Can’t Use Commerce Laws to Illegalize FGM Child Abuse


John R. Houk

© November 23, 2018

Nothing to be thankful for from Multiculturalist Leftist Federal Judges that ignore the law to rule in favor of Islamic traditions over the rule of law!

 

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman (residing in Detroit) ruled that a Federal Law made 22 years ago was unconstitutional allowing Muslims to proceed in the child abuse of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

 

FGM is overwhelmingly practiced among Muslims as a matter of tradition. Multiculturalist Left Wing organizations (National & Global) go out of the way to point out that Islam theologically does not mandate FGM. The same organizations will point out that a minority of Christian and Jewish based people also practice FGM.

 

The only thing accurate in downplaying the Muslim practice of FGM is the abusive practice is more cultural than religious but fail to be informative of the huge number of Muslims that have a tradition of FGM and indeed associate it with their religious faith. Also the Christians and Jews known to abuse their children with FGM are culturally influenced by the Muslims in close proximity (primarily Copts of Egypt and Black-Africans who identify themselves as Jewish in Ethiopia).

 

So YES this is primarily an Islamic issue especially as it is Muslim refugees or Muslim immigrants from whence FGM is practiced are now flouting Western Laws in Europe and the U.S. to perpetuate FGM in the West in the name of their Muslim traditions.

 

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), female genital mutilation (FGM), also referred to as “female circumcision” or “female cutting”, “comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons” [1]. The WHO estimates that about 140 million girls and women worldwide are living with the consequences of FGM and that every year in Africa alone, about 3 million girls are at risk for genital mutilation [1]. FGM has been documented in 28 African countries and in some countries in Asia and the Middle East [2]. However, it has also become a human rights and health issue in western countries where the practice is continued by immigrants from countries where FGM is commonly performed [3]. For instance, the German organization “Terre des Femmes” estimates that about 30.000 girls and women living in Germany have undergone or are at risk of being subjected to FGM [4].

 

Given the fact that some Sunni Muslims legitimate FGM by quoting a controversial hadith (a saying attributed to the Prophet Mohammed) in which the Prophet allegedly did not object to FGM provided cutting was not too severe 56 and that the least invasive type of FGM (partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce) is also called “Sunna Circumcision” [7], FGM is widely considered to be associated with Islam. However, during a conference held in Cairo/Egypt in 2006, Muslim scholars from various nations declared FGM to be un-islamic 89 and, in fact, the traditional cultural practice of FGM predates both Islam and Christianity. …  According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FGM is actually practiced by Muslim, Christian and Jewish groups. There are countries, such as Nigeria, Tanzania and Niger, where the prevalence of FGM is even greater among Christian groups [11]. In Egypt, FGM is also practiced on Coptic girls [12], while in Ethiopia, the Beta Israel or Falashas, a Jewish minority, subject their girls to genital mutilation [5].

 

… Yet, a Jewish minority group living in Ethiopia, the so-called Falashas or Beta Israel, practice ritual female genital surgery [15]. Buff believes that “as a persecuted and isolated Jewish enclave for thousands of years, the Falashas did not have access to either definitive Jewish texts or informed rabbinical sources” [14]. In fact, the Falashas practice an archaic form of Judaism, strictly adhering to the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. They do not speak or read Hebrew. Their bible is written in Ge’ez, which is the clerical language of the Ethiopian and Eritrean orthodox church, and they do not know the other important religious scriptures of Judaism, the Talmud and the Mishnah 1617. The Falashas consider themselves descendants of the tribe of “Dan”, one of the 10 “lost tribes of Israel”, and were acknowledged as such, and therefore as being officially Jewish, by the Israeli government in 1975 [17]. … After their immigration to Israel, the Ethiopian Jews were converted to orthodox rabbinic Judaism. Nowadays, only a minority is still living in Ethiopia [17].

 

… The authors also found that the customs of FGM is readily given up by Ethiopian Jews right after their immigration to Israel, as “they see themselves a part of a Jewish society without FGM” [15].

 

Christian view on FGM

 

Literature dealing with the Christian view on FGM is very scarce, however, Christian authorities unanimously agree that FGM has no foundation in the religious texts of Christianity 1819202122. During the 2006 conference of The East Africa Program, the attending Christian (Coptic) leaders emphasized that “Christian doctrine is clear on the sanctity of the human body” [22]. Yet, as has already been mentioned before, FGM is practiced among Christian groups, e.g. in Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania and Kenya. Although FGM is not prescribed by religious law, many of those practicing it may consider it a religious obligation, as female sexual purity plays an important role, not only in Christianity, but in all monotheistic religions. (The Jewish and Christian view on female genital mutilation; [Ingrid] El-Damanhoury, Ed.; ScienceDirectAfrican Journal of Urology: Volume 19, Issue 3, September 2013, Pages 127-129)

 

Trying to protect Islam’s reputation by claiming Christians and Jews practice FGM abuse is a bit disingenuous when undoubtedly the largest numbers clearly lay with Islam.

 

AND it is obvious to me that Federal Judge Bernard Friedman ruled laws outlawing FGM unconstitutional was an act of dhimmitude homage to one of the largest Islamic population centers in the USA namely the Detroit metropolitan area – MY FIRST REACTION.

 

AFTER READING MORE INFO – If I was to give Judge Friedman any benefit of the doubt, it might seem the Judge is saying legislate a better law that specifically addresses Female Genital Mutilation as child abuse rather than manipulate statutes to use Commerce Laws to illegalize FGM.

 

U.S. v Nagarwala Dismissal Order 11-20-18 on SCRIBD – 28 pages

 

Below are the details from Leo Hohmann.

 

JRH 11/23/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks to keep my blogging habit flowing:

Please Support NCCR

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

Federal judge strikes down U.S. ban on female genital mutilation

 

By Leo Hohmann

November 21, 2018

LeoHohmann.com

 

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was charged in Detroit in April 2017 with mutilating the genitalia of young girls.

 

It is now OK in America for parents to deliver their daughters up to hack “doctors” and nurses who will mutilate their genitals and call it a religious ritual, thanks to a federal judge in Detroit.

 

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman on Tuesday dismissed female genital mutilation charges against several doctors in the first criminal case of its kind nationwide, ruling the law is unconstitutional, the Detroit News reported.

 

Friedman’s insane opinion comes two weeks after defense lawyers mounted the first challenge to an FGM law passed by Congress in 1996. The law sat there for 19 years without a single prosecution until April 2017. That’s when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions decided to prosecute two Muslim doctors, a wife of one of the doctors and the parents of nine girls who were transported to a clinic in Michigan, several of them across state lines, to have their genitals cut.

 

Co-defendant Dr. Fakhruddin Attar

 

Prosecutors said at the time that upwards of 100 girls ranging in age from 7 to 12 had been sent to the clinic, which sounds more like a Third World torture chamber.

 

The U.S. already allows up to 1 million babies to be aborted every year. Now our judges say it’s acceptable to mutilate young girls. What is the future for a society unable or unwilling to protect its most vulnerable?

 

Until Sessions’ brought this case, no one had ever been prosecuted under the 22-year-old federal law, not under presidents Clinton, Bush or Obama.

 

Prosecutors told the Detroit News that the girls — four from Michigan, two from Minnesota and three from Illinois — underwent the brutal FBM procedure of having their clitorises fully or partially removed. But defense lawyer Shannon Smith argued that the procedure performed on the girls was “benign” and not a mutilation. It was part of their religion and their culture and therefore should not be prevented by law.

 

Attorney Shannon Smith specializes in defending people against sexual crimes.

 

She found a sympathetic ear in the liberal Judge Friedman, who apparently found a loophole in the 1996 law in which he was able to deny that the FGM doctors and parents were engaged in interstate commerce and therefore committed no federal crime.

 

The doctors involved still face charges of conspiracy and obstruction and could face up to 30 years or more in prison if convicted on those counts.

 

Hopefully the U.S. Department of Justice will appeal this ghastly ruling by Judge Friedman. In the meantime, this should prompt Congress to go back and tweak the 1996 law to make sure it is strictly enforceable.

 

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville, Michigan, was arrested in April 2017 and accused of heading a conspiracy that lasted 12 years, involved seven other people and led to mutilating the genitalia of nine girls as part of a religious procedure practiced by some members of the Dawoodi Bohra, a Muslim sect from India that has a small community in Metro Detroit.

 

Most local members of the sect involved belong to the Anjuman-e-Najmi mosque in Farmington Hills.

 

The judge’s opinion drops charges against three mothers. They are:

 

  • Farida Arif of Oakland County, who was charged with participating in the conspiracy and having her daughter undergo female genital mutilation.

 

  • Two mothers from Minnesota, Haseena Halfal and Zainab Hariyanawala, who were charged last year with female genital mutilation and conspiracy to commit female genital mutilation. The allegations involve their daughters, who were 7 at the time of the procedure.

 

The order Tuesday also dismissed charges against Tahera Shafiq, 49, of Farmington Hills. She was accused of participating in the procedure involving the Minnesota girls.

 

“She’s done, for the time being,” Shafiq’s lawyer, Jerome Sabbota, said. “It’s wonderful. She can go about her life. These are deeply religious people, and a lot of people don’t understand that.”

 

Worldwide, an estimated 140 million women and girls have undergone the procedure, according to the World Health Organization. More than 3 million girls in Africa undergo the procedure each year.

 

The procedure has been illegal in the U.S. since 1996, and there are no medical benefits for girls and women, according to the World Health Organization.

 

Female genital mutilation is an internationally recognized violation of human rights.

 

Some members of the Dawoodi Bohra community who have spoken against the procedure say the surgery is performed to suppress female sexuality, reduce sexual pleasure and curb promiscuity, according to court records.

 

The procedure is most common in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, along with migrants from those regions, according to the World Health Organization. For example, 99 percent of girls in Somali have their genitals mutilated while more than 85 percent of girls in Egypt are mutilated.

 

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control estimate that up to 500,000 women and girls are at risk of having the barbaric procedure performed on them. This high number is largely due to the increasing number of refugees, asylees and migrants imported to the U.S. from the Third World over the last 35 years. The vast majority of the refugees entering the U.S. every year, about 95 percent, are hand-selected by the United Nations.

 

There are four major types of female genital mutilation, including a partial or total removal of the clitoris.

 

Prosecutors in Michigan alleged that two girls’ clitorises were completely removed, but the evidence is lacking for at least one girl, Smith said.

 

Read the full story here.

_____________________

Can’t Use Commerce Laws to Illegalize FGM Child Abuse

John R. Houk

© November 23, 2018

_______________________

Federal judge strikes down U.S. ban on female genital mutilation

 

About Leo Hohmann 

 

Leo Hohmann is a veteran investigative reporter and author whose recent book, “Stealth Invasion” spent the majority of 2017 among Amazon.com’s top 10 books about immigration policy. He has spent decades researching and writing about education, immigration, crime, politics and religion. His articles have appeared at WND.com, Frontpage Magazine, Whistleblower Magazine, Jihad Watch, the Drudge Report, Refugee Resettlement Watch and many other websites and publications. Hohmann has been interviewed by dozens of local and national radio hosts including Laura Ingraham, Alex Jones, Daniel Horowitz, Larry Elder, George Noory of Coast to Coast, and Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries. His mission has always been to fearlessly report truths about the great issues of our time and connect the dots, wherever they may lead.

 

Donate to Leo Hohmann

 

The History of Jihad review by Dale Brown


Hat tip to apologiamixer at G+ and Youtube, I found this review of Robert Spencer’s newest book to date, “The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS”. I am currently reading this well sourced book on the reality of Islam in history.

 

JRH 10/29/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO: The History of Jihad review by Dale Brown


apologiamixer

Published on Oct 26, 2018

 

Robert Spencer’s book The History of Jihad, from Muhammad to ISIS, a review by Dale Brown

 

Learn From Europe, Become Educated on Dangers of Islam


John R. Houk

© September 16, 2018

Jamie Glazov originally wrote this strategy suggestion in 2016 as Obama was exiting the Office of POTUS. FrontPageMag has resurrected the article because of the devastation Muslim immigration has caused Western Culture in Europe not to mention the influence Islamic culture has had on the European Rule of Law.

 

Muslim perpetrated crimes of rape against non-Muslims which includes Muslim rape gangs and pedophile rings that the EU and individual European national governments seem so eager to hide and coverup.

 

Here’s a bit of tongue-n-cheek yet truthful video on the rape-jihad situation in Europe:

 

VIDEO: Grooming gangs in once Great Britain. A rape jihad.

 

Posted by Vincent Veritas

Published on Mar 20, 2018

 

Thousands of young women in Britain have been sexually assaulted by migrants and thousands more are waiting to be. Who is protecting them? Who stands for justice in the British Isles. Why are voices like Lauren Southern and Dankula being silenced? If you ask any of these questions you are labled [sic] an Islamophobe. Why do they want you to stay silent? Keep calm and carry on… takes on a much more ominous connotation under the strict censorship that has recently took hold of Britain.

 

Retweet this if you enjoy the video. I need the exposure!

 

Please subscribe or READ THE REST

 

And here are a few News articles that rape-jihad, Muslim rape gangs and pedophilia rings:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of what European elites in the EU and various national government officials in Europe may tell you, sex crimes have risen and you can correlate this problem with Muslim migrants, refugees and immigrants.

 

If American Multiculturalists have their way with an Open Borders agenda, you can expect the results in America. An example of the beginnings of Rape Jihad in America can be seen in the example of “three immigrant Muslim boys aged 14, 10 and 7 brutally raped a then 5-year old girl in an apartment complex laundry room” in Idaho and the apparent coverup by the Prosecution and Judge in the affair in 2016.

 

The Jamie Glazov resurrected post deals less with a Rape Jihad epidemic and more to with the politically incorrect concept of educating Americans in the dangers radical Political Islam the Muslim American organizations immersed in the anti-American theo-political ideology.

 

JRH 9/16/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

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

9 STEPS TO SUCCESSFULLY COUNTER JIHAD

The crucial strategies that will turn the dire conflict in America’s favor.

 

By Jamie Glazov

September 10, 2018

FrontPageMag.com

 

Muslim Carrying ISIS Flag

 

[Pre-Order Jamie Glazov’s new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring UsHERE.]

 

Editors’ note: In light of the skyrocketing phenomenon of Muslim migrants stabbing unbelievers in random stabbing sprees in Europe, as well as the calculated denial that leaders, authorities and media are enforcing about it, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to the crucial steps America and the West must take to robustly confront the unceasing onslaught by Jihad and its leftist enablers. We are, therefore, reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s July 12, 2016 Breitbart article, “9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad”. Having written the article in the closing chapter of the disastrous Obama administration, the author recognizes and celebrates the life-saving turn-around disposition that the Trump administration has brought in to counter Jihad. Frontpage is most confident that the suggested steps below will continue to be the overall focus of the new administration — which, thankfully, is now taking many of the crucial and constructive steps vis-à-vis our enemy.

We find the article more relevant and urgent than ever due to the 17th anniversary of 9/11 approaching tomorrow:

 

*

 

9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad.
By Jamie Glazov

 

While the Obama administration continues to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to direct American foreign policy and, therefore, to implement “strategies” that render America defenseless in the face of Jihad and stealth Jihad, there are some alternative strategies that have the potential to turn this catastrophic situation around completely in America’s favor.

 

Below are 9 concrete steps that, if implemented by a future American administration, would make a big difference in preserving our civilization and in defending Americans from terrorism:

 

  1. Label the Enemy and Make a Threat Assessment.

 

The Obama administration continues to refuse to label our enemy and, therefore, it continues to enable our defeat in the terror war. It is urgent that we name our enemy (i.e. Islamic Jihad) and definitively identify what ideology inspires our enemy (i.e. Islamic law).

 

  1. Scrap “Countering Violent Extremism.”

 

“Countering Violent Extremism” is the pathetic and destructive focus of the Obama administration in allegedly fighting the terror war. On the one hand, this “focus” is vague to the point of being meaningless and completely incapacitates us. On the other hand, this focus allows the administration to perpetuate the destructive fantasy that there are other types of “extremists” — who just happen to be the Left’s political opponents — that pose a great threat to the country.

 

For example, as Stephen Coughlin has revealed, the “violent extremists” the administration is clearly worried about are the “right-wing Islamophobes” whom the administration obviously considers to be the real threat to American security.

 

The “Countering Violent Extremism” is trash and needs to be thrown in the garbage.

 

  1. Stop “Partnering” With Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups.

 

The government needs to stop cooperating with, and listening to, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA immediately. The Muslim Brotherhood document, the Explanatory Memorandum, has made it clear that the Brotherhood’s objective is to destroy our civilization from within by our own hands with the influence of these groups. Moreover, as Robert Spencer advises, there needs to be legislation that will bar all such groups and affiliated individuals from advising the government or receiving any grants from it.

 

  1. Implement a Concrete “Countering-Jihad” Strategy.

 

After discarding the “Countering Violent Extremism” absurdity, a concrete Counter-Jihad strategy must become an official policy. It must specifically register that Jihadists are the enemies and that Islamic law (Sharia) is what specifically motivates them.

 

Most importantly, as Sebastian Gorka urges in Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, the government needs to lay down a vision, an actual “threat doctrine analysis” in a thorough document, just like George Kennan’s Long Telegram and NSC-68 did in laying out the strategic foundation to fighting communism in the Cold War. It is absolutely mind-boggling that nothing of this sort exists today in our terror war — and it is a reflection of the Left being in charge and of the destructive defeat that it is sowing.

 

  1. Launch Our Own Counter-propaganda Campaign.

 

The Left and Islamists engage in propaganda 24/7. What does our propaganda war entail? Zilch.

 

Sebastian Gorka is crucially correct, therefore, when he recommends a national counter-propaganda campaign that involves a two-part approach: the first being the bolstering of efforts to define our enemy (Steps #1 and #4 above) and, second, the strengthening of our allies and partners in their own counter-propaganda efforts – which must include our empowering of Muslims who are trying to form an anti-Jihadist version of Islam.

 

Consequently, educational programs have to be set up everywhere, from public schools to universities to workplaces, in businesses and numerous other institutions. These programs must crystallize what exactly Islamic Law is and how it inspires and sanctions violence against unbelievers. This has to also involve, as Gorka urges, “a nationwide program of education that includes the armed services as well as federal, state, and local police forces and the intelligence community.”

 

The education campaign must also focus on the second part of Gorka’s counter-propaganda campaign, which is to help strengthen Muslims who seek to seize Islam from the jihadists’ hands.

 

  1. Affirm Sharia’s Assault on the U.S. Constitution as Seditious.

 

Once the truth is accepted that jihadis are inspired and sanctioned by their Islamic texts, it must logically become required that mosques, Islamic schools and groups have to immediately curtail any teaching that motivates sedition, violence, and hatred of unbelievers (i.e. remember how CAIR advised Muslims not to talk to the FBI). Indeed, once the government discerns and labels the elements of Islamic law that threaten the American Constitution, any preaching and spreading of those elements in America must be labelled as seditious.

 

  1. Put Pressure on Mosques, Islamic Groups and Schools.

 

Authorities have to start subjecting mosques and other Islamic institutions to surveillance — and discard the suicidal leftist notion that it is “racist” and Islamophobic to do so. Islamic institutions have to be made to buffer their lip-service against terror with actually doing something about it. As Robert Spencer counsels, this has to involve introducing programs that teach against jihadists’ understanding of Islam — and these programs have to be regularly monitored by the government. (This will be a part of Gorka’s suggested counter-propaganda campaign discussed in Step #5).

 

Spencer rightly stresses that the paradigm has to become that Muslim communities have to win the “trust” of intelligence and law enforcement agents, rather than the other way around, which is, absurdly and tragically, the case right now.

 

  1. Bring Counter-Jihadists into the Government.

 

Instead of having Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers like Mohamed Elibiary serving on the U.S. Homeland Security Advisory Council (he “resigned” in Sept. 2014 under mysterious circumstances), and Muslim Brotherhood-linked individuals like Huma Abedin serving as the right-hand woman of Hillary Clinton, we need to bring in people who actually love America and want to protect it. We all know who these noble and courageous individuals are – and some of them are referenced in this article. The government must also bring in brave Muslim individuals who genuinely reject Jihad and empower them in propagating their anti-jihadist vision for Islam.

 

(P.S. Yes, there is an argument to be made that Islam cannot be Islam without Jihad. But the debate over this belongs in another forum. And whatever the answer, it does not mean that the effort to empower Muslims who want to make the anti-jihadist Islamic vision possible should not be made.)

 

  1. Ridicule the Enemy.

 

Ridicule is a vicious and potent weapon. There is a baffling and shameful silence in our culture’s sphere of comedy, especially in Hollywood and our media, with regard to the myriad ingredients of Sharia and Jihad that merit at least a million hilarious satirical sketches.

 

Bill Maher, for whatever unappealing drawbacks he has in conservatives’ eyes, has set a bold standard in this respect in his Burka Fashion Show skit. American comedians need to start writing scripts that follow in Maher’s footsteps and Americans need to encourage and equip them to do so – and to also vigorously defend them from the attacks and slanders they will inevitably receive from totalitarian leftist and Islamic forces.

 

We must never underestimate the crippling effect of comedy on the totalitarian Mullahs of the world. Indeed, the contemptuous, snickering and roaring laughter of people, as they gaze at the pathetic rules and lives of Sharia’s gatekeepers, poses a danger to tyrants like no other.

 

Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of Frontpagemag.com, the author of the critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and the host of the web-tv show, The Glazov Gang. His new book is Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com, follow him on Twitter: @JamieGlazov, and reach him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

_____________________

Learn From Europe, Become Educated on Dangers of Islam

John R. Houk

© September 16, 2018

______________________

9 STEPS TO SUCCESSFULLY COUNTER JIHAD

 

© COPYRIGHT 2018, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four  Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining the chief groups and individuals of the Left and their organizational interlocks.  It is a full service encyclopedia of the left providing an intellectual diagram of its institutional power in American culture and politics. DTN has had more than 8 million visitors so far this year and is a key resource for students, scholars and members of the media.

 

Since 2003, the Center has promoted READ THE REST

 

America Must Fight For Her Culture


I am a firm believer in the Counterjihad movement to expose the incompatibility of all things Islam with Judeo-Christian Western culture.  If you are a Multicultural Leftist it gets worse. I’m the kind of Counterjihadist understanding from Islamic revered writings that Islam is specifically Antisemitic and Anti-Christian in its theopolitical doctrine. And dear God in Heaven, if you are an American you have to realize Islam cannot coexist with the precepts of the U.S. Constitution.

 

So yup, I am anti-Islam!

 

JRH 8/5/18

Please Support NCCR

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

America Must Fight For Her Culture

Fight Islam or Pay a Heavy Price

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/4/2018 9:00 PM

 

America and Her Judeo-Christian Western culture is the best in the world, and all Americans must be prepared to defend both, unless they wish to live in a new and alien America, foreign to anything their forefathers could have ever conceived or would have ever allowed to take root. Christians and conservative constitutionalists must awaken to the reality that Islam is radically different from Christianity and Judaism and the beliefs of many other Americans, and they must reject cultural relativism and tolerance of Islam, or else our country will pay a heavier price than it already has at the hands of Muslim unrest, more terrorism and Islam itself, here to destroy us.

 

In America today, whether it is Nashville, TN. or Minneapolis, MN. and all across our country, there exists a second city, a state within the state, and a government within the government, a Muslim city and a city ruled by the Koran; and, while “no go zones” are not quite as prevalent or easily enforced by Muslims here in America, as they are in Europe and Australia, nevertheless, they still exist here, in closed communities like Islamberg, New York, Fargo, North Dakota, Willmar, Minnesota and the Cedar Riverside area of Minneapolis, as well as in Houston, Chicago and elsewhere.

 

Americans see Islamophobia used as a cudgel against them, just as it was last year, in Hamtramck, Michigan, which is home to the first Muslim majority city council in the country, a city with a massive Bangladesh and Yemeni population. Through a nonchalant attitude on sanitation, this population of Muslims has trashed the city, which was noted before the Council by Ian Perrotta, a council member, and this drew an immediate condemnation of his “bigotry and Islamophobia”, from the Council on American and Islamic Relations (CAIR [SEE ALSO HERE]).

 

More than trash, most Americans worry about the rise of terrorism and honor killings in our nation. Just last month, a Jordanian man in Texas, Ali Irsan, murdered his daughter’s husband, because he converted her to Christianity. Worse than this, our nation has witnessed a five percent increase, in terrorist incidents since May, and a total of 157 total cases of terrorism across 30 states since 2013, as noted by the House Homeland Security Committee last month, with five people arrested or convicted in June of attempted terror attacks on behalf of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

 

One must wonder how CAIR is even allowed to operate in the U.S., since it is a part of the Hamas terrorist organization and listed by the Palestine Committee as the fourth organization’s power structure. Still CAIR functions in America, even in spite of the fact that our own government stated, in December 2007 in the US v Sabri Benkhala appeal, that “CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists” [PDF pg. 24 point 13]; and in the March 8th 2004 document, ‘Proposed Muslim Platform’, CAIR calls for “supporting Islamic groups including Mr. bin Laden and his associates”. [Point 13]

 

Recently, while reporting on “no go zones” in Sydney, Australia, on July 28th, a high-ranking officer, Inspector Rick Agius, attempted to stop Lauren Southern, an independent journalist, from walking past and filming the Lakemba Mosque, for fear that simple act alone would spark Muslim violence, as he stated that Southern would be held responsible for inciting them to violence. Something is seriously wrong in any nation that would criminalize free expression and freedom of the press, in such a manner, blaming the reporter for Muslim’s inability to control themselves. But this just shows how many officials are complicit in the Islamization of their own countries. [*** Blog Editor: Australia’s MSM propagandized Lauren Southern as if she was a Ring-Wing nut stirring up strife. Does this video she made look at all like an agitator:

 

VIDEO: Thrown Out Of Sydney No Go Zone

 

Posted by Lauren Southern

Published on Jul 27, 2018]

 

One must recall that Islam operates through stealth and political jihad when it is weak in a country, just as Mohammed operated. Once it has built its power to a significant strength, it abandons the soft approach and imposes its will on all.

 

Just look across the globe, if you want to see what Islam really has in store for America. We have seen what it has done to the Chaldean and Assyrian Christians in Iraq and Syria, and we see its disdain for Western culture everywhere across Europe, as anti-Semitism and Muslim riots have risen in France, Britain and Germany; also witness the Muslim rape of European women, similar to the rape and murder of 19 year old Maria Ladenburger, the daughter of an EU official, condoned by Islamic imams and the Koran, as it is either ignored or accepted by Islamic appeasers. And almost daily, there is a Christian church attacked by Muslims.

 

Understand, all Islamic doctrine mandates war against non-Muslims until the world is under Islamic rule. There is no book of Islamic law or any text book used in U.S. Islamic schools — or any Islamic school anywhere — that teaches any other “version” of Islam.

 

Americans no longer seem to understand the history of Islamic conquest, if they’ve even read it in the first place. How can they not see the differences in today’s world, between countries dominated by Islam and Western countries founded on the values and principles of Christianity and the Enlightenment? Have they not heard of the Sharia Law courts Muslims have created in England and their continued efforts to do so here in America? Why would we welcome such a destructive ideology and its advocates and adherents into our midst, if we valued our own culture appropriately and strongly enough?

 

All Muslims understand through the Koran, and laid out in the Muslim Brotherhood’s written objectives, that their mission here, as Muslims, is to establish an Islamic State under Sharia. Their goals are really no different than ISIS or Al Qaeda, as they resort to espionage, counterintelligence, subversion and political warfare to undermine and eventually overthrow the U.S. government, a crime under U.S. Federal Code, Title 18, Sections 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy) and 2383 (Conspiring to Overthrow the Government).

 

Not every Muslim is a hell-bent terrorist, but each is, in fact a potential terrorist, and whether intentionally or not, directly or indirectly, their payment of one fifth their income to imams, who preach Islamic hatred, most usually funds the terrorists. Every Muslim empowers the fundamentalist jihadi Islamic terrorist, those Sons of Mohammed, who live and die to spread Islam and Allah’s dominion over all.

 

Americans must fight to retain their culture and national identity, in the face of a growing existential threat from Islam, that brings less freedom for all, with it and its Muslim adherents. Stop all Muslim immigration now. Close down all Islamic schools and demolish all mosques, while simultaneously expelling all non-citizen Muslims, and force those who would destroy our freedoms to stay in their own countries; however fine a social virtue, tolerance becomes a vice once extended to oppressive, violent and intolerant Muslims, who take advantage of this noble virtue, to the detriment and often great harm to America.

 

by Justin O Smith

_______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text between brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Europe Teaching Christianity in Schools to Combat Islamic Terrorism


A few European nations are finally comprehending just how dangerous the culture of Islam is to Western Civilization. Last week Austria gave the boot to Mosques that make no bones about following Muhammad’s agenda for global Islamization. Today I found out Denmark is making sure all refugees are going to be made to learn what it means to be a Dane or leave Denmark.

 

JRH 6/12/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Europe Teaching Christianity in Schools to Combat Islamic Terrorism

 

Email Alert: 6/12/18

Patriotic Viral News

 

Danish Patriotism

 

After coming to the realization that second-generation Muslim immigrants are predisposed to committing horrific terrorist attacks on non-Muslims (especially women and children), the Danish government has come upon a novel solution: Why not try to assimilate the immigrants to Danish culture? Crazy, right?

 

Apparently the Danes have reached a conclusion that their soil is not magical and that just because a Muslim sets foot in Denmark and is given citizenship papers, it does not automatically transform them into a Dane with appreciation for Western civilization, democracy, and the moral restraint to not punch a woman in the face and call her a whore for wearing an ankle-revealing dress.

 

If only Congress would realize this about our non-magical soil in America! We know this sounds totally insane, but other nations actually do have these kooky ideas about immigration. Don’t believe us? Fly to Tokyo tomorrow and declare yourself to be Japanese. We’ll wait for you to report back with results!

 

Meanwhile, the Danish government will now require children in Muslim ghettos to undergo 25 hours of coursework on the meanings of Easter and Christmas, Christian morals, language skills and, presumably, the need to not murder members of your host community based on your parents’ barbaric 8th-century values. (Perhaps they should teach the Muslims about Denmark’s Viking history as well, just to let it sink in that they are the minority and the Danes will only be pushed so far before bringing back the “blood eagle.” Just saying.)

 

Best of all, there’s an immediate punishment that will be meted out if any Muslim parents don’t enroll their kids in the Danish Christianity classes. Check out the video below to learn what it is!

 

VIDEO: Denmark: Children Of Muslim Immigrants Must Learn About Democracy, Christmas

 

[Posted by Bsonako sbeiis

Published on May 29, 2018

 

Denmark: Children Of Muslim Immigrants Must Learn About Democracy, Christmas: http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/29/denmark-children-immigrants-learn-about-democracy-christmas/

 

Thanks for watching, subscribe for more videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5ZvVcAMryLUlRf0pGeRa3g?sub_confirmation=1

 

Denmark’s government said Monday that children living in a primarily Muslim immigrant community are required to attend classes on democracy, language, and Danish Christian traditions.

 

Danish parents living in ghettos — an official Danish term for non-western immigrant communities — must enroll their children into 25 hours of public education starting at age one, according to Reuters.

 

The ghettos for which this new policy is mandatory are composed mainly of Muslim migrants from Middle Eastern countries. The classes will focus on language skills, foundational education, as well as integral facets of Danish culture like democracy, equality and Christian holidays like Easter and Christmas. (RELATED: Danish Politician Slammed For Saying Fasting Muslims Pose Work Safety Threat)

 

Immigrant parents who do not enroll their children in the mandatory public education program will lose their child welfare benefits. Parents who have already placed their children in daycare programs are not required to enroll their children in these classes. The new policy, on which major opposition parties agreed with the leading Liberal Party and the supporting nationalist Danish People’s Party, was put forward as part of a solution to the problem of integrating Muslim immigrants into Denmark’s western, democratic culture. The leading opposition party, The Social Democratic Party, has taken a harder stance toward Muslim migrants as the problem of migrant communities’ refusal to integrate has persisted in recent years.

 

Non-western immigrants comprise 66.5 percent of the population of ghetto areas and 8.7 percent of Denmark’s overall population of 5.7 million, according to EuroNews. …

 

#DenmarkChildren, #MuslimImmigrantsMustLearnAboutDemocracyChristmas #christianity, #denmark, #islam]

_______________________________

Copyright Patriotic Viral News All rights reserved. Protected by copyright laws of the United States and international treaties.

 

About Patriotic Viral News

 

Patriotic Viral News was designed to bring you the latest conservative news stories and viral videos from around the web. Our videos will inspire, provoke thought, and sometimes even enrage, though most importantly we want them to be shared.


We encourage you to share these pages with friends, family, and anyone else who wants America to become the great nation it once was.


Sign up for our free newsletter today so you don’t miss a single story.

 

E Pluribus Unum Trumps Multicultural Divisiveness


John R. Houk

© June 9, 2018

 

The Multicultural Left encourages Anti-Constitution/Anti-American-Heritage religion Islam to take up roots in America in the name of diversity. In case you didn’t realize it, DIVERSITY = DIVISION!

 

Two national mottos are stamped in American history representative of who we are as a nation of people. The first national motto codified by Congress on the United Seal in 1782 is E Pluribus Unum. The motto is Latin for “from many, one”. The other national motto is In God We Trust encoded by Congress in 1956 (Wikipedia). I am quite committed to both mottos, but I want to focus on “from many, one” in an American cultural perspective.

 

Whether you believe this motto refers to 13 former British Colonies becoming one to form one nation or a nation of European immigrants who became one-people to form one nation; the point is ‘DIVERSITY” has no part in America blending many people into one nation with one culture (which duh, was a Judeo-Christian heritage!). Why? AGAIN, because DIVERSITY = DIVISION!

 

President Abraham Lincoln completely understood as a nation divided, America would break up into weak independent States. He engaged in the Civil War against the Southern States that perceived Lincoln would promote an ever-growing Northern States attitude that the institution of slavery was immoral and should be abolished.

 

Rather an adopt a greater moral stand in catching up with the moral imperative that human beings should never be treated as property, all humans are created by God and God does not created some humans better than others. Rather the Christian perspective Man fell from union with God in Eden and Man has an opportunity of choice to re-institute that union in Jesus Christ.

 

That is ALL mankind (or humankind if you are a politically correct Multiculturalist Leftist) regardless of racial lines. Indeed Lincoln used the Biblical picture in his House Divided speech when he ran for Senator in Illinois indicating division is weakness:

 

A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South. (Quoted from Wikipedia; Lincoln’s House Divided Speech; page was last edited on 6/1/18 at 11:55)

 

Even though the Civil War came to a fighting point due to Southern wanting to preserve their culture based on State Sovereignty, the fight evolved into a fight on which culture (North or South) would be perpetuated: The Northern belief of a culture of a moral imperative on human nature or a Southern belief that a slave economy is essential to preserve the Southern way of life. Preserving the Union of American States initiated a Christian moral imperative for all Americans illuminating humans as property. In reality it has taken over 100 years for the descendants of former slaves to achieve the united Civil Rights of the descendants on non-slaves. There is still a lot cultural healing for African-Americans to experience because American non-slaves were indoctrinated that Black-skinned humans were inferior to White-skinned humans.

 

At this point I could spin-off to a number of subjects relating to how the Diversity thinking of Multiculturalist has increased division in America more than a continued healing of America bringing about an E Pluribus Unum, but I want focus on one divisive oriented issue that has really been imported to America in the name of Multiculturalism.

 

That imported divisive issue is promoting immigration of Muslim refugees that have been ingrained with the Islamic culture of intolerance of all things NOT Islamic. Lincoln began the union of cultural values by preserving the Union of American States. The American Left (cough – Democrats) is setting the stage for another divided America to fester into violence resulting between preserving our American Heritage and those committed to transforming American culture into self-destructive diverse peoples with no national loyalty but loyalty to only segments of like-minded people. You could call this segmenting Tribalism.

 

What is Tribalism?

 

Merriam-Webster:

 

1 tribal consciousness and loyalty; especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups

 

2 strong in-group loyalty

 

Cambridge Dictionary:

 

♦ the state of existing as a tribe, or a very strong feeling of loyalty to your tribe

 

♦ a very strong feeling of loyalty to a political or social group, so that you support them whatever they do

 

There is ZERO E Pluribus Unum in Tribalism. A Tribalistic culture in America means this great Republic that our Founding Fathers fought for will not survive.

 

There can be no “from many, one” nation with a theo-political ethos that calls for the destruction or subservience of all things non-Islamic because Islam is superior.

 

No Coexistence Foolish Infidels

 

Search Engines are dominated by Multiculturalist thinking so you may actually have a difficult experience finding Islam/Constitution contradictions. When I began a search the top results were Muslim apologists trying to twist incompatibilities as irrelevant. After working with various phrases I found an honest comparison on WND:

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

 

In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.”

 

Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David.

 

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

The Second Amendment states, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

 

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill – and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

 

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim.

 

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states:

 

“Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah” (Sura 5:38). READ ENTIRETY – Bold Emphasis Blog Editor’s (QURAN VS. CONSTITUTION: WHY THEY’RE INCOMPATIBLE; By William Federer; WND; 9/26/09  12:00 AM)

 

The Constitution guarantees Religious Freedom, but Religious Freedom cannot be used as a tool to overthrow the Constitution.

 

Citing the Constitution – ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (Treason; The Heritage Guide to the Constitution)

 

U.S. Legal Code on Rebellion or Sedition – 18 U.S. Code § 2383:

 

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) — 18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection; Legal Information Institute, Cornell University

 

When most American lawmakers agreed that Communism was a threat to our Constitutional Republic, treason description was broadened through the Smith Act in 1940. The original Smith Act had some Constitutional problems that has modified the Act since its 1940 inception. Here is an excerpt from Conservative News and Views relating to the Smith Act:

 

The Smith Act

 

Here is some information about the Smith Act gleaned from Internet:

 

The Alien Registration Act of 1940, usually called the Smith Act because its anti-sedition section was authored by Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, is prescribed in 54 Statutes at Large 670-671 (1940). The Act has been amended several times and can now be found at 18 U.S. Code § 2385 (2000).

 

2385. Advocating Overthrow of Government.

 

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

 

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

 

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof–

 

 

The Smith Act and Muslim groups

 

The Smith Act clearly applies to Muslim organizations in the United States such as CAIR, the Council on American–Islamic Relations. CAIR is an Islamic supremacist organization that pioneered 20th century Islamic terrorism, and it sanctions violence against the United States. CAIR is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and has regional offices nationwide. Through media relations, lobbying, and education, CAIR promotes Islamic, hence anti-American perspectives to the American public, while promoting social and political activism among Muslims in America. Moreover, CAIR is suspected of being linked to terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and to HAMAS in the Gaza strip. Of course, no action will be taken against CAIR as long as Barack Obama is in the White House.

 

 

Islamic terrorism constitutes a clear and present danger to the United States, as understood by the language of the Smith Act. Hence, patriotic American statesmen and organizations should rise up and sound the warning that America has been penetrated by her deadliest enemy. READ ENTIRETY (SEDITION: CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER; By PAUL EIDELBERG; Conservative News and Views; 6/14/16)

 

For clarity, the Smith Act was amended because a thought of criminal activity is not unconstitutional. The Act was amended that actions planned and/or acted upon fits the Constitutional parameters. Here is an excerpt of some of the history the Act’s amendments:

 

Under a 1956 amendment to the Smith Act, if two or more persons conspire to commit any offense described in the statute, each is subject to a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum term of imprisonment of twenty years, or both, and is ineligible for employment by the United States or its agencies for five years after conviction. The Smith Act, as enacted in 1940, contained a conspiracy provision, but effective September 1, 1948, the Smith Act was repealed and substantially reenacted as part of the 1948 recodification, minus the conspiracy provision. On June 25, 1948, the Federal general conspiracy statute was passed, effective September 1, 1948, which contained the same provisions as the deleted conspiracy section of the original Smith Act except that the showing of overt acts was required and the maximum penalty became five years’ imprisonment instead of ten (18 U.S.C.A. § 2385). The general conspiracy statute became operative, with respect to conspiracies to violate the Smith Act, substantially in the same manner and to the same extent as previously.

 

The conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act and its provisions defining the substantive offenses have been upheld. An intent to cause the overthrow of the government by force and violence is an essential element of the offenses. The advocacy of peaceful change in U.S. social, economic, or political institutions, irrespective of how fundamental or expansive or drastic such proposals might be, is not forbidden.

 

A conspiracy can exist even though the activities of the defendants do not culminate in an attempt to overthrow the government by force and violence. A conspiracy to advocate overthrow of the government by force or violence, as distinguished from the advocacy itself, can be constitutionally restrained even though it consists of mere preparation because the existence of the conspiracy creates the peril.

 

An agreement to advocate forcible overthrow of the government is not an unlawful conspiracy under the Smith Act if the agreement does not call for advocacy of action; the act covers only advocacy of action for the overthrow of the government by force and violence rather than advocacy or teaching of theoretical concepts. READ ENTIRETY (Smith Act; Encyclopedia.comWest’s Encyclopedia of American Law; © 2005 The Gale Group, Inc.)

 

The point to be realized is Religious Freedom does not protect members of a religion if they actively prepare and work to overthrow the government of the United States Republic. Multicultural Diversity encourages a divisiveness that emboldens treason, sedition and/or rebellion.

 

Americans should not fear Multiculturalist political correctness to tell their Representatives and Senators to be wary of any religion – not just Islam – that advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government. Even if it means shutting down donations from nations or foreign NGOs that have a design to undermine or destroy the American Constitutional Rule of Law. Or shutting Mosques (or perhaps White Pride Identity Churches) that ACTIVELY (as defined by treason, sedition and rebellion) place their beliefs above the Rule of Law.

 

These thoughts were inspired by the recent actions of the Austrian government that has done exactly what I have described above about Mosques and subversive monies from foreign entities.

 

VIDEO: Austria to close seven mosques and expel dozens of imams [Hat Tip: Vlad Tepes]

 

Posted by euronews (in English)

Published on Jun 8, 2018

 

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz’s right wing government announces crackdown on “Islamist ideology” and foreign funding of religious groups.… READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2018/06/08/austria-to-close-seven-mosques-and-expel-dozens-of-imams

 

JRH 6/9/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Austria’s right-wing government plans to shut down seven mosques and expel up to 40 foreign-funded imams in crackdown against Islamist ideology

 

By KHALEDA RAHMAN FOR MAILONLINE and REUTERS

PUBLISHED: 04:37 EDT, 8 June 2018 | UPDATED: 11:17 EDT, 8 June 2018

Daily Mail

 

  • Chancellor Sebastian Kurz announced the measures in a news conference
  • Kurz said a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna is going to be closed 
  • The Arab Religious Community that runs six mosques will also be dissolved 
  • Ankara quickly denounced the move, saying the move ‘is a reflection of the anti-Islam, racist and discriminatory populist wave’ in Austria

 

Austria said today it could expel up to 60 Turkish-funded imams and their families and would shut down seven mosques as part of a crackdown on ‘political Islam’ that was described as ‘just the beginning’, triggering fury in Ankara.

 

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the government is shutting a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community that runs six mosques.

 

His coalition government, an alliance of conservatives and the far right, came to power soon after Europe’s migration crisis on promises to prevent another influx and clamp down on benefits for new immigrants and refugees.

 

In a previous job as minister in charge of integration, Chancellor Kurz oversaw the passing of a tough ‘law on Islam’ in 2015, which banned foreign funding of religious groups and created a duty for Muslim societies to have ‘a positive fundamental view towards (Austria’s) state and society’.

 

‘Parallel societies, political Islam and radicalisation have no place in our country,’ Kurz told a news conference outlining the government’s decisions, which were based on that law.

 

‘This is just the beginning,’ far-right Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache added.

 

Ankara quickly denounced the move, and Turkey’s presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said on Twitter: ‘Austria’s decision to close down seven mosques and deport imams with a lame excuse is a reflection of the anti-Islam, racist and discriminatory populist wave in this country.’

 

Scroll down for video 

 

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (pictured) said the government is shutting a hardline Turkish nationalist mosque in Vienna and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community

 

Interior Minister Herbert Kickl of the far-right Freedom Party (FPOe), the junior partner in Austria’s coalition government, said: ‘The circle of people possibly affected by these measures – the pool that we’re talking about – comprises around 60 imams.’

 

Kickl was referring to imams with alleged links to the Turkish-Islamic Cultural Associations (ATIB) organisation, a branch of Turkey’s religious affairs agency Diyanet.

 

The interior minister added that the government suspects them of contravening a ban on foreign funding of religious office holders.

 

The ministry said 40 of them had an active application for extending their residency and that a number of these had already been referred to immigration authorities, where a process for expelling them was underway.

 

Once family members were taken into account, a total 150 people risked losing their right to residence, Kickl told a Vienna press conference.

 

The actions by the government are based on a 2015 law that, among other things, prevents religious communities from getting funding from abroad. Pictured left, Kurz and right, Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache 

 

Seven mosques will also be shut after an investigation by Austria’s religious affairs authority sparked by images which emerged in April of children in a Turkish-backed mosque playing dead and re-enacting the World War I battle of Gallipoli.

 

‘Parallel societies, political Islam and radicalisation have no place in our country,’ said Chancellor Sebastian Kurz of the ruling centre-right People’s Party.

 

The photos of children, published by the Falter weekly, showed the young boys in camouflage uniforms marching, saluting, waving Turkish flags and then playing dead.

 

Their ‘corpses’ were then lined up and draped in the flags.

 

The mosque in question was run by ATIB.

 

‘This is just the beginning,’ far-right Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache (centre) told the news conference. Pictured left, Kurz and right, Interior Minister Herbert Kickl

 

VIDEO: Austrian conservative Sebastian Kurz makes victory speech

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1554935.html

ATIB itself condemned the photos at the time, calling the event ‘highly regrettable’ and saying it was ‘called off before it had even ended’.

 

One of the mosques targeted by Friday’s measure was in the Favoriten district of Vienna.

 

The government said it had been operating illegally and that it was under the influence of the far-right Turkish political movement, the Grey Wolves.

 

Worshippers arriving for Friday prayers were met with a sign on the door reading ‘closed’ in Turkish and German.

 

Kursant, a 26-year-old, told AFP: ‘I’ve been coming to this mosque frequently since I was a child, I’ve had lessons here, I’ve never heard anyone at the mosque, any of the employees, express any Salafist opinions. That’s laughable.’

 

Six other mosques are being closed down, three in Vienna, two in Upper Austria and one in Carinthia.

 

All but one of the mosques affected belong to the ‘Arab Religious Association,’ according to the government.

 

But while Turkey’s presidential spokesman on Friday lambaste the measures as ‘anti-Islam’ and ‘racist’ move, other European far-right leaders welcomed the announcement.

 

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French Front National, said on Twitter: ‘Austria is taking things in hand and showing that ‘when you want to, you can!”

 

Last week Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (pictured) attacked Kurz, saying: ‘This immoral chancellor has a problem with us’

 

Matteo Salvini, head of Italy’s League and interior minister in the new government, also tweeted his approval, saying: ‘Those who exploit their faith to endanger a country’s security should be expelled!’

 

Turkey’s relations with Austria have long been strained, with Kurz calling on the European Union to break off negotiations on Ankara joining the bloc and banning Turkish politicians from campaigning in Austria for upcoming elections.

 

Austria, a country of 8.8 million people, has roughly 600,000 Muslim inhabitants, more than half of whom are Turkish or have families of Turkish origin.

 

Around 360,000 people of Turkish origin live in Austria, including 117,000 Turkish nationals.

 

Last week Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attacked Kurz, saying: ‘This immoral chancellor has a problem with us’.

‘He’s throwing his weight around and making a scene,’ Erdogan went on.

 

Both Kurz, of the centre-right People’s Party (OeVP) and the FPOe made immigration and integration major themes in their election campaigns last year.

 

The topic had been pushed up the political agenda by the migrant crisis of 2015-16, which saw more than 150,000 people seek asylum in the country of 8.7 million.

 

In Friday’s press conference Kurz was keen to emphasise that the action was being taken under legislation to regulate Islamic associations that he himself brought in as a minister in the previous government and which had so far – in his opinion – not been used often enough.

 

The conservative Kurz became chancellor in December in a coalition with the anti-migration Freedom Party.

 

In campaigning for last year’s election, both coalition parties called for tougher immigration controls, quick deportations of asylum-seekers whose requests are denied and a crackdown on radical Islam.

 

The government recently announced plans to ban girls in elementary schools and kindergartens from wearing headscarves, adding to existing restrictions on veils.

___________________

E Pluribus Unum Trumps Multicultural Divisiveness

John R. Houk

© June 9, 2018

__________________

Austria’s right-wing government plans to shut down seven mosques and expel up to 40 foreign-funded imams in crackdown against Islamist ideology

 

Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd

Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group

© Associated Newspapers Ltd

 

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