Analysis of ISIS’s Claims of Responsibility for Terrorist Attacks Carried Out Abroad


The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) has put together an analysis of Islamic terrorist attacks that ISIS has taken credit.

 

The ITIC divides ISIS claims into a “short form” and a “long form”. The short form claims are classed as ISIS inspired. The long form claims are classed as ISIS directed.

 

The short form claims occur primarily in Western nations such as the recent Islamic terrorist attacks in Spain. The long form claims are located primarily in Muslim dominated nations.

 

The differentiation is interesting yet in my opinion, whether inspired or directed, the operation is a horrendous evil that must be dealt with in a brutal manner. A brutal response is standard procedure in Middle Eastern and Maghreb (North African Muslim) nations. Due to the influence of Leftist Multicultural politics, a brutal response is politically incorrect.

 

Unless Western nations can eschew political correctness, Islamic terrorists will continue to ravage Western nations.

 

JRH 8/21/17

Please Support NCCR

*************

Analysis of ISIS’s Claims of Responsibility for Terrorist Attacks Carried Out Abroad

 

Published August 20, 2017

Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

 

Full document in PDF 

 

Overview[1]

 

This study examines the forms of ISIS’s claims of responsibility for terrorist attacks it carried out abroad (i.e., not in Iraq and Syria, its “core countries”). It covers 22 claims of responsibility for attacks carried out between June 2016 and June 2017. The study shows a close correlation between the form of the various claims and the types and locations of the attacks. The ITIC is of the opinion that the insights gained from the study can be a used as a methodological tool to examine ISIS claims of responsibility and assess their significance.

 

  • Most of the attacks examined for this study were carried out by ISIS in Western countries (the United States and western Europe), some in Arab-Muslim countries (Egypt, Turkey Iran) and some in others(Israel, Russia, Kenya). In ITIC assessment, most of the attacks in the West were ISIS-inspired, that is, inspired by but not directed by ISIS, without its logistic support or the involvement of its external operational headquarters in choosing a target or reaching it. Some of the attacks (especially in Arab-Muslim countries) were planned by ISIS, and preceded by the methodical collection of intelligence, procuring weapons and training the operative or operatives who carried them out.

 

  • A comparison of the various claims of responsibility indicates that three different patternsare used:

 

  • The “short form:”The most frequently used type of claim of responsibility. It uses phrases and terms that repeat themselves in most of the announcements. In ITIC assessment the short form is relevant mostly for ISIS-inspired attacks carried out in the West. The announcements are composed after the attack and disseminated within a short time (usually the day after the attack). Apparently whoever composes the announcements prefers not to include unnecessary details because the full picture is not yet sufficiently clear and in order not to reveal the fact that the announcements were written after the attack and the terrorists who carried out the attack do not have an organizational link to ISIS.[2]Short-form announcements are similar to one another but not identical (with small, insignificant differences in terminology and style).

 

  • The “long form:”Such claims of responsibility are long and detailed, and include information about the attack and explicit reasons for their having been carried out. They are issued mainly for attacks which were planned in advance and for which ISIS paid attention to the aspect of propaganda. They are most commonly used for attacks carried out in Arab-Muslim countries. They are regularly issued in Syria, Iran and other countries where there are branches of ISIS (e.g., the Sinai Peninsula). The attacks examined for this study revealed four such claims of responsibility: for the suicide bombing attack in the Coptic cathedral in Cairo (December 12, 2016); the shooting attack in the nightclub in the heart of Istanbul (January 1, 2017), and the combined suicide bombing and shooting attack in Tehran (June 7, 2017). The announcement issued after the suicide bombing attack in Manchester (May 22, 2017) also belongs to that category.[3]

 

  • Claims of responsibility including videos:About one third of the short-form announcements issued after ISIS-inspired attacks included videos, in most cases published after the attack. In each instance the video was filmed at the initiative of the terrorists who carried out the attack. They photographed themselves before the attack and sent the pictures to ISIS, which were published by its Amaq news agency(or by other media). There were also several instances of attacks photographed and the pictures published in real time. The videos included threats against Western countries and oaths of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The inclusion of videos increases the propaganda impact of the attacks. The attack in Tehran, which was well-planned, was photographed in real time as part of the overall the plan. In Syria and Iraq, and other Arab-Muslim countries where provinces of ISIS operate. It is very common for long-form claims of responsibility to be accompanied by videos prepared in advance (especially when suicide bombing attacks are carried out).

 

Larossi Abballa, who stabbed a French police officer and his partner to death in the residential commune of Magnanville, north-west of Paris. He photographed himself with his cell phone. As part of the video he recorded himself swearing allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (Amaq, June 14, 2016).

 

  • During the period studied, one instance of an ISIS-inspired attack was found for which ISIS did not claim responsibility. On June 8, 2016, two terrorist operatives carried out a shooting attack in the Sarona commercial and entertainment complex in the heart of Tel Aviv (four killed, seven wounded). The two attackers were inspired by ISIS; one of them had been influenced by ISIS ideology while studying in Jordan. They were assisted by a third operative, who provided them with weapons. ISIS did not claim responsibility for the attack despite the media capital it could have made from inspiring an attack in Tel Aviv. ISIS’s motives for not claiming responsibility are unclear. It is possible that ISIS did not have sufficient information about the attack while it was being carried out to indicate the terrorists had been inspired by the organization.

 

  • How reliable are ISIS’s claims of responsibility? In ITIC assessment, most of the attacks for which ISIS claims responsibility were in fact carried out by its operatives(planned attacks), or by terrorists who were inspired by the organization(inspired attacks). However, those are exceptional cases. For example, through its Amaq news agency, ISIS claimed responsibility for the combined shooting and stabbing attack carried out near the Nablus Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem (June 16, 2017). According to the announcement, the attack was carried out by the “lions of the caliphate in the Palestine Province [of ISIS].” In ITIC assessment, the announcement was false, and reflected ISIS’s desire to boast of a success in a symbolic location such as “Palestine,” given the severe pressure exerted on the organization in Syria and Iraq.

 

In conclusion, an examination of the claims of responsibility revealed a connection between the pattern of announcement and the nature and location of the attackShort-form announcements seem to indicate an ISIS-inspired attack, usually carried out in a Western country, primarily by Muslims or people who have converted to Islam, been radicalized, and identify with ISIS’s ideology. Long-form announcements, on the other hand, seem to indicate a previously-planned ISIS attack. They are usually carried out in Syria, Iraq and Arab-Muslim countries, where ISIS has high operational capabilities.[4] Videos are included in claims of responsibility for both ISIS-inspired attacks and planned attacks. The difference between them is that in ISIS-inspired attacks the inclusion of a video is improvised and inserted on the initiative of the terrorists who carry them out, and then disseminated by ISIS’s propaganda machine. In planned attacks, publishing videos is part of preparations for the attack and attention is given to the aspect of propaganda. ISIS uses many languages in its announcements, depending on the target audience (Arabic and English are popular languages for the videos).

 

Composition and style of ISIS’s claims of responsibility

 

Short-form announcements

 

*** The following are the various linguistic and contentcharacteristics of claims of responsibility issued as short-form announcements:

 

  • Headline: The headline includes the source of the announcement (usually ISIS’s Amaq news agency), the date and the degree of urgency.

 

  • Body of the announcement: The announcement is usually written in modern Arabic, short and succinct. In most cases the language is grammatically correct.

 

  • Source: Information is often attributed to “a security source.” In ITIC assessment, that creates the impression (not always accurate) that ISIS has access to “security sources” with knowledge about the attack in whatever country it occurred. Sometimes only a “source” is mentioned.

 

  • Timing of releasing the announcement: In most instances, the announcement is issued the day after the attack. In exceptional instances, it is issued on the same day or two days later.

 

  • Language: ISIS issues the announcements in Arabic, but obviously makes the attempt to issue them in the language of the country where the attack took place. For ISIS-inspired attacks, some of the announcements are also presented in English, to increase the impact of ISIS’s message on Western audiences. The claim of responsibility for the attack at the night club in Istanbul also appeared in Turkish.

 

  • Publisher: Most of the claims of responsibility for attacks in the West are issued by ISIS’s Amaq news agency. It also issues claims of responsibility for attacks carried out in Syria, Lebanon and the Arab-Muslim world. Most of the announcements in the Middle East are issued by Haq, another ISIS news agency. In one instance (the attack in Manchester) Amaq issued a short announcement in Arabic and Haq issued two longer announcements, one in Arabic and one in English.

 

  • Names of the operatives: Generally speaking, the names and pictures of the operatives who carried out attacks do not appear. On exceptional occasions the aka of the terrorist, which relates to his country of origin, does appear. The aka is not necessarily accurate: in one instance a terrorist was reported as “Abu Yusuf the Belgian,” when in fact he came from Algeria.

 

  • Description of the attack: Attacks are described as “attacks” or “operational actions“. On rare occasions the term is “an armed attack“. In ITIC assessment, there is no real difference between the terms. Another term used is “an act of self-sacrifice,” which describes a suicide bombing attack (which are fundamentally different from other types of attacks).

 

  • Number of victims: Often the number of victims is not mentioned (possibly because of the lack of precise information). Sometimes the number is a combination of those killed and wounded. That is done to magnify the attackand make it seem like a greater “achievement.”

 

  • Terms for the coalition attacking ISIS: In most instances, the forces of the coalition attacking ISIS are referred to as “Crusaders.” Sometimes the coalition is referred to as “international.” However, the word “Christian” appears more than “Crusaders” to describe the people who are the targets of ISIS attacks. In ISIS’s perception a religious war is being fought, Muslims against Christians, in which Muslims indiscriminately attack Christians.

 

  • Reason for the attack: The most common reason for an attack comes in answer to ISIS’s call to attack the countries of the coalition fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. The objective is to exert pressure on the citizens of the coalition countries, creating public opinion to stop the attacks on the Islamic State.

 

Structure of a short-form claim of responsibility for an ISIS-inspired attack

 

Analysis of long-form announcements

 

** Long-form announcement have several unique features:

 

  • Pattern and language: The long-form announcements are written in classic literary Arabic, are clearly Islamic in style, and use religious terminology. For example, mushrikin(polytheist), fitna(civil war), amir al-mu’minin (ruler of the faithful), Salibyin (Crusaders), and khilafa(caliphate). Alongside such terms there are also worlds from modern Arabic.

 

  • Description, location and manner of the attack: The attack is described at length and has details which do not appear in short-form announcements. For example, a suicide bomber with an explosive belt blew himself up in an [sic] suicide bombing attack targeting a gathering of local Christians [i.e., Copts] in the central cathedral in Cairo. The location of the attack is mentioned to stress the size of the attack and because it was centrally located and crowded. Other long-form announcements were issued for the attacks on the nightclub in Istanbul and the Manchester Arena to illustrate that they were carried out in crowded sites.

 

  • Detailed description of the target using Islamic terminology: Long-form announcements include details about the targets. In Egypt, the Coptswere called Crusaders (Salibyin) or “Christians in Egypt.” The announcement also referred to Muslims who had allegedly abandoned Islam, calling them “infidels” and “abandoners of Islam.” The announcement about the attack in the nightclub in Istanbul accused Turkey of being an Islamic country that had abandoned Islam, calling it “the defender of the cross” (i.e., as having left Islam).

 

Justification for the attacks

 

  • The announcements chosen for examination indicate that the justification for carrying out terrorist attacks,including indiscriminate attacks, is based on religious arguments, at the center of which is the struggle of Muslims against Christians and “infidels,” that is, people of other religions holding different beliefs. The terrorist who carries out the attack is called a “soldier” in the ranks of the Islamic State, who fights against its enemies under the direction of the “emir of the faithful,” that is, the caliph (ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi). Another justification for the attacks appearing in many announcements is revenge against the coalition countries and other enemiesfighting ISIS, which it represents as enemies of Islam and Muslims. ISIS exerts pressure on their citizens by terrifying them (the announcements use the term irhab, which means to frighten or sow fear among people, and does not mean to carry out a terrorist attack).

 

The main message sent by the claims of responsibility and ISIS’s primary objective as reflected in them is the following: ISIS continues to wage a holy war (jihad) against its many enemies, including Christians (“Crusaders”), Shi’ites (rejecters of Islam), Muslims who abandoned Islam, and anyone who is not monotheistic, according to ISIS’s interpretation. ISIS’s primary objective is to spread its version of Islam around the globe following its victory over the various “infidels.” That is an overall goal when has no genuine chance of being achieved, but it turned a large number of states and population groups into enemies, which ISIS feels it has religious justification to kill.

 

Representing terrorism as a religious war between Muslims and Christians. The cover of the July 2017 issue of ISIS’s English-language magazine, Dabiq. In the picture an Islamic State “soldier” tears down a cross atop a church. The cover of the magazine reads, “Break the Cross” (Dabiq, issue #15, July 2016).

 

Full document in PDF

 

[1] The full English version of this bulletin will appear on the ITIC website. The full Hebrew version can be accessed on the ITIC website. ↑
[2] In the past ISIS did not customarily issue claims of responsibility for ISIS-inspired attacks. Apparently, during 2016, when they became a significant modus operandi in the West, a general announcement was composed that was relevant for ISIS-inspired attacks. ↑
[3] Other examples of attacks carried out in Europe, after which a long-form claim of responsibility was issued, were the attacks at the airport in Brussels and the attack near the headquarters of the EU (both on March 22, 2016). It was a well-planned attack and considerable attention was paid to the aspect of propaganda. ↑
[4] Attacks carried out by ISIS operatives in Syria and Iraq were not examined in this study. ↑

______________

About ITIC

 

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) was established in 2002. It is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center (IICC), a national site dedicated to the memory of fallen of the Israeli intelligence community. The ITIC is located near Gelilot, north of Tel Aviv, and is directed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich. The objective of the ITIC is to collect, study, and disseminate information mainly about terrorism and intelligence.

 

The main research topics in the field of terrorism:

 

  • The Palestinian terrorist organizations, their ideology, activities and military capabilities, their political activity, and their international battle for hearts and minds.

 

  • The Palestinian Authority and the de-facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip.

 

  • The Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

  • Hezbollah in Lebanon.

 

  • Global jihad organizations, mainly ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

 

  • Funding and marketing terrorism.

 

  • States which sponsor terrorism, mainly Iran and Syria.

 

  • The campaign to delegitimize Israel.

 

  • Anti-Semitism and incitement to terrorism and hatred directed against the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

 

  • Iran and its policy toward terrorism and the State of Israel.

 

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center employs a staff of experts who research the various aspects of terrorism. They monitor the day-to-day events in the field of terrorism, collect the relevant information, process and analyze the data, and regularly issue information bulletins and in-depth studies about the ITIC’s fields of interest. The ITIC publications include periodic and in-depth studies on various issues.

 

The Institute for the Research of Intelligence and Policy operating as part of the ITIC is engaged in research on intelligence issues. Its main topics are READ THE REST

 

State Department Hosts Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups


One of the things that sealed the deal for me to vote for Donald Trump in 2016 was his anti-Islamic terrorism and anti-Muslim immigration stand. I have recently become convinced that President Trump’s National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster is removing pro-Trump people from the National Security Council (NSC). What’s up with that?

 

Now I am finding out President Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is schmoozing with radical Islamists that hate America and Israel. What’s up with that?

Here are the radical Muslim details from Freedom Outpost.

 

JRH 8/13/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

State Department Hosts Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups

 

By TIM BROWN 

AUGUST 12, 2017

Freedom Outpost

 

While President Donald Trump is but one man, he was very vocal about Islam and speaking out against it, but it appears that those he chose to fill positions in his administration just don’t have the same mindset, and the latest to demonstrate this is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as he hosted designated terror organization and Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), along with other Muslims Brotherhood front groups at the State Department on Thursday.

 

Jordan Schachtel at Conservative Review that the meeting with State Department representatives to discuss the ongoing situation in Jerusalem was posted by the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP).

 

Schachtel writes:

 

The delegation was brought together by an umbrella conglomerate of Islamist outfits known as the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). They went to the State Dept. to discuss the “ongoing Al-Aqsa Mosque crisis and Israel’s denial of religious freedom in Jerusalem, which is holy to the three Abrahamic faiths,” the AMP website said.

 

In July, Palestinian terrorists stormed outside the Al-Aqsa mosque compound and assassinated two Israeli police officers, setting off a diplomatic firestorm that would result in Israel securing the facility with metal detectors (which would later be removed due to international pressure).

 

Represented at the meeting included a CAIR official and members of other suspected Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Islamic Circle of North America and the Islamic Shura Council of North America.

 

The delegation included Osama Abu Irshaid, a leader at AMP and an open supporter of Hamas. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson reported that he once served as the editor of “Al-Zaitounah” periodical, which Emerson describes as “pro-Hamas propaganda.”

 

Emerson has compared AMP as a whole to a “Hamas-support network” that mimics the Hamas-funding organizations that federal prosecutors shut down during the George W. Bush administration.

 

Islamic expert and author of numerous books on the subject, Robert Spencer wrote, “This is the kind of thing that should have ended with the inception of the ‘Drain the Swamp’ administration.”

 

“Unfortunately, Trump appointed too many people who did not share his vision, and so that vision is not being implemented, and Obama holdovers are still in charge,” he added.

 

All of these groups are known Muslim Brotherhood front groups who want Islam to dominate the world.

 

They have the same ideology as Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch, does when he announced:

 

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.”

 

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, who was a part of the delegation to the State Department, once called for Islamic law to dominate the world, declaring: “Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

 

Additionally, what many fail to remember regarding the Palestinians is that the Palestine National Charter of 1964 states:

 

We, the Palestinian Arab people, who believe in its Arabism and in its right to regain its homeland, to realize its freedom and dignity, and who have determined to amass its forces and mobilize its efforts and capabilities in order to continue its struggle and to move forward on the path of holy war (al-jihad) until complete and final victory has been attained.

 

In 1988, Hamas formed its own covenant in which it cites Imam Hassan al Banna:

 

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

 

Nothing in this has changed! Not one word.

 

Now, look, I’m not Zionist by any stretch of the imagination [Blog Editor: In full disclosure, I consider myself a Christian Zionist fully supporting the existence of Israel as God’s plan], but when you have people who have put in print that they seek the utter destruction of an entire state and its people, and on top of that, their fellow brothers in the “hood” (Muslim Brotherhood) are literally Hell bent on taking over the US and the West in the name of the false prophet Muhammed and Allah, then there is a serious issue there.

 

While Trump has backed the idea of doing what the United Arab Emirates did and designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization, Tillerson has done everything he can, just like H. R. McMaster to whitewash Islam and engage in taqiyya on the behalf of Islamists by seeking to block such efforts.

 

“There are elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that have become parts of governments,” he said, pointing out parliaments in Bahrain and Turkey as examples.

 

“Those elements… have done so by renouncing violence and terrorism,” he said.

 

“So in designating the Brotherhood in its totality as a terrorist organization… I think you can appreciate the complexities this enters into our relations with [governments in the region],” said Tillerson.

 

Nope, I can’t see the complexities, especially in light of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, which are to destroy the West and claim it in the name of Allah.

 

Tillerson is just demonstrating he is a stooge for Islam, just like others before him.

 

Welcoming these people who hold to these doctrines of demons into our places of government is not only a bad move, but in my opinion is dangerously close, if not over the line, to treason.

 

___________________

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

 

Copyright © 2017 FreedomOutpost.com

 

Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List


Unsurprisingly, the Middle East Forum (MEF) has been the recipient of Fake News lies all based on the Multiculturalist accusation of Islamophobia. Evidently the lies have become so huge that the MEF has decided to answer those lies with a Top Ten List.

 

Below is an email alert introduction to that Top Ten List which I will follow with cross post of that list.

 

JRH 8/11/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List

 

By Greg Roman

Sent 8/9/2017 3:22 PM

Sent by Middle East Forum

 

Dear Reader:

As the Middle East Forum’s reach and influence expands, so too does the flurry of ad hominem, distorted, and plainly false attacks on the organization, mostly from Islamists and the far Left.

Institutions leading this assault include the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), J Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, and most recently the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has a special place in our hearts for funding anti-MEF research.

Our opponents attack us for different reasons. Islamist activists loathe our national security views, advancement of women’s rights, and efforts to protect freedoms of moderate Muslim authors, activists, and publishers. Israel-haters oppose our efforts to puncture Palestinian illusions. Academics want to discredit our efforts to improve Middle East studies in North America. America-haters can pretty much take their pick of reasons.

Regardless of their motives, they all draw on the same tired canards that we so often refuted on an ad hoc basis. To save the curious some legwork, we are publishing a list of the top ten falsehoods, refuting them all at once, and maybe once and for all. Please take a look.

Regards,

Gregg Roman
Director Middle East Forum

 

+++

Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List

 

August 9, 2017

Middle East Forum

 

The Middle East Forum (MEF) is the object of repeated falsehoods. To clear the record, here follows the top ten and our corrections.

 

Falsehood 1: The Middle East Forum is anti-Muslim, or “Islamophobic.”

 

False Statements

 

Center for American Progress: “The Middle East Forum is at the center of the Islamophobia network.”

 

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): Daniel Pipes is “considered by many Muslims to be America’s leading Islamophobe.”

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center: Daniel Pipes is “at the center of what is a large and evolving network of Islam-bashing activists.”

 

Fact 1: Far from being biased against Muslims, MEF challenges a radical ideology responsible for unfathomable Muslim suffering, and one which most Muslims reject. Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes has been emphasizing the distinction between Islamism and the Islamic religion – and between the “completely justified fear of Islamists and unjustified fear of all Muslims” – for decades.

 

The only people who maintain there is little or no distinction between detesting Islamism and detesting Muslims are Islamists themselves and fellow travelers of the sort quoted above. The “Islamophobia” accusations they level at MEF and others are designed to conflate Islamism and Islam, claiming an attack on one is an attack on the other.

 

This conflation also attempts to delegitimize non-Islamist Muslims working to free their faith from the grip of extremists, and it is no coincidence that Muslim reformers are often viciously attacked. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left organization known for its often inaccurate claims, lists Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation alongside Mr. Pipes as an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

 

The SPLC has branded Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz as an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

 

A lot of money finances these allegations. The Center for American Progress, for example, received a $200,000 grant from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) to “research and track the activities” of the Middle East Forum and other NGOs working to combat the spread of radical Islam in America. The Brookings Institution’s recent focus on so-called “Islamophobia” in America likely has much to do with its decade-long partnership with Qatar, which provided it with a $14.8 million 4-year grant in 2013.

 

The latest organization to level the “Islamophobia” accusation at MEF is the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF), which lashed out after we revealed publicly that it had provided $330,524 to two extremist organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief. It turns out SVCF is getting paid too. According to its 990 form, the extremist International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) provided SVCF with $500,000 in “program assistance” in 2015.

 

Falsehood 2: Daniel Pipes regards Muslim organizations as subversive.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: “Pipes views almost every possible Muslim activity as subversive and threatening.”

 

Center for American Progress: “The alarmist rhetoric of Daniel Pipes … brand[s] Muslims, Sharia, and even the instruction of Arabic as affronts to American freedom.

 

Fact 2: In keeping with Mr. Pipes’ oft-repeated belief that “radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution,” MEF’s Islamist Watch project was established with a mission to “expose the Islamist organizations that currently dominate the debate, while identifying and promoting the work of moderate Muslims.”

 

MEF has a long history of supporting, employing, and collaborating with Muslims working to free their community and faith from the grip of Islamists.

 

See a list here of Muslim organizations the Forum regards as vital allies in this fight, some of whom it helps fund.

 

Falsehood 3: Pipes supports interning Muslims, akin to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: “The Southern Poverty Law Center notes that ‘Pipes endorsed the internment of Muslims in America,’ referencing WWII Japanese American concentration camps as a model to be used against Muslims today.”

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: “Daniel Pipes, president of Middle East Forum, has written in support of the model of Japanese internment camps in relation to American Muslims.”

 

Fact 3: This canard is a paradigmatic example of how charges initially levelled by one radical organization metastasize through repetition by others. The SPLC report misquoted at right by Jewish Voice for Peace actually states, “In 2004, Pipes endorsed the internment of ethnic Japanese in American prison camps in World War II and held that up as a model for dealing with Muslims today.”

 

But even this isn’t true. In 2005 an Islamist organization in Canada had to apologize and make a charitable donation to the Middle East Forum for making this claim.

 

The original article did not argue for internment camps as a model (a follow-up explaining how CAIR and others distorted Pipes’ position can be read here), but rather concluded with support for author Michelle Malkin’s thesis about threat profiling: “She correctly concludes that, especially in time of war, governments should take into account nationality, ethnicity, and religious affiliation in their homeland security policies.”

 

Falsehood 4: MEF is wrong to label CAIR as “terrorism-linked.”

 

Clockwise from top left: Randall (“Ismail”) Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Bassem Khafagi, Rabih Haddad, Nabil Sadoun, and Muthanna Al-Hanooti

 

Fact 4: Here are many reasons why MEF can reasonably describe CAIR as “terrorism-linked.”

 

  • CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.

 

  • During that trial, U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis concluded that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR…with Hamas.”

 

  • In 2014, the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim ally of the United States, designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

 

 

  • CAIR itself implicitly acknowledged the truth when it settled a 2004 libel lawsuit against a group making this allegation called Anti-CAIR, with no apology, retraction, or removal of offending Internet materials.

 

Falsehood 5: CAIR, Islamic Relief, and other Muslim groups criticized by MEF are respectable civil rights organizations.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: “Contrary to the Middle East Forum’s smear campaign, CAIR is a nationally-recognized civil rights organization that has received praise from seventeen U.S. Senators and 85 U.S. Representatives from both sides of the political aisle.”

 

Fact 5: CAIR and Islamic Relief are focused on promoting social insularity and distrust of authorities among U.S. Muslims, not defending their civil rights. In fact, both groups frequently host and promote extremist speakers who advocate against civil rights as most Americans understand them.

 

Siraj Wahhaj, for example, preaches that homosexuality is a “disease” of society, that the punishment for adultery is death, and that Muslims shouldn’t have non-Muslim friends. Omar Suleiman has rationalized honor killings, telling women thinking of promiscuity that they could be killed by their fathers for “offending Allah.” Jamal Badawi has said that men have a right to beat their wives. Abdul Nasir Jangda has argued that they have the right to rape their wives.

 

Falsehood 6: CAIR and Islamic Relief have clean bills of health on links to terrorism from the federal government and from charity watchdogs.

 

False Statements

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief … are nonprofit organizations in good standing with federal agencies, and do not appear on any U.S. government list as having been tied to terrorism.”

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: “GuideStar reports … whether a nonprofit organization is identified as a ‘Specially Designated National’ on the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s list. In simpler terms, this is the list of U.S. organizations designated as having links to terrorist organizations. Neither CAIR nor Islamic Relief is on this list.”

 

Fact 7: MEF is a research institution that promotes American interests. Islamist Watch presents factual research on the influence and activity of non-violent U.S.-based Islamist groups and their leaders. Some oppose Israel, to be sure, but most are more focused on targeting women, homosexuals, and others.

 

Campus Watch researches, analyzes, and critiques the academic study of the Middle East. It argues against “analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students,” but it accepts divergent perspectives. Campus Watch recently published a favorable review of a lecture at the City University of New York (CUNY) by Sari Nusseibeh, a former senior PLO representative under Yasser Arafat whose views hardly qualify as pro-Israeli. A cursory examination of the project’s research articles demonstrates that the characterization of Campus Watch as Israel-centered is false. As for the “dossiers,” CW took down those initial eight profiles 15 years ago in favor of an institution-focused survey method.

 

Falsehood 8: Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Forum have funded the political campaigns of Dutch right-wing leader Geert Wilders.

 

False Statements

 

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes are reported to have put some $150,000 of foundation money into his campaign.”

 

Fact 8: Not a penny from Daniel Pipes or the Middle East Forum has gone to Wilders personally, his political party, or his campaign.

 

MEF did provide a grant to pay legal bills in Mr. Wilders’ trial over his film on radical Islam.

 

As the New York Times notes: “the funds that were sent to Geert Wilders were to help him in his legal cases and were not political donations.”

 

Falsehood 9: Campus Watch seeks to stifle academic freedom.

 

False Statements

 

CAIR: Campus Watch [is] part of a larger anti-intellectual campaign aimed at regulating discourse on the Middle East.

 

Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, The Nation: Campus Watch is “neo-McCarthyite” and part of the “New McCarthyism” that seeks to silence anyone with whom it disagrees.

 

Fact 9: Campus Watch critiques contemporary Middle East studies, which years ago jettisoned rigorous scholarship and teaching for politicized, biased, and inferior work. There is nothing wrong with scrutinizing and criticizing academic research.

 

No cliché is more hackneyed, no charge intellectually lazier than that CW engages in “McCarthyism” (see right). Unlike the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Campus Watch—a private organization—neither possesses nor seeks the ability to silence or persecute anyone.

 

Only in the fevered imaginations of some professors do rigorous critiques by outsiders equate with an anti-Communist witch-hunt.

 

Falsehood 10: Daniel Pipes has lost the support of his former academic colleagues

 

False Statements

 

Al Jazeera [interviewing a spokesman from the Center for American Progress]: Pipes has a “scholarly background, but … he has lost the support of many of the people he used to work with, and associate with, when he was a well-respected scholar.”

 

Fact 10: Mr. Pipes never stopped being a “well-respected scholar” When President George W. Bush nominated him to the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003, 30 academics signed a letter in support of the appointment. For a more recent example, Professor Edward Alexander of the University of Washington lavished praise in 2016 on Pipes’ Nothing Abides.

 

That said, it is true that a radicalized academia condemns Pipes and the Forum for their mainstream outlook – and especially for their role in exposing the failure of Middle East studies.

_________________

©1994-2017 The Middle East Forum  

 

MEF About Page

 

With roots going back to 1990, the Middle East Forum has been an independent tax-exempt 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization based in Philadelphia since 1994.

 

Mission

 

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats.

 

The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, we urge bold measures to protect Americans and their allies.

 

In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with the great advances of anarchy.

 

At home, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and works to improve Middle East studies.

 

Methods

 

The Middle East Forum realizes its goals through three main mechanisms:

 

  • Intellectual: The Forum provides context, insights, and policy recommendations through the Middle East Quarterly, staff writings, public lectures, radio and television appearances, and conference calls (see below for details).

 

  • Operational: The Forum exerts an active influence through its projects, including Campus Watch, Islamist Watch, Legal Project, Washington Project, Apartheid Monitor, and Shillman/Ginsburg Writing Fellowship Program (see below for details).

 

  • Philanthropic: The Forum annually distributes US$1.5 million in earmarked donations through its Education Fund, helping researchers, writers, investigators, and activists around the world.

 

Activities

 

 

MEForum.org (this website) hosts a complete archive of Middle East Quarterly articles; articles by MEF staff; audio recordings and summary accounts of guest lectures and conference calls; and MEF alerts for Forum events, media appearances, and news releases.

 

Middle East Quarterly, published since 1994 and edited by Efraim Karsh, it is the only scholarly journal on the Middle East consistent with mainstream American views. Delivering timely analyses, cutting-edge information, and sound policy initiatives, it serves as a valuable resource for policymakers and opinion-shapers.

 

Public Outreach. Television and radio rely on Forum specialists, who appear on virtually all the major American over-the-air and cable news programs, plus stations around the globe. MEF staff also brief ranking officials of the U.S. government, testify before Congress, and conduct studies for executive branch agencies.

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

Religion & Government-


No Government Influence, but Plenty of Religious People Influence Toward Government

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2017

 

Interesting thoughts from “christine andme” at the G+ Community The United States Of America – 2ND REVOLUTION on my post ‘The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”’ posted at the NCCR blog.

 

Her thoughts are based on a 12/2016 video essay by the Youtube channel Call of Duty Goddess. The video title is “How America Passed a Law to Ban Islam”.

 

To the Shores of Tripoli

 

The Call of Duty Goddess outlines very coherently how Islam is incompatible with American Constitutional Law. She brings President Jefferson into her line of thinking based on the first Barbary Pirate was that occurred during Jefferson’s Administration. You should take the time to Google the two Barbary Pirate wars on which Jefferson failed to bring a total victory for the USA. Jefferson’s military action was successful but instead of forcing a complete capitulation from the Muslim pirates, Jefferson tried a diplomatic mission thinking like a Westerner and tried a peace that attempted a mutual common good. Meaning Jefferson gave cash and more to the Muslims and in return the U.S. received some freed American slaves (as in White people captured) and American prisoners. Jefferson’s largesse only temporarily placated the Muslim pirates because they upped their raids of American ship again including making crew and passengers slaves and/or prisoners.

 

The video’s is a bit misleading because there was no 1786 law prohibiting the practice of Islam on American shores. Rather the Call of Duty Goddess using an experience that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter of a meeting between then Ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adj, Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain to fellow Ambassador John Jay. Jefferson quotes the Tripoli Ambassador informing:

 

“Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Obama Could Learn From Thomas Jefferson’s 1801 Response to Muslims During the Barbary Coast War; By Steve Straub; The Federalist Papers; 10/14/14)

 

The Call of Duty Goddess (and apparently several other historical pieces I have perused) believes this early experience with Islam was the push that the later President Jefferson to take military action against the Barbary Pirates.

 

After outlining the incompatibility of Islam with the American Constitution coupled with Jefferson’s presumed mindset on Islam, the Call of Duty Goddess this is the reasoning there is a Separation of Church and State in the Constitution.

 

I can only concur with the Call of Duty Goddess ONLY in the sense that government is separated from religion, BUT religion is not separate from being an influence on government. AND since a significant majority of the Founding Fathers (yes even American Deists like Jefferson) were quite amiable to Judeo-Christian morality, this was the influence expected to keep America good.

 

Since christine mentions Slovakia banning Islam in her post, I thought I’d provide a bit of an update on the Slovakia law. It is true such a ban was passed by the Slovakian legislature on 11/30/16. However, Slovakia’s President Andrej Kiska vetoed the Slovakian legislature on 12/20/16. Fox News reports on 1/31/17 that the Slovakian legislature overrode Kiska’s veto.

 

JRH 8/8/17

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Agreeing with Main Point- ‘Fallacy of Church/State Separation’

 

By christine andme

August 7, 2017

The United States of America – 2nd Revolution

 

I totally agree with the main point of that message.

I want to mention one interesting notion regarding ‘separation of church and state’. The creator of the below video believes it was meant to protect Americans from religions such as Islam. That became law in 1786, which was the same year Thomas Jefferson met with ‘barbaric pirates’ to discuss the jizya (tax that infidels had to pay to Muslims) which was as large as 6% of total budget then. Jefferson studied Koran and figured Islam is intertwined with politics because it comes with Sharia law, and that pushed founding fathers to establish the law to ‘separate church and state’. The video publisher says that is her opinion, and actually that notion is the supporting argument of hers to ultimately assert ‘U.S. passed a law in 1786 to ban Islam from being registered as a religion’ ‘just as Slovakia recently did’.

I have heard that ‘separation of church and state’ is meant that churches wanted to make sure that government would not interfere with churches, which I believed. I also agree that what ACLU etc. is trying to do is simply wrong based on their misinterpretation of the 1st amendment. I don’t know why the factor of Islam has not been discussed by more scholars (well, I think I know: it is the same reason why the fact that Jihad killed 270 million people has not been taught in the US History textbooks…) Anyway, I thought ‘Islam’ being one reason for the ‘separation of church and state’ was interesting perspective.
VIDEO: How America Passed a Law to Ban Islam

 

Posted by  Call of Duty Goddess

Published on Dec 3, 2016
Slovakia Passes Law to BAN ISLAM from Being Registered as a Religion
http://freedomoutpost.com/slovakia-passes-law-to-ban-islam-from-being-registered-as-a-religion/

Islam: Governing Under Sharia
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/islam-governing-under-sharia

Islam 101 – 7 – Sharia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdKSgIwK_6U

Understanding Islamic Law
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/52-understanding-islamic-law.html

Muslims Want Sharia Law in Non-Muslim Countries Robert Spencer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0FpDCZdvHk [Blog Editor: This Youtube account was terminated by Youtube]

YOUR RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-religious-freedom [Blog Editor: Always be wary of ACLU hatred of Christianity]

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic [Pt 2]
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01-2.html

Cornerstone Documents in Virginia and American History: An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom
https://youtu.be/KwAxl701RUo

THE TRUTH OF THE MARINE CORP ANTHEM AND THE UNITED STATES WAR WITH RADICAL ISLAM
https://whtwolf74.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/the-truth-of-the-marine-corp-anthem-and-the-united-states-war-with-radical-islam/

Image 2 of American Peace Commissioners to John Jay, March 28, 1786
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.005_0430_0433/?sp=2

When Thomas Jefferson Read the Qur’an
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/03/26/when-thomas-jefferson-read-the-quran/

 

___________________

Religion & Government-

No Government Influence, but Plenty of Religious People Influence Toward Government

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2017

__________________

Agreeing with Main Point- ‘Fallacy of Church/State Separation’

 

Blog Editor: The title is by the Editor. Christine’s post is edited. Text and links in the video quoted material enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

California: Muslims Attack Counter Jihad Coalition, Law Enforcement Caves to Muslims


On July 19, 2017 I cross posted the Clarion Project notifying readers the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) was shut down by Facebook without explanation. As of today, 8/7/17, Facebook still has not taken CJC out of its jail – CJC Facebook.

 

Just as a side irony, there is a Facebook community with a similar name CounterJihad.com. Wisely, like CJC, this Facebook group has a website as well by the same name – CounterJihad.com. CJC Facebook was undoubtedly shut down by a Muslim complaint trying to prevent the Truth about Islam. I advise massive support for CounterJihad.com Facebook to hopefully counter dhimmitude censorship.

 

NOW I am finding out that CJC live community efforts to enlighten Americans about the truth of Islam in Cerritos, CA has been shut down because a couple of loud-mouth Muslims caused a public disruption at the mall of the same name as the city.

Rather than escorting a couple of noisy Muslims off the mall premises, Cerritos Mall officials forced CJC to close their both inside the mall.

 

Here’s the story at Jihad Watch.

 

JRH 8/7/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

California: Muslims Attack Counter Jihad Coalition, Law Enforcement Caves to Muslims

 

By STEVE AMUNDSON

AUGUST 6, 2017 6:31 PM

Jihad Watch

At first I thought that the two Muslims shouting at us would leave, as they have done in the past. I was wrong; it played out differently on Saturday. They were there to stay with their loud, obnoxious voices until they could get us shut down. The crowd started growing due to the commotion. Soon it numbered in the hundreds.

 

The cause of all of this was that the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) was out on a public outreach in the Cerritos Mall in Cerritos, California, educating the public on the truth of Islam. The CJC was formed several years ago to get the truth into the hands of people, since most of the mainstream media paints Islam as the religion of peace.

 

We have developed over 30 brochures on different aspects of Islam. All are factual and true, not our opinions. They are all based on the doctrines of Islam as set out in the Quran and the Sunnah. On a typical day, we pass out 1,500 or more of these brochures to people, who for the most part are thankful for what we are doing.

We saw an increase in Muslim pushback right after the Islamic State (ISIS) made the news, and then a huge increase in their aggressiveness after President Trump was elected. They will go to great lengths to keep the people from knowing the violence, oppression and brutality that are inherent in what they believe. And now more than ever, they are on the warpath to shut down these truths.

 

This past Saturday, at this venue where we have been going to for a year, Muslim anger came to a head. I called security when things started to get unruly. Soon officers from mall security, along with several Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputies, arrived to try and restore calm and sort things out.

 

To show you how upside down our society is, the mall manager said to me that he was going to have to shut us down early. What? Everything had been going along smoothly until the two Muslims started yelling, shouting at us and creating the hostile environment. They knew if they disturbed and disrupted, that they would win. They shouted at me that they would be there every day looking for us, and would do whatever they had to do to shut us down.

 

It was only a few weeks ago that the Sharia police on Facebook banned our Counter Jihad Coalition Facebook site, and took it down. To this day, I have not received an explanation from them for their action. Facebook is simply Sharia-compliant. Not only us, but many other counter-jihad groups have recently been shut down on Facebook. Our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us by the leftists who are in control of the means of communication.

 

In a similar vein, do you think the Sheriff Deputies escorted the obnoxious, hateful, foul-mouthed Muslims out of the mall? Not a chance! When I asked one of the Deputies if they were going to escort out the unruly Muslims, their response to me was they were waiting to hear from the mall management and what they wanted to do. So much for our law enforcement officials protecting law-abiding citizens. Every time we want to have a public outreach at this mall, we turn in an application and wait until it is approved.

 

After the Deputies failed to escort out the Muslims who were causing the disruption, the mall manager came over to me and said, “We are going to have to shut you down early today.” When I suggested they usher out the unruly Muslims instead, I was told that they have a right to be there and said they would not leave until we left. Did we not have a right to be there? Our dhimmi law enforcement, mall security and mall management seem to be willing to cater to Muslims anytime they are called upon to do so.

 

We will see what happens next week, when I turn in a new application to exercise my right of free speech. Americans better wake up fast and start pushing back on this encroachment of Sharia before our freedoms and rights are gone. Then it will be too late.

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Originally the Cerritos Mall photos were posted at the end on Jihad Watch. I decided to move them in more strategic locations.

 

Jihad Watch Copyright Info

 

 

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 numerous verses of the Qur’an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the “Verse of the Sword”: “Then, when READ THE REST

 

Sharia UK


Victoria Wasteney

 

A fellow member of the G+ Community Kafir Supremacist found a Jihad Watch post exposing European dhimmitude/submission to Islam by an employment tribunal and the UK judiciary.

 

This UK system judged that UK citizen Victoria Wasteney violated the rights of a Muslim colleague by sharing her Born-Again faith in a time the Muslim colleague appeared to have a personal crisis. Enya Nawaz indicated a receptivity to Wasteney’s offer of prayer on a personal level then turned around and filed a complaint of proselytizing on the job.

 

I find it interesting there seems to be no definitive photo of the 25-year-old Islamic Supremacist complainant on any searches I executed. I did find one photo of a twitter account attributed to an “Enya” but I have no idea if it is the same whiner. The twitter photo looks about the same age as 25 and her account is closed to non-approved viewing. Here is that photo:

 

Enya Nawaz – twitter:

 

I recently posted about how Islam stifles Free Speech with its intolerance of criticism by non-Muslims. God help America if the same Free Speech intrusion takes root in the USA when even non-critical offers of Christian empathy becomes against the law.

 

JRH 8/3/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Sharia UK

Posted by Delenda Islam Est

By Christine Douglass-Williams & Samuel Smith

Aug 2, 2:04 PM

Kafir Supremacist

 

UK: Christian woman prosecuted for talking about Christianity to a Muslim colleague

August 2, 2017 12:30 pm; Jihad Watch; By Christine Douglass-Williams

A Christian therapist in England who was suspended after being accused of evangelizing to a Muslim colleague has suffered another loss in court.

Would a Muslim be taken to court for sharing his or her faith with a coworker? Whether or not Victoria Wasteney was proselytizing to her Muslim colleague on the job or not is to be determined in court. However, there remains a larger issue: Western authorities are giving the impression that while Christians are studied under a microscope for accountability, Muslims are not. Some examples:

University of California Berkeley Muslim professor Hatem Bazian has been openly calling for an intifada in America, and he has issued these violent calls at several venues throughout the United States.

Nadia Shoufani, a Toronto-area school teacher who called a Palestinian jihadist who crushed the skull of a four-year-old Israeli girl a hero and martyr, was said to have been investigated by her school board and by Toronto Police. But there has been no followup.

Farrah Marfatia, a principal of a Muslim academy in Mississauga, near Toronto, Canada was instructing parents to teach their children that “homosexuals are cursed by Allah as are the men who imitate or dress up like women.” Once again, there was no followup.

One can imagine the public outcry if Christians or Jews were preaching those same words — the court battles, the disdain. But where is the same reaction when Muslims say this? Instead, we see Victoria Wasteney, a Christian woman, in court for imparting messages about her faith’s love and healing to a Muslim colleague with whom she developed a relationship (or so she thought). While there are rules against proselytizing in places of employment, Wasteney was discussing her faith to a colleague, not to a client.

While Ms. Wasteney is being prosecuted in London, Sharia courts in Britain are sending Muslim women back to abusive husbands.

“Christian Hospital Worker Punished for Sharing Faith Loses Again in Court”, by Samuel Smith, Christian Post, July 29, 2017:

A Christian therapist in England who was suspended after being accused of evangelizing to a Muslim colleague has suffered another loss in court.

Victoria Wasteney, the former head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a hospital in London, was issued a nine-month suspension by East London National Health Service in 2014 after an eight-page complaint was filed against her by a Muslim colleague named Enya Nawaz.

As has been reported, Nawaz and Wasteney, a born-again Christian, developed a relationship while working at the St. John Howard Centre in East London and at points discussed religious differences.

Nawaz’s complaint accused Wasteney of trying to convert her to Christianity. Wasteney reportedly offered to pray with Nawaz, gave her a book authored by a Muslim convert to Christianity and invited her to an event organized by her church.

Wasteney was also accused of putting her hand on Nawaz’s knee while in a prayer and asking God to come to Nawaz.

Wasteney was initially thrown off by the allegations because she thought they had developed a good relationship. She told the Daily Mail in 2015 that she only put her hand on Nawaz’s knee to comfort Nawaz when she was dealing with health problems.

“I put my hand on her knee to comfort her and asked if that was okay, and said, ‘Would you like me to pray for you?’” Wasteney told the Daily Mail, “She said yes, so I asked for God to bring peace and healing. She left the office afterwards and said she was okay.”

Wasteney has denied that her act of giving Nawaz the book I Dared to Call Him Father, was an attempt to convert her.

According to The Telegraph, an East London NHS Foundation Trust disciplinary hearing in February 2014 upheld three charges against Wasteney and found five charges to be unsubstantiated. In the hearing, Wasteney was convicted of “gross misconduct.”

In October 2015, Wasteney won the right to appeal the NHS’ action to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the basis of religious liberty. However, Judge Jennifer Eady ruled against her in April 2016.

“What the court clearly failed to do was to say how, in today’s politically correct world, any Christian can even enter into a conversation with a fellow employee on the subject of religion and not, potentially, later end up in an employment tribunal,” Wasteney was quoted as saying at the time. “If someone sends you friendly text messages, how is one to know that they are offended? I had no idea that I was upsetting her.”

According to the U.K.-based Christian Legal Centre, Wasteney filed for an appeal against Eady’s 2016 decision and appeared in court Thursday. However, a tweet from the advocacy group on Thursday explained that Wasteney’s “permission to appeal has been rejected” and the “legal battle goes on.”….

 

[Blog Editor: This last sentence not a part of the Kafir Islamist/Jihad Watch post but in the Christian Post.]

 

In a video posted online Wednesday, Wasteney said she hoped Thursday’s hearing would grant her permission to seek a full hearing on the matter in an appeals court.

 

+++

Blog Editor: Here is the short video of Victoria Wasteney speaking:

 

VIDEO: Christian NHS worker to appear in court in the next stage of her legal battle

 

Posted by Christian Concern

Published on Jul 26, 2017

 

Victoria, former Head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a London hospital, was suspended for ‘gross misconduct’ for nine months, and then received a written warning following allegations of ‘harassment and bullying’ by a Muslim staff-member.

In October 2015, Victoria won permission to appeal when the judge recognised the significance of her case in protecting religious freedom.

The Judge had said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should consider whether the original ruling had properly applied the European Convention on Human Rights’ strong protection of freedom of religion and expression.

Victoria lost her appeal in April 2016. In the judgment, Judge Eady QC upheld the Tribunal’s ruling, that the NHS had acted reasonably in disciplining Victoria for inviting her colleague to church-related events, praying with her (with consent), and giving her a Christian book.

Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Victoria applied for permission to appeal the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision, but this was rejected.

She is now seeking to challenge this.

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Robert Spencer Defends the West…


In America both the Left and the Right cherish Free Speech enshrined in the First Amendment. Or at least the First Amendment is cherished in the political spectrum’s right to criticize each other, but the Left questions the Free Speech ability of the Right to expose the truth of totalitarian issues supported by the Left. Why? Our Republic was established in rebelling against a totalitarian King between 1776 (actually battles fought in 1775 but Independence declared in 1776) and 1783 (Treaty of Paris). The Left pretends to be the Party of the People but supports Big Government control of society from top to bottom, aka totalitarianism.

 

With this all in mind, I think you will find Andrew Bostom’s book review of Robert Spencer’s “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies)” interesting. It Points out that Islam is no friend of Free Speech and the irony of the Left trying to protect Islam from criticism.

 

JRH 8/2/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

Robert Spencer Defends the West: ‘The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech’

 

By ANDREW G. BOSTOM

JULY 31, 2017

PJ Media

 

FILE – DECEMBER 25, 2013: The Egyptian interim government [sic] has declared the Mohammed Morsi led ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ a terrorist organisation. The action was taken in response to the bombing of the police station in Mansoura earlier this week, which the government has stated was the responsibility of the Brotherhood, despite denials from the group itself. CAIRO, EGYPT – DECEMBER 14: Supporters of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and members of the Muslim Brotherhood chant slogans during a rally on December 14, 2012 in Cairo, Egypt. Opponents and supporters of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi staged final rallies in Cairo ahead of tomorrow’s referendum vote on the country’s draft constitution that was rushed through parliament in an overnight session on November 29. The country’s new draft constitution, passed by a constitutional assembly dominated by Islamists, will go to a referendum vote on December 15. (Photo by Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images)

 

A review of The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), by Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, 2017, 274 pp.

 

———-

 

Twenty-four years ago, the late Mervyn Hiskett, renowned British scholar of the history of jihad and Islamization in sub-Saharan Africa, turned his attention to the looming impact of Islam on his own Britain and Western societies more broadly, including the United States. In his 1993 Some to Mecca Turn To Pray, he articulated presciently the Islamic conundrum now enveloping us, which requires an immediate response if we still cherish individual liberty:

 

As is so often the case when considering Islam, one has to concede the power of certain of its ideas. But when it comes to having these ideas advocated within our own shores, and as alternatives to our own insti­tutions, one must then ask oneself: Which does one prefer? Western secular, pluralist institutions, imperfect as these are? Or the Islamic theo­cratic alternative?

 

And if one decides in favor of one’s own institutions, warts and all, one then has to ask again: How far may the advocacy of Islamic alternatives go, before this becomes downright subversive? And at that point, what should be done about it? Finally, do liberal, demo­cratic politicians have the political and moral guts to do what is needed, or will they simply give way, bit by bit and point by point, to insistent and sustained pressure from the Muslim “Parliament” and other Muslim special-interest lobbies like it?

 

Robert Spencer’s concise, lucid analysis, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), validates Hiskett’s gravest concerns about Islamic subversion: the relentless campaign to abrogate our most basic, unique Western liberty — free expression. With characteristic erudition, attention to detail, and wit (see text box on p. 28, “Did Any Of Them Have Eating Disorders? Those Can Make You Crazy,” from this video), Spencer chronicles how free speech in Western societies has been dangerously eroded by what Hiskett aptly termed “the Muslim ‘Parliament’ and other Muslim special interest lobbies,” in full collaboration with statist Left cultural relativists.

 

The grotesque harmonic convergence between mainstream, totalitarian Islam — epitomized by Sharia “blasphemy” law — and the “democratic” totalitarianism of the Left, derived from Robespierre and the Jacobins through Communist ideologues and leaders Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, is an underlying, recurrent theme of Spencer’s urgent presentation. Indeed the latter, “Dr. Crankley’s Children” (per Whittaker Chambers’ acid 1948 discussion of the Communist legacy on the 100th anniversary of the publication of Marx’s manifesto), and their “softer” statist minions of our era, bear at least as much responsibility for the erosion of Western free speech as institutional Islam and its pious Muslim votaries. Spencer elucidates how, despite superficial appearances of being oddly conjoined:

 

… endeavoring to weaken and destroy the freedom of speech, leftists in the United States have found ready allies in the Muslim community. Many observers have remarked that the Left and Islamic supremacists make strange bedfellows: the former advocate a moral libertinism; the latter are attempting to impose a repressive moral code. What binds these unlikely allies is a shared taste for authoritarianism. Both parties want to stifle dissent, and in doing so both find themselves fighting the same foes. Why not join forces?

 

All 13 of Spencer’s carefully arranged, remarkably compendious chapters have germane (even pathognomonic!) titles, including 10 epigrams:

 

Chapter 1, “Just Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay”

Chapter 2, “Tailored in an Appropriate Way”: Can Free Speech Really Be Restricted in the United States?

Chapter 3, “Now Obviously This is a Country That is Based on Free Speech, but…,”: The U.S. Government vs. Free Speech

Chapter 4, The “Hate Speech” Scam

Chapter 5, “Peer Pressure and Shaming” to Rein in Free Speech

Chapter 6, “Is That Being Racist?”: Americans Learn Self-Censorship

Chapter 7, “Irresponsibly Provocative”: The Erosion of Free Speech From Rushdie to Geller

Chapter 8, “Can’t We Talk about This?”: The Death of Free Speech in Europe

Chapter 9, Catholics Against Free Speech

Chapter 10, “Not Conducive to the Public Good”: Free Speech Dies in Britain and Canada

Chapter 11, The New Brownshirts

Chapter 12, “The University Prides Itself on Diversity”: Administrators vs. Free Speech Chapter 13, “Facing the New Totalitarianism”: Fighting Back for the Freedom of Speech

 

Spencer traces the living Islamic law imperative to brook no criticism of the Muslim faith, or its prophet founder, to both canonical traditions of Muhammad and the Koran (9:14-15) itself, which exhorts Muslims to wage jihad to punish the “offending” infidels. Muhammad in effect created his own “Dead Poets Society” comprised of victims (men and women, elderly and young) slain at his behest by his most ardent early Muslim followers, for perceived “insults” to Islam’s prophet. Citing the contemporary example of the Islamic State of Pakistan (and the plight of Pakistani Christian, Asia Bibi), Spencer asks: to assure a “future free of offense to Islam,” what exactions will “our leftist politicians, media elites, and much of the Western intelligentsia” be willing to impose upon their own citizens?

 

For saying, “I believe in Jesus Christ who died on the cross for the sins of mankind. What did your prophet Muhammad ever do to save mankind?”, a Christian woman named Asia Bibi is on death row in Pakistan, where “wounding [Muslims’] religious feelings” is a crime and blaspheming Muhammad is punishable by death. Pakistan doesn’t have the First Amendment. Americans in the United States are in no danger of execution for testifying to their religious beliefs. But the Asia Bibi case illustrates the utter futility of attempting to keep Muslims from ever being offended — unless we are willing to give up our right to freedom of speech entirely.

 

Americans should not be complacent about First Amendment protections. Reminding readers that the divide separating “treasonous and seditious speech and speech that is simply unwelcome to the government” has proven controversial throughout U.S. history, Spencer avers:

 

The Sedition Act [of 1791] and the Espionage Act [of 1917] demonstrate the U.S. government has placed severe restrictions on the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech in the past, and indicate that it could do so again in the future. This history also shows that the First Amendment protections of free speech are most likely to be curtailed in a time of serious and imminent threats to the nation. That time may be upon us now.

 

Spencer emphasizes one particularly alarming Obama administration reaction to the 9/11/2012 jihad massacre at Benghazi — “scapegoating a video [and subsequently the videographer] criticizing Muhammad” — which illustrates such curtailment, “placing the onus on freedom of speech.” He adds: “The unmistakable implication was that if only Americans would not criticize Muhammad, attacks of this kind wouldn’t happen.” Worse still, two days following Barack Obama’s surreal Islamic blasphemy law-compliant pronouncement to the United Nations General Assembly on September 25, 2012, that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” America’s first Sharia blasphemy law victim, Egyptian Coptic Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the Innocence of Muslims video, was arrested, declared a “danger to the community,” and imprisoned without bail. He was incarcerated for 12 months.

 

Devoid of First Amendment equivalent laws, governed by Left statists marinated for decades in cultural relativist claptrap ideology, and subject to the same forces of Islamization by Muslim immigrant populations, Western Europe, as Spencer demonstrates, including Britain as well as Canada, is even further along the trajectory towards self-inflicted full compliance with Sharia blasphemy law.

 

Perhaps the most illuminating and disheartening chapter of The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies) chronicles progressive Western supplication to Islam since Ayatollah Khomeini’s February 14, 1989 fatwa condemning novelist Salman Rushdie to death for his The Satanic Verses, and its perceived insults to the Muslim creed and Islam’s prophet. Spencer provides an especially astute observation regarding a follow-up Khomeini fatwa denying Rushdie any leniency for repenting, and offering a reward for any non-Muslim willing to execute the beleaguered author:

 

The invitation to non-Muslims to murder Rushdie was significant: Khomeini was inviting non-Muslims to share Muslim sensibilities regarding Rushdie’s alleged offense, and trying to induce them to do so by the prospect of financial reward. It would take years for this invitation and foreigners and non-Muslims to kill Rushdie to evolve into the “shaming,” as Hillary Clinton would put it, of those who dared to decline to participate in the de facto implementation of Islamic blasphemy laws. Clinton’s “peer pressure an shaming” imperative demonstrated that, in the two decades between the Rushdie fatwa and her endorsement of UNHRC 16/18 [i.e., the United Nations Human Rights Commission’s “defamation of religion” resolution which riveted upon Islam and was aggressively lobbied for by the UN’s Muslims nation members], non-Muslims had become the principal enforcers of Sharia blasphemy law in the West.

 

Drawing upon his shared experience with journalist and activist Pamela Geller in the wake of the May 3, 2015 Garland, Texas, jihadist attack on a staid exhibit of historical and contemporary depictions of Muhammad, Spencer concludes:

 

It is not an offensive act, but ultimately an act in defense of Western civilization to show Islamic jihadists that their violent threats will not cow me and that I will not allow violent intimidation to rule the day, and that I will not offend them in any larger sense by treating them as if they were demented children who cannot control their actions and must necessarily kill in the face of being offended. It was the murderous jihadis who made drawing Muhammad the flash point of the defense of free speech, not Pamela Geller, and I.

 

It is they who, by their determination to murder non-Muslims who violate their religious law on this point, have made it imperative that free people signal that they will not submit to them. If we give in to that demand that we conform to this Sharia principle, there will be further demands that we adhere to additional Sharia principles. It is ultimately a question of whether we will submit to Sharia or stand up for freedom. At Garland we were standing. In the aftermath, it is clear a huge segment of the Western political and media elites are ready, if not eager to kneel, daring not to “provoked” their new masters.

 

A quarter century after Hiskett’s Cassandra-like warning about the liberty-crushing peril of acquiescing to Islam within Western societies, Robert Spencer has meticulously documented its most dire consequences: de facto elimination of free speech criticism of the Muslim creed — and, ultimately, free expression, overall. Spencer’s courageous and irrefragable analysis is simultaneously a tocsin of imminent calamity, and a clarion call to action in defense of free speech, our most fundamental, keystone liberty. Western freedom-loving citizens must help bring his message to American political and religious leaders before our liberties are transmogrified by the global Muslim “umma,” seeking unabashedly (since 1981) to impose “The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights,” i.e., Sharia totalitarianism.

___________________

Copyright © 2005-2017 PJ Media All Rights Reserved.

 

About PJ Media

 

For media inquiries, please contact communications@pjmedia.com

 

Since its inception in 2005, PJ Media has been focused on the news that matters — from the insightful commentary provided by our all-star lineup of columnists to our writers’ quick takes on breaking news and trending stories. The media company’s founders — Academy Award Nominee Roger L. Simon, Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs) and Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) — brought together a tightly knit band of bloggers into an integrated website that has evolved into a reliable source for original, unique, and cutting-edge political news and analysis.

 

We’ve been there through primaries and general elections; the U.S. border crisis; doctored climate change data; the gunrunners’ scandal; Department of Justice voter fraud and the Ground Zero mosque — stories that others in the media initially passed by.

 

As a company, we’ve always felt a special connection to the values which make America special, as well as a dedication to keeping America great for our children and our children’s children. That’s why our main focus is on the three main areas that will have the most impact on the future of America: politics, parenting and lifestyle.

 

READ THE REST