Posted tagged ‘Islam’

French Elections: Populist Revolution or Status Quo?

March 22, 2017

“If the Macron bubble doesn’t pop, this may portend the realignment, not just of French politics, but Western politics in general, away from the left-right division that has defined Western politics since the French Revolution, towards a division between

by Soeren Kern
March 21, 2017 at 5:00 am

Source: French Elections: Populist Revolution or Status Quo?

  • “If the Macron bubble doesn’t pop, this may portend the realignment, not just of French politics, but Western politics in general, away from the left-right division that has defined Western politics since the French Revolution, towards a division between the people and the elites.” — Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, French political analyst.
  • “This divide is no longer between the left and the right, but between patriots and globalists.” — Marine Le Pen, French presidential candidate.

The presidential election in France officially got underway on March 18, when the Constitutional Council announced that a total of eleven candidates will be facing off for the country’s top political job.

The election is being closely followed in France and elsewhere as an indicator of popular discontent with traditional parties and the European Union, as well as with multiculturalism and continued mass migration from the Muslim world.

The first round of voting will be held on April 23. If no single candidate wins an absolute majority, the top two winners in the first round will compete in a run-off on May 7.

If the election were held today, independent “progressive” candidate Emmanuel Macron, who has never held elected office, would become the next president of France, according to several opinion polls.

A BVA market research poll for Orange released on March 18 showed that Marine Le Pen, the leader of the anti-establishment National Front party, would win the first round with 26% of the votes, followed by Macron with 25%. Conservative François Fillon is third (19.5%), followed by radical Socialist Benoît Hamon (12.5%) and Leftist firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon (12%).

For the first time, the two established parties, the Socialist Party and the center-right Republicans, would be eliminated in the first round.

In the second round, Macron, a 39-year-old pro-EU, pro-Islam globalist (platform here), would defeat Le Pen, a 48-year-old anti-EU, anti-Islam French nationalist (platform here), by a wide margin (62% to 38%), according to the poll.

Macron, a former investment banker, was an adviser to incumbent Socialist President François Hollande, one of the most unpopular presidents in modern French history. A long-time member of the Socialist Party, Macron served in Hollande’s cabinet for two years as economy minister until August 2016, when he resigned to launch his rival presidential bid to “transform France.”

Macron, whose core base of support consists of young, urban progressives, has tried to position himself in the political center, between the Socialists and the conservatives. His meteoric rise has been propelled by a scandal involving Fillon — who is the subject of a criminal investigation over allegations that he used government money to pay his wife and children more than €1 million ($1.1 million) for jobs they never did — and because the Socialists fielded Hamon, a nonviable candidate who has promised to pay every French citizen over 18, regardless of whether or not they are employed, a government-guaranteed monthly income of €750 ($800). The annual cost to taxpayers would be €400 billion ($430 billion). By comparison, France’s 2017 defense budget is €32.7 billion ($40 billion).

Macron’s ascendancy comes amid heightened worries over security. More than 230 people have been killed in attacks in France by Islamic radicals during the past two years. The latest attack, on March 18, involved a 39-year-old French-Tunisian jihadist who proclaimed that he wanted to “die for Allah,” and was shot dead after he tried to seize a soldier’s weapon at Orly Airport in Paris.

Shortly after the attack, Le Pen accused Macron and the rest of France’s political establishment of “cowardice in the face of Islamic fundamentalism.”

In an apparent effort to bolster his national security credentials, Macron on March 18 announced a surprise proposal to restore compulsory military service. He said he would require men and women between the ages of 18 and 21 to serve one month in the armed forces.

“I want each young French person to be able to experience military life, however brief,” Macron said. “This is a major project of society, a real republican project, which should allow our democracy to be more united and the resilience of our society to be increased.” Macron, if elected, would become the first president in modern French history not to have performed military service.

Observers say that Macron’s national service proposal — which copies Le Pen’s proposal to reintroduce compulsory military service for a period of at least three months — is an attempt to siphon votes away from Le Pen and Fillon, both of whose campaign platforms call for a strong national defense.

Macron’s proposal, which will require an estimated €15 billion ($16 billion) upfront, and another €3 billion ($3.2 billion) each year to maintain, has been met with derision because of its exorbitant cost and dubious contribution to national security. Le Monde reminded its readers that France spends a similar amount (€3 billion annually) on nuclear deterrence.

Fillon’s spokesman, Luc Chantel, said the proposal was “absurd and unrealistic” and added:

“Either it is a measure designed to discourage students from quitting school, and this is not the mission of the army, or it is training for the defense of France, and one month is a joke, it is a discovery camp.”

Some of Macron’s other policy positions include:

  • European Federalism: Macron has repeatedly called for a stronger European Union. At a January 14 political rally in Lille, he said: “We are Europe, we are Brussels, we wanted it and we need it. We need Europe because Europe makes us bigger, because Europe makes us stronger.”
  • Single European Currency: In a January 10 speech at the Humboldt University in Berlin, Macron, speaking impeccable English, said: “The truth is that we must collectively recognize that the euro is incomplete and cannot last without major reforms. It has not provided Europe with full international sovereignty against the dollar on its rules. It has not provided Europe with a natural convergence between the different member states. The euro is a weak Deutsche mark, the status quo is synonymous, in 10 years’ time, with the dismantling of the euro.”
  • Migration Crisis: Macron has repeatedly praised German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door migration policy, which has allowed more than two million mostly Muslim migrants into Germany since January 2015.

    In a January 1, 2017 interview with Süddeutsche Zeitung, Macron accused critics of Merkel’s open-door migration policy of “disgraceful oversimplification.” He said: “Merkel and German society as a whole exemplified our common European values. They saved our collective dignity by accepting, accommodating and educating distressed refugees.”

    In a February 4 rally in Lyon, Macron mocked U.S. President Donald Trump’s pledge to build a wall with Mexico: “I do not want to build a wall. I can assure you there is no wall in my program. Can you remember the Maginot Line?” he said, referring to a failed row of fortifications that France built in the 1930s to deter an invasion by Germany.

  • Islamic Terrorism: Macron has said he believes the solution to jihadist terrorism is more European federalism: “Terrorism wants to destroy Europe. We must quickly create a sovereign Europe that is capable of protecting us against external dangers in order to better ensure internal security. We also need to overcome national unwillingness and create a common European intelligence system that will allow the effective hunting of criminals and terrorists.”
  • Islam: Macron has said he believes that French security policy has unfairly targeted Muslims and that “secularism should not be brandished to as a weapon to fight Islam.” At an October 2016 rally in Montpellier, he rejected President Hollande’s assertion that “France has a problem with Islam.” Instead, Macron said: “No religion is a problem in France today. If the state should be neutral, which is at the heart of secularism, we have a duty to let everybody practice their religion with dignity.” He also insisted that the Islamic State is not Islamic: “What poses a problem is not Islam, but certain behaviors that are said to be religious and then imposed on persons who practice that religion.”
  • National Defense: Macron supports NATO, and has pledged to increase French defense spending to reach 2% of GDP by 2025 — a level to which all NATO members agreed in 2006. At the same time, Macron believes in the need to create an “autonomous” European defense capability, also known as a European Army, which would duplicate military capabilities which already exist within NATO.

An Ifop poll for the Journal du Dimanche published on March 18 found that French voters are divided into “two quasi-equal blocks” about Macron’s honesty and his ability to govern. According to the survey, only 46% of French people believe he will be “able to guarantee the safety of the French people.” More than half (52%) of respondents said they were “worried” about Macron, while 52% said they doubted his honesty.

In an interview with BMFTV, Laurence Haïm, a Canal+ reporter who was accredited to the White House and who recently joined Macron’s team, described Macron as the “French Obama.” She added: “I think that in today’s world we need renewal, from someone young, who is not a politician. He wants to make the democratic revolution.”

So what is driving Macron’s political ascendancy? French analyst Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry explains:

“The best way to look at Macron is as a kind of anti-Le Pen, or, to stretch the bounds of logic even further, a ‘populist from the top.’ If Le Pen is anti-establishment, Macron is the incarnation of the French establishment, a graduate of ENA, the top civil service school that trains the country’s elites, and a member of the Inspection des Finances, the most elite civil service track. His only experience in the private sector is through the revolving door as an investment banker. And yet, Macron sounds off populist rhetoric: His candidacy, he says, is about sweeping out a corrupt system (even as he is supported by the vast majority of the French establishment).

“It would be only slightly churlish to say that the parts of the system Macron wants to do away with are the democratic ones; witness his full-throated support for the EU in a country that has rejected it at the polls. Macron supports various liberalizing reforms, and Angela Merkel’s welcoming policy towards migrants. He is, of course, a social liberal. In a country that takes culture very seriously, he has argued that there is ‘no such thing’ as French culture; rather, there are many cultures with which the French perform a kind of synthesis. His biggest donors seem to be French tax exiles residing in London and Brussels.

“In other words, he is the mirror image of the political realignment that is transforming Western politics. If the familiar motley crew of populists — Trump, Le Pen — are the candidates for those who lost out from globalization, then Macron is the candidate of the winners. In both cases, they seem to make old left-right divisions obsolete. If the Macron bubble doesn’t pop, this may portend the realignment, not just of French politics, but Western politics in general, away from the left-right division that has defined Western politics since the French Revolution, towards a division between the people and the elites.

Le Pen agrees. At a rally in Lyon on February 5, she said:

“The old left-right debates have outlived their usefulness. Primaries have shown that debates about secularism or immigration, as well as globalization or generalized deregulation, constitute a fundamental and transversal divide. This divide is no longer between the left and the right, but between patriots and globalists.

“The collapse of traditional parties and the systematic disappearance of almost all of their leaders shows that a great political re-composition has begun.”

At that same rally, Le Pen launched a two-pronged attack on globalization and radical Islam. She also promised French voters a referendum on remaining in the European Union in order “to allow us to recover our four sovereignties: monetary, economic, legislative and territorial.”

She went on to articulate exactly what is at stake for France in this election:

In all respects, this presidential election is unlike previous ones. Its outcome will determine the future of France as a free nation and our existence as a people.

After decades of errors and cowardice, we are at a crossroads. I say it with gravity: the choice we will have to make in this election is a choice of civilization.

The question is simple and cruel: will our children live in a free, independent, democratic country? Will they still be able to refer to our system of values? Will they have the same way of life as we did and our parents before us?

Will our children, and the children of our children, still have a job, a decent wage, the possibility of building up a patrimony, becoming an owner, starting a family in a safe environment, being properly cared for, to grow old with dignity?

Will our children have the same rights as us?

Will they live according to our cultural references, our values ​​of civilization, our style of living, and will they even speak our French language, which is disintegrating under the blows of political leaders who squander this national treasure — for example, by choosing a slogan in English to promote the candidacy of Paris to host the 2024 Olympic Games?

Will they have the right to claim French culture when certain candidates for the presidential election, puffed up by their own empty-headedness, explain that it does not exist?

I ask this important question because, unlike our adversaries, I am interested not only in the material heritage of the French, but I also want to defend our immaterial capital. This immaterial capital is priceless because this heritage is irreplaceable. In fact, I am defending the load-bearing walls of our society.

The choice for French voters is clear: Le Pen is the anti-establishment change candidate and Macron is the pro-establishment status quo candidate.

In the current French presidential election campaign, Marin Le Pen (right) is the anti-establishment change candidate and Emmanuel Macron (left) is the pro-establishment status quo candidate. (Image source: LCI video screenshot)

Le Pen is offering voters an historic opportunity to reassess relations with the European Union, reassert national sovereignty and stanch the flow of mass migration from the Muslim world. By contrast, Macron is offering voters increased European federalism, the transference of yet more national sovereignty to the European Union, and the further multiculturalization of French society.

If polls are any indication, French voters appear to be more comfortable with the status quo. The populist revolution that began in June 2016 when British voters decided to leave the European Union, and cross the Atlantic in November when Americans elected U.S. President Donald J. Trump, will not be spreading to France in 2017.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

 

51 Nonprofits in Brussels Migrant District Suspected of Having Terror Links

March 21, 2017

Police have uncovered 51 groups with suspected terrorist ties in migrant-dominated Molenbeek, Brussels, a new report has disclosed.

by Virginia Hale

20 Mar 2017

Source: 51 Nonprofits in Brussels Migrant District Suspected of Having Terror Links – Breitbart

 

Police have uncovered 51 organisations with suspected terrorist ties in the migrant-dominated Molenbeek district of Brussels, according to a new report into anti-terror measures.

Belgium’s Interior Minister Jan Jambon promised to “clean up” the now-notorious municipality, which has a reputation for being a jihadi safe-haven, after authorities discovered the Brussels commune acted as a hub for many of the suspects involved in the Paris and Brussels terror attacks.

The confidential report revealed that under the Channel Plan, police have carried out door-to-door checks on more than 8,600 houses and 22,668 inhabitants — a quarter of all Molenbeek residents — in the last year, in a bid to tighten security.

Under the Channel Plan, which began a year ago and added 300 officers and €39 million to the force, police have produced a list of 72 terror suspects — 26 of whom live in Syria or Iraq and 46 who live in Belgium.

Of Belgium-based jihadists identified, 20 are incarcerated while the other 26 are “closely monitored” by authorities. However, the report revealed that only five of the terror suspects listed are being accompanied by deradicalisation staff.

In total, 6,168 people in Molenbeek are being monitored.

The Channel Plan also had police review the 1,617 NGOs and nonprofit groups situated in the district, with the report revealing police found at least 51 of these had links to terrorism and radical Islam and uncovered a further 102 which were associated with crime.

But deputy mayor of Molenbeek, Ahmed El Khannouss, is among voices who have condemned the “clean up” of the district, branding the Channel Plan “wicked and unjustified”.

“We thought we had overcome such practices [as inspecting mosques] since the Second World War when people were singled out for their religion — a thing which led to one of the worst ignominies of history,” he wrote in an open letter to Mr. Jambon.

The Union of Mosques of the Brussels Region (UMRB) and the Platform of Muslims of Belgium (PMB), too, attacked the programme, writing: “[Police] checks have been carried out with unjustifiable brutality. The prejudices and generalisations we see are not only harmful to our community but society as a whole.”

The groups argued that mosque inspections result in Muslim groups in Belgium feeling “stigmatised” and like they are the victim of “hatred and rejection” from non-Muslims in Belgium.

However, in February, a report by Belgium’s Coordination Unit for Threat Analysis (OCAD) warned radical Islam is spreading in the nation to the detriment of moderate Islam, and empowering extremist and jihadist groups.

Erdogan: European Headscarf Ban ‘Started a Clash Between the Cross and the Crescent’

March 17, 2017

Erdogan said on Thursday that the EU’s ban on headscarves in the workplace would launch “a struggle between the cross and the crescent.”

by John Hayward

17 Mar 2017

Source: Erdogan: European Headscarf Ban ‘Started a Clash Between the Cross and the Crescent’

MOHAMMED HUWAIS/AFP/Getty Images

In addition to his customary invective against European governments for refusing to allow his ministers to rally Turkish expatriates behind him, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday that the EU’s new ban on headscarves in the workplace would launch “a struggle between the cross and the crescent.”

“Where is the liberty of religion? They have commenced a struggle between the cross and crescent. There is no other explanation than this. I am saying this clearly: Europe is heading toward the days just before World War II,” said Erdogan, as rendered by Hurriyet Daily News.

Euractiv transcribes Erdogan’s quote as, “The European Union’s court, the European Court of Justice, my esteemed brothers, have started a crusade struggle against the crescent,” which would be even more incendiary. Jihad and Islamist groups perpetually accuse Western powers of conducting another “crusade” against Muslims.

“Shame on the EU. Down with your European principles, values, and justice,” Erdogan told his supporters.

In a tirade on Wednesday, Erdogan said the “spirit of fascism is roaming the streets of Europe,” comparing the treatment of Muslims to how the Nazis treated Jews.

“The fear of the Turks is beginning to appear. The fear of Islam is beginning to appear. They are even afraid of the migrants looking for asylum. They fear everything which originates elsewhere; they are hostile to everything that is not from there,” he thundered.

Also speaking on Thursday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu predicted that “holy wars” would soon begin in Europe.

As translated by Hurriyet Daily News, Cavusoglu said:

Now the election is over in the Netherlands. … When you look at the many parties you see there is no difference between the social democrats and fascist [Geert] Wilders. All have the same mentality. Where will you go? Where are you taking Europe? You have begun to collapse Europe. You are dragging Europe into the abyss. Holy wars will soon begin in Europe.

“They killed each other 100 years ago because they were of different faiths, but they learned a lesson from this and set up the European Union and the Council of Europe,” Cavusoglu continued, prompting a bit of head-scratching from Hurriyet about exactly what he was driving at.

Like Cavusoglu, Erdogan took some time on Thursday to thumb his nose at the Netherlands, taunting re-elected Prime Minister Mark Rutte: “O Rutte! You may have been first in the elections, but you have lost a friend like Turkey.”

He went on to needle Rutte about refusing to have dinner with him because “there is no such prime minister here – give it up, you have lost.” Presumably, this was Erdogan’s way of treating Rutte as beneath his notice.

Erdogan wrapped up his remarks by threatening to scuttle Turkey’s migrant readmission agreement with the European Union.

“They have promised to remove visas. Now they are talking about a readmission plan. What readmission? Get over it! You did not let my minister enter the Netherlands, you did not give permission to my foreign minister to fly to the country and did not let the minister get into the consulate building, which is my territory. Then you are expecting readmission? There is no such thing,” Erdogan said.

Before Arrival of Trump Envoy, PA Glorified Terrorist Who Murdered 38 Israelis 

March 17, 2017

When Jason Greenblatt, the Trump administration’s Special Representative for International Negotiati

BY:
March 16, 2017 2:49 pm

Source: Before Arrival of Trump Envoy, PA Glorified Terrorist Who Murdered 38 Israelis 

Mahmoud Abbas / Getty Images

When Jason Greenblatt, the Trump administration’s Special Representative for International Negotiations, met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday, Abbas “assured Mr. Greenblatt that he is fully committed to creating an atmosphere that is conducive to making peace.”

Just days earlier, Abbas, his Fatah Party, and the Palestinian Authority were celebrating a notorious terrorist on the anniversary of her attack in which 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children, were shot and burned to death in a bus hijacking.

The Palestinian Authority’s annual celebration of the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre, the deadliest Palestinian terror attack in history, fell on March 11 and 12. Greenblatt arrived on March 13.

According to a report by the Middle East Media Research Institute, both Abbas’s Fatah Party and the Palestinian Authority glorified the terror attack in official media and in government celebrations.

On March 12, the Palestinian Authority opened a “youth training camp” named after the terrorist who carried out the attack, Dalal Mughrabi. The ceremony was attended by top Fatah Party officials.

The Palestinian Authority National Security Forces posted a picture of Mughrabi to Facebook with the caption, “The martyr Dalal Al-Mughrabi, the bride of Jaffa, on the 39th anniversary of her martyr’s death.”

Additionally, the governor of Ramallah and the Fatah Party in Bethlehem hosted ceremonies honoring Mughrabi and the attack, hailing her as a role model for Palestinians.

In a statement after his meeting with Greenblatt, the Palestinian Authority said “President Abbas committed to preventing inflammatory rhetoric and incitement.”

Zuhdi Jasser’s assistant attended Garland jihad shooters’ mosque in Phoenix

March 16, 2017

AIFD’s Community Outreach Coordinator is or was a member of the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, the mosque attended by the jihad terrorists who attacked our American Freedom Defense Initiative free speech event in Garland, Texas on May 3, 2015.

By – on March 15, 2017

Source: Zuhdi Jasser’s assistant attended Garland jihad shooters’ mosque in Phoenix – Geller Report

Yesterday I called Zuhdi Jasser “the Grand Mufti of the Stealth Jihad.” This is more evidence of the correctness of the title. Courtney Lonergan is a “moderate” — she works for Jasser’s AIFD. But she was close friends with Garland jihadi Ibrahim Simpson. She knew all about him. The distinction between “moderates” and “extremists” is not as large as many non-Muslims imagine it to be — witness Jasser’s endorsement of Alija Izetbegovic, about which I also wrote yesterday.

“Zuhdi Jasser’s assistant attended Garland jihad shooters’ mosque in Phoenix,” by Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, March 15, 2017:

Yesterday I cited professional moderate Muslim Zuhdi Jasser’s endorsement of pro-Sharia Islamic supremacist Alija Izetbegovic as an example of the problematic aspects of the entire moderate Muslim enterprise. Here is more. At Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) website, the “Our Team” page contains biographies of two people: Jasser himself and Courtney Lonergan, AIFD’s “Community Outreach Coordinator.” (Demonstrating yet again Jasser’s capacity for sonorous gobbledegook that he displayed in such abundance on his Blaze show denouncing me and others as “alt-jihadists,” we’re told that “Courtney is an enthusiastic and compelling participatory facilitator who engages the diverse perspectives of her stakeholders in meaningful dialogue to elicit inspired action and thoughtful working groups.” Good participatory facilitators are hard to come by these days, much less enthusiastic and compelling ones.)

AIFD’s Community Outreach Coordinator is or was a member of the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, the mosque attended by the jihad terrorists who attacked our American Freedom Defense Initiative free speech event in Garland, Texas on May 3, 2015. And according to Lonergan herself, they were acting upon teachings they heard in the mosque. Pamela Geller wrote at Breitbart in July 2015: “And the jihadis who tried to commit mass murder last May at our free speech event in Garland, Texas, Ibrahim (formerly Elton) Simpson and Nadir Soofi, were members of the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix. Simpson’s friend Courtney Lonergan remembers, according to the Arizona Republic, that “Simpson would never waver from the teachings he picked up in the mosque and elsewhere.” Lonergan said: “He was one of those guys who would sleep at the mosque. The fact that he felt personally insulted by somebody drawing a picture had to come from the ideological rhetoric coming out of the mosque.”

That Arizona Republic article also notes that Lonergan “met Simpson at that mosque about 10 years ago.” Her bio at the AIFD site doesn’t say when she started working for Jasser. Nonetheless, I’ve been harshly criticized (and dubbed a “hate-group leader” by the hard-Left Southern Poverty Law Center) for saying that there was no distinction in Muslim communities between “moderates” and “extremists,” which has been represented as my saying that all Muslims were terrorists, when obviously I meant that “moderates” in mosques were not reporting or expelling the “extremists.” This is proof of that fact: Lonergan, who is a “moderate Muslim” herself and works for the “moderate” Jasser, was well acquainted with the “extremist” Simpson and the teachings of mosque. She didn’t say anything to the Arizona Republic about trying to get Simpson expelled from the mosque for his “extremism.” Wouldn’t it be a strong sign that Jasser’s “Islamic reform” had a real chance of succeeding if mosques were acting strongly against would-be jihad murderers such as Ibrahim Simpson, and if Islamic Community Center of Phoenix mosquegoers were rejecting the mosque teachings that led to the Garland jihad attack?

EXPOSED! Took awhile, but the bad smell I noticed several years coming from FOX News “go-to moderate Muslim,” Zuhdi Jasser, has turned into a poisonous gas

March 16, 2017

STEALTH JIHADIST Dr. Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser, who likes to call himself a Muslim reformer, is anything but as he proves when he says, “There’s no greater threat” than Pamela Geller and her counter-ji…

Source: EXPOSED! Took awhile, but the bad smell I noticed several years coming from FOX News “go-to moderate Muslim,” Zuhdi Jasser, has turned into a poisonous gas – BARE NAKED ISLAM

STEALTH JIHADIST Dr. Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser, who likes to call himself a Muslim reformer, is anything but as he proves when he says, “There’s no greater threat” than Pamela Geller and her counter-jihad colleagues.

Pamela Geller  In one fell swoop, “moderate Muslim” Zuhdi Jasser has dropped a MOAB on the most effective counter-jihadists in the West. The Grand Mufti of the Stealth Jihad has devoted an entire episode of his show (see below) on The Blaze Network, “Reform This!” to smearing me and many of my colleagues, including Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Clare Lopez, John Guandolo, and others, as “alt-jihadists.”

He even says “there are no greater jihadists than the alt-jihadists when it comes to living in the land of freedom. Because they seem to be wanting to kill us and knock us off at the knees.” That’s right: “No greater jihadists” than me and my colleagues. “Alt” means Nazi. He knows exactly what he is doing.

Who even knew he had a show on The Blaze? No one. Why is Glenn Beck giving this vicious saboteur a platform? Jasser did this deliberately, knowing it would blow up — that speaks volumes about his character and his true motives.

But some people are endlessly eager to be fooled. Frank Gaffney immediately wrote to a group of us whom Jasser targeted, telling us to hold off in the interest of peacemaking! It was striking how quickly Gaffney jumped to Jasser’s defense. (I’ve never seen him jump to my defense like that.) What a step-and-fetch-it boy Gaffney is for Jasser.

This epitomizes how much people who recognize the jihad threat have been fooled into thinking they have to have moderate Muslims on board or their efforts will be criticized by the left as “islamophobic.” The left is going to say that anyway, no matter what they do.

Jasser talks a good game as you can see by his website:

As for me, I didn’t start this war, and I’m not going to let Jasser’s lies just sit out there unchallenged. It is Jasser who has thrown down the gauntlet (again) — the idea that he is defending himself against attacks, as Patrick Poole claimed on Twitter, is nonsense.

I was right about Jasser all along. When I interviewed Jasser back in 2007, he could not answer my questions about how the “immutable” word of the Quran could be radically reinterpreted, or about the fact that such “reformation” or “reinterpretation” is punishable by death. In other words, you can’t have your private little Islam. Period.

And then when he referred to Israel as occupied territory in the last five minutes of the interview, he blew his cover. Further, Jasser claimed that Islamic antisemitism didn’t exist in the interview as well.

In 2011, I published an article in the American Thinker entitled “Where Are All the Jassers?,” in response to an attack on me by Jasser in which he claimed, as he does now on his Blaze show, that I was aiding the “Islamists.” Read that article. In it, I show how dishonest Jasser is about what the Qur’an says about Jews, and about beating disobedient women, and more.

In this new attack, Jasser’s whole premise is false. We are “alt-jihadists” for pointing out how jihadists use Islamic teachings as their motivation and impetus? So those who told the truth about the Nazis were just like the Nazis, because they were reinforcing the Nazis message? He admits that Islamic government and the most respected Islamic institutions do not reflect his interpretation of Islam, but then he hits us for noticing the same thing. He wants us not to believe reality, and instead to embrace a fantasy that has failed catastrophically post-9/11.

Here is another truth that Jasser doesn’t want aired about: his organization is minuscule. Where is the invisible giant movement of his? And why has he not prevailed and gained a huge Muslim following in the wake of the unfathomable bloodshed for which jihadis are responsible, if that bloodshed were so very un-Islamic? He has no significant following among Muslims, and is not going to get one. He is much more popular among non-Muslims who are just aching to be fooled.

Jasser is lying about 15 Muslim Reformer groups. I doubt that there are even 15 people. If there are, where are they? No one has ever seen them.

Jasser and his ilk are not moderates. They are liars. There’s a difference. Jasser proves that on his show when he cites Alija Izetbegovic as an example of a Muslim reformer. In his “Islamic Declaration,” Izetbegovic said: “Muslim nations will never accept anything that is explicitly against Islam…He who rises against Islam will reap nothing but hate & resistance…” “The first & foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam & non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or co-existence between the ‘Islamic faith’ & non-Islamic societies & political institutions…”

In a piece from Right Side News, Jasser has proven himself to have a PhD in taqiyya. “Taqqiya, in Islam, is a doctrine of pious fraud or religious dissimulation… whereby Muslims may under certain circumstances openly deceive infidels by feigning friendship or goodwill provided their heart remains true to Islam.” Jasser says it clearly:  “I sit before you a proud, devout, American Muslim whose country is polarized on its perceptions of Muslims.”

Jasser seemed to be the harshest critic of Barack Obama, yet it was Obama who appointed Zuhdi Jasser Commissioner at the US Commission for International Religious Freedom.Jasser’s book “Battle for the Soul of Islam” is a palliative compilation of his groundless wishful thinking that he proposes to non-Muslim Americans, as his publisher writes: “He offers non-Muslims a definitive comprehension of the difference between Islam and the spiritual cancer known as Islamism, or political Islam, and how violence and extremism run counter to Islam’s true teachings.”

Zuhdi Jasser never accepts responsibility that the 9/11 attacks were a result of Islam and the Koran teachings. He says that 9/11 was the result of actions by “foreign agents.”He also never condemns severely the acts of 9/11 committed by barbaric Muslim terrorists in the name of Islam.

And when he does condemn, it is only to say it is not Islam, that they were not related to the religion of Islam, and that’s blatantly delusional, misleading and deceptive. Asked why was it so difficult for him to say that 9/11 perpetrators who caused the massacres were Muslim terrorists, he again said that it was not related to religion.

Jasser has taken to his show at The Blaze to record an hour-long rant entitled “Alt-Jihadists: Useful Idiots of the Global Islamist Establishment.”

Clarion Project tries to show that Islamic reform is possible, instead only shows how easy it is to be fooled

March 16, 2017

The Clarion Project has always dissembled about the ideological roots of the phenomena it covers.

By – on March 16, 2017

Source: Clarion Project tries to show that Islamic reform is possible, instead only shows how easy it is to be fooled – Geller Report

The Clarion Project has always dissembled about the ideological roots of the phenomena it covers. Its “Honor Diaries” video falsely claimed that honor killing was un-Islamic. Its “Third Jihad” video went out its way to assure us that the vast majority of Muslims not only didn’t participate in jihad activity, but rejected and abhorred it (while numerous international surveys show otherwise). The Grand Mufti of the Stealth Jihad, Zuhdi Jasser, is on its advisory board, so it’s no surprise that Clarion would rush to his aid in our recent controversy. (See my response to Jasser’s libels here.) But Robert Spencer thoroughly eviscerates their claims and shows them to be the ignorant, easily-led naifs they are.

“Clarion Project tries to show that Islamic reform is possible, instead only shows how easy it is to be fooled,” by Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, March 15, 2017:

The Clarion Project, of which moderate Muslim Zuhdi Jasser is an advisory board member, has rushed to his aid in our recent controversy, claiming to demonstrate in this piece that reform of Islam is not only possible, but happening now in all sorts of ways I am not acknowledging. Now, I have never said Islamic reform is not possible, but this Clarion article unfortunately only confirms several points I have made many times before: that much of what is touted as reform of Islam is really nothing of the kind, as the central doctrines of Islam are left untouched; and also that much of what is touted as reform of Islam is actually cynical deception designed to keep Infidels complacent. Both are on abundant display in this Clarion piece. More below.

“Is Muslim Reform Even Possible?,” by Elliot Friedland, Clarion Project, March 15, 2017:

Clarion advisory board member Dr. Zudhi Jasser has hit out of critics who claim that Muslim reform movements are bound to fail because they are not accepted within the Muslim community….

Spencer later adds, “I’d love to see Islamic reform succeed. I’m just not willing to kid myself or others about its prospects, or pretend that it has a greater standing in Islamic doctrine or tradition than it does.”These are important questions that must be addressed honestly.

But Spencer misses the point in three key ways:

Firstly, Spencer’s arguments belie the fact that Islam has already changed many times throughout the centuries. It has seen intellectual flourishing, such as in the Abbasid House of Wisdom, and iconoclastic destruction, such as that meted out against Hindu India by the Ghaznavid Empire, or, of course, the contemporary Islamic State (who cited the exploits of Mahmud of Ghazni in the latest issue of their propaganda magazine Rumiyah). Just like Christianity has gone from the charity of St Francis of Assisi to the torture chambers of the Inquisition to fighting for both the abolition of and the maintenance of slavery in the 19th century.

This bespeaks a confusion about what reform of Islam actually is, or would be. Of course Islam, like all other religions and belief systems, has been expressed in different ways by its various adherents. But that is not the same thing as it undergoing an actual change of doctrine, such as, say, a rejection of the violent jihad imperative or the necessity to subjugate the “People of the Book” (i.e., Jews, Christians, and a few other groups) under the hegemony of Islamic law as dhimmis. There has never been such a rejection. The Abbasid House of Wisdom, for example, was flourishing amidst Islamic oppression that will sound familiar to people who have been reading about the atrocities of the Islamic State. Raymond Ibrahim reports this about the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid: “In the West [he] is depicted as a colorful and fun-loving prankster in the Arabian Nights. Though renowned for his secular pursuits — including riotous living, strong drink and harems of concubines, to the point that a modern day female Kuwaiti activist referred to him as a model to justify the institution of sex-slavery — Harun al-Rashid was still pious enough ‘to force Christians to distinguish themselves by dress, to expel them from their positions, and to destroy their churches through the use of fatwas by the imams.’”

To take but two recent examples: In 2016, the Marrakesh Declaration saw more than 250 scholars from around the Muslim world convene at the request of the King of Morocco (a direct descendant of Muhammed himself and hardly a marginal figure) to “AFFIRM that it is unconscionable to employ religion for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries.”

The Marrakesh Declaration does indeed say that. This does not, however, constitute any reform of Islam in the slightest degree. A hadith has Muhammad saying, “He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah” (At-Tabarani). Muhammad didn’t by saying this cancel the Qur’anic imperative to make sure that the dhimmis “pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29). He didn’t want the dhimmis hurt because their jizya tax money was an important source of revenue for the Muslim community: the caliph Umar is quoted in a hadith saying that the jizya is the “source of the livelihood of your dependents” (Bukhari 4.53.388). One shouldn’t harm the goose that is laying the golden eggs. But this doesn’t mean that the dhimmis were any less subjugated. When the Marrakesh Declaration says that “it is unconscionable to employ religion for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries,” it is not reforming or rejecting the Qur’anic imperative to subjugate those minorities as dhimmis. In Islamic law, the dhimmis have rights; they just don’t have all the rights that Muslims have.

Closer to America, since 2013 the Muslim Leadership Initiative has seen Muslim leaders from America come to Israel to learn about Jews and Zionism, abandoning the decades long opposition to any interaction at all with the Jewish state within the establishment leadership in the Muslim community. Although this provoked a massive backlash, the fact that it happened at all is monumental in showing that it is possible to have a dialogue and move towards solutions to some of the seemingly intractable inter-communal problems that we face.

This one is really embarrassing for Clarion. Listed as an “MLI Facilitator” is none other than Haroon Moghul, a name that will be familiar to longtime Jihad Watch readers. Moghul is one of the most ridiculous exponents of the “Islamophobia” victimhood propaganda industry, and he has shown himself to be many times. Obsessed with furthering claims of Muslim victimhood, Moghul traffics in malicious defamation (likening Pamela Geller and me to jihad mass murder mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki) and dishonesty (discounting the reality of jihad terror while magnifying the fiction of “Islamophobia”) and taking advantage of his audience’s ignorance about Islam to invert reality, portraying Muslims as victims of a cruel “Islamophobic” machine, instead of non-Muslims threatened by the global jihad. He is the very model of a cynical pseudo-moderate taking advantage of the ignorance of his non-Muslim interlocutors in order to lull them into complacency regarding the jihad threat.

Secondly, Spencer does not acknowledge the damage done by rejecting Muslims like Jasser. When Muslims like Jasser are not seen as authentic by non-Muslims, it makes it that much harder for him to pitch to Muslims that his path will lead to acceptance. Fear is an incredibly powerful factor in politics. If Muslim communities fear they will be excluded no matter what, that non-Muslims have no interest in protecting them or their rights and are only interested in them as opponents of jihad, they have little incentive to speak out.

As I explained yesterday, Muslims actually don’t care what non-Muslims think about Islam, any more than Christians care about whether the Ayatollah Khamenei or caliph al-Baghdadi think they’re Christian or not. As influential as it is, this argument doesn’t get any less absurd by constant repetition. Until some Muslim appears who can honestly say, “I was going to join ISIS until I heard Pope Francis say that the Qur’an rejects violence,” I will continue to think it absurd.

Thirdly, Spencer does not recognize that these things take a long time. Even within living memory, the West has seen monumental cultural shifts, on women’s rights, on gay rights, on race relations. These changes have pushed the contemporary West further in the direction of upholding human freedoms than any other civilization in the history of the world….

Muslim Reform is happening. Just slower and more quietly than Robert Spencer would like.

Great. How slow is too slow? Is there a timetable? How long do we have to wait? How many people have to get killed by jihadists before we realize that waiting for this reform to happen is pointless?

The Clarion Project tried in this article to show that Islamic reform is possible and happening now. Instead, it only showed the perils of ignorance and how easy it is to be fooled by cynical sharpies such as Haroon Moghul.