Islamist groups making inroads in local politics in America
When Sadia Gul Covert was elected in 2018 and sworn into the office of Dupage County commissioner, she took her oath on the "Quran, Torah, and the Bible," in what seemed at the time like a symbol of unity and moderation.
But Covert's decision to cast her lot with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) raises questions about the extent of her moderation.
Covert will be a speaker at the CAIR-Chicago 2020 Banquet fundraiser in February, among other Islamist speakers.
CAIR was connected to the terrorist organization Hamas during the terror-financing trial against the Holy Land Foundation (HLF).
According to the Justice Department report published in 2009, "HLF became the chief fundraising arm for the Palestine Committee in the U.S. created by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas."
In 2010, former assistant attorney general Ronald Weich sent a letter to four members of Congress in which he "included trial transcripts and exhibits" "which demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee."
In addition, Mrs. Covert is board member of the Illinois Muslim Civic Coalition that includes in its steering board Sufyan Sohel, deputy director of CAIR-Chicago, and Dr. Dilara Sayeed as board president. Sayeed had failed in her bid for the Illinois House of Representatives, District 5, in 2018. CAIR-Chicago named Sayeed as a Trailblazer and gave her the "honor" of speaking at CAIR-Chicago's 15th Annual Banquet in 2019. According to report in the Chicago Crusader, Sayeed, who "ran a campaign on integrity and transparency, hoping to connect to disillusioned Black voters in district 5," paid $10,000 to an editor in the Chicago Defender in 2017 and caused the journalist to lose her job.
Fundraising for CAIR alongside Covert will be the Orland Park Prayer Center (OPPC)'s Imam Kifah Mustapha, who has a history of supporting violent anti-Semitism. In 2015, Mustapha was caught supporting the "stabbing intifada" against Israelis on Facebook, writing, "An uprising in the blessed land will reflect blessings on all the Arab revolutions, God willing."
In one of the videos used as evidence during the HLF trial, Mustapha chants in Arabic:
"O mother, Hamas for Jihad. Over mosques' loudspeakers, with freedom. Every day it resists with stones and the dagger. Tomorrow, with God's help, it will be with a machine gun and a rifle."
Covert is not the only local government official who will be promoting CAIR. Two Virginia politicians, Virginia state delegate Dr. Ibraheem Samirah and Fairfax County school board member Abrar Omeish, will also be speaking. Both have documented ties to Islamist groups.
Samirah is a member of Virginia's House of Delegates, who has a history of anti-Semitism and supports the Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS) movement. In one of his social media posts, Samira said that "sending [U.S.] money to Israel is worse than the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)."
Also, Samirah is the son of Dr. Sabri Samirah, a well known Islamist who was banned from entering the U.S. for ten years and was considered a "security threat."
The elder Samirah "was a board member and Chairman of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which also conducted its activities as the American Muslim Society (AMS) ... [and] according to court records and terrorism experts, the IAP provided both propaganda and fundraising services to Hamas," according to a website set up by Virginia activists critical of Samirah's Islamist ties.
In the case of Samirah Junior, the apple did not fall far from the tree. The Virginia delegate expressed the same Islamist position of his father in a Facebook post:
My father is my role model. I can only dream of living up to the moral standards he exemplifies. I pray that I make him proud, as always I pray that I quickly find full stability and raise my future son, Sabri, to be like him and better. I would not have dedicated myself to the Palestinian human rights' cause without him. I am forever grateful to all he has given me.
The other Virginia Islamist fundraising for CAIR-Chicago is Abrar Omeish, who served as the M.C. for a memorial event for Jamal Khashoggi, the late Washington Post columnist with ties to Islamist groups who was killed in 2019 by Saudi agents in Turkey.
Omeish's father is Dr. Esam Omeish, a former president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), another Brotherhood affiliate and organization that supports Hamas. Dr. Omeish had been identified as having ties to terrorism by a security committee of the Libyan government. The Clarion Project reported that Ms. Omeish, In 2014, led a campaign to silence Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born American feminist who was the victim of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Somalia and now advocates for women's and children's rights.
Covert's, Samirah's, and Omeish's presence at the CAIR-Chicago fundraiser is a reflection of the growing importance Islamists are placing on local politics. While CAIR has faced scrutiny for its efforts to woo federal legislators, local media rarely identify local politicians for their relationships with an extremist group.
Hesham Shehab is the Chicago associate of the Counter-Islamist Grid (CIG).
Image: Sadia Covert via YouTube.
The
Muslim American Society-Islamic Circle of North America (MAS-ICNA) 2019
convention held in Chicago last month reveals the Illinois Islamists’ ties with
the autocratic Turkish regime of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and how Erdogan
uses U.S. Islamists organizations as an arm of his foreign policy.
Illinois's Islamist
Turkish Connection
The Muslim American Society-Islamic Circle of North America
(MAS-ICNA) 2019 convention held in Chicago last month reveals the Illinois
Islamists’ ties with the autocratic Turkish regime of President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, and how Erdogan uses U.S. Islamists organizations as an arm of his
foreign policy.
One of the main convention sponsors was the Zakat Foundation (ZF), a
nonprofit organization, that was founded by the Turkish-American Halil Demir in
1981, in Bridgeview, Illinois, near Chicago. Demir previously worked as the public relations offices for
the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), an organization which would
be designated for supporting terrorism for allegedly funding Al Qaeda.
According to its mission
statement, the Zakat
foundation is a “trusted zakat (alms-giving) and donations resource center for
Muslim donors.” Zakat is the third pillar of Islam.
In his report “Erdogan’s Long Arm in the US: Turkish Influence
Operations Among American Muslims” Ahmet S. Yayla identifies the Zakat Foundation as the main
sponsor of the 13th MAS-ICNA conference in December 2014. In addition, ZF
participated at the 2015 MAS-ICNA conference with a large booth, raising funds
for its programs. Also, the Zakat Foundation was the platinum sponsor for the 2014 and 2015 American Muslims for Palestine
(AMP), a group closely linked to the Hamas support network which held its annual convention in Chicago in November.
Turkish officials have been directly involved at the MAS-ICNA
convention in Chicago for years. In 2016, Sumeyye
Erdogan Bayraktar, daughter of President Erdogan and vice-chairperson of the
Istanbul-based Women and Democracy Association (KADEM), spoke at the MAS-ICNA
convention and stated that “Turkey serves as an inspiration for other Muslim nations.”
In 2017, Turkey was represented at MAS-ICNA convention by Mehdi
Eker, the deputy chair of AKP.
Another speaker at the recent MAS-ICNA convention associated with
Erdogan is the Chicago-based Oussama Jammal, who is MAS’s director of Public
Affairs and Civic Engagement as well as president of the Mosque Foundation (MF) board of directors, and
secretary general of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO).
Jammal founded the USCMO in 2014 with
a mission to “open
effective communication and coordination spectrums between all American Muslim
organizations… help solidify mutually crucial relationships… create and sustain
an urgent, collective sense of direction.”
Since its inception, USCMO has acted as an umbrella group for Islamist organizations such as the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim-American Society (MAS), American
Muslims for Palestine (AMP), and the International Institute of Islamic Thought
(IIIT), all groups with identifiable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Indeed, Jammal and his ilk have issued press releases, organized
demonstrations, mobilized and indoctrinated Muslims in Illinois and other states, and
appeared on the scene whenever Erdogan needed support.
In April, 2015, USCMO released a statement to support Turkey regarding the “1915
Turkish-Armenian Events,” a Turkish euphemism for the Armenian genocide.
In July, 2016, Jammal, with a group of Turkish and American Muslims,
including Zakat Foundations’ Demir, protested the coup attempt in Turkey in front of Turkey’s Chicago
Consulate General building. Jammal is a major figure in Erdogan’s “domestic political meddling,” and USCMO acts as a support and
lobbying group for Erdogan’s anti-American policies among U.S. Muslims.
Turkish operations in Illinois are just a small part of Turkey’s
bid to create a global network of Islamists culminating in a virtual “Ottoman
Empire” that answers to Istanbul. In 2015 former AKP prime minister Ahmet
Davutoğlu said Turkey “will re-found the Ottoman state.”
This effort to place Turkey at the head of an Islamist coalition
explains Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) providing various forms of support to the international Muslim
Brotherhood, as well as U.S. Islamist organizations that support Hamas.
By meddling in U.S. politics, Turkish and Islamist nonprofit
organizations have violated their mission statements as nonprofit entities, and
in addition raise serious questions about their status as possibly unregistered
foreign agents, particularly if the Turkish government has funded their efforts
and rewarded them for their support. American Muslims need to stand up and make
clear that groups like MAS-ICNA and the USCMO do not speak for them
THE KORAN
BIBLE OF THE
MUSLIM TERRORIST:
“The Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world
where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the
petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI
Koran 2:191
"slay the unbelievers wherever you find them"
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".
“The tentacles of the Islamist hydra have deeply penetrated the
world. The Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear threat in Egypt. The
Muslim Brotherhood also wages its deadly campaign through its dozens of
well-established and functioning branches all over the world.”
“The Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world
where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the
petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI
* We will take advantage of their immigration policy to
infiltrate them.
* We will use their own welfare system to provide us with
food, housing, schooling, and health care, while we out breed them and plot against
them. We will Caliphate on their dime.
* We will use political correctness as a weapon. Anyone who
criticizes us, we will take the opportunity to grandstand and curry favor from
the media and Democrats and loudly accuse our critics of being an Islamophobe.
* We will use their own discrimination laws against them
and slowly introduce Sharia Law into their culture..
Duping Americans on Sharia
A detailed look at how
Islamic apologist extraordinaire John Esposito whitewashes Islamic terror.
January 14, 2020
Raymond Ibrahim
Raymond
Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Does Islam itself promote
hostility for and violence against non-Muslims, or are all the difficulties
between the West and Islam based on secondary factors—from “radical”
interpretations of Islam, to economics and grievances?
This is the fundamental
question.
Obviously, if “anti-infidel”
hostility is inherent to Islam itself, then the conflict becomes existential—a
true clash of civilizations, with no easy fixes and lots of ugly implications
along the horizon.
Because of this truism, those
whose job it is to whitewash Islam’s image in the West insist on the
opposite—that all difficulties are temporal and not rooted to innate Islamic
teachings.
Enter Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know,
co-authored by John Esposito and Natana J. Delong-Bas. The authors’ goal
is to exonerate Shariah, which they portray as enshrining “the common good (maslahah), human
dignity, social justice, and the centrality of the community” from Western
criticism or fear, which they say is based solely on “myth” and
“sensationalism.”
In their introductory chapters
they define Shariah as being built upon the words of the Koran and the Sunna
(or example) of the Muslim prophet Muhammad as contained in sahih (canonical)
hadiths. They add: “Shariah and Islamic law are not the same thing.
The distinction between divine law (Shariah) and its human interpretation,
application, and development (Islamic law) is important to keep in mind throughout
this book…. Whereas Shariah is immutable and infallible, Islamic law (fiqh) is fallible and
changeable.”
Next the authors highlight how
important Shariah is to a majority of Muslims. They cite a 2013 Pew Poll
which found that 69% of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa, 73%
in South Asia, and 55% in Central Asia believe that “Shariah is God’s [Allah’s]
divine revelation.”
Even larger numbers “favored
the establishment of Shariah as official law”: 99% in Afghanistan, 84% in South
Asia, 74% in the Middle East and North Africa, and 64% in sub-Saharan Africa.
So far so good. The
authors’ introductory claims (that Shariah is fundamental to Islam) and
statistics (that hundreds
of millions of Muslims revere and wish to see it implemented)
are correct.
But they also beg the
aforementioned question: is Shariah itself behind
the intolerance, misogyny, violence, and terrorism committed in the name of
Islam?
Here, the hitherto objective
authors shift gears and take on the mantle of apologists. Their thesis is
simple: Any and all negative activities Muslims engage in are to be pinned on
anything and everything—so long as it’s not Shariah.
In order to support this
otherwise unsupportable position, and as might be expected, the remainder of
the book consists of obfuscation, dissembling, and lots and lots of contextual
omissions and historical distortions.
A small sampling follows:
Shariah on Women
The authors quote and discuss
at length many Koran verses about women that seem positive (Koran 30:21, 3:195,
and 2:187), without alluding to counter verses that permit husbands to beat
their wives (4:34) and treat them as “fields” to be “plowed however you wish”
(2:223). Nor do they deal with Muhammad’s assertions that women are
“lacking in intelligence” and will form the bulk of hell’s denizens, as
recounted in a canonical hadith.
They partially quote Koran 4:3:
“…marry those that please you of other women, two or three or four. But if you
fear that you will not be just, then marry only one.” This suits the
authors’ purpose, which is to present the Koran as implicitly recommending only
one wife, since it acknowledges the near impossibility for a man to treat all
wives equally. Yet the authors deliberately cut
off the continuation of that verse—which permits Muslim men to copulate with an
unlimited amount of sex slaves (ma malakat aymanukum) even if they
are married.
They also dissemble about child
marriage, saying “classical Islamic law” permits it, but only when “the child
reaches a mature age.” Yet they make no mention that, based on
Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha—that is, based on his Sunna, which is immutable
and part of Shariah—nine is considered a “mature age.”
Freedom of Religion and
Non-Muslims
The authors claim that “There
are more than 100 Quranic verses that … affirm freedom of religion and
conscience.” They quote many at length and assert that “The guiding
Shariah principle … underscored by Quran 3:28, 29:46, and 60:89, is that
believers should treat unbelievers decently and equitably as long as the
unbelievers do not behave aggressively.”
Yet they fail to mention or
sideline the many contradictory verses that call for relentless war on
non-Muslims—who are further likened to dumb cattle in Koran 25:44 —until they
surrender, one way or another, to Islam (e.g., 8:39, 9:5, 9:29).
They fail to quote the verses
that form the highly divisive doctrine of al-wala’ w’al bara’ (“Loyalty
and Enmity”), including Koran 5:51, which forbids Muslims from befriending Jews
and Christians, and Koran 60:4, which commands Muslims to harbor only “hate”
for non-Muslims, until they “believe in Allah alone.”
Needless to say, they ignore
Koran 3:28, which permits Muslims to feign friendship for non-Muslims, whenever the former are under the latter’s authority (such is
the doctrine of taqiyya;
see here, here, here, here, and here for examples).
It is, incidentally, because of
all these divisive Koran verses—because
of Shariah—that the Islamic State forthrightly explained, “We hate you, first and
foremost, because you are disbelievers.”
The closest the authors get to
address these issues is in a section titled, “Can Muslims in the West be Loyal
Citizens.” They respond with a yes—but the evidence they cite are polls
(based on wishful interpretations), which of course tells the reader little
about the topic they purport to “de-mythologize”: Shariah.
Jihad
As might be expected, when the
authors reach the topic of jihad, their dissembling reaches a new level.
They repeatedly insist that jihad, as enshrined in Shariah, is simply the
Muslim counterpart of Western Just War theory, which teaches that war and
aggression are permissible, but only in defense or to recover one’s territory
from occupiers: “The lesser or outer jihad involves defending Islam and
the Muslim community.” As usual, they spend much time quoting and
elaborating on Koran verses that comport with this position, while ignoring or
sidelining the many contradictory verses. In reality, mainstream Islam
holds that the Koran’s “Sword Verses” (especially 9:5 and 9:29) have abrogated all the peaceful
ones, thereby making warfare on non-Muslims—for no less a reason than that
they are non-Muslims—obligatory.
Consider Koran 9:29:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what
Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth
[Islam] from the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the
jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
What, exactly, is “defensive”
about this verse?
Similarly, they claim
that dar al-harb,
or “abode of war”—Islam’s designation for all those non-Muslim territories
(such as Europe) that Muslims were historically in a permanent state of war
with—“applied to other parties with whom Muslims were in conflict.” Again, they
fail to mention that the primary reason Muslims were “in conflict” with them
was because they were non-Muslim,
and that all non-Muslim territories were by default part of the “abode of war,”
except when treaties advantageous to Islam were drawn.
Instead, the authors say, “The
territories classified as the abode of war were those that refused to provide
such protection to Muslims and their clients”—thereby implying Muslims were
hostile to, say, Europe, because Europe was first hostile to Muslims.
(Reality, as chronicled in Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and
the West, was the exact opposite.)
Miscellaneous Subterfuge
One can go on and on; the
authors engage in other forms of subterfuge to exonerate Shariah. They
frequently project a Western veneer to Islamic terms and concepts, saying for example
that Shariah is ultimately about “promoting good and preventing evil”—which
sounds admirable—without pointing out that, based on the Koran and Sunna (that
is, Shariah),
conquering non-Muslim territories is about “promoting good” and keeping women under
wraps and indoors, beating them as required, is about “preventing vice.”
While admitting that Christians
and other non-Muslim minorities are currently being persecuted, not only do the
authors insist that this has nothing to do with Shariah, but they invoke
relativistic thinking: “Just as Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are
often concerned with their rights and civil liberties as minorities,” they say,
“so some consider the rights and status of non-Muslim minorities living in
Muslim countries to be a parallel issue.” In other words, because some
Americans view Muslims in their midst with suspicion, the ongoing enslavement
and slaughter of Christians—more than 6,000 in Nigeria alone since
January 2018—and ban on or destruction of churches is a sort of tit for tat, a
“parallel issue” that can only be solved when the West becomes less critical
about Islam.
Relativism is also invoked during
the authors’ brief treatment of apostasy in Islam: “Historically, apostasy was
sometimes punishable by death in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” They
claim that apostasy is still a major issue in Islam due to “radical”
interpretations or politics—bolstering their position by again quoting the same
Koran verses that seem to support freedom of religion—without mentioning, say,
the canonical hadith (meaning part of Shariah) where Muhammad said, “Whoever
leaves his religion [Islam], kill him.”
Such is how Islam’s skilled
apologists dupe the West: they admit to some of the more controversial aspects
that many other apologists shy away from—namely that Shariah is indeed
foundational to Islam and that hundreds of millions of Muslims revere and wish
to see it implemented—but then, having established trust with the reader, they
slip back into the “game,” portraying all the intolerance, misogyny, violence,
and terrorism daily committed in the name of Islam as products of anything and
everything—fallible Muslim interpretations, self-serving clerics and
terrorists, socio-economic pressures, Western criticism or encroachments—never
Shariah itself.
Contrary to its subtitle, then,
John Esposito’s and Natana J. Delong-Bas’s Shariah is not “what everyone
needs to know”; rather, it is what non-Muslims need to believe in order to
give Shariah—which is fundamentally hostile to all persons and things
un-Islamic—a free pass.
Cops: Muslim Sex Grooming Gangs “Didn’t Understand That It Was
Wrong"
Why Manchester cops didn’t protect young girls from Muslim sex
grooming gangs.
January 23, 2020
Daniel
Greenfield
Call it a tale of two girls. And a tale of two Englands.
One is an actress who grew up to marry a prince, lavished with luxuries, amassing a fortune, before her tantrums and antics drove her to depart her newfound royal family for a Canadian billionaire’s manor.
The other was put into foster care when she was only 8, by the age of 13 she was being raped by a Muslim sex grooming gang, and by 15, Victoria Agoglia was already dead of a heroin overdose injected by the 50-year-old Muslim pedophile who had been abusing her. Today, she would have been a woman.
Unlike Meghan Markle, Victoria never got the opportunity to marry a prince or even grow up. And while the media weeps for Markle, who is departing for Canada because of some tabloid tales, the story of Victoria, once again in the news because of the release of an independent report on the sex grooming gangs of Manchester, shows what true social injustice looks like. It’s not bad publicity for a celebrity.
It’s a girl who was abandoned to the worst imaginable abuses because intervening would have been politically incorrect.
The report chronicles how Operation Augusta was launched and then scuttled after her death in 2003, despite identifying 97 suspects and 57 victims. The victims were, “mostly white girls aged between 12 and 16”, and the perpetrators were, “mostly men of ‘Asian heritage’”. By ‘Asian’, the report means “predominantly Pakistani men” though at least one of the perpetrators was apparently Tunisian.
Constable B, the anonymous cop responsible for some of the most revealing quotes in the report, said, “What had a massive input was the offending target group were predominantly Asian males and we were told to try and get other ethnicities.”
Mohammed Yaqoob, the pedophile who had forcibly injected Victoria with heroin and was cleared of manslaughter charges, was not the sort of pedophile the Manchester cops were supposed to find.
A meeting at Greater Manchester Police headquarters “acknowledged that the enquiry was sensitive due to the involvement of Asian men” and worried over “the incitement of racial hatred.” There were concerns about “the damaged relations following Operation Zoological.” Those were the police raids targeting Iraqi refugees involved in an alleged Al Qaeda plot to bomb a soccer stadium in Manchester.
Some in the GMP didn’t see the point to stopping the rape of young girls because of cultural differences.
“There was an educational issue. Asian males didn’t understand that it was wrong, and the girls were not quite there. They were difficult groups to deal with. We can’t enforce our way out of the problem,” Constable B said.
And so they didn’t.
More young girls and women were raped. Some of the perpetrators were later arrested. The full scope of the abuse and the cover-up will never be known. The independent report tells us a little of the horror.
The Muslim sex grooming gangs in South Manchester targeted girls from broken families who were taken to care homes. This was not accident or chance. As the report notes, the “offenders understood that a specific children’s home in Manchester was used as an emergency placement unit for children entering the care system and this maintained a steady supply of victims.” And the Muslim sex groomers made sure to be on hand and ready so that the “children were befriended as soon as they arrived.”
These were some of the same tactics used by Muslim sex grooming gangs in Rotherham, Bradford, Huddersfield, Rochdale, Aylesbury, Oxford, Newcastle, Bristol, and Telford, suggesting some level of coordination between grooming gangs from various cities. Possibly over the internet. It’s an angle that the authorities have shown no interest in following up because of its potentially explosive nature.
Some previous Muslim sex grooming gangs were set up among taxi drivers. This gang, according to the report, was based out of the “Asian restaurant and takeaway trade.” Again, by Asian, they mean Indian, Afghan and Pakistani cuisine, kabobs and curry, not Egg Foo Yung and General Tso’s Chicken. These traditionally Muslim businesses served as coordinating networks for the rape and abuse of children.
The migrant populations that destroyed the English working class, displacing them and taking their jobs, leaving men without purposeful work, wives without husbands, and children with broken homes, then completed the hat trick by drugging, raping, and killing the daughters of the working class. And the authorities shrugged because the girls were the worthless leavings of broken homes and a declining populace, the Mohicans and Incas, the Bushmen and the Picts, ragged remnants of defeated tribes brokenly making way for a new conquest, their daughters subjugated by the arrogant colonizers.
There are brief snapshots of the horror of this New Britain: notes from a lost investigation into lost lives.
“Carers reported to police that a child had provided information stating that she was being pursued/threatened/coerced into having sex by two men who were Asian,” a brief summary mentions. “A child begged her carers to get her away from Manchester as she was too involved with Asian men. She disclosed that an Asian man known by his nickname ‘made her do things she didn't want to do’”.
While girls have been the focus of many of the stories, some of the predators also went after boys.
“Child 14 was a male looked after child who regularly went missing,” the report also notes. There were “references from other young people that he was being prostituted by Asian and gay men.”
Despite its thorough documentation, the report ends in a bureaucratic sea of missing information.
In 2005, senior officers of the Greater Manchester Police and Manchester City Council members attended a meeting at Manchester Town Hall and announced the shutdown of the investigation. The report mentions that, "The review team has requested a copy of the minutes for that meeting but neither GMP nor Manchester City Council was able to provide a copy."
It’s no doubt been logged and filed in the same place as Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide videos.
Constable B’s rough answers tell us certain truths about the cover-up. The investigation of Muslim sex grooming gangs was too likely to offend the wrong people. And the behavior of the Muslim pedophiles, who abused young girls and addicted them to drugs, was attributed to cultural differences.
The nameless Constable B tells us the true scope of the problem. Manchester cops like him know that this is habitual and that it’s taking place on a level vastly beyond the scope of Operation Augusta. It’s not 57 girls or 97 suspects. It’s thousands. “We can’t enforce our way out of the problem,” he said.
That’s what you say about vast social issues that involve entire communities and a way of life.
Muslim sex grooming gangs, like drugs or prostitution, are too widespread to be enforced out of existence because, like college students and pot, the culture doesn’t accept that they are wrong.
The police did nothing because these were not isolated crimes by criminals, but clashes of morals and values between two communities, one of which does not believe that child rape is wrong because its sacred texts tell it that Mohammed married Aisha and consummated his marriage when she was 9.
There are nearly 2 million child marriages in Pakistan. The notion that a woman’s consent to sexual relations matters is an utterly foreign concept in a culture where unaccompanied women are fair game.
The child rapists did not believe that their actions were wrong under Islamic law. And they weren’t.
The Manchester City Council and the GMP just accepted this reality as they have accepted it so often. They buried the minutes, shut down the investigation, and walked away from the screams of the girls.
They did it for multiculturalism, integration, and community relations. They did it for social justice.
We know that no real action was taken because the girls were troubled. They didn’t matter. And their bodies and lives could be sacrificed for the greater good.
The real tragedy is not that the rapists didn’t understand it was wrong. It’s that the UK no longer does.
As the media moans over Meghan Markle, sob stories rolling in of the injustice of tabloid headlines and the prejudice of the Brits, it is worth remembering those nameless girls who were sacrificed to progress.
They were not worked to death in factories. The brand of progress is no longer Dickensian. Instead it’s Markleite. It demands that we look away from the broken bodies in the chimneys of social justice, to bury away these cinderellas of the postmodern age until Blake’s angel comes with his bright key.
The princess of social justice is in. And the cinderellas who never get asked to the ball, who never grow up or meet their prince, who are taken by taxi to drug dens, shot up, abused, and then turned out, are obstacles to the brand of progress that Markle, Stormzy, and the rest of the social justice crowd of the ‘Cool New Britain’ that is quick to stomp on offensive speech and quicker to look away from the horrors of the new golden age of acid attacks, sex grooming gangs, and nail bombs at teen girl concerts, represent. There is no fairy godmother for them. Only little black coffins and filing cabinets.
Bodies are buried in coffins and the truth is buried in filing cabinets, along with the unasked questions
There is a red Mercedes linked to four of the young girls. Who was behind the wheel of the car “used in the procurement of the victims”? Where did it go? Who knows.
Ask the GMP. Ask the lost and the dead.
The notes and minutes are missing. The truth has been buried in little black coffins along with the bodies of young girls like Victoria. England might once have been theirs. Now it belongs to their abusers.
Muslim Deceit and the
Burden of Proof
In his recent defense of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya (dismantled here), Usama
Hasan of the UK think tank Quilliam made the following admission:
It is true that hardened islamist terrorists, such as the Al-Qaeda
& ISIS supporter Usman Khan who murdered two people at Fishmongers’ Hall
[after pretending to have been “rehabilitated”], do misuse the principle of
taqiyyah in order to further their cause. However, the charge that all Muslims
are generally religiously obligated to lie, and do so routinely, is both
dangerous and untrue.
However true this may be, it is also irrelevant.
After all, how is the infidel to know which Muslim is and isn’t “misusing the
principle of taqiyyah”? Moreover, why should the burden of
proof be on the non-Muslim -- who stands to (and often does) suffer and even
die from ignoring the role of deceit in Islam -- and not on the Muslim, whose
religion allows deception in the first place? This is particularly so since
more than a few “hardened islamist terrorists” are convinced that their creed
allows them to dissimulate to their heart’s content -- so long as doing so can
be seen as helping further the cause of Islam.
In this, as in virtually all things Islamic, Muslims
have their prophet’s example -- two that are especially poignant -- to turn
to.
First is the assassination of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf (d.
624), an elderly Jew. Because he dared mock Muhammad, the latter
exclaimed, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A
young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close
enough to Ka‘b to murder him, he needed permission to lie to the Jew.
Allah’s messenger agreed. So Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to
complain about Muhammad until his disaffection became so convincing that Ka‘b
eventually dropped his guard and befriended him.
In another account, after Muhammad and his followers
had attacked, plundered, and massacred a number of non-Muslim Arabs and Jews,
the latter assembled and were poised to defeat the Muslims (at the Battle of
the Trench, 627). But then Naim bin Mas‘ud, one of the leaders of
these non-Muslim “confederates,” as they came to be known in history, secretly
went to Muhammad and converted to Islam. The prophet asked him to return to his
tribesmen and allies -- without revealing that he had joined the Muslim camp --
and to try to get them to abandon the siege. “For,” Muhammad assured him,
“war is deceit.”
Mas‘ud returned, pretending to be loyal to his former
kinsmen and allies, all while giving them bad advice. He also subtly instigated
quarrels between the various tribes until, no longer trusting each other, they
disbanded -- thereby becoming a celebrated hero in Islamic tradition.
In the two well-known examples above, Muslims deceived
non-Muslims not because they were being persecuted for being Muslim but as a
tactic to empower Islam. (Even the Battle of the Trench was precipitated
precisely because Muhammad and his followers had first attacked the
confederates at the Battle of Badr and massacred hundreds of them on other
occasions.)
Despite these stories being part of the Sunna to which
Sunnis adhere, UCLA’s Abou El Fadl -- the primary expert the Washington Post once
quoted to show that Islam does not promote deceit -- claims that “there
is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal. That is a
complete invention.”
Tell that to Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, whose head was cut off
for believing Muslim lies. The prophet of Islam allowed his followers to
deceive the Jew to slaughter him -- even though Ka‘b posed no threat to any
Muslim’s life.
Especially revealing is that, in Dr. Sami Makerem’s seminal book on the topic, Al-Taqiyya fi’l Islam (Taqiyya
in Islam), he cites the two aforementioned examples from the prophet’s
biography as prime examples of taqiyya.
It comes to this: even if one were to accept the
limited definition of taqiyya as permitting deception only
under life-threatening circumstances (as Usama Hasan and any number of
apologists insist), the fact remains: Islam also permits
lies and deception in order to empower itself. Accordingly, and
considering that Islam considers itself in a constant state of war with
non-Islam (typified by the classical formulation of Dar al-Islam vs. Dar
al-Harb) any Muslim who feels this or that piece of deception over the infidel
is somehow benefiting Islam will believe that he has a blank check to
lie.
That’s the inconvenient fact -- passingly admitted to
by Usama Hasan -- that needs addressing; and that’s why the burden of proof
belongs on Muslims, not non-Muslims.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Sword and Scimitar, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom
Center; a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute; and a Judith
Friedman Rosen Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
///
'Hating and Loving' for Islam
Understanding the roots of terror.
January 17, 2020
Raymond
Ibrahim
During a New Year’s Eve Islamic terror attack that took place in Russia minutes before the clock struck midnight, two Muslim men—Akhmed Imagozhev, 22 and Mikail Miziyev, 18—drove their car into and stabbed to death two police officers, one a married father of four. Other officers subsequently shot one of the jihadis dead, while hospitalizing the other.
An image of the two Muslim men posing with knives was later found on social media. Beneath it appeared the words, “love and hatred based on Tawhid!” This is hardly the first time this ostensibly oxymoronic phrase appears in connection with Islamic acts of terror. After launching a successful terror attack that killed two policemen in the Kashmir Valley, the militant commander of Kashmir’s Hizb al-Mujahidin—“the Party of Jihadis”—justified the murders by saying, “We love and hate for the sake of Allah.”
Interestingly, in this otherwise cryptic motto lie the roots of Islam’s conflict with the rest of the world. “Loving and hating” is one of several translations of the Islamic doctrine of al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ (which since 2006 I have generally translated as “Loyalty and Enmity”).
The wala’ portion—“love,” “loyalty,” etc.—requires Muslims always to aid and support fellow Muslims (including jihadis, for example through funds or zakat). As one medieval Muslim authority explained, the believer “is obligated to befriend a believer—even if he is oppressive and violent toward you — while he must be hostile to the infidel—even if he is liberal and kind to you” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 64 ). This is a clear reflection of Koran 48:29: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.”
But it is the bara’—the “hate,” the “enmity”—that manifests itself so regularly that even those in the West who are not necessarily acquainted with the particulars of Muslim doctrine sense it. For instance, in November 2015, after a series of deadly Islamic terror strikes in the West, then presidential candidate Donald Trump said, “I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”
This “tremendous” and “unbelievable hatred” is not a product of grievances, political factors, or even an “extremist” interpretation of Islam; rather, it is a direct byproduct of mainstream Islamic teaching. Koran 60:4 is the cornerstone verse of this doctrine and speaks for itself. As Osama bin Laden once wrote:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone” [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
Similarly, the Islamic State confessed to the West in the context of Koran 60: 4 that “We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers.” As for any and all political “grievances,” these are “secondary” reasons for the jihad, ISIS said:
The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.
Koran 58:22 goes as far as to praise Muslims who kill their own non-Muslim family members: “You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred.”
According to Ibn Kathir’s mainstream commentary on the Koran, this verse refers to a number of Muslims who slaughtered their own non-Muslim kin (one slew his non-Muslim father, another his non-Muslim brother, a third—Abu Bakr, the first revered caliph of Islamic history—tried to slay his non-Muslim son, and Omar, the second righteous caliph, slaughtered his relatives). Ibn Kathir adds that Allah was immensely pleased by their unwavering zeal for his cause and rewarded them with paradise. (The Al Qaeda Reader, 75-76).
In fact, verses that support the divisive doctrine of al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ permeate the Koran (see also 4:89, 4:144, 5:51, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 60:1). There is one caveat, captured by Koran 3:28: when Muslims are in a position of weakness, they may pretend to befriend non-Muslims, as long as the hate carries on in their hearts (such is taqiyya; see here, here, and here for examples; for other Islamic sanctioned forms of deception, read about tawriya, and taysir).
Little wonder, then, that America’s supposed best Muslim friends and allies—such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar—are on record calling on all Muslims to hate. According to a Saudi governmental run website, Muslims must “oppose and hate whomever Allah commands us to oppose and hate, including the Jews, the Christians, and other mushrikin [non-Muslims], until they believe in Allah alone and abide by his laws, which he sent down to his Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him.”
Indeed, because enmity for non-Muslims is so ironclad in the Koran, mainstream Islamic teaching holds that Muslim men must even hate—and show that they hate—their non-Muslim wives, for no other reason than that they are “infidels.”
If Muslims must hate those closest to them—including fathers, sons, brothers, and wives—simply because they are non-Muslims, is there any surprise that so many Muslims hate foreign “infidels” who live oceans away—such as Americans, who are further portrayed throughout the Islamic world as trying to undermine Islam?
In short, jihad—or terrorism, war on non-Muslims for no less a reason than that they are non-Muslims—is simply the physical realization of an overlooked concept that precedes it: Islam’s unequivocal command for Muslims to hate non-Muslims.
THE KORAN
BIBLE OF
THE MUSLIM TERRORIST:
“The
Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world where young boys
are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the petrodollar-flush
Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI
Koran
2:191 "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them"
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".
“The
tentacles of the Islamist hydra have deeply penetrated the world. The
Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear threat in Egypt. The Muslim
Brotherhood also wages its deadly campaign through its dozens of
well-established and functioning branches all over the world.”
“The
Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world where young boys
are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the petrodollar-flush
Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL
IMANI
* We
will take advantage of their immigration policy to infiltrate them.
* We
will use their own welfare system to provide us with food, housing, schooling,
and health care, while we out breed them and plot against them. We will
Caliphate on their dime.
* We
will use political correctness as a weapon. Anyone who criticizes us, we will
take the opportunity to grandstand and curry favor from the media and Democrats
and loudly accuse our critics of being an Islamophobe.
* We
will use their own discrimination laws against them and slowly introduce
Sharia Law into their culture..
Duping Americans on Sharia
A detailed
look at how Islamic apologist extraordinaire John Esposito whitewashes Islamic
terror.
January 14, 2020
Raymond Ibrahim
Raymond
Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Does Islam
itself promote hostility for and violence against non-Muslims, or are all the
difficulties between the West and Islam based on secondary factors—from
“radical” interpretations of Islam, to economics and grievances?
This is the
fundamental question.
Obviously,
if “anti-infidel” hostility is inherent to Islam itself, then the conflict
becomes existential—a true clash of civilizations, with no easy fixes and lots
of ugly implications along the horizon.
Because of
this truism, those whose job it is to whitewash Islam’s image in the West
insist on the opposite—that all difficulties are temporal and not rooted to
innate Islamic teachings.
Enter Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know,
co-authored by John Esposito and Natana J. Delong-Bas. The authors’ goal
is to exonerate Shariah, which they portray as enshrining “the common good (maslahah), human dignity,
social justice, and the centrality of the community” from Western criticism or
fear, which they say is based solely on “myth” and “sensationalism.”
In their
introductory chapters they define Shariah as being built upon the words of the
Koran and the Sunna (or example) of the Muslim prophet Muhammad as contained
in sahih (canonical)
hadiths. They add: “Shariah and Islamic law are not the same thing.
The distinction between divine law (Shariah) and its human interpretation,
application, and development (Islamic law) is important to keep in mind
throughout this book…. Whereas Shariah is immutable and infallible, Islamic law
(fiqh) is fallible
and changeable.”
Next the
authors highlight how important Shariah is to a majority of Muslims. They
cite a 2013 Pew Poll which found that 69% of Muslims in the Middle East
and North Africa, 73% in South Asia, and 55% in Central Asia believe that
“Shariah is God’s [Allah’s] divine revelation.”
Even larger
numbers “favored the establishment of Shariah as official law”: 99% in
Afghanistan, 84% in South Asia, 74% in the Middle East and North Africa, and
64% in sub-Saharan Africa.
So far so
good. The authors’ introductory claims (that Shariah is fundamental to
Islam) and statistics (that hundreds
of millions of Muslims revere and wish to see it implemented)
are correct.
But they
also beg the aforementioned question: is Shariah itself behind the
intolerance, misogyny, violence, and terrorism committed in the name of Islam?
Here, the
hitherto objective authors shift gears and take on the mantle of apologists.
Their thesis is simple: Any and all negative activities Muslims engage in are
to be pinned on anything and everything—so long as it’s not Shariah.
In order to
support this otherwise unsupportable position, and as might be expected, the
remainder of the book consists of obfuscation, dissembling, and lots and lots
of contextual omissions and historical distortions.
A small
sampling follows:
Shariah on
Women
The authors
quote and discuss at length many Koran verses about women that seem positive
(Koran 30:21, 3:195, and 2:187), without alluding to counter verses that permit
husbands to beat their wives (4:34) and treat them as “fields” to be “plowed
however you wish” (2:223). Nor do they deal with Muhammad’s assertions
that women are “lacking in intelligence” and will form the bulk of hell’s
denizens, as recounted in a canonical hadith.
They
partially quote Koran 4:3: “…marry those that please you of other women, two or
three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only
one.” This suits the authors’ purpose, which is to present the Koran as
implicitly recommending only one wife, since it acknowledges the near
impossibility for a man to treat all wives equally. Yet the authors deliberately cut off
the continuation of that verse—which permits Muslim men to copulate with an
unlimited amount of sex slaves (ma
malakat aymanukum) even if they are married.
They also
dissemble about child marriage, saying “classical Islamic law” permits it, but
only when “the child reaches a mature age.” Yet they make no
mention that, based on Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha—that is, based on his
Sunna, which is immutable and part of Shariah—nine is considered a “mature
age.”
Freedom of
Religion and Non-Muslims
The authors
claim that “There are more than 100 Quranic verses that … affirm freedom of
religion and conscience.” They quote many at length and assert that “The
guiding Shariah principle … underscored by Quran 3:28, 29:46, and 60:89, is
that believers should treat unbelievers decently and equitably as long as the
unbelievers do not behave aggressively.”
Yet they
fail to mention or sideline the many contradictory verses that call for
relentless war on non-Muslims—who are further likened to dumb cattle in Koran
25:44 —until they surrender, one way or another, to Islam (e.g., 8:39, 9:5,
9:29).
They fail
to quote the verses that form the highly divisive doctrine of al-wala’
w’al bara’ (“Loyalty and Enmity”), including Koran 5:51, which forbids
Muslims from befriending Jews and Christians, and Koran 60:4, which commands
Muslims to harbor only “hate” for non-Muslims, until they “believe in Allah
alone.”
Needless to
say, they ignore Koran 3:28, which permits Muslims to feign
friendship for non-Muslims, whenever the former are under the latter’s
authority (such is the doctrine of taqiyya;
see here, here, here, here, and here for
examples).
It is,
incidentally, because of all these divisive Koran verses—because of Shariah—that the
Islamic State forthrightly explained, “We hate
you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers.”
The closest
the authors get to address these issues is in a section titled, “Can Muslims in
the West be Loyal Citizens.” They respond with a yes—but the evidence
they cite are polls (based on wishful interpretations), which of course tells
the reader little about the topic they purport to “de-mythologize”: Shariah.
Jihad
As might be
expected, when the authors reach the topic of jihad, their dissembling reaches
a new level. They repeatedly insist that jihad, as enshrined in Shariah,
is simply the Muslim counterpart of Western Just War theory, which teaches that
war and aggression are permissible, but only in defense or to recover one’s
territory from occupiers: “The lesser or outer jihad involves defending
Islam and the Muslim community.” As usual, they spend much time
quoting and elaborating on Koran verses that comport with this position, while
ignoring or sidelining the many contradictory verses. In reality,
mainstream Islam holds that the Koran’s “Sword Verses” (especially 9:5 and
9:29) have abrogated all
the peaceful ones, thereby making warfare on non-Muslims—for no less a reason
than that they are non-Muslims—obligatory.
Consider
Koran 9:29: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day,
nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the
religion of truth [Islam] from the People of the Book [Jews and Christians],
until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
What,
exactly, is “defensive” about this verse?
Similarly,
they claim that dar
al-harb, or “abode of war”—Islam’s designation for all those
non-Muslim territories (such as Europe) that Muslims were historically in a
permanent state of war with—“applied to other parties with whom Muslims were in
conflict.” Again, they fail to mention that the primary reason Muslims were “in
conflict” with them was because they were non-Muslim,
and that all non-Muslim territories were by default part of the “abode of war,”
except when treaties advantageous to Islam were drawn.
Instead,
the authors say, “The territories classified as the abode of war were those
that refused to provide such protection to Muslims and their clients”—thereby
implying Muslims were hostile to, say, Europe, because Europe was first hostile
to Muslims. (Reality, as chronicled in Sword and
Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, was the
exact opposite.)
Miscellaneous
Subterfuge
One can go
on and on; the authors engage in other forms of subterfuge to exonerate
Shariah. They frequently project a Western veneer to Islamic terms and
concepts, saying for example that Shariah is ultimately about “promoting good
and preventing evil”—which sounds admirable—without pointing out that, based on
the Koran and Sunna (that is, Shariah),
conquering non-Muslim territories is about “promoting good” and keeping women
under wraps and indoors, beating them as required, is about “preventing vice.”
While
admitting that Christians and other non-Muslim minorities are currently being
persecuted, not only do the authors insist that this has nothing to do with
Shariah, but they invoke relativistic thinking: “Just as Muslims living in
non-Muslim countries are often concerned with their rights and civil liberties
as minorities,” they say, “so some consider the rights and status of non-Muslim
minorities living in Muslim countries to be a parallel issue.” In other words,
because some Americans view Muslims in their midst with suspicion, the ongoing
enslavement and slaughter of Christians—more than 6,000 in
Nigeria alone since January 2018—and ban on or destruction of churches is
a sort of tit for tat, a “parallel issue” that can only be solved when the West
becomes less critical about Islam.
Relativism
is also invoked during the authors’ brief treatment of apostasy in Islam:
“Historically, apostasy was sometimes punishable by death in Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam.” They claim that apostasy is still a major issue in Islam due
to “radical” interpretations or politics—bolstering their position by again
quoting the same Koran verses that seem to support freedom of religion—without
mentioning, say, the canonical hadith (meaning part of Shariah) where Muhammad
said, “Whoever leaves his religion [Islam], kill him.”
Such is how
Islam’s skilled apologists dupe the West: they admit to some of the more
controversial aspects that many other apologists shy away from—namely that
Shariah is indeed foundational to Islam and that hundreds of millions of
Muslims revere and wish to see it implemented—but then, having established
trust with the reader, they slip back into the “game,” portraying all the
intolerance, misogyny, violence, and terrorism daily committed in the name of
Islam as products of anything and everything—fallible Muslim interpretations,
self-serving clerics and terrorists, socio-economic pressures, Western
criticism or encroachments—never Shariah itself.
Contrary to
its subtitle, then, John Esposito’s and Natana J. Delong-Bas’s Shariah is not “what everyone
needs to know”; rather, it is what non-Muslims need to believe in order to
give Shariah—which is fundamentally hostile to all persons and things
un-Islamic—a free pass.
Classified Report Reveals 150 Islamist No-Go Zones in France
Classified Report Reveals 150 Islamist No-Go Zones in France
The wall of silence is cracking.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Five years ago, Mayor Anne Hidalgo, the socialist boss of Paris, threatened to sue FOX News for reporting on the existence of no-go zones: territories in France under Islamist control.
"When we're insulted, and when we've had an image, then I think we'll have to sue, I think we'll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed," she told CNN.
There was no lawsuit, but FOX News issued repeated apologies, with hosts "correcting" experts like Steve Emerson and Jessie Jane Duff who actually knew what they were talking about.
Two years later, Pamela Geller came under attack from the media for discussing French no-go zones.
The media had mocked Emerson and Geller as Americans who didn’t know anything about France.
But the wall of silence on no-go zones has been coming down. And it is indeed a wall of silence. The existence of a classified report by the General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI) identifying 150 areas in France under Islamist control has leaked. That leak comes just as the DGSI busted 7 Muslims for plotting a terrorist attack. The perpetrators were just another of the 400,000 on the Fiche S watch list.
These 150 neighborhoods that are held by Islamists not only overlap many of the territories that had been previously listed as no-go zones, but point to a problem that has is expanding across France. Beyond the suburbs of Paris, Lyon and Marseille, the report identifies areas of concern in Maubeuge, Roubaix, Denain, Haute-Savoie, Annemasse, Bourg-en-Bresse, Bourgoin-Jallieu, and Nogent-le-Rotrou.
Why did a report listing the existence of 150 no-go zones have to be classified? The inciting incident behind the secret report was a mass stabbing by a Muslim terrorist in early January. While the media insisted, once again, that the terrorist, who had shouted, “Allahu Akbar”, was suffering from mental illness, behind the scenes the wheels had begun to turn leading to the creation of the secret report.
Despite the cloak of secrecy, there isn’t likely to be anything new in the report for anyone in France.
Bernard Rougier's The Conquered Territories of Islamism is making waves with its rigorously researched examination of Islamist takeovers of working-class areas. Rougier, an academic expert on Islam, combines blunt rhetoric, "Islamism is a machine to destroy France", with careful analysis and fieldwork. The most provocative sections document the intersections of the red-green alliance, the collaboration of Communists with Islamists, that covertly built up the political influence of Islamists.
While France with its laïcité secularism is resistant to religious political parties, leftist political parties have acted as front groups for Islamists, securing power and privileges for them under a red flag.
The core of Rougier’s thesis is that Islamism is Communism’s heir both territorially and politically.
A methodical work documenting Islamist takeovers that was written by a director of the Center for Arab and Oriental Studies in the university of a major American city would be inconceivable. As is Rougier’s focus on mosques as a focal point for the transformation of entire areas from secular to Islamist. But France is inescapably falling into a desperate state of war with its growing Islamist population.
In 2015, after the American and French media had gotten through mocking the existence of no-go zones, the French government declared a state of emergency and put soldiers on the street. Two years later, while the media was attacking Geller, the state of emergency was still underway.
While officially the state of emergency ended that year, in practice it became a permanent measure. French cops are now able to carry out raids without a warrant, stop-and-frisk anyone across entire areas, put suspected terrorists under house arrest and shut down mosques. Soldiers can still be deployed in major cities and the state of emergency is now an ordinary feature of life.
But somehow the idea of no-go zones was ridiculous even while soldiers patrolled the streets.
The General Directorate for Internal Security doesn’t use the term no-go zones. Instead its report describes the emergence of “microterritoires” or microterritories. These “microterritoires” controlled by Salafists emerge in improbable zones. One example listed is Nogent-le-Rotrou, the medieval agricultural town with a sizable military presence, which would be a potentially devastating Islamist target.
Due to France’s militant secularism, there are no hard numbers on how much of the military is Islamic. But some estimates suggest that between a tenth to a fifth of France’s military is made up of Muslims.
The French military, like armies everywhere, was in need of recruits from poor neighborhoods with few prospects. And it found them in some of the same banlieues that the Islamists find their recruits, and didn’t ask too many questions, or often any questions at all. The secularism that pervades much of French society is all but absent in the military. Some Muslim soldiers have refused to fight Muslim terrorists in places like Afghanistan for religious reasons. They’re far more likely to reject orders.
Islamists setting up shop near a military base would be a perfect opportunity for recruiting the troops. France’s permanent state of emergency uses the military, but it may already be fatally flawed.
The worries are understandable and so is the secrecy. Successive governments have gotten the country deeper into trouble and waited for the next government to act because the situation was already too bad. The DGSI report is just the latest in a list of classified reports on how bad things really are.
Unlike most of those reports, this one leaked even though it was for the Interior Minister’s eyes only.
While the authorities lie to the people, the paper trail shows that they know what’s going on. It’s not a case of ignorance, but of cowardice. Socialist parties depend on Muslim votes. Everyone else knows that they don’t have an answer and discussing a problem without an answer is political suicide. The efforts to enforce secularism through burka bans isn’t enough. Integration has become an outdated cliché.
President Emmanuel Macron has described the problem as communitarianism. "Political Islam wants to secede from our republic," he warned. “We are talking about people who, in the name of a religion, pursue a political project."
Islam is a political project. It's communitarian only in its embryonic stages. French Islamists don't seek separatism, but totalitarianism. Their goal is not to secede from the republic, but to eliminate it.
The DGSI report was meant to provide the Interior Minister with data for yet another set of proposals for battling sectarianism by defining the problem as narrowly as possible while concealing its scope from the general public. The leaking of the broad conclusions of the report, the 150 Islamist territories, makes that impossible. It also makes it untenable to deny the existence of Islamist no-go zones in France.
But the media won’t stop denying their existence or libeling those who tell the truth as Islamophobes.
Future media fact checks will focus on the semantic differences between no-go zones and the microterritories held by Islamists of the DGSI report. Or, more likely, they will ignore the report.
And Rougier’s work explains why. While the DGSI report documents the scope of the problem, The Conquered Territories of Islamism documents the complicity of the Left in the Islamist takeover.
French Communists had built their post-war reputation on being among the few in France not to collaborate with the Nazi occupiers. But the new collaborationnistes are largely members of the Left. Many are Communists. The DGSI report is an overview of a new occupation. Rougier’s book is an indictment of the collaborators with the occupation. Together they form a truly damning picture.
The French Resistance was a series of myths and lies meant to protect Nazi collaborators. The reaction to the Islamist invasion has resurrected the lies and the hypocrisies that underlay the occupation.
France is at war. Hundreds are dead. There are soldiers in the streets. 150 occupied territories held by Islamists have been documented. And the collaborators will go on pretending that the whole thing is a massive outbreak of mental illness while urging everyone to pay no attention to the Islamophobes.
No comments:
Post a Comment