Archive for the ‘Islam and the Islamic State’ category

On the Latest UN Report Claiming ISIS Fighters Aren’s Really Muslim,

August 6, 2017

On the Latest UN Report Claiming ISIS Fighters Aren’s Really Muslim, The Point (Front Page Magazine), Daniel Greenfield, August 6, 2017

The “Islamic State Isn’t Islamic” meme has always been an absurdity. But it’s also vitally necessary as ISIS becomes the dominant Sunni Islamic terror group. And makes no apologies for its atrocities.

The United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism report being touted in the media is a classic exercise in Jihad-denial. It’s the same old Islamist narrative full of Orwellian claims that ISIS fighters really lacked a solid grounding in Islam. If only there were more mosques, study of Islam, etc, Muslim terrorists would be less likely to turn to terrorism.

It goes without saying that this is the standard Brotherhood line. And it turns reality on its head.

The report is based on interviews and highly subjective. It’s based on 43 interviews. It’s unclear how much of a conclusion you can draw about thousands of fighters from around the world based on 43 people. And those ISIS Jihadists willing to participate in such a thing are already a self-selecting group.

Claims that these fighters were generally low down on the economic and educational ladder only sound meaningful until you consider that’s true of Muslims in Europe and the Middle East in general. It’s as significant as rain in Seattle.

Understanding of Islam is also relative.

The real question has never been whether ordinary fighters are experts in Sharia law. They’re not expected to be. Islamic law is a dense and complex subject. And ordinary Muslims are expected to rely on Islamic rulings. It’s the Islamic knowledge of the ISIS leadership. Ground troops in any cause are not expected to be wealthy or experts in a topic.

Furthermore the insistence by the study that ISIS’ actions are un-Islamic itself demonstrates either an ignorance of Islamic law or a desire to obscure it.

The study is largely an excercise in denying the obvious. And pointing Western governments toward the same blind alley of deradicalization through more government programs rather than addressing the Islamic source of the problem.

“Nothing to do with Islam”?

December 3, 2016

“Nothing to do with Islam”? Gatestone InstituteJudith Bergman, December 3, 2016

Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution.” — The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.

“The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs… Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches… Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?” — Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University.

The jihadists who carry out terrorist attacks in the service of ISIS, for example, are merely following the commands in the Quran, both 9:5, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them…” and Quran 8:39, “So fight them until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah.”

Archbishop Welby — and Egypt’s extraordinary President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — has finally had the courage to say in public that if one insists on remaining “religiously illiterate,” it is impossible to solve the problem of religiously motivated violence.

 

For the first time, a European establishment figure from the Church has spoken out against an argument exonerating ISIS and frequently peddled by Western political and cultural elites. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, speaking in France on November 17, said that dealing with the religiously-motivated violence in Europe

“requires a move away from the argument that has become increasingly popular, which is to say that ISIS is ‘nothing to do with Islam’… Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution.”

Archbishop Welby also said that, “It’s very difficult to understand the things that impel people to some of the dreadful actions that we have seen over the last few years unless you have some sense of religious literacy”.

“Religious literacy” has indeed been in short supply, especially on the European continent. Nevertheless, all over the West, people with little-to-no knowledge of Islam, including political leaders, journalists and opinion makers, have all suddenly become “experts” on Islam and the Quran, assuring everybody that ISIS and other similarly genocidal terrorist groups have nothing to do with the purported “religion of peace,” Islam.

It is therefore striking finally to hear a voice from the establishment, especially a man of the Church, oppose, however cautiously, this curiously uniform (and stupefyingly uninformed) view of Islam. Until now, establishment Churches, despite the atrocities committed against Christians by Muslims, have been exceedingly busy only with so-called “inter-faith dialogue.” Pope Francis has even castigated Europeans for not being even more accommodating towards the migrants who have overwhelmed the continent, asking Europeans:

“What has happened to you, the Europe of humanism, the champion of human rights, democracy and freedom?… the mother of great men and women who upheld, and even sacrificed their lives for, the dignity of their brothers and sisters?”

(Perhaps the Pope, before rhetorically asking Europeans to sacrifice their lives for their migrant “brothers and sisters” should ask himself whether many of the Muslim migrants in Europe consider Europeans their “brothers and sisters”?)

A statement on Islam is especially significant coming from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop and principal leader of the Anglican Church and the symbolic head of the Anglican Communion, which stands at around 85 million members worldwide, the third-largest communion in the world.

2092The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby (left), recently said that dealing with the religiously-motivated violence in Europe “requires a move away from the argument that has become increasingly popular, which is to say that ISIS is ‘nothing to do with Islam’… Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution.” (Image source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

Only a year ago, commenting on the Paris massacres, the Archbishop followed conventional politically correct orthodoxy, pontificating that, “The perversion of faith is one of the most desperate aspects of our world today.” He explained that Islamic State terrorists have distorted their faith to the extent that they believe they are glorifying their God. Since then, he has clearly changed his mind.

Can one expect other Church leaders and political figures to heed Archbishop Welby’s words, or will they be conveniently overlooked? Western leaders have noticeably practiced selective hearing for many years and ignored truths that did not fit the “narrative” politicians apparently wished to imagine, especially when spoken by actual experts on Islam. When, in November 2015, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University, explained why the prestigious institution, which educates mainstream Islamic scholars, refused to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic, none of them was listening:

“The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from non-Muslims]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?”

Nor did Western leaders listen when The Atlantic, hardly an anti-establishment periodical, published a study by Graeme Wood, who researched the Islamic State and its ideology in depth. He spoke to members of the Islamic State and Islamic State recruiters and concluded:

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam”.

In the United States, another establishment figure, Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican National Committee and Donald Trump’s incoming White House Chief of Staff, recently made statements to the same effect as the Archbishop of Canterbury. “Clearly there are some aspects of that faith that are problematic and we know them; we’ve seen it,” Priebus said when asked to comment on incoming National Security Adviser former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s view that Islam is a political ideology that hides behind being a religion.

In much of American society, Flynn’s view that Islam is a political ideology is considered controversial, despite the fact that the political and military doctrines of Islam, succinctly summarized in the concept of jihad, are codified in Islamic law, sharia, as found in the Quran and the hadiths. The jihadists who carry out terrorist attacks in the service of ISIS, for example, are merely following the commands in the Quran, both 9:5, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them…” and Quran 8:39, “So fight them until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah.”

The question becomes, then, whether other establishment figures will also acknowledge what someone like Archbishop Welby — and Egypt’s extraordinary President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — has finally had the courage to say in public: that if one insists on remaining “religiously illiterate,” it is impossible to solve the problem of religiously motivated violence.

5 Ways Islamists Set the Stage for the Orlando Attack

June 13, 2016

5 Ways Islamists Set the Stage for the Orlando Attack, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, June 13, 2016

(This video is pertinent to the discussion.

— DM)

Orlando-Attack-HP

The stage was set for the types of attacks we saw in Orlando a long time before the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) showed up. Gays, just like Jews, are commonly scapegoated as vile, sin-bearing creatures whose mere presence decays societies.

The stigmatizing of homosexuals inevitably leads to mistreatment and violence towards them, and we should not make the mistake of assuming this problem begins and ends with ISIS.

Here are five ways that Islamists created the conditions for the Orlando attacks to happen even before ISIS was born:

    1. Supporting the Execution of Gays by Sharia Authorities. All of the significant Muslim organizations in the West will condemn the attacks in Orlando, but it is simply not enough. Mainstream Islamic texts and preachers may not call for individuals to execute and punish suspected gays, but they do support having an Islamic state based on sharia doing it. Their issue isn’t with killing gays; it’s with who gets to kill gays.If you believe that a sharia-based government should execute gays, then it doesn’t take much for you to harm gays. All you need is an excuse to match that instilled hatred with action. At the very least, if you are convinced violent jihad is permissible, you’ll make them one of your top targets.This viral video has footage of a visiting imam speaking at the Husseini Islamic Center in Sanford, Florida arguing that it is “compassionate” to execute homosexuals, saying, “Let’s get rid of them now.”Another example is Muzammil Siddiqi, the chairman of the executive council of the Fiqh Council of North America, which is a section of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity as identified by the Justice Department. ISNA is the Obama Administration’s top Muslim outreach partner.Siddiqi said in 2001 that he opposes attacking homosexuals but supports sharia states that execute them. He said it is impossible to be Muslim and gay, which means that any gay person identifying as a Muslim is an apostate. That is a death sentence according to the top sharia authorities.
    2. Promoting Incendiary Texts. Muslims trust that their mosque’s library and the reference page in studies are full of credible sources. If a text supports killing gays, it does not belong. It should only be used in a class with the purpose of refuting the author.For example, an authoritative manual on sharia titled Reliance of the Traveler endorses killing or brutality towards homosexuals (such as stoning, exile and whippings) at least three times. It is certified by Al-Azhar University, the most prominent Sunni school of learning and endorsed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood entity based in Virginia.Those who give authority to Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader and suspected Hamas financier Yousef al-Qaradawi also bear responsibility. He preaches in favor of executing homosexuals and said that a gay prince in Qatar should be stoned.It isn’t hard to search a website’s content for extremist content. There have been many occasions where I’ve seen Muslim organizations and mosques link to the now-defunct OnIslam website, whose purpose is to act as a database for answers to tough questions.In 2014, OnIslam answered a question about homosexuality by affirming that “the punishment for men or women who are unwilling to give up homosexuality and therefore are rejecting the guidance ofAllah Most High is in fact death according to Islam.”
    3. Giving a Platform to Radical Clerics. Islamists who do not directly endorse laws that punish homosexuals but put Islamist radicals on a pedestal are not free from blame.A radical Syrian cleric was granted entry into the U.S. in 2014 with a known history of supporting the execution of gays, among other extremist beliefs like supporting suicide bombings. He went on a speaking tour across the country that was co-sponsored by the Syrian American Council.His extremism is easily searchable on the Internet. There’s no excuse for putting him in front of audiences as someone whose preaching should be learned from. If you want to raise money for victims of the Syrian civil war, find someone else.
    4. Presenting Homosexuals as Vermin. Islamists who do not endorse violence or punishments of homosexuals but dehumanize them bear responsibility for the inevitable fruits of that dehumanization. If you preach that a group of people are rodents responsible for the worst problems in the world, then obviously listeners will treat them like rodents.There are religious communities who disapprove of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Members of these communities can believe someone’s lifestyle is not ideal, but love them regardless without supremacism.  After all, none of us lead an ideal life.Then there’s bigoted scapegoating by Islamists who seem to talk about homosexuality more than actual homosexuals. An example is Warith Deen Umar, a radical cleric, who once oversaw Muslims chaplains in New York’s prison system. Umar blamed gays for Hurricane Katrina at an Islamic Society of North America conference.Here’s another example: Pakistan-based Sheikh Gillani (who is the spiritual leader of a U.S.-based group named Muslims of the Americas) declared that the Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage is “the blackest day in the history of mankind” that will result in Allah’s destruction of Western society. He also called for a “social boycott” of all those who do not oppose the Supreme Court ruling.How would you treat a group of people that you believe are responsible for “the blackest day in the history of mankind?”
    5. Blocking Islamic Reform. As soon as news of Islamist responsibility for the attacks broke, the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy unequivocally stood against bigotry towards homosexuals in any form and thanked the LGBTQ community for standing by Muslims who face discrimination and hatred.And the anti-Islamist Muslim group went further, saying, “We Muslims must triple down on acknowledging the deep reforms necessary and the responsibility of every Muslim in countering the ideologies that inspire these Islamist savages.”The fact is that anti-gay hatred is in the mainstream of the Muslim world. It’s endorsed by top religious authorities. It’s in the media and mosques without backlashes happening.It’s popular–which is why a glory-seeking jihadist like Omar Mateen would pick a gay club as a target. Or, for that matter, Ali Muhammad Brown (who murdered two gays in Seattle in 2014) or Musab Muhammad Masmari (who tried to burn down a gay club on New Year’s Eve that same year).One 2009 survey found that 61% of British Muslims want homosexuality to be illegal.Again, it is not enough for Muslim leaders to condemn the attacks. That does nothing to address the underlying ideology that says homosexuals are evil and worth of death.In the wake of the attacks in Orlando, they must not only condemn that line of thinking—they must attack it ideologically and aggressively promote alternative interpretations in the Muslim community in the West and around the world.

And until that happens, attacks like what we saw in Orlando will continue to happen. The only question will be who takes credit.

Islamophobia in one State (6)

April 17, 2016

Islamophobia in one State (6), Power LineScott Johnson, April 17, 2016

In addition to the Twin Cities, Somali Muslim immigrants to Minnesota have settled in rural areas such as St. Cloud, Mankato and Willmar. Concern about the continuing waves of immigration from Somalia in particular is not confined to the Twin Cities. Thus Matt McKinney’s Star Tribune contribution to stifling discussion of the related issues in  “Anti-Muslim speaking circuit runs through rural Minnesota.”

McKinney’s piece is pitiful. It presents all related concerns as manifestations of “Islamophobia.” It calls on Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of CAIR, to render his opinion as an impartial expert. McKinney quotes Hussein: “A lot of these fears are coming from that type of general fear of the ‘other,’ and not real knowledge of Islam.”

I would say “a lot of these fears are coming from” Somali Minnesotans’ support for foreign terrorist organizations waging jihad. The support is manifested in the charges brought against the “Minnesota men” seeking to join ISIS in 2014 and 2015. Somali community sentiment is itself apparently supportive of the “Minnesota men” if not the cause. Rather than investigate the possibly rational causes of the “fears,” McKinney simply presents the concerns as evidence of bigotry.

I offered the opposing case in the Star Tribune column “Islam and Minnesota: Can we hear some straight talk for a change.” With McKinney’s column today, think we have the definitive answer to that question.

McKinney revisits the Dorsey & Whitney conference on “Islamophobia” in Minnesota last week. He recites that those in attendance included former Vice President Walter Mondale and members of the legal community, including U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger. McKinney quotes Luger in classic form, saying that, left unchecked, “Islamaphobia is going to destroy the social fabric of the state.” Shut up, he explained.

McKinney does not know that CAIR itself is part of the problem. CAIR, however, is an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network, and it aims to silence critics of Islamic supremacism via useful idiots such as McKinney. Andrew McCarthy devoted a particularly useful chapter of The Grand Jihad to CAIR. NR has posted an adapted excerpt of it here.

The Muslim Brotherhood — they’re Islamic, right? Hamas — Islamic, right? It’s a shame McKinney didn’t even try to get a straight answer from the local CAIR leader. He might have learned somethings from the exercise.

If Every ISIS Fighter Was Killed – The Global Jihad Would Roll On

April 12, 2016

If Every ISIS Fighter Was Killed – The Global Jihad Would Roll On, Understanding the Threat, April 11, 2016

(Please see also, ISIS or Islam: Which Breeds Terrorism? — DM)

ISIS is not THE enemy.  ISIS is a part of a much larger threat to the West.  The enemy we face calls itself the Global Islamic Movement.  It is a global jihad to establish Islamic rule on the planet.

****************************

For several years after 9/11/01, the American government focused all it’s energy hunting down Al Qaeda and its leaders.  The American public was told it was in a war against Al Qaeda.  Yet today, it is as if Al Qaeda evaporated from the planet and our only adversary is ISIS.

isis-300x150

The fact is, if every Muslim jihadi fighting for ISIS were killed today, the global Islamic jihadi Movement would not stop.

ISIS is not THE enemy.  ISIS is a part of a much larger threat to the West.  The enemy we face calls itself the Global Islamic Movement.  It is a global jihad to establish Islamic rule on the planet.

This Movement is primarily led by the International Muslim Brotherhood, but there are other parallel Islamic Movements working together.  There are many violent jihadi organizations like ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, and hundreds of others battling in Iraq, Syria, Libya, parts of Africa, and elsewhere.

The leadership of the international Muslim community is the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which is made up of every Islamic nation in the world at the head of state and king level.  It is the largest voting block in the United Nations.  The OIC’s stated goal is the implementation of Sharia (Islamic Law) across the world.

ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, all of the other jihadi organizations, as well as the leaders of the entire Islamic world have the same objective:  the establishment of a Caliphate under Sharia.  Each facet uses a different avenue to the same objective.

A Caliphate under sharia is also the objective of Islam as defined in all Islamic Law (Sharia) which comes from the Quran and the example of the prophet Mohammad.

When the West collectively decides to understand the threat as it truly is, and that Sharia is the blueprint for our enemy as well as what they seek to impose on the world, we will have the clear ability to strategize a war plan for victory.

ISIS or Islam: Which Breeds Terrorism?

April 12, 2016

ISIS or Islam: Which Breeds Terrorism? Front Page MagazineRaymond Ibrahim, April 12, 2016

isis (1)

Originally published by PJ Media.

A lie conceals the truth.  And ugly but hidden truths never have a chance of being acknowledged, addressed, and ultimately ameliorated.

Because of this simple truism, one of the greatest lies of our age—that violence committed in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam—has made an intrinsically weak Islam the scourge of the modern world, with no signs of relief on the horizon.

One of the latest manifestations of this lie took place in Pakistan.  On Easter Sunday, March 27, a suicide bombing took place near the children rides of a public park, where Christians were congregated and celebrating the resurrection of their Lord.  At least 74 people—mostly Christian women and children—were killed and nearly 400 injured.  “There was human flesh on the walls of our house,” recalled a witness.

Who—or what—was responsible for this assault?  “We claim responsibility for the attack on Christians as they were celebrating Easter,” said Jamaatul Ahraar, a splinter group of the Taliban.  In a media statement, the group said it had “deliberately targeted the Christian community,” adding that “we had been waiting for this occasion.”

The Taliban and its affiliates are not alone.  Click herehereherehere, and here, for numerous examples of similarly lethal attacks on Christians celebrating Christmas or Easter by other Islamic groups and individuals around the world who also “had been waiting for this occasion.”  Even “the terror cell that struck in Brussels [last month, killing 34] was planning to massacre worshippers at Easter church services across Europe, including Britain, intelligence chiefs believe.”

Still, connecting the dots and understanding what binds all Islamic terrorist groups is a big no-no for the so-called mainstream media.  The problem, we will be told, is the “Taliban,” which “has nothing to do with Islam.”  Rather, it’s a finite, temporal, localized problem: defeat it, and the problem vanishes.

Meanwhile, about 5,000 miles west of Taliban territory, in Nigeria, Christians are also under attack.  Indeed, according to a new report, since 2000, some 12,000 Christians have been slaughtered for their faith and 13,000 churches destroyed.  Just last month, over 500 Christians were butchered.

According to the official narrative, something called “Boko Haram” is responsible.  This is another group that defines itself exclusively according to Islam; another group that habitually bombs churches during Christmas and Easter; and another group that, we are told, “has nothing to do with Islam,” but rather is a finite, temporal, localized problem: defeat it, and the problem vanishes.

About 5,000 miles west of Nigeria, in the U.S., Americans were told that something called “al-Qaeda” attacked and killed 3,000 of their countrymen on 9/11; defeating that finite group would cease the terror.  Its leader, Osama bin Laden, was killed, and victory loudly proclaimed—except that an even more savage manifestation, this time called the “Islamic State” (it too “has nothing to do with Islam”) came on the scene and has gone further than al-Qaeda could’ve ever dreamed, in great part thanks to the Obama administration.

It gets worse.  The problem is not only that the media and decision-makers refuse to connect the dots and insist on treating each of the aforementioned groups as disparate, finite groups with different motivations—none of which has to do with Islam.  The problem is that regular Muslims who are not called “Taliban,” “Boko Haram,” “al-Qaeda,” “ISIS,” ad infinitum commit similar acts, and much more frequently, though this is rarely ever mentioned by the MSM.

Thus, although the “Taliban” was behind the recent Easter Day massacre, it is everyday Muslims who discriminate against, persecute, enslave, rape and sometimes murder Christians every day in Pakistan (click here for a typical month); it was everyday Muslims who burned a young Christian couple alive due to unsubstantiated rumors that they had insulted Muhammad.

Those who slaughtered 500 Christians last month in Nigeria were not “Boko Haram” but rather un-affiliated (but Muslim) herdsmen.  Likewise, “Northern Muslim political and religious elite are also major actors of targeted violence towards the Christian minority.”

Although ISIS claimed the Brussels attack, it is everyday Muslims who ban, burn, bomb, and urinate on Christian churches, and who, as in Pakistan and other Muslim majority nations, target non-Muslim European women for rape on the basis that they are subhuman “infidels.”

This is the real issue.  While the media may name the terrorist groups responsible for especially spectacular attacks—followed by the customary admonitions that they “have nothing to do with Islam”—few dare acknowledge that Muslims in general engage in similar acts of violence and intolerance against non-Muslims.  According to a recent study, Muslims —of all races, nationalities, languages, and socio-political and economic circumstances, hardly just “terror groups”—are responsible for persecuting Christians in 41 of the 50 worst nations to be Christian in.

These statistics are consistent with a recent Pew poll finding that, in 11 countries alone, at least 63 million and as many as 287 million Muslims support ISIS.  Similarly, 81% of respondents to a recent Al Jazeera poll supported the Islamic State.

In sum, what “extremist” “terrorist” and “militant” groups (that “have nothing to do with Islam”) are doing is but the tip of the iceberg of what Muslims are doing all around the world.  (See “Muslim Persecution of Christians,” reports which I’ve been compiling every month since July 2011 and witness the nonstop discrimination, persecution, and carnage committed by “everyday” Muslims against Christians.  Each monthly report contains dozens of atrocities, any of which if committed by Christians against Muslims would receive 24/7 blanket coverage.)

Media aren’t just covering up for Islam by pretending that the spectacular attacks committed by Islamic groups on non-Muslims “have nothing to do with Islam.” They are covering up for Islam by failing to report the everyday persecution non-Muslims experience at the hands of everyday Muslims—Muslim individuals, Muslim mobs, Muslim police, and Muslim governments (including America’s closest “friends and allies”)—not just Muslim “terrorists.”

Because of these entrenched lies, the world must continue to suffer from Islamic terror.  Not only have these lies allowed countless innocents to be persecuted into oblivion in the Muslim world, but they have allowed the same persecution to enter America and Europe, most recently via mass immigration.

The fact remains: an ugly truth must first be acknowledged before it can be remedied.   It may be hard to acknowledge an ugly truth—that Islam, not “radical Islam,” promotes hate for and violence against non-Muslims—but anything less will just continue to feed the lie, that is, continue to feed the jihad and terror.

Fatah Spokesman Osama Qawasmeh: The West Sponsors Islamic Extremism; 9/11 Was No Coincidence

April 12, 2016

Fatah Spokesman Osama Qawasmeh: The West Sponsors Islamic Extremism; 9/11 Was No Coincidence, MEMRI-TV via You Tube, April 11, 2016

The blurb following the video states,

In an interview, broadcast by the Palestinian Authority’s official TV channel, Fatah spokesman Osama Qawasmeh talked about the situation in Syria, and said that “it was the [Americans] who worked to create Islamic extremism,” adding that “they are indoctrinated with certain notions, and leaders created in the West and in Israel are planted in their midst.” Qawasmeh further said that the timing of 9/11 was “no coincidence”: it pushed the Palestinian cause to the sidelines in the international media. The interview aired on April 5, 2016.