Intro to Book Review of 3-Authors by Murphey


By John R. Houk

© March 29, 2018

Counterjihad writer Paul Sutliff sent a link of a book review of three Counterjihad books. The last review is of Sutliff’s book “Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam”. Paul posts on a blog with a similar name: Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad. Paul also has a podcast at Blog Talk Radio: Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff. (Podcasts are linked by date. The link here is from 3/28/18. To listen to other podcasts, you can figure that out by going to Global Patriot Radio.)

 

The link is to a website entitled, “COLLECTED WRITINGS OF DWIGHT D. MURPHEY”. I like to know a bit of the person or website I have been referred to. In that spirit of curiosity, here is a paragraph from the Information about Dwight D. Murphey page:

 

 

Murphey was born in Tucson, Arizona, on June 14, 1934. He lived in Miami, Florida, before the three years in Mexico, and then lived in Denver, Colorado, for the rest of his childhood. He took his pre-law in political science at the University of Colorado between 1951 and 1954, served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve for two years between 1954 and 1956, then was a special student under Ludwig von Mises in the Graduate School of Business at New York University during the 1956-7 school year before attending the University of Denver College of Law. After he graduated from law school in 1959, he practiced with a large firm in Denver for six years and then went to work for a small firm in Colorado Springs for two years to run for District Judge.  He lost the 1966 race for the judgeship in Colorado Springs and joined the faculty at Wichita State University in 1967, teaching business law.  He retired from the faculty after 36 years at the end of June, 2003.  By the turn of the century, he had written classical liberal (or, as he prefers, “neo-classical liberal”) philosophy and historical analysis for more than fifty years. That work predominates in what is reproduced here.

 

… There is MUCH MORE TO READ

 

The Murphey book review is extracted from a subscription only website: The Journal for Social, Political, and Economic Studies. Here is an excerpt from the Journal’s about page:

 

The quarterly Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, which has been published regularly since 1976, is a peer-reviewed academic journal devoted to scholarly papers which present in depth information on contemporary issues of primarily international interest. The emphasis is on factual information rather than purely theoretical or historical papers, although it welcomes an historical approach to contemporary situations where this serves to clarify the causal background to present day problems.

The Journal is published by the Council for Social and Economic Studies, P.O. Box 34143, Washington DC 20043, USA, and is financed primarily by paid subscriptions from university and other libraries. Each Volume corresponds to the Calendar Year, and contains upwards of 500 pages.

The General Editor, Professor Roger Pearson, and the Associate Editor, Professor Dwight D. Murphey, are assisted by READ THE REST

 

The point of all this pedigree information leading up to the book review of three books illuminating readers about Islam, is that the review is an academic and legitimate source as opposed to – me – a disseminator of opinion based on what I have personally read.

 

Here is the brief Sutliff email alerting me to the book review:

 

Thought you may find this interesting. The book review article was published in the Summer 2017 issue of The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, pp. 251-272: http://dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info/JSPES-DDM-BkRevArt-Jihadism.htm.

 

And below is the well thought out book review from Dwight D. Murphey.

 

JRH 3/29/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Jihadism and Muslim Immigration: Three Recent Books

 

Book Review Article by Dwight D. Murphey

Wichita State University, Retired

Summer 2017; pp. 251-272

The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies

DwightMurphey-CollectiveWritings.info

 

There is little in today’s world that is more contentious than the debate over the nature of Islam and the role of Muslim immigration into the United States and Europe.  Major figures take the position that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslim immigration is to be welcomed.  An opposing view points to much in Islamic teaching that is not peaceful, to the widespread jihadist presence that is bringing violence both to Islamic societies and those of the West, and to the inability effectually to know what is going on inside Muslim communities and to “vet” newcomers.  Still another perspective, thus far latent because it is presently outside what is “politically correct,” is that it is mostly irrelevant how peaceful Islam is, because in any event it is existentially unwise for the West to invite an influx of a major new population element whose religion and culture diverges so greatly from Western society’s.  Those who grapple with these issues find that the subject is vast in its extent and complexity.  The article here reviews three books.  The first is by an author we presume to be Muslim, and tells much about the jihadist hatreds that produce not just attacks upon the West but a great deal of internecine violence among the world’s many Muslim factions. The others are by American authors, each a Christian, pointing to the dangers and social costs of large-scale Muslim immigration.  These reviews are put forward not as a final word, but for the benefit of the information they contain and as an invitation to further study.

Key Words:  Islam, Muslim immigration, jihadism, sharia, Islamic rivalries, Islamic divisions, Islamic terminology, Muslim Brotherhood, “civilization jihad,” U.S. immigration system, political correctness

 

The West’s ideological divisions have in recent years taken on a new face.  There was a time when the nature of Islam and its role in the modern world was of interest almost exclusively to academic specialists, and when mass immigration of Muslims into the West was on no one’s radar.  By now, however, questions about Islam and Muslim immigration are critically important.  The questions and their answers tell as much about the fault lines, ideological and otherwise, within the West as they do about the Muslims themselves and their religion.

 

Speaking before Congress in late 2001 shortly after the 9/11 attacks attributed to Islamic terrorists, U.S. President George W. Bush laid down the premise that has actuated American policy until, at least, early 2017.  He distinguished between Islam and the “radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.”  The terrorists, he said, are “traitors to their own faith,” seeking “to hijack Islam itself.” He spoke of “our many Muslim friends” and “our many Arab friends,” and saw nothing inherent in their ways of life or belief systems that would make the terrorists representative of them.  Thirteen years later, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said much the same thing when speaking about the beheading of an American by the Islamic State.  “The face of Islam is not the butchers who killed Steven Sotloff.”  Those who did the beheading were “mass cowards whose actions are an ugly insult to the peaceful religion that they violate… The real face of Islam is a peaceful religion, based on the dignity of all human beings.”[1]

 

The defense of Islam and the Muslim population at large has been fundamental to the policies that have welcomed and facilitated the immigration of many hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the United States and Europe.  It is the conceptual complement to the other factors that have caused the influx.  The others include, but are hardly limited to: American interventions that have destabilized much of the Middle East, tearing up existing structures and exacerbating the social chaos that the many contending factions of Islamic society lend themselves to; the seemingly ever-present economic demand for cheap labor;[2] the Western ideology of “multiculturalism” that by seeking profound demographic change reflects the Left’s centuries-old alienation against the mainstream of American life, the population of which has been of European stock; and the generous desire to do good that dates back through American religious history, such as to the Social Gospel.

 

The welcoming perception and open-door policies based on it are strongly opposed by others who, although acknowledging that there “are millions of peaceful Muslims throughout the world,”[3] stress that much Islamic doctrine, going back to the Quran and found in the writings of  many Islamic scholars over the centuries, is far from peaceful. To them, the metastasized jihadist movements represent a major aspect of Islam, one that places the many thousands of Muslim immigrants under a cloud.  They see it as impracticable – as, in effect, a self-deceiving fiction – to “vet” the immigrants sufficiently to remove the danger of terrorist violence.   And they are conscious of the inability of non-Muslims to know what is taking place or being taught within the Islamic communities and their mosques.[4]  The three books reviewed here voice this opposition.

 

In these introductory comments, it is worth noting a third position, which must be taken seriously despite lying beneath the surface of today’s discussion.  Even in Donald Trump’s campaign for the American presidency, he did not suggest the need for a long-term ban on mass immigration of Muslims into the United States (and Europe).  The most he felt it possible to propose was a short-term ban “until we can figure out what is going on.”  After becoming president, he caught intense criticism for, and even judicial opposition to, a temporary ban on immigrants from seven (later six) countries that the Obama administration had designated as sources of terrorism.  The end result was that although Trump often repudiated “political correctness,” his position was severely circumscribed by it.  He was no doubt correct in sensing that the climate of opinion laid down by the mainstream media and America’s “opinion elite” made it taboo to suggest that a major Islamic presence in American life should be avoided.

 

The result is that a question of existential importance – of whether the West is to continue to exist as such – is repressed.   If mass immigration into the United States and Europe, and the non-replacement birthrates of the historic European population, continue, the erstwhile populations will be supplanted.  The physical locations will remain, but the people will be different.  They will represent cultures and belief systems to which many will most likely be tenaciously loyal, so there is reason to expect that the culture and institutions of the present will no longer continue.  The implications are examined in a number of books that have warned of “the death of the West.”[5]

 

This third option would call for a deliberate policy of the West’s staying the West, while leaving the Muslim populations within the Islamic swath.  It would mean the end of mass migration of Muslims to the West, and a concomitant part of it would be for the United States to defer from intervention into the Islamic countries, forsaking the post-Cold War aspiration of making each of the societies over in the American image.  (We recall that Osama bin Laden’s primary complaint was that Americans were present within “the land of Islam.”)

 

The books reviewed in this article were selected out of our desire to know more about jihadism and sharia. The authors give much information and make important points, some vital.  But they do not represent all of the existing viewpoints, and we hope readers will join us in thinking there is potentially much more to learn.

 

 

Jihadism, Terror and Rivalries in the Middle East: Isis, Hezbollahis and Taliban

Hoshang Noraiee

Hoshang Noraiee, 2016

 

What is often overlooked by those of us who are so rightly preoccupied with jihadi violence in the West is that the many branches within radical Islam mostly hate (and are anxious to kill) each other.  Within the broad Islamic swath, there are moderates, and – just as in the traditional population in Europe and the United States – there is, according to Noraiee, presumably a “silent majority” that is hardly heard over the articulate voices of the radicals, but within the precincts of the radicals themselves there is a chaos of blood-thirsty sectarian animosity.  As one reads this short book by Hoshang Noraiee, the impression of a mound of fire ants is reinforced by a great many details about sects, rivalries and personalities.

 

It would help if Noraiee told us more about himself.  He is described as an independent researcher who has taught at the University of Westminster and London Metropolitan University.  Presumably, by inference from his name and subject, he is himself a Muslim, but we don’t know that, or where he is from.  It is to the book itself that we look for an appreciation of his credentials and the extent of his knowledge.  While it makes no pretension of being “the definitive book” on radical Islam, readers will find it quite a good introduction.

 

One reason the book isn’t “definitive” is that Noraiee has limited its scope to the Middle East.  He has nothing to say about the Islamic penetration of Europe and its many ramifications, which include a challenge to the continued existence of Europe as Europe.  Nor does he delve more than slightly into the vastly important subject of who the “moderates” are, what they believe, and to what extent their influence may (or may not) eventually bring Islam into the modern age and dampen the fires, so reminiscent of the internecine conflicts within medieval Christianity, that now burn so fiercely.  Rather, the book’s value lies in the extensive information it gives about the radical jihadist movements where they are most centered, which is the Middle East.  Nevertheless, a caution: the subject is vastly more variegated than we are able to convey.  Almost certainly Noraiee himself, in this 235 page book, hasn’t covered all aspects, even though readers will find considerably more information than we are able to mention here.

 

As we have said, what strikes us most about his account is the extent to which the Middle East is a cauldron of boiling hatreds, partly toward the West but most especially of its many factions toward one another.  Before we can review their rivalries, however, it is necessary to see who the factions are, and what Noraiee tells us about them.

 

The Many Faces of Islam

 

The primary division: Sunni and Shia. Although there are differences between Sunni and Shia (and within each itself) on many levels, the two branches of Islam disagree most fundamentally about who the legitimate successors to the Prophet Mohammad have been.  Sunnis look to four caliphs (Abubakr, Omar, Osman, and Ali), who were the Prophet’s senior deputies.  The Shia accept only the last of these, Ali.  They hold that he “and his 11 descendants were the only legitimate Imams.”  A 12th Imam, known as the Mahdi, who disappeared, will come back as a messiah “to rule and bring real justice.”

 

The Sunni

 

Although all Sunnis agree that the four caliphs are Mohammad’s legitimate successors, they are divided into four types of “jurisprudence,” each with its own branches, such as Wahhabism and Deobandism.  (“Jurisprudence” pertains to the interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith.  Noraiee explains that “Hadith” is the body of traditions coming from Mohammad’s words and actions.)

 

Salafism.  In a way similar to Protestants within Christianity, Salafists call upon Muslims to consult the Quran and Hadith directly in their search for Islamic purity rather than to rely on intermediaries.  They look only to Islam’s first three generations, and consider the four traditional Sunni schools of jurisprudence polluted by non-Islamic rituals.   The Salafists have a large network of Madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan, second only to the Deobandi.  They are themselves divided into three branches.  Not all Salafists accept the teachings of Sayyid Qutb, but he is a source of inspiration for many.  Noraiee describes Qutb as “a radical Muslim Brotherhood ideologue” who called for “eternal jihad” (struggle).  Through the ideological leadership of Abu Bakar Naji, who wrote The Management of Savagery, ISIS is Salafist.

 

Wahhabism.  The followers of Mohammad ibn al-Wahhab (who lived in the 18th century) are dominant in Saudi Arabia, which accordingly is considered Sunni-Wahhabist.  Noraiee says their views are similar to the Salafists, including being hard-line and adamantly anti-Shia.  He says they have been “successful in spreading their radical ideas among many other Muslims all over the world,” doing so with generous financial support from Saudi Arabia.

 

Deobandism.  We are told that this started in India in the 1860s, seeking through education to purify Islam, moving away from Hanafism’s mysticism and Hinduism.  [“Purify” is a recurrent theme in much Islamic thinking.[6]]  It was restrictive toward music, singing and dancing, and toward “women’s visibility in public and women’s dress code.”  There are Deobandi jihadist factions, but Noraiee says many of the Deobandi religious leaders are “traditional or quietist.”  Radicalism has increased as Deobandis supported the Taliban.  For almost the past two centuries, the Deobandis have run a “vast network” of madrassas (religious schools), especially in India and Pakistan.

 

Al-Qaeda.  As the reputed perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks on the United States,[7] al-Qaeda is often thought of as the more aggressive of the Sunni jihadist groups, but that reputation has been eclipsed by internal rivalries and by ISIS, a movement that grew out of “al-Qaeda in Iraq.”  Nevertheless, al-Qaeda continues to have networks throughout the world, several identified by area, such as “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.”  Its present commander is the Egyptian Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri, the successor to Osama bin Laden.  It is interesting that although al-Zawahiri is a forceful promoter of violence toward the West, he differs from Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, the founder of “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” in taking a milder approach to Shias and other Sunnis.  Noraiee says of al-Zawahiri that “while he rejected Shias, he considered them ignorant and thus in need of further guidance.”  Al-Zarqawi (1966-2006), on the other hand, “killed ordinary Shiites” (i.e., Shias) and “promoted harsh engagement” even with Sunnis of a somewhat different persuasion.

 

ISIS.  A Salafist jihadist movement, ISIS[8] inherited “the most hard-line of al-Qaeda traditions.”  Noraiee spells out in detail the guiding ideas of Abu Bakar Naji, which call for a jihad that passes through successive stages of extreme violence in a “total war to destroy others’ identities and existence.”  The goal, according to Naji, is a caliphate involving both “societal purification and territorial expansion.”  The leaders of ISIS are mainly Salafist-educated Arabs who have little connection with madrassas, and include many Muslims who have received their education in the West.  Consistently with that, many of its combatants are “foreign fighters” who come to it from outside Syria or Iraq.  A spokesman has invited Muslims to join “if you disbelieve in democracy, secularism, nationalism, as well as all the other garbage and ideas from the West.”  ISIS claims that its caliphate is the only legitimate one, and combines this exclusionary attitude with a desire for world expansion.  To that end, it makes abundant use of social media, and has an English-language magazine.

 

Taliban.  Once led by Mullah Omar, the Taliban became divided over his successor after his death in 2013.  The Taliban name is derived from “school boys,” coming from the word “talibs,” the students who attended Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan. The Taliban have their roots in the Pashtun tribe, although not all Pashtuns are Taliban.  The movement originated in a struggle against the mujahidin warlords who took over in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union was defeated there.  Noraiee says the Taliban haven’t formulated a literature crystalizing their ideology.  Rather, they are locally rooted, mixing their Islamic religious views with local customs.  The movement spread to Pakistan, but otherwise seems to have no expansionist or international aspirations.  This is not to say that the Taliban are not brutal or militant: “It was mainly given publicity for its strict policies against women’s education [and] demolition of historical heritage sites.”  They provided al-Qaeda shelter early on, but are not affiliated with it.

 

Boko Haram.  This Wahhabist/Salafist group is infamous for its brutality, which arguably exceeds that of any of the others.  It is centered in northeast Nigeria, but extends also to Cameroon, Chad and Niger.  In early 2015, it declared its allegiance to ISIS.

 

“Awakening Movement” (Iraq).  During the U.S. involvement in Iraq, one hundred thousand Sunni tribesmen from Anbar Province were mobilized to fight al-Qaeda.  A key development (marking for the opponents of ISIS a disastrous loss of a major U.S. ally) occurred later when many of the tribal militias joined ISIS, feeling deeply alienated from the Maliki government in Baghdad.

 

Al-Nosrah Front (also called the Nusra Front).  This is one of the radical jihadist groups seeking to overthrow President Assad in Syria.  In common with ISIS, it grew out of “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” and it remains affiliated with al-Qaeda.  Although sometimes working with ISIS, it has also clashed violently with ISIS over territorial control.  Its relationship with ISIS is said to have deteriorated after ISIS tried to absorb it in 2013.

 

The Shia

 

Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI).  Noraiee discusses at length the thinking of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who led the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979.   Khomeini, in common with so many others, sought a “purification” of Islam, “brutally suppressing… his opponents’ interpretation of Islam” and advancing “a specific Shia interpretation.”  Noraiee points out that this did not prevent Khomeini from using much the same rhetoric and ideas as the radical Salafists such as Sayyid Qutb (despite Qutb’s advocating killing Shia).   The IRI actively supports the Assad government in Syria, the Maliki government in Iraq, and Hezbollah in Lebanon

Noraiee doesn’t give much attention to other Shia factions, but mentions Hezbollah in Lebanon as being associated with “hard-line elements in Iran” and backing Assad in Syria.  He also writes briefly of the Shia militias in Iraq, which are “organized and supported by Iran” and are, in the opinion of Kurdish leader Masrour Barzani, “even worse than ISIS in Iraq.”

 

We submitted this article to a friend from Bangladesh raised as a Muslim, and he commented that it would be well “to include smaller Shi’ite groups like the Alawites of Syria, the Druze of Lebanon and Israel, and the dispersed but cosmopolitan Ismailis who, despite their small numbers, play an outsized role in the evolution of political Islam’s internal conflicts and external impact.”

 

Others

 

Sufism.  Noraiee mentions Sufism several times without telling much about it.  It is not considered a sect, but rather a “dimension” of Islam that for over a millennium has sought a mystical inner experience of Islamic Truth.  All Muslims, including Shias, can be Sufists, although Sunnis predominate in the leadership.   There are a number of Sufi orders, and a variety of devotional practices.  Adherents meet in congregations under the leadership of Sufi masters.

 

The moderates.  In several places, Noraiee speaks of “ordinary, moderate Muslims,” distinguishing them from radical jihadists.  His references include: “more moderate Wahhabis and Salafists” … “conservative and even quietist Sunni authorities” … “moderate Islamists, particularly Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as…” and “large sections of Deobandis are still traditional, quietist, and conservative.”  He tells how “in a 2015 fatwa, over 1,000 Indian Islamic scholars – including muftis and imams – have called ISIS’s actions ‘absolutely inhuman,’” and in an Appendix he spells out the Executive Summary of an Open Letter that 175 Islamic scholars sent to the head of ISIS.  The letter asserted the right of Muslims to differ on anything other than fundamentals of the Islamic faith, and declared that Islam forbids killing innocents, diplomats, journalists, and aid workers.  It said Islam forbids mistreating Christians or any “People of the Scripture”; the reintroduction of slavery; the forcing of people to convert; the denial of “their rights” to women [although this causes us to ask what the signers’ views are about the rights women have]; the use of torture; and the declaration of a caliphate “without consensus from all Muslims.”  Noraiee’s readers will find it worthwhile the read the entire Executive Summary, which covers still more.  As with anything of its sort, it suggests many questions, both about what it says (such who the signers count among the “innocents”) and what it doesn’t say.  In its allusions to moderation, Noraiee’s book leaves much unexplored about an aspect of Islam that is of especial importance to those, in the West and among Muslims themselves, who are looking for allies against radical jihadism.  It whets our appetite to know more.  It would be well, for example, to be informed about Saudi Arabia’s seeming contradictions.  We know the country is Wahhabist/Salafist, but Noreiee tells us its top official clerics have condemned ISIS and have said that “terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.”  The Saudi grand mufti has said “that under sharia law, terrorists merit the punishment of execution….”

 

The Rivalries 

 

The larger picture of blood-thirsty animus among the jihadists themselves is commented upon by Noraiee when he refers to “conflicts we now find erupting between radical jihadists, not only in Syria and Iraq but also in all other parts of the world.”  Our reference to this as “rivalry” is perhaps too limited, since that word suggests primarily a struggle for position.  Most assuredly the conflicts reflect such a struggle, but they also go to deep-seated differences among people who see things in black and white, regard each difference as an existential chasm, and have little if any regard for the lives of the “others.”  A shorthand way of saying this is that the conflicts are among fanatics.  It is a fanaticism that wears various faces, along a spectrum from hooded beheaders to soft-spoken, clean-cut young Iranian business administration professors in a mid-western American university who comment casually that it is all right to kill a Baha’i on the street.

 

The mutual hatreds run together into a tangled web, complicating any effort to do more than point to a few of them specifically.  Noraiee mentions the effort by Arab countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to “weaken Iran.”  Turkey is, in addition, active against ISIS and “has continued to attack Kurdish forces.”  Al-Qaeda and ISIS are both “threats against Saudi Arabia,” and we recall that in 1987 “about 400 pilgrims, mostly from Iran, were killed” by Saudi police in Mecca as the “pilgrims” marched in a political demonstration.  In Iraq, even years after the withdrawal of American troops, explosions occur so often that the world virtually takes for granted an amount of mutual slaughter that would seem inconceivable elsewhere.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban are seen as “unbelievers” by “radical Salafists,” have long conducted their warfare against the mujahidin warlords and the established government of the country, have fought against the Iranian Shia on Iran’s eastern border, and have clashed among themselves over the succession after the death of Mullah Omar.

 

ISIS, of course, fights both “the far and the near enemies,” and these include almost everybody.  ISIS claims exclusive dominion over the Islamic world and, beyond that, wants the eventual “global rule of ‘real’ Muslims.”  Noraiee cites al-Zarqawi’s “ideological blueprint” as calling for opposition to “Shias and the Iranian regime.”  Accordingly, “ISIS has attacked Shia mosques in Kuwait, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and even Bangladesh,” and has sought to have the Sunni population in Iran revolt there.  The violence, however, has not just been against Shias; an Islamic scholar reports that “ISIS has not hesitated to kill many Sunni clerics who oppose them in different countries.”   As ISIS has expanded into Afghanistan, it has had “many bloody clashes” with the Taliban.  In June 2015 “ISIS supporters… beheaded 10 members of the Taliban.”  In Syria, ISIS has executed “some senior members of al-Nosrah Front.”   Jaish-al Islam is a coalition of fifty rebel factions fighting the Assad government in Syria, and the brutality of its clash with ISIS is illustrated by ISIS’s having beheaded eleven of its members, prompting a revenge beheading of eighteen ISIS members.  Each group has taken a macabre pleasure in videoing the beheadings.[9]

 

Although its treatment seems out of proportion to that given his other topics, Noraiee has devoted an entire section to a jihadist and ethnic nationalist movement among Sunnis in southeastern Iran.  At its origin this movement was known as Jondollah – the Army of God.  As with other Sunni/Salafist groups, it sought to “purify” Islam and hated Shias as well as moderate Sunnis, starting its armed struggle in 2004 with beheadings, suicide bombings, and “deliberately indiscriminate massacre of civilians in Shia places of worship.”  It has not, however, had international objectives (i.e., sought to fight “the far enemy”).  One of its leaders has called for the killing of all Israelis as collaborators with the Israeli government.   Jondollah split into several small factions, by no means homogeneous, after Iran executed its first leader in 2010.  Its main successor organization, Jaish-e Adl (JAD), has moved away from Islamic jihadism and toward Baluch[10] nationalism, becoming more accepting of both Shia and moderate Sunnis.  As an indication that radical jihadists are often a loud and violent minority, Noraiee says Jondollah has not enjoyed general public support within the Sunni population of perhaps 1.5 to 2 million people in the Baluchistan area.

 

So we see from this partial summary that Noraiee’s readable short book, though by no means exhaustive or definitive, is an excellent introduction.

 

Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad

Leo Hohmann

WND Books, 2017

 

Leo Hohmann is a long-time journalist who is news editor for World Net Daily, a major conservative internet news outlet.  Stealth Invasion is a rich source of information about Muslim immigration, with primary emphasis upon the United States.  He is conservative, deeply critical of the increasing Muslim presence, and orients his discussion, especially near the end of the book, to Christian readers.  Whether these qualities decrease – or rather increase – the weight to be given to his judgments is for each of our readers to decide.  What we are doing with these reviews is to lay out three contributions that we consider significant to the subject, and which provide information most of us lack.

 

Hohmann cites a report by the Pew Research Center in January 2016 that estimates that at that time three and a third million Muslims lived in the United States, vested either with citizenship or permanent legal status.  An additional 240,000 come in each year, he says, in various capacities: as refugees, green-card holders, students, or workers on temporary work visas.  After the civil war began in Syria in March 2011, more than 13,000 refugees from that country were resettled in American communities by October 1, 2016.

 

The mechanism for this influx is elaborate.  Nine nonprofit agencies bring in refugees under contract with the U. S. government, and engage more than 350 subcontractors.  The VOLAGs (volunteer agencies) include the International Rescue Committee, the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, the Ethiopian Community Development Council, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and five major Christian denominations or councils.  An annual “abstract” is submitted by each resettlement contractor for each of the communities receiving refugees.  These abstracts contain information about the number of refugees, their origins, and the services they will receive.  The public is in the main not informed about all this, given the silence that prevails among the local media.

 

Hohmann describes in detail how much of the resettlement is done in secret, is imposed on local communities without their consent, gives rise to local resistance, and divides communities.  Of the 132,000 Somali refugees brought in since 1983, he says “they have been secretly planted in dozens of communities.”  He adds that “the people in these communities are never told that the changes being foisted upon them are being centrally planned by bureaucrats in Washington and the resettlement agencies….”  Secretary of State John Kerry overrode the request by over two dozen state governors not to resettle Syrian refugees in their states because of concerns that vetting is inadequate to screen out terrorists.   As residents find their communities changing for the worse, resistance movements spring up, but Hohmann says they wither as people find the local governments and media unresponsive.  He devotes a chapter to the impact on Amarillo, Texas, a city of 240,000, where seventy-five different languages and dialects are spoken within its school system and “small ghettos” have fragmented the city.

 

The initial resettlements are only part of the story.  Of the 240,000 mentioned above, approximately half are issued “green cards.”  This puts them on “a fast track toward full U.S. citizenship, including voting rights.”  There is a multiplier: those with green cards are “given the opportunity to bring their families into the United States.”  There are H1-B and H2-B visas for skilled and unskilled workers, respectively; and an “entrepreneur visa” to do such things as “run hotels and convenience stores.”   In addition, a yearly “Diversity Visa Lottery” is held to admit about 50,000 people from countries that don’t “otherwise send many immigrants to the United States.”

 

As mentioned above, the United States has resettled 132,000 Sunni Muslims from Somalia in American communities since 1983, and Hohmann says an immigration lawyer told him that most Somali asylum-seekers “never show up for their asylum hearings,” but are not deported.  We are told that “refugees are different from asylum seekers, who show up uninvited at the border,” whereas refugees come in through the provisions of the Refugee Act of 1980.  (Illegal immigrants, euphemistically known as “undocumented,” who have come in by the millions are another category altogether.)  Those arriving as refugees, Hohmann says, “immediately qualify for a full slate of government goodies that aren’t offered to most other immigrants.”  These include “everything from subsidized housing to food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, cash stipends, and Medicaid.” They can apply for citizenship after they’ve been in the country five years.

 

Except for the illegal immigration, all of this is done under the color of law.  As chairman of the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Edward Kennedy shepherded the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 through Congress.  Family reunification, not the earlier per-country quota system, became the guiding principle.  It has become commonplace to quote Kennedy as having assured the Senate that “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”  This assurance has certainly not proved true.     During the intervening years, Hohmann says, “Congress, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, has done nothing to stem the tide.”  As with so much else in American social thinking, the philosophy has morphed from a bare beginning to something quite expansive.  In a commencement address at Boston’s Northeastern University in May 2016, then-Secretary of State John Kerry “told students to prepare for a ‘borderless world.’”

 

Hohmann discusses the nature of the Muslim population in the United States.  Although he acknowledges that “there are many good Muslims,” he is one of those who see reason for concern.  The fact that “only certain Muslims take the principles of jihad seriously enough to attack us” doesn’t fully reassure him.  Hohmann says that “due to the nature of Islam, it’s very difficult, often impossible, to sniff out a radicalized Muslim before he strikes.”  Moreover, the situation is not static: “Terrorism experts tell us the process of radicalization can happen within a matter of weeks.”

 

He notes the refugees’ “poor record of assimilation.”[11]  “Muslim women sue their employers to be able to wear the hijab.  Schools, hospitals, and prisons must provide halal meat… Muslims push for separate sharia tribunals to settle their family disputes.”   Some two dozen Somalis in Minnesota have sued their employer for “having been denied a place to pray at the manufacturing plant.” It is possible, of course, that none of this is representative of the Muslim population in general (although we don’t know that), but “a 2015 study commissioned by the Center for Security Policy found that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred to live under sharia law.”  For those under thirty, it was 60 percent.  The same poll showed that “nearly a quarter believe the use of violent jihad is justified in establishing sharia.”  Hohmann points out how “more than forty” Somalis have either tried to join terrorist groups overseas or been “tried and convicted of providing material support to overseas terrorist organizations.”

 

The Muslim Brotherhood , founded in 1928 and with Sayyid Qutd [sic] as a “doctrinal godfather,” is present in eighty countries, but as “an extreme Islamist organization[12] whose overarching goal is to create a global caliphate governed by sharia,” it has a long history of conflict within the Islamic swath.  This has led to bans in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Russia.  Hohmann gives considerable attention to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, where, according to “former FBI counterterrorism specialist John Guandolo… almost all the major U.S. Muslim organizations are dominated” by it.  “Front groups” of the Muslim Brotherhood are said to include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim-American Society (MAS), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which “holds the deed to roughly 25 percent of the mosques in North America.”

 

We are admonished to pay more attention to what Islamists say to each other than they do to the American public.  Hohmann tells of a speech given at the annual convention of the Muslim-American Society in late 2015 “openly calling for an Islamic-inspired revolution in America.”  He refers to a “notoriously radical mosque” in Boston, and another in Phoenix.  Part of the evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas in 2007 was “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” written in 1991 and “seized in 2004 by FBI agents during a raid on a Muslim Brotherhood safe house in northern Virginia.”  The Memorandum urged the adoption of an “absorption mentality,” spoke of a “civilization jihad process,” and explained that “the brothers must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”  The result, Hohmann says, is that “unlike the violent jihad we see in daily acts of terror around the world, civilization jihad is stealthy and less obvious.  It uses migration, high birthrates, and lack of assimilation to build a parallel society.” The 2004 FBI raid also discovered, according to Guandolo, a recording of a speech by a Muslim Brotherhood leader about Muslim training camps and firearms training in America.

 

It is part of the mindset of many Americans to reject all of this as fabrication and paranoia.  There are a good many indicia, however, that make it less than reasonable to dismiss it out of hand.  A simple dismissal turns a blind eye to the many manifestations of Islamic radicalism across the world.  The indicia are enough to make the existence of a threat (both of physical violence and of attempted cultural displacement) an open question.  It is arguable that the question need not be resolved.  Readers will recall an option we mentioned earlier: that a threat, if there is one, need not exist.  A threat from Islam is important to the United States (and Europe) only because large-scale Muslim immigration has been welcomed.  If Islam stays within its historic swath (together, perhaps, with the United States’ staying out of their affairs), it is not an existential issue for the West.

 

The demographic transformation of Europe receives rather little attention from Hohmann, but is an essential part of the bigger picture.  The world teems with people eager to come into the West.  Patrick Buchanan writes that “Africa has a billion people, a number that will double by 2050, and double again to 4 billion by 2100.”  He asks, “Are those billions of Africans going to endure lives of poverty under ruthless, incompetent, corrupt and tyrannical regimes, if Europe’s door remains wide open?”  We have the impression that the horrors in Syria have been the reason for the flood into Europe, but Hohmann points out that “while the media mostly blamed the influx on the Syrian civil war, only 20 percent of the 381,412 refugees and migrants who arrived in Europe by sea in the first eight months of 2015 were from Syria [our emphasis].  The rest were from all over the Middle East, central Asia, and North Africa.”  The Schengen Agreement, signed by five European countries in 1985 but now grown to encompass 26 countries, did away with internal border checks within the “Schengen Area,” with the result that once the migrants have gotten inside Europe they have been able to move freely from one place to another.  A recent exception: the “European migrant crisis” in 2016 caused Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Poland and Sweden to enact temporary border controls.

 

Although Stealth Invasion deals with only with the specific issue of Muslim immigration, it is worthwhile to consider its many revelations about the governmental, academic and media enthusiasm for that immigration as, in effect, a case study of the mechanisms of governance by America’s (and Europe’s) dominant opinion elite.  Hohmann gives many examples of how the “establishment media,” national and local, hammers home what can only be characterized as pro-immigration propaganda.  Flowery feature stories and compassionate anecdotes are combined with a failure to cover unfavorable information, amounting to a vast blackout.  Violent crimes aren’t reported; and, when they are, the perpetrators often aren’t identified as Muslim immigrants (just as the public usually is not told that a crime was committed by an illegal Hispanic immigrant).  Those who dissent are denounced as “bigots” and “Islamophobes.”  Little is more taboo in American life than a violation of “political correctness.”  The book is replete with many specifics.

 

The media are just a part of it.  The web of institutions that occupy most of the spaces in American life play an active role.  These range from schools whose students are taken on field trips to mosques, to universities that bring in “thousands of young people from the Middle Eastern countries,” to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center, to church groups acting out of a sense of caring but that also profit from serving as resettlement agencies, to the “sanctuary cities” that refuse to enforce immigration laws, to the non-governmental agencies involved in humanitarian enterprises – and to many more, besides.  (Such a list is inadequate even to suggest how ubiquitous the institutional presence is, but readers are told a lot about it in Stealth Invasion.)

 

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam

Paul Sutliff

Tate Publishing and Enterprises, LLC, 2016

 

Paul Sutliff, like Leo Hohmann, sounds the alarm against the Muslim penetration of the West, centering on the “civilization jihad” that he sees occurring in society, government, on college campuses and in the public schools.  In an Afterword that concludes his book, he says “the most important action that has to be accomplished is to declare the Muslim Brotherhood an enemy of the United States.”

 

His credentials are not nearly as extensive as Hohmann’s, nor his knowledge of Islam as intimate as Noraiee’s, but his message is much the same as Hohmann’s and is to be taken seriously.  His education includes a bachelor’s degree in Religion and Philosophy, and a Master’s in Education, each from a Christian college.  He is a teacher of social studies at the high school level.  Placed in the context of the other books we are examining here, Sutliff’s contribution is largely to supply information that adds to the very considerable detail we have already seen.

 

We have commented on the inability of non-Muslims to know fully and accurately “what is going on” in Muslim thinking and activity in America and Europe.  There is a profound epistemological problem in understanding what doctrines are extant, what their children are taught, how much “radical jihadism” there is and what influences (such as the Internet) provoke it, what they are saying to each other in their social media, to what extent their way of life corresponds with or stands in conflict to that of a Western society – and so much more.  The American public, for example, would be hard pressed to say whether female genital mutilation is occurring among them, whether fatwas are entered against those who convert to Christianity or otherwise leave the Islamic faith, whether honor killing (as occurs elsewhere, say) is condemned or looked upon favorably, and whether the Muslim population in general or in families will report any pending terrorist activity or will cooperate with authorities after one is carried out.

 

A mask is placed over Muslim reality if the Islamic immigrants adhere to a tactic discussed by Sutliff.  “My extensive research into Islam revealed that it is part of their belief structure to lie about what they believe to protect their faith.  This is called taqiyyah.  There are five additional terms under Islam that speak of lying to non-Muslims…. Yes, this does mean I do not trust Muslims to tell me the truth about their religion.”  Whether such a mask is worn by American and European Muslims is yet another thing most of us can’t know.  For his part, however, Sutliff cites a number of reasons for thinking it is.

 

Among the reasons, he says, is that American students are taught about only five of what are really six “pillars of Islam.”   The five pillars are shahada (creed), the salat (five daily prayers), sawm (fasting), hajj (pilgrimage), and zakat (almsgiving).  “But,” Sutliff tells us, “there is a sixth pillar.”  It “was revealed by Al-Sarakhsi – an eleventh-century Hanafi iman, mujtahid, and judge – who outlined the eight rights of Allah… Within [the] first right are encompassed the six pillars… The sixth is jihad (holy war).”

 

The mask is compounded, according to Sutliff, when disinformation about Islam is passed along to American students in their textbooks.  As he dissects a popular textbook’s treatment of Islam, to which it devotes 44 pages in contrast to 14 for Christianity and 22 for Judaism, he points to much that is superficial gloss, passing over unattractive realities.

 

When our friend from Bangladesh, in whom we have great confidence for an honest and informed opinion, commented on the concern about taqiyyah as a doctrine of deception among American Muslims, he downplayed it, not sensing “some conspiracy” among them to hide their true feelings.  He said the small Shi’ite groups like the Alawites, the Druze and the Ismailis do indeed “make the discretion of taqiyyah central to their theology as persecuted minorities among their more orthodox Muslim neighbors,” but this is to protect themselves from persecution by other Muslims.  An article to which he referred us explained that Muslims on various occasions historically have had to dissimulate about their beliefs in situations where they would otherwise be killed.  It observed that this is not unlike those who have professed other faiths.  Thus, the friend’s comments to us have highlighted what we have said here: that there is much that is indeterminate about the subject, requiring an open mind and further study.

 

As with the Noraiee and Hohmann books, Sutliff’s contains much more than we have been able to mention here.  All three are worth reading, for their own sakes or as part of the larger study we just mentioned, as each of us seeks to penetrate further into a subject that is of vital importance to the West.

 

ENDNOTES

  1. The quotes from President Bush and Secretary of State John Kerry are given in the Paul Sutliff book (at pages 41 and 42) that will be reviewed here.

 

  1. The demand for cheap labor is not a recent development, though globalization has given it new shape.  “Guest workers” from Turkey have for several decades been invited into Germany in large numbers.  In the United States, less-paid immigration, both legal and illegal, has been welcomed by major businesses and agricultural groups.  Historically, most (perhaps all) societies incorporated slavery, peonage or serfdom into their basic economies.  Although “involuntary servitude” in those forms has in the main been done away with, “cheap labor” is still available through immigration and/or out-sourcing.

 

  1. This is the view expressed by Leo Hohmann on page 236 of one of the books we will be reviewing.

 

  1. It is little commented upon, but the combination of a large Muslim presence and an inability to know what is transpiring among them has serious implications for “civil liberties.”  This is so because if jihadist violence grows as a threat and is to be prevented, the society may come to feel it imperative to resort to a broad and long-continuing surveillance, even though that is incompatible with the liberties fundamental to a free society.  It would necessarily be surveillance without the prior showing of “probable cause” as to each individual surveilled, would destroy personal autonomy and privacy, and would entail secretive and extensive police powers at odds with “limited government” and “the rule of law.”  The prospect of an otherwise unacceptable surveillance – with possible long-term consequences changing the historic nature of American society – is one of the things that should be at the forefront of any consideration of mass Islamic immigration.  (Those who call themselves “libertarians” are inclined to support open borders.  They would do well to think about whether, as a de factomatter, that is consistent with their support for limited government.)

 

If such a “police state” comes into being, the Left, articulating its view from its many outlets, will predictably blame it on the main society.  That will be misplaced blame, since the cause will more reasonably be found in the creation of the threatening conditions in the first place.  Such a misplacing of blame can for many decades warp the understanding of our historical epoch.

 

  1. See especially Patrick J. Buchanan’s The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization(New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002), which we reviewed in this Journal in our Spring 2002 issue, pp. 126-130.  The review can be accessed free of charge at www.dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info as Book Review 68 (i.e., BR68).

 

  1. The desire for “purity” that seems ubiquitous among the Islamic groups is reflected in there being two different forms of “jihad” (struggle).  Noreiee explains that “jihad asghar” (small struggle) has to do with physical combat, whereas “jihad akbar” (great struggle) “relates to the comparatively greater challenge of self-improvement and spiritual warfare.”

 

  1. The author of this article is one of those who finds many reasons to doubt the conventional account of the 9/11 atrocities.  It that account is false, the implications are, of course, endless so far as our understanding of the contemporary world is concerned, including our understanding of such that is discussed in this article.

 

  1. Noreiee explains that although he uses the name ISIS (Islamic State in Syria), because it is the most commonly used designation, the group is also called Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), in addition to “Daesh,” a pejorative name that ISIS detests.

 

  1. We may wonder why beheading plays so prominent a role.  It may have something to do with the verse in the Quran that says “when you face those who are blasphemous, behead them to shed their blood.”

 

  1. Baluch is also spelled Baloch, and refers to a people spread across southeastern Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even the Arabian Peninsula.

 

  1. “Assimilation” was in general the American ideal under the “melting pot” aspiration, but pronouncedly separate identity has been a way of life for, say, the Amish in Kansas, orthodox Jews on the lower east side of Manhattan, and the Chinese in various Chinatowns.  Even when it remains the aspiration, assimilation is difficult, sometimes taking generations.  Now, though, within America’s dominant opinion culture, “multiculturalism” has replaced the hope for a “melting pot.”  What is now the norm is an accommodation of differences by many who are even eager to subordinate the mainstream to Muslim practices.

 

  1. By contrast, it is worthwhile to remember Noreiee’s mention of “moderate Islamists, particularly Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as….”

_________________________

Intro to Book Review of 3-Authors by Murphey

By John R. Houk

© March 29, 2018

_______________________

Jihadism and Muslim Immigration: Three Recent Books

 

Murphey info in the Intro 

 

Book Review: “Holy Wrath: Among Criminal Muslims”


Fjordman gives a book review to a Danish book written 2008 but now available in English about Radical Islam and forced conversions to Islam in European prisons.

 

JRH 3/21/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Book Review: “Holy Wrath: Among Criminal Muslims”

 

Posted by Baron Bodissey

Posted on March 3, 2018

Gates of Vienna

 

BY Fjordman

 

Muslim Youth Refugees Vieback, Sweden

 

The book Holy Wrath: Among Criminal Muslims was written by the Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels. This is an English translation of a book called Blandt kriminelle muslimer, which was written in 2008. It is based on personal experiences Sennels had with young Muslim criminals while working as a psychologist for three years at a juvenile facility in Copenhagen.

 

Since 2008, problems with criminal gangs from an immigrant background have grown worse in Western Europe. The terror threat from militant Muslims and Jihadist groups has increased as well.

 

On 14-15 February 2015, two victims plus the perpetrator were killed and several others wounded during terror attacks in Copenhagen. The first attack targeted a debate about blasphemy attended by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has drawn Muhammad as a dog. The second attack targeted Jews in a synagogue.

 

The terrorist was Omar El-Hussein. He was born in Copenhagen to Palestinian parents who fled to Denmark via a refugee camp in Jordan. He had recently been released from prison for a stabbing offense. Omar became radicalized as a militant Muslim in prison. During his deadly attacks, he was carrying a copy of the Koran with a bookmark at Surah 21. This chapter contains verses about punishing disbelievers of Islam.[1]

 

In cities across Europe, natives are being harassed, robbed, raped, stabbed and even killed by Muslim immigrants. This violence is usually labelled as “crime,” but it could sometimes also be labelled as Jihad. The line that separates crime from Jihad is blurred at best. Sometimes, there is no dividing line between the two at all.

 

Abdelhamid Abaaoud –  Paris Terror 11/2015

 

Those familiar with early Islamic history know that looting and stealing the property of non-Muslims has been part and parcel of Islam from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior of Muhammad and the early Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know exactly where crime ends and Jihad begins.

 

Muslims are over-represented in jails all over the Western world. Some violent criminals also convert to Islam while behind bars. As a devout Muslim, you can continue doing criminal things, yet at the same time claim to be morally superior to your victims. If you rob and mug non-Muslims you are not a thief or a thug. You are in fact a brave Jihadist doing Allah’s noble work in spreading the supremacy of Muslims over others.

 

Some militant Muslims continue their Jihad inside Western jails. In Britain, a prison chaplain revealed in February 2018 that inmates are being forced to convert to Islam for protection behind bars. Paul Song said he had been hit by Muslim inmates at HMP Brixton. He believes that the “Christian faith is not equal” in prison: “Some people have been forced to convert with violence. How do I know? Because three or four people come up to me to tell me. This is a very sensitive issue.” One prisoner has come forward and made a signed statement that prisoners in the UK were forced to convert to Islam after serving time in 2015. Mr. Song says he was removed from his job in south London amid accusations that his Christian teachings were “too radical.”[2]

 

It is not known exactly how many Muslims there are in French prisons because the French state does not publish such statistics. However, virtually everyone seems to agree that Muslims make up a majority of convicted criminals in France, even though they constitute a minority of the overall population.

 

Already in 2008, 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in France’s prison system were Muslims.[3] In 2015, it was estimated that of the people behind bars in France, at least 70 per cent were Muslims. The percentage could be even higher than this in cities such as Marseilles, or in some of the most notorious suburbs of Paris.[4]

 

French prison guards launched public protests against the government in January 2018. French prisons have developed a reputation for being hotbeds of radical Islam that have turned out some of the Jihadists behind a series of bloody terrorist attacks in recent years. The protests began after a convicted Al-Qaeda militant attacked guards in a high-security facility on January 11 with a razor blade and scissors, injuring three of them. A series of other assaults occurred shortly afterwards, often by radicalized Muslim inmates. “These people go to work every day, civil servants, fearing for their security or their lives. We need solutions which respond to this concern for working in safety,” Laurent Berger, head of the national CFDT union, said.[5]

 

In Copenhagen, it was a shock for Nicolai Sennels when he realized that most of the inmates in a Danish prison were young Muslim men. This is a common pattern today from Scandinavia to Spain. Moreover, the Muslims routinely blamed their victims for their problems. They have been raised within a culture where respect equals instilling fear in others. This is how aggressive emotions are perceived in Muslim culture: It is other people’s fault if you feel emotionally distraught. If what happens is always someone else’s fault, then you are without responsibility for your own situation. You are a victim who has been belittled, oppressed or persecuted. This perceived victimhood leads to a sense of entitlement to retribution and revenge.

 

Regardless of whether the Muslim youths are religious or not, they think and react in similar ways when it comes to the cultural view of honor and shame, revenge and limitless loyalty to the group. Even Muslims who sold drugs, drank alcohol and did not fast during Ramadan were greatly offended by the Danish Muhammad cartoons. They harbored a deeply-rooted perception that Islam and Muhammad should always be defended.

 

Sennels notes that among Muslim inmates, being religious gives one a higher status. Those who read the Koran and prayed every day had a certain amount of power over the minds of other Muslim men. Moreover, those who held religious Islamic views also tended to be more ideologically hostile to Western society.

 

Muslim criminals generally felt that external factors were the causes of their problems, not their own actions. They always viewed themselves as victims of outside forces: Provocations by the police, racism from Europeans, harassment from Christians, Jews or others. This became the moral justification for aggression. Since their honor had been violated, they had the right, perhaps even the duty, to respond with anger and force.

 

Sennels comments that for Muslims, anger and violence generate respect. A lack of anger and violence is viewed as weakness and generates contempt. In the Middle East, if you are perceived as weak, you will be preyed upon by rival clans. Western liberals do not understand this mentality. The more “dialogue” and kindness they show to Muslims, the more Muslims will despise them for being weak. They respect only force.

 

In Western and East Asian culture, to display anger publicly is often viewed negatively as a loss of self-control:

 

“Muslim culture, on the other hand, has the complete opposite view. Here, lack of inclination or ability to deliver the expected aggressive reaction when provoked is the fastest way to lose face. If you believe that it is always other people’s fault when you feel hurt or frustrated, you have a tendency to see yourself as a victim: ‘It’s the other guy’s fault!’ This will generate a feeling of being insulted and offended, and the resulting reaction is often to lash out with accusations like ‘you make me feel this way, so of course I’m reacting.’ By this logic, even very destructive reactions can be justified. The victimhood becomes a blank check that can be used as an excuse for all kinds of ‘legitimate’ responses and revenge. In plain English: If you are in a nightclub, and you accidentally bump into a person who has grown up with this kind of thinking, odds are you are in for a beating. Like a young man said in group therapy, trying to explain why he stabbed another young man outside a convenience store several times: ‘It was his own fault. He shouldn’t have made me mad.’”[6]

 

The book by Nicolai Sennels was written about the experiences of a psychologist in one Scandinavian prison. However, some of the insights he presents about Muslim culture have wider significance. It is a big problem for Muslims if they cannot properly address shortcomings in themselves and their own societies because they blame others for their failures and misfortunes. Unfortunately, it is also a big problem for the world if Muslims continue lashing out with violence against other people because of imaginary or grossly inflated wrongdoings.

 

Notes:

 

  1. http://www.thelocal.dk/20160208/copenhagen-terror-gunman-had-quran-when-he-was-shot-dead Copenhagen terrorist had Quran during attacks. 8 February 2016. http://www.b.dk/globalt/hemmeligholdt-omar-el-hussein-havde-koran-paa-sig Hemmeligholdt: Omar el-Hussein havde koran på sig. Feb 8, 2016.

 

  1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5377709/Ex-prison-chaplain-says-inmates-forced-convert-Islam.html Brixton prison’s Christian chaplain ‘forced out of his role after an Imam at the jail accused him of extremism’ claims inmates are forced to convert to Islam for protection behind bars. 11 February 2018.

 

  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802560.html In France, Prisons Filled With Muslims. April 29, 2008.

 

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11352268/What-is-going-wrong-in-Frances-prisons.html What is going wrong in France’s prisons? “France’s prison population is estimated to be 70 per cent Muslim” 17 Jan 2015

 

  1. http://www.thelocal.fr/20180126/french-prison-guards-reject-governments-offer-to-end-protest French prison guards reject government’s latest offer to end protest. 26 January 2018.

 

  1. Holy Wrath: Among Criminal Muslims, by Nicolai Sennels, English translation published in 2018, quote from page 46-47.

_________________________

Donate to Fjordman via Gates of Vienna at the bottom of the book review (if the paypal link doesn’t work from my blog)

 

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

 

Immigration Reform Thoughts


Looking at a Senator James Lankford Email


John R. Houk

© March 15, 2018

 

I live in Oklahoma. One of my Senators is Republican James Lankford. Yesterday I received what is probably a form email from Senator Lankford addressing Immigration reform and Border Security.

 

Since my name is used in the salutation, the Senator’s email is in response to a petitioned I signed or an immigration reform organization’s form email that I electronically signed. Either way, my signature was sent so long ago I don’t recall who I partnered with to share my feelings as an Oklahoman voter to Senator Lankford.

 

I vaguely remember that the issue was the Senator was supportive of a Border Wall for National Security against illegal border crossings. I do not recall the specifics of my displeasure with the Senator I did vote for in the past. The Senator Lankford email is what jogged my sketchy memory.

 

I did respond to Senator Lankford’s explanation of his Senate voting options. You should read the email I am cross posting, but since my response is shorter, I am posting that first. Some will agree with my thoughts. Some will partially agree. I have a suspicion some will strongly disagree with my favorability of inclusion of current benefactors of the so-called DACA dudes Obama unconstitutionally allowed to remain in the USA. The irony is I am with President Trump on giving immigration status to 1.8 million illegals as opposed to the fake Dem-proposal of (I think) 600,000 illegals.

 

Here was my email response to Senator Lankford:

 

Senator Lankford,

 

I’d rather jump at 1.8 million employed illegal immigrants to have a Green Card to become legal. I do not consider drug trafficking, human trafficking or gang membership to be gainful employment contributing to the benefit of the communities they live in. Those illegals need to be arrested then deported or imprisoned depending on the laws broken other than being just illegal.

 

BUT, before any move to legally absorbing gainfully employed illegals, border security needs to be enhanced. I appreciate your suggestion of expanding technology for a less expensive securing of the border, but I gotta tell ya; I don’t care how many billions taxpayers pay for a wall built even in difficult terrain. I’ve listened to various proposals by the private contractors and I am aware it is a physical possibility to accomplish a border wall. Combining tech with a wall provides at the very least that the government is serious about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA.

 

I am confidant many of my fellow Oklahoman voters feel the same way. So, by all means. Work on reforming the status of gainfully employed illegals, throw the book at the horrid criminal illegals and dear god, please end chain immigration in favor of merit immigration. That would make this voter happy.

 

And below is Senator James Lankford’s email sent to me and probably his Oklahoma constituents.

 

JRH 3/15/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Response from Senator James Lankford

 

By Senator James Lankford

Sent 3/14/18 9:18 PM

Sent from Lankford.Senate.gov

 

Dear Mr. John Houk,

 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns on the congressional plan to fix our nation’s broken immigration system.  I have heard from other Oklahomans like you who also sent emails and letters or made phone calls to share their thoughts and ideas on proposals to repair our nation’s immigration policies.

 

As a member of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I remain actively involved in conversations and negotiations surrounding proposals to repair the faulty immigration policies in our country.  My staff and I have had daily conversations and meetings for the past several months with Members of all political parties, in both Chambers of Congress, and with the Administration to develop policies that focus on the economic and security needs of our nation and can receive enough votes to become law.

 

Though immigration has been a contentious issue for some time, its resolution did not have a deadline.  However, on September 5, 2017, President Trump rescinded the 2012 Obama Administration initiative Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) because while he agreed that DACA recipients should receive protection, it is inappropriate for any president to create the program through executive action.  DACA provided temporary relief from removal for individuals who entered the United States as minors, most often with their parents, but it did not provide legal certainty for the DACA recipients or provide additional security for our nation.

 

When President Trump rescinded the program, he set the effective end date to be March 5, 2018, which gave Congress six months to provide legislative permanency for these individuals and time to include provisions to prevent a similar situation from happening in the future  It is worth noting that DACA-eligible individuals were at no time given the opportunity to go through the naturalization process unless they returned to their home countries for at least 10 years and then began the application process.

 

As you may know, the White House released its framework for immigration reform and border security on January 25, 2018.  I share the opinions of the President and other Administration officials who believe a permanent solution for individuals who qualify for DACA should be paired with border and entry security, reasonable limitations on family unification visas, and the elimination of the convoluted visa lottery.  The framework of this agreement was based on four pillars that Democrats and Republicans agreed to with President Trump during a White House meeting earlier in January.

 

As part of the negotiations to fund the government after a shutdown in January, during the week of February 12, the Senate opened the floor for proposals and debate to solve our nation’s immigration issues.  Throughout the week several groups of Senators proposed a variety of plans and ideas to create a solution for DACA-eligible individuals, but only one of the proposals, the SECURE and SUCCEED Act, included the necessary reforms in the White House framework and could have received enough votes to also pass the House.  I joined Senators Grassley (IA), Cornyn (TX), Tillis (NC), Perdue (GA), Cotton (AR), Ernst (IA), Corker (TN), Isakson (GA) and Alexander (TN) to introduce the Act.

 

Each of the four bills debated in the Senate received bipartisan support, but every bill fell short of the 60 votes needed to proceed to a final vote.

 

I have heard from some Oklahomans who have asked why I did not support alternate proposals that contained aspects of the four pillars.  For example, one proposal included funding for border security, but not until 2020.  Even then, the bill restricted how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could use those fund, and it included no enforcement provisions.  The bill created a convoluted process that could lead to a rapid pathway to citizenship for a large group of undocumented individuals.

 

For all other undocumented individuals in the country, it provided deferred action and a guarantee they could remain in the country illegally unless they committed a felony or three misdemeanors.  Regarding family unification, the bill’s proposal did nothing to help clear the visa backlog of family members who have already been sponsored by American citizens.  Another proposal provided a pathway to citizenship for many individuals with a variety of immigration statuses but authorized no funds for border security.  These provisions made the proposals impossible to support.

 

I believe strong border and entry security is an important step to necessary step to reform our immigration system.  Every nation, including ours, has the right to secure its borders and control its entry process for safety and economic development.  It is important to remember that the southern border is full of diverse terrain including mountains, desert, and the Rio Grande River.  I do not believe a 2,000-mile fence alone is the best and most cost-effective solution.  Technology like tethered drones, seismic sensors, and vehicle barriers are very effective in many areas of the desert Southwest.

 

The SECURE and SUCCEED Act appropriates $25 billion for a variety of border and entry security.  DHS has developed a ten-year plan for increased personnel and for a variety of infrastructure such as a wall system, fencing, levees, technology, and other physical barriers.  It also included necessary methods of enforcement, such as the permanent authorization of the voluntary electronic employment verification system (E-Verify) and the enactment of Kate’s law.

 

In addition to border and entry security, Oklahomans on both sides of the immigration debate are rightly concerned about permanency for DACA recipients.  The SECURE and SUCCEED Act provides an opportunity for 1.8 million DACA-eligible immigrants to earn naturalization in 10 to 12 years.  Much of this proposal mimics my original proposal from September 25, 2017, called the SUCCEED Act.  You can read more about the SUCCEED Act on my website

 

It is important to note that under DACA, recipients were not granted legal immigrant status, were not put on a pathway to citizenship, and did not have the right to vote in our elections.  Additionally, they are barred from receiving any federal public benefits, which would continue while the individual has conditional permanent residency.

 

Regarding family unification, our current system allows individuals who have earned a naturalization to petition for numerous extended family members, who in some instances may not otherwise qualify for a visa.  The SECURE and SUCCEED act would place reasonable limitations on family-based immigration to allow spouses and minor children visas to immigrate with their parent or spouse.  Other family members could still come to the U.S. for extended visits, but they would not get automatic citizenship eligibility.  This proposal is similar to the proposal made by the Clinton Administration in the 90s and the “Gang of Eight” bill in 2018.  It is important to note that this change would not affect individuals who have already petitioned for extended family members to enter the United States.

 

Currently, the Diversity Visa program provides green cards for up to 50,000 immigrants each year from countries with low rates of emigration to the United States.  Prospective immigrants register with the Department of State, which then selects applicants at random.  Both Republicans and Democrats have supported legislation to get rid of the diversity visa program in the past.  Similar to the Senate’s proposal in 2013, the SECURE and SUCCEED Act would end the lottery program and reallocate the visas to eliminate the existing family-based and employment-based immigration backlogs.

 

As I have said before, our nation was built on the strength and diversity of legal immigrants.  However, unchecked illegal immigration can create a serious threat to our nation’s security and a financial strain on our economy.  While I believe that all people are made in God’s image and deserve dignity and respect, it is reasonable to expect those entering and living within our borders to obey the laws of our nation.  Although the debate can get heated, we must remember that immigration is about real, live human beings, not just numbers on a page.

 

Although the SECURE and SUCCEED Act was limited to the four pillars I mentioned above, there are many other areas of our nation’s immigration system that need to be repaired by Congress, such as visa and Temporary Protected Status reform.

 

Congress needs to create clear and consistent immigration laws that establishes a better legal immigration system to disincentivize illegal immigration. As you may know, the March 5th deadline for DACA recipients became somewhat obsolete due to temporary federal court orders, but I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers of Congress, and in the Administration to come up with long-term solutions to fit the needs to the American people.

 

I hope this information is helpful to you.  Please feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.

 

In God We Trust,

 

 

 

James Lankford
United States Senator

_____________________

Immigration Reform Thoughts

Looking at a Senator James Lankford Email 

 

John R. Houk

© March 15, 2018

___________________

Response from Senator James Lankford

 

Senator Lankford About Page

 

Senator James Lankford is committed to the protection of the future for our families, the transparency and efficiency of the federal government, and the ability of our nation to remain the world leader. He believes that empowering families, individuals, communities, and private enterprise will grow our economy and protect our values.

 

After serving four years in the U.S. House of Representatives, James was elected to the U.S. Senate to complete an unexpired term on November 4, 2014 and re-elected to a full six-year senate term on November 8, 2016.

 

As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, Lankford fights unnecessary and burdensome regulation and advocates for a more restrained federal government.

 

Personal faith, local decision-making, and opportunity for every person, regardless of their background, are core values for Senator Lankford. Before his time in Congress, from 1995 to 2009, James served as Director of Student Ministry at the Baptist Convention of Oklahoma and Director of the Falls Creek Youth Camp, the largest youth camp in the United States, with more than 51,000 individuals attending each summer.

 

James lives in Edmond with his wife Cindy. They have been married for 25 years and have two daughters: Hannah and Jordan. He enjoys spending time with his family, sport shooting, and reading.

 

READ THE REST

The Great Negotiator


Justin Smith and many Conservatives looking at President Trump’s willingness to negotiate on allowing illegal aliens to remain in America is viewed as a betrayal of one his campaign promises.

 

In my humble opinion some kind of give and take is necessary to end legislative gridlock. So, if illegals are proven working individuals that pay taxes, I don’t have a problem with amnesty. HOWEVER, if illegal aliens are living on taxpayer social programs, those illegal aliens need to receive the boot.

 

ALSO, if the Dems will not negotiate on effective border control – e.g. A WALL – Then blame the Dems and give all illegal aliens the boot. If illegal aliens cry racism, they should direct their anger toward recalcitrant Dems.

 

Thus, I am not totally on board with Justin, but in some ways, I am willing to be harsher with the blame falling squarely on the Dems.

 

JRH 1/14/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The Great Negotiator

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/13/2018 4:28 PM

 

The negotiations on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), opened under a false sense of urgency by President Trump, the “stable genius” and “great negotiator”, and sixteen senators and seven House members, on Tuesday January 9, 2018 in an ineffectual move to protect 800,000 DACA recipients from potential deportation, once DACA ends on March 5th. These negotiations represent the lowest moment of the Trump presidency, nothing more and nothing less than another amnesty for illegal aliens and the Democrats’ first step towards a full amnesty for nearly forty million illegal aliens (government stats 11 to 12 million), a betrayal of America.

 

If the proposed Dream Act of 2017, the replacement bill of choice, introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is any indication of the legislative “solution”, America will be forced to give 3.3 million illegal aliens a conditional lawful permanent resident status. Roughly 1.8 million would certainly become naturalized citizens over the next decade, if not sooner, with voting rights.

 

What happened to President Trump’s 2016 campaign promise to deport all illegal aliens?

 

The switch came after his advisors told him that this DACA amnesty is popular with both Democrats and liberal Republicans. He probably also noted left-leaning polls, like in Politico, that show 54 percent of Americans want to give the “Dreamers” a path to citizenship.

 

I stated in October 2015, that “Trump’s values shift like the changing of one’s underwear from day to day, depending on his personal agenda and who had his ear at the moment”. Ann Coulter, a conservative journalist, seemed to concur, as she recently stated, “The president cares only about his press, has no grasp of details of policy, and simply agrees with the last person to speak.”

 

Under no illusions, one might wish to see our leaders vote to deport all illegal aliens, but the reality of the matter suggests some form of amnesty will be passed eventually, unless there is a loud and massive opposition immediately voiced. While House Republicans are forcefully pushing President Trump’s demands on the wall and heightened security, along with the addition of thousands of federal immigration enforcement officers and judges and E-Verify, through the Goodlatte-McCaul bill, the Senate is prepared to give amnesty in exchange for nothing.

 

The Goodlatte-McCaul bill also ends chain migration and the diversity visa lottery, which allowed the last two Islamic terrorists into the country and the attacks on New York City. It allows the Justice Department to withhold grants from sanctuary cities too.

 

It should also be noted, that after the Department of Homeland Security detained a DACA recipient with gang ties, early in 2017, it acknowledged revoking the DACA status of over 1500 recipients, due to criminal conviction or gang affiliation. How many other criminals have evaded the department’s scrutiny?

 

To his credit, President Trump stated: “It has to be a bill where we’re able to secure our border. Drugs are pouring into our country at a record pace. A lot of people coming in that we can’t have.”

 

Congress could accomplish the same things, without granting a blanket amnesty, if they really wanted to do so, couldn’t they? But the liberals of both parties aren’t working for America, are they?

 

Curiously, the Great Negotiator’s negotiating skills are less than impressive, given Republicans hold the House, the Senate and the presidency. It is the Democrats, not the president, who are driving a hard bargain.

 

The Dreamers have no right to be here in the first place, since they or their parents broke U.S. law, and they deserve that right even less, when they display 1794 maps of Mexico and wave the Mexican flag in our streets. They have no say over anything America chooses to grant them; and yet, these Dreamers beseech our Congress for America’s solicitude and benevolent care, while standing on the steps of our state houses and at the Capital in D.C. and demand that any DACA replacement legislation be a “clean” bill.

 

During the meeting, when Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked President Trump if he would “be agreeable” to a “clean” bill, it was obvious that he didn’t understand that meant leaving out his demands, like more border security and the wall, because he replied: “Yeah … I would like to do that. Go ahead. I think a lot of people would like to see that, but I think we have to do DACA first.”

 

Representative Kevin McCarthy, a liberal Republican, interceded, fortunately. He clarified for the President that he was, in fact, acquiescing to an amnesty bill absent any border security provisions.

 

Later, flanked by Senator Dick Durbin (D-ILL) and Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), President Trump said: “We’ll do DACA and we can certainly start comprehensive immigration reform the following afternoon. Okay? We’ll take an hour off and then we’ll start.” Whether the president understood it or not, “comprehensive immigration reform” stands for amnesty.

 

To be clear, Congress has no moral or legal obligation or responsibility to grant amnesty to anyone who violated our immigration laws or knowingly put their children in an awful legal predicament. Let the March 5th deadline pass, let deportations proceed, and let the Dreamers sort it out, case by case, in immigration court, like they should have done over all these years.

 

Complicating negotiations further is a decision by a liberal activist judge in San Francisco on Tuesday evening, January 9th, that temporarily banned the Trump administration from ending DACA. Until Congress takes immigration policy matters out of the Courts’ jurisdiction, invoking that right under Article III of the Constitution, our borders will never be fully secured and illegals will continue to arrive at our borders en masse.

 

This DACA bill and any general amnesty for the total millions of other illegal aliens helps and benefits the illegal alien population and the Democratic Party only. Within a year of being granted residency or a path to citizenship, activist judges will grant full citizenship, and the bulk of these illegals will expand the Democratic voter base, setting aside all of Trump’s “wins” and border security gains; and Democratic Socialists will get to take permanent control of U.S. elections, laws and governments, for decades to come.

 

A recently leaked memo from the Center For American Progress reads, in part: “The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also  a critical component to the Democratic Party’s electoral success … “.

 

An attempt to destroy our borders forever more is still underway as “elite” liberals from both parties, backed by U.S. and global billionaires, seek to force American citizens towards a regional and then global governance. They present America a false solution, in these DACA proposals, on the pretext it serves America’s interests and does not harm our society at large, for their own self-interest, and these members of Congress, who are supposed to represent Americans, not illegal aliens, are eroding and undermining the sanctity of the entire legal system and, by extension, our Republic.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

All Muslims Are Potential Terrorists


I have a politically incorrect attitude toward Islam and hence those that practice the theopolitical faith. I have mentioned in numerous blog posts that Islam’s revered writings deny Jesus is the Son of God, was Crucified to death on a Cross and arose bodily with a glorified human body sitting at the Right Hand of the Father. These denials make Islam an Antichrist religion. Ergo, for me, the totality of Islam is Antichrist evil.

 

1 John 2: 18, 22-23 (NKJV):

 

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[a] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

 

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

On the other hand. I realize under the Religious Freedom of the First Amendment, Muslims have a right to practice their Antichrist faith. EXCEPT or UNLESS a practicing Muslim insists on non-assimilation to the point of disregarding the U.S. Constitution. Actively disregarding the Constitution is an act of sedition against the rule of law in the American Republic and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

THAT MEANS preventing Muslims from coming to America that actively support the contradictions inherent in Sharia Law against U.S. should be refused immigration and refugee status. AND Muslims residing in the U.S. as citizens or immigrants but illegally working against the Constitution MUST be prosecuted accordingly.

 

Justin Smith addresses this Islam/Muslim incompatibility with the Constitutional rule of law in America.

 

JRH 1/8/18

Please Support NCCR

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

All Muslims Are Potential Terrorists  

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent January 5, 2018 5:50 PM

 

Muslims are the only people committing global wholesale murder in the name of Islam. They are the only people who openly proclaim their desire to kill Jews and Westerners, and Muslims are the only people vowing to conquer the world: These facts are not irrelevant to America’s immigration policy.

 

Now, a large Muslim population is here in America. They are here in a target rich environment and surrounded by those they seek to force to convert and submit or murder for Allah, and their mission is closer to fulfillment, no longer separated by thousands of miles, with only a thin imaginary line of “security” — nothing — between them and their next chosen victims, when next they choose to strike. They have made themselves at home, here in America, the land they call “the Great Satan”.

 

One of the most recognized peaceful verses from the Quran states “God invites you into the abode of peace” –10:25. However, the following passages are some of those most accepted by the majority of Muslims world-wide, including here in America: “Fight against such as those… as believe neither in Allah nor ‘The Last Day’… and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” – Sura 9:29…. “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads… bind your captives firmly..” -Sura 47:4….”Do not befriend them (Christians, Jews, infidels) until they have fled their homes for the cause of Allah. If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.” -Sura 4:89

 

If one looks at the Muslim community of 6-10 million (depending on whose statistics one believes) within America, we find a community reticent to help law enforcement and intelligence officers locate and capture terror suspects. Information is rarely received from a Muslim informing on another Muslim. Then, when one looks at the largest concentration of Muslims living in the U.S., 250,000, in Dearborn, MI [Blog Editor: The stats I found on Dearborn estimates the 2017 population total for Dearborn is about 98,153], one sees a community that, time and again, almost annually attempts to insert Sharia Law principles into their city codes, []

 

[Blog Editor: In Googling “almost annually attempts to insert Sharia Law principles into their city codes”, I discovered Googles devotion to Multiculturalism. The search results were dominated by Leftist MSM and Muslim Apologists indignantly proclaiming there is no Sharia in Dearborn, MI. There might be no civil codes instituting Sharia, but there are plenty of instances where Sharia influences show up. Here is one title demonstrating the prevention of the exercise of the 1st Amendment: “Dearborn, Michigan: First City In The US To Enforce Sharia Law”. An example of Dearborn Police preventing Christian Free Speech:

 

VIDEO: David woods story of sharia law in America!

 

AND HERE:

 

VIDEO: the islamization of dearborn michigan

 

And Muslims pelting Christians with heavy objects in Dearborn:

 

VIDEO: Muslims Stoning Christians in Dearborn, Michigan

 

Justin Smith paragraph continues …]

 

[…] even as Jessica Mokdad was murdered in an “honor killing” near the city limits. Even moderate Muslims tend to protect the most radical within their ranks from an ingrained at birth sense of loyalty to the “ummah” … the world-wide Muslim community.

 

How can imams reconcile the Islamic view of dar al-Islam, the territory of Islam, and dar al-Harb, the territory of war which includes all states and communities not under Muslim rule, in conjunction with the aforementioned Sura verses and Our U.S. Constitution? I do not believe they can, nor in all too many instances do they desire any peaceful cooperation and solutions.

 

From 1993 until 2001, the triple agent Ali Mohamed compromised U.S. intelligence as he worked for Al Qaeda. Mohamed was a former Egyptian captain turned CIA operative, who also became a U.S. Special Forces advisor and an FBI informant. He penetrated the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg, while simultaneously training the cell of Islamic terrorists from the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn that detonated the first bomb at the World Trade Center in 1993. In 1998 he trained bin-Laden’s bodyguard and took surveillance photos that bin-Laden used to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Kenya.

 

History does not detail any example — not one — of large numbers of Muslims ever assimilating into a non-Muslim culture. In fact, just the opposite occurs. As the Muslim population grows, it strives for preeminence and the domination of its host nation, just as witnessed in India, Cyprus, Lebanon, Nigeria, Serbia and many other nations.

 

In nations where huge Muslim majorities already exist, where are the Christians? Where are the Jews?

 

Resettle these “refugees” and “immigrants” in Muslim majority nations. Let them go to Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Emirates, the five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula, which have not accepted a single refugee to date.

 

Consider the violent nature at the heart of Islam. Consider that Islam is beyond reformation during this century. Consider that moderate Muslims are simply terrorists in a queue waiting for their imams’ call (fatwa) to “holy war” and martyrdom; that many mosques, such as the Islamic Center of Boston and Nashville and Orange County, California, all carry and advocate Islam’s message of hate and violence. Consider the decades long list of Muslim immigrants, Muslim converts and U.S. born Muslims – second and third generation – who have plotted and committed acts of terrorism against America and U.S. soldiers serving across the Middle East, from Ramzi Yousef, Anjem [Adnan] Shukrijuma and Adam Gadan [or Gadahn] to Mir Amal [or Aimal] Kansi [aka Mir Qazi, Aimal Khan Kasi], Anwar Awlaki and on to the Tsarnaev brothers and Syed Farook, and one can only determine that Muslim immigration should be halted immediately and permanently.

 

Understand the prevalence of the “eye for an eye” philosophy ingrained in Islamic culture and applied against any perceived wrong, at the slightest provocation, across the entire world, from France to Mali, despite the fact their Islamic doctrines have created their own misery. And then, rather than open the door to thousands of more potential and active terrorists, remember American parents and children murdered on 9/11 and at Boston — American children orphaned — and act forcefully and effectively to ensure something similar or worse will never happen on our watch again: Press America’s leaders to halt all Muslim immigration now.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by bracket and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

How Many More Americans Must Die


It is my humble opinion there are two threats to the culture that has made America great in the past: 1) Leftist transformist ideology abandoning Christian morality and Constitutional Originalism and 2) Islamic intolerant theopolitical supremacist ideology.

 

Justin Smith passionately writes of the Islamic threat to America via the idiotic immigration rules supported by Transformist Leftists.

JRH 12/30/17

Please Support NCCR

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

How Many More Americans Must Die

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 12/28/2017 8:10 PM

 

America cannot allow a dangerous club of Islamic appeasers, apologists and willing accomplices in the federal courts and the ranks of Congress, to stay the course with their constipated logic, or their treason, and refusal to employ common sense regarding Muslim immigration into our country. They have brought a steady flow of Muslims to America, since the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, that has been accompanied by a constant, steady stream of Islamic terror attacks, from the 9/11 WTC attacks to Ft Hood, the Boston Bombing and more, and Americans would be well within the Constitution to demand that this club cease sheltering terrorists, terrorist candidates, and future terrorists, these sons of Mohammed.

 

Last January, every Democrat and 22 Republicans in the U.S. Senate, opposed President Trump’s travel ban imposed on terror sponsoring nations. And recently, on December 22nd 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court blocked it for the third time.

 

In November 2017, America witnessed Sayfullo Saipov, an Uzbekistan national and a Muslim, ruthlessly murder eight people on a New York City bike path. This was soon followed on December 11th 2017 by Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi national and a Muslim, attempting to detonate a suicide bomb in New York City; it partially exploded and injured five people.

 

How many more Americans must die before Americans stand together and deport all non-citizen Muslims and halt all Muslim immigration?

 

The truth is recognizable and exists for those informed analysts and others capable of cogent thought, regarding Islam. Islamic migration is impossible to fully integrate into American society, and Muslims are not capable of assimilating into Western civilization [HERE & HERE], holistically speaking.

 

Sayyid Qubt, one of the foremost founding fathers of prevailing Islamic thought, stated: “A Muslim has no country except that part of the earth where the Sharia of Allah is established … a Muslim has no nationality except his belief … There is only one place on earth which can be called the home of Islam, and it is that place where the Islamic state is established and the Sharia is the authority and Allah’s limits are observed …” [Similar English translation HERE – “Allah’s” translated as “God’s”].

 

An August 2011 PEW study, entitled ‘Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support in Extremism’, noted that 65 percent of Muslims in America do not think of themselves first as Americans and only second as Muslims. This same study revealed that approximately 567,000 U.S. Muslims support terrorism, as a political tool, to a fair or great degree. Together with this, it is no wonder sixty percent of respondents stated that America would soon witness Islamic terrorism rise in America.

 

Quoting the “prophet” Mohammed from the Hadith: “I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad (Holy War) for the sake of Allah.”

 

In 1998, speaking before a packed crowd at the Flamingo Palace in Fremont, California, Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council for American-Islamic Relations, stated: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to be dominant …”. His closing words stated that Islam should be the only accepted “religion” on Earth.

 

During a 2015 interview of some local Somali Muslims in Cedar Riverside, Minnesota, several Muslim men told journalist Ami Horowitz that they preferred Sharia law over U.S. law. They also wanted to suppress free speech and any criticism of Islam or the “prophet” Mohammed. One man even told her that it is right to kill anyone who insults the “prophet” Mohammed.

 

Muslims often boast that they love death more than Americans love life, but Muslims really just hate life. Although the number of Muslims willing to blow themselves up in order to murder non-Muslims seems to be small, the number of Muslims willing to condemn these terrorists is even smaller, and many Muslims cheer for the terrorists daily and each time they murder a European, Israeli or American, in this culture that refers to Adolph Hitler as “Islam’s Favorite Infidel“.

 

Hitler- Islam’s Favorite Infidel. Photo by Bosch Fawstin

 

Whether the majority of Muslims are truly “peaceful” or simply dormant, less devout Muslims, or violent fundamentalist Muslims is irrelevant, since nearly every recent terrorist seemed peaceful, until he wasn’t. Objectively good human beings, who identify as Muslim, give Islam a far better face than it deserves, and this creates a false sense of security for many Americans, and it also allows for the growth of a large, stealth jihadi terrorist population, which schemes to Islamicize America and destroy Her Republic through politics, immigration and terrorism. So, we are left a game of Muslim roulette, while our intelligence communities tackle the near impossible task of differentiating between “good Muslims” and those trying to murder us.

 

Every person can follow his own conscience in America, so long as it doesn’t interfere with sane reason or bid him act against the liberty of others. However, Islam, the Koran and the Hadith, where the true meaning of Islam can be found in practice today, as it has been for over 1400 years, embraces and commands the murder of non-Muslims and infidels, censorship, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, misogyny and wife beatings and honor killings. This is evil and the supremacist ideology of Islam sanctions every bit of it.

 

There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims seeking to murder non-Muslims and Americans.

 

Five days after two Muslims murdered fourteen people in San Bernardino, on December 2nd 2015, the campaign team for Donald Trump stated, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

 

On July 6th 2017, President Trump spoke before the Polish people and stated: “While we will always welcome new citizens who share our values and love our people, our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind.”

 

It doesn’t take a genius to “figure out what is going on”, with centuries worth of evidence revealing Islam’s evil modus operandi of conquest and its continuous attacks against the West, and it is past time to close our borders and America to all Muslims. Many will call this “wrong” or “un-American”, because many already suggest that Americans must work harder to coexist with Muslims, who reject the voices of reason. Work harder towards what end? Any time we spend working with a culture that calls for our destruction, we are working towards our own destruction.

 

Too many of America’s leaders, such as National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, do not understand, or they choose to ignore the fact, that a Muslim Crusade is underway, a war between civilizations and a war of religions, the Muslims call “Holy War”, Jihad. They don’t want to understand that for the Muslims and their Crusader Jihadis, America and the West is a world to conquer and subjugate under Islam.

 

Americans must demand that the current Congress exert its rightful control over policy matters, along with President Trump’s rightful authority, to remove the Court’s jurisdiction regarding immigration matters constitutionally under Article III. If this Congress will not, America must elect new people in 2018 who will.

 

Despite President Trump’s best efforts, today, there still exists the fraudulent mockery promoted by Leftists and Muslim appeasers and apologists, that reveres the Muslim “refugee” and immigrant invaders and slanders the defenders of America, absolves the terrorists and condemns the victims, weeps for the Taliban and curses Americans. In their effort to equate Islam’s “freedom” by way of submission to Allah to America’s real freedom and individual liberty, they essentially compare a tent in the desert to our Capitol Building and the White House.

 

Islamic ideology that devalues human life, through its belief that Paradise awaits those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (Koran 9:111) and calls openly for Israel’s destruction, this is the ideology that makes it impossible for Americans and Muslims to live in peace. This violent, evil ideology of Islam has no place for Americans or non-Muslims or Europeans and Muslims to live together, alongside on another, in peace on an indefinite basis as equals.

 

America is ours, and it cannot be for all, so long as billions of people live, who do not love freedom and constitutional governance, like most Americans do. We must see the enemy clearly in this war against Islam, since America’s survival depends on the will of Her people to prevail over Islam. We must gather the will to demand that America’s borders and citizens are protected, while we fight to defend our traditions, principles and virtues at any cost, preserving our culture and way of life in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it. Our American way of life is worth defending with our lives.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Port Authority explosion suspect: What we know about Akayed Ullah


Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi chain immigrant, tried an act of Islamic terrorism in New York City. Ullah was an apparent epic failure as a terrorist because the “low tech” pipe bomb strapped to his body exploded with limited casualties including his idiot self.

 

Kaitlyn Schallhorn writing at Fox News has some details.

 

JRH 12/11/17

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

Port Authority explosion suspect: What we know about Akayed Ullah

 

By Kaitlyn Schallhorn

December 11, 2017

Fox News

 

An attempted suicide bomber who set off a rush-hour explosion at the nation’s busiest bus terminal is a Bangladeshi national living in Brooklyn who was inspired by ISIS, law enforcement officials said.

 

The suspect in Monday morning’s blast at Port Authority in midtown Manhattan was identified as Akayed Ullah, 27. Ullah strapped a pipe bomb to his body with Velcro and zip ties, and it detonated in a subway corridor, police said.

 

Details on a possible motive were unclear, though analysts at the SITE Intelligence Group noted that the pro-ISIS Maqdisi media group suggested a link between the attack and President Trump’s decision last week to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, The Washington Post reported.

 

What do we know about the suspect?

 

This photo from a 2011 drivers license shows Akayed Ullah, the suspect in the explosion near New York’s Times Square on Monday, Dec. 11, 2017.  (New York Department of Motor Vehicles via AP)

 

Ullah lived in Brooklyn after he entered the U.S. in 2011 from Bangladesh on a chain migration visa, Department of Homeland Security Press Secretary Tyler Houlton said in a statement.

 

The DHS said Ullah came to the U.S. on an F43 visa, a preferential visa available for those with family in the U.S. who are citizens.

 

He was considered a “Lawful Permanent Resident from Bangladesh,” Houlton told Fox News.

 

Law enforcement officials said Ullah was inspired by ISIS but didn’t appear to have direct contact with the group and likely acted alone.

 

Ullah was a licensed cab driver from March 2012 to March 2015, the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission confirmed to Fox News. His TLC For-Hire Vehicle Driver’s License was not renewed after 2015.

 

The TLC spokesperson did not confirm “whether he drove for any particular base, or whether he simply got the license but didn’t drive at all.” He did say Ullah was not licensed to drive a yellow taxi.

 

An Uber spokeswoman confirmed to Fox News that the ride-sharing company has no record of Ullah being “connected to the Uber platform.” Lyft also does not “have any records” that Ullah worked for it, a spokesperson told Fox News.

 

 

What else do we know about the attack?

 

The suspect allegedly packed a 5-inch metal pipe bomb and battery pack into the right side of his jacket, according to The New York Post. Ullah told police he made the bomb at his work, law enforcement sources told Fox News.

 

The Post reported that he worked for an electrical company.

 

The device was an “effectively low-tech device,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Monday. Officials said they are investigating whether the suspect detonated the bomb intentionally or if it went off prematurely.

 

The explosion occurred just before 7:30 a.m. near 42nd Street between Seventh and Eighth avenues, law enforcement officials said. The explosion triggered a massive emergency response by police and fire both above and below ground, tangling subway and bus service at Port Authority.

 

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said the explosion was an “attempted terrorist attack.”

 

“At this point in time,” the only suspect is the one man already in custody, de Blasio said Monday morning, adding that the city is lucky the suspect didn’t achieve his intended goals.

 

At least four people, not including the suspect, were injured in the explosion, an NYPD spokeswoman confirmed to Fox News Monday afternoon. Three patients have been released from the hospital.

 

Fox News’ Jake Gibson, Rick Leventhal, John Roberts and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

__________________________

Kaitlyn Schallhorn is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter @K_Schallhorn.

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.