The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

Muslim realizes the truth about islam and loses composure.
Muslims Do repeat and forgo deception.



Arab guy goes into meltdown after reading 'The People vs Muhammad'
Recently, an Arab TV station discussed the controversial book 'The People vs Muhammad'. The result was an explosive meltdown after one of the guests renounce

Hugh Fitzgerald: Was the Medina Attack an “Assault on Islam Itself”?

July 6, 2016 11:56 am By Hugh Fitzgerald 34 Comments


After every attack by Muslim terrorists, Muslims, and many non-Muslim apologists for Islam, insist that “these attacks cannot possibly have anything to do with Islam.” But now, after the attack in Medina, a new mantra is being chanted, which is that these attacks have something to do with Islam because they constitute “an attack on Islam.”

The U.N. human rights chief, for example, a member of the Jordanian royal family, called the suicide bombing outside the Prophet Mohammad’s Mosque in the Saudi city of Medina “an attack on Islam itself.” He was echoed by others, including the tireless Muslim propagandist Haroon Moghul, who wrote that the “Medina attack is an assault on Islam itself.” Still others have lumped the Saudi attacks in with those in Baghdad and Dhaka, claiming that in these attacks of the last few weeks “Muslims have been the main victims.” (In a purely arithmetical sense, given the 200 killed in Baghdad, that may be – misleadingly – true). My, how quick so many of us are to sow or reap confusion.
Let’s try to keep clear and distinct what each of these attacks was targeting.
The first thing to do is not to allow ourselves to forget what the attack on the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka was all about. Beyond any confusion or doubt, it was an attack solely on non-Muslims. These were selected, by their killers, through the administration of a macabre quiz about the Qur’an. Those who, among the patrons and staff, showed sufficient knowledge of the Qur’an, were spared, and were even treated solicitously by the attackers, who made sure they were fed, while those who could not pass it were identified as non-Muslims, and tortured and killed.

Indeed, the attackers appear to have suggested to those they had spared that they should try to be just like themselves, they who had been busily torturing and killing 20 men and women, as the very models of “good Muslims” that others should emulate:

“When they realised that troops might storm the building, they came to our room one last time and told us not to tarnish the name of Islam, be a good Muslim and uphold the pride of Islam. They said they had no intention of hurting us as we were Muslims.”​

Whatever place it may have attained in the annals of grotesque cruelty, what happened at the Holey Artisan restaurant did not constitute an “attack on Muslims.”
After Dhaka, it was bombs away in Baghdad, set off in the mainly Shi’a Karada neighborhood, killing nearly 200 people. Was this an “attack on Islam,” as some Western apologists for Islam have claimed? (Sunni Muslims are noticeably silent on the attacks aimed at Shi’a, and are careful not to claim that such attacks are an “attack on Islam itself.”) No, those bombs were targeted at Karada precisely because the Shi’a, in the view of the energetic takfiris of ISIS, are not real Muslims at all. And it is not just the Sunnis of ISIS, but other Sunnis, too, who share that view.

We must not forget that according to these Sunnis, the Shi’a are “Rafidite dogs” (from “rafida” – “rejectionists”), so called because they reject the legitimacy of three of the caliphs — Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman — who followed Muhammad, insisting instead that the only legitimate successor to Muhammad was Ali. This is the main, but not the only difference between Shi’a and Sunnis. The most extreme Sunnis regard the Shi’a as even worse than Christians and Jews. An ISIS spokesman put it this way in 2015: “The greatest answer to this question [are the Shi’a worse than Christians and Jews] is in the Qur’an, where Allah speaks about the nearby enemy – those Muslims who have become infidels – as they are more dangerous than those which were already infidels.” ISIS has been ferocious in its nonstop denunciation of the Shi’a. In the 13th edition of the ISIS magazine Dabiq, for example, the main article is entitled The Rafidah: From Ibn Saba’ to the Dajjal; this article contains “pages of violent rhetoric directed against Shiites,” who it claims are “more severely dangerous and more murderous…than the Americans.” The article justifies the killing of Shia Muslims, whom ISIS insists are not Muslims at all but apostates, and apostasy in Islam is punishable by death.

What about the three simultaneous attacks in Saudi Arabia? Surely these were, as the egregious Haroon Moghul assures us, “attacks on Islam itself”?

Let’s take those attacks one by one.
The first was the attack in Qatif, in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, where almost all of the Shi’a live. The bombs in Qatif went off outside a Shi’a mosque, and were meant to kill only Shi’a, who are despised in the Wahhabi kingdom, called “Rafida,” just as they are by Sunnis in ISIS. In Qatif, there was neither an attack “on Islam” nor on Muslims, but on the Shi’a, regarded – see the excerpt from Dabiq above — by their uber-Sunni attackers as apostates from Islam.

The second attack was in Jeddah, with an attacker blowing himself up near the American consulate, but not piercing its perimeter. This was clearly meant to be an attack on American Infidels. Again, not an “attack on Islam.”

The third attack was in Medina, and here is where the “attack on Islam” description might, one may think, be justified. But is it? The attack appears to have hit its intended target, not the mosque itself, but the Saudi security forces stationed near the Prophet’s Mosque. It was an attack, that is, on the Saudi state, attempting to show that the Saudi rulers’ main claim to legitimacy, as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, was hollow. For if the Saudi security forces could be hit even at the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, how could the Al-Saud present themselves as effective guardians (that is, protectors) of the two holy mosques? ISIS regards the Saudi rulers as not real Muslims, even though ISIS and the Saudis share the same Wahhabi brand of Islam. For it is not doctrinal matters, as with the Shia, that makes ISIS regard the Al-Saud as enemies and infidels. It is, rather, because of the way the Al-Saud lead their lives. That over-the-top decadence of all those princes and princelings and princelettes, their pocketing of so much of the national wealth, their spending of much of that wealth on themselves, their mega-yachts in the Mediterranean, their shopping sprees in Paris, their gambling in London and Las Vegas, their gamboling in southern Spain and southern France, their buying up of fabulous pleasure palaces all over the Western world, their incessant whoring – this has earned the fury of ISIS, and of other Muslims too. That was what the bombs in Medina were about: a successful attack on the Al-Saud in their official role as protectors of the two holy places would weaken their claim to rule. For ISIS the Al-Saud are “tyrants” who have “corrupted the faith” in order to hold onto power, and despite their claims of being observant Wahhabis, deserve to be considered as apostates, as infidels.

We mustn’t allow ourselves to be confused by the seeming variety of targets ISIS has chosen, and overlook what links them in our eagerness to believe that “Islam is under attack” and that as a result, perhaps, now all those “moderate Muslims” (yet another forlorn hope we cling to) will join forces with us, the world’s Infidels, against the “extremists.” In Dhaka, it was clearly non-Muslims who were the target. In Baghdad, it was “apostate” Shi’a, who for ISIS are even worse infidels than Christians and Jews. In Saudi Arabia, the targets were three varieties of Infidels: Americans in Jeddah, “apostate” Shi’a in Qatif, and the Al-Saud in Medina (as represented by their surrogates, the security services), whose decadence ISIS describes as equivalent to apostasy. Despite the Haroon Moghuls of this world, it is not Islam that is “under attack,” but whomever the Islamic State defines, to its own murderous satisfaction, as Infidels. That’s the unhappy moral of Dhaka, Baghdad, Qatif, Jeddah, and Medina. Only that, and nothing more.

Huffington Post tries to discredit report of Muslim Congressmen’s ties to Muslim Brotherhood; real story is much worse
YouTube bans video on Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia and Civilization Jihad as "hate speech"

 

The War of the Worlds !
Secular Globalism versus Universal Unification.
Objective Truth versus Subjective Opinion.

An Israeli Rabbi's Response to Obama's Speech on Radical Islam




​

 

Zvi Lando ‏@zlando 32m32 minutes ago
Only in Palestine: You can build houses like this and still convince people that you live in a "ghetto" #Chilcotpic.twitter.com/f2bO4BVYhq



Tony Bermanseder ‏@sirebard 1m1 minute ago
@zlando And demand and receive millions of 'humanitarian aid' to feed and house the poor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U …



Hugh Fitzgerald: “Shaking Hands is an Important Part of Our Culture”

July 10, 2016 8:45 am By Hugh Fitzgerald 71 Comments


In the last few years, one country in Europe – Switzerland – has offered lessons in how to deal with Muslims that other Western countries might do well to emulate. For the Swiss have taken a tough line on those Muslims living in their country who have been unwilling to adapt to Swiss ways. Swiss authorities have been requiring Muslims to comply not just with Swiss laws, but with Swiss customs, and imposing stiff fines and other penalties for the failure to observe the country’s social norms.

And that’s not all: they’ve banned the minaret, and may soon ban the burka. All this has been accomplished, since 2009, without apparent concern for what might be the potential economic costs. After all, rich Arabs, especially from Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., have many tens of billions deposited in Swiss banks; Swiss manufacturers count the Gulf Arabs as a major market, and so do the Swiss makers of luxury goods (those celebrated watches). Arab-owned real estate overlooking Lake Geneva and in the Bernese Oberland helps keep property values up. But the Swiss have determinedly ignored all that.
The first significant example of the Swiss pushback to the aggressive Muslim presence came in November 2009. From the New York Times:

In a vote that displayed a widespread anxiety about Islam and undermined the country’s reputation for religious tolerance, the Swiss on Sunday overwhelmingly imposed a national ban on the construction of minarets, the prayer towers of mosques, in a referendum drawn up by the far right and opposed by the government.​

The referendum, which passed with a clear majority of 57.5 percent of the voters and in 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons, was a victory for the right. The vote against was 42.5 percent. Because the ban gained a majority of votes and passed in a majority of the cantons, it will be added to the Constitution.​

When that vote was held, there were only four mosques – out of 150 — with minarets in all of Switzerland, and those minarets were merely of symbolic significance, not even used for the call to prayer. Yet so great was Swiss unease with Islam by that time that many felt it important to ban the building of any more minarets; the measure passed overwhelmingly. And apparently those Swiss voters were not convinced that the banning of minarets constituted an infringement of the guarantee of freedom of religion enshrined in the Swiss Constitution. But that minaret ban was only the opening salvo.
This year, Switzerland was shaken by several cases where Muslim students refused to comply with Swiss traditions. One involved two immigrant boys, aged 14 and 16, the sons of an imam from Syria, who refused to shake their female teacher’s hand. Now in Switzerland, “shaking a teacher’s hand before and after class is part of Switzerland’s social fabric, and is considered an important sign of politeness and respect.” At first, the boys’ school decided to grant the boys an exemption, arguing that Islam did not permit physical contact with people of the opposite sex, other than members of the immediate family. And in order to take gender out of the dispute, the school also decided that the boys would not have to shake male teachers’ hands, either.

There followed a gigantic uproar all over Switzerland, among teachers, school administrators, politicians. And the uproar was not just on the so-called “right” but, as even the New York Times had to admit, “across the ideological spectrum: Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga, a social democrat, argued that shaking hands with a teacher was an important part of Swiss culture.”

Bert Zemp, the president of the Swiss teachers’ union, also spoke out against the [local school’s] decision, saying that the rules should apply to all students and that it sent the wrong message, since the boys would need to shake hands with colleagues, both male and female, as their lives progressed.​

After this backlash, the boys’ school decided to refer the matter to the regional – i.e., cantonal, higher – authorities in Basel, who decreed that “the integration of foreigners and the fostering of gender equality were in the public interest and that this consideration trumped the private interests of the two students. It acknowledged that forcing the students to shake their female teacher’s hand was an ‘intrusion’ on their religious beliefs but said that it was a proportionate one since, in its view, ‘it did not involve the central tenets of Islam.'”

And so the Canton of Basel decided that “parents whose children refused to obey the longstanding tradition could henceforth be fined up to 5,000 Swiss francs” ($5,050). With a fine that size, one that could be imposed for each separate infraction, Muslim students have been effectively forced to shake hands with their teachers, whatever their sex, and whatever the religious claims made by the students or their parents. Thus was a Swiss “tradition” elevated to the status of law. And the issue has been settled, with the Swiss authorities holding their ground, and then some.

Another example of increasing Swiss intransigence is the current campaign for a national referendum on banning the burka, which will likely be held next year. The burka has already been banned in one Swiss canton, the Ticino, and this month finally went into effect, and the first fine levied, of 10,000 Swiss francs on a burka-wearing female convert who had decided to deliberately ignore the ban.

Walter Wobman of the Swiss People’s Party, a member of Parliament, is leading the effort to collect signatures for the referendum, and he is “confident that the idea is a popular one….Wobman has made it clear that his motive in raising the matter is the promotion of equality and western values, writing: ‘No one should be able to compel another person to conceal their face because of their gender.’” Instead of shunning Wobman as being “far-right,” Swiss feminists have joined his cause, “including the Swiss women’s rights activist Julia Onken…[who] called the burka a ‘material prison’ which ‘makes life no longer worth living.'” As of this writing, it looks as though Wobman will obtain the 100,000 signatures needed in order to hold the referendum, and that the burka ban will be applied throughout Switzerland.

Also in the list of actions taken to ensure that Swiss ways prevail on Muslims in Switzerland, rather than the other way around, is the case of the two Muslim immigrant girls who “refused to swim with boys in a coed class at school…They said that their religion prevents them from participating in compulsory swimming lessons with males in the pool at the same time. Their naturalization application was rejected because the sisters did not comply with the school curriculum.” And that was the end of the matter. No threats, no protests, no riots.

The Swiss want to make sure that Muslim immigrants, whether citizens or not, make a real effort to integrate into Swiss society. They have shown themselves, with the minaret ban, willing, if necessary, to modify their constitution. They have been willing as well to impose enormous fines on the parents of children who fail to comply with school rules, as in the case of the schoolboys who would not shake their teacher’s hand. They have even denied citizenship to those who refuse to accept Swiss ways, as they did with those two Muslim schoolgirls who would not swim with boys in a coed class at school. And now they are considering, and are likely to adopt, a burka ban. The Swiss, you see – strange as it may seem, in the current climate of accommodation — are determined to keep Switzerland Swiss.

That, to me, sounds like a plan.

Theresa May's Sharia courts review branded a whitewash
Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne: Muhammad "instrument of God's mercy"

 

​

 

How do we feel about Muslim immigration now?




And as for the killer's 3 little children. This from Facebook, faces pixillated by me. Boy with gun, girl and sword and little girl with knife. Allah uh-Akhbar.


http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/07/how-do-we-feel-about-muslim-immigration-now.html

​

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: What’s Up Down Under

July 14, 2016 9:32 am By Hugh Fitzgerald 63 Comments


Pauline Hanson is a well-known political figure in Australia whose general anti-immigrant stance has recently become much more focused on Muslim immigration. After years in the political wilderness, on July 2 Hanson was elected, as a Senator, to the Australian Parliament. This has greatly alarmed Muslims and their apologists. The comments on her unexpected victory were hysterical in tone, deploring her “racism” and “bigotry” and her “spreading racist and Islamophobic vitriol and abuse which threatens and marginalizes” and so on and so predictably forth. Her party, One Nation, includes in its platform a ban on new mosques and on halal certification, and a policy of zero-net migration (where the numbers of migrants who are admitted to Australia match the number of permanent departures each year).

One Nation is not the only party making such proposals; three other smaller parties, for example, have included a ban on halal certification in their platforms. But what has been supported only by One Nation, and deserves respectful attention, is Hanson’s proposal that a Royal Commission be appointed to study Islam. Royal commissions are ad hoc formal inquiries into matters of great significance, usually staffed by retired judges; Hanson wants one set up to determine whether Islam is a “religion or an ideology” or, in her forthright formulation, “Let’s determine if it is a religion or a political ideology trying to undermine our culture.”

By this one assumes Hanson means to have asked, and answered, a series of questions that the political and media elites have not addressed. These would likely include: Is Islam akin to other faiths, in what it asks or demands of its adherents? In Islam is the “church” separate from or part of the “state”? What claim to worldly power does Islam make? Is the role of Islam limited in its claims on individual believers, or does it attempt to supply them with a Complete Regulation of Life? What does it mean when Believers are to think of themselves as members of a collective Umma (the Community of Believers), all over the world, who have not merely the right but the duty to spread the faith through every possible means, including but not limited to force? Does Islam, as some have claimed, view the world as divided between Believers and Non-Believers, that is, between Dar al-Islam, the territory where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, where Islam does not yet dominate and Infidels, for now, still rule? Does Islam encourage free and skeptical inquiry or severely limit such inquiry by punishing any questioning of the faith? Does Islam permit Believers to leave the faith, or does it, rather, prescribe death as the proper punishment for apostasy? Does Islam allow for equal treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule? What, according to Islam, are the rights of women?

These are the sorts of questions that a Royal Commission might take as its remit, if Pauline Hanson were to get her way. And from everything we now read, many Australians, like the Germans and even Canadians, who have until now been among the most open and welcoming to migrants, are having second thoughts about the desirability of Muslim immigrants. There is a general unease in the West about the numbers of Muslim “refugees” arriving, about their behavior once in the West, especially toward Western women, about the increased threat of domestic terrorism, about the assertiveness of Muslims who reject integration but attempt, rather, to force changes in Western societies in order to accommodate their mores. This unease only grows with the continuing pollyannish claims of apologists that “diversity is wonderful,” or the attempts to silence any criticism of Islam by wielding the billy-club of “Islamophobia.” It has dawned on many people in the West that those who are in power have a responsibility to study both Islam, and how Muslims have treated non-Muslims over the past 1400 years, after they conquered so many lands and subjugated so many non-Muslim peoples. Hanson and her One Nation party believe it makes sense to study the texts and teachings of Islam to determine if it looks more like what we think of as a religion – Christianity, say, or Judaism – or more like a totalitarian political movement, akin to Fascism or Communism, bent on conquest, power, and control.

Pauline Hanson’s request for a Royal Commission apparently did not go down well with a figure on the Australian Left, one Anne Aly, who is described in a puff piece in The West Australian as “Dr Aly, a renowned counter-terrorism expert” who, elected at the same time as Pauline Hanson, has become the first female Muslim in Australia’s Parliament. Her “renowned counter-terrorism” expertise had previously been on display in a letter she wrote to a court on behalf of a radical Islamic preacher, offering a character reference for Junaid Thorne, who, because of his comments, which included publicly supporting the Charlie Hebdo massacre, calling Jews and Christians “filthy rapists,” and defending his own brother, who had tried to flee Australia to join the Islamic State, had been forbidden from flying. Thorne had defied the ban and taken a plane nonetheless, and it was for this that he was facing punishment. Dr. Aly suggested to the court that instead of being given prison time, Thorne could be moved to Perth, where he could enroll in one of her “de-radicalization” programs. This would be a way, she wrote, of keeping Junaid Thorne “on the right side of the law.” The New South Wales District Court was not impressed; instead of Anne Aly’s program in Perth, Thorne got the jail time he deserved.

Anne Aly – I’m not sure who decided she should be called a “renowned counter-terrorism expert,” but I suspect Anne Aly herself — has been, in the real world, an adjunct professor and “Early Career Research Fellow” at Curtin University. She is greatly alarmed by Pauline Hanson’s proposal for a Royal Commission that would look into Islam. This was, she sternly warned, a “divisive” proposal. But what does Anne Aly mean? Why would such a proposal be “divisive” – or rather, how can she know in advance that it would be “divisive”? If there is nothing to be discovered about Islam that would alarm Infidels, then what is there for Muslims to worry about? Clearly Dr. Aly believes that more information about Islam, made public by a Royal Commission, would not be reassuring to Infidels but, rather, cause unspecified “divisions.” What Dr. Aly wants, what many other Muslims in the West want, is to be able to continue to suppress such study of Islam, where they cannot control the outcome, for as long as possible. If greater knowledge of Islam would raise the level of Infidel anxiety – i.e., be “divisive” — then such knowledge must not be sought in the first place.
But Pauline Hanson is once again a formidable political force in Australia, and Aly may not be able to stop that proposed Royal Commission. “I think Hanson will have a huge impact on how Islam is discussed in Australia,” political commentator Margo Kingston said. “Right now these matters are not discussed or only discussed by the far-right. But now it’ll go mainstream.”

So what else can the anne-alys of this world do except what they’ve been doing all along, to keep issuing bromides about “diversity” (Always Good) and “Islamophobia” (Always Bad) in the hope that that will be enough to shut down thought, and then all shall be well, all manner of things shall be well, with a peace that — as per usual, I’m afraid, and not only in Australia — passeth understanding?


Robert Spencer: ‘Iran Is What ISIS Wants to Be When It Grows Up’
Islamic State reportedly preparing for loss of caliphate, group focusing on jihad abroad

​

 

Poland’s interior minister: multiculturalism responsible for Nice jihad massacre

July 17, 2016 1:17 pm By Robert Spencer 26 Comments
He’s right, and what he says is simply common sense. But common sense is extraordinarily rare these days.


“Poland: Multiculturalism, Immigration, Political Correctness Responsible For Nice Attacks,” by Virginia Hale, Breitbart, July 16, 2016:

Multiculturalism, political correctness and mass migration are responsible for terror attacks in Europe, Poland’s interior minister has said. Blasting Western Europe’s response to terror — holding marches and drawing pictures of flowers — as ineffective, Mariusz Blaszczak said governments should protect their citizens.
After it emerged that a Tunisian living in France was responsible for the terror attack in Nice this week, Mr Blaszczak said it was the result of years of multiculturalism.
Mr Blaszczak struck a decidedly different tone to other Western leaders, linking mass Muslim immigration with terrorism. Speaking about France, which has seen over a dozen Islamist terror attacks in less than two years, the minister said that by rejecting mass migration his government hopes to avoid the mistakes made by many Western governments.
Speaking to Konrad Piasecki on news channel TVN24, the minister said he believes Europe would be safer with fewer, rather than more Muslims.
Mr Blaszczak added that he believes the Visegrad Group — Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic — are not threatened by terrorism to the extent that countries like France are because the countries “do not want newcomers to settle” in them.

On the threat terror poses to Europe Mr Blaszczak mused that France is “in a much more difficult situation than Poland”, stating the difference lies in the countries’ immigration policies.
The politician said: “Poland also would be in such a situation, if not for a change of government. Already we would have thousands of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa.”
Voted into power last October, Mr Blaszczak’s Law and Justice party (PiS) became the first since the fall of the Soviet Union to win an absolute majority. The former governing party, Civic Platform (PO), were voted out after agreeing to accept thousands of migrants.
Stating that the PO government were on track to commit the same mistakes as other Western countries, the minister asserted that “newcomers from Africa and the Middle East simply do not integrate”.

Declaring the basis of European values and culture as Christianity, Mr Blaszczak argued it cannot coexist with the culture and values of newcomers to the continent, and that multiculturalism is “wrong” as a concept.
The Polish minister launched a scathing attack on Western politicians’ responses to migrants’ failure to integrate. Mr Blaszczak questioned why, after two terrorist attacks took place in Paris last year, and Germany saw over 1,000 women sexually assaulted in attacks on New Year’s Eve, official policies of “multiculturalism” and “enrichment” continued.
Stating that “authority should uphold the right and the freedom and security of citizens” Mr Błaszczak condemned reactions in France to Islamic terror attacks. Mr Blaszczak said having “well organised marches” and “painted flowers on the sidewalks” would not solve the problem of terrorism.

Tearing into the European Commission’s Foreign Affairs and Security Policy chief, Mr Blaszczak said: “We must reject political correctness and call things by their true names. Rather than shedding tears like [Federica] Mogherini and … organising marches that solve nothing, authorities should ensure the safety of citizens.”

California removes "Islamophobic" contents from syllabus
Nice jihad mass murderer has three family members who are jihadis

 

​

Merah, Charlie, Bataclan and now Nice: How many more times until we recognize what is staring us in the face?

July 16, 2016 1:54 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald 101 Comments
Translated from the French, an editorial of Alexis Brézet, Editor of Le Figaro:



Merah, Charlie, Bataclan, Magnanville, and now Nice…How many more times until we recognize what is staring us in the face? How many more savage attacks, how many more maddened massacres, before our leaders become willing to admit that Islamic fanaticism is waging a war to the death against our country and our civilization? How many innocent victims – men, women, children – before our rulers finally decide to take the ruthless measures necessary that the barbarism of Allah’s madmen demands?

Merah, Charlie, Bataclan, Magnanville, and now Nice….More than two hundred names etched into the memory of our country, and still we have the same granitic chins, the same solemn declarations, the same tremolos in the voices. And then what? A few more soldiers in the streets, a few touch-ups to the laws, a few bombings in far-away lands, and then…nothing.
“We are at war.” There, it’s said. After so much procrastination, the phrase is now on everyone’s lips. But does anyone really believe it? “Aux armes, citoyens” [from la Marseillaise], we exclaim full-throatedly, but our arms are those of peace, of candles and hashtags and funeral processions and the procedural subtleties of our criminal code.
In truth, a phony war! We leave our borders (what soldiers call our lines) wide open to our enemies. The recruiting agents for the jihad preach their doctrine of hate with impunity, in the very mosques financed by the enemy. Those we call “traitors” who went off to fight in Syria [for the Islamic State] upon returning undergo nothing more than a simple course of “deradicalization.” As for those flagged as a “threat to national security,” who might constitute a fifth column, they roam freely because “they haven’t yet committed any crime.”
War? What war? We live as if we are at peace! The state of emergency doesn’t prevent the unions from demonstrating, nor the festive gatherings that some claim – and they are not joking – “are the best response to the Islamic State.” The president of the Republic himself appeared not to believe that there’s a war on: he calmly announced, on the fourteenth of July, the end of the state of emergency and the lifting of some security measures, before having to backtrack throughout the night, when the tragic reality brought him back to his senses…
These soldiers of the caliphate don’t wage war by halves. They come right up to us to “slit the throats of our sons and our women” [from La Marseillaise: “egorger nos fils et nos compagnes”], and in return we offer them the protection of our laws — to the very people who want to destroy us! Never before in history has an enemy benefited so much from the willingness of those he fights to accommodate him.

This willful blindness has lasted far too long. To win the war, it has to be conducted without half-measures and pusillanimity. And to give those who are fighting a chance to win, we must rearm in every sense. Rearmament for our soldiers and police, of course. Rearmament, by strengthening our laws, everywhere it proves necessary. Rearmament, by strengthening our conviction that we are in the right, to overcome collectively the perverse logic clothed in the mental rags of “living together,” which in France is used to block any serious measures being taken against the root of radical Islam, with the refrain that “that would be playing into the hands of the terrorists.” As if to say that we would fight more effectively if we presented our necks to their knives. As if the surest path to communal violence was not precisely the failure to act of the State, the only legitimate holder of power, the only real guarantor of civil peace…
Obviously, there is no miracle weapon that will do away with the hydra-headed Islamic beast. We should not minimize the risk of attacks. But is that a reason to avoid attempting anything? Certainly this war that has been declared on us will be long and difficult. We will undoubtedly suffer further defeats, which is one more reason not to lose still more time. Merah, Charlie, Bataclan, Magnanville, Nice… Now is the time to act if we want to someday bring that sinister litany to an end.


101 Muhammads Jailed by U.S. Anti-Terror Agencies Since 9/11
No More: After Nice, let's stop the nonsense



Hugh Fitzgerald: French Islamologues Play at Tweedledum and Tweedledee

July 17, 2016 2:05 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald 18 Comments



On July 12, the New York Times carried an article about a feud between two French Islamologues:

‘That Ignoramus’: 2 French Scholars of Radical Islam Turn Bitter Rivals


Muslims gathered last month in Mantes-La-Jolie, France, a Paris suburb, for a walk in tribute to two victims of a stabbing attack by an assailant claiming to act in the name of the Islamic State.
Yoan Valat / European Pressphoto Agency


By ADAM NOSSITER
July 12, 2016

PARIS — What propels Islamist terrorism and attacks against France is more than an academic debate: The answer shapes policy toward blunting the threat.
So it is no inconsequential matter in a culture under attack, and one that so cherishes its intellectual debates, that France’s two leading scholars of radical Islam — former friends — have turned bitter rivals over their differing views.
“Madman,” “thug,” “illiterate,” “paranoid,” “ass,” “not a thinker” — these are just some of the choicer insults the two men have hurled at each other in a peculiarly personal quarrel with far larger stakes that has reverberated through the French news media and society for months.
The two distinguished academics, Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel, have long lists of books to their name, and years of field work in the Middle East, Central Asia and the troubled French suburbs. They are both eagerly consulted by the French news media and government officials.
But with France on edge and the continued target of terrorist attacks, their clashing analyses of the origins, development and future of jihadism have broken out of academic circles to present an important question for France and for all of Europe: Which man holds the key to understanding the phenomenon?

Mr. Kepel, 61, a professor at Sciences Po, the prestigious political science institute, finds much of the answer inside France — in its suburbs and their dysfunctional sociology — and in the role of Islam, angering many on the left.
Mr. Roy, 66, who as a bearded young man roamed Afghanistan with the mujahedeen in the 1980s and now teaches at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, places greater emphasis on individual behavior and psychology in a jihadism he considers strictly marginal to Islam.
Mr. Kepel sees individuals as cogs in a system — part of a classically French, structuralist tradition that minimizes the role of individual human agency.
Mr. Roy, on the other hand, sees mostly troubled people in the jihadist ranks who act out their fantasies of violence and cruelty.
The terrorists who have carried out recent attacks were mostly marginalized young men and petty criminals, he says, adding that they have used Islam as a cover to pursue extreme violence.
“They haven’t had a militant past,” Mr. Roy said of many of these terrorists, in a telephone interview. The problem they represent, he says, is the “Islamicization of radicalism.”
It is a signature phrase that enrages Mr. Kepel, who leans toward its opposite: the radicalization of Islam.
“That ignoramus,” Mr. Kepel grumbled in an interview this month in his book-lined office, offering some choice gibes about his onetime friend’s lack of Arabic.
Mr. Kepel testified for an influential 2015 parliamentary report, wrote a best seller on terrorism after the attacks in Paris in November, and has been omnipresent in television and radio studios.
“At the ministry, they tell me, ‘I saw Kepel yesterday,’ ” said Mr. Roy, himself a favorite of the country’s dominant left-leaning news media. His arguments, for the moment at least, appear to be winning in government circles.
As the jockeying has intensified in official circles, so has the falling-out between the old friends.
Today they cannot stand each other, and, with the passion that typifies intellectual fights in a country where nothing short of war is more serious, they contemptuously dismiss each other’s views.

“The King Is Naked,” read the headline on Mr. Kepel’s attack on Mr. Roy this spring in the newspaper Libération, in a play on the French meaning of Mr. Roy’s name.
In turn, while acknowledging a long and now broken friendship, Mr. Roy today offers his own less-than-friendly critique of Mr. Kepel as a kind of cloistered intellectual.
https://cdn1.nyt.com/images/2016/07/13/world/13france2/13france2-articleLarge.jpg"

Gilles Kepel, a professor at the Sciences Po political science institute, in Tunis in 2014. He and Olivier Roy, a former friend and another leading scholar of radical Islam, have become bitter rivals.
Mohamed Hammi / Sipa Press, via Associated Press


“We were friends for 20 years,” Mr. Roy said in the interview. “I traveled with him in Istanbul. But I was very struck by his incapacity to talk to anybody.”
“He’s sincere the way a madman is,” he added. “He’s not a thinker. He’s not a philosopher.”
The French debate has echoes of Republican criticism in the United States of President Obama for his reluctance to use the word Islam in connection with terrorism.
But as is so often the case in contemporary France, the heart of the dispute here is a disagreement about the country’s relationship with Islam.
Mr. Roy sees a Muslim population that is relatively well integrated.
But for Mr. Kepel, the murderous jihadism that struck France in 2015 is the expression of a slow-burning Islamist radicalization that took shape over decades because of a failure of integration.
The year 2005 is the dividing line for Mr. Kepel. After riots in the Paris suburbs that year, Muslim youths felt a “need to dissociate from France, and leave it,” he wrote in his book “Terreur dans l’Hexagone,” which appeared soon after the Paris attacks in November and sold tens of thousands of copies to a public hungry for explanation.
Mr. Kepel calls this the third generation of Islam in France, after a first generation of immigration and a second of unsatisfied political restiveness.
In 2005, Mr. Kepel said, a text appeared online that founded what he calls the third generation of jihadism abroad.
This 1,600-page text — “Appeal to Global Islamic Resistance,” by a Syrian-born engineer, Abu Musab al-Suri — calls for “civil war in Europe” fomented by “unintegrated” Muslim youth.
For Mr. Kepel, this was the playbook for the atrocities of the Islamic State jihadists that have bedeviled France.

“If you want to comprehend their functioning, you have got to understand their background,” Mr. Kepel said. “You have got to understand the intellectual resources of Salafism,” he added, referring to the ultraconservative, sometimes militant movement in Islam.
But Mr. Roy scoffs at what he sees as his rival’s near-obsessive reliance on the text by Mr. Suri, a onetime functionary of Al Qaeda who broke with Osama bin Laden. “Nobody is interested in al-Suri,” Mr. Roy said. “It’s absurd.”
When Mr. Kepel “talks of a ‘third generation in 2005,’ that’s false,” Mr. Roy said. “It’s exactly the same profile as in the second generation — petty delinquency.”
“There is no proof that shows the young men go from Salafism to terrorism,” Mr. Roy said, pointing out that the planner of the Paris attacks in November, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, ate McDonald’s, which is not halal. “None of the terrorists were Salafists.”
“They are on the margins,” Mr. Roy said of the recent wave of terrorists. “They have trajectories that are profoundly individual.”
French commentators have avoided picking sides in this fight, though Mr. Kepel’s more coldblooded approach has generally found less sympathy.
“The Islamicization of radicalism — this is more of an intuition — but it is a humanist intention,” Leyla Dakhli, a researcher at the C.N.R.S. research institute, said in an interview.
“It is a hypothesis that has the merit of not isolating the Muslim world,” said Ms. Dakhli, who analyzed the quarrel recently in the magazine Revue du Crieur.
Others find the two points of view not necessarily mutually exclusive. But there is little chance that the two men will reconcile and write a book together, in the great French tradition.
“He insulted me,” Mr. Roy said. “It’s unacceptable. He’s been insulting me for six months, at all the conferences. He’s been waging a personal campaign. It’s totally unacceptable.”

PARIS — What propels Islamist terrorism and attacks against France is more than an academic debate: The answer shapes policy toward blunting the threat.
So it is no inconsequential matter in a culture under attack, and one that so cherishes its intellectual debates, that France’s two leading scholars of radical Islam — former friends — have turned bitter rivals over their differing views.
“Madman,” “thug,” “illiterate,” “paranoid,” “ass,” “not a thinker” — these are just some of the choicer insults the two men have hurled at each other in a peculiarly personal quarrel with far larger stakes that has reverberated through the French news media and society for months.

The two distinguished academics, Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel, have long lists of books to their name, and years of field work in the Middle East, Central Asia and the troubled French suburbs. They are both eagerly consulted by the French news media and government officials.

But with France on edge and the continued target of terrorist attacks, their clashing analyses of the origins, development and future of jihadism have broken out of academic circles to present an important question for France and for all of Europe: Which man holds the key to understanding the phenomenon?

Mr. Kepel, 61, a professor at Sciences Po, the prestigious political science institute, finds much of the answer inside France — in its suburbs and their dysfunctional sociology — and in the role of Islam, angering many on the left.
Mr. Roy, 66, who as a bearded young man roamed Afghanistan with the mujahedeen in the 1980s and now teaches at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, places greater emphasis on individual behavior and psychology in a jihadism he considers strictly marginal to Islam.

Mr. Kepel sees individuals as cogs in a system — part of a classically French, structuralist tradition that minimizes the role of individual human agency.
Mr. Roy, on the other hand, sees mostly troubled people in the jihadist ranks who act out their fantasies of violence and cruelty.

The terrorists who have carried out recent attacks were mostly marginalized young men and petty criminals, he says, adding that they have used Islam as a cover to pursue extreme violence.

“They haven’t had a militant past,” Mr. Roy said of many of these terrorists, in a telephone interview. The problem they represent, he says, is the “Islamicization of radicalism.”
It is a signature phrase that enrages Mr. Kepel, who leans toward its opposite: the radicalization of Islam.”

Could it be that both of these French Islamologues are wrong, but not in the same way, or to the same degree? Let’s take a closer look.

Olivier Roy doesn’t think that Islam has anything to do with what impels some Muslim men to become terrorists. For him, they are “marginalized young men and petty criminals” who simply “use Islam as a cover” for their violent acts. Is this true? Even if they made a living as “petty criminals” because they had no marketable skills, or disliked working, couldn’t they also be true Believers in Islam? And couldn’t the invocation of Islamic teachings to justify certain behaviors toward Infidels – e.g., robbery as a way of helping oneself to the Jizyah in the absence of an Islamic state that could exact it – be genuine justification, rather than mere “cover” for such acts? Why does Olivier Roy think that Muslims would not consider robbery or, for that matter, the vast array of benefits (free housing, free health care and education, family allowances) supplied by the Infidel state, to be legitimate Jizyah (just as some mainstream Muslims have claimed), rather than mere loot?

And why shouldn’t we believe that Muslim terror attacks are prompted by the Qur’anic call to “terrorize the Unbelievers” in so many places in the Qur’an (start with 9:29 and 9:5), with its 109 “jihad verses” that preach violence? Why does Olivier Roy think we should dismiss all those Qur’anic quotes as if they counted for nothing, invoked by the would-be Al-Baghdadis of France merely as a way to pretend they had some higher goal, when all along they were merely people who liked “violence and cruelty”? What would these “jihadists” have to do, what would it take, for Olivier Roy to admit that their behavior might have been motivated by Islam? What about that Tunisian truck driver, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, mowing down as many Infidels (a handful of unintended Muslim victims is a fact that changes nothing), on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice on Bastille Day, shouting “Allahu akbar” (the Muslim war cry of “Our God Is Greater”) just before being killed? Would Olivier Roy deny the role of Islam in this act of terrorism?

Roy calls the behavior by Muslim criminals, invoking Islam in order to justify their criminal activity, “the Islamization of radicalism.” But the word “radicalism” is singularly unfitting here. It is a term currently used in the West to describe what we think of as an unusual level of Muslim belief and commitment; the word “radicalized” is applied to Muslims if they take Islam’s most violent and anti-Infidel verses to heart. (Few dare to suggest that this is simply mainstream, and not “radical,” Islam.) But for Olivier Roy to use such a term now associated so closely with discussions of Islam, while in the same breath he insists that Islam has nothing to do with “jihadist” behavior, is jarring. Muslims who support the Islamic State may claim that they are engaged in stabbing, shooting, running over, and bombing Infidels, raping and enslaving Infidel women, because Islam encourages or even commands it, but Olivier Roy knows better. He knows they are stabbing, shooting, running over, bombing and raping just because they want to, and not because of anything to do with what’s in the Qur’an or Hadith. He keeps saying that Islam is merely an excuse for “troubled people” to “act out their fantasies of violence and cruelty,” and he considers “jihadism strictly marginal to Islam.” It’s an extraordinary remark, and alarming, too, because Olivier Roy is regarded in France as one of its foremost experts on Islam.

Of course, what he means by the “Islamization of radicalism” is really the “Islamization of criminality.” Those Muslim criminals, in Olivier Roy’s view, falsely attribute to Islam the justification for their behavior – “they use Islam as a cover.” These are “jihadists” who have nothing to do with “jihad.”
Does any of this make sense?

Why does Olivier Roy insist that we ignore what Muslim terrorists keep claiming as their reasons for doing what they do? Where does the extraordinary violence and cruelty in many of these attacks on Infidels – see, e.g., Paris, Amsterdam, New York, London, Orlando, Moscow, Dhaka, Sinjar, and now Nice — come from, if not from the Qur’an itself? Where does the command to “strike terror” in the hearts of the Infidels come from, if not from the Qur’an itself? These are not the attacks of criminals bent on gain, but murderers following Qur’anic injunctions to “strike terror” in the hearts of Infidels.

On what basis does Olivier Roy claim to “see [in France] a Muslim population that is relatively well integrated” and, since it is only the un-integrated Muslims who constitute a threat, all the French government need do is improve the lot of those (few) Muslims who feel marginalized? The problem according to Roy is not with Muslims, but with the Infidels among whom they live, who must try harder to make Muslims happy so as to achieve their “integration.” But if the problem of non-integration were a result of French policy, what explains the success of all the other, non-Muslim, immigrants to integrate into French society? And if it is French policy that is at fault, what explains the failure of Muslims not just in France, but throughout Europe, even in countries famously liberal and accommodating (e.g., Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands) to “integrate” successfully?

How true is Roy’s claim that Muslims in his country are “relatively well-integrated”? Is he aware of how many Muslims in France have tried to join the Islamic State? Or that 42% of young Muslims in France declare that suicide bombing is always justified? Is he aware of how many Muslims in France are in prison? Or of how many French Muslims have aggressively challenged the laic state’s rules, appropriating public spaces for prayer, blocking sidewalks and streets in many cities? Or aware that Muslim students have refused to follow the prescribed curriculum, especially when it comes to such topics as the Crusades, the Enlightenment, the Holocaust, and evolution? Is that just a question of “criminality? What does Olivier Roy make of the demands made by French Muslims just a few months ago for a doubling of the number of mosques? Or the demands for changes in the cuisine of prisons and schools, to eliminate pork products? Or the constant challenging of the hijab ban in schools and workplaces? None of this suggests a Muslim population that is “relatively well integrated.”

It’s hard to fathom Olivier Roy’s refusal to believe that when Muslims say they are following Islam, when they quote chapter and verse to justify exactly what they are doing, when they commit crimes that could not possibly have any motive other than an Islamic one, that they mean what they say. Now of course it is true that some crimes by Muslims may have nothing to do with Islam. A Muslim bank robber may have been prompted solely by a desire for money, or the robbery may have been undertaken to raise money to buy guns for a future attack on Infidels. But Olivier Roy seems to think whatever the perpetrators claim, these attacks are always of the first, not the second kind, that is never really about Islam. In this respect, he is echoing many family members of terrorists, and such organizations as CAIR, that are quick to assure us after every Muslim terrorist attack that it had “nothing to do with Islam.”

But some attacks clearly must have been motivated by Islam. The attack on Charlie Hebdo had only one goal, an Islamic one – to punish those who blasphemed the Muslim prophet Muhammad. That was the same reason why Muslims wanted to kill Lars Vilks in Sweden, and Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller in Garland, Texas. And the murders of Jews in Toulouse and at the kosher market in Paris were not done for gain, but were prompted by Islam, and the belief expressed in the Qur’an that Jews are the most determined enemies of Islam. Similarly, the murders of the policeman and his wife in Mantes-la-Jolie were attacks prompted by Islam, where the targets represented the Infidel state’s authority, and were not examples of “petty criminality.”

Gilles Kepel, once Olivier Roy’s close friend and now his intellectual enemy, is the other most celebrated Islamologue in France, who now dismisses Roy as an “ignoramus” and worse (see the third paragraph of the Times article above). Kepel thinks that “the murderous jihadism that struck France in 2015 [Charlie Hebdo, the kosher market] is the expression of a slow-burning Islamist radicalization that took shape over decades because of a failure of integration.”

What strikes us at once is that Kepel is at least willing to think that Islam has something to do with these attacks of “murderous jihadism.” This distinguishes his analysis from that of Olivier Roy. But he still finds a way to blame the Infidels for the problem of Muslim terrorism. Instead of focusing on individuals, as does Roy, Kepel thinks of Muslims as “cogs in a system” who began to undergo a slow “Islamist radicalization” decades ago because of the “failure of integration.” That “failure of integration” is blamed, of course, not on Muslims, who refuse to accept French laws and customs, and who deliberately create their own Muslim neighborhoods, well aware that they are not, according to the Qur’an, to take “Jews and Christians as friends” or yield to the authority of the Infidel state. No, the problem as Kepel sees it is with the French, who for some unaccountable reason refused to yield to Muslim demands, and have failed to modify their laws or changed their customs as they might have; it is they who prevent the “integration” of Muslims who would be only too happy to be “integrated” if only the non-Muslims would give a little. To implicitly blame the French for the situation is a monstrous mischaracterization, the very reverse of the true situation. If it were a problem to be blamed on the French state, then what explains the failure of Muslims everywhere else in Europe to successfully “integrate”? And why is it that everywhere in Europe, all the non-Muslim immigrants seem to be able to integrate? Kepel doesn’t address either question, for it would spoil his analysis.

But in one important respect, Kepel’s analysis is superior to that of Olivier Roy. For Kepel believes that, over decades, as a reaction to a “failure of integration,” a “slow-burning Islamist radicalization” took place in France. So even if he blames the French for this, he at least recognizes that the result is a greater readiness among young Muslims, suffering from that lack of integration, to adopt a stricter form of Islam, and it is this brand of Islam (“Salafism”), this “Islamist radicalization,” that he claims explains Muslim terrorism. Islam is, for Kepel, not just a “cover for criminality, but he insists it is only an “extremist” version of it – “Salafism” — that explain Muslim terrorism.

And Kepel also seems to believe that Muslim terrorism required a long gestation, decades during which Muslims in France slowly became dissatisfied with their lot in life. Kepel even offers what he identifies as a key year, 2005, with the rioting of Muslims in the Paris suburbs, when Muslim youths felt a “need to dissociate from France, and leave it” (that is, they no longer tried to integrate, but became internal exiles living in the lands of the Infidel enemy). Kepel makes much of a 1,600-page tract, Al-Suri’s “Appeal to Global Islamic Resistance,” that appeared in that year, and which he claims offered a blueprint for the Islamic State. But what is in that tract that is not already to be found in the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira? Perhaps the packaging is more attractive, the language and historical references more up-t0-date, but are the essential contents any different from the canonical texts of Islam? Kepel does not say.

For neither Kepel nor Roy is willing to offer the simplest, and truest explanation for why Muslims become terrorists. They become terrorists because, for any number of conceivable reasons, they take seriously what they read in the Qur’an, which tells them all about “striking terror,” and is full of passages promoting the use of violence against non-Muslims and apostates. And they find in the Hadith exemplary examples of such violent, behavior among the earliest Muslims, including that of Muhammad, the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) and Model of Conduct (uswa hasana). They learn from the Qur’an and Hadith why they should not take Infidels as friends, why they should demand the Jizyah from them or, in the alternative, if the infidels refuse to convert, to kill them, how they should treat women, what they should make of “innovation” (bida), and when they should, as good Muslims, obey the ruler and when disobey. In short, the Qur’an and Hadith and Sira offer a Total Explanation of the Universe and a Complete Regulation of Life. That is all that these Muslim terrorists need; Al-Suti’s gargantuan handbook is not the source of their “radicalism.”

Kepel appears to be in the camp of those who argue that Muslim terrorists are born out of hardship and resentment of that hardship. This is what might be called the Robert-Pape School of Underprivileged Terrorists. But study after study has shown that Muslim terrorists are both better off, and better educated than the average Muslim. What distinguishes them is their readiness to act on their beliefs, their level of commitment. Think of the multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden, or the American army doctor Nidal Hasan, or the German-trained architect Mohamed Atta, or “Mike” Hawash, who was living the ideal American life with an American wife and children in suburbia, and earning $360,000 a year as an Intel engineer. These were not people of deprived backgrounds, nor petty criminals, but Muslims who decided to take to heart the teachings not of “radical” or “extremist,” but mainstream Islam.

Of course, some Muslim terrorists do have backgrounds as petty criminals, but for them, the best way to make amends for such behavior (including such terrible things as eating pork and drinking alcohol) is by engaging in Jihad against the Infidels, winning a place in the Islamic heaven. This appears to be what happened with the allahu-akbaring driver of that truck in Nice, mowing down as many of the enemy as he could. It is still Islam – from dormancy to delirium – that explains his behavior.

The cause of Islamic terrorism is Islam. There is nothing Infidels can do to win over Muslims who take their Islam seriously. And they owe it to themselves not to become confused about causes as, I’m afraid, in their different ways, the two leading French “experts” on Islam have allowed themselves to become. Olivier Roy dismisses Islam as merely a cover for criminal behavior of all kinds. He finds it impossible to imagine that Muslims would take their texts so seriously, nor that even were it true that many terrorists have “criminal backgrounds,” the best way for them to make up for those backgrounds is to do something heroic for the cause of Islam, which is to kill as many Infidels as possible. Gilles Kepel believes that a certain kind of Islam, a “radicalized” Islam, can under certain conditions, develop slowly in the minds of Muslims (replacing the “peaceful” regular Islam), until it boils over into violence. But he can’t see beyond that word “radicalized” to recognize that there is nothing contained in the “radicalization” of Muslims that is not already to be found in Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. It’s merely a question of emphasis.

Kepel and Roy deserve each other. But the people of France, reeling from the latest mass attack, at this point deserve neither. They need to realize that they are not to blame if Muslims claim to feel “alienated” or “marginalized” because the French haven’t changed their laws or customs to suit Muslim demands – demands that have no logical end until the Shari’a is fully imposed. And they need to understand that the “radicalization of Islam” means, in truth, nothing more than a recognition and acceptance, by many Muslims, of what Islam teaches, and a willingness to act upon it. It is not some strange mutation of the faith. It is the faith; it is mainstream Islam.

Let the great “experts” Roy and Kepel continue to fight in their tweedledee-tweedledum fashion. We who are not official experts should ignore their noisy confusions, so as to be able to understand better the menace and meaning of Islam, an understanding achievable as long as we hold on tightly to that most precious intellectual commodity, one no higher degree or prestigious post can confer – which is to say, common sense.


Idaho hospital refuses to release medical records of 5-year-old raped by Muslim migrants
California removes "Islamophobic" contents from syllabus

 

Obama makes JAW-DROPPING statement about Sharia Law

Written by The Analytical Economist on July 16, 2016



Welcome to Obama’s America, where combatting Sharia law is now un-American.
Following Newt Gingrich’s call to deport Muslims who believe in Sharia law, thus putting Trump’s Muslim ban on steroids, President Obama decided to weigh in on the matter.

To quote from the Daily Caller: On Friday, Obama called Gingrich’s plan to deport sharia-adhering Muslims in America “repugnant and an affront to everything that we stand for as Americans.”
Speaking from the White House, Obama said, “We’re going to win this fight by building, by never giving up on diplomacy to end the Syrian civil war, by working with partners around the world, including Muslim communities to push back against hateful ideologies that twist and distort Islam, a religion that teaches peace and justice and compassion.”

If there are parts of Islam that are peaceful, they aren’t to be found in Sharia. You can read just a handful of the ways that Sharia conflicts with our Constitution in a brief report from the Center for Security Policy. To name just a few: Sharia calls for the killing of non-Muslims and apostates, while the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Sharia criminalizes blasphemy, while the Constitution grants the right to free speech. Sharia prevents Muslims from criticizing an Islamic government, while the Constitution allows us to petition and voice our grievances.
Now, Obama would have a point in questioning the logistics of Gingrich’s plan, which would include “testing every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, deporting them.” What would prevent Muslims from lying about their true beliefs knowing that confessing their adherence to Sharia would score them a deportation?

Regardless of the practicality of Gingrich’s idea, Sharia law itself is actually what’s un-American; protecting our Constitutional republic against it is not.
[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]

http://www.allenbwest.com/analytical-economist/obama-makes-a-jaw-dropping-statement-about-sharia-law

Merci Cherie Serpentina!

​

 

Critical Infrastructure Being Guarded by Muslim Immigrants -DHS Paying Security Firms $1200 for Each Muslim Hired




Why are refugee/resettlement Jihadis guarding some of America’s most sensitive infrastructure?

We know that Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, was employed by G4S Plc, a British security firm whose clients in more than 100 countries include the U.S. government (e.g. DHS). It is also known that his firm was part of a larger organization that participated in the catch and release of OTM’s (other than Mexicans) at the southern border. The OTM’s consisted of people from other Central American countries as well as Muslims from the Middle East. Once these OTM’s were caught, they were released into the deep interior of the country without being screened and without supervision.
Mateen’s firm is technically operating under the direction of DHS on this matter. The catch and release of Muslims at the southern border violates our nation’s immigration laws. However, as we witnessed last week with the FBI giving Clinton a get out of jail card for self-admitted criminal activity, our federal government is playing by its own rules that they are making up as they go along.
The catch and release of these Muslims technically falls under the auspices of the United Nations. Before I get into my personal revelation on this matter which gravely threatens national security, let’s review what is happening to the United States at the behest of the United Nations.

Eleven Years Ago, the Problem Was Revealed and Ignored​

Researcher, Paul Sperry, the author of Infiltration has detailed the type of immigrants that we are importing from the Middle East. Here, Paul Sperry, details the threat to our communities while appearing on C-SPAN2.

​

Sperry cites how we know from the testimony offered from the FBI officials who are in charge of that type of vetting immigrants are not being allowed to perform their duties of protecting American communities from would-be unscreened terrorists as expressed in a recent radio interview in which FBI agents have admitted, under oath, that they have no idea who and what they are letting into the country.

The United Nations and the State Department (i.e. Hillary Clinton) Are Behind This Invasion of America


The above is one of the most stunning videos I have seen in sometime with regard to the radical unscreened, extremist Muslim invasion of America. The program has its roots with the United Nations and the State Department is its willing accomplice. And the amazing aspect of this revelation is that it is 11 years old! The invasion of America has been going on for almost a generation in its totality. Obama is merely a continuance and fulfillment of this plot to deculturalize America and destroy our heritage through unwarranted Muslim immigrant from which many will not assimilate.

Make No Mistake, the UN Is Invading the United States​

​

Antonio Guterres is the head of the UNHCR and he is responsible for sending 9,000 Muslims from anti-America Syria to Boise and Twin Falls, Idaho. This man and his organization is your enemy! His job is the deculturalization of European nations and the United States.
Leo Hohmann, from World Net Daily, has another in what is turning into a series on Obama’s plan to change America by changing the people. This invasion has impacted 190 American communities and it is growing by the day. There are over 10,000 anti-American Somali refugees in ten years who have settled in Minnesotastan, alone. In the first 4 months of this year, we have admitted 4,425 Somalis to America. And the numbers are growing exponentially. And amazingly, these immigrants are not being screened and they are coming to us from areas that are known hotbeds for terrorism.

Now that the requisite background has been set, here is who and what is increasingly guarding America’s critical infrastructure​

An Innocent Conversation Leads to a Stunning Revelation​

I was having a casual conversation with an old friend the other day and this casual conversation drifted into the area of national security.
He told me a firm that he works for called Veterans Security, or Vet/Sec for short. They are tasked with providing security for some America’s most sensitive infrastructure (e.g. power plants, etc).
Historically, the firm hired almost exclusively American veterans. However, that demographic is changing. According to an anonymous inside source that works for this security firm, they are increasingly hiring unvetted Muslim immigrants to provide security at these sensitive locations. Amazingly, the firm is receiving $1200 from the government to hire these workers. According to my source, some of these employees barely speak English.
If there anyone anything wrong with hiring Muslims to guard American infrastructure? No, so long as they are citizens and have passed an extensive background check and they certainly should not be part of a program that hires Muslims and then the government pays the employer $1200 to hire them. And if the government cannot screen these immigrants, neither can this firm.
In the following short video, I provide an analysis of what is wrong with this practice, followed by more confirmatory information.

Ten Percent Are Radicalized​

In recent months, the FBI has acknowledged two critical issues related to the Muslims coming into the country under the Refugee/Resettlement plan which is a plan sponsored by the United Nations.
In the following video, CIA Director Brennan affirms that ISIS is slipping into the country amongst refugees.
The critical part of the video is located at between 3 minutes and 4 minutes and 30 seconds.

​

More Confirmation​

With God’s providence and timing, I received this communication in yesterday’s email.

Dave,
I did an assignment at Kirkland AFB / Sandia National Labs. The trucking company we used was xxxx Trucking. xxxx xxxx used to quip they were the only NM truckers that could get onto the base.
Note, you have to have a serious background check to get inside the gates.
The last time I talked to xxxx (~16 mos). He was called to the Sandia main gate. Where he was to transport a load from inside the base to the front gate to a 3rd party trucker who could not get a security clearance to get inside the gate.
He related his story about the cargo: He drove deep onto the base into a uber secure facility. Where and AP put a weapon to the back of his head and told him to follow the painted foot prints on the floor. He was then instructed to face the wall. (SOP for this facility) After the cargo was loaded, the AP came back, they did the reverse procedure and Hayes then delivered his cargo to outside the front gate where this 3rd World trucker, who should not been within 10 miles of Kirkland AFB took charge of the cargo.
Apparently, our beloved FedGov.Inc (note domain suffix) has been importing 3rd World types and:

• Paying for their CDL license training
• Giving / leasing them Commercial trucks
• Giving them lucrative Gummint hauling contracts for hauling TS and above components..
• Taking contracts from US contractors capable of getting needed clearances.

Not a recipe for success.
Regards

This closely parallels what my inside source said about Vet/Sec. I believe we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg.

Conclusion​

If this is not concerning to you, then you are not paying attention. These federally subsidized Muslim immigrants are in a prime position to do this country irreparable harm. Remember, the American Revolution was carried out with less than 3% participation. You do the math as we continue on this path of national suicide.
This is just another pathway into martial law, by allowing our enemies access to our critical infrastructure and we have give potential terrorists the keys to the proverbial car (i.e. the nation’s power plants).



Secretary of State, John Kerry and Anne C. Richards are the UN’s accomplices in these devastating immigration policies.
Is this why we are seeing with ever-greater frequency these kinds of scenes inside of the United States?




How long will it be until this picture is commonplace inside of the United States?

….and this?
And now the Associated Press admitted last week, by quoting Pentagon offiicals that UN troops will be used to impose martial law. God Help US.


Please Donate to The Common Sense Show


PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND DON’T FORGET TO “LIKE” US

---

This Movie Reveals the Greatest Threats to the American People




The blockbuster movie, Amerigeddon, to be released. Click here for a list of theaters

---

---

The sane alternative to Facebook



About the Author: Dave Hodges



14 Comments

1. 
   toejam July 16, 2016 at 10:43 pm
   Who in the horse race is going to get across the finish line first by the end of the year? Obama or Trump? Make mistake,. Obama is hell bent on taking this country down before he vacates the Out House. This sock puppet, his willing helpers, and his puppet masters are going to make this country a living hell by the end of the year, 2016. So even if Trump is elected it will take decades to make “America Great Again” if ever. If Hillary makes it to the Out House via the ignorant shit for brains voters, we can all then bend over and kiss are sorry asses goodby. And if the idiots in control of this country don’t quit screwing around with Putin and the Chinese they will send our sorry asses to never, never land with us not having to bend over.
   All this BS about all the varieties of gender and sexual confusion and how normal people have to cater to these freaks of nature is nothing but diversion. While behind the scenes the puppet masters, their name rhymes with few, are busy doing what they have done for the last 2000 years. Think the Bolshevik revolution. Think the corruption of the Catholic Church. The money masters on top and their Lumpen Proletariat on the bottom are squeezing those in the middle into extinction.
2. 
   Stan July 16, 2016 at 11:36 pm
   “Muslim Immigrants Are Guarding US Power Plants”
   Yes, and the FBI and CIA are actively recruiting and hiring Muslims. Strange, but very very true. See this.
   http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/fbi-cia-hiring-plans-seek-diversity-in-usas-most-muslim-city/
3. 
   Wildmann July 17, 2016 at 3:23 am
   John Brennan is a Damned Moslem/Muslim Convert! WHY would anyone listen to this Barky Obullzhitte Plant!
4. 
   Lena Toledo July 17, 2016 at 5:47 am
   It’s no wonder we are threatened with EMP shutoff by experts on the internet via nuclear explosion 20 miles above for such a horrific event to occur when this threat is actually here on earth. No wonder God’s Holy Word warns of failure of men’s heart for many at even hearing news of events such as this on a grand scale and even worst when such an event happens.
5. 
   laura m. July 17, 2016 at 6:40 am
   After reading this article, me and friends will not be voting in Nov. America is barreling/rushing into tyranny and it’s too late to stop it. No one can do anything at this point except prepare for civil war.
6. 
   Critical Infrastructure Being Guarded by Muslim Immigrants -DHS Paying Security Firms $1200 for Each Muslim Hired – Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show | Decoded-Information July 17, 2016 at 7:30 am
   […] Source: Critical Infrastructure Being Guarded by Muslim Immigrants -DHS Paying Security Firms $1200 for Each… […]
7. 
   Nam Marine July 17, 2016 at 8:36 am
   Why am I NOT surprised?
8. 
   ExposeThem511 July 17, 2016 at 8:41 am
   I am going to vomit at the utter blindness and delusion of the American people. But it’s too late.
9. 
   DB July 17, 2016 at 8:42 am
   Dave,
   Every American just needs to look at the Turkey attempted coup and the Nice attack to see how it could play out here very soon. Hollande of France declared a 3 month state of emergency after the attack with nary a word from Hollande or the people as to what that really means. I.E. they just lost much of their freedoms just as we did after 9/11.
   Erdogan is now rounding up military personnel (6,000 at last count) and will most likely execute those in the military who turned against him. The military will never try this again, nor will they ever have any sort of power again because he will put his people in place in the military…Just as Barry Insane has been doing over here. The sheeple in Turkey who turned against the military will rue the day that they turned against Muslim radicalism (Erdogan).
   Folks, we have the blueprints for what is coming here, all we have to do is look overseas with open eyes. A very difficult proposition for most Americans, especially during summer vacations. Our kind and generous God cannot make it more obvious to us as to what is coming. So, I believe that He will show us in our own land this coming week in Cleveland.
   I pray that God would lead us to confession, repentance and revival by whatever means necessary. Blessings and protection will not and cannot come until those three things happen first.
10. 
    ELIZABETH PETKU July 17, 2016 at 9:24 am
    This traitors should be executed. I don’t care, who will go in this category, politicians or ranking executives. Nomatter who they are,the position they have. In simple words they are TRAITORTS OF THEIR COUNTRY.
11. 
    Joozy July 17, 2016 at 9:51 am
    Looks like a done deal to me. Don’t think the letters I anticipated writing to my congressmen will do much good or have much of an impact, nor do I believe for a minute that my opinion matters a wit to them. When the nasty stuff hits the fan, they’re going down a rabbit hole, anyway.
    Everyone keeps saying we have to do something. The UN is a pretty formidable operation with lots of war stuff! I have prayer, and I’m using it a lot these days. I also remember that He is my hiding place and my Shield (Ps. 119:114).
12. 
    Jay July 17, 2016 at 12:43 pm
    You’ve got to admit it’s a pretty ingenious plan by the Globalists who run the United Nations. But it takes some time. First you allow women to vote and hold public office to destroy masculine leadership and to elect the far left enemies of America who make laws which force feminize the men destroying families. Over time that makes the whole population easy to deceive with a controlled media that tells people what to think. Then you begin to federalize local police departments in order to have centralized control over them while you bring in thousands of Muslim terrorists from overseas to attack the police and you blame it on racial tension so no one will suspect a Muslim in chief who stands up and tells America that it needs to disarm, even while he is arming Americas enemies to the teeth and infiltrating every agency the government has with terrorists trained by the U.S. government. In the mean time you stir racial tensions further with rhetoric that is designed to start a civil war. When federalize do police departments become overwhelmed with active shooters and civil unrest the only task left is for the Globalists to bring the United Nations troops in to serve as local police as UN troops continue pick off local police chiefs and are appointed under federal authority to take their place.
    You’ve got to admit, it’s a pretty ingenious plan, even if it is the devils plan.
13. 
    Huh? July 17, 2016 at 3:39 pm
    Maybe for a change Dave you should forget about the Muslims guarding our sensitive compounds in the USA and focus on the real threat . . . the Israeli’s and the Mossad. For your information Israeli companies with ties to the Mossad hold more sensitive security positions throughout the USA than US firms and Muslims combined!! They were at all of the airports on 9-11, they were at the World Trade Centers on 9-11, they currently are at many US nuclear power plants, airport facilities, you name it. Yet here I see you focusing on this bogus “Muslim threat” all the while we have the same culprits from Israel deeply embedded in the security affairs of the USA. Let’s see some balls on your part and see you discuss the security threat the Israel poses to the USA for a change . . . . in a recent publication by the DOD the State of Israel was mentioned over 30 times as a potential security threat to the USA in a report that was only 35 pages long (for example the report went into detail on how Israel is taking US arms secrets and passing them along to China and North Korea for money – it’s always all about money with “them”). Yet no-one in the MSM or sites like yours will touch that information with a 10 foot pole . . . why is that Dave?? Afraid to be labeled an “anti-Semite”?? When I bring this information up and am labeled an “anti-Semite” by the Tel Aviv trolls that pollute the internet I wear that label with a whole lot of pride!!!
14. 
    Intelwars2 – July 18, 2016 – *Breaking News Headlines!* The Constitution – The Bill of Rights – And The Ten Commandments Are Under Assault! 24 Hour Emergency Broadcast Lines! (512) 646 – 5000 or (605) 562 – 7701. For Tomorrows News, Today! | S July 17, 2016 at 8:11 pm
    […] Critical Infrastructure Being Guarded by Muslim Immigrants -DHS Paying Security Firms $1200 for Each… […]

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2...uslim-immigrants-are-guarding-us-power-plants

​