Posted tagged ‘Islamism’

Trump Sec of Defense Pick: Enemy of Islamism and Iran

December 4, 2016

Trump Sec of Defense Pick: Enemy of Islamism and Iran, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, December 4, 2016

united-states-general-james-mattis-640-320-getty-drew-angerer_0General James Mattis with President-elect Trump (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

General Mattis completely and utterly rejects the romanticized interpretation of the Iranian regime as “moderate” or part of the solution to Sunni terrorism. In April, he described the Iranian regime as the “single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East;” one greater than Al-Qaeda or ISIS.

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

President-Elect Trump has chosen Marine Corps General James “Mad Dog” Mattis for secretary of defense, eliciting widespread enthusiasm focusing on his status as the “most revered Marine in a generation” and factory of quotable quotes.

Deserving of more positive attention is his emphasis on confronting Political Islam and the Iranian regime.

General Mattis has advocated for significant changes in both the military fight against the specific Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, as well as the fight against the Islamist ideology that births them. Although ISIS’ caliphate is on the decline, General Mattis doesn’t settle for an encouraging positive trend. He wants to win quickly and decisively, yet humanely with care for civilians.

In August, he said the strategy still is “unguided by a sustained policy or sound strategy [and is] replete with half measures.”

Mattis was one of the chief architects of the counter-insurgency campaign that turned Iraq around so rapidly that it even surprises many of its supporters.

In testimony to the Senate in 2015, he said, “The fundamental question I believe is, ‘Is political Islam in our best interest?’ If not, what is our policy to authoritatively support the countervailing forces?”

In another speech, General Mattis said that the fundamental flaw in our strategy has been a failure to define Political Islam as the enemy of U.S. interests. He made the correct observation that such a delineation between friend and foe would allow us to identify supportable Muslim allies.

“If we won’t even ask the question [if Political Islam is in U.S. interests], then how do we ever get to the point of recognizing which is our side in the fight? And if we don’t take our own side in this fight, we are leaving others adrift,” he said.

He then referenced his recent trip to Egypt and the widespread perception that the U.S. actually intends to empower the Muslim Brotherhood. The failure to base policy around a rejection of Political Islam inevitably leads to a tolerance or even an embrace of Islamists who surpass the low bar of condemning Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The Muslims who oppose Islamists are, as Mattis put it, left adrift.

Countless articles have been written claiming that a policy based on fighting “radical Islam,” “Political Islam,” “Islamism” and similar terms will inflame the Muslim world. Islamists and allied institutions will undoubtedly cry foul, as they always have at every minor slight, but the delineation will separate the wheat from the chaff.

Overlooked allies amongst Muslims and non-Muslim minorities will surface as U.S. policy forces the Muslim world to take stances on Islamism and its adhering organizations. New allies will be born as the discussion of Islamism leads to rejections of it. If messaged correctly, the U.S. will end up with more Muslim allies of better quality.

This view of Islamism as the adversary, rather than just specific terrorist groups targeting the U.S. homeland, is why General Mattis rejects the notion of a “moderate” Iranian regime. He was fired by the Obama Administration for his tough questions about the ramifications of current U.S. policy towards Iran.

General Mattis completely and utterly rejects the romanticized interpretation of the Iranian regime as “moderate” or part of the solution to Sunni terrorism. In April, he described the Iranian regime as the “single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East;” one greater than Al-Qaeda or ISIS.

We recently pointed out that four of Trump’s picks want to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and wage a long overdue ideological offensive against Islamism, also known as Political Islam.

Trump then chose K.T. McFarland as deputy national security adviser and Katharine Gorka as part of his Department of Homeland security “landing team” to manage the transition between administrations. Both are strong advocates of an ideological war against Islamism and Gorka has advocated for the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act.

The U.S. war against Islamist extremism now enters a new, decisive phase, but let not our enthusiasm for this strategy blind us from the risks.

The successful implementation of the anti-Islamism strategy is not solely dependent upon Trump’s national security team. It’s dependent upon him.

If his decisions prevent demonstrable success, the ideological strategy will be considered a failed concept. Its advocates will have their credibility tarnished, perhaps unfairly, and the Western response to Islamism will be put on an indefinite hold as the ideology marches on.

How James Mattis As Defense Secretary Could Bust Our Deathly Political Correctness About Islam

November 30, 2016

How James Mattis As Defense Secretary Could Bust Our Deathly Political Correctness About Islam, The Federalist, November 31, 2016

usmc-08001-998x666

Is political Islam in America’s best interests? This question should be central to our strategy of fighting ISIS and Islamist terrorism in general. Yet it’s one that many political leaders would rather not answer, because of our politically correct climate. But since Trump’s transition team announced last week that it’s considering retired Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense, this reluctance might fade.

In a speech given at the Heritage Foundation last year, Mattis spoke about America’s position vis à vis political Islam. Rather than equivocating on the matter in order to avoid saying something uncomfortable or politically incorrect, Mattis simply pointed out that America needs to make a decision about its stance toward this ideology.

Recall that political Islam, or Islamism, is a movement within Islam: it works toward the increasing implementation of Islamic law and values in all areas of life—usually via state control—in order to make Islam a dominant force in the world.

Why We Don’t Talk About Islamism

Mattis’ suggestion—which sounds like a basic element of defense strategy—has been surprisingly neglected in the years since 9/11. The U.S. tends to deal with Islamism on a case-by-case basis. And so long as any particular group or political entity doesn’t have a direct and obvious link to terrorism, we tend to give them a pass. Even then, this is sometimes too high of a bar, as is the case with the Muslim Brotherhood and associated groups.

No one wants to delve into the question of Islamism because it has become a politically charged issue, one that often leads to accusations of bigotry and Islamaphobia. As Islam is increasingly treated as a protected class by America’s progressive Left, any scrutiny of any faction within Islam is considered off limits. This is done in the name of tolerance, but is in fact a highly intolerant position. But it’s successfully scared off politicians and military personnel, who tend to make vague and noncommittal statements on the topic.

This makes Mattis’ statements all the more notable. He’s simply urging the U.S. to make a decision. And what’s more, he’s arguing that this decision ought to be based on what we believe is in our best interest:

“Is political Islam in the best interest of the United States?…If we won’t even ask the question then how do we even get to the point of recognizing which is our side in the fight? And if we don’t take our own side in this fight we’re leaving others adrift.”

What Is In The Country’s Best Interests?

This is a surprisingly unpopular question to ask in general, and specifically when it comes to Islam. The concept itself—asking what is in America’s best interest—has largely been ignored as of late. Under Obama, America has pursued a policy of “leading from behind,” and more or less disregarding America’s interests abroad. The Obama administration has done this based on the notion, central to the progressive narrative of history, that America is a de facto colonialist power, whose influence in the world is malign and ought to recede of our own volition.

But if the U.S. can’t identify what is in its best interests, or refuses to pursue those interests out of an oversized sense of political correctness, there’s no way to forge a comprehensive global defense strategy. As Mattis points out, if we won’t even talk about political Islam with a critical eye, how can we figure out which side we’re on, and make decisions from that point? Neglecting the question not only hurts our interests—it leaves our allies unsure of where we stand and how we will proceed when Islamist movements gain traction in their countries.

Mattis also points out that ISIS is counting on Americans not having a debate on whether political Islam is good for America. If we don’t examine this question, we can’t create a cohesive strategy, and our fight against ISIS’s self-proclaimed Caliphate (or other groups like them) will ultimately fail.

This is the opposite of what some Islamist apologists and those on the left insist, which is that ISIS wants us to talk about the connections between Islam and violence, in order to make Muslims feel like the West is at war with their entire religion. Then, so the thinking goes, Muslims will turn on the West.

Mattis Would Change Our Reputation

As it is, ISIS has largely won this battle. Any serious strategic discussion about the relationship between political Islam and American national interests has been deemed illegitimate and offensive by the political Left. See, for example, the scrubbing of terms related to Islam from Department of Homeland Security training materials.

Mattis’ appointment as Defense Secretary would be a marked change not only from the Obama administration, but also from the Bush years. Both administrations were reluctant to substantively engage in a debate on the merits or threats of political Islam.

Since giving this speech at Heritage, ISIS has experienced significant territorial losses. But the question Mattis raises has not lost its relevance. It will be central to many of the Trump administration’s foreign policy challenges. Political Islam remains, and will remain, a problem for the West both in terms of domestic security and global strategy. Whether it’s the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the U.S., or political Islam in a post-Arab Spring Middle East, the U.S. needs to know where it stands on this issue.

Mattis concludes that political Islam is not, in the end, good for America. But he acknowledges that what’s most important is that we have a discussion about it—so that we can develop a broader strategy for how to deal with Islamism in the world. Without a cohesive strategy, there is little hope of checking the destructive influences of political Islam both at home and abroad.

German Intelligence Officer Arrested Over Suspected Terrorist Attack

November 30, 2016

Report: German Intelligence Officer Arrested Over Suspected Terrorist Attack

BY:

November 29, 2016 4:30 pm

Source: German Intelligence Officer Arrested Over Suspected Terrorist Attack

A German intelligence officer was recently arrested on the suspicion he was plotting to bomb the headquarters of Germany’s domestic spy agency in Cologne.

The 51-year-old, who converted to Islam two years ago, admitted in a “partial confession” that his goal was to “infiltrate” the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Der Spiegel reported Tuesday.

An official with the intelligence agency said the man attempted to pass on “sensitive information about [the agency], which could lead to a threat to the office.”

The suspect also used online chat rooms in an attempt to recruit radical Islamists to the spy agency to mount attacks against “non-believers.” The man was caught after chatting with an undercover agent from the office, according to Der Spiegel.

Germany is currently under a high-threat terrorist alert following a series of attacks in western Europe this past summer. U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned in April that ISIS had terrorist cells in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy similar to those operated by the jihadists who carried out attacks in Paris and Brussels.

Only 18 out of 57 Muslim Nations Sign UN Coalition to Fight ISIS

November 21, 2016

Only 18 out of 57 Muslim Nations Sign UN Coalition to Fight ISIS

By Pamela Geller – on November 20, 2016

Source: Only 18 out of 57 Muslim Nations Sign UN Coalition to Fight ISIS – The Geller Report

Clearly a majority of Muslim nations do not want to fight against terror. On the contrary, they support jihad armies — in accordance with the jihadiic doctrine. “Soon shall we cast terror Into the hearts Of the unbelievers..”

The lip service that Muslim countries pay to Western elites is merely taqiya.
The Quran’s Verses of Violence – The Religion of Peace

Anger as less than A THIRD of Muslim nations sign up to coalition against ISIS
A TOP British official has taken aim at some Muslim nations during a meeting at the United Nations this week, slamming them for not clamping down on extremism.

By Siobhan McFadyen, Express UK, Nov 18, 2016  (thanks to Muslim Statistics)

Matthew Rycroft delivered a strongly worded speech at the UN this week

Matthew Rycroft delivered a strongly worded speech at the UN this week

It comes as it can be revealed just 18 out of 57 Muslim majority world states have signed up to a coalition against ISIS.

The UK’s permanent representative to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, delivered a strongly worded speech blasting what he called “evil groups” and saying not enough is being done.

The comments came as the UN general assembly supported a plan by the Islamic Development Bank to invest £7.2bn to tackle the cause of terror.

Suicide bombings are a daily issue around the globe
Suicide bombings are a daily issue around the globe.

The fact that these evil groups claim to represent Islam only makes this reality even more sickening.
– UN representative Matthew Rycroft

Britain is using its muscle at the UN to encourage more cooperation and has also pledged to invest £20m of taxpayers’ money to the Arab Women’s Enterprise Fund.

Mr Rycroft said: “One issue facing the OIC’s (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) members, indeed all members of the UN, is the growing threat of extremist ideologies and violent extremism.

Just 18 out of 57 Muslim majority world states have signed up to a coalition against ISIS
Just 18 out of 57 Muslim majority world states have signed up to a coalition against ISIS

“Sadly, as we in this Council know only too well, this threat affects Muslim majority states in a truly disproportionate way – in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, in so many places.

“Put simply and starkly, far more Muslim men, women and children have lost their lives at the hands of groups like Al Shabaab and Da’esh than any other faith or religion.

“The fact that these evil groups claim to represent Islam only makes this reality even more sickening.

“The United Kingdom is clear that we must tackle violent extremism in all its forms, whether radical Islam or neo-Nazism.”

An ISIS fighter is help by an Iraqi army official

An ISIS fighter is held by an Iraqi army official.
Worryingly, Mr Rycroft pointed out that just 18 of the 57 member states, with a collective population of over 1.6 billion – that makes up the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which was founded in 1969 – are members of the Global Coalition against Da’esh.

It comes after the UK set up a Strategic Communications Cell to tackle terrorists in London last year, handing over an initial £10million.

He added: “It’s no coincidence that 18 members of the OIC are also members of the Global Coalition against Da’esh.

“Among them are of course our colleagues from Egypt and I want to pay tribute to the work of those two great Egyptian institutions, Al-Azhar and Dar Al-Ifta.

“These beacons of Islamic thinking help provide a narrative of tolerance that counters the hate preached by the likes of Da’esh.

A man takes a selfie in front of a fire from oil that has been set ablaze in the Qayyarah area
A man takes a selfie in front of a fire from oil that has been set ablaze in the Qayyarah area.

Iraqi soldiers look on as smoke rises fr

Video still of militants patrolling the streets of Mosul

Militants patrolling the streets of Mosul.
“The UK is committed to help spread that narrative, to showing the reality of Da’esh’s lies.

“That’s why we’re hosting the Coalition’s Communications Cell in London.

“It draws on the expertise of Coalition members, including our partners from the United Arab Emirates, to help counter the misrepresentation of Islam and its values by Da’esh.

“Countering an ideology is part about offering a competing narrative.

“But it’s also about delivering consequences for those who join Da’esh and it’s about supporting survivors of their crimes by giving them a voice and ending impunity.

“Da’esh accountability is a top priority for the UK and we are seeking UN action to preserve evidence of Da’esh’s crimes as a first step.”

Muslim Imperialism Reaches the United Nations

October 31, 2016

Muslim Imperialism Reaches the United Nations

by Denis MacEoin

October 29, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Muslim Imperialism Reaches the United Nations

 

  • UNESCO has joined forces with Islamic State. The fundamentalists now have a new weapon: resolutions passed by servile international bodies.
  • An earlier delay and the opposition of UNESCO’s chief, Irina Bokova, had raised hopes that this act of jihadist, barbaric, unjust, and, frankly, arrogant supremacism might be voted down. It was not. Now a new lie was given the sanction of the world’s largest and most unaccountable body whose reason for being is to preserve significant sites, not to bowdlerize them.
  • Lies by UNESCO to rewrite history, erasing all traces of Judaism and Christianity to favour a jihadist Islamic fancy, were already under way in 2015. UNESCO fraudulently renamed two ancient Biblical Jewish sites, Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs, as Islamic sites. Historically, Islam did not even exist until the seventh century.
  • This is the history of Islam, how it takes over — with both hard jihad (violence) and soft jihad (usurping history, migration [hijrah], political and cultural infiltration), and intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad underneath it). What is even more saddening is that often, as with this vote, it is done with the West’s cooperation and voluntary submission.
  • Before the United Nations, with its authoritarian, anti-democratic voting blocs, finishes eradicating Western, Judeo-Christian civilization, as it is clearly trying to do, it is high time for Western democracies to run, not walk, away, before further harm comes to them too, as it surely promises to do.

UNESCO last August planned to vote on the historical status of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and its associated Western Wall. Back then, this author stated that UNESCO’s plan was to deny any Jewish link to this most central of all Jewish holy sites, to trash a history going back thousands of years, and to claim the Mount and the Wall as Islamic sites.

Islam believes that it is eternal and had therefore preceded the other two great monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity, even though it was only to become visible to the world through Mohammad in the seventh century AD, but entitled to elbow out the two older religions.

Lies by UNESCO to rewrite history, erasing all traces of Judaism and Christianity to favour a jihadist Islamic fancy, were already under way in 2015. UNESCO fraudulently renamed two ancient Biblical Jewish sites, Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs — abracadabra — Islamic sites.

Historically, Islam did not even exist until the seventh century.

This is the history of Islam, how it takes over — with both hard jihad (violence) and soft jihad (usurping history, migration [hijrah], political and cultural infiltration), and intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad underneath it). What is even more saddening is that often, as with this vote, it is done with the West’s cooperation and voluntary submission.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is now, according to this deeply compromised body, supposedly the “Ibrahimi Mosque,” and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem is supposedly the “Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque,” even though it never could have been a mosque. As the saying goes, “calling a cat a pig does not make it one.”

UNESCO’s latest resolution to deny any Jewish link to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, the most central of all Jewish holy sites, is not the first time the body has tried to rewrite and falsify a history going back thousands of years. UNESCO had previously declared the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron (left) as the “Ibrahimi Mosque,” and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem (right) as the “Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque.” (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

Now a new lie has been given the sanction of the world’s largest and most unaccountable body, whose reason for being is to preserve significant sites, not to bowdlerize them.

On October 13, the news was broadcast that UNESCO had passed a majority vote endorsing this rape of archaeological and Biblical history. On the following Tuesday, the resolution was endorsed by the body’s executive board. If your majority, however, consists of members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (the OIC, a bloc consisting of 56 Islamic states plus “Palestine”, and possibly the largest bloc at the UN), a fraudulent result such as this should probably not come as a surprise.

An earlier delay and the opposition of UNESCO’s chief, Irina Bokova, had raised hopes that this act of jihadist, barbaric, unjust, and, frankly, arrogant supremacism might be voted down. It was not. Following the vote, Bokova issued a powerful statement condemning it, saying, among other things:

“The heritage of Jerusalem is indivisible, and each of its communities has a right to the explicit recognition of their history and relationship with the city. To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.

“Nowhere more than in Jerusalem do Jewish, Christian and Muslim heritage and traditions share space and interweave to the point that they support each other. These cultural and spiritual traditions build on texts and references, known by all, that are an intrinsic part of the identities and history of peoples.”

Now the Christian and Jewish worlds will have to deal with the resolution’s ramifications, the first of which is that all democracies would be wise immediately to abandon the United Nations, or at the very least to stop funding it, before further harm comes to them too, as it surely promises to do.

The resolution was first proposed to UNESCO by seven Muslim states (Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Sudan on behalf of the Palestinian Authority — all OIC groupies — in October 2015. Any reputable body empowered to protect ancient religious sites would have rejected it out of hand and given those responsible a dusty answer.

UNESCO’s parent body, the United Nations, has over many years increasingly shown itself as untransparent, unaccountable and thoroughly disreputable — from its $100 billion, never-prosecuted, oil-for-food embezzlement scandal exposed in 2004, to “Peacekeepers” who demand sex from children in exchange for food; to its incessant, fabricated persecution of one member state, Israel, while giving unlimited passes to the most ostentatious violators of human rights in other nations.

Before the UN, with its authoritarian, anti-democratic voting blocs, finishes eradicating Western, Judeo-Christian civilization, as it is clearly trying to do, it is high time for Western democracies to run, not walk, away.

Of UNESCO’s 195 member states, 35 are fully Islamic nations, another 21 are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and four are OIC observer states. That makes 60 who represent a bloc favourable to Muslim-inspired resolutions, yet UNESCO’s Board consists of only 58 members. That board approved Resolution 19 with 33 votes in favour, six against and 17 abstentions. Ghana and Turkmenistan were absent altogether. Only six countries voted against the resolution — the US, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Lithuania and Estonia. Revealingly, France, Spain, Sweden, Russia and Slovenia were among those who supported it. It is not hard to identify the source of the majority vote.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the move as another “absurd” UN resolution:

“UNESCO ignores the unique Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, the site of two temples for 1,000 years, and the place to which Jews prayed for thousands of years… The UN is rewriting a basic part of human history and proving that there is no low to which it will not reach.”

Jewish patience in the Holy Land is being tested to the limit.

UNESCO’s vote is just the latest example of Muslim supremacism as expressed in the demolition, re-definition, or outright expropriation of the places of worship, shrines, and other buildings linked to other faiths — invariably faiths that have long preceded Islam itself, including Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as Judaism and Christianity. The process began in the year 630, two years before the prophet Muhammad’s death, when his forces conquered his hometown of Mecca. During a brief stay there, before returning to Medina, he ordered all of the 360 idols in the Ka’aba, and all those in private homes, to be destroyed. The Ka’aba itself, long a centre of pagan worship, was transformed overnight into the most important building of the Islamic faith, the Qibla or the spot towards which Muslims still turn in prayer five times a day. It sits at the heart of the Masjid al-Haram, the most important mosque in the Muslim world.[1]

Early Muslims did more than expropriate the building for their own purposes. They created a legend to justify their possession of the site.[2]

But the Qur’an and subsequent Muslim tradition are not content to re-establish history, bringing Abraham out of the Land of Canaan as far down as the Arabian Peninsula. They transform Abraham himself. According to the Qur’an (3:67): “Abraham was neither a Jew (yahudian) nor a Christian (nasranian), but was rather a pure worshipper of God (hanifan), a Muslim….”

This forms part of a broader enterprise. In Islamic doctrine, all true, monotheist religion has, from the beginning, been only Islam. Thus, Adam was the first Muslim and the first prophet. Abraham was a Muslim and a prophet. Moses was a Muslim and a prophet. Noah was a Muslim and a prophet. Jesus was a Muslim and a prophet. In the beginning, everyone was a Muslim and all land belonged to Islam. In the Qur’an, we read:

“Say, ‘We believe in God, and in that which was sent down to us, and in that which was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in what Moses and Jesus were given, and in what the prophets were given form their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we submit.”

That last phrase reads nahnu lahu muslimun. It can be read generically, meaning “those who submit themselves to God”; or specifically to mean “We are Muslims.”

The belief that all true religions involve submission to God and that, in this sense, all true religion may be defined as “Islam” (literally “submission”), may be taken as a unifying, comprehensive declaration of a universal truth, without prejudice to anyone except “idolaters” such as Hindus and Buddhists.

But this generalization was soon forgotten when Muslims found themselves in competition with the followers of other faiths: Jews in Medina, Christians throughout the Byzantine empire, or Zoroastrians in Iran. Muhammad had originally preached his religion as one in harmony with the views of the “People of the Book,” the Jews and Christians who had been sent their own scriptures by God. But not long after his taking control of Medina, he turned on the city’s three important Jewish tribes, expelling two, then attacking the third, the Banu Qurayza, beheading all the men and teenage males and taking the women and children as slaves. From here on, the Qur’an is rife with condemnations of the Jews as a people and of Christians as corrupters of scripture: “O believers, do not take Jews and Christians as your friends” (Qur’an 5:51)

Once Muslim armies went out to conquer Persia, Turkey, Greece, the Levant, all of North Africa, the Balkans, Hungary, Poland and then conquered Portugal, Andalusia in Southern Spain and other Christian territories, all sense of an identity with the People of the Book as, in a sense, fellow Muslims, went out the window, to be replaced by a sense of them as dhimmi or subjected people, the preservation of whose lives and property were contingent on the payment of a protection tax (the jizya) and on agreeing to live as humiliated denizens under special laws of subjugation in lands ruled by Islamic caliphates.

One consequence of this unequal relationship were countless rules, including special, marked clothing that predated the compulsory yellow Star of David that Jews were forced to wear during Hitler’s Third Reich, and that churches and synagogues could not be founded, repaired, rebuilt or given prominence in competition with mosques; and there could be no audible summons to Jewish or Christian prayers.

More than that, the occupation and transformation of lands of earlier religions — Persia, Turkey, Greece, all of North Africa and much of Eastern Europe — proceeded apace during unstoppable Islamic conquests. In Jerusalem, two structures were erected on the Temple Mount (giving rise to the claim for UNESCO’s recognition): the Al-Aqsa Mosque (Masjid al-Aqsa, “the Farthest Mosque”, although no one has a clue where that might have been; very possibly in Arabia) and the Qubbat al-Sakhra, or Dome of the Rock, constructed on the alleged site of Abraham’s aborted sacrifice, no longer of Isaac but now Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabs. Both were built within the first century of Islam.

There is no need here to list all the churches converted to mosques during succeeding centuries. Most notable are the Hagia Sophia churches of the Christian Byzantine empire in Constantinople, Eregli, Nicaea, and Trebizond, refashioned as mosques after the Ottoman conquest of 1453.[3]

Today, the Islamic State has destroyed or converted churches, shrines, and other monuments (including Muslim sites) in Iraq and Syria.

Similar devastation took place under the various Islamic states in India, with something like 2000 Hindu temples destroyed to make way for mosques and other Muslim structures, while a similar fate befell others.

This extraordinary level of fanaticism is not unique to Islam (one only has to think of Oliver Cromwell and his puritans in England), but it has been far more extensive and has continued for many more centuries.

It is a totalitarian puritanism. Today’s resolution against the Jewish faith must be put in this context.

Today, the Mecca and Medina of the first and second centuries of the Islamic faith have been all but wrecked, not by the Islamic State or any other radical entity, but by the Wahhabi Saudi government. In the past two decades, major historical sites in Mecca and Medina, all related to the lifetime of the Islamic Prophet Mohammad and shortly after, have been destroyed or disfigured to the point where neither city is recognizable save for the Ka’ba and the Grand Mosque in Mecca, and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina. And the two major mosques are themselves much expanded modern constructions.[4]

UNESCO has put Jewish sites with Muslim names into Muslim hands, in the heart of Israel’s capital, to try slowly to destroy the Jewish state. UNESCO is not fooling anyone.

It may not be long before Christian holy places and churches in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth will also be handed over on a plate to placate the forces of Islam, fearful of what they may do not just in the Middle East, but in Europe, North America and Europe, happy to have someone finally try to eliminate those supposedly pesky Jews. All Judeo-Christian countries would be wise to pull out of the UN, or at least cease funding it — before it is too late for them, too.

Denis MacEoin is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He has just completed work on a large study of Western concerns about Islam.


[1] See William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford University Press, 1956, p. 69. And see Yousef Meri, Ka’aba, Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide, Oxford University Press, 2011

[2] There is more than one version of this tale, but it is broadly this: the Ka’aba was first built by the Prophet Adam with the help of angels, then destroyed in Noah’s flood, and finally rebuilt by the Prophet Abraham and his son Ishmael. The Qur’an itself advances the story about Abraham’s role:

“And [remember] when We made the House [that is, the Ka’aba] a place of visitation [a pilgrimage site] for mankind, and a sanctuary, ‘Take the place of Abraham as a place of prayer.’ And we made a covenant with Abraham and Ishmael, ‘Purify My House for those who circumambulate, those who live there in retreat, and those who bow and prostrate.” …. And [remember] when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House, ‘Our Lord, accept it from us. Truly, You are the Hearing and the Knowing.'” [Qur’an 2: 125, 127]

[3] The former Portuguese cathedral of Tangier, now the city’s Great Mosque; the Christian basilica of St. John the Baptist, captured in 634 and turned into the Great Umayyad Mosque, one of the oldest, and considered the fourth holiest site in Islam; the small Catholic Basilica of Saint Vincent of Lérins, after the Umayyad conquest demolished to make way for the Great Mosque of Córdoba (restored as a cathedral after the Renconquista in 1236). Under the Ottomans, churches in Cyprus and Hungary were replaced as mosques; and as French colonies became independent in the 20th century, many churches were converted into mosques, including the St. Philip Cathedral in Algiers, the Cathédrale Notre-Dame des Sept Douleurs in Constantine (Algeria), the Tripoli Cathedral and the Benghazi Cathedral in Libya.

[4] The vast Jannat al-Baqi cemetery, which holds so many remains of Muhammad’s family, close companions and the earliest Muslim saints, has been levelled, and all domes and mausoleums turned to dust. That act followed earlier levellings by Wahhabis in 1906 and the ultra-Wahhabi Ikhwan in 1925. Those included the graves of the martyrs of the Battle of Uhud and that of Hamza, the prophet’s uncle and most beloved supporter. So too the Mosque of Fatima (Muhammad’s daughter), the Mosque of the Manaratayn (the twin minarets), and the cupola that marked the burial place of the prophet’s incisor tooth. Medina as well, the home of Muhammad’s Ethiopian wife, Maryam, where his son Ibrahim was born, has been paved over. In Mecca, the house of his first wife, Khadija, the first person to whom he divulged his mission, has been turned into public toilets. In 1998, the grave of the prophet’s mother, Amina bint Wahb, was bulldozed in Abwa, after which gasoline was poured on it and set alight.

Council of Europe warns Turkey over death penalty plans

October 30, 2016

Council of Europe warns Turkey over death penalty plans

STRASBOURG – Agence France-Presse

October/30/2016

Source: Council of Europe warns Turkey over death penalty plans – EUROPE

The Council of Europe warned Turkey against re-establishing the death penalty on Oct. 30.

“Executing the death penalty is incompatible with membership of the Council of Europe,” the 47-member organization, which includes Turkey, tweeted a day after President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said his government would ask parliament to consider reintroduction.

Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz added to the Council’s warning, denouncing Turkey for considering a move that would “slam the door shut to the European Union.”

“The death penalty is a cruel and inhumane form of punishment, which has to be abolished worldwide and stands in clear contradiction to European values,” Kurz told the Austrian Press Agency.

Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland had in August warned Ankara about reinstating capital punishment, noting that the European Convention on Human Rights, which Turkey has ratified, clearly excluded it.

The Convention, signed in 1983, excludes capital punishment except in time of war or imminent threat of war and a 2002 protocol ended the time-of-war proviso.

Liberal Submission: Protect Islam, Defame Christianity

October 23, 2016

Liberal Submission: Protect Islam, Defame Christianity

by Giulio Meotti

October 23, 2016 at 6:00 am

Source: Liberal Submission: Protect Islam, Defame Christianity

  • If an imam violently protests something, the liberal elite always supports the false charge of “Islamophobia.” If a peaceful protest is led by a Catholic bishop, the same elite always rejects it under the name of “freedom of expression.”
  • The “Caliph” of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ridiculed by Charlie Hebdo, triggered self-censorship because of “hate speech,” while the work of Chris Ofili “The Holy Virgin Mary,” in which the mother of Jesus is covered with feces and images of genitalia, was defended by the New York Times as “free speech.” Does this now mean that some religions are more equal than others?
  • On Halloween night, only the “Sexy Nun” is available, while “Caliph” Baghdadi can rape his Yazidi and Christian sex slaves with impunity.

The world’s biggest shopping portal, Amazon, sells many Halloween costumes. One of the novelties in 2016 has been the “Sexy Burka“, the typical obscurantist cloak that the Taliban and the Islamic State impose on women. But the sexy burqa, which on Amazon UK was priced at £18.99, did not last long.

The commercial colossus of Jeff Bezos removed the item from the website, after Amazon had been swamped with accusations of “racism”, “Islamophobia,” of marketing an Islamic garment with the white face of a model and using “a religious garment for commercial purposes”, they really could have used a SEO Imperator Agency to help them with the way they give out their content. “You are disgusting, my culture is not your costume”, wrote many users of the Islamic faith. Others used a less adorable tone: “Whoever you are, you should fear Allah. This is not a joke.”

A spokesman for Amazon promptly responded: “All Marketplace sellers must follow our selling guidelines and those who don’t will be subject to action including potential removal of their account. The product in question is no longer available”.

So that Halloween parody of the global symbol of female oppression has been censored. It is because Islamic veils contradict Western values of freedom, equality and human dignity so totally that this relativistic progressive mentality defends these Islamic veils, as it does the burkini, with loyalty.

But here also lies a double standard. What about the “Sexy Nun” Halloween costume that mocks the Catholic Church? Despite the protests of many Catholics customers, the “Sexy Nun” is still on sale at Amazon. Is it not a form of “Christianophobia”? Also, a nun is a religious figure, while a burqa is mere cloth.

Spot the offensive costume — or the hypocrisy. Online retailer Amazon removed the “Sexy Burka” costume (left) after accusations of “Islamophobia.” But despite the protests of many Catholics customers, the “Sexy Nun” (right) is still on sale at Amazon.

Take The Guardian, the most famous British liberal-left newspaper. When the Pussy Riot performers put on their supposedly offensive 3-minute show in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral, for which two of the three performers served jail time rather than repudiate the text (the third apologized to avoid jail), the paper defended them as “pure protest poetry.” When the political group PEGIDA called to protest against Islamization in Germany, the same media blasted it as “a vampire we must slay.” The same double standard also emerged during the battle to build a mosque near Ground Zero, when the liberal media sided with the Muslim community.

In January 2006, Norway’s most famous cartoonist, Finn Graff, announced that he was censoring himself over Mohammed. Graff never had a problem in making fun of Christians, whom he depicted as wearing brown shirts and swastikas. Graff had also penned a number of controversial drawings against Israel, one of which showed the Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin as the commander of a Nazi concentration camp.

The same happened with German-American filmmaker Roland Emmerich, director of many disaster movies. He abandoned a plan to obliterate Islam’s holiest site on the big screen for fear of attracting a fatwa (religious opinion) calling for his death. For his movie, “2012”, Emmerich wanted to demolish the Kaaba, the iconic cube-shaped structure in the Grand Mosque in Mecca. “You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa”, Emmerich said. At least he was honest.

After the massacre of most of the staff at the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, all major Western liberal newspapers, television networks and photo agencies, starting with the “Big Three” (MSNBC, CNN and AP), competed in justifying their shameful decision to censor the cover of Charlie Hebdo, in which the Islamic Prophet Mohammed says “all is forgiven.” CNN said it might offend “the sensitivities of a Muslim audience.” One year later, when Charlie Hebdo published a new cover depicting a Judeo-Christian “killer God” rather than the Islamic Prophet, CNN showed it.

In 2015, the BBC described the Charlie Hebdo‘s cover but did not show it, a choice that the British network did not repeat a year later when Charlie Hebdo released the new anti-Christian cover. The same double standard came from the British conservative paper the Daily Telegraph, which cut the cover with the caricature of Mohammed but published one with an Abrahamic God.

The Associated Press in 2015 censored the Islamic cartoons of Charlie Hebdo as well. The reason? “Deliberately provocative.” In 2016, the agency had no trouble in showing the new cover depicting not Mohammed but the Judeo-Christian God.

This double standard of the liberal elite had also emerged at the New York Times, which out of “respect” towards the Muslim faith censored the Mohammed caricatures of Charlie Hebdo — only to decide, in total disrespect, that the Gray Lady could and should publish the work “Eggs Benedict” by Nikki Johnson, exhibited at the Milwaukee Art Museum, in which condoms of various colors form the face of Pope Benedict XVI.

The “Caliph” of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ridiculed by Charlie Hebdo, triggered self-censorship because of “hate speech,” while the work of Chris Ofili “The Holy Virgin Mary,” in which the mother of Jesus is covered with feces and images of genitalia, was defended by the New York Times as “free speech.” Does this now mean that some religions are more equal than others?

If an imam violently protests something, the liberal elite always supports the false charge of “Islamophobia.” If a peaceful protest is led by a Catholic bishop, the same elite always rejects it under the name of “freedom of expression.”

Forget the “Sexy Burqa.” On Halloween night, only the “Sexy Nun” is available, while “Caliph” Baghdadi can rape his Yazidi and Christian sex slaves with impunity.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Vetting the Migrants

October 5, 2016

Vetting the Migrants, Political Islam via YouTube, October 4, 2016

(We can’t even vet adequately for jihadists. — DM)

The blurb beneath the video states,

As Syrian refugees and other migrants are being brought to the US, we hear that we don’t need to worry about any nasty “terrorists” (jihadists, to use the right word), because they will be vetted.

We are worrying about the wrong kind of jihad. The “terrorist” is the least of our worries. Instead, we need to concern ourselves about the jihad of the increasing demands and use of Sharia. It is the Sharia that annihilates a native civilization. For an example, before the Sharia, Turkey was a Christian civilization. Today it is 99.7% Muslim. It was jihad that put the Sharia in place, and then, over the centuries, Christianity was annihilated.

Our vetting needs to focus on the Sharia, not just violence. The US has taken a stand against racial hatred, why not take a stand against Kafir hatred?
We need to say no to Sharia wife-beating, no to Sharia Kafir hatred, no to the Sharia killing of apostates, no to Sharia suppression of free speech, no to Sharia abuse of women.

When Islam came to Medina in the first migration, Medina was half Jewish and with some Arab Muslims. Five years later, Medina was totally Islamic and with no Jews. Annihilation by migration and Sharia is pure Sunna.

Why do we want American citizens who think our Constitution is haram (Sharia forbidden) and that Kafirs are scum? We need to vet all migrants and insist they repudiate political Sharia.

The oath of citizenship should read: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, sovereignty, religious legal system of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

London’s Islamist-Linked Mayor Tells U.S. Audience: ‘Immigrants Shouldn’t Assimilate’

September 17, 2016

London’s Islamist-Linked Mayor Tells U.S. Audience: ‘Immigrants Shouldn’t Assimilate’

by Raheem Kassam

16 Sep 2016

Source: London’s Islamist-Linked Mayor Tells U.S. Audience: ‘Immigrants Shouldn’t Assimilate’

London’s Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan has continued his pro-Hillary Clinton tour of the United States by declaring that immigrants into the West should not be forced to assimilate.

His comments come hot on the heels of the Chicago press exposing his connections to radical Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Mr. Khan, who was elected to be London’s mayor in May 2016, has also used his trip to claim that Republican candidate Donald Trump is “playing into the hands” of the Islamic State.

His trip runs contrary to the U.S. visit from former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, who presented an upbeat message of defeating the political establishment on stage with Donald Trump.

Instead, Mr. Khan insisted: “One of the lessons from around the world is that a laissez-faire or hands-off approach to social integration doesn’t work. We need rules, institutions, and support to enable people to integrate into cohesive communities and for the avoidance of doubt, I don’t mean assimilation, I mean integration, and there’s a difference”.

He added: “People shouldn’t have to drop their cultures and traditions when they arrive in our cities and countries”.

The United Kingdom, and especially areas of East London which overwhelmingly voted for Mr. Khan, is currently suffering from Muslim ghettoisation, horrific employment rates for Muslim women, an internal debate surrounding the banning of the burka, and ongoing issues such as female genital mutilation, anti-Semitism, and homophobia within Muslim communities.

Under Mr. Khan’s plans, none of these “cultures and traditions” would need to be dropped for Muslim migrants to Western countries.

According to VOA News, Mr. Khan called himself a “big fan” of Hillary Clinton, adding: “We play straight into the hands of those who seek to divide us, of extremists and terrorists around the world, when we imply that it’s not possible to hold Western values dear and to be a Muslim”.

Mr. Khan has been repeatedly criticised for connections with former Guantanamo Bay detainees, as well as known Muslim extremists in the United Kingdom. His appearances have been widely covered by Britain’s media, but are routinely ignored by the political establishment.

He has also pledged to ban images of women not covered up from advertisements on the London Underground (Tube).

Recently, Breitbart London revealed that Mr. Khan appointed an extremism-linked advisor to his City Hall team.

Arriving at Qatar airport

August 22, 2016

 

This is needed on the airport in the Netherlands .

H/T   E.J. Bron

https://ejbron.wordpress.com/