Islamic supremacy | WarSclerotic | Page 20

Posted tagged ‘Islamic supremacy’

House GOP Leaders Set To Endorse Obama’s Failed Anti-JIhad Strategy

June 16, 2016

House GOP Leaders Set To Endorse Obama’s Failed Anti-JIhad Strategy, Breitbart, Neil Munro, June 15, 2016

Domestic-Islamic-Terrorists-Radical-Islam-San-Bernardino-Fort-Hood-Orlando-Boston-Chattanooga-AP-640x480

House GOP leaders are set to endorse President Barack Obama’s failed domestic anti-jihad strategy, according to Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert.

The GOP’s Obama endorsement is hidden in a new bill, titled the ‘‘Countering Terrorist Radicalization Act.” The showpiece bill’s title and language is undermined by numerous exceptions that allow the president to continue his failed “Countering Violent Extremism” strategy, Gohmert said.

The bill is a post-Orlando showpiece that actually entrenches Obama’s harmful policies, he said. “All this is doing is giving more and more credibility to this ridiculous term ‘CVE’ instead of describing the killers that were behind 9/11, the Boston bombings, the San Bernardino attack, the Orlando shooting, the bomber in Times Square… all these people who are trying to kill us in America,” he said.

“We’re doing the same thing as the president… we’re not identifying radical Islam” as the enemy which nurtures and motivates attackers, Gohmert. “There is going to be more and more killings of Americans … until we can train our people to recognize radical Islam,” he said.

Under the CVE strategy, Obama has blocked FBI investigators from examining the supposedly non-political and peaceful networks of mosques that actually nurture jihadi attitudes, while redirecting FBI attention to less dangerous non-Islamic groups, such as small-government militias. The strategy has also put FBI agents under the supervision of an oversight panel influenced by Muslim political activists, including an immigrant who reportedly welcomed the slaughter of 3,000 Americans in 2001 by her Muslim co-religionists.

Moreover, Obama’s tight restrictions on investigators have not earned the expected cooperation from Islamic groups. In fact, many self-segregating Islamic groups have rejected Obama’s proposal to allow local Imams to police their young men in exchange for sharing information about jihadi groups with the FBI.

The GOP endorsement bill is slated for a vote as early as Thursday, June 16.

Under a subtitle, “AMPLIFYING LOCAL EFFORTS TO ROOT OUT TERROR,” the bill simply authorizes extra training, the creation of a committee and establishes some conditional reporting requirements, according to the draft given to Breitbart. The bill does not reform Obama’s CVE strategy, training rules or investigative priorities.

The bill was drafted by staff working for Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who is the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Press aides at the committee declined to comment on the bill, or even if the committee plans to hold oversight hearing on Obama’s failed CVE strategy in the run-up to the 2016 election.

In March, McCaul endorsed Obama’s tacit alliance with U.S-based Islamic religious groups, many of which share overlapping umbrella networks that are exempt from normal FBI anti-terror monitoring.

“The effective thing is … effective outreach to the Muslim community, so you can pull the religious leaders really on to our team, if you will, to protect us from radicalization from within those communities,” he said March 27. “I think we can get good intelligence from the Muslim communities in our outreach efforts, in our working with the religious leaders in the communities in the United States,” he said.

In contrast, federal prosecutors do not offer political favors to let the Catholic priests run law-enforcement tasks in Latino neighborhoods, for example, keeping track of MS-13 and various drug-gangs.

In practice, much of that hoped-for intelligence about emerging jihadis has been blocked by determined opposition from Islamist advocates. For example, Linda Sarsour, a prominent Islamic advocate who is called a “Champion of Change” by Obama’s deputies, is a strong opponent of the information-exchange.

The government’s practice of providing funds to Muslim community partners in the fight against violent extremism has also raised concerns about the true goal of these partnerships. Are they being formed in order to gather intelligence and information about community members, or to actually engage in valuable community outreach about civil rights protections? CVE programs can foster mistrust between government entities and community members.

In December 2015, George Selim, then the director of the Office for Community Partnerships at the Department of Homeland Security, told NPR that Muslim communities are not identifying emerging jihadis.

The research and the statistics have all indicated that peers, people that are in close association with subjects that ultimately commit an act like this, see something that’s a little bit out of the norm, but they don’t necessarily report it. And so part of our goal is to create the type of partnerships in which peers know when and how to elevate those type of suspicions.

There’s growing evidence that wife of the Orlando jihadi knew of his pending attack, but did not warn Americans.

Gohmert is trying to reform the McCaul bill before the vote — but he’s skeptical the GOP leadership is willing to fight for an effective anti-jihad strategy.

“There are plenty of representatives who are concerned about this, but the Speaker [Rep. Paul Ryan] and the Majority Leader [Rep. Kevin McCarthy] control what comes to the floor for a vote. and they have no intentions of bringing a bill that says we’ll stop radical Islamists,” he said.

Anti-jihad groups are urging voters to protest the planned bill. “Congress is about to help President Obama whitewash his approach to Counterterrorism to hide any mention or focus on Islamists or their Jihad against the free world,” said Jim Hanson, an executive vice president at the Center for Security Policy. “The Countering Violent Extremism Bill ignores the very Islamic nature of the Sharia ideology that motivates our enemies to slaughter innocents from Paris to Orlando,” he added.

The problems in Obama’s CVE strategy, said Gohmert, include the tight curbs on FBI investigations and training, the gag order to prevent any discussion of Islamic ideas — such as ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia’ or ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ — an intrusive oversight panel staffed by Islamic advocates, the legal shield for Islamic networks and political groups, and an eagerness to direct stigma and investigations against non-Islamic groups, such as “right wing militias,” plus its failure to win cooperation from self-segregating Islamic political groups.

For example, the gag-order means “the FBI is not allowed to learn or discuss or look for the things that radical islamics read, or the type of activities they’re doing when they going through radicalization,” Gohmert said.

In contrast, GOP 2016 candidate Donald Trump has called for more oversight over the Islamic networks. “We have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques and we have to check other places because this is a problem that, if we don’t solve it, it’s going to eat our country alive,” he said during his June 15 campaign rally in Atlanta, Georgia.

Obama’s CVE strategy also created an advisory group of outsiders who have much influence over FBI investigations.

The committee has pushed for a FBI focus on non-Islamic groups, and just before the Orlando massacre, presented a report to top DHS officials asking for a gag-order that would prevent officials from studying, debating or even recognizing jihadi ideas. Officials should “reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English,” said the report, which also urged officials to use “American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma,” according to the The Daily Caller.

That’s the equivalent of President Franklin Roosevelt and his generals and their soldiers waging war against National Socialist Germany without mentioning “Blitzkrieg,” “U-boat,” “Fuhrer,” “Lebensraum,” “Panzer,” “Stuka,” or “Untermensch” or “Flak,” “Panzerfaust” or “SS.”

Committee co-chair Farah Pandith was born in the Muslim-vs.-Hindu battleground of Kashmir. For decades, that area has suffered from Muslim attacks, and many non-Arab Muslims consider that war to be as important as the Arab fight to destroy the Jewish state.

In 2012, co-chair Adnan Kifayat threatened this reporter with criminal charges for asking George Selim about the White House’s many quiet contacts with the Council on American Islamic Relations. “That was wrong… it is really bad form … You’re putting a career at risk by asking [questions] without telling him… you cannot ambush people and expect them to actually cooperate,” Kifayat told this reporter.

The CAIR group is so closely entwined with Islamists and with jihadis that court documents and news reports show that at least five of its people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated for various financial and terror-related offenses. Critics show that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas-based criminal effort to deliver $12 million to the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group, and that CAIR was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS.

Another member, Mohamed Elibiary, quit in 2014 after he tweeted that the Islamic empire, dubbed the “caliphate,” will return.

CAIR tweets

Obama’s deputies have recently appointed a young Muslim activist from Syria to the panel, Laila Alawa. She wears a hijab in observance to Islam, has tweeted a message supporting the 9/11 atrocity by her fellow Muslims, and tweeted a series of hateful messages about jihad opponents, according to a new report in The Daily Caller.

Alawa1

The new GOP bill eliminates any GOP oversight or leverage over Obama’s counter-productive CVE strategy by adding numerous loopholes in the weak GOP bill, Gohmert said. For example, the bill says;

COORDINATION.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, where appropriate, coordinate the efforts described in subsection (a) with the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate, and, to the extent practicable, engage nongovernmental and international partners in the identification and use of testimonials described in such subsection.

But the phrase “to the extent practicable” really means “only if you want to … if it is not too much trouble,” Gohmert said. The phrase “where appropriate” really means “if you feel like you want to,” he said.

“Shakespeare has the appropriate phrase— much ado about nothing,” he added.

“We all know most Muslims are not terrorists,” said Gohmert. “At the same time, it is ridiculous to not recognize there are radical islamists who are in America, who want to bring this country down and who think they go to paradise if they kill Americans.”

Categories: CAIR, Countering violent extremism, Homeland Security, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamists in America, National secuity, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Radical Islam, Republicans, Sharia law, Supporting terrorism, U.S. Congress
Tags: CAIR, Countering violent extremism, Homeland Security, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamists in America, national security, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, radical Islam, Republicans, Sharia law, Supporting terrorism, U.S. Congress

Comments: Be the first to comment

From Baghdad to Boston: The moderate Muslims need to be given a prominent space to counter the extremist narrative

June 15, 2016

From Baghdad to Boston: The moderate Muslims need to be given a prominent space to counter the extremist narrative, The Nation, Sam Westrop, June 15, 2016

(Please see also, Muslim reformers vs. Islamists. — DM)

from-baghdad-to-boston-the-moderate-muslims-need-to-be-given-a-prominent-space-to-counter-the-1465986607-1386

When policymakers at the State Department or journalists at the New York Times demand to speak with the Muslim community, it is the Islamist movements and their be-suited press relations officers that step forward.

On a national level, it is Muslim Brotherhood groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that have positioned themselves as gateways to the American Muslim community. These Islamist movements have learned to practice politics and interfaith dialogue by day, but preach hatred and violence at night.

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

Whether in the Middle East, South Asia, Europe or the United States, the West’s failure to understand the extraordinary diversity of Islam hampers efforts to tackle the threats posed by Islamist extremism and terrorism.

Kenan Makiya’s recent novel, The Rope, examines the violent disorder of Iraq in the years following the 2003 US led invasion. The reader is exposed to a crescendo of internecine, inter-Islamist conflict, the corrupting impact of fundamentalist ideology on Iraq’s youth and the hunger for power and influence sought by Shia and Sunni groups alike.

One of the novel’s most striking features, however, is its illustration of Western ignorance about the composition of Iraq’s population. The Iraqi nation, the author so vividly shows, does not just comprise Sunnis and Shiites, but an impossible array of religious sects and political factions.

From the fighting between the three great Shia Houses to the hundreds of independent Sunni and Shia militias, branches of Lebanese and Iranian terror groups, former Ba’athists, Kurdish independence movements, and religious revivalist cults – in the absence of Saddam’s tyrannical grip, Iraq becomes a land drenched in blood, chaos and ferocious ambition.

The West’s stark inability to deal with the vast range of competing Islamic forces in Iraq is also apparent in its response to domestic terrorism and extremism. Today, America and Europe battle some of same threats at home that they face abroad. Most politicians and media, however, approach the problem of home-grown terrorism as if the turmoil of intervention in Muslim lands never happened. And for radical, violent Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood, this naivety affords an opportunity to grab power and influence.

In America, Muslims are treated by policymakers as just one community – a homogenous bloc with a single representative voice. It is the very opposite, of course, that is true. The many Sunni religious sects and movements that constitute American Islam, however, have distinctly little say in how their own views are represented.

For Muslims living in Western democracies, the lack of a hierarchical clergy within Sunni Islam produces a natural vacuum for political representation. And as inherently political movements, it is the unrepresentative Islamist groups that are best prepared to fill that void. Traditional moderate Muslim groups, lacking media savvy and political know-how, simply cannot compete.

When policymakers at the State Department or journalists at the New York Times demand to speak with the Muslim community, it is the Islamist movements and their be-suited press relations officers that step forward.

On a national level, it is Muslim Brotherhood groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that have positioned themselves as gateways to the American Muslim community. These Islamist movements have learned to practice politics and interfaith dialogue by day, but preach hatred and violence at night.

Despite warnings by Muslim countries such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates about Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, its spokespersons are nevertheless quoted as American Muslim spokesmen in American newspapers almost daily. Its officials are invited to events at the White House, and many of its press conferences enjoy prime-time news coverage.

Yet few American Muslims themselves actually believe CAIR is an authentic voice of American Islam. According to Gallup poll in 2011, about 88% of American Muslims believe CAIR does not best represent their views.

By treating Muslim Brotherhood groups as the representatives of American Islam, politicians and journalists end up legitimizing the extremists and abandoning the moderates. It is this very failure of policymakers to delve deeper – to discern the extremist minority from the voiceless majority – which allows the extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood to exert an ever-growing influence over Muslim youth. Increasingly, these young Muslims become radicalized to the point where they switch their soapbox for a Kalashnikov. Perhaps the most prominent example can be found in the city of Boston in Massachusetts. Its universities and mosques have produced a frightening list of graduates, including – but not limited to –notorious Al Qaeda operatives Abdulrahman Alamoudi, Tarek Mehanna and Aafia Siddqui; the Lashkar-i-Taiba fundraiser Hafiz Masood; the Boston marathon bombers; and Ahmad Abousamra, one of the Islamic State’s chief propagandists. These terrorist operatives shared something in common: they all passed through the doors of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), one of the largest mosques on the eastern seaboard, but also one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s flagship institutions in the United States.

The ISB’s Muslim Brotherhood links are clear to see. It was founded by Abdulrahman Alamoudi, a key figure in the American Muslim Brotherhood, whom the Treasury Department would later designate as a prominent Al Qaeda fundraiser. ISB trustees have included Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the notorious spiritual leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood; Jamal Badawi, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s international clerical body; and Muhammad Attawia, who was listed as an American Muslim Brotherhood leader in evidence presented by federal prosecutors during the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial in 2008.

Today, the ISB is managed by the Muslim American Society, another key institution of the American Muslim Brotherhood. It teaches a tarbiya educational program to its young congregants, which includes violent, bigoted texts by Muslim Brotherhood luminaries such as Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna and Fathi Yakan.

Over the past decade, twelve congregants, supporters, officials and donors of the ISB have been imprisoned, deported, killed or are on the run in connection with terrorism offenses. In spite of this, politicians and media treat the ISB as a credible voice of Massachusetts Muslims – an unpleasant imposition on Boston’s historically moderate Muslim community.

The mayor, the police commissioner, Christian and Jewish community leaders, and various public officials regularly work with the mosque and speak before its congregation. The very land on which the ISB was built was subsidized by the local city government; and the ISB was even invited by Obama’s Justice Department to take part in the federal government’s Countering Violent Extremism program.

Through pure ignorance, Boston is fuelling its own extremism problem.

It is only by understanding American Islam and its constituents that we can refute Muslim Brotherhood claims to leadership, identify and assist the leaders of the moderate Muslim majority, and stop the political legitimization of extremist ideology.

Americans for Peace and Tolerance has joined forces with Muslims Facing Tomorrow, a Canadian Muslim organization, to examine the extremist foundations of Muslim Brotherhood groups posing as ordinary Muslim institutions.

The first dossier we have produced clearly demonstrates that the Islamic Society of Boston is a Muslim Brotherhood institution working to impose its ideology over Massachusetts Muslims. From details of its trustees’ extremist links, to evidence of its financial connections with Al Qaeda fundraisers and its hosting of prominent extremist preachers, this dossier serves to educate politicians, journalists and the public.

Ours is an initiative we hope will be replicated across North America, in cooperation with Muslim organizations working to counteract the extremism and terror-connections of the Muslim Brotherhood network. It is only by working with the moderate Muslim majority, in both the Islamic world, Europe and North America, that this can be achieved. The Muslim Brotherhood is certainly not the only problem with which moderate Muslims and Western democracies must cope. From Iranian-backed Shia Islamism to the puritanism of the Salafists and the asceticism of South Asia’s Deobandis, there are undoubtedly many challenges. But whether it is the violent chaos of Iraq, the murderous bombings of the Boston marathon or the considerable number of Western Muslim youth running away to join the Islamic State, we will only be able to tackle Islamist extremism once we learn to recognize the forces which drive it and understand the communities it exploits.

Categories: CAIR, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Islam
Tags: CAIR, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Islam

Comments: Be the first to comment

Orlando and Willful Blindness at the New York Times

June 14, 2016

Orlando and Willful Blindness at the New York Times, PJ Media, Andrew C. McCarthy, June 14, 2016

It is really not that difficult to grasp our enemies’ ideology. We just need to end the willful blindness.

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

The New York Times has an interesting profile of Omar Mateen, the Orlando terrorist who murdered 49 people and wounded more than 50 others at a gay nightclub over the weekend. In the main, the Gray Lady grapples with the profound challenge the FBI faces in striking the balance between investigating ambiguous signs of potential terrorist inclinations and clearing suspects (or “persons of interest,” as they say in the biz) as to whom the evidence seems weak.

It will take some time to draw firm conclusions about Mateen’s case. Still, FBI Director Jim Comey has been admirably open in explaining that while agents appear to have (twice) probed Mateen responsibly, the Bureau must keep exploring whether clues were missed and more could have been done.

That aside, there are two major flaws in the Times’ account, and quite possibly in the government’s self-examination of its performance.

These errors illuminate Washington’s quarter-century of consciously avoiding the proximate cause of jihadist terror: sharia-supremacist ideology.

Our opinion elites resist acknowledging this because it is drawn literally from Islamic scripture.

Sharia-Supremacist Ideology

Drawing on an interview with Mateen’s ex-wife and on aspects of Mateen’s behavior that have been uncovered so far — e.g., frequenting gay bars, possibly using a gay dating app — the Times reasonably speculates that Mateen may have been gay and deeply conflicted about “his true identity out of anger and shame.”

The paper, however, steadfastly avoids asking: What could have caused such wrenching self-loathing?

After all, if he was gay, Mateen would hardly have been the first person to experience great anguish over his sexual preference, despite the fact that American culture has dramatically normalized homosexuality. Yet, those people manage to control their psychological turmoil and depression without walking into a gay club and committing mass-murder.

Assuming that the “he was gay” angle pans out, what could cause such deep conflict in Mateen that he would carry out such an atrocity?

Part of the explanation — probably the explanation — has to be sharia supremacism.

The Times account includes some indicators that Mateen, despite his “Americanization,” leaned toward Islamic fundamentalism: his Afghan roots, his two pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia, his apparently inflated claims of acquaintance with terrorists, his sometimes discriminatory and cruel treatment of his ex-wife. We now know, moreover, that Mateen came onto the FBI’s radar screen because he was acquainted with and attended the same mosque (the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, Florida) as Mohammed Abu Salha, an American fundamentalist of Palestinian descent. Salha, who had been trained by al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, al-Nusra, ultimately returned to Syria and died carrying out a jihadist attack.

Yet the Times omits the possibility, reported by Fox News, that Mateen also enrolled in an online radical indoctrination course: the Islamic “seminary” run by Marcus Robertson (aka Abu Taubah), whose jihadist roots trace back to the early 1990s.

Robertson’s lectures are said to have been extremely hostile to homosexuals. In conjunction with other facts that have been developed, the “seminary” connection suggests that in recent years Mateen had immersed himself in sharia supremacism.

That is significant because of a point I stressed over the weekend — a point the Times ignores: For over a millennium, classical sharia has endorsed the condemnation and brutal killing of homosexuals.

The Times and the Obama administration have gone to great lengths to nail down whether there was a Mateen tie to ISIS: Was he merely “inspired” by the jihadist organization with which he expressed solidarity even as he carried out his attack? Or was there — as seems highly unlikely — some more formal, operational relationship between Mateen and ISIS?

I do not mean to suggest that this is an irrelevant question. But it does miss a key point that Washington and the media always resist exploring: The persecution of gay people is not an ISIS thing or an al-Qaeda thing; it is an Islam thing.

More specifically, it is a bedrock of sharia law and has been since long, long before there was an ISIS.

If Mateen was deeply conflicted over his alleged homosexual leanings, it had to be because they cut so deeply against the grain of his adherence to sharia supremacism. That ideology, not “inspiration by ISIS” (or by other jihadists Mateen invoked, like the Boston Marathon bombers), is far more likely the root of Mateen’s inner rage.

The Sunni-Shiite Alliance Against Common Enemies

The second weakness of the Times report is its botching of historical alliances between jihadist groups. In a transparent attempt to minimize the Islamist ideological underpinnings of Mateen’s atrocity, the report states:

The F.B.I. director said on Monday that Mr. Mateen had once claimed ties to both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah — two radical groups violently opposed to each other.

The not-so-subtle takeaway for readers is that sharia-supremacism cannot really have much to do with Mateen’s actions because Mateen seems to have been woefully confused about it.

No, the Times is confused.

To be sure, al-Qaeda is Sunni and Hezbollah (Iran’s Lebanon-centered jihadist militia) is Shiite. Uninformed analysts, perhaps looking only at the current conflict in Syria where the two organizations find each other on opposite sides, jump to the conclusion that al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are “violently opposed to each other.” The opposite, however, is actually closer to the truth: al-Qaeda and Hezbollah have had a close working alliance for a quarter-century.

This is not open to debate. It has been proved in court and in major investigations by congressional panels and special commissions. For example, in the prosecution of the 1998 al-Qaeda bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Justice Department’s indictment expressly alleged:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances … with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

Investigators have proved the al-Qaeda/Hezbollah alliance again and again. I’ve laid out some of the highlights several times, including in a recent National Review column:

Iran had an alliance with al-Qaeda beginning in the early 1990s. It principally included training by Hezbollah (the Beirut-based terrorist faction created and controlled by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and such joint ventures as the 1996 Khobar Towers attack, in which 19 U.S. airmen were killed….

Toward the conclusion of its probe (and thus without time to investigate the matter fully), the 9/11 Commission learned that Iran had provided critical assistance to the [al-Qaeda] suicide hijackers by allowing them to transit through Iran and Lebanon as they moved from obtaining travel documents in Saudi Arabia (Saudi passports and U.S. visas) to training for the attacks in al-Qaeda’s Afghan safe havens.

Indeed, we now know that Iran’s assistance was overseen by none less than Imad Mugniyah, the now-deceased Hezbollah master terrorist who spent much of his life killing Americans, most notoriously in the Beirut marine-barracks bombing in 1983, and almost certainly at Khobar Towers. In October 2000, Mugniyah went to Saudi Arabia to “coordinate activities” (as the 9/11 Commission put it) with the [al-Qaeda] suicide hijackers. (See 9/11 Commission Report at page 240, as well as affidavits of former CIA officers and a 9/11 Commission staffer, here and here). Thereafter, Mugniyah and other senior Hezbollah members accompanied [al-Qaeda’s] “muscle hijackers” on flights through Iran and Lebanon.

By enabling the hijackers to cross through these countries without having their passports stamped — an Iranian or Lebanese stamp being a telltale sign of potential terrorist training — Iran made it much more likely that the jihadists’ applications for Saudi passports and U.S. visas would be approved, as they were. That is why, on the topic of potential Iranian [and derivatively, Hezbollah] complicity in the plot, the 9/11 Commission wrote, “We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.”

There is, furthermore, an extensive, well-known history of alliance between Hezbollah and Hamas. The latter is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian terrorist branch, and notwithstanding its Sunni roots, Hamas has been lavishly backed by Iran’s Shiite regime.

Patently, it is not a sign of confusion about, or overstated connection with, sharia-supremacism to claim, as Mateen did, ideological sympathy with both Sunni and Shiite jihadists. The Iranian regime, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood have been expressing it for at least 25 years.

Indeed, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, one of the more notable al-Qaeda- and Hamas-linked terrorists prosecuted by the Justice Department since 9/11, was recorded at a White House rally in 2000proclaiming:

We are all supporters of Hamas! Allahu Akbar! I wish to add here I am also a supporter of Hezbollah!

The bottom line is quite simple. Despite their differences and simmering hostilities, Sunni jihadists and Shiite jihadists enthusiastically collaborate with each other when dealing with a common enemy — in particular, the United States or Israel. But when the common enemy is not much of a factor, they tend to turn quite viciously on each other, as they are doing in Syria (even as they continue to collude against the U.S. and Israel on the global jihad’s other fronts).

It is really not that difficult to grasp our enemies’ ideology. We just need to end the willful blindness.

We just need to accept that, if we are ever to prevail, we have to study sharia supremacism, including its Islamic roots, and see it plain.

Categories: Islam - Shiite vs. Sunni, Islam - submission, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic supremacy, Media and Islam, Orlando massacre
Tags: Islam - Shiite vs. Sunni, Islam - submission, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic supremacy, Media and Islam, Orlando massacre

Comments: Be the first to comment

In Times of Crisis Ignorance Doesn’t Help

June 14, 2016

In Times of Crisis Ignorance Doesn’t Help, Clarion Project, Raheel Raza, June 14, 2016

[W]e Muslims have a huge crisis of a virus within our ranks which we are not accepting. This problem is increased by the lack of acknowledgement by Western leaders. Reform minded Muslims like us can only expose the problems. It’s up to the authorities to take corrective action.

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

In the wake of yet another terror attack by jihadists, this time in Orlando, Florida, we are deeply saddened but not shocked. This attack is not the first or the last. It’s just another checkmark in a string of attacks by the extremists as they gleefully cross off the targets they have destroyed while planning for more attacks.

Once again media pundits and experts are using the language of ‘lone wolf’ and ‘mental issues.’ Even Hillary Clinton in her address to the nation, mentioned that it could be a lone-wolf attack.

Is it just naivety on part of our leadership or is it ignorance? It doesn’t take rocket science to deduce that this is not a lone-wolf attack. This is a premeditated attack, ideologically supported by all the extremist groups around the world who want to destroy the West. Connect the dots from Boston to Brussels to Paris to Ottawa to San Bernardino and now Orlando.

As far as mental issues are concerned, it’s obvious the radical jihadist mindset is the result of a mentally-deranged ideology.

There, I said it. Now you repeat after me: It’s-a-war-on-the-west-stupid!

But no. You can’t. Political correctness, fear or appeasement keeps your lips sealed. And while you, holding on to your white liberal guilt complex are unable to articulate the real cause of terrorist attacks, they will continue unabated. Why? Because the radical jihadists know your weakness and fear of being called an Islamophobe, so they play you like a piano pressing all the right keys while you sing their song.

Meanwhile, Muslim organizations are competing about who will snare the first news conference. Great idea if they plan to slam the Radical Jihadists, or name them and acknowledge (perhaps for the first time) that we have a problem within the House of Islam. But that’s not the rhetoric in this case. Muslim organizations and places of worship are not generally inclined to be warm and fuzzy towards the LGBTQ community and regularly slam those of us who support them.

In Florida, an Islamic religious scholar was caught on YouTube gently and firmly suggesting that it’s compassionate to kill gays. Why is he not in jail?

Raheel Raza hosts By The Numbers:

CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) came on Fox News very soon after the Orlando attack. The CAIR representative said all the right things about not killing people in the name of God. And then he condemned ISIS saying “1.7 billion people (Muslims) are united in rejecting their (ISIS) extremism, their interpretation, their acts and senseless violence.”

How much can one person lie on public television? Sadly many people will believe the CAIR representative and of course Muslims are thrilled because he has now absolved all 1.7 billion from any responsibility whatsoever.

If CAIR was really concerned about the Orlando attacks, they would condemn the comments of the religious scholar from Florida, they would speak about ways in which radicalization of our youth can be stemmed and they would openly and publicly reject the concept of “armed jihad” as a 7^th Century construct, no longer applicable in the 21^st Century. They will never say this because they are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Herein lies a huge problem which must be addressed. Both Muslims and non-Muslims must understand that while all Muslims are not terrorists, most of the terrorists today are Muslims. The ideology of ISIS is the same as Hamas, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Are they not represented in the 1.7 billion? After killing four innocent people in Tel Aviv, the Hamas operatives who celebrated the murder are also part of the 1.7 billion Muslims.

According a to Pew Poll shown in the Clarion documentary By the Numbers, there are between 40,000 to 200,00 Muslims who are ‘members’ of ISIS; up to 100,000 al-Qaeda affiliates; 7-9,000 members of Hamas, 15,000 to 100,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards and about 15,000 members of Hezbollah. All these are terrorist organizations and jihadists who should be included in the 1.7 billion Muslims making ALL Muslims not so peaceful. While these are the overtly violent groups, the mindset of millions of other Muslims (according to the poll) is also skewed towards violence and acceptance of violence against other human beings.

This is all to say that we Muslims have a huge crisis of a virus within our ranks which we are not accepting. This problem is increased by the lack of acknowledgement by Western leaders. Reform minded Muslims like us can only expose the problems. It’s up to the authorities to take corrective action.

It’s taken 15 years for the term ‘Radical’ to become accepted usage. How long more will it take to stop the Radicals from carrying out their nefarious agendas and waging a war on the West?

Categories: CAIR, Homeland Security, Hypocrisy, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic jihad, Islamic perversions, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terror groups, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Orlando massacre, Political correctness
Tags: CAIR, Homeland Security, Hypocrisy, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic Jihad, Islamic perversions, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terror groups, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Orlando massacre, Political correctness

Comments: Be the first to comment

Orlando Shooting- Gun Control or Jihadist Control?

June 13, 2016

Orlando Shooting- Gun Control or Jihadist Control? Fox News via YouTube, June 13, 2016

Categories: CAIR, Gun control, Hillary Clinton, Homosexuals, Islamic jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic Society, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Orlando massacre
Tags: CAIR, Gun control, Homosexuals, Islamic Jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic Society, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Orlando massacre

Comments: Be the first to comment

The West’s Most Important Ally: Islam’s Dissidents

June 12, 2016

The West’s Most Important Ally: Islam’s Dissidents, Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, June 12, 2016

♦ Today a new Iron Curtain has been erected by Islam against the rest of the world, and the new heroes are the dissidents, the apostates, the rebels, the non-believers and the heretics.

♦ This rapidly growing army of Muslim dissidents is the best liberation movement for millions of Muslims who aspire to practice their faith peacefully without submitting to the dictates of fundamentalists and fanatics.

♦ They are alone against all. Against Islamism which uses Kalashnikovs and against an intellectual terrorism which submits them to media intimidation. Seen as “traitors” by their communities, they are accused by the élites in the West of “stigmatizing.”

♦ We should support them — all of them. Some of the bravest defenders of freedom come from the Islamic regimes. Europe should give financial, moral and political support to these friends of Western civilization, while our disgraced intelligentsia is engaged in slandering them.

Islam, warned the best-selling Algerian novelist, Boualem Sansal, is going to split European society. In an interview with German media, this brave Arab writer painted a vision of Europe subjugated by radical Islam. According to Sansal, the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels are directed at the Western way of life: “You can not even defeat the weak Arab states, so they have brought in fifth columns to bring the West to destroy itself. If they succeed society will fall.”

Mr. Sansal, who has been threatened with death, belongs to a rapidly growing army of Muslim dissidents. They are the best liberation movement for millions of Muslims who aspire to practice their faith peacefully without submitting to the dictates of fundamentalists and fanatics. These Muslim dissidents pursue freedom of conscience, interreligious coexistence, pluralism in the public sphere, criticism of Islam, and respect for the rule of common law. For the Islamic world, their message could be devastating. That is why the Islamists are hunting them down.

It is always individuals, such as Lech Walesa, who make all the difference. The Soviet Union was defeated by only three beings: Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II — and the dissidents. When Professor Robert Havemann died in East Germany, few people noticed it. This intrepid critic of the regime was confined under house arrest in Grünheide, guarded by the Stasi. But the old professor never allowed himself to be intimidated. He continued to fight for his ideas.

A hero of Czechoslovak anti-Communism, Jan Patočka, died under grueling police interrogation. Patočka paid the highest price of silencing. His brilliant lectures were reduced to a clandestine seminar. Although unable to publish, he continued to work in a tiny underground apartment.

Hunted by the KGB, Alexander Solzhenitsyn set down the chapters of his Gulag Archipelago and hid them with different trusted friends, so no one possessed the entire manuscript. In 1973 only three copies existed. When the Soviet political police managed to extort the typist, Elizaveta Voronyanskya, to one of the hideouts, thinking the masterpiece was lost forever she hanged herself.

Today a new Iron Curtain has been erected by Islam against the rest of the world, and the new heroes are the dissidents, the apostates, the heretics, the rebels, and the non-believers. It is no coincidence that the first victim of a fatwa was Salman Rushdie, an Indian-British writer from a Muslim family.

Pascal Bruckner called them “the free thinkers of the Muslim world.” We should support them — all of them. Because if the enemies of freedom come from free societies, those who kneel before Allah’s enforcers, some of the bravest defenders of freedom come from the Islamic regimes. Europe should give financial, moral and political support to these friends of Western civilization, while our disgraced intelligentsia is engaged in slandering them.

One, an Algerian author, Kamel Daoud, who called Saudi Arabia “an Isis that had made it,” recently sparked an “Islamophobia” row for having directed his own anger at the naïve people, who he says ignore the cultural gulf separating the Arab-Muslim world from Europe.

Another, an Iranian exile, now in the Netherlands, the jurist Afshin Ellian, works at Utrecht University, where after the murder of Theo Van Gogh, he is protected by bodyguards. After the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, while Europe’s media were busy in blaming the “stupid” cartoonists, Ellian promoted an appeal: “Don’t let terrorists determine the limits of free speech.”

Another brave dissident and author, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, had to flee from the Netherlands to the U.S., where she rapidly became one of most prominent public intellectuals.

1644

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a brave Muslim dissident and author, had to flee from the Netherlands to the U.S., where she rapidly became one of most prominent public intellectuals. (Image source: Gage Skidmore)

The Moroccan mayor of Rotterdam, Ahmed Aboutaleb, is also guarded by police. He recently told fellow Muslims who protested against freedoms they found while living in the West to “pack your bags and f… off.” A heroic Christian defender of these freedoms in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, is now on trial accused of “discrimination.” “I am in jail,” he has said, referring to his safehouses, “and they are walking around free.”

Many of these dissidents are women. Shukria Barakzai, an Afghan politician and journalist, declared war on Islamic fundamentalists after the Taliban’s religious police beat her for daring to walk without a male escort. A suicide bomber blew himself up near her car, killing three. Kadra Yusuf, a Somali journalist, infiltrated Oslo’s mosques to denounce the imams, especially regarding female genital mutilation, not even required in the Koran or the Hadith (reports about Mohammad). In Pakistan, Sherry Rehman called for “a reform of Pakistani blasphemy’s laws.” She risks her life every day. She is branded by Islamists “fit to be killed” for being a woman, a Muslim and a secular activist. The Syrian-American author and psychiatrist, Wafa Sultan, was also branded an “infidel” deserving of death.

Le Figaro recently published a long report about Muslim French personalities threatened with “execution”. “Placed under permanent police protection, regarded as traitors by Muslim fundamentalists, they live in a hell. In the eyes of Islamists, their freedom is an act of betrayal of the ummah [community].” They are writers and journalists of Arab-Muslim culture who denounce the Islamist threat and the inherent violence of the Koran. They stand alone against Islamism which uses the physical terrorism of Kalashnikovs, and against the intellectual terrorism which submits them to media intimidation. Seen as “traitors” by their communities, they are accused by the élites in the West of “stigmatizing.”

The French journalist Zineb El Rhazoui has more bodyguards than many ministers in the government of Manuel Valls, and for security, has to change houses in Paris often in recent months. For this young scholar, born in Casablanca and who works at the French weekly, Charlie Hebdo, walking down the street in Paris has become unthinkable. A fatwa put out after January 7, 2015 reads: “Kill Zineb El Rhazoui to avenge the Prophet.”

Threats against another dissident, Nadia Remadna, do not come from Raqqa, Syria, but her own city: Sevran, in Seine-Saint-Denis. They reflect the growing influence of Islamists in the lost territories of the French Republic. What “crime” was she found guilty of? She created the “Brigade of Mothers” to combat the Islamist influence on young Muslims.

A philosophy teacher, Sofiane Zitouni, has also quit his job at a Muslim French school over “insidious Islamism.”

The French-Algerian journalist, essayist and author of several investigations into Islamist circles,Mohamed Sifaoui, is the victim of a double threat. He is a prime target for both fundamentalists and the “tolerant” grand inquisitors. Sentenced to two years in prison by the Algerian regime for “press offenses,” then harassed by Islamists, Sifaoui requested asylum in France in 1999 and has never set foot in Algeria again. Since then, Sifaoui has seen his picture and name next to the words “le mourtad,” the apostate, on Islamist websites, meaning that he is targeted for death. French police protection around him has been total since 2006, when he defended freedom of expression for the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo.

About fifteen witnesses made a deposition in favor of the magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Among them were the late Muslim Tunisian essayist, Abdelwahab Meddeb, who had the courage to challenge the entire French Muslim establishment which tried to stop Charlie Hebdo. Meddeb wanted to show “this is not about anyone against Islam, but enlightened Islam against obscurantist Islam.”

Also in France, Hassen Chalghoumi, the courageous imam of Drancy, preaches while wearing a bullet-proof vest. When he goes out on the street, he is accompanied by five police officers with semiautomatic weapons. This is not outside Baghdad’s Green Zone; this is in the heart of Paris. Chalghoumi backed the ban on burkas; made an unprecedented visit at Jerusalem’s Holocaust memorial; paid tribute to the victims of Charlie Hebdo and favored a dialogue with French Jews.

Naser Khader, a Muslim liberal with Danish citizenship, who called for “a Muslim reformation,” and authored “Honour and Shame,” is threatened by Islamic groups with death.

In Italy, an Egyptian-born writer, Magdi Cristiano Allam, is protected by bodyguards for having criticized political Islam. As the deputy editor of Italy’s leading newspaper, Corriere della Sera, Mr. Allam published a book whose title alone was enough to endanger his life: “Viva Israele.”

Ibn Warraq lives protected behind a pseudonym since writing a seminal book, “Why I am Not a Muslim.”

The Palestinian blogger Walid Husayin is also a rarity. Jailed for “satirizing the Koran, he recently published a book in France about his experience in the Palestinian territories, where his “atheism” nearly cost him his life.

In Tunisia there are a handful of filmmakers and intellectuals who fight for freedom of expression, especially after a secular opposition leader, Chokri Belaid, was assassinated. Also Nadia El Fani, the director of “Ni Allah ni maître” [“Neither Allah nor Master”], and Nabil Karoui, the manager of Nessma TV, are threatened with death and are being taken to court to answer charges of “blasphemy.” If Tunisia’s “Arab spring” did not turn into an Islamist winter, as elsewhere, it is largely thanks to these dissidents.

Those heroes know what happened to their predecessors in “the war on Arab intellectuals.” Writers such as Tahar Djaout were killed in 1993 by the Islamists in Algiers, as was the journalist, Farag Foda, famous for his sharp satires on Islamic fundamentalism. Prior to his murder, Foda had been accused of “blasphemy” by the great mosque of al-Azhar. A dozen Bangladeshi bloggers have also been murdered in cold blood by Islamists for the “crime” of “secularism.”

Last year, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al- Sisi called for reforming Islam and the way it is taught as did Sunni Islam’s leading cleric, Sheikh Ahmed al Tayeb, head of Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the center of Sunni Islam. And he said it in Mecca, no less. Egypt’s conservatives however did their best to tamp that down – at least for the moment.

There are, however, more and more dissidents successfully speaking out and leading bold, farsighted movements. In the U.S., M. Zuhdi Jasser, author of “A Battle for the Soul of Islam,” and a practising physician, founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Last year, more than two dozen Muslim personalities promoted an appeal “to embrace a pluralistic interpretation of Islam, rejecting all forms of oppression and abuses committed in the name of religion.”

In Canada, Raheel and Sohail Raza founded “Muslims Facing Tomorrow,” and there is the outspoken Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario, Salim Mansur.

In the U.K., Maajid Nawaz heads the influential Quilliam Foundation, and Shiraz Maher, who defected from the Islamist organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, now serves as a Senior Fellow at the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College London.

These are just a few of today’s heroes. Some had to be left out; there were too many to list.

The proud and painful resistance of these “Allah’s rebels” is one of the most beautiful testaments of our times. These “Allah’s rebels” are also the only real hope of reform for the Islamic world — and of preserving freedom for all of us.

Categories: Clash of civilizations, Democracy, Freedom of speech, Human rights, Islam and human rights, Islam in America, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic reformation, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Islamophobia, Political Islam
Tags: Clash of civilizations, Democracy, freedom of speech, human rights, Islam and human rights, Islam in America, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic reformation, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Islamophobia, Political Islam

Comments: Be the first to comment

German Court Applies Sharia to Child Marriage

June 11, 2016

German Court Applies Sharia to Child Marriage, Gates of Vienna, Baron Bodisse, June 11, 2016

childbride2

The following report from the German website Einwanderungskritik (Immigration Criticism) is all but unbelievable: a district court has cited sharia law to validate a Syrian immigrant’s marriage to a 14-year-old girl. An act that would land a native German man in prison for child molestation is being sanctioned by the court as a valid “marriage”, simply because it as recognized as such by Islamic law.

Many thanks to Nash Montana for the translation:

Scandalous judgment: Islamic pedophile-marriages are valid in Germany

“A marriage that has been performed according to Syrian law in Syria with a 14 year old bride and a man of legal age, has to be recognized as valid if the husband belongs to the Sunni religion and the marriage has already been executed.”

by Robin Classen

With mass immigration, not only terrorism in Paris and Brussels and the sex crimes on New Year’s eve came to Europe, but also very different social and moral values. For instance, Islam allows men to marry multiple women.

Extremely problematic: Mohammed married his “favorite woman” Aisha when she was just six years old. That is not an unusual Islamic opinion; this is widely uncontested knowledge in Sunni as well as in Shiite Islam. In Germany however, as part of sanctioned lying to advance the cause of Islam (taqiyya), those who ask critical questions are often told: Aisha was after all already 14 years old when she married the 50-year-old Mohammed. Even more common is the lie that around the year 700 children were a lot more sexually mature. That one cannot compare the nine-year-old Aisha therefore with a nine-year-old of today, that she was a complete woman. That all the focus on cleanliness and coddling in the modern world is what delays a girl’s menstruation more and more.

The opposite has been scientifically proven: In Germany in 1860 girls got their first period at the age of 16.6 years old. In 1920 they began to menstruate at 14.6 years old, in 1980 at 12.5 years old, and today even sooner yet. And all this of course completely independent of the fact that a first menstruation is only one step on the way to become an adult woman and it does not signify the ultimate end of childhood.

Forced marriage of children is completely okay in Islam

Since Mohammed was deemed to be an exemplary ideal and virtuous man, this moral assessment applies as well to his marriage with multiple women and the child Aisha, which is why forced marriages of children in Shiite as well as in Sunni Islam are entirely normal. Often children die on their wedding night due to fatal internal bleeding caused by their Muslim husbands. This behavior is now entering Germany.

Here’s the case of a 22-year-old Syrian man and his 14-year-old wife — probably a more benign example — a couple who came to Bavaria at the end of 2015. They are also cousins — since marriages among relatives, too, is a custom that is accepted in Islam, which has for centuries harmed the gene pool of the Islamic peoples. According to one BBC study 55 % of the Pakistanis living in Great Britain are married to relatives. And worldwide, half of all Muslims are living in incestuous marriages. The consequences are an average IQ that is 10 points lower, and a significantly higher risk for psychological and physical illnesses.

Youth welfare service unsuccessfully tried to protect the child from German justice

The two youths were separated immediately after their arrival in Germany: The Youth welfare office took the child into custody. The man then submitted a lawsuit — in all likelihood at taxpayer’s expense — and verified through a Syrian marriage certificate that he was effectively married to the child he according to Syrian law. The district court then reinterpreted the lawsuit which demanded that the child be handed over to the husband, and granted visitation rights to the “couple” so they could meet alone on the weekends. But the youth welfare office lodged an appeal, arguing that the “wife” is a child and acts like a child. That she is not in a position to lead an autonomous, self-determined life as a “wife”, and that there is the danger that the two have sexual intercourse on the weekends, which according to German law constitutes sexual abuse of a minor.

The subsequent decision of the OLG Bamberg (regional appeals court Bamberg) is simply mind-blowing: The OLG decided that international privacy rights have to be applied to the Syrian couple. During the trial the court had received a “crash course in Syrian marriage law” and had decided that the couple were effectively married. That even the German “Ordre Public”, the public policy doctrine, cannot stand in the way of this. If anyone would like to know what is possible concerning the Islamization of German law, they should read the resolution from May 5, 2015, file reference 2 UF 58/16 of the Regional Appeals Court of Bamberg.

OLG is exclusively applying Sharia law

One paragraph after another the judge cites openly and absent of all critique sharia law, which they then apply one-to-one. For the Bavarian judges, according to their own statements, it is therefore only important “whether the marriage of a Muslima with a non-Muslim is void”, since Islamic law prohibits such. In other words, if there were two refugees with a Syrian marriage certificate, and then it emerged that one of the two was a Christian, a German court would void the marriage, since a Muslim Herrenmensch (overlord) cannot be married to a Christian Untermensch (subhuman).

According to Syrian-Islamic marriage right there is a minimum marriage age of 13 years, but it is invalid if the wedding has already been performed. So therefore, there really is no law for a minimum age, but this seems to pose no problem for Bavarian judges. It seems more important to the court in Bamberg that the dowry was paid by the parents:

Apart from that, Article 51, section 2 of the PSG (strengthening of the care-giving act) on defective marriage contracts after cohabitation, decides, among other things, the obligation of paying the dowry, the obstacle of in-law relationship to marrying, and the obligation of observing the legal waiting period in cases of dissolution of marriage either by divorce or death. Therefore, Articles 47 to 52 PSG cannot be interpreted as a regulation to the effect that a defective marriage contract after cohabitation leads to a void marriage.

The child has to endure abuse so that “integration” is successful

After all this, the court came out with the real tear-jerker: The “husband and wife” had endured so much together already during their “flight”! Additionally, a recognition of their marriage for the purpose of integration is vital. The two had already rejected participation in integration courses long before their marriage was validated, the German judges seriously lamented.

The youth welfare office and parents do not play a role anymore for the court: The child is legally married and, according to Syrian law, parental responsibility has thereby lapsed. Punishability according to § 182 III StGB is swept under the rug by the OLG Bamberg: That counts as “a matter of interpretation”. The bottom line is that the higher regional court, as the second most highest civil rights entity, has applied sharia law, which thus with one swipe suspends German family law, and especially criminal law, and has therefore deprived a 14-year-old girl of all protection given to her by the youth welfare services, and instead has exposed her to her “husband” defenselessly.

____________________________

The legal court documents about the case:

OLG Bamberg, Beschluss v. 12.05.2016 — 2 UF 58/16 — Bügerservice

Categories: Child brides, Germany, Islam and child brides, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist moral values, Sharia law
Tags: Child brides, Germany, Islam and child brides, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist moral values, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

REPORT: Migrants Burn Down Asylum Centre After Not Receiving Ramadan Wake Up Call

June 9, 2016

REPORT: Migrants Burn Down Asylum Centre After Not Receiving Ramadan Wake Up Call, Breitbart, Oliver JJ Lane, June 8, 2016

(The most interesting part of the article begins after the third photo. — DM)

Refugee center burned

DPA / Getty

While migrants are commonly employed as security, staff, and translators in migrant camps across Germany, a move which helps the authorities with breaking down language barriers with their hundreds of thousands of guests, it brings a whole set of problems. As migrants import sectarian and racial conflict, placing one group of migrants in a position of power and authority over others has led to widespread abuses and violence.

Breitbart London has reported on the problem of migrant guards, who often lack basic qualifications and any sort of oversight by government agencies as they are employed and run by private contractors. One under-addressed expression of this problem is the attacks and discrimination against Christian refugees by Turkish heritage and Arab migrant guards.

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

A massive fire at Düsseldorf’s major international trade fair grounds yesterday has been followed by reports that the blaze was set deliberately by migrants who were angry because of Ramadan.

Officially, some 160 migrants were resident at hall 18 of the Messe Düsseldorf conference centre, but it was a facility plagued by racial conflict which had seen violence spark before. Düsseldorf’s Express newspaper reports these conflicts were not between European German staff and their guests, but between the predominantly Arab residents, and a minority of Afghans who sided with the security staff running the facility — who were mainly Iranian.

According to the testimony of “several burly Moroccan refugees” which the paper had spoken to even as the hall burnt down, the Iranians employed by the German state to look after other migrants from around the world had “deliberately” not woken the Arabs up in time for their Ramadan breakfast following a long run dispute.

Just three weeks ago there had been another, much smaller fire at the exhibition centre as a migrant set fire to his mattress in protest against the accommodation.

Refugee center

Fire department spokesmen described the 5,000-sq-ft exhibition hall, normally used for storage for exhibitors, as a “total loss” / Getty / DPA

Under Islamic tradition, during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar the faithful enter a fast between sunrise and sunset in commemoration of Muhammed. In practice this means sleeping-in leaves the Muslim without food until sunset around half-past-nine at night.

The migrants who witnessed the fire being set, some of which even proudly recorded the moment on their mobile phones said the blaze was started “because we just want to get out of here”, away from their Iranian guards.

Breitbart London reported on the fire as it happened yesterday, with reports of as many as 280 migrants being evacuated from the site, which lies directly next to Düsseldorf’s international airport. Approximately 30 migrants were treated for smoke inhalation, and one of the 70 fire-fighters who turned out to tackle the arson blaze was hospitalised due to heat exhaustion.

There were initially two arrests of migrants that were found at the scene boasting about setting the fire, but this number later rose to six. The men arrested are reported to have been citizens of Morocco, Algeria, Syria and Iraq.

Dusseldorf

Hall 18 burns yesterday / Twitter.com/humansinking

While migrants are commonly employed as security, staff, and translators in migrant camps across Germany, a move which helps the authorities with breaking down language barriers with their hundreds of thousands of guests, it brings a whole set of problems. As migrants import sectarian and racial conflict, placing one group of migrants in a position of power and authority over others has led to widespread abuses and violence.

Breitbart London has reported on the problem of migrant guards, who often lack basic qualifications and any sort of oversight by government agencies as they are employed and run by private contractors. One under-addressed expression of this problem is the attacks and discrimination against Christian refugees by Turkish heritage and Arab migrant guards.

Severe beatings are the order of the day for many Christian migrants in the care of the German state, who have given uniforms and authority to the exact people they fled the Middle East from in the first place. The hospital report of one Christian who was beaten near to death by “Turkish and Arab descent” guards read: “Skull contusion, monocular hematoma right stump chest trauma, blunt abdominal trauma history.

“Patient was today beaten by four security people since a massive headache and pain in the abdomen patient was brought to the A&E”.

Another Christian said: “[the guards] accused me of insulting Islam, beat me to the ground, and kicked me in the face”. A German priest witnessed security guards who caught two Iranians reading the bible in their migrant accommodation. He recalled: “The guards ran into the room shouting ‘the Bible is haram!’, pushed them both against the wall, while punching and kicking them”.

The priest lamented of the situation: “My impression is that now anyone who has a particular muscle circumference and speaks Arabic, will be hired”.

Categories: Germany, Human rights, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Ramadan
Tags: Gemany, human rights, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Ramadan

Comments: Be the first to comment

Muslim Leader Advertises that 9/11 was ‘Israeli-Jewish Job’’

June 8, 2016

Muslim Leader Advertises that 9/11 was ‘Israeli-Jewish Job’, Front Page Magazine, Joe Kaufman, June 8, 2016

(Just another tolerant, peaceful bunch of warm and fuzzy American Islamists. Obviously, the more the merrier. — DM)

911-was-israeli-jewish-job-sofian-zakkout

Sofian Zakkout, President of the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), is always looking for new ways to promote hatred of Jews. Recently, he advertised on his Facebook page an article about how the Nazi Holocaust was “faked.” Now, he is targeting Jews by posting onto social media a claim that they perpetrated the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Will any of the hate he is peddling do harm to the relationships he and his group have made, both financial and otherwise, with organizations associated with fighting crime?

Usually, anti-Semites — those rabid ones who are violently opposed to Jews — attach themselves to one of two categories, white supremacists or Muslim terrorists. Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout, who is Muslim himself, strongly supports both.

When it comes to white supremacy, Zakkout is a fervent follower of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Zakkout has described Duke as “David Duke, a man to believe in!” and Zakkout has said of Duke, “I respect him for his honesty!” Zakkout’s Facebook page and the websites of his organization AMANA each have been used to promote Duke and his bigoted videos. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has previously cited Zakkout and his group for posting what the ADL described as a “venomous” anti-Semitic Duke video onto AMANA’s official site.

This past February, Zakkout advertised on social media a report claiming that the horrors committed by Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s were fabricated. Aptly titled ‘How the Holocaust was faked,’ it begins: “The alleged ‘Holocaust’ of ‘6 million Jews’ at the hands of Adolf Hitler and National Socialist Germany during WWII is the biggest lie ever foisted upon humanity.” It was produced by The Realist Report, an anti-Jew, anti-black, anti-gay independent media outlet, which describes Hitler as “the greatest leader in modern Western history.”

Zakkout is also very open about his strong support for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. In August 2015, he wrote in Arabic on Facebook, “Hamas is in my heart and on my head.” In July 2014, Zakkout organized a pro-Hamas rally held outside the Israeli Consulate in downtown Miami. On video, Zakkout is shown smiling, as event goers repeatedly shout, “We are Hamas.” Following the rally, Zakkout wrote the following in Arabic, above photos from the event: “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!”

On April 21st, Zakkout took to Facebook to promote a report discussing Jewish involvement in the September 11th attacks. Attached to the report was a graphic depicting an Israeli flag next to the burning World Trade Center towers, one tower totally engulfed in flames, with the caption, ‘Israeli CONNECTION to 9/11.’ Another photo from the report shows the burning towers with a Jewish Star affixed to one. The report begins, “It ain’t debatable! Soup to nuts, top to bottom, the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. were an ‘Israeli’-Jewish job.”

The report names twelve Jews, who it calls the “REAL planners and executors of 9/11.” According to the report, they include former and current Israeli Prime Ministers Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert; then-soon-to-be Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg; and then-head of the criminal division of the Justice Department Michael Chertoff. It labels them “chosenite brethren.”

The website which published the report and which Zakkout linked to is Mouqawamah Music, a site that openly calls for “Death to Israel” and curses the Jewish religion. The site states, “[A]fter 132 some odd years of Jewish colonization in the Holy Land, there are only three words that properly encapsulate our pain, our sadness and our rage: DEATH TO ‘ISRAEL.’” And “What is today called Judaism is NOT a nice religion. It is and has always been a conspiracy against humanity, more of a domination strategy than a religion… [I]t is clearly wicked and filth-ridden…”

Sofian Zakkout has, once again, found a way to target Jews. Whether it is organizing pro-Hamas rallies, promoting David Duke videos, advertising Holocaust denial reports, or helping to push the absurd notion that Jews were behind 9/11, if it is a way to spread hatred of the Jewish people, Zakkout will gladly embrace it.

Unfortunately, Zakkout and his group’s anti-Semitic actions have had little effect on how he is viewed by some organizations associated with fighting crime. Zakkout’s name is still found on the official website of Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade County as a Member at Large on the group’s Executive Committee. Miami-Dade Crime Stoppers has also been reluctant about removing Zakkout from its Board, and Zakkout’s AMANA previously received a $70 thousand grant from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — for counter-terrorism purposes, yet!

Nothing affiliated with Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout should receive any legitimacy or funding from any organization, especially those organizations associated with fighting crime. To do so would be a crime in itself.

Categories: 9/11, Holocaust, Islam and Jews, Islamic integration, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamists in America, Israel
Tags: Holocaust, Islam and Jews, Islamic integration, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamists in America, Israel

Comments: Be the first to comment

The French Appetite for Appeasement

June 4, 2016

The French Appetite for Appeasement, Gatestone Institute, George Igler, June 4, 2016

♦ France’s Socialist Party government has unveiled a new legislative program designed to decrease the likelihood of further Islamic atrocities, largely it seems that would have ensured the success of the jihadist attacks committed so far.

♦ n the measures revealed, proactively combatting criminals appears to have taken a back seat to placating the communities from which they are drawn.

♦ Whereas protests by French people against Islamization or government policy, have been rigorously curtailed by the authorities, migrant gangs have still felt able to terrorize French towns, stampede French motorways, or conduct mass armed brawls in Paris, with little fear of intervention from either security services or the law.

♦ In 2014, an ICM poll discovered that 27% of French citizens aged 18-24 supported ISIS.

Last year Muslim jihadists murdered more people in France, than were killed by terrorism in the country during the entire 20th century.

In response, the Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, has announced a range of innovative legal measures, introduced in response to the terrorist outrages which struck France in 2015.

On January 7, of that year, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi stormed the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, massacring twelve and injuring eleven others.

In the days that followed, a comrade of the earlier jihadists committed a string of murders, which culminated in a siege at the kosher supermarket. Amedy Coulibaly killed five and injured eleven more.

On February 3, 2015, three military personnel guarding a Jewish community center in Nice were stabbed, by Moussa Coulibaly.

On June 26, the severed head of Hervé Cornara was placed on display, at the gas factory near Lyon where he worked, alongside twin ISIS flags, by Yassine Salhi.

On August 21, an attempted mass shooting on the Thalys high-speed train between Amsterdam and Paris, by Moroccan-born Ayoub El Khazzani, was foiled by American tourists, leading to the wounding of four.

In two days, starting on November 13, multiple jihadist attacks once again struck the French capital. 130 were killed and 352 injured, by perpetrators operating in three teams of three, which included suicide bombers.

1432 (1)

Last January, Amedy Coulibaly (left) murdered a policewoman and four Jews in Paris, before being shot dead by police. Right: Medics carry a victim wounded in an attack by Islamist terrorists, who shot hundreds of concert-goers, killing 90, at the Bataclan theater in Paris on November 13, 2015.

France’s Socialist Party government has unveiled a new legislative program designed to decrease the likelihood of further Islamic atrocities, largely it seems that would have ensured the success of the jihadist attacks committed so far.

“A range of measures” are set to be introduced to combat the alleged “Social, Ethnic and Territorial Apartheid” currently blighting France.

Not only were the jihadist proclivities of most of last year’s perpetrators fully known to the authorities in France, some had been released from prison early following crimes of violence involving automatic weapons.

In the measures revealed by Prime Minister Manuel Valls, however, proactively combatting criminals appears to have taken a backseat to placating the communities from which they are drawn.

The first aim of the new laws contained within the Equality and Citizenship bill, reports Le Monde, is to centralize the provision of social housing in France. Until now the growth of Islamized areas has largely been limited to suburbs around major urban centers.

Much as in Germany, where Muslim migrants to Europe are being sent directly into rural areas, the prime minister is proposing a new nationwide system designed, “to make a better distribution of the public housing supply” in France. This nationwide transformation of housing policy is aimed at curtailing “concentrations of poverty,” within problematic Islamic enclaves infamous as no-go zones.

“Recalcitrant” locally-elected mayors who oppose the construction of new housing projects in their areas will be overruled by the state in the interests of “social diversity.”

Second, in the guise of improving literacy in French amongst those of immigrant descent, a new fast-track employment scheme has also been drawn up.

The scheme “will allow youths with few or no qualifications” to enter France’s “citizens’ reserve,” a government initiative established last year which links the nation’s education system with its civil service, allowing an accelerated path into state employment.

The euphemism “youths” is used in the French media to describe the country’s increasingly problematic young Muslim population. In 2014, an ICM poll discovered that 27% of French citizens aged 18-24 supported ISIS.

The glowing account given to the proposals being forwarded by Prime Minister Valls, in his country’s leading left-wing daily, fails to mention how the newly foreseen “third path” job scheme will address the greater key issues.

Unease is growing at the level of Islamist sympathies already held by state employees in France, such as members of the military and police.

Third, as nationwide protests continue to mount over migrant chaos in French towns, spread across the coast of the English Channel, even greater criminal penalties against free speech are also set to be introduced by the new bill.

Verbal communication has, apparently, been largely exempted from legal free speech curtailment in France, unless recorded and posted online. Such cases then fall under the same strict law that governs the printed word, originally passed in 1881.

This law is why Charlie Hebdo is famous for distributing its most challenging content in the form of cartoons, thereby seeking to exempt itself from strict sanctions against “defamation” in print. Fictional novels published this year about France’s Islamic future have sought to do the same.

Under the legislation currently being proposed by Valls, this existing status quo is set for a radical shake-up. The new restrictions planned for France are more in line with the Europe-wide harmonization of hate speech offences, mandated by the European Union.

The augmented provisions against incitement to hatred, previously limited to the 1881 press law, are set to be expanded throughout the French criminal justice system, under the new bill.

Much as in the UK, the new creation of aggravated offences will also ensure that any existing crime can be claimed, by its victim, also to contain a “hate speech” component, incurring far stiffer penalties against the alleged perpetrator.

The application of existing French laws, however, after the last major atrocity in Paris, on November 13, point to the likely reasons for the new proposals being put forward by France’s government.

Since the massacre at the Bataclan nightclub and suicide bombings that struck the French capital, the Republic of France has been in a state of emergency. This gives the country’s President, François Hollande, “extraordinary powers” under Article 16 of the French Constitution.

In February, the duration of these powers, which enable warrantless searches whilst limiting freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, were extended until May 26 by the lower house of the French legislature, the Assemblée Nationale.

In the intervening period, soldiers have become such a common sight in the French capital, that they often give Paris the impression of being under martial law. Half of the country’s army is now deployed on the streets of France.

Yet, whereas protests by French people against Islamization or government policy have been rigorously curtailed by the authorities, migrant gangs have still felt able to terrorize French towns,stampede French motorways, or conduct mass armed brawls in Paris, with little fear of intervention from either security services or the law.

Although the law being introduced by Mr. Valls is chiefly claimed to be about “youth engagement,” the new bill seems more the result of a realization that one group in France — its natives — can generally be relied upon to obey the law, while apparently another cannot.

There is a certain group of young people, however, with whom Manuel Valls clearly does not wish to engage. He recently excoriated members of the controversial Europe-wide Identitarian Movement, a nationalist youth group notorious for engaging in acts of civil disobedience in response to the changing culture and demography of France and Europe.

Described as the “hipster right” by some outlets, Mr. Valls decried supporters of the movement — which began in his country — as “those who want the country closed while dreaming of going back to a France that never existed.”

“I believe in my country, in its message and its universal values,” Valls added. In the interview published by Libération, on April 12, he continued:

I would like us to be capable of demonstrating that Islam, a great world religion and the second religion of France, is fundamentally compatible with the Republic, democracy, our values, and equality between men and women.

Manuel Valls was later forced to admit, in the interview, that this “compatibility” is something doubted by “a majority of our fellow citizens.”

Some 3.3 million people have dual citizenship in France, most of them Muslim. After President Hollande had announced that his country was “at war,” in the immediate aftermath of November’s attacks, the French Prime Minister unveiled plans to amend France’s constitution.

The proposed amendment was intended to strip French citizenship from dual-nationals convicted of terrorism offences. At the time Manuel Valls was described, in the left-wing media, as a “strongman” who had taken a “hard line against terror.”

On March 30, however, after a split within the Socialist Party over the issue, the Prime Minister’s plans were dropped.

The new, more comprehensive, legislative proposals are set to go before the Assemblée nationale this month.

Categories: France, Hate speech, Hollande, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamophobia
Tags: France, Hate speech, Hollande, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives