Islamists in America | WarSclerotic | Page 15

Posted tagged ‘Islamists in America’

Donald Trump and Islamists

August 19, 2016

Donald Trump and Islamists, Dan Miller’s Blog, August 20, 2016

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

An “Islamist” is a Muslim who seeks to impose Islamic (Sharia) law worldwide, including in America. There are Muslims in America who do not want that to happen, yet few of them seek actively to prevent it. I refer here to those who do try, not as “moderate Muslims” — an essentially badly used and hence meaningless term — but as “Muslim reformers.”

On August 15th, Donald Trump delivered an address, generally well-received in conservative circles, on the dangers of Islamist immigration and how he intends to guard against those who intend to have Sharia law imposed and/or to engage in terrorist activities.

Here’s a video of Trump’s address:

The text is available here.

Here’s a video about Trump’s plan:

According to an article at Breitbart titled Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt,

In his foreign policy speech on Monday, Donald Trump stated that he would “amplify the voice” of moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, saying, “Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.”

He also said that he would work with Egypt, Jordan and Israel in combating radical Islam, saying, “As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished.” [Emphasis added.]

He said that, as President, he would establish a “Commission on Radical Islam,” saying, “That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Under the Obama Administration, US policy has not been friendly towards our Muslim allies such as Egypt. Hillary Clinton recently said in a primary debate with Bernie Sanders that, in Egypt, you basically have an “army dictatorship”.

Egypt is one of the most catastrophic foreign policy failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. President Obama started his outreach to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood when he delivered his 2009 Cairo speech. The US Embassy invited 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend the speech, undermining US ally Mubarak – who had rejected to previous U.S. efforts to reach out to the Brotherhood. [Emphasis added.]

Islamism

Islamism is a totalitarian vision to impose Sharia law worldwide:

Unfortunately, Obama’s “countering violent extremism” farce has chosen to ignore, if not to encourage and even adopt, Sharia law and its consequences:

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is a Muslim reformer of the type Trump hopes to recruit for his efforts. A video of an interview with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an American Muslim of Syrian descent and a proponent of an Islamic reformation, is provided below. However, first it will be useful to understand the goals of Dr. Jasser and his His organization, American Islamic Forum for Democracy:

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s (AIFD) mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.

AIFD is the most prominent American Muslim organization directly confronting the ideologies of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic State (Islamism). Founded by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD looks to build the future of Islam through the concepts of liberty and freedom.

AIFD’s mission is derived from a love for America and a love of our faith of Islam. Dr. Jasser and the board of AIFD believe that Muslims can better practice Islam in an environment that protects the rights of an individual to practice their faith as they choose. The theocratic “Islamic” regimes of the Middle East and some Muslim majority nations use Islam as a way to control Muslim populations, not to glorify God as they portend. The purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic.

AIFD believes that the root cause of Islamist terrorism is the ideology of political Islam and a belief in the preference for and supremacy of the Islamic state. Terrorism is but a means to that end. Most Islamist terror is driven by the desire of Islamists to drive the influence of the west (the ideas of liberty) out of the Muslim consciousness and Muslim majority societies. The underlying philosophy of Islamism is what western society should fear most. With almost a quarter of the world’s population Muslim, American security will never come without an understanding and winning out of the ideas of liberty by Muslims and an understanding of the harm of political Islam by non-Muslims.

AIFD seeks to build and establish an institution that can provide an ideological infrastructure for the ideas of liberty and freedom to Muslims and our future generations. We seek to give Muslims a powerful intellectual alternative to political Islam (Islamism) ultimately seeking the defeat of political Islam as a theo-political ideology.

Some readers will likely think that Dr. Jasser’s efforts to reform Islam would, in the unlikely event that they prove successful, create something that is not Islam. I disagree. Mohamed (and hence Islam) changed quite radically when he was driven out of Mecca and settled in Medina, where he became a warlord. In Mecca, he had been relatively peaceful and tolerant of other religions. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali states here,

In the early days of Islam, when Muhammad was going from door to door in Mecca trying to persuade the polytheists to abandon their idols of worship, he was inviting them to accept that there was no god but Allah and that he was Allah’s messenger.

After 10 years of trying this kind of persuasion, however, he and his small band of believers went to Medina, and from that moment, Muhammad’s mission took on a political dimension. Unbelievers were still invited to submit to Allah, but after Medina, they were attacked if they refused. If defeated, they were given the option to convert or to die. (Jews and Christians could retain their faith if they submitted to paying a special tax.) [Emphasis added.]

No symbol represents the soul of Islam more than the Shahada. But today there is a contest within Islam for the ownership of that symbol. Who owns the Shahada? Is it those Muslims who want to emphasize Muhammad’s years in Mecca or those who are inspired by his conquests after Medina? On this basis, I believe that we can distinguish three different groups of Muslims.

The first group is the most problematic. These are the fundamentalists who, when they say the Shahada, mean: “We must live by the strict letter of our creed.” They envision a regime based on Shariah, Islamic religious law. They argue for an Islam largely or completely unchanged from its original seventh-century version. What is more, they take it as a requirement of their faith that they impose it on everyone else.

I shall call them Medina Muslims, in that they see the forcible imposition of Shariah as their religious duty. They aim not just to obey Muhammad’s teaching but also to emulate his warlike conduct after his move to Medina. Even if they do not themselves engage in violence, they do not hesitate to condone it. [Emphasis added.]

It is Medina Muslims who call Jews and Christians “pigs and monkeys.” It is Medina Muslims who prescribe death for the crime of apostasy, death by stoning for adultery and hanging for homosexuality. It is Medina Muslims who put women in burqas and beat them if they leave their homes alone or if they are improperly veiled.

The second group—and the clear majority throughout the Muslim world—consists of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice violence. I call them Mecca Muslims. Like devout Christians or Jews who attend religious services every day and abide by religious rules in what they eat and wear, Mecca Muslims focus on religious observance. I was born in Somalia and raised as a Mecca Muslim. So were the majority of Muslims from Casablanca to Jakarta. [Emphasis added.]

Yet the Mecca Muslims have a problem: Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited status.

Trapped between two worlds of belief and experience, these Muslims are engaged in a daily struggle to adhere to Islam in the context of a society that challenges their values and beliefs at every turn. Many are able to resolve this tension only by withdrawing into self-enclosed (and increasingly self-governing) enclaves. This is called cocooning, a practice whereby Muslim immigrants attempt to wall off outside influences, permitting only an Islamic education for their children and disengaging from the wider non-Muslim community.

It is my hope to engage this second group of Muslims—those closer to Mecca than to Medina—in a dialogue about the meaning and practice of their faith. I recognize that these Muslims are not likely to heed a call for doctrinal reformation from someone they regard as an apostate and infidel. But they may reconsider if I can persuade them to think of me not as an apostate but as a heretic: one of a growing number of people born into Islam who have sought to think critically about the faith we were raised in. It is with this third group—only a few of whom have left Islam altogether—that I would now identify myself. [Emphasis added.]

These are the Muslim dissidents. A few of us have been forced by experience to conclude that we could not continue to be believers; yet we remain deeply engaged in the debate about Islam’s future. The majority of dissidents are reforming believers—among them clerics who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of political violence.

How many Muslims belong to each group? Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations estimates that only 3% of the world’s Muslims understand Islam in the militant terms I associate with Muhammad’s time in Medina. But out of well over 1.6 billion believers, or 23% of the globe’s population, that 48 million seems to be more than enough. (I would put the number significantly higher, based on survey data on attitudes toward Shariah in Muslim countries.)

In any case, regardless of the numbers, it is the Medina Muslims who have captured the world’s attention on the airwaves, over social media, in far too many mosques and, of course, on the battlefield.

The Medina Muslims pose a threat not just to non-Muslims. They also undermine the position of those Mecca Muslims attempting to lead a quiet life in their cultural cocoons throughout the Western world. But those under the greatest threat are the dissidents and reformers within Islam, who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats—or face death itself. [Emphasis added.]

For the world at large, the only viable strategy for containing the threat posed by the Medina Muslims is to side with the dissidents and reformers and to help them to do two things: first, identify and repudiate those parts of Muhammad’s legacy that summon Muslims to intolerance and war, and second, persuade the great majority of believers—the Mecca Muslims—to accept this change. [Emphasis added.]

Islam is at a crossroads. Muslims need to make a conscious decision to confront, debate and ultimately reject the violent elements within their religion. To some extent—not least because of widespread revulsion at the atrocities of Islamic State, al Qaeda and the rest—this process has already begun. But it needs leadership from the dissidents, and they in turn stand no chance without support from the West. [Emphasis added.]

Is Dr. Jasser a Mecca Muslim, who wants Islam to revert to the religion as practiced in Mecca? So it seems to me, and that is by no means what the Council on American Islamic relations (CAIR) wants. It has labeled Dr. Jasser and his organization “Islamophobic:”

In 2013, CAIR published a major report, “Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States,” which identifies 37 organizations dedicated to promoting the type of anti-Islam prejudice that can lead to bias-motivated incidents targeting American Muslims. The Islamophobia report isavailable on Kindle.

Jasser was featured in that report as an enabler of anti-Muslim bigotry. The report noted that Jasser heads a group that “applauded” an amendment to Oklahoma’s state Constitution that would have implemented state-sponsored discrimination against Islam.

Jasser also narrated “The Third Jihad,” a propaganda film created by the Clarion Fund, which depicts Muslims as inherently violent and seeking world domination. Following revelations that the film was shown as part of training at the New York Police Department, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly called it “wacky” and “objectionable.”

Here is the “propaganda film” referred to by CAIR:

Finally, here is Dr. Jasser’s video about Trump’s plan to evaluate the ideological views of Muslims who attempt to enter the United States with a view to keeping out those who favor Sharia law, terrorism and the Islamisation of America. Dr. Jasser favors it and also offers good advice.

If, as seems likely, President Trump replaces the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-linked organizations such as CAIR with non-Islamist, Muslim reform organizations such Dr. Jasser’s, the focus will shift from the Department of Homeland Security’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program of demonizing “Islamophobia” to excluding Islamists from American and preventing their domestic terror activities as well as defeating their efforts directed to the Islamisation of America and the imposition of Sharia law.

Dr. Jasser and his reformist colleagues have not been shy about how they view Islam and how they want it to change. As Hirsi Ali noted in the article quoted above,

[T]hose under the greatest threat are the dissidents and reformers within Islam, who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats—or face death itself.

I submit that it up to us, not to reject them on the notion that all Muslims are dangerous, but to accept them — as Donald Trump appears to have done — and to work with them in their efforts to change not only Islam but how it functions in America.

Categories: CAIR, Donald Trump, Islam, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic terrorism, Islamist organizations, Islamists, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Sharia law, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: CAIR, Donald Trump, Islam, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic terrorism, Islamist organizations, Islamists, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Sharia law, Zuhdi Jasser

Comments: Be the first to comment

What’s the Number of Terrorists We’ll Accept from a U.S. Mosque Before We Start Asking Questions?

August 19, 2016

What’s the Number of Terrorists We’ll Accept from a U.S. Mosque Before We Start Asking Questions? Counter Jihad, Shireen Qudosi, August 19, 2016

[A]s a collective society, we need Muslim Reformer-lead conversation about Islamic philosophy, a principle tenet in Trump’s foreign policy speech

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

In the aftermath of one of Islamism’s bloodiest summers, Western countries are stepping up efforts to filter for potential threats. Germany has held raids targeting Islamist preachers suspected of recruiting ISIS supporters. Belgium launched a police hunt for an imam’s son who walked down the street loudly praying to Allah for the annihilation of all Christians. And France recently banned the “burkini” – the Muslim adaptation of a swimsuit. At this point, it’s a bandage on a gaping wound. More aggressive and strategic measures need to be taken to target the environment where Islamic supremacism flourishes, rather than just the behavior it produces. One place is in U.S. mosques.

For the last year, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has rallied for greater U.S. mosque surveillance. He’s introduced a series of ideas that are both shocking and bold in a climate where one more serious domestic terrorist attack could very likely escalate the situation beyond our control.

Principal among them, Giuliani proposed electronic monitoring tags and bracelets for Muslims on the terror watch list. The problem with this is ensuring the right people are on that list. If that watch list is anything like the TSA no-fly list (easy to get on, impossible to get off of), we have a problem. And just like with mosque surveillance that is made public, tracking radical threats doesn’t deter their activity. Islamic extremists have a start-up mentality: they are extremely flexible and expect to adapt to the environment. In the case of next generation Muslims, that activity will shift to universities, social venues, and online. This is why announcing a surveillance program is an ill-advised move. Don’t announce it, just do it.

The fact is, 80% of U.S. mosques are known to be complicit in promoting violence. The Islamic Society of Boston is one of them. At this one mosque we find, not only inciters of violence and hatred, but the inevitable result of that incitement: actual violent jihadists who’ve drawn blood. In the case of the ISB, it was perpetrators of the Boston Marathon Massacre in 2013.

And when Islamists complain about the need for mosques, chatter among Millennial Muslims show a growing frustration for mushrooming mosques at the expense of diminishing community services for Muslims in need. In other words, Muslims themselves say the mosques aren’t necessary.

However, tracking activity within mosques is necessary given the causal relationship between extremism and mosque affiliation. For Giuliani, the imperative on tracking red-flagged Muslims with bracelets comes after a string of Western attacks by extremists who were on a terror watch list – or had at some point been detained for questioning. Though active monitoring can be implemented, there’s a greater question of resources. The reason many of these red-flagged terrorists went under the radar was because officials were simply overwhelmed with data.

The solution to curtailing America’s terror threat isn’t just one extreme solution or another; it’s a combination of extreme measures paired with creative initiatives. This starts with recognizing that mosques are a portal for Islamism and extremism. This is not to say that every mosque is hoarding ammunitions in the backroom, but rather mosques (1) aren’t challenging their own narratives of Islamic supremacy within their congregation and community, and (2) aren’t rejecting hate preachers who hold an animosity toward at West.

In addition to more sound surveillance programs that perhaps works with progressive Muslims, it would be advisable to put searing pressure on mosques, leaders, organizers and Islamic organizations that makes it clear that ambivalence, acceptance, and/or embrace of radical Islamic philosophy will not be tolerated. This means that as a collective society, we need Muslim Reformer-lead conversation about Islamic philosophy, a principle tenet in Trump’s foreign policy speech.

Alongside, the U.S. government has to recognize it’s in an ideological war, meaning that empowering counter narratives among Muslim reformers and critical thinkers – and funding initiatives and centers spearheaded by them – is no longer an option to be explored; it must be supported. This doesn’t mean additional funds for CVEor vague counter-terrorism funding. It means funds for hoisting the flag of reform and making it possible for true progressive to establish ideological lighthouses that build a movement.

But there’s a larger problem: a total lack of solidarity between party lines and across national and state agencies.

Giuliani correctly pointed out the need for continued surveillance programs, especially after the Orlando Shooting – an attack that is strongly suspected to have been triggered in part by radical imams. These programs were in place under Bloomberg but were halted under current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The New York City Police Department has also faced wavering support for its efforts to combat Islamic extremism in the city that has faced the most brutal Western assault by Islamic extremists. Though a post 9/11 era saw support for increased surveillance and controls, that support has dwindled with each changing of the guards – at a national stage from Bush to Obama, and more regionally, between NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to newcomer Bill Bratton. Bratton disbanded a critical undercover police unit assigned to look for terrorist activity in New York Mosques and social venues popular among local Muslims. Bratton also chose to shelf an instrumental 92 pages report that was heralded as groundbreaking.

And nationally, while the CIA and the FBI joined forces post 9/11 to pool resources and create efficient information networks, the FBI has largely failed in their attempt to recruit and deploy undercover agents. Caught between fruitless community relations with Islamists and a failure to put into action credible undercover assets, the FBI has faced a backlash from the Muslim community for entrapment scenarios that have actually created viable threats.

It’s clear that any plan moving forward is going to need having everyone on the same page. That starts with recognizing we’re dealing with an ideological problem that goes beyond jihadi training grounds overseas. We’re dealing with a mindset that goes beyond mosques and borders.

Categories: Countering violent extremism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamic reformation, Islamists in America, Mosques, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism
Tags: Countering violent extremism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamic reformation, Islamists in America, mosques, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Nashville Sheriff To Force All New Hires Thru “Islam 101” Course, Taught by Muslims

August 19, 2016

Nashville Sheriff To Force All New Hires Thru “Islam 101” Course, Taught by Muslims, Creeping Sharia, August 18, 2016

(All bold print is from the original. — DM)

nashville_muslims_4494

Sheriff Daron Hall (right) talks with Zulfat Suara of the American Muslim Advisory Council about new “Islam 101” class for jail guards.

Source: Nashville Sheriff To Hire Advocate For Muslim Inmates And Add ‘Islam 101’ To Jail Guard Training | Nashville Public Radio

Davidson County Sheriff Daron Hall says he wants jail guards to better understand the practices and beliefs of Muslim inmates. So he has accepted a request from local Muslim leaders to teach “Islam 101” classes for jail staff, and he plans to hire a part-time advocate as a go-between with inmates.

Does Hall want his staff to understand stonings, amputations, beheadings and other “practices and beliefs” of Muslims? Or the whitewashed version of sharia that Islamic supremacists will sell him for a nice price?

Hall’s moves follow a recent sit-down meeting with highly influential Islamic leaders. And they come at a time when the Muslim community is growing, along with their presence inside county jails.

“Let me be very blunt about it: We need a much better understanding in law enforcement, in this country, in this city, anywhere, to understand the various cultural issues,” Hall said in opening the July 12 meeting. “We need help understanding what the sensitivities about various religious and other aspects are so we’re not stomping all over what is a very precious feeling.”

Let us be blunt: THIS IS AMERICA – NOT A MUSLIM COUNTRY! When you are jailed for your crimes you lose some of your rights. The Sheriff Daron Hall’s of the country are failing in their duties to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Instead, they are aiding and abetting them.

Guards have learned to accommodate prayer times and dietary needs, Hall said. But there’s still the chance of causing friction, simply for lack of knowledge.

In other words, Hall’s staff has already been trained to submit to and enforce the sharia

He used the case of a DUI arrest as an example. While his team handles DUI defendants most days, he said they might not realize “that’s very offensive as it relates to the use of alcohol … they’re unaware of the sensitivity to that in the Muslim faith.”

The irony. The sheriff wants to treat drunk Muslims more sensitively than drunk non-Muslims. If they’re so sensitive, why are they drunk driving? You really can’t make this up.

The Davidson County Sheriff’s Office has run “cultural awareness” training for years, but it hasn’t been delivered by Muslims.

“The quality and the impact of that is minimal at best,” Hall told WPLN.

So the sheriff took the sit-down meeting with local imams and members of the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC), which is also meeting with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the field office of the FBI.

nashville_muslims_8992

Top staff in the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office met with Nashville Muslim leaders. Credit Tony Gonzalez / WPLN

[Comments from terror-listed HAMAS-front group CAIR removed]

Hall will send top administrators and all new hires through “Islam 101” first, and then he wants to incorporate the lesson into in-service training for current staff.

He’s also looking to AMAC to nominate candidates for the new part-time Muslim advocacy position. That person will work in jails and neighborhoods to relay messages, starting with the need for more Muslims to volunteer within the jails — a point made by the imams who see disgruntled letters from inmates.

The fox really is in the hen house in Nashville. Just what America needs, more Muslims in jails on top of the increasing number of Muslim criminals already in there.

More from the Tennessee Council 4 Political Justice who writes:

Did Sheriff Hall bother to vet the individuals and group he was embracing? Is he aware that the Islamic Center of Nashville and the Salahadeen Centerhosted another discredited ISNA official involved with Muslim prison chaplains?

In 2010, these mosques invited Louay Safi, who at that time was ISNA’s director of Communications and Leadership Development to speak to their congregations. Right before Safi’s Nashville visit, a Dallas newspaperpublished a story revealing the fact that Safi’s contract as a lecturer on Islam at military bases, had been suspended. Safi was a trainer on Islam at Fort Hood (Texas) in November 2009, when U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 Americans in a jihadist shooting spree. Safi had previously been identified as part of a terrorism financing group and was later named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing prosecution.

CAIR is another Muslim Brotherhood organization that was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution. Paul Galloway, the director of is the former director of the CAIR-Houston office. Galloway now lives in Nashville and is the director of the AMAC (American Muslim Advisory Council) and ACO (American Center for Outreach) – and one of the invitees who met with Sheriff Hall about training his staff on Islam.

The sheriff agreed with Galloway and the other Islamist representatives, that training for his staff can only be delivered by Muslims. The sheriff further agreed, the only way to ensure that all Muslim criminals’ demands are accommodated, he would hire a Muslim advocate.

Sheriff Hall has admitted that as the Muslim population in Davidson County has grown, so has “their presence inside county jails.”

In 2013, Davidson County’s population was 658,602 including approximately6,296 Muslims. That equals about 1% of the total population and yet, according to the sheriff, they make up to 10% of the jail population – “more than double what you’d find ten years ago.”

Speaking for the group, Galloway, said they also wanted to “be versed in the policies that govern the use of force in jails and what triggers local authorities to initiate deportation proceedings.”

Are these questions about deportation of illegal immigrant criminals or refugee criminals who would still subject to deportation? And why are they asking questions about use of force in jails? That sounds like Black Lives Matter talking.

Tennessee’s Islamist organizations including AMAC, ACO and the Faith and Culture Center (FCC), have formally joined forces with Black Lives Matter (BLM). The founder and president of the FCC, Daoud Abudiab, is also a founding member of AMAC, and the president of the board of the TN Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC). All these groups are collaborating with BLM.

AMAC and others also plan to meet with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the field office of the FBI – which tells you they are up to something else. What is it?

More subversion of law enforcement? Demands for greater diversity in the ranks of law enforcement? More opportunities to replay their victim narrative?

The real question that should be asked is if this is the religion of peace, why are there so many Muslim criminals in the Davidson County jails?

TCPJ knows all too well Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam does not even mean peace, it means submission. And AMAC is all about submitting the good people of Tennessee to sharia law. As noted in 2012, this same Muslim group has been submitting the Department of Children’s Services in Tennessee to the sharia.

They have the children covered and the jails. That’s a huge recruiting pool for their Islamic brainwashing.

Send the sheriff an email, here are some links to share with him and his staff.

Terror-linked Muslim Groups Vetting U.S. Prison Imams

Feds BOP Failed To Conduct Check On Prison Imam Who Called for Apostates Death

Terror cleric al-Awlaki trained Muslim chaplains at DoD

DoD’s Muslim chaplain program – birthed by convicted terrorist

U.S. military’s Muslim chaplains – trained & ‘vetted’ by Islamists

U.S. Military Hires Chaplains from Muslim Brotherhood Entity

Yale Muslim Chaplain: Muslims will win final victory in the West

Harvard’s Muslim chaplain sees wisdom in killing apostates

U.S. Prisons Churning Out Thousands Of Radicalized Muslims

Islamic Indoctrination in U.S. Prisons

Categories: CAIR, Countering violent extremism, FBI, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: CAIR, Countering violent extremism, FBI, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Sharia law, Tennessee

Comments: Be the first to comment

CAIR To Donald Trump: The Constitution Says Government Can’t Study or Criticize Radical Islam

August 18, 2016

CAIR To Donald Trump: The Constitution Says Government Can’t Study or Criticize Radical Islam, Breitbart, Neil Munro, August 16, 2016

(Please see also, Dr. Jasser discusses Donald Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” as part of plan to stop ISIS, — DM)

Boston-marathon-Bombing-AP-640x480

An Islamic group tied closely to jihadi terror groups is complaining that Donald Trump will violate the constitution by helping Americans better understand the nature of radical, jihad-promoting Islam.

“One of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community,” Trump declared in a reformist foreign policy speech on Monday.

“The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization … [and] we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism,” he said.

That promise of legal charges is a direct threat to the jihad-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has many material links to domestic and foreign groups that support Islamic war. CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation.

CAIR responded to Trump’s speech by suggesting that rhetorical and religious support (although not actions) for Islamic jihad terrorism is a constitutional right, both for Americans and for would-be immigrants who wish to introduce jihad and other Islamic ideas into the United States.

Trump’s proposal for a ‘commission’ that would identify for Americans the tenets of ‘radical Islam’ crosses the line into government interference in religious beliefs. Will a Trump administration entangle itself in interpretation of [Islamic] religious principles? Who will Trump appoint to decide what constitutes ‘radical Islam’? His current stable of Islamophobic [sic] advisers indicates that this commission would be packed with anti-Muslim bigots.

This government promotion of a state version of a particular religion would violate the First Amendment and put America on a path to a society in which those in power get to choose which beliefs are ‘correct’ and which are ‘incorrect.’

CAIR 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-relatedoffenses.

Breitbart News has published evidence highlighted by critics showing 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, was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS, and that the FBI bans top-level meetings with CAIR officials. “The FBI policy restricting a formal relationship with CAIR remains … [but] does not preclude communication regarding investigative activity or allegations of civil rights violations,” said an Oct. 2015 email from FBI spokesman Christopher Allen.

In 2009, a federal judge concluded that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with Hamas.”

The United Arab Emirates has included CAIR on its list of Muslim Brotherhood groups. CAIR has posted its defense here.

Trump’s call for a better understanding of Islam is part of his plan to reorient U.S. foreign policy to crush and delegitimize political Islam.

That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.

The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.

This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners…. Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country.

To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one.

Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home

…. But just like we couldn’t defeat communism without acknowledging that communism exists – or explaining its evils – we can’t defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism unless we do the same.

This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own way of life – and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.

Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society. Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion.

Our system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the world and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.

This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together as a country. Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country. It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common – not what pulls us apart.

Jihad is part of orthodox Islam, which also opposes the separation of religious law and the state. That makes it very different from Christianity, which theologically postpones the enforcement of religious law into the afterlife and so can theologically co-exist with secular governments, such as the United States government.

Islam’s twinning of jihad with religious piety explains the relative frequency of bloody jihad violence throughout the Muslim world, especially when inflicted on non-Muslims in the United States, Paris, Germany snd many other countries.

Also, Islam’s focus on Earthly rule, says critics, means that it is a hybrid idea that combines religion (which gets the protection of the First Amendment) with a violent political movement that can be constitutionally suppressed.

For example, Islam’s politicized ‘sharia law’ endorses the murder of Islam’s critics and of ex-Muslims — repeatedly, endlessly, forcefully — and its recommendations are deemed divine commandments by numerous killers and would-be killers.

Also, the Koran — which observant Muslims say is a list of verbatim commands from their deity, Allah — tells Muslims to “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah [penalty tax] willingly while they are humbled.”

Islamic scriptures say that Islam’s reputed founder, Muhammad, personally ordered or supported the death of many enemies, including at 10 critics and poets, who were the pre-modern equivalent of modern journalist and writers — such as the machine-gunned cartoonists at the Paris-based Charlie Hebdo magazine. Traditionalist or orthodox Muslims says Muhammad is a perfect model of behavior and should be emulated by Muslims today.

In contrast, some Western Muslims are trying to develop a modern, pacific Islam that emphasizes the long-discarded early and relatively peaceful commandments in Islam.

Categories: CAIR, Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: CAIR, Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

California: Muslims screaming “Allahu akbar!” through a bullhorn terrorize church during worship service

August 11, 2016

California: Muslims screaming “Allahu akbar!” through a bullhorn terrorize church during worship service, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, August 11, 2016

Father Josiah Trenham mentioned “intimidation” to the parishioners of St. Andrew Orthodox Church, and he was quite right: Islamic supremacists and jihadis routinely traffic in intimidation. That’s based on a Qur’anic command: “And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may strike terror in the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know, whom Allah knows” (Qur’an 8:60).

When they practice this intimidation, they generally find Westerners — especially Christian leaders — unwilling and unable to do anything in response but submit to it: the Christians are anxious to show themselves to be charitable and loving to the Muslims, without realizing that as far as the Muslims are concerned, this equates to surrender. Hence the many Christian leaders who counseled that in the face of the jihad murder of cartoonists of Muhammad, the charitable thing for Christians to do would be to accept the Sharia blasphemy restrictions on speech, at least regarding criticism of Muhammad.

This is not to say that Christians shouldn’t be charitable and loving, but sometimes the most charitable thing to do is to refuse to allow the intimidator a victory for his intimidation. Giving in to intimidation only encourages more of it. Christians in the U.S. need to have a public discussion of this point, since one thing is certain: there are going to be many, many more incidents like this one at St. Andrew Orthodox Church.

St-Andrew-Orthodox-Church

“Churches take new security measures in face of terror threats,” by Hollie McKay, Fox News, August 9, 2016:

As Father Josiah Trenham prepared to read the Gospel, several parishioners discreetly scooped up their babies, retreated up the aisles of St. Andrew Orthodox Church and out into the spring air, so as not to allow the crying of little ones to disturb the divine liturgy.

The time-honored tradition was shattered when a car passed by the Riverside, Calif., church, slowing down as the front passenger leaned out of his window and bellowed menacingly through a bullhorn, according to witnesses.

“Allahu Akbar!” the unidentified man repeated several times as the unnerved parents drew their infants close and exchanged worried glances.

Witnesses were able to give Riverside police a description of the green Honda Civic, but not of the three occupants. Some told police they believed one or more of the men may have been taking photographs, according to Officer Ryan Railsback. Although Trenham insisted multiple congregants heard the Arabic phrase, Railsback noted no mention of it was in the police report.

In omitting this, was the author of the police report running some politically correct interference for area Muslims?

Whatever the case, no law was broken – even if an unmistakable message was sent and received.

“Be calm and to keep a special vigilance over the property and our children while we are at church,” Trenham wrote in an email to parishioners in which he recounted the disturbing event. “Pray that these provocative young men might repent of their intimidation and be saved.”

Trenham told FoxNews.com last week the situation remains “tense and tenuous,” and said the church now has security officers on hand for all regular services.

“It is a deep sorrow to live this way in the ‘new America,’” he said.

The incident took place on April 12, some four months after a terror attack left 14 dead in nearby San Bernardino, and just over three months before a French priest was killed by ISIS-linked jihadists in his church. The events, whether far or near, underscore a grim new reality for pastors such as Trenham: Instead of offering sanctuary from evil, churches could in fact be attractive targets for terror….

In February, Khial Abu-Rayyan, 21, of Dearborn Heights, Mich., was arrested after he told an undercover FBI agent he was preparing to “shoot up” a major church near his home on behalf of ISIS. A month earlier, the Rev. Roger Spradlin of Valley Baptist Church – one of the biggest congregations in Bakersfield, Calif. – told attendees that they had received a threat written in Arabic.

“Undercover officers were then placed during worship services,” Valley Baptist spokesman Dave Kalahar said. “The FBI continues to investigate along with the local task force.”

Last September, an Islamic man clad in combat gear was charged with making a terrorist threat after entering Corinth Missionary Baptist Church, in Bullard, Tex., and claiming that God had instructed him to kill Christians and “other infidels.” A year earlier, police were called to Saint Bartholomew’s Catholic Church in Columbus, Ind., after the house of worship was vandalized with the word “Infidels!” along with a Koranic verse sanctioning death for nonbelievers. Similar graffiti was found that same night at nearby Lakeview Church of Christ and East Columbus Christian Church.

St. Bartholomew Pastor Clem Davis said he doesn’t know if the threat was legitimate, but said little can be done to harden a target whose mission is to welcome all.

“I don’t know that there is any real protection against the ‘lone wolf’ mentality, not without infringing on everybody’s freedoms,” Davis said. “We don’t have metal detectors, people go in and out. Churches are family-orientated, public, tax-supported spaces; so they may appeal to some as a target.”

Synagogues have faced increasing threats in recent years, too. Earlier this year, the FBI disrupted a plot by a Muslim convert to blow up the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center, in Aventura, Fla. A 2014 audit by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found that anti-Semitic incidents rose 21 percent across the country that year.

Eastern Orthodox Christians, who in many cases suffered persecution at the hands of radical Muslims in their Middle Eastern homelands, believe they may be singled out because of their heritage. Mass at St. Andrew typically attracts up to 400 worshippers with roots in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Russia and Greece.

“We have guards now; we never used to have guards,” said St. Andrew attendee Solomon Saddi, a Syrian-American Christian. “They keep an eye on everyone and talk to the faces that aren’t familiar,” he continued, referring to the aftermath of the April incident. “It is a very dangerous time for us even in America.”…

Categories: Islam and Christianity, Islam and terrorism, Islam in America, Islamic integration, Islamisation, Islamists in America
Tags: Islam and Christianity, Islam and terrorism, Islam in America, Islamic integration, Islamisation, Islamists in America

Comments: 1 Comment

Khan-flict: Freedom Fighter Son, Sharia Supremacist Father

August 2, 2016

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

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

Kahnstitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predictably, Ramadan concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: 1 Comment

Minnesota: City council gives terror mosque exclusive use of public park, violating fed law

July 30, 2016

Minnesota: City council gives terror mosque exclusive use of public park, violating fed law, Creeping Sharia, July 29, 2016

This is the third mosque post this week (see here and here). The theme is the same. Muslims bamboozle (i.e., lie to – taqiyya), or collude with, city councils to gain special privileges for mosques, then wreak havoc. We’ve been referring to it for years as the “Zoning Jihad” and have a growing category of examples (see here). A growing trend is converting churches to mosques. In the case below a Lutheran high school became a mega-mosque complex.

muslims only

Source: U.S. city rolls over for radical mosque by Leo Hohmann

A radical mosque known for breeding terrorists has been granted special privileges by the city of Bloomington, Minnesota, which allows its members to take over a public park and treat it as their own, to the exclusion of other residents, according to complaints filed by a citizens group.

The Friends of Smith Park started a petition drive and took its case to the Bloomington City Council with a formal complaint Monday night.

At issue is the Dar al-Farooq mosque, which WND has previously reported has a record of turning Somali refugees into jihadists for ISIS and other terror groups.

At least half a dozen known Somali terrorists have attended Dar al-Farooq in recent years including Adnan Farah, 20, and his brother Mohamed, 22, who pleaded guilty in April to providing material support to ISIS. The mosque is headed by Waleed Idris al-Meneesey, who preaches hatred of Jews straight from the Quran and the hadiths.

Now it has come to light that city officials in Bloomington have given al-Meneesy and his Sharia-compliant followers special privileges that violate its conditional-use permit, or CUP, and that are not offered to any other religious group, said attorney and retired Lt. Col. Larry Frost. By doing so, Frost said the city has exposed itself to potential lawsuits from churches and synagogues in the area that have not been afforded the same rights.

“According to your police officers, you’ve privileged Dal al-Farooq worshipers above all other religions. You’ve made Smith Park a Dar al-Farooq-only zone after the park is already closed, excluding citizens of all other faiths and those of no faith,” said Frost, who represents Friends of Smith Park.

The council members sat mum during Frost’s comments.

The list of abuses and alleged violations by Dar al Farooq, which was allowed to build in a residential area, is long. They range from dumping asbestos in the trash to having three to five times the occupancy allowed by its conditional-use permit, making excess noise, shining car lights and producing overflow parking at all hours of the night during the month of Ramadan – and to a lesser extent every weekend. The mosque members take over the adjacent public park and force out residents of nearby neighborhoods, often staying in the park well after the posted closing time of 11 p.m.

Neighbors have been told by mosque workers to get out of Smith Park “because the park belongs to [the Muslims],” said one local woman.

Another local resident, Matilda Zumba, who lives in a neighborhood near the mosque, approached the city council Monday night with an interpreter. She said she has two small children who are always playing outside.

“I’m very afraid because there is a lot of traffic and a lot of speeding and the people of Dar al-Farooq don’t respect our speed limits and the safety of our children,” Zumba told the council. “I’m also now afraid to take our children to the park because there are many people there who do not respect the rights of our own children to play there.

“A lot of times the other children don’t want to work together to share with our children. Sometimes their parents are there and they may shout at them but they don’t do anything, they just continue to let their children interfere. The park is very important to the Spanish community especially and we met there a lot, but now we don’t because we don’t feel safe.”

Mosque attendees have flooded the neighborhood with offsite parking, blocked driveways and walked through neighbors’ yards without permission. The city has told neighbors if they park in joint-use parking, the neighbors have to “hurry to the sidewalk” and get out of the parking lot so it would be available for the mosque.

Last week one supporter of the neighborhood group witnessed mosque abusers using joint-parking areas to practice driving at 1:30 a.m. – by using city garbage cans as obstacles. When the witness came to film the event, three young mosque members confronted him, one demanding to know what he was doing and telling him he could not film the offending car or its license. Later, a police officer told the witness that “only mosque members can use the parking lots after normal park hours” – in other words, the public space is reserved for use by one particular religion after it’s closed to the public.

The city took more than three years and 67 drafts to complete the conditional-use permit with the mosque. Built into that contract is a requirement that the city use a laborious five-phase, six-month enforcement process to correct any Dar al-Farooq violations.

“Clearly that’s a non-enforcement clause,” Frost said. “The city has to give this amazing provision to every new church applicant, and I would argue, every current CUP holder can demand the same. Why? Because you are privileging Dar al-Farooq above other religions.

“One of your own council members said ‘I feel like we’re punishing applicants that came after Dar al Farook,’ because you required them to do things that Dar al-Farooq is not required to do.”

The city council granted a conditional-use permit to Dar al Farooq enabling the mosque to operate in a residential neighborhood, then failed to enforce either the CUP or the joint-use agreement allowing the mosque to use Smith Park.

As a result, the neighbors of Smith Park have been reduced to second-class status, unable to use and enjoy a public park adjacent to their neighborhood.

Mosque actions violating the CUP and JUA were not stopped because the city attorney insisted that the federal Religious Land-use and Incarcerated Persons Act, commonly called RLUIPA, did not allow the city to enforce the CUP/JUA, effectively making the neighborhood around Dar al Farooq a zoning-free area. The city attorney also told council members that enforcement of the CUP could result in lawsuits against council members in their private capacities. Both legal ideas are flatly false, said Frost.

“Your own city attorney, former attorney, told you that you had to do that, but you made a grave legal and moral error when you signed a CUP and then didn’t enforce it, because that’s not what RLUPA says,” Frost told the council on Monday night.

RLUIPA is a federal statute that requires local governments to issue permits for houses of worship equally when it comes to construction projects.

“But once you have the CUP you’re no longer in the permitting phase – it is not a legal permitting issue,” Frost said. “Despite what your previous city attorney said, you can enforce the CUP and you must.”

Friends of Smith Park are asking only that all city council resolutions concerning Dar al Farooq be enforced, including retroactive enforcement where legal and appropriate – exactly as would be the case for all other religious institutions with a conditional-use permit.

Categories: Islamisation, Islamists in America, Minnesota, Muslims - special benefits
Tags: Islamisation, Islamists in America, Minnesota, Muslims - special benefits

Comments: Be the first to comment

Creeping Sharia in Health Care

July 28, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: Be the first to comment

Islamic Radical Opens Hillary Clinton’s Convention on Day Two

July 28, 2016

Islamic Radical Opens Hillary Clinton’s Convention on Day Two, Breitbart, Neil Munro, July 26, 2016

Clinton imam

Hillary Clinton’s progressive Democratic Party invited an Islamic fundamentalist who rejects any acceptance of homosexual sex, and who is also an religious ally of the Muslim Brotherhood jihad group, to open its convention on Tuesday.

The party’s welcome for the radical Islamic preacher spotlights progressives’ repeated promotion of diverse foreign cultures — such as the Spanish-speaking illegal immigrant on Day One — and showcased the party’s deep condescension toward the indirect political power of religious ideas to promote or demote justice in society.

The African-American Islamist, Sherman Jackson, has defended jihad and pre-modern Islamic punishments, and has allied himself with at least two Islamic groups that were tied into a criminal effort to raise millions of dollars for the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group.

For example, in a 2009 lecture, he insisted that Islam will never accept homosexuality as legitimate and equal, and he notably declined to condemn orthodox Islam’s Allah-dictated death penalty for homosexuals. “Make a place for people who have a [homosexual] problem, yes. Make a place for people who want to redefine Islam, no,” said Jackson, who also calls himself Abdul al-Hakim Jackson.

Under orthodox Islamic law, people who have homosexual sex are to be killed either by being thrown over the side of a building or buried under a collapsing wall. As self-professed Muslims, the Islamic State’s acolytes have killed numerous homosexual Arabs by pushing them off of tall buildings.

Still, in many Muslim countries, officials generally ignore gays and ignore homosexuality if it is kept private.

Jackson has also served as member of the Fiqh Council of North America, who sets orthodox Islamic doctrine, or Fiqh, for observant, Sunni-style Muslims in the United States. In 2003, council’s president issued the group’s policy on homosexuality, backing exclusion and the death penalty;

Verily, the punishment here is the burning of both homosexuals (the actor and acted upon) or stoning them with rocks till death because Allah Most High stoned the people of Lut [Lot in the Bible] after demolishing their village …

In brief, verily this conduct, whether it comes from two males or females, is considered an abomination and a crime. Therefore, what these lewd people allege is not accepted by Islam at all and is rejected completely. Moreover, the fact that some religious groups, due to being pressured, have allowed their followers to engage in this conduct cannot be considered as justification for prohibited actions. There is precedence in history of some people changing their religions by adding and subtracting from them. As for Islam, it is unequivocal in this matter, for it does not accept any bargaining in any situation whatsoever.

The Muslim needs to take precautions against these deviants and not to give them any opportunity to mix with and corrupt their children. Furthermore, they are neither fit to establish masajid [mosques] and frequent them, nor are they fit to lead those who frequent the masjid whomever they may be. More importantly for them is to seek a cure for themselves from their own illness, to purify their souls from whatever filthiness became attached to it, and return to a sound path instead of mocking and ridiculing the sentiments of Muslims.

Allah Almighty knows best.

The council’s president, Taha Jabir Alalwani, died early 2016.

homo roof

Jackson has worked closely with the Islamic Society of North America, which is the U.S. religious arm of the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood. The brotherhood’s affiliates include the Jew-bating HAMAS group, which received $12 million from U.S.-based Muslims, according to evidence released during the Holy Land Foundation Trial in 2007.

HAMAS member regularly shoot unguided rockets towards Jewish civilians in town and villages throughout the democratic state of Israel.

Jackson has also been a board member of the North American Islamic Trust, which owns and funds most Sunni mosques in the United States. Both ISNA and NAIT were identified as un-indicted conspirators in the Holy Land terror-funding operation.

When opening his benediction, Jackson began by using an Arabic phrase, Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim. In English, the phrase means “In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Compassionate.”

However, Allah’s book of commandments, the Koran, urges unending uncompassionate war against non-Muslims until Islam takes government power throughout the world. Under Allah’s rules in the Koran, all non-Islamic ideas — homosexuality, free-speech, sexual freedom, sexual equality, democracy, science and many commercial and private activities — must be violently subordinated to a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy.

However, most U.S. progressives prefer to dismiss the power of Islamic ideas, amid the obvious sincerity and murderous seriousness of orthodox Islamic believers living in the United States or in Europe.

That dismissal is different from progressives’ contempt and hatred for Christianity — a mere “faith tradition” — because Christianity’s world-changing, pro-democracy, pro-freedom, pro-science ideals and its indirect political power has already proven its ability to constrict progressives’ power.

Jackson’s appearance at the convention also reflects the party’s self-interest in expanding federal authority to counter the chaos of government-imposed social diversity, and its close alliance with the loose network of Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States. Under that alliance, Obama’s White House is aiding the network in exchange for support from Muslim voters on election days.

That political relationship, however, is rocky, partly because the brotherhood groups don’t want to cooperate with Obama’s domestic anti-jihad strategy.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Convention, Democrat Party, Islam and homosexuals, Islamist moral values, Islamists in America
Tags: Democrat National Convention, Democrat Party, Islam and homosexuals, Islamist moral values, Islamists in America

Comments: Be the first to comment

Clinton VP tapped pro-terror Muslim leader for immigration seat

July 25, 2016

Clinton VP tapped pro-terror Muslim leader for immigration seat, Israel National News, David Rosenberg, July 25, 2016

(Please see also, Clinton VP Pick Tim Kaine’s Islamist Ties. — DM)

Kaine and his administration initially brushed off the criticism as mere Islamophobia.

Yet Omeish’s ties to terror and explicit support for violent Jihad quickly became apparent, ultimately leading Kaine to pressure Omeish to step down.

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

Virginia Senator and former Governor Tim Kaine has been the Democratic Party’s presumptive Vice Presidential nominee for just three days, yet the pick has already drawn fire from the pro-Israel community due in part to Kaine’s robust support for the Iran nuclear deal, his boycott of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress in 2015, and his ties to a left-wing NGO.

Now, a controversial appointment made during his tenure as Governor of Virginia has raised new questions about Kaine’s bona fides as a self-described “strongly pro-Israel Democrat”.

In 2007, then-Governor Kaine appointed Esam Omeish, a Libyan-born physician and then-president of the Muslim American Society, to Virginia’s Immigration Commission. This came despite Omeish’s history of ties and expressions of support for radical Islam and Jihadist terrorism.

Omeish is a long-time member of the Board of Directors of the Dar Al Hijrah mosque, which two of the 19 terrorists responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks attended, as friends of the mosque’s imam.

That imam was Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Salafist cleric who later fled the United States and joined Al-Qaeda, after settling in Yemen.

In 2010, President Obama placed al-Awlaki on the CIA “kill list”, citing his orchestration of deadly terror attacks against Americans. In 2011 a US drone strike killed al-Awlaki in southeast Yemen.

But Omeish was not merely a congregant at the Dar Al Hijrah mosque where al-Awlaki preached; in 2000, he was vice president of the mosque and was responsible for vetting and hiring the radical cleric as the mosque’s imam.

The Muslim American Society, then headed by Omeish, had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Chicago Tribune reported in 2004, a description later validated by a federal report describing the group as “the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

In addition to Omeish’s ties to radical Islam, his recorded comments prior to the 2007 appointment by Governor Kaine made his support for Jihadist terror even more explicit.

During a December 22, 2000 speech at a Jerusalem Day Rally in Lafayette Park, in Washington D.C., Omeish praised “the Jihad way” to “liberate your land”.

“We, the Muslims of the Washington metropolitan area, are here today in subfreezing temperatures to tell our brothers and sisters in Filastine [Palestine], that you have learned the way, that you have known that the Jihad way is the way to liberate your land. And we, by standing here today, despite the weather, and despite anything else, we are telling them that we are with you, we are supporting you, and we will do everything we can inshallah [Allah willing] to help your cause.”

In 2004, Omeish explicitly praised Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

Governor Kaine’s selection of Omeish was criticized by state Republicans, who said the governor had failed to properly vet the appointee.

C. Todd Gilbert, a Republican delegate from Shenandoah County, wrote to the governor, noting the Muslim American Society’s “questionable origins”.

“I don’t know how a problem of this magnitude could have slipped through the Governor’s screening process,” Gilbert later said in a statement. “Even a cursory internet search about the appointee in question would have also easily identified him as a leader of a potentially radical northern Virginia mosque.”

Kaine and his administration initially brushed off the criticism as mere Islamophobia.

Yet Omeish’s ties to terror and explicit support for violent Jihad quickly became apparent, ultimately leading Kaine to pressure Omeish to step down.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrats, Hamas, Hillary Clinton, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian terrorists, Tim Kaine
Tags: Democrats, Hamas, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian terrorists, Tim Kaine

Comments: 1 Comment

Archives