Two recent (and despicable) homicides in context.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Defenders of the West , is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Two recent and rather unnatural atrocities underscore the murderous hate that Islam mandates for any and all who are perceived to defy its—or those who associate themselves with its—authority.
On Aug. 13, in France, a 25-year-old Muslim man beheaded his own 60-year-old father with a knife. When police arrived on the scene, the defiant murderer tried to attack them while crying Islam’s triumphant war-cry, “Allahu Akbar,” thereby establishing his jihadist frame of mind.
One day earlier, on Aug. 12, in India, the decapitated body of a young woman was found, and the murder traced back to her 50-year-old Muslim father. He had beheaded her because she rejected a nikah , an arranged Muslim marriage.
As horrific as these murders are, surely they have nothing to do with Islam, a religion and culture well known for its strong familial, or tribal , bonds?
Alas, even these murders are tied to the teachings of Muhammad, particularly in connection to the doctrine of al-wala’ w’al-bara’ (which can be translated as “loyalty and enmity” or, more simply, “love and hate”). It commands Muslims always to aid and support fellow Muslims while hating everyone perceived to be in opposition to Islam and its followers.
It is the hate that concerns us here. It 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, after a series of deadly Islamic terror strikes in the West in late 2015, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump said, “I think Islam hates us. ... There’s a tremendous hatred there. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”
What makes this “tremendous” and “unbelievable hatred” unintelligible to the West is that it 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. As Osama bin Laden once concluded, after quoting that verse:
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
Similarly, after citing Koran 60:4, the Islamic State once confessed to the West 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.
But surely this hate has nothing to do with slaughtering fellow Muslims —especially family members, including the aforementioned father in France and daughter in India beheaded by their son and father, respectively?
Actually, the doctrine of al-wala’ w’al-bara’ encompasses even these killings. Consider Koran 58:22, another key verse supporting this doctrine:
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. Allah has inscribed the faith in their very hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from himself. He will admit them to gardens watered by running streams, where they shall dwell forever.
Now consider the exegesis of Ibn Kathir, whose commentary on the Koran is mainstream among Muslims:
It was said that the phrase from the Most High—“even if they be their fathers”—that it was revealed about Abu Ubayda when he slew his father at [the battle of] Badr; “their sons” was about Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s successor and first caliph] when he intended to slay his son, Abd al-Rahman; “their brothers” was about Mus’ab bin Umayr, who slew his brother, Ubayd bin Umayr; “or their kin” was about Omar [the second caliph], who slew one of his relatives. Also Hamza, Ali, and Ubayda bin al-Harith: They slew Utba, Sheeba, and al-Walid bin Uitba [their kin] at that battle (The Al Qaeda Reader
After prevailing at the battle of Badr, Muhammad “consulted with the Muslims regarding the captives.” Because most of the captives were other relatives of the Muslims, Abu Bakr advised that they pay ransom and be offered Islam again, but Omar, the future second caliph, fiercely argued against such “leniency”:
This goes against my thinking, O Messenger of Allah. Let me slay so-and-so (a relative of Omar), and let Ali slay Aquil [Ali’s brother], and so-and-so slay so-and-so—so that Allah may know that there is no love in our hearts for the idolaters.
From here, the recent patricide and filicide committed by a Muslim son in France and a Muslim father in India evince their Islamic pedigree.
That the Muslim son was found screaming “Allahu Akbar” emphasizes a jihadist mood immediately following the beheading of his father—indicating that, whatever their quarrel, the son at least believed he was somehow acting on behalf of or vindicating Islam. As for the father who beheaded his daughter, that she dared defy his command to marry whomever he had chosen directly contradicts Islam’s mandated (and uber-patriarchal) hierarchy, which permits fathers to slaughter their own children for disobedience.
There is a final and highly relevant lesson from all this: If Muslims are called on to hate and even murder their own flesh and blood— including fathers, sons, brothers, and wives — whenever they are perceived as going against Islam, is it any surprise that so many Muslims hate the born and avowed enemies of Islam—foreign “infidels,” such as those who live all throughout the West?
Biden Fights 9/11 Victims in Court to Protect Taliban Cash The unspeakable betrayal over Afghanistan continues.
Fri Sep 2, 2022
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
White House Democrats have a history of fighting against terror victims suing Islamic terrorists. The Obama administration battled American terror victims suing the PLO. In 2015, after they won a $218 million judgement against the terror group, Blinken, then only a deputy secretary of state, intervened claiming that the lawsuit threatened “several decades of US foreign policy.”
But now Biden is fighting 9/11 victims on behalf of the Taliban. At stake are billions being held by the Afghan central bank fund in the United States.
A decade ago, 9/11 families sued the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Iran. The court found that the Islamic terrorists were responsible and a judgement of $6 billion was handed down.
The verdict was described as "symbolic" at the time. CBS News commented that "it would be near impossible to collect any damages, especially from the Taliban or al Qaeda." But that was before Biden turned over Afghanistan to the Taliban. Since Afghanistan has assets in this country, including $7 billion in bank funds, it’s now entirely possible to collect that money.
Or it would be if the guy who let the Taliban take over wasn’t also in the White House.
Biden officially announced that he was splitting the $7 billion between the families of the victims and a "trust fund" to provide "humanitarian aid" for the people of Afghanistan.
But that was just another one of his many lies and double crosses involving Afghanistan.
The $3.5 billion was placed in a separate trust that would be "separate and distinct" from the around $800 million the Biden administration has already spent on aid to Afghanistan. Officials admitted that the money could actually be used for matters other than "humanitarian aid".
The media headlined it as, "Biden frees frozen Afghan billions for relief, 9/11 victims". But a Biden official admitted that it was done to stop 9/11 families from getting access to the money.
“Absent action by us, these funds were likely to be tied up in courts for years, while the action we have taken stands the best chance of more quickly freeing up a large portion for humanitarian support,” the official argued. As a Lawfare blog post noted, “the administration’s plan would insulate nearly half of the Afghan assets at issue from these attachment efforts.”
What Biden actually did was take the money off the table for 9/11 victims. And it got worse.
Secretary of State Blinken claimed that the administration "will continue to support these victims and their families, recognizing the enduring pain they have suffered at the hands of terrorists, including those who operated from Afghanistan prior to the September 11 attacks. These victims and their families should have a full opportunity to set forth their arguments in court."
Blinken, like his boss, lied.
While the 9/11 families would have their claims "heard in court", neither Biden nor Blinken mentioned that the administration would be advocating against them.
On the same day as Biden's executive order reserving $3.5 billion for the terrorists, his Justice Department filed a statement of interest in court arguing that the judgement for the victims of terrorism was too large and that actually turning over the money to them would interfere with the Biden administration's foreign policy in Afghanistan.
Now a magistrate judge has repeated back most of the DOJ's arguments, ruling against the 9/11 families who were laying claim to the other half of the money. Judge Sarah Netburn's arguments closely mirror the contradictory positions of Biden and the DOJ. And they reveal the underlying corruption behind the ambiguous status of Afghanistan's central bank.
Netburn, like the Biden administration, contends that the Afghanistan bank enjoys "sovereign immunity" because the country itself was not sanctioned as a terrorist state, only the Taliban were. And that the Taliban once again control Afghanistan is irrelevant, according to the judge, because Biden hasn't recognized the reality that this is actually the case.
Banks don't enjoy "sovereign immunity" and neither do the Taliban. Netburn and Biden act as if there were some entity representing Afghanistan that is not the Taliban. That position might make sense if they were backing a resistance movement to the Taliban. But they're not.
Instead the Biden administration has maintained a deliberately ambiguous position for Afghanistan's central bank as being both under and not under Taliban control. This is convenient because it allows the Biden administration to use the financial institution as a vehicle and to restrict its access at the same time. The bank’s leadership, a mixture of terrorists and wonks linked to the former government, maintains that same calculated ambiguity.
The deputy governor of the bank is Noor Ahmad Agha, a Taliban leader listed as a specially designated global terrorist. Shah Mohammad Mehrabi, a member of the board of governors of the bank, lives near Washington D.C. and teaches at Montgomery College, has made his own media tour demanding that the United States release funds to the bank.
Biden is unable to do that until he thoroughly defeats the 9/11 families in court.
If Biden releases the money to the Afghanistan bank before that happens, the 9/11 families will be able to argue that the administration is contradicting its own position. Biden wants to reserve all $7 billion for the terrorists and so he has to hold off long enough to defeat the terror victims.
The level of betrayal here is worse than even the Obama administration.
The Biden administration claims that the money will be used for “humanitarian aid” and will not go to the terrorists. That’s another lie and it’s been disproved by its publicly stated policies.
The Biden administration has issued global licenses authorizing financial transactions with the Taliban and the Al Qaeda allied Haqqani Network that include, in the Treasury Department's own words , "delivery and provision of humanitarian aid or shipments", "administrative issues", "donor coordination meetings", "sharing descriptions of projects", "coordination with regard to travel", "participation in technical working groups" and "sharing of office space". Not to mention the "payments of taxes, fees, or import duties to, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services from, the Taliban, the Haqqani Network."
While Biden and his corrupt cronies insist that they don’t recognize the Taliban, that’s purely a formality. Not only do they recognize the Taliban as the government, but they’ve been extensively coordinating with the Islamic terrorists and helping to fund them.
At the end of July, Biden's representative met with "senior Taliban representatives" to discuss "ongoing efforts to enable the $3.5 billion in licensed Afghan central bank reserves to be used for the benefit of the Afghan people".
Even while the Biden administration and its allies insist that the other $3.5 billion set aside to meet the claims of terror victims can’t be released to them because that would “implictly” mean that the Taliban are being recognized as the government, Biden’s diplomatic representatives can meet with them and conduct negotiations about giving them the other $3.5 billion.
Releasing money to 9/11 terror victims would “implictly” recognize the Taliban, but engaging in sustained diplomatic negotiations with them as the governing authority somehow does not.
The Taliban privately understand that Biden can’t release the $3.5 billion to them until he beats the 9/11 families in court. And then they’ll potentially get access to the whole $7 billion. This corrupt charade is being played out for the benefit of the equally complicit judiciary and media which is cheering the downfall of the 9/11 families and waiting for the cash to go to the Taliban.
Reuters headlined its story, “Afghans outraged as 9/11 families lay claim to frozen billions”. There’s no real ambiguity as to which side Reuters, the media and Joe Biden are on.
In October 2001, Biden proposed that , "this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,” He’s managed to send much more money than that to the Islamic terror state since, but now he’s preparing to send a $7 billion check to the Taliban.
All he had to do to get that money was lie and cheat 9/11 families.
Feds Pinpoint Nearly 30K Mexican Passport Holders With Middle Eastern Names in Fraud Investigation U.S. Border Patrol agents check passports at the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry, where the U.S. and Mexico border meet. (Getty images) Joseph Simonson • August 31, 2022 5:00 amFederal law enforcement officials have identified a high number of individuals with Middle Eastern names traveling with Mexican passports, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon .
Since the beginning of 2022, nearly 30,000 Mexican passport holders were flagged as part of the investigation into passport fraud, the memo states , adding that each identified individual will be further evaluated. A senior official at DHS who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the agency will likely investigate whether any of the individuals have traveled to the United States and whether there are any other patterns in their travel.
The concern over fraudulent passports comes as a surge of illegal migrants at the southern border overwhelms the immigration system. With hundreds of thousands of migrants attempting to enter the country each month, Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies often lack resources to properly vet who is entering the country. DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said last year that the United States risks losing its "first line of defense" because of the "unsustainable" amount of illegal immigration at the border.
There are fears that terror groups such as al Qaeda could take advantage of the strained immigration system. Last April, for example, two Yemeni nationals on the terrorist watch list were apprehended at the southern border. Law enforcement officials appear concerned that bad actors could abuse the legal travel system to enter the country with passports obtained from Mexico, and enter the United States legally. Roughly 20 million Mexican citizens easily travel to the United States as tourists each year, according to the U.S. Travel Association .
"This investigation highlights that criminals often use legal travel to facilitate criminal activity," the senior DHS official told the Free Beacon . "The nexus to Mexico should cause the public and lawmakers to reflect on how a porous border can be even more dangerous."
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.
The concerning passports were identified by the agency's National Targeting Center, the memo states. The lesser known subagency, created shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, "works quickly and quietly to identify people and products that pose potential threats to our Nation’s security, and to stop them from entering the United States," according to a 2014 public memo .
The National Targeting Center also assists Immigration and Customs Enforcement with deporting money launderers and child predators, the senior DHS official said. The National Targeting Center regularly partners with other agencies on investigations involving terrorism or global criminal networks.
The agency uses naming conventions specific to different regions to automatically pinpoint the most likely nationality of individuals—in Mexico, for example, individuals typically keep two surnames, one from each parent. In much of the Arab world, individuals can be given much longer names which often include an entire chain of ancestors on the father's side.
FBI director Christopher Wray testified in the Senate earlier this month that the border crisis "represents a significant security issue and represents a wide array of criminal threats that flow out of it."
"Any port of entry, any potential vulnerability is something we know foreign terrorist organizations and others will seek to exploit," Wray said.
Customs and Border Protection does not provide complete data on the total number of suspected terrorists apprehended at the southern border, citing security concerns. A joint report from the Department of Justice and DHS concluded that 2,554 individuals on the terror watch list attempted to enter the United States in 2017.
Number of Individuals on Terrorist Watchlist Caught Trying to Illegally Cross U.S.-Mexico Border Skyrockets
The U.S.-Mexico border at San Luis, Arizona, on Aug. 19, 2022. (Photo by Nick Ut/Getty Images)
(CNSNews.com) - The number of individuals on the U.S. government’s terrorist watchlist discovered attempting to illegally sneak across the U.S.-Mexico border has skyrocketed during President Joe Biden’s time in office, according to data published by U.S. Customs and Border Protection .
The number has risen from only 3 in fiscal 2020, the year before Biden was inaugurated, to 66 in the first ten months (October through July) of fiscal 2022.
In fiscal year 2017, the Border Patrol “encountered” only 2 non-U.S. citizens who were on the Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS)—commonly known as the terrorist watchlist—as they tried to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border between the ports of entry.
In fiscal 2018, the Border Patrol encountered only 5 non-U.S. citizens, who were on the terrorist watchlist, and who were trying to illegally enter the United States between the ports of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border.
In fiscal 2019, the Border Patrol did not encounter a single non-U.S. citizen, who was on the terrorist watchlist, and who was trying to illegally enter the United States between the ports on entry on the U.S.-Mexico border.
In fiscal 2020, the Border Patrol encountered only 3 non-U.S. citizens, who were on the terrorist watchlist, and who were trying to illegally enter the United States between the ports of entry.
In fiscal 2021, when President Biden took office, the number of individuals on the terrorist watchlist who were encountered by the Border Patrol trying to enter the United States between the ports of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border rose to 15.
So far in fiscal 2022—from October through July—it has risen to 66.
That is 22 times what it was (3) in all of fiscal 2020.
“The Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) – also known as the ‘watchlist’–is the U.S. government’s database that contains sensitive information on terrorist identities,” the Border Patrol says in its website. “The TSDS originated as the consolidated terrorist watchlist to house information on known or suspected terrorists (KSTs) but has evolved over the last decade to include additional individuals who represent a potential threat to the United States, including known affiliates of watchlisted individuals.”
In addition to encountering individuals on the terrorist watchlist who try to enter the United States illegally between ports of entry, the CBP’s Office of Field Operations also encounters individuals on the terrorist watchlist who try to enter the United States through the ports of entry.
This year, the number of those encounters dropped as the number of encounters with those trying to sneak across the border between the ports of entry increased.
In fiscal 2017, CBP encountered 116 individuals on the terrorist watchlist trying the border at a port of entry. In fiscal 2018, they encountered 155; in fiscal 2019, it was 280; in 2020, it was 72; in 2021, it was 103; and, so far in 2022, it has dropped to 60.
NO DEGREE OF BIDEN'S SABOTAGE OF HOMELAND SECURITY WILL INDUCE THE GOP TO BRING IMPEACHMENT. AFTER ALL, JOE BIDEN IS A CLOSET REPBULICAN.
The president of FAIR Dan Stein discussed the report, stating that “Roughly the equivalent of the entire population of Ireland has illegally entered the United States in the 18 months President Biden has been in office, with many being released into American communities.”
He continued, saying “In that time, the Biden administration has blamed an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration on all sorts of external factors, except their own sabotage of our nation’s immigration laws.”
Nearly 5 Million Illegal Immigrants Crossed Border During Biden Administration https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2022/08/20/nearly-5-million-illegal-immigrants-crossed-border-during-biden-administration/
Newt Gingrich: 'The level of dishonesty is astonishing'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2yn8p7UtvE
No comments:
Post a Comment