Islam and human rights | WarSclerotic | Page 3

Posted tagged ‘Islam and human rights’

On the Road to a Sharia State – Investigating the UK’s Sharia Courts

October 14, 2016

On the Road to a Sharia State – Investigating the UK’s Sharia Courts, Creeping Sharia, October 14, 2016

uksharia

Source: Machteld Zee: “Islamization is Planned” – Vlad Tepes

Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated sharia courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad, a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.

The interview is relevant for several reasons:

Very few non-Muslims ever have gained access to the world of sharia courts in the UK. She has.
The University of Leiden is fairly highbrow in the Netherlands, because it is not only one of the oldest universities. but also because the heir to the Dutch throne traditionally studies at this university (for example, our former Queens Juliana and Beatrix did, just like our current head of state King Willem-Alexander). The reputation of this university gives authority to her voice.
She has become a target of attacks by leftist apologists for radical Islam since she published her thesis. She could do with some positive publicity. Similarly, Islam-sceptics could benefit from her work.

The translated interview:

“Islamization is Planned”

Investigating Sharia

The Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her bookHoly Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’

Investigating sharia courts

Machteld Zee (32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied sharia courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.

She was one of the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts. 95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.

‘If you compare the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’

Machteld Zee needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism, which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the multicultural society.

You say that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace sharia, the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who don’t want to offend Muslims.

‘Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.

You described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation on sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In these communities — Muslim communities — sharia law trumps secular law when it comes to marriage. Women have to ask a sharia judge or an imam to dissolve their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before sharia courts. It is a parallel society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’

You have analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of money from fundamentalist circles. The sharia courts are part of this project, you wrote.

‘That is why it is so important that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were generally benevolent towards sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favour of sharia courts anymore.’

In your book you call out the politically correct elites, who tries to cover up abuse within Islam and tries to downplay the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

‘In the first place, I think I am reporting facts. Where I notice that influential Western intellectuals tend to discourage critics of Islam and help fundamentalists to isolate and ‘Islamize’ Muslim communities, that is a matter of fact. My book is a compact discourse that aims to bring its readers up to date on fundamentalist Islam.’

How do you see the future?

‘We will have to act more defensively and resist Islamization. We should not yield to demands that images of scantily dressed women in public have to be covered up, for example. Just say no. Citizens should not leave everything to the government. They can defend our beliefs and values themselves, too. Why does a college in The Hague decides to abandon the Christmas tree pre-emptively? Why is alcohol banned in places where Muslims show up? There is no need for that. We are doing it to ourselves.’

Do you fear criticism? Undoubtedly, you will be labeled as a right-winger.

‘I don’t experience that when I speak in public. Even a ‘leftist’ audience responds positively to my story. Right-wing? Come on, equal rights for women and resistance against representatives of a religion who make threats of violence — let’s call that common sense.’

Categories: Britain, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic law, Islamists in Britain, Sharia law
Tags: Britain, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic law, Islamists in Britain, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Right to Mock

October 10, 2016

The Right to Mock, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, October 10, 2016

(Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, we are repeatedly informed by our betters. Therefore, Muslims would never mock Christianity, Judaism, or any other non-Islamic faith. Nor would they ever slaughter anyone who adheres to those religions due to their faith. Isn’t that clear? — DM)

Mohammed Shafiq was quoted in the Sun saying of Smith: “I think he should apologise immediately. Our faith is not to be mocked, our faith is to be celebrated and I think people will be offended.”

Shafiq does not explain why his faith should not be mocked. Nor does he seem to know anything about the right of free people in free countries to do or say whatever we like about Islam or any other faith whenever we feel like it.

There is nothing special about Islam that means it cannot be mocked. In fact, it would be a very good thing (both for Muslims and everyone else) if it were mocked rather more.

But there in that sentence is the implicit threat again. All insist that their faith “should not be mocked.” And for those who say they are moderates, and are presented as such by the press, it seems to be exceptionally useful that they do not have to be much more explicit than this.

But in this not-so-subtle intimidation do we not see precisely that thing which most worries the public? That despite what our politicians say, the allegedly vast chasm that separates the extremists from the “moderates” seems at times to be almost paper-thin.

If there is one question that most concerns the public around the question of radical Islam it is “What is the connection between the extremists and the moderates?” Leading politicians across the Western world have not been much help in answering this question, insisting as they do, that radical Islam has nothing to do with Islam and that the extremists are as far away from the moderates as it is possible to be. Yet the public senses that this is not the case.

Despite the amazing lack of public debate about the actual contours of the discussion, the public knows that something is not right about the analysis provided by Liberal politicians and others. Indeed, the public notices not only that there is some connection between the two (something Democrats in the U.S., among others, deny) but that the connection may be closer than anyone would like. A fine example of this was thrown up in the UK this week in the space of just 24 hours.

On Friday the London Evening Standard carried a story about the police launching a possible “hate crime” investigation into literature that the paper had discovered being handed out at a London mosque. The potential “hate crime” was not even the best known variety — a mean Tweet or a nasty comment — but the sort of thing we used to call “incitement.” The literature being handed out at a mosque in Walthamstow consisted of a booklet which insisted that “any Muslim should kill” anyone who insults the Prophet of Islam. Those who insult the main man “must be killed,” it repeated.

The pamphlet backed up this point of view with reference to classical Islamic law and explained that in the case of those who “insult” Mohammed, such as apostates who “deserve to be assassinated,” it was not necessary to wait for any court or court judgement to rule. Better just to get on with it on your own, was the gist.

In a case that is becoming increasingly familiar to indigenous British people as much as it is to British Pakistanis, the booklet referred to the seminal case of Mumtaz Qadri, the Pakistani man who in 2011 murdered Salman Taseer, the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province. Qadri murdered Taseer because of the latter’s support for the reform of Pakistan’s strict Islamic blasphemy laws. The booklet explains that “all Muslims should support” the assassin Qadri and that even being what the publication calls “a big shot” like Taseer should not protect someone from being killed by any Muslim who feels like it.

1935

Salman Taseer, pictured in the memorial poster at left, was the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province when he was murdered in 2011 by a radical Islamist, because of Taseer’s support for the reform of Pakistan’s strict Islamic blasphemy laws. Right: London police may be launching a “hate crime” investigation into a booklet being handed out at a London mosque, which explains that “all Muslims should support” Taseer’s murderer.

The police are currently investigating the Dar-ul-Uloom Qadria Jilania mosque in Walthamstow, where the booklet was handed out, and would do well to look into the imam of the mosque, Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani, whose name and photograph are on the front of the booklet in question. Of course, the response of the political class in Britain is to ignore any and all such things. “Bad egg” or “one rotten apple” is probably the most the public will be able to expect from any politician, if one were forced to give any view at all on Mr Jilani, his pamphlet or his mosque. Yet the public reads stories like this and rightly wonders where people like Mr Jilani get their ideas from and how widely such ideas might be spread.

The following day (Saturday) readers of The Sun were able to learn of a British celebrity gymnast, Louis Smith, who had got drunk with friends at a wedding and made a video that appeared to have come back to haunt him. As the Sun headline read, “Has he got a screw Louis? Olympic ace Louis Smith accused of mocking Islam after yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ and pretending to pray in boozy video.” The video of drunken japery included Smith and a friend pulling a rug off a wall and shouting “Allahu Akbar” while the friend pretended to pray in a vaguely Islamic style. As the paper led the story,

“Olympics star and former Strictly Come Dancing winner Louis Smith has been accused of mocking Islam after appearing in a video with a mate drunkenly pretending to pray. The footage shows him with fellow gymnast Luke Carson yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’, an Islamic phrase meaning ‘God is the greatest’.”

It is hardly the most important news story of the year, and hardly involves any of the most important figures of our time. But the story will have been read by millions of readers and they will have noticed the reactions. First, that from a “security source” who tells the paper “Mocking religion is pretty foolish. In the case of Islam, it can also be quite a risky thing to do.” And then the paper has the obligatory quote from an alleged “moderate Muslim,” on this occasion one Mohammed Shafiq of a one-man organization called the “Ramadan Foundation.” Mr Shafiq has previously been hailed in Britain for his apparently exceptional moral courage and bravery in coming out against the mass gang-rape of children. In 2013, he stood accused of attempting to get up a lynch-mob when the reformist Muslim Maajid Nawaz tweeted out an innocuous image that Shafiq insisted was offensive to all the world’s Muslims.

Anyhow — responding to the Louis Smith drunken video, the same Mohammed Shafiq was quoted in the Sun saying of Smith: “I think he should apologise immediately. Our faith is not to be mocked, our faith is to be celebrated and I think people will be offended.” Shafiq does not explain why his faith should not be mocked. Nor does he seem to know anything about the right of free people in free countries to do or say whatever we like about Islam or any other faith whenever we feel like it. There is nothing special about Islam that means it cannot be mocked. In fact, it would be a very good thing (both for Muslims and everyone else) if it were mocked rather more. But there in that sentence is the implicit threat again. Less blatant than the threat against Maajid Nawaz, but very close indeed to the line used by the Walthamstow imam and the extremists who defend Mumtaz Qadri.

All insist that their faith “should not be mocked.” And for those who say they are moderates, and are presented as such by the press, it seems to be exceptionally useful that they do not have to be much more explicit than this. Fortunately for them, there are other people willing to do the killing in countries such as Pakistan and occasionally in the West. The rest of us — whether gymnasts on a night out or anyone else — are simply expected to have learnt this by now. But in this not-so-subtle intimidation do we not see precisely that thing which most worries the public? That despite what our politicians say, the allegedly vast chasm that separates the extremists from the “moderates” seems at times to be almost paper-thin.

Categories: Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamophobia, Mocking the one true faith
Tags: Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamophobiam, Mocking the one true faith

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump should propose real debates

October 4, 2016

Trump should propose real debates, Dan Miller’s Blog, October 4, 2016

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

The first presidential “debate” was a farce. The next presidential “debates” will likely be as well. Rather than submit to biased mainstream media moderators (but I repeat myself), Trump should propose real debates, in addition to or as substitutes for those currently scheduled. The article is also a bit of a rant about Ms. Clinton.

In a real debate, one resolution is proposed. The candidate in favor of the proposition speaks first and gets a specified amount of time to say why it’s a good idea. Then the candidate against the proposition gets a specified amount of time for rebuttal and the other candidate a specified amount of time to respond. A timekeeper would alert the candidates when time is almost up and then up. There would be no moderator to help one debater and to trash the other; the debaters would be on their own. Both would know the issue in advance and could prepare to address it however they please and with or without prepared notes. Were our presidential debates so conducted, viewers might well learn about the candidates’ positions on the issues by how the candidates address them, rather than via the moderator.

Here are a few possible debate propositions, for illustrative purposes only:

Latin American Immigration

In a recent article, in Spanish, Hillary wrote

that no other region in the world is “more important” for the prosperity and security of the United States than Latin America.

“There is power in our proximity, which means we are not only close geographically but also in our values, interests and in our common cultural heritage,” Clinton said, adding that the “interdependence” of the economies of the two regions, as well as the ties between communities and families, is a tremendous advantage.

“We shouldn’t build a wall between us because of that truth, but rather accept it,” she said, a clear reference to her rival, Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has promised more than once to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico if elected to the White House.

Ms. Clinton has disagreed with Trump’s assertion that “No one has the right to immigrate to this country.”

A real debate grounded on the following resolution would deal with the matter raised by Ms. Clinton. Hillary could take the affirmative and Trump the negative:

Resolved: no other region in the world is more important for the prosperity and security of the United States than Latin America.

There is power in our proximity, which means we are not only close geographically but also in our values, interests and in our common cultural heritage. The interdependence of the economies of the two regions, as well as the ties between communities and families, is a tremendous advantage.

We shouldn’t build a wall between us because of that truth, but rather accept it. The wall along our southern border would keep our the good immigrants we need and there is a right to immigrate to America.

Trump would probably point out that his wall would prevent not even one legal immigrant from coming to the United States. He might also suggest that were our immigration laws and procedures more rational (like those of Mexico?) and reflected American interests as well as those of the immigrants, it would be much easier for the immigrants we want to come, legally: those who haven’t committed significant law violations, can soon become self-supporting instead of relying on welfare, do not have serious contagious diseases and appear likely to accept American values rather than, for example, joining gangs and/or importing drugs. Trump could easily provide legal support for the proposition that there is, in fact, no legal right to immigrate to America.

Islam, the religion of peace, tolerance and women’s rights

There has been substantial discussion in the few media outlets providing an “honest discussion” of Islam about the extent to which Hillary and her colleague Huma Abedin have similar views on Sharia law. Under a Clinton presidency, Huma would likely have a high place at the White House, if not as Secretary of State.

Even if Huma were to state that she disagrees with her father, mother and other close relatives about Islam and Sharia law, would she tell the truth or engage in Al-taqiyya (lying to non-Muslims to advance Islamist doctrine)?

worked on an Islamist journal for 12 years, beginning the year she became a White House intern. She hasn’t commented on that job.

. . . .

In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other members of Congress requested information about the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals in the U.S. government, including Abedin, who worked for 12 years as an assistant editor of an Islamist journal that spewed extremism.

Abedin’s tenure at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs began in 1996, the year she began working as an intern at the White house.

While it is certainly possible to disavow the ideology of one’s parents, Abedin has remained silent on their extremism as well as her work with on journal. It remains to be seen whether or not she will repudiate these new findings.

. . . .

Syed Abedin, Huma Abedin’s father who died in 1993, was a Muslim scholar connected to the Saudi Arabian government. According to exclusive video footage from 1971 recently obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Syed Abedin advocated the following:

As Muslim countries evolve, he said, “The state has to take over. The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the sharia.”

In addition, he is quoted as saying, “The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam. Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”

Abedin’s mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist ties. She is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.

In 1999 and three years after Huma began working for the journal, the journal and Saleha Abedin’s group published a book in Arabic titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations.”

The book states that man-made law is inherently oppressive towards women, while sharia law is liberating. According to the text, Muslim women have an obligation to contribute to jihad, apostates are to be put to death, adulterers should be stoned or lashed, freedom of speech should be conformed to the boundaries set by sharia and wives must have sex with their husbands on command, “even if she is not in the mood.“

In addition, the organization led by Huma Abedin’s mother “advocates for the repeal of Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice,” according to an analysis by the Center for Security policy.

The book advocates against laws to assure equality of women, saying, “Man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”

In terms of women working in high positions, the book states, “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam. Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations. Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”

As noted in an article titled PIGGY-Headed,

Honor killings of their own maimed and maltreated women. Forced conversions and kidnappings and abductions of whole school-loads of girls and women. Selling these captives on the open market as slaves for the slugs who then abuse the women and girls unto death. Not to mention torture as a rule, not exception, for captured women. Nor, of course, the overall banning of women from driving, traveling alone, working outside the home, or suing for their own lives, domestic arrangements, or unheard-of gay right to not have a male husband/overlord.

For all these, the “Ms. Piggy”- quoting smartest woman in the world has done and said…nothing.

What do Muslims worldwide believe?

How about,

Resolved: America is not merely a Judeo-Christian nation and Islam is no less peaceful and tolerant than Christiany and Judaism. To become more diverse, we need more Muslim refugees and should strive to accommodate them by making our laws less offensive.

Hillary could take the affirmative and Trump the negative.

Conclusions

Trump should offer Ms. Clinton an opportunity to provide additional resolutions for debate which he might support.

Were Trump to propose supplemental or replacement debates along these lines, Hillary would very likely reject his offer because she needs support from the moderators and would understand the dangers a real debate would present. If Ms. Clinton declines Trump’s offer, he should feel free to decide whether to participate in the partisan “debate” farce as currently established.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clash of civilizations, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Immigration, Integration, Islam, Islam - the religion of peace everlasting, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamic tolerance, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Presidential debates, Rule of Law, Sharia law, U.S. law
Tags: Clash of civilizations, Donald Trump, Immigration, Integration, Islam, Islam - the religion of peace everlasting, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamic tolrance, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Presidential debates, Rule of Law, Sharia law, U.S. law

Comments: Be the first to comment

PIGGY-Headed

October 3, 2016

PIGGY-Headed, American Thinker, Marion DS Dreyfus, October 3, 2016

Honor killings of their own maimed and maltreated women. Forced conversions and kidnappings and abductions of whole school-loads of girls and women. Selling these captives on the open market as slaves for the slugs who then abuse the women and girls unto death. Not to mention torture as a rule, not exception, for captured women. Nor, of course, the overall banning of women from driving, traveling alone, working outside the home, or suing for their own lives, domestic arrangements, or unheard-of gay right to not have a male husband/overlord.

For all these, the “Ms. Piggy”-quoting smartest woman in the world has done and said…nothing.

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

Hillary’s peeps are all about finding verbal chinks in the pitted Trump armor.

But harping on the Alicia Machado nothingburger of Trump’s calling her “Ms. Piggy” and “Ms. Housekeeping” is a waste of breath.

Machado was overweight. She was contractually obligated to stay within the confines of beauty contestant parameters, and she overshot and ignored those parameters with a hyperbolic carb intake of about 50 pounds. In terms of the Ms. Housekeeping name-calling, it does not rise to the level of most of what Hillary has rained down on the enemies who seemed to people her W.H. stay, according to the books penned by her former Secret Service men. And the articles and books by her counsel guy when she was in the White House, Dick Morris, and others.

And though it does not suit the mainstreamers to acknowledge it, Trump had a business to defend. Machado being unequal to the tasks deemed mandatory for a Ms. Universe meant he would be liable for damages, loss of credibility, and an ambushed brand.

More important than the trivial no-account remarks that have not been corroborated by a very unsavory ex-Ms. Universe, the dubious Ms. Machado, with all manner of troubling charges against her – threatening the life of a Venezuelan judge, accessory to a murder by driving the getaway car, having a child by a convicted gangster, participating in porn filming, etc. – could not with a straight face reconfirm any of the charges against Trump on Megyn Kelly’s program after the first presidential debate in September, where Machado wove a tapestry of evasion such that any folk quilter would have marveled at.

Concomitant to all this folderol over nothing is the long-skein failure of Hillary to address the onerous and grim record of umpteen Muslim countries in regard to their mistreatment of women.

A new documentary, The FaithKeepers, produced by Richard Green and reporter Roma Downey, itemizes in excruciating detail the horrors of true male mistreatment of women: gang rapes so heinous they result in death, plus endless fealty to beheadings of women, men, children by the avatars of “tolerance,” the Muslim marauders who loathe the existence of Christians, Yazidis, Jews, and Copts in their midst for only 2,000 and some years.

Oh, no: Islam is only 1,400 years old, and Christians out-age them by 700 years or so.

Honor killings of their own maimed and maltreated women. Forced conversions and kidnappings and abductions of whole school-loads of girls and women. Selling these captives on the open market as slaves for the slugs who then abuse the women and girls unto death. Not to mention torture as a rule, not exception, for captured women. Nor, of course, the overall banning of women from driving, traveling alone, working outside the home, or suing for their own lives, domestic arrangements, or unheard-of gay right to not have a male husband/overlord.

For all these, the “Ms. Piggy”-quoting smartest woman in the world has done and said…nothing.

And Hillary has done about the approximately 100,000,000 women sustaining the egregious insult and permanent violation of their persons via female genital mutilation, exactly zero.

So, wow, Trump calling a fat contract beauty contestant Ms. Piggy is simply awful, terrible, unbelievable. But Hillary, mighty champion of women and children for the full 99 years of her ravaging the earth, collects not a promissory note from the media on their coverage of her scalding failure to do one thing for one abused, tortured, abducted, kidnapped rape-room refugee from a single Muslim hellhole.

Rather, Ms. Hillary collected tens of millions of dollars from these Muslim female hellholes via her consistently shadowy-worrisome Clinton Family Foundation when she was secretary of state, and she exchanged infusions of millions of bucks for favors not granted normally by anyone to anyone else, without the say-so of the Congress or the oversight of the White House for such significant favors and grants, especially those countries not deemed our dearest chums.

Those are Big Issue concerns. Machado falls into the rubric of Very Small Ball infinitesimalities.

Categories: Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton and human rights, Hillary Clinton and sexism, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islamic nations
Tags: Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton and sexism, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islamic nations

Comments: Be the first to comment

France: Human Rights vs. The People

September 22, 2016

France: Human Rights vs. The People, Gatestone Institute, Yves Mamou, September 22, 2016

♦ French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society.

♦ The rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.

♦ For Western leaders, “human rights” have become a kind of new religion. Like a disease, the human rights ideology has proliferated in all areas of life. The UN website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.

♦ With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 UN members) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries.

♦ “Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.” — Eric Posner, professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

♦ Human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in European countries.

On August 13, the Administrative Court in Nice, France, validated the decision of the Mayor of Cannes to prohibit wearing religious clothing on the beaches of Cannes. By “religious clothing,” the judge clearly seemed to be pointing his finger at the burkini, a body-covering bathing suit worn by many Muslim women.

These “Muslim textile affairs” reveal two types of jihad attacking France: one hard, one soft. The hard jihad, internationally known, consists of assassinating journalists of Charlie Hebdo (January 2015), Jewish people at the Hypercacher supermarket (January 2015) and young people at the Bataclan Theater, restaurants and the Stade de France (November 2015). The hard jihad also included stabbing two policeman in Magnanville, a suburb of Paris, (June 2016); truck-ramming to death 84 people in Nice on Bastille Day (July 14), and murdering a priest in the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, among other incidents. The goal of hard jihad, led by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others, is to impose sharia by terror.

The soft jihad is different. It does not involve murdering people, but its final goal is the same: to impose Islam on France by covering the country in Islamic symbols — veils, burqas, burkinis and so on — at all levels of the society: in schools, universities, hospitals, corporations, streets, beaches, swimming pools and public transportation. By imposing the veil everywhere, soft Islamists seem to want to kill secularism, which, since escaping the grip of the Catholic Church, has become the French way of “living together.”

1347-1

Scenes from the “hard jihad” against France; the November 2015 shootings in Paris, in which 130 people were murdered by Islamists.

No one can understand secularism in France without a bit of history.

“Secularism is essential if we want the ‘people’ be defined on a political basis” wrote the French historian, Jacques Sapir.

“Religious allegiance, when it turns into fundamentalism, is in conflict with the notion of sovereignty of the people. … the Nation and State in France were built historically by fighting feudalism and the supranational ambition of the Pope and Christian religion. … Secularism is the tool to return to the private sphere all matters that cannot be challenged comfortably …. Freedom for diversity among individuals implies a consensus in the common public sphere. The distinction between the public sphere and the private sphere is fundamental for democracy to exist.”

And this distinction is secularism.

The Problem Now is Political

French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society. They also seem unable to understand the challenges that common people in the streets are currently facing. They are also unable or unwilling to defend the country against either hard or soft jihad.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, for instance, said in a July 29 interview for Le Monde:

“We must focus on everything that is effective [to fight Islamism], but there is a line that may not be crossed: the rule of law. … My government will not be the one to create a Guantanamo, French-style.”

Only Yves Michaud, a French philosopher, dared to point out that the rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.

The same is true for French President François Hollande. After the murder by two Islamists of the Father Jacques Hamel in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in July 2016, he said: “We must lead the war by all means in respect of the rule of law.”

Elisabeth Levy, publisher of the French magazine, Causeur, wrote in response:

“We need to know: by all means? … Or in respect of the rule of law? What is this rule of law that authorizes a judge to release an Islamist interested in waging jihad in Syria and, because he could not go to Syria, was free while wearing an electronic bracelet, to walk the streets to slit the throat of a priest?”

She concluded: “If we want to protect our liberties, it might be interesting to take some liberties with the rule of law.”

The ideology of human rights is common to all European countries. Because authorities in European countries act, speak and legislate on the basis of human rights, they put themselves in a position of weakness when they have to name, apprehend and fight an Islamist threat.

A 46-year-old Bosnian ISIS jihadi, considered extremely dangerous, was taken into custody by the Malmö police. The terrorist immediately applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency stepped in, took over the case — and prevented him from being deported. Inspector Leif Fransson of the Border Police told the local daily newspaper, HD/Sydsvenskan: “As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open. Sweden has gotten a reputation as a safe haven for terrorists.”

In Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a press conference, at the end of July 2016, that her mission was not to defend German people and German identity but “to fulfill humanitarian obligations [towards migrants].” She added it was “our historic task… a historic test in times of globalization.”

For Western Leaders, Human Rights Has Become a New Religion

The human rights movement was born in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, launched by Eleanor Roosevelt. For 70 years, nine major “core” human rights treaties were written and ratified by the vast majority of countries.

Like a disease, the “human rights ideology” has proliferated in all areas of life. The United Nations website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth” and include “Food”, “Freedom of Religion and Belief”, “HIV/AIDS”, “Mercenaries”, “Migration”, “Poverty”, “Privacy”, “Sexual orientation and gender identity”, “Situations”, ” Sustainable Development”, “Water and sanitation.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.

With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 countries that belong to the UN) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased: “105 countries have seen a net decline in terms of freedom, and only 61 have experienced a net improvement” reported the NGO, Freedom House, in 2016. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries. Children continue to work in mines and factories in many countries.

Professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, writes:

“Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Uzbekistan, Tanzania and India, for example. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.”

What is disturbing is not that the “religion” of “anti-discrimination” has become a joke. What is disturbing is that human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in European countries. What is disturbing is that human rights and anti-discrimination policies are dismantling nations, and placing States in a position of incapacity — or perhaps just unwillingness — to name Islamism as a problem and take measures against it.

The Religion of Human Rights as a Tool of Europe’s Muslim Brotherhood

Jean-Louis Harouel, Professor of the History of Law at the Paris-Panthéon-Assas University, recently published a book entitled, Les Droits de l’homme contre le peuple (Humans Rights against the People). In an interview with Le Figaro, he said:

“Human rights, are what we call in France ‘fundamental rights’. They were introduced in the 70’s. The great beneficiaries of fundamental rights were foreigners. Islam took advantage of it to install in France, in the name of human rights and under its protection, Islamic civilization, mosques and minarets, the Islamic way of life, halal food prescriptions, clothing and cultural behavior — Islamic laws even in violation of French law: religious marriage without civil marriage, polygamy, unilateral divorce of wife by husband, etc.

“Through the assertion of identity, Islamists and mainly UOIF [Union of Islamic Organizations of France — the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] exploited human rights to install their progressive control on populations of Northern African descent, and coerce them to respect the Islamic order. In particular, they do all that they can to prevent young [Arab] people who are born in France from becoming French citizens.”

The human rights and anti-discrimination “religion” also gave Islam and Islamists a comfortable position from which to declare war on France and all other European countries. It seems whatever crime they are committing today and will commit in the future, Muslims and Islamists remain the victim. For example, just after the November 13 terrorist attacks in France, in which more than 130 people were murdered by Islamists at the Bataclan Theater, the Stade de France, cafés and restaurants, Tariq Ramadan, an Islamist professor at Oxford University, tweeted:

“I am not Charlie, nor Paris: I am a warrant search suspect”.

Ramadan meant that because of the emergency laws and because he was a Muslim, he was an automatic suspect, an automatic victim of racism and “Islamophobia.”

In another example, just after the terrorist attack in Nice on July 14, when an Islamist rammed a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day, killing at least 84 people, Abdelkader Sadouni, an imam in Nice, told the Italian newspaper Il Giornale: “French secularism is the main and only thing responsible for terror attacks.”

Global Elites against the People

The question now is: have our leaders decided to cope with the real problems of the real people? In other words, are they motivated enough to throw the human rights ideology overboard, restore secularism in society and fight Islamists? The problem is that they do not even seem to understand the problem. What Peggy Noonan, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote about Angela Merkel can apply to all leaders of European countries:

“Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be.

Nothing in their lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures, negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and fearfulness on the street — that was put on those with comparatively little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle, not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing crisis that shows no signs of ending — because nobody cares about them enough to stop it.

The powerful show no particular sign of worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,” “narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,” and “hero of human rights.”

So the fight against Islamism might first consist of a fight against the caste that governs us.

Categories: France, Human rights, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation of France, Islamophobia
Tags: France, human rights, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation of France, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

Islamic Movement in U.S. Preparing for Battle

September 13, 2016

Islamic Movement in U.S. Preparing for Battle, Understanding the Threat, September 13, 2016

As UTT has continually reported, there exists in the United States a significant jihadi movement led primarily by the Muslim Brotherhood whose organizations include the most prominent and influential Islamic groups in America.

weapons2-300x225

The Islamic Movement in the U.S. continues their daily work of preparing for the coming battle at all levels of the society. From a military standpoint, the leaders of the American Muslim community are coalescing their forces and preparing strategically, operationally, and logistically for war.

Strategic Overlay

Going back to the early 1980’s, the jihadis set up an elaborate network of jihadi centers known in the U.S. as the Al Kifah Refugee Centers to recruit jihadis for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Some of these over three dozen offices were operated by only a couple jihadis with a phone or fax machine, and some had a more sizable presence in the community. Nevertheless, they created nodes across the United States for jihadis in many American cities, and became centers for possible Al Qaeda recruitment in the future.

For the last few decades the Pakistani terrorist organization known as Jamaat al Fuqra has been establishing jihaditraining camps in the United States primarily among black Muslims, many of whom were recruited in prison. Known in the U.S. as “Muslims of America” or “MOA,” approximately two dozen of the three dozen known camps appear to be operational today.

In the early 1990’s the Chief Investigator for the state of Colorado, with support from the Governor and Attorney General, launched a multi-jurisdictional raid of an MOA compound near Buena Vista (CO) and discovered weapons, explosives, lists of people to be assassinated, evidence that military/national guard bases had been under surveillance, and the like.

In one of the gems discovered in the 2004 FBI raid of the Annandale, Virginia home of a senior Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader, a recording of a senior Muslim Brotherhood leader speaking to a group of Muslim Brothers in Missouri revealed the MB has numerous training camps inside America and conducted regular firearms training.

To be clear, they are not planning on conducting violent actions in the immediate future, but are planning for “Zero Hour” – their term for when the violent jihad will begin when the time is right. They may wait until an outside influence from a foreign power or a major event initiates conflict, and then the Islamic Movement can begin the jihad and act independently or as an ally for a hostile foreign power such as Iran or China.

In the MB’s 5-Phase “World Underground Movement Plan” – discovered at the 2004 FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia – the Brotherhood states (Phase 2) they must “Establish a government (secret) within the government.” The purpose of this is to have jihadis on the inside of our government who will serve as the leadership for the Islamic Movement when they seize power in the United States. Until then, their role is to (1) gather intelligence and (2) conduct influence operations at all levels of the society, especially within the decision-making process.

As has previously been discussed, this is much more a counterintelligence and espionage issue than it is a “terrorism” matter. The enemy is preparing the battlefield now for the eventual battle to come.

The U.S. Network

The evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas 2008) reveals the most prominent Islamic organizations in the U.S. are a part of a massive jihadi network whose stated objective is to wage “Civilization Jihad” to destroy our system of government and establish an Islamic State (caliphate) under sharia here. The evidence also reveals the Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Centers/Mosques are the places at which jihadi train for battle and from which the jihad will be launched.

All of the mosques our military entered during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and mosques that European authorities have raided in the last two years have had weapons in them. The mosque is what Mohammad used a mosque for, and the launch point for jihad is one of those purposes.

There are over 2400 Islamic Centers/Mosques in America, most of which are a part of the MB’s jihadi network.

In the United States the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) whose subsidiary Islamic Societies number approximately 170. The Muslim Students Associations (MSA) serve as a recruiting arm for jihadis, and there are over 700 chapters on nearly every major college campus in America.

Reports from around the country from civilian and law enforcement sources reveal: Mosques and Islamic organizations are being built in strategic locations – near key infrastructure facilities, military bases, or some other key position in the community; taxi cab drivers at the largest airports in the U.S. are Muslim; and there is a noticeable increase in sharia-compliant Muslim TSA officers, baggage handlers and airline/airport employees at U.S. airports.

Additionally: Muslims are purchasing hotels, quick marts, and 7-11 type stores with gas stations, and a majority of major hotels in cities across the U.S. have a manager or assistant manager who is a Muslim, which is statistically impossible unless this activity is intentional.

Quick marts and gas stations provide their Movement with a logistics train that will be needed in a battle. Having people in leadership positions at major hotels in major cities, where law enforcement and intelligence groups and others hold conferences, serve as excellent intelligence gathering nodes.

Jihadis have penetrated U.S. federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies giving them access to sensitive intelligence systems, while simultaneously they have shut down real threat-based training inside these same agencies under the guise factual/truth-based training is “offensive to Muslims.”

Jihadis have themselves penetrated senior levels of the government (eg Suhail Khan working for two successive Secretaries of Transportation with access to classified critical infrastructure details), and have recruited senior U.S. government officials to promote and protect their interests which are hostile to the U.S. (most recent example – Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson promoting and defending leading MB organization ISNA and speaking at their annual convention expressly to open the door to more Cabinet officials to do the same).

Key jihadi organizations, like Hamas (doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations/CAIR) work on Capitol Hill and inside government agencies to keep truthful discussions about the Islamic threat from ever happening, while plotting to work with Al Qaeda (as evidenced by UTT’s Chris Gaubatz discovery of a CAIR document dated 3/08/04 at their headquarters in Washington, D.C. stating, “Attempt to understand Islamic movements in the area, and start supporting Islamic groups including Mr. bin Laden and his associates”).

muslims-1

Now, the U.S. government is bringing tens of thousands of sharia adherent Muslims into our nation. From the Islamic perspective, these people are Muhajaroun – those who make the hijra into the non-Muslim lands in preparation for the “Final Stage,” which is armed conflict with the host country. This is all a part of their strategy, and is consistent with core Islamic doctrine.

Finally, we are currently observing the Marxist/Socialist Movement in the U.S. working directly with the Islamic Movement at the ground and strategic levels. Both have publicly declared their support for one another, they are both receiving funding from hard-left Marxists/socialists (eg George Soros) and foreign powers, and both are openly pushing for confrontation with and the overthrow of the U.S. government.

The Islamic Movement in the United States is deeply embedded in the U.S. decision-making process, has thousands of organizations and allies, possesses a logistics train of fuel and supplies, conducts weapons training programs, has access to U.S. intelligence systems, is well funded (primarily by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc), has strategic plans for North America (An Explanatory Memorandum) and has a plan to implement the strategy (Implementation Manual) which they are following.

The U.S. response is to say “Islam is a religion of peace” and work with the very Muslim leaders who are driving this hostile network.

Victory is not possible with this recipe.

Each year there are between 70 and 120 new Islamic non-profits being created in America, most of which appear to be working directly in line with the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to wage civilization jihad until “Zero Hour” when the war goes hot.

Until then, they continue to prep the battlefield because they are really at war with us because they are following sharia – core Islamic doctrine – as their blueprint for what they are doing.

Categories: CAIR, Department of Homeland Security, Hamas, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic supremacy, Islamic training camps, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Students Union, Obama's affinity for Islam
Tags: CAIR, Department of Homeland Security, Hamas, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic immigration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic supremacy, Islamic training camps, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Students Union, Obama's affinity for Islam

Comments: 1 Comment

GWU’s “ex-jihadist” Jesse Morton wants to dismantle “entire counterterrorism component of military-industrial complex”

September 11, 2016

GWU’s “ex-jihadist” Jesse Morton wants to dismantle “entire counterterrorism component of military-industrial complex” Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 11, 2016

He is “deradicalized,” he has renounced al-Qaeda, he’s comfortably “moderate” now. Now blames the U.S. for jihad terror, wants to dismantle the U.S.’s entire counterterrorism apparatus (such as it is), and wants to provide “holistic socio-pschological-political-economic alternatives based in the shariah” to fighting against jihad activity. And this man is teaching at George Washington University.

jesse-morton

EXPOSED: Writings of GWU’s ‘ex-jihadist’ reveal he’s not so reformed after all,” by Benjamin Weingarten, Conservative Review, September 11, 2016:

Among the inexplicable ways in which the United States has responded to Islamic supremacism in the 15 years since September 11 — beyond enabling the world’s leading state sponsor of jihad in Iran, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other “moderate jihadists” over relatively secular strongmen, and transitioning from a global war on terror (a tactic) to a program against “violent extremism” (a nebulous non-entity) — a recent story out of the American academy is quite telling.

George Washington University has given a research position within its Center for Cyber and Homeland Security to Jesse Morton (formerly known as Younus Abdullah Muhammad), an ex-jihadist sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for threatening the creators of “South Park” for depicting Muhammad in a bear suit.Having chosen to serve as an informant for the FBI because of his expertise ‘jihadizing’ fellow Americans through Revolution Muslim (the Al Qaeda-supporting “activist” group that he led on U.S. soil), law enforcement officials and GWU firmly believe Morton is not only no longer a threat, but also an asset.

They believe there is much that can be learned from his experience transforming from regular American to jihadist and back again.

In his defense, some like Nadia Oweidat of the New America think tank have said that Morton’s decision to come out publicly as someone working to counter “radicalism” puts Morton’s life at risk.

Morton himself claims to have been rehabilitated through hours spent in prison supposedly grappling with the great works of the Western canon, such as the writings of John Locke and Thomas Paine, and his interactions with certain friendly law enforcement officers.

He asserts that he is contrite and seeks to rectify his actions according to an interview with CNN, stating:

This is an opportunity for me to make amends, to some degree … I realize that I was completely wrong in my perspectives.

I suffer from a tremendous amount of guilt … I have seen things that people have done and to know that I once sympathized and supported that view — it sickens me.

Yet nowhere in Morton’s mea culpa is there an overt disavowal of Islamic supremacism, condemnation of Sharia law, or renunciation of his faith as in the case of other notable ex-Islamic supremacists like Hirsi Ali or ex-Communists like Whittaker Chambers.

Interestingly, Morton publicized his release from prison on an Islamic website, but that announcement as well as the website have since disappeared. As The Washington Post noted earlier this year:

Efforts to locate Morton, a father of two who has a master’s degree from Columbia University, were unsuccessful. The Bureau of Prisons website indicates that he was released in February 2015, and he appears to have announced it on the website islampolicy.com.

“While I am no doubt bewildered by the prospects of facing the currents of American society, labeled American Al-Qaeda, I do want to remain cognizant that this opportunity to be a freeman, a husband, a father, and citizen comes from Allah alone,” he wrote.

It turns out that Islampolicy.com was the successor website to Revolution Muslim. And this quotation captured by the Post, indicates that Morton remains a Muslim and harbors a victim-like mentality rather than acknowledging that he was the aggressor.

Thanks to the web archives, we can read further into Morton’s statement upon his release:

I remember being flown home in a private government jet after five months of incarceration in Morocco and finding out I was facing life imprisonment in the United States. At that moment, when one’s freedom seems to be lost forever, simply for speaking their mind, the soul has nothing left to do but turn to Allah, aza wa jaal. Today I can guarantee that a relief from hardship comes in ways that are mostly unexpected. The reflective one realizes that Allah relieves hardship in ways that oftentimes connect to pathways of deeper, spiritual healing the. Therefore, we must always pay attention to the experiences Allah puts us through, and try to remember that there are lessons to be learned from each and every passing wind. [Emphasis mine]

Clearly Morton viewed his arrest and release as being intrinsic to his Islamic experience and believed his arrest was unjustified. After all, he was just exercising his right to free speech.

Yet nowhere in Morton’s mea culpa is there an overt disavowal of Islamic supremacism, condemnation of Sharia law, or renunciation of his faith.

He continues:

I have been particularly intrigued by what has been classified as countering violent extremism (CVE). While this has led me to contemplate ways of preventing others from throwing their lives away, I remain staunchly opposed to the national security or counterterrorism state and its connection to the elite, neoliberal order, or what Dwight D. Eisenhower referred to as far back as 1961 as the ‘military-industrial complex.’ I believe that today’s counterterrorist, or national security state isn’t merely dangerous to Islam and Muslims, but to humanity and civilization generally.

I must also emphatically state that I absolutely reject the conception that terrorism is justified in any which way and by anybody. I ask Allah to accept repentance for my not having made that absolutely clear in the past. It seems to me definite that we are suffering from an era the prophet (saws) foretold; one marked by ignorant youth who recite the best of speech but do not embody it. If we are to truly stand for the ummah’s liberation, we will have to locate a balanced position between the day’s extremes. [Emphasis mine]

Morton’s views morphed from the jihadist notion that the Great Satan must be destroyed to the Left’s notion that efforts to root out and defeat jihadis represent an immoral, un-American, tyrannical enterprise.

Further, Morton puts forth the argument echoed by many Islamic supremacists that “terrorism,” is never justified. But as Daniel Greenfield has written, while some Islamic leaders have gone so far as to issue fatwas against terrorism, they fail to define the term:

Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics … is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed.

How to square these sentiments? As Stephen Coughlin notes in his magnum opus, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad,” the Quran’s definition of terrorism is essentially the killing of a Muslim without right. Is this the definition Morton had in mind when he proscribed terror?

In a later post from August 19, 2015 (note: the Wayback Machine page takes a few moments to load), “Obama’s Support for Sisi’s Counterterrorism Legislation Highlights the Hypocrisy of War on Radicalization,” Morton asserts,

[T]he global war on terror, having been rebranded as a war on Islamic extremism under Obama, has become a war on radicalization that now threatens the very essence of free expression democratic societies depend on.

Morton believes that targeting of individuals on the basis of jihadist ideology is in fact detrimental and that the goal of U.S. policy is to end “Islamism” (which of course would appear to be the exact opposite of President Obama’s policy with respect to the growing global jihad):

Legislation that concentrates on ideology conflates radical belief with violence and will only guarantee perpetual conflict. This seems to be the intended effect of counterterrorism policy everywhere. It suggests that the counterterrorism community itself desires confrontation to the end, until the very existence of Islamism on earth is eradicated.

This sentiment has expanded by way of rising right-wing and anti-Islamic populism. It is aided and abided by an Islamophobia industry that serves to brandish all conservative Muslims as barbarian. Whether in London, Paris, Cairo, or Washington, governments everywhere are utilizing counterterrorism policy and practice to silence dissent and criminalize critique of government policy, particularly if one is an Islamist.

Islamists apparently are the real victims during this age of jihadist metastasization.

While recasting himself as an agent for good with a new home in the academy, he airbrushes his views to make them palatable to a progressive audience.

Morton contends, hyperbolically, that ideology is not the key driver of jihadist violence, but rather that Western (imperialist) actions are the sine qua non of jihad — that again, jihadists are merely reacting to Western aggression:

[I]t is argued that all Islamists, nonviolent and violent, must be silenced. That position, given credence by way of government allegiance with ‘moderate Muslims’, is girded in the belief that radical political preachers create the ‘mood music to which suicide bombers dance.’ That’s a fancy way of saying that radical beliefs precede and incite violent action. In fact, very few of those holding radical beliefs ever go on to commit acts of terrorism and there is no established empirical evidence for such a causal relationship.

The one common denominator in the overwhelming majority of empirical research into violent Islamic extremist incidents is actually an attempt to justify or frame violence as a reaction to western policies. Yet, this fact conveniently goes missing from most expert analysis. When pointed to as the actual cause, any citation of western policy is ruled out as conspiracy theory or paranoid delusion. It is important to note that in exposition after exposition, Osama bin Laden claimed that jihadists were engaging in terrorism not because they hate democracy but “because you (the United States) attach us and continue to attack us.”

In other words, we create jihadis with our policy.

Apparently, ISIS also never cared about the West, until we meddled:

[T]he western press hardly recognizes that ISIS mostly rejected the ‘far enemy’ doctrine and instead preferred regional or localized violence, at least until Obama announced his plan to “degrade and destroy” the movement.

Most dumbfounding of all is this quote:

Were the U.S. and its allies not in such blatant betrayal of the very “set of core principles” Obama claimed to defend at the time of the Egyptian coup, there might be a diminishing appeal of jihadism. Instead, it’s viewed as the only alternative. The only solution is a global grassroots movement dedicated to ending such blatant hypocrisy. This movement must focus on dismantling the entire counterterrorism component of the military-industrial complex. Only then might a paradigm unfold that could first rid that “one indispensable nation” of its own despots and dictatorship, and thereby encourage people across the globe to do the same. Until then, terrorism at the hand of the state and Orwellian legislation will only enhance radicalization, at home and abroad. [Emphasis mine]

Thus, this deradicalized ex-jihadist proclaims that the way to end jihadism is to dismantle the “entire counterterrorism component” of American policy. No wonder he has been so welcomed at an American institution of higher education….

One thing I realize about some of my previous work at Revolution Muslim was the way it allowed authoritiesto [sic] fulfill their own agenda. It was a lesson that all those seeking authentic Islam could benefit from. May Allah aza wa jaal liberate this ummah from its ignorance and give us insight to see through a massive propaganda war. We should be at the forefront of providing holistic socio-pschological-political-economic alternatives based in the shariah. [Emphasis mine]

Read the rest here.

Categories: Academia, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: Academia, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Prince Hussein on Trump and Farage as ‘Demagogues and Fantasists’

September 11, 2016

Prince Hussein on Trump and Farage as ‘Demagogues and Fantasists’, American Thinker, Paul Austin Murphy, September 11, 2016

Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein — a Jordanian of the Hashemite tribe (which traces itself back to Muhammed) — has just called various right-wing Western politicians “demagogues and political fantasists”. Mr. Hussein did so while addressing a security conference in The Hague.

Here’s a few words on the Prince himself.

Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. He’s the son of Prince Ra’ad bin Zeid, the former Lord Chamberlain of Jordan. Hussein himself was once Jordan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

A Jordanian as a UN human rights chief? That’s the same Jordan that doesn’t allow a single Jew to become a citizen and which is a specialist administrator of torture. (Jordan does allow Israelis and Jewish tourists.) This also squares well with all those Saudis at the United Nations who preach to the rest of the world about interfaith, terrorism and, believe it or not, human rights.

Here’s Wikipedia on Jordan’s current record:

“ — limitations on the right of citizens to change their government peacefully;

— cases of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, poor prison conditions, impunity, arbitrary arrest and denial of due process through administrative detention, and prolonged detention;

— breaches of fair trial standards and external interference in judicial decisions;

— infringements on privacy rights;

— limited freedoms of speech and press, and government interference in the media and threats of fines and detention that encourage self-censorship;

— restricted freedoms of assembly and association…

— legal and societal discrimination and harassment of religious minorities and converts from Islam are a concern…

— legal and societal discrimination and harassment of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community;

— loss of Jordanian nationality by some citizens of Palestinian origin;

— restricted labor rights; and

— cases of abuse of foreign domestic workers.”

Prince al-Hussein included Geert Wilders, Donald Trump, and Nigel Farage in his broad generalisations. However, he singled out the Dutch leader, Geert Wilders, as an especially bad “bigot”.

Then Trump and Farage came in for an attack. Apparently they use the same tactics as the Islamic State. Yes, you read that correctly.

Well, if Geert Wilders is a “demagogue and political fantasist”, so too are very many people in the Netherlands, because opinion polls have just told us that Wilders’ party — the Freedom Party (PVV) — is leading the polls in that part of the world.

Wilders, like Nigel Farage, has also recently addressed the American people. More precisely, Wilders addressed the U.S. Republican Party National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, last month.

Prince al-Hussein went into more detail when he spoke at the inauguration of the Peace, Justice and Security Foundation.

Firstly, he said that he was speaking directly to Geert Wilders and his “acolytes”. Indeed, he was speaking to all the populists, demagogues, and political fantasists who inhabit Europe and America.

Prince Hussein continued:

“I am a Muslim, who is, confusingly to racists, also white-skinned; whose mother is European and father, Arab. And I am angry, too, because of Mr. Wilders’ lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear.”

Isn’t it strange when European political/economic elites and Arab princes (in this case) cast disparaging remarks about “populists” and populism? It’s as if populism is as culpable as racism is nowadays. It’s also interesting to hear Hussein say that because he’s white, this ends up being “confusing to racists”. Really? But, Prince Hussein, Islam is not a race and neither do Muslims constitute a single race. So why should patriots and counterjihadists be confused by Hussein’s whiteness? Is he mixing-up patriots and counterjihadists with those very many Leftists who see everything in terms of race? Or, instead, is he confusing them with the very many Muslims who use the “race card” to quell all criticisms of Islam and Muslims (as Muslims)?

Prince Hussein returned to his themes of populism and Mr. Wilders. His said that the PVV’s (Wilders’ party) manifesto is “grotesque” and that Wilders has much in common with Donald Trump, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen, and UKip’s Nigel Farage. Moreover, he called for decisive political action to be taken against populism and patriotism. (Whatever could he mean by that?)

In one news piece I read, Prince Hussein talked about “half-truths” and “oversimplification” when it comes to Islam. In detail, he said:

“But in its mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of Daesh uses tactics similar to those of the populists.”

That’s strange really because Hussein, at least here, seems not to have given any examples of such “half-truths” or “oversimplifications”. However, since Hussein pretends to believe that all the critics of Islam think that there can be no such thing as a white or a yellow Muslim, perhaps he’s mistaking Islam’s critics for other people.

I said earlier that International Socialists (i.e., Leftists) see everything in terms of race (as National Socialists also do), and that Muslims use the charge of racism to help them install sharia blasphemy law, so here’s Hussein elaborating on this. He said that “humiliating racial and religious prejudice fanned by the likes of Mr Wilders” had become official policy in some countries.

Mr. Hussein also warned that such racism and populism could easily and quickly descend into “colossal violence”. The only places in which there is colossal violence nowadays are Muslim countries. These Muslims, however, aren’t the victims of white racism or populism: they are victims of Muslim-on-Muslim “hate”. As for Europe and the United States, it will almost a certainty be the case that most of the violence which happens in the future in these countries will be the responsibility of Muslims. And Prince Hussein himself will bear some of the responsibility for that.

Prince al-Hussein finished off his speech with the following words:

“Are we going to continue to stand by and watch this banalisation of bigotry, until it reaches its logical conclusion?”

Sorry, Mr. Hussein, I see much more bigotry and violence coming from the Muslim quarter than I do from anywhere else in the world. And, in a certain sense, such violence is partly a result of what Hussein and his United Nations are attempting to bring about in European and American — i.e., sharia blasphemy law.

Categories: Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Islam and human rights, Islamic hatred of others, Jordanian human rights, Nigel Farage, Prince Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, Racism, UNCHR
Tags: Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Islam and human rights, Islamic hatred of others, Jordanian human rights, Nigel Farage, Prince Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, Racism, UNCHR

Comments: Be the first to comment

London Builds Intelligence Unit to Target Cyber “Hate Speakers”

September 7, 2016

London Builds Intelligence Unit to Target Cyber “Hate Speakers” Counter Jihad, September 7, 2016

The office of the Mayor of London has issued a grant for an online “hub” designed to identify so-called ‘hate speakers’ for police. The grant promises to “improve the police response” as well as develop the “intelligence to facilitate counter measures that can reduce and prevent further criminal activity.” British and European law do not contain the robust protections for freedom of speech that America’s First Amendment provides.

Saying anything that falls under the poorly-defined rubric of ‘hate speech’ is already criminal in London: they just want to improve their capacity to send the police to your house. The penalty can be six months in prison per offense.

Well, actually, they want to do a little more than that. The grant also promises to “build community capacity to respond collectively to online hate.” So it isn’t just a rule-of-law response that they are looking for here. They want to organize online mobs to go after you for expressing disapproved thoughts.

Breitbart news points out that this is the brainchild of London’s first Muslim mayor.

The office of London’s first Muslim mayor has secured millions of pounds to fund a police “online hate crime hub” to work in “partnership with social media providers” to criminalise “trolls” who “target… individuals and communities.” … In May this year, the EU announced that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft had “committed” to working more closely with them and national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to help “criminalise” perceived “illegal hate speech” online.

Naturally, the law will also be used to criminalize political opposition to the establishment — one of the first uses was to target what the UK Standard refers to as “Brexit hate crime.” But it seems from the grant application that speech critical of Islam is the real target. The announcement of the grant states that a recent report “identified 45% of anti-Muslim hate crime took place online, and the organisation is seeing up to 80% of its resources used in monitoring online hate and supporting the victims.”

The claim is that seeing online ‘hate crime’ results in “higher levels of depression, stress and anger,” and can cause changes in “which streets they walk down, how they answer the phone, reactions to strangers, and suspicion of co-workers.” That last element sounds particularly ominous given Islamist workplace attacks such as the San Bernardino shooting. The London police appear to be suggesting that seeing criticism of Islam on-line leads to murders of this sort. Indeed, the criminalization of critical speech even seems to suggest that these psychological effects to some degree justifyIslamist violence against society.

Breitbart points out that convictions under the law banning speech of this kind have increased ten-fold in the last decade. They quote Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent. [T]he police [are] becoming more and more involved in controlling our morality,” he told the BBC. “[They are] almost playing the role of a moral police. And instead of dealing with real crime in the offline world, [the police] find its very convenient to ‘send the message’ in the online world because it’s a relatively easy thing to do.”

Doubtless it is a lot safer than targeting Islamist militants. The only cost is a little liberty. Well, maybe more than a little.

Categories: Britain, Freedom of speech, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, London
Tags: Britain, freedom of speech, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, London

Comments: Be the first to comment

Sharia USA

September 7, 2016

Sharia USA, American Thinker, Aynaz Anni Cyrus, September 7, 2016

The present danger that Islam poses to this nation is very real, despite what our leftist government and media would have you believe. And because of the willful blindness and corruption within our government and media, America is now in grave danger vis-à-vis Islamic Supremacism and Jihad. I am witness to the hidden war between Islam and the West, and I see clearly, with great sadness and fear, that we are losing.

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

Fourteen years ago my life changed forever as I arrived in the United States, holding tightly to hope and a promise.

That promise was freedom and a dream of a better life.

I entered this beautiful country as a documented immigrant at the age of 18 in August 2002, almost one year after 9/11. After surviving 15 years of oppression under Sharia in Iran, I felt older than my years. I had seen too much and I knew all too well the suffering of those who were subjected to Islam. What I had witnessed and experienced had left my soul weary. But in America, I felt safe. I was able to breathe, and I could stop looking over my shoulder and living in fear.

I could now believe in miracles. Here I was, the newest member of the greatest country in the world. It was my rebirth into freedom. I was in a new place that viewed me as a human; someone of value to society. Finally, my life mattered. I was a daughter of liberty; a citizen of the U.S.A.

I’ve never forgotten those who I left behind — and I have dedicated my life to them. How could I turn my back on them, when I know all too well the vicious suffering women endure in Islamic-ruled countries?

At the age of 9, Qur’anic teachings and Islamic traditions forced me into womanhood. My thoughts, my actions and my life were no longer my own. From that moment on, I lost all rights as a person, as my instruction in preparation to marry and bear children became my only purpose in life. No longer would I be allowed in public without my hijab; prayer and submission would dominate my days. The life of a carefree child at play came to an abrupt and sudden end.

For the next 9 years, I would suffer terrible cruelty under Islam. Rape, lashings, arrests and beatings were my life because I was regarded as property to be “handled” rather than a human being to be loved. During those nine years, I was sold into marriage to a much older man who abused me terribly. A bruised body and broken bones became a common reality for me, and there was little I could do to stop it. Divorce was not an option. Islamic law offers women little support in abusive marriages.

I was trapped, like so many other young girls and women around me were. My silent screams of desperation would remain unheard — until the day I decided I would rather die escaping than continue to live my life as a slave.

Fourteen years have now passed since I gained my freedom and began my mission to help and liberate those still trapped in Islamic countries. I do my best to be a voice for the voiceless who are still living a nightmare under the tyrannical rule of Islam.

I also fight for my fellow Americans. The present danger that Islam poses to this nation is very real, despite what our leftist government and media would have you believe. And because of the willful blindness and corruption within our government and media, America is now in grave danger vis-à-vis Islamic Supremacism and Jihad. I am witness to the hidden war between Islam and the West, and I see clearly, with great sadness and fear, that we are losing.

There are those voices amongst us that argue that Sharia is compatible with American life and can coexist harmoniously alongside the U.S. Constitution. Sorry, but I know Sharia. I know Islam. The coexistence of Sharia with the U.S. Constitution is impossible. And it is crucial to crystallize this fact and to expose exactly what Sharia is because it is now making significant gains on our territory.

Sharia severely limits individual rights, and every country ruled by Sharia forces its citizens to adhere to a strict code of living in accordance with the Qur’an, Hadith and the Supreme leader’s ruling. The concept of free speech, for instance, is anathema to Islam. So is the notion of the individual. In Islam, it is “Allah” who dictates and defines the limits on acceptable and unacceptable actions. In Islam, it is the Qur’an that dictates the lives of the believers, and they have no freedom of choice in regard to anything they do.

Sharia denies its followers basic human dignity. In Islamic countries, women are second-class citizens, mere property, and denied many of the rights Americans take for granted. The right to initiate divorce, travel alone, or own property unless permitted by a man is denied to a woman in Islam.

Submission of the individual is also evident in Islam’s denial of freedom of religion. Under Sharia, you must practice Islam. Anyone born in an Islamic country is, by law, a Muslim, regardless of heritage. Attempting to change your faith is punishable by death.

In my homeland, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sharia is the law of the land. To speak out against it has dire consequences. Because of Sharia, Iran has one of the highest number of executions in the world. Reports and evidence of crimes against humanity come out of the Islamic Republic daily, many from released prisoners and their families. Patterns of torture, abuse and death of political prisoners are an undeniable truth.

I am saying all of this because today, as I look at what is happening in America, I see our freedom gravely threatened. Islam is at war with us, and it will stop at nothing in its deliberate and sustained attack on our freedoms. Islamization of the West is occurring at a very fast pace and one of the vehicles Supremacists are using to achieve it is the flooding of Western countries with Muslim refugees. Islamic Obama has opened the floodgates and Hillary intends to escalate the process.

Our leadership and media, meanwhile, perpetrate the lie that accepting these refugees is somehow about tolerance. It is not about tolerance — it is about our values being exploited by our enemies to assist us in cultural suicide and leaving ourselves vulnerable to jihadist attacks.

The dire danger to America lies in the lies told by our leftist government and media and the ignorance of many Americans about Islam’s true character and purpose. I fear that Americans have become blind to how precious and rare freedom is and how it must be protected and fought for without pause. I can’t help but fear that what is coming to America is what came to my homeland in 1979 — and I refuse to be silenced again. And because I refuse to be silent today, I know that certain Islamic forces have targeted me. But I will continue to speak out.

I tell you these things not to gain your sympathy, but to help you understand that our freedom is under fire. Our country is headed down a very dangerous path. The Left has succeeded in making resistance to Islamization appear to be racism and hatred. We must fight this malicious lie. We must fight to become well-informed and educated about Islam in order to defeat leftist and Islamist propaganda. By remaining silent, being afraid to be called names and ignoring reality, we will be surrendering our freedoms to the enemy.

Time is short. Every day that passes is one day we cannot spare. My hope for freedom and a better life was realized when I stepped on American soil fourteen years ago. But what frightens me is that the pernicious evil I escaped from is now coming here. I see it with my own eyes – and, catastrophically, this nation is sleepwalking like a zombie into disaster. I will not allow my freedom to be taken away again without fighting till my last breath. I hope my fellow Americans who love their country as much as I do will join me and other freedom fighters in our battle to save it.

Categories: Iran - human rights, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamists in America, Obama's America 2016, Sharia law
Tags: Iran - human rights, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islamic supremacy, Islamists in America, Obama's America 2016, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives