major success when the official review process emerged with the Prevent Strategy 2011, which adopted many of the wide ranging new measures we called for and saw HJS’ landmark report Islamist Terrorism: The British Connections become the most cited work out of any outside source in the documents setting out the new government policy.

Fast forward to 2014 and rather than raising the issue from the outside, Douglas’ original quote was used in full by Conservative Party HQ as part of a briefing sent to MPs in advance of the Home Secretary’s keynote speech on Tuesday setting out Conservative policies on counter-terrorism for the next manifesto – precisely to show how far we’ve come.

Yet, in her speech Home Secretary Theresa May displayed a welcome recognition of the importance of challenging extremism more thoroughly still – the threat to our security at home has never been higher, with government circles displaying near certainty that a so-called “returning jihadist” with a British passport will eventually manage to attack us.  We have always made clear that nothing other than zero tolerance of anyone that countenances the ideology that feeds this terrorism can be allowed to stand.

As such, more work remains to be done and we are particularly pleased to see the Home Secretary announce new measures on Tuesday, several of which have been key CRT recommendations we have discussed with her top officials in recent years and will serve to improve the government’s ability to combat extremism in all forms.

The speech promised a commitment to strengthening the restrictions put on terrorism suspects who cannot be deported or prosecuted, known as Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs) – a measure outlined in HJS’ briefing document for the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Tackling Radicalisation and Extremism.  The Home Secretary went on to argue for the strengthening of legal and regulatory procedures for vulnerable institutions such as charities, universities, schools and prisons – a measure we have argued for forcefully for years and a pillar on which we have specifically predicated the Centre for the Response to Radicalisation and Terrorism – two recent examples of our work are Disrupting Extremists: More Effective Use of Existing Legislation (which focused on public institutions) and Challenging Extremists (which focused on universities).

Getting policymakers to recognise the value of our work and implement it has often been challenging, but as the body of high-quality policy-relevant work has grown, it has become easier to get heard – today our government is using the very words Douglas wrote four years ago to emphasise the points we have been making for years.  But the scale of the challenge, as Prime Minister Cameron correctly says, is huge – generational and as grave as anything this country has fought in the past.

CRT experts will continue to advise the government and help shape policy through their in-depth and high-quality research, as well as provide thought leadership by making our case in the media. The hard work so far means that today when the Home Secretary gives a speech on challenging extremism, the BBC turns to us for comment. But as you can see from the clip below, Douglas is still making our case that more needs to be done – commenting in particular on one of the main pillars of our work, in that government can and must use already existing legal means to challenge proponents of radical Islam effectively.

So our work will continue – with your support.

Douglas Murray on BBC News discussing the Home Secretary Theresa May’s speech:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of BDNew24.com.

Report: Muslim Woman Secretly Films Life in Raqqa, Syria under the Islamic State

/in , , , /by

A Syrian woman agreed to carry a hidden camera to film how life is like inside Syria’s northern city of Raqqa, which has been under the control of the Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIL or ISIS).

The Clarion Project has published a report titled “Women’s Rights Under Sharia: An overview of the lack of equality and oppression of women under Sharia – the position of women in Muslim majority societies.” The Clarion Project reports:

Sharia law is an Islamic legal system which provides an Islamic alternative to secular models of governance. Women in societies governed by sharia have far fewer rights than women in the West.

Muslim-majority societies have varying degrees of sharia integrated into their law codes, but almost all use sharia to govern family affairs. Sharia courts also exist in a number of Western countries, particularly to adjudicate family law for Muslim citizens.

There is no one overarching authority which determines sharia, nor is there one conception of how women’s rights fit into sharia law.

Different interpretations and laws depending on which of the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence is being used, and the customs of the sects and country in question.

The report was aired on France 2. It shows some French women who decided to move indefinitely to Syria while abandoning their previous lives in France.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from the Facebook page of a Muslim woman living under shariah law. Photo courtesy of  The Clarion Project.

VIDEO: Understanding Mohammedanism in 15 minutes

/in , , /by

A Mohammedan is one who follows the teachings of Mohammed regardless of nationality, ethnicity, race, color or creed. Mohammedans are orthodox believers and follow the Quran, Hadith and Surah as Mohammed’s followers did 14 centuries ago. I use Mohammedan versus Muslim to describe those who follow the teachings of Mohammad. Mohammedans are pure Islam and follow shariah (Islamic) law.

The more shariah compliant an individual Mohammedan, Islamic organization or nation state the more dangerous and deadly.

There is much public discussion about radical Mohammedans versus moderate Mohammedans. The answer to any difference lies in this short 15 minute video showing moderate Mohammedans, those preaching violence on the street, versus those Mohammedans who carry out violence on the street.

It is critical to take a Mohammedan at his word. Not to do so is naively dangerous. To call Mohammedans peaceful is Orwellian.

Hat tip to Aya for sending us this video:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why beheading? — The Boston Globe

Navy SEAL shot 27 times by four al-Qaida leaders tells miraculous story: ‘God, get me home to my girls’

Commander in chief Obama has no war-fighting creds, won’t listen to those who do