Posted tagged ‘Reform Islam’

American Fascists and delicate little snowflakes

March 26, 2016

American Fascists and delicate little snowflakes, Dan Miller’s Blog, March 26, 2016

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

Fascists want to take away our freedom of speech. So do the delicate little snowflakes infesting our institutions of “higher learning.” How much worse will it get over the next few years? Substantially worse, I fear.

In the above video, Bill Whittle recounts numerous Fascist attempts to shut down those with different ideas. I’ll not repeat what he says. Instead, I’ll point out a few other Fascist efforts.

Islamist Fascists

In line with its “misconception” that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, the Obama administration has consistently courted the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — which do everything they can to shut down all discussion of whether Islam is peaceful and tolerant and whether it should change. The Obama administration, following its lead, has ignored Muslim voices for reform.

What does Hillary Clinton think? Apparently that Islam is fine the way it is.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a different view.


As I noted here, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim. She had been scheduled to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University in April of 2014. However,

Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced Tuesday that it had withdrawn the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women, after protests from students and faculty.

The university said in a statement posted online that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.

“She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” said the university’s statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” [Emphasis added.]

Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion, “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”

Ali was raised in a strict Muslim family, but after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation, beatings and an arranged marriage, she renounced the faith in her 30s. She has not commented publicly on the issue of the honorary degree.

. . . .

More than 85 of about 350 faculty members at Brandeis signed a letter asking for Ali to be removed from the list of honorary degree recipients. And an online petition created Monday by students at the school of 5,800 had gathered thousands of signatures from inside and outside the university as of Tuesday afternoon.

“This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students,” said senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition said before the university withdrew the honor.

“But it’s not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs,” she said. “A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic.” [Emphasis added.]

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also got into the act:

“It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views.”

The organization sent a letter to university President Frederick Lawrence on Tuesday requesting that it drop plans to honor Ali.

This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy,” Joseph Lumbard, chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an interview. “They feel unwelcome here.” [Emphasis added.]

On September 15, Hirsi Ali spoke at Yale University. The usual suspects did not want her to speak.

WFB Program president Rich Lizardo tells the story of events that followed the WFB Program’s public announcement of the event in the Yale Daily News column “We invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak at Yale–and outrage ensued.”

Following the public announcement, the Muslim Students Association at Yale went through its usual routine, first seeking to have Ms. Hirsi Ali disinvited (though it disputes this), then to limit the subject matter of her speech, then to impose conditions on her speech that would stigmatize her. In the spirit of WFB himself, Lizardo stood firm.

The MSA routine worked at Brandeis; at Yale, not so much. Not this time.

Poor delicate little snowflakes. Isn’t it a shame that they might be exposed to new ideas that are alien to them? That they were not required to attend and listen to those ideas is, apparently, inconsequential. They did not anyone to listen to them.

Here’s a video of her remarks. The introductions are a trifle long and add little value. The questions she was asked at the end and her answers are, however, interesting. They begin at 55 minutes into the video.

When I posted the video here, I observed that

She seemed to be speaking less to the “choir” and more to a broader audience which she was trying to convince. To that end, she was as conciliatory as she could be without abandoning her thesis that Islam is the religion of repression, submission and death, not peace; that it is highly dangerous to Western civilization, including our concepts of freedom and democracy. “Radical” Islam is rising, becoming even worse and it must be defeated.

Even to try to defeat Islam, we need to defeat the increasing efforts to eliminate freedom of speech at home in favor of speech that is politically and multiculturally correct and therefore not free. [Emphasis added.]

On April 7, 2015, Hirsi Ali spoke at the National Press Club. Here’s a video of her remarks on the Clash of Civilizations, largely based on her book Heretic, which I later reviewed here. There, she writes optimistically of the possibility (but not the probability) of an Islamic revolution, someday.

There is a clash of civilizations. Muslims in Western countries generally refuse to help the police prevent Islamic terror attacks, such as recently occurred in Brussels.

There is a reason why Israel razes the homes of terrorists. It is because Israelis know that a terrorist cannot plot and carry out an attack without the knowledge and help of his or her immediate relatives, and further, the entire community. Punitive home demolition is meant to serve as a deterrent, the idea being that a would-be terrorist’s family will fear losing their home and thus persuade him or her against the attack.

In fact, knowing that it “takes a village” to aid and abet a terrorist is precisely why the terrorists responsible for the Paris and recent Brussels bombings could operate “right under the noses” of their victims. And it is why some are calling for heightened scrutiny of Muslim communities across the West, and right here in the U.S., despite cries of Islamophobia.

The MailOnline reports that police in Molenbeek — a district known for spawning jihadis like the France and Brussels attackers — have pleaded with local Muslims for help in finding the terror suspects only to have their pleas rebuffed.

Western nations which welcome and care for them are spit upon. “See something, say something” did not work before the San Bernardino Islamic attack. Perhaps those who saw something but said nothing remained silent because they feared being characterized as Islamophobes.

Here is a recent video of an interview with a teenage Yazidi girl who escaped the Islamic State. Is Islam the religion of peace and respect for females? For people of other religions?

In the unlikely event that any delicate little snowflakes watch it, will they be offended by its presence on You Tube, by the “lies” told by the Yazidi girl or by the truth of her statements?

Multicultural Fascists

Europe has many multicultural Fascists and Obama’s America has fewer. However, those who propagate the multicultural fantasy are winning. In the past, we sought immigrants who brought with them cultures compatible with ours. Now, Obama demands that we accept immigrants whose cultures of violence, drugs, gangs, crime and the like are not compatible. We have sanctuary cities where gang, other violence and drug smuggling and use are endemic. Although state efforts to enforce Federal immigration laws which the Obama administration refuses to enforce have been struck down by the judiciary, the Obama administration somewhat impotently challenged the sanctuary cities this year, only following pressure from the Congress.

Here is a video of remarks made by Victor Davis Hanson about one year ago on the travesty of “illiberal illegal immigration.” Illegal immigration breeds illegality across the board.

A transcript of his remarks is available here. Here’s just a short snippet:

[I]t’s a controversial topic.  If I had said to you 20 years ago, 10 years ago, we’re going to get in a situation in the United States where 160,000 people are going to arrive at the border and break immigration law and we’re going to let them all in at once without any prior check, medical histories, you would think I was a right-wing conspiracist.  If I had said to you, we’re going to have a president who is going to not only nullify existing federal immigration law, but on 22 occasions prior to that nullification warn us that he couldn’t nullify it, or, if I had said, he’s not only going to nullify federal immigration law, which he said would be unconstitutional, but that he is going to punish members of ICE, the border patrol, who follow existing law rather than his own unlawful existing order, I could go on, but you’d all think this was surreal, Orwellian, it couldn’t happen.  Yet that’s the status quo as we look at it today.

Our borders are worse than porous; they are open and little effort is being made to keep criminals, drug dealers, gang members and other violent people out. While Obama has many “top” priorities, doing that is not among them.

As noted in a post at American Thinker,

Cultures are either consciously abandoned, or consciously enforced. The theory of multiculturalism has always been a tonic for simpletons, since it celebrates the perpetuation and imposition of an incompatible culture, still being practiced by those who carry it, upon a host culture with which it is mutually exclusive. Multiculturalism is entirely subversive. It is intended to force one or more cultures upon the hosts who do not want or need them. Since both cultures cannot successfully coexist within the host, which has its own successful working culture, the purpose of the exercise has always been fraudulent. The “melting pot” concept worked not because of the concept of multiculturalism, but as testament against it. Those who came here in our parents’ and grandparents’ generation consciously chose to abandon the cultures they left in favor of the American culture. They became Americans, embracing one culture.

If one was being less generous than to call multiculturalism a tonic for simpletons, it would be more accurate to say that modern leftist multiculturalism is actually a weapon. Its purpose is not to enhance the host, but to consume it. If the host’s culture is peaceful, it has no use for malcontents who insist upon the dominance of their native culture. Malcontents, in the form of angry and entitled guests, foment chaos and disorder. And yet, the leftists insist that we demonstrate our cultural superiority by abandoning the superiority of our own culture and importing incompatible languages, traditions, practices, and morals.

Here’s a snapshot of our current Southern border by Sharyl Attkisson:


The delicate little snowflakes who demand safe spaces from reality in what were once institutions of higher learning seem to be increasing in number. They are our next generation and will soon begin to elect those with whose milquetoast views they agree. It will be a sad day for America when our nation mirrors those “educational” institutions. Solutions? I have none to offer, other than the development of backbones by their university administrators and teachers; perhaps even by their own parents. Perhaps some little snowflakes will be told, “If you don’t want to be exposed to views inconsistent with those you already hold, don’t come here.”

Living in America should be an honor not granted those who despise and abuse her by coming illegally, by illegally bringing crime and violence or by supporting those who do. Falsely characterizing Islam as the religion of peace and tolerance should not be “who we are” as Obama claims. Most of us are not deluded fools, I hope.

Oh well. Somehow we got Obama as the Commander in Chief. Twice.

This message was posted just eight days before the recent Islamic attack in Brussels, Belgium:


Obama’s Mosque Speech: Missing a ‘Berlin Wall Moment’

February 4, 2016

Obama’s Mosque Speech: Missing a ‘Berlin Wall Moment’ Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, February 4, 2016

(Please see also, The US Mosque Obama Has Chosen For His First Presidential Visit Has Deep Extremist Ties. — DM)

Obama-mosque-visit-640Screenshot during Barack Obama’s mosque speech in Baltimore on Feb 3.

U.S. President Barack Obama delivered his first speech from a mosque on February 3. He pushed the Muslim-American community to lead the Muslim world into a better future, but he missed a “tear down this wall” moment by speaking at a mosque with a radical history instead of giving a lift to Muslim reformists who confront Islamism.

Here are three hits and three misses from Obama’s speech in alternating order:

Hit: Using quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, Obama simultaneously countered Islamist preaching that Muslims cannot reconcile their faith identity with American patriotism. This is also a strong rebuttal to those that wish to exempt Muslims from constitutional protections simply for their choice of faith. He said:

Back then, Muslims were often called Mahometans.  And Thomas Jefferson explained that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom he wrote was designed to protect all faiths — and I’m quoting Thomas Jefferson now — “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan.”  (Applause.)

…Benjamin Franklin wrote that “even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”  (Applause.)

Miss: He implied that Muslim terrorists and extremists purposely “twist” Islamic verses to suit their agendas, as if groups like ISIS do not actually believe in the Islam they practice and impose. He said:

“Right now, there is an organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror. Part of what’s happened in the Middle East and North Africa and other places where we see sectarian violence is religion being a tool for another agenda—for power, for control.”

By denying the Islamist ideological root of these threats, President Obama removes the obligation from the Muslim world to directly address, debunk and reform Islamic interpretations that are dangerous and strongly-held. He disarms the chief argument of the best Muslim allies, like those in the Muslim Reform Movement.

Hit: Pressuring Muslim leaders to confront anti-Western propaganda, anti-Semitism in Europe and persecution of Christians.

Obama did not call on Muslim leaders to refute Islamism overall but he did directly tell them that they have an obligation to confront anti-Western views that present the U.S. and its allies as an enemy of their faith.  He said:

“Muslim political leaders have to push back on the lie that the West oppresses Muslims, and against conspiracy theories that says America is the cause of every ill in the Middle East. Now, that doesn’t mean Muslim Americans aren’t free to criticize American-U.S. foreign policy. That’s part of being an American.”

“…The fact is, there are Christians who are targeted now in the Middle East, despite having been there for centuries, and there are Jews who’ve lived in places like France for centuries who now feel obliged to leave because they feel themselves under assault—sometimes by Muslims.”

The Islamists’ constant depiction of the U.S. and its allies as evil, including reflexive bashing of the integrity of law enforcement, acts as a trigger for radicals to become violent jihadists. We need genuinely democratic Muslims around the world to hold Islamist propagandists accountable for their incitements.

Miss: The choice of the Islamic Society of Baltimore as a venue, which he described as “an all-American story.”

The ideological war against Islamism is somewhat like a political campaign. The Muslim reformers need positive press, resources and a platform. By praising the Islamic Society of Baltimore, the president gave a helping hand to the Islamist side of the competition.

The Islamic Society of Baltimore, as documented in this impressiveexpose by the Investigative Project on Terrorism , has a long history of promoting Islamist extremism including the very same views Obama pushed Muslim leaders to confront.

A Muslim Brotherhood leader from Sudan named Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh served as the imam for a total of 15 years from 1983 to 1989 and 1994 to 2003. He was instrumental in setting up the U.S. branch of the Brotherhood. He also led the radical Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, was regional director for an al-Qaeda-linked charity and said in 2004 suicide bombings are justifiable if authorized by afatwa and if it’s in a situation where “Muslims are to be cornered where they cannot defend themselves, except through these kinds of means.”

El-Sheikh signed a letter condemning ISIS, but the letter endorsed the foundational doctrines of ISIS and other Islamist terrorists.

A screenshot from 2000 shows the mosque’s chosen resources for Muslims were radicals, including known supporters of terrorism like Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi, Bilal Philips and Jamal Badawi.

Even after El-Sheikh left, the mosque has not been a model for countering Islamist extremism. Its imam preaches against“progressive groups within Muslims” like those that tolerate homosexuals. It has radicals as guest speakers, such as Zaid Shakir in 2008.

The Obama Administration did a better job in selecting the Muslim participants in the preceding roundtable with Obama, but still included Imam Khalid Latif, who was a board member of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2008. The FBI’s official policy prohibits using CAIR as a liaison partner because of evidence linking it to Hamas. The New York chapter has been a particularly radical chapter of CAIR.

Hit: Advising Muslims to respond to negativity by rejecting extremist views and maintaining patriotism.

After ISIS’ attacks in Paris, Clarion Project wrote here and explained on Fox News how the group’s supporters were salivating at the prospect of reprisals against innocent Muslims. ISIS and other jihadists have a separatist view and want Muslims to see democracy as a failed concept for them and to accept Islamism as the alternative.

Obama urged Muslims not to respond to anti-Muslim sentiment by validating these views, decreasing their patriotism or accepting propaganda legitimizing hostility towards the West. He said:

“You’re not Muslim or American. You’re Muslim and American. (Applause). Don’t grow cynical. Don’t respond to ignorance by embracing a worldview that suggests you must choose between your faith and your patriotism. Don’t believe that you have to choose between your best impulses and somewhat embrace a worldview that pits us against each other—or, even worse, glorifies violence.”

Miss: Failing to endorse or at least include the best Muslim allies for this cause, even if they are less resourced and well known.

Imagine what would have happened if Obama gave global coverage to the declaration of the Muslim Reform Movement, putting them on at least equal footing with the Islamists. Imagine the shiver down the spine of the Islamists who have defamed them essentially as “apostates,” all the while touting their own professed inclusiveness and moderation.

Imagine if Obama used the microphone of the White House to form a common thread between Muslim activists against Islamism everywhere: From Malala Yousefzai to the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam who cursed off Islamists promoting separatism in Europe; from the Muslims of the Green Movement who protested against the Iranian regime in 2009 to the Muslims who demonstrated and defeated the Islamists in Egypt and Tunisia; from the Muslims in Libya, who asked for U.S. help in their fight against Islamist militias and held pro-American rallies after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed, to the Syrian protestors who greeted the American ambassador with cheers, roses and olive branches.

Just outside the Islamic Society of Baltimore, Muslim women protested the mosque for its gender separation and inequality. Asra Nomani wrote a powerful op-ed about Obama’s choice of venue. She pointed out how photos from 2010 showed the “second-class conditions women endure in spaces akin to a ‘penalty box.'”

Imagine what a quick photo-op with the Muslim women would have caused. Think of the attention to their cause and productive dialogue that it would have spurred simply due to a choice by the Obama Administration to be inclusive of Muslim reformers and their progressive agenda.

Watch President Barack Obama’s full speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Challenge of Radical Islam

January 3, 2016

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Challenge of Radical Islam, You Tube, January 3, 2015

(It’s an hour and six minutes long but well worth watching. — DM)


Islam: Hate, Honor, Women’s Rights and Congress

December 27, 2015

Islam: Hate, Honor, Women’s Rights and Congress, Dan Miller’s Blog, December 27, 2015

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

A pro-Islamist resolution, HR 569, was introduced in Congress and referred to the Judiciary Committee on December 17th. Although it is quite unlikely that a binding law implementing the resolution will be enacted anytime soon, the resolution shows that troublesome views are held by many members of Congress.

The fight for the rights of women is among the most difficult aspects of the fight against Islam and Islamisation. The views expressed in HR 569, if implemented, would make that fight even more difficult.


Here is a list of the seventy-four members who supported H.R. 569:

Mr. Beyer (for himself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Norton, Ms. McCollum, Ms.Kaptur, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Peters, Mr. Ashford, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Takai, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Keating, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr.Butterfield, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Gallego, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Delaney, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Gutiérrez, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Esty, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Farr, Mr. Pallone, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Lee, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Sires, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Polis, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs.Dingell, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Pocan, Mr.Conyers, Mr. Takano, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Heck of Washington) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Edward Kline, writing at The Rule of Reason, observes

Many of the usual suspects have endorsed the resolution: Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida. Most of the other endorsers’ names I do not recognize. They are all termites who have made careers of eating away at the rule of law and “transforming” America from a Western nation into a multicultural, welfare-statist, politically correct stewpot of no particular character. [Emphasis added.]

The full text of the bill is provided here. It praises Muslims for their “contributions” to America, in much the same way that Obama did in His June 4, 2009 Cairo speech in which He opined:

[S]ince our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

. . . .

I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. [Emphasis added.]

A problem with Obama’s stated desire to deal with Islam as it is, not as it isn’t, is that His perceptions of what it is and what it isn’t are essentially backward.

The House Resolution does not mention such Muslim “contributions” to America as those made at Ford Hood, Texas several years ago or those more recently made at San Bernardino, California. Nor does it mention their “contributions” of honor killings and female genital mutilation, about which more is provided later in this post. It bemoans the disparagements some Muslims have suffered due to their “contributions” and others simply because they are Muslims.

Here’s a particularly disturbing part of the bill, set forth under “Resolved:”

The House of Representatives

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim; [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; [Emhasis added.]

Note the inclusion in (3) of “hate speech” as a “hate crime.”

According to the American Bar Association,

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker. [Emphasis added.]

In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. [Emphasis added.]

Hate speech, fighting words and hate crimes

HR 569’s apparent inclusion of anti-Muslim “hate speech” as a “hate crime” is inconsistent with American law and the American Constitution. However, it is consistent with Attorney General Lynch’s remarks shortly after the December 2nd San Bernardino Islamic attack. She then

complained that the First Amendment allows people to say hateful things and noted that many do so from the safety of their computer keyboard. It’s something, she said, the DoJ would “take action” against, especially when that speech “edges towards violence, when we see the potential to lift…that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”  [Emphasis added.]

Later, in response to many objections, Ms. Lynch pulled back with this: “Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words.” Really?

Statements such as “Islam is the religion of death” or “Mohamed was a pedophile” could indeed “provoke” a devout Muslim and perhaps “cause” him to react violently. Are such statements “fighting words,” which we have “no right to speak?”

Can “hateful” words be construed as “hateful” actions or “hateful” deeds” and therefore “hate” crimes? Is the following passage from Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book Heretic, “hate” speech? Are her words “fighting words,” which the ABA material quoted above claims we have no right to speak? The quoted paragraph deals with an event in Somalia. However, she now lives in America, her books are sold in America and could offend devout Muslims in America.

In my homeland of Somalia, a thirteen-year-old girl reported that she had been gang-raped by three men. The Al-Shabaab militia that then controlled her town of Kismayo, a port city in the south, responded by accusing her of adultery, found her guilty, and sentenced her to death. Her execution was announced in the morning from a loudspeaker blaring from a Toyota pickup truck. At the local soccer stadium, Al-Shabaab loyalists dug a hole in the ground and brought in a truckload of rocks. A crowd of one thousand gathered in the hours leading up to 4: 00 p.m. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow— named after the Prophet Muhammad’s nine-year-old wife— was dragged, screaming and flailing, into the stadium.  It took four men to bury her up to her neck in the hole. Then fifty men spent ten minutes pelting her with rocks and stones. After the ten minutes had passed, there was a pause. She was dug out of the ground and two nurses examined her to see if she was still alive. Someone found a pulse and breathing. Aisha was returned to the hole and the stoning continued. One man who tried to intervene was shot; an eight-year-old boy was also killed by the militia. Afterward, a local sheik told a radio station that Aisha had provided evidence, confirmed her guilt, and “was happy with the punishment under Islamic law.” [Emphasis added.]

She related that incident to point out that that sort of thing is, unfortunately, both Islamic and  common. It is both, as indicated later in this article. Where, other than in Islamic lands, does it happen? Perhaps writing, publishing or selling any book that disparages the present condition of Islam “as it is” according to Obama, and seeks the reformation of what Obama insists upon calling the religion of peace and tolerance now, could be considered a “hate” crime. After all,

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, condemned [Ayaan Hirsi Ali as] “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide.”

Neither HR 569, nor a criminal law based on it, will likely be passed anytime soon by either house of Congress. However, the mere introduction of such a bill, supported by seventy-four House members, is disturbing enough. It’s part of our multicultural, politically correct march for moral equivalence which ignores our —  Judeo-Christian versus Islamic — distinctions between what is good and what is evil.

Was it good or evil to stone a thirteen-year-old Somali girl to death for her “crime” of having been raped by a gang of young men? Being raped was deemed to be her crime of adultery. Was her inability, and hence failure, to prevent her rape more or less evil than stoning her to death or, indeed, the rape itself? Few if any sane westerners would have difficulty answering such questions. Muslims? That’s different.

According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other current and former Muslims, Muslims are taught about “honor” from infancy. However, Islamic conceptions of “honor” are very different from Judeo-Christian conceptions. In Islam, “honor” consists of honoring one’s family and clan, and thereby Mohamed and Allah. “Adultery” by a woman dishonors her husband, family, her clan, Mohamed and Allah. It does so even if her “adultery” consisted of being raped. It warrants death by stoning. To react “dishonorably” by not imposing such punishments would be a weakness which would dishonor them all.

Those women are not fighting for free birth control, abortions or even health care. Nor are they fighting for safe spaces against microaggressions or where unpleasant views cannot be heard. They are fighting for the most important “women’s rights,” absent under Islam. Has Obama ever spoken about the work those and other brave women are doing or why they are doing it? If so, I am not aware of it. American “feminists,” other American women and men? Europeans? If they are not, and I am not aware of many who are, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Iran — now our great partner for nuclear peace — stones lots of people.

[W]hile certain stoning-related passages have been removed from Iran’s new penal code, other passages in the new code refer to stoning, and stoning remains as a possible form of punishment under the new Iranian penal code.

Amnesty International has documented 76 cases of lethal stoning between 1980-1989 in Iran, while the International Committee Against Execution (ICAE) has reported that 74 others were stoned to death in Iran between 1990-2009.

Is Iran better than the Taliban? Here’s a video, with the obligatory remarks that stoning adulterers is mandated by the Bible and denials that this sort of thing is either widespread or Islamic.

Great. Should the Taliban be given a pathway to “the bomb?”


Pakistan already has nukes. Should we help her to get more and better nukes?

Saudi Arabia, our gallant Islamist Salifast ally, has interesting variations in its punishments for crimes against Islam.

Saudi Arabia has a criminal justice system based on a hardline and literal form of Shari’ah law reflecting a particular state-sanctioned interpretation of Islam.

The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[4] including murder, rape, false prophecy, blasphemy, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[5] adultery,[6] witchcraft and sorcery[7][8][9][10] and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[11] or more rarely by firing squad, and sometimes by stoning.[12][13]  [Emphasis added.]

The 345 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 were all carried out by public beheading.[14] The last reported execution for sorcery took place in August 2014.[15][16] There were no reports of stoning between 2007 and 2010,[14] but between 1981 and 1992 there were four cases of execution by stoning reported.[17]

Crucifixion of the beheaded body is sometimes ordered.[7] For example, in 2009, the Saudi Gazette reported that “An Abha court has sentenced the leader of an armed gang to death and three-day crucifixion (public displaying of the beheaded body) and six other gang members to beheading for their role in jewelry store robberies in Asir.”[18] (This practice resembles gibbeting, in which the entire body is displayed).

In 2003, Muhammad Saad al-Beshi, whom the BBC described as “Saudi Arabia’s leading executioner”, gave a rare interview to Arab News.[5] He described his first execution in 1998: “The criminal was tied and blindfolded. With one stroke of the sword I severed his head. It rolled metres away…People are amazed how fast [the sword] can separate the head from the body.”[5] He also said that before an execution he visits the victim’s family to seek forgiveness for the criminal, which can lead to the criminal’s life being spared.[5] Once an execution goes ahead, his only conversation with the prisoner is to tell him or her to recite the Muslim declaration of belief, the Shahada.[5] “When they get to the execution square, their strength drains away. Then I read the execution order, and at a signal I cut the prisoner’s head off,” he said.[5]

As of 2003, executions have not been announced in advance. They can take place any day of the week, and they often generate large crowds. Photography and video of the executions is also forbidden, although there have been numerous cases of photographed and videoed executions in . . . spite of the law against them.

Europe is different

In Germany, the rape victim most likely will not be stoned to death for the offense of being raped.



“Honor killings” and other Islamic infringements on women’s rights in general are becoming more common in America. It has been estimated that there are twenty-seven honor killings in America each year. That estimate is probably low, because

Honor killings and violence, which typically see men victimize wives and daughters because of behavior that has somehow insulted their faith, are among the most secretive crimes in society, say experts. [Emphasis added.]

“Cases of honor killings and/or violence in the U.S. are often unreported because of the shame it can cause to the victim and the victim’s family,” Farhana Qazi, a former U.S. government analyst and senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies on Terrorism, told “Also, because victims are often young women, they may feel that reporting the crime to authorities will draw too much attention to the family committing the crime.” [Emphasis added.]

Even cases that appear to be honor killings, such as the Jan. 1, 2008 murder of two Irving, Texas, sisters that landed their father on the FBI’s most wanted list, cannot always be conclusively linked to a religious motivation. Without hard evidence, critics say, ascribing a religious motivation to crimes committed by Muslims demeans Islam. Yet, federal authorities believe they must be able to identify “honor” as a motive for violence and even murder if they are to address a growing cultural problem. [Emphasis added.]

Doesn’t alleging an Islamic motivation for any crime “demean” Islam?

The report, which estimated that 23-27 honor killings per year occur in the U.S., noted that 91 percent of victims in North America are murdered for being “too Westernized,” and in incidents involving daughters 18 years or younger, a father is almost always involved. And for every honor killing, there are many more instances of physical and emotional abuse, all in the name of fundamentalist Islam, say experts. [Emphasis added.]

America is slowly falling under the domination of Islam. Will the “Titanic effect” soothe us into believing that it can’t, and therefore won’t, happen in America? It’s

an aspect of human nature that denies the enormity of any disaster where death is imminent because the mantra of its impossibility was accepted and believed by all. Regarding the Titanic, it was touted as the largest and the safest ship ever built (true at that time) … it is unsinkable (false, nothing man builds is disaster free). When the mantra is believed by all, including the builders … the designers who did not provide adequate life boats … the passengers and crew whose minds denied acceptance of the reality of disaster and peril as incomprehensible. This denial continued even while the disaster was unfolding. They either would not or could not admit or acknowledge the imminence of their peril of floundering in the icy cold sea of the North Atlantic. [Emphasis added.]

It can happen in America, America is already moving in that direction and will arrive there unless we prevent it. Are American feminists working on the problems? Very few, at most.

Prominent Saudi Journalist: Extremism, Takfir Are Everywhere In Saudi Arabia, And The Authorities Are Doing Little To Stop This

December 23, 2015

Prominent Saudi Journalist: Extremism, Takfir Are Everywhere In Saudi Arabia, And The Authorities Are Doing Little To Stop This, MEMRI, December 23, 2015

(Is it reasonable to expect Islamic reform in Salifast Saudi Arabia? — DM)

In a two-part article in the Saudi government daily Al-Watan, journalist Qenan Al-Ghamdi, the former editor ofAl-Watan and of the government daily Al-Sharq, harshly criticized the extremism in Saudi Arabia, which he said is present in every mosque and school and is constantly being spread by preachers, clerics, teachers and parents. The authorities, he added, do almost nothing to fight this extremism that is constantly seeping into Saudi society; on the contrary, they even give it a platform and help to promote it. This extremism is what makes Saudi youths especially susceptible to the extremist ideology of organizations, such as ISIS, he said. He wondered why, despite its awareness of the dangers of terrorist ideology, Saudi Arabia still has no law that criminalizes it.

The following are translated excerpts from both parts of the article:[1]

26140Qenan Al-Ghamdi (image: Saudi Gazette, Saudi Arabia)

“There is nothing new [under the sun]! Since the takfiri terror attacks began to occur in our streets, mosques and institutions, we have been condemning [its perpetrators] and calling them criminals, deviant, Khawarij,[2] etc. After every success of the security [forces] in exposing dormant or active terrorist cells – and these successes are too numerous to count – we praise the members of the security forces… and are proud of them and do everything we can to support them. Yet we do not do anything helpful and effective to assist the efforts of the Interior Ministry in the security and ideological [domains]…

“What the Senior Clerics Council [Saudi Arabia’s supreme religious body], and other relevant bodies, are expected to do is carry out a critical reading of the [takfiri] ideology, correct it and comment on it – yet nothing significant [has been done in this domain]. Most [imams], from their mosque pulpits every Friday, continue to hurl accusations of heresy at Muslim groups that live among us and also at the People of the Book [meaning Christians in this case], many of whom work in our country. The [imams] curse and hurl invective at them. Those we call ‘preachers and lovers of knowledge’ are still doing this in their lectures and sermons – and some of them are employees of the Ministry of Religious Affairs and work under its supervision. [Moreover], television channels continue to host them, giving them an opportunity to spread this poison, which reaches every home, every eye and every ear. Prohibitions and excessive strictness still dominate most areas of life, even when there is no clear evidence in the pure and genuine [texts of] the Koran or the Sunna that the prohibitions exist.

“Our sons are still marching en masse to become cannon fodder in civil wars and [to serve as] criminal murderers in the ranks of ISIS in every war or terrorist crime around the world. [Saudi youths] form the majority in every arena of so-called jihad. The wellsprings of extremism and fanaticism still [exist] everywhere in our country, to the extent that some boys and girls in our schools accuse other boys and girls of heresy or of straying from the right path just for mentioning some pictures [they liked] or some movies they saw. This is because some of their teachers still instill in them the notion that every source of pleasure in life is forbidden, [even if it is actually] permitted, and because some of their illiterate or nearly-illiterate mothers and grandmothers attend lectures by so-called women preachers who entrench extremism and fanaticism [in their minds]. Moreover, many of the women who attend such women’s forums are excited by what they heard… and share it with groups of women on social media. These are the mothers of families and the educators of the [next] generation, at home and in school, and some of them even become muftis and preachers [themselves]!! Many men are also subject to the same influences – so much so that some of them avoid listening to the national anthem or the musical inserts on news programs, and they are willing to preach and spout prohibitions in every forum, market and street.

“Consequently, many men and women have become preoccupied with [scrutinizing] others – their neighbors, acquaintances and friends – [and asking]: Is he Sunni or Shi’ite? Does he observe the non-obligatory fasts? Does he pray the [supererogatory] Duha prayer? How does he or she dress? Does he watch movies and [television] series? Does he shave his beard? Does she style her eyebrows? Does he do this? Does he do that? As though Allah appointed them to supervise His creatures, interfere in their affairs and assess their intentions…

“So far, despite our awareness of all the dangers of takfir and despite the shameful crimes that the country has witnessed, we [Saudis] have not found in all this a logical and intellectual justification for approving a law that would criminalize sectarianism, racism, takfir and everything that weakens [our] national unity. Even the Shura Council [the Saudi Parliament] ducked [the issue] with ridiculous and ludicrous excuses.

“Islam does not allow to kill a person, and in fact forbids this, regardless of [the person’s] religion or beliefs, unless he committed a crime that mandates killing him. Islam does not allow, and even prohibits, accusing a person of heresy as long as he recites ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger,’ for his account [is to be settled] by Allah [alone]. Islam does not allow prohibiting what Allah completely permitted. Islam does not allow you to exhibit hostility towards anyone who did not originally display overt enmity towards you.

“The [Saudi] state maintains amicable ties with all the world’s countries, excluding the aggressive Zionist Israel, and this does not contradict Saudi Arabia’s status as a path-breaking Arab Islamic state that respects all the Islamic ethnicities and sects and all those residing within its [borders] who come from all parts of the world and belong to different ethnicities, sects and religions… and there’s nothing wrong with this. Islam, via its justice, mercy and tolerance, grants protection to all people, as long as they respect its ways, serve them, benefit them and derive benefit from them…

“All the above is absolutely true. Consider this, [reader,] and then you will be entitled to ask: How will we wipe out terror when its sources come in successive [waves], flooding the eyes the ears and the minds? Moreover, we condemn the Internet and repeatedly say that recruitment [for terror] is done via [this platform]. This is completely incorrect, because we are the ones who filled [people’s] minds with extremism and fanaticism, before and after the Internet, whereas the incitement of ISIS and its ilk only awakens the admiration [for extremist ideology] that is already deep-rooted in the minds and hearts of the youth and makes them easily susceptible to every call to jihad.

“Let us leave aside those already brainwashed by this ideology, for the Ministry of Interior is handling them, but let us act to stop the creation [of more minds of the same kind]. This is the challenge, and it is within our capacity, should we so desire. Anyone opposing this, whoever he may be, has, I believe, shameful intentions [to undermine] the state’s unity and existence and seeks to destroy it – and this is the grave danger.”




[1] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), November 2- 3, 2015.

[2] The Khawarij were a dissident group that split from Ali’s camp at the Battle of Siffin in 657; it is considered the first Muslim opposition group in Islamic history. Today its name is used as a derogatory name for dissident or deviant groups.

C-SPAN Accused of ‘Mainstreaming Islamist Organizations While Willfully Marginalizing’ Reformists

December 23, 2015

C-SPAN Accused of ‘Mainstreaming Islamist Organizations While Willfully Marginalizing’ Reformists, CNS NewsPatrick Goodenough, December 23, 2015

jasser-mrmAmerican Islamic Forum for Democracy president M. Zuhdi Jasser speaks at the launch of the Muslim Reform Movement, at the National Press Club on Friday, December 4, 2015. (Screengrab: AIFD/YouTube)

The leader of an umbrella group of moderate Islamic organizations is troubled by C-SPAN’s decision not to cover its launch event at the National Press Club earlier this month, when on Monday the public affairs network provided live coverage to another Muslim event – highlighting “Islamophobia” – at the same venue.

Attempts to get C-SPAN to cover the launch of the Muslim Reform Movement on December 4 were unsuccessful, said M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a key figure in the establishment of the MRM.

On Monday, C-SPAN covered a press conference by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies in the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) at which 2016 political candidates were warned that anti-Muslim sentiment would carry a cost at the ballot box.

Jasser, a Phoenix-Ariz.-based Muslim physician and anti-Islamist activist, called the incident “beyond bizarre if not flagrantly biased.”

“They are mainstreaming Islamist organizations while willfully marginalizing us,” he said. “At least show both!”

Jasser noted that the launch of the Muslim Reform Movement took place just two days after the San Bernardino terrorist attack and weeks after the one in Paris.

Jasser’s communications director Tiffany Hopkins said Tuesday she sent four emails to C-SPAN several days before the launch, then discussed the summit and its relevance in a phone conversation with the assignment desk. She was given the direct email address of C-SPAN’s D.C. editor to contact for a booking and did so, but received no response.

In Jasser’s view, C-SPAN simply “ignored” the request for coverage of the event, which he pointed out had also been listed on the National Press Club website.

He said if C-SPAN chose not to cover either Islamic event then one could allow “that they have their own priorities and Muslim counter-radicalization may not be one of them.”

But after not covering the MRM launch, he was surprised to see C-SPAN give coverage Monday to what he described as the “Islamist ultimatums” of USCMO.

For the public service network to have covered USCMO “while they flatly ignored our reform summit of 14 leaders and our organizations, exemplifies the central obstacle with regards to the ‘perceived silence of reformers,’” he said.

“We are screaming from the rooftops and unfortunately ignored.”

Queries sent to C-SPAN on Monday and again on Tuesday brought no response by press time.

‘The Muslims the world has been waiting for’

The newly-formed Muslim Reform Movement brings together “Muslim reformers” from the U.S., Canada and Europe, who said in a statement, “We are in a battle for the soul of Islam, and an Islamic renewal must defeat the ideology of Islamism.”

The launch included a visit to the Islamic Center of Washington, “a mosque largely run by the government of Saudi Arabia,” where the activists posted a “declaration of reform” on the mosque doors. The document rejects the notion of an Islamic state, the caliphate, apostasy and “institutionalized shari’a.”

MRM founding signatories include representatives of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a Canadian group called Muslims Facing Tomorrow, the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations, the Quilliam Foundation in Britain, a Danish lawmaker, and several authors, journalists and thinkers.

“I love my faith of Islam, and I wish to reclaim it from the extremists,” said Usama Hasan of the Quilliam Foundation.

“I’m a doting grandmother and I’m concerned about the future of my children and grandchildren as radical Islam is spreading across North America,” said Muslims Facing Tomorrow president Raheel Raza.

“I’m here to take back the narrative of my faith from the people who are destroying it,” said Sohail Raza of Muslims Facing Tomorrow.

AIFD community outreach director Courtney Lonergan said she was excited to “work with these amazing people, who are the Muslims the world has been waiting for.”

Despite the lack of C-SPAN coverage, Jasser said there was evidently “hunger for our message,” pointing to the fact that the launch video has been watched more than 15,000 times on YouTube.

Jasser is a sharp critic of CAIR, a controversial lobby group that describes itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization.”

He is reviled by CAIR and its allies.

Clash of Civilizations: Islamic vs. Judeo-Christian

December 20, 2015

Clash of Civilizations: Islamic vs. Judeo-Christian, Dan Miller’s Blog, December 20, 2015

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

Judeo-Christian civilization has nothing in common with, and nothing to gain from, Islamic civilization as it now exists. They have been clashing for centuries. Now, Islamic civilization appears to be winning in much of the European Union and, to a lesser degree, in America. 

Can anything be done to slow and then to halt the spread of fundamentalist Islam? Ayan Hirsi Ali hopes there is and that Muslims will do it. I also hope they will, but am quite dubious that it will happen in the foreseeable future. We need to take other steps promptly.

Preliminary disclosure

As I wrote here in 2012, I am an Agnostic and have been for more than half a century. I do not believe that one or more Gods exist, nor do I believe that none exist. I simply do not know and have no way to know. However, Judeo-Christian society has given me what I love most, freedom to think and to speak as I choose. That freedom is now under severe attack and is withering away. Far too few Christians and Jews seem to have noticed or to care.

When I was in tenth grade, my parents and I decided that I would have a better chance of being admitted to and succeeding at a good college if I were to transfer from public high school to a private high school. We researched area private schools and settled upon St. Stephen’s School for Boys, an Episcopalian school. The headmaster was an Episcopalian priest. During my admissions interview, I volunteered that I was an Agnostic. It did not seem to bother him, but he told me that I would be required to attend a daily religious opening ceremony and, during my senior year, a weekly sacred studies class which he would lead. The first did not bother me and I looked forward to the second.

During the morning religious ceremonies, I stood when the other boys stood and sat when they sat. When they sang hymns and recited creeds and bible verses, I did not. Nobody seemed to notice. During the sacred studies class, I voiced my views, the other boys voiced theirs and the Headmaster voiced his. Our discussions were collegial, not contentious.

These experiences have colored my views of Judeo-Christian culture as it has evolved through today: with increasing exceptions, it remains a culture of freedom and kindness. Sometimes, as with outreach to Islamists, it goes too far. Christian outreach to fundamentalist Islam is like bone cells inviting cancer cells in to discuss how they can be friends and get along. In the end, they can’t and won’t. The cancer cells will thrive and the owner of the infested bones will die painfully.

Fundamentalist Islam is a culture of compulsion and hate

Americans should learn far more than we have from the recent experiences of Sweden, Germany, England, France and other European Union countries in welcoming Muslims to Islamise their cultures. I posted a lengthy article on that on December 13th. If you haven’t read it yet, please do so now. It provides very helpful background for an understanding of the clash of Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilizations.

Here is a lengthy video by Walid Shoebat, once an Islamic jihadist and now a Roman Catholic opponent of Islam. Born in “Palestine,” he imbibed the Islamic culture of hate and compulsion as a youth, as did most of his acquaintances. Eventually, he changed from what he was to what he now is.

Here’s are Shoebat’s 2007 comments:

Most of Shoebat’s comments are consistent with my understanding of present-day Islam, which is largely fundamentalist, of  “Palestine” and of its leaders. Here are videos of three who lead the “heroes of Palestine:”

Here’s are Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s 2015 comments on the possibility of an Islamic reformation, for which she argues in her recent book Heretic. (I just bought the Kindle version. After I have read it, I may post an article about it.) A former Muslim and now an Athiest, she is far more conciliatory than was Shoebat because she wants to promote change for the better within Islam. In her closing comments, she offers hope that someday Muslims will become as tolerant and peaceful as Christians and Jews. She does not expect that to happen during her life time, or for a long time thereafter. At seventy-four, I certainly don’t expect it during my remaining time on Earth.

Education today in Obama’s America

Obama’s America has become a multicultural, moral-equivalence based society dominated by political correctness. Many — including some nominal Christians and Jews — rail against Christianity and Judaism. Islam, on the other hand, has become a protected species: any suggestion that it is evil is condemned as “Islamophobic.”

At my alma mater, Yale (1959 – 63), freedom of speech and of thought now take back seats to politically correct condemnations of anything that anyone (except Christians and Jews) might find offensive.

I understand that the same sickness is spreading throughout the country. Maybe some fine day we will have an educational system like this:

Efforts to spread multicultural, moral-equivalence and hence Islamic values are not confined to our colleges. According to an article by The Clarion Project,

Controversy over the way public schools are presenting Islam has been making headlines in many school districts around the U.S. and worldwide:

♦ In Tennessee, a bill was introduced to prevent schools from teaching classes on “religious doctrine” before the 10th grade. The bill is in reaction to objections by parents to a three-week curriculum under the topic of world religion for middle-school students that covers the “Five Pillars of Islam” that obligated children to write assignments about Islamic principles of faith, such as “Allah is the only God.” Parents particularly objected because no other religion was taught at the same time and the amount of time spent on Islam was considerably more than that spent on any other religion.

♦ In Maryland, parents objected to the way Islam was taught in the school’s “World History” class, presenting Islam in an historically untrue way and listing all the “benefits” of Islam.

♦ After being threatened with a lawsuit, an Ohio school district agreed to remove a video about Islam from a seventh grade world-history curriculum that was challenged as falling under the category of proselytizing and favoring one religion over another (a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause). The video, titled 30 Days: Muslim and America, features a young Christian man who agrees to totally immerse himself in Islam for a month by living with a Muslim family in Dearborn, Michigan.  It was shown to students as part of a course that requires students to “describe achievements by the Islamic civilization and how these achievements were introduced into Western Europe in the time period between 750 BC – 1600AD.”

♦ In Massachusetts, the Wellesley Middle School, another public school was caught in a controversy when a video (see below) of a student trip to the Roxbury megamosque was released. On the trip, students were taught propaganda – among other things, that Muslim women got the vote before women in the West – by the mosque staff. The boys can be seen prostrating themselves to Allah alongside Muslim men. The video was covered extensively on Boston TV and radio.

♦ In Massachusetts, the Newton public school system became enmeshed in a similar controversy about deceptive and anti-Semitic lessons concerning Muslim women being taught to their students. Even though the curriculum was removed, school administrators refused to tell the children the information was inaccurate (as was the case above with the Wellesley Middle School).

Here’s the referenced video of a 2010 high school trip to a mosque in Newton, Massachusetts:

The Gulen Movement, led by a Turkish expat living in the United States, seeks to promote Islam. There are now more than one hundred and forty Gulen charter schools in the United States. Here’s a bit about them from a Center for Security Polity publication titled The Gulen Movement: Turkey’s Islamic Supremacist Cult and its Contributions to the Civilization Jihad.

Fethullah Gulen’s movement is just one more manifestation of what the Muslim Brotherhood has called civilization jihad, albeit a particularly sinister one with its large footprint, penetration of our educational system and well-established, sophisticated and successful influence operations. With this new monograph – the [eighth] in the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Readers Series, we hope to sound an alarm about this multi-faceted and dangerous Islamic supremacist cult that – despite significant setbacks in its native Turkey – constitutes a true Trojan Horse in our midst. [Emphasis added.]

It must be noted that those setbacks [in Turkey] are being dealt the Gulen cult and its empire by a rival Islamic supremacist movement: the AK Party and government of Turkish President Recep Tayyep Erdogan. Like erstwhile allies in organized criminal racketeering, these two Islamist mafia dons have had a toxic falling-out after they jointly took down the Ataturk legacy of secular governance in Turkey. Welcome as the rolling up of the Gulen empire and the extradition of its cult leader from the United States would be, nothing in this monograph should be seen as an endorsement of the no-less problematic Erdogan regime’s civilization jihadism and its ambitions to restore the Caliphate.

Please read the entire pamphlet.

Turkey’s Gulen is not alone. Another Turkish group, Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), is writing text books and providing teachers and other resources to schools in Germany.

The state of Hesse has become the first in Germany to offer Islamic education in public schools, with religious instruction starting as early as the first grade.

Giving young children religious and moral instruction might sound like a good idea, if not for the content of the newly written Islamic curriculum and the influence of Islamist elements over the recruitment of teachers. [Emphasis added.]

The writing of textbooks is being overseen by the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB). In an agreement reached between the State of Hesse and DITIB, the organization will play a key role in setting the curriculum, selecting the teachers and monitoring the Islamic religious instruction. The organization is apparently assuming a similar role in several other key German states.  [Emphasis added.]

DITIB is the largest Muslim organization in Germany and controls several prominent mosques. The group depends heavily on the Turkish government for its funding, and maintains close ties with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist party, the AKP.

Our “great ally” Saudi Arabia is also spending lots of money to promote fundamentalist Islam.

[T]he Kingdom funded Western tax exempt Islamic organizations engaged in dawah (proselytization for Islam). Among them were networks of charitable organizations that provide financial aid to prisoners (including non-Muslims to lure them to Islam) in Western jails, lavishly funded academic chairs in Middle East Studies in universities around the world, student-exchange programs and spending many millions of dollars to increase Saudi political influence in the West — even contributing $100 million to coordinate and assist the United Nations international counterterrorism efforts.

. . . .

The public outrage and rejection of Saudi King Salman’s offer to fund 200 new mosques for more than 800,000 new Muslim refugees in Germany, and the Vice Chancellor’s statement: “We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over” point in the right direction. But don’t hold your breath. Germany, the United States and the rest of the West have been turning a blind eye to Saudi funding of thousands of mosques, madrassas and Islamic centers that have propagated radical Islamic ideology for decades and are unlikely to face reality anytime soon.  [Emphasis added.]

How and why are “we the people” encouraging Islam’s victory over Judeo-Christian culture?

Far from being limited to a number of elitist leaders and institutions, the Western empowerment of the jihad is the natural outcome of postmodern thinking—the real reason an innately weak Islam can be a source of repeated woes for a militarily and economically superior West. [Emphasis added.]

Remember, the reason people like French President Francois Hollande, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are in power—three prominent Western leaders who insist that Islam is innocent of violence and who push for Muslim immigration—is because they embody a worldview that is normative in the West. [Emphasis added.]

In this context, the facilitation of jihadi terror is less a top down imposition and more a grass root product of decades of erroneous, but unquestioned, thinking.  (Those who believe America’s problems begin and end with Obama would do well to remember that he did not come to power through a coup but that he was voted in—twice.  This indicates that Obama and the majority of voting Americans have a shared, and erroneous, worldview.  He may be cynically exploiting this worldview, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s because this warped worldview is mainstream that he can exploit it in the first place.) [Emphasis added.]

Western empowerment of the jihad is rooted in a number of philosophies that have metastasized into every corner of social life, becoming cornerstones of postmodern epistemology. These include the doctrines of relativism and multiculturalism on the one hand, and anti-Western, anti-Christian sentiment on the other. [Emphasis added.]

Taken together, these cornerstones of postmodern, post-Christian thinking hold that there are no absolute truths and thus all cultures are fundamentally equal and deserving of respect. If any Western person wants to criticize a civilization or religion, then let them look “inwardly” and acknowledge their European Christian heritage as the epitome of intolerance and imperialism. [Emphasis added.]

Add to these a number of sappy and silly ideals—truth can never be uttered because it might “hurt the feelings” of some (excluding white Christians who are free game), and if anything, the West should go out of its way to make up for its supposedly historic “sins” by appeasing Muslims until they “like us”—and you have a sure recipe for disaster, that is, the current state of affairs. [Emphasis added.]

Western people are bombarded with these aforementioned “truths” from the cradle to the grave—from kindergarten to university, from Hollywood to the news rooms, and now even in churches—so that they are unable to accept and act on a simple truism that their ancestors well knew: Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant creed that cannot coexist with non-Islam (except insincerely, in times of weakness). [Emphasis added.]

The essence of all this came out clearly when Obama, in order to rationalize away the inhuman atrocities of the Islamic State, counseled Americans to get off their “high horse” and remember that their Christian ancestors have been guilty of similar if not worse atrocities.  That he had to go back almost a thousand years for examples by referencing the crusades and inquisition—both of which have been completely distorted by the warped postmodern worldview, including by portraying imperialist Muslims as victims—did not matter to America’s leader.

Worse, it did not matter to most Americans.  The greater lesson was not that Obama whitewashed modern Islamic atrocities by misrepresenting and demonizing Christian history, but that he was merely reaffirming the mainstream narrative that Americans have been indoctrinated into believing.  And thus, aside from the usual ephemeral and meaningless grumblings, his words—as with many of his pro-Islamic, anti-Christian comments and policies—passed along without consequence. [Emphasis added.]


Too many of “We the people” demand “safe spaces” (offense-free zones) where rote acceptance of politically correct pablum is cherished rather than contested or even questioned. I doubt that another massively successful effort on the scale of the September 11, 2001 attack by Islamic fundamentalists would awaken many of them. Rather than begin to awaken and see what Islam is, how many would angrily demand to know what America did this time to offend our brothers and sisters of the Religion of Peace, Truth and love?

We once had a great culture and a great nation.

It is now fading and is in danger of being displaced by something far different and evil. What will WE do?

Getting rid of Obama will not be nearly enough, regardless of whether He is a Muslim.

Listen again to Ayan Hirsi Ali’s hopes for the reformation of Islam and think about what we can do to help. Read about Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who wants to make Muslims believe that much of fundamentalist Islam is not Islamic.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser – a Navy vet and founder of the American Islamic Forum of Democracy – is one of those individuals taking the stand against Islamic organizations that support terrorism and claim to speak for the entire community. From Fox News:

“CAIR is a primary obstacle in the effort of many honest American Muslims who recognize our need to own up and lead long-overdue reforms against the root causes of radicalization: Islamism and its separatism,” said Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an ex-U.S. Navy officer who founded and heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.


“CAIR’s information is marketed and packaged so it seems that they speak for all of us, but they don’t speak for me and my group,” said Raheel Raza, president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. “CAIR does not and has never represented the majority Muslim voices which are as diverse as Muslims in America.”

‘They don’t speak for me’: New Muslim groups reject CAIR representation

Dr. Jasser has assembled an alliance known as the “Muslim Reform Movement” consisting of about a dozen moderate Islamic groups in the US, Canada and Europe. This movement rebukes jihad and advocates the separation of “Mosque and state,” among other things. Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that they reject the idea of an “Islamic State” and Sharia Law.

Dr. Jasser is right about the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Although political correctness prevents Democrats and many Republicans from admitting it, it is already well established that CAIR has ties to terrorism.

CAIR, which masquerades as America’s largest Muslim civil rights group, is an outpost of international jihadism. It is an enemy propaganda organization whose longstanding ties to the terrorist underworld have been exhaustively documented at DiscoverTheNetworks and elsewhere. CAIR aims to influence America’s domestic and foreign policies. CAIR wants to make America safe for Sharia law by bullying Americans into not questioning Islam, a religion-centered ideology that has been generating a body count for 1,400 years. [Emphasis added.]

Accusing critics of so-called Islamophobia, a term invented by Islamists, is CAIR’s favorite method of silencing critics and opponents. It is part of a dangerous effort to discourage Americans from thinking freely and arriving at their own conclusions about Islam and mainstream the tenets of Islam in our society. The idea is to eventually make it as difficult and uncomfortable as possible to criticize the faith founded by Muhammad in the seventh century after the birth of Christ. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. The three men, reports DiscoverTheNetworks, “had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and founded as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States.”  CAIR opened an office in the nation’s capital with a $5,000 grant from the Marzook-founded Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a charity that the Bush administration shuttered in 2001 for collecting money “to support the Hamas terror organization.” CAIR called the action “unjust” and “disturbing.” In 2004 Marzook was indicted on racketeering charges related to his pro-Hamas activities. Ahmad was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Ghassan Elashi, a co-founder of the Texas branch of CAIR, was convicted in 2005 of terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to 80 months in prison. CAIR civil rights director Randall Todd Royer was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on federal weapons and explosives charges in 2004. Bassem Khafagi, a community affairs director at CAIR, was convicted in 2003 on bank and visa fraud charges and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Rabih Haddad, a fundraiser for CAIR’s chapter in Ann Arbor, Mich., was detained in 2001 after overstaying his tourist visa. Authorities found a firearm and boxes of ammunition in his home. He served 19 months in prison and was deported to Lebanon in 2003. CAIR board member Abdurahman Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment for funneling at least $1 million to al-Qaeda. CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. The three men, reports DiscoverTheNetworks, “had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and founded as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States.”

CAIR and related Islamist organizations have often participated in White House meetings; Dr. Jasser and his group have been excluded.

[F]or the past seven years, the Obama White House has opened its doors to the entire spectrum of radical Islamist groups, just like CAIR. These groups have rationalized the actions of Islamic terrorist groups that have killed Americans, warned American Muslims against cooperating with law enforcement, smeared genuine Muslim moderates like Zuhdi Jasser and Asra Nomani as traitors and accused anyone who dared to utter the term “radical Islam” as “Islamophobic.” These are the groups that the White House should have marginalized. The fact that Obama legitimized radical Islamist groups will be his real legacy.

Is Dr. Jasser’s version of Islam “fantasy Islam?” Historically and presently, it unfortunately is. It rejects aspects of Islamism with which very many Muslims agree.

But need that remain the case? Christianity has changed since the time of the Inquisition and perhaps Islam — which except technologically remains stuck in the middle ages — can eventually change as well — if and when Islamic nations encourage, rather than prohibit, free speech. I have seen few significant signs of that happening. Egyptian President Sisi — despised by Obama for opposing the Muslim Brotherhood — has tried and is trying. He may not be around much longer because of it.

Jasser’s hopes for the future generally parallel those of Ayan Hirsi Ali, who wants Islam to revert to relatively tolerant and peaceful Mecca Islam and to reject subsequent Medina Islam, the fruit of Mohamed’s greatly changed status in Medina to become a powerful warlord. I see little reason to expect that it will change in that direction even in the distant future, and less that it will do so soon. I hope that I am wrong.

In any event, Muslims will need to do most of the work themselves, and that will require that there be enough of them to do it. If and when that happens, perhaps we can help a little. The most important things that we can do will be to

1. Recognize that fundamentalist Islam is evil and shun rather than accept those who espouse it, such as CAIR and its affiliates and

2.  Prevent the further invasion of the United States (it may well be too late for Obama’s America) by Muslims who adhere to fundamentalist Islam. Unfortunately, most of our current crop of Republicans seem quite unlikely even to try.

White House Opens Door to CAIR Rep, Ignores Muslim Reformers

December 16, 2015

White House Opens Door to CAIR Rep, Ignores Muslim Reformers, Investigative Project on Terrorism, December 15, 2015

He accused the FBI of killing two men in cold blood in separate incidents. But Obama administration officials saw Hassan Shibly as a suitable representative of the American Muslim community to include at Monday’s White House meeting on combating religious discrimination, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has learned.

Shibly is the chief executive director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Florida. Since 2008, FBI policy has barred outreach communication with CAIR officials due to documents seized by law enforcement which place CAIR and its founders at the heart of a Hamas-support network at the time of CAIR’s creation. Eyewitness interviews recently obtained by the IPT further detail CAIR’s ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Until it determines “whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” a senior official wrote in 2009.

Why would the White House include CAIR when FBI policy is to avoid the group? A White House spokesperson wouldn’t say, telling the IPT in an email Tuesday afternoon that “CAIR state chapter representatives have been included in broad meetings” with the White House and other cabinet-level agencies.

The meeting’s focus is understandable, but the inclusion of a prominent CAIR official serves only to enhance the status of a group with documented ties to a terrorist-financing network. And the exclusion of voices representing non-Islamist Muslim reformers just makes their challenge of getting a fair hearing for their ideas more difficult.

Shibly’s record should have been especially troublesome for staffers compiling a list of White House guests to meet with Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett. He is helping a family sue the FBI, alleging an agent shot and killed a friend of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev after hours of questioning in his Orlando home in 2013.

Independent investigations, requested by CAIR, by the Justice Department and a Florida state attorney found that Ibragim Todashev, a “skilled mixed-martial arts fighter,” attacked the agent shortly after acknowledging involvement in a separate triple-murder case in Massachusetts. Todashev continued charging after being shot, prompting the agent to fire more.

Shibly rejected the findings, saying only Todashev could “contradict the government’s narrative” but he was dead. Similarly, Shibly joined other CAIR officials in blaming the FBI for the 2010 death of a Detroit imam who refused to surrender to arresting FBI agents and shot an FBI canine trying to subdue him. Again, independent investigations CAIR requested supported the agents’ actions, and even included video showing the imam trying to conceal his Glock 9mm handgun.

During a 2012 radio interview, Shibly claimed “the imam was tied and bound and was shot. And that is very troubling. Why was a man in chains shot?”

Shibly made this statement two years after video of the shooting was released. There is no evidence supporting Shibly’s description.

While there was room for Shibly at the White House, the guest list included no representatives from a new coalition of non-Islamist Muslims which issued a declaration and statement of principles for the Muslim Reform Movement. The values described include “peace, human rights and secular governance,” a call to defeat “Islamism, or politicized Islam,” and a simple declaration: “We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam.”

These are the values that merit the endorsement of a meeting with top White House staffers.

But for the past seven years, the Obama White House has opened its doors to the entire spectrum of radical Islamist groups, just like CAIR. These groups have rationalized the actions of Islamic terrorist groups that have killed Americans, warned American Muslims against cooperating with law enforcement, smeared genuine Muslim moderates like Zuhdi Jasser and Asra Nomani as traitors and accused anyone who dared to utter the term “radical Islam” as “Islamophobic.” These are the groups that the White House should have marginalized. The fact that Obama legitimized radical Islamist groups will be his real legacy.

The Muslim reform movement plays fantasy Islam

December 10, 2015

The Muslim reform movement plays fantasy Islam, Front Page MagazineDr. Stephen M. Kirby, December 10, 2015


Fantasy Islam: A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Muslim strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a personal version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.

In December 2015, a small group of “Muslim reformers” met in Washington DC to discuss the reform of Islam.  They stated they were “Muslims who live in the 21st century” who were “in a battle for the soul of Islam.”  They proclaimed that they stood for “a respectful, merciful and inclusive interpretation of Islam.”  They called their meeting the Summit of Western Muslim Voices of Reform and named themselves the Muslim Reform Movement.  On December 4, 2015, fourteen “founding authors” from this movement signed the Declaration for Muslim Reform, laying out their beliefs.

At the conclusion of the event, two participants posted a signed copy of this Declaration on the door of the Islamic Center of Washington DC (a la Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle church in 1517).  The document was quickly removed, and so far there has been little, if any, support for this reform movement from the greater Muslim-American community.

Here is the reason for that lack of support: the Preamble and Declaration are only two pages in length.  But in those two pages these “founding authors” fundamentally rejected the commands of Allah in the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad in an effort to create their own Fantasy Islam that is more compatible with Western, Judeo-Christian values.  Let’s examine some parts of that Declaration for Muslim Reform.

We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence…

So starts out the second paragraph of the Preamble.   But the commands of Allah in the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad are rife with violence.

The Koran commands Muslims specifically to kill non-Muslims (9:5), specifically to fight against Jews and Christians (9:29), and generally to fight against and be violent toward non-Muslims (e.g., 2:216, 4:74, 5:33, 8:12, 8:39, 8:57, 9:14, 9:73, 9:111, 9:123, 48:29, and 66:9).

Muhammad was proud that he had been made victorious through terror and fear (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 2977; andSunan An-Nasa’i, No. 432).  He even said, “My livelihood is under the shade of my spear” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book 56, Chapter 88).  “Under the shade of my spear” means war plunder.

Muhammad is the standard of conduct for Muslims.  Muhammad supervised the beheading of 600-900 captured Jewish males, including non-combatants, and over the years ordered individuals killed for criticizing Islam.  Muhammad even ordered poets to be killed.  The following is a portion of a letter written shortly after the Muslim conquest of Mecca in 630 AD.  It was sent to a non-Muslim poet who used to satirize Muhammad, from the poet’s brother:

Allah’s Messenger killed some men in Makkah who used to satirize and harm him, and the poets who survived fled in all directions for their lives.  So, if you want to save your skin, hasten to Allah’s Messenger.  He never kills those who come to him repenting.  If you refuse to do as I say, it is up to you to try to save your skin by any means.

The Sealed Nectar, p. 521

Violence and Islam go hand-in-hand.

We reject bigotry, oppression and violence against all people based on any prejudice, including… sexual orientation…

We find this in A3 of the Declaration.  But Muhammad cursed lesbians and gays (Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 5886) and said that whoever is caught in a homosexual act should be killed (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 2, p. 402).

This is found in B2 of the Declaration.  Muhammad felt differently.  He said that Jews and Christians were worth only half of a Muslim (Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 2644).  He said that women were deficient in intelligence and religion (Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 304), and that it took the freeing of two female slaves to equal the virtue of freeing one male slave (Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, No. 1547).  The Koran forbids Muslim women from marrying a non-Muslim (2:221), but a Muslim man can marry Jewish and Christian women (5:5).  And the Koran states that Jews and Christians are among the worst of people (98:6), while Muslims are the best of people (98:7).

We support equal rights for women, including equal rights to inheritance, witness…

This is found in B3 of the Declaration.  But this statement is a specific rejection of two verses in the Koran.  4:12 states that a woman only inherits one half of what a man would get, and this means that if there is more than one wife, all the wives will have to share that one-half portion.  2:282 states that in property matters it takes the testimony of two women to equal that of one man.  Are these verses not the words of Allah?

Sharia is manmade.

This is an amazing claim made in C1 of the Declaration.  In reality, Sharia Law is Islamic Sacred Law based on the commands of Allah found in the Koran and on the teachings and example of Muhammad, who spoke for Allah.  Does the word blasphemy come to mind?

Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam.

This is another amazing claim, found in C2 of the Declaration.  After all, in the Koran Allah states that Islam was perfected during the time of Muhammad (5:3).  How then can something that is perfect be criticized?  And there are many verses that specifically prohibit criticism of Islam, Allah, or Muhammad (e.g. 4:59, 4:115, 9:63, 33:36, 33:57, and 59:7).

Muhammad did not like criticism.  For example, he personally ordered the killing of certain individuals who had criticized him or Islam (‘Amsa’ Bint Marwan, Abu ‘Afak, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, and Abu Rafi’).  And he gave retroactive approval to the separate killings by Muslims of three individuals who had earlier criticized him or Islam.

Apostasy is not a crime.

This statement is in C3 of the Declaration.  These reformers are rejecting 4:89 of the Koran which commands the killing of those who leave Islam.  They are also rejecting specific statements from their prophet Muhammad, who stated that death was the penalty for those who left Islam (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Nos. 3017 and 6878; and Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas, 36.18.15, in which Muhammad specified death by beheading for apostasy).


In an effort to “reform” Islam, a small band of aspiring Muslim reformers met in the capital of a non-Muslim country, proclaimed themselves to be “founding authors” (why not go all the way and say Founding Fathers?), created a document that rejected Muhammad’s Islam in favor of Western, Judeo-Christian values, and then followed the example of an earlier non-Muslim who wanted to “reform” his own non-Muslim religion.

If folks are serious about religious reform, one thinks they would like to maintain some connection to their own religious traditions as a basis for that reform.  But the Muslim Reform Movement has apparently decided otherwise and seems more interested in establishing a connection with the non-Muslim Western world as the basis for their reform.  Such is the luxury of playing Fantasy Islam.  And this is the reason why there seems to be little, if any, support coming from the greater Muslim-American community for this small group of aspiring reformers.  It is only attention from the non-Muslim world that will sustain the Muslim Reform Movement.

Fast-roping toward war in the Middle East

October 10, 2015

Fast-roping toward war in the Middle East, Washington Times, Ken Allard, October 8, 2015

(Oh well,


Not on our side

— DM)


Home to the Arab world’s largest population and the region’s geopolitical crossroads, Egypt had been a key American strategic ally ever since Anwar Sadat. But Mr. Obama backed the Islamist dictatorship of Mohammed Morsi, even after 30 million Egyptians took to the streets in July, 2013 to force his overthrow. When Mr. Obama cut off military ties with the new Egyptian regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Russians swiftly stepped in to reverse a generation of American statecraft. Unlike the amateurs in the West Wing, Russian strategists and diplomats have no difficulty connecting dots or reading maps.

Neither do our few remaining allies in the Middle East, who can be forgiven for drawing their own conclusions, given the Egyptian reversal, those Syrian red-lines, the recent Iranian arms control deal and the steady expansion of Iranian influence throughout the region.


The Russians are rapidly reinforcing their bridgehead in Syria, adding ground troops to their air, marine and naval forces. It is a classic air, land and sea intervention by a military establishment that understands how combined arms build synergies and broaden capabilities. As Jed Babbin pointed out in these pages on Wednesday, the broad-shouldered Russian intervention is the direct counterpoint to the “inaction, indecision and dithering” that have long characterized President Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called Mr. Obama’s bluff. He has also deployed a Russian expeditionary force bristling with robust anti-aircraft and ground-attack weapons, even firing cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea. Such a deployment is precisely what Mr. Putin believes necessary to insure that Russian jets and helicopters dominate the skies over Syria. Fox News reports that Russian jets have already shadowed U.S. Predator drones on three occasions, a quiet but unsubtle message that the unmanned aircraft are flying only because of Russian forbearance.

Depending solely on Mr. Putin’s strategic objectives, that prevailing restraint can vanish in an instant. Union and Confederate commanders, for example, routinely practiced counter-reconnaissance throughout the Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864. When planning a surprise attack or defending a vulnerable position, their first objective was to prevent enemy cavalry from having an unobstructed view of one’s own dispositions. What cavalry did back then, air forces and satellites do today.

Updating an ancient principle for the digital age, Norman Schwarzkopf destroyed Saddam Hussein’s radars, reconnaissance systems and intelligence assets before American airpower launched the opening salvos of Operation Desert Storm. Today’s Russian generals grew up practicing the basic principles of Soviet electronic warfare: Intercept the enemy’s communications, jam him or destroy him. Above all: Use the electromagnetic spectrum and state-of-the-art Russian air defenses to offset hi-tech American airpower. In Syria, that campaign has already begun.

Pandering to an American public that is militarily and strategically illiterate, some presidential candidates have reflexively called for “no-fly zones” to be set up in Syria. Predictably, Donald Trump has even expressed enthusiasm for Mr. Putin’s alleged intent to combat ISIS. But seriously, folks, why would Vladimir Putin go to the considerable trouble of staging the largest foreign deployment of Russian forces since the Cold War only to cater to western conceits about no-fly zones? Even if he did, who would set up and enforce them? Having made a power play to control Syria (and therefore a major chunk of the Middle East) why on earth would Mr. Putin content himself solely with attacking ISIS? (If you are having trouble following this logic, then you probably are a member of the White House staff “perplexed” by Russian objectives.

As a highly trained KGB apparatchik, Syria is not Mr. Putin’s first rodeo. While it has become obligatory in Washington policy salons to deplore Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Egypt’s recent history offers a better clue to Russia’s long-range goals.

Home to the Arab world’s largest population and the region’s geopolitical crossroads, Egypt had been a key American strategic ally ever since Anwar Sadat. But Mr. Obama backed the Islamist dictatorship of Mohammed Morsi, even after 30 million Egyptians took to the streets in July, 2013 to force his overthrow. When Mr. Obama cut off military ties with the new Egyptian regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Russians swiftly stepped in to reverse a generation of American statecraft. Unlike the amateurs in the West Wing, Russian strategists and diplomats have no difficulty connecting dots or reading maps.

Neither do our few remaining allies in the Middle East, who can be forgiven for drawing their own conclusions, given the Egyptian reversal, those Syrian red-lines, the recent Iranian arms control deal and the steady expansion of Iranian influence throughout the region. Because it is a tough and unforgiving neighborhood, where would you place your bets if you lived there? Do you ally yourself with the rising regional power or the one seemingly intent only on defeat and retreat? As a friend points out, “Obama only attacks oilmen, Wall Street, the police, pro-lifers, the NRA, Christians, conservative Republicans, and traditional U.S. allies. Remember when they were the good guys?”

In this confusing world, it is important to remember that things can get worse, particularly given the fog of war with lots of heavily armed aircraft moving at high speeds over surprisingly small operating areas. War is justly famed for confounding the best intentions, for proving that the only assumption which holds true is the one you were certain could never happen.

How ironic that the place where three of the world’s great religions were born might yet spark a global confrontation where no holds are barred.