I believe President Trump failed to move the U.S. Embassy due to massive political pressure from camps that pay homage to Palestinian lies and from the political Establishment too concerned with acerbating conflict with Muslim-Arab allies that align with American National Interests against ISIS and Iran.
I believe the official reason given – to promote peace between Israel and the Arabs claiming to be Palestinians is bogus.
Along the lines of bogus Palestinians, authors Klein and Dr. Mandel explain the fake Palestinian and Islamic claim in general that Jerusalem is holy to Muslims. It is a Muslim lie to perpetuate conflict with the Jewish State of Israel.
Having just marked the 50th anniversary of Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem, there is no better time to focus on the propaganda myth that Jerusalem is a holy city to Muslims.
The Muslim fixation and clamor on Jerusalem is actually a very recent development – a product of political conflict, not historical truth.
Jerusalem rates not a single mention in the Koran, and Muslims face Mecca in prayer. In the 7th century A.D., the Damascus-based Umayyad rulers built up Jerusalem as a counterweight to Mecca. This is when the important Muslim shrines the Dome of the Rock (691) and the Al-Aqsa mosque (705) were intentionally built on the site of the destroyed biblical Jewish Temples – a time-honored practice to physically signal the predominance of Islam.
Yet references in the Koran and hadith to Muhammad’s night journey to heaven on his steed Buraq from the “farthest mosque” couldn’t mean Jerusalem, because the Koran refers to the land of Israel as the “nearest” place. It couldn’t have been a reference to the Al-Aqsa mosque, for the simple reason that Al-Aqsa didn’t exist in Muhammad’s day.
With the demise of the Umayyad dynasty and the shift of the caliphate to Baghdad, Jerusalem fell into a long decline, scarcely interrupted by occasional bursts of Muslim interest in the city during the Crusader period and the Ottoman conquest. Mark Twain, visiting in 1867, described it as a “pauper village.”
Jerusalem did, however, become a Jewish-majority city during the 19th century. The 1907 Baedekers Travel Guide lists Jerusalem with a population of 40,000 Jews, 13,000 Muslims and 7,000 Christians. Jerusalem meant so little to the Ottomans that, during World War I, they let it fall into British hands without a fight and even contemplated entirely destroying the city before pulling out.
When did Jerusalem become a passionate Islamic issue? Only with the Arab confrontation with Zionism in the 20th century. It was Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, a vociferous anti-Semite and later Nazi collaborator, who expended enormous energy to focus Islamic attention on the city.
Seeking to foment a Muslim war on British Palestine’s Jews, he fabricated a tradition that the wall to which Muhammad was believed to have tethered his steed Buraq was not the southern or eastern walls, as Muslims had asserted for centuries, but the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest prayer site. (The Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian status quo agreement forbids Jewish prayer at the religion’s holiest site, the Temple Mount.) This turned the Western Wall into a flashpoint.
The massive Arab assault on Jews across British Palestine in 1929, in which 133 Jews were murdered and hundreds more maimed, was triggered by false rumors that Jews had attacked, or were intending to attack, the mosques atop the Temple Mount.
Strangely, even under the mufti, the Temple Mount was still recognized by Muslims as the site of the biblical Jewish Temples. Thus, the Jerusalem Muslim Supreme Council’s publication “A Brief Guide to the Haram Al-Sharif” states regarding Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, “Its identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute.” (After 1954, all such references to the biblical temples were excised from this publication.)
During Jordan’s illegal occupation and annexation of eastern Jerusalem from 1948-1967, Amman remained the Jordanian capital, not Jerusalem. No Arab rulers, other than Jordan’s kings, ever visited.
Neither the PLO’s National Charter nor the Fatah Constitution (the latter drafted during Jordanian rule) even mentions Jerusalem, let alone calls for its establishment as a Palestinian capital.
But today, Palestinian Authority officials deny Judaism’s connection to Jerusalem. PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein sneers at Jews’ “alleged Temple” and insists “Palestinians have an exclusive right…which they share with no one” to the Temple Mount. Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, former chief justice of the PA’s religious court, insists he does not “know of any Jewish holy sites” in Jerusalem.
And the PA uses Jerusalem as a propaganda instrument to incite violence. In 1996, Yasir Arafat used Israel’s opening of an archaeological tunnel near the Temple Mount to incite riots on the basis of the lie that the tunnel threatened the stability of the Al-Aqsa mosque. Twenty-five Israeli soldiers and 100 Palestinian rioters were killed in the ensuing violence.
In 2015, PA President Mahmoud Abbas urged violence over Jews visiting the Temple Mount, borrowing from Haj Amin al-Husseini’s playbook the fabricated claims of Jewish assaults on the mosques. More than 30 Israelis were murdered and more than 200 Palestinians, the vast majority terrorists or rioters, were killed in subsequent attacks and clashes.
When a senior White House official told Bloomberg News that President Trump –reneging on his pre-election promise – would not move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem “at this time” because “we’re not looking to provoke anyone when everyone’s playing really nice,” it gave the Palestinians their latest reason to believe violence over Jerusalem reaps rewards.
Far from aiding the cause of peace, the fabrication of Jerusalem’s importance to Islam enables the instigation of bloodshed. If the propaganda myth persists, expect no change.
Morton A. Klein is national president of the Zionist Organization of America. Dr. Daniel Mandel is director of the ZOA’ s Center for Middle East Policy and author of "H.V. Evatt & the Establishment of Israel" (Routledge, 2004).
The Jewish Press is the largest independent weekly Jewish newspaper in the United States. The paper, founded by Rabbi Sholom Klass (1916-2000) and Mr. Raphael Schreiber (1885-1980), debuted as a national weekly in January 1960 and quickly won a following for its eclectic mix of Jewish news, political and religious commentary, the largest Jewish classifieds and special features — including puzzles, games and illustrated stories — for young readers.
For over five decades now The Jewish Press has championed Torah values and ideals from a centrist or Modern Orthodox perspective. The paper has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the State of Israel, Soviet Jewry, and agunot (women whose husbands refuse to grant them a religious divorce), and has taken the lead in urging a greater communal openness in addressing domestic violence and other social ills.
Known for its editorial feistiness, The Jewish Press was politically incorrect long before the phrase was coined. The paper over the years has been home to colorful and thought-provoking writers like Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, Dr. Morris Mandel, Louis Rene Beres, Steven Plaut, Marvin Schick, Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser, Phyllis Chesler, Rabbi David Hollander, Paul Eidelberg, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, as well as former editor Arnold Fine and current senior editor Jason Maoz.
In 2011 the JewishPress.com website and related Internet properties were relaunched as an independent, daily online newspaper, with breaking news and in-depth articles on Israel, the Jewish People and the world. The Internet edition is managed by Stephen Leavitt.
I am on the World Truth Summit email list managed by Elsa Schieder. Elsa sent a fascinating newsletter about the Islamic doctrine of Walaa wal Baraa. I can only guess on how to pronounce this phrase which I presume is Arabic. According to Elsa and WestInDanger.com (linked to by Elsa) the phrase essentially translates to “Islamic Apartheid”.
In the interest of fair and balance, here is what a pro-Islamic explanation of Walaa wal Baraa:
al-Walaa` wal-Baraa` as Revealed in Surat aal-'Imraan
The legal meaning of Al-Wala' (love, support, help, follow, etc.) is to totally agree with the sayings, deeds and beliefs which please Allah and the persons whom He likes.
In an age where truth is presented as falsehood, righteousness is translated to rebelliance and the preserving of ones land and dignity is called terrorism, there will naturally arise many confusions about the pillars of Iman and the facts of Islam. … Al-Wala'u wa Al-Bara' is the creed that guides all the actions and sayings of a Muslim and it is by its practice and application that the ranks of the believers vary. It is imperative that this creed be unambiguous to the Muslim's mentality in order that it manifests and materialises correctly in his actions.
The General Meaning of the Ayah
Allah (s.w.t.) forbids His Believers from exhibiting any form of Muwalat to the disbelievers. This includes the manifestation of love and compassion to strengthen the ties with them or to regard them as companions and friends because of their kinship or acquaintance. The Believer can not be an ally of Allah's enemies and it is impossible for a person to combine the love of Allah (s.w.t.) and the love of his enemies because this is a combination of opposites; therefore, he who loves Allah, must also hate His enemies.
It is forbidden upon the Muslim to give Muwalat to the disbelievers and forsake the believers. There is no association or relationship whatsoever between Iman and Kufur. The preceding noble Ayat forewarns us from Muwalat Al-Kafireen and alerts us to the consequences of such an action, with one exception being in extreme necessity when one must avoid or protect oneself from the harm or injury inflicted upon by disbelievers by presenting an outer appearance that belies what one conceals inside. This is known as Taqiyyah, and it is only permitted under such circumstances.
The noble Ayat concludes by strongly threatening those who disobey Allah and … You Can READ ENTIRETY (al-Walaa` wal-Baraa` as Revealed in Surat aal-'Imraan; By Khaalid al-Ghareeb; Kalamullah.com)
And here is an excerpt from a critic of Islam but makes an effort at neutrality.
Al Walaa’ wal Barraa’ refers to loyalty and disownment for the sake of Allah, or in other words, love or hate. The doctrine of al-Wala’ Wal Bara’ is the real image for the actual practice of this faith. It has a tremendous significance in the mind of the Muslim, as much as the greatness and significance of the faith. It is a matter of belief and disbelief,
O You who believe! Do not take your fathers or your brothers as protectors if they prefer disbelief to faith. Whoever among you takes them for protectors will only be wrongdoers. Say, If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kinsmen, the wealth which you have acquired, the commerce in which you fear a decline, or the houses you love - if these are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving hard and fighting in His cause, then wait until Allah brings about His Decision (torment). Allah does not guide those who are Al- Faasiqun.
- Surah Tawbah: 23-24
The legal meaning of Al-Wala’ (love, support, help, follow, etc.) is to totally agree with the sayings, deeds and beliefs which please Allah and the persons whom He likes. Al-Bara’ (despise, desert, keep innocent of, etc.) is the complete opposite of Al-Wala’ and it is to disagree with everything that Allah hates and condemns. Hence, there are four issues related to the belief in Al-Wala'u wa Al-Bara’, those being: the sayings, the deeds, the beliefs and the individual persons. Some of the things that pleases Allah (s.w.t.) are the saying of Dhikr, the deed of Jihad, the belief in His Oneness and the love of the believing person. Backbiting, fornication, Shirk and disbelief are some of the things that are hated by Allah (s.w.t.) and must also be hated by the Believer.
Al-Bara’ in Arabic language means Severance: severance is to leave off something; it is to walk away from something or to distance oneself from it. “Barii" means to heed a warning and so excuse oneself from something; to be free of obligation.
Alliance has a technical meaning as well. In this sense it means to help, to love, to honour, to respect something, and to stand next to like minded people both outwardly and inwardly. Allah has said: "Allah is the Wali’ of those who believe. He brings them out of darkness into light. But as for those who disbelieve, their Awliya’ (allies) are Taghut, they bring them out of light into darkness”. To become allied to the disbelievers means to draw near to them, to show devotion to them in word and deed and intention.
For severance, it too has a technical sense; that is, to take heed of a warning, to disassociate oneself from something, to avoiding it totally and showing enmity towards it. … You Can READ ENTIRETY (Al Walaa’ wal Barraa’; By Asra; Islamic Terminology; 9/11/11)
I am going to make leap and sense that many do not know the origin of the word “Apartheid”. Many may have only read the word in connection to the Antisemitic concept that Israel perpetuates an Apartheid practice toward the Arabs who falsely call themselves Palestinians.
The reality is the Apartheid practice originated in South Africa when the White minority (Afrikaner) ruled the nation and treated the majority Black Africans as second-class citizens. Those days ended long ago in South Africa.
Here is an excerpt from GoHistoryGo.com pertaining Apartheid:
Life Under Apartheid
In 1910, the South African (British) colonies of Cape, Natal, Transvaal and the Orange Free State were united under the flag of the Union of South Africa. Afrikaners (the descendants of the original Dutch settlers) retained a voice in the new government and began working hard to deny black South Africans any rights in the new government. New laws supporting racial segregation, known as apartheid (apartness) in Afrikaans, prevented black South Africans from holding certain jobs, attending certain schools, and even limited where they could live, shop, and travel and eventually stripped them of their very citizenship.
In 1948, apartheid became official policy when the Afrikaners gained a majority in parliament. Under apartheid South Africans were divided into four racial groups: Whites, Asians, Coloureds, and Blacks. The whites were descendants of the European settlers. Asians were anyone who came from Asia, most often from the British colony of India or China. Coloureds were people of mixed racial backgrounds. Blacks were those who belonged to one of South Africa's indigenous tribes.
As you might have guessed, whites were at the top and received the best opportunities for jobs, education, and housing. The Asian and Coloureds had fewer rights than the whites, but more than the blacks. They lived in segregated neighborhoods and attended segregated schools. The blacks were at the bottom of the social ladder and not only had to live in poor segregated areas and attend poor segregated schools, but also received the worst health care and jobs.
Even though segregation existed before 1948, it became even stricter after the National Party came to power. The areas in which non-whites could leave shrank. The urban areas became designated for "whites only" residences and businesses. Under the Group Areas Act of 1950, Asians and Coloureds lived in segregated neighborhoods.
I'm writing to you today because a friend is convinced that, if only people knew about al Walaa wal Baraa, that would be the end of Islam.
Is the Islamic doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa the same as garlic to a vampire? Will it make Islam wither, if waved in front of Islam? Will it at least make non-Islamic people recoil from Islam?
In other words, is al Walaa wal Baraa the stake that will go through the heart of Islam, leaving Islam crumpled and shriveling?
Is it the nail that hammers shut Islam's coffin?
Is this the magic bullet that dispatches Islam forever and ever?
So many people have been searching for such a magic bullet. In fact, so many people have believed, once they learned even a small part of the truth about Islam, that this information must quickly alert people to the danger of Islam. They've had to learn how hard it is to get the information out, and how extremely hard it is to get people to hear.
All the same, yes, there are ways that al Walaa wal Baraa is like garlic to a vampire. The vampire backs away from garlic.
It makes sense that Islam backs away from having non-Islamics familiar with al Walaa wal Baraa. It is used to claiming there is Islamophobia everywhere.
Al Walaa wal Baraa. The briefest definition: Islamic apartheid. We've all heard of Israeli apartheid - which is non-existent. Islamic apartheid, al Walaa wal Baraa, is an essential Islamic doctrine.
A child's game comes to mind: I'm the king of the castle - you're the dirty rascal. Al Walaa wal Baraa declares Islamics to be permanently the kings of the castle and claims everyone else is permanently a dirty rascal (dirty kafir) unless they convert to Islam.
With al Walaa wal Baraa, Islam is left without its strongest defenses in the West: the victim card, the you-done-me-wrong card, the it's-the-evil-West card, the it's-the-vile-Islamophobes card. The focus does an about turn: the spotlight goes to Islam's moral code, with al Walaa wal Baraa caught center stage. No veils.
That may be why most of us haven't heard of it, while we've almost all heard of hijab, Quran, jihad, niqab, burka, caliphate. Almost certainly, Islam does not want us to see it.
That brings us to: Islam's moral code is its Achilles' heel. From Islamic apartheid, to the supposed inferiority of women, to the acceptance of sex slaves, to the denigration of all non-Islamics as kafir, and on - here is Islam's Achilles' heel. Ken Roberts, the friend who wants everyone to know about al Walaa wal Baraa, holds this belief. So do I.
The strongest argument against slavery - the moral one. The strongest argument for equal rights for women and men - the moral one. For animal rights - the moral one.
And here, Islam loses on each and every issue.
How to use al Walaa wal Baraa? If there is any reference to Islamophobia, any word about the wonders of Islam or about Islam as a religion of peace, just bring out the garlic - mention al Walaa wal Baraa - that most horrible of things, according to Western ideology - a doctrine of apartheid, Islamic apartheid.
Does it work, to mention al Walaa was Baraa? Let me know.
I wouldn't expect instant success. There's one jihad massacre after another, and masses of non-Islamics pile up teddy bears and flowers, stay away from any exploration of how the atrocity might be linked to Islamic ideology.
Drip, drip, drip. Spreading awareness of al Walaa wal Baraa may be yet another drip of truth about Islam seeping into non-Islamics. Or maybe we have actually found the nail that hammers shut Islam's coffin.
One thing I know: Islam's greatest weakness is its morality: for instance, it lacks the Golden Rule, a part of every other major world religion.
As always, all the best to all who care and dare,
PS. Yes, it's been a long time. Sometimes life takes over!! Good to be back.
PPPS. More from my friend, Ken Roberts, on how to show the moral deficiency of Islam:
If we ask Christian clergy, 'Should Christians love non-Christians?', the clergy will answer, 'Yes, they should.' If we ask them, 'Should Christians love sinners who don’t believe in God?' the clergy will answer, 'Yes, they should.' If we ask them, 'Should Christians even love the worst sinners?' the clergy will answer, 'Yes, even the worst of sinners.’
We all know: Love thy neighbor as thyself. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
If you turn to Islamic literature and ask: 'Should Islamics love kafirs?' the answer is very different. The answer is an utter no. The Quran, Hadiths, canonical commentaries and modern scholars of different theological schools all agree. There is no wiggle room for the mullahs to hornswoggle out of the clear answer: 'No, an Islamic HATES the kafir FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH. If not, the Islamic doesn't go to Islamic paradise. Instead, the Islamic who LOVES kafirs will go straight to Islamic hell because he is considered a kafir for loving kafirs.'
Using a MORAL ARGUMENT proves Islam is supremacist and anything but loving.
This is extra important because, all over the West, a well-financed campaign is on, promoting the psychobabble word, 'Islamophobia'.
This is actually psychological PROJECTION of Islam's very real KAFIROPHOBIA (also known as al Walaa wal Baraa). Al Walaa wal Baraa is an official Islamic doctrine of hostility and apartheid.
There is no group that promotes 'Islamophobia' and no psychiatric association recognizes this purported illness, but Al Walaa wal Baraa is a compulsory and essential doctrine of Islam, required for admission into Islamic paradise. Clearly, the anti-Islamophobia campaign is nothing but an attempt to impose anti-human-rights Sharia blasphemy law and its draconian punishments over the Western world.
Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, is for concentrating force on the enemy's weakest points and then defeating each small target one by one. It is easy to defeat Islamics using FGM or wife-beating, for instance.
It takes a very in-depth knowledge of Islamic primary sources and historic commentaries and modern authorities to defeat them on a more complicated issue, because they will use taqiyya, kitman and tawriya to evade you. But even there, they lose. The writings of the PhDs of Al Azhar and other universities who study Islam for a lifetime know Islam and show it for what it is conclusively.
I have acquired in-depth knowledge of K.4.23-24 (rape of married captives) and can now prove conclusively that 1) it is Islamic, 2) it is the correct interpretation, 3) it is the historical practice of Islam, 4) it is 3 crimes against humanity, 5) it is condemned by UN Security Council Res. 1820, and 6) crimes against humanity would not be decreed by a real deity, therefore Islam must be false and Islamics may leave it with confidence.
At this point you have exhausted Islamics, and they stop debating. Such a debate can take several days.
But you see my point: when we stay with Islam's MORALITY, Islam invariably loses.
In the future I’ll be cross posting the WestInDanger.com article on Walaa wal Baraa, but if you are anxious to read it go HERE.
Al Walaa wal Baraa - the end of Islam?
ELSA, TRUTH SLEUTH: MY JOURNEY INTO ISLAM
It could be about, how I came to find the wonder of Islam.
The words that come into my mind: The Heart of Darkness, the title of a novel by Joseph Conrad.
What I mean is that I found so many things I did not expect, so many things I could not admire. I would have loved to find a religion of peace. I did not. I feel as if I slowly stepped into a cave, slowly found lights, and had to recoil from what I found.
In one corner, the corpses of 600-900 dead Jews, murdered by Mohammed. The story isn't one I found in early versions of his story that I came across. But it's right there, hinted at in the Qu'ran, and spelled out in detail in the Sira and Hadiths (very revered Islamic religious texts). The story is right there.
Where is my aim?
It also aims for the head - facts and figures.
I am also aiming for the heart - for the part of people that loves, cares, has empathy - that cannot accept rape as good, cannot accept beating women as good, cannot accept slavery as good, cannot accept the slaughter of innocents as good.
So I am also different from David.
I want, rather than to kill, to awaken, to reach the heart, to touch the heart - which would break the spell of the false sense of superiority.
And now the image comes back to me. It isn't David versus Goliath. There are others with me. And it isn't Goliath that we're aiming at. The aim is at something small. A book. The contents are there for all to see.
The goal isn't book burning. The goal is showing the content, airing it out for all to see.
Look, this is here.
Harder, in many ways, than killing one nasty Goliath.
"There is none so blind as him who will not see"
And that then is the question:
How to make visible what is so clearly visible?
That is the challenge.
Maybe others feel as I did - that to dare to explore is to enter a dusty, musty, unwelcoming cave.
The homicidal suicide-bombing by Salman Abedi in Manchester UK at an Ariana Grande concert killed 22 (including seven children under 18 -- and injured more than 100). As is quite typical these day so-called Muslim moderates are coming forward to spout such terrorism is not the “true” Islam. The reasoning of course is the propaganda that Islam means peace. It is a 100% bogus lie that Islam is peace! Rather the better translation for English is “submission”. Submission to what? The answer: submission to the authority, superiority and hegemony of everything Islam.
In this modern era, the Muslim apologists take advantage of Leftist-Multiculturalist sympathies by using deceptive dialogue that provides the appearance of the abhorrence of Islamic terrorism; however, the reality is the use of twisted words that only the knowledgeable decipher to show the real intentions of an Islamic ideology or agenda.
Ergo, in the wake of Islamic terrorism in British Manchester, Robert Spencer dissects the deception of Ramadan Foundation Chief Executive Mohammed Shafiq. (Just to view another source of Shafiq deception go to Stephen Knight exposing Muslim duplicity via an examination of Twitter dialogue.)
Mohammed Shafiq is the Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, which claims to be dedicated to combating “extremism.” In this interview with Sky News presenter Dermot Murnaghan after the Manchester jihad massacre, he does his best to equate jihad terrorist killers with the forces who oppose them (which he smears as “far right”), dissembles about Islamic teaching, and blames the Manchester attack on the British government’s foreign policy.
“We’re not going to let the terrorists succeed, and we’re not going to let the far-right, also, come to our city and divide us.”
Note the moral equivalence: there are the terrorists on one side, the “far-right” on the other, both seeking to divide people, and here is good old Mohammed Shafiq smack in the middle, the voice of sanity, the voice of reason, the voice of peace, the voice of unity. Shafiq doesn’t mention one all-important fact, and Murnaghan doesn’t challenge him on it: the “far-right” in Britain hasn’t killed anyone, isn’t plotting to do so, and isn’t condoning any violence. The death toll from Islamic jihad terrorism is 22 in Manchester, plus other violent attacks and plots in Britain, as well as 30,000 murderous jihad attacks around the world since 9/11. So Shafiq’s equivalence between the two is ridiculous. What is he trying to do? He is trying to defame and discredit those who are calling attention to the reality of jihad activity in Britain, and its motivating ideology. If he succeeds, jihad activity will go on in Britain while everyone is too afraid of being labeled “far-right” or “Islamophobic” to raise their voices in protest. And that is exactly what is happening now.
“No faith in this world encourages the brutal massacre of children as we saw Monday night. No faith! And if that was what my faith was teaching, I wouldn’t want to be in it, either.”
In reality, a hadith depicts Muhammad reacting with savage indifference to the killing of children by the Muslims: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4321)
These children were collateral damage of the raid, just as they today might be collateral damage of a jihad bombing such as the one we saw in Manchester Monday night— and Muhammad allows for that.
“My faith teaches compassion, and they’ve distorted our faith, we’ve gotta take them on. But more importantly, as a community, we’ve still not done enough. When we’ve got young people who are so disconnected from our society that the moment we talk about what’s happening in Libya, in Syria, in regards to our foreign policy, we get accused of being apologists for terrorism. Let’s have an honest and open debate about these issues, and above all, let’s not let people divide us.”
Shafiq says: “We’ve gotta take them on, but more importantly” — and shifts into a critique of British foreign policy. The subtext here is that the jihad attack was the fault of British actions in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. If only the U.K. would adopt a foreign policy that was to the liking of the global umma, then there wouldn’t be jihad attacks such as the one in Manchester. If the British government stops fighting against jihadis, then the jihadis will stop fighting them. This view sounds reasonable and has many advocates inside Britain, but it ignores the fact that the jihad imperative to “fight until religion is all for Allah” (Qur’an 8:39) remains even against compliant infidels. It also ignores the fact that Britain only got involved in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq because of jihad attacks that predated those interventions and thus cannot reasonably be blamed on them.
Murnaghan then asks Shafiq if Muslims feel oppressed in some way, and so get the idea that they have to fight back, even in extreme form? Shafiq agrees, and continues to blame jihad terror upon British foreign policy:
“Yeah, so you look at what happened in Libya, we went in, we bombed Libya, and then we left, and ISIS was on the rise in Libya. The same in Afghanistan, the same in Iraq. So I’m arguing that because of our military adventures in these countries, we have allowed the terrorist narrative to take hold, we’ve allowed people to be brainwashed, and then we have what we saw here on Monday. There’s no justification –“
When Murnaghan asks Shafiq what he says to Muslims who want to go to Syria to join the jihad, Shafiq ends up blaming Sky News itself:
“Well, first of all, I think we’ve gotta take on the narrative. So they’ve got in their mindset this ideology which says you can use violence to make political points, and Islam sanctions that. And we’ve gotta use the edicts that we’ve seen from scholars like Tahir ul-Qadri or Sheikh Hamza Yusef, American, they’ve produced real strong evidence from the Qur’an and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, why terrorism is wrong. And that’s what we’ve got to promote, do that, and grass roots, and actually give young people a voice and give them a platform. Cause Dermot, no disrespect to you and Sky News, on these panels, how often do we actually give young people a chance to speak up, and talk about their issues?”
“Edicts that we’ve seen from scholars like Tahir ul-Qadri or Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, American, they’ve produced real strong evidence from the Qur’an and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, why terrorism is wrong.” Murnaghan doesn’t ask him at that point to explain what he means by “terrorism,” and that’s a shame, since all too often in such contexts sly Muslim spokesmen are referring to the supposedly “terrorist” actions of the U.K., the U.S., and Israel, and not to the actions of Islamic jihadists.
Murnaghan should have asked him to clarify that point especially since the reformers Shafiq mentions are anything but. Tahir ul-Qadri issued a massive fatwa against terrorism that is really just a gigantic exercise in deception: it never even mentions, much less explains away, the Qur’an passages that jihadis use to justify violence and terrorism. Moreover, Tahir ul-Qadri himself is the framer of Pakistan’s blasphemy law that has been used to persecute countless Christians and other non-Muslims. Some reformer! Hamza Yusuf is no better: he ridicules the idea of Islamic moderation and said that the victims of the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre “knew what they were doing” — i.e., they had it coming once they blasphemed Muhammad.
That Shafiq is also taken for a moderate and given such a platform on Sky News and elsewhere is evidence of confused and complacent, if not complicit, the media elites in the U.K. and all over the West really are.
Why Jihad Watch?
Why Jihad Watch? Because non-Muslims in the West, as well as in India, China, Russia, and the world over, are facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy their societies and impose Islamic law upon them — and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.
Jihad (Arabic for “struggle”) is a central duty of every Muslim. Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history and a central element of Islamic theology. Many passages of the Qur’an and sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.
In Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on …READ THE REST
SADLY, there are some authentic racist White Supremacists that I have no doubts will hop onto this article as confirmation from the mainstream of their racist hatred against all things White. The truth in this article about Leftist suppression of hate crimes in Europe against Caucasians committed by self-entitled Muslims is something that must alarm Europeans going through the silencing of the truth, BUT Americans that have not quite experienced the horrors of Leftist Multiculturalist policies bringing harm to the majority of its population must become attentively ALARMED!!!
It has been more than a quarter century since social workers in Rotherham, England and elsewhere began reporting that young women and girls were being “groomed” (i.e. drugged, beaten, raped, threatened with death) and then pimped out by ethnic minority (i.e. Islamic) taxi drivers living in their “community.” The girls were beaten and worse if they tried to escape. Some were murdered.
In Rotherham, the few social workers not already seduced into senselessness by the daddy pimp of them all—Sir Political Correctness—were quickly schooled by their superiors to look the other way—away from evidence of child rape—or lose their jobs.
The same government bureaucrats who suppressed the social workers also shut down the blogs being written by brave policemen who were trying to warn the public about the perverse takeover of policing by Sir PC and company.
With no First Amendment to protect them, and with hate speech laws spreading like a mental black plague, the police bloggers never stood a chance. See here and here for other police accounts of the effect of identity politics on police work.
Amassed against the police who wished to treat everyone, you know, equally, were globalist multiculturalists, academicians, politicians, preening media, and other gilded birds in gilded high rises successfully imposing a racial regime that would make a Victorian phrenologist blush.
Police blogging was merely the last, impotent line of defense for the wrong types of victims victimized by the wrong types of criminals.
Once the police blogs were forcibly silenced, the girls of Rotherham, and, in fact, all of Britain was on its own. The lights went out, to Winston Churchill and Mark Steyn. Always before the lights go out, speech is silenced.
As leftists in America shut down free speech on college campuses across America—and they won’t stop at college campuses—take lessons from that, as you will.
Officially, the pimped-out girls of Rotherham were extra-legally deemed guilty of being “raped while white.” Officially, their rapists were extra-legally deemed innocent of child rape and pimping on the grounds of being “rapists while minority.”
This is precisely the deadly calculus of identity politics as it has played out in law enforcement for 50 years now, for half a century, for the entire time Bill Cosby, for example, has been drugging and molesting starlets and student coaches and supermodels.
Bill Cosby may sneer that it is “racism” that motivated the belated charges of sexual assault against him, but he is only half right. It is indeed racism—racism against his victims and on his behalf—that enabled him to get away with sexually abusing woman after woman for decades with no consequences. What woman, black or white (and Cosby’s victims span the color spectrum) would be stupid enough to come forward and report being raped by America’s black dad?
Whether you are a poor white child in foster care in a slum in England being passed around by a gang of Pakistani thugs or a high-class, black supermodel being drugged and molested by America’s funniest black man, political correctness dictates that you will be held responsible for the rape visited upon your body because black males can’t possibly be held responsible for the rapes they commit because they are black males.
Meet the new lynch mob. It’s no different from the old lynch mob, except it’s not called a lynch mob anymore: it’s called “justice.”
And so when an ethnic minority man detonates a bomb at a teenybopper’s concert, why do politicians even bother to denounce the violence? They, after all, are the ones responsible for the body count. They are the ones who tied the hands of the real police and turned policing itself into thought policing of non-terrorists. They are the ones who shut down public discourse about immigration and terrorism. They are the ones who purged from decent society anyone who dared to voice what everyone is thinking, all the time now: what if we could go back to the time when women could walk the streets unmolested and little girls could grow into women without being turned out by throngs of hate-filled Islamists treating them like discarded bags of meat, to quote one prominent imam?
What if England could go back to being England, where Winnie the Pooh was the concern of 10-year-old girls, not how many sex acts they would need to perform in order to avoid being beaten by their pimps as the pimps showered them with anti-Christian, anti-female, anti-England “hate speech,” which is the only flavor of hate speech allowed these days. Heck, such speech is practically a sacrament in some circles, including official ones.
What if England could go back to the days of the Beatles, when the only danger one faced at a concert was the danger of going a bit deaf from the hysterical screams of teenyboppers screaming, not in horror at watching their chums’ limbs being torn from their bodies, but screaming with joy at the harmless pleasure of being a teenage girl with a crush on a boy band?
Not only don’t these things exist anymore in England: the right to talk about them doesn’t exist anymore either.
And it can happen here. The leftist mobs attacking conservative speakers on college campuses; the unpunished hate crime hoaxes; the media’s dishonest trumpeting of this or that imaginary “rising tide” of white supremacist hate; their dishonest participation in burying the real hate hoaxes; their decades-long cover-up of violent crime committed by minorities—all this isn’t mere proto-fascism: it is full-blown fascism.
Terrorism, fascism, and political correctness are frequent fellow travelers with sexual violence. How better to suppress and render docile half the population than by threatening them sexually? And how much easier is this when the predators have the ace in their pockets of special exemption from culpability for their crimes because of their ethnicity or race?
New York City’s Puerto Rican Day parade used to be notorious for acts of “wilding” and “whirlpooling,” in other words, gang sexual attacks committed against women unlucky enough to happen upon the throngs of males who felt entitled to grab and molest any woman in their path.
Just like the police in Rotherham, the police monitoring the Puerto Rican Day Parade were told to shut up and stand down in the face of those sexual assaults because the offenders were ethnic minority men, and you can’t blame ethnic minority men for committing sexual violence.
This year, in addition to the usual unmentionable sexual threats, the Puerto Rican Day parade is honoring a leftist terrorist just released from prison by Barack Obama. So first, Obama spat in the face of the police and civilians murdered by Oscar Lopez Rivera by springing Rivera from prison, and next, Mayor Bill de Blasio is excitedly marching with Rivera in a parade with a reputation for gross sexual abuse of women.
Maybe Hillary Clinton isn’t the Democratic Party’s biggest optics problem after all.
Bill Ayers, Obama’s unrepentant terrorist mentor, also has a history of sexual perversion and sexual violence that doesn’t seem to bother the types of people who honor him, such as the universities granting him tenure and speaking honoraria and the dumb bunny grade school teachers who elected him to run curricular studies for the largest K-12 teacher’s professional organization in the United States, the American Educational Research Association. If merely trying to blow up cops and soldiers and civilians were not enough for the collective idiots who teach your children, one would hope that Ayers’s sexual history might give them pause, but apparently it never did.
Back in the Weathermen days, Ayers was known for arranging inter-racial re-education sex sessions to punish white females for being white females. Such stories were hardly uncommon throughout the civil rights era. When I was researching the feminist movement of the 1960s and early 1970s in university archives, I found scores of similar stories by female civil rights workers who were forced to degrade themselves sexually—often in public—to “make up for” societal prejudice against black men. And female civil rights workers of all races were also pressured to keep quiet when they were raped by black men, a not uncommon occurrence.
There is a direct line from Rotherham to raped-and-silenced civil rights workers to Bill Cosby grousing that he’s the “real victim” of his sexual exploits that literally dozens of women have called rape. There’s a direct line between Al Sharpton literally trying to lynch a white gang rape victim by inciting a crowd to attack the police van transporting her to the courthouse and Al Sharpton being invited to the White House and being honored at Democratic Party conventions and being given a show on MSNBC. There is a direct line between police being silenced in Britain if they tell the truth about sexual abuse of girls by minority men and police being told to stand down as women get gang-raped in broad daylight at the Puerto Rican Day parade, a parade that is now honoring a terrorist on sidewalks dusted not so long ago with the pulverized bones of other American victims of terrorism.
The direct line between all these things is fascist leftism, a death cult embedded in a Democratic Party so cynical about its own acceptance of some sexual violence and some terrorism that no person who identifies as a Democrat can possibly look in the mirror and honestly confront themselves about such things.
And when you can’t acknowledge your own culpability in the death cult within your own political party, there’s only one thing left to do: outlaw any speech that tells the truth about it.
Bombthrowersis a blog about politics and the war for the hearts and minds of Americans from a conservative viewpoint.
In line with our name, we do not hold back. We have a take-no-prisoners attitude when it comes to fighting for conservative principles. The Left doesn’t play nice, and that’s why they’ve been winning. It’s time for conservatives to rise up and turn the tide.
We’re not afraid to take on anyone, especially the Washington Establishment—Republican or Democrat.
Canada Free Press (CFP) is a proudly independent, 24/7 news site, updating constantly throughout the day. More than 100 writers and columnists file regularly to CFP from all corners of the globe. CFP rides on credibility and is edited by a lifelong journalist.
Canada Free Press does not sell, loan or give out its mailing list to anyone. You will receive a confirmation email back to the email you entered. You must respond to the email in order to receive our mail out of latest news and opinion.
Although we have been posting to the Internet for more than 14 years, on May 15, 2012 CFP celebrated its eighth anniversary as a daily. Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains a loyal and growing readership.
CFP senior journalist/editor Judi McLeod tries to answer each and every letter sent to CFP by readers. CFP's main ongoing inspiration is to provide accurate and well-researched stories for a loyal readership that are not printed or posted elsewhere.
CFP's Motto: "Because without America there is no Free World" is as meaningful today as it was when first adopted. America and the Free World must …READ THE REST
Brigitte Gabriel (National Security Expert) joins Dave Rubin to discuss growing up in Lebanon, a childhood under terrorism, identity killings, her experience with Israelis, why America is incredible, and much more.
****** Care about free speech? Tired of political correctness? Like discussions about big ideas? Watch Dave Rubin on The Rubin Report. Real conversations, unfiltered rants, and one on one interviews with some of the most interesting names in news and entertainment. Comedians, authors, and influencers join Dave each week to break down the latest in politics and current events. The Rubin Report is fan-funded, find us on Patreon.
ACT for America· 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 190, #614, Washington, DC 20004, United States
Brigitte Gabriel is one of the leading terrorism experts in the world providing information and analysis on the rise of global Islamic terrorism. She lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and current affairs. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders.
She has addressed the United Nations, Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Pentagon, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, The US Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others.
In addition, Gabriel is a regular guest analyst on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and various radio stations daily across America. She serves on the board of advisors of the Intelligence Summit.
Ms. Gabriel is Founder and Chairman of ACT for America, the largest national security grassroots organization in the U.S. with over 500,000 members and 1,000 chapters nationwide dedicated to preserving national security and promoting Western values. She is the author of two New York Times Best Sellers, BECAUSE THEY HATE: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. And THEY MUST BE STOPPED: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it.
Ms. Gabriel was knighted in Europe in 2016 for her international work on fighting terrorism and standing up for Western Values. She joins a long list of knights including former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Nelson Mandela, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, and others.
Ms. Gabriel is named one of the top 50 most prominent speakers in America. She speaks Arabic, French, English, and Hebrew.
Shamim Masih (Mahmood) is a Christian Human Rights activist and journalist from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In case you are unaware, Pakistan has some of the most stringent Islamic Blasphemy Laws enforced globally among Muslims. Blasphemy Laws are often used as a financial by greedy or vengeful Muslims that trump-up false charges for one kind of gain or another.
That is the environment that Christian-Pakistani Shamim has dealt with his whole life. You can imagine Shamim’s life and livelihood might be held by a thin thread that American Christians would consider incredulous in understanding.
I am asking you to be an advocate for Shamim Masih on a financial basis whether it is a one-time gift or an ongoing monetary support. Support for Shamim just could be a glimpse of hope for impoverished Christian-Pakistanis who live constantly under the thumb of Islamic Supremacism.
SUPPORT Shamim’s Christian advocacy in Pakistan. First contact Shamim in case he has found an easy way to donate. I like to use Western Union sending money with this LINK to the destination of Islamabad (Contact Shamim in case he has changed cities). Shamim’s email is email@example.com, Western Union may ask for Shamim’s phone - +92-300-642-4560
Based on my personal experience while covering the incidents of religious discrimination and persecution of Pakistan’s minorities’ communities in the recent years. I have observed that main stream media in Pakistan do not cover the persecution and religious discrimination. So I have planned to become the voice of the voiceless people of Pakistan. Thus starting “thecovenant.tv” with the aim not only to cover the routine events, but especially to become the voice of the voiceless people in Pakistan. Some work has been done on it and much to do. I am writing this letter to you seeking the support in this regard in any sense you can either financially or morally. Please Google me as "Shamim Masih" Below is the concept note please go through it and give your input.
SUPPORT Shamim’s Christian advocacy in Pakistan. First contact Shamim in case he has found an easy way to donate. I like to use Western Union sending money with this LINK to the destination of Islamabad (Contact Shamim in case he has changed cities). Shamim’s email is firstname.lastname@example.org, Western Union may ask for Shamim’s phone - +92-300-642-4560
Give Voice to the Voiceless
During the recent decade, it is observed that the national main stream media does play down incidents of religious discrimination and persecution of Pakistan’s minorities communities. This is partially due to government’s ‘requests (read orders)’ to newspapers editors and TV channel heads not to highlight or give extensive coverage to such issue as “they bring a bad to the country.” The other factors of lack of coverage of minorities’ communities is the fact that main stream channels are not very keen on giving a voice to the voiceless. There are only a handful of journalists belonging to minorities’ communities working in the mainstream media but they too are unable to project the plight of their people effectively as they have little or no say at all in editorial matters.
There is a dire need to produce more journalists from such communities’ train them professionally and provide them with a platform in the national media from where they can bring forth the issues facing their people as well reports persecution and discrimination meted out by the majority.
[Blog Editor: Below is the text of an attachment sent along with the Shamim email. The attachment text is similar to the text of the Covenant Communication Shamim-profile page. Since there are some differences, I’ll stick with the attachment text which is a bit more detailed.]
He has vast experience of highlighting political and social issues. He has been covering the legislations at Parliament house to sectarian violence, covering from the UN Secretary General press conference to bombing at worship places and burning the Christians’ colonies accusing blasphemy. He has also interviewed the Federal Ministers and the Ambassadors in Pakistan. He was the first one to write for the Christian minor girl, Rimsha, falsely accused of blasphemy, who later got international attention.
Now days; I’m also working on new areas/proposals to promote peace and harmony at the media house, www.thecovenant.tv.
SUPPORT Shamim’s Christian advocacy in Pakistan. First contact Shamim in case he has found an easy way to donate. I like to use Western Union sending money with this LINK to the destination of Islamabad (Contact Shamim in case he has changed cities). Shamim’s email is email@example.com, Western Union may ask for Shamim’s phone - +92-300-642-4560
Edited by John R. Houk
Some links by the Editor. Text enclosed by bracket is by the Editor. The Western Union contact support data is by the Editor.
‘The Covenant Communications’ inspires to be Pakistan’s leading independent web-based TV channel, and magazine by using the dynamics of media, diplomacy and peace to provide neutral and objective analysis of domestic, regional and international issues.
This especially focuses on issues like interfaith harmony, dialogue among communities, cultural diplomacy, religions, peace, extremism, dynamics of various conflicts and domestic politics. Our special emphasis remains on safeguarding the rights of sidelined community in Pakistan like children, women and non-Muslim communities in Pakistan by highlighting their issues effectively in the mainstream media.
‘The Covenant Communications’ team welcomes contributions in any form ranging from opinion pieces, reports highlighting various events connected to inter-faith harmony, domestic abuse, domestic politics, development issues and issues related to Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policy, development project descriptions and advertisements.
Our team comprises dedicated individuals who believe in creating space for dialogue and multicultural and inter-religious exchanges to know each other better. You are welcome to add fuel to ‘The Covenant Communications’!
The key to understand Eileen Toplansky’s article below is to understand the essence of what Ayn Rand stands for. Just as an alert, I am certainly no expert on Ayn Rand. And yet, Rand was a very large influence from my transition of being a dedicated Dem toward Christian Conservative.
If anyone knows even a smidgen about Ayn Rand, they would have realize being a Christian does not really connect with Randian Objectivist Philosophy – which is atheistic.
There once was a time when I was enamored by the philosophy of Ayn Rand. An émigré from the Soviet Union, the influential novelist and founder of Objectivism had an enthusiasm for market capitalism and a hatred of communism that I found entrancing. I discovered her two major philosophical novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, in my early years in college as I was beginning to wake from my enchantment with liberalism. I was instantly hooked.
Rand’s ideas were intriguing, yet she harbored sentiments that made it difficult for a young Christian to accept. She was an atheist who despised altruism and preached the “virtue of selfishness.” She believed that rational self-interest was the greatest good and sang the praises of egoism.
In retrospect, it appears obvious that any attempt to reconcile these ideas with my orthodox evangelicalism was destined to fail. Still, I thought there might be something to the philosophy and was particularly intrigued by her defense of capitalism. My understanding of our economic system was a rather immature, though, and I failed to recognize that Rand had an almost complete misunderstanding of capitalism. She confused self-interest with selfishness.
On this point Rand is quite mistaken. Reason, applied consistently, doesn’t lead us down a straight path to egoism, much less to capitalism. Examined closely, we would find that her entire Objectivist philosophy is founded on this simple question begging premise. Rand, of course, would claim that it was a self-evident truth. But this requires us to believe that no one who ever came to a different conclusion was following reason where it leads. She might have no problem accepting such a conclusion—Rand was never one to tolerate dissent—but we don’t have sufficient justification for doing so.
This veneration of egoism also lead her to consider altruism to be a form of evil. As she explains in The Virtue of Selfishness:
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value–and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.
Those who fail to notice the way that Rand defines altruism often mistake her critique as an argument against Christian morality. This isn’t surprising when we consider that Rand herself seems to make the same error. But the Christian view of altruism is not predicated on an obligation to love others more than we love ourselves. While there may be instances where such self-sacrificial love is appropriate, it is not an absolute duty. What we are commanded to do is love others just as we love ourselves. We are to love other humans in the same way, taking into account their interests and needs. We are not to treat them, as Comte would have us, in a disinterested manner.
Fully considered, it becomes obvious that Rand’s views congeal into a fatally flawed philosophy. Even when stripped of its atheistic elements, Objectivism’s focus on radical individualism cuts it off from reality and causes it to wither under scrutiny. And as much as we might admire Rand’s deep-rooted hatred of collectivism, her philosophy is …READ THE REST (Ayn Rand Didn’t Understand Capitalism. Or Altruism. Or Christianity. Or Reality. By JOE CARTER; Acton Institute; 11/15/13)
I am still enamored with Rand’s Objectivism, but the monkey wrench of atheism crops up I thank God for the promoters of Austrian Economics.
The author Toplansky uses Rand’s concept of criticizing altruism as being a Leftist disease infecting self-interest profitability by associating it with Europe’s current Multiculturalist culture-destroying disease allowing Islam to supplant a Western heritage.
In fathoming the failure of Europeans to protect their own interests against the onslaught of Islamic jihadism, one is reminded of Ayn Rand's quotation that "[r]eason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them[.]"
Bruce Bawer, an astute observer of the European scene, wonders how "Marine Le Pen lost in a landslide" given all the jihadist assaults against the French people and the very culture of France. Bawer offers three possibilities that include:
European guilt about past imperial histories and a "need to atone."
the postmodern belief that "no culture is better than any other – and it's racist to say otherwise."
the influence of the mainstream media, which routinely "soft pedals the Islamic roots of terror"
the fact that "some people don't want to learn the truth"
In the Autumn 2004 issue of the Wilson Quarterly, Christopher Clausen writes that “for many Europeans in the past 20 years, now-distant memories of both world wars have hardened into a self-righteous conviction that peace outweighs any value that might conflict with it, almost regardless of the threat or provocation.”
Consequently, there is an exquisite disregard in deliberately ignoring the "grim possibility that their children and grandchildren might end up by living under shariah law, if, in fact, they are allowed to live at all." Consider that London presently has 100 sharia courts that are "based on the rejection of the inviolability of human rights: the values of freedom and equality that are the basis of English Common Law." Moreover, "a third of UK Muslims do not feel 'part of British culture.'"
As further evidence of the ultimate intent of Islamists, Saudi religious scholars include the following in the nine-volume English translation of the Quran.
[D]iscard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) … to fight against all the Mushrikun as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the non-Muslims who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.
As Nonie Darwish has pointed out, 64% of the Quran is devoted to denigrating commentary about kafirs, or non-Muslims.
And yet, while the above quoted words of the Quran should "forever silence any fantasies regarding Islam's peaceful disposition toward the non-Muslim," the West continues to avoid the obvious. But as Ayn Rand has noted, "[y]ou can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
Hence, France continues to decompose in front of our eyes. Yves Mamou writes that "everything that represents state institutions ... is now subjected to violence based on essentially sectarian and sometimes ethnic excesses, fueled by an incredible hatred of our country[.]” Ultimately, France "and all of European society must assimilate Islamic social norms, not the other way around."
Newly elected President Macron symbolizes the multicultural manifesto when he maintains that "French culture doesn't exist in and of itself; there is no such thing as a single French culture. There is culture in France and it is diverse and multiple." Is it then inevitable that "France is going to have to live with terrorism," as former prime minister Manuel Valls proclaimed?
Coupled with the ongoing Islamic push is the leftist destructive bent. Thus, "Belgium is unique" in that it is the "first nation blending appeasement to Islam and a suicidal form of nihilism[.]” It is not coincidental that in Belgium, "euthanasia is out of control." With a record number of people killed by lethal injection, it is equally disturbing that "Belgium is the country with the highest per capita number of volunteers for the Caliphate."
Judith Friedman Rosen reminds us that against the backdrop of Normandy, where tourists "pay tribute to those who died pursuing liberty," there is a pervasive fear as the "French open door policy to Muslim immigrants, who reject Western values and liberty" has given way to "terror, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian murders." The "clash of culture and civilization" continues, and "unlike the Asian and Indian immigrants ... many of the Muslims are not willing to integrate into the society – and are trying to force their values such as Halal, [and] the prohibition of pork ... onto the French populace." What will be the future of France when "30% of French Muslims want Sharia law and less than 25% identify as French citizens"?
The Jihad Files by N.M. Guariglia document the results of jihad throughout the world so that Paris is now "one of the most dangerous capitals on Earth." A "Toronto imam has sworn that all Muslims will eventually kill all Jews." And in the name of religion, Pakistani three-year-olds are being married off while Nigerian three-year-olds are having heavy stones dropped on their heads. Not to be outdone, "[i]n Iraq, ISIS continues to commit unimaginable crimes. Approximately 200 Iraqis have been kidnapped to be used as human shields against U.S. air strikes. Homosexuals continue to get murdered in large quantities and for public display. Mentally handicapped Iraqis are being rounded up by ISIS and used against their will as suicide bombers. And mass executions against civilians accused of 'blasphemy' continue unabated."
The incursions continue as the "Saudis plan on building 560 mosques across the South Asian nation of Bangladesh." Is it not surprising, then, that "minority communities across Bangladesh are once again facing violence and persecution by the Sunni Muslim majority"? Mohshin Habib describes how "many Hindu areas experience attacks of ... religious oppression. Muslim fundamentalists vandalized idols, set fire to Hindu temples and ... looted valuables from temples."
Bruce Thornton asks, "[H]ow much worse will the destruction and death have to be to wake us up?" These "indulgences of naive idealism," dangerous delusions, and jihad denial still paralyze the West. Ayn Rand reminds us that "there are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."
Until we can incorporate the idea that "nothing is creepier than Islam" and begin to "challenge Islamic racism, misogyny, genocide," as Edward Cline exhorts, how can decent people not fall prey to Linda Sarsour's "stealth jihad in a hijab"?
Amazingly, the more obvious the facts, "the more fiercely do people resist them." Bawer explains that "as skilled propagandists [continue to] represent Muslims as the mother of all victim groups, many Westerners [are] quick to buy into it all." This is aided by the "media's cheery ignorance about Islam's hostile ideology," as revealed by A.Z. Mohamed.
This is the most puzzling aspect of the media's capitulation. After all, Islam brooks no dissent, and freedom of press and speech is eventually obliterated. But Ayn Rand explains that "to act rationally means to act in accordance with the acts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts[.]"
Even the Church, which is "the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith," has abrogated its role. Instead of fighting to save the lives of Christians who are unwilling to renounce Christ, too many churches are deafeningly silent on terrorism. Denis MacEoin describes how the United Church of Christ (UCC) cultivates dealings with Islamic groups "despite the fact that Muslims across the Middle East have been killing, expelling, and humiliating Christians for a very long time, but especially in recent decades." Why hasn't the UCC noted the mass exodus of Christians precipitated by extremist Muslims and the Palestinian authorities?
But what might be a motivating factor for this ostensible ignorance and indifference? I turn again to Ayn Rand. For most people, the term "altruism" has a positive connotation. But Rand "rejects this perception of altruism[.] She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being." Thus, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue because "it secures and protects one's rational values – ultimately, one's life and happiness. Since a concern with one's own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one's own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life."
Rand maintains that "[t]he injunction 'don't judge' is the ultimate climax of the altruist morality which, today, can be seen in its naked essence. When men plead for forgiveness, for the nameless, cosmic forgiveness of an unconfessed evil, when they react with instantaneous compassion to any guilt, to the perpetrators of any atrocity, while turning away indifferently from the bleeding bodies of the victims and the innocent—one may see the actual purpose, motive and psychological appeal of the altruist code. When these same compassionate men turn with snarling hatred upon anyone who pronounces moral judgments, when they scream that the only evil is the determination to fight against evil—one may see the kind of moral blank check that the altruist morality hands out."
Edward Cline has asked if Europe is in the terminal state of a death wish. He asserts that Europe's "foundational driver is altruism" – a kind of "moral blank check." The West appears to have lost the desire "to value [itself] which means to fight for [its] happiness."
Since "Allah demands that humans not love him, but submit to him, as slaves submit to their masters, and to sacrifice their lives for him," we should absolutely refuse to accept this frame of reference and all that it entails. Instead, we need to realize that "if any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism [or self-destructive generosity] that men have to reject."
American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.
There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions -- strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military -- is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.
Editor and Publisher
Manager, Social Media
Chief Political Correspondent
Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher, calls himself a recovering academic. After graduating from Kenyon College, he studied modern Japan, sociology, and business as a graduate student at Harvard (three degrees) and joined the faculty at Harvard Business School, where he began the consulting career that was to lead him away from academia. He also taught sociology and East Asian studies at Harvard and held visiting professorships at Columbia University and the Japanese National Museum of Ethnology. As a consultant, he has …READ THE REST
Elibiary adviser job: He “served five years on President Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council and was instrumental in the rollout of Obama’s countering violent extremism pilot program, which took the heat off of Islam as the inspiration for global terrorism.”
The theme of the article from Hohmann:
“On Sunday, he stepped back up to the plate and delivered a stinging tweet against the Middle East’s largest Christian community – the Coptic Christians of Egypt.
In its latest magazine, ISIS threatened more attacks on Egypt’s Christians.
So what was the reaction from Elibiary?
He says Egypt’s Copts have it coming”. (Bold text by Editor)
They will try to push Sharia law on this country if the American people do not wake up.
Again, Islam is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution and the American culture.
[Blog Editor: **Civilization-Jihadist Process ---
What Is The Plan?
The memorandum spells out the plan in a few sentences:
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (“An Explanatory Memorandum” – The Brotherhood’s Plan; The Counter Jihad)]
Edited by John R. Houk
All links as well as text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.
Blog Editor Intro to ‘CAIR Works “Tirelessly to Advance the Agenda & Goals of the Muslim Brotherhood & Hamas”’
Edited by John R. Houk
This post highlights a Chris Gaubatz interview on a UTT Radio broadcast in which comparisons are made of the objectives of CAIR, ISIS and al Qaeda.
I need to mention a relatively new Muslim-American group is talked about called US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO – official about page). Apparently, I have been paying close attention (shame on me) since the group has been around since 2014. Here are a couple of excerpts briefly highlighting the USCMO agenda as compared to the other Muslim Brotherhood related Muslim American organizations:
Executive leadership from some of the most prominent American Muslim organizations announced the formation of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The eight founding Muslim organizations participating at the press conference were immediately joined by two additional U.S. Muslim organizations. …
The USCMO is described as an umbrella organization – and CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad inferred that and more, with his assertion regarding the USCMO that “This is the dream of every American Muslim, to unify the approach, agenda and vision of the Muslim community. … The formation of the USCMO marks the first U.S. Muslim Brotherhood political party, and indeed the first religious identity political party in the history of this country.
During the press conference, Nihad Awad indicated his organization CAIR was “proud to join this historic organization, because today is a historic one. We have been meeting for at least one and a half years.” However, the information absent from this discussion by Awad and his colleagues was that the development of the USCMO not only predates the eighteen month time frame, but finds its origins in the Chicago metropolitan area, where the Muslim Brotherhood has successfully built a strategic organizational network for almost six decades.
In March of 2014, a new group formed with the aim of uniting a coalition of Muslim organizations: the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). USCMO came into the spotlight more recently with the launch of their 2016 political campaign, “One America.” The campaign followed on the heels of a December 2015 emergency summit of over 100 mostly Muslim leaders who sought to offset a Muslim image crisis after GOP nominees’ unfavorable – albeit often true – remarks about some Muslim communities.
Reading Between the Lines of USCMO’s “One America” Campaign
The “One America” campaign calls for mobilizing one million new Muslim American voters, cultivating dialogue with elected officials, along with increased open-house days at mosques across the country. …
… Furthermore, the Islamist group supports the agenda to manipulate language, which now includes denying the existence of radicalization.
When USCMO talks about ensuring civil liberties, it means ensuring these Islamist groups’ use civil liberties to advance their own cause. In this election year and moving forward into 2017, that cause is defined by challenging the validity of critical thinkers and slandering them through largely unfounded accusations of bigotry and Islamophobia. In almost call cases, Islamist organizations work with counter-productive groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Wahhabi funded agents to weave a narrative that undermines our number one freedom: freedom of speech.]
For USCMO, the Only “Real” Muslims are Islamists
When USCMO talks about Muslim Americans rejoining the mainstream community, their vision is a new legion of politically active Muslims who can further ensure their agenda. Secular Muslims, Muslims combative towards Islamism, critical Muslim academics and Muslim Reformers are not part of what USCMO considers its demographic. In fact, private conversations with both cultural and deeply faithful Muslims shows a disdain for Muslim groups that pander to identity politics.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a terrorist organization. Specifically, it was created in 1994 by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in the United States.
This week’s UTT Radio Broadcast (30 mins) – which can be heard at www.WorldviewRadio.com – features an interview with UTT’s Vice President Chris Gaubatz who worked undercover at Hamas’ headquarters in Washington, D.C. (CAIR) nearly ten years ago while posing as a converted muslim.
In the interview, Chris Gaubatz explains CAIR’s objectives are no different than those of ISIS and Al Qaeda, and that CAIR works “Tirelessly to advance the agenda and goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.”
Here are a few of the comments from Chris Gaubatz from the UTT broadcast:
“As I testified in front of the U.S. Senate, the Muslim Brotherhood is no different than Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. They have the same goals, which is to establish an Islamic state under sharia…Whether its jihadi groups all over the world, the Islamic State, Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Hamas in this case with CAIR, they all say that they’re muslims waging jihad to establish an Islamic state under sharia…My workspace (at CAIR) was right outside the office of Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of Hamas doing business as CAIR, and Ibrahim Hooper’s office was right next door to Nihad’s office. So I had daily interactions with them.”
“I was able to see exactly how they (CAIR) go about doing what they do, which is ultimately civilization jihad. They want to destroy Western civilization from within per their own goals and documents, and I was able to witness that daily.”
In the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), Dallas 2008 – which was the culmination of a 15 year FBI investigation, the FBI and the Department of Justice entered into evidence a “wide array” of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking CAIR to Hamas.
See UTT’s CAIR is Hamas brief sheet HERE. Hamas is a designated terrorist organization per the United States government. See the Department of State’s designation of Hamas HERE.
Yet, despite all the evidence from the HLF trial, the over 12,000 documents Chris Gaubatz pulled out of CAIR’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. as well as the 300 hours of covert video/audio recordings revealing CAIR is involved in fraud, sedition, and terrorism, CAIR continues to operate and CAIR leaders walk free on the streets of America.
The book Muslim Mafia details Chris’ experiences and the evidence uncovered. Purchase a copy today HERE!
CAIR frequently appear in the media and is defended by local and national media outlets as a “civil rights” organization. CAIR organizes “Muslim Capital Day” at state capitals around the United States, influences national policy related to the Islamic threat, attacks individuals and organizations who speak truth about the threat of Islam, and they defend jihadis (“terrorists”) while putting out the propaganda that what “terrorists” do has nothing to do with Islam.
Hamas leader Nihad Awad, who is the General Masul (leader) of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, is now steering the MB’s accelerated efforts to prepare for war in the United States through the efforts of the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO).
Three things citizens can do to help thwart the efforts of the CAIR terrorists (Hamas) are:
Encourage local and state law enforcement to prosecute CAIR entities in your state. If they have no idea where to begin, please refer them to UTT.
Work to ensure none of the local public entities in your area work with Hamas terrorists (dba CAIR) such as media, businesses, schools, etc.
Support and defend organizations and individuals being attacked by CAIR.
CAIR is a terrorist organization and should be treated as such.
Understanding the Threat provides threat-focused strategic and operational consultation, training, and education for federal, state, and local leadership and agencies in government, the private sector, and for private citizens. UTT is the only organization in America which is training leaders, elected officials, law enforcement, military personnel, and citizens, about the Global Islamic Movement and the jihadi networks in communities around the nation. UTT is also the only organization showing security professionals and state leaders how to locate and map out jihadi organizations, locate jihadis, and dismantle the network at the local and state level. While UTT briefs and teaches about many of the threats external and internal to the United States, its primary concern is the threats to the Republic and the West in general from the Global Islamic Movement.
Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America is a 2009 book by U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and former U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations special agent Paul David Gaubatz, and investigative journalist and Hoover Institute fellow Paul Sperry.
It proves the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to be a subversive organization allied with international terrorists.
The book is based on a six-month undercover investigation of the Washington-based CAIR by Chris Gaubatz — son of co-author Paul David Gaubatz — who posed as a convert to Islam. The book uses documents Chris Gaubatz obtained as a CAIR intern to prove the book's assertions that CAIR is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, and that CAIR supports international jihad against the U.S.
The book prompted endorsements from a number of writers and requests by members of the United States Congress for investigations into CAIR's terrorist links and undue influence.
Paul Sperry and Chris’ father David Gaubatz authored the book “Muslim Mafia” from the clandestinely acquired info. The book was published in 2009. CAIR has done everything within its legal power to either discredit, squelch the book’s existence and/or destroy the Gaubatz family since 2009.
Legal Jihad/Lawfare is the tactic Islam uses to intimidate critics and individuals actively exposing Islamic designs for the West. You can Google the term for yourself, but this 113-page pdf from the Center for Security Policy bring to light some insight on this Muslim litigation tactic:
Lawfare – the use of litigation and other judicial instruments to achieve policy outcomes – has long been employed by the U.S. progressive movement. In recent years, it has become a favored weapon of the Left’s allies in the Muslim Brotherhood and other parts of the global jihad movement in America.
Organizations in this country that front for the Brotherhood and its Palestinian franchise, Hamas, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have wielded lawfare both strategically and tactically. Their focus typically involves efforts to create and promote victimization narratives for Islam. They seek to silence their critics and put the American public and policy-makers on the defensive in the face of the global and domestic threat from a jihad or holy war, driven by the dictates of the Islamic supremacist doctrine known as shariah.
In advancing this agenda, the Muslim Brotherhood uses our own laws and courts for such purposes as intimidating and otherwise suppressing any who dare challenge Islamic supremacism. A steady stream of lawsuits filed by Muslims in this country works to achieve such outcomes and to normalize shariah by: insinuating it incrementally into our legal system; advancing the claim that Islamic law ought to be treated as superior to our basic freedoms; and gaining acceptance for anti-constitutional Islamic tenets related to equality, women’s rights, free speech and more. (OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE LAWFARE: FIGHTING CIVILIZATION JIHAD IN AMERICA’S COURTS; Civilization Jihad Reader Series volume 7; CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY; 10/16/5)
CAIR has lost numerous legal challenges to the Gaubatz family. Yet they keep the lawfare going. It is obvious CAIR has been doing a great job in draining the Gaubatzs of their money to break them. Think about this: Lawfare is also costing CAIR legal fees. What is their source to keep this flowing? I can’t believe that CAIR’s exaggerated and ever decreasing member rolls are donating the kind of money needed to keep their Lawfare objectives active.
Here we are in 2017 and CAIR has chosen to take the Gaubatzs all the way to a civil trial. Frankly when that Gaubatz defense team nails CAIR with hiding discovery or catches the organization in a lie, I suspect CAIR will settle. There is no way I can believe CAIR can win such a lawsuit unless the Judge is bought or is an extremely complicit Multiculturalist to the point the rule of law is ignored to benefit CAIR. Much like President Trump is experiencing with lawless activist Judges so far.
Below is a WND article that touches on some old news and includes some relevant updates on CAIR’s civil suit against the Gaubatz family. But first here are a few blog posts I have made since the 2009 Legal Jihad began:
A former federal investigator enlists his son to infiltrate a Muslim front in the nation’s capital that had routinely collaborated with the White House and federal law-enforcement agencies as a “civil rights” group.
The daring undercover operation results in the capture of 12,000 pages of incriminating internal documents along with audio and video recordings, attracting the interest of the FBI and congressional investigators.
The evidence is compiled in one volume that draws the praise of a member of Congress who declares: “Now we have proof – from the secret documents that this investigative team has uncovered, coupled with the ones recently declassified by the FBI – that [radical Islamic] agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan.”
But the Muslim front group, funded by wealthy Saudi donors and other foreign sources, files a lawsuit against the investigators, charging its “reputation” was damaged. Lacking any grounds to rebut the overwhelming evidence that it actually is a Muslim Brotherhood front, the group amends it complaint then prolongs the case through frivolous motions until finally, after eight years, a trial is set to be scheduled.
While it might sound like a Hollywood script, it’s the true story of a WND Books co-author and his son who have been sued by the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations in a case that has moved to a trial likely to begin this fall in the nation’s capital.
Serving as an intern, Chris Gaubatz gathered some 12,000 pages of documents that were headed for a shredder at CAIR’s national office in Washington, just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building. The information published in “Muslim Mafia,” co-authored by David Gaubatz and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, demonstrated CAIR’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, the group that spawned al-Qaida and Hamas and stated in writing its intent to put America under Islamic law and the authority of the Quran.
In the lawsuit, however, CAIR has never defended itself against the book’s claims.
The release of the book was kicked off with a Capitol Hill press conference in which several members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus cited the research in the book as a national security concern.
To defend its author, WND Books hired, among others, famed First Amendment defense attorney Martin Garbus, known for the Pentagon Papers case, and Daniel Horowitz, known for his high-profile clients and legal commentary on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.
FBI wiretap evidence from the Holy Land case showed CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was at an October 1993 meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in Philadelphia. CAIR, according to the evidence, was born out of a need to give a “media twinkle” to the Muslim leaders’ agenda of supporting violent jihad abroad while slowly institutionalizing Islamic law in the U.S.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper also has expressed a desire to replace the U.S. system of government with an Islamic state.
“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future,” Hooper said in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”
“They filed this case in a jurisdiction very favorable to their group, and if they win, they will use the case to prove to the world that they are a legitimate group that represents American Muslims,” he said. “If we win, they will be unmasked in a very public way.”
Horowitz explained that the case has gone on so long because CAIR has hid under different corporate names “to obscure a lot of their wrongdoing.”
“We had to petition the court to tie them down to their real identity,” he said.
Horowitz has insisted that “exposing CAIR as a criminal organization does not give them the right to sue for being exposed in that manner.”
“The case is a vendetta by CAIR against people who exposed their Muslim Brotherhood connection,” he told WND in 2015. “They seem have unlimited foreign money, but we have an unlimited will to resist.”
Horowitz said Wednesday that CAIR’s tactics to prolong the case have included not cooperating with court orders to meet and confer.
“They have filed vicious personal attacks, once accusing me of being Islamophobic because I was ‘David Horowitz,'” he said, referring to the widely cited conservative writer and activist who founded the think tank the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Horowitz said that at the trial, he expects to see complete exposure of CAIR’s founding by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Evidence, he said, will trace CAIR’s support for radical jihadists and its donations from foreign entities.
The trial also will spotlight CAIR’s post-9/11 solicitations of funds for 9/11 victims that actually went to Hamas-based groups, and its subversion of the FBI and law enforcement, employing, he said, “the Muslim civil rights persona the way a wolf wears sheep’s clothing.”
Horowitz cautioned that while CAIR doesn’t have a case, the Saudi-funded group “can chill the First Amendment by making it so expensive to speak against them that no one can challenge them.”
He warned that WND must continue to be vigilant: “In the end, CAIR can just keep getting more and more money from overseas and burn out opposition with lawsuits.”
Legal fees paid by WND, besides those paid for by insurance, total hundreds of thousands of dollars before the trial.
“WND has carried the burden of these costs not because it is a party named in the lawsuit,” explained Joseph Farah, founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND.
“Instead, we have done so because no one else stepped forward to do so – to defend the Gaubatzes personally, to take the fight to the Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR, to defend any attacks CAIR might direct toward the integrity of our book, “Muslim Mafia,” and, more generally, to stand up for the First Amendment.”
Garbus, who has appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court along with trial and appellate courts in more than 100 cases, told WND in 2010 he sees the “Muslim Mafia” case as a “continuation of a struggle being carried out throughout the world” to guard freedom of speech.
“I think a book has a right to be out there, and any attempt to stop the book, I think, would be violating the First Amendment,” he said.
Garbus has been in the thick of numerous groundbreaking and highly controversial First Amendment cases over the past five decades, from Daniel Ellsberg’s battle over the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War and Lenny Bruce’s famous obscenity charges to radio host Don Imus’ lawsuit against CBS after he was fired for his remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team.
Other clients have included activist Cesar Chavez, actor Robert Redford, actor Al Pacino, director Spike Lee, writer Samuel Beckett and Czech playwright Vaclav Havel. Later, when Havel became president of the Czech Republic, Garbus was invited to help write the nation’s constitution.
One of his many seminal cases was Ashton v. Kentucky, in which the Supreme Court ruled in 1966 that libel could no longer be criminally prosecuted.
Garbus believes Americans have an interest in exposure of the CAIR documents, because they are relevant to federal law enforcement officials’ concerns about the group’s ties to terrorist operatives that threaten the nation’s security.
Garbus has said the Gaubatz lawsuit has similarities to his defense of legal author and CNN commentator Jeffrey Toobin, who allegedly violated a confidentiality agreement with Iran-Contra investigator Lawrence E. Walsh in the early 1990s when he published a book about his experience as a member of the prosecution team. Garbus won the case on First Amendment grounds.
‘This book will shake you’
The highlights of “Muslim Mafia” include:
New evidence that CAIR was launched to support the Hamas terrorist group and has transferred tens of thousands of dollars to a group convicted as Hamas’ top fundraising arm in the U.S. – money that ended up aiding terrorist attacks on Israelis and Americans;
Internal documents showing CAIR, despite claims of cooperating with law enforcement, actively works behind the scenes to mislead and deceive the FBI on behalf of terrorism suspects – and has even cultivated Muslim moles inside law enforcement who have tipped off FBI terror targets;
CAIR is more closely tied to al-Qaida than previously reported;
CAIR claims to represent all Muslim Americans; however, it has victimized some 100 indigent Muslims in a massive fraud and threatened them when they tried to go to the media; and internally, personnel complaints reveal CAIR discriminates against Shiite Muslims and Muslim women within its own headquarters;
CAIR and its sister fronts are funded by foreign Muslim Brotherhood sources;
CAIR leaders share the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goal to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shariah law:
The Muslim Brotherhood investment in corporate America will be used to pressure U.S. companies into compliance with Islamic principles.
“There’s a recent book that came out called ‘Muslim Mafia,’” he told a conference in 2010.
“Have any of you read this? Have any of you ever seen it? I encourage you to get this book – ‘Muslim Mafia.’ … This book will scare you. This book will open your eyes. This book will shake you. What this book says is frightening,”
As former FBI agent Mike Rolf acknowledges in “Muslim Mafia,” “CAIR has had a number of people in positions of power within the organization that have been directly connected to terrorism and have either been prosecuted or thrown out of the country.” According to another FBI veteran familiar with cases involving CAIR officials, “Their offices have been a turnstile for terrorists and their supporters.”
The list includes:
Ghassan Elashi: One of CAIR’s founding directors, he was convicted in 2004 of illegally shipping high-tech goods to terror state Syria and is serving 80 months in prison. He was also convicted of providing material support to Hamas in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. He was chairman of the charity, which provided seed capital to CAIR. Elashi is related to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook.
Muthanna al-Hanooti: The CAIR director’s home was raided in 2006 by FBI agents in connection with an active terrorism investigation. Agents also searched the offices of his advocacy group, Focus on Advocacy and Advancement of International Relations, which al-Hanooti operates out of Dearborn, Michigan, and Washington, D.C. Al-Hanooti, who emigrated to the U.S. from Iraq, formerly helped run a suspected Hamas terror front called LIFE for Relief and Development. Its Michigan offices also were raided in September 2006. In 2004, LIFE’s Baghdad office was raided by U.S. troops, who seized files and computers. Al-Hanooti is related to Sheik Mohammed al-Hanooti, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
“Al-Hanooti collected over $6 million for support of Hamas,” according to a 2001 FBI report, and was present with CAIR and Holy Land officials at a secret Hamas fundraising summit held in 1993 at a Philadelphia hotel. Prosecutors added his name to the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.
Although Al-Hanooti denies supporting Hamas, he has praised Palestinian suicide bombers as “martyrs” who are “alive in the eyes of Allah.”
Abdurahman Alamoudi: Another CAIR director, he is serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism. Alamoudi, who was caught on tape complaining that bin Laden hadn’t killed enough Americans in the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, was one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
Siraj Wahhaj: A member of CAIR’s board of advisers, Wahhaj was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The radical Brooklyn imam was close to convicted terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and defended him during his trial.
“Muslim Mafia,” citing co-author’s Sperry’s previous book “Infiltration” as well as terror expert Steven Emerson’s research, reports that Wahhaj, a black convert to Islam, is converting gang members to Islam and holding “jihad camps” for them. With a combination of Islam and Uzis, he has said, the street thugs will be a powerful force for Islam the day America “will crumble.”
Wahhaj was a key speaker at CAIR’s 15th annual fund-raising banquet in Arlington, Virginia, in 2009.
Randall “Ismail” Royer: The former CAIR communications specialist and civil-rights coordinator is serving 20 years in prison in connection with the Virginia Jihad Network, which he led while employed by CAIR at its Washington headquarters. The group trained to kill U.S. soldiers overseas, cased the FBI headquarters and cheered the space shuttle Columbia tragedy. Al-Qaida operative Ahmed Abu Ali, convicted of plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush, was among those who trained with Royer’s Northern Virginia cell.
Bassam Khafagi: Another CAIR official, Khafagi was arrested in 2003 while serving as CAIR’s director of community affairs. He pleaded guilty to charges of bank and visa fraud stemming from a federal counter-terror probe of his leadership role in the Islamic Assembly of North America, which has supported al-Qaida and advocated suicide attacks on America. He was sentenced to 10 months in prison and deported to his native Egypt.
Laura Jaghlit: A civil-rights coordinator for CAIR, her Washington-area home was raided by federal agents after 9/11 as part of an investigation into terrorist financing, money laundering and tax fraud. Her husband Mohammed Jaghlit, a key leader in the Saudi-backed SAAR network, is a target of the still-active probe. Jaghlit sent two letters accompanying donations – one for $10,000, the other for $5,000 – from the SAAR Foundation to Sami al-Arian, now a convicted terrorist. In each letter, according to a federal affidavit, “Jaghlit instructed al-Arian not to disclose the contribution publicly or to the media. “Investigators suspect the funds were intended for Palestinian terrorists via a U.S. front called WISE, which at the time employed an official who personally delivered a satellite phone battery to Osama bin Laden. The same official also worked for Jaghlit’s group. In addition, Jaghlit donated a total of $37,200 to the Holy Land Foundation, which prosecutors say is a Hamas front. Jaghlit subsequently was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.
Nihad Awad: Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land case puts CAIR’s executive director at the Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in 1993 that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charitable giving. During the meeting, according to FBI transcripts, Awad was recorded discussing the propaganda effort. He mentions Ghassan Dahduli, whom he worked with at the time at the Islamic Association for Palestine, another Hamas front. Both were IAP officers. Dahduli’s name also was listed in the address book of bin Laden’s personal secretary, Wadi al-Hage, who is serving a life sentence in prison for his role in the U.S. embassy bombings. Dahduli, an ethnic-Palestinian like Awad, was deported to Jordan after 9/11 for refusing to cooperate in the terror investigation. (An April 28, 2009, letter from FBI assistant director Richard C. Powers to Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. – which singles out CAIR chief Awad for suspicion – explains how the group’s many Hamas connections caused the FBI to sever ties with CAIR.) Awad’s and Dahduli’s phone numbers are listed in a Muslim Brotherhood document seized by federal investigators revealing “important phone numbers” for the “Palestine Section” of the Brotherhood in America. The court exhibit showed Hamas fugitive Mousa Abu Marzook listed on the same page with Awad.
Omar Ahmad: U.S. prosecutors also named CAIR’s founder and chairman emeritus as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Ahmad, too, was placed at the Philadelphia meeting, FBI special agent Lara Burns testified at the trial. Prosecutors also designated him as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee” in America. Ahmad, like his CAIR partner Awad, is ethnic-Palestinian. (Though both Ahmad and Awad were senior leaders of IAP, the Hamas front, neither of their biographical sketches posted on CAIR’s website mentions their IAP past.)
Nabil Sadoun: A CAIR board member, Sadoun has served on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research, which investigators believe to be a key Hamas front in America. In fact, Sadoun co-founded UASR with Hamas leader Marzook. The Justice Department added UASR to the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case. In 2010, Sadoun was ordered deported to his native Jordan. An immigration judge referenced Sadoun’s relationship with Hamas and the Holy Land Foundation during a deportation hearing.
Mohamed Nimer: CAIR’s research director also served as a board director for UASR, the strategic arm for Hamas in the U.S. CAIR neglects to mention Nimer’s and Sadoun’s roles in UASR in their bios.
Rafeeq Jaber: A founding director of CAIR, Jaber was the long-time president of the Islamic Association for Palestine. In 2002, a federal judge found that “the Islamic Association for Palestine has acted in support of Hamas.” In his capacity as IAP chief, Jaber praised Hezbollah attacks on Israel. He also served on the board of a radical mosque in the Chicago area.
Rabith Hadid: The CAIR fundraiser was a founder of the Global Relief Foundation, which after 9/11 was blacklisted by the Treasury Department for financing al-Qaida and other terror groups. Its assets were frozen in December 2001. Hadid was arrested on terror-related charges and deported to Lebanon in 2003.
Hamza Yusuf: The FBI investigated the CAIR board member after 9/11, because just two days before the attacks, he made an ominous prediction to a Muslim audience. “This country is facing a terrible fate, and the reason for that is because this country stands condemned,” Yusuf warned. “It stands condemned like Europe stood condemned because of what it did. And lest people forget, Europe suffered two world wars after conquering the Muslim lands.”
This is a Christian Right blog. This means there is religious freedom, free speech, Constitutional Original Intent, Pro-Israel, Anti-Islamist and a dose of Biblical Morality (Pro-Life & anti-homosexual agenda) content in this blog.