Archive for the ‘Islam – causes of terrorism’ category

Dawa: Sowing the Seeds of Hate

November 4, 2017

Dawa: Sowing the Seeds of Hate, Gatestone InstituteJudith Bergman, November 4, 2017

“In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to bring about more extreme views among existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with strict sharia.” — Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her book, The Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam as Ideology and Movement and How to Counter It.

The ultimate goal of establishing an Islamic state in the United States could hardly be much clearer. The pretense of caring for “diversity” and “inclusion” that ICNA displays on its public website cannot be characterized as anything other than an attempt at dissimulation, as is the stated goal of “establishing a place for Islam in America.”

If Western leadership is unable to fathom the danger posed by organizations such as Tablighi Jamaat, iERA and ICNA, and, according to critics, others such as CAIR and ISNA — let alone do something about it, instead of endlessly obsessing over “Islamophobia” — Qaradawi could be proven right.

While the West is preoccupied with fighting “hate speech”, “Islamophobia” and white supremacist groups, it appears more than willing to ignore the cultivation of Muslim hate speech and supremacist attitudes towards non-Muslims.

It is a cultivation that occurs especially in the process of dawa, the Muslim practice of Islamic outreach or proselytizing, the results of which seem to have been on show this week in a downtown New York terror attack. The terrorist, Sayfullo Saipov, originally from Uzbekistan, was apparently only radicalized after he moved to the United States. The mosque he attended in New Jersey had been under surveillance by the NYPD since 2005. A 2016 U.S.-commissioned report said Uzbek nationals were “most likely to radicalize while working as migrants abroad,” according to the U.S. State Department.

On the surface, dawa, or outreach — in person or online — appears to be a benign missionary activity, about converting non-Muslims. Legal in Western societies, it is allowed to proceed undisturbed by the media or government. Dawa generally attracts little attention, except when members of an outreach organization suddenly turn up in the headlines as full-fledged jihadists.

Politicians and the media in the West seem to prefer viewing Islam solely as a religion and not as a political system that, according to critics, seeks to impose its own laws and regulations, sharia, on the world.

According to the Somali-born Muslim dissident and author, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, however, in her recent bookThe Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam as Ideology and Movement and How to Counter It:

“The term ‘dawa’ refers to activities carried out by Islamists to win adherents and enlist them in a campaign to impose sharia law on all societies. Dawa is not the Islamic equivalent of religious proselytizing, although it is often disguised as such… [It] includes proselytization, but extends beyond that. In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to bring about more extreme views among existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with strict sharia.”

Somali-born Muslim dissident and author, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, wrote in her recent book that in the West, the ultimate goal of dawa (the Muslim practice of Islamic outreach or proselytizing) “is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with strict sharia.” (Photo by Ian Waldie/Getty Images)

Presumably, the last thing a society would want are groups that cloak political activity in religious practices, protected under the precepts of freedom of religion.

In the Philippines, recently, members of the dawa organization known as Tablighi Jamaat (“Group that Propagates the Faith”) entered the country under the guise of missionary activity — that they were going to participate in the Tablighi Jamaat’s annual gathering there. It turned out, however, that they had come to wage jihad together with Isnilon Hapilon, the late “emir” of Islamic State in Southeast Asia.

The Tablighi Jamaat has been described by the expert on Islam and journalist, Innes Bowen, in her 2014 book, Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Trent, as “a Deobandi missionary movement and one of the largest Islamic groups in the UK… it has quietly grown into one of Britain’s most successful Islamic movements. Vast numbers of British Muslims have spent time in its ranks”[1]. However, the Tablighi Jamaat was largely unknown in the UK, until it emerged that several British Muslims charged with terror offences had all spent time[2] in the organization. Among these terrorists were Richard Reid, the “shoe-bomber,” and three of the four perpetrators of the London 7/7 terrorist attacks. The American enemy combatant, John Walker Lindh, who aided the Taliban, was associated with the Tablighi Jamaat; and the San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook prayed in San Bernardino at the Dar al Uloom al Islamiyyah mosque, described as a “haven for Tablighi Jamaat activists.”

The movement, according another expert on Islam, Yoginder Sikand, in his 1998 study of the Tablighi Jamaat , sought “to promote a sense of paranoia and even disgust of non-Muslim society”[3]. He quoted a prominent British promoter of the Tablighi Jamaat as saying:

“a major aim of tabligh is to rescue the ummah [Muslim community] from the culture and civilization of the Jews, Christians and (other) enemies of Islam to create such hatred for their ways as human beings have for urine… and excreta…”.

The Tablighi Jamaat has been described in the Middle East Quarterly, in an article called “Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad’s Stealthy Legions“, as a wolf in sheep’s clothing:

“Tablighi Jamaat is not a monolith: one subsection believes they should pursue jihad through conscience…while a more radical wing advocates jihad through the sword … in practice, all Tablighis preach a creed that is hardly distinguishable from the radical Wahhabi-Salafi jihadist ideology that so many terrorists share”.

Nevertheless, Tablighi Jamaat remains a legal, active organization, which yields a considerable influence over Muslims in Europe, especially the UK and the United States. Already in 2003, the deputy chief of the FBI’s international terrorism section, Michael J. Heimbach, said, “We have a significant presence of Tablighi Jamaat in the United States and we have found that Al-Qaeda used them for recruiting now and in the past.” One 2011 undercover video segment from the Darul Ulum Islamic High School in Birmingham, England, associated with the Tablighi Jamaat, showed that Muslim children were taught Muslim supremacy. Eleven year olds were taught that Hindus “have no intellect” and “drink cow piss”. The teacher also said, “You are not like the non-Muslims out there… All that evil that you see in the streets… people not wearing Hijab properly, people smoking… you should hate it…” The children were also told:

“You need to free yourself from the influence of the Shaitan [Satan] and of society… The Kuffar [derogatory term for non-Muslims] have brought so many new things out there…They are controlling your minds… Are you part of those who prefer their way of life: The way of the Kuffar over the way of the Prophet?”

Both US and Dutch intelligence once seemed aware of the imminent danger of dawa organizations. In 2004, a Dutch government report identified threats to Dutch society from the practice of dawa and concluded that an “interaction or even interwovenness of Dawa and Jihad demonstrate the relationship between the various forms of radical Islam and the phenomenon of radical-Islamic terrorism.”

The study also distinguished various kinds of dawa, both overt and covert, and the threats emanating from it:

“Dawa may be aimed at trying to convince Muslim communities that non-Muslim communities are hostile towards Islam and wish to oppress or even destroy it. Dawa may also serve to convince Muslim communities that the values and standards of non-Muslims are incompatible with those of Islam and should therefore be considered as depraved. In such a form of Dawa, Muslim communities are often encouraged to emphasise (in a provocative way) the differences with other groups and sometimes also to express their contempt and hatred towards standards and values and the culture of non-Muslims”.

It would appear that Western governments have largely unlearned — at least officially — these insights into dawa as a tool for fostering feelings of Muslim supremacy and hatred of non-Muslims. Instead, they engage in endless, misguided obsessions over “Islamophobia.” Their unlearning should be a cause for concern.

Other dawa organizations also operate in the West. One is the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), led by two converts, Abdur Raheem Green and Hamza Andreas Tzortis, that works globally to spread Islam. Unlike the Tablighi Jamaat, it focuses its missionary efforts on non-Muslims. Its leaders have made racist, supremacist and anti-democratic statements such as, again, calling non-Muslims, “kuffars.” Green has said that, “The purpose of the jizya [protection money, or “tax”, paid by non-Muslims to Muslims] is to make the Jew and the Christian know that they are inferior and subjugated to Islam,” and “If a Jew or Christian is found walking down the street, a Muslim should push them to the side”. He has also said that the “immediate problem” for Muslims in Britain is being surrounded by “kuffar” and that one of the only justifications for Muslims to remain in the UK is to “call the kuffar to Islam.”

Tzortis has said that apostates who “fight against the community[…] should be killed” and that, “we as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom.” He has also spoken in favor of child marriage. He admits that he used to be a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamic organization, but that he left the organization for “scholastic and philosophical reasons.” In a statement on the iERA website, Tzortis and Green try to distance themselves from some (unspecified) past statements by writing, “some of the anachronous statements attributed to iERA personnel have been either clarified or publicly retracted, and were never made at university campuses.”

The iERA evidently enjoys a large platform on UK campuses. According to a report on extremist events on UK campuses in the academic year 2016/17, iERA was behind 34 out of the total 112 events that took place that year. Unlike the far-right fringe groups recently banned by British Home Secretary Amber Rudd — the mere support of such groups is punishable by up to 10 years in prison — the iERA is free to carry on its dawa activity undisturbed[4] and does so at an incredible pace. According to the organization’s Facebook page, in October 2017 alone iERA or its representatives were active doing dawa in Canada, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, and in the United States. The iERA also trained 15 dawa leaders from all over the world — from Iceland and Poland to Honduras and Finland — in a recent online dawa training program.

In the United States, the iERA works with the Muslim American Society (MAS) and Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), according to the iERA website. ICNA, a leading Muslim organization in the US, is actively involved in dawa, and in 2015 ran “Global Dawa day,” which referred to Tzortis’s training course.

According to ICNA’s 2013 Members Handbook (for its female members), the organization considers itself an Islamic movement which is an

“organized and collective effort waged to establish Al-Islam in its complete form in all aspects of life. Its ultimate objective is to achieve the pleasure of our Creator Allah and success in the hereafter through struggle for Iqamat-ad-Deen [the establishment of Islam in its totality]. Islamic movements are active in various parts of the world to achieve the same objectives”.

The ultimate goal of establishing an Islamic state in the United States could hardly be much clearer. The pretense of caring for “diversity” and “inclusion” that ICNA displays on its public website cannot be characterized as anything other than an attempt at dissimulation, as is the stated goal of “establishing a place for Islam in America.” ICNA already has a place for Islam in America — it presumably wants to expand that place until nothing else is left.

The 2013 Members Handbook describes that ICNA’s work proceeds in “stages.” One of the stages is dawa, or “effective outreach.”

“Those who accept the truth of Islam are provided with appropriate Islamic literature and given the opportunity to become a Muslim. They are made part of the Islamic Ummah as brothers and sisters.”

The Members Handbook goes on to describe how already in the 1970s:

“ICNA established its own forums for dawah work at the local, regional, and national level. It established vital institutions at the national level for support of its dawah activities… Recognizing other movement oriented groups in this land, ICNA continues to coordinate and combine its efforts with them”.

In fact, ICNA has a separate project called the “Why Islam Dawah Project,” which

“aims to organize the dawah work in North America in a professional and effective manner. Highlights of the project are Toll-Free number for non-Muslims; Distribution of Islamic literature… Dawah through Media; Dawah in Prisons; Campus Dawah Support; Dawah Flyers Online; Dawah through Email”.

ICNA is considered by experts such as Steven Emerson, Founder and Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, to be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Its spiritual leader, Yusuf al Qaradawi, has preached that the West will be conquered by Islam — not through the sword, but through dawa.

If Western leaders are unable to fathom the danger posed by organizations such as Tablighi Jamaat, iERA and ICNA, and, according to critics, others such as CAIR and ISNA — let alone do something about it, instead of endlessly obsessing over “Islamophobia” — Qaradawi could be proven right.

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Surprise! Study Shows Islamic Terrorism is Islamic

October 31, 2017

Surprise! Study Shows Islamic Terrorism is Islamic, Gatestone InstituteJudith Bergman, October 31, 2017

Although the internet evidently did play a role in the radicalization process, the study showed that face-to-face encounters were more important, and that dawa, the proselytizing of Islam, played a central role in this process, as the men themselves became missionaries for Islam.

The third factor was the establishment of a “them and us” distinction between the radicalized men and the rest of the world, especially the belief that the West is an enemy of the Muslim world. The distinction also involved a rejection of democracy and a commitment to the establishment of a caliphate governed by sharia law, which the men want to bring about either through dawa(proselytizing) or violence (jihad).

“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?” — Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, scholar of Islamic law, graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University, explaining why it refused to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic, 2015.

Western leaders insist that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Evidence to the contrary appeared again this week from Mohamad Jamal Khweis, an ISIS recruit from the United States who said in a 2016 interview with Kurdistan24, “Our daily life was basically prayer, eating and learning about the religion for about eight hours.” Khweis was sentenced to 20 years in prison on October 27 for providing material support to ISIS, according to CBS News.

As early as 2001, immediately after 9/11, then-President George W. Bush gave a speech in which he claimed that in the United States, the terrorist acts in which over 3,000 people were killed “violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith” and that “Islam is peace”.

Twelve years and many spectacular terrorist attacks later, in 2013, when two jihadists murdered Lee Rigby in broad daylight in London, the prime minister at the time, David Cameron, declaredthat the attack was “a betrayal of Islam… there is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act”.

In January 2015, jihadists in Paris shouting “Allahu Akbar” attacked Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket, murdering 15 people. French President François Hollande said that the jihadists had “nothing to do with the Muslim faith”.

Two years later, when a jihadist targeted the very heart of European democratic civilization, the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Bridge, British PM Theresa May said: “It is wrong to describe this as Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist terrorism and the perversion of a great faith”.

In the face of hundreds of Muslim terrorists yelling “Allahu Akbar” while bombing, shooting, stabbing, and car-ramming thousands of innocent civilians to death and wounding thousands of others, it would be reasonable to assume that elected representatives might feel obliged to put their denial of reality on hold long enough to read at least bits of the Quran. They might start by reading the commands in “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them…” (9:5), or, “So fight them until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah” (8:39).

If that is asking too much, perhaps they might be willing to consider a recent study by Islamic theologian and professor of Islamic religious education at the University of Vienna, Ednan Aslan, which was commissioned by the Austrian ministry of Foreign Affairs. The purpose of the 310-page study, which was conducted over 18 months and involved interviews with 29 Muslims who were all jailed or in juvenile detention (over half for having committed terrorist offenses) was reportedly to investigate the role that Islam plays in the radicalization of young Muslims in Austria. The study showed that jihadists are not, as Western leaders claim, ignorant of Islam and therefore “perverting” it. On the contrary, the jihadists apparently have a deep understanding of Islamic theology. Aslan explicitly warns against reducing the issue of Islamic terrorism to questions of “frustrated individuals, who have no perspective, are illiterate and have misunderstood Islam”.

The study found that three factors were particularly relevant to the radicalization process of the interviewees. The first factor was Islam itself: The interviewees had actively participated in their own radicalization, by engaging with the content, norms and standards of Islamic doctrine, and had apparently found this engagement to be a positive turning point in their lives. The study describes the approach to Islam of these men as “Salafism”, which it defines as the view that Islam comprises all aspects of life, religious, personal and societal. Moreover, the majority of the men evidently came from religious Muslim homes and were therefore already familiar with the foundations of Islam. The study explicitly states that the prevailing assumption that the majority of radicalized Muslims know very little about Islam could not be confirmed by the interviewers’ findings.

The second factor was the environment: the specific mosques and imams to which the men went and on which they relied. Although the internet evidently did play a role in the radicalization process, the study showed that face-to-face encounters were more important, and that dawa, proselytizing Islam, played a central role in this process, as the men themselves became missionaries for Islam. Notably, the study showed that the level of theological knowledge determined the individual’s role in the hierarchy — the more knowledge they had of Islam, the more authority they had.

The third factor was the establishment of a “them and us” distinction between the radicalized men and the rest of the world, especially the belief that the West is an enemy of the Muslim world. The distinction also involved a rejection of democracy and a commitment to the establishment of a caliphate governed by sharia law, which the men want to bring about either through dawa(proselytizing) or violence (jihad).

Critics might argue that a qualitative study of 29 radical Muslims is not representative of most Islamic terrorists, but that is hardly true. In 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:

“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?”

In 2015, Al Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt — a prestigious institution that educates mainstream Islamic scholars — refused to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic. (Image source: Sailko/Wikimedia Commons)

Western leaders did not listen.

They also did not listen when, in 2015, The Atlantic 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”.

How much longer can the West afford to ignore reality?

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Retired admiral admonishes Trump: You can’t kill your way out of the terrorism problem

June 14, 2017

Retired admiral admonishes Trump: You can’t kill your way out of the terrorism problem, Jihad Watch

Former State Department spokesman John Kirby slammed President Trump on Monday for employing a mostly military approach to combating extremism and radicalism rather than getting at the root causes.

Kirby should try to lecture Israel with his advice about not “killing your way out of terrorism,” in regard to its defensive wars in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Kirby should also consider the war of the Allies against Hitler’s Nazi machine. There is a time and place for just war.

Instead of physical war, Kirby advises using a “multifaceted” strategy and “getting at the root causes of extremism and terrorism,” which he identifies as “poverty and human rights and corruption overseas.” Kirby’s strategy is based on falsehoods: he wrongly assumes that if you somehow fix the problems of poverty and corruption, then you will fix the problem of jihad terror. He refuses to admit that this war is an Islamic jihad against the West, with its justifications rooted in Islamic texts. It has nothing to do with anything else but conquering the infidel. Poverty and corruption are extraneous issues.

A better multifaceted approach to jihad terror in addition to the physical war would involve a  tougher immigration policy, which Trump is trying to implement, as well as monitoring the preaching in mosques: far too many have been spreading hate and jihadist messages. It would also involve cracking down on organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Retired admiral: You can’t kill your way out of a terrorism problem”, by Olivia Beavers, The Hill,  June 12, 2017:

Former State Department spokesman John Kirby slammed President Trump on Monday for employing a mostly military approach to combating extremism and radicalism rather than getting at the root causes.

“You cannot kill your way out of a terrorism problem,” Kirby said on CNN’s “New Day.” “We can hit these guys as often as we want and as aggressively as we want, but we are never going to kill the problem of terrorism.”

Kirby said the president and his team primarily speak about terrorism in “very aggressive, military terms.”

“But when you listen to President Trump and his surrogates talk about terrorism, and the threat — and the very real threat that it poses, you hear that talk about it almost in purely militaristic terms — in very aggressive, military terms,” the retired Navy rear admiral said.

“And I don’t see a comprehensive, cohesive, you know, multifaceted strategy in the works right now,” Kirby added.

Kirby said the White House is only talking minimally about how to get to the root causes of why people radicalize.

“There’s very little discussion about getting at the root causes of extremism and terrorism — working on issues of poverty and human rights and corruption overseas — and that’s a real problem here, because this is a generational conflict.”

The former State Department spokesman said the fight against terrorism is going to continue “for a much longer time.”

“We’ve been at this now for at least 16 years — very aggressively on the ground. We are going to be at it for a much longer time.”

Trump signed a memorandum in January giving military leaders 30 days to come up with “comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS.”……

Pope Francis and the Decline of the West

August 11, 2016

Pope Francis and the Decline of the West, Front Page MagazineDennis Prager, August 11, 2016

pope_francis_malacanang_7

Pope Francis made comments last week that reveal the most important single thing you need to know about the modern world: The most dynamic religion of the last hundred years has been leftism. Not Christianity, and not Islam, but leftism.

Leftism has taken over the world’s leading educational institutions, the world’s news media and the world’s popular entertainment, and it has influenced Christianity (and Judaism) far more than Christianity (or Judaism) has influenced anything.

On July 26, two Muslims slit the throat of a French Roman Catholic priest, the Rev. Jacques Hamel, 85, while he was saying Mass in his church.

Five days later, during his flight returning to Rome from World Youth Day in Krakow, Poland, Pope Francis gave a press conference. He was asked about the French priest and Islam by Antoine-Marie Izoard, a journalist with I.Media, a French Catholic news agency. Izoard said:

“Catholics are in a state of shock — and not only in France — following the barbaric assassination of Father Jacques Hamel in his church while he was celebrating Holy Mass. Four days ago … you told us once again that all religions want peace. But this holy priest, eighty-six years old, was clearly killed in the name of Islam. So I have two brief questions, Holy Father. When you speak of these violent acts, why do you always speak of terrorists but not of Islam? … And then, … what concrete initiative can you launch or perhaps suggest in order to combat Islamic violence?”

Pope Francis responded:

“I don’t like to speak of Islamic violence because every day when I open the newspapers I see acts of violence, here in Italy: someone kills his girlfriend, someone else his mother-in-law…and these violent people are baptized Catholics! They are violent Catholics…If I spoke about Islamic violence, I would also have to speak about Catholic violence.”

The pope of the Roman Catholic Church, when asked about Islamic terror and the slitting of the throat of a Roman Catholic priest by Islamic terrorists, responds that there is also Catholic terror — that a man who was baptized Catholic who “kills his girlfriend” is the moral and religious equivalent of Muslims who engage in mass murder in the name of Islam.

How can anyone compare:

—A person who happens to have been baptized Catholic as a child — and may have no Catholic identity as an adult — with an adult who affirms a religious identity?

—The murder of a girlfriend (most likely a crime of passion) with the ritual murder of a Catholic priest because he was a priest?

—Individual murders that have nothing to do with any ideology with mass murders committed in the name of an ideology?

Pope Francis then added:

“Terrorism is everywhere! … Terrorism … increases whenever there is no other option, when the global economy is centred on the god of money and not the human person, men and women. This is already a first form of terrorism. You’ve driven out the marvel of creation, man and woman, and put money in their place. This is a basic act of terrorism against all humanity. We should think about it.”

Terrorism grows “when there is no other option”?

The implication that Islamic terrorism is a desperate act arising from poverty is widely held on the left. But it is false. Most Islamic terrorists come from the middle class or above. In the recent case of the Bangladeshi terrorists, for example, nearly every one of them came from some of the wealthiest families in Bangladesh. And, as is well-known, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from middle- and upper middle-class families.

Islamic terrorism doesn’t come from economics; it comes from its theology.

Terrorism grows “when the global economy is centred on the god of money”?

The pursuit of money and terror have nothing to do with each other. Terrorism grows only when some ideology preaches it. All this statement does is provide an excuse for Islamist terror by blaming the “global economy” and the “god of money” instead of the terrorists and their god of death.

A “first form of terrorism” is when “the global economy is centred on the god of money”?

It is a bad thing when money becomes a god, but there is no comparison between the “god of money” and the horrors of Islamic terror. Yazidi women weren’t gang raped and burned alive because of the “global economy” and its “god of money.”

The only explanation for these statements is that Pope Francis has inherited his theology from Catholicism, but unlike his immediate predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, he has inherited much of his moral outlook from leftism.

The Western combination of Judeo-Christian morality and political liberalism — with its doctrine of moral accountability, moral absolutes, confronting evil, and political and social freedom — has produced the most moral societies in world history.

The pope of the Roman Catholic Church should be its greatest advocate. But because of leftism, he isn’t.

Forensic Psychiatrist: Fascinating Insights Into Orlando Shooting

July 11, 2016

Forensic Psychiatrist: Fascinating Insights Into Orlando Shooting, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, July 11, 2016

Omar-Mateen-Noor-Salman-HPNoor Salman and Omar Mateen (Photo: Video screenshot)

Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist renowned for his work both in cutting-edge legal cases and research on criminal evil, explained to Clarion Project that important questions about the wife of Omar Mateen, who attacked a gay club in Florida, remain unanswered.

He also explained how political correctness and the difficulties in discussing Islamism are undermining our ability to combat the ideology.

You can read our previous interview with Dr. Welner here. Below is the latest interview between Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro and Dr. Welner :

1. Clarion Project: What’s the significance of Omar Mateen’s wife’s role in Mateen’s actions based on what we currently know?   

Dr. Welner:  Mateen’s wife, Noor Salman, was aware of his objectives to carry out a mass casualty attack, and she could have easily engaged his or her own support system to stop him from doing so.

Mrs. Salman accompanied Mateen during a visit to Disneyworld that caught the attention of Disney security in April. Salman knew Mateen was purchasing offensive weaponry. And not just any gun, but an assault weapon (MCX Sig Sauer) far more expensive than needed for a mass killing – even as Mateen was quite underemployed.

Ms. Salman did not stand in the way of her husband’s activities that would “martyr” himself, knowing that her child would be fatherless and she would be without financial support. Or is there more?

The San Bernadino killers, who long planned the mass killing yet bore a child together, was the watershed of ISIS in America. ISIS has redefined Islamic feminism by embedding women in vital support roles in terror (martyrdom), recruitment and facilitation.

That Mateen was willing to leave a child behind and Salman accepting of same is an idea unthinkable to Americans and to terrorism in America. But it is a mindset indoctrinated in Palestinian life.

Salman, born of Palestinian parents and raised with traditional Islamic restrictions, was first wed in an arranged marriage with a man from the West Bank. She divorced her first husband. Yet she stayed with Mateen, who long claimed aspirations to be a martyr.

Salman did more than stay with Mateen, she admittedly participated with him in preparations for his eventual attack, including driving him to Pulse to case the nightclub. She thus actively supported her husband’s efforts, even she had family living nearby where she could separate herself. She agreed, with Mateen, to sign over the deed to their house two months before the attack on the Pulse nightclub.

Facilitators, collaborators, and handlers are the unseen support of Islamist suicide terror – especially in the Palestinian theater. How did Mateen get the resources for an MCX Sig Sauer? How did he pay for the upscale accommodations of his overseas travel? How does his wife anticipate supporting herself financially in the face of the attack – and having divested herself of her home?

Did he expect to survive, as had the San Bernadino attackers? And what then would have happened? How is it that we do not even know the identity of her first husband’s family? How is it that there is no public discussion about Mateen’s mosque or the influences who inspired him?

2. Clarion Project: When Mateen had outbursts of extremism at work, such as declarations of support for terrorist groups, he blamed it on anti-Muslim discrimination by his colleagues, basically saying that Islamophobia causes Islamic terrorism. Is this just a standard deflection tactic or is there more involved with Islamists’ incessant use of the Islamophobia card?   

Dr. Welner: The American dialogue about the Islamist supremacist movement and, in fact, all of Islam is not based in fact. This is because public impressions and the nature of the dialogue we have are carefully controlled by at least three sources of influence:

1) Unregulated and below-the-radar financial influence on American lawmakers by countries ruled by sharia law,

2) intellectuals and other American media and thought-leader proxies funded by dogmatic Saudi Arabia and Qatari deep pockets. These funding resources, whose assets tie back to their respective governments, export the spread of sharia as a neoconservative would aim to export democracy. Funding now heavily influences university education, think tanks and media and promotes impression management by respected academia deliberately dissimulates and whitewashes Islamist terrorism and its broader goals, and

3) CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, who have been ceded standing by the press to speak for Muslims in America despite a legacy of apologia and of actively teaching the Muslim community to impede law enforcement’s investigations of terror inquiries.

Islamic supremacist advocates and, more importantly, the organizations empowered to speak for Islam are very sensitive to American public opinion and the buttons to push among social activists.

At a time that enhanced interrogations and waterboarding came under scrutiny in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, for example, al-Qaeda was teaching its conscripts to assert that they were tortured when they went into custody.

They could rely upon an academia-media complex that grasped at any opportunity to attack a Republican president through the safe space of declared “social justice.” Al-Qaeda exploited these willing opinion soldiers to fuel public sentiment against Guantanamo Bay and to delegitimize the U.S.-led war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The Islamic supremacists have also cynically co-opted national sensitivities on other fronts. Recognizing the mainstream news media’s identification with black grievances against the police, the Islamists have successfully fused the idea of blacks targeted for their skin color to advance the notion that Muslims are victimized as a direct result of discussion of the centrality of Islam to Islamic supremacist terror incidents.

President Obama, has been the highest authority to subscribe to this false canard. The President has famously disassociated Islamic supremacist terrorism from Islam, often with servile platitudes that embellish Islam’s history in America or submissive deference to “The Prophet.”

The administration has promoted a CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) program that emphasizes the purported risks of “right wing terrorist” groups in America. While the facts demonstrate otherwise, an imposed groupthink has rooted out teaching and training from among law enforcement that engages the Islamist threat with any appreciation for its urgency and current relevance.

References to Islamic terror have been literally erased, right down to “Allah” being airbrushed from transcripts of the Mateen 911 calls.

Political correctness extinguishes any criticism of Islam or its intolerance to alternative lifestyles. This includes speech laws in many otherwise free countries that equate criticism of Islam with hate speech, laws which are enforced particularly as they relate to Islam.

With freedom controlled, even where expression is normally free, the public submits. The psychological intimidation by legal repercussion extends what is accomplished by terror or, if not, by threat of terror.

The consequences have filtered all the way through American life, as they have in Europe. A migrant gang sex assault in Idaho of a small child is suppressed by the local authorities. Nidal Hassan’s advocacy of martyrdom is not sufficient to remove him from active military duty, and when he later embarks on a mass shooting of the troops to whom he was to apply a Hippocratic Oath, the military – which answers to the Commander-in-Chief – insists that it is a work accident.

Unquestionably dangerous prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay, only to return to attack and kill American servicemen and Ankara airport-goers alike.

Surveillance programs that would monitor mosques in which attendees are particularly poisoned to support terrorism shut down, despite court support of their legality and police respect for their effectiveness.

Americans who cared about their country reported concerns about Mateen to entrusted law enforcement agencies, only to have investigations shut down. All of these systemic errors feed back to the active thought control and stifling of free thinking about efforts of the Islamic supremacist movement to gain submission of non-believers.

The first of those affected are Muslims themselves, because open-mindedness is crushed by sharia advocacy as opposed to pluralism advocacy among Muslims.

The only solution is a nonviolent but defiant revolt of free speech that demands that leaders and the news and information media stop lying to our free society about terrorism and its origins.

Only from that point can collaboration then begin between the general public and Muslims who are invested in a pluralistic America to undertake a constructive anti-terror policy that wins the war that we are now losing.

____________________

(We are currently) not losing by terror, but by the success of our Machiavellian enemy (who has been able to) buy the influence of those who do not appreciate that non-violent war is more destructive than terrorism and who exploit our inherent empathic nature as Americans as the first step on the road to submission.

UK Prison Course on Islam Teaches Violent Jihad, Says Cleric

June 5, 2016

UK Prison Course on Islam Teaches Violent Jihad, Says Cleric, Clarion Project, June 5, 2016

PrisonMuslimHP_0_0Illustrative picture (Photo: Screenshot from Clarion Project’s Film The Third Jihad)

Sheikh Musa Admani, who has extensive experience with counter-radicalization programs, raised objections to a section of the “Tarbiyah program” which has been used in British prisons since 2011. He told the BBC he felt the section on “The Principle of Jihad” placed undue emphasis on the “external jihad,” i.e., religious war, as opposed to the “internal jihad,” understood as an internal struggle.

“There may necessitate a time to pick up arms and physical [sic] fight such evil” the course says. “It is one of the noblest acts.”

Although the document sets out the different kinds of jihad, Sheikh Admani argues that undue emphasis is placed on violent jihad.

“This document sets out the steps and then addresses various forms of jihad and then goes on to emphasize a particular type, i.e. the killing and the fighting,” he says.

“It incites people to take up arms… It prepares people for violence. It could turn people when they come out of prison, supposedly rehabilitated, back into violence.”

Just war traditions exist in a number of different ethical systems, not just Islam. The problem is an overemphasis on violent jihad. There are Islamic theories of non-violence which could also be taught.

A former inmate at Belmarsh prison also attested to the spread of radical ideas in prison.

“People convicted of terrorism, people in the public domain that are very well known, are roaming around freely and being able to manipulate young minds,” he told the BBC.

“The fact they’re able to learn the Tarbiyah programme and Arabic, coupled with the fact that inmates [convicted of terrorism] have access to extremist literature and narrations that aren’t related to the prophet but they relate it to the prophet — coming from them it seems so realistic, you start believing this is the true Islam, the true Islam is [the militant group Islamic State] IS.”

 

Watch a clip from the Clarion Project’s film, The ThirdJihad about radicalization in U.S. prisons:

Germany’s largest Muslim organization gets Muslim prof fired for saying violent Qur’an verses not valid for all time

May 24, 2016

Germany’s largest Muslim organization gets Muslim prof fired for saying violent Qur’an verses not valid for all time, Jihad Watch, 

Islamic apologists routinely claim that violent Qur’an verses have no validity beyond Muhammad’s time, but this story illustrates that this is not the mainstream view in Islam. The persecution of Mouhanad Khorchide also shows the uphill battle that genuine Muslim reformers face: branded as heretics and/or apostates, they’re often shunned (or worse) by the very community that needs their ideas the most.

Mouhanad-Khorchide

“Opinion: A German Islam must be liberal, self-critical,” by Susanne Schröter, DW, May 23, 2016:

When the theologian Mouhanad Khorchide, who teaches at the University of Münster, published “Islam Is Compassion” in 2012, he received a variety of diverse reactions. Many non-Muslims celebrated the work as the revelation of a humanistic Islam: an Islam that no one needs to fear. This feeling arose in part because the author created a picture of God that is not “interested in the labels of Muslim or Christian or Jewish, believer or nonbeliever.”

Korchide threw out the idea that Koran verses that appear violent or hostile toward women or non-Muslims may be valid for all eternity. He wanted them to be viewed as the words of a bygone era.

It seemed that the professor, with the swoop of his pen, managed to brush aside all those reservations that made people wonder whether Islam really “belonged to Germany,” as former President Christian Wulff said famously in a 2010. One might even have thought that Muslims would offer Khorchide a pat on the back.

On the website for DITIB, Germany’s Turkish Islamic union and the country’s largest Muslim organization, one can read that Khorchide’s statements were a “rejection of the teachings of classical Islam” and an “insult to Muslim identity.” For this reason, the professor was removed from his post at the university. As if that weren’t enough, the coordinating body of Germany’s Central Council of Muslims (ZMD), a cooperative made up of a number of large organizations, produced a nearly 100-page assessment document to discredit him further, but luckily was not able to get far with it….

“Jihad,” when used in the sense of a real war, is a term that is used in the Koran and in Islamic heritage. There are clerics who claim jihad is an appropriate instrument for avenging insults to the Prophet Muhammad – such as an act of revenge for a nation’s foreign policy. These clerics are even lent the pulpit at some mosques, though the official leaders of the houses of worship issue apologies to the community if religious youths clamor after extremists. But Salafism is a youth movement, and it draws in so many teenagers and young adults that the psychologist Ahmad Mansour speaks of a “Generation Allah.”

Mansour isn’t only referring to those youths who join radical groups and potentially fight in such places as Syria, but also those whose beliefs vacillate between extremism and orthodoxy. “Generation Allah” refers to youths who find meaning in life by subjecting themselves unquestioningly to God and his rules, who ask constantly what is halal (allowed) or haram (forbidden) because their perspective is that they can be winners in paradise. I have spoken to such young men. Living in contemporary German society is dangerous for these young men, full of sin, and as a result they reject any relationships with so-called unbelievers. They go beyond what is normally required of their faith.

Some Muslim organizations encourage such segregation. Nearly every mosque has soccer teams that play against other sides from other mosques. Islamic day care and cultural centers are being founded; Islamic NGOs are working with underprivilileged [sic] people and youth. Parallel structures are being developed that would allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims from the cradle to the grave….

Satire | Navy to Name New Destroyer The USS Alfred C. Sharpton

April 15, 2016

Navy to Name New Destroyer The USS Alfred C. Sharpton, Dan Miller’s Blog, April 14, 2016

(The views expressed in the body of this article are not necessarily mine, those of Warsclerotic or it’s other editors. — DM)

Thinker of the day

Inspired by the profound wisdom of Nancy Pelosi

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus stated this week that Navy ships no longer need be named after dead old White geezers with medals of honor or politicians who have helped the Navy. Naming them after politicians favored by our dear leader Obama is now Navy policy.

Sharpton may never have won a medal of honor, served in the U.S. Military or helped the Navy. However, he is a fighter for social justice and has destroyed lots of racist stuff. Once the Navy names a destroyer in his honor, he will have much more work to do. Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Min! White Power Gotta GO! Soon, under President Hillary Clinton, Admiral Sharpton will have an entire task force of destroyers with which to fight environmental and other racism. 

Navy Secretary Mabus is breaking new ground, and it’s high time somebody did. He recently stated that

an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer will be named the USS Carl M. Levin. The Michigan Democrat served 31 years in the Senate and chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee from 2007 to 2015.

One congressional staffer noted that Mr. Levin presided over the committee during the Obama administration’s major drawdown of troops and weapons systems. Joint Chiefs of Staff officers testified in recent months that they doubt they can fight one major war on the schedule outlined in the National Military Strategy.

Gutting the racist and Islamophobic U.S. military is good! Devout members of “our” military love killing peaceful Muslims and other people of color at least as much as they enjoy breaking things. As our dear leader Obama has often emphasized, we must negotiate with poor and underprivileged people who try to kill us. We must help them to see how wonderful they already are and how we can help them to become happier and even more wonderful. Use of “our” military only makes them hate us and so is completely out of bounds.

Naming a destroyer after the Reverend Sharpton will promote social justice and put racists in their proper place — under his heel. He is good at destroying America’s racist culture and that includes preventing racist white people from appropriating America’s vast and beautiful Black culture. Here’s a stupid video by a vile White racist pig, Bill Whittle.

Whites have never developed any culture of their own beyond that of enslaving Black people. Despite their White privilege, they have no legal right to appropriate the rich and vibrant culture of Blacks, whom they despise and continue to enslave.

Navy Secretary Mabus is also aligned with own dear leader Obama in recognizing the need to prevent global warming global cooling Climate Change. Children and other adherents to the Religion of Peace won’t harm us; Climate Change will kill us.

The Navy will become the first branch of the military to require big vendors to report their greenhouse gas emissions and to outline what they are doing to lower them in response to global warming.

“We’ve got skin in this game,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told a technology conference on government and climate change on Tuesday, noting that the Navy’s fleet is the military’s largest user of fossil fuels.

. . . .

The U.S. military in recent years has called climate change a serious threat to national security. The Pentagon has said climate change is exacerbating everything from droughts to the rise of Islamic terror. [Emphasis added.]

The pentagon appears to have misspoken: there is no such thing as Islamic terror, because Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance. Perhaps the pentagon meant the terror we inflict on innocent Muslims.

The administration routinely repeats that position when discussing the challenge of global warming as the top threat the world faces. GOP presidential candidates often cite the stance to criticize President Obama’s policy priorities. [Emphasis added.]

Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate totally opposed to environmental racism. On April 13th, She promised Al Sharpton “a task force” to fight it.

[A]ir pollution from power plants, factories, and refineries contribute to disproportionately high rates of asthma for African-American children. Nearly half of all Latino children live in U.S. counties where smog levels exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s health standards, the campaign says.

Minority communities will also be disproportionately affected by climate change.

“And the impacts of climate change, from more severe storms to longer heat waves to rising sea levels, will disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare,” the campaign memo states.

. . . .

If elected president, Clinton says she will establish an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force on her first day in office. [Emphasis added.]

By giving Admiral Sharpton a massive task force, President Clinton will make him Her principal destroyer of environmental racism. As Queen Hillary’s Monarch of the Sea, Admiral Sharpton will rule the waves as well as did Queen Victoria’s own sea ruler!

Three cheers for our own dear leader Obama, His great Secretary of the Navy, our soon-to-be glorious Monarch of the Sea and our loving next president, Hillary Clinton!

The little children knew years ago and now, after almost eight years under Obama, we must all celebrate their profound wisdom, clarity of thought and maturity by giving dear leader Obama at least another eight years by electing Hillary as our beloved Queen! Long may She reign!

Editor’s note:

Oh well.

 

Majority Of Muslim Students Think Brussels Terrorists Are ‘Heroes’ Say Teachers

April 11, 2016

Majority Of Muslim Students Think Brussels Terrorists Are ‘Heroes’ Say Teachers, BreitbartVirginia Hale, April 11, 2016

Breitbart IslamGetty

Teachers working in the predominantly Muslim districts of Molenbeek and Schaerbeek in Brussels have reported that “90 percent of their students, 17, 18 years old” called the Islamist terrorists who attacked Paris and Brussels “heroes”.

The revelation came in an article in the New York Times, wherein Steven Erlanger spoke to a Belgian policymaker who relayed the information from Belgium.

The piece, entitled “Blaming Policy, Not Islam, for Belgium’s Radicalised Youth”, interviewed Yves Goldstein, chief of staff for the minister-president of the Brussels Capital Region and a Schaerbeek councilman. Schaerbeek and Molenbeek are now infamous as the areas in which for months Islamists lived, hid, manufactured weapons and made preparations for the Paris and Belgium attacks.

Reflecting that “our cities are facing a huge problem, maybe the largest since World War II,” Goldstein poses the question, “How is it that people who were born here in Brussels, in Paris, can call heroes the people who commit violence and terror?”

Dismissing the idea of Islam having played any role in the Paris attack and the bombing of Brussels airport and a subway station claiming that “religion for them is a pretext” and that they “believe in nothing,” the politician the boldly claims that the problem is a lack of exposure to diversity and modern art:

“We have neighborhoods where people only see the same people, go to school with the same people. What connection do they have with the whole society, what connection do they have with real diversity? It’s the establishment of the ghetto,” he says, “and it’s the thing in our urban development that we have to tackle.”

“These young people will never go to museums until 18 or 20 — they never saw Chagall, they never saw Dalí, they never saw Warhol, they don’t know what it is to dream.”

Erlinger reports that “Jews have left Schaerbeek, and the last two synagogues are being sold. Instead, there is a kind of suffocating, insular, ethnic uniformity” and describes Belgium’s system of integration as “somewhere between the French model, which put new immigrants in suburban ghettos, and the British and American one, which created communities like Chinatown or Little Italy.”

The article neglects to ask basic questions like why – if Islamic extremism is the fault of Belgian urban planning – is it happening globally? Why Jewish communities might have left Schaerbeek? Or why Chinese diaspora, living in Chinatown-like communities and taking no interest in modern art, seem to be at no risk of committing terrorist attacks?

Op-Ed: Where did all the “Islamic terrorists” go?

April 10, 2016

Op-Ed: Where did all the “Islamic terrorists” go? Israel National News, Jeffrey Ludwig, April 10, 2016

(Please see also, Signs of an Incipient Islamic Reformation? — DM)

[O]ur enemies abound as never before in the Middle East. They all attend mosques. They all pray five times a day to their God; they all read the same books.  We see their concerted hatred for the West, and for Judaism and Christianity.  But, according to our government, the perception of this reality is actually a massive misperception. 

Duplicity has replaced forthright policy and governance.

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

ISIS is often portrayed by the mainstream media (MSM) as the demonic face of what is euphemistically called “extremism.”  To our President, this organization is not Islamic.

For our President (and for other Muslims with whom this writer has spoken) ISIS is composed of pathological individuals who are masquerading as Islamics, hence it is inappropriate to call them “Islamic extremists” or “Islamic radicals.”  Not only ISIS is to be exempted from the “Islamic” appellation, but so are other groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the growing number of “lone wolf” assassins.

Even Hamas,  on our State Department terror list, is allowed to receive money as they “partner” with the Palestinian Authority (in complete contravention of U.S. law).  Even Iran, a country with which we do not have formal diplomatic relations because of its atrocities, is purposely not portrayed as governed by “radical Islamists” or “Islamic terrorists.”

Despite appearances, therefore, you can rest assured that Islam is not at war with the West or with the kafirs (unbelievers).

Graeme Wood sees the appeal of ISIS to Islamics as lying in its ability to control land, thus its growing power lies in the idea that it is reinstating the Caliphate, with all the apocalyptic implications of that reinstatement for Islamic eschatology.  The re-establishment of the Caliphate will precipitate incredible supernatural events that will lead to the final authority of Allah and of Islam over the entire world.

According to Wood, it’s their control over land that gives ISIS credibility. For the U.S. to continue to present ISIS as non-Islamic, we have to prevent their territorial expansion, thereby diluting their claim to being the long-awaited Caliphate.  If they don’t have as much land, then they lose credibility, and relapse to the Obama definition stating that they are just a ragtag bunch of demonic thugs.

Al-Qaeda, the organization founded by Osama Bin Laden, has not been making headlines since ISIS began to be newsworthy.  Are Al-Qaeda’s members terrorists?  Do they deserve to be called “Islamic jihadists”? Well, yes and no.  According to MSM’s sycophantic commentators and to our left wing President, Al-Qaeda’s dependence on committing atrocities partially disqualifies them from being Islamic.  Remember, we are dealing with the oft-misunderstood “religion of peace.”  They are also disqualified because they do not govern any territory, but are comprised of a confederation of activist cells, killing but not governing. True Islamists will govern as well as kill.

In sum, Al-Qaeda is defined by a criminal pathology and lack control over any land area, two characteristically non-Islamic traits according to our President.

In recent days, following the above line of reasoning, the Taliban, whom we have been fighting for 13 years, are now to be referred to as “armed insurgents” and not as terrorists.  They are no longer armed men who gave safe haven to Osama Bin Laden so he could attack us on 9/11, but dedicated Afghanis fighting against a corrupt government of “folks” installed by the diabolical George W. Bush.

Five of their leaders were recently released to Qatar for one year in exchange for one American soldier held in captivity.  After the year, they may go wherever they please.  Tired of violence, after their year-long sequestration in sunny-but-barren Qatar, they will undoubtedly move to Costa Rica and get peaceful jobs setting up beach chairs and umbrellas.

Then there is Iran.  Iran is Muslim, but of the Shia faction of Islam that is repudiated by mainstream Sunni Muslims as well as by Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Mainstream Sunnis, even though they have hatred or contempt for Shi’ites, are not as apt to kill them as are Al-Qaeda and ISIS.  [It might be interesting for the reader to know that when Ramzi Youssef, a Sunni muslim who planned and carried out the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, was on the run from the FBI and Interpol, he found time to kill a number of female Shi’ite pilgrims in Iran.]

Iran held 144 Americans hostage during Carter’s presidency, has arranged assassinations all over the world, regularly refers to the U.S. as “the Great Satan,” regularly threatens the total annihilation of Israel, frequently calls for the destruction of the USA, and is providing arms, missiles, and money to support Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations.

These behaviors hardly can be classified as “moderate,” but if one is Sunni, then Iran could be disqualified as Muslim. For Sunnis, the Shi’ites are not truly obedient to Mohammed, hence are non-Islamic.  By this sort of inversion, accommodation with Iran, then, might not be seen as accommodating Islamic violence since, for Sunni Islam (such as is practiced in Indonesia where Obama was schooled), Iran’s Islamacism is a renegade Islam at best, or, at worst, flat-out non-Islamic in light of Qu’ranic requirements.

Thus, if Iran does not represent true Islam, and Iran is promoting violence and terrorism through surrogates such as Hamas and Hezbollah, that violence is not Islamic.  If Iraq for which thousands of our men fought and died is controlled by a Shi’ite government accountable to Iran, then the problem this causes the U.S. is not, by definition, caused by Islamics.  Likewise the instability and danger of Yemen’s Houthis.

If Iran has been disqualified as an Islamic extremist entity, then their surrogates Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Yemen’s Houthis, and Iraq’s government are also disqualified. The Taliban has been disqualified as being Islamic terrorists and are now to be seen as people who just want to regain control of their country, and sometimes commit excesses in pursuit of that goal.  And if Al-Qaeda and ISIS are also disqualified as legitimate Islamic organizations, then how can any lone wolves or splinter teams of hit men claiming to be “jihadis” really be “Islamic terrorists”?

Are there no Islamic terrorists extant?

Obama’s deconstruction of the facts on the ground is completely ahistorical.  Not only does he deny that all these killers draw their inspiration from the teachings of Islam, but he denies that Islam has been marked by its warlike and anti-Western, anti-Christianity, and anti-Jewish fervor throughout most of its history.

Any student of history knows that this fantasy of world domination has been the dominant mindset of Islam for the better part of 1400 years.  A full-scale Islamic attack on the West was repulsed as recently as 1683 when Austria was attacked.  In the 19th century, U.S. Marines had to attack and defeat the Barbary pirates in No. Africa who were disrupting Western shipping and enslaving Americans.  We dare not forget that as recently as 1914-1918, the Ottoman Empire (Islamic religiously but ethnically Seljuk, not Arab) allied itself with the Central Powers in WWI, which alliance was intended to dramatically enhance Islamic power over the West.

Instead of perceiving the historical truth, the Obama administration has determined to deconstruct the definitions related to every violent group within Islam. They are each being portrayed as non-Islamic for different reasons.

But – our enemies abound as never before in the Middle East. They all attend mosques. They all pray five times a day to their God; they all read the same books.  We see their concerted hatred for the West, and for Judaism and Christianity.  But, according to our government, the perception of this reality is actually a massive misperception.

Duplicity has replaced forthright policy and governance.