Algerian Army Marching Drill: Kill, Slaughter, and Skin the Jews, MEMRI-TV via You Tube, December 21, 2015
According to the blurb beneath the video,
In a marching drill of the Algerian National Gendarmerie, the soldiers chant: “Turn your guns towards the Jews… in order to kill them… slaughter them… and skin them.” The video was posted on the Internet on November 1 to mark Algeria’s Revolution Day, but the post did not state when the video was filmed.
Clash of Civilizations: Islamic vs. Judeo-Christian, Dan Miller’s Blog, December 20, 2015
(The views expressed in this article are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Judeo-Christian civilization has nothing in common with, and nothing to gain from, Islamic civilization as it now exists. They have been clashing for centuries. Now, Islamic civilization appears to be winning in much of the European Union and, to a lesser degree, in America.
Can anything be done to slow and then to halt the spread of fundamentalist Islam? Ayan Hirsi Ali hopes there is and that Muslims will do it. I also hope they will, but am quite dubious that it will happen in the foreseeable future. We need to take other steps promptly.
Preliminary disclosure
As I wrote here in 2012, I am an Agnostic and have been for more than half a century. I do not believe that one or more Gods exist, nor do I believe that none exist. I simply do not know and have no way to know. However, Judeo-Christian society has given me what I love most, freedom to think and to speak as I choose. That freedom is now under severe attack and is withering away. Far too few Christians and Jews seem to have noticed or to care.
When I was in tenth grade, my parents and I decided that I would have a better chance of being admitted to and succeeding at a good college if I were to transfer from public high school to a private high school. We researched area private schools and settled upon St. Stephen’s School for Boys, an Episcopalian school. The headmaster was an Episcopalian priest. During my admissions interview, I volunteered that I was an Agnostic. It did not seem to bother him, but he told me that I would be required to attend a daily religious opening ceremony and, during my senior year, a weekly sacred studies class which he would lead. The first did not bother me and I looked forward to the second.
During the morning religious ceremonies, I stood when the other boys stood and sat when they sat. When they sang hymns and recited creeds and bible verses, I did not. Nobody seemed to notice. During the sacred studies class, I voiced my views, the other boys voiced theirs and the Headmaster voiced his. Our discussions were collegial, not contentious.
These experiences have colored my views of Judeo-Christian culture as it has evolved through today: with increasing exceptions, it remains a culture of freedom and kindness. Sometimes, as with outreach to Islamists, it goes too far. Christian outreach to fundamentalist Islam is like bone cells inviting cancer cells in to discuss how they can be friends and get along. In the end, they can’t and won’t. The cancer cells will thrive and the owner of the infested bones will die painfully.
Fundamentalist Islam is a culture of compulsion and hate
Americans should learn far more than we have from the recent experiences of Sweden, Germany, England, France and other European Union countries in welcoming Muslims to Islamise their cultures. I posted a lengthy article on that on December 13th. If you haven’t read it yet, please do so now. It provides very helpful background for an understanding of the clash of Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilizations.
Here is a lengthy video by Walid Shoebat, once an Islamic jihadist and now a Roman Catholic opponent of Islam. Born in “Palestine,” he imbibed the Islamic culture of hate and compulsion as a youth, as did most of his acquaintances. Eventually, he changed from what he was to what he now is.
Here’s are Shoebat’s 2007 comments:
Most of Shoebat’s comments are consistent with my understanding of present-day Islam, which is largely fundamentalist, of “Palestine” and of its leaders. Here are videos of three who lead the “heroes of Palestine:”
Here’s are Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s 2015 comments on the possibility of an Islamic reformation, for which she argues in her recent book Heretic. (I just bought the Kindle version. After I have read it, I may post an article about it.) A former Muslim and now an Athiest, she is far more conciliatory than was Shoebat because she wants to promote change for the better within Islam. In her closing comments, she offers hope that someday Muslims will become as tolerant and peaceful as Christians and Jews. She does not expect that to happen during her life time, or for a long time thereafter. At seventy-four, I certainly don’t expect it during my remaining time on Earth.
Education today in Obama’s America
Obama’s America has become a multicultural, moral-equivalence based society dominated by political correctness. Many — including some nominal Christians and Jews — rail against Christianity and Judaism. Islam, on the other hand, has become a protected species: any suggestion that it is evil is condemned as “Islamophobic.”
At my alma mater, Yale (1959 – 63), freedom of speech and of thought now take back seats to politically correct condemnations of anything that anyone (except Christians and Jews) might find offensive.
I understand that the same sickness is spreading throughout the country. Maybe some fine day we will have an educational system like this:
Efforts to spread multicultural, moral-equivalence and hence Islamic values are not confined to our colleges. According to an article by The Clarion Project,
Controversy over the way public schools are presenting Islam has been making headlines in many school districts around the U.S. and worldwide:
♦ In Tennessee, a bill was introduced to prevent schools from teaching classes on “religious doctrine” before the 10th grade. The bill is in reaction to objections by parents to a three-week curriculum under the topic of world religion for middle-school students that covers the “Five Pillars of Islam” that obligated children to write assignments about Islamic principles of faith, such as “Allah is the only God.” Parents particularly objected because no other religion was taught at the same time and the amount of time spent on Islam was considerably more than that spent on any other religion.
♦ In Maryland, parents objected to the way Islam was taught in the school’s “World History” class, presenting Islam in an historically untrue way and listing all the “benefits” of Islam.
♦ After being threatened with a lawsuit, an Ohio school district agreed to remove a video about Islam from a seventh grade world-history curriculum that was challenged as falling under the category of proselytizing and favoring one religion over another (a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause). The video, titled 30 Days: Muslim and America, features a young Christian man who agrees to totally immerse himself in Islam for a month by living with a Muslim family in Dearborn, Michigan. It was shown to students as part of a course that requires students to “describe achievements by the Islamic civilization and how these achievements were introduced into Western Europe in the time period between 750 BC – 1600AD.”
♦ In Massachusetts, the Wellesley Middle School, another public school was caught in a controversy when a video (see below) of a student trip to the Roxbury megamosque was released. On the trip, students were taught propaganda – among other things, that Muslim women got the vote before women in the West – by the mosque staff. The boys can be seen prostrating themselves to Allah alongside Muslim men. The video was covered extensively on Boston TV and radio.
♦ In Massachusetts, the Newton public school system became enmeshed in a similar controversy about deceptive and anti-Semitic lessons concerning Muslim women being taught to their students. Even though the curriculum was removed, school administrators refused to tell the children the information was inaccurate (as was the case above with the Wellesley Middle School).
Here’s the referenced video of a 2010 high school trip to a mosque in Newton, Massachusetts:
The Gulen Movement, led by a Turkish expat living in the United States, seeks to promote Islam. There are now more than one hundred and forty Gulen charter schools in the United States. Here’s a bit about them from a Center for Security Polity publication titled The Gulen Movement: Turkey’s Islamic Supremacist Cult and its Contributions to the Civilization Jihad.
Fethullah Gulen’s movement is just one more manifestation of what the Muslim Brotherhood has called civilization jihad, albeit a particularly sinister one with its large footprint, penetration of our educational system and well-established, sophisticated and successful influence operations. With this new monograph – the [eighth] in the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Readers Series, we hope to sound an alarm about this multi-faceted and dangerous Islamic supremacist cult that – despite significant setbacks in its native Turkey – constitutes a true Trojan Horse in our midst. [Emphasis added.]
It must be noted that those setbacks [in Turkey] are being dealt the Gulen cult and its empire by a rival Islamic supremacist movement: the AK Party and government of Turkish President Recep Tayyep Erdogan. Like erstwhile allies in organized criminal racketeering, these two Islamist mafia dons have had a toxic falling-out after they jointly took down the Ataturk legacy of secular governance in Turkey. Welcome as the rolling up of the Gulen empire and the extradition of its cult leader from the United States would be, nothing in this monograph should be seen as an endorsement of the no-less problematic Erdogan regime’s civilization jihadism and its ambitions to restore the Caliphate.
Please read the entire pamphlet.
Turkey’s Gulen is not alone. Another Turkish group, Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), is writing text books and providing teachers and other resources to schools in Germany.
The state of Hesse has become the first in Germany to offer Islamic education in public schools, with religious instruction starting as early as the first grade.
Giving young children religious and moral instruction might sound like a good idea, if not for the content of the newly written Islamic curriculum and the influence of Islamist elements over the recruitment of teachers. [Emphasis added.]
The writing of textbooks is being overseen by the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB). In an agreement reached between the State of Hesse and DITIB, the organization will play a key role in setting the curriculum, selecting the teachers and monitoring the Islamic religious instruction. The organization is apparently assuming a similar role in several other key German states. [Emphasis added.]
DITIB is the largest Muslim organization in Germany and controls several prominent mosques. The group depends heavily on the Turkish government for its funding, and maintains close ties with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist party, the AKP.
Our “great ally” Saudi Arabia is also spending lots of money to promote fundamentalist Islam.
[T]he Kingdom funded Western tax exempt Islamic organizations engaged in dawah (proselytization for Islam). Among them were networks of charitable organizations that provide financial aid to prisoners (including non-Muslims to lure them to Islam) in Western jails, lavishly funded academic chairs in Middle East Studies in universities around the world, student-exchange programs and spending many millions of dollars to increase Saudi political influence in the West — even contributing $100 million to coordinate and assist the United Nations international counterterrorism efforts.
. . . .
The public outrage and rejection of Saudi King Salman’s offer to fund 200 new mosques for more than 800,000 new Muslim refugees in Germany, and the Vice Chancellor’s statement: “We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over” point in the right direction. But don’t hold your breath. Germany, the United States and the rest of the West have been turning a blind eye to Saudi funding of thousands of mosques, madrassas and Islamic centers that have propagated radical Islamic ideology for decades and are unlikely to face reality anytime soon. [Emphasis added.]
How and why are “we the people” encouraging Islam’s victory over Judeo-Christian culture?
Far from being limited to a number of elitist leaders and institutions, the Western empowerment of the jihad is the natural outcome of postmodern thinking—the real reason an innately weak Islam can be a source of repeated woes for a militarily and economically superior West. [Emphasis added.]
Remember, the reason people like French President Francois Hollande, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are in power—three prominent Western leaders who insist that Islam is innocent of violence and who push for Muslim immigration—is because they embody a worldview that is normative in the West. [Emphasis added.]
In this context, the facilitation of jihadi terror is less a top down imposition and more a grass root product of decades of erroneous, but unquestioned, thinking. (Those who believe America’s problems begin and end with Obama would do well to remember that he did not come to power through a coup but that he was voted in—twice. This indicates that Obama and the majority of voting Americans have a shared, and erroneous, worldview. He may be cynically exploiting this worldview, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s because this warped worldview is mainstream that he can exploit it in the first place.) [Emphasis added.]
Western empowerment of the jihad is rooted in a number of philosophies that have metastasized into every corner of social life, becoming cornerstones of postmodern epistemology. These include the doctrines of relativism and multiculturalism on the one hand, and anti-Western, anti-Christian sentiment on the other. [Emphasis added.]
Taken together, these cornerstones of postmodern, post-Christian thinking hold that there are no absolute truths and thus all cultures are fundamentally equal and deserving of respect. If any Western person wants to criticize a civilization or religion, then let them look “inwardly” and acknowledge their European Christian heritage as the epitome of intolerance and imperialism. [Emphasis added.]
Add to these a number of sappy and silly ideals—truth can never be uttered because it might “hurt the feelings” of some (excluding white Christians who are free game), and if anything, the West should go out of its way to make up for its supposedly historic “sins” by appeasing Muslims until they “like us”—and you have a sure recipe for disaster, that is, the current state of affairs. [Emphasis added.]
Western people are bombarded with these aforementioned “truths” from the cradle to the grave—from kindergarten to university, from Hollywood to the news rooms, and now even in churches—so that they are unable to accept and act on a simple truism that their ancestors well knew: Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant creed that cannot coexist with non-Islam (except insincerely, in times of weakness). [Emphasis added.]
The essence of all this came out clearly when Obama, in order to rationalize away the inhuman atrocities of the Islamic State, counseled Americans to get off their “high horse” and remember that their Christian ancestors have been guilty of similar if not worse atrocities. That he had to go back almost a thousand years for examples by referencing the crusades and inquisition—both of which have been completely distorted by the warped postmodern worldview, including by portraying imperialist Muslims as victims—did not matter to America’s leader.
Worse, it did not matter to most Americans. The greater lesson was not that Obama whitewashed modern Islamic atrocities by misrepresenting and demonizing Christian history, but that he was merely reaffirming the mainstream narrative that Americans have been indoctrinated into believing. And thus, aside from the usual ephemeral and meaningless grumblings, his words—as with many of his pro-Islamic, anti-Christian comments and policies—passed along without consequence. [Emphasis added.]
Conclusions
Too many of “We the people” demand “safe spaces” (offense-free zones) where rote acceptance of politically correct pablum is cherished rather than contested or even questioned. I doubt that another massively successful effort on the scale of the September 11, 2001 attack by Islamic fundamentalists would awaken many of them. Rather than begin to awaken and see what Islam is, how many would angrily demand to know what America did this time to offend our brothers and sisters of the Religion of Peace, Truth and love?
We once had a great culture and a great nation.
It is now fading and is in danger of being displaced by something far different and evil. What will WE do?
Getting rid of Obama will not be nearly enough, regardless of whether He is a Muslim.
Listen again to Ayan Hirsi Ali’s hopes for the reformation of Islam and think about what we can do to help. Read about Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who wants to make Muslims believe that much of fundamentalist Islam is not Islamic.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser – a Navy vet and founder of the American Islamic Forum of Democracy – is one of those individuals taking the stand against Islamic organizations that support terrorism and claim to speak for the entire community. From Fox News:
“CAIR is a primary obstacle in the effort of many honest American Muslims who recognize our need to own up and lead long-overdue reforms against the root causes of radicalization: Islamism and its separatism,” said Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an ex-U.S. Navy officer who founded and heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
and
“CAIR’s information is marketed and packaged so it seems that they speak for all of us, but they don’t speak for me and my group,” said Raheel Raza, president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. “CAIR does not and has never represented the majority Muslim voices which are as diverse as Muslims in America.”
‘They don’t speak for me’: New Muslim groups reject CAIR representation http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/18/dont-speak-for-me-new-muslim-groups-reject-cair-representation.html
Dr. Jasser has assembled an alliance known as the “Muslim Reform Movement” consisting of about a dozen moderate Islamic groups in the US, Canada and Europe. This movement rebukes jihad and advocates the separation of “Mosque and state,” among other things. Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that they reject the idea of an “Islamic State” and Sharia Law.
Dr. Jasser is right about the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Although political correctness prevents Democrats and many Republicans from admitting it, it is already well established that CAIR has ties to terrorism.
CAIR, which masquerades as America’s largest Muslim civil rights group, is an outpost of international jihadism. It is an enemy propaganda organization whose longstanding ties to the terrorist underworld have been exhaustively documented at DiscoverTheNetworks and elsewhere. CAIR aims to influence America’s domestic and foreign policies. CAIR wants to make America safe for Sharia law by bullying Americans into not questioning Islam, a religion-centered ideology that has been generating a body count for 1,400 years. [Emphasis added.]
Accusing critics of so-called Islamophobia, a term invented by Islamists, is CAIR’s favorite method of silencing critics and opponents. It is part of a dangerous effort to discourage Americans from thinking freely and arriving at their own conclusions about Islam and mainstream the tenets of Islam in our society. The idea is to eventually make it as difficult and uncomfortable as possible to criticize the faith founded by Muhammad in the seventh century after the birth of Christ. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. The three men, reports DiscoverTheNetworks, “had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and founded as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States.” CAIR opened an office in the nation’s capital with a $5,000 grant from the Marzook-founded Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a charity that the Bush administration shuttered in 2001 for collecting money “to support the Hamas terror organization.” CAIR called the action “unjust” and “disturbing.” In 2004 Marzook was indicted on racketeering charges related to his pro-Hamas activities. Ahmad was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
Ghassan Elashi, a co-founder of the Texas branch of CAIR, was convicted in 2005 of terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to 80 months in prison. CAIR civil rights director Randall Todd Royer was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on federal weapons and explosives charges in 2004. Bassem Khafagi, a community affairs director at CAIR, was convicted in 2003 on bank and visa fraud charges and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Rabih Haddad, a fundraiser for CAIR’s chapter in Ann Arbor, Mich., was detained in 2001 after overstaying his tourist visa. Authorities found a firearm and boxes of ammunition in his home. He served 19 months in prison and was deported to Lebanon in 2003. CAIR board member Abdurahman Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment for funneling at least $1 million to al-Qaeda. CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. The three men, reports DiscoverTheNetworks, “had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and founded as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States.”
CAIR and related Islamist organizations have often participated in White House meetings; Dr. Jasser and his group have been excluded.
[F]or the past seven years, the Obama White House has opened its doors to the entire spectrum of radical Islamist groups, just like CAIR. These groups have rationalized the actions of Islamic terrorist groups that have killed Americans, warned American Muslims against cooperating with law enforcement, smeared genuine Muslim moderates like Zuhdi Jasser and Asra Nomani as traitors and accused anyone who dared to utter the term “radical Islam” as “Islamophobic.” These are the groups that the White House should have marginalized. The fact that Obama legitimized radical Islamist groups will be his real legacy.
Is Dr. Jasser’s version of Islam “fantasy Islam?” Historically and presently, it unfortunately is. It rejects aspects of Islamism with which very many Muslims agree.
But need that remain the case? Christianity has changed since the time of the Inquisition and perhaps Islam — which except technologically remains stuck in the middle ages — can eventually change as well — if and when Islamic nations encourage, rather than prohibit, free speech. I have seen few significant signs of that happening. Egyptian President Sisi — despised by Obama for opposing the Muslim Brotherhood — has tried and is trying. He may not be around much longer because of it.
Jasser’s hopes for the future generally parallel those of Ayan Hirsi Ali, who wants Islam to revert to relatively tolerant and peaceful Mecca Islam and to reject subsequent Medina Islam, the fruit of Mohamed’s greatly changed status in Medina to become a powerful warlord. I see little reason to expect that it will change in that direction even in the distant future, and less that it will do so soon. I hope that I am wrong.
In any event, Muslims will need to do most of the work themselves, and that will require that there be enough of them to do it. If and when that happens, perhaps we can help a little. The most important things that we can do will be to
1. Recognize that fundamentalist Islam is evil and shun rather than accept those who espouse it, such as CAIR and its affiliates and
2. Prevent the further invasion of the United States (it may well be too late for Obama’s America) by Muslims who adhere to fundamentalist Islam. Unfortunately, most of our current crop of Republicans seem quite unlikely even to try.
Israelis Refused Entry Into Jordan With ‘Jewish Paraphernalia’ in Luggage, Algemeiner, Ruthie Blum, December 10, 2015
(Please see also, Trump’s ‘Racist’ Entry Restriction Policy Not Novel, But Response Is. — DM)
Three of the Israeli family’s five children at the Jordanian border. The two brothers were not allowed in with their kippot. Photo: Facebook.
An Israeli family on a Hannukah vacation to Jordan was shocked to be turned away at the border, due to the skull caps (kippot) on the heads of the father and two sons, the Israeli site nrg reported on Thursday.
Tamar Gewirtz Hayardeni, the mother of the family, told nrg about the ordeal, after ranting about it on Facebook.
Tamar, a licensed tour guide who has been to Jordan in the past, described the family’s encounter with Jordanian border authorities, who were adamant that the male members of the family not enter the country with their kippot, claiming it was for their own protection.
Gewirtz Hayardeni said she explained to the border guard that the family had not intended to walk around with the kippot on their heads in any case — as a precaution. They insisted they would wear regular hats, while keeping their kippot in their luggage.
This was not sufficient for the border guard, however, according to Gewirtz Hayardeni, who said that at that point, she didn’t know what to do other than consult with her family. As they were weighing their options, their dilemma was solved, she recounted, when another Israeli was led into the room, “charged with attempting to bring tefillin into Jordan” – phylacteries that were discovered by security x-ray.
“That’s when we understood that the Jordanians might want Israelis to come, but not Jews,” she wrote on Facebook. “So we turned around and went back to Israel.”
On the Israeli side of the border, Gewirtz Hayardeni asked the guards and other people working there whether her experience was common. She was told that the Jordanians have begun forbidding all Jewish paraphernalia from entering the country.
Gewirtz Hayardeni expressed disgust and questioned what would happen if Jordanian tourists to Israel were forbidden to enter with headscarves or other Muslim “paraphernalia.”
According to an Israeli Channel 2 report on Thursday evening, Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely intends to investigate the phenomenon with the Jordanian authorities.
Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994, which expanded water, tourism and trade cooperation, as well as a commitment to prevent third parties from using either country’s territory as a staging ground for military strikes.
Jews are the main target of religious hate crimes in America, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, December 10, 2015
President Obama and other leftists continue to sound the alarm against anti-Muslim hate crimes. But FBI data shows that few hate crimes are directed at Muslims in the country and that many more are directed at Jews.
The FBI bases its annual report on information submitted by law enforcement agencies. This year, 86 percent of the nation’s nearly 18,000 law enforcement agencies provided hate crime reports for 2014 to the FBI.
According to Forward, the data showed that around 60 percent of religious-based hate crimes committed in the U.S. last year were directed at Jews. These crimes produced 648 victims, which amounted to around 57[%] of the total victims of anti-religious crimes. By contrast, Muslims were the target of just about 15 percent of these crimes and made up 16.1 percent of victims.
The U.S. population contains just about twice as many Jews as Muslims. Yet Jews were the target of four times as many hate crimes as Muslims in this country.
Fortunately, the FBI reported no religiously-motivated murders of Jews or Muslims in the U.S. last year. However, according to Forward, a Kansas man killed three people outside of Jewish centers, and his intent in each case was to kill a Jew.
The FBI says it did not include these murders in its report due to bad reporting by Kansas authorities. Even though the victims weren’t Jewish, the killings should have been considered anti-religious hate crimes directed at Jews, the FBI concedes.
One hate crime against anybody is too many. But when we consider the size of this country and the relatively small number of religious-based hate crime, this phenomenon doesn’t strike me as a serious problem. If it is one, though, it’s more of a problem for American Jews than for American Muslims.
Islam — Radical, Extremist and Mainstream, Dan Miller’s Blog, November 21, 2015
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM
In largely secular western societies, Islam and its history are viewed by many non-Muslims as substantially irrelevant to how devout Muslims behave. Perhaps the view that religion is of little importance to devout Muslims is based on the role, minor if any, that religion and religious history play in their own secular lives. However, both Islamic teachings and history give devout Muslims their grounding in Islam and teach them that Islam is the religion of war, not peace: Islam must become the world’s only religion by extirpating all others.
Islam was founded by Mohamed ( c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) in the sixth century. Mohamed
is considered, almost universally,[n 2] by Muslims to have been the last prophet sent by God to mankind[3][n 3] to restore Islam, which they believe to be the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.[4][5][6][7] [Emphasis added.]
Islam considers the words of Mohamed, as transcribed in the “Holy” Quran and Hadith, to be the words of Allah. “Restoring” other monotheistic religions means changing them to comport with Islam as dictated to Mohamed by Allah; unaltered, those other religions cannot continue to exist; it is the duty of Muslims to force them to change or to exterminate them.
Islam provides the basis for Sunni and Shiite (principal branches of Islam) efforts to govern world civilization according to Islamic principles as voiced by Allah through his prophet, Mohamed. Since Islamic principles tolerate no religious or political freedoms (let alone contemporary gender equality or homosexuality notions), such western ideas must be extirpated — as they have been in Saudi Arabia (now the head of the UN Human Rights Council) and Iran. Islamic principles are also manifested by the hopes and efforts of the Islamic State (Sunni, like Saudi Arabia) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (Shiite) to achieve their own caliphates.
Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr is a scholar of Islamic law and a graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University — regularly touted as the world’s most prestigious Islamic university. Al Azhar University co-hosted Obama’s 2009 “New Beginnings” address in Cairo, to which Obama insisted that at least ten members of the Muslim Brotherhood be invited. According to an article at Jihad Watch,
After being asked why Al Azhar, which is in the habit of denouncing secular thinkers as un-Islamic, refuses to denounce the Islamic State as un-Islamic, Sheikh Nasr said:
It can’t [condemn the Islamic State as un-Islamic]. The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world [to establish it]. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from religious minorities]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? [Emphasis added.]
Nasr joins a growing chorus of critics of Al Azhar. Last September, while discussing how the Islamic State burns some of its victims alive—most notoriously, a Jordanian pilot—Egyptian journalist Yusuf al-Husayni remarked on his satellite program that “The Islamic State is only doing what Al Azhar teaches… and the simplest example is Ibn Kathir’s Beginning and End.”
Since the world’s preeminent Islamic university teaches Islam as proclaimed by the Islamic State, how can non-Muslims claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic? Why do many, even conservatives, refer to the Islamic State and its allied Islamic terror groups as “radical” or “extremist?”
Martin Luther was “radical” and “extreme” because he tried to reform aspects of Roman Catholicism which he deemed malign.
He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for sin could be purchased with money. He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar, with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the Pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.
Unlike Martin Luther’s eventually successful efforts to reform aspects of Roman Catholicism, the efforts of Egyptian President Sisi and other moderate Muslims to reform Islam have thus far gained little traction. Obama appears to support President Sisi’s principal opponent in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Sisi and other moderates — rather than the Islamic State and Islamic nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia — should be characterized as “radical” or “extreme” because they dispute the teachings of Allah as relayed through his prophet, Mohamed. The proponents of Islam as it now exists are “mainstream,” and therefore neither “radical” nor “extreme.” We should support “radicals” like President Sisi.
As noted in an article titled Beware of Islamic Terrorism,
All Islamic terrorists — not only the Islamic State group and al-Qaida — systematically and deliberately target civilians, stabbing their Muslim and “infidel” host countries in the back, abusing their hospitality to advance 14 centuries of megalomaniac aspirations to rule the globe in general, and to reclaim the “waqf” (Allah-ordained) regions of Europe in particular.
Emboldened by Western indifference, these destabilizing and terror-intensifying aspirations have been bolstered by the Islamic educational systems in Europe, the U.S. and other Western countries. These proclaim a supposedly irrevocable Islamic title over the eighth-century Islamic conquests of Lyon, Nice and much of France, as well as all of Spain; the ninth-century subjugation of parts of Italy; and the ninth- and 10th-century occupations of western Switzerland, including Geneva. [Emphasis added.]
Europe has underestimated the critical significance of this long anti-Western history in shaping contemporary Islamic education, culture, politics, peace, war, and the overall Islamic attitude toward Europe, North America, Australia, and other “arrogant infidels.” “Infidel” France has been the prime European target for Islamic terrorists, with 11 reported attacks in 2015, despite France’s systematic criticism of Israel and support for the Palestinian Authority — dispelling conventional “wisdom” that Islamic terrorism is Israeli or Palestinian-driven.
Europe has ignored the significant impact the crucial milestones in the life of the Prophet Muhammad have had on contemporary Islamic geostrategy, such as his seventh-century Hijrah, when Muhammad, along with his loyalists, emigrated or fled from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina), not to be integrated and blend into Medina’s social, economic or political environment, but to advance and spread Islam through conversion, subversion and terrorism, if necessary. Asserting himself over his hosts and rivals in Medina, Muhammad gathered a critical mass of military might to conquer Mecca and launch Islam’s drive to dominate the world. [Emphasis added.]
According to a moderate Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, writing in an article at the Daily Beast titled ISIS Is Just One of a Full-Blown Global Jihadist Insurgency,
Our political leaders have been restricting the definition of this problem to whichever jihadist group is causing them the biggest headache at the present time, while ignoring the fact that they are all borne of the same Islamist ideology. Before ISIS emerged, the U.S. State Department strangely took to naming the problem “al Qaeda-inspired extremism,” even though it was not al Qaeda that inspired the radicalism. Rather, Islamist extremism inspired al Qaeda. And in turn, ISIS did not radicalize those 6,000 European Muslims who have traveled to join them, nor the thousands of supporters the French now say they are monitoring. [Emphasis added.]
This did not happened overnight and could not have emerged from a vacuum. ISIS propaganda is good, but not that good. No, decades of Islamist propaganda in communities had already primed these young Muslims to yearn for a theocratic caliphate. When surveyed, 33 percent of British Muslims expressed a desire to resurrect a caliphate. ISIS simply plucked the low-hanging fruit, which had been seeded long ago by various Islamist groups, and it will now require decades of community resilience to push back. But we cannot even begin to do so until we recognize the problem for what it is. Welcome to the full-blown global jihadist insurgency. [Emphasis added.]
The author of that article claims that Islamism (often referred to as “political Islam“) is not Islam:
I speak as a former Liberal Democrat candidate in the U.K.’s last general election and as someone who became a political prisoner in Egypt due to my former belief in Islamism. I speak, therefore, from a place of concern and familiarity, not enmity and hostility to Islam and Muslims. In a televised discussion with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on the issue, I have argued that of course ISIS is not Islam. Nor am I. Nor is anyone, really. Because Islam is what Muslims make it. But it is as disingenuous to argue that ISIS has “nothing to do with Islam” as it is to argue that “they are Islam.” ISIS has something to do with Islam. Not nothing, not everything, but something. . . . [Emphasis added.]
It is important to define here what I mean by Islamism: Islam is a religion, and like any other it is internally diverse. But Islamism is the desire to impose a very particular version of Islam on society. Hence, Islamism is Muslim theocracy. [Emphasis added.]
In another article, Mr. Nawaz acknowledges,
Islamism has been rising in the UK for decades. Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslims sympathised with the Charlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36% have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate. Is it any wonder then, that from this milieu up to 1,000 British Muslims have joined ISIS, which is more than joined the Army reserves.
I wish Mr. Nawaz well and hope that his efforts to change Islam succeed. However, in drawing distinctions between Islam and Islamism, he seems to have forgotten, or perhaps to have chosen to ignore, the teachings of Allah as relayed by his messenger and Islam’s founder, Mohamed, referenced at the beginning of this article. Mohamed (and presumably Allah himself) would be surprised by and even horrified at such notions as “Islam is what Muslims make it” and that Islam does not contemplate a Muslim theocracy. So, in all probability, would be many of the clerics at Egypt’s Al Azhar University.
Here are a few videos of Islamic clerics spreading their messages of Islamic peace, love and tolerance. The last of the bunch is about one of Obama’s favorite Muslims.
To close on a somewhat lighter note, here are a few observations by Jonah Goldberg taken from his Goldberg file (November 20, 2015 e-mail),
If you Google “Christian terrorism,” you’re probably a jackass to begin with. But if you do — bidden not by your own drive to jackassery but by the natural curiosity inspired by this “news” letter — you’ll find lots of left-wingtrollery about how the worst terrorist attacks on American soil have been committed by Christians. Much of it is tendentious, question-begging twaddle. But I really don’t want to waste a lot of time on whether Tim McVeigh was a Christian or not (he really wasn’t).
What I find interesting is that many of the same people who clutch their pearls at the mere suggestion that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with — oh, what’s the word again? — oh right: Islam, seem to have no problem making the case that “Christian terrorism” is like a real thing. Remember how so many liberals loved — loved — Obama’s sophomoric and insidious tirade about not getting on our “high horses” about ISIS’s atrocities in the here and now because medieval Christians did bad things a thousand years ago? They never seem to think that argument through. Leaving out the ass-aching stupidity of the comparison, it actually concedes the very point Obama never wants to concede. By laying the barbaric sins of Christians a thousand years ago at the feet of Christians today, he implicitly tags Muslims with the barbarism committed in their name today. [Emphasis added.]
Now, I see no need to wade too deeply into the theology here, but I think I am on very solid ground when I say that Islamic terrorism draws more easily and deeply from the Koran than Tim McVeigh drew from the Christian Bible. Of course, you’re free to disagree. In a free society, everybody has the right to be wrong in their opinions. (But don’t tell anyone at Yale that.)
. . . .
But it is simply a lie — an obvious, glaring, indisputable, trout-in-the-milk lie — that Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
Simply put, this is nonsense. . . . The jihadists say they are motivated by Islam. They shout “Allahu akbar!” whenever they kill people. “Moderate Muslims” in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have been funding Islamic radicals around the world for nearly a century. This morning in Mali, terrorist gunmen reportedly released those hostages who could quote the Koran. The leader of ISIS has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies and openly talks about restoring the Caliphate. [Emphasis added.]
Despite all of this, don’t be distracted from the greatest threat to our security; or perhaps we should be:
The best way to remember the Holocaust is by bringing Muslims to kill American Jews, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 20, 2015
Telling Americans they’re supposed to “atone” for the Holocaust by helping Muslims harass and murder Jews is as backward as trying to apologize for slavery with more slavery.
************************
The dumbest “refugees” meme the left has rolled out to date are the comparisons between the Holocaust refugee policies of FDR that kept out Jews and political leaders today who want to take genuine Christian and Yazidi refugees instead of fake economic Muslim migrants who pose serious terrorism threats.
Living in New York City, I’ve lost count of the number of Muslim terror plots against synagogues since 9/11. The previous Paris attack by Muslims targeted a Jewish supermarket. (Or as Obama put it, “random folks in a deli.”)
Sure it’s #NotAllMuslims. It’s just enough of them that this behavior repeats itself time and time again. Until you end up with European cities like Malmo where there are so many Muslims that the Jews have to flee.
Because Muslims don’t like non-Muslims and really don’t like Jews.
Researchers found that the percentage expressing “favorable views” about Jews was uniformly low: Egypt, 2 percent; Jordan, 2 percent; Pakistan, 2 percent; Lebanon, 3 percent; Palestine, 4 percent; Turkey, 4 percent.
And yes, Muslims in the West also hate Jews.
Belgium: 68 percent of Muslims harbor anti-Semitic attitudes, compared to 21 percent overall;
Spain: 62 percent, compared to 29 percent overall;
Germany: 56 percent, compared to 16 percent overall;
Italy: 56 percent, compared to 29 percent overall;
United Kingdom: 54 percent, compared to 12 percent overall;
France: 49 percent, compared to 17 percent overall.
Theologically, Islam is violently anti-Semitic. Mohammed’s final command was the ethnic cleansing of Jews. The shout Allahu Akbar originated from one of his massacres of Jews.
It’s that simple. Muslims hate Jews. Bringing more Muslims to America makes the country more anti-Semitic. It promotes violence against Jews and harassment of Jews.
The numbers are in… [NOTE: clicking on the link returns “blank.” — DM)
In France, 73 percent of Jews surveyed said that they had witnessed or experienced anti-Semitism from someone with “Muslim extremist views.”
Why do liberals want to bring this same horrible reality to America?
Telling Americans they’re supposed to “atone” for the Holocaust by helping Muslims harass and murder Jews is as backward as trying to apologize for slavery with more slavery.
The worst possible way to respond to the Holocaust is by promoting the Muslim persecution of Jews in America.
If we want to take the kinds of refugees who are like the Jews in WW2, we should take stateless persecuted minorities, Christians and Yazidis.
Syrian Muslims are not stateless and they are not a minority. They are a supremacist group whose own intolerance of religious differences tore Syria apart. If we bring that intolerance to America, we will all suffer.
Syrian Muslim migrants are already attacking Syrian Christian refugees in Europe.
Said went across Turkey on foot. He never thought that his problems would only be starting once he made it to Germany.
“In Iran, the Revolutionary Guards have arrested my brother in a house church. I fled the Iranian secret police, because I thought in Germany I can finally freely live by my religion,” says Said. “But in the home for asylum seekers, I can’t even openly admit that I am a Christian.”
Mainly Syrian refugees, mostly devout Sunni Muslims, live in the home. “They wake me before dawn during Ramadan and say that I should eat before the sun comes up. If I refuse, they say, I’m a, kuffar ‘, an unbeliever. They spit at me,” says Said. “They treat me like an animal. And threaten to kill me.”
Why do liberals want to bring this to America? If they don’t care about Syrian Christian refugees, what about gay Syrian refugees?
Rami Ktifan made a snap decision to come out. A fellow Syrian had spotted a rainbow flag lying near the 23-year-old university student’s belongings inside a packed refugee center. The curious man, Ktifan recalled, picked it up before casually asking, “What is this?”
“I decided to tell the truth, that it is the flag for gay people like me,” Ktifan said. “I thought, I am in Europe now. In Germany, I should not have to hide anymore.”
What followed over the next several weeks, though, was abuse — both verbal and physical — from other refugees, including an attempt to burn Ktifan’s feet in the middle of the night.
Bringing these people to America is like bringing Nazis here during the Holocaust to attack minorities here. It’s just evil and wrong.
Op-Ed: The US president’s migrant darlings, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, November 19, 2015
(Please see also, Attkisson: Obama won’t read intelligence on groups he doesn’t consider terrorists. — DM)
There is no accounting for the suicidal stupidity that afflicts our leaders whose enlightenment is bringing us all down together in one heap. Obama did nothing for Christians who were being beheaded by ISIS but he is all in for Muslims. People are starting to ask whose side is he on? Does he care about us, or does he care mostly about them?
**************************
Incoming migrants mean incoming anti-Semites, but Obama’s migrant darlings imperil all Americans.
The man on CNN (or maybe Fox?) says that we should welcome Obama’s 10,000 Syrian migrants. They’re harmless.
After all, there’ve been no signs of terrorism from the thousands, Syrians and otherwise, who have already encamped within the United States over the years, meaning that aside from the Fort Hood slaughter, the Boston Marathon massacre and other such displays of affection – heck, what’s the problem?
The problem is — what do we mean by terrorism?
Islamic terrorism (just about the only flavor we’ve got nowadays) does not always go boom, as it did in Paris and as it does so often in Israel.
Every time a Jewish kid or speaker gets bullied on campus by Islamic delinquents who’ve infiltrated our schools – that’s terrorism.
I hate to be so blunt about this, but 10,000 new Islamic Syrian migrants automatically means 10,000 new anti-Semites. You read it here first. Nobody else says this because saying something so brutally obvious is politically incorrect and impolite. But that’s the math.
On what day did the plight of the hordes come before the safety of dutiful tax-paying citizens? Hollande is still inviting them in, 30,000 over the next two years, and when it happens again he’ll wonder again why…and why French Jews are packing fast for Israel.
Ditto Merkel, who started it all – and we shall see what her politeness soon brings to Germany and throughout rape-capital Europe.
There is no accounting for the suicidal stupidity that afflicts our leaders whose enlightenment is bringing us all down together in one heap. Obama did nothing for Christians who were being beheaded by ISIS but he is all in for Muslims. People are starting to ask whose side is he on? Does he care about us, or does he care mostly about them?
He has it that we must be true to our values. That’s who we are, he says. We are also dead ducks.
His lame response to Paris — you expected Churchill? You were expecting “we shall fight on the beaches?”
Instead, a confederacy of nomad towel-heads has the entire Western World in fear and trembling.
Our politicians. Our leaders. Their choices are failing us. Their stupid mistakes are killing us.
On stupidity, can anyone beat John Kerry? This fool, just yesterday he explained that the Paris bloodbath was inexcusable.
But of the Charlie Hebdo butchery – well, of that, he, John Kerry can find justification, “rationale.”
That was real blood, John. Not ketchup. Married into the Heinz fortune, he can’t be that stupid.
Defeat ISIS with this leadership?
As if once we bomb them to smithereens we can go back to worrying about the Kardashians again.
Sorry, not so simple. The pestilence we face may live next door without an ISIS shingle or dashboard ID. We don’t know what they’re thinking. Sometimes we do. Last week here in Manhattan a Pakistani cabbie beat up a passenger for being Jewish. That too is ISIS and that too is terrorism.
As I’ve said before, people who don’t know Sinatra are taking over the town…town by town…and as a majority of governors say no to the migrants, de Blasio has already raised his hand to bring in more. He wants the 10,000, or as many as Obama is willing to ship and import of these “widows and orphans,” to quote the president.
The facts and the pictures show otherwise. Most are big strong able-bodied men who ran from the fight – deserters.
I’ve been saying this clearly in my columns and in this book, and finally even uber-leftist Chris Matthews agrees that Obama has it wrong.
Our Liberal Leftists, leaders and followers, are not merely an inconvenient irritation. They are imperiling our kids and our grandkids.
European Jewry’s bleak future, Israel Hayom, Isi Leibler, November 19, 2015
(Please see also, Who needs facts? We have Israel as a scapegoat. — DM)
In the midst of this turbulent, massive migration and ongoing fears of new terror attacks, the future for European Jews appears bleaker than ever.
The majority of Europeans believe Israel represents a greater threat to global security than do Iran and North Korea. Most are convinced that Israelis have genocidal intentions in relation to the Arabs, make no distinction between Palestinian terrorists and Jewish victims of terrorism, and frequently condemn Israelis for defending themselves against knife-wielding religious fanatics who are convinced that they will achieve paradise if they die in the course of murdering Jews.
**********************
That a massacre of at least 129 civilians in Paris, in the heart of Europe, could be engineered by half a dozen militarily trained killers is an indicator of what we can expect in the future unless ruthless measures are taken to confront the terrorists in their home base and reverse the tide. This will require more than bombing sorties, including the deployment of ground forces that U.S. President Barack Obama still bitterly resists.
Let us not understate the challenge. We face a brutal no-holds-barred conflict of civilizations in which evil forces motivated by a death cult would take us back to the Dark Ages. The barbarians have already penetrated our gates and we have witnessed another preview of the frightening horrors that human beings have the capacity of inflicting upon themselves.
What is amazing is that, even after this last manifestation, many European leaders remain in denial and fail to recognize that we are not confronted by mindless nihilistic terrorists but by fanatically inspired Islamic extremists committed to the destruction of Western civilization and democracy. The threat emanates from the broad stream of Islamic fundamentalism and cannot be restricted to Sunnis or Shiites despite the fact that they kill one another.
The reality is that Shiites no less than Sunnis are totally opposed to democracy and freedom of expression and seek to impose Shariah law.
Whether this flows from al-Qaida, Islamic State, the Iranian regime, Hezbollah, Hamas, or even the Palestinian Authority, which condemns murders in Paris but blesses the shedding of Jewish blood, they all share an underlying hatred of Western civilization, Christianity, and Judaism.
Our first major confrontation with Islamic terrorism beyond the Middle East was the 9/11 World Trade Center atrocity. But since the targeted assassination of Osama bin Laden, there has been a determined effort to convince us that the threat of Islamic extremism has essentially been vanquished. The United States made concerted efforts to woo and at times even counterproductively groveled to appease Islamic fundamentalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian regime.
It was Obama who insisted on erasing any reference to “Islamic terror” or any possible nexus between fundamentalist Islam and terrorism. This, despite the fact that aside from a few individual white supremacist outbursts, every case of organized terrorism was inspired by Islamic religious frenzy. The organization currently occupying the spotlight is Islamic State, made up of Sunnis, but the Shiite Hezbollah, like the Sunni Hamas, are birds of the same feather.
Despite the murderous cries of “Allahu akbar” by the killers, the French government and the media are even now still burying their heads in the sand when it comes to identifying the enemy. The term “Islamic terrorism” has simply been deleted from the political lexicon.
Until political correctness is set aside and there is a recognition that we face a worldwide threat to our existence and quality of life emanating from organized Islamic extremists, we will not be able to rally and unite to crush these elements.
The Islamic extremists understand that with minimal effort, they can orchestrate attacks in leading Western cities at marginal cost. As was evidenced now in Paris and earlier in Mumbai, half a dozen suicidal armed fanatics planted or resident in communities are able to inflict immense damage.
The situation in Europe is catastrophic. Most countries, in particular France, now host large Muslim communities, a substantial proportion of which are radicalized, antidemocratic and sympathetic to terrorist acts. Independent opinion polls show that the law-abiding moderate Muslims are in a minority and intimidated. What is frightening is the emergence of highly educated, homegrown second-generation European-born Muslims brainwashed in their local communities into becoming fanatical Islamists. A significant number volunteered for military service in Syria and returned to their homelands committed to becoming martyrs at a later stage.
The last straw is the massive flow of “refugees” which threatens to completely change the demography of Europe. Unable to integrate its existing Muslim minorities, there is little doubt that the new flow, which inevitably includes large numbers of xenophobic antidemocratic and pathologically anti-Semitic radicals, will only strengthen the existing extremist Islamic elements. These “refugees” undoubtedly also incorporate considerable numbers of jihadists, who will act immediately or remain sleepers until such time as a new terrorist operation is initiated.
In the midst of this turbulent, massive migration and ongoing fears of new terror attacks, the future for European Jews appears bleaker than ever.
Jews in most of Europe were already considered pariahs for many years. Today, the level of anti-Israelism has reached record levels. The majority of Europeans believe Israel represents a greater threat to global security than do Iran and North Korea. Most are convinced that Israelis have genocidal intentions in relation to the Arabs, make no distinction between Palestinian terrorists and Jewish victims of terrorism, and frequently condemn Israelis for defending themselves against knife-wielding religious fanatics who are convinced that they will achieve paradise if they die in the course of murdering Jews.
While millions of Syrians have been displaced and butchered, European leaders seem more concerned about labeling products produced by Israelis over the Green Line than identifying terrorists. Ironically, the EU does not consider the “political wing” of Hezbollah to be a terrorist body. There remains a refusal to recognize that the frenzied killers of Israeli Jews and the Islamic State terrorists who murdered civilians in Paris are all components of the same global Islamic terrorist enterprise.
Despite the greater concern about Islamic terrorism in the wake of the shocking attacks in Paris, even now it is highly unlikely that the negative French attitudes toward Israel, designed to appease the Arabs, will be diminished.
Although many Western parliamentarians and heads of state pay lip service to the contrary, popular anti-Semitism appears to be washing over the continent like a tsunami, with increasing incitement and violence in most European cities.
On top of this, long-standing quiescent Muslim minorities are being radicalized by terrorists incubated in their midst. This will be intensified by support from European Muslims returning home from Syria and Iraq promoting their jihadi world outlook.
These negative trends are being dramatically reinforced by what may represent the greatest migratory movement of the century. After Islam failed for centuries to conquer Europe militarily, if the flood of “refugees” is not stemmed, it may yet triumph by demographic means.
In a democracy, politicians ultimately tend to respond to public opinion. In this climate of snowballing anti-Semitic Muslim voters, combined with increasing popular and leftist anti-Semitism, the political future for Jews is bleak.
What makes it worse is that in virtually all European countries the major beneficiaries of these upheavals will be radical right-wing political parties, some of which are still in the process of purging themselves from anti-Semitic relics of the past, while others, particularly in Greece and Hungary, are outright neo-Nazi parties.
Under these circumstances, from every conceivable vantage point, European Jews can expect more difficult times. Their pariah-like existence will sink to lower depths and their security will inevitably be further undermined.
For those who seek to maintain Jewish continuity, Europe is beginning to look like a cemetery. Jewish communities will undoubtedly linger on the continent. But what sort of life will these Jewish enclaves endure with such anti-Semitism, violence, and feral hostility to Israel? Can Jewish values and pride be instilled among young Jewish people in such a climate?
Many Jews have been contemplating leaving for many years. Events in Paris over the last year and the massive wave of Muslim migration, including jihadist and anti-Semitic elements, only reinforce these legitimate fears. Every committed Jew should now be contemplating aliyah. Those unable to uproot themselves for economic or social reasons should at least encourage their children to move to Israel.
Yes, there is terrorism in Israel. But Jews can feel infinitely safer here than in European countries. In Israel, they will unite with their kinsmen and participate in their own Jewish homeland in which their own army, rather than foreign forces, will defend them against anti-Semites and jihadists.
This is surely a final wake-up call for European Jewry to consider making aliyah and participating in this great Jewish enterprise.
Obama: Federal law is un-American! Power Line, Jonn Hinderaker, November 18, 2015
On Monday, President Obama denounced Republicans, including Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, who suggested that the U.S. should admit Christian refugees fleeing persecution in Syria, but not Muslims from the same country. Obama called such a “religious test” “shameful” and “not American.” Today he doubled down, asserting that Republicans who object to resettling tens or hundreds of thousands of Islamic refugees from Syria in the U.S. are helping ISIS.
President Obama apparently is unaware of the controlling federal law, or maybe he just doesn’t care what the law says. It wouldn’t be the first time. Andy McCarthy tries to set Obama straight:
In his latest harangue against Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the jihad-ravaged Middle East, Obama declaimed:
When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that’s shameful…. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.
Really? Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission
must establish that … religion [among other things] … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:
The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.]
The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.
There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. …
In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine. Even those Christians the Islamic State does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery). To the contrary, the Islamic State seeks to rule Muslims, not kill or persecute them. …
And it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American,” let alone “shameful.” How can somethingAmerican law requires be “not American”?
There are strong practical as well as legal reasons for distinguishing between Islamic applicants for asylum and similar applications by Christians or others. We know that ISIS is trying to infiltrate terrorists into groups of migrants leaving Syria; there is some evidence that they have succeeded. As McCarthy says, no one has a right to emigrate to the U.S. The government’s first duty is to protect the American people, not to extend favors to foreigners. Moreover, Obama’s “compassion” argument falls flat. A recent Center for Immigration Studies report found that, for the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we could instead care for 12 refugees overseas. That is a much more cost-effective approach, and one that will not impose needless dislocation either on us, or on the refugees.
JOE adds: I have to say that by far the most disconcerting thing about Barack Obama as a man is–and this is a matter of objective observation, not of interpretation–that the only thing that really gets him emotionally fired up is his own conservative countrymen. The South China Sea, Ukraine, Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea–nothing seems to faze this guy quite like Americans who read Burke.
Selective Outrage on Campus, The Gatestone Institute, Alan M. Dershowitz, November 12, 2015
(“Safe spaces,” in which infantile narcissists are shielded from ideas inconsistent with their own perceptions and which they therefore deem offensive are becoming an unfortunate part of the college experience. Freedom from ideas they find offensive trumps freedom of speech. Here’s a link to an article I posted at my blog yesterday titled Infants in University Land. It deals with the recent mess at my alma mater, Yale College. — DM)
Following the forced resignations of the President and Provost of the University of Missouri, demonstrations against campus administrators has spread across the country. Students — many of whom are Black, gay, transgender and Muslim — claim that they feel “unsafe” as the result of what they call “white privilege” or sometimes simply privilege. “Check your privilege” has become the put-down du jour. Students insist on being protected by campus administrators from “micro-aggressions,” meaning unintended statements inside and outside the classroom that demonstrate subtle insensitivities towards minority students. They insist on being safe from hostile or politically incorrect ideas. They demand “trigger warnings” before sensitive issues are discussed or assigned. They want to own the narrative and keep other points of view from upsetting them or making them feel unsafe.
These current manifestations of a widespread culture of victimization and grievance are only the most recent iterations of a dangerous long-term trend on campuses both in the United States and in Europe. The ultimate victims are freedom of expression, academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. Many faculty members, administrators and students are fearful of the consequences if they express politically incorrect or dissident views that may upset some students. So they engage in self-censorship. They have seen what had happened to those who have expressed unpopular views, and it is not a pretty picture.
I know, because I repeatedly experienced this backlash when I speak on campuses. Most recently, I was invited to deliver the Milton Eisenhower lecture at Johns Hopkins University. As soon as the lecture was announced, several student groups demanded that the invitation must be rescinded. The petition objected to my mere “presence” on campus, stating that my views on certain issues “are not matters of opinion, and cannot be debated” and that they are “not issues that are open to debate of any kind.” These non-debatable issues include some of the most controversial concerns that are roiling campus today: sexual assault, academic integrity and the Israel-Palestine conflict. The protesting students simply didn’t want my view on these and other issues expressed on their campus, because my lecture would make them feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
The groups demanding censorship of my lecture included Hopkins Feminists, Black Student Union, Diverse Sexuality and General Alliance, Sexual Assault Resource Unit and Voice for Choice. I have been told that two faculty members urged these students, who had never heard of me, to organize the protests, but the cowardly faculty members would not themselves sign the petition. The petition contained blatant lies about me and my views, but that is beside the point. I responded to the lies in my lecture and invited the protesting students to engage me during the Q and A. But instead, they walked out in the middle of my presentation, while I was discussing the prospects for peace in the Middle East.
According to the Johns Hopkins News-Letter, another petition claimed that “by denying Israel’s alleged war crimes against Palestinians,” I violated the university’s “anti-harassment policy” and its “statement of ethical standards.” In other words, by expressing my reasonable views on a controversial subject, I harassed students.
Some of the posters advertising my lecture were defaced with Hitler mustaches drawn on my face. Imagine the outcry if comparably insensitive images had been drawn on the faces of invited minority lecturers.
I must add that the Johns Hopkins administration and the student group that invited me responded admirably to the protests, fully defending my right to express my views and the right of the student group to invite me. The lecture went off without any hitches and I answered all the questions — some quite critical, but all polite — for the large audience that came to hear the presentation.
The same cannot be said of several other lectures I have given on other campuses, which were disrupted by efforts to shout me down, especially by anti-Israel groups that are committed to preventing pro-Israel speakers from expressing their views.
The point is not only that some students care less about freedom of expression in general than about protecting all students from “micro-aggressions.” It is that many of these same students are perfectly willing to make other students with whom they disagree with feel unsafe and offended by their own micro- and macro-aggressions. Consider, for example, a recent protest at the City University of New York by Students for Justice in Palestine that blamed high tuition on “the Zionist Administration [of the University that] invests in Israeli companies, companies that support the Israeli occupation, hosts birthright programs and study abroad programs in occupied Palestine [meaning Israel proper] and reproduces settler-colonial ideology throughout CUNY though Zionist content of education.”
Let’s be clear what they mean by “Zionist”: they mean “Jew”. There are many Jewish administrators at City University. Some are probably Zionists. Others are probably not. Blaming Zionists for high tuition is out and out anti-Semitism. It is not micro-aggression. It is in-your-face macro-aggression against City University Jews.
Yet those who protest micro-aggressions against other minorities are silent when it comes to Jews. This is not to engage in comparative victimization, but rather to expose the double standard, the selective outrage and the overt hypocrisy of many of those who would sacrifice free speech on the altar of political correctness, whose content they seek to dictate.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments