An Interview with Andrew Jones: A European Academic Talks About Islamization of the UK

Paul Sutliff operates a podcast on BlogTalkRadio called Civilization Jihad Awareness. He recently sent an email to highlight a podcast with Andrew Jones discussing Islamization in ye old United Kingdom.

 

Here is an excerpt from the email alert sent:

 

… I have Andrew Jones, a European academic who write for Jihad Watch, Gatestone Institute and American Thinker talking about the Islamization of the UK. This is one show you do not want to miss!! Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff and Guest Andrew Jones

 

For those of us who like to embed audio or video, Paul placed the podcast on his Youtube channel and blog which has a similar name as the podcast: Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad. Along with the video is the transcript of the interview.

 

Pay attention. If Dem Party Multiculturalists get their way, the UK’s problems will be a forerunner to the USA’s problems.

 

JRH 12/21/18

So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the old blogging habit. My lovely wife sprang for an upgrade. I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently growing readership despite some token censorship from the liberal-oriented blog and social platforms. 

Whatever my readers can chip in will be appreciated: https://www.paypal.me/johnrhouk

Please Support NCCR

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

An Interview with Andrew Jones: A European Academic Talks About Islamization of the UK

 

Posted by Paul Sutliff

December 20, 2018

Paul Sutliff on Civilization

 

VIDEO: CJA talks with Andrew Jones about the Islamization of the UK

 

[Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on Dec 20, 2018]

 

Transcript of Civilization Jihad Awareness interview with Andrew Jones.

 

Andrew Jones is an academic and journalist living and working in Europe.  He has written for JihadWatch, Gatestone Institute and American Thinker.

 

Paul Sutliff

Welcome to Civilization Jihad Awareness.

 

Andrew Jones

Hello Paul, thank you for having me.

 

Paul Sutliff

Your article for Jihad Watch was “UK from Appeasement to Collusion part 1, the Church of England.” I found it extremely important because the Church of England was one of the foundations of the Protestant Church. Over here they call it the Episcopal Church. I found it extremely important to think that this is happening in that particular church. I want the world to hear about this. With a problem of mass migration of Muslims which is also known as the hijra has come… how bad it is in the UK. Your article talks about a massive push to transform the UK after World War II. You mentioned that it never had a democratic mandate, what do you mean by that?

 

Andrew Jones                                                                                       

Well, mass immigration to the UK began after the 1945 later government leftwing party in Britain. That’s what’s called the nationality right in 1948. In this case, common wealth subjects, so that’s people who the respects as a British subject. And they have done residency in the UK, although this policy was later modified in the 1960s. So although the policy is debatable as the UK like America is a representative democracy, what a mean by no Democratic mandate is that this piece of very important legislation it wasn’t mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto for the 1945 election, so no one in the general population voted for it. From 1948 onwards, steady but digestible flow of immigration continued into the UK and there were many positive contributions to British life from this. But it began by Tony Blair, net migration tripled in 1998 and has continued at historic highs to the present date. So for example between 1998 and 2016, immigration has been between 400,000 and 650,000 per annum [year] with 43% of that being Muslim immigration.

 

Paul Sutliff

So that’s 400,000 to 650,000 per year?

 

Andrew Jones

Correct.

 

Paul Sutliff

Wow!

 

Andrew Jones

And 43% of that being Muslim immigration. So, what you have then is Blair’s government’s effectively stopped enforcing immigration law and arguably thereby becoming a criminal government. And the Conservative Party in subsequent governments, they’ve just continued that. Now, there’s a lot of speculation as to government motives for opening the floodgates for immigration like this, but according to Blair’s aid; a guy called Andrew Leather, it was done to quote, “Rugby Political Rights knows in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” So in other words, Blair was aiming to permanently transform the UK through mass immigration, deliberately swinging demographics in the left’s favor as immigrants and immigrant descendant communities, they overwhelmingly vote labor like Democrats in the United States. So, being extra-legal, this opening of the floodgates to mass immigration was again, it wasn’t put to the British public in any of labor’s election manifestos. This tremendous transformation of British culture has happened without anyone really being asked.

 

Paul Sutliff

It’s interesting how in different countries or on different continents, we’re having the same issues with leftists which are basically communists and how they’re trying to destroy our country’s governments by mass migration. I’m amazed. So, what’s been the impact on the UK of this mass migration?

 

Andrew Jones

Well, I think a lot of people would agree in Britain that there were many positives to the pre-Blair era immigration you know, you’re talking about as such a digestible level of diversity as it were. But since the Blair era, really the immigration has been too great an intensity to the British society to comfortably digest. Now, even a guy called Trevor Phillips now admits this, and he was Blair’s Equality and Human Rights Commissioner. So, he was someone who was at the center of the Labour Party’s project to diversify Britain and even he has admitted now it’s gone horribly wrong. Now, on a macro scale as you say like in America, the British and European political and business elites, it’s evident that they’ve developed a taste for mass immigration, an addiction even. This is true across most of the political spectrum so that the political left is to say mass immigration provides them with new voters and it’s ideologically is internationalist. So, it kind of breaks down the society, they’re sort of revolutionarily kind of set against. And for the center-right in America, you call them RINOs I believe, Republicans in name only; right?

 

Paul Sutliff

Yes, definitely.

 

Andrew Jones

Flooding the labor markets drives down labor costs and this in a way recreates the conditions of 19th-century capitalism at which are heavily in the boss’s favor. So the left and the center-right, they’ve aligned in what we now call globalism, and all of these vested political and corporate interests, they want mass immigration despite between 70-80% of public opinion across nations objecting to it, and plainly put, this is an attack on democracy. So where the UK now is with mass immigration, it’s a state of affairs where the native British are a minority in London; so 45% of the Capitals population is native British and native Brits are also likely now to be a minority in Birmingham, the UK’s second city. In the foreseeable future, Pew Research predicts the UK’s Muslim population in a medium migration scenario, it’s going to reach 16.7% by 2050 and that’s probably an underestimation. And Oxford University professor of demography; a gentleman called David Coleman, he’s calculated that nationally, the native British population will be a minority by 2066. So what you’ve got from this wave of mass immigration beginning after the war and then accelerating in 1990 under Tony Blair, it’s permanently transformed the UK, and what we now have is a kind of new cultural order emerging; it’s a phenomenal transformation.

 

Paul Sutliff

Wow! I’m just kind of —I don’t understand how a country can purposely move itself so much towards destruction. These statistics are just mind-numbing.

 

Andrew Jones

I think it’s the best of interest in the country which has pushed it in that direction, and I believe you have similar patterns in the United States.

 

Paul Sutliff

Not this drastic yet. Thank God for that. Andrew, you have an astounding statistic of an increase of Muslims through mass migration in the UK between 2001 and 2011; 75%. How are they integrating if at all, into English society?

 

Andrew Jones

Okay, lots of things going on here. The increase is due to a combination of high birth rates and mass immigration. So you have for example your typical middle-class British couple; they’ll be having you know one or two children at some point in their 30s. So that compares to an immigrant Muslim family, they will have maybe up to five children by the time they’re 30. So it’s a quick birth rate, and things change quickly demographically, people don’t really realize that they think it changes slowly, but it actually changes within the space of a couple of lifetimes. And maybe because of this combination of birth rates and mass integration, the Muslim population now constitutes around 6% of Britain’s total population; 12% of London’s population. This 75% increase statistic, is widely recognized, but I drew [took] it from the Muslim Council of Britain websites; the MCB they’re called. Now, they’re the supposedly moderate premier advocacy groups of British Muslims. The MCB, it was set up by Pakistani Islamists from a group called Jamaat-I-Islami, so essentially they are the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Paul Sutliff

Yes, they are the Muslim Brotherhood, that’s exactly right.

 

Andrew Jones

Okay, so I would say one has to be a little bit careful about using the word “they” you know when we say “how are they integrating?” Because many British Muslims, they’re well integrated and they find the rise of extremism in their communities alarming. There’s a kind of almost like the silent moderate phenomenon, and it is particularly the case I think with the older generation of Muslim immigrants, many of whom came to the UK to participate in the British way of life. Now, the younger generation, however, they do seem to be more at risk of falling prey to extremism, and this is for a couple of reasons. There are the second and third generation identity issues which go with not entirely belonging to the old country, nor to the new country. So extremist ideology can move in on this insecurity and provide a ready-made sense of belonging and purpose as a family. And that alienation is added to by many of the more recent Muslim immigrants coming from highly “Shariasized” countries like Pakistan. Pakistan in the last 20-30 years, it’s Islamized, whereas the first generation of Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, they came from the kind of like the afterglow of the British Empire, so they had a dose of British culture in them before they arrived here, that’s not the case with the recent arrivals. And of course really as I’m sure your listeners know, and you know the great background problem globally is the rise of this purist extremist Islam which is funded by vast amounts of money from the Gulf states; these petrol dollars [oil money].

 

Paul Sutliff

And we have a lot of problems with that here with the Saudis funding a whole bunch of areas and Qatar funding things, especially that have to do with education. Can you outline some of the specifics on this lack of integration?

 

Andrew Jones

Okay, so the context in Britain that the second and third generation and the recent arrivals with Muslims finding something is one where between half and two-thirds of British mosques could reasonably be called extremists. You got figures like 45% of British mosques are Pakistani Deobandi sect. now, that’s the same sect of Islam followed by the Taliban. And I’ll just say that again, strap yourself in, but just under half of the mosques in the UK are the same sect as the Taliban.

 

Paul Sutliff

Wow!

 

Andrew Jones

Those figures are extraordinary. You add to that, all of the major Muslim advocacy groups, they are extremist run or linked. So we’re talking about the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain, the Islamic Society of Britain, Muslim engagements and development and the various Islamic charities. There is no government oversight or regulation of mosques, mosque schools or Islamic charities. So on an institutional level, Islam in the UK is predominantly anti integrationist and extremist-leaning. This upcoming generation of British Muslims, the people who are growing up now, they’re being heavily influenced by these organizations, so the problems are getting worse, and this is a problem the British government simply will not openly admit to.

 

Perhaps they won’t admit to it because of the rise of Islamic extremism and anti-integrationism is partly their fault. Successive governments have committed uncontrolled mass immigration which leads to the phenomenon of large immigrant enclaves that makes integration impossible. Recent governments, they’ve also failed to enforce the law with elements of the Muslim community so most glaringly and shamefully with the largely Muslim red gang epidemic. And government have also failed to aggressively pursue Jihadist living in the UK on the understanding that these terrorists, they fight back Jihad abroad and often in concert with British geopolitical interests like you know, using jihadist to topple Gaddafi in Libya for example. Now, a large part of this problematic appeasement is they’re all the major British political parties, they’re different shades of liberal. It’s the same liberal dish served with 3 slightly different sauces of appeasement. If you see what I mean. So in many ways, this liberalism is the root problem because the tendency of this liberalism is to tolerate and adapt “come-what-may,” and this creates the circumstances for Islamic extremism to thrive. So liberal tolerance which simply does not require integration of business Muslims, so why should they? Why shouldn’t they integrate?

 

Paul Sutliff

How is the UK adapting to this influx, this push of Muslims versus the Muslims adapting to their new homeland?

 

Andrew Jones

Okay, so the UK adapting to Islam versus Islam adapting to Britain. There is a tendency for the UK government not to require integration…. However, the UK is doing an awful lot of adaptation to Islam, and there are numerous examples of this. They’re pretty alarming, so this adaptation really is a sort of toleration. This is what’s driving nearly the Islamization of Britain. So let’s think of a few examples. Female Genital Mutilation [FGM] is a largely but not exclusively a Muslim practice.) This is wrong [upon women], and it’s seeing zero prosecutions since it was made illegal in Britain in 1985, with thousands of cases of female genital mutilation every year in Britain, as many as 1 a day, and there have been no prosecutions since it was made illegal in 1985. Staggering!

 

So you also have Halal sort of meat has been bulk bought by British schools and fed to unsuspecting non-Muslim children.

 

Jihadis returning to the UK after fighting in Syria, Iraq they’ve been allowed back into the country and many of them roam free without situational service monitoring.

 

Most importantly though, and this is the subject of a series of articles I am writing for Jihad Watch. All branches of the British states are being influenced by or infiltrated by extremist Muslim advocacy groups. Again, the root of the problem is the appeasing liberalism which dominates Britain’s culture. And the argument I’m making is that appeasement, it is mutating into collusion. Without wishing to be alarmist due to the UK’s radically altering demographics and the growing power of a Muslim voting bloc, politicians in Britain, they’re increasingly going along with the demands of Islamic activists. And the wider British population faces losing control of its political faith in the not-too-distant future. We’re seeing the Labour Party directly cleared with the extremist Muslim organization, for example, Muslim engagement. The Conservative Party is kind of in effectively playing catch-up. For example, by appointing a well-integrated Pakistani heritage Muslim Home Secretary; Sajid Javid, who in many ways he seems a good thing. But they’re chasing something, they’re chasing this rising voting block. Now, in the medium to long term, the UK by doing this is arguably adapting itself out of existence to the cultural entity and with this appeasement. It’s a growing problem and it’s going to come home to roost at some point I think.

 

Paul Sutliff

One of the things I noticed under President Obama’s rule here in the United States was a change in immigration policy. Until Obama, we had a requirement you had to assimilate into society. And you’re using terms like integrate and adapt which is what the U.S. immigration policy changed too. Can you give examples to the listeners of how that is happening in Europe?

 

Andrew Jones

It’s not being pushed that hard. I mean recently in Britain, there was a government drive to promote what’s called fundamental British values which are fundamentally liberal values and central to this was values like toleration and diversity which of course they are sort of shall we say adaptive, they’re accommodating and accepting, and there doesn’t really seem to be all that much assertion. You know, you can’t get much less assertive than not prosecuting for Female Genital Mutilation. So there you have a tangible instance of the almost complete lack of requirement to integrate. And so it’s a very reasonable perception, that Europe is kind of bending over backwards and not asserting anything of traditional European values or even traditional liberal values. Liberalism has you know…. Karl Popper pointed out, (the philosopher), that Liberalism is now sort of tolerating intolerance and it’s being destroyed in the process.

 

Paul Sutliff

Wow! I think it’s fascinating. You’re using the term FGM when we’re talking about this because we had a case in the United States recently where a judge decided that our law against Female Genital Mutilation is unconstitutional. It’s also interesting, that ties together with the Pakistani mosque, because the persons who were doing this, the persons who got caught were the Pakistani sect that you’re talking about. And I find that kind of blends together also. But I probably should go on ask the next question. I was amazed that no one in the UK government seems to be able to find a reason to shut the Muslim Council of prison Britain’s doors. When I read your reference to 2009 after former MCB Secretary General Dowd Abdullah assigned the Istanbul Declaration which calls for violence against UK Armed Forces. Would you please tell us about the Istanbul Declaration?

 

Andrew Jones

Okay, the Istanbul Declaration was a 2009 response by Muslim scholars and activists to the Israeli operation in Gaza at the time; Operation Cast Lead. British Naval Forces and allies of Israel participated in the sea blockade of Gaza, so stopping things going in and out of Gaza by sea route. This declaration said that there was quite “an obligation of the Islamic nation (the umma) to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters as a declaration of war; a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Muslim Nation (the umma). This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.” That’s pretty clear. So as a result of this threat of violence, Gordon Brown’s government officially severed ties with the Muslim Council of Britain. But, the ties unofficially continue, and Theresa May has now renewed and strengthened these ties. We can see from this past attempts by the British government to assert itself, and the impulse to appease winning though, that a large growing politicized UK Muslim population is going to be influencing British foreign policy decisions in the years ahead. And sadly, the UK throwing Israel under the bus is something we’re going to see a lot more of.

 

Paul Sutliff

Wow! Any time I see a country that goes against Israel, I see its demise. But well, why has the UK government welcomed back these obvious extremists? I’m amazed that I mean, you’re hearing about all the Jihadis returning. Why are they welcoming them back?

 

Andrew Jones

Well I mean, the returning Jihadis is a slightly separate issue to the Muslim Council of Britain.

 

Paul Sutliff

I am sorry I mean welcoming back these extremists. Why would they welcome back the Muslim Brotherhood council into…? And I see it happened here under Obama, but you had a definite declaration of war against the UK which is kind of worse than we have. We have the Explanatory Memorandum which basically is a declaration of war, but for some reason, our representatives can’t see it.

 

Andrew Jones

Since the Istanbul Declaration, the Muslim Council of Britain, they’ve turned down their rhetoric. They have presented themselves with moderates, and that’s been part of its kind of worming its way back into government circles. So, they speak out against terrorism and of course, they consider the terrorism of Hamas as a legitimate resistance struggle. Now, that change of tone using, for instance, the moderate kind of mood music of interfaith dialogue and so on, that’s sweet music to the ears of the British government. The British government sees the Muslim Council as vital to have on board in his attempt to influence the Muslim community and to tamp down the potential for terrorism. So roughly speaking, the British government approach. It may well be something along the lines of, let the cultural Jihadists get what they want so the violent Jihadists won’t have a reason to attack us. As in the instance of refusing to grant a Pakistani Christian as Asia Bibi, asylum, that was done because the public order implications of her coming to Britain would have been significant. A large number of politicized British Muslims would have been out on the streets, and the government really doesn’t want that. So they didn’t grant her asylum. Which was morally and utterly reprehensible. But this is the situation that the British government faces. In a way, they’re being hobbled into going along with this stuff because implications of serious trouble are really quite significant. So if this is what the British government is up to, that’s in line with this Salafist idea of the aqd Aman, and this is what’s known as a “covenant of security.” So this is an Islamic extremist principle of not attacking non-Muslim countries which provide Muslims with security. Now, that may well be the loophole that the British government is trying to kind of wriggle through, but it’s a snare. It’s a snare which will tighten because it entails creeping Islamization.

 

Then you know, further down the line there’s the endgame of the Islamists. So given that the Muslim Brotherhood strategy is to infiltrate and embed itself in a non-Muslim society, slowly gain strength then finally use violence when necessary, and non-Muslim government abiding by this covenant ultimately faces either conflicts or total submission; there’s no positive outcome. So the Muslim Council of Britain which has well documented Brotherhood links, it seems to be very effective playing the British government along these lines, snaring it into collusion. But the basic British government’s objective is to try to in some way defuse the situation. And as part of this attempt to defuse the situation. They are trying to get the Muslim Council of Britain on board, but that’s a dangerous game to be playing.

 

Paul Sutliff

Wow! it’s definitely a dangerous game. What you’re talking about, it seems not so far in the future here — which is scary. This is the stuff I’ve been writing about and warning about, but it’s scary to think that some of this stuff is already that far ahead in the UK. You talk about your government knowing it is dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood; in fact, you state that Prime Minister Theresa May knows exactly who she’s dealing with because of the Jenkins report. Could you share with the listeners what this is?

 

Andrew Jones

The Jenkin’s Report was done in 2014. It was ordered by David Cameron’s government at the time, which is of course also known as the Muslim Brotherhood review. So John Jenkins; he was the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis are currently not keen on the Brotherhood. So maybe that won’t be worse. The review was commissioned by Cameron to establish the precise nature of the Muslim Brotherhood subversive activities in the UK and how they facilitate the growth of extremism and terrorism. So basically it was an examination of what are these people up to, what are they doing? And the review; there’s access to an abridged and censored version of the reviews available online. But the review was and it remains largely censored, and it was countered by another branch of the British government; the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. And they wanted a more favorable view of the Brotherhood. Now, we can only speculate as to why that might have been, but the Foreign Office has Arabist leanings which dates back to the first world war and Lawrence of Arabia, and obviously that the British government has a lot of dealings with the Gulf states. So who knows what’s really going on behind the scenes, but something definitely went on. Now, Theresa May was Home Secretary at the time of the review, therefore she would have had access to it, she knows contents. And that means that she knows the true nature of Islamic activism in the UK, but she has strengthened and deepened ties with the Muslim Council nonetheless. Make of that what you will.

 

Paul Sutliff

And that is surprising. Here, the biggest issue we deal with is a group called CAIR, and for a while, they were banned, but now I mean they’ve really strengthened their ties, they solidified everything back with the federal government under Obama, but things are bad.

 

Andrew Jones

It is possible that the British government maybe seeing Trump as a kind of an unfortunate blip, and they are continuing with effectively the Obama doctrine which is to try to kind of share of the nonviolent extremists and get them on board, and separate out the violent extremists from the non-violent. And therefore and trying to take the wind out of the sails of the violent extremists.

 

Paul Sutliff

It gives them both what they want which is Islamization. That’s the sad part of it that they both want the same thing; they both want to transform the country into a Muslim country. Whether it’s here or there, they have the same goals — the violent and the nonviolent, and that’s the sad thing they don’t see it. Andrew, you called it.

 

Andrew Jones

Maybe they do see it and its short-term political expediency. Because what you’re talking about is the closing up of liberal governments to the non-violent extremists in the kind of, it is kicking the can of the problem down the line, so it becomes appeasement.

 

Paul Sutliff

That’s a good way to put it, because politicians, they basically only think of the immediate future, they don’t think long-term because they think about what effects their vote towards re-election….

 

Andrew Jones

I think it’s the election cycle.

 

Paul Sutliff

Yes, that is the sad truth. You talk about crossing the line from appeasement to collusion; what do you mean by this?

 

Andrew Jones

What I mean is that at certain points, during what the police says, in other words, appeasement, it can mutate into becoming basically the bully’s sidekick which is collusion.

 

Now, the situation the British government faces is that Islamic activists have promulgated this victim narrative among British Muslims you know, the specter of so-called Islamophobia. This victim narrative, it has the threatened violence coded into it, because Muslims are the victims; that discrimination and persecution, then if pushed they will be justified in using violence to counter their supposed depression. So something is being set up there to be activated as and when needed.

 

Now, it’s not easy, especially for the overly tolerant Western liberal to make a stand against the bully who’s pretending to be a victim. So the easy path is to give the Islamic activists what they want, and that is appeasement; diffuses a very uncomfortable confrontation in which the British government or any government for that matter would undoubtedly be cast as the prosecutor of Muslims, and the mainstream media would pile in on that. Now, that short-term pseudo-solution of appeasement. It of course, sets up bigger long-term problems. And one long-term problem is that if unchecked, appeasement becomes collusion. Dealing if the bully says to appease, is a hair’s breadth away from being on the police side, being a sidekick.

 

As a bit of an abstract, so to give you a tangible example, the entire Western European political and media leads are currently crossing that line, and the Charlie Hebdo massacre was perhaps the point at which that began. After that attack, the global liberal media collectively came into the Islamic injunction not to depict Muhammad. Look what they dressed up this cowardice and tolerance, a lot of appeasement due to the threats of violence. But not depicting Muhammad is not simply appeasement. It’s simultaneously sharia-compliant. So the global liberal media with checkmated into colluding with the Islamization of the west, and politicians are falling into this same trap.

 

Paul Sutliff

Well, the first thing that shocked me in your article Andrew on the Church of England was this willingness of an archbishop which is the head of the Church of England underneath the Queen, to enter into interfaith discussions with Jihadi type Muslims; you call them the extremists. What made me stop and take notice was your statement a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams advocated the absorption of aspects of Sharia law into the UK legislation. This is beyond my ability to comprehend; I don’t get this. Can you tell our listeners a little bit more about this?

 

Andrew Jones

Okay, I don’t see the former archbishop as doing anything that’s any different from the rest of Britain’s liberal elite. He seems to be sticking his head in the sand along with the rest of them. I mean, he might hope that as fellow theists in the Abrahamic tradition, Muslims might get on board and integrate if their religious needs are catered for. For instance, by the official sanctioning of Sharia Courts or intra-communal Muslim issues like divorce and so on. And he might also hope that the most moderate version of Islam is going to eventually prevail in Britain and if Britain is accommodating enough. As you point out though, these hopes though, ignore the facts, and therefore seem to be nationalizations underpinned by fear and the fear may well be that Islam wouldn’t do that and that Britain, therefore, has an insoluble problem on his hands. I can’t believe that a highly intelligent man like Roy Williams doesn’t see this. So his statement is perhaps a blend of wishful thinking and psychological denial.

 

Paul Sutliff

I was also shocked by Archbishop Williams’ willingness to somehow remain ignorant. Like you’re saying, it might be denial but he’s excusing willful connections of the ISB to terrorists influencers. Influencers such as Sayid Qutb, what do you think of this type of collusion with an enemy organization by a leader of the Church of England? Does it say to you and others that the head of the C of E is not a Christian?

 

Andrew Jones

The Islamic Society of Britain and they kind of dress themselves up as progressive, but they are influenced by this extremist strain within Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood people like Qutb and for example the ISB; as a member of the Islamic society in Britain. It has a relationship counseling service. But when you look closely, the relationship counseling service is really a kind of rebranded Sharia Court. That’s the game that they are playing. Now, I don’t see it as my place to comment on the quality of an individual’s Christian faith. However, I can see that Christian teachings could be mistakenly miss applied to justify appeasement you know turning the other cheek so on. But to reiterate though, I see Archbishop Williams and will be and almost the entire Britain principle and media elite and being gripped by a combination of fear, denial and this is liberal grid thing. This generation of liberals has taken the UK in a fairly dangerous direction and they now appear to be paddling hard to pretend the dangers aren’t there. Now due to this downward pressure coming from the elite. Islam has been great unmentionable in the UK and perhaps for a good reason. Because holing out the lies that are being spun. This month said emotion is something catastrophic you know, public order problems, and it’s no understatement to suggest that the possibility of serious civil unrest is at the forefront of the government’s considerations. They’re trying to avoid that I think at all costs really.

 

Paul Sutliff

Can you elaborate on that?

 

Andrew Jones

Okay, just imagine this is a hypothetical scenario now. Imagine if the UK government and the media; they one day you suddenly stop lying about the extent to many conspirators in the UK. They begin telling the truth about the Muslim Council of Britain, the other advocacy groups and when he talks in a huge number of business mosques. I mean really go to town on that and then make moves to counter it. So this is our hypothetical scenario. All of a sudden, that happens. Now, even if the government of a gradual “salami slice,” or “toothpaste” achieve approach and a slowly cutting away or squeezing out the extremists. The government would set up for themselves the following. They would have to arrest and probably intern without trial. They took in human rights legislation there.  That’s thousands of jihadists. So in the UK, there are 3,000 or so jihadists on the immediate terror watch list…. and then being arrested, the government would then have a situation where the further 20 to 30,0000 potential jihadis in the UK which security services are aware 20-30,000 persons of interest out there, potential jihadis. These people with a crackdown being activated; they will be radicalized by that. They would kind of    start to begin an interaction as it were. You add to that mix a combat-hardened call or a few hundred Isis and Al-Nusra front fighters, they’ve returned under tension in Syria in Iraq. Then you’ve got up two-thirds of mosques and madrassas and mosques schools. They would be aligned for closure with many extremist Imams needing to be deported. So you know human rights legislation would be shredded in this kind of scenario. And all of that simply could not be done within the existing liberal paradigm. In this hypothetical crackdown as the government moves against extremists, the victim narrative that the Muslim activists have been cultivating in Muslim communities for years. That will be on top and then violent resistance would then be justified and sooner or later, the call to jihad would rise up. Now the doomsday scenario will then be that all responses travel to the UK to “defend the 6 million Muslims.” Just as with any other conflict involving Muslims since the Afghan war against Soviet in the ‘80s. Internationally, all Muslim nations were objects to this “persecution.” In the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they would use the enormous economic and media leverage they have in the UK to force submission. So the British government is in a tight spot and it would find out just how tight a spot is. Again, they tried to push back against Islamic extremism. It’s so depleted now. There are so many potential jihadists in the country 20-30,000 that the government if they try and do something about it, they would find themselves in a very difficult situation.

 

Paul Sutliff

Wow, that is as we say here in America, “putting yourself between a rock and a hard place.” It’s still putting off till tomorrow what we have to deal with today, but that’s a tough situation. What do you think the implications are for the UK when the Church of England is an advocate for the enemies of the UK? It even goes so far as to hide the enemy status according to your article. Does the UK have a chance to survive if this continues?

 

Andrew Jones

As things stand, if the UK continues on its present course of appeasement, it’s long-term future seems likely to be or will be very bleak indeed. Culturally and politically, it will be a slow death. As I just outlined though, the poisonous metal of Islamic extremism is grasped in the short-mid-term known as the potential for this doomsday scenario. So frankly the British government is over a barrel either way and then like I said earlier, the tendency of politicians is to focus on short-term and the election cycle and to not let “sleeping dogs lie.” So the general tendency is really to allow the problems to mount up to the long-term and that’s going to be bleak. Where the UK is now advocating for the enemy as you say in the guise of liberal tolerance, this is near ubiquitous across British public life and that’s really the theme of the series of articles on Jihad Watch. Limited opposition to this normalization, this appeasement moving into collusion. The limited opposition that there is from activists or from the non-mainstream political parties, the fringe parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party known as UK. That’s widely smeared but supposedly far-right and there’s the strange almost totalitarian atmosphere in Britain where people implicitly understand that they should not talk about Islam. Don’t go there. Don’t talk about it. Don’t mention it. Now that unspoken is a vacuum and the Islamic extremists are drawn into that vacuum. They depend upon it and they capitalize on it. They have in a sense created a “no go zone” in the minds of Western liberals. And from there, they will continue to push out and take more ground.

___________________

BA Religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, and a Graduate Certificate in Intelligence Analysis from Henley-Putnam School of Strategic Security at North American University.

 

To request me as a speaker go to http://paulsutliff.com.

Sutliff/Manasseri Interview Including My Censorship Animus

John R. Houk

© May 14, 2018 

[Updated 5/14/18 4:00 PM CT]

Paul Sutliff sent an email to me on May 12 urging support about Youtube placing restrictions of a video post featuring Sutliff interviewing Dick Manasseri of Sharia Crime Stoppers.

 

Sutliff’s email said in part:

 

You Tube claimed yesterday morning that my video of an interview with Dick Manasseri was offensive. Funny thing is they also state I have not violated community standards! Dick Manasseri and I am doing what I can to fight this. Maybe this video out of all of themascares [Blog Editor: I am unsure of the intent of “themascares”] the Muslim Brotherhood silly. Feel free to check it out for your self.

 

 

The restrictions did not remove the video, but placed a warning that included the prevention of sharing and embedding:

 

Youtube calls Sutliff/Manasseri Interview Offensive

 

Certain features have been disabled for this video

 

In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing, and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

Here is Paul Sutliff graph that shows censorship and NOT offensive content:

TODAY- 5/14/18, as I was about to work on a post showing my disgruntlement with Youtube censorship, I discovered the restrictions were removed. Apparently, Paul Sutliff’s appeal was answered favorably. Good for Sutliff and begrudgingly – good for Youtube:

 

CJA interviews Dick Manasseri of Sharia Crime Stoppers 5-9-2018

 

Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on May 10, 2018

 

Civilization Jihad is a very real Islamic concept that is thriving in western society. In Europe it is combined with the effects of mass migration. In America and Canada it is being pushed on 4 levels. They started in the colleges, and moved their agenda in the public schools. Today they have influenced and infiltrated aspects of our society and govenment [sic] in ways that can only be described as seditious.

 

Paul will share with you what is happening now. Now, not last year, but this week! Prepare to be shocked. This is the News! Its current events! But your major media outlets hide this all important information.

 

Tonight we have Dick Manasseri joining us. Dick Manasseri leads Sharia Crime Stoppers. Prepare to be amazed at what this man is doing for America!

 

To listen to the entire show go to http://www.blogtalkradio.com/global-patriot-radio/2018/05/09/civilization-jihad-awareness-with-paul-sutliff

 

In full disclosure I was in the process of getting Sutliff’s interview out for others to share, thus I posted it to my Facebook page (who knows? Facebook may censor the video cross post). Here is Facebook embed to show I was making a rebellious effort to counteract censorship:

 

Paul Sutliff interviews Dick Manasseri of Sharia Crime Stoppers. The original video on Youtube is about 47-minutes. However, old Youtube censorship prevents sharing and embedding. So, I’m attempting a Facebook upload. Otherwise, to view the entire interview go to http://bit.ly/2IhqQP1. Censorship is evil.

 

Below is the interview as heard on Blog Talk Radio which may have a lengthy intro vintage Beatles song with reworked lyrics to fit the format of Paul Sutliff’s radio program: Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff.

 

Blog Talk Radio Audio embed of Sutliff/Manasseri Interview about Sharia:

//percolate.blogtalkradio.com/offsiteplayer?hostId=106371&episodeId=10768101

JRH 5/14/18

Please Support NCCR

Paul Sutliff, Pegida Canada and Antifa

John R. Houk

© May 2, 2018

 

Paul Sutliff speaking at Pegida Canada 4-28-18 screen capture

 

Paul Sutliff alerted me of a Pegida Canada event he was speaking at in Toronto on March 28. Paul linked me to a VladTepesBlog video at BitChute. Paul’s email is dated 4/28/2018 7:37 PM. The email went to several others on his contact list. I know this because several must hit reply to all which included me. All those email replies rightly patted Paul on the back for his efforts and one person provided Facebook links of the BitChute video.

 

So what’s the big deal?

 

Paul Sutliff marched with Pegida Canada to the venue where he was one of the speakers. In the process of marching Antifa was waiting to commit acts of violence against the Pegida march. Indeed, Antifa not only attacked Pegida and Paul Sutliff AND the Canadian Police (I think Toronto Police) that was there in force anticipating Antifa violent shenanigans.

 

You can hear Paul cheering the police as they protected Pegida Canada from the Communist anarchists known as Antifa. The video is nearly a half an hour long. As such I can’t upload it to my Youtube channel because they only let me up 10-minute videos. I am trying to upload it to my Facebook page, but I just got a message from Facebook telling me:

 

“The video in your post is being processed. We’ll send you a notification when it’s done and your post is ready to view.”

 

Amazingly, Facebook followed through with posting the video. I’m not holding my breath that Facebook censors remove the video or the entire post altogether.

 

If the video shows up below, it was processed meaning approved. Facebook censor wrath may kick in. If not, here’s the VladTepesBlog link to view the video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/iFYk83PbhYIO/

 

https://www.facebook.com/john.houk1/videos/2373537972671859/
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fjohn.houk1%2Fvideos%2F2373537972671859%2F&show_text=0&width=560
Either way, you should really watch the video to get a good glimpse of Antifa in operation. Antifa (short for Anti-Fascist) is a Communist ideological group using ironically Fascist thuggery to disrupt and confront Conservative and Counterjihad speakers and/or groups. When Antifa shows up, you can count on the occurrence of violence.

 

The Facebook/VladTepesBlog video does not show Paul Sutliff’s speech. Paul has posted that on his own blog – Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad. The post is entitled, “PEGIDA Canada stands strong in Toronto and watches the police take down Antifa”.

 

At this point you should have a bit of awareness of what the Pegida Movement is and have an understanding of Antifa Communism.

 

Pegida is an international movement that first appeared in Germany as a protest against culture-clashing Muslim refugees which too often brought Muslim thinking about violence and rape against non-Muslims. The Multiculturalist Left is committed to dissipating their own culture by promoting massive Muslim immigration into Germany and other Western nations.

 

The Pegida Movement has spread like wildfire among European Union (EU) nations and non-EU European nations. In Multicultural Leftist Europe, anything or anyone that promotes the preservation of Western Culture by preventing people from cultures that clash with Western principles are labelled as Far Right. Since many people believe nationalist movements of the past (primarily Nazism and Fascism) to be Far Right. However, Nazis and Fascists are an element of Socialism that employed nationalist extremism to justify their form of Socialism (Mises Institute):

 

My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

 

…

 

When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?

 

…

 

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

 

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

 

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

 

…

 

Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism’s imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)

 

…

 

The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.

 

…

 

Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?

 

It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should … READ ENTIRETY (Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian; By George Reisman; Mises Institute; 11/11/2005)

 

Socialism is Leftist, and Nazism is a form of Socialism.

 

Ergo, it is a bit deceptive to label Pegida – an anti-immigration preserve-Western culture movement – a Far Right organization. Unfortunately, too many associated with Pegida does have a sympathetic eye toward Nazism. One thing is certain about Nazism, it takes nationalism to racial superiority. One of the originators – Lutz Bachmann – of the German Pegida Movement was caught dressing up like Adolf Hitler in full Nazi regalia. Rather than blight the intent of the Pegida Movement Bachmann resigned his Pegida position in 2015. Although Pegida Germany has dwindled since its 2015 heyday, a resurgence seems to be occurring despite Bachmann’s association.

 

The existence of Muslim violence against Europeans growing and has inspired more Europeans to take a greater interest in their national culture. After all, the English translation for the acronym “PEGIDA” is Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West”:

 

Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (Occident) (German: Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes), abbreviated PEGIDA or Pegida, is a German nationalist, anti-Islam, right-wing political movement.^[3][4] It was founded in Dresden in October 2014. Pegida believes that Germany is being increasingly Islamicised^[5] and aims to oppose Islamic extremism.

 

Pegida wants to curb immigration, and accuses authorities of not enforcing existing immigration laws.^[6] Pegida has held many demonstrations; often there have been many public demonstrations against them as well.^[7] In 2015, the founder of Pegida resigned after being reported as having posed as Adolf Hitler and having made racist statements on Facebook.^[8] He was later reinstated.^[9]

 

Offshoots of Pegida have been formed in various countries.

 

… READ THE REST (Pegida; Wikipedia; Last updated 4/27/18 00:08)

 

Now let’s look at Antifa.

 

Antifa’s European origins begin of all places in Germany:

 

…

 

The organization was initially part of the Soviet Union’s front operations to bring about communist dictatorship in Germany, and it worked to label all rival parties as “fascist.”

 

The organization can be traced to the “united front” of the Soviet Union’s Communist International (Comintern) during the Third World Congress in Moscow in June and July 1921, according to the German booklet “80 Years of Anti-Fascist Action” by Bernd Langer, published by the Association for the Promotion of Anti-Fascist Culture. Langer is a former member of the Autonome Antifa, formerly one of Germany’s largest Antifa organizations, which disbanded in 2004.

 

The Soviet Union was among the world’s most violent dictatorships, killing an estimated 20 million people, according to “The Black Book of Communism,” published by Harvard University Press. The Soviet regime is second only to the Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong, which killed an estimated 65 million people.

 

…

 

The idea of the united front strategy was to bring together left-wing organizations in order to incite communist revolution. The Soviets believed that following Russia’s revolution in 1917, communism would next spread to Germany, since Germany had the second-largest communist party, the KPD (Communist Party of Germany).

 

…

 

“The ‘unified front’ thus did not mean an equal cooperation between different organizations, but the dominance of the workers’ movement by the communists,” Langer writes.

 

…

 

Both the communist and fascist systems were based in collectivism and state-planned economies. Both also proposed systems wherein the individual was heavily controlled by a powerful state, and both were responsible for large-scale atrocities and genocide.

 

The 2016 annual report by Germany’s domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), notes the same point: From the viewpoint of the “left-wing extremist,” the label of “fascism” as pushed by Antifa often does not refer to actual fascism, but is merely a label assigned to “capitalism.”

 

… READ ENTIRETY (The Communist Origins of the Antifa Extremist Group; By Joshua Philipp; The Epoch Times; 8/18/17 1:20 pm – Updated 2/8/18 11:51 am)

 

Antifa has come to America to oppose the American way of life with Communist thuggery:

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Police across the United States are being forced to deal with a new hard-Left, communist-derived movement organized under the code word “Antifa,” standing for “Anti-Fascist.”

 

The violent, confrontational nature of Antifa anarchists presents a challenge to U.S. law enforcement that is unprecedented; they reject the free speech principles upon which civil discourse depends, while seeking to achieve the demise of the U.S. Constitution, as it holds as illegitimate any compromise with their communist worldview.

 

…

 

The Antifa movement in the U.S. is a return to the communist paramilitary riot tactics developed to fight the Brownshirts of the Weimar Republic. The goal was to terrorize middle-class Germans into rejecting the Nazis who had embraced the social-welfare programs of prior regimes. Today, few except professional historians realize Germany was the first country in the world to introduce government-funded universal healthcare. This was part of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s “anti-socialist” legislation, adopted under the theory that a little socialism would prevent the German people from embracing a more virulent form of socialism.

 

…

 

Today, the Antifa movement that originally formed in Germany in the 1930s has taken root in the United States, with the goal of rubbing raw social and racial class tensions in order to delegitimize the U.S. Constitution, bring down the Trump administration, and cause the political chaos the Antifa movement believes will lead to the creation of a communist state here in the U.S.A.

 

Antifa Street-thug Insurrection Tactics

 

On January 20, Antifa thugs — most dressed in black from head to toe and wearing masks or bandannas hiding their faces — launched violent street protests in Washington, D.C., in an attempt to “shut down” Donald Trump’s inauguration.

 

In what was branded as a “DisruptJ20” protest, some 1,000 Antifa thugs broke windows at Starbucks, McDonald’s, and Bank of America, as well as in commercial buildings in downtown Washington. Antifa rioters flooded streets, blocked traffic, burned trash in the streets, and broke windshields of passing cars. They threatened to attack inauguration attendees on the streets, while shouting a continuous flow of angry, vulgar, and confrontational in-your-face insults.

 

…

 

The Antifa movement would like nothing better than an uprising of white-supremacist, far-right extremists to oppose them in fist fights.

 

But the truth is that in the United States, the majority of conservatives and libertarians voting for Trump are not white supremacists any more than they are far-Right extremists. The numbers of actual far-right extremists remain so relatively small that Antifa radicals are unlikely to destabilize or delegitimize the Trump presidency, regardless of how hopeful the far-Left remains. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are not Joseph Goebbels, regardless of how Tom Perez and Bernie Sanders characterize the voices on the political Right supporting Trump.

 

But the numbers of Antifa criminal protesters will grow, championed by leftist politicians that 1960s voters would fail to recognize as true supporters of the Constitution.

 

For the near-term future, we should expect the Antifa movement to remain a street-thug problem for riot-trained law enforcement units; it will continue to grow in numbers and in violent intensity as the Democratic Party further radicalizes and embraces communist ideals, and as the 2018 mid-term elections draw near. – READ ENTIRETY (How the Violent Hard-Left “Antifa” Movement Copies Communists in Weimar Republic Germany; By Jerome R. Corsi; New American; 8/15/17)

 

This is the hatred Antifa cowards acted out on Paul Sutliff and Pegida Canada.

 

JRH 5/2/18

Please Support NCCR

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 18^th 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.

 

2. 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.

 

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

 

4. 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.

 

5. 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).

 

6. 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.”

 

7. 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.

 

8. 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.

 

9. 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.”

 

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

 

11. “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.

 

12. 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 

 

Civilization Jihadis are not terrorists. THEY ARE SEDITIOUS ENEMIES!

Petition saying “NO” to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States of America. The Constitution protects Religious Freedom, but NOT seditious religious terrorism!

 

Join the Clarion Project in drumming up support for the U.S. government to add the Muslim Brotherhood to the State Department’s terrorist list:

 

Say No to Muslim Brotherhood in the US

 

The Muslim Brotherhood is committed to replacing the American Constitution with sharia (Islamist) law. The Muslim Brotherhood is a supporter of terrorist organizations. It has no place in the United States.

 

By clicking the title of the above excerpt, you can add your name to the petition!

 

Perhaps even send the pdf composed by Paul Sutliff to your Senator and Congressmen which recognizes Islamic terrorist immigrants or homegrown terrorists operating under the design of the Muslim Brotherhood, are seditious traitors to the U.S. Constitution.

JRH 1/3/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Civilization Jihadis are not terrorists. THEY ARE SEDITIOUS ENEMIES!

 

By Paul Sutliff

January 1, 2018

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Wake Up – Civ. Jihadis are Seditious Enemies

 

After being given some great perspective into what I had deemed terrorism, I now have to change what I have been saying in order to more accurately provide in US legal terminology a truthful portrait of the war America is engaged in today.

 

That war is a war against jihadists both violent and non-violent. Violent jihadists are under US Law demined terrorists while non-violent jihadis are not. BUT they are both engaging in acts against the USA. Both are acting for the same reasons.

 

Attempted bombings, murders, and even financing those actions can be pursued and prosecuted under the law. Those jihadis which work in what is defined by the Muslim Brotherhood as Civilization Jihad are not able to be pursued under the Patriot Act, because their actions do not constitute what is defined in legalize as terrorism.

 

Both the Civilization Jihadist and the violent jihadist (aka terrorist) have the same objective. Their threat doctrines are indistinguishable from one another. The only difference is one has a short-term plan of action, the other has a long-term plan of action.

 

What can be done to stop the long-term plan jihadist? Lets begin by defining what a long-term jihadist does from their own written material. According to the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood of North America, their ultimate goal is to:  “eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within and “sabotage” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

 

With this being the goal the objectives are obvious:

(1) Infiltrate college campuses for the purpose of:

 

a. stopping education on Islam that disagrees with what Muslim Brotherhood teaches.

b. disabling Americans as to the real intention and purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood.

c. Promoting misinformation that will create more sympathetic non-Muslims to endorse the actions of the civilization-jihadis as “moderates.”

d. Recruit new civilization-jihadists to engage in the agenda in a post college environment. Infiltrate government for the purpose of:

a. Protecting fellow Muslims.

b. Destroying the government from within. This could be as simple as slowing or stopping the machine called government from working as it is intended.

c. Sharing intelligence with the civilization jihadi leadership team.

d. Disrupting communications.

e. Placing misinformation

f. Enabling greater infiltration

(2)  Infiltrate government for the purpose of:

a. Protecting fellow Muslims.

b. Destroying the government from within. This could be as simple as slowing or stopping the machine called government from working as it is intended.

c. Sharing intelligence with the civilization jihadi leadership team.

d. Disrupting communications.

e. Placing misinformation

f. Enabling greater infiltration

(3) Make society accept and endorse the relevance of sharia in the USA. This means:

 

a. Push for acceptance of Islamic beliefs as the norm

b. Push for the acceptance of sharia in courts.

c. Running public relations campaigns with misinformation to recruit sympathy voters.

d. Running public relations campaigns against those who are exposing the civilization jihadi agenda.

With this said are their legal actions possible to protect Americans from this type of jihadi? The answer is both yes and no. It requires that those who commit violent jihadi actions be prosecuted not for terrorism but TREASON and those who are found working as civilization jihadis infiltrating organizations and government who are caught disabling the machine called government, or providing misinformation/propaganda with the intention of protecting their groups or membership should be charged with SEDITION.

IT IS ALL IMPORTANT TO CHANGE THESE TACTICS! We, myself included, need to stop referring to the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity but as an entity that suborns sedition in every country it is present. This means that Muslim Brotherhood in North America should be defined NOT as a terrorist entity but as entity whose sole purpose is to aide and abet in sedition in America. Due to it having declared war against North America. This is very important! It is why my proposed joint resolution has more teeth than Senator Cruz’s bill to declare the Muslim Brotherhood entity a terrorist group.

My resolution which follows is a recognition of a declared war against North America in the Explanatory Memorandum AND its recent declaration to wage war and shed blood in actions against the USA on December 6, 2017. Perhaps most enlightening in this declaration is its statement that its members in the Administration should consider themselves activated to actively work against the American government’s pledge to move the embassy to Jerusalem. This declaration should make them an enemy of the USA and thus make their organization in this country considered enemy combatants. How else do you interpret “we make blood, freedom and life, and we fight every aggressor and every supporter of aggression,” after declaring the USA to be an aggressor?

The Joint Resolution I proposed this past August now has an urgency to be passed! It will enable us to begin to act against the civilization jihadists by recognizing they have declared war against us. IF this resolution passes, then those persons and groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood can be prosecuted with the charge of sedition. The US does not need to declare war against an entity to recognize that a group is acting in pursuit of a declared enemy’s goals. Please read the proposed resolution below and email me to receive a PDF copy.

 

 

 

___________________________

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

 

Paul Sutliff books with best deal at bottom of “Civilization Jihadis are not terrorists. THEY ARE SEDITIOUS ENEMIES!” post on his blog:

 

What Social Studies Teachers Need To Know About Islam

 

Stealth Jihad Phase 2: Infiltrate American Colleges

 

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam by Paul Sutliff

 

PEGIDA Canada Fights for Canadian Freedom while facing Antifa and Communists

Paul Sutliff is one of my favorite Counterjihad writers and speakers. Paul has a webcast on Blog Talk Radio a part of Global Patriot Radio. As of today on his Civilization Jihad Awareness podcast was posted on 11/22/17. The podcast begins with some annoying intro music until you actually listen to the lyrics, then you should be amused. Paul also is the blog journalist for Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad. If you want some excellent Counterjihad education, Paul’s blog is a fantastic place to go to bone-up on the parts of Islam that Islamic Apologists and Multiculturalists will not admit to.

 

In an email update I was informed Paul was an invited speaker at a PEGIDA-Canada event in London, Ontario. Below are three videos of that event along with some transcript below the videos.

 

(Americans may not be aware that “PEGIDA” is an acronym originating in Europe [via Wikipedia – not always friendly to Counterjihadists]:

 

Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (Occident) (German: Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes), abbreviated PEGIDA or Pegida, is a German nationalist, anti-Islam, far-right political movement.^[3][4] It was founded in Dresden in October 2014. Pegida believes that Germany is being Islamicized^[5] and aims to oppose Islamic extremism. Pegida wants to curb immigration, and accuses authorities of not enforcing existing laws.^[6])

 

Just a heads up. You will probably to be very patient watching the videos. Commie-Antifa was at the outdoor ANTIFA-Canada rally making all sorts of very loud noise. This is why Paul’s mini-transcript is important. Do me a favor though. Go to Paul’s Youtube link for each video and give it a thumbs-up to stick it in the eye of Antifa anarchists.

 

JRH 11/27/17

Please Support NCCR

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

PEGIDA Canada Fights for Canadian Freedom while facing Antifa and Communists

 

By Paul Sutliff

November 26, 2017

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

On November 26, 2017 I was in London, Ontario, Canada standing with my Canadian brethren of PEGIDA Canada. Once again Antifa and local college Communists appeared to protest. This time the police mostly kept us safe.  Below you can find videos of Jenny Hill’s speech a video of Mark Vandermaas’ speech and a video of my speech with the copy of my speech below the video.

 

VIDEO: PEGIDA Canada in London November 25 2017

 

[Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on Nov 26, 2017

 

Jenny Hill speaks for PEGIDA Canada while Antifa attempts to stop free speech proving themselves the real fascists!]

 

Mark points out the Commie and Antifa Violence.

 

VIDEO: Mark Vandermass speaks at PEGIDA Canada in London Ontario Nov 25 2017

 

[Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on Nov 26, 2017

 

Mark Vandermaas speaks for PEGIDA Canada while Antifa attempts to stop free speech proving themselves the real fascists!]

 

VIDEO: Paul Sutliff speaks at PEGIDA Canada event London Ontario 11-25-17

 

[Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on Nov 26, 2017

 

Paul Sutliff speaks at PEGIDA Canada event on November 25, 2017 while Antifa attempts to stop free speech proving themselves the real]

 

Speech London, Ontario, CANADA—-for PEGIDA CANADA and Every Canadian:

 

Fight for your freedom!

 

I am once again here in Canada to express my concern that YOUR FREEDOM will soon be gone. Your freedom of EXPRESSION is being stolen AND the fascists want that! Who are these fascists? The very ones who encouraged Antifa to come out each and every time PEGIDA Canada makes a stand.

How many Canadians here like the idea of protecting only ONE religion from being insulted? Protecting it to the point that the members of this religion become special reporters that the police must respond to and investigate those not of this religion. You would think in Canada this was not possible. But Canada unlike America can make laws regarding religion.

 

Let’s examine just a few of the definitions of Islamophobia that Parliamentarian Scott Reid wrote about on November 15^th.

 

Sept. 18:

 

1. Mr. Arif Virani, MP said “Islamophobia, to me, means uttering death threats, assaulting, hatred, threats of violence towards people, and vandalism of their places of worship.”

—

This sounds like concern over hate speech that Canadian law already covers.

 

2. Parliament Member Iqra Khalid said, “The definition of Islamophobia I subscribe to is an irrational fear or hatred of Muslims or Islam that leads to discrimination.”

 

So according to this definition what they want to outlaw is irrational thought. Does that mean they will now put all persons who have never committed an actual act of hatred against Islam, and only have thought that Islam is bad in an Insane Asylum???

 

3. Parliamentarian Dan Vandal shared the definition the Canadian Race Relations Foundation as “expressions of fear and negative stereotypes, bias, or acts of hostility towards the religion of Islam and individual Muslims”

 

So once again you arrest people for what they think. Not what they do. Is this what you call freedom in Canada? I know it would not fly America. But if Canadians accept this I am scared for your loss of freedom. Are you ready to be reported by any Muslim who simply makes a claim that you thought something? You don’t have to prove anything in this case. You are automatically guilty because you thought something!

 

4. On October 4^thDr. Sherif Emil of McGill University said “‘Phobia’ is a medical term, implying a pathological and irrational fear. As far as I know, the only religion it has been applied to is Islam. The proper definition of Islamophobia, therefore, is not ‘irrational hatred of Muslims’ but ‘irrational fear of Islam’.”

 

Under this definition you would be arrested for having an irrational fear not hating. Once again they lock you away in the psych ward for your thoughts that are claimed to be irrational. This would require a psychological evaluation in order to be freed.

 

I do not believe Canadians want this at all. But your Parliamentarians are discussing this as something to outlawing fear of a religion? Why? Who brought this topic to Canada? It was not the Buddhists, it was not the Sikhs, It was not the Ammadiya Muslims, nor was it the Hindus, not the Jews even though they are 10 times as likely to be assaulted than a Muslim, and not the Christians! So who is pushing this?

 

THE ANSWER:

 

Sunni Muslims affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The very group that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain declared a terrorist entity! Now I ask you is this an act to take away your freedom? Who wins if this passes? It is not you is it! Only the Muslims win if this passes. So, does using logic make me Islamophobic? Does using history make me Islamophobic? I fear for you my friends. I fear you will lose more than you can understand if this motion becomes a law.

 

______________________

Edited John R. Houk (actually via spellcheck suggestions)

Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Paul Sutliff

 

About Paul Sutliff

 

BA Religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, currently a post-graduate student at Henley-Putnam University.

 

If you want a copy of my book, contact me on LinkedIn or here [Perhaps the comment section of Paul’s blog] and I will send you one for $15 plus shipping.

Linda Sarsour: Lying about Islamic History and Jihad

Paul Sutliff exposes the lies and propaganda being spread by Muslim apologist Linda Sarsour.

 

JRH 7/11/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Linda Sarsour: Lying about Islamic History and Jihad

 

By Paul Sutliff 

July 9, 2017

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

This past week Linda Sarsour used the word jihad and spoke of resisting the administration and fighting against tyrants. People who want you to remain ignorant off the truth took to the Washington Post on Sunday to obfuscate the term “jihad.” What needs to be known is that her consistent usage of the term resistance and the constant reference to her feelings of angst against those who would keep Islamic terrorists from entering America fit perfectly in the last fatwa by the last Caliph in 1915.

 

The 1915 fatwa was discovered by Ambassador Morgenthau in 1915 and sent to America, where it was kept as top secret until the 1960s. This is extremely important to understand because it reveals that the federal government feared releasing this information in the United States may cause Muslims to rise up and commit acts of jihad at home. Linda Sarsour’s comments reveal that keeping this fatwa hidden has mis-educated Americans about what Islam truly believes in regards to the Islamic term “jihad.”

 

We are told we must learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it. This is why historical understanding of the term jihad is extremely important.  For this reason I am posting part of a chapter from my book Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam published in 2015.

 

In November 1915, a call for jihad was given by the Caliph Sheik-ul-Islam after the Ottoman Empire declared war against the Allies. Ambassador Morgenthau, described the event in his biography.

 

Sheik-ul-Islam published his proclamation, summoning the whole Moslem world to arise and massacre their Christian oppressors. “Oh, Moslems!” concluded this document. “Ye who are smitten with happiness and are on the verge of sacrificing your life and your goods for the cause of right, and of braving perils, gather now around the Imperial throne, obey the commands of the Almighty, who, in the Koran, promises us bliss in this and in the next world; embrace ye the foot of the Caliph’s throne and know ye that the state is at war with Russia, England, France, and their Allies, and that these are the enemies of Islam. The Chief of the believers, the Caliph, invites you all as Moslems to join in the Holy War!”[i]

 

According to the Ambassador this was distributed and read in mosques in “India, China, Persia, Egypt, Algiers, Tripoli, Morocco, and the like; in all these places it was read to the assembled multitudes and the populace was exhorted to obey the mandate.”[ii]BUT, what was also being distributed in the same areas was a pamphlet written in Arabic heavily filled with quotes from the Koran. This pamphlet in English contained 10,000 words that incited racial and religious hatred. “It described a detailed plan of operations for the assassination and extermination of all Christians—except those of German nationality.”[iii]

 

That pamphlet was translated into English on March 10, 1915. When Ambassador Morgenthau wrote his story of what happened during the Great War (World War 1) he felt that this fatwa had to be shared with the American people so they would understand what happened. Below is one portion he shared.

 

O people of the faith and O beloved Moslems, consider, even though but for a brief moment, the present condition of the Islamic world. For if you consider this but for a little you will weep long. You will behold a bewildering state of affairs which will cause the tear to fall and the fire of grief to blaze. You see the great country of India, which contains hundreds of millions of Moslems, fallen, because of religious divisions and weaknesses, into the grasp of the enemies of God, the infidel English. You see forty, millions of Moslems in Java shackled by the chains of captivity and of affliction under the rule of the Dutch, although these infidels are much fewer in number than the faithful and do not enjoy a much higher civilization. You see Egypt, Morocco, Tunis, Algeria, and the Sudan suffering the extremes of pain and groaning in the grasp of the enemies of God and his apostle. You see the vast country of Siberia and Turkestan and Khiva and Bokhara and the Caucasus and the Crimea and Kazan and Ezferhan and Kosahastan, whose Moslem peoples believe in the unity of God, ground under the feet of their oppressors, who are the enemies already of our religion. You behold Persia being prepared for partition and you see the city of the Caliphate, which for ages has unceasingly fought breast to breast with the enemies of our religion, now become the target for oppression and violence. Thus wherever you look you see that the enemies of the true religion, particularly the English, the Russian, and the French, have oppressed Islam and invaded its rights in every possible way. We cannot enumerate the insults we have received at the hands of these nations who desire totally to destroy Islam and drive all Mohammedans off the face of the earth. This tyranny has passed all endurable limits; the cup of our oppression is full to overflowing. . . . In brief, the Moslems work and the infidels eat; the Moslems are hungry and suffer and the infidels gorge themselves and live in luxury. The world of Islam sinks down and goes backward, and the Christian world goes forward and is more and  more exalted. The Moslems are enslaved and the infidels are the great rulers. This is all because the Moslems have abandoned the plan set forth in the Koran and ignored the Holy War which it commands. . . . But the time has now come for the Holy War, and by this the land of Islam shall be forever freed from the power of the infidels who oppress it. This holy war has now become a sacred duty. Know ye that the blood of infidels in the Islamic lands may be shed with impunity—except those to whom the Moslem power has promised security and who are allied with it. [Herein we find that Germans and Austrians are excepted from massacre.] The killing of infidels who rule over Islam has become a sacred duty, whether you do it secretly or openly, as the Koran has decreed: ‘Take them and kill them whenever you find them. Behold we have delivered them unto your hands and given you supreme power over them.’ He who kills even one unbeliever of those who rule over us, whether he does it secretly or openly, shall be rewarded by God. And let every Moslem, in whatever part of the world he may be, swear a solemn oath to kill at least three or four of the infidels who rule over him, for they are the enemies of God and of the faith. Let every Moslem know that his reward for doing so shall be doubled by the God who created heaven and earth. A Moslem who does this shall be saved from the terrors of the day of Judgment, of the resurrection of the dead. Who is the man who can refuse such a recompense for such a small deed? … Yet the time has come that we should rise up as the rising of one man, in one hand a sword, in the other a gun, in his pocket balls of fire and death-dealing missiles, and in his heart the light of the faith, and that we should lift up our voices, saying India for the Indian Moslems, Java for the Javanese Moslems, Algeria for the Algerian Moslems, Morocco for the Moroccan Moslems, Tunis for the Tunisian Moslems, Egypt for the Egyptian Moslems, Iran for the Iranian Moslems, Turan for the Turanian Moslems, Bokhara for the Bokharan Moslems, Caucasus for the Caucasian Moslems, and the Ottoman Empire for the Ottoman Turks and Arabs.[iv] [Emphasis added]

 

The 1915 fatwa piece you just read was hidden from the American people as a classified document until 1961. The State Department kept this under lock and key because of its incendiary nature. Interestingly under new Common Core American education curriculum standards, it is a Primary Source Document as Ambassador Morgenthau named it as the cause of the Armenian Genocide in his biography and in numerous communications with Washington.

 

The rest of the document revealed a call on every Muslim to one of three levels of Jihad:

 

1. Heart Jihad

2. Word of Mouth Jihad

3. Physical Jihad

 

The fact that an Islamic Holy War can have warriors engaged at one of three levels is significant as previous to this the concept of jihad on differing levels was unknown to those who are not Muslim.

 

Heart Jihad

 

This concept of jihad (holy war) as stated above was unknown to exist the fatwa was read. It simply stated:

 

This is the easiest and simplest. In this case it is to suppose that every unbeliever is an enemy to persecute and exterminate him from the face of the earth. There is not a Muslim in the world who is not inspired by this idea. However in the Koran it said: “That such a war is not enough for a Muslim whether young or old, and must also participate in the other parts of the Holy War.[v]

 

This second level of warfare can take the appearance of deceit to obtain influence and strength. This is the level at which Civilization Jihad takes place. The reasoning again is that they are not strong enough in number to take part in the third level.

 

In North America this war has been waged by forcing textbook publishers to provide textbooks that promote Islam instead of an objective review of the religion (See Chapter 5 for more detail.). Triple I-T, the International Institute of Islamic Thought, fights this battle in North America by giving colleges large sums of money to install Islamic professors. Another place this battle can be seen is through the concept of Islamization of Knowledge a teaching by Dr. Ismail Faruqi that all knowledge is only acceptable after Islam has purified it.

 

College professors of Islam are encouraged by this reasoning to provide some incitement to rally for Hamas by calling it a rally for the Gazan Palestinians and offering extra credit to those who show, and not informing those who do they are likely to have their pictures taken and an FBI file started on them. It is the level of jihad that led Jasser Auda of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, to redefine terrorism to mean: an act in which “innocent People (civilians or non-civilians) are harmed in a way that goes against the principles of justice and human dignity.”[vii] The word “innocent” has a specific meaning to Muslims that Westerners are unaware of. Imam Anjem Chaudry shared this one evening on BBC’s Hard Talk on July 7, 2005. He said, “As far as Muslims are concerned your innocent if you…you are a Muslim, then you are innocent in the eyes of God. You are non- Muslim then you are guilty of not-believing in God.”[viii]

 

This also explains the push to attain powerful places of power in the major U.S. and Canadian political parties. It is the reasoning by the bus ad campaign My Jihad, which promoted misinformation and a favorable outlook on Islam.

 

Physical Jihad

 

Lastly, the fatwa defines jihad, holy war as a hot physical activity. But allows for those who fund the battle to be included at this, the highest level of jihad

 

Physical Jihad. This means actual fighting in the fullest sense of the word… Every private individual can fight with deadly weapons, as for example. Here is the following illustration of the late Egyptian Verdani who shot the unbelieving Butros Gal Pacha the friend of the English with a revolver. The murder of one of the English police Commissioner Bavaro in India by one of our Indian brethren. The killing of one of the officials of Kansch on his coming from Mecca by the Prophet’s friend ”Abu Bazir El Pachbi,” peace be unto him! Abdallah ibn Aatickand four colleagues killed “Abu Raafa Ibn El Hakiki.” The leader of the Jews so famous for his enmity to Islamism. This was executed by our Prophet’s command, so did Avrala Ibn Ravacha and his friends when they killed Ocher Ibn Dawas one of the Jewish dignitaries. There are many instances of similar cases. Lord of the Universal What fails us now, and should not some of us go forth to fight this sacred war for exalting thy glorious name? What could not happen were some individuals among us, men of courage and stout hearted kill the principal Christian men of the Triple Alliance, the foes of Islam. By so doing they would wipe their names from the face of the earth. Thou O Allah art responsible if you will not inspire every Muslim, with the holy spirit, to in this jihad {holy war}.[ix]

 

The violent concept of jihad was taken after this reading of the 1915 fatwa that led to the genocide of the Armenian people. This document was seen to be so inciteful that the US government classified this document as dangerous and hid it from the people until 1961. Note that specific references were given to violent actions of assassination as part of jihad. Jihad is here shown clearly by a Caliph to mean a violent act against non-Muslims.

 

This caliph was very specific as to what was considered Physical War. He broke it into two categories.

 

A Lesser War and a Greater War

 

The lesser war, is when a certain section of Muslims rise to fight against their enemies in combination with their compatriots in the war sphere only, without summoning the aid of Muslims of other lands. For example the Sinoussians war with the Italians in Tripoli. Even in such a case every Muslim should offer material and moral help and not follow the course the Egyptian Government took in the Italian war when acting under the advice of the unbelieving English Government they declared themselves neutral. This sin shall never be forgiven them. However our Egyptian brethren have helped us to a certain degree financially and morally in the last two wars and in spite of their unbelieving rulers forwarded their collections on our behalf to the Capital of the Caliphate.[x](Emphasis added)

 

The concept of a lesser war is simply one that the Caliph does not declare and one in which no aid is requested of Muslims of other lands. Note the reference here to support. In today’s concept of Islamic Jihad, there are many Muslims who offer material and moral help. One only need look at the ISIS social networking to see people around the world standing with their black flag next to landmarks of countries all around the globe.

 

However, the concept of greater war, one declared by a Caliph which called Muslims to action can be viewed in terms of the result of this fatwa. The near entire genocide of the Armenian people. Ambassador Morgenthau wrote many details of this horror, below is just one event:

 

Let me relate a single episode which is contained in one of the reports of our consuls and which now forms part of the records of the American State Department. Early in July, 2,000 Armenian “amŽlŽs”—such is the Turkish word for soldiers who have been reduced to workmen—were sent from Harpoot to build roads. The Armenians in that town understood what this meant and pleaded with the Governor for mercy. But this official insisted that the men were not to be harmed, and he even called upon the German missionary, Mr. Ehemann, to quiet the panic, giving that gentleman his word of honour that the ex-soldiers would be protected. Mr. Ehemann believed the Governor and assuaged the popular fear. Yet practically every man of these 2,000 was massacred, and his body thrown into a cave. A few escaped, and it was from these that news of the massacre reached the world. A few days afterward another 2,000 soldiers were sent to Diarbekir. The only purpose of sending these men out in the open country was that they might be massacred. In order that they might have no strength to resist or to escape by flight, these poor creatures were systematically starved. Government agents went ahead on the road, notifying the Kurds that the caravan was approaching and ordering them to do their congenial duty. Not only did the Kurdish tribesmen pour down from the mountains upon this starved and weakened regiment, but the Kurdish women came with butcher’s knives in order that they might gain that merit in Allah’s eyes that comes from killing a Christian. These massacres were not isolated happenings; I could detail many more episodes just as horrible as the one related above; throughout the Turkish Empire a systematic attempt was made to kill all able-bodied men, not only for the purpose of removing all males who might propagate a new generation of Armenians, but for the purpose of rendering the weaker part of the population an easy prey.[xi]

 

There are 50 copies left of this book. Please use the button below to purchase a copy. Books are $17.00 plus $3 shipping.

 

 

Books [You can buy Sutliff book offers going to the button at the end of this at Paul Sutliff on Jihad Civilization or the two embed links below]

 

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam

 

Stealth Jihad Phase 2: Infiltrating American Colleges

 

NOTES:

 

[i] Morgenthau, H. (1918). Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company, p. 68.

[ii] Ibid, p. 69

[iii] ibid

[iv] Ibid, pages 69 – 70.

[v] 1915 Ottoman Fatwa cited in Bostom, A. (2008). (Italics denote corrections. Mussulman and Mohamadians replaced with Muslim. Holy War has Jihad inserted. God is changed to Allah.)

[vi] ibid

[vii] Auda, J. (2008). Maqasid Al-Shariah: A Beginner’s Guide. MacLean, VA: International Institute of Islamic Thought, p. 53.

[viii] Hard Talk: Interview with Anjem Chaudry. (2006, August 8). Retrieved October 13, 2014, from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/05/hardtalk/choudary08aug.ram.

[ix] Op cit

[x] ibid

[xi] Morgenthau, H. (1918). Ambasador Morgenthau’s Story. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company pgs.123-124.

 

__________________

Spellcheck ran by Editor.

 

© Paul Sutliff

 

Paul Sutliff: BA Religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, currently a post-graduate student at Henley-Putnam University.