A prayer to Allah to “destroy the enemies of Islam, and annihilate the heretics and the atheists” is not just a request directed to the deity. The Qur’an explicitly says that Allah will punish people by the hands of the believers: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people, and remove the fury in the believers’ hearts.” (9:14-15) Thus Kathrada may be issuing a call to action to believers who think it incumbent upon themselves to heed this Qur’anic directive and become instruments of Allah’s wrath.
Masked Mass Murder
Five years since Islamic terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 innocents in San Bernardino, California.
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2020/12/muslim-terrorist-in-kamala-harris-state.html
California attorney general Kamala Harris, in a December 17 statement, said “we must seek justice for those who lost their lives in the recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.” The attorney general failed to name any of the victims and her priorities seemed to lie elsewhere.
Omar, Tlaib and AOC Demand Facebook Remove 100% of 'Anti-Muslim Content'
30 House Democrats go to war against the First Amendment.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Two of the most notorious bigots in the House of Representatives signed a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg demanding that he “eradicate anti-Muslim bigotry from Facebook”.
The three-page letter signed by Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, as well as 28 other left-wing House members, spends a great deal of time demanding the removal of what it calls "anti-Muslim content" without ever specifically defining it. That's convenient considering Omar and Tlaib's own history of racism and antisemitism, and support for the sorts of Islamic bigotry and violence that groups like CAIR, which supports the letter, have become known for.
The letter spotlights one violent incident, but then goes on to call for a ban on "anti-Muslim content", "anti-Muslim animus", "anti-Muslim bigotry", and finally, "anti-Muslim content and organizing" on the platform, without ever explaining what exactly they want to ban.
Considering the letter’s call for, "100 percent proactive detection and removal of anti-Muslim content", the safe assumption would be that they want to ban everything critical of Islam.
That's a disturbing attack on the First Amendment coming from 30 House members.
Democrats have repeatedly pressured Facebook and other social media companies to remove speech they politically disapprove of, whether by President Trump or other conservatives, eroding the thin line between private companies acting on their own initiative and government officials conspiring to violate the First Amendment by banning certain kinds of political speech.
After multiple hearings, legal proposals, and legislative threats, it’s no longer possible to view Facebook’s censorship of political speech as anything other than government censorship. When enough pressure by government officials has been applied to a company to censor certain kinds of speech, the company’s decision to censor speech becomes government censorship.
30 House members would now like Facebook to censor criticism of Islam and political protests against Islamic terrorism. One of the few examples of anti-Muslim content in the House letter was a political protest against the Islamic Society of North America’s 2019 conference.
That was the conference which included an appearance by two Democrat presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro, whose forum was moderated by Salam Al-Marayati, the head of MPAC, who had defended Hamas and Hezbollah. Also participating in a round table at the conference was Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing, who has defended the Islamic mandate to kill gay people.
This is the sort of information that AOC, Omar, and 28 other House Democrats, want banned.
House Democrats trying to shut down protests targeting their own candidates is a blatant violation of the First Amendment which was meant to prevent exactly that kind of thing.
And the party of social justice wants to stop Americans from protesting against an Imam who says things like, ”Brothers and sisters, you know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to, kill them both.” What happens when ‘anti-Muslim content’ meets anti-gay content?
The 30 House Democrats don’t want to talk about any of this which is why their letter doesn’t.
Even Omar and Tlaib can’t quite openly call for blasphemy regulations for social media, but they conveniently leave terms like “anti-Muslim content” undefined and then demand that Facebook outsource the suppression protocols to "senior staff focused on anti-Muslim bigotry issues" backed by diversity training on "civil rights issues and common words, phrases, tropes or visuals used by hate actors to dehumanize and demonize Muslims".
And if that's not enough, there's an independent third-party review of Facebook’s compliance.
CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood groups would be brought in to define what “anti-Muslim content” is and then senior staff, approved of by CAIR and its allies, would set moderation policies to suppress “tropes” used by “hate actors” like Jihad, Sharia, Taqiyya, and terrorism.
Cartoons of Mohammed, mentions of blasphemy, hate, and terrorism would all be censored.
It's not hard to spot what sort of content they're after.
The House Democrat blasphemy and terror letter has been endorsed by CAIR and the Islamic Networks Group, but beyond these traditional Islamist groups, it has the backing of pro-terror groups like Code Pink and JVP, and assorted anti-war organizations. These groups are less concerned with blasphemy, but very focused on preventing America from fighting terrorists.
CAIR had demanded the removal of Mohammed's image from the Supreme Court, and more recently compared magazines publishing cartoons of Mohammed to ISIS. A board member of the Muslim Brotherhood group had insisted that, "[t]he right to free speech is not absolute."
The Founding Fathers and the Constitution disagreed.
The letter also cites a Muslim Advocates report which listed examples of "anti-Muslim content" that they wanted Facebook to censor that included President Trump's call for a ban on migration from Islamic terror nations, and a Trump campaign ad which described AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley as socialists who had made "anti-Israel, anti-American, and pro-terrorist remarks".
AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and other Democrats have signed a letter demanding that Facebook censor political speech critical of them. That’s a grotesque assault on the First Amendment.
Another example of “anti-Muslim content” from the Muslim Advocates report was an Israeli Facebook user who had written negatively about Omar, Trudeau, and Corbyn.
Omar responded to this by ranting that "foreign interference – whether by individuals or governments – is still a grave threat to our democracy” and that “malicious actors operating in a foreign country, Israel”, were “spreading misinformation and hate speech to influence elections in the United States." Even though there’s no evidence that elections were actually influenced.
But, once again, the kind of “anti-Muslim content” that Omar and her political allies seem to want to ban involves criticism of her and of them. The “grave threat” here is coming from Rep. Omar.
The letter claims that its signers also want Facebook to remove “any hate content directed at a religious or ethnic group”, but Rep. Ilhan Omar, one of the letter’s signers, has been the House’s worst offender, tweeting antisemitic content, including her infamous “Benjamins” tweet.
If House Democrats were serious about removing hate, they would have removed Rep. Omar.
Facebook already engages in extensive monitoring and censorship. This isn’t about taking down bigotry, but about removing political speech and content that Islamists consider blasphemous. It’s also about suppressing the political organizations that combat Islamist hate and violence.
It’s no coincidence that the type of political speech that Omar, Tlaib, Carson, and other House members want to censor casts a negative light on their own political alliances with Islamists, their bigotry, and their ugly views. And they would like Facebook to do the censoring for them.
The more Democrat officials lay out the kind of censorship they would like internet platforms to perform, the more the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech becomes a dead letter. And this letter, signed by 30 House Democrats, is a new threat to our freedom of speech.
America does not have blasphemy laws. And politicians are not allowed to ban speech they don’t like. The letter to Facebook makes it more urgent than ever that our elected officials find ways to protect the marketplace of ideas from political censorship by Democrats and Facebook.
Shredded Plans Show San Bernardino Jihadis Made Elaborate Plans for Their Massacre
But the Southern California News Group still finds their motive ‘unclear'.
It was revealed last Saturday, according to the Southern California News Group (SCNG), that a paper that had been fed into a shredder after the December 2, 2015 jihad massacre in San Bernardino, California has been “reassembled like a puzzle by federal investigators,” and reveals “the shooters’ planning for the siege that killed 14 people and wounded 22 others at the Inland Regional Center.” It reveals careful, detailed, cold-blooded planning for murder, but why Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik carried out this massacre is unknown, at least according to the SCNG, which insists that “the couple’s motive remains unclear.”
No one could possibly think the motive of this couple was unclear unless one was absolutely drowning in a tidal wave of willful ignorance. The paper detailing the couple’s plans was shredded by Syed Rizwan Farook’s mother Rafia, which is in itself an indication that the family of the murderers was not entirely inclined to be forthcoming with investigators.
Initially, one of the Farook family lawyers, David Chesley, declared: “None of the family members had any idea that this was going to take place. They were totally shocked.” Even in stories that reported this, however, the story started to unravel. No sooner had the Associated Press quoted Chesley that it noted that he and another Farook family lawyer, Mohammad Abuershaid, said that “Farook’s mother lived with the couple but she stayed upstairs and didn’t notice they had stockpiled 12 pipe bombs and well over 4,500 rounds of ammunition.”
Farook’s mother didn’t notice the twelve pipe bombs and well over 4,500 rounds of ammunition because she “stayed upstairs”? Was she an invalid, then, who never ventured downstairs at all? If so, why did the couple leave their six-month-old daughter in her care when they went off to shoot Infidels for Allah?
Syed Rizwan Farook’s father was more credible when he characterized Rafia, who is his ex-wife, as “very religious,” like the killer, to whom he referred as Rizwan. “Rizwan was the mama’s boy,” he recounted, “and she is very religious like him. Once we had a dispute about the historical figure of Jesus, my son yelled that I was an unbeliever and decided that marriage with my wife had to end.” The son insisted on the divorce because he considered the father an “unbeliever.”
What’s more, old man Farook said that his son was an open supporter of the Islamic State, and, of course, hated Israel: “He said he shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel.” The couple paused during their massacre to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State. The “unbeliever” Papa Farook then told his son to bide his time since, in the immortal words of Tom Lehrer, everybody hated the Jews: “I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there.”
So right in the heart of sunny Redlands, California, where Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik lived with their baby and Rafia (however safely ensconced upstairs, away from the pipe bombs, Grandma may have been), there was an open supporter of the Islamic State and an open supporter of the concept of the caliphate. Then we must not forget the winsome Tashfeen, who was linked to a jihadi mosque in Pakistan, and who had become, in one of her teacher’s words, “a religious person” who often told people “to live according to the teachings of Islam.”
But their motive remains unclear!
Interestingly enough, Rafia was also an active member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) openly supports Sharia and the caliphate, and has links to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as to the Pakistani jihad group Jamaat-e-Islami.
The motive of the San Bernardino jihad massacre is anything but unclear, except to those who wish to deny that there is a global jihad being waged against the United States, and to ignore the fact that the Islamic State has repeatedly called upon individual Muslims in the U.S. to carry out “lone wolf” jihad attacks. Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife and mother, and the fourteen dead left in their wake, stand as an object lesson regarding how urgently our law enforcement and intelligence operations need to adopt a realistic approach to the jihad threat, and to discard today’s prevailing politically correct fantasies. But the dead bodies are going to have to be piled up much higher for that reform even to become a possibility.
Video: Raymond Ibrahim on Christian Genocide and Western Censorship
The genocidal slaughter you never hear of.
The Observatoire International de la Dhimmitude (“International Observatory of Dhimmitude”), an organization based in France and headed by Bat Ye’or, recently interviewed Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center, on two interrelated themes: the persecution of Christians, particularly the genocide in Nigeria, and the censorship of that and related topics in the West. His interview begins around the 35-minute mark, with some Q&A around 1:21:10 and again around 1:43:45. Don't miss it! Click here to watch on YouTube or check it out below:
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
California Jihadi Planned to Kill People, Then Read Qur’an Until Police Arrived
Not that this has anything to do with Islam.
Mon Nov 23, 2020
Yet another blow to the establishment media narrative came Wednesday. The Associated Press reported that Faisal Mohammad, who in 2015 stabbed four people in a classroom at the University of California, Merced, where he was a freshman, “planned to praise Allah while slitting the throats of classmates and use a gun taken from an ambushed officer to kill more.” Then he planned to call 911 to report the killings, “read the Quran until he heard sirens, and then ‘take calm shot after shot’ with the gun” when the police arrived. All this happened while the U.S. government was institutionally and thoroughgoingly committed to the proposition that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion that has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. And even after four years of President Trump, that institutional culture hasn’t changed.
The detailed plan that Mohammad sketched out for his attack has just been released; it “included putting on a balaclava at 7:45 a.m. and saying ‘in the name of Allah’ before stepping into his classroom and ordering students to use zip-ties he provided to bind their hands. Mohammad also planned to make a fake 911 distress call to report a suicidal guy [sic; this is how they write at AP these days] and wait for police outside the classroom before ambushing from behind ‘and slit calmly yet forcefully one of the officers with guns.’”
It was during that wait that he planned to sit down and spend some time in spiritual reading. Yet Mohammad’s attack, as The College Fix reported back in November 2015, was characterized as “revenge for being kicked out of a study group.” The establishment media gave scant attention to the fact that “Mohammad was found to have an image of the ISIS flag, a handwritten manifesto with instructions on how to behead someone, and reminders to pray to Allah.”
The university where this jihad attack took place was even worse. The College Fix reported that instead of waking up to the reality of Islamic jihad, many at the University of California-Merced mourned for the attacker, with a Facebook “R.I.P” tribute to Faisal Mohammad “gaining massive support among the campus community.”
Even worse, UC Merced faculty hosted a “teach in” that about 200 students attented, entitled “Don’t Turn Our Tragedy Into Hate” that was “conspicuously devoid of discussions of radical Islam, and instead delved into topics such as how society’s notions of masculinity pressure men.” Among the topics discussed at this “teach in” were “What does mental health have to do with this?”; “Why are men more likely to be perpetrators of violence?”; “How do we define our community – what lives are grievable?”; and “What do race and religion have to do with this?”
One speaker suggested that the attack was all about men not being allowed to be weak, self-centered, weepy narcissists: “Anger, that is really what we think about when we think about emotional men. They are subject to social sanctions if they deviate from masculinity. If you are perceived as failing at it, you are subject to being called a fag, a pussy, a wimp, pretty much what women are, right? So when you have this limited ability to sort of express your emotions and possible feelings of emasculation, of low self esteem, how do you really [deal with] that? A lot of times they … engage in violence. They need to compensate for their loss of masculinity in the most manly way they have access to, and unfortunately, a lot of times that’s violence.”
Yes, you see? Faisal Mohammad stabbed four people just because he was a sensitive soul in a world that was too harsh for him. Why, what other explanation could there possibly be? According to one student who attended the teach in, “‘Islamophobia’ was cited as the reason people want to call it a terrorist attack….‘People were quick to sympathize with the attacker and assume anyone who thought this was related to radical Islam was a xenophobic racist.’”
The University of California Merced is no different from any other campus all over the country today: full of indoctrinated bots who have been thoroughly imbued with the notion that when Islamic jihadists attack us, it is our fault. All too many even among law enforcement and counterterrorism officials assume the same thing. No number of Faisal Mohammads, and there will be many more, will convince them otherwise. Nonetheless, it is unfortunate but true that eventually all this denial and willful ignorance is going to blow up in everyone’s face. We can only hope that this doesn’t happen literally.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
No comments:
Post a Comment