The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

Hugh Fitzgerald: The Confusions of Tony Blair, Part I

DECEMBER 15, 2016 2:21 PM BY HUGH FITZGERALD89 COMMENTS


Soon after the Muslim terrorist attacks of 9/11, Tony Blair let it be known that he was a great admirer of Islam, and that he had taken to carrying around with him the Qur’an, a book that he claimed he read almost every day. Islam, he knew then, was “beautiful” and the Prophet Muhammad “an enormously civilizing force,” claims that he continued to make on every possible occasion. In 2008, he was still reading the Qur’an “every day” or “practically every day.” In June 2011, he again admitted that “I read the Qur’an [Koran] every day. Partly to understand some of the things happening in the world, but mainly just because it is immensely instructive.”
After the killing of Lee Rigby in London in 2013, Tony Blair was certain that “there is not a problem with Islam. For those of us who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature.” The two converts to Islam who hacked Rigby to death and then decapitated him apparently understood Islam differently. But at the same time, Blair said “the ideology behind his [Lee Rigby’s] murder is profound and dangerous.” And what is that “ideology”? It could not, of course, be Islam itself. Blair insisted that while Islam has a “true and peaceful nature“ there is a “problem within Islam, and we have to put it on the table and be honest about it… I am afraid that the problematic strain within Islam is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view of religion – and of the relationship between religion and politics – that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies. At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the worldview goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So, by and large, we don’t admit it.”
In 2015, Tony Blair was still reading the Qur’an “every day.”

Tony Blair will now admit that this “extremist” strain is more widespread than many think, as long as he can continue to insist, defying the evidence pouring in from all over the world, that Islam itself is “peaceful” and, unlike that dangerous mutant “strain” within Islam (which, we all are supposed to repeat ad nauseam, has nothing to do with Islam itself, even though many Muslims for some reason subscribe to it) is “compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.” He is, thus, stuck with this narrative, believing, or at least pretending to believe, that the real Islam is compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.
Of course Blair does not, because he cannot, adduce a single example over the past 1400 years of a Muslim country that has been “pluralistic, liberal, open-minded” in the common understanding of those words. Rather, in the ideology of Islam, free and skeptical inquiry is discouraged, innovation in religion (and in much else) denounced as bida, and religious “pluralism”– in the Western sense of equal treatment before the law of people of different faiths — non-existent, since to the extent that the Sharia is followed, non-Muslims are subject to a host of disabilities, including, but not limited to, the onerous Jizyah, or capitation tax.
When, in 2008, as I’ve noted above, Blair again told the world, as he had a few years before, that he read the Qur’an “practically every day” and still found Muhammad “an enormously civilizing force,” someone begged to differ.
That someone was Robert Spencer, who wondered aloud which parts of the Qur’an Blair had been reading:

But does Blair ever read the uncomfortable bits? The wife-beating verse (4:34)? The verse enjoining warfare against and the subjugation of Jews and Christians (9:29)? The “verse of the sword” and other verses that exhort Muslims to slay unbelievers wherever they’re found (9:5, 4:89, 4:91, 2:190-193)? The verse saying the Jews and Christians are under Allah’s curse (9:30)? The verse that says that unbelievers are the most vile of created beings (98:6)? The verse enjoining the beheading of unbelievers (47:4)? The verse exhorting Muslims to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah (8:60)?
​

Tony Blair didn’t respond; he was too busy, no doubt, what with all that rereading of the Qur’an to take the time to answer those questions.
In June 2011, when he repeated yet again that he read the Qur’an “practically every day” and that he still found it “immensely instructive,” one might wonder if there was more for him to learn. If indeed he has been reading the Qur’an since 9/11 (shortly after which he claims to have gotten started on this reading), every day for 15 years, that is 5,575 days of possible Qur’an reading and, if he were to devote a mere hour each day to that reading and relying on the Internet estimate that it takes 30 hours to read the complete Qur’an, Blair might easily by this point have been able to read the entire Quran about 175 times. By this time he really ought to know what’s in it, including all the violent verses directed at the Kuffar. And one wonders why Blair, though he always talks about the Qur’an, never mentions the Hadith or the Sira. Is it because he is unaware of their significance, as a source both of doctrine and biographical material on Muhammad, or is it because he has read many of the “most authentic” Hadith in the authoritative collections of Bukhari and Muslim, realizes what a disturbing picture they paint of Muhammad, the Perfect Man, and prefers to pretend, like the young Turkish pseudo-reformer Mustafa Akyol, that all Islam needs by way of “reformation” is to forget about the Hadith and stick to the Qur’an, a “reform” described by Akyol as an Islamic version of the Protestant “sola scriptura”?

What did Tony Blair take away from his reading of the Qur’an? He discovered, yet again, that Muhammad was “an enormously civilizing force.” He did not explain what made Muhammad, a ruthless warrior who took part in dozens of military campaigns, delighted in seeing his enemies decapitated, and including the murders of several poets who had mocked him, a “civilizing force.” Possibly Blair meant — taking his cue from Karen Armstrong — that by subduing the warring tribes of Arabia, and bringing them to heel under his rule, he brought about a pax islamica. That is not the same thing as being “an enormously civilizing force.”

In 2007 in Foreign Affairs, Blair described the Quran as being “inclusive.” This description is bizarre, given that the Qur’an is the very opposite of “inclusive,” presenting a world that is uncompromisingly divided between Believers and Unbelievers, Muslims and Non-Muslims, and mandates a state of permanent hostility, if not open war, between them, until the whole world becomes part of Dar al-Islam. Within a Muslim state that follows the Sharia, non-Muslims are subject to a host of legal disabilities including, most importantly, the onerous capitation tax, or Jizyah. Or perhaps what Blair meant was merely that the Qur’an is “inclusive” because, as Muslims like to claim, it covers every possible subject, which may be the view of many Muslims who are adept at reading things into, or teasing things out of, its vaguest verses, especially scientific findings that were made centuries after the Qur’an appeared.
Blair had claimed, in March 2006, that “the Qur’an is a reforming book. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance.” That same description of the Qur’an appears in his 2007 Foreign Affairs article, with only the most trivial change: “way ahead” is now “far ahead.”

Far ahead of its time in attitudes to “marriage”? When polygamy is enshrined, and not only “contextually” but deemed licit for all time (Muhammad, the Perfect Man, allowed himself an unlimited number of wives, and his followers four apiece), is Islam “way ahead”? When in addition to plural wives, a Muslim could have female sex slaves, “those whom your right hand possesses”? Far ahead in attitudes toward “women”? When in Islam women inherit half as much as men (4:11), and their testimony is worth half that of a man (2:282), and they can be divorced simply by the man’s triple-talaq, and they are described in the Qur’an as inferior to men, for “the men are a degree above them” (2:228)? And the Hadith, to which Blair never refers, contains even more extreme remarks on women’s inferiority, as in Sahih Bukhari (6:301) “[Muhammad] said, ‘Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?’ They replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence.’“

“Far ahead” in “governance”? It’s unclear what Blair means here. If he means “governance” of the family, the absolute, life-and-death power of the Muslim male over his wife and children is hardly “far ahead” of what was accepted in Europe in the Early Middle Ages, for the European male did not have such complete power over his wife and children. And the tremendous power of the Muslim male over his wife and children even today is shown in the “honor” killings which in Muslim lands are so often committed with impunity, and go unpunished. That is not “far ahead,” but retrograde in its “governance” of the family.

If Blair meant “governance” in the political sense, in what way is the political theory of Islam, where the legitimacy of a ruler depends only on whether he could be considered a good Muslim, any “advance” on the political theories in the West about a good Christian king? Was being a “good Muslim” a moral advance on being a “good Christian”? European political theory, unlike that in Islam, was capable of evolution, so that, for example, Jean Bodin’s “divine right of kings” in the 16^thcentury could develop, in the 18^th century, with the ideas of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the social contract, into a different theory of the legitimacy of rule, no longer depending on that “divine right of kings,” but rather on whether the ruler reflected, however imperfectly, the will of the people. Islamic political theory, meanwhile, has remained unchanged through the centuries, legitimizing a ruler’s despotism, as long as he could be considered a good Muslim. That is to say, his rule must reflect not the will of the people, but the will of Allah, as set down in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an, claimed Blair, both in March 2006 and in January 2007, “extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition” (the description of the Qur’an in his Foreign Affairs article of Jan-Feb 2007 being a verbatim version of that he offered in March 2006). There may be a verse or two from which Muslims have been able to tease out an “extolling” of science or knowledge, but the ideology of Islam discourages free and skeptical inquiry, the sine qua non for the advancement of science, and encourages the habit of mental submission to the dictates of the Qur’an, which habit then is extended to cover other areas of Muslim life. Bida, or innovation, is mistrusted, and not only in religious matters. Two historians of science, Toby Huff and Stanley Jaki, have pointed to this habit of mental submission and hatred of novelty as helping explain why the scientific revolution took place in Europe rather than in the Muslim East. As for Blair’s claim that Islam “abhors superstition,” the Qur’an contains many examples of Muhammad’s belief in “black magic”: according to 2:102, magic was taught to men by demons. Moses himself was able to practice magic (7:116). Muhammad was told to “seek refuge” from witchcraft in Sura 113, a passage that is supposed to be recited six times a day by devout Muslims. The Hadith are full of examples of “black magic” and the Prophet’s beliefs and fears about its use.

One verse that Muslims like to quote as indicating support for seekers after knowledge is part of 2:239: “He [Allah] has taught you what you did not know.” But that vague half-verse is hardly sufficient to claim that Islam “encourages science,” especially since the whole verse reads: “And if you fear [an enemy, then pray] on foot or on horseback. But when you are secure, then remember Allah [in prayer], as he has taught you what you do not know.” In other words, it’s about being saved from an enemy, and once you are safe, then praying gratefully to Allah, because he has “taught you what you do not know.” Taught you what? What you do not know, but need to know, in order to escape from your enemy. That passage is a thin reed on which to rest such a large claim about Islam extolling “science and knowledge.”

Muslims do seem to take a great interest, but not in the enterprise of pure science as much as in the science of military technology. Iran and Pakistan have spent hundreds of billions on their nuclear programs, and Muslim states are among the heaviest spenders on military technology of all kinds, but this is not to be taken as an interest in science undertaken for its own sake, to better make sense of the universe, the enterprise of science as we in the West understand and distinguish it from technology.

Devout Muslims have been trying to claim many modern scientific advances for Islam, by reading scientific discoveries into vague verses of the Qur’an, claiming that scraps of verse (so unclear that they could have practically any meaning read into or out of them), actually foretell modern advances, in biology, cosmology, “cognitive science,” and geology. But the real record of Islamic scientific advancement was, compared to what was achieved in the West, quite small.

Taner Edis, the Turkish historian of science, has noted in his study “The Illusion of Harmony” that most Muslims still deny evolution; that Muslim belief in creationism is widespread; and that many in the Muslim world endow incomprehensible bits of the Qur’an with scientific significance. Professor Edis also notes that in the Islamic world, many assume it was under Islam that the scientific revolution took place, and they have convinced themselves of the enormous scientific achievements supposedly made by Muslims. A quick glance at any Western history of modern science would soon disabuse them, assuming they were willing to recognize the dismal truth.
Pervez Hoodbhoy, one of Pakistan’s leading physicists and a freethinker, was brave enough to review and praise “The Illusion of Harmony”: “Edis makes a compelling case that classical Islamic thought cannot accommodate a modern scientific culture whose basis is experimentation, quantification, and prediction. He exposes the vacuity of faith-based science using a range of examples.”
But here is Tony Blair, who reads the Qur’an everyday, and knows how deep is Islam’s extolling of science and knowledge. He knows this far better than Toby Huff and Stanley Jaki and Taner Edis and Pervez Hoodbhoy, all of whom for some reason have not been as impressed as Blair with Islam’s “extolling” of science.

For fifteen years, Tony Blair has been singing the praises of Islam and the Qur’an. Even until just last year, he insisted that “for those who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature.”
But something is going on with Blair. There are glimmerings of intelligent life, there are stirrings. He’s having his doubts. No longer does he repeat that the “Qur’an has been “instructive” and Muhammad an “enormously civilizing force.” He simply remains prudently silent on that score. In October 2015, he began to inject a more worried note, claiming that the “perversion of Islam” (he still couldn’t bring himself to blame Islam itself) “is a source of a lot of the problems in the Middle East today.” What that perversion consisted of, how it came to be, what Qur’anic verses and what stories in the Hadith it relied on, Blair chose not to say. Or perhaps he’s still trying to figure it all out, trying to understand why what he calls a “perversion” looks an awful lot like standard Islam. Nor did Blair notice that the same “perversion of Islam” has been causing a lot of the problems not just in the Middle East, but all over the world, in London and Paris, in Brussels and Amsterdam, in Moscow and New York, in Washington and San Bernardino and Fort Hood and Chattanooga and Orlando.
And we still can see, in his description of the problem, and his prescription for solving it, a kind of terminal misunderstanding of Islam:

The reality is that in parts of the Muslim community a discourse has grown up which is profoundly hostile to peaceful coexistence. Countering this is an essential part of fighting extremism.
​

This “discourse” is not something that has “grown up,” but is as old as Islam itself, and is not tangential but central to the faith. Islam itself is “profoundly hostile to peaceful coexistence” because it divides the world uncompromisingly between Believer and Infidel, Muslim and Non-Muslim. And between the two there must be a permanent state of hostility, if not always of open war, until Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere. Blair seems to think, despite all his study of the Qur’an, that this is something new in Islam, when it is 1400 years old, as old as the attacks on the Banu Qurayza in Mecca or the Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis. Islam has always been “hostile to peaceful coexistence,” unless one considers the permanent subjugation of non-Muslims to Muslim rule to be a kind of “peaceful co-existence.”

There’s no point in just tackling the violence unless you tackle the ideology of extremism behind the violence.
You’ve got these broad ideological strands that lie behind a lot of this extremism. If you take, for example, some of the organizations in the Middle East, some of those clerics that are putting out the most extreme stuff — they’ll have Twitter followings that go into millions of people.
​

Blair seems surprised that Muslim clerics, “putting out the extreme stuff,” continue to flourish, with millions of Twitter followings. But that’s because he cannot understand that the “extreme stuff” is the real Islam, the Islam which you can read about in the Qur’an and in the Hadith (unless you are Tony Blair), and which, so far, no one among our political elites has been able to find a way to combat ideologically, because almost no one wants to recognize it as mainstream Islam.

These people are saying things about Jewish people — about even those in their own religion who are different that we would regard as completely unacceptable — and it’s those waters of extremism in which the violent extremists can swim.
​

Did Blair just discover last year what is written about “the Jewish people” in the Qur’an and Hadith? These passages are not exactly hidden, but have been easy to find for the past 1400 years, and Blair himself, by his own admission, has been re-reading the Qur’an for the past 15 years. Why then his tone of anguished surprise? Surely he long ago read in the Qur’an about how the Jews “are the strongest in opposition to Muhammad”; that they are schemers (but Allah is the best schemer); that they are not to be taken as friends, for they are friends only with Christians. Surely Blair had read those passages many times over. Why, then, the tone of sudden alarm?
And is it likely that he just now discovered that Muslims sometimes declare other Muslims to be Infidels, and treat them accordingly? Apparently Blair thinks that this practice, too, which he labels “extremism,” is a new phenomenon. But it’s at least as old as Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), declaring the invading Mongols, who had converted to Islam but had not adopted the Sharia, to be incomplete Muslims, and therefore not Muslims at all. And by now it expresses itself in the wholesale dismissal by many Sunnis of Shi’a as not just Infidels, but as the “worst kind of Infidels,” worse even than Christians and Jews.

The majority of people within Islam do not support either the violence or the ideology. What we are talking about, however, is a radical Islamist way of thinking that results in extremism by small numbers of people, but that thinking is shared by larger numbers of people, and you’ve got to attack both — the violence and the extremism, the thinking behind it.
​

On what evidence does Blair assert that “the majority of people within Islam do not support either the violence or the ideology”? He does not provide such evidence, no results of opinion polls, for example, but he cannot allow himself to accept that most Muslims could possibly believe “the violence” (as mandated in the Qur’an) or the “ideology” (that is, the ideology of mainstream Islam, promoting hostility toward all Infidels).
Blair uses the word “extremism” for the most fanatical Muslims (Salafis, Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, Islamic State), but never explains what beliefs distinguish that “extremism” from mainstream Islam. If he were to attempt to define this “extremist ideology,” it would soon be apparent that these beliefs are not different in kind from what mainstream Muslims are taught, but only in the fervor with which they are held and acted upon. And refusing to recognize that melancholy truth helps to explain Tony Blair’s impressive record of confusions.


German probe: 2,000 Muslim migrants assaulted 1,200 women in Cologne New Year's Eve
DHS knew OSU jihadi was terror recruitment target, let him into U.S. anyway

Hugh Fitzgerald: The Confusions of Tony Blair, Part II

DECEMBER 16, 2016 7:36 AM BY HUGH FITZGERALD50 COMMENTS


Recognizing that something’s wrong with Islam is an advance. Assuming it can be made right smacks of Pollyanna. Tony Blair has said that the educational systems in countries where [Muslim] extremism had taken hold must be overhauled.
And just how will this be done?

We’ve got to use our negotiating power and might with these countries to say, “You’re going to have to reform the education systems that are educating millions of young people day in and day out to a view of the world that’s narrow-minded, bigoted and hostile to those who are different.”
​

Now why didn’t the rest of us think of that?
This dreamy belief that any Muslim country or people would change its teachings about Islam, because some Infidels consider those teachings “narrow minded, bigoted, and hostile to those who are different” shows a deep miscomprehension of Islam and of Muslims. If Blair thinks pressure from Infidels will force the likes of Saudi Arabia to rewrite its textbooks (which, unsurprisingly, contain the more rigid, Salafi version of Islam, that Salafists believe to properly reflect the time of Muhammad and the two generations of “pious ancestors” that followed him), he misunderstands the hold that Islam has over such adherents. He has only to look at the reports on Western attempts to have the Saudis overhaul their textbooks, to discover how many hopeful tales of Saudi compliance were not supported by what Western investigators subsequently found in the teaching materials that are used not only in Saudi Arabia but all around the Muslim world, and in mosques in the West, where Saudi money, for mosques, for madrasas, for payment of clerics’ salaries, calls the ideological tune.

In a State Department report on the Saudis from 2004, it was clear that despite all the reformist fanfare of former Ambassador Turki al-Faisal and other Saudis, no major overhauling of Saudi textbooks was actually undertaken. And the State Department’s 2016 report, “The State of Tolerance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” came to much the same conclusion. In other words, in a dozen years, no progress has been made in the attempt, a very slight one at that, to clean up the Saudi textbooks. Why should Tony Blair think that things will now somehow be different?

Blair simply does not grasp how wide and deep in Islam is the inculcated hostility toward non-Muslims. He seems surprised, even after 15 years of reading the Qur’an “every day,” to discover, as he said on March 27, 2016 , that “many millions of Muslims hold views that are fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.” He talks about the need to change these Muslim minds, but never asks the critical question: are these views so much a part of mainstream Islam that no Muslim will be willing to give them up just in order to placate non-Muslims like Blair? What makes him think that all Muslims want to be part of the modern world, when so many look back to their Golden Age as the time of Muhammad and the Companions? Is it not presumptuous to assume that all peoples want to inhabit the same – i.e. modern, Western – world? Haven’t the Salafis shown that they really mean what they say about spreading the uncompromising Islam of their “pious ancestors”?

All the evidence suggests that they do. But can Tony Blair grasp this, or is his constant reading of the Qur’an getting in the way of his grasping its essential meaning? Is he missing the forest and the trees? He’s a well-pleased pleaser, proud of himself for reading and rereading the Qur’an – he mentions it all the time — but not understanding exactly what it is he is reading, or how Muslims read, take in, understand, believe, and especially, act on the same texts.

Tony Blair has at least made some progress from the period when he would stoutly declare that Islam is “beautiful,” that Muhammad was “an enormously civilizing force,” that “there is not a problem with Islam. For those of us who have studied it, there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature.” Doubts have crept in to Blair’s description of Islam. He no longer calls it beautiful, or Muhammad an enormous civilizing force, no longer insists there is “no problem with Islam,” or describes its “true and peaceful nature.
Now he is willing to concede that the “violence” and “extremism” in Islam is a big problem, a matter not of a handful but of “millions of Muslims.” But even up to late 2015, Blair blamed a “perversion of Islam” as “the source of a lot of the problems in the Middle East.”

What perversion? He never tells us what the perversion is. Did someone twist the accepted meaning of the Qur’an? Of the Hadith? Whenever this word “perversion” is used about Islam, we have a right to demand that the person making that claim be able to explain to us exactly what is being “perverted” in the texts of Islam. One would like Tony Blair, terminally confused as he has been, to explain how Islam is being “perverted” by, say, the members of the Islamic State, or Al-Qaeda, or the Muslim Brotherhood. He won’t, because he can’t. Nor has anyone else provided an explanation of what such a “perversion of Islam” would look like. The texts so carefully cited by the Islamic State, to justify their every move, are lifted verbatim from the Qur’an and Hadith; no distortion of the texts, no “perversion” of Islam’s teachings, have been necessary.

The majority of people within Islam do not support either the violence or the ideology.
​

How does Tony Blair know this? Or is it merely what he would like to believe? It’s not “the violence or the ideology” but, rather, the “violence of the ideology” that Tony Blair should be highlighting, but his word choice suggests he doesn’t grasp this. The “violence” is not part of some imagined “extremism,” but is, rather, part of mainstream Islam. The Qur’an and Hadith are overflowing with violence; they are in many ways akin to manuals of war. And it appears from the opinion polls in the West that a great many Muslims do support “the violence,” and that if there is any underreporting, it is surely because some Muslims will deliberately refuse to admit to their support of violence. A polling error in the other direction Muslims claiming to support violence but in truth not doing so – is highly unlikely. Even Blair seems to recognize the popularity of what he calls “extremism” in Islam:

You’ve got these broad ideological strands that lie behind a lot of this extremism. If you take, for example, some of the organizations in the Middle East, some of those clerics that are putting out the most extreme stuff — they’ll have Twitter followings that go into millions of people.
​

If they have Twitter followers in the many millions, just how can these clerics be labelled as “extremists”?

These people are saying things about Jewish people — about even those in their own religion who are different that we would regard as completely unacceptable — and it’s those waters of extremism in which the violent extremists can swim.
​

Query: what do “these people” say about Jewish people that is not in the Qur’an or Hadith? Does Tony Blair not know what is written in those Islamic texts about Jews? Or Christians? Or non-Muslims in general?
Blair is certainly inching his way toward a more realistic view of Islam. It’s taking an interminably long time. He’s focusing now on the problems in the Middle East that are the result of Islam; he hasn’t yet taken on the question of what the burgeoning Muslim population in Europe will mean for our civilization. But even if he is less gushing about Islam than he was ten years ago, his confusion will continue as long as he refuses to grasp the inner essence of Islam, an aggressive faith based on an uncompromising division of the world between Believer and Unbeliever, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.

And having grasped that, will Blair dare to admit not just to himself, but to those whom, as Prime Minister, he presumed to instruct and protect, but misled so grievously about Islam, what he has learned? Anything is possible; even a Tony Blair can come to understand Islam if he tries to make sense of what he reads, and does not shy, either, from drawing conclusions from the observable behavior of Muslims over the last 1400 years, and states his new understanding without holding anything back in order not to offend Muslim sensibilities. And that, surely, is an outcome, and not just in the case of Tony Blair, devoutly to be wished.


Anti-Muslim hate crime hoaxer’s sister blames the NYPD
German prosecutor dismisses Muslim migrant sex assault claims: "They were just interested in you"

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: In Italy: Muslim Art Appreciation

JANUARY 19, 2017 2:39 PM BY HUGH FITZGERALD15 COMMENTS


By how much has the Muslim population in Italy increased since 1970? Before googling, take a guess.
In 47 years, from 1970 to 2017, the Muslim population in Italy, both of citizens and migrants, has gone from 2,000 (in 1970) to 1.6 million, at the beginning of 2017, and should reach 2 million by the end of 2018. In other words, the number of Muslims in Italy will have increased more than one thousand times in less than a half-century. Should we care?

Italy has always been a welcoming country, open to the world, with a tradition of hospitality that is part of Italian culture, and a destination for people who come to admire the cradle of so much of Western civilization. But now, instead of those who come to admire its art and architecture, a new set of visitors has arrived, a very different group of people, who display no interest in the history, the art, the architecture, the music, the literature of Italy, no interest in the foundations of the culture that defines the West, with the artifacts of that culture, from Rome to the Renaissance, everywhere tangible and present. Instead, these new visitors have arrived in Italy, completely indifferent or often positively hostile to all of these achievements, and have come not to visit but to settle, and not to contribute but to help themselves to whatever benefits the generous Italian state makes available. And in taking and taking, these Muslim migrants leave less for the Italians themselves.

We know, thanks to Oriana Fallaci’s memorable eyewitness description in in The Rage and the Pride (La Rabbia e l’Orgoglio, 2002), how Muslim migrants disported themselves in Florence, until finally dispersed after several horrific months: They “set up their tents on the sidewalk right by the Duomo (Cathedral), where they kept their shoes and slippers that in their own countries would be lined up outside the mosques. And along with those shoes and slippers, bottles of water to wash their feet before prayer. A tent placed right in front of the cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore, beside the Baptistery with the golden doors of Ghiberti … with little seats and little tables and chaise-longues and mattresses to sleep on and to have sex on, and little portable burners to cook their food, poisoning the Piazza with smoke and stink, and with a recording device always blaring at full blast, enriched with the loud nasty vulgar voice of the muezzin that punctually called the faithful to prayers, deafening the Infidels, and overwhelming the sound of the church bells…And with all that, the yellow streams of urine that defiled the marble of the Baptistery walls” and desecrated, too, by urinating on, the gilded bronze doors of the Baptistery, Ghiberti’s famous “Gates of Paradise,” one of the great masterpieces of Western art. And that was not all Oriana Fallaci saw and reported on: there were still more “yellow streams of urine, and the fetid stink of the defecations that blocked the door of San Salvatore al Vescovo, the exquisite 11^th century Romanesque church in back of the Cathedral that the Sons of Allah had transformed into a latrine.” It’s a hellish picture, as only Fallaci in her full fury could paint, of Muslim migrants demonstrating their special contempt for Christianity and for the Christians who had given them refuge and succor.

And there are other memorable examples of Muslim appreciation of Italian art. Perhaps you remember those Muslims, connected to Al Qaeda, who plotted in 2009 to destroy a 15^th-century fresco by Giovanni da Modena in the San Petronio Cathedral in Bologna, a fresco in which the artist follows Dante’s description of Muhammad in the 8^th circle of Hell, tearing at his own entrails.
Even though that plot was foiled in time, other Muslims have since called for the Catholic Church itself to demolish, or if not that, at least to “remove,” this fresco. This calling on the Church to do away with the fresco, rather than trying again to blow up all of San Petronio, might be considered by some as an improvement in Muslim behavior. The Church did not yield to this demand (this was before Pope Francis), and the fresco remains where it was. But in order for the fresco to be safeguarded, visitors must now stand at a greater distance from it than before, and a metal grate has been installed, too, so that it is now impossible to enter the dark side chapel where the fresco is located, and this obscures the view of this masterpiece even further. Thus the Muslims have won; the hated fresco is still where it was, but now it is part of Italy’s art heritage that can no longer be seen and admired because it has to be protected from Muslims.

But even works of art whose subjects — unlike the fresco of Giovanni da Modena — have nothing to do with Islam are still in danger for two reasons. First, given the Hadith that reports Muhammad’s statement that “angels do not enter a house that has a picture in it,” and that the word “picture” has been held to include statues as well as painted depictions of humans, much of Western art (with such obvious exceptions as landscapes and abstract art) is in permanent peril from those Muslims who take to heart, and decide to act upon, Muhammad’s words. How much of the art in Italy – statues, frescoes, paintings — is potentially a target of Muslim attacks because of the prohibition on “pictures”? Surely a great deal. Second, even where there is no “picture” involved, such artifacts found in churches as crucifixes, reliquaries, candlesticks, hymnals and prayer books, are all Christian works and therefore have been, and always will be, targets for Muslim vandalism and destruction.
And that is exactly what happened in 2016, as in years past. Muslims continued to leave intermittent reminders of their contempt for their Christian Italian hosts, as with the statue of San Petronio (patron saint of Bologna), vandalized this past June. The Christmas season was marked by Nativity scenes destroyed or even set on fire (and of course not only in Italy), along with the by now standard destruction and desecration of precisely those “crucifixes, reliquaries, candlesticks, hymnals and prayer books,” which signify Christianity and thus deserve to be destroyed whatever the season. Urination and defecation in churches, on altars, seems to be a continuing theme in these attacks. From the scene Fallaci described in 2002, through to 2013 where a group of Muslims defecated on an altar here and up to January 2015 when, after attacking a man praying in the chapel of San Barnaba in Perugia, five Muslims smashed and then urinated on a statue of Mary, described here, and this kind of nauseating behavior is not limited to Italy, for here’s a recent example of Muslim migrants in Sweden, expressing their understanding of interfaith outreach.

Crucifixes, which can themselves be venerable works of art, have been destroyed in many different places all over Italy, and not only those found in churches. Last October, the crucifix at Lake Fimon in the Berici Hills was smeared with red paint for the second time in ten months. On the same day, a Ghanaian Muslim went on an orgy of destruction in four different churches in Rome, at the Basilica of Santa Prassede, San Martino ai Monti, the Basilicas of San Giovanni de’ Fiorentini and the San Vitale, destroying not just crucifixes, including one that dated back to the 9^thcentury, but statues too, and reliquaries. When caught, he insisted that “it was not right that we worship in this way.” And of course, in Islam, it isn’t.

There is much more of this that has been underreported in the Western press – often confined to a small item in a local paper — of creches smashed or thrown into rivers, of sacred books being ripped or burned, of graffiti smeared on church walls, of destruction of religious art, and the desecration of objects of worship of every kind.. And this kind of thing has happened not only in Italy, but in France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Spain, Greece (Crete). It is in Italy, however, that there is so much more of the Western world’s art heritage protection from attack. You may scare some Muslims into not vandalizing art works with the prospect of prosecution, but how can you convince faithful Muslims to forever allow that which Muhammed himself prohibited? It can’t be done. Think not only of the Bamiyan Buddhas blown up just a few years ago, but also of the long list of Buddhist temples, shrines, stupas, destroyed by Islamic invaders; think of the thousands of Hindu temples and temple complexes razed in India by Muslims; or all the Byzantine churches damaged or razed when the Ottoman Turks solidified their rule. Why should Western Europe’s art be spared, especially as Muslim numbers increase and they feel ever more emboldened to act on their beliefs? Isn’t that one of the considerations that should be taken into account as the wisdom of mass Muslim migration is debated?

And even without wholesale destruction of Christian art and artifacts, demands for their removal, so as to essentially de-Christianize the public space, are worrisome. Adel Smith, a Muslim convert, founder of the Union of the Muslims of Italy, sued to have the crucifix removed from his children’s school. The crucifix in Italy is not only a religious but a cultural symbol; forcing its removal, as Italian Labor Minister Maroni said at the time, “is outrageous. It is unacceptable that one judge should cancel out millennia of history.” But the Muslim petitioner, who referred to the crucifix dismissively as “a small body on two wooden sticks” won his case in court. Fortunately, the Italian Council of State later overturned that decision, upholding the display of the crucifix in all government-sponsored spaces. But the brazen attempt to remove such an important cultural symbol was telling.
Perhaps most outrageous of all was the demand by the same Adel Smith to have the entire Divine Comedy banned from Italian schools because Dante places Muhammad in the 8^th Circle of Hell (Inferno, Canto 28). Following conventional Christian views of Islam in the Middle Ages, Dante regarded Islam as a heretical offshoot of Christianity and Muhammad as a sower of discord; thus Dante describes him in the 8^th Circle of Hell with his entrails hanging out: ”Look at the maimed Muhammad” (“Vedi come storpiato e’ Maometto”). No doubt this text infuriates Muslims, and so do any illustrations that have been made that show Muhammad in Dante’s 8^th Circle of Hell.. But so what? To ban Dante, Italy’s greatest literary figure, central to its cultural identity, from Italian schools because of a few lines in one Canto? Are we to curry favor with Muslims by such censorship? That a Muslim dared to even raise the matter is flabbergasting. It would be as if Muslims in England demanded the removal of Shakespeare from the schools because of three lines in Othello: Othello, a Christianized Moor, in the employ of Christian Venice against the Muslim Ottomans, describes how he handled a “malignant and a turbaned Turk” who had “beat a Venetian and traduced the state”: “I took by the throat the circumcised dog/And smote him – thus.” Is it really so far-fetched to imagine such a demand might someday be made by a Muslim group in Great Britain, or that “in a spirit of compromise” Muslims could lower their request so that not all of Shakespeare, but “only Othello,” be removed ? Half the interfaith-outreach vicars in England might support this, claiming that we shouldn’t give Shakespeare a pass for his “Islamophobia” just because he’s Shakespeare. Anything is possible in this absurd new world of Hypertrophied Diversity and Limitless Tolerance for the “Other” (meaning not all others, just Muslims). So far, Dante remains in the Italian curriculum. But would it be surprising if further Muslim attempts to ban at least Canto 28 from the school syllabus were made?

Italy is the greatest repository of art in the Western world, and the Italians have a special responsibility to protect this common heritage. Imagine what new threats and new worries about the art in its churches and its museums and its public spaces will arise, because Islam prohibits the form (i.e., “pictures”), and Muslims despise the content, of so much of that Christian art? Doesn’t history suggest that as Muslims sense their growing strength in numbers, both their demands and their aggressive behavior will increase? The continued adamant refusal of many Catholic clerics, who are the stewards of so much of this art, to link the current vandalism and destruction of art to Islam itself, is wrong, regrettable, and a dereliction of duty. With a Muslim population that by 2020 will have increased a thousandfold in less than half-a-century, how will Italy deal with Muslims when there are not 1.6 million of them, as there are now, but two or three times that number? What’s to come is still unsure, but what has already been happening to the artistic heritage in Italy is cause for alarm. And given what Muslims have done when the wood is green, what will happen when the wood is dry?

Netherlands: University of Amsterdam “Jihadi Brides” researcher was Islamic State “cyber-jihadist”
UK: Islamic call to prayer held inside historic Gloucester Cathedral
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousStumbleUponDiasporaEmailPrint

 

Australia: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” plows car into pedestrians, cops say not terror-related

JANUARY 19, 2017 11:57 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER2 COMMENTS
Of course. Why would it be terror-related? The Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:

So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….​

And we have recently seen this at Ohio State, in Nice, in Berlin, in Israel, and elsewhere.


“BREAKING: Terror Attack in Australia? Vehicle Plows into Pedestrians in Melbourne,” by Patrick Poole, PJ Media, January 19, 2017

Breaking news out of Melbourne, Australia that at least three people have died after a vehicle plowed into a group of pedestrians near a shopping mall.​

According to one witness, the driver was screaming, “Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar!”…​

Witnesses describe the scene:​

​

“There was a man hanging out of the window screaming” – teen describes driver as thin, dark hair, appeared Middle Eastern. @theheraldsunpic.twitter.com/Y6JWW3djp1​

— Andrea Hamblin (@AndieHamblin) January 20, 2017​

​

This witness claims the driver was screaming, “Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar, Allahu Akhbar!”

This witness, Stefano, describes the driver screaming at people on the street.@theheraldsun pic.twitter.com/vlJYw6h0iW​

— Andrea Hamblin (@AndieHamblin) January 20, 2017​

​

That notwithstanding, Melbourne police are already dismissing any possible terror connection:

#BREAKING @VictoriaPolice say they believe incident was related to a stabbing earlier today and is not terror-related​

— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) January 20, 2017…​

​

Chezamission ‏@chezamission


WTH happened though...MSM totally unreliable in reporting truth...
Chezamission added,

Bruce Linwood @BruceLinwood

Our Mainstream Media is telling Australia this isn't terrorism. Guess what Australia. . . . . This is terrorism. . . . .

​

Australia: Melbourne car attacker identifies himself as Muslim

JANUARY 20, 2017 2:08 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER41 COMMENTS
All day people have been indignantly tweeting and emailing me, saying that Dimitrious Gargasoulas is not Muslim, he’s Greek. That Islam is a religion and Greek is a nationality seems to escape a surprising number of people, including Australian authorities. Anyway, Gargasoulas does seem to be quite unbalanced. What mainstream analysts fail to grasp is that being unbalanced and being a jihadi are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Islam attracts the psychically marginal, as it provides them with a justification of and blessing for their impulses to rage, hatred and violence.


“Driver in Melbourne Car Attack Named as ‘Greek Islamic Kurd’ with Mental Health Issues,” by Donna Rachel Edmunds, Breitbart, January 20, 2017:

The driver who ploughed his car into crowds on a Melbourne street killing four and injuring 15 others has been named as Dimitrious Gargasoulas, 26.​

Gargasoulas, who claims to be ‘Greek Islamic Kurdish’ and a follower of Yazdanism, has been found to have posted multiple rambling messages on social media in the last few days, ranting about the “illuminati”, promising “heaven and hell is real”, and vowing to “have god’s laws reinstated”.​

“I declare war on tyranny today, you dogs will have the option to either believe in me and his positive energy he offers and stay faithful to me or serve the one who enslaves you at his feet,” he wrote on Facebook on Monday, the Daily Mail has reported.​

He added: “I offer freedom no work no bills just that we all keep faith and believe in the one god, the one higher being for the good and protect the energy that he gives with your heart.​

“God bless everyone in the world it is about to change xoxo.”​

A few days earlier he had posted: “I know exactly how to take you DOGS down the power of knowing has revealed and I shall have GODS laws re-instated.”​

​

​

​

In a long rant in early January he wrote: “Today the Gods have given me wisdom and knowledge. They have awoken me.​

“Keep in mind good will always prevail over evil and that is exactly whats to come in the following days weeks and so forth.​

“I’ll take you all out just me you need a army to take me […] wait until you see mine! For all those who know me… know I’m a genuine good sexy young guy.​

“I’ve been blessed… and now your fucked”.​

​

​

​

​

​

Two adults in their thirties and a young child, all unrelated, were killed early on Friday afternoon, local time, after a car smashed through the crowds on Melbourne’s busy Bourke Street, a major intersection in Australia’s second largest city.​

A fourth person died from their injuries in hospital during Friday night.​

Fifteen people were injured in the incident, including four children. Five of the injured are said to be in critical condition, including an infant.​

Sharn Baylis, a tourist from the southern city of Adelaide, told the Australian Broadcasting Corp: “He was just collecting people as he was going along and they were flying like skittles, basically….​

​

Australia: Friend of Melbourne car attacker says he “converted to Muslim and changed very quickly”

JANUARY 21, 2017 9:29 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER37 COMMENTS
“A close friend told said Gargasoulas’ rantings were driven by heavy use of the drug ice, and that he had recently converted to Islam. ‘He was a great guy but ice destroyed him. Then he converted to Muslim and changed very quickly. For over a month he’s been on edge,’ he told Daily Mail Australia.”
This confirms everything I have been reporting about this incident. But there appears to be a massive cover-up by Australian media and law enforcement. In any case, this clearly deranged individual was unlikely to have been coolly and calmly carrying out an act of jihad, as we have seen jihadis do so often. Rather, Islam’s justification for violence fed and fueled his already-present rage and tendency to resort to violence.

“‘I’ll take you out… and you need an army to take me’: Chilling Facebook posts of driver with a history of drugs and violence who mowed down dozens in deadly Melbourne rampage,” by Nic White, Daily Mail Australia, January 20, 2017:

The man who allegedly ploughed through dozens of pedestrians on a rampage through the Melbourne CBD has a history of drug abuse, violence and mental issues.
Dimitrious Gargasoulas, 26, ranted about the Illuminati, called unbelievers ‘dogs’, and vowed to ‘have god’s laws re-instated’ in the weeks before the attack that killed four people.
‘I declare war on tyranny today, you dogs will have the option to either believe in me and his positive energy he offers and stay faithful to me or serve the one who enslaves you at his feet,’ he wrote on Facebook on Monday.
‘I offer freedom no work no bills just that we all keep faith and believe in the one god, the one higher being for the good and protect the energy that he gives with your heart.
‘God bless everyone in the world it is about to change xoxo.’
He claimed to be ‘Greek Islamic Kurdish’ and a follower of Yazdanism, the native religion of the Kurds before the arrival of Islam, also know as the ‘cult of Angels’.
‘I know exactly how to take you DOGS down the power of knowing has revealed and I shall have GODS laws re-instated,’ he wrote last Saturday.
An hour earlier he ranted about connections between Scientology, the Illuminati, and the Free Masons, who would ‘do anything in the power to dominate the world’.
He claimed they would ‘take on the new world order’ and that women would run the world because god’s laws had been ‘overwritten by human laws’.
A close friend told said Gargasoulas’ rantings were driven by heavy use of the drug ice, and that he had recently converted to Islam.
‘He was a great guy but ice destroyed him. Then he converted to Muslim and changed very quickly. For over a month he’s been on edge,’ he told Daily Mail Australia.
‘He stabbed his brother in the face and beat up his poor mother I knew this bloke really well… I’m not sticking up for him whatsoever and he deserves to be punished for what he’s done, but that evil drug ice was the cause of this.
‘Just take one look at his statuses over the past month and it’s clear as day that he had gone into psychosis. He was saying there was a comet heading for Earth.’
Gargasoulas’ longest and earliest rambling on January 9 claimed god had given him wisdom and knowledge and ‘awoken’ him, and included a chilling premonition.
‘Keep in mind good will always prevail over evil and that is exactly whats to come in the following days weeks and so forth somebody tried to f*** me,’ he wrote….​

Hamas-linked CAIR's Ahmed Rehab and Hussam Ayloush enraged that imam to pray at ceremony for Trump inauguration
UK: Manchester United soccer team appoints counter-terrorism chief
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousStumbleUponDiasporaEmailPrint

​

UK jogger viciously attacked by Muslims escaped by speaking Arabic
Why Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of the United States

​

 

Germany rejecting “almost all” applications for asylum from Christian refugees

JANUARY 21, 2017 1:53 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER24 COMMENTS
Just as in the U.S., where the Obama administration admitted thousands of Muslim refugees and only a handful of Christians, clearly the Merkel government is more interested in social engineering than in humanitarian relief. Merkel wants to “fundamentally transform” German society, and by bringing in a refugee group among whom are unknowable numbers of violent jihadists and Sharia supremacists, she will certainly do just that.

“Germany Rejecting ‘Almost All’ Applications for Asylum of Christian Refugees, Pastor Reveals,” by Hazel Torres, Christian Today, January 20, 2017:

These Christian refugees thought they finally found a safe refuge when they arrived in Germany after fleeing persecution in their homelands.
But now their asylum hopes are being “hijacked” in “kangaroo” courts as they face the prospects of deportation and returning again to the horrors they had fled from.
Dr. Gottfried Martens, a pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church in Berlin, has revealed that the German government is rejecting almost all applications for asylum from most of his church’s Iranian and Afghan refugee members who have waited years in Germany for the government to hear their cases, CBN News reported.
He said these asylum seekers are now receiving deportation notices.
Trinity Lutheran Church is known for its work with Iranian and Afghan refugees. It considers itself as the fastest growing Lutheran church congregation in Germany.
Martens explained that migrants increase their chances of winning asylum in Germany if they are able to prove that they would face persecution if sent home to a Muslim country, according to the Daily Mail.
They can do this by showing proof that they are Christian or have converted to Christianity.
But the problem is that Muslim translators are “hijacking” their asylum applications by deliberately misquoting them during their “kangaroo court” asylum hearings, making it look like their conversion was fabricated. Thus their asylum claim is deemed falsified and subsequently rejected, leading to their deportation, Martens said.
“The almost exclusively Muslim translators deliberately stick the knife in our congregational members by falsely translating what they say,” Martens wrote in a Christmas letter to his supporters on Dec. 22, the Daily Mail reported.
Martens earlier expressed concern that some Muslims come to his church and express interest in Christianity just to improve their chances of getting their asylum request approved.
The German pastor also denounced the continuing harassment of Christian migrants and Christian converts living in German refugee shelters. “Many of them suffered violent attacks from Muslim residents,” he said….​

Fighting for willful ignorance: Obama allies working to undermine Trump's national security team
Congratulations, President Trump! Now what? Reversing the ostrich complex

 

Patriotic Feminism!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goYwCSj03oo
​

 

Susan Lynne Schwenger

"So literally hundreds of thousands of women protest in many cities against a duly elected politician over a few comments he supposedly made!....meanwhile these same women do fuck all to stop the pedophiles running most large organizations ,religions and governments! The bombs still fall on innocents in the middle east with well over a million dead and counting, but they pay their taxes without question so more can die! This planet is truly screwed!"
~ David Spicer


Secret Service to investigate Madonna after expletive-filled rant
The Secret Service has reportedly said they will open an investigation into pop singer Madonna after her intense speech at the Women's March on…
DAILYMAIL.CO.UK




Tony Bermanseder
Madonna should stick to being a sex-liberator and bodytalk performer, but keep her political sentiments and insanities to herself.

Amy Collier Stier
She should move out of country like she said she would

Tony Bermanseder
Yeah to Saudi Arabia, where she can protest feminine equality and rights!

Amy Collier Stier
lol! See how long she survives ! Gah! Over the uneducated. I have had many friends say I have no idea that I speak lies. I tell them come on over I will fix you dinner and you can discuss these lies with my husband that lived among the culture for over 18 months !

Clifford D Ingram
She is getting old. Illuminati will have her put down soon.

Amy Collier Stier
lol!

Amy Collier Stier
just sad when I think of my childhood and growing up and being a teenager I think of her. She destroyed that. But , she makes me a stronger friend , mother , and independent free thinking woman ! Because I realize what an idiot she truly is

Clifford D Ingram
I liked her music too.

Tony Bermanseder
Song for Madonna! Get Back, to where you once belonged!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMW1hvvUjGg

The beatles-Get back

​

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: Professor Kishwar Rizvi and “Misinformation About Islam”

January 23, 2017 5:28 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald 89 Comments


“There has been much misinformation about Islam. Reports in Western media tend to perpetuate stereotypes that Islam is a violent religion and Muslim women are oppressed.” — Professor Kishwar Rizvi, in Salon
Apparently for Ms. Rizvi, a professor at Yale of Islamic Art and Architecture, it is “misinformation” about Islam that leads to the “stereotypes” (that is, views) that Islam “is a violent religion” and that ‘Muslim women are oppressed.” And if it’s a “stereotype,” it must, in Rizvi’s view, be false. It’s not quite as simple as that. Just because something has become a “stereotype” doesn’t mean that it should be dismissed rather than discussed; stereotypes are not plucked at random from the air, but can reflect, to a greater or lesser degree, an observable truth. The question is: how much evidence exists to support these particular “stereotypes”?
Is there any reason to think that Islam is a “violent religion”? Where shall we start? What about with the 109 Jihad verses that call for war against the Unbelievers for the sake of establishing Muslim rule? Here’s just a tiny sample, to refresh Professor Rizvi’s memory:

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [sedition or unrest, connected to disbelief] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [unrest, and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.
Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”
Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

We might have continued filling pages with another 100 verses from the Qur’an, and hundreds of stories about what Muhammad said and did from the Hadith and Sira, texts which also bristle with tales of his violence. But the point has surely been made: Whatever else may be said about the Qur’an and the other main Islamic texts, they are not “non-violent.”
But perhaps, Ms. Rizvi might insist, these texts should not be taken so seriously; she might claim that Muslims have taught themselves to ignore those Qur’anic passages. Is that true? Does the observable behavior of Muslims all over the world exhibit indifference to these texts, and a deep-seated preference for “non-violence”?
Well, let’s see. What does Ms. Rizvi make of the more than 30,000 Muslim terrorist attacks all over the world since 9/11/2001? She can find a complete list here. One hopes that she will feel compelled to take a look. It might prove instructive.

The evidence compiled there is not a fiction, not the mere imaginings of Westerners in thrall to “stereotypes,” nor the fantasies of Islamophobes. It lists laconically, without editorializing, attacks by Muslims, for reasons of religion, against non-Muslims, a category which also includes those Muslims who are deemed not to be “real” Muslims, either because of their sect (many Sunnis view both the Shi’a and Ahmadi Muslims as Infidels) or, even if Sunni, because they are deemed insufficiently Islamic in their beliefs and behavior. This gigantic body of evidence for the “violence” of Islam is difficult to dismiss.
And if Ms. Rizvi cared to look at the political upheavals recently in the Muslim lands, she would find violence everywhere she looked. In Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, the mobs came out to denounce Mubarak and in support of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood; when Morsi took over, other crowds (and soldiers) came out to protest against him and the Muslim Brotherhood; when Al-Sisi took over, and Morsi was arrested, there was still more intra-Muslim violence, between the Morsi supporters and those of al-Sisi, and there are still today, in Egypt, attacks from terrorists in the Sinai on Egyptian forces, violent reprisals by Al-Sisi’s forces, and in Upper Egypt, attacks by fanatical Muslims on the innocuous Christian Copts, which the government seems unable to prevent. Violence, everywhere you look.
In Tunisia, which launched the “Arab spring,” demonstrations brought down the regime of Ben Ali, and while Tunisia is often held up as a model of a peaceful transition, there has been violence against foreigners, with 21 killed in an attack on the Bardo Museum, and dozens of British tourists murdered on a beach, the murders of secular labor leaders, and against the new regime for being too secular for some, as in the attack at the border town with Libya, where 45 Tunisians were killed last year by “extremists.”

In Libya, what began as a violent revolt against Qaddafi soon metamorphosed into a many-sided conflict, pitting local militias identified with particular cities – Benghazi and Zintan and Misrata and Tripoli — against each other, jockeying for power, while the Islamic State established a foothold at Sirte, and held on to it until just this month. There is no unified Libyan state: as of now, the Government of National Accord in Tripoli claims rather unconvincingly to be the legitimate government, while those different militias, based either on the city of their members’ origin, or on the degree of fanaticism their members exhibit, are all fighting each other for power. Where does this incessant violence come from, if not from Islam?
We could do a quick tour d’horizon of the other Muslim lands in the neighborhood to see if Ms. Rizvi’s charge that linking Islam to violence is simply a “stereotype.” There is the Sudan, with the decades of war fought by Muslim Arabs in northern Sudan against both Christian and pagan black Africans in the southern Sudan, and against black African Muslims in Darfur. Then there is Yemen, with the incessant warfare of Sunni and Shi’a, a conflict that has now been enlarged still further by the Saudi bombing of Shi’a civilians, a campaign that has no foreseeable end. There is little Bahrain, where Pakistani Sunni mercenaries help a Sunni ruler suppress an uprising by the majority Shi’a.

How about the six-year civil war in Syria? As noted above, there are so many different groups in that fissiparous land, each warring against each, or making only the most temporary of alliances. There is the Syrian army, Alawite-officered, which fights for the corrupt regime of Bashar al-Assad who, despite his crimes, is also the surest protector of the country’s Christians and the most relentless foe of the Islamic State in Syria. There are several different rebel groups that consider themselves comparatively “secular” and “democratic” and who fight in what is called the Free Syrian Army; there are others that are determinedly “Islamic” in outlook, including the Al-Nusra Front, which is the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda, and the Islamic State, which is another Islamist group, even more fanatical and ruthless than the Al-Nusra Front. Both Al-Nusra and the Islamic State separately fight both Assad’s Army and the Free Syrian Army, but most importantly, they fight each other. The Syrian war has been going on for six years, and there is no apparent end in sight. Every attempt at compromise has failed. Ceasefires are constantly broken. “Violence” appears to be inherent in Islam, and it is only when one side has suffered a complete and utter defeat – leaving only Victor and Vanquished — that there is any chance for a settlement. Compromise is un-Islamic. So far, obtaining such a victory in Syria has proven elusive.

In Iraq, for the moment the main battles are taking place between the Shi’a-led Iraqi army and Shi’a militias, on one side, against the hyper-Sunnis of the Islamic State in Mosul on the other. But the Islamic State is not the only enemy. Sunnis unconnected to the Islamic State have for years been conducting a campaign of terror against the Shi’a, for Iraqi Sunnis feel keenly their loss of power to the majority Shi’a, and would like to keep the Shi’a off-balance in the hope of somehow forcing the Shi’a to relinquish some of their new-found power. That’s what explains those bombs exploding in Shi’a neighborhoods of Baghdad, and in the midst of Shi’a religious processions, and at Shi’a shrines, and inside Shi’a mosques. And in the last few years, there have been many more reprisal raids – kidnappings and mass executions of Sunnis, bombings in Sunni marketplaces – by the Shi’a militias that have also taken to bombing Sunni mosques.

The Sunnis are unreconciled to their loss of power, which followed upon the removal of Saddam Hussein; the Shi’a, of course, have no intention of yielding the power to which they believe themselves entitled, both because of their numbers (the Shia Arabs are 60% of the population) and because of their horrific treatment at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime. Alongside this Sunni-Shia strife, there is also ongoing violence in both Syria and Iraq, by Muslims against Christians (many of whom have now fled both Syria and Iraq), by Arabs against Kurds, and most gruesome of all, by the Islamic State against everyone else, well-versed in fiendish torture, burning people alive, mass decapitations, gang rapes, including among its victims the tiny, helpless Yazidi people in Iraq. In the midst of all this cruel killing, some of it by small children trained and encouraged by the adults to execute others or to become suicide bombers, Ms. Rizvi assures us that Islam is not “a violent religion.”
The Kurds, many of whom have tasted autonomy ever since the American Air Force enforced a “no-fly” zone on Saddam Hussein’s planes, are determined to keep it and are ready to fight for it. The Peshmerga have shown themselves to be among the most formidable foes of the Islamic State. What will come of these Kurdish demands for much greater autonomy, or what might happen if, sensing that the regimes in Baghdad and Damascus have been sufficiently weakened, the Kurds try to create an independent Kurdistan, cannot be known, but violence, and not pacific negotiation, is likely to decide the issue. The Kurds remember, after all, that when Saddam Hussein was in power, his Arabs killed 182,000 Kurds in Operation Anfal.

Violence, or the threat of violence, is everywhere you look in Iraq. As in Syria, it’s everyone against everyone: Shi’a against Sunnis and Sunnis against Shi’a, Arabs against Kurds, Muslims against Christians (but never Christians attacking Muslims), which is what happens in many Muslim lands, when a despot is suddenly removed and no one takes his place to impose his iron-fisted will. Then come attacks, reprisals, more attacks, more reprisals, in a continuous loop. Could this be one of the places that give rise to Ms. Rizvi’s “stereotypes”?
Syria and Iraq are currently the most violent of the Muslim Arab lands. But for years, Algeria was just as violent a center of internecine Muslim warfare. Even though a period of comparative calm now reigns in Algeria, the killing during the war of its Islamist groups against the ruling FLN party was unusual for its violence. The civil strife began in 1991, when it looked as if the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) would defeat the ruling FLN Party, that had held power since independence, in the coming elections; the FLN then cancelled the elections, and a civil war broke out, with several different groups fighting the FLN. The two main armed groups, that separately battled the FLN government, were the Armed Islamic Movement, or MIA, based mainly in the mountains, and the Islamist Armed Group, or GIA, based mainly in the towns. The GIA has been the more ferocious of those two groups: it has wiped out whole villages of civilians in campaigns of terror; its stock-in-trade was not combat on the battlefield, but assassinations, bombings, massacres of civilians, aircraft hijackings.

Only slightly less violent was the MIA, but like the GIA, and indeed like the FLN government itself, it has been guilty of mass atrocities against civilians. When the FLN finally declared victory, 200,000 people (the figure comes from Prof. Fouad Ajami), most of them civilians, had been killed, often in gruesome ways, and many hundreds of thousands wounded. And while some claim that “peace” of a kind has finally come to Algeria, it has hardly become the Peaceable Kingdom. There is still intermittent low-level violence, with strikes at, and counter-strikes by, the FLN-ruled government against the remnants of Islamist groups. Al-Qaeda has set up a branch in Algeria, known as AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), started by some veterans of the GIA. AQIM still stages its intermittent attacks in the vast Algerian south, including cross-border raids into Mali, Burkina Faso, the Ivory Coast. Algeria’s nonstop violence continues, with both AQIM and the FLN government playing their ruthless opposing roles.

Just “stereotypes”?
Let’s take a closer look at the Sudan, where from 1983 to 2005 a civil war raged, with attacks by Muslim Arabs from the north on black African Christians and animists in the southern Sudan. Two million people died as a result.
The conflict was characterized by mass killings in the south and the enslavement of blacks by the Arabs. And in addition to this conflict, the Muslim Arabs of the Janjaweed (armed Arab militias) went on raids pillaging and raping black Africans – even though they were Muslims — in Darfur. The Janjaweed are still there, though now that South Sudan has been declared an independent country, and much of the fighting in that area has consequently died down, the Western media is paying far less attention not just to the South Sudan, but to Darfur in the Sudan, where violence has not gone away. Last September, for example, a chemical attack killed 250 black African villagers in Darfur. The government of the Sudan, together with the Janjaweed militias, still appears determined to kill or drive out all non-Arabs from Darfur. But don’t you dare connect “violence” to Islam. That would be trading in “stereotypes.”

We could go even further afield to Iran, where the Revolutionary Guards keep the theocratic despotism in power, in cruelty and violence far outdoing the Shah’s hated Savak. There is Chechnya, where nonstop armed violence by his army keeps Ramzan Kadyrov, Putin’s ferocious quasi-puppet, in power. There is Afghanistan, where the Taliban continues to fight the government that, despite all the American military help it has received over 15 years, still manages to control only 63% of the total land area, and where the Taliban continues to harbor hopes both of taking over the country, and of again destroying the Shi’a Hazara, regarded by the Taliban as Infidels. “Hazaras are not Muslims, you can kill them,” was the famous remark by the Taliban commander Maulawi Mohammed Hanif in the mid-1990s. The American invasion put a stop to those Taliban attacks, but with the Americans largely gone, abductions, extortion, killings of the Hazara have started again, this time committed mainly by Al-Qaeda’s branch in Afghanistan and by a new contributor to the cauldron of violence, the forces of ISIS. Meanwhile, ISIS and the Taliban, after fighting each other for a year, declared a shaky truce in July 2016. Fifteen years after the American forces entered Afghanistan to bring peace, the picture is of many-sided violence. “Stereotypes”?
In Pakistan, Sunni terror groups have not let up in their attacks on Ahmadis and Shi’a. The Ahmadis are not allowed to identify themselves as Muslims on official documents in Pakistan. While the Shi’a can do so, many Sunnis agree with the extremist organisations Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah e Sahaba — that in 2011 from the city of Quetta declared that “All Shias are worthy of killing and the intention is to make Pakistan their graveyard.” Again, the violence in Pakistan is many-sided and apparently unstoppable. If only those pesky Pakistanis could stop imitating their “stereotypes.”

There is Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan, which won its independence only after a bloody war in 1971, fought by Bengalis both against the army of West Pakistan and against various local Islamist groups, including Jamaat-e-Islami and the paramilitary “Razakars” – who accepted the view that the independence movement in East Pakistan was really “an attack on Islam” because it would weaken the Pakistani state. In Bangladesh, as in Pakistan, and in Malaysia and Indonesia, you will find examples of ongoing violence against non-Muslims, whether Christians or Hindus, or even Buddhists (in their last redoubt in a Muslim country, the Chittagong Hills in Bangladesh). Why, given all this evidence, is it unreasonable to connect Islam with violence?

While the link given above to more than 30,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims ought to convince anyone of the link between Islam and violence, not only in the Muslim lands (Sunni against Shi’a, Shi’a against Sunni, Arab against non-Arab, Muslim against Christian, Muslim Against Hindu, Muslim against Buddhist), but also in the lands of Dar al-Harb, where Muslims do not yet dominate, it might be useful to list the places where the most spectacular attacks have taken place, and that contribute to the view that violence and Islam are indelibly connected. Professor Rizvi may finally be able to see things from an Infidel’s perspective as she reads the latest Jihad News. Here are a few of the places where major Islamic attacks were spectacularly bloody or cruel or insensate: New York, Washington, Boston, Amsterdam, Madrid, Brussels, Paris (Charlie Hebdo, Hyper Cacher, Bataclan, Nice, Toulouse), London, Moscow, Beslan, Mumbai, Orlando, San Bernardino, Fort Hood.

How many such attacks must there be before Prof. Rizvi finally recognizes that insisting that “Islam is a violent religion” is not an unfair stereotype, but only the terrible truth? If anything, the media in the Western world have tried hard to claim or pretend, after each atrocity, that Islam “had nothing to do with it.” This has required them to ignore the quoting of Qur’anic chapter and verse by the killers themselves. An alternative way to deal with the stark display of Muslim bloodlust is the tu-quoque of “all religions have their crazies,” which does nothing to explain why so many more of those mass-murderers appear to be Muslims than, say, Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Hindus, and why, far from being “crazy,” those Muslim mass killers are eager – and able — to lucidly provide to the world the textual support for their acts. They are killing by the book. That book is the Qur’an. So much for the unfair “stereotype” that Rizvi claims links Islam to violence.

What do you think about Islam, now that you have been exposed to just a few of the “Jihad verses” in the Qur’an? Now that you’ve had a chance to review the recent turbulent history of a dozen Muslim countries? Now that you’ve been given a link to a list of the more than 30,000 Muslim attacks around the world since 9/11/2001? Now that you’ve been given a list – to jog your memory — of the major terrorist attacks by Muslims in the West? Would you agree with Rizvi that reports in Western media “tend to perpetuate stereotypes” because they report on so much violence involving Muslims? Are any of those reports untrue? Are any exaggerated? Far from pushing a “stereotype,” doesn’t the Western media try to downplay the role of Islam in these attacks, sometimes by idiotically claiming that “it had nothing to do with Islam” or suggesting that it was the act of a non-denominational madman? With a few honorable exceptions, the Western media is doing everything it can to persuade us that Islam did not prompt or inspire these acts of terror, even when the perpetrators insist that it did. Yet Ms. Rizvi claims it’s all a matter of stereotyping.

Ms. Rizvi has a second complaint: that the Western media promote the “stereotype” that “Muslim women are oppressed.”
Might we in the West think that Muslim women are oppressed because, according to the Sharia, Muslim women can inherit half as much as men (Qur’an 4:11); their testimony is worth half that of a man (2:282); polygamy is licit (Muhammad, the Perfect Man, allowed himself at least twelve wives) and so are female slaves, “those whom your right hand possesses”; a Muslim man is allowed to beat his disobedient wife, though “lightly”; a Muslim man need only pronounce the triple-talaq to divorce his wife; and women are described in the Qur’an as inferior to men, for “the men are a degree above them” (2:228); and in the Sahih Bukhari (6:301), “[Muhammad] said, “‘Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?’ They replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This [is because of] the deficiency in her intelligence.‘” And Muslim husbands and fathers have close to absolute control over their wives and daughters, and can punish or even kill them, without fear of long prison sentences, and in some cases have been known to “pardon themselves” for having murdered their own daughters.

And think of how women are treated in Saudi Arabia, that country that adheres most closely to the letter and spirit of Sharia, where women cannot get passports or travel abroad without permission of a male relative, cannot drive a car, must use separate entrances at work and school to avoid contact with men, must limit any interaction with men who are not relatives, must wear at least an abaya and a head-covering and, to satisfy the mutaween (religious police), a niqab, and their social lives are totally controlled by their fathers and husbands. Think of the fifteen Saudi girls who were prevented by the mutaween from leaving a blazing building in Mecca because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, and instead were allowed to burn to death. Where, in what corner of the Muslim world, are women treated as being equal to men, able to make their own decisions, to socialize and dress and work and travel as they like, without men telling them what to do? There is no such place. It is only in the Western world that Muslim women can enjoy equality, protected by un-Islamic laws that flatly contradict the Shari’a.
To most of us, this evidence, both textual and behavioral, convincingly demonstrates that Muslim women are indeed “oppressed.” And as noted above, if we similarly look at the “textual” evidence (what the Qur’an and Hadith inculcate), and at the “behavioral” evidence (how Muslims treat non-Muslims) around the world, it’s impossible not to conclude that Islam is indeed a “violent religion.” Prof. Rizvi, a stalwart Defender of the Faith, clearly has other ideas. One wonders how she sleeps at night.

Bernie Sanders, Elle defend Hamas-linked pro-Sharia Women's March organizer Linda Sarsour
Trump affirms support for Egypt's fight against terror in phone call with Sisi

 

Homeland Security
Trump Protects U.S., World Gets Enraged

By Robert Spencer January 30, 2017
chat 102 comments

French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, left, greets his newly appointed German counterpart, Sigmar Gabriel, before talks at the French Foreign Ministry in Paris, France. (Frederic de la Mure/French Foreign Ministry via AP)
President Trump’s executive orders to build a Mexican border wall and to place a temporary ban on immigration from seven hotbeds of jihad terror have the national and international Left -- and its jihadi allies -- in an uproar.
How dare he move to protect American citizens?
French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said, during a meeting with German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, that both countries were “concerned” about Trump’s immigration policies:

Welcoming refugees who are fleeing war is part of our duty … his decision can only cause us concern.​

A “duty”? According to whom? Wasn’t protecting Ayrault's own citizens from jihad terrorists known to be entering France among the “refugees” his duty? All of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees.
France apparently found jihad less distasteful than vetting refugees; France now has the option it chose.

Mayor Michael Müller of Berlin pontificated:

We Berliners know better than most the pain caused when a whole continent is split by barbed wire and walls. … I call on the president of the USA not to go down that road to isolation and ostracism.​

Müller’s statement has been widely circulated and greeted with joy -- among the clueless Left, which is acting as if it opposed the Berlin Wall when it was up. They did not.
Remember?
Ronald Reagan declared: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”, and they recoiled in horror.
For the young leftist millennials, apparently there wasn’t time in high school to learn about East Germany. They were instead learning the U.S. was founded by white male slave-owners and has a history of oppression, racism, and imperialism. Today's self-righteous Left largely doesn’t know or care that the Berlin Wall was constructed by a totalitarian Leftist government to keep people in, not out.
The mayor of Berlin -- he, of all people, should know better -- is putting globalist Leftism above the safety of his own people.
Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani jumped in on the phony Berlin Wall theme, too. Rouhani tweeted:

Let’s help neighboring cultures, not build walls between nations. Let’s not forget what happened to the #BerlinWall.​

Unlike the Berlin Wall, Trump’s wall is simply a national security initiative. Perhaps Rouhani, whose regime has ordered its citizens to chant “Death to America” every week in their mosques, shouldn't have helped create a security threat. With his tweet, note that Rouhani has an obvious vested interest in opposing any step the U.S. takes to defend its citizens.
According to CNN, Iran says it now will:

… ban all U.S. citizens from entering the country in response to President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries.​

Who else already had a Spring Break flight booked to Tehran? Guess I’ll hit my second choice, Mogadishu.
While Iran has a great history, as I explain in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran is so repressive and authoritarian -- and so hostile to the United States -- that American citizens would be foolish to go there.
People who have family in Iran will be hit by Iran's ban, and that is unfortunate. But there is a grown-up choice to make here -- we're choosing between death and inconvenience. We can inevitably admit terrorists to the United States, or we can inconvenience good people for a temporary period. France chose the former.
Others to be hard-hit by Iran's new ban are the likes of Carl Ernst, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill pseudo-academic. His work on Islam is so whitewashed, so fawningly apologetic, so complete in its denial of the jihad doctrine and Sharia oppression, that he was given an award in 2008 by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- the genocidal anti-Semite who was at that time president of Iran.
Ernst happily flew to Tehran to accept. The incident was emblematic of how much American academia has degenerated.

The Iranian government’s statement said Trump’s ban was “an obvious insult to the Islamic world and in particular to the great nation of Iran.” Why is it an “obvious insult to the Islamic world” when the U.S. takes steps to defend itself from jihad terrorism? Because any defensive move taken by a non-Muslim entity is always seized upon by Islamic supremacists and jihadis as food for propaganda, which they produce when calling the defensive move an “unprovoked” act of aggression.
This is a tried-and-true response from Islamic entities going back all the way to the Crusades. Which are still taught in many places as unprovoked Christian aggression.
Leftist political elites worldwide are joining the likes of Rouhani in excoriating Trump for daring to defend his people. Will nothing but national and civilizational suicide satisfy them?

 

Muslim Leader: America Must Understand Sharia Law is Greater Than the Constitution, Therefore Muslims are Above the Law

By Harry Hibbs Posted in Culture News
Posted on October 15, 2016


FacebookTwitter


The Director of the Dallas Council on American- Islamic Relations (CAIR), Mustafa Carroll, made a surprising and shocking statement during a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas. He firmly believes that the message of the Qur’an is supreme over the United States constitution. The statement would be shocking to most citizens of the United States, unless they had some perspective on who CAIR really is.

​

He said, “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.”​

CAIR is the nation’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Their headquarters is located in Washington D.C. They use lobbyists, the media, and action alerts to promote a positive image of Islam in America during a time when Radical Muslims (ISIS) in other parts of the world are crucifying children in the name of Allah, and quoting the Koran (Though the Obama Administration has a hard time calling it ‘Radical Islam’ for fear of offending regular Muslims).
In 2007 the Holy Land Foundation trial found the Holy Land Foundation Charity guilty of funneling millions of dollars back to the terrorist organization Hamas. Interestingly enough, CAIR was among the organizations named during the trial as unindicted co-conspirators. To put that into perspective, the 37^th president of the United States, Richard Nixon, was named an unindicted co-conspirator during the Watergate Trial.

​

In 2011 and 2012, during an event that The Blaze covered extensively, Islamic institutes coordinated with the White House to target the counter terrorism training within the FBI. The event was called ‘The Purge,’ and the result was the removal of more than 700 documents and 300 presentations. Some of the presentations removed included information about Al Qaeda and the trainers within the FBI were allegedly not given the opportunity to appeal when their presentations were rejected. They were not even allowed to know who it was that was objecting to their work. CAIR was one of the institutes that pushed for this event.

In 2014, the United Arab Emirates placed CAIR, along with 81 other groups, on its list of terrorist organizations. Some believe the action was to done to show a stand against the Terrorist Organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, who seized power in Egypt during the Arab Spring. It should be noted that members of the Obama Administration openly endorsed the events in Egypt that led to the Muslim Brotherhood taking power, likening it to the Civil Rights Movement in America. It has been suspected that CAIR has had ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, and currently, the Obama administration is working to get CAIR removed from the list of terrorist groups.

The world has seen many movements that believe they are above the law of the land. Everything from religion (ISIS) to atheism (Church burnings), from Nationalism (Nazis) to Communism (Stalin), and from Judges who do not follow the Constitution (Roberts) to members of Congress who openly admit to not reading the bills they sign into law (Pelosi). The world has seen unimaginable horrors when these ideas take root, and if Mustafa Caroll is expressing the unofficial and hidden beliefs of his organization, that practicing Muslims are above the law, it would only make sense that CAIR is meeting with and advising a man in the White House who also believes he is above the law of the land.
h/t: observatorial
Like us on Facebook – USA 24

 

Muslim Sexism!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQHE_JVrzt0
​