Archive for the ‘Sharia law’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Five Truths about Sharia

August 3, 2016

Five Truths about Sharia,Political Islam via YouTube, August 3, 2016

The blurb beneath the video states,

We know we are learning the truth about the Sharia because Muslims are telling us that we don’t understand it. A Washington Post guest writer put forth a refutation of the myths about the Sharia. Of course he makes deceptive arguments about Islam.

The Sharia is a process of applying the Sunna of Mohammed and the Koran to everyday needs. It is a method of enforcing every human to live a life just like Mohammed, down to the smallest detail.

No country bases all of its laws on the Sharia because the Sharia is not sophisticated enough to work in a modern world.

The Sharia is anti-woman because it includes wife-beating, polygamy, and sex slaves. Mohammed was involved in all of these.

The punishments of Mohammed included the brutality of assassinations, executions, torture and enslavement.

Sharia includes conquest because of the fact that Mohammed did not achieve real success until he waged jihad.

To know the Sharia, you must know Mohammed, because Sharia is Mohammed’s law. And the worst part is that the Sharia subjugates the Kafir.

Categories: Sharia law
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

Mr. Kahn – The Con. This Is Purely About Money.

August 3, 2016

Mr. Kahn – The Con. This Is Purely About Money, Town Hall, Bryan Crabtree, August 3, 2016

Kahn con

But, First…

The reason we have to elect Donald Trump is because we need to numb the American people to the distortion and lies of the media and politicians. The more of this hysteria we experience, the tougher our emotional skin will become.

Trump commented on Tuesday in a campaign rally that he could essentially find the cure for a terminal disease and the reaction from the media and his opponents would be negative. Essentially, there is no accountability for lies in our culture and very little incentive for the truth any longer. Sensationalism sells.

Even worse, the distortion of reality is so horrendous that people are afraid to talk, to express their feelings and share their concerns any longer (for fear of attack). By electing Trump, we ensure that these frauds are left alone on their island of lies. At some point, the American people will no longer be willing to listen to the punditry of outrage created by a sentence or two uttered by Trump in a minutes-long discussion. It just takes time for us to arrive at that point.

In essence, Trump will make it acceptable again to be candid, to push back on the wrongs of society, and to force change. This will happen because he sets the “PC-bar” so much higher than our current standard of political correctness will allow.

As an example, Khizr Khan, who spoke very negatively about Trump at the Democratic National Convention, has become a media sensation. During an interview on Tuesday with Eric Trump, Gayle King read a statement, “when you question a mother’s pain by implying her religion, not her pain, you are attacking…”  This is out of context and false. Trump did not question her pain or grief. He pointed to the fact that she didn’t speak.

In an interview on CNN, Mrs. Khan stated that their beliefs were that the husband was in charge outside of the household and that she was in charge inside the household. This is incredibly important because we have now discovered that Mr. Khan operates an immigration law firm, has written extensively in his support of Sharia Law, has ties to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and has associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Captain Khan is a war hero who made the ultimate sacrifice –  Mrs. Khan is clearly a grieving mother. Mr. Khan appears to be a con who used his dead son as a political shield in order to attack Trump. At first she had a medical condition, then she spoke. I think Trump nailed it.

Why did Kahn attack? If Donald Trump institutes a ban on Middle Eastern immigration it would essentially put Mr. Khan’s law firm out of business. This isn’t about his son; it’s about money. But America is scantily interested in all of the details because we’d rather be outraged or optimistically delusional as opposed to enlightened.

I have frequently said that it is a bad idea to listen to the political ideas of grieving parents.  The only exception would be in the case of Patricia Smith, who is telling a story of how  she was treated by Hillary Clinton after her son was killed in Benghazi. She has direct experience with the character of the Democratic candidate for the presidency. Kahn does not.

The Kahn story has nothing to do with Trump except that Mr. Kahn’s law firm would be financially harmed by Trump’s proposed ban on certain countries’ immigration-ban. In other words, he could no longer sell citizenship to the highest bidder with a President Trump.

Americans are progressively using their tragedies as manipulations and cover for their financial, political and social aspirations. Monetizing a family tragedy is purely evil. At some point every tragedy will make most conversations off-limits.

In this case it was a Gold Star family. But, how about the parents who demand your guns be taken away because some crazy person killed their son or daughter at a school? Do we have to be silent while those parents conflate their pain and grief into taking away our rights?

How about the dad who wants to pressure local politicians to close the neighborhood bar because some drunk killed his child driving home at midnight? Are we supposed to ignore that as an ‘off-limits’ topic. After all, it was the drunk’s lack of personal responsibility that created the accident – not the bar!

How about actor Paul Walker’s daughter who decided to sue Porsche because he died in a fiery crash as a result of driving at roughly double the posted speed limit in California? Are we supposed to sit back, because of her grief, and say nothing while her lawyers slander a business due to her father’s irresponsible and reckless driving? His death is sad and tragic but regretfully, his fault.

Who was outraged about the fact that Black Lives Matters was chanting in the middle of a moment of silence for fallen police officers who were assassinated just prior to the DNC? Not the mainstream media!

The outrage and hysteria created by most of what Trump says is fascinating to me. It reveals an emotionally immature society who can’t handle even an ounce of candor.

I find it disgusting that Mr. Khan would use his hero son, Capt. Khan, as a political shield for his financial grievances (dragging his wife through such additional trauma) in the same way ISIS uses elementary schools full of children, as cover, to fire at our soldiers.

If you let situations like this affect your vote for Trump, you will be allowing the enemy to take control of your future.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Convention, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Hypocrisy, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, Khan con, Media, Never Trumpers, Obama's America, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Khan-flict: Freedom Fighter Son, Sharia Supremacist Father

August 2, 2016

Khan-flict: Freedom Fighter Son, Sharia Supremacist Father, PJ Media, Andrew G. Bostom, August 2, 2016

(If elected President, would Ms. Clinton appoint Mr. Kahn as her principal human rights adviser? — DM)

Kahnstitution

With all due respect for his deprivation, we must review Mr. Khan’s published articles asserting the supremacy of Sharia over other politico-legal systems. His opinions are antithetical to the principles in the Constitution that he waved at Americans during his DNC convention address, and that his own son died fighting to preserve.

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

Army Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in action during an extended tour in Iraq. Deployed at Baquabah, Khan served in a force protection role and oversaw a unit securing and maintaining his base.

On June 8, 2004, Khan died after ordering his soldiers to stay back, and “hit the dirt,” when he approached a suspicious taxi. While Khan was moving towards the vehicle and motioning for it to stop, two men in the taxi detonated their explosives, killing themselves, Khan, and two Iraqi soldiers. Because of his heroic sacrifice, none of Khan’s soldiers were killed in the blast.

When Khan was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery, he received full military honors at the burial, and his commanding officer observed in a letter:

He died selflessly and courageously, tackling the enemy head on. We will not forget him and the noble ideas he stood for.

Simply put, Humayun Khan died defending the uniquely Western conceptions of freedom articulated in the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

All Americans must acknowledge and honor the Khan family’s grief as parents of a heroic soldier killed in action. Their anguished perspective requires special deference. But we should also take seriously the assertions made by Khizr Khan, Humayun’s father, and a lawyer, about the Constitution, at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), which are contradicted by his own earlier published opinions.

Many Americans have their own copies of the Constitution (readers can get your own pocket Constitution here, for free, via Hillsdale College), and they know that Khizr Khan egregiously misrepresented what our founding document states regarding immigration in the 14th Amendment, as discussed recently by Byron York.

It was no doubt unintentional on Khizr Khan’s part that he appeared to attack the large majority of ordinary Americans who are concerned about the DNC’s support for admitting immigrants into the U.S. without background checks — even from countries with known risks for harboring jihad terrorists (i.e., like Syria). As a prime example, adequate databases for vetting Syrian Muslim refugees don’t exist.

Americans want to disagree without being disagreeable, and being hectored that we have “black souls” or lack compassion. We can have genuine, deep sympathy for the Khan family’s loss, and still disagree with Khizr Khan’s misrepresentation of the Constitution.

With all due respect for his deprivation, we must review Mr. Khan’s published articles asserting the supremacy of Sharia over other politico-legal systems. His opinions are antithetical to the principles in the Constitution that he waved at Americans during his DNC convention address, and that his own son died fighting to preserve.

Before examining Khizr Khan’s writings which extol the Sharia, a brief, unbowdlerized overview of Islam’s religio-political canon “law” is in order. The Sharia is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith,” or traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community, and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists.

Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.” within Western European Christendom, and it is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Some liberty-crushing and dehumanizing Sharia sanctions: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric mandatory “hadd” punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

Compounding these fundamental freedom and dignity-abrogating iniquities, “matters of procedure” under Islamic law are antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law: “evidentiary proof” is non-existent by Western legal standards, and the Sharia doctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”) grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, rendering permissible arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects.

Clearly, Sharia “standards” — which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to obtain “confessions” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims — are intellectually and morally inferior to the polar opposite concepts which underpin Western law.

Khizr Khan’s 1983 essay in the fall edition of the Houston Journal of International Law, “Juristic Classification of Sources of Islamic Law,” focused entirely on the “structural” features of the Sharia’s “origins,” scrupulously avoiding its actual contents. But Khan did pay homage to the Sharia understandings of Said Ramadan, who was “gratefully acknowledged,” citing specifically Ramadan’s Islamic Law—Its Scope and Equity. Said Ramadan (d. 1995) was a notorious Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, and a founding member of the Muslim World League, a mammoth Saudi global missionary organization.

From his Geneva, Switzerland home (where he moved in 1961), Ramadan personally established the Islamic Center, a combined mosque, Muslim community center, and think tank. Swiss investigative journalist Sylvain Besson included “The Project,” a 14-page manifesto dated 1982, and discovered by the Swiss secret service in 2001, in his La conquête de l’Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (Paris: Le Seuil, 2005, pp. 193-205.)

“The Project” — a blueprint for installing Sharia-based Islamic regimes in the West by propaganda, proselytization, and if necessary, jihad war — is believed to have been authored by Said Ramadan.

Proudly and unmistakably, Said Ramadan was the author of Islamic Law—Its Scope and Equity(re-published in 1970). With apposite comparison to the Communist “movement,” Ramadan,whose Sharia treatise was lauded by Khizr Khan, offered these pellucid observations on Islam’s totalitarian Sharia “movement,” from the book’s December 12, 1958, preface:

The need to take an interest in Islamic Law … the drive to implement it, is the principal objective of a widespread movement which aims at totally changing the decadent status of almost all Muslim countries. There is nothing more expressive of the strong influence of this movement—a movement which demands the implementation of Islamic Law… the urge to implement the basic ordinances of Islamic Law in the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the authentic Traditions of the Holy Prophet) … [W]hat is known as the “Islamic Movement” throughout the Muslim world — is a movement that demands the actual implementation of Islamic Law … When we take into consideration the fact that the Islamic Movement, with this juridical concept, is matched in the Muslim world only by the Communist movement all others are mere national blocs that have no ideological background.

Ramadan saw the unanimous 1951 endorsement by 31 Pakistani jurists of the “Basic Principles of an Islamic Constitution” as properly enshrining the rights of non-Muslims in “every sphere.” He cited approvingly articles 7 and 11, which stated, respectively:

The citizens shall be entitled to all the rights conferred upon them by Islamic Law … All obligations assumed by the State, within the limits of the Sharia, towards the non-Muslims, shall be fully honored.

Predictably, Ramadan concluded:

[T]he only differentiation in political rights lies in the confinement of supreme authority to Muslim subjects … [T]he allegiance of subjects is twofold: that of Muslim subjects, which is established on the basis of their faith in the ideology of the State, and that of non-Muslim subjects, which is established on the covenant of dhimmah.

Notwithstanding the apologetic interpretations of devout, traditional Sharia supremacist Muslim religious scholars such as Said Ramadan — or his modern lay acolyte, Khizr Khan — an extensive and irrefragable doctrinal and historical record establishes the following: the “dhimmah” covenant, or pact, relegated non-Muslims to permanent, “sacralized” inferiority, insecurity, and debasement under the Sharia.

Shlomo Dov [S. D.] Goitein (d. 1985) was a historian of Muslim/non-Muslim relations whose seminal research findings were widely published, most notably in the monumental five-volume work A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza (1967–1993). Goitein was professor emeritus of the Hebrew University and a scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. The New York Times obituary for Professor Goitein (published on February 10, 1985) noted, correctly, that his renowned (and prolific) writings on Islamic culture, and Muslim/non-Muslim relations, were “standard works for scholars in both fields.” Here is what Goitein wrote on the subject of non-Muslim dhimmis under Muslim rule — that is, “the dhimmi covenant” — circa 1970:

[A] great humanist and contemporary of the French Revolution, Wilhelm von Humboldt, defined as the best state one which is least felt and restricts itself to one task only: protection, protection against attack from outside and oppression from within … in general, taxation [by the Muslim gov­ernment] was merciless, and a very large section of the population must have lived permanently at the starvation level.From many Geniza letters one gets the impression that the poor were concerned more with getting money for the payment of their taxes than for food and clothing, for failure of payment usually induced cruel punishment. … [T]he Muslim state was quite the opposite of the ideals propagated by Wilhelm von Humboldt or the principles embedded in the constitution of the United States. An Islamic state was part of or coincided with dar al-Islam, the House of Islam. Its trea­sury was mal al-muslumin, the money of the Muslims.

Christians and Jews were not citizens of the state, not even second class citizens. They were outsiders under the protection of the Muslim state, a status characterized by the term dhimma, for which protection they had to pay a poll tax specific to them. They were also exposed to a great number of discriminatory and humiliating laws. . . . As it lies in the very nature of such restrictions, soon additional humiliations were added, and before the second century of Islam was out, a complete body of legislation in this matter was in existence. . . . In times and places in which they became too oppressive they lead to the dwindling or even complete extinction of the minorities.

Finally, Khizr Khan also opined gushingly on a seminal, if full-throated abrogation of U.S. and Western human rights law, published as “Human Rights in Islam.”

This compilation of conference proceedings included a keynote address titled, “The Nature of Islamic Law and the Concept of Human Rights,” by Mr. A.K. Brohi, former minister of legal and religious affairs, and jurist of the Supreme Court in Pakistan. Brohi declared plainly his — and the Sharia’s — unwavering support for full application of hadd punishments (death for apostasy, stoning to death for “adultery,” amputation for theft, lashing for alcohol consumption):

Divinely ordained punishments have to be inflicted and there is very little option for the judge called upon to impose Hadd if facts and circumstances are established that the Hadd in question has been transgressed to refuse to inflict the punishment. The Human duties and rights have been rigorously defined and their orderly enforcement is the duty of the whole of organized communities and the task is specifically entrusted to the law enforcement organs of the state.The individual if necessary has to be sacrificed in order that the life of the organism be saved. Collectivity has a special sanctity attached to it in Islam.

Khizr Khan riveted upon Brohi’s speech in his review of “Human Rights in Islam” (see Book Review — Human Rights in Islam, Texas International Law Journal, 1983; Volume 18, pp. 239-240), providing this effusive praise for the Pakistani jurist’s championing of brutal Sharia totalitarianism, unmollified:

 The keynote speech of Dr. A.K. Brohi, former Pakistani Minister of Legal and Religious Affairs, is a hallmark in this book. It successfully explains the Islamic concepts of “right” and “just” in comparison to their Christian and Judaic counterparts. Brohi argues convincingly for the establishment of a moral value system before guarantees can be given for any kind of rights … the contribution made by Islam fourteen hundred years ago can be seen as representing the manifestation of the Divine Element that somehow will not let man devalue man.

It is indeed a tragic irony that Khizr Khan’s past apologetic promulgation of Sharia supremacism does more to negate his son’s ultimate sacrifice for true freedom than any utterance by any politician. If in the interim Khizr Khan came to view Sharia as the threat to U.S. liberties it remains, now that he is in the public spotlight he must reiterate such condemnation, without qualification.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Convention, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Human rights, Islamic immigration, Islamists in America, Khan-Gate, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Lashing and Flogging: Islam and Iran

August 1, 2016

Lashing and Flogging: Islam and Iran, Front Page Magazine, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, August 1, 2016

happy times in Iran

[D]espite all the [international] laws banning flogging, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to use these kinds egregious punishments without feeling any pressure from the media or from international organizations. This highlights the fact that Iran is actually widening its crackdown as it is receiving sanctions relief and gaining more revenue.

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

The ruling clerics of Iran are increasing their reliance on public flogging not only for punishing people, but also for threatening those who are violating minor Islamic and Sharia laws. 

Public lashing is orchestrated for several reasons, including to punish the person who has violated Sharia laws, impose fear in the society, humiliate the victims and cause psychological harms to the individuals.

Holding a girlfriend/boyfriend’s hand, kissing in public (even for a married couple), listening to music, drinking alcohol and wearing non-Islamic dress can all be grounds for flogging under the Islamic law of Iran. As an Iranian prosecutor, Esmail Sadeghi Niaraki, who recently arrested people for “dancing and jubilating,” said, “We hope this [flogging] will be a lesson for those who break Islamic norms in private places.”

Yesterday, according to Iran’s state-owned news agency, Tasnim, Iranian officials arrested 150 young people for being at a mixed-gender birthday party in the city of Islamshahr, close to the capital of Tehran. Young people who are arrested for attending mixed-gender parties are often fined, flogged, beaten and sometimes raped.

According to Colonel Mohsen Khancherli, Iran’s police commander for the west of Tehran Province:

“After we obtained a report about a mixed-gender party in a garden in the vicinity of Islamshahr in the west of Tehran Province, an operation was carried out by the police and another organization, leading to the arrest of dozens of boys and girls.”

He added:

“Some 150 boys and girls had gathered at the mixed-gender party under the guise of a birthday party in this garden which is situated next to a studio where unlawful music was produced and recorded. Upon arrival of the police, all those present were arrested and sent before the judiciary.”

A few weeks ago, more than 30 college students were arrested, and within 24 hours the judge ordered each to receive 99 lashes for attending a graduation party. In the last two months, approximately 600 people have been arrested, fined and lashed for celebrating.

In this video, a teenager is being lashed for helping a girl whom the moral police were attempting to arrest for wearing bad hijab. He can be heard begging for mercy.

According to Ismaeil Sadeqi Niaraki, a top Iranian cleric, Iran will not tolerate “freedom” or “having fun.” He praised the moral police for arresting and punishing those who break the Islamic laws: “Thanks [sic] God that the police questioning, investigation, court hearing, verdict and implementation of the punishment all took place in less than 24 hours.”

According to Chapter III of the Iranian Islamic constitution, Enforcement of Sentences of Flogging, Article 27:  “Flogging will be administered by a woven leather belt of approximately one meter in length and one-and-a-half centimeter in width.” The penal code goes on detailing how one should be flogged:

Article 32: Enforcement of hadd for female convicts will be carried out while the convict is in a sitting position with her body fully covered by clothing.

Article 33: Flogging for male convicts will be administered while the convict is in a standing position.  For adultery, sodomy, and consumption of alcohol, there will be no clothing other than coverage of private organs, and for qazf or pandering, flogging will be administered over regular clothing.

Flogging is banned according to international law. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture prohibit torture and “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” Various organizations within the United Nations, such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights) and the UN Human Rights Committee, equate flogging with inhumane and cruel punishments.

Nevertheless, despite all the laws banning flogging, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to use these kinds egregious punishments without feeling any pressure from the media or from international organizations. This highlights the fact that Iran is actually widening its crackdown as it is receiving sanctions relief and gaining more revenue.

Categories: Iran - human rights, Iran and international law, Iran scam, Iranian Islam, Iranian penal code, Islam and human rights, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Will Europe Refuse to Kneel like the Heroic French Priest?

July 30, 2016

Will Europe Refuse to Kneel like the Heroic French Priest? Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, July 30, 2016

♦ Go around Europe these days: you will find not a single rally to protest the murder of Father Jacques Hamel. The day an 85-year-old priest was killed in a French church, nobody said “We are all Catholics”.

♦ Even Pope Francis, in front of the most important anti-Christian event on Europe’s soil since the Second World War, stood silent and said that Islamists look “for money”. The entire Vatican clergy refused to say the word “Islam”.

♦ Ritually, after each massacre, Europe’s media and politicians repeat the story of “intelligence failures” — a fig leaf to avoid mentioning Islam and its project of the conquest of Europe. It is the conventional code of conduct after any Islamist attack.

♦ Europe looks condemned to a permanent state of siege. But what if, one day, after more bloodshed and attacks in Europe, Europe’s governments begin negotiating, with the mainstream Islamic organizations, the terms of submission of democracies to Islamic sharia law? Cartoons about Mohammed have already disappeared from the European media, and the scapegoating of Israel and the Jews started long time ago. After the attack at the church, the French media decided even to stop publishing photos of the terrorists. This is the brave response to jihad by our mainstream media

Imagine the scene: the morning Catholic mass in the northern French town of Etienne du Rouvray, an almost empty church, three parishioners, two nuns and a very old priest. Knife-wielding ISIS terrorists interrupt the service and slit the throat of Father Jacques Hamel. This heartbreaking scene illuminates the state of Christianity in Europe.

1734Father Jacques Hamel was murdered this week, in the church of St. Étienne-du-Rouvray, by Islamic jihadists.

It happened before. In 1996 seven French monks were slaughtered in Algeria. In 2006, a priest was beheaded in Iraq. In 2016, this horrible Islamic ritual took place in the heart of European Christianity: the Normandy town where Father Hamel was murdered is the location of the trial of Joan of Arc, the heroine of French Christianity.

France had been repeatedly warned: Europe’s Christians will meet the same fate of their Eastern brethren. But France refused to protect either Europe’s Christians or Eastern ones. When, a year ago, the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, Dalil Boubakeur, suggested transforming empty French churches (like that one in Etienne du Rouvray) into mosques, only a few French intellectuals, led by Alain Finkielkraut and Pascal Bruckner, signed the appeal entitled, “Do not touch my church” (“Touche pas à mon église“) in defense of France’s Christian heritage. Laurent Joffrin, director of the daily newspaper Libération, led a left-wing campaign against the appeal, describing the signers as “decrepit and fascist“.

For years, French socialist mayors have approved, in fact, the demolition of churches or their conversion into mosques (the same goal as ISIS but by different, “peaceful” means). Except in the Saint-Germain-des-Prés quarter of Paris, and in some beautiful areas such as the Avignon Festival, France is experiencing a dramatic crisis of identity.

While the appeal to save France’s churches was being demonized or ignored, the same fate was suffered by endangered Eastern Christian being exterminated by ISIS. “It is no longer possible to ignore this ethnic and cultural cleansing”, reads an appeal signed by the usual combative “Islamophobic” intellectuals, such as Elisabeth Badinter, Jacques Julliard and Michel Onfray. In March, the newspaper Le Figaro accused the government of Manuel Valls of abandoning the Christians threatened with death by ISIS by refusing to grant them visas.

Go around Europe these days: you will find not a single rally to protest the killing of Father Hamel. In January 2015, after the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo, the French took to the streets to say “Je suis Charlie”. After July 26, 2016, the day an 85-year-old priest was murdered in a church, nobody said “We are all Catholics”. Even Pope Francis, in the face of the most important anti-Christian event on Europe’s soil since the Second World War, stood silent and said that Islamists look “for money“. The entire Vatican clergy refused to write or say the word “Islam”.

Truth is coming from very few writers. “Religions overcome other religions; police can help little if one is not afraid of death.” With these words, six months after the massacre at the magazine Charlie Hebdo, the writer Michel Houellebecq spoke with the Revue des Deux Mondes. Our elite should read it after every massacre before filling up pages on “intelligence failures.”

It is not as if one more French gendarmerie vehicle could have stopped the Islamist who slaughtered 84 people in Nice. Perhaps. Maybe. But that is not the point. Ritually, after each massacre, Europe’s media and politicians repeat the story of “intelligence failures”. In the case of the attack in Etienne du Rouvray, the story is about a terrorist who was placed under surveillance.

The “intelligence failure” theory is a fig leaf to avoid mentioning Islam and its project of the conquest of Europe. It is the conventional code of conduct after any Islamist attack. Then they add: “Retaliation” creates a spiral of violence; you have to work for peace and show good intentions. Then, in two or three weeks, comes the fatal “we deserve it”. For what? For having a religion different from them?

We always hear the same voices, as in some great game of dissimulation and collective disorientation in which no one even knows which enemy to beat. But, after all, is it not much more comforting to talk about “intelligence” instead of the Islamists who try, by terror and sharia, to force the submission of us poor Europeans?

Europe looks condemned to a permanent state of siege. But what if, one day, after more bloodshed and attacks in Europe, Europe’s governments begin negotiating, with the mainstream Islamic organizations, the terms of submission of democracies to Islamic sharia law? Cartoons about Mohammed and the “crime” of blasphemy have already disappeared from the European media, and the scapegoating of Israel and the Jews started long time ago.

After the attack at the church, the French media decided even to stop publishing photos of the terrorists. This is the brave response to jihad by our mainstream media, who also showed lethal signs of cowardice during the Charlie Hebdo crisis.

The only hope today comes from an 85-year-old French priest, who was murdered by Islamists after a simple, noble gesture: he refused to kneel in front of them. Will humiliated and indolent Europe do the same?

Categories: Censorship, Christians, Clash of civilizations, Cover-up, Europe, France, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and terrorism, Islam in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Jews, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Creeping Sharia in Health Care

July 28, 2016

Creeping Sharia in Health Care, American Thinker, Carol Brown, July 28, 2016

(If Islamists are to be our masters, we had best make them healthy, wealthy and wise. — DM)

Islamic supremacy is arriving in medical settings using stealth means, or what is often referred to as creeping sharia. Common themes include Muslim health care workers refusing to uphold infection control protocols, Muslim medical students refusing to study topics they deem forbidden according to Islamic law, Muslim visitors in hospitals ignoring hygiene guidelines to protect patients, and hospitals bending over backwards (or is it forwards?) to accommodate Muslim demands above and beyond anything done for members of any other religious or demographic group. Also covered are outright acts of violence perpetrated by Muslim men who attack hospital personnel.

Islamic supremacy + dhimmitude = the end of civilized societies. Before I begin the (by no means exhaustive) list of how this equation is playing out in health care settings throughout the West, I’d like to share a personal story.

Shortly after the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks I had occasion to speak with a Muslim doctor who lived down the street from me. At that point in time I was completely ignorant about Islam and was, in fact, still a leftist (though wouldn’t be for much longer).

The doctor, a meticulously groomed, soft-spoken, modern-appearing man made it clear that, among other things, he believed that Muslim females become “mature” when they turned nine and therefore can be married at that age. I ignored the alarm bell that went off in my head when he made that statement. Of course I’ve long since realized that this highly educated doctor who worked at a prestigious hospital had sanctioned, at the very least, child rape (in keeping with the teachings of his prophet, the king of all pedophiles, Mohammed).

And therein lies the rub with Muslim doctors, as with all Muslims. If they are good Muslims and follow the teachings of the Quran, their values will necessarily be in direct conflict with our own.

So with that in mind, let me begin our tour through Islamic supremacy in medial settings right here in the United States.

An Islamic medical association operating in this country was identified by the Muslim Brotherhood as one among several “organizations of our friends” — friends that could help the MB advance their goal of destroying America from within. Part of the association’s oath includes: “We serve no other God besides [Allah] and regard idolatry as an abominable injustice.”

Islamic supremacy also asserts itself through lawfare as when a Muslim medical student who was dismissed due to poor academic performance sued the medical school on grounds of discrimination. Another case involved a Muslim health care worker who was fired because she refused to get a flu vaccine (required in hospital settings to protect patients) claiming the vaccine violated her Islamic faith because it contained a pork by product and that the entire affair violated her civil rights.

In addition to lawfare there are many other ways Muslims push for special accommodations such as Muslim doctors and advocacy organizations calling on health care personnel to be more knowledgeable about Muslim traditions so they can better meet the needs of their Muslim patients.

And so hospitals across the country are implementing an array of services for Muslim patients,  including halal meals, alternatives to medications that contain alcohol and/or pork derivatives, gowns for women designed to protect their modesty, early morning and late night appointments during the month of Ramadan, hiring more Muslim chaplains, handing out Qurans to the parents of Muslim children after they’re born, providing prayer rugs, hosting Iftar events, and setting up prayers rooms exclusively for Muslims who often find existing multi-faith prayers rooms offensive and/or inconvenient.

One town in Illinois proposed a “Muslim-centric” medical facility replete with many of the features noted above as well as Arabic-speaking staff, private rooms to ensure a Muslim standard of modesty, and space for ritual foot baths. The state rejected the plan but it was resubmitted without any references to sharia law.

There has also been a proliferation of medical outreach programs for the Muslim community along with “sensitivity training” for medical staff who are expected to become so well versed in the array of Muslim patients’ needs that they can discern differences between the needs of a Muslim from Pakistan compared to a Muslim from Saudi Arabia.

The Muslim-as-victim meme rears its head as well, such as the idea that Muslims “don’t have access” to healthcare, as was recently asserted by the vice president of cultural competence at a medical center in Brooklyn, NY.

And when Muslims do access health care, special demands may be made as when a Muslima in New Jersey went to an emergency room complaining of chest pain and insisted on a male technician after she was told she’d need an electrocardiogram. No male technician was available and she was informed of her options. She decided to sit and wait. After several hours her husband requested she be transferred to a different hospital. The couple then sued, claiming the Patient’s Bill of Rights entitled the Muslima to her demands.

The issue of Muslima patients demanding same-sex health care professionals in emergency situations is one I expect to escalate, as is happening in Europe. But first, let’s take a quick detour to Canada where medical professionals banned virginity tests and the issuance of “chastity certificates” (popular in the Muslim culture) after the discovery of four dead Afghan women who were victims of “honor killings.” Elsewhere in Canada on a maternity ward where shared rooms arranged four beds with privacy curtains in between, a Muslim couple received greater levels of privacy than were afforded to others when their demands ejected at least one non-Muslim couple out of the ward and into a much more costly private room that the couple had to pay for.

In Europe the situation is even more dire. And pervasive.

In the UK, an 87-year-old Alzheimer’s patient was forced to wait for care after she fell because the Muslim charge nurse withheld assistance until he finished his prayers. This delay in care lasted five to ten minutes. The patient died shortly thereafter.

Meanwhile, in at least one British hospital, staff were turning the beds of Muslim patients up to five times a day so patients could face Mecca while they pray. Then staff turned them back when the patients were finished. Staff were also expected to provide Muslim patients with running water so they can wash their feet before prayer.

And then there is the issue of traditional Muslim attire, much of which doesn’t meet standards for infection control. The National Health Service requires staff providing direct care to patients to be in short sleeves to reduce the risk of transmitting increasingly deadly pathogens from one patient to another. Since many Muslim women consider it immodest to expose their forearms, some have refused to do so for proper hand-washing or scrubbing in prior to surgery. So the NHS developed disposable sleeves for Muslim health care workers who have direct patient contact.

Naturally the tale above would not be complete without the Muslim-claiming-discrimination story as when a British radiographer who was faced with having to choose between losing her job or complying with the dress code, chose Islam over her job, then complained about having to make the choice. Meanwhile, the Islamic Medical Association in the UK upheld the Islamic tenet that Muslim women out in public must be covered, stating: “No practicing Muslim woman — doctor, medical student, nurse, or patient — should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow.”

But it doesn’t stop there. (It never stops when it comes to Islamic supremacism.) Some Muslimas working in hospitals in the UK also want sterile hijabs to wear in the operating room and a private place to scrub in so their modesty can be protected. Some Muslim health care workers also refuse to use alcohol-based hand sanitizer because they claim it is forbidden according to Islamic law.

And what of British Muslims studying to work in health care? Well, some have refused to attend classes or learn about anything that conflicts with the teachings of the Quran, such as material on evolution and health issues related sexual promiscuity and/or alcohol consumption. The commitment to avoid all things alcohol-related also impacts patient safety when Muslim visitors to hospitals refuse to use anti-bacterial gel before entering patient wards, ignoring signs posted throughout British hospitals asking visitors to use the gel in order to reduce the spread of infection. (Of note, there is nothing in Islamic law that would suggest Muslims cannot use alcohol-based sanitary gels and it appears that some Muslims are using this as a point of leverage to assert supremacy. See here, here, and here.)

The final exhibit of the UK tour is a Muslim dentist who insisted his female patients wear hijabs, keeping a stash of head scarves in his office to give them. He abandoned at least two patients in acute pain who refused to don the hijab and on at least one occasion provided lesser quality care to a patient’s son when the mother agreed to wear the hijab but apparently didn’t answer a question about her son’s prayer habits in a way that pleased the dentist. Of note, the dentist’s younger brother is an Islamic extremist who stated that the 9/11 terror attack served “the pleasure of Allah.”

Throughout Europe it has also become increasingly common for Muslim men to physically attack male doctors. In some cases, women are denied urgently needed medical care because their spouses are adamant that they be attended to by a female, or not be attended to at all.

In France, a newborn’s father called the midwife a “rapist” then broke into the locked delivery room after seeing a nurse remove his wife’s burqa so she could give birth, hit the nurse in the face, and demanded she put the burqa back on his wife. In another case a Muslim male physically attacked a gynecologist who stepped in to assist with his wife’s complicated delivery. A few months prior to that, another doctor was attacked by a knife-wielding Islamist.

In Belgium, when a Muslim woman needed an emergency c-section, her husband blocked the door to the operating room because the anesthesiologist was a male. After being told no female anesthesiologists were available a two-hour stand-off ensued after which time an imam was called upon who allowed the doctor to administer an epidural through a tiny opening in the woman’s burqa. A female nurse performed the surgery while the anesthesiologist remained outside the room shouting instructions to another nurse who was monitoring the anesthesia. An organization of anesthesiologists stated there have been other such incidents involving Muslim patients and their families.

In Sweden, it’s more of the same. When a male doctor answered an urgent call to assist with a mother who was bleeding heavily after giving birth, the woman’s husband screamed at him to leave the room immediately. When the doctor refused, the husband and the brother-in-law physically attacked him.

In addition to Muslim males becoming enraged if a male health care provider attends to their wife, there other things that may set them off. (Like just about everything.) And so a Turkish Muslim went on a violent rampage in a Catholic hospital in Germany because there were too many crosses on the walls.

Barbarism meets the West. (And I haven’t even touched upon the abject madness that has unfolded in hospitals across Europe as invaders invade en masse, here, here, and here.)

As the Muslim population in a society increases, expressions of Islamic supremacy become more and more aggressive. How it manifests in health care settings is just one of many ways in which the West is slowly and steadily being taken down by those who embrace an ideology that mandates nothing less than world domination.

Hat tips: Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, Islam in Europe, Fox News, NY Times, Washington Post, Fox News, Boston Herald, Front Page Magazine, Discover the Networks, BBC, Daily Mail, Metro UK, Telegraph, The Guardian, Nursing Times, Modern Health Care, Middle East Forum, Islam in Europe, Islamist Watch, The Whig, The Age, Religion News, Europe1, Lancet, Society for Human Resource Management, Wikipedia, and Daniel Pipes whose 2007 comprehensive overview of the subject matter provided a wealth of material.

 

Categories: Islam in America, Islam in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic medical care, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Sharia in Denmark – Part II

July 20, 2016

Sharia in Denmark – Part II, Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, July 20, 2016

♦ “All the bullying happens in Arabic… The hierarchy of the Arab boys creates a very violent environment. … I have filmed the particularly vile bullying of a Somali boy. You can see the tears in his eyes. They are destroying him; it is very violent. ” — From a dissertation by Jalal El Derbas, Ph.D.

♦ Danish teachers are the least respected and are spoken of in denigrating and humiliating terms.

♦ “I am not saying that all the Arab children did ugly things, but we witnessed on a regular basis… using derogatory Arabic language towards Somalis and girls.” — Lise Egholm, former head of the Rådmandsgade school in Copenhagen.

♦ Whether Danish parliamentarians wish to acknowledge this problem or not, they are up against far wider issues than that of religious incitement in mosques by radical preachers.

After the television documentary, “Sharia in Denmark“, embarrassed Danish authorities by revealing how widespread the preaching of sharia is in mosques in Denmark, the Danish government, in May, concluded a political agreement about “initiatives directed against religious preachers who seek to undermine Danish laws and values and who support parallel legal systems”.

“We are doing everything we can without compromising the constitution and international agreements,” Bertel Haarder, the Minister for Culture and Church, said about the political agreement.

The agreement centers on a number of initiatives, which are supposed to compensate for the detrimental effects of all the years in which sharia was allowed to spread in Denmark while most authorities paid only scant attention to what was happening. Part of the new effort, therefore, will be the mapping of all existing mosques in Denmark.

It will now be obligatory, according to the agreement, for all priests, imams and others who are not part of the Church of Denmark, and who wish to be able to perform weddings — as well as for foreign preachers who apply for residence permits — to learn about Danish family law, freedom and democracy. At the end of the course, all will have to sign a statement that they will accept Danish law, including freedom of speech and religion, gender equality, freedom of sexual orientation, non-discrimination and women’s rights.

The government will examine how to create more transparency in foreign donations to faith communities in Denmark, including controlling and, if necessary, preventing such donations. As part of this work, on May 4 the government presented a law making it a crime to receive funding from a terror organization to establish or run an institution in Denmark, including schools and mosques.

Another element in the political agreement is the establishment of national lists with the names of traveling foreign (non-EU) religious preachers who will be excluded from entry into Denmark on the grounds that they are a threat to public order in Denmark. These named preachers will not be granted an entry visa and will be denied entry at the border. In addition, a non-public list, containing the names of such preachers who are EU citizens, will be established. The purpose of this list is to create awareness of the existence of these preachers, as, due to EU rules on free movement, they cannot be denied entry.

The final component of the agreement is the criminalization of certain speech. According to the agreement, it will become illegal explicitly to support terrorism, murder, rape, violence, incest, pedophilia, the use of force and polygamy as part of religious training, and whether or not the speech was made in private or in public. Both the activities of religious preachers and the activities of others, who speak as part of religious training, are included in the criminalization.

The political agreement is expected to become law when the Danish parliament reconvenes after the summer vacation.

Danish parliamentarians are aware that it will be difficult to measure whether these initiatives have any effect — how do you measure whether religious preachers are indeed not explicitly supporting terrorism, murder, rape and pedophilia, unless you place them under constant surveillance? But lawmakers are nevertheless confident that the new initiatives will have an effect. “This will have an impact on what people put up with from their religious leaders.” Culture and Church Minister Bertel Haarder says.

Another parliamentarian, Naser Khader, who appears more realistic, says,

“We are well aware that more initiatives are needed. But this stops hate preachers from coming to Denmark, preachers who only want to come here in order to sow discord between population groups and who encourage violence, incest and pedophilia.”

 

1703After the documentary “Sharia in Denmark” embarrassed Danish authorities, the government reached a new a political agreement, which Danish Member of Parliament Naser Khader supported, saying, “this stops hate preachers from coming to Denmark, preachers who only want to come here in order to sow discord between population groups and who encourage violence, incest and pedophilia.”

While Danish politicians have taken yet another step on an uncertain road that may or may not succeed in stemming the rise of sharia in Denmark, other problems abound, which compound the impression that this initiative will not amount to much more than a symbolic band-aid.

A recent Ph.D. dissertation by Jalal El Derbas, as reported by the Danish newspaper, Berlingske Tidende, shows that in several Danish schools with Arab students, the latter, mainly boys, use Arabic as a means to sexually and racially harass and bully other students as well as their teachers, especially girls, Somalis and ethnically Danish teachers, who do not understand the insults hurled at them in Arabic.

According to the article, El Derbas was shocked when he went through the video footage of 12- and 13-year-olds in two different Danish public schools with a majority of pupils with minority background. The purpose of his Ph.D. was to examine the possible causes of why bilingual boys — who speak both Danish and Arabic — continue to lag behind other Danish students. He wanted to see what those bilingual boys actually do in the classroom. The footage was taken over five months and it displayed a world characterized by hierarchy, sexual and religious harassment, bullying and racism, in which the first language of the students, Arabic, played a central and leading role. According to El Derbas:

“I could see that the students used Arabic as a secret code and they only used it negatively to disturb the schoolwork. If they did not want to do the work, they simply shifted to Arabic. The schools were very flexible and allowed the students to use Arabic both inside and outside the classroom. But all that this freedom accomplished was that the students shifted from Danish to Arabic if they were getting into a fight and if there was a teacher nearby whom they did not want to understand what they were saying.”

The video footage also revealed a hierarchy consisting of sexual harassment and racism, because the Arab boys consider themselves higher-ranking than girls and Somali students.

“All the bullying happens in Arabic. All the ugly and mean words are uttered in Arabic. The hierarchy of the Arab boys creates a very violent environment. I have video footage of severe sexual harassment against Arab girls and I have filmed the particularly vile bullying of a Somali boy. You can see the tears in his eyes. They are destroying him; it is very violent.”

According to El Derbas, Sunni and Shia Muslim strife is also imported into the grounds of these Danish schools. With the majority of the boys being Sunni Muslims, they look down on the Shia Muslim students and a teacher who is a Shia Muslim is called “Satan” or “witch”, whereas a Sunni Muslim teacher is addressed courteously as “uncle” or “aunt”. Danish teachers are the least respected, and are spoken of in denigrating and humiliating terms.

El Derbas, stressed that the pupils come from ghetto areas, saying:

“Many of the teachers have given up on engaging the parents in any way, but if this is to change it has to happen through the parents. Maybe it would help if the parents took turns of being present in the classroom to see how their children behave. Most of them [the parents] are not working or studying anyway. I think that could lead to an improvement. Because no parents will accept that their children behave in this manner”.

The results of the dissertation come as no surprise to Lise Egholm, now retired, but who for 18 years, until 2013, was the head of Copenhagen’s Rådmandsgade school, which has many Arab students.

“I am not saying that all the Arab children did ugly things,” says Egholm, “but we witnessed on a regular basis exactly the phenomenon of using derogatory Arabic language towards Somalis and girls… Back then the biggest group of children in the school was Arabic speaking, and the words which in Arabic mean ‘whore’ and ‘f— your mother’ they all knew.”

In a written statement to Berlingske Tidende, Minister of Education, Ellen Trane Nørby, wrote,

“It is never all right to bully, whether this happens in Danish, Arabic, or in a third language. That is why I have initiated a large initiative, which has as its purpose to prevent and combat bullying. The teachers have to signal very strongly that there has to be room for all children and that you have to treat other pupils with respect. If some pupils do not understand this and speak in ‘code language’ or use a language that excludes and bullies other pupils, the schools must intervene. Danish is the language used for teaching in Denmark, and pupils should not be excluded or bullied because of parallel languages in school”.

However, what the minister of education fails to mention is that the problems with this kind of behavior are not likely to remain inside the school, but will inevitably spill into the streets. Then what? No amount of lists of radical religious preachers and laws is going to change that fact.

Whether Danish parliamentarians wish to acknowledge this problem or not, they are up against far wider issues than that of religious incitement in mosques by radical preachers. Notably, El Derbas’s findings have not caused any debate remotely resembling that, which was caused by the “Sharia in Denmark” documentary. They should.

Categories: Bullying, Denmark, Education, Islam - Shiite vs. Sunni, Islamic culture, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Nice Attack: Cut Down the Black Flag, Target Sharia

July 15, 2016

Nice Attack: Cut Down the Black Flag, Target Sharia, Counter Jihad, July 15, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9THnRgWcHPY

Former Special Forces Master Sergeant Jim Hanson, currently the Executive Vice President for the Center for Security Policy, has an answer to the problem of constant terror attacks.  First, though, he dismisses the strategy of attempting to prevent attacks by adding additional levels of security.  “Even in a police state, you couldn’t secure every gathering,” Hanson said, noting that this was just a simple delivery truck like any other.

“You have to look at the people who are conducting these terror attacks,” he told “FOX & Friends.”  A focus on methodology won’t work, as the truck attack plainly shows:  “It’s not guns, it’s not bombs, it’s not trucks,” but rather “the ideology of sharia and jihad that motivates them to kill.”

Hanson is the author of Cut Down the Black Flag:  A Strategy To Defeat the Islamic State.  Unsurprisingly, he believes that destroying the caliphate is an important part of the solution.  However, he argues that the caliphate is only a symptom — albeit a major one — of the real problem. “You start in the Islamic State.  You start with their caliphate, and you cut down their black flag there.  But… that’s not going to solve the problem, that treats a symptom.  The ideology of sharia, which calls for a holy war of jihad, is something we need to deal with.”

Citing a poll that sharia law enjoys large-scale support among Muslims worldwide, Hanson crossed into disputed territory.  CounterJihad has reported on this controversy before.

The central issue to empirical science is the ability of others repeating the experiment to replicate your findings.  If you replicate the same findings using the same methods, that’s telling.  If you replicate the same findings with both the same and different methods, that’s even more suggestive that you’re on to something.  Every poll of Muslim populations, regardless of its methodology, shows strong support for sharia.

Last summer, the Center for Security Policy commissioned a poll that found 51% support for sharia among American Muslims.  There were critics who pointed out that this poll was an online poll, and one that only surveyed those who opted in.  However, the Pew polling service found that half of American Muslims are recent immigrants, chiefly from countries in which their global survey of support for sharia tops 80%.  Three of the leading countries for Islamic immigration to the United States are Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.  The figures for those countries are 91%, 84%, and 99% respectively.

When you find the same thing no matter how you study the question, you’re probably finding something that’s really there.

Hanson’s solution of targeting sharia also enjoys strong support from the American people.  A recent poll conducted by a firm out of Atlanta found that more than seven in ten American voters think Muslim immigrants should be screened for the ideological belief in enforcing sharia law.  More than 80% of those who agreed say all immigrants ID’d as Sharia adherents should be barred from entering the United States.

The popularity of the solution does not mean that it will be enacted, at least not for the next few months.  A recent survey of US President Barack Obama’s calendar shows that he never met with former National Director of Intelligence LTG(R) Michael Flynn.  He and his administration’s top officials did meet with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been proven in Federal court to be linked to the Foreign Terrorist Organization Hamas.  In fact, CAIR has had hundreds of White House meetings.

Both of President Obama’s likely replacements have described the France attacks as acts of war, and both seem clearer-eyed than President Obama about the nature of the threat.  However, asked which one was more likely to take the threat seriously, Hanson gave the nod to Donald Trump.  Hillary Clinton would be too hamstrung by political correctness, he argued.  Only Trump was likely to move strongly against Islamic terror.

Categories: Donald Trump, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Nice Islamist attack, Sharia law
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Newt Gingrich: Deport every Muslim who believes in Sharia

July 15, 2016

Newt Gingrich: Deport every Muslim who believes in Sharia, Fox News via YouTube, July 14, 2016

Categories: Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic radicalization, Islamic terror groups, Islamisation, Islamists, Mosques in U.S., Newt Gingrich, Nice Islamist attack, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's America, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Forensic Psychiatrist: Fascinating Insights Into Orlando Shooting

July 11, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________

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

Categories: Countering violent extremism, Islam - causes of terrorism, Islam and wives, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamists in America, Media, National secuity, Obama and Islam, Orlando massacre, Perceptions of Islam, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »