Filed under: civlization jihad, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia Law, Western Civilization | Tagged: Islam, sharia law, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamization, CAIR | Comments Off on Sharia Law & Muslim Brotherhood’s Plan to destroy America from within
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
by Denis MacEoin
….We know that Muslims and Muslim authorities are not robust in taking criticism or satire, but are, rather, seemingly hypersensitive to almost anything non-Muslims say of them.
The only conclusion one can draw from this is that the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/1 seems to have influenced Congress. Do not forget that the OIC is the only international religious body to have campaigned ceaselessly for legislation to protect believers of Islam from physical and verbal abuse, with verbal abuse determined according to shari’a principles rather than the traits of international or national democratic values.
In Great Britain, a landmark judgement was passed on January 5, 2016, in a court in Belfast, Northern Ireland, when a judge ruled that evangelical pastor James McConnell was not guilty of hate speech directed at Muslims. McConnell had been arrested last May after remarks during a sermon about Islam at his church. In his sermon, he had spoken of Islam as “satanic,” “heathen” and “a doctrine spawned in hell.” These may be sentiments with which most of the world would not agree, but entirely within the bounds of evangelical Christian theology, not least in that frequently bigoted region of fundamentalist, belief, where even the majority of fellow Christians are despatched to hellfire, with Catholics at the bottom of the heap. It is also not that different from what many Muslim clerics say about Jews and others.
As his sermon had been posted online, McConnell was charged under the Communications Act 2003 of making improper use of a public electronics communications network and of causing a grossly offensive message through those channels. But even though the judge found his remarks offensive, he was exonerated and walked out of a court a free man.
In Europe, criticisms of Islam have been met with a range of penalties. Individuals have been prosecuted and sometimes been found guilty of “Islamophobic” speech or writing — notablyElizabeth Sabatisch-Wolff and Susanne Winter in Austria, Geert Wilders and Gregorious Nekschot in the Netherlands, Lars Hedegaard and Jesper Langballe in Denmark, Michel Houellebecq and Brigitte Bardot in France, Oriana Fallaci in Italy, and others elsewhere. Some have been exonerated, others jailed or fined. Pastor McConnell has been fortunate in avoiding jail. So far the UK has been tolerant, but further trials — very often for what really amounts to nothing more than blasphemy as perceived by Muslim groups or individuals — are very likely. Today, more than ever, there are forces at work that seek to make these prosecutions a certainty, not just in Europe, but in the United States, Canada, and other countries in the West.
The threat to freedom of speech a comes mainly from one quarter: an international body known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). In recent years, one of the core activities of the OIC has been repeated attempts to introduce via the United Nations Human Rights Council a law forbidding any form of blasphemy, criticism, or negative comment, especially about the Islamic religion. To understand this, it is important to note that, from the time of the prophet Muhammad to the present day (and more strongly within modern radical Muslim movements), the Islamic religion has been predicated on a call for domination over all other religions and political systems. Here, for example, are some explicit expressions of that demand in radical websites: a YouTube video and a website linked to the British extremist,Omar Bakri Muhammad.
In the video, Omar Bakri declares “We must live by and make a domination and die (?) on in our da’wa (missionary work) and jihad in order to spread it [Islam] all over. The video page is entitled “Proclaim openly for Izharudeen”, meaning “proclaim openly for making the faith victorious over all others,” and displays a photograph of several Muslims carrying placards declaring “Islam will dominate the world: Freedom go to hell. A website publishing extracts from the classical Qur’an commentary of Ibn Kathir is headed with the words: “Islam is the Religion that will dominate over all Other Religions” and below that cites a Qur’anic verse declaring that God will “make it [Islam] victorious over all religions” before quoting several traditions declaring the same thing in various formulations. Finally, a Facebook page titled “In sha Allah, Islam will dominate the world” from which several more sites with the same statement are revealed below the main heading.
Islamic policy from the time of the seventh-century Arab conquests through the later empires was to set Muslim rulers above native populations, even if at first Muslims were in a minority. Pagans could choose to convert or die, but Jews, Christians, and before long Zoroastrians, were treated (under the oppressive terms of the Pact of ‘Umar) as dhimmi people, forced to pay a protection tax, the jizya, in order to preserve their lives and property. There were different laws for people of a different religion…
Filed under: Freedom of Speech, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Sharia Law, United Nations, United States law | Tagged: 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, Islam, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), useful idiots | Comments Off on Free Speech vs. Islamic Law?
BY DAVID SOLWAY
The Islamization of America is proceeding at speed as the political and educational elites are desperately playing catch-up with Europe’s looming immigration and refugee disaster. We have just learned that Paul Ryan’s “House-passed omnibus [bill] will bring in nearly 300,000 Muslim migrants in the next 12 months alone, including roughly 170,000 who will be permanently resettled…” The political nomenklatura on both sides of the aisle are hastening the ruination of the country. As Roger Simon remarks, “Europe is in a double-bind situation that we are not. As their domestic populations decline, they have to admit a substantial amount of Muslims to support their welfare states. We do not need this.” However, there are no doubt electoral and fiscal considerations that would profit, on the one hand, the political fortunes of the Democrats (as well as “fundamentally transforming” America according to Obama’s sinister intentions), and on the other, the financial prospects of those involved in migrant resettlement programs and of employers seeking a low wage labor force.
The education establishment is no less complicit. Common Core, which has been enthusiastically embraced by both Brahmin and shudra, effectively mandates the study of Islam, which often takes precedence over the traditional focus on American and Western history. As columnist and author Edward Davenport reports for Freedom Outpost, “An astounding 32 pages of the World history textbook are devoted to Muslim cavitation. Students in two Texas schools–Cross Timbers intermediate and Kenneth Davis–will be required to learn Arabic…thanks to a 1.3 million grant from the Department of Education’s Foreign Language Assistantship program.” Much of American political and military history has been airbrushed out of the materials students are expected to master. Qatar has also been lavish in promoting Islamic propaganda at the expense of objective scholarship; indeed, Qatar Foundation International, directed by Islamic apologist Tariq Ramadan, funded the “One World Education” concept from which Common Core originated….
…I can see no objection to learning about Islam if students are given the full story, which is far more complex and troubling than they are led to believe. At this stage in the educational burlesque that is being enacted, truth, honesty and genuine scholarship are plainly contra-indicated when treating the historical category of the program (as is the case across the board). And the reason for this is evident. Truth, honesty and genuine scholarship would provide a Common Cure for Common Core.
But government officials and school administrators, typically men and women without spines, moral convictions, historical awareness and general intelligence, are committed to advancing the syndrome until it can no longer be reversed. It is perhaps no exaggeration to assume that the day may come in many schools across the country when the Shahada replaces the Oath of Allegiance.