Archive for the ‘Islamic supremacy’ category

Litmus Test: Reaction to Obama’s Request to Root Out Extremism

December 10, 2015

Litmus Test: Reaction to Obama’s Request to Root Out Extremism, The Clarion Project, Meora Svorslu, December 10, 2015

(Please see also, The Muslim reform movement plays fantasy Islam. — DM)

San-Bernardino-Attackers-IPThe San Bernardino attackers Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook (Photo: U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

In his speech to the nation following the San Bernardino terror attack, U.S. President Barack Obama made a rightful plea to Muslims: “If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities.” Making his case, Obama again rightly stated that “extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities” and “it’s a real problem that Muslims must confront without excuse.”

The president then insisted that Muslim leaders in American as well as around the world work with the U.S. to “root out” the problem, reject violence and ideological supremacism and promote “mutual respect and human dignity.”

It is telling in the fight against Islamist extremism who is rallying with the president on these points and who is fighting against him.

Linda Sarsour, executive director of the taxpayer-funded Arab American Association and co-founder of the Muslim Democratic Club of New York, had this to say about Obama’s request: “We would never ask any other faith community to stand up and condemn acts of violence committed by people within their groups.”

Really? If Christians worldwide were committing terrorist rampages across the globe citing sources that it is sanctioned or even required by their religion, we wouldn’t ask for American Christians to condemn them and make sure their children did not get swayed by them?

Sarsour and her fellow apologists understand this well. What Sarsour’s remarks are meant to accomplish is a complete sidestep of the entire issue, ironically facilitated by Obama himself. Obama’s refusal to tie “extremist ideology” to Islam makes it is possible for Sarsour and those who share her sentiments to claim “Islamophobia” and call it a day.

Further commenting on Obama’s request, Sarsour said, “The fact that this is only directed at the Muslim community is something that I personally can’t accept.”

(It could be that Sarsour doesn’t feel the same way about violence as does the president. One of her recent tweets featured a Palestinian child with a rock in each of his hands approaching Israeli soldiers. Sarsour wrote underneath: “The definition of courage.”)

Muslims who are truly interested in rooting out the extremism in their midst would not bristle at Obama’s request. Indeed, many are already active in the fight against those who they believe are perverting their religion. They acknowledge the problem and don’t think it’s “Islamophobic” to talk about it.

“What we need to do now — rather than giving a forum to self-appointed spokespeople like CAIR who have not led the fight against extremism — is listen to those who have actually been taking on this very struggle the president referenced,” says Karima Bennoune, a University of Davis law professor, author of Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here: Untold Stories from the Fight Against Muslim Fundamentalism. “Our conversation should be why and what is it in our theology that has been so bastardized to give people permission to kill? Until we honestly root this out, we will by default be blamed,” she said.

Nidal Alsayyed, an imam who heads the Islamic Center of Triplex of Beaumont, Texas went one step further, saying that he agrees with presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposal to halt Muslim immigration into the U.S. until the country’s “representatives can figure out what is going on.”

“I certainly see it to be wise (to) stop temporarily accepting any new Muslim immigrants (refugees and non-refugees) into the United States,” said Alsayyed. “We American Muslims need to be sincere in our religion and to the country we are living in. Peace comes before religion. We need to be truthful and transparent when we express a viewpoint or feedback. It does not matter whether Trump said it or anyone else,” he added.

Democratic president candidate Hillary Clinton has refused to use the words “radical Islam,” saying, “It doesn’t do justice to the vast number of Muslims in our country and around the world who are peaceful people.”

On the contrary. “Not saying it, when it represents a reality, is much worse,” says Bennoune. And certainly, not saying it will not make the problem go away.

Who’s the crazy one?

December 10, 2015

Who’s the crazy one? Front Page MagazineDavid Horowitz, December 10, 2015

dt

Donald Trump’s great contribution is saying the unsayable; putting things on the table that would otherwise be buried; calling a spade a spade in a time when political correctness has made us unable to discuss things that have to do with our basic national survival.  This is the crux of the issue.  Every time he creates a controversy like this he also tells this country that its emperors, Republican and Democrat, have no clothes. That they prefer propriety over defending the country.  That they are dedicated only to keeping the lid on a cauldron of threat and challenge they have allowed to boil over.

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

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we can figure out why Islamic terrorists have been able to enter our country and devised ways to protect ourselves. This has caused the left and right establishments to dogpile on Trump. Echoing the sentiments of virtually all Democrats and many Republicans, aWashington Post editorial has declared that Trump’s proposal disqualifies him as a candidate because in the Post’s view what he recommends is unconstitutional and therefore un-American. But President Obama has issued executive orders – as it happens orders that sabotage our borders – that he himself has called unconstitutional (“I don’t have the authority to stop deportations”).  Has the Post editorialized that this is un-American and disqualifies him for the presidency? Has it called for Obama to be impeached? Have Democrats ridiculed Obama for his un-American prescriptions?

Consider the nature of the threat. A 2009 “World Opinion” survey by the University of Maryland showed that between 30 and 50% of Muslims in Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic countries approved of the terrorist attacks on America and that only a minority of Muslims “entirely disapproved” of them. ISIS has acknowledged its plans to use refugee programs to infiltrate its terrorists into the United States and other infidel countries. In Minneapolis we have a Somali refugee community many of whose members have returned to Syria to fight for ISIS. Other Muslim immigrants like Major Hassan and Tashfeen Malik have carried out barbaric acts of terror here at home. Today Muslim terrorists are using assault rifles and pipe bombs, but we know they have Sarin gas and other chemical weapons which they might use tomorrow. The terrorists inexorably arrive along with the other immigrants, no one in authority apparently knowing who’s who. Who, then, in his right mind does not think that Muslim immigration poses a serious security threat to us?

The outrage against Trump should properly have been directed at our president who refuses to identify the enemy as Islamic terrorism, who has opened the door to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to the Islamic America-haters in Iran, whose policies have created the vacuums that ISIS has filled, and who even after Paris and San Bernardino is determined to bring 100,000 immigrants from Syrian war zones to our unprotected shores. This outrage is missing and it is precisely because it is missing that Trump’s unconstitutional proposal resonates with so many rightly concerned Americans. When the man in charge of our security is by general consensus out to lunch in regard to fighting the war on Islamic terror, or protecting us at home, a proposal like Trump’s, which at least recognizes the threat, is going to resonate with the public.

In middle of a crisis of national security, the Democratic Party seems to think that climate change and especially gun ownership are greater threats to our survival than the one that comes from hundreds of millions of Muslims who think America should be attacked and who believe the whole world should be put under medieval Islamic law. In the face of this threat, the Democratic Party and its leaders seem to have no problem with the fact that we have more than 350 “Sanctuary Cities” that are dedicated to sabotaging our immigration laws; that we have no southern border and as a result have 179,000 illegal alien criminals and who knows how many terrorists in our country today.

Once again we have Trump to thank for changing the surreal conversation about whether having a border at all is compatible with American values, and forcing people to focus on the dangers we face. Republicans are generally defenders of this country, but not in this controversy over Donald Trump. Would that they would use the same ridicule and outrage over the Democrats’ many betrayals of our country and its citizens through proposals to expose us to our enemies as they do over a proposal to protect us from them. Trump’s idea may be unconstitutional and unworkable, but it springs from a desire that is honorable and patriotic. The appropriate response would be to propose alternatives that recognize the same dangers and serve the same ends but do so within constitutional limits.

Donald Trump’s great contribution is saying the unsayable; putting things on the table that would otherwise be buried; calling a spade a spade in a time when political correctness has made us unable to discuss things that have to do with our basic national survival.  This is the crux of the issue.  Every time he creates a controversy like this he also tells this country that its emperors, Republican and Democrat, have no clothes. That they prefer propriety over defending the country.  That they are dedicated only to keeping the lid on a cauldron of threat and challenge they have allowed to boil over.

The 2016 election will be a referendum on the defense of this country and its survival. Let’s see who answers the call.

Canadian Islamic School Linked to Calif. Shooter, ISIS Recruits

December 9, 2015

Canadian Islamic School Linked to Calif. Shooter, ISIS Recruits, Clarion Project, December 9, 2015

(Islamist “feminism.” — DM)

Hashmi-Malik-HPSan Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik (left) and founder of the Al-Huda network of schools Farhat Hashmi.

The Al-Huda Institute in Mississauga, Ontario is one of a chain of 200 Al-Huda schools in the U.S., Canada and Pakistan. Founded in 1994 by an ultra-conservative female Islamic scholar, Farhat Hashmi, its ideology is said to have spread like a social movement in North America and around the world.

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

A Canadian Islamic school that was linked to the California shooter as well as four students who travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State closed for the day on Tuesday, citing “safety concerns.”

Staff at the Al-Huda Institute said the media’s focus on the school had put the staff and students at risk. Media focus on the school began this week when it emerged that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino terrorists, had attended a branch of the school in Pakistan.

Last year, the school was in the headlines as four of its students, aged 15-18, had attempted to travel to Syria to join jihadi organizations. Travelling from Canada through Cairo to Istanbul, three of the girls were stopped by the Turks after the girls’ parents alerted Canadian authorities.  The oldest girl made it to Syria and has been living there since 2014.

The Al-Huda Institute in Mississauga, Ontario is one of a chain of 200 Al-Huda schools in the U.S., Canada and Pakistan. Founded in 1994 by an ultra-conservative female Islamic scholar, Farhat Hashmi, its ideology is said to have spread like a social movement in North America and around the world.

The self-declared “Islamic feminist,” Hashmi wears a burka, advocates total obedience of a woman to her husband and promotes Saudi Wahhabist ideology. When she opened a new center in London – in a former police station — she was accused of teaching a “medieval view of human rights and women’s place in society” as well as advocating jihad.

Her teachings were so controversial and offensive she was asked to leave Canada in 2006. Canadian reports say she has not been in the country for the last three years.

“Women gravitate towards her because they are either disillusioned with their life in the West, or they want their daughters to be protected from what they perceive to be the moral laxity of the West,”Muslim human rights activist Farzana Hassan said, speaking to theInternational Business Times. “Her network is large and growing because her graduates then go out and spread the word to other recruits.”

As for Malik, after she began studying at an Al-Huda Institute in Pakistan (before she married fellow San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook), a close friend said she noticed a big change in her former schoolmate. “We were like, ‘What happened to Malik?’” said Abida Rani. “She became so religious, so serious, and so focused on Islamic teachings, and she lost her interest in her studies.”

What do they have in common?

December 9, 2015

What do they have in common? inthebullpen via You Tube, March 4, 2007

(It’s a very difficult question, to which even Obama doesn’t have an answer. But be of good cheer. Perhaps some fine day, when we have enough Muslims to evaluate in Obama’s America, we will learn the answer. — DM)

 

Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

December 8, 2015

Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate, National Review, David French, December 7, 2015

friday-prayersFriday prayers in Karachi, Pakistan, July 3, 2015. (Rizwan Tabassum/AFP/Getty)

It is simply false to declare that jihadists represent the “tiny few extremists” who sully the reputation of an otherwise peace-loving and tolerant Muslim faith. In reality, the truth is far more troubling — that jihadists represent the natural and inevitable outgrowth of a faith that is given over to hate on a massive scale, with hundreds of millions of believers holding views that Americans would rightly find revolting. Not all Muslims are hateful, of course, but so many are that it’s not remotely surprising that the world is wracked by wave after wave of jihadist violence.

To understand the Muslim edifice of hate, imagine it as a pyramid — with broadly-shared bigotry at the bottom, followed by stair steps of escalating radicalism — culminating in jihadist armies that in some instances represent a greater share of their respective populations than does the active-duty military in the United States.

The base of the pyramid, the most broadly held hatred in the Islamic world, is anti-Semitism, with staggering numbers of Muslims expressing anti-Jewish views. In 2014, the Anti-Defamation League released the results of polling 53,100 people in 102 countries for evidence of anti-Semitic attitudes and beliefs. The numbers from the majority-Muslim world are difficult to believe for those steeped in politically correct rhetoric about Islam. A full 74 percent of North African and Middle Eastern residents registered anti-Semitic beliefs, including 92 percent of Iraqis, a whopping 69 percent of relatively secular Turks, and 74 percent of Saudis.

The trend toward Muslim anti-Semitism continues even when Muslim nations are far removed from the Arab–Israeli conflict. A solid majority — 61 percent — of majority-Muslim Malays harbor anti-Semitic attitudes, while only 13 percent of neighboring majority-Buddhist Thais are anti-Jewish.

The next level of the pyramid is Muslim commitment to deadly Islamic supremacy. In multiple Muslim nations, overwhelming majorities of Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy. Collectively, this means that hundreds of millions of men and women support capital punishment for the exercise of the basic human rights of freedom of expression and free exercise of religion:

death-penalty-for-leaving-islam

Moving beyond Islamic supremacy to the next step of the pyramid, enormous numbers of Muslims are terrorist sympathizers. It is still stunning to see how popular Osama bin Laden was early last decade, and even as his popularity plunged (as he grew weaker and more isolated), his public approval remained disturbingly high:

confidence-in-osama-bin-laden

But what about ISIS — the world’s most savage and deadly terror organization? The latest polling data show that while a majority of Muslims reject ISIS, extrapolating from the populations of polled countries alone shows that roughly 50 million people express sympathy for a terrorist army that burns prisoners alive, throws gay men from buildings, and beheads political opponents. In Pakistan a horrifying 72 percent couldn’t bring themselves to express an unfavorable view of ISIS:

views-of-isis-overhelmingly-negative

But sympathy for terror is different from active support, and here’s where the numbers are difficult to pin down. I know of no reliable database that shows how many Muslims give to jihadist charities, spread jihadist propaganda on social media, support radical preachers, or otherwise take concrete actions to advance the terrorists’ cause. We do know, for example, that anti-Israel terrorism is so popular in Saudi Arabia that a telethon once raised $100 million to support the 2002 intifada. Shows of support included this charming scene:

A 6-year-old boy, with a plastic gun slung over his shoulder and fake explosives strapped around his waist, walked into a donation center and made a symbolic donation of plastic explosives, according to Al Watan daily.

It is from this fertile soil that jihadists grow. And here the numbers decisively belie the “few extremists” rhetoric. In Iran alone, the Revolutionary Guard represents a proportionate share of the population similar to the combined strength of the active-duty Army and Marines here in the United States. Between Boko Haram, the Al-Nusra front, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Yemeni militias, Libyan militias, and many others, the number of active jihadists numbers in the hundreds of thousands; some estimates indicate that 100,000 are fighting in Syria alone.

Interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time: professor

December 8, 2015

Interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time: professor, Tehran Times, Javad Heirannia, December 8, 2015

(Did Nader Entessar  ghost write parts of Obama’s December 6th address to the nation? — DM)

TEHRAN – Regarding Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s second letter to the Western youth in which he called terrorism “our common enemy”, Professor Nader Entessar says it is necessary to counter “Islamophobia no matter where it emanates”.

In part of his letter issued on November 29, the Leader of Islamic Revolution said: Anyone who has benefited from affection and humanity is affected and disturbed by witnessing these [terrorist] scenes- whether it occurs in France or in Palestine or Iraq or Lebanon or Syria.

Entessar, professor and chair of political science at South Alabama University, tells the Tehran Times that “interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time in the past fifty or sixty years.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: Ayatollah Khamenei in his second letter to the Western youth has talked about terrorism and its roots. What is the importance of this issue?

A: Terrorism has been a major global scourge for some time now. Although the term “terrorism” is used extensively by journalists, pundits and politicians, there is no universal agreement on what terrorism is. There is certainly a need for a dispassionate treatment of this phenomenon and its root causes if one is serious about confronting the threat of terrorism in today’s world.

Q: Ayatollah Khamenei has emphasized in his message that Islam is the religion of friendship, however why do some try to equate Islam with violence?

A: In the West, Islam has become a political buzzword for politicians and political parties of differing ideological stripes to advance their personal agenda. In many ways, the term “Islam” has replaced communism as a rallying cry against which many politicians in the West can coalesce and advance their electoral agendas. For example, the Republican Party in the United States has incorporated Islamophobia as an essential part of its 2016 presidential campaign. In addition, the same trend can be witnessed at state and local elections as well where running against “Islam” has become a badge of honor for many U.S. politicians.

Q: Why do some try to associate Islam with terrorism whenever a terrorist act happens?

A: The emergence of such violent groups as al-Qaeda and Daesh in recent years and their terrorist campaigns under the guise of “Islam” has given a field day to the Islamophobes to advance their message. Unfortunately, the thrust of Islamophobia is not limited to extremist groups in the West. Several liberal groups and personalities have also jumped on the anti-Islam bandwagon in many Western countries. Again, as I previously indicated, it pays political dividends to adopt an anti-Islam posture in the West. Being an anti-Muslim bigot is relatively cost-free but may bring political advantages to a politician or would-be politician in several Western countries.

Q: What is the importance of Ayatollah Khamenei’s letter at this juncture of time?

A: It is very important to confront Islamophobia no matter where it emanates. Interfaith dialogue is more urgent today than any time in the past fifty or sixty years. Therefore, leaders of religious faith groups have a special responsibility to try to reach to other faith communities and highlight what unites the human race in order to promote the common good.

*********

[highlight]

“In the West, Islam has become a political buzzword for politicians and political parties of differing ideological stripes to advance their personal agenda,” Entessar says in an interview with the Tehran Times.

Op-Ed: Post San Bernardino — How stupid are we supposed to be?

December 7, 2015

Op-Ed: Post San Bernardino — How stupid are we supposed to be? Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, December 7, 2015

A house filled with some 2,000 rounds of ammunition and nobody saw nothin’. Zip.

The place was crawling with a massive arsenal of weapons that likely filled the garage to the kitchen sink — but who, me?

Nothing. Looked pretty normal, say relatives, friends, acquaintances and anybody who visited a house that was stockpiled for mass destruction.

Even people who lived in and around the house – WHAT? We saw nothing unusual.

They had to step over and around a mountain of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) to get from the living room to the bathroom, but nobody winced?

Nobody asked – “Yo, Syed, what’s this?”

That’s what we are supposed to believe. Nobody else but those two had a hand in the murder of 14 innocents in San Bernardino.

Accomplices? Zero. So they say and so we are expected to believe.

Mr. Obama spoke to us a few moments ago. Finally called it terrorism, though not Islamic terrorism. For us to guess.

He announced that he is taking the fight to ISIS. We should feel safe. Except that ISIS, or ISIL, as he calls it, is one problem.

Worse is the local, the unaffiliated but radicalized freelancer who comes from within our own neighborhood.

We know where ISIS lives. But for the introvert, the retail operator we have no address until it’s too late. Case in point, San Bernardino.

We are not at war with Islam, said the president, so no wonder people who knew the Farooks were shocked…shocked!

Typical Americans, say people who knew them.

Quiet. Unassuming. Friendly. Hard-working, Doting father. Loving mother. Played Scrabble. How do you spell jihad? Capital J?

There were no clues. Nope. Nothing to suggest a husband and wife radicalized to the hilt and armed to the teeth.

“They lived the American dream,” said a neighbor, who likewise saw nothing, knew nothing, suspected nothing. Nothing at all.

Golly, he was born here, good old Syed. What more do you want? Wife came from Pakistan. Wonderful country, Pakistan.

So what if, as rumor has it, he hated Jews and maybe Christians. Doesn’t everybody? A regular Joe, Syed.

She kept to herself, did Tashfeen. All agree to this. Typical American wifey in a hijab. Most likely clipped coupons to save on milk and explosives.

“They were the perfect couple,” say people who knew them as the perfect couple.

Too bad it had to end like this. Obviously it was our fault. Global warming.

So the president assures us that he is keeping us safe.

Ban Radical Islamists and those Syrian migrants from entering the country and we’ll start believing.

Breaking down Obama’s gun control terror denial speech

December 7, 2015

Breaking down Obama’s gun control terror denial speech, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, December 6, 2015

(Please see also, Satire | Advance copy of Obama’s Sunday address on the San Bernardino killings. — DM)

obama-wears-tan-suit-149481242256_1

Barack Hussein Obama II will stop striding around golf courses, Disneyland, pricey restaurants and assorted other photo ops long enough to sit down in the Oval Office and deliver a speech denying responsibility for the latest act of Muslim terror, denying that Muslim terrorism exists and demanding the abolition of the Bill of Rights.

It will predictably break down as

1. Muslims are Awesome – The Muslim community is our greatest resource for fighting terrorism, we need more of them, including tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” (13% of whom poll in support of ISIS), to make us that more able to fight the “Un-Islamic” terrorism of Muslims. Anyone who disagrees loves terrorists and probably Hitler and discount cheese sandwiches.

2. Fear – We need to stop being afraid of Muslim terrorists because Obama has everything under control. ISIS is contained, except when it’s murdering Americans and Europeans, and expanding around the world. Muslim terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Our greatest enemy is fear of Muslim terrorism which we can only combat with hefty doses of denial.

3. Gun Control – We need to give up our civil liberties to fight these un-Islamic terrorists (who have hijacked a great religion and flown into two skyscrapers and the Pentagon). It’s time for “common sense reforms” to outlaw the Second Amendment. Also we should bring Muslim terrorists to America, but deny 2nd amendment rights to anyone on a no-fly list… without actually deporting them.

Did I mention that these are “common sense reforms” that most “ordinary folks” like Washington D.C. lobbyists and Michael Bloomberg support?

4. Not Who We Are – Fighting Muslim terrorism is not “who we are”. We are more like the Swedes. We fill our country with Muslims who want to kill us and then double down on it after the latest attacks. Because these are our new “values”. We aren’t “afraid” of Muslim terrorists. That’s why we just stick our heads in the sand and double down on the same terror policies. We could change them, but that would not be who, Obama claims, “we are”.

Who are we? We are people who commit mass suicide. Who invite our enemies to kill us and then blame ourselves for offending them. That is Obama’s version of who we are.

5. Personal Stories – Pete from Cleveland is standing outside a mosque with a Nerf gun to guard it against imaginary hate crimes. Ahmed is fighting extremism in his mosque while shouting Allahu Akbar at Hamas rallies. Mohammed is sitting in the White House tweeting against ISIS and in support of the Muslim Brotherhood. Together they’ll defeat ISIS or America. Or something.

6. Someday We’ll Beat ISIS – Okay probably not today or tomorrow. But we have some of our best minds on it. And we’re making gains. Our policy of not really fighting ISIS is supported by political appointees like random Pentagon general and local police chief who attends mosque dinners. Go back to shopping at Whole Foods without fear. Obama has this covered. Right before his next vacation.

The logic of Islamic intolerance

December 2, 2015

The logic of Islamic intolerance, Front Page MagazineRaymond Ibrahim, December 2, 2015

we_1

A sermon delivered by popular Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid clearly demonstrates why Western secular relativists and multi culturalists—who currently dominate media, academia, and politics—are incapable of understanding, much less responding to, the logic of Islamic intolerance.

During his sermon, al-Munajjid said that “some [Muslim] hypocrites” wonder why it is that “we [Muslims] don’t permit them [Western people] to build churches, even though they allow mosques to be built.”  The Saudi sheikh responded by saying that any Muslim who thinks this way is “ignorant” and

Wants to equate between right and wrong, between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], monotheism and shirk [polytheism], and gives to each side equal weight, and wants to compare this with that, and he asks: “Why don’t we build them churches like they build us mosques? So we allow them this in return for that?”  Do you want another other than Allah to be worshiped?  Do you equate between right and wrong? Are Zoroastrian fire temples, Jewish temples, Christian churches, monks’ monasteries, and Buddhist and Hindu temples, equal to you with the houses of Allah and mosques? So you compare this with that? And you equate this with that?  Oh! Unbelievable, for he who equates between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], and Allah said: “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers” (Koran 3:85).  And Prophet Muhamad said: “By Him in whose hand is the life of Muhamad (By Allah) he who amongst the Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent, and dies in his state (of disbelief), he shall be of the residents of Hellfire.”

What’s interesting about the sheikh’s zealous diatribe is that, although “intolerant” from a Western perspective, it is, in fact, quite logically consistent and reveals the wide gap between Islamic rationalism and Western fantasy (despite how oxymoronic this dichotomy might sound).

If, as Munajjid points out, a Muslim truly believes that Islam is the only true religion, and that Muhammad is its prophet, why would he allow that which is false (and thus corrupt, cancerous, misleading, etc.) to exist alongside it?  Such gestures of “tolerance” would be tantamount to a Muslim who “wants to equate between right and wrong,” as the sheikh correctly deplores.

Indeed, not only does Islam, like traditional Christianity, assert that all other religions are wrong, but under Islamic law, Hindus, and Buddhists are so misguided that they must be warred against until they either accept the “truth,” that is, converting to Islam, or else being executed (Koran 9:5). As for the so-called “people of the book”—Jews and Christians—they may practice their religions, but only after being subdued (Koran 9:29) and barred from building or renovating churches and synagogues and a host of other debilitations that keep their (false) religious practices and symbols (Bibles, crosses, etc.) suppressed and out of sight.

From an Islamic paradigm—where Allah is the true god and Muhammad his final messenger—“intolerance” for other religions is logical and difficult to condemn.

The “altruistic” aspect of Islamic “intolerance” is especially important.  If you truly believe that there is only one religion that leads to paradise and averts damnation, is it not altruistic to share it with humanity, rather than hypocritically maintaining that all religions lead to God and truth?

After blasting the concept of interfaith dialogue as beyond futile, since “what is false is false—even if a billion individuals agree to it; and truth is truth—even if only one who has submitted [a Muslim] holds on to it,” the late Osama bin Laden once wrote that “Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them” (The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs. 42-43).

Note the altruistic justification: It is a “justice and kindness” to wage jihad on non-Muslims in the hopes that they convert to Islam.  According to this logic, jihadis will always be as the “good guys”—meaning that terrorism, extortion, sex-jihad, etc., will continue to be rationalized away as ugly but necessary means to altruistic ends: the empowerment of, and eventual world conversion to, Islam.

All of this logic is alien to postmodern Western epistemology, which takes for granted that a) there are no objective “truths,” certainly not in the field of theology, and that b) religion’s ultimate purpose is to make this life as peaceful and pleasant as possible (hence why “interfaith dialogue” in the West is not about determining the truth—which doesn’t exist anyway—but finding and highlighting otherwise superficial commonalities between different religions so they can all get along in the now).

The net result of all this? On the one hand, Muslims, who believe in truth—that is, in the teachings of Islam—will continue attacking the “false,” that is, everything and everyone un-Islamic.  And no matter how violent, Islamic jihad—terrorism—will always be exonerated in Muslim eyes as fundamentally “altruistic.” On the other hand, Western secularists and multiculturalists, who believe in nothing and deem all cultures and religions equal, will continue to respect Islam and empower Muslims, convinced that terrorism is an un-Islamic aberration destined to go away—that is, they will continue disbelieving their own eyes.  Such is the offspring of that unholy union between Islamic logic and Western fallacy.

The New French “Résistance”

December 2, 2015

The New French “Résistance,” Gatestone InstituteGuy Millière, December 2, 2015

  • Some spoke of “resistance,” but to them, resistance meant listening to music. A man on a talk show said he was offering “free hugs.”
  • A French judge, Marc Trevidic, in charge of all the major Islamic terrorism cases over the last ten years, said a few days before the November attacks in Paris that the situation was “getting worse” and that “radicalized groups” could “carry out attacks resulting in hundreds of deaths.” He was quickly transferred to a court in northern France, where he has been assigned to petty crimes and divorce cases.
  • All the French political leaders know that the situation is out of control, but not one will say so publicly. Not one has asked the government why it took almost three hours for the police to intervene during the attack at the Bataclan Theater, where 89 people were murdered and over 200 wounded.
  • France’s political leaders are apparently hoping that people will get used to being attacked and learn to live with terrorism. In the meantime, they are trying to divert the attention of the public with — “climate change!”

Several weeks have passed since Islamist attackers bloodied Paris. France’s President François Hollande is describing the killers as just “a horde of murderers” acting in the name of a “mad cause.” He adds that “France has no enemy.” He never uses the word “terrorism.” He no longer says the word “war.”

France never was, in fact, at war. Police were deployed on the streets. Special Forces had to “intervene” a few days later in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. That was it.

French forces did bomb positions of the Islamic State in Syria; and Hollande traveled the world to find coalition, but could not. Now he says he wants to turn a page. The French public seems to want to turn a page, too.

From the beginning, pacifism and appeasement filled the air. A German pianist came to playJohn Lennon’s Imagine in front of the Bataclan Theater; since then, other pianists have come. On the Place de la République, people assemble every evening to sing more songs by the Beatles: All You Need Is Love; Love Me Do. Candles are lit, and banners deployed, calling for “universal brotherhood.”

Those invited to speak on TV about what happened allude to “senseless acts.” They do not blame anyone.

Some spoke of “resistance,” but to them, resistance meant listening to music. To others, it meant having a drink with friends in a bar. In a widely circulated video, a man tries to reassure his child. “They have guns,” he mutters, “but we have flowers.”

Heart-shaped stickers are posted on mosques. Words such as “We love you” and “We share your pain” are written on the hearts.

1372

Just after the attacks, French philosopher Michel Onfray said that France for many years had led Islamophobic bombings against the Muslim world, so “it was logical if the Muslims now attacked France.”

When his words were used in an Islamic State propaganda video, and reporters asked him if he regretted what he said, he replied, “No.”

A man who lost his wife in the Bataclan massacre said on a talk show that he would live in the future as he did before; that he had no hatred at all against the murderers, just compassion. Another man on a different talk show said he was offering “free hugs.”

If some French think otherwise, they are silent.

All political leaders in France speak like Hollande. They say the country must show “unity” and “solidarity.” All of them know the mood of the vast majority; even those who might want to say more, stay silent.

Almost no one mentions radical Islam. Those who do, prefer the word “jihadism,” and rush to emphasize that “jihadism” is “not related to Islam.”

Hollande, when he still spoke of war, said that France had “an enemy.” He avoided the word “Islamic,” instead referring to the Islamic State by its Arabic acronym, “Daesh.”

He knew that “Daesh” could not be defeated without an American intervention that would not take place. With symbolic gestures, he did the best he could.

He also seems to know that the main enemy of France is not in Syria or Iraq, but inside the country: France already finds herself defeated.

More than half the Islamists who attacked Paris on November 13 were Muslims born and raised in France. Mohamed Merah, the murderer of Jewish children in Toulouse in 2012, and those who attacked the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket in January all were Muslims born and raised in France.

Over 750 no-go zones — autonomous areas ruled by radical imams and Muslim gangs — exist in France.

Radical imams and Muslim gangs also control most of France’s prisons: 70% of prison inmates in France are apparently Muslim. Non-Muslim inmates are attacked and threatened; many are forced to convert to Islam.

A British survey published in 2014 showed that 16% of French approve of the Islamic State. Among people aged 18-25, the proportion rose to 27%. Within the French Muslim population, the numbers are undoubtedly higher.

More than 1000 French Muslims have left France to fight for the Islamic State. At least 400 havereturned without being stopped or vetted at a border. Thousands of radicalized French Muslims have never left. Many are good, loyal citizens; but many could have learned all they wanted to know on the internet and on Islamic satellite television stations. Still others — hundreds of thousands of French Muslims — are not radicalized but are ready to help the radicalized ones; ready to host them or offer them asylum.

More than 10,000 French Muslims are classified as extremely dangerous by the police and are linked to “jihadist activities”. They are registered in what the French government calls “S files,” but there is no way to monitor their whereabouts. Placing them all in detention centers would involve a complete break with what is left of the rule of law in France.

All of the French Muslims who participated in the November 13 attacks were registered in “S files,” but that did not change anything. They were free to act, and they did.

For the first time in Europe, suicide bomb attacks took place. The explosive used to make suicide belts, triacetone triperoxide (TATP), is powerful and extremely sensitive to friction, temperature change and impact. Making belts containing TATP requires a “professional.”

A French judge, Marc Trevidic, in charge of all the main Islamic terrorism cases over the last ten years, said a few days before the November attacks that the situation was “getting worse,” was now “out of control,” and that “radicalized groups” established in the country could “carry out attacks resulting in hundreds of deaths.” He was quickly transferred to a court in Lille, northern France, where he was assigned to petty crimes and divorce cases.

All the French political leaders know that Marc Trevidic is right — that the situation is out of control — but not one will say so publicly. Not one has asked the government why it took almost three hours for the police to intervene during the attack at the Bataclan Theater, where 89 people were murdered and over 200 wounded. There are simply not enough well-trained police, and not enough weapons in the hands of the police, and not enough bulletproof vests.

For the next few months, more soldiers and police officers will be placed in front of public buildings, synagogues, churches and mosques, but “soft” targets, such as theaters, cafés and restaurants, are not protected. It is as easy to enter a theater in Paris today as it was on November 13. French police do not have the right to carry a weapon when they are on duty.

In a few weeks, French military actions against the Islamic State will doubtless stop. President Hollande, the French government, and most French political leaders probably hope that the French will soon forget the attacks. They know that the problems are now too widespread to be solved without something resembling a civil war. When more attacks occur, they will talk of “war” again. They are supposedly hoping that people will get used to being attacked and learn to live with terrorism.

In the meantime, French politicians are trying to divert the attention of the public with — “climate change!” The conference in Paris will last a fortnight. President Hollande says he wants save the planet. He will be photographed next to America’s Barack Obama and China’s Jiang Zemin.

French journalists are no longer discussing jihad; they are discussing “climate change.”

Until December 11, at least, Paris will be the safest city.

In June 2015, five months after the January attacks, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that the French had to “adapt to Islam”. In November, he added that “Islam has to stand up to jihadism”. The French Council of the Muslim Faith, offering “condolences” to the families of the victims, specified that Muslims were “victims” too, and that they should not be “stigmatized.”

Regional elections will be held on December 6th and 13th, the same time as the conference on climate change.

Polls show that the rightist party, National Front, will almost certainly win in a landslide. Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, did not depart from the calls for “unity” and “solidarity.” She is, however, the only politician to say unambiguously that the main enemy is not outside the country, but within. She is also the only politician to say that a return to security implies a return to border controls. A National Front victory does not, however, mean that Marine Le Pen will win the 2017 presidential election: all the other parties and the media might band together against her.

France’s National Front is part of the increasingly popular rejection of the European Union. Thei nvasion of Europe by hundreds of thousands of mostly Muslim migrants has strengthened that stance. The Islamist attacks in Paris, combined with the state of emergency decreed in Belgium for several days after the attacks, have helped this rejection to gain more ground. In addition, the news that several of the Paris terrorists came to France among illegal migrants — and had successfully used false Syrian passports to enter Europe, where they could go from country to country unhindered — did not help.

The rise of populism is slowly destroying the unelected, unaccountable, and untransparent European Union. Many European mainstream journalists see this change as a “threat.”

The real threat to Europe might be elsewhere.

“The barbarians,” wrote the commentator Mark Steyn, “are inside, and there are no gates.”

After the attacks in Paris, Judge Marc Trevidic, again, raised the possibility of simultaneous attacks in several cities in France and in Europe. He said that if these attacks took place, the situation would become “really serious”. He said he had documents to show that Islamist groups were planning to organize such attacks. If the suicide bombers, he said, had been on time at the Stade de France, before the 79,000 spectators had entered, the death toll could have been worse. He concluded that too little had been done for too long, and that now it was probably too late.

During the November 27 official ceremony in Paris honoring the victims of the attacks, a song, If We Only Have Love, by Jacques Brel — selected by President Hollande – was sung: “If we only have love – We can melt all the guns – And then give the new world – To our daughters and sons.”

How could an Islamist not be moved by that?