Archive for the ‘Islamophobia’ category

Canada’s New Blasphemy Laws

March 8, 2017

Canada’s New Blasphemy Laws, Gatestone InstituteKhadija Khan, March 8, 2017

Hardliners who support this form of censorship, and presumably other restrictions required by Islamic sharia law, aim to blur the line between genuine bigotry and criticism of core problems across the Muslim world, such as the murder of apostates and homosexuals, communal hatred, anti-Semitism, violence against women and minors, female genital mutilation (FGM), child marriage, unequal legal and inheritance rights for women, stoning, flogging and amputation, and social taboos such as honour killings or right to choose a husband for girls or restrict girls’ education.

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

Although these motions against “Islamophobia” are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.

People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.

Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

A resolution, M-103, seeking to condemn so-called “Islamophobia,” was introduced a few weeks ago in the peaceful country of Canada by Liberal Party MP Iqra Khalid in the House of Commons, sparking a controversy.

A similar motion, labelled M-37, was later tabled in the Ontario provincial legislature by MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers on February 23, 2017, and was passed by the provincial parliament.

M-37, like its predecessor, demanded that lawmakers condemn “all forms of Islamophobia” and reaffirm “support for government efforts, through the Anti-Racism Directorate, to address and prevent systemic racism across government policy, programs and services”.

Although these motions are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.

There are, of course, no comparable motions against “Judeophobia” or “Christianophobia”.

Neither motion M-103 nor motion 37 exactly define “Islamophobia,” leaving that to the imagination of the supposed victim(s).

Hardliners who support this form of censorship, and presumably other restrictions required by Islamic sharia law, aim to blur the line between genuine bigotry and criticism of core problems across the Muslim world, such as the murder of apostates and homosexuals, communal hatred, anti-Semitism, violence against women and minors, female genital mutilation (FGM), child marriage, unequal legal and inheritance rights for women, stoning, flogging and amputation, and social taboos such as honour killings or right to choose a husband for girls or restrict girls’ education.

Those who present these motions claim that “Islamophobia” is rampant across the country, but seem blind to Islamic sharia law’s endorsement of killing homosexuals, violence against women and minors, atrocities such as those enumerated above, and notions of Muslim supremacy across the planet.

These issues are genuine concerns for millions of Muslims as well as human rights defenders, but are never addressed by those apologists, who always try to present these atrocities as perfectly acceptable “cultural norms”.

People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.

Broadly speaking, in the West, where people have the opportunity to stand up against persecution, Muslim extremists seem determined to sell themselves as victims and to get rid of whatever obstacles contradict a clearly expansionist agenda.

Motion M-103 claimed: “Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam”.

Are those who set forth these resolutions oblivious to the clerics who rally hundreds of thousands across the world — organizations such as Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, CAIR, ISIS, Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Jamat e Islami, Sipah-e-Muhammad, TehrikNifaz-i-FiqahJafaria, JamatudDawa, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-jhangwi, TehrikNifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Islam, Jamiat-ul-Ansar, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Khuddam-i-Islam, Fatah Al Islam (Lebanon), Ansar Al Sharia in Libya, Jabhat Al Nusra (Al-Nusra Front) in Syria, the Haqqani Network in Pakistan and other offshoots of these jihadi movements?

The sales pitch for M-103 was given a pretty façade of human rights concerns, but actually inside was a veiled endorsement of a Muslim supremacist mentality.

While M-103 asks to recognize the need to curb systematic racism and religious discrimination against Muslims, there are no traces of any systematic hatred or racism against Muslims or any religious groups in Canada.

On the contrary, Canada already has laws to curb any discrimination or abuse against individuals or groups. All that is needed is to enforce those laws already on the books.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal Code, carry progressive laws to handle hate crimes or racism. Section 318, 319(1) and 319(2) are specifically designed to deal with such offenses.

Moreover, criticizing any genuine social concerns about a community or belief system is the democratic right of every citizen in a civilized country.

Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

Under Muslim blasphemy laws, such as those being slowly presented to Canada, such deeds are punishable by death or life in prison.

Unfortunately, blasphemy laws are often interpreted as a state’s permission to attack, lynch or destroy non-Muslim minorities, while the attackers are regarded as heroes for their crimes.

Victims of these laws also include critics of this barbarism such as Punjab’s Governor Salmaan Taseer, Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights Shahbaz Bhatti, and often even human rights activists and the victims’ lawyers.

Aren’t we setting up the foundation of such norms in the West on pretense of curbing “Islamophobia”?

For example, a supposedly “infinitesimally small” number of jihadis are capable of shutting the mouths of approximately 200 million people (equivalent to the entire Pakistani population), seemingly forever, by literally killing dissent.

In the last century, the jihadis’ spiritual father, Sayyid Qutb, commissioned Muslims to impose salafist-style Islamic rule on the world by destroying the “infertile West” and eliminating anything non-Muslim.

Qutb’s book, Milestones, would undoubtedly be an eye-opener for those still unaware of what is required of “true” Muslims. The same is true of the writings of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This ideology is clawing its way into very fabric of the West, in places such as Britain, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, America, Australia and France.

It poses an imminent threat to the free world. Free societies will have to pay a heavy price if they choose to ignore the menace of extremism through a policy of appeasement and accommodation.

There is no need for specific laws about “Islamophobia”: it is not even defined. Worse, many extremist clerics also consider as “Islamophobic” any criticism of their jihadism, communal hatred, polygamy and violence against women, minors or possibly anyone else they target.

Canada has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world; please let us keep it that way.

Oklahoma lawmaker gives questionnaire to Muslims, Hamas-linked CAIR enraged

March 5, 2017

Oklahoma lawmaker gives questionnaire to Muslims, Hamas-linked CAIR enraged, Jihad Watch

(Mr. Spencer seems to encourage CAIR, et al, to join the Muslim Reform Movement, which he generally disparages elsewhere as at best pointless. — DM)

If Soltani and Hamas-linked CAIR were operating in good faith, they would admit that the Qur’an sanctions wife-beating and that spousal abuse is not just rampant but taken for granted in many areas of the Islamic world, and would detail a genuine program for reform and a determination that women not be beaten. Instead, Soltani dismisses the questions as “Islamophobic” and claims victim status. This is typical, but it doesn’t make the questions go away. [Emphasis added.]

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

Hamas-linked CAIR’s Adam Soltani asks: “The question that comes to mind is, does he do this to others? Does he ask question to his Christian constituents? His Jewish constituents? If the answer is no, that’s discrimination. There’s no other way to call it.”

All right. However, there have been 30,000 murderous jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11 carried out by Muslims who found impetus and justification for them in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Christians and Jews, meanwhile, are not committing acts of violence and pointing to their holy book to justify it and make recruits among peaceful Christians and Jews. Is John Bennett not allowed to notice that, and decry it?

Soltani also said: “Nobody should be vetted with stupid, Islamophobic, hateful, bigoted questions before they can meet with their representative.”

Well, in reality, if my representative asked me to fill out a questionnaire before he or she would meet with me, I would just fill it out. Soltani says that the questions are “stupid, Islamophobic, hateful, bigoted,” but he doesn’t explain why (and of course “journalist” Mary Ann Georgantopoulos of the establishment propaganda media organ BuzzFeed doesn’t ask him to). There is an important reason for this: Soltani knows full well that the Qur’an tells Muslim men to beat women from whom they fear disobedience (4:34), and that multiple hadiths record that Muhammad married a 6-year-old girl (Aisha) when he was 51 (or thereabouts), and that Bennett’s other questions also have a foundation in actual Islamic teaching and practice.

If Soltani and Hamas-linked CAIR were operating in good faith, they would admit that the Qur’an sanctions wife-beating and that spousal abuse is not just rampant but taken for granted in many areas of the Islamic world, and would detail a genuine program for reform and a determination that women not be beaten. Instead, Soltani dismisses the questions as “Islamophobic” and caims victim status. This is typical, but it doesn’t make the questions go away.

bennett-questions

“This Lawmaker Asked Muslims If They Beat Their Wives Before He Would Allow A Meeting,” by Mary Ann Georgantopoulos, BuzzFeed News, March 3, 2017:

Muslims hoping to meet with a Oklahoma lawmaker during a special event had to first fill out a controversial questionnaire about Islam that included inquiries such as “Do you beat your wife?”

Oklahoma Rep. John Bennett asked his constituents taking part in the state’s third annual Muslim Day on Thursday — in which Muslims have the opportunity to interact with state legislators at the capitol — to fill out the questionnaire.

Adam Soltani, executive director of Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) Oklahoma, told BuzzFeed News that high school students from Tulsa’s Peace Academy visited Bennett’s office to either meet with him or schedule a meeting.

The students were met by a legislative assistant, Soltani said, who gave the students a questionnaire, telling them it must be filled out in writing.

The nine-part questionnaire includes questions such as, “The Koran, the sunna of Mohammed and Sharia Law of all schools says that the husband can beat his wife. Do you beat your wife?”

Another question is, “I have heard that, according to accepted Islamic sources, Mohammed, at age of 49, married a 6-year-old girl, and that he had sex with her when he was 52 and she was only 9 years old. Is that really true?”

“I was distraught when [the students] showed me the questionnaire,” Soltani told BuzzFeed News. “I wasn’t completely surprised by it because obviously we have been challenging Bennett’s hate rhetoric for many years.”…

Soltani said he does not know how many people got the questionnaire because more than 200 people attended Muslim Day at the Capitol, adding that all the other legislators were very supportive and welcoming.The questionnaire was written up by anti-Islam group ACT for America — the group’s logo and email address are on the sheet of paper.

“The question that comes to mind is, does he do this to others?” Soltani said. “Does he ask question [sic] to his Christian constituents? His Jewish constituents? If the answer is no, that’s discrimination. There’s no other way to call it.”

Soltani said there shouldn’t be somebody working for the state of Oklahoma who doesn’t represent all citizens.

“Nobody should be vetted with stupid, Islamophobic, hateful, bigoted questions before they can meet with their representative,” Soltani said in a video posted to Facebook Thursday.

EXCLUSIVE: Geert Wilders on “the patriotic spring” sweeping the West

February 28, 2017

EXCLUSIVE: Geert Wilders on “the patriotic spring” sweeping the West, Rebel MediaEzra Levant, February 27, 2017

The Netherlands has its Parliamentary elections in a couple of weeks, and the man who is leading the polls right now is Geert Wilders.

Wilders is the leader of the Party for Freedom. His chief campaign focus is de-Islamification:

Stopping mass immigration, for sure, but more specifically, stopping the cultural, legal, criminal and social ramifications of bringing in a million Muslims into a country of 17 million Dutch.

(That’s twice the Islamification that Canada has, proportionately; we have just over a million Muslims in a population of 36 million.)

I sat down with Geert Wilders in The Hague on Thursday morning.

That very day, news broke that one of Wilders’ own security staff was caught secretly passing on information about Wilders’ movements to a Moroccan jihadist group.

Of course they want to kill him. He’s the only one trying to close the door, while the rest of the politicians there are prying it further open, in return for power or votes or money…

Watch all the footage from my trip by clicking here.

Anti-Trump Women’s Movement Teams Up With Islamist Terrorist

February 27, 2017

Anti-Trump Women’s Movement Teams Up With Islamist Terrorist, Clarion Project, February 27, 2017

rasmea-odeh-screenshot-640-320Rasmea Odeh speaking at the International Working Women’s Day 2016 (Photo: Video screenshot)

The liberal left has teamed up with extremist and violent Islamists in its next salvo against newly-inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump.

On March 8, International Women’s Day, a follow-up event to the January 21 Women’s March on Washington, will be staged.

One of the co-authors of the “militant” manifesto behind the nationwide event is convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Yousef Odeh.

Odeh was convicted in Israel in 1970 for being involved in two fatal bombings. Odeh spent 10 years in jail before she was released in a prisoner exchange in 1980.

She moved to the U.S. by omitting her terror conviction on her immigration papers and served as the associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago and later as an ObamaCare navigator. In 2014, she was convicted in the U.S. for concealing her past and thus illegally obtaining U.S. citizenship.

After claiming she forgot about her conviction and imprisonment in Israel due to post traumatic stress disorder, she was awarded a new trial which is currently pending.

The women’s event manifesto, printed as an open letter in The Guardian, calls for “striking, marching, blocking roads, bridges, and squares, abstaining from domestic, care and sex work” and “boycotting” pro-Trump businesses.

All women are requested to wear red in solidarity for a day of “anti-capitalist feminism.”

Odeh’s co-authors include Angela Davis, a self-professed communist professor (now retired), who was a supporter of the original Black Panthers and a 1960s radical icon. Davis was prosecuted and acquitted in 1972 for an armed takeover of a California courtroom that resulted in the murder of a judge.

The January 21 Women’s March on Washington was organized by Islamist apologist and activist Linda Sarsour, a supporter of shariah law.

Shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics,tweeted Sarsour.

As for women with whom she does not agree, Sarsour tweeted, “Brigitte Gabriel=Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

Good Riddance

February 27, 2017

Good Riddance, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, February 27, 2017

hijabmodel

The establishment media has found a new heroine: Rumana Ahmed, a hijab-wearing Muslim woman who worked at the National Security Council during the Obama administration and for eight days into the Trump administration, at which point she quit. 

Ahmed explained: “I had to leave because it was an insult walking into this country’s most historic building every day under an administration that is working against and vilifying everything I stand for as an American and as a Muslim.” That’s enough to send the media into self-righteous ululations of anti-Trump fury, but as always, there is more to this story than what the media is telling you, and a good deal about Rumana Ahmed that they would prefer you did not know.

In her piece in The Atlantic explaining why she left the Trump NSC (and it is important to note that she wasn’t fired by her supposedly “Islamophobic” new bosses; she quit), Ahmed sounds themes of post-9/11 Muslim victimhood that have become familiar tropes among Leftists: after recounting her idyllic life “living the American dream,” she says: “After 9/11, everything would change. On top of my shock, horror, and heartbreak, I had to deal with the fear some kids suddenly felt towards me. I was glared at, cursed at, and spat at in public and in school. People called me a ‘terrorist’ and told me, ‘go back to your country.’”

Not surprisingly, Ahmed made no mention of the fact that this Muslim victimhood narrative has been sullied, if not vitiated entirely, by the high number of “anti-Muslim hate crimes” that turn out to have been faked by Muslims. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques and even murders: a New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

Ahmed blamed yet another murder on “Islamophobia”: “A harsher world began to reemerge in 2015,” she wrote in The Atlantic. “In February, three young American Muslim students were killed in their Chapel Hill home by an Islamophobe. Both the media and administration were slow to address the attack, as if the dead had to be vetted before they could be mourned. It was emotionally devastating.”

In reality, there is no evidence that the Chapel Hill murders were committed by an “Islamophobe.” U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand declared the day after the murders: “The events of yesterday are not part of a targeting campaign against Muslims in North Carolina.” Rand said that there was “no information this is part of an organized event against Muslims.” Nor has any emerged since then, although that fact has not stopped Islamic advocacy groups from routinely treating these murders as evidence of a wave of anti-Muslim hatred in the U.S. Ruhana Ahmed in The Atlantic abets this cynical and disingenuous agenda.

In the same vein, Ahmed claims: “When Trump first called for a Muslim ban, reports of hate crimes against Muslims spiked.” In reality, as MRC Newsbusters noted in late November, “A number of these incidents have been debunked already, though the scant details on the majority of stories would be near impossible to disprove (or prove!).”

Ahmed is not only dishonest; she’s connected. Before she went to work for the Obama administration, she was an officer of George Mason University’s Muslim Students Association (MSA). According to Discover the Networks, the “was established mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in January 1963 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Nyack College theologian Larry A. Poston writes that ‘many of the founding members of this agency [MSA] were members of, or had connections to,’ the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-i-Islami.” The MSA is “a radical political force and a key lobbying organization for the Wahhabi sect of Islam, telling students that America is an imperialist power and Israel an oppressor nation. MSA speakers routinely spew anti-Semitic libels and justify the genocide against the Jews which is promoted by Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and by the government of Iran.”

What’s more, “a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood internal document — titled ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America’ — which named MSA as one of the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded ‘organizations of our friends’ that shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation. These ‘friends’ were identified by the Brotherhood as groups that could help teach Muslims ‘that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.’”

It is hard to imagine how someone who had served as an officer in an organization dedicated to “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” would so quickly be appointed to the National Security Council, but that was Barack Obama’s America. The Trump administration is indeed setting a strikingly different tone, one that Rumana Ahmed finds unacceptable. Her dissatisfaction and departure from the NSC are good reason for every patriotic American to applaud.

Gorka & Jasser: We Are Fighting ‘Not a War with Islam, but a War Inside Islam’

February 24, 2017

Gorka & Jasser: We Are Fighting ‘Not a War with Islam, but a War Inside Islam’, BreitbartJohn Hayward, February 24, 2017

isis-koran-640x480Flickr/AFP

Broadcasting live from CPAC 2017, SiriusXM host Alex Marlow spoke with Dr. Sebastian Gorka and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser about national security, Islamist terrorism, and their panel discussion, “When Did World War III Begin?”

(Audio at the link. — DM)

Marlow began by asking his guests what they expected from the national security segment of President Donald Trump’s scheduled address to the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“Exactly what we’ve heard before,” Gorka replied. “If you really want to understand the direction of the White House and how much everything changed at 12:01 on January the 20th, you look at two things: you look at a speech that really wasn’t carefully addressed or really paid enough attention to, that’s the Youngstown campaign speech, which was about the threat of jihad in general and what we’re going to do about ISIS.”

“Specifically, it really bears repeating, the inauguration, the address that the president gave at the inauguration, was explicit,” he continued. “Number one, we are going to eradicate the Islamic State – not degrade, not manage, not ameliorate – eradicate. And secondly, words have meaning. When he says our enemy is ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ that is a 180 degree  change from the last eight years, when we weren’t allowed to even say who the enemy was.”

“Zuhdi knows it better than anybody because he understands that this isn’t about poverty or lack of education. It’s about people who are fighting for the soul of Islam – not a war with Islam, but a war inside Islam; as King Abdullah, as General Sisi has said, for which version is going to win,” Gorka said.

Marlow asked Dr. Jasser about the topic of language control Gorka touched upon and the previous administration’s reluctance to use explicit language like “radical Islamic jihad” to describe the enemy.

“We got to this point because we had an administration who was being whispered to by Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, by apologists, by governments that might be our allies against al-Qaeda and ISIS, but they love a whack-a-mole program. They don’t want to treat the disease, which is not ‘violent extremism’ but violent Islamism,” Jasser charged.

“We have to start focusing on our own values,” he urged. “There’s nothing more American than fighting theocracy, and yet the Left for the last eight years has invoked blasphemy laws in America by telling us we can’t criticize Islamist political movements.”

Jasser predicted the new administration would succeed in destroying ISIS but warned that “it will come back in another form – two, three, four years later – unless we engage Muslim reformists, like our Muslim reform movement, to treat the underlying theocracy.”

Marlow complained that the mainstream media swiftly denounce candid talk about the problem of radical Islam as “hate speech” even when confined to straightforward reporting without editorial opinion, making it difficult to have a constructive discussion about the problem.

“I think this is exactly what the Saudi regime, the Iranian Khomeinists, the Brotherhood want, is they want to dominate what Islam means,” Jasser said. “And yes, it’s not my Islam, but we have to thread that needle. Because if you don’t call it political Islam or Islamism as the threat, you’re not going to be able to figure out who to engage. We want to engage anti-Caliphate, anti-violent jihad Muslims who are pro-freedom, pro-equality of men and women, who share our values. If we don’t do that discernment in our verbiage, we’re going to miss it and actually end up helping our enemies and end up actually not only being the firefighters, but the arsonists. We have to stop that cycle.”

“Let’s just take it one level deeper. It’s not just empowering our enemies, which would be bad enough,” Gorka added. “If you don’t talk truthfully about who the enemy is, how are you going to win? What we saw in the last eight years is a policy that actually weakened our most important allies.”

“So when you’ve got the president of the most populous Arab nation in the world say this is a war for the heart of Islam, General Sisi, when you’ve got King Abdullah with his Amman statement saying, ‘Look, we have to stop the jihadis hijacking the religion’ – we have a president here who stands up and says, ‘No, no, no, these are not the droids you’re looking for, the religion has nothing to do with this,’” he elaborated, referring to the Obama administration’s insistence on framing the war as a struggle against generic violent extremism.

“Do you know who we hurt the most? Those Muslims who are on the front lines with the jihadis, who understand this isn’t about poverty or lack of education; it’s about an ideology. So we’ve actually hurt the people who are on the front line the most. We’re not prepared to do that anymore. This administration’s going to help the Jordanians, help the Egyptians, help them fight this war,” Gorka vowed.

“I think we have to own what it means to be diverse,” Jasser suggested. “What is ‘diversity’ in the Muslim community? It’s not ethnic diversity. Being Muslim is not an identity movement of a monolithic homogenous group. It is a diverse ideological movement that has fundamentalist, orthodox, liberal, secularists that are all in this Muslim diverse group. So if the Left actually believes in diversity different from what Pelosi whispered into Andre Carson’s ear – ‘Tell them you’re Muslim’ – Islam is not a race. They’re racializing the faith. That’s the biggest obstacle.”

“I think the other thing I hope to see is not only us being against jihadists, but what are we for,” he added. “I think that will be the difference between some of the dictators in the Middle East, that yes, some of them have been on our side against jihad, the militants, but we are the adults in the world, in being for liberty and freedom. I hope that will be part of a Trump Doctrine.”

Gorka agreed, saluting Jasser as “the point man here in America for sense, for common sense in this battle.”

“The saddest part is there are people like him in the Middle East. There are people every day risking their lives on their blog sites, in North Africa, in the Middle East pushing back on this, saying, ‘I’m a Muslim, but I don’t think an infidel needs to be killed.’ That means he’s put the crosshairs on his chest,” Gorka noted. “In some parts of the Muslim world, that’s an instant death sentence.”

“That’s why the four million Muslims in America need to step up and act because we can do things here that you just can’t do in the Middle East,” Jasser said. “They end up in prison. They end up slaughtered, tortured.”

Marlow proposed that “the stifling of speech in the Muslim world is really what has allowed a lot of the jihadist movements to flourish.”

“Why do you think they use the term ‘Islamophobia’ instead of talking about, yes, there might be some bigotry against Muslims in the West?” Jasser asked. “They use the term Islamophobia because they want to anthropomorphize Islam so that you don’t criticize it, and they suppress free speech. That’s how they invoke blasphemy laws in the West.”

“You’re absolutely right. The freedom of speech issue is huge in the Middle East because it’s a life and death issue in many cases,” Gorka said. “But here, it’s almost as important. It’s not life and death, but it is closing down the discussion.”

“You look at what’s happened in the last four weeks with this administration,” he said. “There’s a phrase in soccer: you play the man on the ball. We’re not going to talk about policies; we’re going to attack individuals, whether it’s Kellyanne, the president, myself, Steve Bannon. They do that how? ‘We don’t want to talk about the threat to America. You’re a racist. You’re an Islamophobe. You’re a xenophobe. Oh, well, in that case, we can’t talk to you.’ That’s as dangerous as just the constant ad hominem attacks because then there is no discussion.”

Jasser said his message to CPAC was that “there is hope” for a lasting victory in the long war against Islamist extremism.

“The first step is to defeat the militants, which this president will finally do,” he said. “The second step is to go back to our American roots and defeat theocracy, work with Muslims and our Muslim reform movement. We have a two-page declaration that can be used, I hope, not only to vet refugees, to figure out which groups are with us and against us. I hope we start doing security clearances through those who share our values.”

“There are so many that are – not in this administration, but that are in the government from the previous administration – that I think are Islamists, that might not be violent extremists, but we need to shift the axis of the lens of Homeland Security, foreign policy, to countering violent Islamism. There’s nothing this group here and the country can do to better empower reform-minded Muslims that share our values than to shift from this blasé CVE to CVI,” Jasser said, lampooning the Obama administration’s acronym for “Countering Violent Extremism.”

Gorka referred to CVE as “garbage from the last eight years that obfuscated the threat.”

He said the most important step taken by the new administration was President Trump’s executive order to temporarily limit immigration from the most unsecure Middle Eastern nations.

“Whatever the final version of the reform measures are, the fact is, when an Iraqi collars me in the halls of Congress and says, ‘My friends back home in Iraq applaud this measure because they know how many bad guys are in Iraq that want to come over here, so do it. Thank you,’” Gorka said.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka is deputy assistant to President Trump and was formerly national security editor for Breitbart News. He is the author of Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.

 

 

Canada: Protesters outside mosque where imam prayed for killing of unbelievers could face hate crime charges

February 20, 2017

Canada: Protesters outside mosque where imam prayed for killing of unbelievers could face hate crime charges, Jihad Watch

(Please see also, Toronto mosque: “O Allah! Give us victory over the disbelieving people…slay them one by one and spare not one of them”. — DM)

A group of Canadian protesters with placards stating “Say No to Islam” outside of Masjid Toronto could face hate crime charges. Toronto Mayor John Tory “criticized the protest, calling it ‘Islamophobia’ in a Tweet.” Yet authorities appear to have little to no concern about the actions of that mosque, which clearly played a role in eliciting the protests. This is where the imam prayed: “O Allah! Give us victory over the disbelieving people…slay them one by one and spare not one of them.”

The downtown Masjid Toronto is affiliated with the Muslim Association of Canada — a self-described offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. As reported by CIJ News:

In 2016, imams…at the mosque recited supplications to Allah in support of the “mujahideen (those of engage in jihad) everywhere”, the total destruction of the enemies of Islam and the purification of Al-Aqsa Mosque from the “filth of the Jews.”

Islamic schools and mosques across Canada are “filled with extremist literature,” according to an exhaustive study, and the jihad doctrine is being preached there. So while Canadian authorities should be investigating this mosque, they are instead targeting those who are protesting.

Meanwhile, a Toronto-area schoolteacher who called a jihadist who crushed the skull of a four-year-old Israeli girl a hero and martyr is back in the classroom, after receiving a mere rap on the knuckles for her abhorrently violent Facebook postings. A spokesperson for the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School said that Nadia Shoufani returned to work at St. Catherine of Siena Separate School before Christmas. She was not charged with a hate crime, according to the announcement, and she is being entrusted with the well-being of children. Why should any Canadian child have to sit in a classroom led by a murder-minded, hate-filled teacher? The school administration should be prioritizing the well-being of the children.

Canada has been battered by an Islamic supremacist infiltration, which includes an attack on free speech disguised as an anti-racism initiative. Since October, two “anti-Islamophobia” motions were presented in Parliament. The first unanimously passed without contest, because few Canadians knew anything about it. The second, however – Motion M-103 – was met with unexpected resistance from Conservative MP’s and a substantial number of concerned Canadian citizens. This resistance led to an indefinite adjournment of the Parliamentary motion.

The two “anti-Islamophobia” motions were a culmination of prior efforts to bring the “Islamophobia” agenda into Canada. This is an outright Sharia scheme aimed at the curbing of free speech, as part of the larger initiative propelled by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Last summer, community leaders from six major “Canadian cities (Vancouver, Calgary, London, Windsor, Toronto, and Montreal) endorsed  an Islamophobia charter.” As previously reported here at Jihad Watch:

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly CAIR-CAN, drafted the charter. CAIR was deemed an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in the history of the United States — the Holy Land Foundation trial — during which the carefully calculated Muslim Brotherhood plan for North America was unveiled, with full partnership from so-called mainstream Muslim groups.

Islamic supremacists have been working overtime in Western nations to execute this plan. A similar strategic plan was uncovered by Swiss authorities in a document called “the Project” in 2001. Anti-terrorism consultant Patrick Poole writes:

What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism

Naïve Westerners continue to be used as pawns in clearly sketched-out plans to defeat the House of War (non-Muslim countries) and incorporate them into with the House of Islam. The method of conquest is an aggressive, but strategic and insidious assault using existing institutions; yet still, political correctness persists; many people are hesitant to speak about what is happening for fear of coming across as a conspiracy theorist, despite the clear documentation of this initiative.

In the case of the Masjid Toronto, authorities need to be investigating the activities inside that mosque. Canadians and other peace-loving citizens are not protesting outside Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish temples. They are concerned about a tangible danger posed by an organized network of Islamic supremacists (aka stealth jihadists).

protest-masjid-toronto

“Canadian Anti-Muslim Protesters Could Face Hate Crime Charges”, David Krayden, Daily Caller, February 19, 2017:

Police in Toronto, Ontario might charge a group of anti-Muslim protesters for violating hate crime laws.

A group with placards stating “Say No to Islam” was standing outside of Toronto’s Masjid mosque [sic] on Friday, and police say they received multiple complaints about the demonstration from some in the mosque and others who weren’t present.

Toronto Mayor John Tory, a former leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, criticized the  protest, calling it “Islamophobia” in a Tweet:

Constable Allyson Douglas-Cook told CBC News Saturday that the incident is being examined by police as a potential hate crime. The police constable claimed that there is a “fine line” between free speech and breaching hate crime laws but refused to specify what constitutes that distinction, adding, “That’s a conversation we’ve been having all day.”

The investigators plan to speak to witnesses, take statements and collect evidence if necessary. Mosque spokesman Abdul-Basit Khan claimed the protest was the worst he has seen since the mosque was built 15 years ago.

“You’re used to seeing this kind of vitriol in the comments sections of newspapers or online. You don’t necessarily see it in person. So that’s what was surprising about yesterday,” he said. “Especially in light of Quebec City…”

The event came just days after a Toronto-area Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) officially tabled a motion in the Canadian House of Commons that could potentially make “Islamophobia” another hate crime. Debate on Iqra Khalid’s motion began last Wednesday, with only the opposition Conservatives refusing to endorse the potential legislation because they say the definition of “Islamophobia” is too flexible and not even spelled-out in the motion.

Critics are wondering why an Islamophobia motion is necessary if people could be charged with a hate crime for a simple protest under existing law.

Conservative Party leadership candidate and Quebec MP Maxime Bernier told The Daily Caller that the motion represents a gross violation of free speech and said that he will fight it.

“I was one of the first in the Canadian leadership to oppose that motion. It is not good for freedom of speech and freedom of opinion in this country — the most important right that we have…..

Toronto mosque: “O Allah! Give us victory over the disbelieving people…slay them one by one and spare not one of them”

February 19, 2017

Toronto mosque: “O Allah! Give us victory over the disbelieving people…slay them one by one and spare not one of them”, Jihad Watch

Canada is about to pass a resolution that will pave the way to the criminalization of “Islamophobia.” But about this, Canadian authorities have nothing to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXCGPvY3HM

“Supplications at Masjid Toronto Mosque: ‘Slay them one by one and spare not one of them,’” b

Masjid Toronto mosque in downtown Toronto is affiliated with the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC).

The mosque operates in two locations in downtown Toronto: Masjid Toronto at Dundas (168 Dundas St. West) and Masjid Toronto at Adelaide (84 Adelaide St. East).

Dr. Wael Shihab was appointed in April 2014 to a full-time resident Imam of the mosque Masjid Toronto.

Shihab has a PhD in Islamic Studies from Al-Azhar University and he was the head of the Fatwa (Islamic opinion) Unit of IslamOnline.net (English website) and the Shari’ah (Islamic Law) consultant of the Shari’ah department of Onislam.net.

He is also a member of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS) headed by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who played a major role in launching both aforementioned websites.

The following are some of Shihab’s views as presented in articles and Islamic rulings posted on Onislam.net:

  • The solution to the global violence, extremism and oppression is Islam
  • Qaradawi’s book “Jurisprudence of Jihad” should serves as a guidance to Muslims
  • Thieves’ hands should be chopped off no matter their social status
  • Person who underwent gender reassignment surgery should return to his original gender
  • Muslims should avoid gays as homosexuality is evil and succumbing to the temptations of the Satan
  • Wife should not reject her husband’s call for having sex

For more information click HERE.

In 2016, imams (religious leaders who lead the prayers) at the mosque recited supplications to Allah in support of the “mujahideen (those of engage in jihad) everywhere”, the total destruction of the enemies of Islam and the purification of Al-Aqsa Mosque from the “filth of the Jews.”

The following are excerpts from these supplications (originally in Arabic):

O Allah! We ask you… [to give us] victory over the enemies

O Allah! Raise the standing of Islam and the Muslims

O Allah! Give victory (help) to your oppressed slaves all over the world, east to west

O Allah! Give victory (help) to your slaves who believe in the oneness of Allah, O the Lord of the Worlds!

O Allah! Destroy the criminals

O Allah! Destroy anyone who inflicts injustice on your slaves, O the Lord of the Worlds!

O Allah! Count their number; slay them one by one and spare not one of them.

O Allah! Do not defer [it] on them

O Allah! Seize them with the seizure of One Mighty, Omnipotent [referring to a Quranic verse that deals with the punishment Allah inflicted on Pharaoh and his people]

The sermon was delivered on June 15, 2016 and published on YouTube on June 17, 2016.

 

[O Allah!] Give us victory over the disbelieving people…

O Allah! Give victory to Islam and raise the standing of the Muslims

And humiliate the polytheism and polytheists

O Allah! Give victory (help) to your slaves who believe in the oneness of Allah, O the Lord of the Worlds!

O Allah! Give them victory over the criminal people

O Allah! Destroy anyone who killed Muslims

O Allah! Destroy anyone who displaced the sons of the Muslims

O Allah! Count their number; slay them one by one and spare not one of them

O Allah! Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews!

O Allah! Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews!

The sermon was published on YouTube on July 4, 2016. According to Masjid Toronto YouTube channel: “Isha [night-time prayer] and 1st part of Taraweeh [special evening prayer in Ramadan] led by Br. Murshid, 2nd part of Taraweeh led by Dr. Mustafa Hannout, 3rd part of Taraweeh and Witr [night prayer] led by Br. Aymen Elkasrawy.” Dr. Mustafa Hannout is seen standing next to Aymen Elkasrawy when he was reciting the above supplication.

UCLA bans “Islamophobic” book from free speech event

February 17, 2017

UCLA bans “Islamophobic” book from free speech event, Jihad Watch

(Ironically, an imam at a Maryland mosque, who had just attended a celebration of a Pakistani for murdering an opponent of Pakistan’s pro-Sharia blasphemy laws, praised America’s freedom of speech: 

We have some freedoms here (in the U.S.) which we do not even have in other Muslim countries. This is the beauty of this country. There are some countries where we can’t even praise the prophet, we can’t celebrate the Day of Imam Hussain. This country has freedom of religion, and this is the beauty of this country.

Please see Maryland Mosque Memorializes Islamist Assassin. What might he have said about the removal of Mr. Spencer’s “Islamophobic” book? — DM)

At this point, you might hope the UCLA administration would step in to re-assert the principle of intellectual freedom that is so crucial to education, a free society, and the advancement of human knowledge. Finally a rep from UCLA did step in–to abet the student protestors. My book was “inflammatory.” It had to go.

Thus: at a panel about freedom of speech and growing threats to it – not least from Islamists – UCLA students and school administrators tried to ban a book that highlights the importance of free speech, the persistent failure to confront Islamic totalitarianism, and that movement’s global assaults on free speech….

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

Ironically, this report appears in The Hill, which has previously shown itself ready to comply with pro-Sharia intimidation. The slightest critical word about Islam, or what is perceived to be the slightest critical word, is immediately denounced as “Islamophobic” and suppressed. If this phenomenon isn’t challenged and halted, all those who speak the truth about Islam and jihad will be silenced, and the jihad will advance unopposed and unimpeded.

ucla-law-school

“UCLA banned my book on Islam from a free speech event,” by Elan Journo, The Hill, February 11, 2017:

At UCLA Law School last week, a squad of student “thought police” tried to ban my book, Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond. They don’t want you to know the book even exists, let alone what’s inside it. And the UCLA administration enabled them. This ominous episode underlines how students are learning to be contemptuous of intellectual freedom.

The story of what happened at UCLA is laced with ironies. On Feb. 1, the UCLA chapter of the Federalist Society and the Ayn Rand Institute co-sponsored a panel discussion at UCLA Law School on the vital importance of freedom of speech and the threats to it. My book shows how certain philosophic ideas undercut America’s response to the jihadist movement, including notably its attacks on freedom of speech.

Naturally, the book was displayed and offered for sale at a reception prior to the event, which featured Dave Rubin, the contrarian YouTube host; Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published the now-infamous Mohammad cartoons in 2005 and author of The Tyranny of Silence; and Steve Simpson, editor of Defending Free Speech (these two books were also displayed).

During the reception, however, a group of UCLA students assembled in front of the book table and objected to mine. Why? Had they read the book, weighed the evidence, and found it lacking? Had they formed a considered evaluation of the book’s argument?

No: They felt the book was “offensive” and “insulting.” They had “issues” with the views that I and my co-author, Onkar Ghate, put forward. Our views, it seems, were “Islamophobic.” Based on what? Apparently, for some of them, it was the book’s title.

Yet another irony here is that in the book we disentangle the notion of “Islamophobia.” We show that it’s an illegitimate term, one that clouds thinking, because it mashes together at least two fundamentally different things. The term blends, on the one hand, serious analysis and critique of the ideas of Islamic totalitarianism, the cause animating the jihadists, which is vitally important (and the purpose of my book); and, on the other hand, racist and tribalist bigotry against people who espouse the religion of Islam. Obviously, racism and bigotry have no place in a civilized society.

Moreover, the book makes clear that while all jihadists are self-identified Muslims, it is blatantly false that all Muslims are jihadists. (It should go without saying, though sadly it must be said, that countless Muslims are law abiding, peaceful, productive Americans.) Ignorant of the book’s full scope and substance, the students felt it had no place on campus.

The students demanded that my book be removed from display. My colleagues who manned the display table declined to remove the book.

So the students enforced their own brand of thought control. They turned their backs to the table, forming a blockade around it, so no one could see or buy the books. Then they started aggressively leaning back on the table, pushing against the book displays. By blocking access to the book, they were essentially trying to ban it.

At this point, you might hope the UCLA administration would step in to re-assert the principle of intellectual freedom that is so crucial to education, a free society, and the advancement of human knowledge. Finally a rep from UCLA did step in–to abet the student protestors. My book was “inflammatory.” It had to go.

Thus: at a panel about freedom of speech and growing threats to it – not least from Islamists – UCLA students and school administrators tried to ban a book that highlights the importance of free speech, the persistent failure to confront Islamic totalitarianism, and that movement’s global assaults on free speech….

Islamophobic French Soldiers Shoot Muslim Terrorist Trying to Behead Them

February 3, 2017

Islamophobic French Soldiers Shoot Muslim Terrorist Trying to Behead Them, Front Page Magazine (The Point), Daniel Greenfield, February 3, 2017

ntdwi

The non-existent problem of Islamic terror struck again near the Louvre, the famous French museum, as a terrorist of unknown religion and national origin shouting “Allah Akbar” (a phrase in Arabic that means everyone should be nicer to other people and not behead them) and waving a machete was shot by French soldiers occupying the historic Islamic homeland of Paris..

It’s unknown why the soldiers shot him, but some experts are blaming Islamophobia. Others complain that the soldiers used excessive force, first attempting to fight him off to prevent him from beheading them, before taking the extreme disproportionate approach of shooting him. Sadly, gun control once again failed to accomplish its stated purpose of allowing murderers to kill without any interference. 

The assailant, who has been hospitalized, has already complained that his nurses are female, alive and aren’t wearing hijabs. The European Court has promised to take up his case.

While it’s unknown why the man was carrying two machetes around, it’s possible that he wanted to present them as a gift to the soldiers in the traditional fashion by slashing at their heads with it, and they, misunderstanding his intentions due to their prejudices, shot him instead.

Either way it’s a tragedy and we should not jump to any conclusions, but we should welcome more refugees, as long as they’re Muslim, because we don’t want any religious tests, except for non-Muslims.

What we really should take away from this is that it has nothing to do with Islam, but possibly with Islamophobia, and we will shortly be interviewing a number of moderate Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen, most of whom aren’t carrying machetes, but who are very concerned about the Islamophobic backlash and the ability of French soldiers to shoot back.