by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
“…Mateen, who was 29 when he committed his mass-murder attack, was repeatedly suspended for fighting throughout his childhood school years. Academically, he had great difficulty — despite being nominally American from birth, he was mired for years in English programs for students who speak other languages in the home. His rantings during the attack indicated that he considered Afghanistan to be his home, and that he identified, first and foremost, as a Muslim: a member of the worldwide ummah — not a citizen of the United States, the nation he volunteered to levy war against, just as the Islamic State (or ISIS) exhorts its acolytes to do.
Mateen was investigated not once but twice by the FBI in the three years before he turned the Pulse nightclub into an abattoir. The first time because, while working as a security guard, he claimed to have ties to both al-Qaeda and Hezbollah — two infamous jihadist organizations that have killed more Americans than any others. Mateen also claimed mutual acquaintances with the Tsarnaev brothers, who bombed the Boston Marathon. He spoke of longing for a martyr’s death — meaning: He wanted to be killed while waging jihad against Allah’s enemies, the Americans.
The FBI further learned that within a two-year period starting in 2011, Mateen had made two pilgrimages to Islamic sites in Saudi Arabia. In Islamic terms, both pilgrimages were considered lesser ones — umrah, which is not required and can be done any time of year, as opposed to hajj, the visit to Mecca, which all physically and financially capable Muslims are required to make at least once in a lifetime, during the last month of Islam’s annual lunar calendar.
An investigator open to drawing commonsense conclusions about Mateen’s potential attachment to Islamic extremism (perhaps the more precise term is sharia supremacism) would be apt to note that Mateen’s trips were voluntary immersions into fundamentalism in an Islamic society in which sharia is rigorously enforced and jihadism is known to thrive. Many Muslims never make umrah at all; to make it twice in a short space of time is highly unusual.
But, as we shall see, the FBI — through little fault of its own — is encouraged to shun commonsense conclusions about Islamic ideological attachments. The investigation was closed because agents concluded Mateen was not a threat: He was simply making outlandish, belligerent claims for the purpose of spooking his co-workers. (To be fair to investigators, that theory was consistent with Mateen’s provocative and anti-social behavior throughout his childhood.)
The second investigation of Mateen was indirect. The actual focus of the FBI’s probe was Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who is believed to be the first American Muslim to conduct a suicide bombing as part of the Islamic State’s jihad in Syria. It turns out that Abusalha attended the same Orlando-area mosque frequented by Mateen.
This fact is worth pausing over for a moment. The Washington Post’s report is telling. It informs us that Mateen and Abusalha “prayed at the same Fort Pierce, Fla., mosque” (emphasis added). This description of what the two men must have been doing in the mosque is consistent with a quarter-century of government, media, academic, and other opinion-elite sculpting of public perception: Islam, we are to believe, is a religion just like any other; a mosque, therefore, must be a house of worship like any church, temple, or synagogue in the West — nothing more than a sanctuary where believers gather for communal prayer.
Of course, to the student of fundamentalist Islam and its sharia-supremacist teachings, this is sheer nonsense.
There is a reason why much of the jihadist violence in the Middle East and its environs occurs on Fridays — Juma, the Muslim Sabbath, on which believers pour out of mosques after being treated to the imam’s political diatribes and incitements to jihad against Western imperialism.
While there are various ways of interpreting Islam, many of them benign and reformist, sharia supremacism is not so much a religion as a radical political ideology with a religious veneer. It does not recognize a division between mosque and state, or between spiritual and political or civic spheres of life. In this aggressive, fundamentalist construction of Islam, the mosque is not a mere “house of worship” where believers gather strictly “to pray.” Far from it. The mosque is the political and ideological center of what, in the West, is an anti-assimilationist movement bent on conquest, not prayerful pluralism.
Hassan al-Bannah, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential, most sophisticated sharia-supremacist movement, taught a farsighted form of ground-up revolution. It would plant its flag and grow outward in enclaves, small towns, and — eventually — big cities, districts, counties, states, provinces, and countries across the globe.
And where would it plant its flag in every place it sought conquest? Bannah instructed that the mosque and its companion Islamic community center would be “the axis of the movement” wherever the movement took root…”
…He explained that mass immigration is a doctrine of Islam, known as hijra, to help bring the entire world under Islamic law.
“The type we’re most familiar with is jihad by the sword, but it is by no means the only form of jihad,” he explained. “People who are Muhajirun, people who immigrate to a foreign country for the sake of implementing Islam, receive the same reward in heaven as those who fight with the gun. It’s an implicit understanding. They know from the time they were children, if they immigrate, if they became Muhajirun, they are guaranteed the same reward as the Mujahedeen, the ones who fight with guns.”
Such a tactic can be seen in the dramatic demographic changes in Europe in the past decade, which has witnessed a steady stream of immigrants from Islamic nations who have largely refused to assimilate.
Has our own government already surrendered to Islamic jihad? A national security insider uncovers the terrible truth. Philip Haney’s “See Something, Say Nothing” is available now from the WND Superstore.
Haney also drew attention to the declared intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has wielded influence within the White House itself.
“The point of the Muslim Brotherhood is to implement Shariah law, starting in their own homeland and then working out from there,” he explained. “If you look at their logo, you’ll see it has two crossed swords. That means implementation and enforcement of jihad internally and implementation or promotion of jihad externally.”
The Muslim Brotherhood, said Haney, even declares its threatening nature to the world.
“If you look at the word at the bottom of their logo, it means ‘prepare,’” he said. “That is derived directly from Quran 8:60, “Prepare yourself to terrify your enemy.’ If people say that terrorism is not in the Quran, they are not telling you the truth, because the word ‘turhibuna’ is in the Quran and it means to terrify. It is actually part of the logo or the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood. They say that dying for the faith of Allah is their highest aspiration. And that jihad is a high calling. That is part of their motto as well. So this group that we have been told repeatedly is a moderate peaceful representation of the religion of Islam is by no means peaceful.”
BY ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
“…Drawing on an interview with Mateen’s ex-wife and on aspects of Mateen’s behavior that have been uncovered so far — e.g., frequenting gay bars, possibly using a gay dating app — the Times reasonably speculates that Mateen may have been gay and deeply conflicted about “his true identity out of anger and shame.”
The paper, however, steadfastly avoids asking: What could have caused such wrenching self-loathing?
After all, if he was gay, Mateen would hardly have been the first person to experience great anguish over his sexual preference, despite the fact that American culture has dramatically normalized homosexuality. Yet, those people manage to control their psychological turmoil and depression without walking into a gay club and committing mass-murder.
Assuming that the “he was gay” angle pans out, what could cause such deep conflict in Mateen that he would carry out such an atrocity?
Part of the explanation — probably the explanation — has to be sharia supremacism…”
Filed under: Islam, Sharia Law, Terrorism, Western Civilization, Willful Blindness | Tagged: Islam, Omar Mateen, Orlando, sharia law, terrorism | Comments Off on Orlando and Willful Blindness at The New York Times