Archive for the ‘Islam’ category

The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates

November 14, 2015

The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates, Mark Steyn, November 13, 2015

1585

I’m Islamed out. I’m tired of Islam 24/7, at Colorado colleges, Marseilles synagogues, Sydney coffee shops, day after day after day. The west cannot win this thing with a schizophrenic strategy of targeting things and people but not targeting the ideology, of intervening ineffectually overseas and not intervening at all when it comes to the remorseless Islamization and self-segregation of large segments of their own countries.

What’s the happy ending here? Because if M Hollande isn’t prepared to end mass Muslim immigration to France and Europe, then his “pitiless war” isn’t serious. And, if they’re still willing to tolerate Mutti Merkel’s mad plan to reverse Germany’s demographic death spiral through fast-track Islamization, then Europeans aren’t serious. In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Hollande, Cameron and the rest of the fin de civilisation western leadership will cost you your world and everything you love.

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

As I write, Paris is under curfew for the first time since the German occupation, and the death toll from the multiple attacks stands at 158, the vast majority of them slaughtered during a concert at the Bataclan theatre, a delightful bit of 19th century Chinoiserie on the boulevard Voltaire. The last time I was there, if memory serves, was to see Julie Pietri. I’m so bloody sick of these savages shooting and bombing and killing and blowing up everything I like – whether it’s the small Quebec town where my little girl’s favorite fondue restaurant is or my favorite hotel in Amman or the brave freespeecher who hosted me in Copenhagen …or a music hall where I liked to go to hear a little jazz and pop and get away from the cares of the world for a couple of hours. But look at the photographs from Paris: there’s nowhere to get away from it; the barbarians who yell “Allahu Akbar!” are there waiting for you …when you go to a soccer match, you go to a concert, you go for a drink on a Friday night. They’re there on the train… at the magazine office… in the Kosher supermarket… at the museum in Brussels… outside the barracks in Woolwich…

Twenty-four hours ago, I said on the radio apropos the latest campus “safe space” nonsense:

This is what we’re going to be talking about when the mullahs nuke us.

Almost. When the Allahu Akbar boys opened fire, Paris was talking about the climate-change conference due to start later this month, when the world’s leaders will fly in to “solve” a “problem” that doesn’t exist rather than to address the one that does. But don’t worry: we already have a hashtag (#PrayForParis) and doubtless there’ll be another candlelight vigil of weepy tilty-headed wankers. Because as long as we all advertise how sad and sorrowful we are, who needs to do anything?

With his usual killer comedy timing, the “leader of the free world” told George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning, America” this very morning that he’d “contained” ISIS and that they’re not “gaining strength”. A few hours later, a cell whose members claim to have been recruited by ISIS slaughtered over 150 people in the heart of Paris and succeeded in getting two suicide bombers and a third bomb to within a few yards of the French president.

Visiting the Bataclan, M Hollande declared that “nous allons mener le combat, il sera impitoyable“: We are going to wage a war that will be pitiless.

Does he mean it? Or is he just killing time until Obama and Cameron and Merkel and Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull fly in and they can all get back to talking about sea levels in the Maldives in the 22nd century? By which time France and Germany and Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands will have been long washed away.

Among his other coy evasions, President Obama described tonight’s events as “an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share”.

But that’s not true, is it? He’s right that it’s an attack not just on Paris or France. What it is is an attack on the west, on the civilization that built the modern world – an attack on one portion of “humanity” by those who claim to speak for another portion of “humanity”. And these are not “universal values” but values that spring from a relatively narrow segment of humanity. They were kinda sorta “universal” when the great powers were willing to enforce them around the world and the colonial subjects of ramshackle backwaters such as Aden, Sudan and the North-West Frontier Province were at least obliged to pay lip service to them. But the European empires retreated from the world, and those “universal values” are utterly alien to large parts of the map today.

And then Europe decided to invite millions of Muslims to settle in their countries. Most of those people don’t want to participate actively in bringing about the death of diners and concertgoers and soccer fans, but at a certain level most of them either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live – modern, pluralist, western societies and those “universal values” of which Barack Obama bleats. So, if you are either an active ISIS recruit or just a guy who’s been fired up by social media, you have a very large comfort zone in which to swim, and which the authorities find almost impossible to penetrate.

And all Chancellor Merkel and the EU want to do is make that large comfort zone even larger by letting millions more “Syrian” “refugees” walk into the Continent and settle wherever they want. As I wrote after the Copenhagen attacks in February:

I would like to ask Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt what’s their happy ending here? What’s their roadmap for fewer “acts of violence” in the years ahead? Or are they riding on a wing and a prayer that they can manage the situation and hold it down to what cynical British civil servants used to call during the Irish “Troubles” “an acceptable level of violence”? In Pakistan and Nigeria, the citizenry are expected to live with the reality that every so often Boko Haram will kick open the door of the schoolhouse and kidnap your daughters for sex-slavery or the Taliban will gun down your kids and behead their teacher in front of the class. And it’s all entirely “random”, as President Obama would say, so you just have to put up with it once in a while, and it’s tough if it’s your kid, but that’s just the way it is. If we’re being honest here, isn’t that all Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt are offering their citizens? Spasms of violence as a routine feature of life, but don’t worry, we’ll do our best to contain it – and you can help mitigate it by not going to “controversial” art events, or synagogues, or gay bars, or…

…or soccer matches, or concerts, or restaurants…

To repeat what I said a few days ago, I’m Islamed out. I’m tired of Islam 24/7, at Colorado colleges, Marseilles synagogues, Sydney coffee shops, day after day after day. The west cannot win this thing with a schizophrenic strategy of targeting things and people but not targeting the ideology, of intervening ineffectually overseas and not intervening at all when it comes to the remorseless Islamization and self-segregation of large segments of their own countries.

So I say again: What’s the happy ending here? Because if M Hollande isn’t prepared to end mass Muslim immigration to France and Europe, then his “pitiless war” isn’t serious. And, if they’re still willing to tolerate Mutti Merkel’s mad plan to reverse Germany’s demographic death spiral through fast-track Islamization, then Europeans aren’t serious. In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Hollande, Cameron and the rest of the fin de civilisation western leadership will cost you your world and everything you love.

So screw the candlelight vigil.

The Taqiyya Factor

November 12, 2015

The Taqiyya Factor, American ThinkerCarol Brown, November 12, 2015

The Islamic world has got the West coming and going. When they truthfully tell us what they plan to do (such as with ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood), the West opts for deaf, dumb, and blind.  When the Islamic world deceives us, the West falls for it every time.

How can any nation survive such willful stupidity?

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

Taqiyya is an Islamic doctrine that allows Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. As in lie to them. Dr. Sami Mukaram, author of Taqiyya in Islam, writes: “Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it… Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.” (Specific references to taqiyya in the Quran, the Hadith, and in Islamic law, can be found here.)

One of the most common and persistent forms of taqiyya we are witnessing today is noted at Islam-Watch:

When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the ‘the victims’. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and ‘outwitting’….

Indeed. We see this manifest just about every day as Muslims claim to be victims when it is they who are the aggressors. And the goal is always the same: deceive the non-believer in order to advance Islamic supremacy. Of course, the non-believers can only be outwitted if they are also non-thinkers.

Here are three among a seemingly infinite number of examples of taqiyya in action.

The first example is of taqiyya played out at the highest levels of politics and world affairs, as Raymond Ibrahim recalled an anecdote brought to his attention by Daniel Pipes.

Back in the 1980s, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the president of Pakistan, explained to Ronald Reagan how it was no problem for the Pakistanis to sign the Geneva agreements and yet continue supplying weapons to the Afghan jihadis (“freedom fighters”) combating the Soviet Union.

Why wasn’t it a problem? According to Zia, “We’ll just lie about it. That’s what we’ve been doing for eight years.” He added, “Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause….”

The second example is when Boston bombing jihadist, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, became a suspect (posthumously) in an unsolved triple murder that took place on 9/11/11. The Boston Globe reported:

It was one of the most gruesome killings in Greater Boston in many years: three young men found with their throats slit inside a Waltham apartment….

Now, police and prosecutors are stepping up their investigation into the unsolved 2011 triple homicide at the request of victims’ relatives who believe that suspected Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have played a role, noting that Tsarnaev had been close friends with one of the dead men.

What is more, the grieving relatives say the killings took place on a highly symbolic date for Islamic extremists: the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

What the Boston Globe article omitted was that all three of the young men were Jewish. The fact that one of them was Tsarnaev’s “friend” is a classic example of how some Muslims may outwardly befriend non-believers, only to turn around and kill them. (For more examples of this pattern, see here.)

The third example is when, most recently, Muslim academics claimed that Ben Carson’s comments on taqiyya were false (which they weren’t), as reported by Raymond Ibrahim covering a Washington Post story:

…according to the Muslim professor, “there is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal. That is a complete invention.” (snip)

Apparently it never occurred to the WaPo’s Kessler that El Fadl himself may have been exercising, in Zia’s words, his Muslim “right to lie in a good cause” — in this case, to prevent Americans from ever being suspicious of Muslim individuals and organizations in the U.S.

Taqiyya about taqiyya.

The obvious problem with lying is that once you know a group of persons will intentionally deceive, everything they say or do is called into question. And therein lies one of the rubs with Muslims. How can any non-Muslim know when a Muslim is telling the truth or telling a lie? We can’t. For the sake of self-preservation, one must err on the side of caution and maintain skepticism at all times. Because taqiyya can only work if the person being lied to is uninformed.

As Daniel Pipes wrote (emphasis mine): “…Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split ‘the enemy’. A favored tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.”

And there you have it. Deny jihad and invite your demise.

The Islamic world has got the West coming and going. When they truthfully tell us what they plan to do (such as with ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood), the West opts for deaf, dumb, and blind.  When the Islamic world deceives us, the West falls for it every time.

How can any nation survive such willful stupidity?

(To read more articles about taqiyya, see here, here, and here.)

 

Five Child-Incitement Hot Spots

November 10, 2015

Five Child-Incitement Hot Spots, The Clarion Project, Meira Svirsky, November 9, 2015

Child-Incitement-2-HP

 

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority

A television show for pre-schoolers, a theater contest at a school, hit songs that encourage the use of “cleavers and knives” – all are mediums used by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to teach Palestinian children to hate Jews and incite them to punch, stab shoot and otherwise kill the “enemy.”

Palestinian textbooks teach their children that Israel has no right to exist; the Palestinian Authority uses sports events to glorify terrorists, naming tournaments and festivals after the most gruesome killers; Hitler is held up as the ultimate role model in PA schools and on their Facebook pages; and the PA media teaches children the pleasure and rewards of martyrdom.

In addition to all the above methods, Hamas provides military training and indoctrination for kids through their summer camps in which Palestinian children receive paramilitary training, including how [to] make a homemade rocket and how to fire guns (training uses live ammunition).

Islamic State (ISIS)

One of the stated strategies of the Islamic State is to assure the continuation of the “caliphate” and its mission by training the next generation in their methodology and dogma. The following video report (see below) by Irmi, a media outlet based in the UAE, shows the indoctrination of the “Caliphate Cubs,” the Islamic State’s children’s division.

Children are brainwashed to join the Islamic State in a number of ways. After targeting a community for takeover, the Islamic State will typically kill the men, enslave the women and girl and take the young boys to be trained killers for the caliphate.

In addition, Islamic State supporters from Arab countries as well as Europe have been encouraged to bring their young boys to Islamic State territory (a call which they have heeded) to receive training.

Boys as young as five learn how to shoot and slaughter through a variety of methods — lynching, beheading and suicide bombings.

Somalia

Al-Shabaab, the brutal Islamist terror organization responsible for the Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, Kenya, recruits children for use as soldiers. Children are lured to join the group through the use of extremist propaganda and material rewards. Religious events in mosques provide fertile ground for recruitment as well. Mosques in the United States, in areas with a heavy Somali immigrant population, such as Minnesota, have also played roles in recruiting older boys, even those born and raised in the U.S. Al-Shabaab has also proven remarkably sophisticated in its use of the Internet to post recruitment appeals aimed directly at young Somali-Americans that feature glorified battle scenes and personal testimonials from Somali-Americans already among its ranks.

Pakistan

Although Pakistan was conceived as a homeland for Muslims whose founder envisioned equal rights for all citizens (including minorities), a study of the country’s text books shows children in Pakistani schools are being taught prejudice and intolerance of all religions except Islam. In addition, the study found that most teachers were found to view non-Muslims as “enemies of Islam.”

The finding of the study, conducted by the U.S. government, “indicate how deeply ingrained hard-line Islam is in Pakistan and help explain why militancy is often supported, tolerated or excused in the country.”

A 2011 Pew Reseach Center study found Pakistan to be the third most intolerant country in the world.

”Teaching discrimination increases the likelihood that violent religious extremism in Pakistan will continue to grow, weakening religious freedom, national and regional stability, and global security,” said Leonard Leo, the chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

A separate study by the National Commission for Justice and Peace of the Catholic Church of Pakistan also surveyed found that Pakistani textbooks for children “inculcated hatred.” The organization has called for their removal.

“Teaching hatred or harm to students is illegal,” said Peter Jacob, executive director of the Centre for Social Justice. Yet, “There are no checks on independent publishers and the material they publish. Either the government carefully monitors these publishers or it bans some of the textbooks they publish.”

UK

Britain has been rocked by the “Trojan Horse” scandal in Birmingham and other locations where Islamist extremists have managed to take control of a number of publicly-funded schools and use them as a platform to disseminate their discriminatory views.

A report by the former head of the Metropolitan police force’s counter-terrorism division found there was a “co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos” into a few schools in Birmingham.”

“This has been achieved in a number of schools through gaining influence on the governing bodies, installing sympathetic head teachers or senior members of staff, appointing like-minded people to key positions, and seeking to remove head teachers who they do not feel to be sufficiently compliant with their agenda,” the report said.

Children at these schools are being encouraged to accept unquestioningly a hardline version of Sunni Islamism, leaving them vulnerable to radicalization later on, according to the report.

British Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said, “Teachers have said they fear children are learning to be intolerant of difference and diversity. Instead of enjoying a broadening and enriching experience in school, young people are having their horizons narrowed and are being denied the opportunity to flourish in a modern multicultural Britain.”

Islam, social justice warriors and the cry-bully

November 7, 2015

Islam, social justice warriors and the cry-bully, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 7, 2015

sjw2

This phenomenon of the abuser-victim is ridiculously widespread these days. Every Social Justice Warrior that organizes a hate campaign quickly rushes to friendly media outlets to whine about harassment and their heroic stand against people doing to them what they do to others. I’m not sure if Cry-Bully is the best name for it, but I haven’t come up with anything better for it.

That’s Julie Burchill’s label at the Spectator. I’ve stripped out most of the UK pop culture references to focus on the point.

This is the age of the Cry-Bully, a hideous hybrid of victim and victor, weeper and walloper. They are everywhere, these duplicit Pushmi-Pullyus of the personal and the political…

In the 1970s, there was a big difference between bullies and cry-babies.

Islamism is the ultimate Cry-Bully cause; on one hand stamping around murdering anyone who doesn’ t agree with you, on the other hand yelling ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ in lieu of having a real adult debate about the merits of your case. Their ‘helpline’ is even called Tell Mama – bless. The British-born Islamist recently sentenced to twelve years had no problem posing with severed heads (‘Heads, kaffirs, disgusting’) and asking friends back home to send him condoms which he planned to use raping women captured as ‘war booty’ but then claimed to be having nightmares and suffering from depression in order to escape jail.

I would argue that the same brand of selfishness and dehumanization that leads to abusive behavior also leads to victimhood.

We’ve known this about criminals for some time now. They’re all victims. No matter what horrible things they did, someone else always drove them to it. They’re self-centered enough not to care about anyone else while being exquisitely attuned to their own feelings. As I wrote a few weeks ago

The one thing that Muslim murderers excel at is playing the victim. Someone always “made” Mohammed do it. Someone got him so frustrated and upset that he had no choice but to rape and kill.

There’s a term for the kind of people who think like this; criminals. There’s a term for the kind of people who defend them; leftists.

The Muslim case for justice can be found in the books of a million police departments where all the stories begin with the criminal feeling sorry for himself and end in hospitals and morgues. The story always begins with, “I wanted what was coming to me” or “She shouldn’t have made me angry.”

But this isn’t limited to Muslims. You can see it in the Black Lives Matter tantrums. Or the anti-Gamergate crowd. They’re the victims and it’s always someone else’s fault.

The entire passive aggressive narrative of safe spaces (if you don’t censor people who disagree with us, we’re the victims) turns abusers into victims, censors into heroes defending their mental health from dissenting views and the victim-victor paradigm is constantly flipping from one to the other.

One moment the SJW hero is doing an end zone dance over having defeated the latest cultural enemy. The next moment they’re crying over mean stuff said to them on Twitter. They’re narcissistic and insecure. They want to be treated as helpless heroes, victims of some terrible social disease (not that kind) that leaves them always out of power and yet always winning. Their sensitivities have to be accommodated and censorship is their trophy. They’re all about inclusiveness for special people like them, while driving out and shutting up anyone who disagrees with them.

I don’t know if Cry-Bullies is the perfect word, but it captures the dynamic perfectly.

Cleric Who Banned Killing Jews Sets Record Straight: Jihad against Brothers of Apes and Pigs a Duty

November 4, 2015

Cleric Who Banned Killing Jews Sets Record Straight: Jihad against Brothers of Apes and Pigs a Duty, MEMRI TV via You Tube, November 4, 2015

 

 

According to the blurb following the video,

In a video from February that has been circulating on social media platforms in recent days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77bqz…), Jordanian cleric Ali Hassan Al-Halabi said that killing Jews is not permissible, adding that the Jews “don’t attack you if you don’t attack them.” On November 3, Sheikh Al-Halabi posted two lengthy videos in which he rebutted criticism by political rivals, especially from the Muslim Brotherhood. In the new videos, Sheikh Al-Halabi referred to Jews as “the brothers of apes and pigs” and said that Jihad against them is a duty, but that the Muslims are not up for the task right now, and must prepare first.

The Rape of Sweden

November 4, 2015

The Rape of Sweden, Pat Condell via You Tube, November 4, 2015

 

Madam Hillary is on the right side of herstory

October 25, 2015

Madam Hillary is on the right side of herstory, Dan Miller’s Blog, October 25, 2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors.– DM)

 

Lies are good and truth is bad because truth would damage Madam Hillary’s and even Imam Obama’s sterling images. Both, bravely and proudly, try to feed us what is “good.” Their people love it, so what difference does it make? 

1025151 (1)

According to John Hinderaker at Power Line, Madam Hillary

lies…it’s not exactly a news flash. On the contrary, based on the liberal media’s reaction to her Benghazi testimony, her willingness to lie, brazenly, is a positive virtue.

There’s always an excuse for having “misspoke.” It need not be a credible excuse, because an incredible excuse works just fine. Anyway, whatever happened was in the past and therefore doesn’t matter now:

What has Imam Obama lied about? Plenty. Here’s an incomplete list: Islam, the nuke “deal” with Iran, Libya, His strength and Putin’s weakness in the Middle East, Israel, Immigration, Crime, Obamacare, race relations and on and on and on. As with Madam Hillary’s spewings, the “legitimate media” generally love it.

Madam Hillary blamed the video repeatedly

According to an article titled “I didn’t blame the video,” Madam Hillary did just that while also managing to lie about substantially more than that.

Hillary simply adores arguing and lawyering.

She lives for it and has at least since she was fired from the House Judiciary Committee during its investigation of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. Hillary’s then-supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, said he canned the 27-year-old attorney “because she was a liar … an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” [Emphasis added.]

No lie is too big or too small for Hillary, whether it’s a concocted tale of being under enemy fire at an airport in Bosnia, the existence of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine her husband’s presidency, that she was named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hillary even though he rocketed to fame by accomplishing the feat when she was a six-year-old, or that the Clintons were “dead broke” when they exited the White House.

Meanwhile, at the Thursday hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demolished Clinton’s apparently fresh assertion at the hearing that she didn’t actually claim an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer posted on YouTube prompted the terrorist assault in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She now takes a more nuanced, twisted-like-a-pretzel position in which maybe some non-terrorist Muslims were suddenly stirred to violence in Libya by the video, but really at the same time it was a terrorist attack, something she testified Thursday has been her position the whole time. She talked about the video publicly not to point fingers but as a warning, she testified, to those who might attack U.S. interests in the region. In other words, like a good defense lawyer, Hillary was trying to confuse the issues and muddy the waters. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

While she was informing the American public that the anti-Islam video was what caused the attack, at the same time she emailed her daughter Chelsea and the governments of Libya and Egypt to pin the blame on Muslim militants, Jordan explained. Around the same time the White House, in the closing weeks of a heated presidential election campaign, was pushing the line that what transpired in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration turned violent, but terrorism was not a factor.

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film,” Clinton wrote Egypt’s prime minister the night of the attack. “It was a planned attack, not a protest.” But in public Clinton continued to blame the “offensive” video. The U.S. government acquired $80,000 worth of commercial airtime in Pakistan to apologize for the YouTube clip. [Emphasis added]

Jordan pointed out that there was no video-inspired protest over in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, but there was one in Cairo, Egypt. The same day State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said “Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators.”

You want to talk about Madam Hillary’s lies? She didn’t lie, of course, but let’s change the subject to something more important. Right now.

hillary-Nixon-copy

 

Conclusions

“Her people” not only don’t care, they are delighted with Madam Hillary’s numerous lies. Again, “what difference does it make?” Plenty.

Please think about Madam Hillary’s and Imam Obama’s impunity — and readiness —  to lie, violate laws and do pretty much whatever they please. We have become a nation without law enforcement where we need it most and very much where enforcement of Obama’s executive decrees harms us greatly (climate change and immigration for example). Do we want a nation the governance of which is increasingly based on, and perpetuated through, lies to “We the people?” Do we want Madam Hillary or another Obama clone as the next Commander in Chief?

Here’s what “Commander in Chief” Obama has done with his our military:

Do you approve of those and the other things He has done to our military? Want more of the same? Or even worse? If not, what can we do about it? Supporting Donald Trump may or may not be what we should do, but I think the songs in the video are superb. Back in September, I wrote an article titled To bring America back we need to break some stuff. We still do, and if someone other than Trump is ready, willing and able he (or, of course, she) should also be considered, very seriously.;

Iraqi ayatollah: ‘Abducting women’ and ‘destroying churches’ is ‘real Islam’

October 15, 2015

Iraqi ayatollah: ‘Abducting women’ and ‘destroying churches’ is ‘real Islam’ Front Page MagazineRaymond Ibrahim, October 15, 2015

(He must lack the deep understanding of the Religion of Peace claimed by Imam Obama. — DM)

ga

During a recent televised interview with Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi, the leading Shia cleric of Iraq made clear why Islam and the rest of the world can never peacefully coexist.

First he spent some time discussing “defensive jihad,” saying that all capable Muslims are obligated to fight for the “liberation” of “occupied” territory, for instance, Israel (see here for a list of European countries also deemed “occupied” in the eyes of Islam).

He then explained “offensive jihad,” Islam’s primary bloodline, which forged what we now call the “Muslim world” over the centuries.

According to the ayatollah, when they can—when circumstance permits it, when they are strong enough—Muslims are obligated to go on the offensive and conquer non-Muslims (a fact to be kept in mind as millions of Muslim “refugees” flood the West).

The Muslim cleric repeatedly yelled at the secularized host who kept interrupting him and protesting that Islam cannot teach such intolerance.  At one point, he burst out: “I am the scholar of Islam [al-faqih].  You are just a journalist.  Listen to me!”

Expounded Al-Baghdadi:

If they are people of the book [Jews and Christians] we demand of them the jizya—and if they refuse, then we fight them.  That is if he is Christian. He has three choices: either convert to Islam, or, if he refuses and wishes to remain Christian, then pay the jizya [and live according to dhimmi rules].

But if they still refuse—then we fight them, and we abduct their women, and destroy their churches—this is Islam!… Come on, learn what Islam is, are you even a Muslim?!

As for the polytheists [Hindus, Buddhists, etc.] we allow them to choose between Islam and war!  This is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi, but the opinion of all five schools of jurisprudence [four Sunni and one Shia].

Towards the end of the interview, because the clean-shaven, suit-and-tie-wearing host kept protesting that this cannot be Islam, the ayatollah burst out, pointing at him with contempt and saying, “Who are you? You’re going to tell me what to believe?  This is the word of Allah!”

Indeed.  Not only is it the word of Islam’s deity, but it is the fundamental, insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Al-Baghdadi—and the countless other Muslim clerics, Sunni and Shia, that hold these views—are not “radicals.”  For offensive jihad is no less codified than, say, Islam’s Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.”

Islam has yet to “completely be made over.”

Renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) explained jihad as follows:

In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Here it’s worth noting that even the most offensive jihad is seen as an “altruistic” endeavor, not unlike the “white man’s burden” of the 19th century.   After all, the ancient argument that “we must reform your ways, with our ways, for your own good” has been one of the most cited justifications for offensive jihad since the 7th century.

Indeed, soon after the death of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (634), when his jihadis burst out of the Arabian peninsula, a soon-to-be conquered Persian commander asked the invading Muslims what they wanted. They reportedly replied as follows:

Allah has sent us and brought us here so that we may free those who desire from servitude to earthly rulers and make them servants of Allah, that we may change their poverty into wealth and free them from the tyranny and chaos of [false] religions and bring them to the justice of Islam. He has sent us to bring his religion to all his creatures and call them to Islam. Whoever accepts it from us will be safe, and we shall leave him alone; but whoever refuses, we shall fight until we fulfill the promise of Allah.

Fourteen hundred years later, in March 2009, Saudi legal expert Basem Alem publicly echoed this view:

As a member of the true religion [Islam], I have a greater right to invade [others] in order to impose a certain way of life [according to Sharia], which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of offensive jihad. When we wage jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.

Even al-Qaeda partially justified its jihad against America for being “a nation that exploits women like consumer products”; for not rejecting the “immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury.”

If the “white man’s burden” was/is to “civilize” Muslims, by bringing them “democracy,” “human rights,” and “secularism,” the “Muslim man’s burden”—captured by Allah’s word to Muslims, “Jihad is ordained for you, though you dislike it” (Koran 2:216)—has long been to “civilize” Westerners by bringing them under the umbrella of Sharia.

This positive interpretation of jihad ensures that, no matter how violent and ostensibly unjust a jihad is, it will always be vindicated in Muslim eyes: the ugly means will be justified by the “altruistic” ends.

Finally, as Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi pointed out, the need for Muslims to wage offensive jihad “is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi… This is the word of Allah!”

Nor is it the “opinion” of ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr, al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, or any of the other countless past and present jihadis.  No, jihad to conquer and bring Sharia to non-Muslims is the command of Allah.

The New Racists: David Miller, Hilary Aked, Kevin MacDonald

October 12, 2015

The New Racists: David Miller, Hilary Aked, Kevin MacDonald. Gatestone InstituteSamuel Westrop, October 12, 2015

  • It seems as if in the minds of David Miller, Kevin MacDonald and Hilary Aked, a mysterious Jewish cabal is responsible for all the world’s ills.
  • Even Tony Blair, Miller argues, is in league with a sinister “international network” of Israeli settlers and American “Islamophobes.”
  • “A liberal Muslim is their trussed-up version of the enemy, the alien, the ‘other’.” — Nick Cohen, journalist.
  • Hilary Aked describes moderate Muslims as “native informants.” She also believes that a hidden Jewish network is responsible for the “Islamophobia industry.” She has frequently written for a Qatari-funded media group that is accused by Egyptian newspapers of being a Muslim Brotherhood front group.
  • Electronic Intifada is a prominent pro-Hamas publication, whose founder, Ali Abunimah, describes Palestinian leaders who talk with Israel as “collaborators.”
  • To fund his obsession with the “propaganda” ostensibly spread by Jews and anti-Islamist Muslims, Miller has received grants from the Economic and Social Research Council, a body funded by the British government. In 2012, Miller received £400,000 from the Council, as well as grants from groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

From his office at the University of Bath, David Miller, an academic and writer, researches organizations and activists that he believes, in his words, work to “distort public debate and undermine democracy.”

The results of this research, done with the help of his students and assembled into detailed profiles of the shadowy figures behind this lobbying, are published across a number of websites run by Miller, including PowerBase and SpinWatch.

A visitor to these websites will quickly note one particular constant: a vast number of Miller’s profiles focus on Jews and Muslims who are working to fight extremism and terrorism.

Counter-terrorism groups, “neocons” and various political organizations are all accused of belonging to a “covert propaganda operation” for various Jewish organizations. Even Tony Blair, Miller argues, is in league with a sinister “international network” of Israeli settlers and American “Islamophobes.”

As one blogger notes, any of Miller’s “fellow academics” who do not present strong convictions against Israel, are “smeared… as neocons.”

Shiraz Maher, a counter-terrorism expert, has written: “Despite the ‘close to ten thousand’ entries on SpinProfiles [another Miller project] you will find nothing on [Islamist pressure] groups. … The problem is with SpinProfile’s apparent obsession with ‘Jewish power’ or, if you will, ‘the Jewish lobby’.”

At a recent conference organized by Miller, American academic Deepa Kumar denounced Muslims working to combat extremism and terrorism within their communities as “native informants.” And as the journalist Nick Cohen observed: “For the religious [Islamic] right and the political and academic left, a liberal Muslim is their trussed-up version of the enemy, the alien, the ‘other’.”

Another David Miller site, Neocon Europe (now defunct), published the works of Kevin MacDonald, a prominent white supremacist who claims that Jews control the media and politicians to “transform the country to serve their interests.” In a list entitled, “characteristics of Jewish intellectual movements,” MacDonald has claimed that Jews “form a cohesive, mutually reinforcing core” that has “access to prestigious and mainstream media sources, partly as a result of Jewish influence on the media.”

Other conspiracy theories promoted on Miller’s websites include those of Miller’s colleague, Idrees Ahmed, who claims that the Darfur crisis has been prolonged by a powerful Jewish lobby.

In 2009, David Miller provided accommodation for Joel Kovel, an anti-Jewish American academic who has written that, “The Holocaust has been repressed from history and converted into moral capital to cover and justify whatever the Jewish people would do in the way of domination themselves, whether this be the pell-mell immersion in American bourgeois life or the policies of Israel.”

David Miller and his network also work with Muslim Brotherhood operatives. In 2009, Miller secured taxpayer funding to run a project examining British Islam in collaboration with Osama Saeed, a Muslim Brotherhood activist. Saeed was previously the spokesperson for the Muslim Association of Britain, the main organization for the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain. In 2005, Saeed called for the re-establishment of the Islamic caliphate; and in 2006, Saeed expressed praise for the late Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Miller’s protégés include Hilary Aked, a blogger with a strong interest in British Jewish groups. Aked apparently believes that a hidden Jewish network is responsible for the “Islamophobia industry,” and that there is a distinct “overlap between Islamophobia and Zionism.” She also describes moderate Muslims as “native informants.”

1284Deepa Kumar (left) and Hilary Aked (right) condemn moderate Muslims as “native informants.”

Aked is published at the online publication, Electronic Intifada, where she writes about “pro-Israel” infiltration of the media, and that pro-Israel conferences are part of a secretive “transnational Islamophobia industry.”

Electronic Intifada is a prominent pro-Hamas publication, whose founder, Ali Abunimah, hasdescribed Palestinian leaders who talk with Israel as “collaborators,” and claims that, “supporting Zionism is not atonement for the Holocaust, but its continuation in spirit.”

Aked has also frequently written for Al Araby Al Jadeed, a Qatari-funded media group that is accused by Egyptian newspapers of being a Muslim Brotherhood front group. Al Araby‘s editor-in-chief, Wael Qandil, is described by the Arab newspaper Al Arabiya as a prominent supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

To fund his obsession with the “propaganda” ostensibly spread by Jews and anti-Islamist Muslims, Miller has received grants from the Economic and Social Research Council, a body funded by the British government. In 2012, Miller received £400,000 ($614,000 USD) from the Council.

Miller’s projects have also received funding from a number of Islamist groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and the terror group, Hamas, including:

    • £2000 from Interpal, a British charity closely linked to Hamas. Interpal’s leaders regularly attend Hamas rallies and ceremonies in the Gaza strip. Interpal trustee Essam Yusuf evenparticipated in a song that praised Hamas’s terrorist activities and its “martyrs.” Another Interpal trustee, Ibrahim Hewitt, has written of a “so-called Holocaust,” and claims: “The Jews cannot be entrusted with the sanctity and security of this Holy Land.”
    • £10,000 from Friends of Al Aqsa, an organization founded by Ismail Patel, who told a crowd in 2009 that, “Hamas is no terrorist organization. The reason they hate Hamas is because they refuse to be subjugated, occupied by the Israeli state, and we salute Hamas for standing up to Israel.”

Friends of Al Aqsa has published writings of prominent anti-Semites, including the Palestinian journalist Khalid Amayreh, whose submission claimed that Jews control America, and that the Iraq war “was conceived in and planned by Israel through the mostly Jewish neocons in Washington.”

  • A total of £15,000 from the Cordoba Foundation, a lobbying group led by senior Muslim Brotherhood official, Anas Al-Tikriti. Prime Minister David Cameron has described the Cordoba Foundation as a “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood.”
  • £5000 from Middle East Monitor, a Muslim Brotherhood online publication. Its editor, Daud Abdullah, was a signatory to the Istanbul Declaration, a document that called for attacks on British troops and Jewish communities.In 2011, Middle East Monitor brought the Hamas activist Raed Saleh to speak in Britain. Saleh has claimed (falsely) that 4000 Jews skipped work at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and that those who killed the “Martyr, Sheikh Osama Bin Laden” had “sold their consciences to Satan.” David Miller is, in fact, a vocal supporter of Raed Saleh, and spoke in defence of Saleh at a court deportation hearing.

It seems as if in the minds of David Miller, Kevin MacDonald and Hilary Aked, a mysterious Jewish cabal is responsible for all the world’s ills. Jewish money is supposedly the nexus between “Islamophobia,” Western colonialism, terrorism and violent foreign policy.

That such views find a platform in academia — and any funding by governments — is, and probably should be, seriously troubling.

Anti-Jewish tropes have been the foundation of conspiracy theories for centuries. The ideas of Miller, MacDonald and Aked are not new, but they remain racist, xenophobic and false.

Robert Spencer: The speech the U.S. Catholic Bishops don’t want you to see

October 7, 2015

Robert Spencer: The speech the U.S. Catholic Bishops don’t want you to see, Jihad Watch via You Tube, October 5, 2015

(An excellent explication of differences between Islam and Christianity and the theological bases for the animosity of religious Muslims toward religious Christians. Please see also, Evangelicals Embrace Islamists at Maryland Interfaith Event. — DM)

 

According to the blurb beneath the video,

Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer was the keynote speaker at the annual convocation of the North American Lutheran Church, Dallas, Texas, August 13, 2015. He spoke about Muslim persecution of Christians.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pulled their representative from the North American Lutheran Church convocation when they found out Spencer was the keynote speaker. Watch this speech and see what the Catholic Bishops of the United States don’t want you to know.